What does the book of Acts say about the relationship between Jesus' followers and 2nd Temple Judaism? - part 6

 I've taken the material from my previously published study {What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?} and turned it into a series of YouTube videos in order to make its 53 pages of argumentation more accessible to the public, and hopefully encourage further study of what God's Word actually says about this topic on the part of those who have been tempted to take up the yoke of the Law of Moses.

What does the book of Acts say about the relationship between Jesus' followers and 2nd Temple Judaism? - part 5

 I've taken the material from my previously published study {What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?} and turned it into a series of YouTube videos in order to make its 53 pages of argumentation more accessible to the public, and hopefully encourage further study of what God's Word actually says about this topic on the part of those who have been tempted to take up the yoke of the Law of Moses.

What does the book of Acts say about the relationship between Jesus' followers and 2nd Temple Judaism? - part 4

 I've taken the material from my previously published study {What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?} and turned it into a series of YouTube videos in order to make its 53 pages of argumentation more accessible to the public, and hopefully encourage further study of what God's Word actually says about this topic on the part of those who have been tempted to take up the yoke of the Law of Moses.

What does the book of Acts say about the relationship between Jesus' followers and 2nd Temple Judaism? - part 2

 I've taken the material from my previously published study {What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?} and turned it into a series of YouTube videos in order to make its 53 pages of argumentation more accessible to the public, and hopefully encourage further study of what God's Word actually says about this topic on the part of those who have been tempted to take up the yoke of the Law of Moses.

What does the book of Acts say about the relationship between Jesus' followers and 2nd Temple Judaism? - part 1

 I've taken the material from my previously published study {What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?} and turned it into a series of YouTube videos in order to make its 53 pages of argumentation more accessible to the public, and hopefully encourage further study of what God's Word actually says about this topic on the part of those who have been tempted to take up the yoke of the Law of Moses.

Sermon Video: The cause of Peter's bitter tears, Luke 22:54-62

Peter's denial of Jesus is famous, in part because all 4 Gospel accounts cover this low-point of the Apostle's life. But what caused Peter to shed bitter tears? How did he get to that point, what were the steps along the way? Importantly, what can we learn from Peter's experience?

The Apostle Paul: A Jewish Christian free to live like a Gentile for the sake of the Gospel - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2:11-14

The antidote to lies is the truth, the antidote to heresy is orthodoxy.  In that vein, let me offer up an illustration from the life of the Apostle Paul, a man who formerly lived in the utmost strict observance of the Law of Moses as a Pharisee with a spotless reputation, but who after meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus had a very different understanding about the relationship between Law and Grace and how he now needed to live as a follower of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23  New International Version

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Given that the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs) assert that EVERY member of the Early Church during its first few generations fully kept the Law of Moses as Jesus intended them to do, both Jews and Gentiles, it behooves us to actually read God's Word and see the truth of the matter.  {For a detailed examination of the various unorthodox beliefs of this organization see: The Dangers of the First Fruits of Zion and their Torah Clubs} Ultimately, this bold claim of widespread Torah observance among early Christians (that supposedly justifies returning to this "pure" version of our faith) fails as a thesis historically, biblically, and theologically, the demonstration of which is a task worthy of a thick book, but can also be easily illustrated with these straightforward words of the Apostle Paul written to the church at Corinth and the churches in Galatia.

In this section (above) illustrating the freedom he has in Jesus Christ, Paul explains that he is willing and able to live both like a Jew (himself being a Jew) and live like a Gentile, if in doing so it would enable him to share the Gospel more effectively with either group.  This is not Paul compromising himself morally or going against his conscience in the name of evangelism, rather it is Paul living out his conviction that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free.  To Paul, then, how he lived with respect to Torah observance was NOT a moral question, at all, but instead a practical one that related to how others perceived him.  To keep kosher, for example, was not a matter of conscience or morality for Paul, but a question of not offending those Jews with whom he hoped to share the Gospel.  When he was among his Jewish brethren, Paul kept the kosher rules along with all the other Jewish distinctives, but when he was among Gentiles he ate and acted according to their customs.  It was not Law that dictated Paul's actions, but love for those with whom he shared Jesus.

