All Things in Common?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Christ's Olivet Prophecy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame or Pride?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Do We Do What We Do?

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

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

The Didache According to CGI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God in Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great False Church LIE

Herbert Armstrong inherited an anti-Catholic narrative from an extreme 19th Century Protestant (Alexander Hislop) and embellished it with some of the false history created by Sabbatarian Protestants written in the same era. According to this narrative, a great false church had arisen centered on Rome and founded on the ancient pagan traditions which preceded it. Indeed, for Herbie and his followers, the Roman Catholic Church was the Great Whore of Babylon mentioned in the book of Revelation! Indeed, central to Herbie's narrative was a grand satanic conspiracy to change the day of Christian worship from the Saturday Sabbath to the Pagan Day of the Sun which took place at the behest of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century. The only problem with this narrative is that it is NOT supported by Scripture or the historical sources available to us!

Unfortunately, this false history of Christianity continues to be trotted out to the members of the Armstrong Churches of God to this day! Perhaps, the most conspicuous of these is Bob Thiel of the so-called Continuing Church of God, but most of the other descendants of the Worldwide Church of God also continue to offer this false history to their members and the world. Indeed, even the so-called "liberal" ACOGs, like the Church of God International continue to promulgate Herbie's lie!

Notice this recent statement from CGI Medina's Jeff Flanick which is excerpted from a post he wrote about the new pope: The Council of Nicaea paved the way to officially “change” the Sabbath to Sunday, initiated the introduction of the doctrine of the Trinity, and fully replaced God’s Passover with a solar calculated “Easter” (in a convoluted and twisted formula) to “justly” separate themselves from Jewish worshippers of the “Way” concerning Pascha {Passover}). The Council, in conjunction with Emperor Constantine, paved the way to institutional ‘religion’ and the marriage of church and state. (Please take note, I’ve provided some links for your consideration about the First Council of Nicaea at the end of this article. I’m sure you will find them very interesting and quite educational!) Which Lion Should We Follow? by Jeff Flanick of the Medina CGI.

From the very first source which Jeff cited (an article for The Sabbath Sentinel entitled The Council of Nicaea and the Sabbath, we read: Hosius of Cordova was a religious advisor to Constantine and presided over the council until the emperor arrived. Hosius was likely the one to convene the meeting and invited the emperor to participate and make final decisions – in a manner like Arles. The emperor arrived about a month into the proceedings of Nicaea. At the council, decisions were made concerning Arius and the Meletians. Twenty canons, or church principles, were also passed. None of them mention the seventh-day Sabbath. At the end of the meeting, there was a letter composed by Constantine which mandated that all churches follow the Roman rite as it comes to the observance of Pascha. This composition is the basis for some who claim that Constantine changed the Sabbath. Likewise, in the conclusion to this same article, we read: The rulings at Nicaea did not stop people from keeping Pascha in a manner like the Jewish people. References to Christians keeping Passover like the Jewish people are found decades later in writers such as John Chrysostom (Eight Homilies Against the Jews) and Epiphanius (Panarion, sections 50 and 70) as well as church councils such as the Councils of Antioch (341) and Laodicea (364). Many people are not aware the Nicaea addressed many of the same issues as the Council of Arles eleven years earlier. This knowledge and the proper context of Constantine’s letter help us to understand that Nicaea had zero impact on the Sabbath.

Jeff's second source, an article penned for the United Methodist Insight titled The Sin of Nicaea, informs us that: In 325 C.E., just 12 years after the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be a legal and acceptable religion, he convened the Christian bishops from across the Roman Empire at the Council of Nicaea to come to agreement about the official doctrines of the church. He was particularly concerned about the divisions in the church in relation to a way of thinking called Arianism, which held a view of Jesus as not being co-eternal with the Father and thus being distinct from and subordinate to the Father. A little later, in the same article, we read: There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about church leaders coming together to seek common understanding and agreement about their views concerning the divinity of Jesus. That is not the problem with the Council of Nicaea. The sin of Nicaea is not the seeking of common understanding, rather it was what was done to those who dissented from the majority view. Once again, there is NO mention of the Sabbath!

Likewise, Jeff's third source, an article from Stand to Reason titled The Doctrine of the Trinity at Nicaea and Chalcedon included Nicaea as an important step in the formulation of Trinitarian theology. Moreover, the author made clear that the story of the development of this doctrine is one of a careful and faithful process. Indeed, in the opening to the article, we read: The formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is a history of the refinement of terms and philosophical categories. Proper terminology was a primary issue of the ecumenical councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, and so was precision of thought and the philosophical categories used to characterize the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines. The Council of Nicaea resolved the question of Jesus’ deity, but led to further dissent about Jesus’ human and divine natures. These issues culminated in the expression of the doctrine at Chalcedon. Continuing, we read: The impressive thought and debate that went into the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon produced biblically sound, but also intellectually virtuous doctrines. F.F. Bruce expresses the importance of accurate language in the creeds: “Inasmuch as the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are embedded in the New Testament, although not explicitly formulated there, we must make the effort of wrestling with difficult terminology if we are not to fall an easy prey to misunderstanding or to actual heresy.” Doctrinal development requires rigorous intellectual skills and sound philosophic categories to accurately apply God’s revelation.

