Sermon Video: Paul prefers to boldly go where no one has gone before - Romans 15:17-24

After giving glory to God for the success of his ministry thus far, the Apostle Paul explains to the church in Rome that his previous hesitancy to visit them came from his own conviction that God wanted him to take the Gospel to places where Jesus was unknown.  After decades of doing this, now Paul is planning to visit the church at Rome on his way to another new frontier for the Gospel: Spain.

Did the Apostles fully keep the Torah after Jesus’ death and resurrection? A response to the claim of FFOZ

In the past year and a half, I’ve read a lot of things written by the leadership of First Fruits of Zion.  While individual misinterpretations of the biblical text and Early Church history abound in their published materials, correcting these errors does not seem to move the needle with those who have fallen under the sway of Boaz Michael, Daniel Lancaster, and the rest.  What would it take?  How much of a rejection of God’s Word is necessary to demonstrate the danger of this path?

FFOZ’s claim: The Apostles (and the entirety of the first generation of followers of Jesus, both Jew and Gentile) fully kept Torah.  In their view this was as Jesus intended, his life, death, and resurrection changed NOTHING with respect to full participation in the first-century expression of Judaism, full obedience to the Law of Moses continued to be expected in every aspect of everyone.

This reflects the central historical claim of FFOZ, that until later generations dropped the affiliation with Judaism, Jesus’ followers (both Jew and Gentile alike) were full participants in synagogue life, full participants in Temple worship, fully obedient to every aspect of Torah.

Here is an example of this thesis from FFOZ in action:

The New Testament metaphorically refers to Yeshua’s suffering and death as a sacrifice for sin, but that’s not the same as cancelling the sacrifices.  The boof of Acts shows us that the believers remained engaged in the Jerusalem Temple system long after the death and resurrection of the Master.  Obviously they did not regard the Temple worship as obsolete.  Ever since the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the sacrifices detailed in the Torah have not been possible and will not be possible until God’s Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt. – Restoration by Daniel Lancaster, p. 169-170

We don’t make sacrifices today, but only because the Torah forbids us from doing so.  Without a Temple and priesthood, sacrificing is a sin. – Restoration by Daniel Lancaster, p. 173 (emphasis mine)

Caveat: After the destruction of the Temple, the ending of the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, and the disbanding of the Sanhedrin, many of the requirements of the Torah no longer applied.  This FFOZ freely admits, it would be absurd to contend otherwise as these requirements were literally impossible to keep without the priesthood and sacrificial system being in place.  FFOZ does, however, expect animal sacrifices to resume if/when the Temple is rebuilt, to them Jesus’ “metaphorical” death hasn’t changed anything in this regard.  As Lancaster writes, “the Law of God is eternal.” (Restoration, p. 157) {Note: He isn’t saying the Word of God, context makes it clear that he means the Mosaic Law in its entirety is intended to be an eternally operating system.}

This leaves nearly a 40-year period after the resurrection of Jesus Christ when Jesus’ followers could have participated fully in Torah, as he and they had before his death and resurrection, if it had been Jesus’ goal and purpose for them.

However, to do so would have been to trivialize the sacrifice of Christ to the point of sacrilege.

Here’s why: Leviticus 4:1-2 says this,

The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands…

The rest of the chapter outlines the required animal sacrifice.  In the case of an unintentional sin by any of the covenant people, the animal was to be a goat or lamb,

29 They are to lay their hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. 30 Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. (Lev. 4:29-30)

This was God’s command to the Israelites given at Mt. Sinai; it would have been absolutely necessary for the Apostles (and the growing number of Christians) if they were fully Torah observant to take part in this particular sacrifice many times during those decades, for each of them would have had numerous unintentional sins on their ledger, so to speak. 

{Remember, however that the Gentiles Christians would have been barred from in-person participation in the Temple system, the physical reminder of their inferiority that kept them from the inner courts of the Temple would have been enforced on pain of death.  See Acts 21:28}

But neither the Jewish Christians nor the Gentile Christian could have made these sacrifices, not if they understood even in rudimentary terms what the sacrifice of Jesus had already accomplished.  The book of Hebrews would not yet have been available to them, but does FFOZ really want us to believe that Jesus’ disciples were this ignorant of what he had accomplished on the Cross up until they read Hebrews?  Or does the testimony of Hebrews that confirms the abrogation of the sacrificial system not count when you’ve already concluded that, “the Law of God is eternal”?

The writer of Hebrews spells this purposeful God-authored change out in detail:

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Hebrews 4:14-16)

The resurrected and ascended Jesus was already the Great High Priest, there was no longer a need for the services of one descended from Aaron.  Why would a follower of the post-resurrection Jesus go to a mere man with a sacrifice?

11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:11-14)

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 11:11-14)

Jesus’ blood had fully and forever paid for the sins of the Apostles, how could they continue to offer that of an animal knowing that they had been washed clean?  The choice was between obeying Torah by repeating sacrifices Jesus had already paid for, or recognizing that his death and resurrection had fundamentally changed the very nature of the sacrificial system by forever eliminating any need for it, and thus changed the Law of Moses itself.

19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:19-22)

Even the Temple itself, while it still stood until the Romans destroyed it, no longer contained the true Most Holy Place, for the very body of Jesus Christ was the true living Temple, the one that he promised would be raised three days after it was destroyed.

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary. (Hebrews 10:18)

It was no longer necessary, the sins of the Apostles, even those they had yet to commit, had already been forgiven.

