Restoring the church

Before moving on, I want to touch on one other statement I made last week, one that touched off quite a bit of discussion. I said that I disagree with the idea of restoring the first century church. Even I wrestled with the wording of that, and I may not be expressing it well. I see a difference between seeking to restore New Testament Christianity and seeking to restore the first-century church.

So let me try and dig the hole a little deeper. :-) In last Thursday’s post, I wrote,

We are to attempt to be the church that God wants us to be. We should be a biblical church, seeking to live out the norms of the Bible in a twenty-first century world. The goal of the early church was to be like Jesus. We should imitate that goal. We don’t try to be like the first-century church. We try to be like Jesus.

I see a difference between trying to restore the ideal of the New Testament church and trying to restore the first-century church. The first-century church was trying to be the New Testament church in their own setting. There was much failure. Much humanness. I don’t want to restore that. I do want to strive for the same ideal they were after.

Let me quote myself a bit more (!), from some of the comment thread from last week’s post:

The problem I see is that there is this myth of uniformity among first-century congregations. That’s why, for example, people take the qualities of elders list from 1 Timothy 3 and combine it with the one from Titus 1, rather than recognizing the differences that exist in those lists. They were similar, but not exactly the same, for the needs of the different congregations were not the same.
It was right for the Jerusalem church to continue practicing Judaism. It would have been wrong for the Galatian church to do so. Holding up the portrait of “the first century church” ignores the fact that the church of the first century was quite diverse.
Those Christians were living out the principles of Christ in their situation, both in terms of time and in terms of place. Going back to the elders lists: it was right for the Ephesian church to avoid the appointing of new converts. That church had existed for decades when Paul wrote Timothy. Not so the Cretan church, which is why that qualification doesn’t appear in the list Titus received. By talking about “the first century church,” we overlook those elements and try to create a homogeneity where there was none.


Again, maybe I’m reacting to the connotations around “restore the first-century church” or the misapplication of that idea. What I fear is that people think that the first-century church enjoyed this idyllic pure form of Christianity which led to a golden age of peace and harmony. I’ve grown up hearing, “If we could just restore the first-century church, Christians around the world would be united.” The idea is that if we can restore the exact practices those Christians, we can enjoy a time of unity.
But they didn’t. If we restore their practices precisely, we can expect to have precisely the same types of problems they did.
I see “New Testament Christianity” as describing the ideal, not the flawed human pursuit of that ideal. I’m much more comfortable with pursuing the ideal…
When Josiah found the Book of the Law in the temple, his reform didn’t consist of looking to see how previous generations had lived the Law. It consisted of looking at the Law and studying to see what God expected of people. I think that’s what restoration should be about.

So does any of that make sense anywhere outside of my own mind?

39 thoughts on “Restoring the church

  1. Vern

    I think there is a lot “wrong” with this paragraph.
    —-
    It was right for the Jerusalem church to continue practicing Judaism. It would have been wrong for the Galatian church to do so. Holding up the portrait of “the first century church” ignores the fact that the church of the first century was quite diverse.
    —-
    That word that the church in Jerusalem should continue practicing Judaism just undid much of Paul’s revelation that in Christ there is now no Jew or Greek. Why on earth should they continue in old religion when the new wine has been poured out? The very reason Jerusalem was destroyed and razed to the ground and the Jews dispersed was to rid the church of that deadly influence.

    The lampstands in Revelation which symbolize the churches have no differences besides being in different cities. That is the divine view. Yet how we find the churches is quite varied. However their differences are only in their defects. To say a church should “continue” in how they are neglects the very thing they are intended to be, which is the testimony of Jesus. The church as a whole is to be a corporate person. Since that person is one, Jesus, why should any church be happy or satisfied to continue as they are in their natural constitution? Rather we should all be endeavoring to present ourselves to Him to allow Him to transform and conform us to Himself. That is our hope and His promise.

    But I agree that we don’t need to go back. Anymore than any sensible adult would want to go back to being a child. The churches for better or worse have progressed. We just need to go on.

    I also agree we do not need to impose a uniformity on the churches, but we must suppose that if we are all being transformed into the same image, the must be some increasing amount of sameness among the churches.

  2. Tim Archer Post author

    Vern,

    That’s an interesting view on the destruction of Jerusalem. Doesn’t seem to fit with what Jesus said about the reasons behind that destruction.

    So you think James, Paul, etc. were wrong in Acts 21?

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  3. Scott McCown

    Tim,

    I think I agree with what you are trying to say. If I read past all the details and the syntax, I understand that you are saying we need to try to be like Christ. In the sense that the First Century Christians tried to be like Christ, we should as well. When these individuals assembled, they were the “called out” the church and we should emulate their desire to be what God would have them to be, by living to be what God would have us to be. I heard someone else attempt a similar statement. They posed the question, “Why would I want to restore the Church at Corinth? They were messed up! Would it not be better to read what Paul had to say to them and be what Paul says they SHOULD be and not what they were?”

