Great Commandment Christianity

I recently heard the term "Great Commandment Christianity." It doesn't take much to figure out what the term implies; simply that for these Christians, the only "law" is that mentioned by Jesus in  Mark 12:30-31.

Yet these same Christians appear to also observe the Ten Commandments.  Let's review those here from Exodus 20:

"I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them; nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

And showing mercy to thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not  take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work;

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in it, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

As you read these commandments, you can see what Jesus is describing with the "first great commandment" and "the second" in Mark 12. The first four commandments, if obeyed, prove that one loves the Lord with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength; while the last six commandments prove that one loves his neighbor as well.

And I have not found a Christian yet, who if asked if he observes the 5th and 6th commandments, for example, would say "No...I am no longer under the law, so I don't observe those commands."  Of course all Christians follow those commands!

BUT....

You will notice the fourth commandment says not only to "honor" the Sabbath day, but to "keep it holy", because God has made it to be holy; and also to do NO work in it.  And it calls the "seventh" day holy, not the first day. (Yes, I am still on this Sabbath question, because no one has answered it for me other than what I am finding in scripture.)

SO...

How do we Christians, even "Great Commandment Christians," determine that it is ok to honor and keep holy the first day, when it states clearly here in the ten commandments that it is the seventh day, AND how do we get around the fact that NO WORK is to be done on that day if we are obedient to God, and yet most of us work at something...housework, yard work, grocery shopping, office work?  Where is the loophole that allows us to do whatever we please on the Sabbath, on whichever day you are currently calling the Sabbath even if it is not scriptural?  Yet, we are obedient to the 5th and 6th commandments without question, or I would hope that we are!

My point here is that we are picking and choosing what we want to observe, rather than being obedient to God.  If we are NOT to keep the law, then why are we still keeping some parts of it?  Do you see how this doesn't even compute? It is not even logical to do some parts of the law but not all. (And I am not at all suggesting we begin offering sacrifices....at least ot sacrifices of animal flesh!)  But I am trying to make a point here, that I hope you are getting.

Let me leave you with these quotes from Roman Catholic authoritative sources [i.e., Past Archibishop of Baltimore - James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921); the 1846 edition of "A Doctrinal Catechism"; "The Catholic Press," 1900; "The Catholic Record," 1923; "The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine" 1957; Catholic Church Extension Society, Peter R. Kraemer, Chicago, Illinois 1975;] as referenced in Todd D. Bennett's book titled "The Sabbath":

"The Catholic Church...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday...you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

"...of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act...and the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power."

"Sunday is our mark of authority."

"...the Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact."

"Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles."

"Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which the modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday.  Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church."

And one last quote:

"Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man...we Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith...besides the Bible, we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us.  We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday."

So, once more...whose commandments are we following?

Our own....or those of the Roman Catholic Church....or the LORD's?

Observing the Father

So if we can be trained by the Sabbath to allow God to be in control instead of ourselves, if we can for 24 hours do ONLY what God wants us to do and do nothing of ourselves, if we can really get this down pat for just one day of the week…think of what would happen to us and those around us if we were doing it SEVEN days a week! And if you can picture that at all, then you have a picture of something that looks just like JESUS, the One who's Father said to Him:

"This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17)

The same Jesus who said to his disciples:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19)

The same Jesus, who even as a child, was focused not on Himself, nor on his family, but on God:

"Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing Him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found Him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking Him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said unto Him, 'Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.' And he said unto them, 'How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?' And they understood not the saying which He spake unto them. And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but His mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." (Luke 3:41-52)

He was 12 years old at the time, the scripture says, but this was no rebellious pre-teen. This was an obedient child of His Father, who observed the Father even at that young age, and did what His Father did. This was an obedient child who loved His Father enough to do what His Father wanted above all other people on the earth; so obedient that He put Himself at risk with His own earthly parents, in order to be obedient to His heavenly Father. At the age of TWELVE!

No wonder by the age of 30 or so, He was able to do far greater things than even that time in the temple in Jersualem at age 12. He had practiced obedience for at least 18 years by then, possibly even earlier, but the scripture shows us only that which He did at age 12.

By age 30, without question, every day was a Sabbath day for Jesus in terms of observing His Father's will instead of His own. And everyone around Him benefited from that. They saw the Father because Jesus did only what the Father did. They got the clearest picture ever of who God was, because Jesus revealed the Father to them. And the people benefited in amazing miraculous ways…all because Jesus was obedient to the Father and did the Father's will and not His own.

That's what we Christians have missed out on by not observing the Sabbath properly, in my opinion. And again, I feel that I have to explain that I am not talking about keeping the LAW in terms of being saved or having righteousness apart from that which we receive through Jesus Christ.

I have a friend who once said to me "The problem with Christians is that they believe they can do whatever they want and just ask forgiveness for it later and be good with God." She was talking about cheap grace.

She was talking about what I consider to be a "Peter Pan" approach to God: "Just believe." Sort of like if we "just believe" that we are saved, then we are saved. But look at what James says about faith alone:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?...Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone….thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" (James 2:14-22)

Ahhh…so there is a perfecting of faith that must follow faith….

….and that "perfecting" is obedience to God's commands, as Abraham was obedient, as Jesus was obedient.

We often miss that. Perhaps we have not spent enough time observing Jesus observing the Father or else we would be better at following His lead.

 

 

My Sabbath Experience, Part 2

Observing the Sabbath is mostly, perhaps, about observing God's time instead of our own.

It's about pursuing His will for us, rather than pursuing our own desires for us. And all of that involves our time.

Observing the Sabbath stops our time for 24 hours and puts us on God time…not just thinking-about-God time, but actually experiencing "God-time".

Do you remember that line that people mutter when they are overwhelmed with life: "Stop the world and let me off!" Well, that's sort of what observing the Sabbath does. It stops the world around us, and forces us to get off for 24 hours.

Now, this isn't about relaxation. Our sense of relaxation varies with each of us: some want to go fishing, some want to go to fancy resorts and be pampered, some want to just catch up on reading, some want to catch up on sleep, some just want to "veg" in front of the tv, some want to have a picnic, or get together with friends or family, some can only feel relaxed when all their work is done (and it never is!), but they want vacation days from work so that they can work around the house, working for themselves instead of "the boss."

Sabbath isn't about any of those things. Sabbath is about observing time that is not filled with our things, but totally filled with God's things or with absolutely nothing, depending on what GOD wants.

It is not about us organizing our time in order to FIT GOD IN. The Sabbath goes way beyond that. It's about observing God time in which every moment of it is holy. That's what Jesus came to do. And He DID! And that's what the disciples were in training to do as they followed Him and observed.

As long as WE are in control of our time, it's all ok with us. WE decide to give God an hour or two on Sunday. WE decide when we want to go take food to someone in need. WE decide when we want to give to GOD, whether of our time or our money or our effort, or even our thoughts. It's all good because WE are in control.

But the Sabbath, as God ordained it, trains us to become comfortable with NOT being in control. It trains us to be comfortable with having only GOD in control because for that one 24 hour period we are to do only what God wants us to do…and it is not easy! The Sabbath trains us to be comfortable in losing control; to make a habit out of GOD being in CONTROL instead.

Practicing something over and over again causes it to become a habit, something you aren't even conscious of doing. Practicing GOD time versus our own time, will eventually change our habits from self-centered to God-centered, so that just as happened with Jesus, whenever we are called upon by God to do His will, we will respond immediately, without question, by what has now become a natural habit, in obedience to HIM.

I will give you an example of what can happen when we have not had much Sabbath practice and what I have determined from my Sabbath keeping is the key point of my continuing to keep it.

I had just left the hospital, escaping the confines of the intensive care unit where my husband had been for over a week, anticipating a much-needed "breather" for half an hour or so, from all the stress and worry and discomfort of being in such a cramped and dreary place, and was reaching for my car door handle when I was approached by what seemed to be a homeless person, and perhaps, a homeless person on drugs for he didn't seem quite right in the head. Without a doubt I became a little nervous and as he approached closer yet tried to keep his distance, he asked for money, and I told him I had none, although I probably did have some cash on me, but I didn't even bother to check. All I wanted to do was escape this uncomfortable situation and get back to my idyllic "breather" of 30 minutes to myself. And so he turned away and as he walked off, I heard him mutter to himself in a weary and sad voice "I am so screwed up!"

