We Are (Present Tense) One with Christ and God

After reading the latest post over at As Bereans Did (E Pluribus Unum), I thought of this passage from the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians and wanted to share it with my readers.

In Paul's letter to the believers at Ephesus, we read:

1:3 All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ. 4 Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure. 6 So we praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to his dear Son. 7 He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with the blood of his Son and forgave our sins. 8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding.

9 God has now revealed to us his mysterious will regarding Christ—which is to fulfill his own good plan. 10 And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11 Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan.

12 God’s purpose was that we Jews who were the first to trust in Christ would bring praise and glory to God. 13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him.

15 Ever since I first heard of your strong faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for God’s people everywhere, 16 I have not stopped thanking God for you. I pray for you constantly, 17 asking God, the glorious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to give you spiritual wisdom and insight so that you might grow in your knowledge of God. 18 I pray that your hearts will be flooded with light so that you can understand the confident hope he has given to those he called—his holy people who are his rich and glorious inheritance.

19 I also pray that you will understand the incredible greatness of God’s power for us who believe him. This is the same mighty power 20 that raised Christ from the dead and seated him in the place of honor at God’s right hand in the heavenly realms. 21 Now he is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else—not only in this world but also in the world to come. 22 God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church. 23 And the church is his body; it is made full and complete by Christ, who fills all things everywhere with himself. (Ephesians 1:3-23, NLT)

All Things in Common?

If you are a true Christian, should you divest yourself of all financial assets and give everything to the Church? When you die, should you leave all (or the majority) of your estate to the Church? Does God need your financial resources to do His work? More importantly, does God expect you to give your money to the Church, some individual, or a particular organization? Were early Christians practical communists? What does Scripture reveal about the financial practices of the early Church - First Century Christianity?

Unfortunately, too many folks in leadership positions within the Christian Community have staked claim to a substantial part of their followers' income. It is, of course, obviously in their self-interest to make sure that their ministry has a reliable and substantial income available to finance their ministries. In this way, many of these ministries have accumulated great wealth and have used those resources for whatever they deem as appropriate/needful.

Even more alarming, many of the groups which are supported by small flocks of people have resorted to some of the most draconian requirements for their membership to remain in good standing with leadership (smaller groups need a bigger chunk of each individual member's pie). Moreover, all fundraising and donations are usually portrayed as obligatory and/or being devoted to God (the human leader or group is rarely even mentioned (If he/she is mentioned, it's usually in their role as "God's servant" or "God's representative" on earth)!

In this connection, it is essential that we understand the tithing system which was used by the ancient Israelite as outlined in Torah, and that we examine the New Testament Scriptures which relate to the finances of the ekklesia of the First Century. Indeed, without this foundation, it would be impossible to formulate any kind of financial system and legitimately attribute it to Almighty God! Remember too, that ANY interpretations of the passages of Scripture offered by many of these ministries we've been discussing were/are motivated by a desire to maximize their income!

First, in terms of God's covenant with the Israelites, we must remember that this particular iteration of God's Law (Torah) was designed for a primitive, agrarian culture surrounded by a bunch of decentralized, polytheistic, and pagan societies. As part of the religious system, which was formulated for them, a tithe or "tenth" of their crops and livestock were to be devoted to sustaining the priestly class and the central sanctuary (Tabernacle at first and Temple at Jerusalem later) outlined in Torah. We should also note that this system was premised on the pre-existing ownership of land, livestock, and seed. Moreover, it was based on whatever INCREASE the farmer experienced over the course of a year. In other words, a large portion of their wealth was excluded from the formula.

Even so, we must also remember that Gentiles had no such tradition to draw upon and were never required to tithe on their income and send the proceeds to the central sanctuary in Jerusalem. Moreover, under the terms of the New Covenant, both Jewish and Gentile Christians were NEVER made subject to the Levitical Priesthood of the Old Covenant. Hence, the notion that the tithing system designed for that priesthood and Temple's support was ever transferred to ANY Christian ministry is purely speculative and NOT supported by Scripture.