We should not be surprised to see Paul write with this expression of freedom in Christ to the church in Corinth given that years earlier he had confronted the Apostle Peter about the hypocrisy of pretending that he lived only like a Jew (i.e. according to the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses) when in the company of some misguided Jewish Christians who lived as if they were still under the Law, when in fact both he and Peter knew better.  How do we know that Peter knew better?  He, "used to eat with the Gentiles."  Had Peter lived a fully Torah observant life AFTER the Resurrection and Pentecost, this would not have been possible.  The Apostle Peter had been living by grace until those embracing legalism led him astray, they even led Barnabas astray, but not Paul.

Galatians 2:11-14  New International Version

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

In the end, it was not a corruption of the original Gospel proclamation of Jesus when the Church fully embraced the truth that neither its Jews nor its Gentiles were under the Law of Moses, rather it was the result of the profound freedom offered by the renewal of our hearts and minds by the Blood of Christ, as well as the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, that quickly won the day in debates like that of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).  

If it helps your Gospel witness to live like a Jew so that you can share the Good News that Jesus Christ is Lord among observant Jews, then go right ahead.  Paul did that when it helped the Gospel.  Likewise, if it helps your Gospel witness to live like the Chinese so that you can share the Good News within a Chinese cultural setting, then go right ahead.  Hudson Taylor did that in the 19th century and enjoyed massive success, much as had Francis Xavier and the Jesuits in the 16th century who employed the same openness to meet those with whom they shared the Gospel on ground that was familiar to them.  If your ministry is among motorcycle clubs, then embrace that culture's dress and tattoos if it helps you share the love of God with those who need to see and hear it.

In Christ we are free, free to serve the Kingdom of God and share the Gospel.  What we are not, however, is bound to any one cultural expression in doing so, for in the New Covenant all may approach God by the same route, the only route, by faith in Jesus Christ.  This truth has been known from the beginning, we see it in Paul's own words.  As always, the antidote to heretical lies is orthodox truth.

Sermon Video: The Fall of Peter: Love and Fear - Mark 14:66-72

Alone in the courtyard while the trial of Jesus progresses, Peter is faced with three increasingly dramatic opportunities to affirm himself as a disciple of Jesus, famously he fails all three times.  Some combination of love, loyalty, pride, and stubbornness brought Peter to this moment, plus failing to heed Jesus' warning to him.  In the end, Peter falls, and reaps a bitter harvest to his lies.  What is the lesson for us?  Many (if not most) of the 'heroes of the faith' have a tragic self-inflicted wound, if they can fall so can we.  The episode of Peter's denial ought to be a reminder to us to shelve our pride, hold back our judgmentalism at the failings of others, and if we do fall, follow Peter's path of repentance with our own sorrow.

Sermon Video: Peter's Folly - "Even if all fall away, I will not" Mark 14:27-31

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" sums up the episode that occurs as Jesus and his disciples walk to the Garden of Gethsemane.  Jesus warns them that they will "all fall away", but Peter responds to this not with contemplation but defiance.  When Jesus assures him that this very night he will indeed disown Jesus, Peter foolish digs in and insists otherwise.  Why?  Some combination of pride and stubbornness, with perhaps misplaced zeal added in, leads Peter down a fool's path.  Seeing him begin, the other 10 follow by also insisting against Jesus' prediction that they will remain steadfast.

For the Church today, this offers a reminder that pride and stubbornness are not the traits God is looking for from his people.  Neither is 'rugged individualism' (i.e. the philosophy of Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh) the path to discipleship.  The Church requires servants working together to further the Kingdom of God, more Clark Kent, less Superman.  Like Lewis and Clark on the way to the Pacific, we'd be wise to seek a guide and companionship.

We ignore "repay evil with blessing" at our peril: the Culture War, politics, and 9/11

