Misunderstood Scriptures

THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL

10/11/2011

In I Thess 5: 22 in the KJV, we read, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” This passage is made clearer by observing and comparing other renderings. They all bear the same message. This, of course, is not to say the King James Version is inaccurate in rendering the passage, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

The ASV version says to “abstain from every form of evil.” There are three other translations of this verse: The Epistles of Paul by W. J. Coneybeare (hold yourself aloof from every form of evil), The Twentieth Century New Testament (Shun every form of evil), and J.B. Phillips translation (continue to abstain from every sort of evil, steer clear of evil in every form).

These verses are usually understood to mean we are to stay away from anything that even appears to be evil. But consider this; how could anyone possibly abstain from everything that looks evil? And I would go even further and say it would really be an impossibility! But is this what Paul is telling them, if not,” What does this verse mean by Evil and what appears to be evil?”

Or put another way, is what you or I think is evil, really evil? And conversely, is what we think is not evil, something that might be considered evil by others? How do we really define what the bible calls evil? To some Pentecostal groups, the wearing of make-up or jewelry by women is considered evil, or worldly. To the Amish, just about everything others do is considered evil or worldly. Having electricity in our houses or driving automobiles are but two examples.

In Matt 9th chapter Jesus was accused by the Pharisees of being a glutton and wine-bibber because he ate with what they considered to be the wrong class of people; that is the publicans. In Jn 4th chapter it appears the disciples were a little judgmental toward Jesus because he was talking with a woman that had been married and divorced five times. But we know there was nothing wrong or evil in any of these things, simply because we know Jesus never sinned or violated the Law of Moses. So what appears to be evil to some people may not always be so.

Now for another example; would the bible define playing a game of pool as being evil or sinful? There are lots of folks that would say it was. And I recall a novelty song many years ago that warned there was “trouble in river city,” because a pool hall had opened there. But is the game itself really sinful or is the place in which it is usually played considered, places of sin; because these are usually biker bars, beer joints or pool halls? And there is usually drinking, cursing, gambling and so forth being engaged in (sort of guilt by association!). But what if it were in a private home? Would it be sinful to play a game there?

I am not defending the game or anyone’s right to play it; I’m just using it as an example. Actually I would consider it to be a game of skill like any ball game. And I’m not aware of any Christian that would be condemned for watching or playing a game of baseball or football. Although there is nothing wrong with the game of pool itself, I would never do so in any of the places where drinking and other obviously sinful activities are going on mainly because I have nothing in common with them. So the bottom line is most people fail to make a distinction between the game and where it is played. Therefore, they wrongfully assume that it is evil. But is this, what Paul is warning the Thessalonians about, when he said to abstain from “every form of evil?” Is he saying that we cannot engage in anything that even looks like evil?” or more precisely what might look like or appear to be evil to someone else? Well, let’s take a closer look at the verse and see if we can determine what it actually teaches. It is obvious that some people have drawn erroneous conclusions from the words “Abstain and Appearance” not intended by the Holy Spirit!

The word “abstain” means to “hold one’s self off from, to refrain, or stay away from.” Most people interpret the word appearance as meaning “The outward aspect of a thing” (or what something looks like to them); and they draw conclusions based solely on appearances. But the word appearance (eidos) in this verse means, form, class or kind and doesn’t mean what resembles or looks like evil, as is usually understood. In other words; a thing may not be evil just because it looks like it might be! Like Jesus eating with publicans was thought to be evil by the Pharisee, but wasn’t.

But this is not the meaning of the verse Paul states here! And if that’s not the meaning, what’s he saying? The passage, when properly interpreted simply means, “whenever evil appears, we are to abstain or avoid it.”

Of course I think we all understand we are to avoid sin, and there are numerous verses stating that fact. I Pet 3:11; says we are to, “turn away from evil and do good.” There are those who meticulously try to avoid certain kinds of sin. I vaguely recall on the evening news, a man accused of a sex crime proudly admitting he was a thief, not a rapist! And to establish his innocents, he confessed to holding up a convenience store in another part of town at the very time of the alleged sexual assault. This was his way of saying there were some laws he didn’t mind breaking, but some crimes he wouldn’t commit!

And this thinking is not limited to just civil criminal behavior. There are millions of people calling themselves Christians that would never lie, steal or commit adultery; yet, have no problem taking communion only once a year, if at all; when it is clearly commanded we are to partake of the Lord’s Supper every week (Lk 22:19,I Cor 11:23-26, acts 7:20).

And those who would never enter a liquor store have no problem grocery shopping where beer, wine and lewd magazines are sold; but are so quick to condemn others that do not come up to their standards.

But has one sinned by actually shopping there? No.

Let me point out to you it is their standards that have been violated, not God’s! It is they who have not clearly understood what is sinful and what is not. I knew of a minister once that was celebrating the Christmas season like he and his family had for years. But when some of the members of his new congregation found out about it, the elders fired him. That he was not observing it as a religious holiday made no difference! Any observance was sinful to them. But this is an area where I believe a person has a choice as long as they understand the season has nothing to do with Christ being born, and that we are commanded to celebrate his death, not his birth!

No one has the right to impose their personal standards on others, especially where the law is not clear. And that is the main lesson the apostle Paul is teaching in Rom 14th chapter concerning the eating of certain meats. Some of the Jewish converts felt the Gentile convert were committing sin by eating meats that had, or may have been part of a sacrifice to idols. And this was because the Jewish Christians had trouble realizing they had been freed from any dietary restriction of the Mosaic Law and were now free to eat whatever they wished.

The Gentiles Christians of course never had that problem. But the truth or reality was they had not grown in their spiritual understanding on this subject as they should have, therefore, felt others were committing sin, when they weren’t. And that’s because they erroneously classified some things as sins, which were not.

And today, some have classified certain things as sin in their own minds when they are not or some sins as being more serious than others; and may have commit sins just as serious only of a different kind and have not realized it! This means, being ignorant of what the scriptures teach they have committed sins of commission as well as omission without realizing it!

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for this very attitude toward observing only what was important to them and ignoring things they felt too trivial to bother with. In Luke 11:37-42, a Pharisee had invited Jesus to dine with him. The Pharisee, noticing Jesus did not wash his hands before eating was amazed. It was the general custom to dip ones hands into water before eating; which was what most followed. However, the Pharisees had carried this simple custom to the extreme as they had other things; and had made it a law by their tradition as sort of a test of godliness by teaching not only were the hands to be washed but the arms as well, all the way up to the elbows.

This practice was observed mostly out of a prejudice against Gentiles; and not necessarily for cleanliness because the Jews felt they alone were God’s people and superior to all others religiously; therefore felt he must (ceremoniously) wash in case he had touched a Gentile or anything he may have owned or touched. And it was considered a sin if one didn’t do it. So the religious leaders were enforcing a law on the people God never required; very similar to elders/professional ministers today demanding one attend “church” three times a week, when God only requires his people to assemble once! (See articles, Attendance and Sunday attendance once or twice?).

Jesus’ disciples had been criticized for this before (Matt 15:1-20) and the Pharisee called it a tradition, not an actual commandment. But Jesus on that occasion didn’t bother to answer him, but asked, why did he transgress the commandments of God because of their traditions? And here, it could be this Pharisee wanted to see if Jesus would violate this custom in his presence. And Jesus may have deliberately ignored the custom in order to teach him a valuable and much needed lesson. And this time does explain why he did what he did, and puts his actions in proper order by saying in v 39, “Now ye Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter; but your inward part is full of extortion and wickedness. 40 Ye foolish ones, did not he that made the outside make the inside also? 41 but give for alms those things which are within; and behold, all things are clean unto you.”

Evidently Jesus is accusing them of taking the money or goods obtained by unlawful means by using their position and influence with the courts; and then giving a portion of that into the temple.

And because they did this, they felt that made everything right in God’s eyes. And that it didn’t matter how he acquired it just as long as he tithed a portion of it to God! And then Jesus actually pronounces a curse on them for doing so when he continued in vs 42 by saying; “Woe unto you Pharisees! For ye tithe mint and rue and every herb, and pass over justice and the love of God: but these things ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

Jesus, of course, had no problem with him tithing. The point he wanted to teach the Pharisee was he had blown this commandment way out of proportion by their traditional teaching and had given it precedence over observing the more important laws; such as, showing justice and love. Many today, in principle, at least, are guilty of the same behavior.

Now under the Law of Moses, there were some sins that were considered more serious than others. Some violations of the law only required certain kinds of sacrifices, while other violations, demanded the death penalty. But under the law of Christ, any time one violates any commandment of law, they automatically become a sinner. James, in 2:10-11 warned his readers, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. 11 for he that said, do not commit adultery, said also, do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou are become a transgressor of the law.

Notice James is not trying to classify types of sin, or that one may be more serious than the other. What he is saying is, “any sin committed will cause you to violate God’s law and will make you a sinner.” And a person doesn’t have to violate every law to become a sinner.

For example: I used to raise chickens I kept in a large fenced in area. Occasionally one would get out. Now when it got out, it did not have to fly over every section of fence in order to be outside of the pen.

It may have flown over the north section or the east section. Or any section of the fence. The point is that it did not have to fly over every section to be outside of the pen! And in comparison, a person does not have to violate every law in order to be a sinner! It only took the chicken flying over one section to be outside of the pen, and it only takes the violation of one law for a person to be outside of God’s law and that makes him be a sinner.

And this is the point James is making here.

Whatever law one violates is serious in God’s eyes, because all laws were given by God and are equal as far as trespassing any of them is concerned. Because, as James says, the God who wrote, and gave the one law, also wrote, and gave the other! And one of the vital lessons to be leant here is any law that is given to mankind by God is for our own good and must be obeyed. We, or anyone else, are not at liberty or are authorized to pass judgment on which laws are essential and which ones are to be ignored.