    Just my way of muddying the water.

  4. Tim Frakes

    Tim,
    Your thoughts on the early church are spot on. Which early church are we to be restored to? Listra? Derbe? Iconium? Rome? Jerusalem? Antioch? Alexandria?

    Also, which decade of the first century are we to be restored to? 40s? 50s? 70?

  5. Vern

    Acts 21 is a record of what happened not what should have happened. James comments are far out of keeping with the rest of the New Testament has to say about the law and Judaism (i.e. Paul). Paul was going overboard to not create a divisive problem among the churches and to possibly have time to minister the truth into that situation as the Lord allowed. That the Lord did not allow the completion of his vow in the temple, I think shows His displeasure with the whole thing. Not sure what comments of Jesus you are talking about. But in reading OT every time Jerusalem is destroyed it has to do with it being a stench in His nostrils. Also reference Peter’s behavior after some come from James and Paul’s rebuke in Galatians. Jerusalem was a big problem to the going on of all the churches in a straight way according to the truth of the gospel. No doubt they were brothers and beloved of the Lord and Paul, but the Lord is jealous over His bride and desires her to be without spot and wrinkle. If you build with wood, grass, and stubble, you mar the temple and you will be destroyed. It was only tolerated for a season.

  6. Danny Holman

    I think what most people mean when they say “We should restore the NT church” is that we should restore the ideal. I think you are on the mark when you point out our confusing “what they NT congregations did” with the “ideal.” The church has never lived up to the ideal… that is why we are saved by grace. I further think you are exactly right that we are given this picture of all the congregations practicing all the same things and seeing everything alike. If that is the case, then what is the summit in Acts 15 about? Why does Paul, in Eph. 4, push the Ephesians to maintain a “unity of the spirit,” and a “bond of peace,” then pushes them to do this “until” they reach the “unity” of the faith and the fullness of Christ. When the day comes and God returns to glorify the church, on that day we will be made fully like Christ and the church/society will be transformed into the kind of world God has always intended… that is our aim. Instead of looking back at what we were, our eyes should be focused forward on what we will become… move that direction now (using scripture, community, etc…, as our guide). I love the song that says, “I want to get so close to Him there’s no big change on the day that Jesus calls my name.”
    The restoration movement ideal has been good because it calls all men to look beyond the man made constructs and stand on scripture as the only authority we can bind on one another…. That excludes church traditions from the present… and the past.

  7. nick gill

    And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

    (Luke 19:41-44 ESV)

    That’s why Jerusalem was destroyed – not to empty the world of those zealous for the Law. Such an interpretation condemns Paul of grievous sin – his entire evangelistic methodology is sinful!

    For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

    (1 Cor 9:19-23 ESV)

    Peter and Barnabas and the others *broke* the Law when they fearfully played the hypocrite by withdrawing fellowship with the Gentiles when the Judaizers came around. There is no Law against eating with Gentiles, but there are laws about loving your neighbor, and treating the non-Jewish YHWH worshipper as an equal. Paul’s rebuke to them says nothing about practicing Judaism, and *everything* about the heresy of BINDING Jewish traditions upon believers in Christ.

    There is a broad gulf of difference between practicing and requiring.

  8. Vern

    Since Jerusalem was being filled with believers, it would seem that they did come to realize the time of their visitation. And we could only suppose more and more if things had been allowed to go on there. If I understand the point of your quote accurately.

    As far as Paul, you are not mentioning at all his railings against Judaism in Galatians and Hebrews especially. His willing to be as someone for the gospel, is very different from teaching them how to be after receiving the Lord.

    Lastly, does teaching lead to practice or does practice lead to teaching? I.e. circumcision. You practice circumcising new converts, eventually you have to come up with a teaching about circumcising new converts for them to be saved. Or you have a teaching that people must be circumcised to be saved, so let’s circumcise them. Sometimes it’s a bit of chicken and the egg but they eventually appear together.

    It seems painfully obvious to me, that Jerusalem was a mixture and the Lord dealt with it. Consider if He had not. Today’s messianic movement among Christians is only a small taste of what things would be like. Thank the Lord for His mercy to spare us.

  9. Tim Archer Post author

    Vern,

    I very much disagree. Jews were never told to stop being Jews. The problems came when they wanted to force the Gentiles to live as Jews.

    And it bears noting that when Jerusalem was destroyed, the believers fled the city, just as Jesus had told them to do. It is a twist of both scripture and history to make that event any sort of judgment on the Jerusalem church.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  10. Vern

    I don’t see how it is a twisting. The city is destroyed. That is not judgement? It doesn’t mean that all believers needed to be killed (which I never wrote or meant). But as a center of influence, it was gone, no? That is history. As far as scripture, it is interpretation. But a different view is no less an interpretation. You have to find what meshes with the rest of scripture. Thus my view.

    To say “twisting” are strong words because they imply evil intent. I don’t see any evil motive in this interpretation.