How then could they be fully Torah observant by offering animal sacrifices without hypocrisy, even sacrilege?  How could Jesus have expected them to remain fully participating in first-century Judaism without continuing in the sacrificial system?

The answer is: They weren’t, nor did Jesus expect them to be.  For Jesus is our Great High Priest, the Holy Temple, the Blood of the Covenant, and the final sacrifice that God ever required.

For convenience this post is also available as a Word document: Did the Apostles fully keep the Torah after Jesus' death and resurrection?

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.

The Early Church Fathers: Condemnation of those claiming the necessity of the Mosaic Law for followers of Jesus Christ

One of the reasons why heresy never dies, apart from the ongoing darkness of the human heart and mind, is that subsequent generations are ignorant that our ancestors in the faith faced substantially the same false teachings, rejected them, and triumphed over those advocating false teachings.  For example: If the modern Church were more familiar with Athanasius I of Alexandria's complete success in refuting Arianism, the Church would have readily recognized this same heresy when it resurfaced in the 19th century among the Jehovah's Witnesses, its people would have shunned this new teaching (even more than they did), and perhaps it would not have established itself to ensnare the unsuspecting as it does to this day.  But I digress, the Church, as a whole, does do a poor job of remembering its history and learning from it (as does humanity as a whole).

Which brings us to the modern heretical ideas gathered under the umbrella of the name: Hebrew Roots Movement.  While this movement has within it much variety, and little to no structure or hierarchy, it shares in general the repetition of the errors of several groups that the Early Church Fathers confronted and whose teachings were rejected as unorthodox by the Church.  One such group was the Ebionites.  The Hebrew Roots Movement and the Ebionites share some theological reasonings and conclusions, but not all.  So why bring them up together?  They both professed the desire/need/requirement for gentile followers of Jesus Christ to embrace the Mosaic Law as part of righteous discipleship.  In as much as the Early Church Fathers addressed this error then, we can apply their wisdom to its modern revival.

The following are among the many relevant excerpts from these writings, with the links to the full PDF so you can examine it further:

Ignatius of Antioch, d - 108 AD, Letter to the Magnesians, chapter 8

Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Here Ignatius, a second generation Christian that traditions says learned directly from the aged Apostle John, states point-blank that living according to the Jewish law, and all that it entails, is proof that a disciple of Jesus Christ has not received grace.  To Ignatius it was clear that trying to live under the Law of Moses, and the grace of faith in Jesus Christ, were incompatible. 

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, chapter 10

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...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. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Two strong statements here, (1) that the Hebrew Roots Movement has it backwards when it claims Christianity must return to its roots in Judaism, rather Ignatius reminds his readers that those living under the Law of Moses were called by John the Baptist, and then Jesus himself, to repent and believe.  It was not business as usual, not simply a reform of Judaism put forth by Jesus, but a new covenant that he came to establish.  Ignatius believed this so strongly that he, (2) declares that Judaism itself, the religious practice built around the Law of Moses, has "come to an end."  {Given the antisemitism that arose long after Ignatius, we need to be reminded that this is a theological statement only regarding the efficacy of New Covenant's ability to abrogate the Old , NOT a call to deny the religious rights of those who choose to follow Judaism in our world today, something we should all be willing to strive to protect.}

Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 10

“Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?...{Trypho's criticism of Christianity:} "But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God." {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: In Justin Martyr's dialogue with the Jewish apologist Trypho (most likely a fictionalized version of those with whom the author had spoken), we see clearly that Justin Martyr is portraying Christianity, then in only its second generation, with many leaders who had learned directly from the eyewitness Apostles themselves, as having nothing to do with the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses (Sabbath keeping, circumcision, festivals).  Trypho goes so far as to claim that the Christians "despised" the Mosaic covenant and rejected all the duties it entails.  IF (it isn't true, but for the sake of the hypothetical) as the Hebrew Roots Movement claims, the Early Church practiced Judaism by the design and purpose of Jesus and the Apostles, it didn't last long {there is no evidence they ever did}, by the second generation the line between Christianity and Judaism was clearly drawn, the rejection of the Law of Moses for gentile believers firmly established in the surviving documentation. {FYI, the Hebrew Roots Movement often claims that this 'change' occurred only much later under Emperor Constantine, 200 years after Justin Martyr, a position that is absurd on its face.}

Epistle to Diognetus (author unknown), 130 AD, chapters 3-4

But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,–I do not think that you require to learn anything from me. For, to accept some of those things which have been formed by God for the use of men as properly formed, and to reject others as useless and redundant,–how can this be lawful? And to speak falsely of God, as if He forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days,–how is not this impious? And to glory in the circumcision of the flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by God,–how is it not a subject of ridicule? And as to their observing months and days, as if waiting upon the stars and the moon, and their distributing, according to their own tendencies, the appointments of God, and the vicissitudes of the seasons, some for festivities, and others for mourning,–who would deem this a part of divine worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly? {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: This letter's unknown author considered the very idea that Christians should concern themselves with the kinds of things that Paul wrote against in Galatians to be, "utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice".

Irenaeus, 130-202 AD, Bishop of Lyon: Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) chapter 26

Chapter XXVI.—Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes. (pg. 73 on the PDF)

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions

with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel

according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate

from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular

manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined

by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the

house of God. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Irenaeus here writes against the Ebionites, a sect he most strongly rejected as heretical, describing among their various flaws the, "observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law".  To Irenaeus, that the Ebionites claimed to be following Jesus Christ while still living a lifestyle of Judaism, was at the heart of why they should be opposed.

Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), book 4, chapter 13

as He does Himself declare: “Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command—namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them—is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.

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

4. Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us and to them (the Jews), they had in them indeed the beginning and origin; but in us they have received growth and completion. For to yield assent to God, and to follow His Word, and to love Him above all, and one’s neighbour as one’s self (now man is neighbour to man), and to abstain from every evil deed, and all other things of a like nature which are common to both [covenants], do reveal one and the same God. But this is our Lord, the Word of God, who in the first instance certainly drew slaves to God, but afterwards He set those free who were subject to Him, as He does Himself declare to His disciples: “I will not now call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things which I have heard from My Father I have made known.” For in that which He says, “I will not now call you servants,” He indicates in the most marked manner that it was Himself who did originally appoint for men that bondage with respect to God through the law, and then afterwards conferred upon them freedom. And in that He says, “For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth,” He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Here Irenaeus offers the rationale as to why the Mosaic Law must be rejected as incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ: Jesus fulfilled the Law, setting us free from it to live according to the Spirit.  After Pentecost, we don't NEED the Law's tutelage anymore.

Tertullian, 155-220 AD, An Answer to the Jews, chapter 2

For why should God, the founder of the universe, the Governor of the whole world, the Fashioner of humanity, the Sower of universal nations be believed to have given a law through Moses to one people, and not be said to have assigned it to all nations? For unless He had given it to all by no means would He have habitually permitted even proselytes out of the nations to have access to it. But—as is congruous with the goodness of God, and with His equity, as the Fashioner of mankind—He gave to all nations the selfsame law, which at definite and stated times He enjoined should be observed, when He willed, and through whom He willed, and as He willed...For the subsequent superinduction of a law is the work of the same Being who had before premised a precept; since it is His province withal subsequently to train, who had before resolved to form, righteous creatures. For what wonder if He extends a discipline who institutes it? if He advances who begins?...And let us not annul this power which God has, which reforms the law’s precepts answerably to the circumstances of the times, with a view to man’s salvation. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Tertullian answers an objection offered by the Hebrew Roots Movement in their claim that the Mosaic Law is permanent.  Is God not God?  Cannot he who instituted the Law also reform it and then declare it fulfilled?  Cannot God give a new and better way according to his purpose and wisdom?  The giving of the Law of Moses at Sinai is not a straightjacket limiting God's will moving forward.

Origen, 185-253 AD, Contra Celsum, Book 2, chapter 4

Now, certainly the introduction to Christianity is through the Mosaic worship and the prophetic writings; and after the introduction, it is in the interpretation and explanation of these that progress takes place, while those who are introduced prosecute their investigations into the mystery according to revelation, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest in the Scriptures of the prophets, and by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they who advance in the knowledge of Christianity do not, as you allege, treat the things written in the law with disrespect. On the contrary, they bestow upon them greater honour, showing what a depth of wise and mysterious reasons is contained in these writings, which are not fully comprehended by the Jews, who treat them superficially, and as if they were in some degree even fabulous. And what absurdity should there be in our system — that is, the Gospel— having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus Himself said to those who would not believe upon Him: If you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My words? Nay, even one of the evangelists— Mark — says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You, which shows that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings. What force, then, is there in the objection of the Jew of Celsus, that if any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God? Or how is it a charge against Christianity, that John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For although He was a Jew, it does not follow that every believer, whether a convert from heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal obedience to the law of Moses. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Here Origen counters yet another false narrative leveled against Christianity by the Hebrew Roots Movement: Christianity, in its orthodox form, disrespects the Law.  Origen dismisses this charge, rightly proclaiming the value of God's work prior to the Incarnation, and at the same time, rejecting the notion that acknowledging the debt that Christianity owes to Judaism (as Paul does in Romans) in any way obligates Christians to obey the Law of Moses.

Eusebius, d 339 AD, Church Historian: Church History, volume III, chapter 27

Chapter 27. The Heresy of the Ebionites.

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.

{Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Here the great historian of the Early Church, Eusebius, writes about the Ebionites, once more detailing their desire to live in adherence to the Mosaic Law, a stance that was rejected in the generations before Eusebius wrote of it.

In the end, there is a vast host of Early Church commentary related to the subject of the Law of Moses.  Looking across the breadth and depth of it, one would search in vain to find orthodox voices in support of anything resembling the notion put forth (to varying degrees) by those within the Hebrew Roots Movement, that the Mosaic Law has any kind of claim to obedience upon the gentile followers of Jesus Christ.  If we did not have available to us the wisdom of the Early Church Fathers to illuminate how they practiced their faith, that the Hebrew Roots Movement is dangerously wrong on this issue could still more than sufficiently be demonstrated from the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the letters of the New Testament itself.  We have enough internal evidence, from God's Word, to close the case, the external evidence from Early Church history is to us an added layer of certainty, demonstrating that our interpretation of scripture is in alignment with that of our ancestors in the faith.  The Early Church sounded rejected the notion, put forth by various sects they rightly deemed heretical, that followers of Jesus Christ are in any way obligated to live under the Law of Moses.

Additional Resources:

earlychristiancommentary.com

christianhistory.org

What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History - Part 1 of 3, The Early Church to St. Augustine

In this 3 part series, Pastor Powell seeks to highlight some of the most important ideas, people, and movements within the universal Church during its two-thousand year history.

In part 1, the Early Church, the Early heresies regarding the person of Jesus, the Ecumenical Councils, and St. Augustine are the focus.