No one can justify the violating of one law because they keep another. It is not our prerogative to pass judgment on one part of the law. Because when we do, we become judges of the law, and put into question the validity of Gods laws!

These laws are given us in order that we may understand what evil is and what to do about it. And when we learn what God would have us do, then I think we may see more clearly what Paul is saying in our study verse when he said, “when evil appears to us in any form, we are to take every precaution to avoid it.”

J.D. Williams~

THE VEIL

2008

I am aware there are many views on this. And a verse by verse analysis, while very interesting, will not alter the conclusion of what Paul is teaching. Was he commanding the veil be worn, or was it only a local custom that made no difference to him or God?

But let’s approach the subject this way and ask:

1) Does God really care one way or the other if a sister wears a veil or not? If we answer yes, then we must show where that command is given. If not, then we must show why not.

2) Does God consider a sister more holy or her worship more acceptable because she does? If so, what about those sisters that don’t. Are they in open rebellion toward God? Do those who wear a veil during worship (usually just communion)) feel they are more devoutly religious than others? Do they not realize they call unwarranted attention to themselves by doing this? If not, why not? Many times I have heard remarks by sisters made toward sisters that wore a veil saying, “Oh she thinks she is better than everybody else!”

Let’s reverse this. Suppose all women did wear veils (in the assembly) except one, how do you think she would be viewed? I’m sure the others would think it strange she was not showing reverence or following accepted customs.

Did Paul intend this wearing of the veil (or any covering) be practiced forever and everywhere be observed when God’s people are assembled even today? Did God command it or Paul originate it? Or did he merely sanction (not command) a practice already being observed? The veil was worn anytime a woman went in public. So why confine it to just a period of worship in the assembly?

We believe this practice falls into the same category as the instructions given to the Congregation at Rome when Paul said, “Salute one another with a holy kiss.” Rom.16:16 (see also 1 Pet 5:14, “Salute one another with a kiss of love”). Are we to believe it was the intent of the Holy Spirit to fix for all time and bind upon the ecclesia of God this mode of greeting among brethren, and are those who don’t in violation of a direct command by these Apostles? I don’t believe so. From these passages we believe it is plain it was Paul’s intention to advise women not to needlessly vary from an accepted national custom common to that day and country which had no religious significance and thereby subject themselves to public ridicule and unnecessary persecution.

We believe kissing (as a greeting, which fell into disrepute because of obvious potential for abuse and was never in vogue in this country); as well as the custom of wearing a veil is meaningless (much like the wearing of special undergarments by Mormons), has no real significance and not commanded to be worn by any sister in the Lord’s body today. We believe the Catholic denomination is mainly to blame for perpetuating this practice, such as the lighting of candles, the Rosary, wimple or cornette, (the veil which is as part of a nun’s head dress), crossing one’s self etc…We also believe elders are at fault for not properly teaching this subject and for allowing it to continue. The rest may be chalked up to just plain ignorance.

Some other considerations

What exactly was this covering?

If one is to use 1 Cor.11 as authorization for wearing a veil, shouldn’t one also wear a proper one?

I have traveled around the country and believe me; the thinking on this is endless. Some say it is only “symbolic” and shows subordination to the male. Others believe it is showing respect for God during the observance of the Lord’s Supper. There was an elderly sister where I once preached years ago that always wore a little hat with what I would call a fishnet type veil. She kept it turned up until the Lord’s Supper at which time she would turn it down; which only covered her face to her upper lip. After the supper, she would turn the veil back up over the top of her little hat. That being the case, does she show her disrespect for God and the male when she doesn’t wear it? Or to put it another way, does she show respect only in the assembly and not the rest of the time? Are there not gross inconsistencies here?

Today it seems any kind of covering one wants to wear (for any reason) is acceptable i.e., a hat, a scarf, mantilla (light hood), a kerchief, veil, snood (hair net), shawls, or fishnet type covering, etc…These, to me, cover the head exactly the same way a bikini covers the body! But to what kind of veil did Paul have reference to?

The type of covering used when Paul wrote was a complete head covering (called a Pasch?), which is like the Burkah, sometimes spelled Burqa or Burka, used by Islamic women today, (or the Purkaa use by women in Afghanistan) this completely covers their head all the way down past their shoulders, and sometimes almost to their feet. Why would a woman think anything less would be acceptable today? The women of Paul’s day did not wear some skimpy little rag on their heads. And they wore it all the time in public; why not wear a proper veil now?

Although Paul enjoined the covering as well as the holy kiss during his day neither has any validly for us today or that it is to be practiced as some insist. This, to me, falls into the category of tithing practiced among many denominations and even some brethren today. It was given to Jews only, never commanded by God that any gentile practice it. Therefore it is not commanded or necessary for his ecclesia today. And shows a glaring lack of understanding as to what God requires of us. However, we should never doubt their sincerity in this matter. And I view it as an effort on their part to show as much respect for God as is possible. And may fall into the category where some men when called on to lead on prayer, will kneel down in the pew to pray. I think it unnecessary, and don’t believe God cares whether we stand, kneel or lay flat. But if it makes them feel better, then more power to them! After all, they haven’t violated any commandment I am aware of. What would make it wrong, in my opinion, would be if they judged others as not worshipping God correctly for not doing as they do. So, will those sisters who wear a veil burn in hell for all eternity? Of course not! That it shows a lack of understanding there is no doubt. But many of God’s children practice discrepancies in many areas out of ignorance and will continue until taught better. Should it be made a test of fellowship? I haven’t and wouldn’t.

J.D. Williams~

ATTENDANCE

10-25-2010

We continue our thoughts on attendance (see article “Sunday Attendance, once or Twice?”)

Attending worship may be attributed to one of several factors;

1) My parents always attended; which is not always a bad thing.

2) Ignorance of what God requires of us. Believe it or not many don’t really understand why they attend.

3) Fear or superstition. They are afraid God will punish them if they don’t attend. And others believe it brings them “good luck”!

4) Guilt. Some feel guilty because of what others might think about them if they don’t attend.

5) To socialize. (See article on fellowship.)

6) Because they think the day (Sunday) is “Holy.”

7) A sincere desire to worship God in spirit and truth. There may be others, but most will fall into one of the categories.

There are others who believe it doesn’t make any difference which day one meets for worship. Still others are overly concerned as to what day Christ actually resurrected from the dead and say we can’t be sure our Sunday is the actual Sunday Christ arose.

That problem comes from the name we have given this particular day, Sun-day. In Roman culture it was believed the sun was the primary source of life. In order to pay homage a day was given him; “the day of the sun-god.” Emperor Constantine made Sunday the official day of worship for Christians ca. 321 A.D. The scriptures however do not specify Sunday or any other day, exact or otherwise. It only states Christ arose on the first day of the week. Logic should dictate if a week had only two days, one of them would be the first day and it really doesn’t matter what you call it!

Since the actual first day of the week cannot be known nor is it relevant, any Sunday (or first day) we choose would be acceptable to God and is only representative of the real day whenever it may have been. And on this first day God requires certain kinds of worship from us that is not required on any other day.

And to be honest, I haven’t found any teachings the day is “holy.” What made this day special is because first century Christians choose to assemble with apostolic approval. As the apostle Paul did acts 20:7. Early church history tells us the disciples met sometimes on Thursday, then on Friday (because that was the day Christ was crucified). And on the Sabbath because of Jewish influences that still prevailed among early Christians. The argument is sometimes put forth based on the above that communion may be taken any day of the week. But we believe following Paul’s example is the safest practice. We know he did so with God’s approval; therefore we may do so also. And we base that on the fact Paul waited seven days (for the first day) before observing the Lord’s death. If any day was acceptable, why did he wait? We must conclude there is significance in him assembling with brethren on the first day of the week. We would also add there is no mention of congregational singing or giving and Paul’s preaching does not necessarily set precedent that sermons must also be delivered. Apparently this was a typical meeting and the only purpose for their assembling was to memorialize our Lord’s death; all else was incidental. The fact he felt he would never see them again no doubt caused him to give as much instruction as possible while he was still with them. Eventually disciples did choose the first of the week (Sunday). This gives us apostolic example that we may assembly on this day also (Acts 20:7, I cor.16:1-2, I Cor.11). So when we partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week, we must do so with a proper understanding of the significance of the day and treat it accordingly.

Now let’s consider those who attend out of ignorance

.

That the Lord’s people have assembled is not in question and never has been. Under what circumstances may be. Many will find this difficult to believe, but a great number are forced to attend. This often results from ignorance either on the part of the congregation, the individual, or the elders, when neither fully understands their duty to God. I have experienced this several times in my nearly six decades in the Lord’s body. Here is the most common example:

A favorite verse which has been traditionally misapplied by practically everyone at one time or another for years is Heb.10:25. And many dutifully parrot their elders/ministers without having considered or being aware of what it does and does not teach. This verse is used by them to intimidate (perhaps from just plain ignorance) or to make one feel guilty should they miss a scheduled service, and has worked quite well for years.

Some ministers are so fearful that everyone will not attend; they make it an abomination if one does not. Most assuredly regular attendance is desirable, and to be encouraged at every chance. But the reality is people will miss from time to time. Why they do is really between them and God. And this verse shouldn’t be used to condemn them. We don’t question their sincerity, just their misunderstanding of its intended meaning. This comes from at least four areas. 1) Not giving proper consideration of why the writer gave these instructions or in what context it was written. 2) To whom the letter was written: 3) the proper meaning of the word forsake, as used in the context. And 4) to exactly what day is being referred to. If one keeps in proper context what is being said, “Not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is…” Heb 10:25a; all that may be reasonably extracted from this part of the verse is: “They should not stop assembling altogether as some already had!” (How simple is that?). It does not, nor can it be, legitimately (or scripturally) applied to irregular attendance. And that’s where a failure to understand what the verse teaches causes undue guilt.