    Anyway, that is all I will comment here on the subject. Unless there is an invitation to say more.

  11. K. Rex Butts

    I have given up one the idea of restoring anything, instead believing that our calling is to simply be followers of Jesus in our own time and context. Can we do that without taking scripture seriously? No! Can we do it without consideration of Christian tradition? I doubt it. But the idea of restoring assumes that something is so flawed that it needs fixed by us first before we can proceed any further.

    While I don’t agree with everything that has been done and said by various groups of Christians (denominations, fellowships, tribes, and what not), I think it is a pretty poor/harsh judgment to make on other believers of the past who sought to simply do what we are trying to do…love and serve God as the church of Jesus Christ. What makes us think we will fair any better at being Christian than they? And yet that seems to be what the word “restoration” means, at least the way I hear it typically expressed among our tribe.

    Like every other group of Christians, including those we read of in the New Testament, we will always be an imperfect church and that is ok because it is through our weakness, not our perceived strength or even perfection, that God works (cf 1 Cor 1:27-28). So if we will just make a commitment to following Jesus, we will be the church God is calling us to be even when we don’t get it all right.

    Grace and Peace,

    Rex

  12. Dave

    New Testament churches. Right on, Tim. I think what we see in the following centuries of the church is not a fall from uniformity but a move towards it. The ambition to unite us in commonly agreed upon practices was at work in the fourth century. I think at our best we’ve retained something of our “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” that keeps us connected in Christ even when not entirely united in practice. Thanks for this clarification.

  13. Matt Dabbs

    Vern,

    You are missing the whole context of Paul’s take on the law and what he was railing against. Paul was railing against Judaizers. Those were the Jews who were saying Christ was not enough. They taught one had to first become a Jew before one could be a Christian. So that is why Paul says the law is unsufficient for salvation. In the Law there were identifying markers that placed people squarely within the people of God including circumcision, holy days and dietary laws. Paul preached against the necessity of these things being bound on the Gentiles.

    So when Paul goes around preaching that Gentiles don’t need to do all of that to be “in” some Jews got upset by that. Acts seems to be somewhat of a defense of Paul’s mission and actions among the Gentiles and shows that he wasn’t anti-law of Moses as, if I am reading you right, you seem to think he was. You don’t need to get this from me. You can get this straight from scripture.

    Have a good read of Acts 22-26 and look for two things:
    1 – The accusations his fellow Jews made against him
    2 – The length Paul went to defend his Judaism and even uphold the Mosaic law to some extent.

    Try these verses in Acts:
    The importance of the Law to Paul: 22:3-5, 23:1-6 (Paul is more faithful to the Law than the high priest), 24:14-18, 25:8, 26:4-11, 26:22f, esp 28:17

    Accusations – 21:21, 21:28, 24:5, etc

    How else would you handle Paul saying, “However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,” – 24:14

    or “8 Then Paul made his defense: “I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.” – 25:8

    or “17 Three days later he called together the leaders of the Jews. When they had assembled, Paul said to them: “My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans.” – 28:17

    This stuff is all over the place and it makes sense given what Paul wrote in other places. Paul didn’t stop being a Jew. Paul continued being a Jew and went to great lengths to prove that he was not violating the Law of Moses. His preaching was not against the Law in Galatians. His preaching was against those who wanted to have Law+Christ. He called that false teaching.

  14. Paul Smith

    Another response to Vern: Why is it after the painstaking detail that Luke goes into to discuss the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 that the very first thing he relates in the next paragraph is the apostle Paul circumcising Timothy? Why? Because the Jews knew his father was Greek and so the circumcision was necessary to continue the mission to both Jew and Gentile. It is very much possible to remain ethnically a Jew and faithfully a Christian. Otherwise, you have just eliminated a large portion of the early church from the gospel message. KnowwhutImean Vern? (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

    Tim, I appreciate your comments. Something that the Restoration Movement lost many years ago was an emphasis on eschatology. This was largely due to the battle over premillennialism and Foy E. Wallace. But eschatology does not have to be focused on the millennium. It is simply focused on the last things, and it is my belief that the New Testament Christians were focused on Christ’s return, and so as faithful stewards, they wanted to have their house put in order. Far from being “pie in the sky by and by when we die” that meant caring for the weak and powerless, making justice where there was injustice, and striving every day to elevate whatever little corner of the world in which they lived. For a little bit longer explanation of how I see things, check out my entry on “Airplanes Don’t Have Rear View Mirrors.”

    Sorry I’ve missed out on several of your past posts, but I’ve been a little distracted.

  15. Tim Archer Post author

    Vern,

    You’re right; “twisting” was an unfortunate choice of words. Changing? Revision of history? Not sure how to phrase it. There is nothing in Scripture that suggests a condemnation of the Jerusalem church. To say that is to ____ Scripture. (choose a non-offensive verb)

    The Jerusalem church was saved from the destruction of Jerusalem. The punishment was on the unbelieving Jewish nation, not the Jewish Christians. The Jerusalem church did lose its place of preeminence, but we’re hard-pressed to affirm that was punitory.