There is no Christian justification for preparing to kill agents of your own government

 

For years I have been disturbed to hear again and again from those who claim to be Christians, or representing a Christian background, that they need various weapons, armor, and technology to defend themselves against the government of the United States.  In essence, they are saying that they need to be capable of killing representatives of the government if/when 'they' are threatened in some way by them.  It shocks my how casually people contemplate killing police officers, FBI agents, even members of the American military over issues of taxation, land use, various rules and regulations.  The thing is, there is ZERO theological justification for this attitude in the Christian Worldview.  Sadly, rather than leaning toward pacifism and making violence a resort only of protecting the weak against the strong, the Church for much of its history has tended toward militance and only used non-violence as a fallback position.  The passive resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement should have been a tried and true tactic of Christian efforts to achieve Justice rather than an aberration, it should have had precedents going back to the Early Church which was non-violent, but it did not.

The Apostle Paul led a Church that faced an increasingly hostile Roman Empire, a government more powerful compared to its contemporaries and those living within it than the American government is to its citizens, and far more willing to use violence against those people, even enslaving more than a third of them.  And yet, one looks in vain in Paul's voluminous letters for any hint that Christians should be gathering weapons and preparing to kill Roman administrators and soldiers.  If any group of Christians were going to be told to 'fight fire with fire' and 'kill in Christ's name' it would have been those who would soon face the lions in the arena, but they were not.  What command, from God, did Paul offer to them?

Romans 12:14 (NIV) Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Romans 12:17-21 (NIV) Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Where is the militant attitude?  Where is the warning to prepare to fight?  The Word of God commands Christians to do the opposite from what large numbers of Americans who profess to be Christians have, by word and deed, declared their intention to do.  This is not an esoteric point of theological debate, but a core tenant of the Christian understanding of our world and our role in it.  God is the Judge, God is solely responsible (with governments deputized to protect the innocent as stewards, see Romans 13) for violence (wrath).  We, as Christians, have no legitimate reason to 'take matters into our own hands'.  When we do so, we demonstrate a lack of faith in God's sovereignty, in God's promise to reward good and punish evil, and in our commitment to judge the next life as more important than this one.  In other words, when Christians become militant, individually or collectively, embracing violence as a means to an end, they abandon the heart and soul of faith, choosing power in this life over devotion to the next.

It isn't just Paul whose words we should be following, Paul is but echoing Jesus when he told the Roman Christians, living in the very heart of the Empire that would soon be persecuting them, to "overcome evil with good."

Matthew 5:38-48 (NIV) “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

How do we go from this radical teaching of Jesus that flies in the face of our default human attitude, to "I need a stockpile of guns, ammunition, and body armor to protect myself against the government"?  Where is the love of our enemy? {Side note: that the American Government is 'the enemy' worthy of a violent response is itself a frightening thought}  Where is the willingness to sacrifice rather than respond with violence?

That our nation has those living in it so opposed to its laws that they would be willing to kill rather than follow them is nothing new, nor is it terribly surprising, most nations have at least some people violently opposed to the society they live in.  What is shocking, disturbing, and another sign of an unhealthy Church, is how little pushback is given to self-professed Christians who fall into this camp.  This is not a call for unthinking acceptance of any and all governmental policies.  In fact, the non-violent protests of the Civil Rights Movement illustrate how one can combine a Christian passion for Justice with a Christian ethic of loving one's enemy.  It is, however, a warning that the path of militancy, in the name of Christ, is stain upon the Bride of Christ, a detriment to Gospel witness, and a direct violation of the Word of God.

Thou shalt not murder is still in the Ten Commandments, being upset at the government in no way erases what God has written.

Your stockpile of weapons is a refutation of your claim to be living by faith.

The Mark of the Beast isn't what you think.

1. The Early Church context of the Mark were certificates attesting to worship of the emperor.
In 249, Trajan Decius seized the throne of Rome.  He believed that the empire's troubles were caused by the neglect of the old gods (traditional religion was in steep decline, in contrast to the growth of Christianity and Mithraism).  "For Decius the solution was simple: enforce sacrifices on every citizen, man, woman and child, or at least the head of a household in the name of all of its members...It was obvious that the group which had most systematically avoided sacrifices in the empire was the Christians, and the confrontation which now took place turned a pitiless spotlight on an intransigence which had often previously been unobtrusive.  In 250 the new imperial policy was implemented with bureaucratic efficiency.  Those who sacrificed were issued with certificates of proof, some of which have been preserved for us in the rubbish pits and desert sands of Egypt.  The order was coupled with punishment, usually imprisonment but in some cases death, for those who refused.  Two later emperors, Trebonianus Gallus and Valerian, revived the policy in 252 and 257." (Christianity The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch, p. 173, emphasis mine.)
The generation who first received John's Apocalypse did not yet face such a stark choice, and persecution was localized not empire-wide for several generations, but the pressure to worship other gods (and the emperor as a god) already existed, both social and governmental.  The historical context points to a very strong connection to public false worship as the key element.

2. There is a long list of things that turned out to NOT be the Mark of the Beast.
Social Security numbers, bar codes, credit cards, cell phones, RFID tags, and now an upcoming COVID-19 vaccine have all been viewed, by some, as The Mark.  There's just one problem, each in turn has proven to be a false alarm, as will the current identification related to a potential vaccine, because none of them were connected to false worship (#3).  In addition, there will only be one period in history with a Mark of the Beast, and that will be the one where the events of Revelation are unfolding, without those clear and obvious precursors, there will be no Mark.  In case you're wondering, "Are those events already happening?"  The answer is no.  Whatever the correct interpretation of John's vision may be, it won't be ordinary history.  Life on this planet proceeds as it has for millenia, when they begin to occur, the Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls of Revelation will not exactly sneak up on anyone.