To forsake means to abandon with no intention of returning. That is how the writer used the word. That was the meaning of the word when he wrote (and still is). That is how his readers understood the word. And this is what 90% today fail to grasp! When this letter was written they were undergoing great persecution; apparently so much so, that many had ceased to assemble with other saints. Some, perhaps several, had given up, (forsaken) or abandoned their faith. At least that is what their actions indicated, and evidently, what the writer thought too. The writer is simply pointing this out and urging the rest not to do the same. This is the only purpose of this verse in a nutshell.

Now as to the day referred to, there are three possibilities. 1) That the day referred to is the First day of the week (our Sunday). 2) That it refers to the destruction of the Jewish Nation. 3) That it refers to the Judgment day.

The majority of people have (I believe) wrongly concluded the day to be Sunday. Because it doesn’t necessarily have to be the first day of the week. Most believe that, because it has been traditionally taught or have been told to believe it. What makes more sense and is more in harmony with the total context is the day of destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (i.e. all the events which brought on its being destroyed by the Romans). History tells us the siege of Jerusalem began around A.D.66 and lasted four years. Jesus even warned of their impending doom in Matt.24th chapter. So a particular day is not being referred to at all!

Others take the position it is the judgment day. But as this day (of our verse) apparently can be seen to draw near, I have to rule that out. As no one can know the exact day our Lord will return there would be no way of determining how close it is! That this day is Sunday or the final Day of Judgment then is remote to say the least. And in no way comes close to fitting the overall context.

So whether a person attends once a week or once a month, they cannot be charged with abandoning the assembling of themselves. Although they may do so sporadically they haven’t fallen from grace because they still assemble! Some argue that missing any scheduled service could be considered “temporarily abandonment.” Which makes no sense to me. You either abandon or give up something completely or you don’t.

If I have car trouble and leave it beside the road, to find help, have I abandoned it or even temporarily abandoned it? No, because though I did leave it, I intend to return for it. All that can be made of this is, one may be considered not attending regularly, which is another issue by itself. And that alone does not prove unfaithfulness, as some too quickly conclude! No one can beat you over the head with this verse and condemn you to hell because you miss scheduled services occasionally. Obviously we believe regular first day worship is commanded, if at all possible. “This do in remembrance of me…” (Lk 22:19).

One of the problems I have found directly related to attendance are overly emotional, pious and sanctimonious “one sermon” preacher that rant, rave and ramble on with endless platitudes as they wander all over auditorium screaming about how evil the congregation is and are more concerned with “alleged” rumors or other matters too trivial to be concerned with that never amount to anything; and never actually devote adequate time in bringing in-depth lessons based on proper hermeneutics or explain texts or doctrine. And bible classes, so boring one dreads to attend. Many teachers however are very popular with congregations because they are comical in their presentations but really never challenges them to learn anything new or explore full potentials of what God’s word teaches. They never ask tough questions that would require serious discussion, deep thought or knowledge. No, it’s easier to spout traditional mainline church of Christ teaching (as opposed to what the scriptures actually teach); stay away from anything that might be controversial and only ask questions they are pretty sure the class already knows, and then praise them for such great answers! This reflects a dismal commentary on their own lack of knowledge and abilities to teach. If no one is learning, then no one is teaching! I fail to understand how repeating the same fundamental material over and over, year after year, is teaching! And until someone challenges either of them to do better they will never become more knowledgeable or competent. These “fiery preachers” and “comical teachers” are certainly entertaining; perhaps so because they can’t preach or teach, and that‘s all that is left for them! But the ones that made me more knowledgeable and I have benefited from the most are those who present challenging lessons that caused me to think by calmly explaining and analyzing scripture in an intelligent and scholarly way.

I realize there are times when circumstances will prevent us from attending. Sickness is one; sometimes our jobs may cause us to miss. But if this is an ongoing problem and you are not able to attend at all, you may want to consider seeking employment elsewhere. I realize that is easier said than done, but you should ask yourself, which is the most important, by job, or my soul?

Another peculiar thing I have noticed by those quoting this verse is they rarely quote the rest of it! Notice part b; “encouraging one another and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” (Nasv). How many people called you during the week to encourage you to attend Sunday? Did you receive any letters from anyone? Phone calls, emails? How many came by your house for the expressed purpose of encouraging you to assemble for worship?

How many Elders contacted you? Did the preacher contact you? Odds are no one did! And this is their pet verse! And how many did you contact? Do you see my point? How can anyone focus on just one part of this verse, demand it be followed to the letter but completely ignore the rest of it? I’ll tell you why, because it suites their purpose! No wonder they got it wrong. Obviously they are not really interested in the rest of the verse. Their only reason appears to be to make you feel guilty.

Let’s notice the implications of the rest of this verse. How many contacts must be made to meet the demands of this verse? It says, “And all the more, as you see the day drew near.” What does that mean? Logic would dictate if you contacted someone on Monday, does it not stand to reason Tuesday would require two contacts? And Wednesday, three? And so on. After all, the verse does say “all the more.” One might say that’s ridiculous, and probably impossible, and I would agree, if you are trying to make the day Sunday! And if one insists on making this day Sunday, then I would insist they obey the rest of what the verse teaches! I strongly suspect the fact that Emperor Constantine (ca 325 A.D.) passed a law making “Sunday” the official day of worship for Christians did much to reinforce this misconception.

It is tragic the so-called leadership has relied on “scare tactics” over the years to force people to attend, sometimes to the point of threatening to with-draw fellowship from them! Rather than teaching them the truth about their obligation to attend and let them make up their own minds as to how many services they will attend. I firmly believe when properly taught, attendance will no longer be an issue.

J.D. Williams~

SAVED BY FAITH OR FAITH ONLY?

11-4-2015

When we read verses that mention faith in connection with salvation such as, Mk 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” and acts 2:41, “They that received his word were baptized.” (To receive the word is equal to having faith). Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” Or acts 16:30-33, after the jailer asked Paul what he must do in order to be saved was told to: “believe and was baptized” immediately afterwards; or perhaps acts 8:37-38 when Phillip had preached Jesus to the Ethiopian (taught him the gospel), he asked, “why he couldn’t be baptized right then, and was told, “if he believed” he could, and he confessed he did believe Jesus was the Son of God and was baptized (immersed) on that confession. According to the “faith only” theory, if he was saved the moment he believed why be baptized?? Several denominations say they believe and follow the “scriptures only” as their guide. Which of the above scriptures teach “faith only and nothing else?”

Neither Philip nor the Ethiopian believed faith only would save you! We know this simply by what the Ethiopian asked and that Philip baptized him. We wonder where this doctrine comes from. Certainly not from our Lord’s teaching; as this doctrine is as foreign to New Testament teaching as many of those added later. There are other verses, but these are representative of all. Logically, it would appear from these alone; there is more than just “faith only” involved in our salvation. These verses indicate at the very least the saving process was not complete until the alien sinner in addition to having faith, repented, confessed Christ and was baptized. But in order to believe (in God or Christ) they must first hear about them, make a decision as to the truth of what they have heard (have faith) and then act on it. Pilate once asked Jesus, “what is truth” Jn 18:38. And before proceeding, we could ask the same here, what is the truth?

Truth is any concept which coincides with known facts. And the way to determine that is to meticulously gather and analyze all of the facts concerning the matter you wish to resolve (in biblical hermeneutics, called the induction method). Then ask is the conclusion reached in harmony with known and provable biblical facts? While discussing bible doctrines with people from many Christian beliefs one of the most common mistakes I find is people often rely of one verse to base their conclusions instead of collecting all verses having to do with the subject at hand and then putting them altogether to get the complete picture as to what God wants you to do.

In this case everything (the biblical facts) we need to know concerning the questionable doctrine of “faith only” is found in our scriptures, not creed books or confessions! And that bible fact is, it is nowhere taught in our scriptures! If your belief or creed does not harmonize with the scriptures, it is transparently false. The general message of our bible is mankind is lost because he violates God’s laws (sins) and therefore needs a savior. This means he must also understand he needs to change his life, our scriptures call that Repentance. So now we have in addition to this so-called “faith only” doctrine, A) the hearing of the word, B) a repenting of one’s sins, C) a confession of that faith and D) baptism (by immersion).

According to the faith only doctrine, a person is saved the moment they believe. Carried to its logical conclusion then, a person is saved before; they repent of their past sins (repent and be baptized for the remission of sins acts 2:28), saved before confessing their belief that Jesus is the Son of God (“Whosoever confesses me before men, him will I confess before my Father who is in heaven.” Matt 10:32), and saved before being immersed in the name of Christ (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mk 16:16);

How can faith only be insisted on as the only thing necessary to salvation, when all of these other steps are obviously required in order to receive it? I’ve often wondered how those that espouse this doctrine feel about James 2:19 when he asked, “Thou believest that God is one, thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.” Are demons saved the moment they believed? If not, why not? I think James answers that in the next verse (20); “But wilt thou know O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?” James is saying, “If you have faith, then you must also demonstrate it!”

Actually, after hearing the word, faith is only the first of several steps which puts one into the body of Christ! Why are these simple verses ignored or not believed? Evidently this disbelief comes from those relying on what their particular denomination’s creed teaches and not what our scriptures teach.

And why would they do that? Apparently those that developed this belief as well as those following it do not believe or do not understand what Jesus taught. And for some strange reason decided to ignore what our Lord and his apostles taught in favor of what some denominational founder taught by inserting their own beliefs. Or perhaps they follow the Catholic practice of believing they also have the authority to change any of our Lord’s teachings they don’t agree with! Even God’s own Son did not have that authority! “For I speak not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. Jn 12:49.

The apostles were also given limited authority as to what they were authorized to teach; “Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you…” Jesus told them. Matt 28:20. Where did he teach “faith only?” The apostle Paul warned the Galatians, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.” Gal 1:8. Can anyone show where Paul taught faith only in regards to salvation? He didn’t and says God will curse any that teach this or any spurious doctrines.