Do we discern a pattern beginning to emerge with Jeff's sources? NONE of them support his and Herbie's narrative about the Roman Catholic Church or traditional Christianity! The same is also true of the other two sources jeff provided.

What is the real history of the Church and its relation to the Sabbath, doctrine of the Trinity, and the observance of Pascha/Easter? The real story is that the relationship of Christians to the commandments of Torah was clearly spelled out in the canonical books of Acts and Galatians (Acts 15:1-30 and Galatians 2:1-16). Yes, Jesus and his original twelve apostles observed the commandments of Torah, because they were JEWS! Gentiles didn't have any tradition of a weekly Holy Day, like the Sabbath!

 The truth is that after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem (and the Temple) in 70 C.E., Sabbath and festival observance ceased among Jews and Jewish Christians! Indeed, by the end of the First Century, the observance of the Lord's Day (commemorating the resurrection of Christ) was almost universal. Likewise, the Trinity is implicit in the writings of the New Testament (see John 1:1-34, 10:30, 14:16-17, Matthew 3:16-17, 28: 19, Luke 1:35, I Corinthians 8:6, 12:13, II Corinthians 13:14, Colossians 2:9, etc.). As for Pascha/Easter, the sources already cited suggest that the Council of Nicaea's purpose was to standardize its observance to one day each year on the Roman calendar (which most of the known world was using).

In other posts on this blog, we have also quoted from the writings of early Christians - proving that things like Christians using Sunday to worship originated in the First Century (see The Didache, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, and the writings of Justin Martyr) and was already common practice by the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

Finally, we have the Church History composed by Eusebius in the Fourth Century. In that history, we see a frank account of the unsettled nature of the canon for the first two hundred years of the Church's history (see Book 3, Chapter 25). He also had this to say about a sect of early Christians who continued to observe the tenets of Torah, including the Sabbath:

1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.

2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.

4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.

6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.

(See Church History, Book 3, Chapter 27, "The Heresy of the Ebionites")

Thus, we see that Herbie's and Jeff's narrative about Church history is NOT consistent with the sources available to us. Their narrative regarding the "change" from Sabbath to Sunday happening in the Fourth Century under the Roman Emperor Constantine is NOT supported by the evidence available to us. Likewise, their attack on the Trinity fails on both the Scriptural and historical fronts. In fact, their history of how Sunday, the Trinity, and Pascha/Easter were borrowed from paganism and instituted by the Great False Church is shown to be a bold-faced lie! Even so, don't look for them to ever update their historical accounts of Church history, because their false historical narrative supports their heretical teachings. After all, if the truth of what actually happened in the past is too embarrassing, or doesn't support your narrative, you simply modify it - right?

LOVE vs. love

In a post over at the Banned by HWA blog titled The Epistemological Conditions for Salvation by Scout, BP8 made a very interesting comment partially in response to a comment I had made previously. He wrote: 

God IS love and He imparts His love to us by His Spirit (Romans 5:5)). But, Scripture mentions several types of love, some of which do not meet God's standard and approval, because it is selfish, biased, and worldly (see Matt.5:46-47, John 12:25, 15:19, 1 John 2:15, 4:20). The love of God is well defined. Romans 13:8-10 tells us, 'Owe no one anything but to love one another. Love is the fulfilling of the law.'"

He is, of course, absolutely right in terms of the Scriptural perspective on God's love compared to the twisted and perverted version of love we see around us. Indeed, the New Testament is quite explicit in drawing this distinction:

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. 1 John 2:15-17, ESV

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. James 4:4

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Romans 12:2

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? Matthew 5:44-46

Unfortunately, the "love" which we observe around us is all too often superficial, self-serving, elicits a host of negative feelings (e.g. envy, jealousy, impatience, anger, violence, anxiety, and depression). This is the opposite of Paul's definition of love in his letter to the saints at Corinth (I Corinthians 13:4-8). Moreover, in that passage from his letter to the Romans quoted by BP8 in the comment cited above, we read:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:8-10

Armstrongists often quote this Scripture as proof that Christians should be obeying Torah Law (especially the Ten Commandments). However, when we take a closer look at what Paul is actually talking about, we can see just how misguided the Armstrongist view really is - that they effectively miss the entire point he was making to the saints at Rome! Paul was clearly talking about the critical/essential importance of loving each other as fulfilling the requirements of God's Law. Indeed, he specifically cited some of the Ten Commandments which actually dealt with demonstrating love for each other! In other words, a person who truly loves another will not be unfaithful to, murder, steal from, or covet anything belonging to that person. Hence, it should be clear to all of us as Christians that true love is NOT demonstrated by observing a list of dos and don'ts. Instead, it is found in loving God and each other in the way that Christ, John, and Paul wrote about.

