Alienated and Reconciled

As all serious students of the Bible know, Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were ejected from God's presence. In the third chapter of Genesis, we read: "So the Lord God banished them from the Garden of Eden, and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made. After sending them out, the Lord God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden. And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." (Genesis 3:23-24, NLT) Also, in the book of Isaiah, we read: "Listen! The Lord’s arm is not too weak to save you, nor is his ear too deaf to hear you call. It’s your sins that have cut you off from God. Because of your sins, he has turned away and will not listen anymore." (Isaiah 59:1-2, NLT)

Likewise, in Paul's letter to the Christians at Rome, we read: "But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are. For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he makes sinners right in his sight when they believe in Jesus." (Romans 3:21-26, NLT)

Later, in the same epistle, we read: "When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. Now, most people would not be willing to die for an upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who is especially good. But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation. For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son. So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God." (Romans 5:6-10, NLT)

Also, in Paul's second epistle to the saints at Corinth, after talking about a Christian's new life in Christ, we read: "And all of this is a gift from God, who brought us back to himself through Christ. And God has given us this task of reconciling people to him. For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. So, we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, 'Come back to God!' For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ." (II Corinthians 5:18-21, NLT) Likewise, in his letter to the saints at Colosse, we read: "For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ, and through him God reconciled everything to himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ’s blood on the cross. This includes you who were once far away from God. You were his enemies, separated from him by your evil thoughts and actions. Yet now he has reconciled you to himself through the death of Christ in his physical body. As a result, he has brought you into his own presence, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before him without a single fault." (Colossians 1:19-22, NLT)

Why Did Early Christians Choose Sunday?

According to my Bing Copilot:

Theological Significance of Sunday: Why did the early Christians choose Sunday for worship? Three theological factors played a role:

Resurrection: Sunday commemorates Christ’s resurrection from the grave, making it the Lord’s Day.

New Creation: As believers are identified as new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), the first day after the Sabbath symbolized a day of new creation.

Eighth Day: Sunday also represents the eighth day, associated with both circumcision and the final day of eternal rest and joy.

In addition to these, I would add that the Church began on Pentecost Sunday (Acts 2). Also, I would add the fact that there was some impetus to distinguish themselves from the Jews (who continued to meet and worship on the Sabbath).

Are there any references in the New Testament to Christians meeting and/or practicing their faith on the First Day of the week?

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7, ESV)

Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. (I Corinthians 16:1-2, ESV)

The Lord's Day in Revelation 1:10

In his infamous booklet, The Book of Revelation Unveiled at Last!, Herbert Armstrong wrote: "And so here is the very KEYNOTE verse, sounding the THEME of the whole Revelation! And it is here that most people begin to stumble, and to misunderstand! The theme is THE DAY OF THE LORD. Let us read it: 'I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet' (verse 10). As this is not understood, endless controversy and strife and confusion have come from arguing as to whether the day of the WEEK on which John WROTE this message was Saturday or Sunday. John was NOT referring to any day of the week. The day of the week on which this happened to be written - IF it could have been all written within one day - is not important, and that is not what this verse means at all. It does NOT refer to any day of the week - but to that prophetic period referred to in more than 30 prophecies as 'The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord.'" Armstrong made clear which of the three ways which various Christians have interpreted this passage that he subscribed to - the prophetic "Day of the Lord." So, the question is: Was Herbert Armstrong right? OR Does the reference refer to the day on which John received the Revelation? AND If so, can we know if he was referring to Saturday or Sunday?

In the first of six answers to the question "What is 'the Lord's Day' in Revelation 1:10?" on Biblical Hermeneutics, we read:

"It's unlikely that John intended the phrase to refer to the 'day of the Lord' as found in the prophets.

While the phrase found in Revelation 1:10 isn't found elsewhere in the New Testament, the phrase "day of the Lord" is found in several places. When the phrase is used elsewhere in the New Testament, the grammar matches that found in the prophets. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2, for instance, the phrase 'day of the Lord' is ἡμέρα κυρίου, where κυρίου (Lord) is in the genitive case. The same is true in 2 Peter 3:10. In the LXX, the phrase 'day of the Lord' always appears with the genitive case.

In Revelation 1:10, the phrase used is κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, where κυριακῇ is in the dative case and is being used as an adjective. This doesn't rule out the possibility of it referring to the same thing, but it does make it highly unlikely and puts the proof of burden on those who would claim otherwise. Authors tend to retain phraseology when it carries a heavy theological weight.

The context also suggests that John does not intend to refer to the eschatological 'day of the Lord' found in the prophets. The phrase in the prophets is accompanied by a dread of expectation and judgement. Yet John's experience, while disturbing, is not shaped after the day of the Lord but after Daniel's experiences with his visions."

This answer is also reinforced by references to the "Day of the Lord" in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the book of Isaiah, we read: "Wail, for the day of the Lord is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come!" (Isaiah 13:6, ESV) And, in the ninth verse of the same chapter, "Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it." (Isaiah 13:9, ESV) Likewise, in the book of Jeremiah, we read: "That day is the day of the Lord God of hosts, a day of vengeance, to avenge himself on his foes. The sword shall devour and be sated and drink its fill of their blood. For the Lord God of hosts holds a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates." (Jeremiah 46:10, ESV) Also, in the prophet Joel, we read: "Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is near, and as destruction from the Almighty it comes." (Joel 1:15, ESV) Likewise, in the book of Amos, we read: "Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! Why would you have the day of the Lord? It is darkness, and not light..." (Amos 5:18, ESV) In the prophet Zephaniah, we read: "The great day of the Lord is near, near and hastening fast; the sound of the day of the Lord is bitter; the mighty man cries aloud there." (Zephaniah 1:14, ESV) And, finally, in the prophet Zechariah, we read: "Behold, a day is coming for the Lord, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city." (Zechariah 14:1-2, ESV)

Hence, we see that the "Day of the Lord" referred to a particular event in the Hebrew Scriptures - a terrible time at the end of the age of humankind. Now, while the book of Revelation includes this event within the context of the many predictions that are made there, we can clearly discern that it is NOT the theme of the entire book! In other words, there is a great deal more contained in those pages than the story of the "Day of the Lord."

In one of the supplemental answers on the same website referenced above, we read:

"kuriakē(i) (LSJ) (from κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ) is an adjectival form of kurios, 'lord', which could be rendered 'lordly' (on analogy of 'royal' = 'kingly', roughly!). As the adjective "royal" indicates something belonging to the monarch ("the royal palace"), so kuriakos indicates something belonging to the 'lord'...

...Some other early Christian writings use the Rev 1:10 phrase. In Didache 14:1, for example:

'On the Lord's Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure'

Which precise day is in mind of these options (first day? Sabbath day? Easter Day?) is not specified. However, one or two of the early Christian apocryphal writings are explicit about which day this is, e.g. Acts of Peter, in the prologue [scroll down to second line of I. THE COPTIC FRAGMENT]:

'On the first day of the week, that is, on the Lord's day...'"

Moreover, as the word "sabbaton" (Sabbath) appears sixty-eight times in the Greek New Testament, it seems very unlikely that John would use the "Lord's Day" to describe the Sabbath. Hence, the notion that this revelation was given to John on a Sunday seems the most plausible and likely conclusion about its usage in Revelation 1:10.

Bob Thiel's Preoccupation With My Posts About the Paleochristian Church

Although "Dr." Bob Thiel has written two posts and produced one video challenging my narrative about the First Century Church, he claims that Banned by HWA has mischaracterized his reaction as a "meltdown." Nevertheless, I am quite content to let my readers decide whether or not the Grand Poobah of the Continuing Church of God is obsessed with trying to disprove the alternative which I've offered to the Armstrong Churches of God's narrative about the Paleochristian Church. It does seem to me, however, that Bob's interest in attempting to refute my claims are related to a realization on his part that their narrative about the transition from Sabbath to Sunday is the foundation of the whole house of cards that is their theology. In other words, I suspect that Bob is smart enough to realize that the house of cards collapses when this particular card is removed.