Now, we come at last to the Church described in the New Testament. In the book of Acts, after Peter's Pentecost Sermon and the large influx of Jewish converts into the Church, we read: And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47, ESV) Notice, that the decision to have all things in common and sell possessions was a collective one. It wasn't imposed on the membership by the Apostles, and it was distributed according to need within the membership of the Church. In other words, this practice was a spontaneous reaction of the people to the needs of some of the less fortunate among them.

Indeed, the impression that this feeling was general and spontaneous among the earliest Christians is reinforced by what we find in the fourth chapter of the same book. We read there: Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. (Acts 4:32-37, ESV) Once again, we see that this was a collective decision of the extant membership, and that the proceeds went to address the needs of the less fortunate among them. Moreover, we are told that a disciple named Barnabas sold some land and brought the entire proceeds of that sale "and laid it at the apostles' feet."

Then, in the very next chapter, we read the story of another transaction by a married couple named Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). As we read over this story, it is implied that the couple colluded to withhold part of the proceeds of their sale of land for themselves and make it appear that they had made the same kind of offering that Barnabas had made. Nevertheless, according to the account, Peter confronted them about their deception and told them that they hadn't lied to him - that they had lied to the Holy Spirit! In the account, husband and wife both drop dead on the spot as an example of Divine punishment for their prevarication! Even so, notice that it is NOT suggested anywhere in this account that such offerings were a requirement imposed upon the membership by Peter or the other apostles. And, finally, we should note that there was a widespread (and mistaken) impression among the apostles and early disciples that Christ would return in their lifetime. Hence, their willingness to part with worldly wealth was understandable.

Did Jesus Christ have anything to say on the question of Christian giving? He certainly did. He said that Christian giving should be motivated by a desire to please God and help others, and NOT to receive notoriety, gratitude, or accolades from others (Matthew 6:1-4). Christ also taught his disciples that a small amount from someone with limited resources was worth more in God's eyes than a large contribution from someone who was wealthy (Luke 21:1-4).

"Wait, didn't Jesus endorse tithing for New Covenant Christians in the Gospel of Matthew?" our legalistic friends will demand. The answer is an emphatic "NO!" The passage to which they are referring is found in the twenty-third chapter of that book. We read there: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matthew 23:23-24, ESV) First point, who is Christ addressing here? Jewish scribes and Pharisees - folks who are supposed to be operating under the terms of the Old Covenant (Torah)!!! Christ is clearly portrayed here as criticizing the behavior and hypocrisy of Jewish religious leaders. In fact, his remarks were intended to be illustrative of behaviors and attitudes which his disciples should NOT imitate! In other words, the scribes and Pharisees should have been doing those things (including tithing).

Likewise, Christ's apostles taught that Christian giving should be focused on helping others in need and should be done willingly and with joy - NOT out of a sense of obligation, or to fulfill the requirements of some commandment, or in anticipation of some future reward for doing so (II Corinthians 9:7, James 1:27, I John 3:17). Paul's letters to the Christians of Corinth demonstrate that he regularly took up offerings to help Christians in need (I Corinthians 16:1-2, II Corinthians 8:1-14, 9:1-14). Now, Paul was certainly entitled to personal support for his ministry as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, we find him on a number of occasions working to support himself - so that he wouldn't be a financial burden to the brethren of the Church (Acts 18:1-4, I Thessalonians 2:9, I Timothy 5:17-18). And, like Christ, Paul also felt that giving to the Church should NOT infringe on a person's ability to take care of his/her own family (Mark 7:9-13, I Timothy 5:8)!

Thus, we have seen that Christian giving was intended by Christ and his apostles to be a voluntary contribution to help others in need, and to supply the physical needs of the ministry (food, clothing, shelter). Christ and his apostles NEVER commanded their followers to tithe and/or send their money to headquarters. We've also seen that the Scriptural principles behind these freewill offerings precludes using them to support an opulent lifestyle for ministers (like mansions, crystal chandeliers, designer clothing, expensive cars, air-conditioned dog houses), support an organizational bureaucracy, pay for a leader's pet projects, a fancy television studio, a private jet, etc., etc. We have seen that neither Christ nor his apostles endorsed a kind of communist program for the ekklesia or required that believers contribute a certain percentage of their income to support the Church. What should we all have in common? Love for each other and compassion for those in need!    