What the World Needs NOW Is Love!

Song by Burt Bacharach, Sung by Dionne Warwick

What the world needs now is love, sweet love

It's the only thing, that there's just too little of

What the world needs now is love, sweet love,

No, not just for some, but for everyone

Lord we don't need another mountain

There are mountains and hillsides

Enough to climb

There are oceans and rivers,

Enough to cross, enough to last till the end of time

What the world needs now is love, sweet love

It's the only thing that there's just too little of

What the world needs now is love, sweet love

No, not just for some, but for everyone

Lord, we don't need another meadow

There are cornfields and wheat fields

Enough to grow

There are sunbeams and moonbeams

Enough to shine

Oh listen Lord, if you want to know

What the world needs now is love, sweet love

It's the only thing that there's just too little of

What the world needs now is love, sweet love

No, not just for some,

But for everyone

Unfortunately, humankind too often ignores, overlooks, or dismisses the power of love. Instead, it is too often associated with weakness and a "second-hand emotion." Nevertheless, we all know (or should know) that its absence or undervaluation is at the root of war, hunger, loneliness, insecurity, and poverty - the enemies of humankind.

According to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, love is the most important attribute a human can possess - more important than knowledge, power, or wealth! Indeed, the Gospel of John informs us that Jesus said that it was the very thing which would identify his followers to the world! Likewise, in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ is portrayed as condensing God's Law into Two Great Commandments (Love for God and each other). Moreover, returning to the Gospel of John, we are informed that Christ elevated the command to love each other as playing an important role in fulfilling the commandment to love God (the first epistle to John confirms this). He pointed out that it is impossible to love an invisible God while simultaneously hating the people God loves. Moreover, he went on to say that God IS love! The Apostle Paul also reiterated the essential nature of love regarding Christianity in his first epistle to the saints at Corinth. He said that love was more important than knowledge, faith, or hope!

Jesus said: "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." Which is exactly what Jesus did for all of us - he literally laid down his life for us! Indeed, the same account attributes this famous statement to him: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." This is the kind of love that rejects fear and uncertainty and embraces God's love. It rejects the motive of self-interest and self-aggrandizement. It expresses interest in and concern for the needs of others. In a world filled with self-interest, selfishness, ego, hostility, envy, and greed, it should be clear to all of us that what the world needs now is love - sweet love! 

Yes, to Contradictions in Scripture; and No, to God Commanding Genocide!

The doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy has given rise to a great deal of cognitive dissonance, theological nonsense, and misguided apologetics. To deny that contradictions exist within Scripture elevates human reasoning and diminishes Almighty God! I have pointed out numerous times on this blog that GOD CHOSE to make the writing of Scripture a joint project between himself and humankind - HIS DECISION, NOT MINE AND NOT YOURS! To be clear, Divine inspiration is perfect. Human reception and interpretation of that inspiration is imperfect.

It is generally acknowledged by biblical scholars that one of the greatest contradictions in Scripture is the gulf that exists between perfect love and justice and the command to practice genocide. Clearly, some of the authors of the Hebrew Bible believed that God ordered the Israelites to kill whole peoples, including men, women, children, and the elderly. Moreover, as a consequence of the attribution of this commandment to God, both Jewish and Christian apologists have struggled for years to reconcile this with the notion of a just and loving God. Indeed, their attempts to erase this clear contradiction has resulted in some very convoluted reasoning and absurd attempts to redefine what love, and justice mean.

In his article for RNS titled "Did God command genocide in the Bible?", Jonathan Merritt asked Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan (who co-authored a book on the subject) to explain this biblical phenomenon. He observed that "there are some really horrible scripture passages in the Bible–especially the Old Testament" and asked which one the author felt was the most difficult. His answer: "the most troubling question from the Old Testament is God’s command to kill and drive out the Canaanites and perhaps even innocent ones—and there are similar commands concerning the Midianites and Amalekites as well. Some have suggested that this is a command to commit genocide, although we dispute this in our book and attempt to bring clarity to this and related questions."

This is followed by some now very familiar apologetics. The author went on to say: "We must first understand that the Canaanites engaged in acts that would be considered criminal in any civilized society–incest, infant sacrifice, ritual prostitution, bestiality. Also, God waited over 400 years for Canaan to hit moral rock-bottom before commanding they be driven out (Gen. 15:16)." In other words, these folks weren't innocent! In modern parlance, I think we call that victim blaming! Later, in the same article, the author contends that the human authors were using hyperbole and didn't really mean to say that God had commanded the Israelites to kill everyone.