Many years ago, Herbert Armstrong speculated that there had been a Grand Conspiracy engineered by Simon Magus and the Roman Catholic Church to hoodwink Christians into abandoning the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ and his apostles. According to this speculative narrative (which had no basis in Scripture or history), one of the chief means of leading believers away from "THE TRUTH" was the intentional substitution of Pagan days of worship for God's Sabbath and Holy Days by these evil conspirators - influenced, of course, by their favorite bad-boy, Satan the Devil! With a limited educational background and almost no awareness of the actual history, Herbie reasoned that there must have been a deliberate campaign to substitute Sunday for the Sabbath. How else to explain the fact that Christ and his disciples kept the Sabbath, while Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians all kept Sunday? Completely ignoring the Christian writings from the First and Second Centuries which existed outside of the Biblical canon, he proposed that there had been a "lost" century, and that the Christianity which had emerged on the other side of this mini–Dark Age was completely different than the original - a "counterfeit" Christianity!

To support this false narrative, Bob has discounted and/or distorted all of the Scriptures and historical records which contradict it. For Bob, the Jerusalem Council referenced in the book of Acts did not eliminate Torah observance for Gentiles. For Bob, the Didache, the epistles attributed to Barnabas, and Ignatius weren't really speaking about the Lord's Day or Sunday - the translators had simply gotten it wrong - they had mistranslated the original Greek into English! Likewise, he ignores the fact that for Justin Martyr to have written in the middle of the Second Century that Sunday was the day that Christians gathered for worship, it would of necessity have had to have been the practice for many years prior. In other words, it must have been a long-standing tradition of the Church by that time. Moreover, his failure to understand that Christians would have had very good reason to revere Sunday based on the Gospels and Acts - Christ's resurrection and the founding of the Church both having occurred on that day of the week! Likewise, he seems to be completely oblivious to the impact that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had to have had on both the Jewish and Jewish Christian Community of the First Century. Instead, Bob chooses to focus on the Bar Kokhba Revolt early in the next century (which I'm sure contributed to the further suppression of Sabbath observance).

Bottom line, the old Adventist-Armstrongist narrative about Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church changing Sabbath to Sunday is not consistent with the available historical evidence. The Roman Church's authority to set Christian doctrine and practice was NOT widely recognized until the Fifth or Sixth Century. Likewise, the Emperor Constantine's famous decree about Sunday observance is recognized by most historians as an attempt at making religious practice within the Empire uniform and regular. In other words, the emperor could not have promulgated a decree of that nature which would upset what was already the established practice of the vast majority of his subjects, Christian and Pagan. Hence, I would encourage all of the folks in the Armstrong Churches of God to do their own research on this subject, and I would also encourage them to follow the evidence - not attempting to prove what you think you already know about the Paleochristian Church!

For those who may be interested, I invite you to explore the following:

Notice this excerpt from Early Christianity by Gaye Strathearn of Brigham Young University:

Christianity did not develop in a vacuum. The early church leaders operated in a world that was ever changing and expanding. During Jesus’s lifetime, the apostles were directed to concentrate solely on the house of Israel, but the post-resurrection ministry was fundamentally different. Expanding missionary work to include the Gentiles was a difficult transition—difficult to transition away from the law of Moses and difficult to transition into the Roman world. As Christianity grew, its adherents began to be found in all levels of society. Even so, its growth also led to significant challenges. While the Roman Empire was strong, Christianity’s political separatism and refusal to participate in the imperial religion were viewed as little more than irritants. But when the empire found itself in a state of crisis, as it did in the third century, Christianity was seen as the destabilizing force of the peace of the gods that threatened to destroy the empire.

Christianity’s other major challenge arose as it developed competing theologies. Initially, those competing theologies focused on the role of the law of Moses in the fledgling church. As it increasingly expanded into the Gentile world, however, those theologies were gradually replaced by differing philosophical interpretations. The resulting posturing of different Christianities to claim legitimacy became a divisive element that the Emperor Constantine could not tolerate in his realm. If Christianity was to receive state sanction and be the means of uniting his empire, then it would need to be united. In the fourth century and beyond, this led to numerous councils whose primary goal was to orchestrate that unity.

Notice this collection of Early Christian Writings from the early Church Fathers

You can also find many of those same writings at New Advent's The Fathers of the Church

Notice this excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia Online titled Sunday:

Sunday (Day of the Sun), as the name of the first day of the week, is derived from Egyptian astrology. The seven planets, known to us as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon, each had an hour of the day assigned to them, and the planet which was regent during the first hour of any day of the week gave its name to that day (see CALENDAR). During the first and second century the week of seven days was introduced into Rome from Egypt, and the Roman names of the planets were given to each successive day. The Teutonic nations seem to have adopted the week as a division of time from the Romans, but they changed the Roman names into those of corresponding Teutonic deities. Hence the dies Solis became Sunday (German, Sonntag ). Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indicated in Acts, xx 7; I Cor., xvi, 2; in Apoc., i, 10, it is called the Lord's day. In the Didache (xiv) the injunction is given: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And give thanks (offer the Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure". St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. ix) speaks of Christians as "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again". In the Epistle of Barnabas (xv) we read: "Wherefore, also, we keep the eight day (i.e. the first of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead".

From Against Heresies, Book IV

Chapter IV.-Answer to Another Objection, Showing that the Destruction of Jerusalem, Which Was the City of the Great King, Diminished Nothing from the Supreme Majesty' And Power of God, for that This Destruction Was Put in Execution by the Most Wise Counsel of the Same God.

2. Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with them "until John." And therefore Jerusalem, taking its commencement from David, and fulfilling its own times, must have an end of legislation when the new covenant was revealed. For God does all things by measure and in order; nothing is unmeasured with Him, because nothing is out of order. Well spake he, who said that the unmeasurable Father was Himself subjected to measure in the Son; for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also comprehends Him. But that the administration of them (the Jews) was temporary, Esaias says: "And the daughter of Zion shall be left as a cottage in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers." And when shall these things be left behind? Is it not when the fruit shall be taken away, and the leaves alone shall be left, which now have no power of producing fruit?

Chapter XII.-It Clearly Appears that There Was But One Author of Both the Old and the New Law, from the Fact that Christ Condemned Traditions and Customs Repugnant to the Former, While He Confirmed Its Most Important Precepts, and Taught that He Was Himself the End of the Mosaic Law.

1. For the tradition of the elders themselves, which they pretended to observe from the law, was contrary to the law given by Moses. Wherefore also Esaias declares: "Thy dealers mix the wine with water," showing that the elders were in the habit of mingling a watered tradition with the simple command of God; that is, they set up a spurious law, and one contrary to the [true] law; as also the Lord made plain, when He said to them, "Why do ye transgress the commandment of God, for the sake of your tradition? "For not only by actual transgression did they set the law of God at nought, mingling the wine with water; but they also set up their own law in opposition to it, which is termed, even to the present day, the pharisaical. In this [law] they suppress certain things, add others, and interpret others, again, as they think proper, which their teachers use, each one in particular; and desiring to uphold these traditions, they were unwilling to be subject to the law of God, which prepares them for the coming of Christ. But they did even blame the Lord for healing on the Sabbath-days, which, as I have already observed, the law did not prohibit. For they did themselves, in one sense, perform acts of healing upon the Sabbath-day, when they circumcised a man [on that day]; but they did not blame themselves for transgressing the command of God through tradition and the aforesaid pharisaical law, and for not keeping the commandment of the law, which is the love of God.

2. But that this is the first and greatest commandment, and that the next [has respect to love] towards our neighbor, the Lord has taught, when He says that the entire law and the prophets hang upon these two commandments. Moreover, He did not Himself bring down [from heaven] any other commandment greater than this one, but renewed this very same one to His disciples, when He enjoined them to love God with all their heart, and others as themselves. But if He had descended from another Father, He never would have made use of the first and greatest commandment of the law; but He would undoubtedly have endeavored by all means to bring down a greater one than this from the perfect Father, so as not to make use of that which had been given by the God of the law. And Paul in like manner declares, "Love is the fulfilling of the law: " and [he declares] that when all other things have been destroyed, there shall remain "faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of all is love; " and that apart from the love of God, neither knowledge avails anything, nor the understanding of mysteries, nor faith, nor prophecy, but that without love all are hollow and vain; moreover, that love makes man perfect; and that he who loves God is perfect, both in this world and in that which is to come. For we do never cease from loving God; but in proportion as we continue to contemplate Him, so much the more do we love Him.