If your denomination teaches the doctrine of “faith only” or even a version of it; I strongly recommend you re-study this subject using your scriptures only. A correct understanding of what our scriptures teach is vital to your salvation. Therefore, you cannot ignore the verses mentioned nor can you pass them off as to trivial to bother with.

See my article, “The Sinner’s Prayer” under misunderstood scriptures.

J.D. Williams~

SUNDAY ATTENDANCE; ONCE OR TWICE?

6-12-2015

A popular misconception held among Christians is attendance (see article on “Attendance”). More precisely, the number of times one must be in attendance. While a few understand what they may scripturally do, others apparently do not. Like many other issues some disagree with, they remain silent being fearful of being with-drawn from, excommunicated, shunned or whatever your particular denomination calls it. There seems to be growing concern among elders of many larger congregations that some have chosen not to hold Sunday evening services. Some have also dispensed with Wednesday evening meetings. In some smaller congregations the reason is purely economical. Nevertheless they are often readily condemned for it. Many elders overlook the fact each congregation has a God-given right to handle its own affairs. Several congregations I am aware of have begun the practice of holding back to back services Sunday morning. That is, they have one sermon take communion, and then present another sermon. Others, in addition to morning services, conduct their Wednesday evening meeting in order not to return for Sunday and Wednesday evening services. This places a tremendous physical burden on older members and those with small children. Normally there will be a one hour study period, communion, song service, and then a sermon that often last thirty minutes to an hour. But under this arrangement, they are not finished yet, because there is another lesson/sermon, and then another one! That’s at least four and a half to five hours, not counting travelling time to and from the building. Some do take a break and re-assemble around 2 or 3 in the afternoon. But I’ve observed the second service has no more in attendance than would normally attend at an evening service, if they return at all! Worship should not be an ordeal or something that must be endured in order to please elders!

I really question just how much of any lesson will be remembered under those trying circumstances. After all, what good does it do to hear lessons if they are not remembered? I had rather hear or deliver a solid well thought out lesson of no more than 10-15 minutes that I believe will be remembered as opposed to the above! The logical question to me is: why insist on all these meetings? According to traditional/general wisdom (?) it seems there are a prescribed number of times one must meet during the week in order to avoid hell and be considered faithful if you want to go to heaven! And if you don’t some form of disciplinary action may be taken; even being withdrawn from! We wonder who set those standards, where this tradition originated; and by what authority? The reason this particular threat is so alarming to many is if the elders withdraw fellowship from you, you are pretty much condemned to hell unless you repent and return to them and submit to their rule! My experience has been, withdrawal does little or no good. One of the reasons I believe is; when someone is withdrawn from all contact with them is stopped. No member is allowed to associate with them. How then, is the person (or persons) encouraged to repent or change is ways? And I’ve seen too many congregations split over this action. Because it reduces the membership and often times weakens those that are left and in general there is hard feelings on both sides! I’m not saying such action shouldn’t be taken if the situation warrants it; but over attendance? Must one cave in to elders out of fear of losing their salvation? No! Nothing could be farther from the truth! The elder has no authority to open or close the door of salvation to anyone! Jesus does that (Rev 3:7). It is your obedience to him that secures your salvation. And besides, there is no example of the “elder-ship” withdrawing from anyone, such action is a congregational matter! I Cor 5:4-5.

Since I have never found any scripture commanding this, obviously I must conclude it began and continues without apostolic authority! Traditionally it is believed any congregation that meets at these times is considered sound! Sound doctrine should be everyone’s concern. But does attending twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday constitute or ensure sound doctrine. Generally, all denominations demand and expect its members to attend at these times. But what does God demand? Is it required or commanded or is it strictly voluntary? And if a person chooses not to attend Sunday/Wednesday evening service, have they sinned? God says no! But according to elders and those that ascribe to their way of thinking, you have. And of course those who have not studied as they should or are not as knowledgeable as they should be usually go along with whatever the minister, elders, or whoever is in charge says is scriptural. Compliance with elders demanding its members meet as often as they are ordered to is guilt driven at best. It’s not the quality of the worship and what may be learnt, but get as many in as you can so you will still be considered a real Christian!

First, let me say, I have no problem with meeting twice on Sunday, or however many times the congregation or group I’m meeting with voluntarily chooses. What I do have a problem with is when someone orders or demands I must attend and tells me I am unsound and have sinned if I don’t! And they get away with that and other unscriptural demands because they have convinced members; to disobey an elder is to disobey God! And in many cases, they fear the wrath of elders more so than God’s!

Early historical records show first century disciples often met Sunday morning and broke for meals which were eaten in the homes or wherever they happened to be meeting or if living near-by would re-assembled later in the day to continue to study or worship. So we could say there may be apostolic example for evening meetings, should we chose to. Whether all disciples did in every place is not clear. That seemed to be the most widely accepted practice at the time. But how many times they actually assembled on the first day of the week shouldn’t matter. For those that were traveling or visiting others, times, overnight housing or travelling conditions may have prevented them from doing so. And there are no scripture I am aware of which prohibits or regulates the place, time or number of times one met. Actually early Christians met every day often taking communion. Yet, I think we understand we today are not required to do the same. If church leaders want to insist on two Sunday meetings and a Wednesday one, then I would insist we also meet every day! At the very least, I think this would give us apostolic example to meet every day should we choose. Over the centuries a tradition of meeting twice on the Lord’s Day was established. This tradition, which was strictly voluntary, in the centuries that followed, somehow became DOCTINE! I have for many decades warned my congregations about the dangers of traditions, Irregardless of whether it is a “good” tradition or not, because almost invariably if it is practiced long enough it will come to be considered doctrine!

And in this situation the tradition/doctrine is: if you don’t meet twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday (or sometimes Thursday) as tradition demands; you have sinned, are unfaithful, don’t love the Lord and are often accused of “forsaking the assembly”. The only source from which this thinking had to come was from elders/bishops, over-zealous ministers; (both professional and non-professional) usually associated with larger congregations or brotherhood magazines with powerful influence among its members; as no one else would be so brazen as to assume such authority. And of course they believed they have authority to set policy as they see fit. This is where I part company with them. What I object to is this: God never gave them or anyone authority to bind on his people anything he didn’t! Even the apostles with their God-given authority were never so power-hungry, egotistical or shameless as to do this! God never commanded or demanded two Sunday meetings and a mid-week one. And to force a congregation to comply with this unscriptural tradition and then tell them they have sinned because they have not obeyed the decision of the elders, is grossly overstepping what God never commanded or intended. A related problem is: most members rely on the elders to tell them what they must do and have not studied the subject for themselves and therefore do not know the scriptures well enough to realize God has given his people far more freedom or option of attending or not; and therefore have not committed sin by not doing so. And apparently the elders haven’t studied it either!

Three main arguments often used in order to appease or find favor with elders are: if the elders believe it is best for the congregation to meet two or three times a week, then that must be obeyed. After all, they believe they have the authority to set times they feel is necessary. And most would (in ignorance) agree they do. But what if they decided to hold Sunday services at 12:01 A.M.? How many would attend? Would they continue to remain silent and dutifully drag out of bed and attend? Or would they protest? I realize that is an unreasonable move. But no more so than some of the other demands elders and preachers have foisted on their members. But any decision made by them should be tempered with common sense as well as conform to the scriptures. Anything other than that is strictly an opinion. And you can’t bind opinions on God’s people! The second: anyone not attending the Sunday and Wednesday evening service is failing to assemble with the saints or is “forsaking the assembly”! This is so asinine I won’t even take time to comment.

Third: those who do not attend don’t love the Lord, or they would want to attend! Well, how many things are wrong with that thinking? First, they are unwittingly supporting the elders in their ignorance and error. Secondly, they are insisting on you following commands our Lord or his apostles never gave. And thirdly, they are trying to hold others to their standards of righteousness! How can anyone possibly know what is in my heart? So before anyone hurls unwarranted judgment of others in this matter, they should first find the scripture that condemns one to hell based on the number of times one attends. Those that proudly proclaim “We’re there every time the doors are open,” I think show blind loyalty to elders, not God! It seems there is an air of religious superiority by these self-righteous people because they have reduced righteousness to the number of times one attends i.e., the more you attend, the more you love God; sort of like collecting brownie points! It appears more stress in placed on number of attendance than on daily living and going about your life conducting yourself as God would have you do!

As I have stated in other articles, once we attend and worship God in a scriptural and acceptable manner, our obligation in this circumstance is met. God does not require anything more from us. If he did, I’m sure he would have stated it in clear language as he has other commandments. To me, this seems to suggest those with this attitude don’t worship as they should during the week and therefore feel they must cram all of their worship into Sundays and weds. So they become fanatical about attendance! God’s ecclesia (those called out) will worship, by living and working by Godly principles daily, study, pray, and do any benevolent work as opportunity presents itself. And when the first day of the week comes all that is really left to do is to begin the week by observing the Lord’s death.

Have you ever noticed communion/contribution, is not offered at the evening meeting to those who have attended the morning services? Why? Because we believe it is not necessary (however, there are those that believe the Lord’s Supper should be observed every time saints meet!). But why do we feel it is not necessary? Isn’t it because we recognize we have fulfilled our obligation to God already; therefore there is no need to repeat it? So why is it the majority feels they have fulfilled their obligations in observing the Lord’s death and in contributions, but not in attendance? Does no one see inconsistencies here?? Of course there is no scripture stating that it may be limited to only once on Sunday either! Our Lord said, “Do this in remembrance of me” but never indicated how many times. Logic, at least would dictate once is all that is required.

And the argument that it is necessary for those who cannot attend morning service really has nothing to do with this issue. The evening service, I think, should be viewed as a convenience for those who were not able to attend, therefore have not met their obligation yet. This has nothing to do with whether I personally attend or not. This is a classic example of not focusing on the real issue. What Jesus said of the Pharisees in Matt 23:24. I think is applicable here: “Ye blind guides that strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.”