And at that moment, by heart broke for him. And I was ashamed at my reaction to someone in such need. He was in need of more than a dollar or two; he was in need of the Lord. But I didn't have the time, because I was on "my" time and not God time.

I have known "screwed up people" – I used to be one myself albeit in different ways than he probably was. And wasn't I acting a little "screwed up" myself right now as well? How Christ-like had I just been?

By the time all of this processed through my mind though, he was gone; the opportunity to help someone in need was gone…never to return again…not that same opportunity at least. But I had kept what was more important to me than money, only I didn't fully recognize it at the time. I had held onto my time.

I was pretty unhappy with myself for the rest of the day, but on this past Sabbath when I re- read one of the parables, God's Word convicted me even more:

"A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee." (Luke10:30-35)

Isn't it possible that this parable has to do with time as well: our time versus God time. Is it possible that the priest and the Levite had busy schedules to attend to, and the wounded man would have caused a delay in their very important workday? Perhaps they didn't want to spend the effort this man would require of them, perhaps they didn't want to spend any money on him, but if they are anything like us today, then it was all about their TIME. Only the Samaritan, one of the folks that the Jews considered to be NOT HOLY, gave up his own time (and a lot of it!) for someone in need.

There is only so much time in a day, and what we consider to be important use of our time, might not be what God considers to be important. If we could take an honest look at our time, whether we are up and running or sitting still and thinking, we might find that we have established an idol out of "our" time because it is mostly about US. We might not even realize it has happened…until a homeless man walks up to us interfering with "our" time….or until we attempt to observe a Sabbath as God ordered it to be done and find that we struggle against it immensely, against the loss of control of our time, against the loss of our own autonomy, our independence to do what WE want when WE want to do it!

That's what I learned by keeping ONE Sabbath Day! Just ONE!

My Sabbath Experience, Part 1

Having ended the study in Romans with a discussion about the Sabbath, and still pondering whether there is more to the Sabbath than what we Christians think there is, I determined to "keep" or "observe" a Sabbath, or at least as closely as a Gentile could who has not really ever tried to keep it according to the Word of God versus according to the traditions of man; and whatever "Sabbaths" I have kept before now were all done on Sunday, instead of Friday evening to Saturday evening, so I am not sure they should really be called Sabbaths anyway.

So…Friday, during the day, I did my cleaning, got all the animals fed (wild birds, wild cats), did the necessary cooking (making twice as much of everything to cover the meals for Saturday, reminding me of the Israelites gathering double omers of manna in preparation for the Sabbath) and even took a late afternoon shower to avoid doing so at my normal time the following morning. I worked pretty hard at getting all of this done before sunset on Friday evening, and was glad that the days are still long and I had lots of time. During the entire process, I felt as though I were preparing for something special, and then I realized that the something special was the Lord Himself, for whom all this was being done in an effort to be obedient in my understanding of his 4^th commandment to honor and keep holy HIS day.

Finally, the sun went down and the Sabbath began. I have to say, even with all the reading and studying I have done in recent weeks on this subject, I was not prepared to keep the Sabbath exactly as the Jews today might do, as I had decided to keep it rather last-minute. But as I had heard that the Shema is one of the most important prayers for the Jews (though perhaps not particularly on Sabbath?), I decided to use that as my evening prayer and morning prayer. I found it online and spoke it aloud while standing by my front window that faces to the east just as the sun went down behind me on Friday (the standing in prayer reminded me of Daniel standing and praying at his window where all could see, while the prayer itself reminded me of some of Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple). Here is a link to the Shema: [http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Torah/The_Shema/the_shema.html ]

After praying, we sat down to eat our dinner that was still warm having just finished cooking it right before sunset, and after dinner the dishes were just set in the sink to be put into dishwasher after the Sabbath ended the following day; not my usual routine as I don't like to wake up to dirty dishes, but then the Sabbath is not about "my" usual routine….it's about God's time and routine…I think.

After dinner, then came the tricky part…what to do now?

Keeping it "holy", meant to me, that I should probably not watch my usual movie; I don't have cable or TV service of any sort, but my husband and I do like to watch a movie each evening when we have the time to do so. I considered watching something religious as I have quite a collection of those movies, but still, just watching a movie at all didn't seem to really fit in with "holy."

So I sat instead at my desk and alternated reading between the Bible and a book on the Sabbath called "The Sabbath World" by Judith Shulevitz. I love to study the Word of God and to write about what I have studied; but writing seemed too "weekday-ish" and not "holy Sabbath-ish" so I avoided it…for a while at least (more on that later.)

After a fairly short while, I decided it would be ok to go to bed earlier than normal, seeing as how the Sabbath is about "rest." I was in bed and sound asleep by 9 that night and woke at 6 which gave me 9 hours of sleep instead of my usual 6-7. It appeared I had the "rest" part down pat. No problems there!

Saturday morning right after I woke up, I went immediately to my front window again and stood and prayed, keeping my prayers focused more on thanking God and praising God than on presenting my normal petitions, although I did ask that He help me understand all that there was to this Sabbath-keeping. While I did the Jewish prayer, I also found myself throughout the day praying prayers for others as they came into my mind just as I do every day, what I would call the Christian style of praying, so that my prayers were not limited to only the Shema. However, I definitely would like to study up on Shabbat practices before I try this again, I think.

After the Shema, I had a cold breakfast of cottage cheese and fruit instead of my usual toast and coffee; although I did have coffee later in the day. My husband, who was not trying to observe the Sabbath, and for whom I have been providing "intensive care" (as he calls it) for the past month since his major surgery, decided that this "day of rest" that I was experimenting with was a good opportunity for him to wait on me for a change; and so he insisted on making my usual morning latte for me himself (I didn't have the heart to tell him I hadn't really planned on having it that morning, nor that having someone "serve" me on the Sabbath was not keeping the Sabbath as it meant the other person still had to do the work. Thus I ended up with a very-nicely-done late morning latte. Good job, honey!)

But back to the earlier morning: after my cold breakfast, I went back to my desk and continued the alternating reading of the night before…and found some things in scripture that I had not seen before…but that is something that happens with almost every reading of the Bible for most of us, so that wasn't a new thing, just a good thing!

As the morning went on, sitting at my desk too long began to tire my legs, so I would get up and walk around, or go sit on the front porch rocker for a while and admire God's handiwork, and then come back in and read some more, with more prayers filling in moments here and there.

By noon, I was beginning to really notice the lack of busy-ness. It is normal for me to read a lot and study a lot in the early morning hours, but by 8:00 am most mornings, I am busy doing something or driving somewhere or visiting someone…things that keep me busy most of the day. This particular Sabbath morning, I had been reading and studying for basically 6 solid hours, minus half an hour for breakfast! And the lure of technology began to attempt to intrude into my Sabbath. I resisted…

….for a while. But I eventually picked up my cell phone, out of intense curiosity, and quickly glanced at the emails just to make sure there was nothing urgent (there wasn't) and within 30 seconds the phone was back out of my hand and remained out of my hand all day long.

But then the urge to write down what I was experiencing before I forgot it all, became overwhelming (I did not want to forget what was happening here!), and so, at least for this first Sabbath, I decided that I had to take notes, and while I could have resorted to paper and pen, it's just so much faster on the computer! Thus, as thoughts struck me during the day, I would type them into my computer.

For lunch, I re-heated the leftovers from the night before using the micro-wave…which is a bit of a compromise, no doubt, on not
"kindling any fire"…all I can say is that I would really like to have a Jewish friend right now who truly observed the Sabbath, maybe not in ultra-orthodox ways, but at least fairly straight-forward, to teach me the practical aspects of Sabbath-keeping…is everything eaten cold for the entire 24 hours or what? I just don't know for sure.