3. As in the law, therefore, and in the Gospel [likewise], the first and greatest commandment is, to love the Lord God with the whole heart, and then there follows a commandment like to it, to love one's neighbor as one's self; the author of the law and the Gospel is shown to be one and the same. For the precepts of an absolutely perfect life, since they are the same in each Testament, have pointed out [to us] the same God, who certainly has promulgated particular laws adapted for each; but the more prominent and the greatest [commandments], without which salvation cannot [be attained], He has exhorted [us to observe] the same in both.

4. The Lord, too, does not do away with this [God], when He shows that the law was not derived from another God, expressing Himself as follows to those who were being instructed by Him, to the multitude and to His disciples: "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens, and lay them upon men's shoulders; but they themselves will not so much as move them with a finger." He therefore did not throw blame upon that law which was given by Moses, when He exhorted it to be observed, Jerusalem being as yet in safety; but He did throw blame upon those persons, because they repeated indeed the words of the law, yet were without love. And for this reason were they held as being unrighteous as respects God, and as respects their neighbors. As also Isaiah says: "This people honoreth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me: howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching the doctrines and the commandments of men." He does not call the law given by Moses commandments of men, but the traditions of the eiders themselves which they had invented, and in upholding which they made the law of God of none effect, and were on this account also not subject to His Word. For this is what Paul says concerning these men: "For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." And how is Christ the end of the law, if He be not also the final Cause of it? For He who has brought in the end has Himself also wrought the beginning; and it is He who does Himself say to Moses, "I have surely seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them; " it being customary from the beginning with the Word of God to ascend and descend for the purpose of saving those who were in affliction.

5. Now, that the law did beforehand teach mankind the necessity of following Christ, He does Himself make manifest, when He replied as follows to him who asked Him what he should do that he might inherit eternal life: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." But upon the other asking "Which? "" again the Lord replies: "Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, hon-our father and mother, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,"-setting as an ascending series (velut gradus) before those who wished to follow Him, the precepts of the law, as the entrance into life; and What He then said to one He said to all. But when the former said, "All these have I done" (and most likely he had not kept them, for in that case the Lord would not have said to him, "Keep the commandments"), the Lord, exposing his covetousness, said to him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor; and come, follow me; "promising to those who would act thus, the portion belonging to the apostles (apostolorum partem). And He did not preach to His followers another God the Father, besides Him who was proclaimed by the law from the beginning; nor another Son; nor the Mother, the enthymesis of the Aeon, who existed in suffering and apostasy; nor the Pleroma of the thirty Aeons, which has been proved vain, and incapable of being believed in; nor that fable invented by the other heretics. But He taught that they should obey the commandments which God enjoined from the beginning, and do away with their former covetousness by good works, and follow after Christ. But that possessions distributed to the poor do annul former covetousness, Zaccheus made evident, when he said, "Behold, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one, I restore fourfold."

Chapter XIII.-Christ Did Not Abrogate the Natural Precepts of the Law, But Rather Fulfilled and Extended Them. He Removed the Yoke and Bondage of the Old Law, So that Mankind, Being Now Set Free, Might Serve God with that Trustful Piety Which Becometh Sons.

1. And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. "For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay." And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: "Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command-namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them-is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.

2. For the law, since it was laid down for those in bondage, used to instruct the soul by means of those corporeal objects which were of an external nature, drawing it, as by a bond, to obey its commandments, that man might learn to serve God. But the Word set free the soul, and taught that through it the body should be willingly purified. Which having been accomplished, it followed as of course, that the bonds of slavery should be removed, to which man had now become accustomed, and that he should follow God without fetters: moreover, that the laws of liberty should be extended, and subjection to the king increased, so that no one who is convened should appear unworthy to Him who set him free, but that the piety and obedience due to the Master of the household should be equally rendered both by servants and children; while the children possess greater confidence [than the servants], inasmuch as the working of liberty is greater and more glorious than that obedience which is rendered in [a state of] slavery.

3. And for this reason did the Lord, instead of that [commandment], "Thou shalt not commit adultery," forbid even concupiscence; and instead of that which runs thus, "Thou shalt not kill," He prohibited anger; and instead of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, [He told us] to share all our possessions with the poor; and not to love our neighbors only, but even our enemies; and not merely to be liberal givers and bestowers, but even that we should present a gratuitous gift to those who take away our goods. For "to him that taketh away thy coat," He says, "give to him thy cloak also; and from him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; and as ye would that men should do unto you, do ye unto them:" so that we may not grieve as those who are unwilling to be defrauded, but may rejoice as those who have given willingly, and as rather conferring a favor upon our neighbors than yielding to necessity. "And if any one," He says, "shall compel thee [to go] a mile, go with him twain; " so that thou mayest not follow him as a slave, but may as a free man go before him, showing thyself in all things kindly disposed and useful to thy neighbor, not regarding their evil intentions, but performing thy kind offices, assimilating thyself to the Father, "who maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust." Now all these [precepts], as I have already observed, were not the injunctions] of one doing away with the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and widening it among us; just as if one should say, that the more extensive operation of liberty implies that a more complete subjection and affection towards our Liberator had been implanted within us. For He did not set us free for this purpose, that we should depart from Him (no one, indeed, while placed out of reach of the Lord's benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation), but that the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him. Now the more we have loved Him, the more glory shall we receive from Him, when we are continually in the presence of the Father.

4. Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us and to them (the Jews), they had in them indeed the beginning and origin; but in us they have received growth and completion. For to yield assent to God, and to follow His Word, and to love Him above all, and one's neighbor as one's self (now man is neighbor to man), and to abstain from every evil deed, and all other things of a like nature which are common to both [covenants], do reveal one and the same God. But this is our Lord, the Word of God, who in the first instance certainly drew slaves to God, but afterwards He set those free who were subject to Him, as He does Himself declare to His disciples: "I will not now call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things which I have heard from My Father I have made known." For in that which He says, "I will not now call you servants," He indicates in the most marked manner that it was Himself who did originally appoint for men that bondage with respect to God through the law, and then afterwards conferred upon them freedom. And in that He says, "For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth," He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. But when He terms His disciples "the friends of God," He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became "the friend of God." But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am" ), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it. 

From Against Heresies by Irenaeus of Lyons

 1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

See Early Christian Writings: Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies

First Century Christianity: Putting Together the Available Evidence

Over the ten plus years of this blog's existence, I have put together a narrative about what happened within the Christian community of the First Century. To be clear, my narrative is very different from the one put forward by Herbert Armstrong, his successors, and most Sabbatarian Christians. And, although my narrative draws upon the evidence provided by Scripture, Josephus, the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Catholic scholars, modern Biblical scholars (like Gerd Ludemann, Bart Ehrman, James Tabor, etc.), secular history, and Roman Catholic scholars, I believe that the narrative provided here is unique and distinctive from the ones provided by all of them individually. In short, I do NOT believe that the available evidence supports the narrative of a Christianity hijacked by Gentiles or pagans, or a Church imposing its beliefs on a diverse and growing movement (NO grand conspiracy theories here).

According to the Gospels, Christ appeared to a small, core group of his disciples after his resurrection and told them to carry the message of his kingdom to the ends of the earth (a message that focused on the salvation that was available to all through him). Moreover, as the Gospels make very clear, an important part of that message was the fact that God had resurrected Jesus after the Sabbath, during the dark portion of the Jews' first day of the week - the one that the Romans called Sunday (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1-2, and John 20:1). Nevertheless, it is the "Acts of the Apostles" which recounts the story of what happened within the movement during the first four decades of its existence. From this historical narrative (in conjunction with the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John), we can piece together the story of what was really going on within the movement. 