As we said, too many people evidently want to cram all of their worship into Wednesday evening and Sundays. They seem to forget or maybe have never been taught we must worship God every day. People talk about it, but how many really practice it? But devoting time for bible study, prayer or other good works as opportunity presents is also worship. After Jesus observed the Sabbath, what did he do the rest of the week? Sit home twiddling his thumbs just waiting for the next Sabbath? No, he was always helping others, teaching, praying, and doing the works his Father sent him to do. Is that what motivates your day? And the good news is: we don’t have to be assembled to worship God or do good works. Surely he expects no less from us today.

J.D. Williams~

THE MISCONCEPTION OF GUARDIAN ANGELS 1

9-7-1999

I grew up with stories about guardian angels. In fact it was so common place I just took for granted there were such beings. As a pre-teen I vaguely recall having some sort of accident and coming through it unharmed. And I was told that my “guardian angel” was looking out for me! And it would be many decades before I was to give the subject any serious consideration. And I did so because many of the stories I had heard and believed as a child didn’t really harmonize with what I was reading in my scriptures.

As you may or may not know, angels are a big business in today’s economy. There are all sorts of books written about them, there are television programs, and movies made about them; there are all sorts of angelic paraphernalia such as lapel pins, necklaces, and charm bracelets for sale in America as well as in foreign countries.

And there is what I would call related subjects such as ghosts, UFO’s, paranormal activity or supernatural occurrences. Some claim to have even captured their images on some kind of “special” film! Whatever that means. Man has always sought a power higher than himself. The concept of a supreme being can be found in all cultures and civilizations no matter how advanced or primitive.

I’ve often thought this is why people seem to be obsessed with angels. And it may be from a feeling that we want something more powerful than ourselves. We want to have the ability to change the outcome of any situation so it will end the way we want it to.

We want to have power over the natural order of things we obviously don’t have now. And it would or maybe does give one a great sense comfort in believing there is such power available to aid us in our time of need. That’s why millions of people believe in angels, praying to saints or the Virgin Mary hoping they will bring about what seems impossible.

But two things I do know for certain; it all stems from 1) Ignorance of what God has said in his word concerning the function of angels; and for what purpose he created them. 2) And a majority of people who refuse to believe miracles are no longer available as they were in what we call “biblical times.” Most have not gotten the connection that God does not inter-act with mankind today as he did in the past. All things that God provides for us today are provided for us through his divine providence. And most have failed to put their faith and trust in him to do all he said he would. And it seems when God does not make things work out for people in the way they think it should, they want to call on what they think is a “higher power!”

And as previously stated, some even pray to the Virgin Mary or one of the dozens and dozens of saints some denominations believe have power in certain areas and think proper to approach in prayer; not realizing of course since God created them all, as he did the angles, they cannot be as, or more powerful than He! And that seems to be the tragedy and fallacy of this belief in angel to do the impossible!

As to the existence of angels, there is no doubt. There are numerous references and quite a bit of information about them in both testaments; They are mentioned 109 times in the Old Testament and about 69 times in the New, if I have counted correctly! And you would think with that much information we would learn everything God would have us know about them. But like many other subjects found in its sacred pages, there is much false information floating around. First of all we need to ask ourselves two important questions; “what are angels, and what is their purpose?” That they are “created beings” we may learn from such verses as Col 1:16: which says in part, “For in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible…” That would of course include angels.

In Hebrews 12:22 we learn they cannot be numbered. “But ye are come unto mount Zion and to an innumerable host of angels…”

The word “innumerable” there means Myriads, tens of thousands, and is used metaphorically to mean something that cannot be counted. The same thought is found in Rev 5:11 where John wrote; “And I John saw, and heard a voice of many angels round about the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands…”

From the Genesis account of the temptation of Adam and Eve we may determine that Satan and his angels existed before the creation of Mankind, and had fallen from their glorious estate before our first parents encountered him in the garden. II Pet 2:11 tells us that angels are greater in might and power than man. In Psa 103:20, David said, “Bless Jehovah, ye his angels, that are mighty in strength…” This word is sometimes translated “his mighty ones,” “creatures of might,” or “warriors of strength.” From Psa 8:4 we learn that man was made lower than angels. David, speaking of man said, “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels. And hast crowned him with glory and honor.” From Heb 2:16, the writer speaking of Christ, said, “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” (KJV) Being made lower simply means mankind was not given the same powers and abilities as angels; because they were created for a different purpose. And in the 9th vs the writer says Jesus, like man, was also made a little lower than the angels, in that he took on human form; and it stated the reason why; “…that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man.” And we may conclude from this Jesus came and died for the redemption of mankind not angels; therefore there is no salvation for any angel that sins!

Now what is the function of angels? The word angel in the O.T. means, “One sent by an individual to communicate something; and carries with it the basic idea of a “messenger.” It does not always mean an angelic being.

A messenger can be one sent by man to man or one sent by God to man. And must be determined by how the word is used in a sentence. Thus, in several places in the O.T. for example, in II Chron 36: 16, we find the term, “the messenger of the Lord.”

This was a prophet or messenger, God had sent to the nation of Israel to warn them of impending destruction if they did not hear the words of that prophet or his divine messenger from God.

But we also learn from Psa 103:20 that angels are servants or ministering spirits send forth from God to do his bidding; and have played a very active role in man’s life. Most Christians don’t realize it was through the instrumentality of angels the Law of Moses was given or ordained by the hand of a mediator, (acts 7:53, Gal 3:19). It was an angel God sent to destroy the first born of the Egyptians. Angels were sent to warn Lot to leave Sodom before it was destroyed by them. Angels appeared to Mary and announced her child would be called Jesus in Lk 2:21. In Heb 1:14 the writer speaking of angels there asks rhetorically, “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?”

It was an angel of the Lord that caused the shackles to fall from Peter’s hands; and brought Paul and Silas out of prison. When Jesus was arrested in the garden and Peter cut off the ear of one of the servants of the high priest Jesus told him to put up thy sword, and said, “Thinketh thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?” Matt 26: 50-53. Now if Jesus spoke literally (and we believe he did), and used the current meaning applied to Roman soldiers at that time, a full legion consisted of 6,100 men plus 727 horses. That would be 73,200 angels that would have instantly come to his aid. But notice, he said he could call down MORE than that! These verses are but representative of the many other verses we could quote stating angels are actively involved in some way, in the lives of mankind.

But neither these verses nor any others state or teach each person has an angel specifically assigned to them as a guardian and protector.

So where did this belief or doctrine originate? Practically all denominations, I am aware of, and even some of our brethren believe the bible absolutely teaches each person has an angel assigned to them in order to provide providential care.

As already stated, angels were indeed actively involved in the lives of men in times past. But it is vitally important we keep one thought in mind, these were MIRACULOUS actions taken on behalf of mankind before the inspired word was written down. For example: in acts 8:26 an angel appeared to Philip in Samaria, “But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza…” The reason he was told to do so was, as you may know, there would be an Ethiopian traveling back to his homeland who needed to hear the gospel.

An angel appeared to Cornelius in Caesarea acts 10:3. “He saw in a vision openly, as it were about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in unto him…” and he was told by that angel he should contact the apostle Peter, and he would tell him what he must do to be saved. But these events occurred during what we call the “age of miracles.” And such things are no longer necessary as we now have the written word of God to guide us into any truth God would have us learn. Among some of the verses often quoted hoping to find support for this belief is one found in Psa 34:7, “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.”

But all this verse states is what had already been stated in other verses; and that is; angels were employed in some way to aid mankind. And to insist or make this verse teach the doctrine of guardian angels is to force it completely out of its context!

Now in Matt 18:10 we read another favorite verse often used, “See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Jesus speaking of little children seems to confirm the existence of guardian angels in this verse. But once again too much has been read into it. Notice where “their angels” are; they are in heaven where they (the angels) always behold the face of the Father, not here on earth!

Since Heb 1:14 tells us these angels are ministering spirits, the plural term, their angels would be a general statement that would include all angels as a collective body which belongs to all who will inherit eternal life. But does not affirm some have been assigned to individuals as this superstition teaches. Jesus, as stated earlier said, he could call down twelve legions of angles, should he wish to indicates to me he did not have an angel personally assigned to him, but could call down as many as he desired.

Now let’s take a quick look at acts 12th chapter. Here we find Peter, who had been imprisoned by King Herod and was awaiting execution; was suddenly awakened by an angel of the Lord. And he told Peter to get up, get dressed and follow him out of the prison.

The chains fell off his hands, they walked past the first and second guards; and when they got to the big Iron Gate that led to the street it opened by itself and Peter walked out and the angel left him. Then Peter said, in vs 11, “I know of a truth that the Lord hath sent forth HIS angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod…” It was not Peter’s angel but God’s!

He then proceeds to the house of John Mark’s mother and knocks on the door, and a maid named Rhoda answered and recognizing Peter’s voice ran to tell the others. And when she did, they thought she had lost her mind and said, “It must be his angel.” Vss13-15.

Now there are five things we need to notice here. First, the maid was wrong. Secondly, knowing he was in prison assumed he had been killed; but they were wrong. 3) And they also assumed this was Peter’s angel. Again they were wrong. 4) Peter said the Lord had sent his angel to deliver him, not one already assigned to him previously. And fifth, this only reflects a superstitious belief concerning angels similar to what is believed today, that was currently held by practically all Jews at that time. Now the only reason I can think of as to why they thought Peter’s angel would come to them was apparently to inform them of his death.

But all this proves is they had wrongfully assumed he had been killed. And there is not the slightest bit of evidence to support the claims of a guardian angel in the whole passage!

