Bob's Got His Panties in a Bunch Again Because of Us!

Predictably, Continuing Church of God and self-proclaimed prophet, Bob Thiel has taken our humble little anti-Armstrong Church of God blog to task for daring to question his credentials as a historian of early Church history. In a post entitled Banned from the Truth About Church History, Bob accuses us of not telling the truth about him or the early history of the Church (see Is Our Favorite Crackpot Prophet A Real Historian?).

For Bob, a response to my post was an imperative, because it went to the heart of his claim to fame - that he is an "authority" on the early history of Christianity. In short, his narrative about the First Century ekklesia is the bedrock of his defense of the teachings of Armstrongism. More particularly, he repeats the story that Sabbath observance was the norm within the ekklesia of the First and Second Centuries of the Common Era, and that the celebration of Sunday was a late, pagan, and heretical corruption of primitive Christianity. Thus, any contradiction of this false narrative naturally excites "Dr" Thiel's passions.

True to form, Bob began his little diatribe by quoting a Scripture from Proverbs: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4-5) Hence, we will attempt to craft an answer to Bob's response which precludes him from appearing wise in his own eyes!

Next, Bob attempted to refute my assessment of his own statement that "The Church of God has the Right Name and the Right Size." He wrote: "Well, most scholars do believe that Church of God was a name used by Christians–and that is not limited to 'the King James Version of the New Testament.' And while the term assembly could be used as well, it basically meant the same thing." Actually, the body of believers/disciples of Christ is most often called, simply, ekklesia in the original Greek (or Church in English). The phrase "Church of God" appears just eight times in the King James Version of the New Testament. Whereas "ekklesia" or "church" appears about thirty-five times! Moreover, according to Blue Letter Bible, the word means "a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly." We should also note that the Church is often tied to a particular geographic location in Scripture (as in the Church of the Laodiceans, Church of Ephesus, etc.). Bob ignored my comments about the "right size" of the Church.

As for those writings from the First and Second Centuries that I mentioned in my post, Bob directed his reader's attention to a number of articles penned by him which attempted to discredit them as proof/evidence that his narrative is false. I am happy to let the reader peruse these passages and decide for him/herself whether Bob's commentary on their meaning fits the context:

But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (Early Christian Writings: The Didache (Roberts translation) - Chapter 14

14:1 And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.

14:2 And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled;

14:3 for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord;

14:4 {In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice;

14:5 for I am a great king, saith the Lord and My name is wonderful among the nations.} (Early Christian Writings: The Didache (Lightfoot translation) - Chapter 14

Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, 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. (Early Christian Writings: Epistle of Barnabas (Roberts translation) - Chapter 15

But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world, lest at any time being conquered by his artifices, ye grow weak in your love. But be ye all joined together with an undivided heart. And I thank my God that I have a good conscience in respect to you, and that no one has it in his power to boast, either privately or publicly, that I have burdened any one either in much or in little. And I wish for all among whom I have spoken, that they may not possess that for a testimony against them.

If any one preaches the one God of the law and the prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil, and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of mere carnal circumcision. If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit. If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite. If any one confesses the truths mentioned, but calls lawful wedlock, and the procreation of children, destruction and pollution, or deems certain kinds of food abominable, such an one has the apostate dragon dwelling within him. If any one confesses the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and praises the creation, but calls the incarnation merely an appearance, and is ashamed of the passion, such an one has denied the faith, not less than the Jews who killed Christ. If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, even as the soul also is in the body, because it was God that inhabited it, and not a human soul, but affirms that unlawful unions are a good thing, and places the highest happiness in pleasure, as does the man who is falsely called a Nicolaitan, this person can neither be a lover of God, nor a lover of Christ, but is a corrupter of his own flesh, and therefore void of the Holy Spirit, and a stranger to Christ. All such persons are but monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of dead men. Flee, therefore, the wicked devices and snares of the spirit which now worketh in the children of this world, lest at any time being overcome, ye grow weak in your love. But be ye all joined together with an undivided heart and a willing mind, "being of one accord and of one judgment," being always of the same opinion about the same things, both when you are at ease and in danger, both in sorrow and in joy. I thank God, through Jesus Christ, that I have a good conscience in respect to you, and that no one has it in his power to boast, either privately or publicly, that I have burdened any one either in much or in little. And I wish for all among whom I have spoken, that they may not possess that for a testimony against them. (Early Christian Writings: The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians)

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 ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye 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 believeth might be gathered together to God.

Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. For "if Thou, Lord, shalt mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? " Let us therefore prove ourselves worthy of that name which we have received. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, he is not of God; for he has not received the prophecy which speaks thus concerning us: "The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people." This was first fulfilled in Syria; for "the disciples were called Christians at Antioch," when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the corrupt leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven of grace. Abide in Christ, that the stranger may not have dominion over you. It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes, and every tongue that confesses, is gathered unto God. And those that were of a stony heart have become the children of Abraham, the friend of God; and in his seed all those have been blessed who were ordained to eternal life in Christ. (Early Christian Writings: The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians)

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

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.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. 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. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. 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. (Early Christian Writings: The First Apology of Justin Martyr)

In response to my assertion that the events of 70 CE were of much greater significance for Jews and Christians, Bob went on to say: "The historical fact is that until c. 135 A.D. the Christians in Jerusalem did keep the Sabbath, Holy Days, avoiding unclean meat etc. When they were not allowed to, they once again fled." Once again, Mr. Thiel avoids the events of 70 CE because they destroy his narrative about the celebration of Sunday amongst early Christians!

After all, Jesus Christ had prophesied the events of 70 CE during his earthly ministry. In the twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, we read: "Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, 'You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.' (Matthew 24:1-2, ESV) Speaking of these events, Josephus wrote: "These Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself.  At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched some what out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there wion, passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it.  As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered anything to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing...thus it was the holy house burnt down...Nor can one imagine any thing greater or more terrible than this noise; for there was at once a shout of the Roman Legions, who were marching all together, and a sad clamor of the seditious, who were now surrounded with fire and sword... the people under a great consternation, made sad moans at the calamity they were under...Yet was the misery itself more terrible than the disorder; for one would have thought that the hill itself, on which the Temple stood, was seething hot, as full of fire on every part of it." (Jewish Virtual Library: The Destruction of the Second Temple - Flavius Josephus - Antiquities, xi. 1.2)

Most historians readily acknowledge that the events of 70 CE marked a decisive turning point in the history of both Judaism and Christianity. Notice what one article had to say on the topic: "The fall of Jerusalem had dire immediate consequences for the Jewish people. Thousands had been killed during the siege, and those who survived faced enslavement, exile, or life in a ruined city. The loss of the Second Temple was particularly devastating, as it was not only the center of religious worship but also a symbol of national identity. It marked the beginning of a long diaspora for Jewish people. With the city in ruins and the Second Temple destroyed, many Jews were displaced, sold into slavery, or chose to leave the region. They established communities throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, profoundly shaping the Jewish experience and identity. With the destruction of the temple, the practice of Judaism had to adapt, necessitating a major shift in religious practice and thought, leading to the development of Rabbinic Judaism...The destruction of Jerusalem also had a profound impact on the early Christian movement. Many followers of Jesus had fled the city before the siege, spreading their beliefs to other parts of the Roman Empire. The destruction of the Temple and the city validated, for some, Jesus' prophetic warnings about Jerusalem's fall. Without a central Jewish authority in Jerusalem, and with Jewish communities scattered, Christianity began to evolve as a distinct religion, increasingly separate from its Jewish roots." (The Cataclysmic Siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 and Its Impact on Judaism and Christianity)