Thus, the narrative begins with a small group of people who were wholly Jewish in their ethnicity, religion, and culture. Like Jesus, it is important to understand that these original disciples of his were observant Jews. In other words, they were accustomed to observing the Sabbath, Holy Days, clean and unclean, etc.. In short, they were familiar with Torah and had always employed it as the standard for their lives. Moreover, it is clear that this continued to be the case throughout the first decade of the movement's existence. Indeed, the book of Acts portrays a rather insular group which had little interest in expanding outside of the Roman province of Judea.

According to the Gospels, however, this was not what God and Christ had in mind for the people of the New Covenant. After all, Jesus had told his disciples at the conclusion of his own ministry: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20, ESV) Indeed, the inertia was so strong within the early Church, that we are informed that Peter was given a special vision to accept Gentiles into the movement (Acts 10). Interestingly, just prior to this event, we are informed that a Jew named Saul (who had been enthusiastically persecuting Christ's disciples) was converted and welcomed into the Church (Acts 9:1-30). This man, of course, went on to become the Apostle Paul - the apostle to the Gentiles.

Initially, the book of Acts informs us that Paul preached in synagogues around the Eastern Mediterranean provinces of the Roman Empire (Acts 13 and 14). Eventually, however, there was a backlash against Paul and his associates within the Jewish community, and the Gentile audience for their message increased over time. Now, as more and more of these non-Jewish people came into the Church, some of the Jewish Christians became disenchanted with the fact that these folks weren't observing the tenets of God's Covenant with Israel (as outlined in Torah). Sure, they had accepted Christ, been baptized, and received God's Spirit; but they were ignoring circumcision, the Sabbath, and a host of other commandments. These circumstances enraged some of the Jewish Christians within the Church (mainly those who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees).

Hence, we read in the fifteenth chapter of Acts: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'" (Acts 15:1-5, ESV) Clearly, the question before the gathering was: Will the Gentile believers be required to adopt the tenets of God's covenant with Israel?

The account continued: "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.'" (Acts 15:6-11, ESV)

Notice first, that Peter spoke "after there had been much debate." This was NOT an easily settled question. Obviously, both sides of the debate recognized that the stakes were high - that the theological questions which this debate had engendered went to the very heart of the nature of the new faith. Next, Peter pointed out that God had already made the decision to give his message to the Gentiles, draw them into his Church, and had given them his Holy Spirit. Then Peter reminded his mostly Jewish audience that Christ had been the only Israelite who had ever successfully borne the yoke of Torah. As a consequence, Peter concluded that BOTH Jews and Gentiles "will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus."

In the account, Peter's remarks gave Paul and Barnabas the space they needed to recount the story of what God had used them to do among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). When they had finished, we are told that James addressed the assembly (Acts 15:13). He began by reminding them about what Peter had told them about God making the decision to make these Gentiles part of his people (Acts 15:14). Next, James pointed out that the prophets of old had predicted that David's heir (Christ) would make it possible for Gentiles to seek the Lord (Acts 15:15-18). According to the account, James then concluded his remarks with his own judgment of the matter: "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:19-20, ESV) The account in Acts ends with the assembly writing a letter to the Gentile Christians which encouraged them to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:22-29) In other words, they gave them a short list of things that would distinguish them from the Gentiles around them and make them less likely to offend the sensibilities of their Jewish brethren. They would NOT, however, be forced to become Torah observant Jews.

Now, although Acts gives us the impression that this settled the matter, we know from Paul's letter to the Galatians that some of the Jewish Christians continued to advocate for Gentiles to obey the commandments of Torah. Even though almost two thousand years have elapsed since Paul wrote this epistle, his anger and frustration with those Jewish Christians is still palpable. In the letter, Paul recounted the story of his and Barnabas' trip to Jerusalem. He wrote: "because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Galatians 2:4-10, ESV) Once again, the leadership among the Jewish part of the Church are portrayed here as accepting Paul and Barnabas and their work among the Gentiles.

Even so, Paul went on to give an account of a previous confrontation he had with Peter over his hypocritical behavior in front of those Jewish Christians who advocated Torah for Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-14). For Paul, these folks were clearly NOT to be appeased - this went to the very heart of his message about salvation through Christ. He wrote: "We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." (Galatians 2:15-21, ESV)

For Paul, Gentile Christians trying to obey Torah was akin to a freeman submitting to slavery. He summarized his position: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." (Galatians 5:1-6, ESV) Paul believed that Christ had fulfilled Torah, and that any Christian (Jew or Gentile) who was actively trying to be justified before God by obeying the Law had effectively severed him/herself from participating in salvation through Jesus Christ!

So, this was the situation within the Church about twenty years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Over the previous twenty years, there had been a large influx of Gentiles into the Church - people who had little to no familiarity with Torah and no tradition of practicing its tenets. Nevertheless, there was still a substantial group of Jewish Christians - both within Judea and in the synagogues of Gentile cities around the empire. Within that camp, there was also a small but vocal group of people who continued to believe that Christians were obligated to obey the commandments of Torah (Sabbath and Holy Day observance, circumcision, clean and unclean, etc.).

Within the Church as a whole, there were also a number of elements of the faith that had become universal (practiced by both Jewish and Gentile Christians). For example, both the Gospels and Paul's epistles make very plain that things like baptism, the Eucharist, and Christ's resurrection were held in high esteem by all. Indeed, in this connection, both the writings of the New Testament and of the people who immediately followed the apostles (the so-called Ante-Nicene Fathers), affirm that Sunday was a day highly regarded by ALL Christians by the close of the First Century. It was, after all, the day upon which Christ had been resurrected, and the Church had been founded (Pentecost). Moreover, as I have pointed out many times over the years, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans, it became physically impossible to observe the tenets of Torah in the manner prescribed by those writings. The old priesthood ceased to function. The Law of the Central Sanctuary was now defunct (there wasn't any Temple). Over the years that followed, Jews were forced to reimagine and reinterpret Torah in the light of their new circumstances.

In short, at the dawn of the Second Century, what had formerly been a wholly Jewish institution had been transformed into a Gentile one. The Jewish roots and traditions of those original disciples were replaced by the new and universal elements of the new faith. The Ekklesia of God was no longer an appendage or sect of the Jewish religion. Instead, it was now composed mostly of non-Jewish people and was rapidly expanding in reach and popularity within the Roman Empire. There hadn't been any Grand Conspiracy or deception, just the natural evolution of a new faith centered on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

  

The Jerusalem Council from Paul's Perspective

Galatians 2:1 "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (English Standard Version)

Know God Better: Don't Ask Living Church of God!

On the Living Church of God's website, they have an article posted by Dexter Wakefield titled Know God Better Through His Statues. For those who are familiar with the Armstrong Churches of God, that title will come as no surprise to them. However, for Christians of a more traditional inclination, it may provoke a bit of a puzzled look - as in what do they mean by that? For Mr. Wakefield, as for most Armstrongites, Torah is a window into the heart and soul of God. For these folks, Torah IS GOD's Law!

Never mind that the "commandments, statutes, and judgments" of Torah were addressed to the children of Israel over and over again throughout those writings. Never mind that those "commandments, statutes, and judgments" were designed to meet the needs of a primitive and tribal people who embraced paternalism, polygamy, and slavery and were surrounded by pagans. Never mind that after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood, it became literally impossible to fulfill many of the requirements of those "commandments, statutes, and judgments" of Torah. Never mind the New Testament claim that Christ fulfilled those same "commandments, statutes, and judgments." Never mind that Christ summarized Torah into Two Great Commandments, which he claimed comprehended the entire legislation! Never mind, that the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John all point to LOVE as the foundation and focus of God's Law!