Not quite satisfied with these explanations, Merritt pressed the author. He continued: "Matt, people often point out that God is both loving and just. I agree, but commanding the slaughter of children, innocents, and animals by other sinners, is neither in my book. What am I missing?" To his credit, the author did not reprimand Merritt for pointing out the moral dilemma this biblical language presents for him (many apologists have the attitude of "how dare you question any of God's decisions?"). Matt's answered: "a loving and just person would endorse a strong presumption against such actions but could, in principle, support them in rare circumstances if there is some greater good that overrides this presumption."

Employing many of the same arguments, in an article for The Gospel Coalition titled "Is God OK with Genocide?", Josh Butler wrote: "The Amalekites are like the Nazis: consistently bent on the Jews’ destruction. In World War II, the Jews even referred to the Nazis as 'Amalekites.' As the Jews were exterminated in concentration camps, they looked at their captors as modern-day Amalekites who extended this brutal history into the present. Sure enough, God cites the Amalekites’ history of oppression as the reason they’re to be destroyed (1 Sam. 15:2)." Doesn't that sound like revenge to you - the opposite of forgiveness and treating others the way that you would like to be treated?

Likewise, for Logos, Ryan Nelson asked "Did God Command Genocide in the Bible?" He wrote: "One of the hardest things for me to wrap my brain around as a Christian is how a God who defines himself as love (1 John 4:8) and defines the greatest form of love as laying down your life for someone else (John 15:13) could lead Israel on a bloodbath in the Old Testament." For Nelson, Dr. Michael Heiser's novel explanation of this violence made the most sense. Indeed, he quoted a key statement from his book Supernatural as offering the perfect explanation for this apparent contradiction. The Heiser quote: "The entire populations of the cities that were home to the giant Rephaim were ‘devoted to destruction’ (Deuteronomy 3:6). The goal was not revenge. The goal was to ensure the elimination of the Nephilim bloodlines. To the Israelites, the giant clan bloodlines were demonic, having been produced by rebellious, fallen divine beings. They could not coexist with a demonic heritage."

Now, although these apologetics may satisfy some folks on this topic, they do NOT satisfy me. In my humble opinion, none of them offer a logical or reasonable explanation of these Old Testament passages or a logical or reasonable justification for the genocide portrayed in them! Once again, I believe these apologetics are completely unnecessary. Indeed, they are only necessary if one subscribes to the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy! In short, I would say that these very human authors of Scripture were doing the exact same thing that many of their predecessors and successors employed to justify their bad behavior - They attributed their behavior to God! They claimed that they were doing all of these evil things for God - to obey and serve him! How twisted and perverted is that?

A concrete scriptural example of what I'm talking about? According to Scripture, King David was God's anointed - the person whom he had chosen to lead Israel's armies to victory! However, toward the end of his reign, we read: "Then King David rose to his feet and said: 'Hear me, my brothers and my people. I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God, and I made preparations for building. But God said to me, ‘You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood.’" (I Chronicles 28:2-3)

Likewise, the apologists forget or ignore that God commanded the Israelites at Mount Sinai: "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13) In similar fashion, they forget or ignore Paul's definition of love. He wrote to the saints at Corinth: "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends." (I Corinthians 13:4-8) Genocide is CLEARLY inconsistent with this definition of love! Moreover, the first epistle of John informs us that God is the epitome of love (I John 4:8, 16). The ONLY logical and reasonable conclusion: God never commanded anyone to engage in genocide - it simply NEVER happened!

Only Here For A Little While

Your life is like the morning fog—it’s here a little while, then it’s gone. - James 4:14, NLT

We blossom like a flower and then wither. Like a passing shadow, we quickly disappear. - Job 14:2, NLT

Lord, remind me how brief my time on earth will be. Remind me that my days are numbered— how fleeting my life is. You have made my life no longer than the width of my hand. My entire lifetime is just a moment to you; at best, each of us is but a breath. - Psalm 39:4-5, NLT

Shout that people are like the grass. Their beauty fades as quickly as the flowers in a field. The grass withers and the flowers fade beneath the breath of the Lord. And so it is with people. The grass withers and the flowers fade, but the word of our God stands forever. - Isaiah 40:6-8, NLT

I'm gonna hold who needs holdin'

Mend what needs mendin'

Walk what needs walkin'

Though it means an extra mile

Pray what needs prayin'

Say what needs sayin'

'Cause we're only here

For a little while

Today I stood singin' songs and sayin','Amen'

Saying goodbye to an old friend who seemed so young

He spent his life workin' hard to chase a dollar

Putting off until tomorrow the things he should have done

Made me start thinking, "What's the hurry, why the runnin'?