    If a Jew becomes a Christian today, there is no reason why they would have to stop being a Jew. Paul didn’t. Peter didn’t. James didn’t. John didn’t.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  16. laymond

    “If a Jew becomes a Christian today, there is no reason why they would have to stop being a Jew.”

    Tim, if you use the word Jew, or Jewish, as a nationality, you are right. But as it most times is referred to a religion, you are dead wrong.

    What do you think, convert, or conversion means.

    You asked a commenter to pick a word that was not offensive that meant “twisted” I don’t know that there is one. warped, perverse, sick, perverted, abnormal misshapen, distorted, warped, bent, deformed, out of shape, awry You pick.

    Don’t feel as if you are alone Vern, I know how you feel.

  17. nick gill

    Tim, if you use the word Jew, or Jewish, as a nationality, you are right. But as it most times is referred to a religion, you are dead wrong. What do you think, convert, or conversion means.

    The more relevant question would be, “What do *you* think being a Jew means, religiously?”

    Nationality is one thing.
    Genetic heritage is a second thing.
    What do you believe being a Jew means, religiously?

    In other words, from what did Cornelius need to convert?

  18. laymond

    Just maybe he needed to convert to The Gospel taught by Jesus, and the belief that Jesus was who he said he was.
    Hbr 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
    Maybe, from the old to the new.

  19. Vern

    Just to simplify things, if you don’t agree that it was judgment on the church in Jerusalem I won’t insist as there is not a clear word that spells it out verbatim. Yet to be fair you must also admit, there is no clear definite word that Jews should continue being Jews. You want to point to examples of behavior, but it is dangerous to make practice the same as teaching (i.e. being baptized for the dead). Even more dangerous to make a behavior normative (i.e. Paul’s rejecting Mark for their next voyage in Acts). The Bible records many behaviors and statements with no clear statement on whether what was being done and said was according to God or not. Many times one can only tell (guess) by the result much later. You all have suggested many scriptures (mainly Acts), I have read them again. I do try to pay attention to context. Has anyone else gone back to read Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians again concerning this matter? Add Hebrews and you have the main books forming my context and view on the matter.

    Regardless of interpretation, can we agree it was a judgement on Judaism? The Lord for all practical purposes made it impossible for the practice of Judaism to go on (i.e. destruction of the the temple). Without the temple, how does one practice Judaism? Thus to say Jewish believers should go on being Jews (I’m assuming you mean in religion and not merely ethnically, even leopards can’t easily change their spots) is to expect the Jewish/Christians to continue in something even the Jews themselves cannot continue. This is ironic to me, because Peter basically says the same thing in Acts before Judaism was destroyed – “a yoke we could not bear.” Again, whatever you think may be the reason for Jerusalem’s destruction, the result is historically obvious. Before its destruction it was the largest and most influential church and it dominated the expression of Christianity at that time. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews and the believers, the church very rapidly became less Jewish in composition (racially) and expression (religion) and the outward Jewish influence (total) on the church diminished greatly. I cannot even think of one Jewish/Christian theologian Church father. That there might be a few, would not negate my point that their influence is almost non-existant. If not for the Catholic church, the influence of the OT Judaism on thought and practice of most Christians would be even less.

    Grace and peace my brothers,

    Vern
    @laymond – Thanks for your kind word but don’t worry, I am not alone.

  20. Tim Archer Post author

    Vern,

    It pays to remember that there was a difference between continuing to be a Jew and trying to force Gentiles to become Jews to become Christians. There’s a reason why Timothy (son of a Jewess) was circumcised and Titus (a Gentile) wasn’t. Even at that, the gospel is about Gentiles being grafted into Abraham’s tree, not the creation of a new plant. We are, by faith, children of Abraham. Will some things change when a Jew becomes a Christian? Of course. Must they deny their identity as Jews? No. Will their salvation come through Christ or through the Law? Through Christ.

    Paul called himself a Jew. He called Peter a Jew (Galatians 2). He talked about fellow Christians who were Jews (Colossians 4:11).

    Did the destruction of Jerusalem have a major impact on Judaism? Of course. Was it a judgment on Judaism? Of course not; where did Judaism come from? God created the Jewish religion; the Law is good and holy. It’s weakness lies in man, man’s inability to keep it. Judaism had no reason to be judged. Many Jews did have such reason, many Jewish leaders did, the city of Jerusalem did. Judaism did not.

    It’s interesting, though, that Jewish Christians apparently continued to practice as such, even after the fall of Jerusalem. According to Eusebius, the first 15 bishops of Jerusalem were “of the circumcision.” (Keeping in mind the limitations of Wikipedia, this article is still enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian)

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  21. Matt Dabbs

    You are right Tim…people are confusing the anti-Judaizing verses and saying that the law was supposed to mean nothing to early Jewish Christians. They can uphold portions of the law without holding to the law as necessary for salvation. That is where Paul drew the line…once you start making the Law a salvation issue is when you cross the line. Keeping up with the identifying markers of Judaism only made sense for early Christian Jews (Kosher, Holy days, circumcision, etc). It was their heritage. They just couldn’t bind them on Gentile converts to Christianity.