Like most Armstrongites, "Dr" Thiel also ignores and distorts what happened at the great Council of Jerusalem (see Acts 15). The same group responsible for the previous article had this to say about the significance of that event (which happened some twenty years before the destruction of the city and Temple by the Romans): "As the Christian mission expanded, particularly among Gentiles, a crucial question arose: Did non-Jewish converts need to follow all of the Jewish laws? The original disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem were ethnically Jewish and continued to observe the Torah, so when Gentiles started joining the movement in significant numbers, this became a pressing question. Some Judean Christians that were often called ‘Judaizers’ by historians argued that Gentile believers should undergo circumcision and keep kosher laws. Paul and others, however, contended that this was not necessary, since they taught that faith in Christ was sufficient for Gentiles. To resolve this dispute, the apostles and elders convened a meeting known as the Council of Jerusalem around AD 49 or 50. At it, leaders like Peter and James discussed the status of Gentile converts. The council reached a landmark decision: Gentile Christians would not be required to fully observe the Mosaic Law. This was a turning point in Christian history, as it opened the door for a much broader Gentile inclusion and helped Christianity develop its own identity distinct from Judaism. Over the next decades, the Gentile proportion of the Church grew rapidly." (The History of Christianity in the First Century)

Finally, the Scriptures of the New Testament affirm the importance of the day we call "Sunday" to early Christians (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, Acts 2:1, Acts 20:7, I Corinthians 16:2, and Revelation 1:10). I have also noted in previous posts that there wasn't any pagan tradition of weekly "Sunday" observance for Christians to inherit!

Hence, for anyone willing to do a modicum of research into the subject of the early history of Christianity, Bob's narrative will appear false and self-serving. "Dr" Thiel has looked for writings, explanations, and historians who support his narrative - that all Christians observed the Sabbath for the first two or three hundred years of the Church's existence. Wrong Bob! This is only a small slice of the evidence which discredits your narrative!

 

Bob Thiel Is NOT A Historian!

Bob Thiel of COGwriter and the Continuing Church of God claims to be an expert on the early history of the Church, but his writings on the subject are extremely biased and ignore a great deal of evidence. In short, Pastor Thiel is not going to win any awards for historical scholarship!

In his booklet Continuing History of the Church of God, he makes a number of statements which are simply NOT supported by the available evidence, and he writes a number of things which are demonstrably FALSE. At the beginning of his booklet, Thiel asked: "Was there an early, original form of Christianity that was so persecuted and so maligned, yet continued from c. 31 A.D.? Even today would it be overlooked by most who profess Christ?" The questions imply that what most of us recognize as Christianity is far different from the original version of the faith. What about that? Is Bob asking the right questions? More importantly, is he providing the right answers to his questions?

First, Pastor Thiel boldly proclaimed that "The Church of God has the Right Name and the Right Size." His proof? A number of Scriptural passages from the King James Version of the New Testament which refer to Christ's disciples as the "Church(es) of God." Never mind that the original Greek word, ekklesia, which is translated into English as "Church" means "an assembly of people called together." Hence, literally, the various passages which he quoted in his remarks refer to an assembly of people called together by God! In other words, the ekklesia of God describes what the Church IS - it is NOT a proper name. In the same way, the "Continuing Church of God" describes a group of people who belong to the organization which Bob Thiel founded!

As we have already noted, Pastor Thiel believes that the "true" ekklesia of God will be "the right size" (meaning that the Church would be small in numbers). His proof? He quotes a number of passages from the New Testament which refer to a "little flock" and talk about intense persecution. Now, to be sure, the early Church was very small in numbers. Indeed, the Church remained focused on Jerusalem for the first decade of its existence! Nevertheless, what Bob forgets or ignores is that Christ had predicted that his gospel would be preached throughout the world before the end, and that he commanded his disciples to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20) In other words, Christ never intended for his ekklesia to remain a small and insular group of folks centered locally in Judaea!