At some point after lunch, while I was back reading again, some stray "not-particularly-God-related" thought crept into my mind, andwithout even thinking about what I was doing, I decided to hop onto Amazon to see if a certain book was there, and if it was in kindle format…and it was…and before I realized what I was doing, I had 1-clicked it and purchased it!!! Then it hit me what I had just done – so reflexively that it had required no conscious thought! I can still feel my shock!

I had exchanged money on the Sabbath! How was THAT keeping the Sabbath holy!?!? Anyone who has ever read the Bible KNOWS that money should not exchange hands on the Sabbath…money is profane on the Sabbath! And while I hadn't actually opened my wallet to get money out of it, nevertheless, money was exchanged…from my credit card to their merchant account. There could be no doubt this was a violation of the Sabbath rules! After all the resisting I had at least tried to do, and all the reading and Bible studying and Shema and other prayers and all the extra work on Friday to prepare….I had just blown it! Wow! It was just sad!!!

And then I remembered…

And I relaxed, sat back in my chair, and I thanked God for Jesus, and for the knowledge that I wasn't going to have be taken out and stoned for this reflexive and (partly at least) involuntary act; for Jesus became the sacrifice for my mistakes, for my sin. He suffered for me. He experienced the death I should have experienced from ALL my failed attempts at keeping ANYTHING "holy." The grace of God through Jesus Christ removed the fear of death from the Sabbath law….from ALL the law.

Yet my failure reminded me also of what separation really must mean to the Lord; separating the worldly from the holy and just why it was important. I decided to continue on to see what else the Lord would show me that day. And so I did.

I have to say that by 2:30, I was no longer thankful that the days were long; it was taking some effort to keep from "watching the clock." Still, I managed to keep myself in the Word, with occasional 10-minutes wanderings onto the front porch for a change of position.

Finally, it came time for dinner, which I re-heated in the micro-wave, and lingered over as long as I could.

And I just barely made it to sunset before "releasing" myself from Sabbath-keeping; so quickly releasing myself, in fact, and with such gusto, that I completely forgot my plan which had been to say another Shema! I can certainly understand the importance and joy of the Havdalah after the Sabbath. I would have loved to have had people around to celebrate its passing!! I was VERY excited that it was over!!!

Well, there you have the "mechanics" of my 24 hour Sabbath-keeping ability (or lack of). The fact is there was not really anything we modern-day Americans would call exciting about keeping the Sabbath. I was actually more excited about the preparation of it, than the keeping of it, I think. But I'm pretty sure this stems mostly from the drastic change in the speed of the passing of time for that 24 hours period. It was a shock to my system that was extremely uncomfortable; my independence and autonomy suffered greatly!

In the next posting, I will attempt to share what I think I learned about the reason for (and importance of) keeping the Sabbath. That might be a little more interesting.

Romans_The Sabbath

"One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." (Romans 14:5-6A)

Now let's look at some other scriptures about certain times of the week":

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." (Matthew 28:1)

"Now when Jesus was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." (Mark 16:9)

"The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre." (John 20:1)

"Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." (John 20:19)

"And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."(Acts 20:7)

"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." (1 Corinthians 16:2)

There seems to be a lot that has happened on the first [day] of the week. You will notice that every time the word "day" is used in the King James version of scriptures listed above, the word is placed in [brackets] meaning it was not original to the Greek text. Without that word [day] all of these scriptures would read "the first of the week." It is only the first one listed in Matthew 28:1 that indicates that the first of the week, in that scripture for certain, is the day that immediately followed the Sabbath. And, in fact, that scripture says that it was very early, still nearly dark, just before dawn, on the morning of Sunday, that the women went to the tomb of Jesus.

From ancient times the Hebrews use a weekly 7 day cycle bases on the seven days of Creation in Genesis; the following scripture is what they have always based their 24 hour days on, with the beginning of the day to be at evening, as it appears that God's day began at evening:

"…and the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:5)

Perhaps the evening arrival of the dove with evidence of a new life for Noah and his family helped contribute to this as well:

"And the dove came in to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth." (Genesis 8:11)

But certainly this scripture from Leviticus 23 in which the Lord stated that the Passover begins in the evening helped them determine as well that to the Lord each day begins at evening:

"In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover." (Leviticus 23:5)

Thus, on the Jewish calendar, the Sabbath begins at sundown Friday and ends at sundown Saturday. Sundown Friday was the beginning of the seventh day. Therefore, knowing that most of the early church were Jewish and were still observing the Sabbath (for reasons that will be further explained below), then the first [day] of the week referred to in any of these scriptures other than the one listed in Matthew, could be indicating Saturday evening after sundown; but it does not HAVE to be Sunday morning, which is when most Christians attend church services and they do so believing that the early Christians had church services on the first day of the week, as per these scriptures. I just don't know that this is correct.

Certainly the Jews did not work on the Sabbath (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown), but on Saturday evening, after sundown, they could get together and break bread if they chose to.  In fact, there is a Jewish tradition of doing so which is known as Havdalah    [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havdalah ] in which immediately following the Sabbath, Jewish brethren will get together and have a meal together as a way of ushering out the Sabbath; which means that in Acts 20:7, the disciples could have been eating a meal together on Saturday evening, or having a Havdallah, when Paul arrived and began speaking, and continued speaking through midnight.
Study of scripture would also show you that God rested on the 7^th day, not the first day of the week, and made it holy:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." (Genesis 2:1-3)

A further study of scripture will show you that when God commanded the Israelites to observe the Sabbath, it was meant to be the 7^th day of the week, and not only the Israelites, but any stranger abiding with them, was to observe that Sabbath as a day of rest and was NOT to do any work:, which meant that the Sabbath applied to Gentiles (servants and strangers) as well as the "chosen" Israelites:

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days thou shalt labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, not thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:8-11)

So, having all these scriptures in hand, what do you think the believers in the church at Rome were debating over or judging each other for? Did some think Sunday should be honored as the Day of the Lord's Resurrection? Did they then assume that it should now be the new Sabbath? I don't think they were arguing over the sabbath at all, as Sunday observance was not a church institution in the early or primitive church. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity ]. I think it might have been some folks, Gentiles perhaps who were less well taught in the ways of God so early on, thinking that they should mark certain days special, such as the first day of the week, when Jews have always marked a day special because GOD marked it special.  But I still don't think the Gentiles were trying to make Sunday the new Sabbath.  Nevertheless, you can see how some might consider some days to be more important or at least equal in importance to others.

It is just like our lists of "detestable" things to avoid eating. Are we to observe our lists or God's list?

Same applies here: are we to observe a day that the LORD God has called holy (His Word specifically says that He made the seventh day a "hallowed" (holy) day and blessed it), or are we to choose another day that He has not called specifically called "hallowed" and use it for our "sabbath"?

I suspect that Paul, especially being a Jew, is not saying in any portion of Romans that we are to "disregard" the Sabbath…and here is why:

"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." (Exodus 31:16)

Now, unless Paul considered himself no longer to be a child of Israel, he surely kept the Sabbath observance on the 7^th day, the day the Lord God called holy, as Paul must have believed God when He said it was to be a "perpetual" covenant sign "throughout their generations."

That doesn't meant that Christians didn't get together and celebrate the Day that Jesus was resurrected, just as we still do today…we call it Easter. I am sure they did also, with both Jesus in mind and the Passover and Firstfruits and all that was Jewish that went along with the celebration of that day and all that preceded or followed it. But from what I have found in the Bible, and including what can be found in online sources, such as the link given above concerning "Sabbath in Christianity" – I do not believe that they exchanged the 7^th day Sabbath for the 1^st day of the week because Jesus was resurrected on that day. Which means, doesn't it, that we ARE to still observe the 7^th day as the Sabbath?

If this is true, then what are we to do with that information?

Perhaps in the next posting it will help if we study just exactly what the Sabbath was meant to be for us and why.