In a recent interview on the Holy Post podcast (with Phil Vischer), Wheaton College New Testament professor Esau McCaulley makes the case that the United States (and the Church within it) missed a golden opportunity after 9/11 to "repay evil with blessing" rather than with greater destruction.  Admittedly, there was zero political will in the country, and very little opposition of any kind, to the idea of crushing the Taliban to get to Al Qaeda as justice/revenge for the lives lost on that horrific day.  I live through 9/11 as a young man, an educated Christian man, and my own thoughts were primarily of our military response.  Like so many other times in history, the way of peace, the forgiving of enemies, was not tried.  In the interview McCaulley also makes the point that what the Church needs is more Christian politicians willing to lose spectacularly.  In other words, willing to advocate for principles that while unpopular with the American people, are consistent with a Christian worldview.  What we need to do is prize morality above power, obedience to God above 'winning' in the here and now.  The Church would be far healthier, he believes, if those claiming to be Christian politicians lost more elections.  I found McCaulley's honesty to be very refreshing as it echoes much of my recent seminar: The Church and Politics , which was itself largely derived from the writings of Pastor Gregory Boyd in The Myth of a Christian Nation {The Myth of a Christian Nation by Gregory Boyd: summary and response}, the practical experiences of Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson working for the Moral Majority, as outlined in Blinded by Might, and the worldview underpinnings of Harry Blamires in The Christian Mind, all of which can trace foundational theological heritage back to the Apostle Peter's words in 1 Peter 3:8-17 (among other biblical passages on the topic including: Romans 12:14-21, 1 Thessalonians 5:15, and of course the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-48).  The point is, there is a tremendously powerful and convincing theological case to be made in favor of choosing forgiveness over wrath, mercy over justice, especially if we are truly going to model our behavior after the life of Jesus himself.  But, and this is the important conjunction, most Christian throughout history have preferred Realpolitik to living by the teachings of Jesus in these matters.  And that has consequences.

1 Peter 3:8-17     New International Version

8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,

“Whoever would love life

    and see good days

must keep their tongue from evil

    and their lips from deceitful speech.

11 They must turn from evil and do good;

    they must seek peace and pursue it.

12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous

    and his ears are attentive to their prayer,

but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

The interview with Esau McCaulley from the 26-54 minute marks is highly recommended

Can we 'take America back for God'?  Gregory Boyd's book explains why such a goal is impossible, because no such thing as a 'Christian nation' was ever intended by God, Thomas and Dobson illustrate in their book that a concerted effort sustained over a decade by the Moral Majority failed to move the country any closer to that supposed goal, and Blamires made the case back in 1963 that modern Christians were largely incapable of such an effort (even if it were possible) because they don't THINK like Christians.  Now Esau McCaulley is adding a modern example, the American response to 9/11, to further illustrate the point.  That his suggestion, sending aid to Afghanistan after 9/11 rather than planes loaded with bombs, would have been widely mocked, and someone suggesting such a course of action would have been accused of being 'soft on terrorism' or even a traitor, just illustrates how far from the mirage like goal of being a 'Christian nation' America truly is.  The Right does not offer a Christian worldview, and neither does the Left.

So, what will the consequences be when a nation that is majority Christian (by every poll and form of self-reporting) acts with little difference than a nation that is majority Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc?  At the very least, evangelism will be negatively affected.  Throughout the world what America does is conflated (fairly or unfairly) with Christianity.  The Pope or other ecclesiastical authorities may speak in opposition to American choices acting upon the world stage all they want, to the billions of people around the world, American foreign policy and culture speaks much louder.

For the Church in America, when those inhabiting it reject Christian morality in favor of American priorities, our own discipleship and transformation toward Christ-likeness is delayed, even derailed.  In this we are no different than the British Imperialists of generations past, or of the Pope's more interested in the wars of the Papal States than the spiritual health of the Western Church.  We cannot compartmentalize our lives, behaving as Americans on the one hand and Christians on the other.  As far as our national values are misaligned with our spiritual ones, those values are to us immorality, and as much as individual Christians (self-proclaimed or genuine) reject the calling to imitate Jesus, preferring Might to Right, we will be tolerating a cancer within the Church.

Is the battle lost?  I wouldn't be typing this if I thought so.  We know that the Church itself, global not national, will triumph at the end of history.  We don't have any idea how many years or even millennia before that day comes, but we know it will because God proclaimed it.  We know that voices like McCaulley, Vischer, Boyd, and smaller ones like my own, continue to proclaim the need for the Church to let go of the chimera of worldly victory through power and embrace the promise of spiritual victory through servanthood. At this point, these voices sound more like John the Baptist, people look at them like a crazy person wearing a camel hair shirt, eating locusts and wild honey.  But then again, God vindicated John (although he lost his head in this life standing up for morality against a corrupt system).

Some of my previous thoughts on this topic:

Deals with the Devil don't get any better

Why would we celebrate the death of the wicked?

How a Christian must respond to adversaries

The 'lesser of two evils' an anti-Biblical viewpoint

Satan loses in the end, why are we so scared?

A related topic that illustrates the lack of Christian thinking in other areas:

"My body, my choice" is Individualism that spits in the face of God our Creator, Redeemer, and Lord - abortion and vaccine refusal

And this: 2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

Sermon Video: Mark 8:22-33 - Can you see Jesus clearly?