Pastor Thiel went on to point out that the early Church continued to observe Torah. He even quoted theologian JJL Ratton: "The early Church at Jerusalem, retained most of the distinctive customs of the Jews, such as circumcision, kosher meats, the Jewish Sabbath, the Jewish rites, and worship of the Temple. Our Lord, Himself, lived the exterior life of a Jew, even so far as the observance of Jewish religious customs was concerned. The early Church of Jerusalem followed His example. The Jews looked upon the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem simply as a Jewish sect, which they called the sect of the Nazarenes." Of course, Thiel fails to mention that Jesus was a Jew, and that he HAD to fulfill the provisions of Torah! Likewise, Thiel fails to mention that Christ's disciples, and the members of the early Church, were entirely JEWISH. In other words, we would expect to find Jews observing the provisions of Torah! However, it is also clear that most Gentiles were completely unfamiliar with the Jewish Scriptures and had no tradition(s) of observing the commandments therein!

Moreover, Pastor Thiel fails to acknowledge the significance of the great Council of Jerusalem which was called to settle the matter of a Gentile Christian's obligation(s) with regard to the commandments of Torah (see Acts 15). Indeed, when we read this Scriptural account of that Council, we see that the "Jewish" apostles decided to exempt Gentiles from any obligation to become Jews or to observe the tenets of Torah!

Bob went on to underscore the importance of the failure of the second Jewish rebellion against the Romans in 135 CE, but he ignores the traumatic events of 70 CE - when the Romans destroyed Herod's Temple and Jerusalem and ended Jewish self-rule. Why was this such an egregious omission? Because, from that day forward, it was NO LONGER POSSIBLE to observe the commandments of Torah in the manner prescribed in those first five books of the Hebrew Bible! This was true for both Jews and Jewish Christians.

Mr. Thiel also authored an article titled "History of Early Christianity in which he makes a number of statements which are clearly untrue! In that article, he listed a number of doctrinal positions which he attributed to the early Church. Among those, he cited: Baptism, both Testaments, Binitarianism, Hierarchical Church government, the "true" Gospel, tithes and offerings used to support the ministry, etc. Of course, to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the history of First Century Christianity, a number of problems with Bob's assertions about the teachings of the early Church will be immediately apparent!

Baptism was a ritual which pointed to the burial of the old self and the resurrection of the new person in Christ. The ONLY Scriptures available to First Century Christians were the ones found in the Hebrew Bible - the same one which we now refer to as the Old Testament! While some of the epistles and Gospel accounts were available to some congregations during the latter half of the First Century, it is a well-established fact that the canon of the New Testament took a couple of centuries to come together in the form that we now enjoy. Likewise, there are a number of Scriptural passages which make reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (and I would defy anyone to say that the Holy Spirit is not God)! Moreover, Jesus did NOT teach an authoritarian or hierarchical form of church governance. Christ taught SERVANT leadership, and his early disciples practiced that in their individual congregations. After the fall of Jerusalem, there wasn't any "headquarter" Church!  According to the Hebrew Bible, tithes were owed by the Israelites to support the Temple, Levites, priests, poor, and to celebrate the commanded festivals at the central sanctuary. In short, in almost every instance, Bob's assertions fail both the Scriptural and historical accounts available to us!

Like many of the followers of Herbert Armstrong, Bob ignores the Didache, epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, writings of Justin Martyr, epistle of Barnabas, etc. and the evidence which they supply about early Christian beliefs and practices. He ignores both the Scriptural and historical evidence which points to the fact that Christians began celebrating Sunday in the First Century - in the time of the apostles. He also ignores the clear evidence that the "Gospel" or "Good News" was all about Jesus Christ and salvation through him - that his purpose was to save all of humanity! No, I'm afraid that Bob Thiel is NOT an expert on early Christianity. His narrative is like the fairy tales of old - it pleases the children of Herbert W Armstrong, but it bears little resemblance to what actually happened!

We Are (Present Tense) One with Christ and God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Things in Common?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Christ's Olivet Prophecy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame or Pride?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Do We Do What We Do?

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

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

The Didache According to CGI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God in Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!