3. Every use of the term in Revelation is connected to worship of the Beast (false worship), thus it is a sign of chosen behavior, not an unwitting trap.
In the 4 passages below, Revelation 13:11-18, 16:2, 19:20-21, and 20:4, the Mark of the Beast is specifically connected to false worship.  Those who refuse to receive the Mark also refuse to worship the Beast, those who receive it also worship.  The overall picture of the Mark is not one of accidental acceptance or trickery.  The choice presented to the people is clear: Worship the Beast or be cut off from commerce/killed.  Note: This is the same choice faced by the Early Church.  There will be no accidental acceptance of the Mark (whether or not it is literal or figurative), only a conscious choice between one side or the other in the final showdown between God and all that oppose his will.

4. Those in Christ already have the Mark of the Lamb, and cannot belong to another.
One of the things that baffles me about the ongoing fear of a potential Mark of the Beast among Christians is that those who are in Christ are the only ones with nothing to fear from this future either/or choice.  Why?  We've already made our choice.  Those who are in Christ have already been sealed with the Holy Spirit, and cannot belong to another. {Ephesians 1:13 New International Version (NIV) And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit}.  In Romans 8, the Apostle Paul lists all the things that might possibly separate us from the love of God, only to reject them all as impotent compared to our designation as God's children.  What God has begun in us, he will finish.  So, why are some Christians afraid of being duped into accepting the Mark of the Beast?  The answers probably vary, but one of them is likely to be a lack of understanding about the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. 

So, unless the COVID-19 vaccine is only given to those willing to publicly worship someone who claims to have been healed from a fatal wound (Rev. 13:12) as an alternative to adherence to Jesus Christ, it is not, nor can it be, the Mark of the Beast.


Revelation 13:11-18 New International Version (NIV)
11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.

Revelation 16:2 New International Version (NIV)

2 The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.

Revelation 19:20-21 New International Version (NIV)

20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Revelation 20:4 New International Version (NIV)

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Revelation 7:3-4 New International Version (NIV)

3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Revelation 14:1 New International Version (NIV)

14 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.

Sermon Video: Wolves in Sheep's clothing - 2 John 7-13

Having established the need for the Christian community to be united by love in the truth of the Gospel (in vs. 1-6), the Apostle John concludes his short letter with a serious warning about the danger of heretics/apostates who have abandoned that truth and who now expound a different, lesser, version of Jesus Christ.  In the first century, that lesser version was typically a denial of the humanity of Jesus (Docetism, a manifestation of Greek Gnosticism), only different in its choice of what to reject from the account of the Apostles in the Scriptures than the post-modern materialistic denial of the deity of Jesus (often as part of an overall denial of the spiritual realm in its entirety).  However it comes about, such a rejection of the Gospel, for rejection it is indeed when the foundation of who Jesus is has been abandoned, cannot be tolerated in the Church.  John goes so far as to insist that these false teachers be denied even a shared meal, lest their teachings infect others and lead them astray.  Without opening ourselves up to the over-reaction of judgmental legalism (ostracism and denying fellowship over non-foundation matters), we must then follow suit and likewise protect the purity of the Gospel for the next generation, just as those Christians to whom John wrote protected it for their children, and on and on until it came to us.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Start at the beginning - Love one another, 2 John 1-6

Abbreviating themes he developed further in 1 John, the Apostle writes to another church he founded of the need to "love in the truth", as he links the truth about Jesus Christ with the command from God that we "love one another".  How do we know that we're living in love?  We obey the commands of God.  This, in a nutshell, is John's message of the foundation of the Church, its core and functionality.  The linking of truth and love is no mere happenstance, but a deliberate emphasis.  Truth without love is sterile and dead, love without truth is purposeless; the people of the Church very much need both.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The challenge of being salt and light - Matthew 5:13-16

Matthew 5:13-16 New International Version (NIV)
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