    People miss this. People should really have a read of E.P. Sanders or at least this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenantal_nomism

    This – http://www.theopedia.com/New_Perspective_on_Paul

    and this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

  22. Vern

    Tim, it would help me, if you would elaborate on what it is you mean by the phrase “to continue to be a Jew.” I assumed perhaps wrongly I thought I knew what you were getting at, but for one who knows the scriptures your stand puzzles me. If Jews are to continue to be Jews are Gentiles to continue being Gentiles? That makes no sense to me. At least there would be consistency if all were expected to live as Jews but scriptures do not make that requirement? No. What would it look like for a Gentile to go on living as a Gentile? Your statement that Jewish Christians continued to practice as such, means what? What did they practice? Was it even acknowledge by God? The temple was destroyed. Eusebius’ history means what? But what did they practice, and how did they live. To say they lived as Jews is to deny, Galatians 2:20 Colossians ch.1 ( the whole of which has nothing to say about continuing to live as Jew or exhorting the believers to live as Jews), unless of course they were not actually living Christ and thus are already disapproved, Colossians 2:8-14; 3:10-11, 3:1-2 (we are to have a heavenly walk not an earthly one), Paul’s own statement of his background and how he lived – Philippians ch. 3 (nothing about continuing as a Jew), Philippians 1:20-21, again Paul’s testimony of how he desired to live (nothing about living as a Jew), Timothy Phil. 2:22 he is serving in the gospel not Judaism, Ephesians 6 put on the armor of God not Judaism, Gentiles, don’t walk as Gentiles in the vanity of your mind – Eph. 4:17; 4:20-21 live as the truth is in Jesus (not Judaism); How Jews and Gentiles have been made fellows heirs not of Judaism but of Christ and are to be built together and apprend the vast dimensions of Christ together for His glory in the church (not Judaism), Eph. 3; Then in Eph. 2:12-22 how he brought those who were far off Gentiles and made them one with those who are near Jews that both together could be built into a dwelling place of God in spirit, not two dwelling places with different ways of living and practices, but one dwelling place, one church, one habitation of God in Spirit and Ephesians ch. 1, one body; Gal. 6:12-14 those who desire you to be circumcised don’t even keep the law, I mentioned this above, if the Jews don’t live as Jews why should Jewish believers continue to live as Jews? Galatians 5:14 is a boiling down of the law that we should keep, Paul didn’t say we should do more. Ch. 5 is a great window not just into instructions to Gentiles but even how Paul as a former Jew viewed the matter, Gal. 5:3 a debtor to the whole law, are we still under some illusion that the whole law can be kept by anyone – Jew or Gentile, believer or not? Gal4:25-26 of which Jerusalem are we a part, the earthly or the heavenly? When Paul says cast our the bondwoman and her son who is he talking about except the earthly Jews? (Gal. 4:30; Then Galatians 3, the law versus promise. The mediator has come is anyone supposed to continue under the schoolmaster? Since it has conducted us to Christ we are supposed to go back to it after believing Christ – No, no , no, please assure me this is not your understanding, Galatians 3:28 there is not even supposed to be male and female in Christ, how deep a work it is that we could experience being one in Christ and living Christ, not even our gender; then Galatians 2 the person being judiaized there is Peter. Contrary to Nick’s statement, Peter conformed to those from James, the gentiles weren’t being asked to do anything. It was altogether the behavior of the “jewish” brothers that was the problem not merely their relationship with Gentiles. Why did Christ even die? Gal. 2:21, Nothing is through the law today, Gal. 2:19. Then the perversion of the gospel is in Galatians Ch. 1, the law has nothing to do with salvation, initial or ongoing or its consummation, these believers are already saved, for them to have anything to do with Judaism is a perversion of the gospel. Jews need to come out of it, Gentiles don’t need to get into it. Again, Paul’s third testimony that I presented here, in Gal. 1 you cannot say that Paul is living like a Jew after receiving Christ. That is not allowable interpretation for anyone that can read.