 After healing a blind man, enabling him to see clearly, Jesus asks his disciples who others believe him to be? That easy question answered, he asked the tought one, "Who do you say I am?" Peter answers correctly, "You are the Messiah." Peter's answer demonstrates that the Light of Jesus can be seen even though humanity is living in darkness. With God's help, Jesus can be seen clearly. Unfortunately, the text continues and reminds us of the difficulty of the task by showing that Peter's next answer was dismal. After Jesus tells his disciples that he must soon suffer and die (before being raised to life), Peter rebukes him and tells Jesus that he doesn't see his own future clearly. Jesus strongly rebukes Peter, showing that an impartial view of Jesus isn't good enough. We can't just have Jesus at Christmas, we need Good Friday and Easter too. Jesus didn't just come to heal and to teach, although both of those were very important, but to save humanity from sin and death. In order to fulfill this role given to him by the Father, Jesus had to die on the Cross as the Lamb of God. When we see this fulness of Jesus and his mission, we see him clearly.

Sermon Video: Jesus assembles his team - Mark 3:7-19

 We know that it takes a team to accomplish a great task, many of our favorite books and movies illustrate this, and the same holds true for the work of Jesus to share the Gospel and found a Church. He needed a team. The 12 men called to be his official disciples were an interesting bunch, and we might not have chosen some of them given the opportunity, but Jesus molded and shaped them over the next several years. The result? Aside from Judas, they all served Jesus and the Gospel in the face of death, 11/12 (If we include Matthias instead of Judas) were martyred (to the best of our knowledge) while sharing the Good News...The Church today needs a team too, we need each person's skills and passions to fulfill the task at hand: Sharing the Gospel and making disciples of Jesus Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Peter Disowns Jesus - Matthew 26:69-75

In a well known and dramatic trio of confrontations, the Apostle Peter, formerly the most vocal and brash of Jesus' disciples, fails to acknowledge Jesus as his friend, rabbi, or Lord, when challenged by bystanders during Jesus' sham trial before the Sanhedrin.  Each of Peter's denials increases in their fervency, from his initial attempt at pretending to not understand the question, to a denial containing an oath, and then finally a denial backed up with the calling down of a curse if he should be lying.  In many ways, the experience of Peter parallels that of so many people who have followed a road of temptation into sin, each step of the way increasing the severity of the rebellion against God and the eventual guilt.  The Gospel of Matthew doesn't mention Peter again, but fortunately for Peter and for us, his story doesn't end with Peter outside weeping bitterly.  The Gospel of John contains the fullest account before Peter's central role in the book of Acts, in it Jesus repeats to Peter three times, "Do you love me?" as a means of restoring Peter's confidence that he was not permanently damaged by his failure, that passage ends with Jesus sharing with Peter a command filled with both love and service, "Follow me!".  Peter didn't fail his Lord in the future, he served the church faithfully for about thirty years, eventually affirming his faith in Jesus during Nero's anti-Christian purge, and in the end, dying for the Savior he had once denied.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Council at Jerusalem, Acts 15:1-19

There have been many Church Councils in the past two thousand years, most of the helpful, a few not so much.  The very first of them was held at Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus' half-brother James over the question of how to include the new gentile believers in Jesus Christ in the Church that was at this point predominately Jewish.  If this first Council not successfully resolved the controversial issue at hand, the Church would have split far sooner than the Great Schism of 1054.
The issue debated at this first Council arose because individual from Judea decided that they needed to go down to Antioch to tell the Gentiles there that, "unless you are circumcised...you cannot be saved."  In other words, unless these gentile believers were willing to follow the whole Law of Moses, their belief in the salvation through Jesus Christ would be insufficient to save them.  This issue had been simmering behind the scenes throughout the first half of Acts, but now it was boiling over.  Paul and Barnabas opposed their message, and the leadership of the Church of Antioch decided to send them, along with other representatives, to Jerusalem to the disciples to resolve the issue.
After much debate, Peter stood up and took the side of the gentiles by proclaiming that God had not only sent him, and others, to them, but had also validated their work by giving the same Holy Spirit to them as he had given to the Jewish believers at Pentecost.  If God had approved their salvation by faith, apart from the Law, who would gainsay God?  In addition, Peter points out the fatal flaw in the argument of those in favor of extending the Law to the gentiles: Nobody is keeping the Law.  The history of God's chosen people is a story of broken promises on the part of the people who failed to keep the Covenant.  If the Jews couldn't keep the Law, "a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear", why would anyone believe that the first chosen people had been saved by anything but God's grace?  Indeed, Peter concludes, "it is through grace...that we are saved, just as they are."
When Peter finishes, Paul and Barnabas add the testimony of their recent successful mission's trip among the gentiles, but the final answer awaits the decision of James.  James, known for his piety and reverence for the Temple, agrees with Peter that this decision has been made by God, as predicted by the Prophets, and thus "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."
With that decision the Council at Jerusalem manages to avoid the splintering of the Church along ethnic lines that had been threatening its unity.  Their wisdom speaks to us today as we ask ourselves, how are we hindering the Gospel through our actions or inaction?  What obstacles have we put in the way of the Lost hearing the accepting the Gospel?  Whatever those things may be, we as a Church must rid ourselves of them because the Lost are coming to God by grace, just as we did.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video

