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?

Sermon Video: The Competency of God's People - Romans 15:14-16

 

Are you an optimist or a pessimist about the Church's future?  No matter what generation or geographic location that question is asked in, scripture itself gives ample reasons for more than optimism, it offers certainty.  Romans 15:14-16 is one such example, in it the Apostle Paul tells the church(es) at Rome that he has full confidence in their goodness, knowledge, and competency to teach each other.  This confidence flows from: (1) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is common to all believers in Jesus, (2) the sufficiency of scripture for our faith and practice, and (3) the priesthood of all believers which enable each of us to approach the throne of grace on an equal footing, all equally heard by God and all equally capable of serving the Kingdom of God.  As Baptists, we take these truths and find two connected implications: (1) Freedom of Conscience (aka Soul Liberty) and (2) the autonomy of the local church.  Both ideas flow directly from the competency that we have because of the work that God has begun in our lives and our faith in God's promise to complete that process of transformation.

The difference between self-sorting and self-preservation: Why people choose to leave a church is important

 

An interesting thing happened to me two Sundays ago that has been gnawing at my mind since.  As I always try to do when we have visitors join us for worship, I spoke with a new family in the brief moments before church was to begin.  They were, like so many individuals and families that had joined us for a week, or two, in recent years, looking for a new church home.  Other than visitors from out-of-town, and those who join us of their own accord without a previous church background (an answer to prayer!), most of those who seek a new church are doing so because of something that was amiss where they had previously attended.

Given that this happens fairly regularly, and that some of these new folk will stick around while others will keep looking, my brief conversation with this family wouldn't have stuck in my mind if I didn't have a pertinent section in my sermon on Romans 15:1-6 that I had actually written in as an addition that very morning when I was reviewing my message:

"A quick note, the current habit of Christians self-sorting into homogenous local churches which only contain people who look, act, and think like they already do is in part an attempt to avoid this hard work of self-transformation and discipleship, and thus inherently an unhealthy development in the Church as a whole.  Given modern mobility and technology it will not be easy to overcome the tendency of most people to seek out a church primarily on the criteria of being 'comfortable' there."

At that point in the sermon I added an ad-lib to the effect that the people here in this congregation don't need to agree with me on everything, especially the cultural and political issues of the day (about which most wouldn't know if they agree with me or not given my reluctance to speak publicly on them, as I've noted over the years).

Without sharing the particulars of why that one family had joined us a few weeks ago, I knew it wasn't because they were avoiding the challenges of discipleship by seeking out a homogenous church community.

But, as pastors often do when they realize that a portion of their sermon touches directly on the life of someone sitting in the pew, I hope I wasn't misunderstood, I hope it didn't feel like I was aiming those words in their direction. 

{FYI, 95% of the time the whole, "He's talking about me in the sermon!" phenomenon is the thought of the person in the pew not the intention of the person behind the pulpit.  After writing and delivering more than 750 sermons, I can honestly say that it has never occurred to me to aim what I'm writing at one individual or family, that's just not how the sausage is made.}

Here's why I hope I wasn't misunderstood: There is indeed a big difference between those who seek out a "comfortable" church where they won't be challenged in their beliefs and attitudes, and those who seek out a healthy church where they will be discipled and asked to serve.  

It isn't an easy decision to leave a church, at least it shouldn't be, even if that church has become an unhealthy, even a toxic place.  To leave feels like giving up, like conceding that you don't see much hope of things changing anytime soon.  Honestly, this topic ought to feel different to single people than to parents.  I may feel confident that I can protect myself from negativity in a church that has grown unhealthy and still be a positive influence on those around me, but taking that risk on behalf of your kids is no small thing.  Honestly, I wouldn't let my kid be a part of a church overflowing with the hatreds of "Christian" Nationalism or the materialism of the Prosperity Gospel, to give two common examples, even if I felt called to stay there myself and try to make a difference.  

In the end, I'm not in the business of "sheep stealing."  If people come to our doors because there is a problem (real or imagined) with the place they previously worshiped, we will welcome them with kindness no questions asked, that goes without saying.  Maybe God is leading them here, maybe he isn't, I'm certainly not in a position to judge that matter for them.  If where they were previously wasn't a healthy church, for whatever reason, they will be welcome among us, and hopefully they will find God's presence and the challenge of discipleship in our midst.  But I'm not trying to grow this church on the back of disgruntled Methodists (sadly a numerous bunch in our county given recent events), disillusioned Presbyterians, or angry Catholics.  What I hope for, and what all of the clergy I've known and worked with in this community for more than a decade likewise hope for, is a collective Church in our community that allows those who don't know Jesus to see glimpses of him in us.  What I hope for, and so do my fellow pastors, is that we together may add new members to the family of God, new sinners saved by grace, new lives redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.  There will always be a rearranging of chairs within our various congregations, some growing some shrinking, and a flow of people between us, what matters in the end is whether or not that migration is making the Church healthier or unhealthier, whether or not it is supporting or harming our universal collective mission of being salt and light in this world.

Sermon Video: Jesus: Fulfilling God's promises to the Jews, showing mercy to the Gentiles - Romans 15:7-13

In his conclusion to the section that began in chapter 14 about the need for Christians to accept each other, Paul offers us a telling analogy: "just as Christ accepted you."  This prompts Paul to a brief explanation as to how Jesus both fulfilled the promises to Abraham, and brought God's mercy to the Gentiles.  Thus our task becomes clear, to be bearers of hope, by overflowing with hope and peace, to both Jew and Gentile alike.