The Church is made up of people attempting to be disciples of Jesus Christ.  It is made up of people who have been called from a state of living in darkness, who have been introduced to the light of the Gospel (the Good News of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on their behalf), and who by the power of the Gospel (through the Holy Spirit) have been transformed in their hearts and minds.  It is the will of God that those people, set free from bondage to sin, but not yet fully transformed to Christ-likeness, should remain living upon the earth to act as the "salt and light" that Jesus commanded them to be.  This is where it gets difficult.  Exactly how these redeemed, but not yet fully sanctified, disciples of Jesus can remain pure (salt) and at the same time live and minister in a world that remains dark (where they are to be a light) does not have a one-size-fits-all answer.
One option that has been tried from time to time in Church history has been that of withdrawal from society.  Beginning in the Early Church with hermits who literally withdrew to lonely places to avoid much of human contact, or even the Stylites ("pillar-dwellers" primarily in Syria) who lived at the top of stone pillars, to the later development of Monasticism where those living withdrawn from society did so in a community of like-minded people.  Without downplaying the importance of the monastic system for preserving knowledge from the Fall of Rome until the Renaissance, none of these attempted solutions were full answers to the command of Jesus, for while they may have been helpful in preserving purity (saltiness) they were at best only partly effective in sharing the Gospel with the Lost (being light).  If you withdraw from society, you may cut down on its ability to influence you toward immorality, but how can you influence it toward righteousness.  The same holds true for interactions with individual people, much of our potential sin involves interacting with other people, and so avoiding people might lead to less sin, but at the same time, most of our potential for righteous deeds involves interactions with other people, and curtailing those interactions will decrease righteousness as well.
Because withdrawal can, at best, only be a half or partial measure, the heart of the matter is how Christians can remain on the path of increasing Christ-likeness, thus preserving their saltiness, while at the same time engaging with the culture and people among whom they live so that their light will shine in the darkness.  The first step for any individual Christian in his/her need to be both "salt" and "light" is for that individual to not attempt the task as merely an individual Christian.  Like the Apostles that Jesus called to be in a community with him, and the other men and women who followed his ministry, Christians of every era, no matter how hostile or cooperative the culture they live in, need to be a part of something more substantial and more stable than anything they can do on their own.  The community created by Jesus, specifically for that purpose, is the Church.
How then does the Church help individual Christians retain their "saltiness" and enable their "light" to shine?  The purity (moral character) of individual Christians is enhanced and strengthened when they interact regularly with each other in community worship, prayer, service, and mentoring relationships.  It is easier to accomplish a difficult task, and rejecting sinful impulses to embrace a servant's heart of righteous self-sacrifice certainly qualifies as a difficult task, when attempting that task as part of a team.  Having other Christians by your side, to serve as both examples of how victory is possible, and to correct us when we go astray, is a boon whose worth cannot be calculated.  In addition, our ability to be a light in our community, to witness to the truth of the Gospel, is also enhanced by our connection to the community of believers.  One candle shining in the darkness will draw attention, yet it is difficult for that one light to sufficiently illuminate the way for others, but dozens of people holding lit candles will function more as a lighthouse or beacon.  For example: When a Christian participates in a ministry of the local church to which he/she belongs, like volunteering at a food pantry that the church runs, he/she not only gains valuable character shaping experience, but also is participating in an outreach effort that demonstrates to the Lost the love of God for them reflected in the love of God's people for them.
We don't expect all of our interactions as a Christian to be connected to our Church, at work and with our family and friends we will often be apart from the support and group effort of that community, but having the local church as one of the most significant aspects of our lives will absolutely make it easier for us to continue to be "salt" and "light" in those instances as well.

How important is your church community in your life?

How important is it to you to be in church on Sunday, to worship, pray, learn, and serve with God's people?

If you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you are commanded to be "salt" and "light", it is not optional, to accomplish that task you need to be a part of the community that Jesus created.

Sermon Video: Women should be silent? 1 Corinthians 14:29-35

As the Apostle Paul continues to explain the need for peace, not disorder, in the Church, he emphasizes that when the Word of God is shared, the audience ought to weigh carefully what is said.  In addition, Paul makes it clear that only one should speak at a time, emphasizing that the Church is not intended to be led by one voice only, and that those who prophecy need to exercise self-control.
At this point, the controversial portion of Paul's teaching occurs, the phrase, "as in all the congregations of the Lord's people" either ends the sentence, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" or starts the sentence that ends, "women should remain silent in the churches."  As the original Greek contains no punctuation (including paragraph divisions), it is an interpreters choice whether that added emphasis belongs to the need for order or the call for women to be silent.  In addition, it is an open question whether or not Paul's instructions here regarding women are timeless or time-bound.  In other words, are they intended to be instructions for all churches, at all times, in all places, or are they instructions for the 1st century Greco-Roman churches.  Is it necessary for order for women always to be silent or simply in the cultural setting of the Early Church?  The majority of the disagreement about this passage (and similar instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12) can be seen through the timeless vs. time-bound debate, one that God-honoring people end up on both sides of.
Whatever one concludes about Paul's words here (for them and us, or them and not us) it is crucial that we keep central the Bible's (and thus God's) high view of the purpose and role of women.  Their absolute equality in relation to the Gospel, and crucial contribution to the health and vitality of every church, regardless of how that role is exactly defined.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Many gifts, one Spirit - 1 Corinthians 12:4-11

As he introduces ten gifts given by the Holy Spirit to benefit the Church, Paul emphasizes that while they may look different, they are all given at the discretion of the Spirit for the same purpose: the common good.  Given this, the Church requires the contributions of numerous people who have received those blessings from God, working together and sharing responsibility, for the sake of the Gospel mission.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: In Remembrance of Jesus - 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

In his effort to reform the way in which the church at Corinth was participating in the Lord's Supper, the Apostle Paul reminds them that his instructions were received, "from the Lord" and then passed directly onto them.  The Early Church greatly valued Apostolic Authority, the teachings that were received directly from Jesus and then passed on to the Church during its first generation.  It was this teaching that was then incorporated into the Scriptures, nearly all of which had an apostolic author or someone closely associated with an apostle (i.e. like Mark with Peter).  For the Church this connection to Jesus is crucial, providing confidence in what we believe and teach.
What Paul received from Jesus regarding Communion was simple enough: (1) Jesus gave thanks, (2) acknowledged that his body would be broken and blood shed, (3) and then distributed it to his disciples to partake.  Our task, as the Church, while not spelled out in great detail by Paul, is still simple: do likewise.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: When Church does more harm than good - 1 Corinthians 11:17-22

I spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince people of their need to be a part of a church.  I know the absolute necessity of participation in the body of Christ, both for Christians and potential converts.  And yet, we all know that there are times when a particular church is doing more harm than good when it meets on Sunday.  Our first thought would revolve around places where heresy is being preached, where the Truth is absent, and thus people are being led astray from the Gospel.  The Apostle Paul certainly has harsh words for such people/places, but in this particular passage it is not theology but behavior that concerns Paul, and not that during the church service itself but rather at the meal which proceeded it at the church of Corinth.  That's right, it was the church potluck which threatened to tear asunder a church.  How can a communal meal be the source of such divisions?  At Corinth the rich were treating the meal as a private affair, bringing fine food for themselves and not sharing, while the poor went hungry.  In other words, they were acting as if the people whom they were outside of the Church had anything to do with who they were in Christ (as if wealth/class matter before God).  In doing so, the worship service that followed this travesty was in effect null and void; the gathering together of God's people for worship was doing more harm than good.
Are we, as a church (or Church) in any way guilty of such sacrilege?

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The Church's responsibility: evangelism and transforming discipleship

One of the numerous misconceptions about the Church, coming from both those outside of it and those within, is that the Church is a place where those who are already righteous (upright morally) come together.  This is not a new issue, the Early Church struggled with the question of whether or not the Church was intended to be a place for only saints to gather, or a place where both saints and sinners (i.e. those already redeemed/saved and those who had not yet committed themselves to Christ) together sought the kingdom of God.  Following the persecution instituted by Emperor Diocletian (AD 303-305, during which 1/2 of all those martyred prior to Constantine were killed); those who had resisted and risked their lives rejected as unworthy of being a part of the Church those who had capitulated in order to save themselves.  The courageous 'confessors' chose their own bishop, Donatus Magnus (see: Donatism), believing that only a bishop could forgive such a grave sin as 'lapsing' in the face of persecution, and that only a faultless clergy could administer valid sacraments.  In the end, the North African Church was split in two, never to heal, despite the attempts of two councils, the use of Constantine's soldiers to try to force a reunion, and even the power of St. Augustine's persuasion arguing that the Church was not supposed to consist of only of those who are already pure, but of those who long to be pure.
The Church was intended, by its founder Jesus, to be a place where both evangelism and discipleship take place concurrently side by side.  As a Church it is our responsibility to both share the Gospel with those who do not yet believe, and to help those who have committed themselves to following Jesus in their transformation process from someone dominated by sin to someone overflowing with the fruit of the Spirit.  Thus a healthy church will contain both those who are, hopefully, being called by the Spirit of God to accept the Gospel, and those who are being led by the Spirit of God to more and more closely adhere to the example and teachings of Jesus.  If a local church, or a denomination, fails to attempt/accomplish either task, the results will be grim.  A church without new converts is a church whose days are numbered, it may be a great place of fellowship, and excel at making disciples of those already there, but when they grow old and die, what then?  Likewise, a church that excels in "winning souls" through evangelism, but fails/neglects to disciple these converts, will result in a people of shallow faith where immorality is tolerated and the fruit of the Spirit in short supply.
It isn't easy for a local church, especially a small church with a bi-vocational pastor, or perhaps with a jack-of-all-trades solo pastor, to hit home runs in both evangelism and discipleship.  In my experience, most of them are better at discipleship than evangelism, better working with the people they already have than the people outside their doors.  Conversely, one of the criticisms of mega-churches is that due to their size it is easier for the numerous converts (certainly a good thing) to slip through the cracks, even with a large staff and small-group programs.  All churches have strengths and weaknesses, specialties and deficiencies in their ministries, but all are equally called by God to both bring lost sinners home and work to transform those redeemed by the blood of the Lamb into practitioners of righteousness.  We must share the Gospel, we must welcome outsiders and seek them out, and we must take the moral obligations of our people seriously, striving against both sins of commission and omission.  The challenge is immense, the kind of thing that keeps pastors up at night, the obstacles are plentiful and diverse, but the task once it is being accomplished it certainly worth whatever we put into it, and more.  Imagine a local church where new people are coming to Christ on a regular basis, where both those who have recently come to Christ and those who have journeyed with him for decades are encouraged and aided toward ever increasing Christ-likeness through righteous living and acts of service to others.  Nearly every pastor wants that for his congregation, books and workshops on how to achieve it are legion, the Spirit that makes it possible is willing.  Let us pray that we may be worthy of this high calling, my church and myself included.

Christian Antisemitism: An utterly absurd oxymoron

Tension between Judaism and Christianity goes back to the generation of Jesus and the Apostles.  John the Baptist was accepted as a prophet by the followers of Christ, but rejected by the official leadership of Judaism in Jerusalem.  Likewise, Jesus himself, although like John receiving support from the masses, was rejected by all but a few in the hierarchy of Judaism, a group that was the focus of much of Jesus' ire in his preaching.  In the Early Church, first centered in Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus' half-brother James, and peopled almost entirely by converts from Judaism (who considered themselves to be reformers of Judaism, not founders of a new religion), there was also tension with the leadership of Judaism which led to the first Christian martyr after Jesus: Stephen. 
The Early Church might have retained a strong connection to Judaism if not for two later developments: the massive success of the Apostle Paul among Gentiles (and concurrent failure among his own people, leading to the anguished thoughts of Romans 9-11, excerpted below), and the destruction of Jerusalem leading to the end of 2nd Temple Judaism and the Diaspora.  As the first generation of the Church came to a close, the organization took on a distinctly Gentile character, and its Jewish origins faded into the background.
Animosity and hostility toward the Jewish minority in what was to become Christendom was not non-existent, but it was never widespread on the level that would become the later pogroms, forced conversions by the Inquisition, and then ultimately genocide at the hands of the Nazis until the Late Middle Ages.  In 1096, in response to Pope Urban II's call for a Crusade to recapture the Holy Land, Peter the Hermit, who raised an army in the Rhineland, perpetuated there the first large scale massacre of Jews by Christians.  To the shame of the Church, this trend has continued to this day, and while few are alive who witnessed the Holocaust, the scourge of Antisemitism residing within those claiming to be a part of the Church remains.