I don't like what I'm becoming, gonna change my style

Take my time and I take it all for granted

'Cause we're only here for a little while"

Gonna hold who needs holdin'

Mend what needs mendin'

Walk what needs walkin'

Though it means an extra mile

Pray what needs prayin'

Say what needs sayin'

'Cause we're only here

For a little while

Let me love like I'll never see tomorrow

Treat each day as though it's borrowed

Like it's precious as a child

Oh, take my hand

Let us reach out to each other

'Cause we're only here for a little while - Billy Dean

Billy Dean - Only Here for a Little While

The Troubled and Befuddled Mind of Bill Watson

Church of God International Pastor Bill Watson sees communists and conspiracies everywhere, and he has continued to make them the focus of his ministry. In his latest post for his “News Alert Blogs” titled Is the United States in an Irregular War?, Bill portrays his favorite president, Donald J. Trump, heroically battling the forces of the Deep State which he asserts “are controlled by foreign Marxists international puppet masters, working in the shadows.”

From Bill’s perspective, the CIA has been a tool of this Deep State cabal of America haters for several decades. In the post, he even suggests CIA involvement in the assassination of JFK (OK, that conspiracy theory is popular with a lot of Americans). Even so, it seems that Bill is reluctant to dismiss any conspiracy theory which the internet can invent! And, to be clear, the internet is awash in this stuff – much of it originating in places like NTD (New Tang Dynasty) News and The Epoch Times (both affiliated with the anti-communist Chinese Falun Gong).

What does any of this have to do with Jesus Christ and advancing his kingdom? Well, from Bill’s perspective, all of this is indicative of the time of “Jacob’s trouble.” In Bill’s own words, “The profiles described in Genesis 48:19-20 fit the formation of the USA and U.K. very accurately––identifying them as these modern day, end-time geopolitical nations, prophetically identified as ‘Israel!’” For Bill, Herbert Armstrong’s original conspiracy theories (Anglo-Israelism and “False” Christianity) still make sense in trying to understand the very complicated world in which we live.

Add to all of this Bill’s wholesale rejection of anything that the “Mainstream Media” has to say on these subjects, and you have all of the ingredients of a self-perpetuating state of delusion. For Bill, all of these conspiracy theories are inexorably leading to one outcome. He wrote: “The irregularity of the tension and conflict the United States culturally is in, can’t help to make one wonder, are we witnessing the ‘Train Wreck’ of the Birth-righted nations prophesied by the voices of the Prophets? The present disruption DJT’s administration is causing has the potential to derail the hegemony of North America (Canada included) and result in anarchy, which could open the doors for a third-party invasion––and obviously, a stage setting for the fulfillment of Revelation 6:7-8, ––the arrival of the Fourth Horseman, the Fourth Seal [You ought to read it]. It’s quite a foreboding thought and description of what is in store for mankind at some point in our future. …. Lets pray it’s not yet!”

The Context of Chapters 18-20 in Leviticus

Two of the most prominent passages of Scripture used to condemn ALL homosexual behavior in humans are found in the book of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13). Unfortunately, the traditional interpretation of these passages ignores the context of the times and circumstances which they were meant to address.

Moreover, it is my contention that the absence of this context makes these passages vulnerable to misunderstanding and abuse. Indeed, I am suggesting that this context is essential to a proper understanding of the commandments contained in these chapters (18-20).

First, we must not forget that everything in Torah was meant to underscore that the children of Israel were God's people. Indeed, it is asserted repeatedly throughout these writings that God intended to make a distinction between the Israelites and the pagan folks who surrounded them.

In fact, in the opening to the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, we read: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. (Verses 1-4, ESV) Clearly, God did NOT want his people to imitate the idolatrous people of the land they were leaving (Egypt), or the land which God was leading them across the wilderness to inherit one day (Canaan).

Hence, we are forced to conclude that everything which follows was related to the behaviors and practices of these ancient pagans. In the article The Torah's Prohibitions of Incest Distinguished the Israelites from Their Neighbors (written for Mosaic), we read: The prohibitions of various sexual relationships, enumerated in the book of Leviticus and included in the most recent Sabbath Torah reading, are prefaced by a command not to imitate the ways of the Egyptians or the Canaanites, and are followed by another admonition not to imitate Canaanite practices. The text thereby seems to suggest that such relationships, most of which involve forms of incest, were commonplace among both peoples.

Even so, some will ask if history and archaeology actually support such a conclusion. In other words, were these ancient pagans in Egypt and Canaan actually engaging in the behaviors/practices which were forbidden in the passages which follow?

In verses 6-18 of this same chapter of Leviticus, we find a number of commandments prohibiting various incestuous relationships. In that same article referenced above from Mosaic, we read: Although Egypt certainly forbade adultery, incest does not seem to have been an Egyptian taboo. As early as the 14th century BCE and through at least the Ptolemaic period [the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE], some Pharaohs married their half or full sisters. There are also documented cases of non-royal marriages between children of the same father from the Middle Kingdom (ca. 1975-1640 BCE) and the Twenty-Second Dynasty (ca. 945-715 BCE), including some that appear to involve full siblings, as well as one marriage between a father and daughter. This assertion has also been supported in an article titled Study Presents Evidence of Extensive Inbreeding Among Ancient Egyptian Royalty. As for the Canaanites, the available evidence suggests that they also were not as averse to incest as God appeared to be in Torah.