    Now lest someone say but all these books were written to Gentile churches (as is the scriptures are not for all men), let’s turn to Hebrews. Hebrews 2:9-17, Jesus Himself has replaced everything of Jewish practice, He does all this in the church, not the temple (which was the focus of the Jewish religion), Ch. 3 is the warning not to go back, don’t harden your hearts, to continue in Judaism is to harden your heart, why do you uplift Moses when Christ is much greater, take heed lest you have an unbelieving heart of unbelief that Christ and his work is not enough for us, Ch. 4 let us enter the rest, not go back to the law and Judaism, ch. 5 He is the high priest according to Melchisedec, why would you go back to an earthly priest of the order of Aaron, ch. 5:12 is really a warning to all those who assume they are teachers, ch. 6:12 be not slothful but follow those through faith and patience, this has nothing to do with the law, Heb. 7:12 is very clear there is a change of priesthood and a change of law, to go back to the Old Law is a great deviation from the gospel, 7:18 says the Old Law has been disannulled, yet Jews should go back to it? Makes no sense to me. 7:28 the old has been superseded by the new. Ch.8 everything in the new is better than the old why should they continue in the old? Heb. 9:8 the way of the holy of holies wasn’t even revealed to those who merely had the old tabernacle. 9:10 these things were only imposed “until”; Heb. 10 fortunately the temple was destroyed to save the lives of all those animals being offered in a very meaningless way, do you really mean to say that Jews should continue offerings animal sacrifices as directed in the Old Testament (of course if the temple existed to allow them to)? The sin of Heb. 10:26 in context of the chapter and book is the sin of going back to Judaism. Obviously ch. 11 is on faith, ch. 12, looking unto Jesus not Judaism, 12:22-29 coming to mount Sion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the church, to God and Jesus not the earthly Jerusalem, and all the religion of Judaism where Judaism was practiced, ch. 13 we have a much better altar that they have no right to partake of, and you would say they should continue at the original alter. I am puzzled. Heb. 13:20-25 his closing exhortation has nothing that has any fragrance of Judaism that I can pick up.

    By Judaism being destroyed I didn’t mean the law that is good ( the law is a term in itself that requires much definition). I mean the Jewish religion as it was being practiced. That was judged by the Lord out of his own mouth and evidenced by it’s destruction, in A.D. 70. Terms matter.

    To say that the Jews should keep the law, which ones are you talking about. There are a lot in the OT. Most were never kept, many are not possible to be kept today. So it is a bit of a problem to say Jews should continue to keep the law they never kept in the first place and unable to do so today.

    I enjoy the opportunity to lay these things before the brothers. It forced me to read all these books (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews, and most of Acts) again in a short time. That is profitable in and of itself.

    Grace upon grace,

    Vern

  23. Tim Archer Post author

    Vern,

    Please understand the difficulties of responding to such a long comment. I’ll make a few observations and leave it at that.

    I don’t think you’ve read much of what others have said. You are still taking verses that condemn “judaizing” Gentiles and act as if they condemned the very practice of Judaism by Jews. As long as that idea clouds your reading, I don’t know that re-reading those passages will help a lot. Try reading from the other perspective and see if it doesn’t continue to make sense.

    Maybe we should ask the question whether or not anyone practices Judaism today. It’s sounds to me that by your definition that isn’t even possible. There are aspects of the Torah that can’t be practiced without a standing temple. Frankly, because of that, it’s hard for me to see how someone could rely on Judaism for their salvation today.

    But there are Messianic Jews (or Messianic Christians). One of their websites (www.messianicchristianity.org). Talking about Paul, they say, “Rather, he was teaching that the parts of the Law of Moses which did not conflict with Christianity could very well be practiced so long as they were not made to be requirements for salvation.” That fits well with what we see throughout the New Testament.

    It’s interesting to me that you use Paul to try and condemn what we see in Jerusalem in Acts 21… when Paul himself DIDN’T condemn them. That fact suggests to me that if Paul’s writings seem to condemn his practice, we’re misunderstanding one or the other.

    My nephew is marrying a Jewish girl who is a Christian. They will be married under a canopy (I get to do the wedding; I haven’t done one under a canopy since I was the rabbi in Fiddler On The Roof!). Some blessings will be read in Hebrew. They will smash glasses at the end of the ceremony. In their life together, they will follow many Jewish traditions. They know that Jesus is their Lord and that their salvation comes through him. I have no problem with how they live.

    I do understand that there is now no Jew nor Gentile, just as there is now no male nor female, no American nor Mexican. We are all one in Christ.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  24. Vern

    Tim, I have read everything posted on here multiple times as well as the external links, and looked up all the verses as well. The whole issue is how believers (both Jew and Gentile) should live after receiving Christ (unfortunately that little concerns people who put all emphasis on whether one is saved or not). It is not merely a matter that concerns the judaizing of Gentiles but also the judaizing of Jewish brothers. I would see it that we should all (whatever race we happen to be) be Christized and give Him the preeminence and first place in ALL things (which is actually all the places, there is not something in second place). It appears that some here feel Jewish brothers should still give some place to OT law and practice (of course I wouldn’t force anyone to live in any sort of way, believer or unbeliever, but if we are to teach them, I would teach them the better way). We should allow everyone the freedom to practice how they see fit (within certain bounds), but how we teach them is another matter altogether and what I am making an issue of here. I think I can say I understand your position as being the more common understanding found among most Christians if voting matters. It’s probably the way I would have seen it years ago. I think I can understand your position without being convinced by it. At least I am trying to hear what is being said. I have brought the matter up to a brother who is fully judaized and sees that Gentiles should also follow the law just to get more perspective.