Romans_Fullness of the Gentiles

"I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew." (Romans 11:1-2a)

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for his is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and
calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have no believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all." (Romans 11:25-32)

While the past two centuries have transformed the early church from one that was predominantly made up of Jewish believers into one that is now predominantly Gentile believers, this should not be taken as a sign that Jews cannot be saved, or as some preach, that this is a Gentile dispensation and thus Israel has been "replaced" by the "church." This is not the case.

In the 11^th chapter of Romans, Paul speaks of a "remnant" of Jews who will be saved even though Gentiles will be saved in greater numbers for a period of time. Paul, himself, was one of the remnant. And the remnant came about because Israel has been partly blinded to the truth of who Jesus (Yeshua) is: for He is the Messiah, the Word of God made flesh, our Savior and Lord. But this blindness imposed because of hard hearts toward God, does not mean that God has turned His back on Israel forever and thus that the "church" has replaced Israel. This is called "replacement" theology and I don't believe it is correct theology.

Paul tells us that "all Israel will be saved." He says that "God has not cast away His people." And Paul goes on to say that the "gifts and calling of God are without repentance"; in other words when God calls a people to be HIS CHOSEN ONES, He will not un-choose them. What they were called to become, will be fulfilled in them, ultimately.

Israel [distinct from the name of the "state" of Israel] is the name of the chosen people, the people God chose to be set apart from the nations and to be a light to the world. God has not replaced Israel. He has simply opened the door, through their unbelief, for us, the Gentiles to enter into salvation and to also be a light unto the world. But they will return to the Lord, His Word prophecies:

"I will return again to My place til they acknowledge their offense. Then they will seek My face; in their affliction they will earnestly see Me." (Hosea 5:15)

Thus, their partial blindness, their "fall" as Paul puts it, is temporary, and while it remains so it is "riches" to us. If that is so, that their hard-heartedness and unbelief benefited us who have now been "grafted-in", then how much more will the world benefit from their salvation when it comes? And it will come.

In fact, Paul tells us that we who believe are to be very careful. He warns us not to be "high-minded" as though we are "superior" to the unbelieving Jews. He warns us to "fear." In other words, be careful that the same thing which befell the Jews might not befall us as well. If they, the chosen people of God, were not immune to unbelief, what makes us think we are immune to it? If they, the chosen people of God, were cut off from the tree, then what makes us think that we, we who were not CALLED to be Israel, will not be cut off just as quickly, or perhaps more so, if we "fall" out of faith and into unbelief? In fact, we are not immune to unbelief. Thus, we are not immune to falling as did Israel and being cut out of the olive tree.

There are Gentiles that will come into the fold of salvation. But there is a number to be fulfilled. It is not a lottery in that only so many can receive; as many as believe can receive salvation. But there will come a time when the last Gentile that chooses to believe, has believed and entered in; and at that time the doors will close for the Gentile, whether fully closed or available only to a remnant, I cannot say. But the doors will close. And the "fullness of the Gentiles" will have been completed.

How then should we treat our Jewish neighbors who are not believers in Yeshua? With gratitude and love, compassion and mercy. For the same mercy that God shows us, this loving Father of ours will show them (the Jews) again soon. And soon, they will be our spiritual brethren; and as I call them, even though we might have received salvation before them, still from their centuries of practicing, and even failing at, obedience to all the ways of God, they will be our "elder" brethren.

Romans_Clean and Unclean, Part 2

Remember how Peter reacted when it "appeared" in a vision on his rooftop that the Lord wanted him to eat "unclean things" that were lowered down to him in a sheet? That wasn't what the Lord was saying at all, which I believe we already discussed, but until Peter realized what God meant, he was horrified! Let me try to explain to you why he had such a reaction…

How many of us here in America go to the fridge for an afternoon snack and choose….a mouse!

Of course, we don't! No one in their right mind, at least here in America, would eat a mouse! In fact, we don't consider mice as food to eat at all. We consider cows to be food, and sheep to be food, and vegetables to be food. But we have never seriously believed that mice or earthworms are "food" for us, just as we have never considered cannibalism to be an option. We cringe at the thought of eating such things!

For the chosen people of God, the Jews, pigs and shellfish created the same reaction in them, as mice and earthworms do for us! If you invited them to your house and offered them pig to eat, they would think you had lost your mind…or they would know that you were a pagan, because only pagans ate such things.

At the time Jesus and the disciples and, later, Paul, were alive, pork and shellfish and other things were not even considered food by the Jews. They were not considered "meat" to eat. So the judging that was going on was not about what was considered non-food items…it was about "food" items…things considered to be "food"…things considered to be "edible."

Just because somewhere along the way, we Gentiles decided pig was a good thing, doesn't mean that once we became the Lord's we shouldn't have learned to "detest" the same things that God finds "detestable." But we didn't learn to do that. Paul and the disciples WANTED us Gentile converts to learn them; it is obvious from Acts 15:19-21 that the Gentiles did not have to become circumcised, but were to be alerted about some basic practices of the Torah while they continued to learn other practices from the discussions each Sabbath at the synagogue:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day." (KJV)

"…for Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." (NIV)

It is extremely clear to me that the Jerusalem council of the disciples of Jesus determined to alert the Gentiles to four laws immediately (perhaps because of their importance to "not being cut off" as the law prescribes), but that the expectation was that the Gentiles would be hearing and learning the law of Moses from the synagogues they were going to be attending…on the SABBATH!

Now let's look at three other scriptures concerning "clean and unclean":

In that section of Romans that was in the last posting, in Romans chapter 14, there is a verse in which Paul says this:

"I am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Romans 14:14)

Kind of sounds as though he is saying there is not "clean" and "unclean" because NOTHING IS "unclean" unless you BELIEVE it to be so, and then, for you, it BECOMES "unclean." But he really isn't saying that at all, because if he were, he would be stating something contrary to God's Word.

What he is saying is that amongst believers there in the church at Rome, there were some who have decided that "meat" (cows, sheep, etc…meats of the "clean" variety) are now suddenly "unclean" or unhealthy for man to eat. Perhaps they decided that what was good for man in the Garden before sin entered in, is still the best for man…so why now eat meat instead? Perhaps those folks then turned "vegetarian" or "vegan" instead, eating only herbs. And Paul says that while that is not necessary, it is not sin either, if they decide to eat only herbs. What is important is that what they believe, they act according to…then it is of faith. If they do not act according to what they believe, then it is not of faith, it is hypocrisy.

Paul is convinced that we are perfectly free to eat anything that is considered to be "food" – that would be the list of "clean" animals. It is only when man tries to over-govern himself, that he restricts himself in ways that are not important to God. But if it is important to that man to be "vegan" instead of a "meat" eater…it's ok for him to do so. It is not sin. And he is not to be judged by other believers for his choices. By the same token, he is not to judge others because they ARE NOT "vegan." It is a two-way street. And those who decide to continue to eat meat are just as OK as the one who decides to go "vegan."

In fact, it becomes sin only when the one who has determined in his mind that either "meat' or "herbs" is sin, decides then to go ahead and EAT the thing he has decided he should not eat. THEN it is SIN! Eating meat, for example, is not a sin to Believer #1, so whether he eats meat or doesn't eat meat, for him it is not sin. But when Believer #2 determines from his study of scripture, let's say, that to eat meat is sin, then to him it IS sin IF he decides to eat it anyway.

Two other scriptures used by Gentile Christians today that makes them believe that they don't have to observe the dietary laws of Moses are these:

"Are you so dull?" He asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.')" (Mark 7:18-19 NIV)

[Please read this same verse in the King James version and you will find that the portion that is in parentheses, while included in the NIV, is not in the King James version….meaning it was not in the original Greek text, but was added by the translator. And it is error, because nowhere in this verse did Jesus declare it was now Ok to eat 'unclean' foods. He was simply stating that it is not the body that becomes defiled, but the heart.]