Sermon Video: The Deliverance of Peter - Acts 12:1-19

The story of Peter's escape from prison in Acts 12 with the help of the angel of the Lord is famous, but when read in its context falls immediately after the martyrdom of John's brother James.  These two disciples were both members of the "inner circle", along with John they witnessed the Transfiguration of Jesus.  Why is James left to die at Herod's hand, but Peter rescued?  There certainly couldn't be any theory that accounts for the difference by elevating Peter above James, as if Peter deserved to be saved but James did not.  So, what answer is left to us?
In verse five, Luke tells us that the church of Jerusalem was earnestly praying for Peter's release, perhaps this is the answer.  The church really prayed for Peter, therefore God delivered him from certain death.  There's just one problem with that cause-effect theory, it assumes that the church failed to pray for James.  We're not told anything about the presence or lack of prayer concerning James, but our own experience as individual Christians and as a Church confirms that fervent, earnest, tear filled, on our knees, prayer doesn't guarantee that God will act.  The will of God remains what God has told us it is, a mystery beyond our understanding.  We cannot force God to act because God is not an idol made in our image that we can control, God is our Creator, we are in his image.  God will continue to act according to his own wisdom, love, mercy, and holy nature.  We wouldn't want the ability to force God to change, God is already perfect, we're the ones that need to be transformed.
If prayer isn't about getting God to do what we want him to do, why are we praying?  The short answer: God told us to.  The longer answer involves what prayer actually does best and that is changing the person who is praying by allowing us to open our hearts and minds to the will of God.  In addition, prayer for those in need, especially public corporate prayer, allows us to demonstrate the compassion that our heart feels for them and to publicly declare that we have faith in the love, mercy, and grace of God's will.
God saved Peter from certain death, James he did not.  I don't know why tragedy happens to some good people and not to others, but I do know this, I can trust the God who was willing to send his Son to die for my sins.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video

Sermon Video: Peter and the Gentiles, Part 1 - Acts 10:1-29

Have you ever wondered how wide or how deep God's mercy is?  Are there any sinners to vile to be saved?  Are there any sinners who fall outside of the scope of God's redemption?  In Acts, Luke answers the first question by showing the Saul of Tarsus could be redeemed even though his heart was full of murderous intent.  The second question is answered when God calls Peter to go to Caesarea and share the Gospel with a Roman centurion named Cornelius.
The choice of Cornelius was not one that Peter made himself; he was doing great work for God in Joppa when God sent him a perplexing dream about clean and unclean animals.  While Peter was trying to figure this vision out, wondering if God was being literal or metaphorical, messengers from Cornelius arrived to say that God had told Cornelius to send for Peter.  Wait a minute; God had spoken to a Roman soldier??  This is actually the third time in Luke's account (which includes his Gospel) that a Roman centurion has played a key role, the other two being the amazing faith of the centurion from Capernaum and the centurion's proclamation at the foot of the cross.  Now, God has once again found faith amongst the Gentiles by choosing this man, a man with a reputation of devotion to God and service for the poor, to be the recipient of Peter's first foray into sharing the Gospel outside of the Covenant people.
Cornelius sent for Peter without knowing what message he would bring, I'm not sure that Peter knew what he was going to say until he arrived at Cornelius' house.  The message that Peter had to share will be in part 2 of this message, but his conviction that he must share the Gospel with them was made perfectly clear when Peter entered Cornelius' house to discover a large crowd of friends and relatives that had all gathered to hear what this messenger from God had to say.
There can be no boundaries to the Gospel, there can be no man, woman, or child that is off the list of potential believers.  God's grace is deep enough, God's grace is wide enough to reach us all.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video