    It would seem that many have a problem reconciling Paul’s behavior in Acts with what he wrote in other places. The judaized brother felt Paul wasn’t being fully honest, perhaps even duplicitous, in his defense of himself before the Jews and Romans. I suspect Paul was using their understanding of what he said to his own advantage while not fully meaning it as he knew they would take it ( reference Paul’s own behavior in the Sanhedrin to cause a rift between the Sadducees and Pharisees). That is the difficulty in reconciling the two parts. In his writings Paul interpreted the law in two ways, one as old and done away with in Christ, and secondly in a very spiritual yet not legal, outward way of practice. He himself did not live as Jew (outwardly) when with the Gentiles, as someone quoted “to the Jews I became as Jew and to Gentiles as a Gentile.” That kind of behavior much disgusted the Judaized brother I consulted. Much of what I referenced of Paul’s own testimony, which no one has addressed, of how he lived after receiving Christ, was written in prison after the Acts experience. The understanding and the writing down of the divine revelation was still in progress. Acts is a dynamic book. There is change in the church and church practice between ch. 1 and ch. 28. I would see the church in Acts in a state of transition from beginning to end. It was transitioning from a life centered on the law and the temple and its practices, to one centered on Christ, the church (not a physical structure) and the freedom we have in Christ to live Christ and magnify Hm. That is old wine and new wine. Some say the old is better, or good enough for those who drink it. Having drunk the new, I am an advocate of the new wine for everybody and a new wine skin to hold it in.

    I have spent considerable time here on the issue because I felt it matters. The Lord knows who is actually reading what is being written and considering these things before Him and whether it has been profitable.

    Grace,

    Vern

  25. Matt Dabbs

    Vern,

    Thanks for sharing that. Thanks for really thinking on this, studying it, etc. That is greatly appreciated and respected. The transition in thinking that takes place in Acts turns on chapters 10-15 with the question of what were they to do with Gentiles who want to become Christians? Are they to approach God as we have always done in the past? God did say circumcision, Sabbath, Passover, etc were everlasting ordinances. Were they to stop? It was a big question.

    God answered that question through Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and then through Cornelius receiving the Spirit, showing God had accepted him. When Peter baptized the uncircumcised Cornelius, making him a part of God’s people, he did something that hadn’t ever been done before…accepting Gentiles into fellowship without making them conform to the traditional identifying markers of Judaism. (By the way, in Acts 10 Peter says he was still kosher to that point, even after Jesus resurrection and the new covenant was in effect.)

    Once God established it was his will to allow Gentiles in without circumcision, Sabbath, etc, it became a matter of helping the other Jewish Christians, namely James and company in Jerusalem, to understand what had happened. There you have Acts 15 (really helpful to read the whole chapter if you haven’t in a while because it lays all this out very nicely) where they make a decision of how to include Gentiles into the faith.

    When they make their decision they still require some things on the Gentile converts. Two of the three things they require of them bind on Gentile converts the three things bound on “aliens and strangers living among you” in the Torah (bloody meat – Lev 17:10-16, sexual immorality – Lev 18:1-26…esp 26, the OT doesn’t specifically reference food sacrificed to idols that I am aware of but the other two are not just laid out in the Torah but are specifically said to also apply to any aliens living among God’s people). They even give their rationale for these three requirements in 15:21 “For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” Are they saying the reason those three things are still required is the Law of Moses?

    So let me get to the point here. No one here is saying the Law of Moses is superior. The effort is to attempt to understand the understanding of 1st century Jews of the place of the Law through the lens of the Christian faith and the fulfillment of the Law. You find the answer to that through what they practiced and what they said (especially Peter and Paul). When you look at that you don’t find people who had abandoned their heritage. They had also not entirely abandoned the Law in practice. They just didn’t understand the Law as a means to earn their salvation. Paul says if you go that route you better keep the Law perfectly. In fact, maybe they never did (read up on the New Perspective on Paul for info on that).

    Where people get off base here is when they read Paul or Hebrews saying things about the insufficiency of the Law they automatically assume that every Jewish Christian never had anything to do with the Law ever again, which by the way is also the inspired word of God that they had grown up to love and respect. That just isn’t the case. Then people even go so far as to say guys like Paul were sinning to keep any requirement of the Law. Amazing. God didn’t condemn Peter for being Kosher in Acts 10. God did help him to see that changes were taking place that he needed to recognize and that were initiated and instituted by God through the New Covenant but God never asked him to stop being a Jew.

  26. nick gill

    “Yet to be fair you must also admit, there is no clear definite word that Jews should continue being Jews.”

    (from Vern’s post @7:17pm April 1, emphasis mine)

    The misunderstanding between Tim and Vern is neatly encapsulated in this one sentence.

    Vern is thinking “should continue.”
    Tim is thinking “may continue.”

    All the difference in the world.