And in closing we must ask the most obvious question of all; Where were these so-called guardian angels when the apostles as well as thousands of Christians, when they were put to death.

Where was the guardian angel when Paul was beaten, robbed, thrown into prison, stoned, ship wrecked and finally executed for his belief? How does one explain all the suffering and sickness and death that God’s children undergo? Do these angels exercise control over us that we are unaware of? And if so, how can man be considered a “free moral agent?” Even God himself will not interfere with man’s will by making him do something he does not want to do! So why would he give such power to an angel? This so-called doctrine is in reality only a theory at best. And any theory that is in such obvious conflict with known and demonstrable biblical facts simply cannot be true! Therefore, this doctrine of guardian angels, while seemingly comforting to many, in my opinion, involves multiple and insurmountable difficulties that cannot be resolved in light of the clear teaching of the scriptures or common sense.

J.D. Williams~

THE SINNER’S PRAYER

7-10-2011

Luke is the only one who records the parable of “The Pharisee and the Publican,” in Lk 18:9-14. And it’s recorded for us as it says in vs 9, “…for those who trusted in themselves, that they were righteous and set all others at nought.” The Pharisee makes a long prayer telling God how great he is and of all the things he is not guilty of. In sharp contrast, it says, 13 “But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be thou merciful unto me a sinner (THE SINNER).” Just a humble, heart-felt prayer, prayed from an earnest soul, “Lord, be merciful to be a sinner.” It is interesting that the Greek text says, “Be merciful to me “THE” sinner (`o ‘amartolos), while our English versions say, “A” sinner. And I think the Greek text brings out the deeper and greater significance of the meaning of what is being said. The Publican, no doubt very much aware of his own sins and unworthiness doesn’t consider himself just another sinner, but the worse kind; much like the apostle Paul, painfully cognizant of the terrible sins committed against God’s people declared himself to be the “Chief of sinners” in I Tim 1:15.

But this humble prayer of the Publican, like many other teachings in the bible, has been perverted by practically all denominations. Because they say, “This parable teaches all a person has to do is pray the “sinner’s prayer” and God will save them.” And they often refer to this passage in Luke as proof of their claims. Actually, it has nothing to do with one’s salvation! This teaching of the sinner’s prayer originally started with the Billy Graham crusades many decades ago; and was invented in order to bolster the teaching of “faith only.” And like the doctrine of “faith only” neglects to take into consideration what other verses teach on securing one’s salvation. Mk 16:16, acts 2:28, acts 8:36-39. (See article “Saved by Faith or Faith Only?” under misunderstood scriptures).

This prayer was usually included in what they call the “Alter call.” Where those in attendance would be asked to come forward in response to hearing his message. And then were told to “attend the church of your choice!” No wonder he was so popular. Just believe you are saved, ignore everything else God commanded and worship however you wish!

Now what exactly is a sinner’s prayer as they teach it? Well, basically, it is any prayer spoken or read by the individual wanting divine forgiveness. The presumption being, salvation can be achieved immediately upon confessing one’s sins and accepting Jesus as their savior… without baptism! There are several versions of this prayer. And the wording varies quite a bit. But I’ll give you a couple of brief ideas as to what it states.

The person state they believe in Jesus Christ and asks forgiveness of their sins. He then invites Jesus into his heart to be his personal savior, and prays God will send the Holy Spirit to him. Another version is the person says he knows he has been forgiven, because of God’s grace alone. It is true all may be saved because of God’s grace, but one still has to be obedient to his complete will for that grace to be applied. And it is further stated, “it is through his (God’s) righteousness he has been saved.” But Jesus’ or God’s righteousness really has nothing to do with the condition of the sinner’s soul. That’s like saying, “I’m righteous because my preacher is!” Righteousness is simply “right doing!” A person becomes righteous by being obedient to God’s commands.

But the main and fatal flaw in this teaching, like many other bogus teachings, is they fail to realize this prayer cannot be applied to anyone living today wanting to obey the gospel under the Christian dispensation!

We must understand why the Publican said what he did and under what condition! Therefore the context is: the Publican was a Jew living under the Mosaic Law which is vitally important here; because the terms of forgiveness for him were different than for anyone living under the law of Christ.

The Publican, being a Jew, was already in covenant relationship with God, therefore, all he was required to do was ask forgiveness of his sins, which he does. He was not a Gentile or an alien sinner! God heard his prayer. Because it says, he “went down to his house justified.” Justification is anything God declares to be just. It is a legal and formal acquittal from guilt God as a righteous judge has pronounced. This also dispels the belief of some that one must obtain a condition known as “sinless perfection” before they may be completely forgiven. But the Publican was a sinner, he was guilty of sins and he knew it; but was living a life that God approved of because he was forgiven. He was a sinner yes, but not in the sense that he was not in covenant relationship with God. Because Prov 15:29 says, “The Lord is far from the wicked: but he hearth the prayers of the righteous.” All who have been added to the body of Christ are in covenant relationship with God. But we still sin from time to time; yet God has made a way for us to be forgiven and remain in that relationship. I Jn 1:7-9.

Now the question may arise, “if the sinner’s prayer does no good, what then should a person pray for?” Should he pray for light or understanding? No, because Psa 119:130 says, “The entrance of thy word giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple.”

Well, “Shouldn’t he pray for faith then?” No, because Rom 10:17 says, “So then, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” Paul told them in Rom 6:17, “That whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching where unto ye were delivered.” That form of teaching is obedience to God’s word. Rather than praying, the sinner should be hearing and studying God’s word, and then become obedient to it.

God will not hear any prayer that is not offered in faith. An alien sinner, no matter how sincere, cannot have complete and proper faith before he has heard, understood and obeyed God’s word. The alien sinner must be taught the word of God and believe it before he can come to him. Many denominations think it strange we (the ecclesia of God) do not ask someone to come to the “mourner’s bench” or to come to the alter to “pray through.” We want the sinner to be saved just as much as they do, but we want them saved in God’s way, therefore we are constantly taking God’s message of salvation to them. Here are the steps that put one into the body of Christ:

Therefore you must: Hear and believe God’s word~>, Rom 10:17, “Belief comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God”; and repent~> of your sin, II Cor 7:9-10, “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation.” Confess~> his name, Matt 10:32, “He that confesseth me before men, him also will I confess before my Father who is in heaven.” And be buried in the waters of baptism~> acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. And live a faithful life, ~> as Rev 2:10 tells us; then you will have a home in heaven for all eternity. Really, is there anything difficult about that?

J.D. Williams~

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN

6-3-2010

There are numerous lessons concerning this subject I have read or heard over the years, as you may have, and they are all about the same in content; and I believe there are numerous and erroneous teachings to be found in them. I believe the teaching on this as well as other verses are easily understood if studied correctly; therefore I present my lesson in hopes of clearing up any ambiguities.

The very basic idea of forgiveness is to first understand one is in need of forgiveness. And not only needs forgiveness but desire it with all their hearts. This of course involves and requires a person repent of ALL of their sins. Repentance is an understanding the life they are living now is not acceptable to God and they want to change it. Repentance then is simply “A going in a different direction.” Now it is not necessary that each individual sin be mentioned, obviously it would be impossible to do so, unless you are one of those blessed with a perfect knowledge of God’s word as well as an extraordinary or eidetic memory!

In my case, if all of my sins were written down, they would fill volumes! And those are just the ones I am aware of!!

Repentance requires all sins whatever they may be, cease to be practiced after baptism. As a general rule, this won’t happen all at once but an effort must be made. Some things may be obvious, and corrected almost immediately. Others not so much so. And it will take time, devotion and regular study of God’s word plus a determined effort on your part as you grow in knowledge and faith to slowly eliminate these things from your life as you become aware of them. So don’t set impossible goals or beat yourself up thinking you are a terrible person just because you haven’t reached some “alleged state of perfection” in a few months or years!

Now let me caution you here we are not suggesting at some point you will become completely sin free. Because there is no such thing as “sinless perfection” as some teach. When one is baptized, it is all of their past sins that are removed. “As far from the east is from the west, David wrote in Psa 103:12, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.”

And God basically allows you to start over again with a clean record. And to insure it stays as clean as possible, he also makes a way for you to stand before him without the eternal consequences of sin, by a continual asking forgiveness of any sin we become aware of in our lives, I Jn 1:7. There are many verses, actually too numerous to mention in this lesson that plainly tell us it was God’s will all men be saved from their sins. For example: Jn 3:16, a verse I’m sure familiar to all students of God’s word; “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth on his should not perish but have everlasting life.” And there is no sin God will not forgive. “…Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;” Isa 1:18.

So one might find it very disturbing to read passages of scripture that suggests this might not be true after all and that we might indeed stand in danger of eternal damnation. For example in Heb 6:4-6 we read, “For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame.” Or in Heb 10:26-29: “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries.”

And then the writer adds this terrible warning; 28 “A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” And if these warnings are not unsettling enough, there is a sin, some believe, is “unpardonable.” And the one in particular that is more frequently mentioned is the “blasphemy” against the Holy Spirit Jesus warned about in Matt 12:31-32. And I’m sure every thoughtful student of the Bible has wondered if perhaps they may have committed this sin at some time in their lives. And it certainly would give a conscientious Christian cause for concern. But it appears a majority of people (not staying within the context) and not considering to whom Jesus was talking, or why he made the statement he did have failed to correctly understood what Jesus meant by this warning. In other words, we must always interpret within the context.

So to understand why he said what he did, let’s begin our reading with the 22nd verse, and read through the 32nd.

“Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon, blind and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the dumb man spake and saw. 23 And all in the multitudes were amazed, and said, can this be the son of David? 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons. 25 And knowing their thoughts he said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 and if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?

27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore shall they be your judges. 28 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. 31 Therefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world which is to come.

The miraculous healing of this poor demon possessed man was performed in a great crowd of people which included the Pharisees. The crowd was so amazed by what they had just witnessed; they begin to wonder if maybe this was the Messiah the Jewish people had waited so long for.