That's right, according to Scripture, GOD IS LOVE (I John 4:8, 16). Hence, if you really want to know God better, it seems to me that the best way to do that is to learn about what motivates God and his "commandments, statutes, and judgments." Indeed, when Christ was asked about the greatest commandment(s) in Torah, he replied: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40, ESV) The Apostle Paul said that "love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:10, NKJV) Notice, that it isn't the Law which defines love, it's love that defines the law! In other words, Torah was motivated by God's love for the children of Israel. Moreover, Christ underscored this principle for his followers when he gave them a "new" commandment. He said: "Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples." (John 13:34-35, NLT)

Interestingly, the above Living Church of God article references God's prediction through the Prophet Jeremiah that God would establish a New Covenant someday: We read there: "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:33-34, NKJV) They quote it, but they apparently completely miss how God intended to fulfill this prophecy about putting his law in their minds and writing it on their hearts. Remember, Jesus Christ's mission was to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17)

In his famous "Sermon on the Mount," Christ did just that! For his followers, the law would be internalized. The Old Covenant outlined in Torah and typified by a long list of dos and don'ts was to be fulfilled and replaced by him. Christ's disciples would be expected to measure their behavior by the principle of LOVE. In other words, is this behavior motivated by (and consistent with) loving God and each other? Now, as Torah was motivated and summarized by the same principle, we can see that many of the commandments which are associated with how they behaved toward other people and God are consistent with this new iteration of God's Law. For instance, we can readily see that being unfaithful to one's spouse would NOT be consistent with loving him or her. Likewise, we recognize that striking someone or murdering them is NOT consistent with the principle of love. Indeed, as Torah was motivated by love, one would expect the "commandments, statutes, and judgments" found therein to reflect the love which motivated them!

Think about it, if you wanted some insight into the character of the United States would you study the laws of the nation or the principles on which those laws were promulgated? Which came first: the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? Didn't the principles espoused in the Declaration motivate and serve as the foundation of the laws that followed? In other words, these Armstrongites have it all backwards. To truly know and understand anything, one must start with the foundation. What is the motivating principle? Sure, you may eventually discern that principle by studying the many individual laws but isn't that taking the long way around and increasing the likelihood that you might get bogged down in the details and miss your destination? Hence, if we are really interested in knowing God better, we might want to start with reading about what love is (see I Corinthians 13:4-7). What do you think?

Torah Was for ISRAEL!

The Armstrong Churches of God, like the Christian Pharisees of the First Century, have always taught that Gentile Christians are obligated to obey some of the precepts of Torah. A few days ago, on Banned by HWA, Scout wrote a post entitled Notes on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. In it, he made clear that the WHOLE Church (including the Jewish part of it) decided that believers would NOT be required to adhere to the tenets of the Old Covenant - Torah. Scout went on to make the point that this did NOT mean that the Church was discarding Torah, just that it wasn't a pathway to salvation under the New Covenant. Armstrongists, however, insist that Christians can lose their salvation by failing to observe some of the laws of Torah (like those related to Sabbaths and Holy Days). 

In my previous post on this topic (Was Torah for Everyone?), I said that "what is offered here is only a FRACTION of the many passages contained in Torah which make very clear that Torah was intended for the people of Israel." In making that statement, I was on very solid ground. To demonstrate the truth of that statement, and because it is so important for Christians to understand that we are operating under a different iteration of God's Law, I have decided to include a few more of the Scriptures which make very clear that Torah was intended for the people of Israel.

In the book of Leviticus, we read that God told the Israelites that he had separated them from the other peoples of the earth (Leviticus 20:24, 26). In the original Hebrew, the sense is that they were severed from other nations and people. They were to be clearly different from other peoples, and it wasn't just male circumcision which delineated that difference. The Sabbath was also a sign between them and God which distinguished them from all other people (Exodus 31:13, 17). Moreover, there were a number of other things that were to distinguish them from the Gentile nations surrounding them. For instance, in the book of Deuteronomy, we read: "You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat." (Deuteronomy 14:1-6, ESV) There were even regulations about how they were to cut their hair, and what kinds of fabrics they were to wear! All of these things distinguished them from the Gentile nations.

Over and over again, the commandments of Torah were addressed to the children of Israel and reiterated throughout that these instructions were intended to distinguish them from the nations which surrounded them. Near the end of the book of Leviticus, we read: "These are the statutes and rules and laws that the Lord made between himself and the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai."  (Leviticus 26:46, ESV) Indeed, later, in the book of Deuteronomy, we read: "When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this." (Deuteronomy 18:9-14, ESV) Clearly, God intended through Torah for the Israelites to be different from the Gentile peoples which they were displacing (and would be surrounded by) in every aspect of their lives!

Hence, once again, the Armstrongist narrative about Torah does NOT fit. We see that God clearly intended this iteration of his law for the people of Israel. Indeed, we have seen that the commandments of Torah were meant to distinguish them from the other peoples of the world. Armstrongists love to point out that Christ and his disciples kept Torah, but they completely ignore the fact that they were ALL Jews! Paul was also a devout Jew. Moreover, it was necessary that Christ observe the commandments of Torah to fulfill the Law and make his sacrifice of himself efficacious for securing our salvation! The PLAIN TRUTH is that Torah was never intended for Gentiles, or the Church which Christ founded. Christ fulfilled Torah for Israel and instituted a new iteration of God's Law for Christians (based on the same principles that were the basis for Torah - love for God and each other). Thus, for those who have accepted Christ's sacrifice and received God's Holy Spirit, their lives will reflect obedience to Christ's iteration of God's Law.

United Church of God's Steve Myers on I Corinthians 6 and Those Unrighteous LGBTQ Folks

In an Ambassador Bible College presentation, UCG's Steve Myers expounded on the sixth chapter of Paul's first epistle to the saints at Corinth (see Epistles of Paul 10). Now, he began with a fairly straightforward appraisal of Paul's admonishment to the Christians of Corinth against taking disputes between Christians to civil authorities for adjudication. Unfortunately, thereafter, his commentary descended into the predictable Armstrongist diatribe against homosexuals.

Myers begins this part of his lecture by quoting this English translation of Paul's text: "1 Corinthians 6:9 'Don't be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites.'" He continued: "Wow, this list is getting long here, isn't it? Interesting that he starts out with all these sexual sins. Why do you think he would do that? Oh yeah, we're in Corinth. We're in Corinth, right? This is the place where they had the temple with the thousand temple prostitutes. A lot of that was still going on at this time. Yeah, those things impacted the church. But he makes this point, don't be taken in, don't be deceived. These behaviors, this unrighteousness can take many forms. There could be many forms of unrighteousness. And he goes on, not just the sexual sins." This is followed by a brief acknowledgement by Mr. Myers that Paul listed a number of other specific sins in this connection.

Nevertheless, Myers quickly returned to his main topic. He continued: "He gets very specific. He says homosexuals will be disqualified from the Kingdom if that continues to be their lifestyle. Of course, our world today is promoting this life. It's a lifestyle choice to be a homosexual or to be a lesbian, or any of these types of things, questioning, and queer, and trans, and the whole thing. Well, this is speaking to all of that. So he says not only homosexuals, which of course, in Corinth, this would have pointed to the male prostitutes. We talked about individuals who were slaves that were donated to the temple worship of Aphrodite were temple prostitutes. Yeah, they were male prostitutes. The homosexuals would have been that." Steve went on to complete his thought: "Also interesting that he says sodomites as well. Now, you read those two words and say, well, aren't they the same thing? Kind of sounds like it and maybe today we might think of it in similar types of terms, and not trying to be gross or too explicit or anything like that. But the homosexuals that they're talking about here, the male prostitutes, you would associate those with being the passive partners in a homosexual relationship. The sodomites, on the other hand, would have been the aggressors, would have been the more active role in that. And so interesting that Paul is showing condemnation to both, to both sides of the equation. And so none of that is acceptable. None is acceptable. And so he'll deal with lesbians, they're not mentioned in this list here, but Romans 1:26 certainly points that fact out as well. So we're not letting any of that lifestyle choice get away with it, in other words."

Now, admittedly, that is a pretty slick presentation. He affirms the traditional stance against homosexuality as a sinful "lifestyle," while simultaneously giving a nod to alternative interpretations of this text. What's that? Well, he acknowledges that there are a number of Biblical scholars who believe the traditional interpretations of these passages into modern English have resulted in flawed and misleading translations of Paul's original Greek text into English! They point out that the modern concept of "homosexuality" was unknown to these ancient peoples. Yes, they certainly were aware of various types of same gender sexual relationships, but they were wholly unfamiliar with the modern notion of one having a sexual orientation.