  27. Vern

    Thanks Nick, for your insight. I would absolutely agree that they may continue. Break all the glasses you want to. Liberty to all. But whether they should be taught to continue is my concern. Similar concerns with Gentiles. You want to celebrate Christmas, well it is not in my power nor my duty to stop you. But should Christians be taught to celebrate it, another matter entirely.

    All these extraneous things are like the toys Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians. If someone wants to play with the toys of the Bible, go ahead, but for the sake of the body of Christ, lets do things which encourage growth in people so that eventually they grow out them and hold to Christ the Head and not things of their past.

    Vern

  28. Darin

    To be fair this is a difficult topic for many reasons. Paul can seem inconsistant if one expects a point in time when this is how things must be done attitude existed instead of that the church developed over time. Each is trying to be true to the Word.

    The way we see Christian and Christ follower also play into this, dispensationalism, etc. I think you have to be careful because we can make the issue larger than Jesus. That would be a shame.

    Tim I always love reading what you have to say even when I don’t comment and when I do I probably shouldn’t have.

    God bless.

  29. Vern

    Since I was the one to introduce the word “should” (not what Tim wrote) please allow me to apologize for going so off topic. It has been helpful to me though and I hope to all who read.

    Grace to you all,

    Vern

  30. nick gill

    The mentioning of celebration made me think of a related idea.

    In the Hebrew Scriptures, God filled the lives of his people with events where they were called to come together and celebrate what He had done and was doing for them.

    In the Revelation, we see many such celebrations occurring.

    Christians, however, seem to have taken the removal of mandated times and places for celebration – the lack of commanded celebrations – as proof that the church should not celebrate and shouldn’t teach people to celebrate. It is exactly the kind of trap that CENI lays for its adherents. There’s no command to celebrate, so obviously God doesn’t want me to do it!

  31. Tim Archer Post author

    I think it’s been a healthy conversation, Vern. Though definitely a tangent from the original post, it grew out of the subject matter presented.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  32. Vern

    This is a little side bar to the culture question from my experience of living in Taiwan. There the locals have a snack made of pig blood. I’ve heard it tastes quite good. The christians I met with there wouldn’t touch it (I mean eat it) because of the accord reached in Acts about Gentiles not eating blood. Personally I don’t think that accord is binding as a legality upon anyone. If you want to eat it go ahead. Of course since it may not be good for you ( your body as the physical temple of the Spirit), the Spirit within may never give you the peace to eat it. I wouldn’t eat it for personal reasons but not religious ones. I thought it interesting the affect of this NT law delivered by James on these believers in the matter. How would others feel here? I am sure there are some probably reading this that have ate a bloody steak, did you feel you were breaking a NT law when you did so?

  33. Tim Archer Post author

    I feel that:
    (1) Jesus declared all foods clean;
    (2) Nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving;
    (3) The Jerusalem accord was about unity between Jews and Gentiles, not laws for all time.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  34. Matt Dabbs

    Hard to say. Jesus had already told all foods were clean in 10 but then in 15 we find out that they were going to require some foods for Gentiles to not be clean. It might be that those three requirements were given in order to appease the Pharisees who earlier in 15 were the ones who brought up the issue.

    I really don’t know what to do with that one. The criteria for breaking a command of God is certainly not how we feel about a particular issue. Not trying to pick at you on the feeling thing Vern. I am not implying that is what you think is the criteria. I have wondered about this one for some time.

  35. nick gill

    Matt, I think that context must rule.

    With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.

    Remember that already, in Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas have taken the gospel into Cyprus, Pamphylia, and Galatia – but this letter is not addressed to those believers. It is not addressed to all Gentile believers across the globe, everywhere – but specifically to the Gentile believers who had been troubled by Judaizers who “went out from us without our authorization.” (v. 24)

    This is especially interesting because Paul himself will pen a letter to the Galatian believers who were also troubled (probably by the same Judaizers), taking a much firmer stance on what shall be bound upon Gentile believers than the elders in Jerusalem seem to with the Acts 15 missive.

  36. Vern

    I was wondering if anyone had any insight on why the four items James mentioned as binding on the Gentiles were chosen. Several are obvious (idols, fornication) some more obscure (things strangled and blood). Others that you would think would be mentioned are ignored – the Sabbath for instance. Very interesting nothing is said about 10 commandments which Christians are trying in some places to get into or to remain in public buildings.

  37. nick gill

    The covenant with Noah in Genesis 9 has been suggested as a probable framing text for the ideas encapsulated in the Acts 15 letter. While idolatry and fornication aren’t there, the food laws are, so I’m not sure how strong the relationship is, but maybe it is a starting place.

    Of course, idolatry and fornication were the two biggest complaints that Jews had about Gentile life, so we may not need to find a direct, one-for-one match with any older texts to understand why these things were included. Don’t do the two big obvious bad things that “you people” are known for, and give up a couple other pretty gross things that really disgust your brothers. In turn, we’ll command them to love you and accept you as full brothers in the kingdom of God.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.