 

Christ's Olivet Prophecy

For those Christians who have been preoccupied with eschatology, too many of them have twisted and abused Christ's discussion with his disciples on the Mount of Olives just prior to his arrest and crucifixion. Indeed, many of these prophecy junkies have so thoroughly misinterpreted Christ's remarks on that occasion that they have thoroughly corrupted their understanding of the prophesied chronology of Christ's return!

As the account opens, we read: As Jesus was leaving the Temple grounds, his disciples pointed out to him the various Temple buildings. But he responded, “Do you see all these buildings? I tell you the truth, they will be completely demolished. Not one stone will be left on top of another!” (Matthew 24:1-2, NLT) Notice the context of Christ's remarks - his commentary was directed at the physical edifice which Herod the Great had erected (the Temple which was the focus of Judaism at that time). Unlike the disciples of that time, we also have the benefit of hindsight in interpreting his remarks. In other words, Jesus was clearly predicting the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE (which also clearly identifies that event as an important milestone in the fulfillment of the Divine plan).

Next, we read: "Later, Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives. His disciples came to him privately and said, “Tell us, when will all this happen? What sign will signal your return and the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:3, NLT) Notice, that they asked Jesus TWO different questions. When would the Temple be destroyed? and What sign(s) would signal his return and the end of the world? Hence, we must take these questions into account when we evaluate how Christ answered their questions! This is NOT rocket science, and it does not require deep spiritual insight - It is simply a matter of common sense!

Continuing, Jesus replied: "Don’t let anyone mislead you, for many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah.’ They will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and threats of wars, but don’t panic. Yes, these things must take place, but the end won’t follow immediately. Nation will go to war against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in many parts of the world. But all this is only the first of the birth pains, with more to come. “Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers. And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other. And many false prophets will appear and will deceive many people. Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:4-14, NLT)

Notice that Christ's initial reply addresses the second part of the second question first. Moreover, he does NOT suggest a real chronology of events leading up to the time of the end. Instead, he talks in general terms about the conditions which will exist on the earth UNTIL the end arrives! In other words, these are the conditions which would exist down through the centuries until Jesus returned to this earth - whenever that eventually happened!

Then, there is a clear shift in Christ's remarks to a specific day and time in the near future. Jesus continued: "The day is coming when you will see what Daniel the prophet spoke about—the sacrilegious object that causes desecration standing in the Holy Place.” (Reader, pay attention!) “Then those in Judea must flee to the hills. A person out on the deck of a roof must not go down into the house to pack. A person out in the field must not return even to get a coat. How terrible it will be for pregnant women and for nursing mothers in those days. And pray that your flight will not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For there will be greater anguish than at any time since the world began. And it will never be so great again. In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, not a single person will survive. But it will be shortened for the sake of God’s chosen ones." (Matthew 24:15-22, NLT)

Notice that Christ is speaking here about a specific future event. For anyone who is familiar with the history of the First Century, it should be obvious that Jesus was talking here about the Jewish Rebellion and Rome's suppression of it - culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the loss of very many lives. This event is part of what Christ describes as leading up to the end and his return, but it is obviously NOT referring to the entire 2,000 + years leading to those events. Moreover, in both his Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews, the Jewish historian Josephus attested to the severity of the calamity which befell Jews and Jewish Christians at that time (and Christ did not exaggerate).

After all, Christ promised his disciples that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against his ekklesia - his assembly of called-out ones. Indeed, time has demonstrated that those events of 70 CE were far removed from the actual return of Christ (although the events of that year did mark a decisive end of the Age of the Second Temple). From that point forward, it was impossible for Jews or Jewish Christians to observe the tenets of the Old Covenant (Torah) going forward.