After condemning sexual relations with a menstruating woman and adultery (verses 19-20), a pagan god is mentioned - further reinforcing the fact that God didn't want his people to adopt the ways of the idolatrous nations which surrounded them. In the Brittanica article on Moloch, we read: "In the Hebrew Bible, Moloch is presented as a foreign deity who was at times illegitimately given a place in Israel’s worship as a result of the syncretistic policies of certain apostate kings. The laws given to Moses by God expressly forbade the Jews to do what was done in Egypt or in Canaan. “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God” (Leviticus 18:21). Yet kings such as Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6), having been influenced by the Assyrians, are reported to have worshipped Moloch at the hilled site of Topheth, outside the walls of Jerusalem. This site flourished under Manasseh’s son King Amon but was destroyed during the reign of Josiah, the reformer. “And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Moloch” (2 Kings 23:10)."

Likewise, in terms of context, it is very important to understand the concept of "sacred prostitution" which existed in ancient pagan cultures of the time. In the World History Encyclopedia article titled Prostitution in the Ancient Mediterranean, we read: The dominating religious theme of all ancient societies was that of fertility; of crops, herds, and people. The divine powers who ruled the universe occurred in male and female pairs, and so could be approached for the benefits of fertility for humans. This was particularly relevant to the creation and worship of the various mother goddesses in the region: Inanna (Sumer), Ishtar (Mesopotamia), Hathor and Isis (Egypt), Cybele (Anatolia), Astarte (Canaan), Demeter (Greece), Aphrodite (Greece), and Venus (Rome). All these goddesses ruled human sexuality, the erotic uses of the body, birth, and children. Continuing, we read: Scholars debate the ways in which worship of these fertility deities was instituted, in a concept known as sacred prostitution or temple prostitution. There are references to this in the ancient cultures of Sumer and Mesopotamia, and the ideas spread throughout the Mediterranean Basin. The term 'temple prostitution' is a modern one (post-Enlightenment) and is a misnomer. Scholars equated temple servants (both men and women) in these fertility cults with prostitution per se, which was not the same thing.

This brings us at long last to one of our "clobber scriptures," Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. How does this relate to the behaviors of the pagan nations surrounding Israel? Did these pagan nations engage in homosexual relationships? How does this relate to sacred prostitution?

First, in an article for Garstang Museum of Archaeology at the University of Liverpool titled Homosexuality in the Ancient World, we read: The modern conception of sexuality relies on a strict categorisation of sexual appetites and personal desires – heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc. In the ancient world, however, these words did not exist and the concepts they represent were not necessarily analogous to our modern understanding of sexuality. Continuing, we read: Attitudes towards homosexuality in recent history have coloured the perspective through which we view the nature of sexuality in the ancient world. Early historians, archaeologists and antiquarians viewed notions of alternate sexual identity through the lens of their own social mores, and their discussion of these sexual identities was often stilted and couched in euphemism (when it wasn’t downright ignored).

Likewise, in yet another article for World History Encyclopedia titled LGBTQ+ in the Ancient World, we read: There are not even words in the ancient languages which translate to the modern-day "homosexual" and "heterosexual" which were only coined in 1869 CE. The Greek term arsenokoites, translated as "homosexual" in the Bible for the first time in 1946 CE, never existed until it was coined by St. Paul in his epistles I Timothy 1:10 and I Corinthians 6:9. The actual translation is "male beds" and seems to refer to men who slept with men in non-Christian traditions, not to same-sex relationships.

The consensus of both of the last two articles mentioned is that ancient cultures often condoned a kind of pederasty (sexual activity between an adult man and a boy or youth). Also, as has already been mentioned, many of these cultures also condoned some form of sacred prostitution (where both females and males were made available for sexual intercourse with worshippers). Finally, we know that male slaves were often subject to the sexual whims of their masters. Even so, among these acceptable sexual relations between members of the same gender, there was an almost universal stigma attached to a man playing the passive/receiving role in the above-described relationships (this extended to the Israelites). Hence, we can see that the concept of two adult same-gender people in a committed relationship was NOT one with which these ancient peoples were familiar. Indeed, the whole notion of a sexual orientation was foreign to those folks!

Nevertheless, how do we know for certain that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.) are not condemning all homosexual behaviors? Well, if the context of the actual experiences of these folks is not enough to persuade you, maybe another passage from Torah will!

In the book of Deuteronomy, we read: None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, ESV) This passage clearly ties this sexual prohibition to the pagan practice of sacred prostitution. Notice that the same language identifying the practice as an "abomination" is used in all three passages!