This is made very clear by the two Greek words that have been translated here into English as "homosexuals" and "sodomites." In the King James Version of the Bible, the first word "Malakos" is translated into English as "effeminate." This interpretation was derived from the sense that the original Greek word was indicative of softness or expensive clothing (as in Christ's use of the term in the Gospels of Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25). In Blue Letter Bible's online version of Strong's Concordance, we see that the Greek word Malakos is "of uncertain affinity," and means "soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a catamite:—effeminate, soft." What is a "catamite"? It is one who practices pederasty (a sexual relationship between an adult male and a boy). Now, hopefully, we can all agree that such a relationship should be regarded as an abomination. It clearly violates the Law of Love and does real harm to both the adult and the child by perverting the God-ordained intention that adults nurture and protect children. Clearly, the unequal mental, emotional, and power dynamic between the two precludes any notion of a loving and consensual relationship between two equals. This is the epitome of an unrighteous or sinful behavior!

Likewise, in the King James Version, the other word "Arsenokoites" is translated into English as "abusers of themselves with mankind." Once again, in Blue Letter Bible's online version of Strong's Concordance, we read for Arsenokoites that it is a compound word derived from "arren" meaning "man" and "koite" meaning a "bed" (and having the same relation as the English word to being associated with a sexual connotation). Now, as Paul was writing to the Greco-Roman city of Corinth (where pederasty and male temple-prostitutes were common features), I leave it to my readers to decide whether Paul was referring to the modern concept of homosexuality, OR if he meant to single out two of many sinful practices prominent to that part of the Gentile world. Notice too, that even Mr. Myers alludes to this practice in his remarks on this passage! I think we all sometimes forget that Paul's epistles were written to address problems of a particular congregation of a First Century Christian Church which he had been associated with (as in the first chapter of his letter to the saints at Rome). Moreover, Mr. Myers' reference to this behavior's connection to idolatry makes much more sense in this context (male prostitution in the service of Aphrodite) than it does in the wider context of homosexuality.

Once again, returning to the context of Paul's letter, it is clear that he was addressing the sinful behaviors of the unconverted people surrounding the saints in Corinth. Yes, in the broader sense, he was talking about a sinful lifestyle, but the concept of a "homosexual lifestyle" was wholly unknown to Paul and the people whom he was addressing. This is made clear by what he says about practicing all of the sinful behaviors enumerated by him. He reminded them that "Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (Verse 11, NLT) In other words, prior to their conversion, some of the folks whom he was addressing had engaged in the same kind of behaviors - they had formerly lived a sinful lifestyle.

In conclusion, like many folks before him, Mr. Myers is projecting our modern perspective and understanding onto a passage of Scripture which was written to folks with a different perspective and understanding of human sexuality and behavior. In other words, Paul was clearly NOT writing about consenting adults in a loving, faithful, and committed relationship! Hence, to suggest that he was talking about "homosexuality" in this passage would be a clear perversion of his meaning and intent. I don't know about you, but that reminds me of something that Peter once wrote about Paul's writings. He said that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand, and that "untaught and unstable people" sometimes twisted them "to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (II Peter 3:16, NKJV) It makes one wonder - who really has the agenda in this instance? Is Mr. Myers seeking to perpetuate his own understanding and traditions regarding homosexuality, OR Is he truly seeking to understand God's Word? I'll let my readers decide for themselves the answers to those questions - I think that I've made my own perspective very plain.

Learning to be Content

Paul wrote to the saints at Philippi: "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:11-13, ESV) In this passage, Paul made it clear that he was talking about circumstances over which he had no control, and that the key to his contentment was reliance upon God. By employing this technique, Paul was putting into practice one of Christ's most important teachings about being a part of God's Kingdom.

In his famous Sermon on the Mount, Christ instructed his audience NOT to focus on the mundane things of this life (Matthew 6:19-24). He continued: "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matthew 6:25-33, ESV)

Thus, we see that Paul had learned Christ's lesson about being content with circumstances over which we have no control. Christ directed his audience to consider the birds and lilies of the natural world, and how God provides for their needs. Hence, we see that Paul did both of the things which Christ taught about learning to be content: 1) Recognize your own powerlessness, and 2) Rely on God to provide for your needs. Moreover, inherent in this teaching is the underlying awareness that God may not decide to intervene and change the circumstance in which you find yourself! As Paul wrote to the Romans, "we know that for those who love God all things work together for good." (Romans 8:28, ESV) Are these lessons that we too can learn and employ to reduce anxiety and the stressful situations which sometimes arise in our own lives? Can we, like Paul, learn to be content in whatever circumstances we happen to find ourselves at any given time?

Will the Unborn Be Resurrected?

A friend posed some interesting questions about the resurrection, and I thought that I would share them and offer them to my readers to see if they would generate any answers:

Will embryos and fetuses be resurrected to physical life? If so, back as an embryo or fetus? Inside a womb?

How many humans did not need Jesus's sacrifice for sin? For example, embryos and fetuses, children who die at birth or in the first year or so of life, or before they have awareness of right and wrong. Since they did not sin before they died, would they need to be resurrected to physical life in order to at least have the option of sinning? But who would take care of caring for these young children till they are old enough to discern?

I'm not sure that I know how to answer those questions, but there are a few things that Scripture reveals about life, embryos, fetuses, death, and resurrection that may help us to arrive at some satisfactory answers. They are:

1. The book of Genesis seems to equate life with respiration. In KJV English, "the breath of life." (See Genesis 2:7, 6:17, 7:15, and 22)

2. The prophet Ezekiel talks about a symbolic resurrection of Israel in these terms:

"The Lord took hold of me, and I was carried away by the Spirit of the Lord to a valley filled with bones. He led me all around among the bones that covered the valley floor. They were scattered everywhere across the ground and were completely dried out. Then he asked me, 'Son of man, can these bones become living people again?' 'O Sovereign Lord,' I replied, 'you alone know the answer to that.' Then he said to me, 'Speak a prophetic message to these bones and say, ‘Dry bones, listen to the word of the Lord! This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Look! I am going to put breath into you and make you live again! I will put flesh and muscles on you and cover you with skin. I will put breath into you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’ So I spoke this message, just as he told me. Suddenly as I spoke, there was a rattling noise all across the valley. The bones of each body came together and attached themselves as complete skeletons. Then as I watched, muscles and flesh formed over the bones. Then skin formed to cover their bodies, but they still had no breath in them. Then he said to me, “Speak a prophetic message to the winds, son of man. Speak a prophetic message and say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come, O breath, from the four winds! Breathe into these dead bodies so they may live again.’ So I spoke the message as he commanded me, and breath came into their bodies. They all came to life and stood up on their feet—a great army." (Ezekiel 37:1-10, NLT)

3. In the third chapter of the book of Job, we read: At last Job spoke, and he cursed the day of his birth. He said: 'Let the day of my birth be erased, and the night I was conceived. Let that day be turned to darkness. Let it be lost even to God on high, and let no light shine on it. Let the darkness and utter gloom claim that day for its own. Let a black cloud overshadow it, and let the darkness terrify it. Let that night be blotted off the calendar, never again to be counted among the days of the year, never again to appear among the months. Let that night be childless. Let it have no joy. Let those who are experts at cursing— whose cursing could rouse Leviathan— curse that day. Let its morning stars remain dark. Let it hope for light, but in vain; may it never see the morning light. 'Why wasn’t I born dead? Why didn’t I die as I came from the womb? Why was I laid on my mother’s lap? Why did she nurse me at her breasts? Had I died at birth, I would now be at peace. I would be asleep and at rest. I would rest with the world’s kings and prime ministers, whose great buildings now lie in ruins. I would rest with princes, rich in gold, whose palaces were filled with silver. Why wasn’t I buried like a stillborn child, like a baby who never lives to see the light? (Job 3:1-16, NLT)

A little later, in the same book, we read: "If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my renewal should come." (Job 14:14)

4. In Paul's first letter to the saints at Corinth, we read: "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." (I Corinthians 15:12-26, ESV) Clearly, Paul speaks of the resurrection of the dead as pertaining to those who have accepted Christ during their lifetime on this planet.