Our Lord had completely reversed what Satan had done to this man. He caused him to see and to speak! Thus demonstrating his power over Satan’s. And this miracle was so evident even the average man in the crowd recognized a miracle had occurred.

But the Pharisees who were constantly trying to discredit him before the people determined not to give Jesus any credit for anything he did. Although they did not and actually could not, deny they also had just witnessed a miracle, did the next best thing by immediately charging him with doing so by the power of Beelzebub or Satan.

Beelzebub was the name of a Philistine god and to be associated with it in any way, to a Jew, was highly insulting and contemptible. And it declared one was in league with the “Prince of Demons.”

Jesus, it says knew their thoughts, that is, he knew the intent of their hearts and what their motives were and begins trying to reason logically with them concerning the charges just made against him.

The whole purpose of Satan is to gain as many souls as he can and to make life as miserable as possible for all mankind. Why then, Jesus asked, would I use that power against myself? Every kingdom divided against itself will be destroyed he said.

So the logical conclusion would be Satan’s kingdom would be divided or fighting against itself if I worked miracles by his power. And there certainly is no logic in that!

And in vs 29, Satan is likened to a strong man’s house that has all of the power. But Jesus by coming into the world with his power and message from God destroyed Satan’s power or bound him up, or spoiled his efforts to capture souls. And his working of divine miracles was proof he had overcome Satan’s power.

And Jesus tells them they have to choose whose side they are on, his or Satan’s.

And then he gives a warning that have caused a great deal of alarm among God fearing men ever since in verse 31 and the latter part of vs 32 when he said, “Therefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven…” “…Neither in this world, nor in the world to come.”

But is this the final word on this sin? And is the unpardonable sin and the sin against the Holy Spirit the same thing as most people believe?” In order to fully understand what Jesus is saying there are a number of things we must consider. First, what does the word blaspheme mean? Well its basic meaning is to “speak evil of,” To resist, not believe in or to reject. To resist is to refuse his teachings.

Philip in his speech in acts 7th chapter said, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you do always resist the Holy Spirit, as your fathers did, so do ye.”

So those Jesus addressed were “resisting or rejecting the Spirit.” Because what Jesus spoke was from the Father and the Spirit.

Now what does he mean by “this world, and the one to come?” Most people understand that to mean if a person commits this sin they will not be forgiven in this present life or in the after-life. Well the first error attached to that belief is that all sins will be forgiven in the next life; because they won’t. As a matter of fact, no sins will be forgiven in the next life!! Whatever forgiveness of sins obtained, must be done so in THIS life time. Heb 9:27 says, “…For in as much as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh the judgment.” So there is a time appointed for the forgiveness of sins, and there is a time appointed for judgment.

But if the word is understood as “age” as the Greek text says, and as it should be; then we have Jesus saying, “there will be no forgiveness for one who blasphemes against the Spirit in this present age, that is, the one Jesus was living in when he spoke this warning, or in the age that will follow this present age.”

So what age was Jesus living in? It was the Mosaic age or what we call the Mosaic dispensation. And what age followed that after Jesus established his congregations? It was the “Christian dispensation,” or the one we are living in now!

So is Jesus saying, anyone who lived under the Law of Moses and commits this sin will not be forgiven, and anyone who commits this sin living under the Christian law, will not be forgiven either? Well that doesn’t seem to help us, does it? Because it appears we are still not going to receive forgiveness for this sin. But does that make the sin “unpardonable?” Or to put it another way, what would make this sin unpardonable?

In I Jn 1:9 and there we read, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.”

Now what does this verse teach us and how is it relevant to our present study of blasphemy against the Spirit? Well there is all the relevance in the world! Watch carefully again what it teaches; “…he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.” Unrighteousness is sin. And Brother John says we can get cleansed or forgiven from all sins. How many? ALL of them, what kinds of sin? All kinds! Every last one! But it is based on the condition that we first CONFESS our sins! Therefore if we confess our sins, there is no limit to how many or what type, he said we would be forgiven!

Would that not include blasphemy against the Spirit? Why yes, it would, because that is as much a sin as any other one can commit! Now let’s be very careful to notice something else here. The condition is “if we confess;” so the reverse of that would be; “if we don’t confess, then we will not receive forgiveness!” So what does that teach us? Just this; and it is very simple:

If God will forgive any and all sins we confess, but he will not forgive any sin we do not confess, then it stands to reason the so-called “unpardonable” sin or blasphemy against the Spirit is the one that is not confessed! Or another way to say it is any sin that is not confessed to God is unpardonable!

God is not under any obligation to forgive any sins you do not confess to him. And that includes sins we may not be aware of. The apostle John also said in vs 7, “If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus his son cleanseth us from all sins.” The Christian’s life then is one that includes regular confession of sins. Although we have been making application of this in a personal way, let me add an even broader application.

Suppose a person is driving down the road and he sees a flagmen and a sign that says the bridge is out. But he ignores him and continues to drive. Then a short distance later, he encounters another flagman and sign stating the bridge is out over a large canyon. But he ignores him also and continues down the road.

And just a little farther he see yet another flagman with a sign that warns the bridge is out, maybe even has flares or a barricade, but the man swerves, ignores him also and continues at a neck-breaking speed to the brink of the canyon and goes over, falling several thousand feet to his death.

Now could he have saved himself? Yes he could; how, by simply turning around at any point he was warned. As a matter of fact he could ignore the first two warning and still have save himself. But when he ignored the third and last warning there was no hope for him.

This is exactly what all three dispensations did. And mankind could ignore the patriarchal dispensation and still find salvation, because it would be offered under the Law of Moses (mosaic dispensation). And if he ignored that warning, he could still find salvation under the Christian dispensation which would be offered next. But if he rejects the gospel which is now offered, there is no more hope for him because this is the last warning man will ever receive from God!

Therefore to reject the Spirit and his teachings today is to finally reject all hope of salvation and will put you outside all mercy of God. My friends, anyone may commit grave sins and be forgiven of them. The apostle Paul is an excellent example of that. He persecuted the disciples of our Lord, imprisoned and caused the deaths of who knows how many saints. But when he realized he was wrong and confessed such, he was forgiven.

A person may curse the Holy Spirit, deny there is a God, reject all that Jesus taught, and yet, still be forgiven if they come to realize they have been wrong and confess those sins. “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 learn to do well; seek justice… Come now and let us reason together saith Jehovah though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Isa 1:16-18.

If you have not obeyed the gospel then you are guilty of resisting not only the Spirit, but God, Christ, his apostles and all they taught. But forgiveness will be granted only if you obey. (See article “How much Sin Will God Forgive” under miscellaneous lessons).

J.D. Williams~

TO WHAT CONGREGATION DID THE ETHIOPIAN BELONG?

6-19-2016

In Acts 8:26-39 we read of the conversion of a Jewish proselyte (at the gate) that evidently had been to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home. The story is very simple; Phillip the evangelist, (not the apostle acts 21:8), was told by an angel of the Lord to go preach the gospel to him which he did. The Ethiopian was reading from Isa 53:7 but was having trouble understanding what it meant. When Phillip approached his chariot he inquired if he understood what he was reading; he was told no. So Phillip explained it to him and taught him what he must do in order to obey the gospel or “preached unto him Jesus” Acts 8:35.

Several things may be understood from that term alone: 1) one must understand they become lost sinners with their first sin and Jesus was the prophesied Messiah that came, fulfilled the law dying in our place, making it possible to stand before God in a forgiven and righteous condition. 2) No one can preach Jesus to anyone without preaching the necessity of baptism. 3) that baptism is by immersion. 4) That nothing else is required of a person other than to observe our Lord’s death weekly, daily study and prayer, and in general live a righteous life until death Rev 2:10b. No pledges of loyalty to obey elders are commanded, or dual membership in a so-called “local church” required, no required number of times one must attend in order to be considered faithful etc…He was a child of God regardless of whether he joined a local congregation or was recognized by them. Of course elders would condemn any who would refuse to attend a so-called “local church” (or congregation) as one that had abandoned the faith; but choosing not to attend a local congregation or any congregation does not mean one had fallen from grace! Since he is one of “those called out” (of a world of sin) he (or they) may worship where they choose and do the work God expects his ecclesia to do as opportunity presents itself. It cannot be definitely proven every Christian assembled with other Christians every Lord’s day to worship. As a matter of fact the odds are against it! Some might argue they may not have and were in violation of God’s command to assemble. The majority of today’s Christians worship by a different standard; employing corporate style worship. But who can say they are not in violation of God’s command to assemble by doing that today and not following first century Christian’s example? Wouldn’t it be safer to follow known first century practices?