Finally, before we close this post. It should be noted that these same considerations apply to the world of Christ and his apostles. In other words, the Greek/Roman world of the First Century of the Common Era had similar attitudes to things sexual as did the Egyptians and Canaanites. But don't take my word for it, check out the links in this article and read about them (the Greeks and Romans). Moreover, it is easy to discern the moral failure within the context of loving each other as we love ourselves relative to sacred prostitution, pederasty, slavery, or gang rape (as in the example of Sodom and Gomorrah). The conclusion of the matter, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were never intended to be blanket condemnations of all homosexual behavior!

Are You a Christian? OR Are You Religious?

I know that some folks will see those two questions that I used in the title of this post and ask, "Aren't they the same thing?" The short answer, of course, is "NO, they are not the same!" Moreover, clearly differentiating between the two is critical in determining which one you are!

According to Britannica, religion involves "human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

Likewise, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, It is common today to take the concept religion as a taxon for sets of social practices, a category-concept whose paradigmatic examples are the so-called “world” religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. Perhaps equally paradigmatic, though somewhat trickier to label, are forms of life that have not been given a name, either by practitioners or by observers, but are common to a geographical area or a group of people—for example, the religion of China or that of ancient Rome, the religion of the Yoruba or that of the Cherokee. In short, the concept is today used for a genus of social formations that includes several members, a type of which there are many tokens. The concept religion did not originally refer to a social genus, however. Its earliest references were not to social kinds and, over time, the extension of the concept has evolved in different directions, to the point that it threatens incoherence. As Paul Griffiths notes, listening to the discussions about the concept religion "rapidly suggests the conclusion that hardly anyone has any idea what they are talking about—or, perhaps more accurately, that there are so many different ideas in play about what religion is that conversations in which the term figures significantly make the difficulties in communication at the Tower of Babel seem minor and easily dealt with. These difficulties are apparent, too, in the academic study of religion, and they go far toward an explanation of why the discipline has no coherent or widely shared understanding of its central topic."

Thus, we can see that a religious person would be seen as someone who was a member of a group who engaged in the kinds of behaviors described above - someone who is part of such a human social construct. OR, As Christian Ministries International describes them, "Religions are about human attempts to make our lives right with God, through our good works, sacrifices, rituals, and money." In other words, our human notions about religion are extremely inferior and highly inconsistent with the Divine view of that topic (as expressed in Scripture).

A Christian, on the other hand, is a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings. A Christian is someone who has placed his/her faith in Jesus Christ and has accepted what he has done for him/her (the saving of his/her soul, the complete eradication and forgiveness of his/her sins, reconciliation to Almighty God, and an example of love for, and service to, others). In the epistle of James, we read: "Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you." (James 1:27, NLT) In other words, true Christianity is manifested in how the believer treats others. Jesus 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)

Hence, a person can scrupulously follow the formula of the Christian religion and fail to be a Christian! He/She can be baptized, attend Church worship services regularly, partake of the Eucharist, genuflect, pray, fast, and obey all of the commandments of Torah and still fail to be a Christian! Now, such a person could definitely be described as religious, but the question of whether or not he/she is a Christian is NOT answered by his/her participation in any of those rituals or behaviors! Indeed, the Apostle Paul made very clear to the saints of Galatia that Christianity was NOT just another human social construct. He wrote: "You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law." (Galatians 2:15-16, NLT)

What about you? Are you a Christian? OR Are you religious?

What's Behind the Christian Aversion to Abortion, Transgenderism, and Homosexuality?

Ask that question to most conservative/traditional Christians and they will tell you: "It's because God's word (aka the Bible) condemns it!" Even so, please excuse some of us for wondering if such an abiding and vocal disgust for (and condemnation of) these behaviors might be motivated by something more than the Divine will. Most frequently, these phenomena are characterized by these folks as being anti-family, wicked, against nature, and the epitome of societal immorality.

From our perspective, it is of particular interest to note that all three of these phenomena are related to human sexuality. Why is this of any interest in this regard? Because there has always been an aversion to all things related to human sexuality in the Judeo-Christian tradition!

In the book of Genesis, we are informed that everything (including the first humans) which God created was very good. Likewise, we are informed that "the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Indeed, the narrative of the first humans went on to reveal that the act of eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil caused the humans to become aware of their nakedness and to feel shame about their bodies. Hence, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Judeo-Christian notions about the human body and its functions were rooted in SIN. In other words, this feeling of prudery, shame, and dirtiness were NOT part of God's design or intent relative to human sexuality - They are clearly a consequence of the fall/alienation of humankind in the Garden of Eden!