That scripture above in Mark in the NIV will direct you to 1Timothy 4:3-5 :

"They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

Gentiles Christians think, rather superstitiously, that if they will just pray over their food, then God will magically make all "unclean" things "clean" and we will be pleasing God in the process. That is not to say that we are not to pray over our food, and over a thousand different blessing that we receive each and every day, whether food or not food. We are to offer our thanksgiving up to God for each and every blessing, including the food that we have been provided to eat. In fact, Paul is not talking about food alone, but about MANY things here…about the marriage bed and its sacredness; and about food (that which is to be considered edible, of course) and about EVERYTHING that God created. All that He created is good. Even the unclean animals are good works of His hands. There is no disputing that.

But we are not to eat EVERYTHING He created or we would be eating rocks for an afternoon snack. So of course, Paul is NOT saying that we are to eat everything or anything and it is ok if we do it with gratitude. He is not saying that if we choose to eat "unclean" things we will be perceived as being obedient to God if we just pray over them first. He is not saying that at all.

But we are not to say that to eat a cow, a "clean" animal which is considered to be food that God has provided for us, is SIN. No denomination is to say that. I can think of one denomination, Seventh Day Adventists, who don't eat meat at all. There is nothing wrong in that, as long as they don't judge someone in their midst as not being obedient to God if he decides to eat beef or lamb, for example. Certain things, like whether to eat "clean" animals or herbs only, are "freedoms" to us to choose.

Other things, like trusting that Jesus is the Son of God and that His death on the cross atoned once and for all for our sins, are still for us to choose or reject, but the only way there that will count, is God's way, for it is an important tenet of the faith, as is not being sexually immoral, and things of greater importance than other lesser things. We are not to divide over the lesser things, thus we are not to judge one another over the details, while never compromising on the important things.

Regarding food: none of the scriptures mentioned in this posting, when seen in light of the law of Moses being a good thing and a thing to be observed by Christians everywhere, tell us to eat unclean foods.

Besides, you already have a list of things that you consider to be detestable and inedible, just as I do. I think beets should not be considered as food; to me they are detestable. You have a list of things that you consider to be detestable as well, and you will not eat things on your list of detestable things.

The question here is whether or not our lists line up with God's list, for God has a list as well. And our goal is to please God, not man. It is not about salvation, however. That has, and is, being accomplished in us. Rather, it is simply about being obedient out of a heart of gratitude…and about what we are to be obedient to.

In summary, I have tried to show some things that I believe the New Testament is telling us to do that we are not listening to. And in the process, we are neglecting things in the Old Testament that we are STILL to do. But biased doctrines passed down to us through the ages (not from Jesus and Paul and the disciples, but from the Church Father era) have put us off track in some areas.

The bottom line here is that we are not only to study to show ourselves approved, but we are to study with minds open to the Holy Spirit, and not closed because of traditions of men. I am suggesting that we all study with minds not closed by those traditions, unless those traditions are of the early church alone (Jesus, disciples, Paul).

I don't yet have all the answers regarding what we are to observe as obedient Gentile Christians, but I am diligently studying deeply every day to determine what is true and to separate out what is just "traditional error". It is very important to me to do so, as the Lord is very important to me.

And I have not written with the intent to "guilt" anyone into eating or not eating certain foods. I have written these things to challenge Christians to move into discussions, honest discussions, such as they once had in the synagogues. Jews are famous for lively discussions; that is a tradition that was still going on in the synagogues of Jesus' time and that of the disciples and Paul and the early Gentile converts. They were free to challenge each other, and this format allowed the Jewish believers to "challenge" their orthodox neighbors in the synagogue into a deeper study of scripture, knowing that as they dug deeper they would see Jesus in the prophecy of their scripture. There was spiritual growth in their challenges, as there should be still today.

But many churches today are places where we get "talked to" instead of being able to discuss. Home groups lend to discussions sometimes, but not always. In either case, when traditions are challenged, people feel threatened, and honest discussion stops; instead we say things that we know will conform to each other's thinking for the sake of "unity"….only it isn't always "unity" in Christ, sometimes it is "unity" in traditions. But this must not be allowed to continue. Whatever our place is in the body, whether we are pastors or teachers or elders or deacons or members of the body in any form, we are to challenge one another to grow in the Word, but we are not to judge one another regarding traditional error because we have ALL been guilty of following biased traditions in SO many ways, albeit in ignorance! I myself am certain that even as I sweep this one area of my life clean from traditional error, another will soon pop up that I had not seen before. After all we have two centuries of traditions to sort through. And honest discussions amongst us all, as we challenge each other deeper into the Word, will "clean up" our doctrines lining them up more perfectly with the Word of God.

What remains important to remember is that we each should be "free" in Christ to question and to study and to discuss, without the necessity of getting into angry debates because someone feels threatened. And without the concern that our brothers and sisters in Christ might turn against us because we question and search and challenge each other.

These postings have the potential to upset some folks who will not be able to see past the word "grace" and thus unable to move into "obedience" for they will consider the latter to be in opposition to the first.

But, if these postings have moved you to study more deeply the Word of God for yourself, without the bias of anti-Semitism, then I have accomplished what I hoped to accomplish: a challenge has been issued to you, to find biased doctrine, and remove it from your midst; keeping only that which is good and true, as I myself am trying diligently to do.

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few." (Acts 17:11)

 

 

Romans_Clean and Unclean, Part 1

"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth: for God hath received him…Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." (Romans 14:1-23 & 15:1 – Note: please read the entire chapter 14 before proceeding.)

Let's talk about meat and herbs for a moment to try to get a clearer picture of what Paul is discussing above.

Herbs first:

Before sin entered in, God gave Adam and Eve these instructions concerning which things they were to regard as food to eat:

1. "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat…" (Genesis 1:29)
   
2. "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
   

After their sin, what did God command them to eat? Herbs!

"Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field…" (Genesis 3:18)

Just before the flood, God commanded Noah:

"…and take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them [for the animals]." (Genesis 6:21) Thus, Noah and his family and all the animals on board the ark were to continue to "gather" (signifying a harvest rather than hunting) "all food that is eaten…i.e., "herbs of the field" just as they had always done, for that is what food was at that time, and Noah was to have plenty of it on board for all Ark residents to eat (both human and animal) for the length of their stay on the ark. Animal flesh had not yet been sanctioned by God as food for man.

Now, if someone today, as in Paul's day, decided after reading these sections of Genesis, that God designed our bodies originally to eat herbs and fruit only, therefore we should only eat these specific things if we want the healthiest bodies, and if they began to eat only those things, would we call them sinners? Would we call them legalistic? I would hope not, as nowhere in the Bible did the Lord come back to anyone and say "you can no longer eat herbs!" or "no more fruit ever!" To eat only herbs, even after animal flesh was sanctioned, is not sin. Thus, one brother in Christ is not to "judge" another brother in Christ because he chooses to eat herbs only; something they were apparently doing in the Roman church.

Now let's look at meat.

Immediately after the flood, and possibly for quite some time to come, herb and fruit trees had quite a recovery to make from being under water for so long; although the dove did come back with an olive twig in its mouth…still there probably wasn't enough "herbs" to sustain 8 people in the days after the flood; which is why God, in His providence, had Noah load by "sevens" (i.e., seven males and seven females) every "clean" animal, and only by "twos" (i.e., two males and two females) every "unclean" animal (Genesis 6:19 and 7:2), knowing that Noah and his family would have to eat the animals to survive after the flood, and providing enough "clean" ones for them to eat, having enough left over for the clean animals to not become extinct. God didn't have Noah load as many "unclean" animals, because He didn't intend for them to use "unclean" animals as food, yet He did not want the "unclean" ones to become extinct either. After the flood, God's instructions to Noah were:

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Genesis 9:3)

Let's discuss the word "every" that begins this verse above. Do you recall God telling man that he could eat "every tree" in Genesis 1:29, so that means EVERY tree, right? EXCEPT, He then went on to give a qualifier by using one little word: "but." "But don't eat THAT one! Don't eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil!" (I am paraphrasing obviously.)

The word "every" that is used in Genesis 1:29 is not "absolute" in its meaning. And the word "every" as used in Genesis 9:3 isn't "absolute" either; there are exceptions. The exceptions are the "unclean" things. This is clear because God NEVER intended for the "unclean" animals to EVER be food for man. So when He says "every moving thing that liveth" He is assuming, with very good reason, that Noah and his family understand that this means "every moving thing that liveth…that is "clean." It is understood; no longer understood by us these days, but it was understood by Noah.