But to focus our article: After his baptism the Ethiopian went on his way “rejoicing.” Was he fully a member of our Lord’s body or not? Or was he also required to become a member of anything else? When he arrived at his home in Ethiopia, what congregation did he attend? I ask this because traditional teaching believes a person must join a local congregation or as it is sometimes phrased, “to identify with a local church!” And (according to elders) no work can be done without working through a local congregation and under their oversight! And without this a person cannot worship acceptable! Membership in the Lord’s ecclesia is required because only they, through baptism, are added to his body (acts 2:47, Rom 6:3-4). No other membership in anything is required that I am aware of! Of course some might try to make the argument there may have been an Assembly of God’s people in that country, which I seriously doubt. Because, A) there is no proof there was any evangelizing done in that area at that time; B) Or proof there was a congregation of the Lord’s people anywhere in Ethiopia. The evidence supports the idea he was a Christian (and perhaps the only one at that time) in an otherwise heathen land; and is often accredited with establishing Christianity in that country. So where did that leave him spiritually? Did he continue to worship God in an acceptable manner as did others of the ecclesia or did he sort of put his obedience and living a Christian life on hold and not do anything until he or someone formed a congregation; built a building for the sole purpose of worship, create a free chariot program (aka bussing ministry) to bring people to the building, appointed elders, hire a (profession) minister, and engage a tailor to create special garments or robes for the bishops and minister, appoint official song leaders, classroom teachers, a secretary, maintenance crew, official treasury and treasurer to oversee it, someone to prepare the communion, appoint a scribe to print weekly bulletins, form committees to dole out money for orphans homes, retirement homes, preaching school or local colleges, sponsor church sports teams, activities for seniors, singles or teenagers! This is only a partial list; and most believe all are acceptable and you cannot worship without them! But did or does God really expect any of this from his people before he will accept worship from them? And please don’t play the, “but he didn’t say not to” card! The main focus of the passage under study was the conversion of the Ethiopian, and not a detailed account of every word spoken. However he no doubt had many questions and discussed many other things with Philip; and one of them had to be how he was to worship under his unique circumstance. To simply immerse him for the remission of his sins and leave him alone to figure out how God wanted him to worship is not logical. Even today we put forth much effort to train new converts; Surely Philip had as much common sense then as we do today! So how were saints worshipping? At that time, all saints worshipped in their homes with none of the elder dominated corporate, institutional style of worship we have today. But if there were no other Christians in that area, did or could he worship by himself? While the main theme of our New Testament is aimed at the individual Christian and seems to focus on coming together to worship as Christians are addressed usually as assemblies; and rightly so as the gospel was designed to reach the masses. This however does not preclude the fact those not having others to assemble with didn’t or couldn’t worship by themselves. I have heard those that believe one cannot worship unless they are assembled with other Christians say, and believe if that is not possible, then they are relived of any formal or official obligation to worship God! We’re not sure what that means: formal or official worship. An elder told me once, “unless you are sitting in a church building on Sunday morning and engage in the “official five acts of worship” then you haven’t worshipped God!” Although no such official list that must be followed each and every time one assembles is to be found anywhere in our scriptures! Since there are no scripture stating what one must do should they find themselves being the only Christian in an ungodly place (like the Ethiopian); we still believe common sense and God expects anyone to worship him as best they can regardless of what condition or circumstances they may find themselves in! And to interpret scriptures in such a way as to assume one cannot worship unless assembled is ludicrous! What scripture, for example, prohibits me from praying, singing or giving aid to another saint without being assembled with them or others? After all, you are still a child of God and subject to his laws whether assembled or not!

The Ethiopian no doubt did what any Christian would do, study his scriptures, engage in daily prayer, strive daily to live by godly principles, show love and compassion to all, observe or memorialize the Lord’s death each week (acts 20:7) and as the opportunity arose, teach others how to become members of Christ’s body as he was shown. But hey, isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing today??

J.D. Williams~

UNDER WHAT LAW WAS CORNELIUS WORSHIPPING?

6-1-2015

Reading the events of Cornelius’ conversion recorded for us in acts the tenth chapter; there are several questions I believe would naturally come to the serious bible student’s mind. Such as: Why was Peter chosen to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. 2) Why was this particular Roman Centurion chosen to be the first recipient? 3) Why did Luke mention such a small detail as Cornelius being, “of the Italian band?” 4) What particular conditions existed which would allow this (or any) Gentile to worship God in an acceptable manner? And most importantly; 5) under what law (dispensation) was it found?

There are obviously more questions. But it is not the purpose of this treatment to analyze all that acts 10 teaches; rather focusing mainly on the latter question.

Some can be answered in a speculative manner, as per questions 1-3 above; others definitely! As to the first, Jesus in Matt 16:19 told Peter he would give him, “the keys to the kingdom…” Keys are a figure of speech signifying he was given the authority to state the terms and conditions of adding people to his body. We know from acts second chapter he was chosen to bring the first gospel message to the Jews. It would seem logical the Spirit would also choose him to open the door to the Kingdom by stating these terms and conditions to the Gentiles also.

Why Cornelius was chosen we believe are for the reasons stated in acts 10:2, “…that he was a devout man, one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people and prayed to God always.” That he was a Roman and centurion of the Italian cohort further stresses the fact he was a Gentile.

Just as an aside: despite their pagan beliefs every Centurion mentioned in the New Testament were men of honor and integrity. The Italian soldiers (band) were those born in Italy and were considered more loyal to the Emperor than those from outlying providences. Also the Cornelius family was of antiquity (dating back nearly a hundred years before Christ’s time) of Noble birth, held in high regard for generations. Cornelius however, had apparently forsaken pagan idols (so prevalent in the Roman world) and was worshipping the true God.

When the question is (rarely) asked under what law Cornelius was worshipping, traditionally it is taught he was a “Proselyte at the gate” (as opposed to a “Proselyte of the Covenant”). This appears to be based primarily on three verses: the characterization of him found in verse two that he was; “A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.” (ASV); which is often used to characterize faithful Jews. And verses 3 and 30 that he was in prayer at the ninth hour… one of the usual hours of prayer for Jews (as well as the Samaritans).

But this proves nothing, as many (pagan) religions often engaged in prayer at this time. Why is it so unbelievable a devout Gentile could not do the same without being a Jew or proselyte? We don’t believe, on the strength of these statements alone, their conclusion can be substantiated. To me, this demonstrates both poor study habits and failure to use hermeneutics (in particular, the induction method). And I’ll explain: First, it assumed all Gentiles were godless and not capable of knowing or worshipping God. And by necessary inference, condemns them to eternal damnation unless they converted to Judaism! Secondly, this view fails to consider one of the most faithful and patient men in our Old Testament was a Gentile. JOB; who worshipped God before the Law of Moses (or Christianity) was given! Both he and Cornelius are described in very similar terms: “perfect and upright and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.” Job 1:1 (KJV).

Thirdly, it is a matter of historical record there were Gentiles that had converted to the Jewish faith before Cornelius. Acts 8:26-39. Fourthly: that Peter considered him an uncircumcised Gentile; vs 28a (see also 11:3).

Fifthly, it fails to stay within the context. Both immediate and remote. Many false teaching and misconceptions have been drawn because passages were not interpreted contextually! The remote context being that God had always intended to make one man of all (Gen 12:3b). This involves the promise given to Abraham as Paul states in Gal 3:8 that Gentiles would be “justified by faith” (the gospel). Gal 3:14 that, “upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ…” And Eph 2:14, “that Christ made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition.”

And they were to be offered the gospel also, thus, fulfilling the promise made to Abraham centuries earlier. Had Cornelius been a “Proselyte” as many wrongfully maintain, he would not have been considered a Gentile but a Jew; and the gospel would have already been offered to him as well as all Gentile converts when Peter preached the first gospel message on Pentecost, some fifteen years or so, earlier! Acts 13:43b clearly shows proselytes were considered Jews as they were allowed to assemble with them. Again we must ask, “What would be the purpose of acts 10 if Cornelius was not a gentile??

Our conclusions so far are: A) he was not worshipping under the Law of Moses, as it had been annulled. B) He was not a Christian as he had not obeyed the gospel. And c) because the gospel had not been offered to them until now. So what dispensation was available to him?

The only conclusion that harmonizes with the immediate as well as the remote context is: he had to be worshipping under the only system available to him; the patriarchal dispensation!

This system was the first given to mankind and had continued from Eden. We should keep in mind the Law of Moses was given only to the descendants of Jacob (Israel) and of course those Gentiles that proselyted to it. The Law of Moses was added because of transgressions (Gal 3:19), but served a secondary purpose of preserving the Jewish bloodline as Messiah would come through it. Until that time all men were worshipping under one law. Let me hasten to add, this in no way suggests that all were worshiping God; only that it was available for them to do so. The Jews, having been placed under the Law of Moses, no longer could worship God acceptably under the patriarchal system. But it was still available to others.

For some strange reason, the majority of Christians believe the patriarchal dispensation ended with the giving of the Law of Moses! Thus, leaving all others doomed to eternal perdition. Fortunately, God is not that thoughtless or heartless. And until the time of Cornelius had always made a way for man to obey and worship him should they choose to, regardless of what dispensation they lived under. To deny this, one must affirm one of two propositions: 1) there was no salvation available for countless millions of those who lived and died outside of the Jewish convent. Or, 2) Uncircumcised Gentiles were also members of the Jewish convent.

Both propositions are equally absurd, in my opinion.

To put this in another perspective, a brief but careful analysis reveals: prior to the events of acts 10, the condition of the Gentiles, from Pentecost to the house of Cornelius was parallel to that which characterized the Jews from the Cross to Pentecost! When one law supersedes another, the effect of the superseded law carries over to the point where the newer law becomes effective. Since the Gentiles had not been offered the gospel, their only option was to remain and worship under the patriarchal law. Had the Jews been more accepting of the Gentiles both systems would have terminated at the cross. But they weren’t and it didn’t!

Sadly, a lack of understanding of these events have led many (some gospel preachers among them) to assume one may continue to worship under the patriarchal system if they have never heard the gospel. Again this demonstrates an abysmal lack of study and reasoning. What would their status be should they hear the gospel and reject it? They would be forced to say all such would be lost! That being the case, wouldn’t it be better not to carry the gospel to them at all? But what of Cornelius’ situation? Was he not a Gentile, worshipping under the patriarchal system? Yes. Then why carry the gospel to him? This is where interpreting within the context becomes so important. At that time the Jews and gentiles were still divided. But God had decided to end this division, making of the two, one man. In order to accomplish this, the Patriarchal law must now cease. Acts ten records how this was done.

Therefore, as soon as Peter told Cornelius “words whereby thou shalt be saved” (acts 11:14), he became answerable to the gospel. And with his acceptance of it; and entrance into the body of Christ, the patriarchal dispensation ceased to exist. Thus leaving only the one law of Christ all men now living must become obedient to.

J.D. Williams~

All rights reserved. Site created and managed by RMK