This attitude toward the human body and its sexual functions are clearly reflected in what we see in Torah. For example, a woman who had recently given birth to a male or female baby was considered "unclean" (Leviticus 12:2-5). Moreover, while the birth of a male child made her unclean for one week, the birth of a female child made her unclean for two weeks! Likewise, anything that was touched by male semen was considered unclean, including anything which came in contact with semen during the act of sexual intercourse! (Leviticus 15:16-18) On the female side, anything or anyone who came in contact with a woman on her monthly menstrual cycle was considered to be unclean (Leviticus 15:19-33).

In addition to these provisions relative to the human body and its reproductive functions, Torah also clearly sets up a dichotomy in the way male and female Israelites were treated. Throughout those writings, the woman is plainly portrayed as being inferior to the man. In fact, the woman is often portrayed as the property of her father, and then her husband throughout her life. Indeed, the very language of the tenth commandment implies it: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's." (Exodus 20:17) Prior to marriage, the father was clearly in the drivers' seat when it came to his daughters (Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 21:9, Numbers 30:4-5, etc.) And, we must not forget, that God had declared that the woman would be ruled over by her husband (Genesis 3:16). This phenomenon is also apparent in the Torah's provision for divorce (Deuteronomy 25).

It is also very apparent that these attitudes carried over into the Christian Era. We see it most clearly in the epistles of Paul. He wrote to the saints at Corinth that the man was the head of the woman (I Corinthians 11:3). He also declared to them that women should be silent in Church and should ask their husbands to explain anything that they didn't understand (I Corinthians 14:24-25). He also instructed the Christian women at Ephesus to submit themselves to their husbands and again declared that "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" (Ephesians 5:22-24). Likewise, he wrote to Timothy that women should NOT be allowed to teach or be in any position of authority over a man, and that women would eventually be saved through childbearing (I Timothy 2:11-15).

In similar fashion, we see a clear delineation between the genders in both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. In Torah, only the men's genitals were to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant between God and the Israelites (Genesis 17:10-14, Exodus 12:44-48, Leviticus 12:3). In those same Hebrew scriptures, we read: "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 22:5)

In similar fashion, the Apostle Paul distinguished between the appropriateness of head coverings for males and females (I Corinthians 11:2-10). He went on to write: "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering." (I Corinthians 11:14-15) It should also be noted that ALL of these provisions (in both the Old and New Testaments) reflected cultural/societal norms and were NEVER intended to be universally applicable principles of morality!

These attitudes toward human sexuality have even twisted the way that many Christians understand Christ's own teachings on the subject. In reference to the commandment against adultery (marital infidelity), Jesus asserted that "everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28) Clearly, his remarks were made within the context of marriage. Yet, we have too many Christians who read into this passage a prohibition against ALL sexual desire. Sorry, folks, we are hardwired to be sexually attracted to each other - it's biological - hormonal. Indeed, no one would ever get married without it. Thus, we see that Christ was saying that it was tantamount to adultery for a husband or wife to desire someone other than his/her spouse. Indeed, many Christians completely disregard/ignore what Christ had to say about divorce in the following passage (Matthew 5:31-32). Why is that? Do you suppose it has anything to do with the fact that divorce and remarriage is so common among heterosexual Christians?

So, how do these things apply to the Christian aversion to abortion, transgenderism, and homosexuality? It is my contention that these things constitute the PRIMARY motivation for this aversion! In other words, male superiority, ownership, and authority over the female is what motivates Christian hatred of abortion, transgenderism, and homosexuality. Abortion is seen as a woman asserting a right over her own body which is NOT recognized by this tradition. The woman was made to bear children, and she shouldn't be doing anything to thwart that "God-given" task. Likewise, as women are considered inferior to men, it is shameful for a man to take on the characteristics of a woman - especially related to clothing, hair, and the submissive or receiving role in sexual intercourse! Indeed, the Torah commandment against male-on-male intercourse had much more to do with men taking on the role of a woman and serving as a temple prostitute than it ever did with homosexuality per se!

In addition to these scriptural references, our own modern society provides ample evidence to support this thesis. For example, in spiritual terms, we should all be able to acknowledge that any behavior which violates the Great Commandment to Love your neighbor as yourself makes a person guilty of sin. Thus, we are forced to ask ourselves: Why do you suppose that many Christians view homosexuality and transgenderism as being more egregious sins and posing greater threats to marriages and families than heterosexual adultery, divorce, or promiscuity? Why are second, third, and fourth marriages and child custody battles regarded with less alarm than homosexuals marching in the streets for the same rights which their heterosexual counterparts enjoy? The answers to questions like that point to the irrational and inconsistent position of the traditional Christian on these matters.

In conclusion, I find traditional Christian attitudes regarding human sexuality to be highly hypocritical and illogical. For me, the Christian aversion to abortion, transgenderism, and homosexuality has much more to do with an outdated set of cultural/societal expectations than it does with true morality. Instead of looking at their own destructive and sinful behaviors (the beam in their own eyes), they are infinitely more concerned with the speck of sawdust in their neighbor's eyes!