How do I know that? I know because God never changes. He doesn't say, "OK today this meat is unclean ("an abomination"), but tomorrow it will be really good for you to eat" OR "Today I want you to be separate from the world around you, but tomorrow it won't matter if you are separate." He doesn't change.

In Leviticus 11, God defines which animals are considered "clean" and which are considered "unclean." Notice that the "unclean" things are often "swarming things"...and most of the "swarming things" that "are an abomination" stay pretty close to the earth, crawling on the ground on their bellies, or being ocean bottom feeders, eating other flesh and things that fall on the ground; in the ocean, especially these days, that can include all sorts of toxic matter that eventually settles down on the ocean floor I would imagine. The things that fly are scavengers, again, flesh-eaters. God does not want us eating animals who eat other animals for the most part, although fish "having scales and fins" have been known, I believe, to eat smaller fish, but perhaps they are predominantly insect and plankton eaters instead, I cannot say for sure.

But the general idea is for man not to consume animals who eat other animal and for good reason. Mad cow disease comes about when cows are given feed that contains other ground up cows. Cows were meant to "chew the cud" and that was meant to be grasses and grains and such, not other animals. Man interfered causing mad cow disease which is deadly to humans.

Those things that are "clean" often had legs and hoofs that kept them sort of up off of the ground, or wings to fly or assist with jumping so that they could eat grasses and greens and such and not have to eat off the ground so much perhaps. Do you see that there is some connection with "bottom-feeders" in this?

Do you also see a connection with the "serpent" in the Garden who was cursed by God and made to forevermore "crawl on its belly?" Bottom-dwellers, let's call them, are an "abomination" to God, from what I can tell. And bottom-dwellers who swarm together cinches the deal! Pigs love to ROLL in filth. God abhors filth. There is a principle involved here of clean versus filthy, up versus down, holiness versus sin, and things that represent sin and that God calls sin. Anything that is an "abomination" is most definitely sin. So why would we WANT to eat what God calls "an abomination?"

AND, by NOT eating certain animals, the people called by God's name kept their distinction from the pagans all around them; so that it was for the sake of "holiness" as well that God forbade them to eat things that He called abominable and detestable. (Just like sexual immorality was abominable and detestable…He hasn't changed His mind about that either! Interestingly, the church abides by that law…why not the dietary laws as well? Or are we still picking and choosing?)

Obviously Noah knew which was "clean" and which was "unclean" at the time that he loaded up the ark. But at the time of Moses, since the people had been in slavery and under Egyptian customs for 400 years, what was once common knowledge probably now needed to be re-taught, wouldn't you think? So God provided a refresher course on what to eat and what not to eat. [What you should note here is that the dietary laws did not go into effect only at the time of Moses. They began with Noah. But in either case they are considered part of the Torah, because the Torah is the first five books of the Bible.]

My point is that God did not introduce something new with Moses. It had already been established with Noah. And one possible reason that man went from having herbs as food, and then suddenly to having "clean" animal flesh as food might have been because the "firmament" that covered the earth prior to the flood (Genesis 1:7) broke loose at the time of the torrential rains that flooded the earth (thus the "waters" were no longer separated – see Genesis 1:6-7), and the entire eco-system surely must have changed, as it had NEVER rained prior to the Flood. Perhaps vegetation was scarce for a long time to come after the flood, or perhaps it never grew in the same abundance that it had before the flood. Whatever the reason, God knew in advance that man would need animals to eat and so He provided extra of the "clean" animals that were meant to be food for man.

So…God began "clean" and "unclean" animals with Noah , continued it with Moses, and the practice was still in place where Jesus and the disciples were concerned; with the disciples and Paul even teaching some basics to the new Gentile converts until they had time to learn "Moses" for themselves (Acts 15:19-21).

God did not change. He has not changed.

But what has changed is OUR understanding, and thus our actions. More in next posting.

Romans_Many Laws

"I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." (Romans 7:21)
"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man…" ( Romans 7:22)
"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." (Romans 7:23)
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:2)
"…that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

In one of the verses above, Romans 7:23, three laws are mentioned:

1. The law that Paul found in his physical body (this is that which his flesh wants to do even though it is wrong; this is sin)……
2. The law of his mind (this is that which he knows is right to do; this is righteousness as defined by the Law of Moses and further defined by Jesus – NOT as defined by man)….
3. The law of sin and death (when item 1 wins, then the result is death, thus the combination of item 1 winning over item 2 produces item 3: the law of sin AND death. Thankfully, Paul goes on to say, Jesus changed that equation.)

Then there is the "law of God"; the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus"; and the law whose righteousness is proved by those "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." These are God's laws - as given to Moses, and as fulfilled (or performed) through Jesus and, by the Spirit, through us.

I am pointing this out to show you that every time the word "law" is used in the Bible, it is not necessarily referring to the "law of Moses" as found in the Torah. And I especially want readers to note that there is a law called "the law of sin and death" that is NOT at all referring to the "law of Moses." The "law of Moses" equals "the commandments of God" which did not (and do not) bring captivity but rather bring "life" and "blessing" to its observers:

"See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil……I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live..." Deuteronomy 30:15-19
"….IF thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul." Deuteronomy 30:9

BAD LAWS:
SIN brings death…and is then its own law. It is a "cause and effect" principle. Sin is evil because it is contrary to God and, when fulfilled (or performed) in us, becomes contrary to life.

The law that is in Paul's members, (and that of all humans) is known as the "flesh" (man's desires) which battles with the knowledge of "right according to God" and, if not subdued by the GOOD law of the "Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" and brought into the righteousness of the law of Moses, then it becomes sin and produces death.

GOOD LAWS:
The "law of Moses" pointed out what sin was, but the "law of Moses" in and of itself was NOT death-producing…only SIN is death-producing. The law of Moses is good and when observed brings life and blessing.

And the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" is better stated as a divine principle or a divine "cause and effect" that has been put into action through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the giving of the Comforter as described in the first few chapters of Acts.  This law destroys the law of sin and death in those who trust in the Word of God: Jesus.  This "law" or "principle" produces life BECAUSE it is in the power of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ that we have been freed from the "battle" that Paul describes as raging within us…we have been freed from having to LOSE that battle….we no longer HAVE to lose…IF we choose to walk after the Spirit rather than the flesh. But those who do not have "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" are doomed to remain bound and captive to the "law of sin and death" – they MUST sin, and they WILL die. Thus, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is good. This law is not separate from the law of Moses; it is a fulfilling (a performing) of those laws so that the glory of God can be revealed through man.

THE LAW IN SUMMARY:
We see then that there are many different types of "law" mentioned in the Bible and in these verses in Romans specifically. We must not make the assumption that every time the word "law" is used, it is referring to the "law of Moses" and we certainly must not make the assumption that "the law of Moses" is bad.  This just is not true.

"The law of sin and death" has extremely negative connotations for us and speaks of bondage and death rather than freedom and life. It is something that we humans cannot avoid without Jesus.

"The law of God" is something we are to "delight" in as Paul did, and as David did. We "delight" in the righteousness of "the law" of God, for it is fulfilled [performed] in us who are led by the Spirit of God into becoming obedient to God's laws.

We should be able to conclude then, that whenever Paul is speaking of "the law" in reference to evil, bondage, captivity or death, or as something to rid ourselves of, it must be "the law of sin and death" in some form. But it is NOT the law of God.

And we should conversely conclude that whenever the word "law" offers life, freedom, and blessings (whether it is a "thou shalt do" or a "thou shalt not do"), then it is referring to the "laws of God" – those which have been defined for us in the Torah (through Moses), and further defined for us (but not done away with) in the New Testament by Jesus who demonstrated the law in both word and action.

Thus the "law" (when it refers to God's law) is not bad, does not contradict grace but is fulfilled (performed) by the grace of God given to us through Jesus Christ, and produces righteousness, the thing which God still desires from us in order to show the world who He is.

It really is that simple.

Romans_Roots of Bias, Part 2

"It is increasingly accepted among scholars that at the end of the 1^st century there were not yet two separate religions called 'Judaism' and 'Christianity'….the first Christians (the disciples or students of Jesus) were essentially all ethnically Jewish or were Jewish proselytes. In other words, Jesus was Jewish, preached to the Jewish people and called from them his first disciples. However, the Great Commission, issued after the Resurrection is specifically directed at "all nations." Jewish Christians as faithful religious Jews, regarded 'Christianity' as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief – that Jesus was the Messiah. The doctrines of the apostles of Jesus brought the early church into conflict with some Jewish religious authorities (Acts records dispute over resurrection of the dead which was rejected by the Sadducees…and possibly later led to Christians' expulsion from synagogues. While Marcionism rejected all Jewish influence on Christianity, Proto-orthodox Christianity instead retained some of the doctrines and practices of 1^st-century Judaism while rejecting others…Christian baptism was another continuation of a Judaic practice." [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_in_early_Christianity ]

In the fourth century we see two other events which further affected the division of Jewish believer from Gentile believer:

Constantine, the emperor of Rome at that time and an avid worshipper of the sun god, while at the same time claiming to be a Christian with a "vision" to make Christianity the state religion and to take up the sword in the process (remember Jesus telling Peter to put his down?), forced any Jewish believers to publicly renounce all things Jewish and to "become" a "Christian." Any Gentile who joined with the Jews in their worship, including Gentile believers worshipping with Jewish believers, would be breaking the law and punished accordingly.

Then there were the church "councils" who, while quick to set aside the laws of Torah (God's law in the Old Covenant), went about proclaiming their own set of laws. Here is one law that was directed specifically at the Jews, proclaimed by the Church Council of Elvira in Spain circa 309 A.D. [Source: http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/elvira.html ]:

Canon 50: If any of the clergy of the Faithful eats with Jews, he shall be kept from communion in order that he be corrected as he should. (Strangely reminiscent of the religious Jews of Jesus' day who set themselves against Jesus because He ate with tax collectors and sinners. Paul himself rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy of not eating with Gentile believers when Jews were around. )

There is one other that is worth noting, although not dealing with Jews specifically:

Canon 33: Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and all other clerics having a position in the ministry, are ordered to abstain completely from their wives and not have children. Whoever, in fact, does this shall be expelled from the dignity of the clerical state." (This was a precursor of worse things to come. By the sixth century, "Pope Gregory 'the Great' said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself" (even in the marriage bed). In 1074 by Pope Gregory VII who said that anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy: "priests must first escape from the clutches of their wives." Twenty years later, "Pope Urban II had priests' wives sold into slavery, children were abandoned." [Source: http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm)]

It is important to remember that there was no other organized "church" at this time, thanks to Constantine who made the church the religion of the state (although I am still searching for a "remnant" which might have included both Jew and Gentile believers.) In such a few short centuries, the church had changed its doctrines and thinking so dramatically from that of the early church where both Jewish believer and Gentile believer attended Synagogue together and studied the Torah together, that it was hardly recognizable by most (and by me not recognizable at all) as still being the church. Instead, we begin to see the words of Paul coming true as spoken to Timothy:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (I Timothy 4:1)

Obviously the organized Catholic church, forbidding marriage to its clergy and forbidding the eating of meat on Fridays (fish only) to all of its members, would fit that prophetic declaration; but it might have occurred in some degree even during Paul's latter ministry years, as some in the Roman church had apparently decided only herbs and such as found in the Garden of Eden were approved by God, and no animals were ever to be eaten (Romans 14:2). But I digress…

The council of Antioch in 341 AD donated these edicts:

Canon 1: "…But if any of the persons occupying prominent positions in the church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon…should dare to insist upon…celebrating Easter along with the Jews, the holy Council has hence judged that person to be an alien to the church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude." (This is concerning celebrating Passover in the Jewish tradition, rather than Easter, in the church tradition.)

Note these proclamations from the 4^th century Council of Laodicea which seem to be a bit conflicting in terms of whether it was the Sabbath or the Lord's Day that the Lord wanted to be honored and observed [Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm ]:

Canon 16: The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday] with the other Scriptures.

Canon 29: Christian must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Canon 49: during Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord's Day only.

Rather than Gentile believers assimilating into the things the Jewish believers practiced, as was established by the Jerusalem Council of which Peter and Paul and James and all the disciples were a part (Acts 15), a century or more later, the Jewish believers were now being forced to assimilate into Gentile Christianity, leaving behind any resemblance to things Jewish. For all of us, this was and still is tragic.

By the end of the fourth century, Christianity was now being kept distinct from anything Jewish.

 

Romans_Roots of Bias, Part 1

So much happened to the early church towards the latter half of the first century:

-Stephen's death by stoning was a shock to the new believers, but even more devastating perhaps was the death of James, the brother of Jesus, who was a disciple and leader in the church at Jerusalem;

-Peter and Paul were both executed, along with countless other believers, when Nero made Christians the scapegoat for Rome's burning;

-the temple, along with the city of Jerusalem, was destroyed after a year-long siege of Jerusalem by the Roman General, Titus, an aftermath of the Jewish wars against the Romans; the Jewish historian Josephus describes the horror of that long siege of starvation and death for the residents trapped inside the walls of Jerusalem; [Source: http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html ]

-laws were passed that forbade any Jews "to enter Jerusalem upon penalty of death" – this included Jewish believers in Christ, even though Gentile believers were still allowed to be there; thus segregating Jewish believers from Gentile believers, and the Jewish believers were necessary to the Gentile believers to help them grow in the scriptures that the Gentiles had not had access to nor desire for in their lives previous to conversion; [Source: http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html ]

-forced segregation in some areas then, caused the Jewish believers to become a minority among the growing number of Gentile believers, and the Gentile believers, having come out of pagan Rome, had little understanding of things Jewish and little tolerance for such as well; thus the majority rule was by Gentile believers who had as of yet had little exposure to the Torah, but often retained long-standing and deep-rooted connections to things pagan without understanding the conflict that this caused in their new-found faith. I believe that this was what Paul was dealing with in the church at Rome in the conflicts between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers, especially as anti-Semitism, anti-anything-Jewish, began to take serious hold in the church.

Thus, by the end of the first century, this portion of a letter written by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, demonstrated the Christian bias that had taken root in the in the predominantly Gentile "Christian" church, which by the way, soon became known as the Catholic Church:

"Do not be led astray by those erroneous teachings and ancient fables which are utterly worthless. Indeed, if at this date we still conform to Judaism, then we own that we have not received grace…Consequently, if the people who were given to obsolete practices faced the hope of a new life, and if these no longer observe the Sabbath, but regulate their calendar by the Lord's Day…Assuredly whoever is called by a name other than this [Christian] is not of God. Hence, put away the deteriorated leaven, a leaven stale and sour, and turn to the new leaven, that is, Jesus Christ…It is absurd to have Jesus Christ on the lips, and at the same time live like a Jew. No; Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism believed in Christianity, and in its
bosom was assembled everyone professing faith in God."

[Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/magnesians.html]

Obviously, you were a Christian only if you observed Sunday as the new Sabbath. And Messianic Jews, if they had been called by that name back in this period of time, of course, would not have been allowed to identify themselves as such and still be "of God." I don't know yet what the Jewish believers were calling themselves, but they might not have gone along with the name of "Christians" – perhaps they were calling themselves "followers of the Way" or "disciples of Yeshua" or some other name that would not have been acceptable to Ignatius. His understanding about "leaven" and what it stands for is sadly lacking as he equates it to Jesus who was without sin (leaven = sin). And finally, Judaism believed in Christianity? It isn't about Christianity, is it? It's about Jesus, plain and simple. This is a rather arrogant statement, it seems to me, full of judgment and pride.

By the second century, Rome had wiped out much of the Jewish population and was able to ban worship on the Sabbath without fear of reprisal from a strong Jewish community, as there no longer was a vital community of Jews. The church fathers must have applauded that!

Here is another example of the Christian's attitude regarding the Sabbath day, among other things, as written by Justin Martyr, one of the church fathers of that century. It is shocking that the Church Fathers, of which surely Justin Martyr was a good representative, believed that the Law was given as a
punishment to the Jews, as it was imposed on them, which doesn't sound like the Law was good at all, contrary to the Word of God; AND circumcision was given so that they would be sure to be separated from "Christians," among other things. Talk about missing the point! This is from his "Second Apology" and the portions reproduced here are specifically from a discussion he was having with a Jew who was not a believer:

Chap. XVIII:" For we too, would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you – namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts."

Chap. XVI: "For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem. For you are not recognized among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision."

Chap. XIX: "This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer."

Chap. XXI: "Moreover, that God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and impose on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness, and that of your fathers…"

[Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/justin-apology2.asp ]

Please keep in mind, that while these statements are erroneous and inflammatory, there were things said by both of these men that were sound doctrine. It is no different than when we get to Martin Luther, the man who clarified "salvation by faith through grace" and yet was even more inflammatory in his anti-Semitism than either of these two men just quoted. Hitler used many of Martin Luther's statements to justify his actions against the Jews.

The reason these quotes are given here is so that WE can see where some of our erroneous thinking has come from, and so that we can correct any anti-Jewishness in us and prove that the customs which we hold today are from the Word of God, rather than from the traditions of men, especially anti-Jewish men.

(To be continued in next posting…)

Romans_ Division

The book of Romans begins with Paul being pretty blunt with both Gentile believers and Jewish believers by reminding them where they both came from.

He proceeds to tell the Gentile believers in chapters 1 that they came from a people who were ungodly because they lived unrighteously before God, their Creator, even though the things of God were there for them to see and should have been understood by them; obviously they could have been understood by them, except that they chose to ignore the things of God that were visible and go their own way instead.

But then Paul turns to the Jewish believers in chapter 2 and tells them that the name of God has been blasphemed among the Gentiles because they, the Jews, taught that the law was to be kept by others, even though they themselves did not keep it – which made them hypocrites and unrighteous, so that their circumcision (the seal of their belonging to God) meant nothing.

"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision [the Gentiles] keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

And shall not circumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Nowhere in all of this, nor in the rest of the book of Romans, is the law talked of as being a bad thing. Yet, these believers in the church at Rome allowed the law and man's judgments about the law to be a point of division between them; a division that Paul was attempting to undo by teaching them the truth about the law, i.e., the letter of the law, versus the spirit of the law (Romans 2:29).

In things that are of man, the letter becomes of supreme importance. In things that are of God, the heart is what is important.

Yet, having said that, will our hearts lead us away from obedience to the law, once our hearts learn to love God above all things? Or will we, as David did, delight in God's law all the more because of his love for God and the things of God?

If we study the law, of which there are 613 biblical commands given by God to His people, we will find that there are negative laws ("Thou shalt not..") and there are positive laws ("Thou shalt…"). The law, on the one hand, was a minister of death when someone ignored the laws, whether positive or negative; but it brought blessings when all the law was heeded. In all matters, the law was and is "spiritual" and the law was and is meant to be a blessing and not a burden to us.

The "spirit" is in the law, unless man approaches the law by the "letter" of "works." "Works" can be done in an attempt to earn salvation and establish a righteousness of man's own doing, although that would be a false righteousness not based on truth. But obeying the law can also result in "works" that are NOT about man's attempts to earn salvation, but rather about doing that which makes us a light to the world, revealing to the world the ONE TRUE GOD.

The law is never wrong or bad, but our approach to it can be all of that. It is ALL in our approach. It is ALL about our hearts. And the law is still a "teacher" when men approach it with the wrong hearts. But once the heart is right, the law no longer needs to be our teacher: "Do this, but don't do that.." because we will, by our born-again nature, be performing the positive laws and never doing the negative laws. The law will be confirmed in us, and through our actions. But if we find we are not obeying the law, then our hearts are not yet right. And if we don't know what the law is because we don't spend time studying it, or because we think we are "good" with God by virtue of His "grace" alone and nothing else is required of us, then our hearts are not right.

The law is the character of God and as we abide by the law, with the right heart, we will be the light to the world that God intended for us to be and we will bless God with our actions; just as Jesus was the light, not by breaking the law (He NEVER broke a command of God as given to Moses!), but by abiding by the law and ignoring man's laws instead (do not drink anything alcoholic, do not heal on the Sabbath, etc.)

But today, the law still divides us, and my heart grieves over this as I don't believe we are meant to be divided. We are Gentiles versus Jews; Christians versus Messianic Jews; Old Testament versus New Testament; law versus grace; man's ways versus God's ways.

And the division is being perpetrated by both Gentile believers and Jewish believers.

The Old Testament prophesied about the Jesus (Yeshua) of the New Testament. Is the Old Testament now to be ignored in favor of the New? Or was Jesus a continuation, a fulfilling, of all that the Old declared to be true and forthcoming? Is it all now untrue because it was fulfilled? Is it all to be done away with? Or are we now able to see with our eyes the things that the patriarchs of the past knew already in their hearts and for which they were counted as righteous because by faith they believed, and by faith they fulfilled the law in acts of righteousness? The only thing to be done away with is the curse," the law of sin and death", the principle that says that death must follow sin. THAT is the law that has been done away with, thanks to Jesus.

Still it isn't about us becoming Jewish, although Paul says we are "Jews" if our hearts are circumcised as they should be (Romans 2:29). He didn't say that we are "Christians". And it isn't about Jews become "Christians" either.

It is about all of us becoming ONE in the LORD and obedient to ALL of His Word, rather than picking and choosing a few commandments that are convenient to us, and rather than choosing identifiers for ourselves that will segregate us.

Jewish believers have good reason to not want turn their back on their Jewishness in order to be known as Christians (see next posting!), thus the name Messianic Jews to distinguish them from Christians.

And Gentiles can't easily turn away from using the name of Christ, even if "Christ-ian" was a name given to them in a derogatory manner by unbelieving Greeks.

But for us Gentiles to have turned away from anything Jewish (and we did – see next posting!) was wrong. We were "grafted in" to the olive branch and that olive tree is the Torah and the Prophets (the WORD – JESUS HIMSELF) into which the New Testament saints were privileged to be joined to in the early church….but were ashamed of by the end of the first century.

By the end of the first century, anit-semitism was pervasive in Christianity, and later on, English translators of the Bible persisted in removing anything too Jewish, such as the Hebrew name of Jesus (Iesous in the Greek, but Yeshua in Hebrew). His name was Yeshua, for He was born a Hebrew, so what is wrong with calling Him by His properly given name? Are we Christians turning our backs on Jesus if we call Him Yeshua instead?

Or is it more important that we maintain our identifier as "Christ-ians" by calling Him Jesus only? Is it our name that identifies us, or our actions?

By the same token, must Jewish believers insist that Christians call him by Yeshua, or call them incorrect in their theology? Or are we still clinging to the "letter" versus the "spirit?"

I don't truly know the answers to the questions above. But I think Christian and Messianic dialogue should begin that resolves those questions. This is not an easy division to heal. It will not happen overnight. But at the very least, it should alert us to the many ways in which we perpetuate "bias" and this bias is completely based on man's laws and traditions; the thing that happens when we are not heeding ALL the WORD of GOD.

Bias exists when WE have decided how it should be, and that IS how it will be!!! Because WE are right! And THEY are wrong!

The same mindset persists that created denominations in the first place among Protestants. But neither should anti-Jewishness be prevalent in our Christian mindsets as was handed down to us (in ways heretofore un-noticed by many) by both the "Church Fathers" (Origen, Justin Martyr, the councils of Antioch and Laodicea) and by the "Reformers" (Martin Luther, Calvin).

There is much to be changed, if there is to be TRUE UNITY IN THE WORD OF GOD….

…and it begins here with me.