Throughout the remainder of the chapter (Matthew 24:23-51), we are informed that Christ warned his disciples about being deceived by those proclaiming themselves to be messiah and preachers of falsehood in his name. He went on to encourage them to be aware of what was happening around them, so that they might discern the approach of all three of these events (destruction of the Temple, end, and his return). He also warned his disciples to be prepared/ready - to be practicing his teachings whatever the future might hold. This is the essence of Christ's famous "Olivet Prophecy."

Shame or Pride?

Well, it's Pride Month, and the rainbow flags are flying; and many Christians are alternating between paroxysms of anger and shock. "How can those people be proud of something that they should be ashamed of?" they demand. They look at the parades and celebrations, and all that they can muster is a feeling of deep disgust. For these folks, LGBTQ people are exulting in sin and perversion and making a mockery of their faith, nature, and civilized society. Are they right?

After I reached puberty, I spent the next twenty-plus years fighting against the reality of my attraction to members of my own gender. For ALL of those years, if I had had any choice in the matter, I would have chosen to be on the heterosexual team. I felt ashamed of myself. I prayed EVERY day for God to take away my thorn in the flesh - to heal me - to make me whole, but my prayers did not result in any change in my sexual orientation. Nevertheless, I was determined to do the "right thing" - to be what God expected me to be - to not succumb to temptation and "sin."

I endured the alienation and isolation my "condition" engendered and forced my eyes to turn away from the people who pleased them. There wasn't any dating or acting on my feelings. I eschewed close relationships with my peers and obsessively read my Bible. I NEVER acted on my feelings. Later, while in college, I dated and eventually married a kind and attractive young lady. "Isn't this what I'm supposed to do?" I thought. "Isn't this what God expects me to do?" We welcomed two beautiful daughters into the world, and I rejoiced and thanked God that he had allowed me to be a father. I loved my wife and my daughters, but that wasn't enough. Although I was physically faithful to my wife, those thoughts and feelings kept intruding into my consciousness. Eventually, my marriage collapsed under the weight of my own secret reality.

After my marriage ended, I finally allowed myself to experience an intimate relationship with another man. It felt natural and satisfying, but I didn't like the names and looks that were directed at us. I hated that other people expected me to "come out of the closet" and proclaim my homosexuality to the world. Eventually, I ended my relationship and resumed living with my ex and devoted myself to co-parenting and providing a stable home for my children. I had loved the man, but I could not make it fit with my faith, conscience, and other responsibilities. Looking back, I had many opportunities to accept myself and my own nature, but I didn't arrive at that place till many years thereafter.

Like many other homosexuals, I have experienced the shame and alienation of my disposition. Fortunately, I have finally also experienced coming to terms with my sexual orientation. Like my heterosexual counterparts, there was no choice to make. There was never a time when I decided that pecs were more attractive than breasts - that men were more desirable than women. Like my eye-color, I didn't have any choice in the matter. I was gay, and I would always be gay. I was the person whom God had created me to be. How could I be ashamed of that?

My thoughts drifted back to the story of creation and the Garden of Eden. God had created humankind (male and female) in "his" image and had pronounced them to be "very good." He had demonstrated that only another human would make a suitable companion for another human, and that sexual relationships among humans would serve much more than just the reproduction of the species. I remembered too that I had read that "the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Indeed, it wasn't until after the couple had consumed the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they became aware of their own nakedness and felt the need to cover themselves. I realized that we (humans) have attached shamefulness to our bodies and its functions! There is love, joy, and thankfulness; and there is hatred, fear, and shame. Some of us have finally embraced the former, and some of us are still prisoners of the latter. What do you think - shame or pride?

Why Do We Do What We Do?

The authors of the blogs which deal with the errors of Armstrongism have been accused of bitterness, hatred, acting as instruments of Satan, and apologists for traditional Christianity. The truth about the motivation of most of us, however, is found in a passage from the epistle of James:

My dear brothers and sisters, if someone among you wanders away from the truth and is brought back, you can be sure that whoever brings the sinner back from wandering will save that person from death and bring about the forgiveness of many sins. (James 5:19-20, NLT)

The Didache According to CGI

As we have pointed out numerous times over the last decade plus, the Armstrongist historical and Scriptural narrative about how the vast majority of Christians came to observe Sunday as their day of worship does NOT fit the evidence available to us. Generally speaking, Herbert Armstrong and his followers have completely ignored this evidence; because it so clearly contradicts the narrative which they have created. Hence, imagine my surprise when the Church of God International (CGI) recently published an article by one of their ministers addressing the existence of an early Church document known as The Didache. 

In an article for the latest edition of CGI's The International News, Horane Smith asked, "Does the Didache Support the Eucharist and the Sunday ‘Lord’s Day’?" The author began with a brief background of the document itself. He acknowledged that the writing belongs to the First or Second Century but went on to point out that it was eventually excluded from inclusion in the Christian canon of the Bible. Next, Pastor Smith shifted his attention to placing the document within the context of the Armstrongist view of early Christianity.

He wrote: Historians and Bible scholars generally agree that the primitive church of the first century was Hebraic in nature regarding its doctrines and practices. If the Didache was written in the first century, then in all probability, much of what it was conveying would be from a Hebraic perspective. The document has a lot of biblical quotations. And even if it was written in the second century, chances were some of those Hebraic practices would be followed as Christianity and Judaism didn’t part ways until after the Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 CE under the Roman Emperor Hadrian.

To those of us who are familiar with the history of the early Church, a number of problems with this paragraph will be immediately apparent. First, historians and scholars are generally agreed that the first decade of the Church's existence was decidedly Jewish in character. After all, the original disciples of Christ were ALL Jewish! Even so, the book of Acts informs us that the Church eventually began to expand into Gentile lands beyond Judaea. Then, about the middle of the First Century, the early Church was forced to confront the issue of whether or not Gentiles would be required to observe the tenets of God's covenant with Israel (Torah). According to the book of Acts, a great council of the Church was held at Jerusalem to settle the matter. The fifteenth chapter of that book informs us that the council decided NOT to require Gentile Christians to follow the commandments of Torah.

Moreover, Pastor Smith's statement that "Christianity and Judaism didn’t part ways until after the Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 CE under the Roman Emperor Hadrian" is blatantly inaccurate! For some reason(s), Horane Smith completely ignored the events of the year 70 CE (when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple). In other words, to suggest that the great council at Jerusalem and the Roman war of annihilation against the Jews didn't constitute a parting of the ways for Jews and Christians seems naive at best or downright deceptive at worst! Hence, the more prudent conclusion about the role of the Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 CE would be to say that this event reinforced a parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity that had happened many decades before it.

Indeed, concerning the lasting legacy of 70 CE, a History Tools article titled The Destruction of Jerusalem: Inside the Brutal Roman Siege of 70 AD offered this assessment of that event:

The fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD marked a decisive turning point in Jewish history with profound and lasting consequences:

End of the Second Temple Period: The destruction of the Temple permanently ended the system of priestly rule and ritual sacrifice that had defined Judaism for a millennium. Rabbinical Judaism emerged to fill the void, emphasizing synagogues, scripture study and religious law.

Rise of the Diaspora: The Great Revolt accelerated the growth of the Jewish Diaspora across the Mediterranean and beyond. Millions of Jews would face centuries of persecution, massacres and oppression as a stateless minority, prefiguring later calamities like the expulsions and pogroms of the Middle Ages.

Reshaping of Judea: The Romans annexed Judea as an imperial province and initiated a crackdown on Jewish institutions. Much Jewish-owned land was confiscated, the Sanhedrin was abolished, and the Temple tax was diverted to rebuilding a pagan shrine in Rome. The very name Judea was erased when the Emperor Hadrian crushed another Jewish revolt and renamed the region Syria Palaestina in 135 AD.

Anti-Semitic Propaganda: Roman propaganda used the Jewish defeat to promote negative stereotypes of Jews as treacherous, fanatical and misanthropic. The Arch of Titus, still standing in Rome, depicts the sacking of Jerusalem and Jews as vanquished slaves paraded in a triumphal procession. These images would feed anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish subversion and greed that persisted for centuries.

Jewish-Christian Schism: The flight of the Judeo-Christian community before the siege, along with the elevation of Gentile converts and the repudiation of the Mosaic Law, marked a decisive break between Judaism and Christianity. The New Testament authors‘ vilification of Pharisees and blame of Jews for killing Christ inflamed theological hatred. Jews came to view Christians as heretical traitors; Christians came to see Jews as accursed Christ-killers.

Moreover, a number of other early Christian writings affirm this history. In The Epistle of Barnabas (80-120 CE), we read: He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens. Likewise, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius of Antioch (35-108 CE) wrote: Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour you shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.

In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, Ignatius had this to say about the Eucharist: Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to the will of God. Likewise, in his First Apology , Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) had this to say about the Eucharist: And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Interestingly, Justin's First Apology also establishes that Sunday observance was a well-established tradition among Christians by the middle of the Second Century. He wrote: And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons...But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Thus, we have established that Christianity's estrangement from Judaism was a fact of the latter half of the First Century, not the Second. As a consequence of this historic fact, we know that the scholarly window for the authorship of The Didache (50-120 CE) did NOT correspond to a period of Christian history which could be characterized as "Hebraic in nature." This is critical in refuting Horane Smith's interpretation of The Didache's mention of the Eucharist and Lord's Day.

Hence, the statement which has been translated into English as, But on the Lord's day, after that you have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure, must be understood in this historical context. Moreover, its context within the sentence makes it analogous to other mentions of the "Lord's Day" (including the one in Revelation 1:10).

Likewise, The Didache's statement about the Eucharist is subject to the same considerations. We read there: But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give you thanks. First, concerning the cup. We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine, David your Son, which you have made known unto us through Jesus Christ your Son; to you be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread. We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known unto us through Jesus your Son; to you be the glory for ever. As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto your kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever. And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. Moreover, while this characterization of the Eucharist is different from that which is portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels and Paul's letter to the saints at Corinth, it is certainly consistent with John's characterization of those symbols (see John 6:22-58 and 15:1-8).

Thus, our exploration of the available sources stands in stark contrast to the conclusions which Pastor Smith reached in his article. He wrote:  How should we see the Didache then as it relates to these two modern-day teachings—the Lord’s Day and the Eucharist? The evidence is clear that it cannot be taken for granted that it’s an all-clear-cut proposition that the Didache indicates that the concept of the Lord’s Day being Sunday came as early as the first century. First, no one can say for certain that the Didache is a first-century document, and second, the insertion of the word “day” to read Lord’s Day robs the phrase of authenticity or accurate translation, because “On the Lords of the Lords,” the literal translation of the phrase, seems to have no link with a day, or a day of worship for that matter. For this researcher, the evidence suggest that The Didache provides clear evidence that the traditional view of the Lord's Day (Sunday observance) and the Eucharist began in the First Century, NOT later! What do you think?

God in Us

In the Church of God International's Systematic Theology Project, we find one of the clearest and most succinct statements of the Armstrongist view of the Holy Spirit. We read there: The Holy Spirit is described in the Bible as “the Spirit of God,” “the Spirit of the Lord,” “the Spirit of Jesus Christ,” “the Spirit of truth,” and “comforter,” or “advocate.” It is the power of God, the mind of God and the extended means by which God accomplishes His work throughout the universe. As such, the Holy Spirit is not a separate being; it has no independent existence as an individual entity or person within the Godhead (Acts 2:17; Rom 8:26; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:3). In short, they reject the doctrine of the Trinity by reducing the Holy Spirit to a nonentity.

Now, there are a number of passages in Scripture which refute this view, but I believe that those passages which deal with the notion of "God in us" are the most convincing in establishing the real nature and work of the Holy Spirit acting in concert (and complete harmony) with the Father and the Son. This wholly biblical concept makes clear that the Holy Spirit is an important member of the Godhead. Moreover, like the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit has its own unique role to play in the accomplishment of God's will (especially where we are concerned). These passages also clearly establish that all three entities represent ONE Almighty God!

In the Gospel of John, after revealing to his disciples that he was the way to the Father and making very clear that they [Father and Son] were ONE (John 14:6-11), Jesus Christ had this to say about the Holy Spirit: If you love me, obey my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate [Comforter], who will never leave you. He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The world cannot receive him, because it isn’t looking for him and doesn’t recognize him. But you know him, because he lives with you now and later will be in you. No, I will not abandon you as orphans—I will come to you. Soon the world will no longer see me, but you will see me. Since I live, you also will live. When I am raised to life again, you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.” (John 14:15-21, NLT)

As a part of that same discourse, Jesus went on to make clear how the three members of the Godhead would act in concert. He said: “All who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them. Anyone who doesn’t love me will not obey me. And remember, my words are not my own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent me. I am telling you these things now while I am still with you. But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you." (John 14:23-26, NLT) In other words, the Holy Spirit would serve his disciples in his absence - after he had returned to the Father in Heaven.

Jesus went on to expound on this subject in the record of his discourse which follows the above remarks in the next two chapters of the same account. He said: "But I will send you the Advocate [Comforter]—the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will testify all about me." (John 15:26, NLT) Christ went on to reiterate and embellish this revelation in the following chapter too. We read there that he said: “But now I am going away to the one who sent me, and not one of you is asking where I am going. Instead, you grieve because of what I’ve told you. But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don’t, the Advocate [Comforter] won’t come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world of its sin, and of God’s righteousness, and of the coming judgment. The world’s sin is that it refuses to believe in me. Righteousness is available because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more. Judgment will come because the ruler of this world has already been judged. There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can’t bear it now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. He will bring me glory by telling you whatever he receives from me. All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’" (John 16:5-15, NLT) In other words, just as Christ was carrying the Father's message and representing him to humankind, the Holy Spirit would carry Christ's message and remind them of the things which Christ had taught them and done!

This very clear revelation of the nature and work of the Holy Spirit was affirmed by the experiences and writings of Christ's disciples. On the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection and ascension to Heaven, we read this about the events of that day: On the day of Pentecost all the believers were meeting together in one place. Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting. Then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them. And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability." (Acts 2:1-4, NLT) This was the fulfillment of what Christ had promised them in the account of his ministry in the Gospel of John.

Paul wrote to the saints at Rome: "Those who are dominated by the sinful nature think about sinful things, but those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit think about things that please the Spirit. So letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death. But letting the Spirit control your mind leads to life and peace. For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God’s laws, and it never will. That’s why those who are still under the control of their sinful nature can never please God. But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.) And Christ lives within you, so even though your body will die because of sin, the Spirit gives you life because you have been made right with God. The Spirit of God, who raised Jesus from the dead, lives in you. And just as God raised Christ Jesus from the dead, he will give life to your mortal bodies by this same Spirit living within you." (Romans 8:5-11, NLT)

Likewise, in his epistle to the saints at Corinth, Paul wrote one of the clearest expressions of "God in us" found in Scripture. He wrote: "Don’t you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? God will destroy anyone who destroys this temple. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple." (I Corinthians 3:16-17, NLT) In his letter to the saints at Ephesus, Paul wrote: "So now you Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners. You are citizens along with all of God’s holy people. You are members of God’s family. Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. We are carefully joined together in him, becoming a holy temple for the Lord. Through him you Gentiles are also being made part of this dwelling where God lives by his Spirit." (Ephesians 2:19-22, NLT) Finally, in his second epistle to his young protege, Timothy, he referenced the fact that the Holy Spirit dwells within us (II Timothy 1:14)

We should also note that the Greek word translated into English as (dwell(s) or dwelleth) literally means to inhabit or live within. Hence, we can clearly see the error of the Armstrongist view. If the Holy Spirit is not a part of the Trinity, then how can God be living within us? If the Holy Spirit is not a "separate being," "person," or "entity," how can it act on our behalf or comfort us? How can a "power" teach us something or help us to remember anything? If the Holy Spirit isn't part of the Trinity, then why does Christ attribute a separate role for it to play in God's plans? How can a nonentity engender immortal life within us or guide us into anything? No, I'm sorry - the Armstrongist view simply does NOT hold up to scrutiny! What do you think?