5. This notion about the resurrection is reinforced by what we read in the twentieth chapter of the book of Revelation:

"I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4-6, ESV)

"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done." (Revelation 20:11-13, ESV)

What do you think? How would you answer those questions posed at the beginning of this post?

Was Torah for Israel or Everyone?

In the post which preceded this one, we established that Gentiles were not permitted to celebrate Passover unless they were circumcised and became Israelites. Even so, in the way of a reminder (and to underscore the fact), we read in the book of Exodus: "And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 'This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.'" (Exodus 12:43-49, ESV)

However, in addition to this clear prohibition against Gentiles being permitted to observe this festival, Torah is literally full of passages which make very clear that the commandments and instructions contained therein were addressed to the people of Israel. Indeed, in the very first book of Torah (Genesis), we read: "And God said to Abraham, 'As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.'" (Genesis 17:9-14, ESV) Once again, it is made very clear that the command to circumcise males applied to Abraham and his descendants.

Likewise, in the book of Exodus, we read: "On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and they encamped in the wilderness. There Israel encamped before the mountain, while Moses went up to God. The Lord called to him out of the mountain, saying, 'Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel...if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel." (Exodus 19:1-6, ESV) Once again, Torah is very explicit about for whom these commandments and instructions were intended. Indeed, in the very next verse, we read: "So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the Lord had commanded him." (Verse 7)

Moreover, when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, there is also no doubt about to whom they were being given. We read: "And God spoke all these words, saying, 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.'" (Exodus 20:1-2, ESV) Notice that they were addressed to the people whom God had brought out of the land of Egypt - the people of Israel! And, when he had finished enumerating all ten of those commandments, we read: "when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off." (Exodus 20:18, ESV) All of which people? Isn't it clear that he was addressing the people of Israel who had gathered at the foot of the mountain? And, lest there be any doubt about who was being addressed, a few verses later, we read: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have talked with you from heaven." (Exodus 20:22, ESV) Once again, it is clearly delineated within the text to whom God was giving those commandments. It is made very plain that those commandments were intended for (and given to) the PEOPLE OF ISRAEL!

Likewise, Torah also makes abundantly clear that Passover wasn't the only festival exclusively intended for the people of Israel. In the book of Leviticus, we read: "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that YOU shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. YOU shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places. These are the appointed feasts of the Lord, the holy convocations, which YOU shall proclaim at the time appointed for them.'" (Leviticus 23:1-4, ESV) In verse ten of the same chapter, we read: "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest." Also, a little later, we read: "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to the people of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe a day of solemn rest, a memorial proclaimed with blast of trumpets, a holy convocation.'" (Leviticus 23:23-24, ESV) Also, we read: "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to the people of Israel, saying, On the fifteenth day of this seventh month and for seven days is the Feast of Booths to the Lord." Leviticus 23:33-34, ESV) And, finally, the chapter concludes with: "Thus Moses declared to the people of Israel the appointed feasts of the Lord." (Verse 44) Yes, they are the feasts of the Lord which he gave to THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL!

Indeed, this same language is used throughout Torah. In the same book, we read: "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 'Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth." (Leviticus 11:1-2, ESV) And, after distinguishing between clean and unclean animals, we read this about God's reason for delineating clean and unclean: "For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." (Verse 45) Once again, who did he bring up out of the land of Egypt? Could it be any clearer that these distinctions between clean and unclean were intended for the people of Israel? And, when Moses repeated the Ten Commandments, we read in the book of Deuteronomy: "And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, 'Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the rules that I speak in your hearing today, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire, while I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord. For you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said: 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.'" (Deuteronomy 5:1-6, ESV)

In the very next chapter of the same book, we read: "Now this is the commandment—the statutes and the rules—that the Lord your God commanded me to teach YOU, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over, to possess it, that you may fear the Lord your God, you and your son and your son's son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long. Hear therefore, O Israel, and be careful to do them, that it may go well with you, and that you may multiply greatly, as the Lord, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey." (Deuteronomy 6:1-3, ESV)

Moreover, before the people of Israel crossed the Jordan River to take possession of the land which God had promised to give them, we read: "Now Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, “Keep the whole commandment that I command YOU today. And on the day YOU cross over the Jordan to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, YOU shall set up large stones and plaster them with plaster. And YOU shall write on them all the words of this law, when YOU cross over to enter the land that the Lord your God is giving you, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the Lord, the God of your fathers, has promised YOU. And when you have crossed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, concerning which I command you today, on Mount Ebal, and you shall plaster them with plaster. And there you shall build an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones. You shall wield no iron tool on them; you shall build an altar to the Lord your God of uncut stones. And YOU shall offer burnt offerings on it to the Lord your God, and you shall sacrifice peace offerings and shall eat there, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God. And YOU shall write on the stones all the words of this law very plainly.' Then Moses and the Levitical priests said to all Israel, 'Keep silence and hear, O Israel: this day you have become the people of the Lord your God. You shall therefore obey the voice of the Lord your God, keeping his commandments and his statutes, which I command you today." (Deuteronomy 27:1-10, ESV)

Now, for the record, what is offered here (in this post) is only a FRACTION of the many passages contained in Torah which make very clear that Torah was intended for the people of Israel. Indeed, the phraseology addressing the various laws and instructions contained therein to the people/children of Israel appears throughout the five books of the Pentateuch. In fact, the phrase "Speak unto the children of Israel" occurs thirty-two times in the King James Version of Torah! And, as I have related in many previous posts on this blog, Torah is also clearly tailored to meet the needs of a specific people, in a particular place, who found themselves in a peculiar set of circumstances. What? Throughout Torah, the various commandments and instructions assume: an agrarian-based society and economy, a people who accepted and practiced slavery and polygamy, and who were steeped in paternalistic notions about the proper roles of men and women within society. In short, Torah was addressed to the people of Israel. It was clearly NOT intended for Gentile peoples or to be universal in its application. Torah itself makes such a notion absurd!

So, You Plan on Keeping the "Biblical" Passover This Year?

For my friends who plan on "observing" or "keeping" the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread in a few days, I would like to recommend the following excerpt from a post by xHWA on the blog As Bereans Did:

So, you're going to "keep" a day that you see in the Bible. How do you plan to do that, exactly?

--HOW/WHERE

What do you plan to do to "keep" the biblical day? Are you going to keep this biblical day according to the biblical instructions for it? So, for example, let's imagine it's Passover. You're going to do what exactly? Eat a Seder? Do you know the Seder as it is kept today by the Jews is not what is instructed in the Bible? The Bible doesn't say to have four cups of wine and a hard boiled egg and vegetables in salt water and gefilte fish. If you are going to keep a biblical day - stressing the idea that you got it from the Bible rather than some made up holiday - don't you think you should keep it the way the Bible says to, rather than, you know, making up ways to keep it?

Don't worry. We have you covered. Here's what you do --

First, you travel to Jerusalem. You can opt to travel to Jerusalem if you're female, but if you're male you are required to. Because that's the only place you are allowed to keep it (DEU. 16: 5-7). You're going to have to do this a little early, because you need to select a lamb or a goat without blemish then keep it with you for four days (EXO. 12: 3-5). So, get there by the 10th of Nissan. Then, at the very start of the 14th of Nissan, you go ahead and remove all leaven from your household (EXO. 12: 15). That means no yeast or baking soda or rising agents of any kind. And no already leavened bread, which includes dough starters, cereals, cookies, crumbs, and etc. Jews will remove grains as well, to make sure they aren't contaminated with microbes that might cause them to rise when cooked. That includes any alcoholic drink made form grains. Anything with leavening in it has to go (DEU. 16: 4). Hint: you might want to check inside your toaster and under the seats of your car, too. (I know that from experience.) For seven days, the only bread you may eat must be unleavened (EXO. 16: 3). It's not just that you must avoid leavened bread, you must actively eat unleavened bread (EXO. 12: 20). Matzo is an easy option. Make sure it's Matzo rated for Passover, because not all Matzo is. (I know that from experience, too.) Removing leavening from your home will be difficult while you're in Jerusalem, we know. Perhaps you might want to divide the responsibilities, because as someone is at home removing the leaven, someone else is going to have to go to the Temple and sacrifice that lamb, or goat if you're bougee (EXO. 12: 6). Then, once the animal is properly sacrificed by the Temple Priests, you can go back to wherever you are staying in town and roast that lamb on its bones with some bitter herbs (EXO. 12: 8). Don't get fancy and try cooking it any other way, as that is not permitted (EXO. 12: 9). Goat burger with feta and arugula is verboten. Leftovers are also not allowed. Anything you can't finish eating that night will have to be burned up (EXO. 12: 10). No gyro for you tomorrow.

And while you're doing all that, the Temple Priests will be doing the offerings in Numbers 28: 19-24.

And that is the minimum requirement for how you keep a Passover! You are now ready to keep your first Biblical day.

You may have noticed an issue regarding the Temple and the animal sacrifices. Yes, that has been a thorny problem lo these past 1,900 years. It does have the unfortunate effect of making it nigh impossible to keep a biblical Passover. And that is a main reason why the early church didn't even try. So, how are you going to "keep" this biblical day, exactly, when you literally cannot keep it as the Bible says to? Make something up? The Jews did! It was the only reasonable thing they could do. So, they made up new traditions. Oh, we are not criticizing the Jews at all. Not one bit. They did what they had to do to continue observing ordinances given to them. It was either that or stop altogether. Can you blame them? We don't. But, that takes us right back to the initial problem, doesn't it? You've made up a holiday.

Oh, you can add in things that were done during the Last Supper, like foot washing - which was also made up, as there is no law for foot washing - but it might be good to bear in mind that Jesus did not have the Last Supper apart from its Jewish context. It was a Jewish Passover performed by Jews living during the final hours of the Old Covenant period. Jesus was doing the things we've reviewed and adding new elements. Adding Last Supper elements to your biblical Passover doesn't do anything to remove your obligation to also do what is required for your biblical day to be Biblical. Forgoing Passover elements and only going for Last Supper elements definitely turns Passover into Easter. It's what the first century church did. They got rid of Passover elements, only kept the bread and wine, and went forward calling it Passover. That would be the opposite of what you're going for, though. You're going for keeping a biblical day, not Easter. But isn't the Last Supper biblical? And you can't do the things required for your biblical day. There is no Temple, nor Priesthood, nor animal sacrifices. So I guess that leaves everyone in a difficult spot. The exact same spot as the first century church.

--WHEN

Now, when will you be enjoying this Passover?

The Bible says to observe it on the 14th day of the month of Nissan (aka Abib) (EXO. 12: 6). But when is that, precisely? Will you follow the Jews? Don't you know the modern Jewish calendar is not the same calendar used at the Temple in Jerusalem? After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and after the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem due to the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 AD, the calendar used at the Temple no longer worked. So, Rabi Hillel II revamped the calendar in 359 AD. The calendar the Jews use today is based on but not the same as the one used at the Temple. In fact it's better. But better is still different. You are going to want a biblical calendar to go with your biblical day. What calendar did they use at the Temple? We aren't entirely sure. They kept the formula somewhat of a secret. All we know for certain is it's not exactly the one used today. Since we are on the topic of calendars, didn't you know the Jews had at least three "Hebrew" calendars in the first century (Essene, Galilean, and Judean/Babylonian)? And none of those three are exactly what Moses used. So, you need to decide which calendar you are going to follow. Don't choose a made up one!

What's more, when will you be enjoying this Passover meal?

You should know there is currently a timing dispute among people who attempt to "keep" this biblical day. Not calendar timing. This is different. The dispute is over when on the 14th the Passover rituals, like the Seder & etc., should be performed. Should it be on the evening at the start of the 14th or the evening at the end of the 14th? Hebrew days went from sunset to sunset, so each day technically had two evenings. Several verses say Passover rituals should be "at twilight" or "evening" on the 14th (EXO. 12: 18; LEV. 23: 5; NUM. 9: 3-5, 28: 16; JOS. 5: 10). But what does "at twilight" or "evening" or "between the evenings" mean, exactly? The first or the second? A casual reading could get you equally to either evening. I will spare you the details. Suffice it to say it gets complicated. Jesus kept His final Passover on the first evening, while the Jews kept it on the second. (There is nothing to indicate Jesus always kept Passover this way. It is reasonable to conclude He did not.) Who shall you follow? The one keeping the biblical day, or the one keeping the biblical day? In the end, we have two camps of people "keeping" the same biblical day on two different evenings. Which will you choose? And what will you say to the other camp, or about the other camp, when they question your decision? What will you do if they accuse you of heresy? The majority of non-Jews who "keep" biblical days aren't doing it because they find it fulfilling, they are doing it because they feel commanded to. They call them God's holy days. Any departure from their doctrine will threaten them and win you a negative response. You are a heretic in defiance of God in their eyes. And they will be happy to share that fact with you. You might want to be fully educated on why you chose what you did. But not for their sake. They are right and you are wrong and that is that. No, for your own sake. I suggest starting with a good understanding of the two Great Covenants.

--WHO

I am going to assume you are a Gentile since I cannot imagine any Jew would ever ask a question like this in the first place. So, Gentile, how do you plan on "keeping" Passover as a Gentile? Don't you know that according to the law of Passover, Gentiles were forbidden from observing Passover (EXO. 12: 43-49)? That's the law! That law likely includes Firstfruits and the Days of Unleavened Bread, since they were often lumped together under the term Passover. You must become a Jew in order to observe these days. Men, schedule your circumcision. Ladies, marry an Israelite. People like to say, "God gave us days to keep." But, did He? Because He didn't give them to us Gentiles at all. He gave them to the Jews, and Jews only. This is another main reason why the early church didn't even try to "keep" biblical days.

Jews can be some of the most welcoming people. Once they get to know you, they will invite people to share in their observance of Passover. They do so without expecting anything, including conversion. Conversion is generally not what they want at all. They just want to share who they are. I respect that, deeply. I would go without hesitation. However, it isn't exactly what the Bible prescribes. For a Jew to share their Passover is one thing. It's their day. It was given to them. They can share it if they want to. It's another thing entirely for a Gentile to take the day upon themselves. It's not our day. It wasn't given to us. If you are taking up this day when the Bible clearly says not to, are you doing the right thing, biblically speaking? The point is to be biblical, right?

I would imagine being prohibited from keeping a day we aren't sure when to keep and which we cannot keep as prescribed even if we wanted to is really going to complicate this plan to "keep" a biblical day.

So far, we have only gone over Passover. I haven't gone into the other biblical days, such as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Pentecost, Rosh Hashanah, Atonement, or Tabernacles. Not to mention Purim, which is in the Bible, so it's biblical, but it's also "made up" by the Jews (EST. 9: 22-27). Or Hanukkah, which is mentioned in the Gospels (JON. 10: 22-23), so it's biblical, but is detailed only in the Apocrypha, because it's "made up" by the Jews, too. Biblical and made up? Yes. It's enough to make a person think "made up" holidays are entirely permitted by the Bible. Because they are. In other words, it's biblical to make up days to honor God. The Bible allows that. How does that affect your decision?

But believe me, the other days come with just as much if not more detail as Passover. Do you even own a shofar? You'll need one. Will you side with the Pharisees or the Sadducees on when to observe Firstfruits? It matters. Are you going to have a last great day to your Tabernacles or not? Remember when I said you have to travel to Jerusalem to keep the Passover? You actually have to do that three times a year. Yeah. Please take the time to understand what you're getting yourself into before you start down this road of "keeping" biblical days.

Maybe you thought this was going to be a simple thing. Perhaps you thought you would just take a made up day out and put a biblical day in, like changing socks. The reality is it's not so simple in practice as it is in theory. This section has been about the days as they actually are. Using Passover as an example, we have show you the law. In other words, the days as they actually are, not as they are reinvented, or romanticized, to be. Do you love the days as they are, as they actually are, or have you built up an idea in your mind about the days that changes them into something else?

For those interested in reading the entire post, you may do so by clicking on this link:

https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/04/why-not-keep-biblical-days.html