This is, of course, a patent absurdity.  There is no such thing as Christian Antisemitism.  There are those who claim to be Christian who espouse Antisemitism, and there may be those who are indeed Christians whose minds are still infected with Antisemitism, but the two mindsets are diametrically opposed to each other.  In the end, the mind of Christ will prevail, and hate will be banished, or the true un-regenerated nature of those claiming to follow Christ will be revealed and their ongoing hatred will refute any pretense of being a Christ-follower.

There is, and must be, a gap between Christianity and Judaism (as long as one accepts and the other rejects Jesus as the Messiah), but that gap ought to elicit sorrow and compassion on the part of Christians, as it did for the Apostle Paul, and not prejudice or hatred.  We have, as Christians, an undeniable debt toward Judaism, for our New Covenant and New Testament are built upon the Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenant and the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is incumbent upon Christians, always and everywhere, not as an option but an obligation, to reject Antisemitism in both its violent forms and its more subtle conspiracy theories and racial stereotypes, those who fail to do so are doing a disservice to the Gospel, and those who instead embrace them by their attitudes/words/actions are declaring themselves to be fighting against the Word of God, and calling into question their own salvation.

That the Church has failed to live up to the demands of Scripture by allowing Antisemitism to fester and even thrive in its midst, and that the people associated with the Church have been either bystanders to, or complicit in, the brutalization of the Jewish people and eventually their genocide, is the greatest shame and most enduring stain upon the Bride of Christ.  We, collectively, over the past 2,000 years, have failed in this, we will answer to God for that failure, for Christian Antisemitism is an abomination.

Romans 9:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Romans 11:1-6 New International Version (NIV)

11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 11:11-24 New International Version (NIV)
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History

Church History
In this 3 part series, Pastor Powell seeks to highlight some of the most important ideas, people, and movements within the universal Church during its two-thousand year history.  

To view the PowerPoint used by Pastor Powell during the presentation, click on the link below:

Church History PowerPoint

In part 1, the Early Church, the Early heresies regarding the person of Jesus, the Ecumenical Councils, and St. Augustine are the focus.

Church History, Part 1 of 3

In part 2, Monasticism, the power struggle between popes and emperors/kings, the Great Schism, and the Crusades are discussed.

Church History, Part 2 of 3

In part 3, The Reformation, the Thirty Years War, the Modern Missions Movement, and the status of the Church in the World Today are discussed.

Church History, Part 3 of 3

Sermon Video: Completing the work of the Lord - Colossians 4:7-18

As Paul finishes his letter to the church at Colossae, sending greetings and vouching for those accompanying the letter, a pattern emerges that enlightens us about the Early Church: Paul had a lot of help.  The Apostle Paul may get most of the limelight, and the average Christian may know about his inner circle of helpers like Silas, Luke, and Timothy, but the team that was required to support the ambitious Gospel mission of Paul was far larger and more capable than most people realize.  For us, then, as a modern Church with paid staff leadership in varying configurations, the lesson from Paul's reliance upon a network of helpers is simple: Don't forget the laity.  If we are to be the Church that Christ has called us to be, we need a wide and deep level of involvement from the people sitting in the pews on Sunday.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Paul tries to make peace with his critics - Acts 21:15-26

Having returned to Jerusalem, the Apostle Paul finds renewed controversy there as false rumors being spread about him have antagonized the Jewish Christian community against his work among the Gentiles.  In response, James encourages Paul to make a public demonstration of his own ongoing personal commitment to the Law of Moses by sponsoring the completion of the Nazarite vows of several of his fellow Jewish Christians.  Despite having done nothing wrong, Paul accepts this advice and takes on the sponsorship expense in order to foster peace within the Church.  In the end, it will be a futile attempt, as fresh lies against Paul will result in his arrest, but the willingness of Paul to act as a peacemaker is an example of the humility required of a servant of the kingdom, and of the sacrifices that may prove necessary to preserve unity within the Church.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Lord's Will Be Done - Acts 21:1-14

As Paul finally approaches his destination of Jerusalem, both those traveling with him and those fellow disciples of Christ whom he meets at each stop, urge Paul to abort his trip and not go to Jerusalem.  Despite these significant warnings, one from a known prophet of the Lord, Paul insists that he must continue onward.  Paul had already accepted that his life was in danger, and that the cost of his discipleship might be imprisonment, or even death.  It was not that Paul didn't care about the risks, he simply considered his mission for the Kingdom of God to be of surpassing importance, even surpassing his own life.  And what was that mission?  To meld together the Jewish and Gentile Christians into one Church by bringing the famine relief offering from the Gentile churches to Jerusalem in person.  In the end, Paul's hope was a forlorn one, the Jewish revolt was only a few years away and Jerusalem itself would soon be destroyed by the Romans, but to Paul it was a cause worth dying for, if need be, for like his Savior, Paul lived by the rule, "the Lord's will be done."

To watch the video, click on the link below: