Blog Archives

The Lord's Supper 2 of 3, Attitudes

11/26/2022

Hi all,
Did you know Paul wrote that taking part in the Lord's Supper incorrectly could result in 'weakness, frailty' or an early death? Amazing but true.

Consider that if water baptism is done 'wrong' someone may choke on the water a little, but they will be fine. If the laying on of hands is placed on an incorrect part of one's body embarrassment and correction could be the result, but they could recover their mistake.

But Paul told the Corinthians that because some of them did not have their hearts right when receiving the Lord's Supper: "...some are weak and sickly among you, and some have died early." Wow. This is serious!

The culture of Corinth vs the culture of the Kingdom of God
Paul wrote his letter to the Romans from Corinth, which is proven in Romans 16:22-23: "I, Tertius, who wrote this letter greet you, and (Justus) Gaius my host greets you, Erastus the Treasurer of the city greets you, and Quartus, a brother."

In a 1929 archaeological dig, an engraved stone was uncovered in Corinth mentioning Erastus as Treasurer of Corinth. That proved Paul's letter to the Romans was written from Corinth.

This is important to us and our discussion of the Lord's Supper, because of the people mentioned in Corinth. They reflect part of the cultural and racial diversity in the body of Christ there. Acts 18:7-8 tells us the body of Christ included Jews, Greeks, and Romans, all gathering together in the home of Justus Gaius at the start.

The name 'Tertius' is the Roman numeral 3,
...and the name 'Quartus' is the Roman numeral 4. Tertius received dictation from Paul, which is why he wrote: "I Tertius, who wrote this letter greet you..." Only a few letters did Paul write personally*. The rest as far as we know, he dictated in whole or in part. *Galatians 6:11, Philemon 1:19; then Colossians 4:18, the salutation only, II Thessalonians 3:17 same.

When making a person a slave to the Empire, Romans took away the person's name and gave them a number, tattooing it on their forehead or wrist. Thus slaves 3 (Tertius) and 4 (Quartus) worked with Paul, as well as the Treasurer of Corinth, then a city of roughly 200,000 people. Slaves were peoples Rome conquered, so 3 and 4 were not Romans, but from other nations, other races.

The body of Christ has long been multi-racial and multi-cultural, getting along fine with each other. An example is Acts 13:1 in Antioch of Syria 5 prophets and teachers are named: Barnabas (Cyprus, an island in the Mediterranean), Simon from Niger (ethnic Nigeria), Lucius of Cyrene (modern Libya in North Africa), Manean (Israel), and Saul of Tarsus (Syria).

It is no surprise then that slaves 3 & 4 are working with Paul and the Treasurer of the large city of Corinth. All are equal in Christ...amazing grace. But all was not well in Corinth. While Tertius, Quartus and Erastus may have had no issues with each other socio-economically or racially, others in Corinth did.

Prejudice in the church
In I Corinthians 11:17-34, Paul deals with a group of people who don't want to eat a meal nor the Lord's Supper with the others. They chose to meet separately for their meal, even to the point of drunkenness, before joining them, if at all.

Corinth was a sea port, thus a melting pot of ships and crews, owners and merchants of all walks of life. The motto of the city was 'Knowledge and liberty' which meant 'anything goes'. When some of these people became born again through faith in Christ, they all began meeting in the Roman Justus', home*. But that doesn't mean they were all instantly set free from their prejudices and bias. *Acts 18:7-8

Something else to know about Corinth
Greek women had great freedom, Roman women had varying degrees of freedoms, and Jewish women were separated from their husbands in the gatherings ('synagogue' is Hebrew for 'gathering').

The oral law (tradition/commentary) made them be quiet during meetings though nothing was said in the Mosaic law about wives being quiet in meetings - in part because of that, the degree of separation varied widely around the Roman Empire.

Greek wives often didn't wear veils. Roman wives usually did, a light 'see through' veil. Jewish wives as far as we know from history, usually wore a veil, but customs varied by region of the Roman Empire.

The ancient wedding ring
Veils were the custom to signify a woman was married. Veils were in their day what a wedding ring is in ours. The wives were finding their freedom in Christ and removing their veils when they entered a home for a (church) meeting. They were among friends and family in Christ, and they would remove them in their own home, so why not in someone else's home among family in Christ? That makes sense theologically, but not for the local customs.

Imagine going to someone's home today and removing your wedding ring as you enter the door. A wife could argue she is free in Christ to do so - and she would be right. But it would be dishonoring to her husband and to the Lord.

Everyone would wonder why you are dishonoring yourself, your husband, all in attendance, socially and culturally?Why dishonor the holiness of marriage by flaunting your freedom in Christ, thus dishonoring the One who binds your marriage together by the Holy Spirit?

And as Paul brought up, even the angels in charge of their family were dishonored by the flaunting of their freedom. He told them they may be free in Christ, but balance that by honoring your marriage and family by putting the veils on. He asked them 2x to look at the local custom and tradition, telling them to put the veils on accordingly.

(There used to be some in what was called 'hyper-grace' who said there was no sin, no accountability, for they were free in Christ. They didn't realize freedom in Christ is provided to empower us to holy lives, not to excuse sinful or improper behavior. As Jude v4 says, the ungodly turn the grace of God into an excuse for sensuality which denies and dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ.)

Now that the stage is set. The Corinthians were a racially and socially diverse group of people who all had different religious backgrounds before coming to the Lord. Next week we will get into the consequences to being a prejudiced person when receiving the Lord's Supper. Until then, blessings,

John Fenn
www.cwowi.org and email me at cwowi@aol.com

0 Comments

The Lord's Supper, 1 of 3, How important is it?

11/19/2022

0 Comments

Hi all,
The Lord's Supper, or Communion, is one of only 2 rituals of the New Testament, the other being water baptism. All the other rituals of the Old Testament were swallowed up by the sacrifice of Jesus. Some may suggest the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is a third, but it is a spiritual infilling rather than an outward act like being immersed in water or having a meal, so it is not usually included as a ritual of the New Testament.

Is it a foundation of our faith the way many consider it today?
When the author of Hebrews lists "the principles (foundation) of the doctrine of Christ", in 6: 1-2 they are: Repentance from dead works, faith towards God, baptisms (water and Holy Spirit), laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement. (When have you heard any of those in a 'new believers' class, or in a sermon?)

The Lord's Supper is not included in the foundation. Teaching about the laying on of hands is foundational, but the Lord's Supper is not. That should speak loudly to us today concerning this question. If you consider the Lord's Supper as foundational doctrine, you need to change to what scripture actually says. That's how we renew our minds, to think as God thinks. Repentance IS a part of the foundation of our faith. The Lord's Supper is not.

Understand please that I am all for the Lord's Supper and celebrate it several times a year. But in terms of foundational teaching, scripture does not include it as foundational. That probably comes as a shock to some, but a good shock to start thinking as God thinks on the matter.

Consider...
In Acts 2:38 when the gathered crowd heard Peter's explanation of Pentecost and asked what they must do to be saved, Peter said, "Repent..." In Acts 3: 19 when the lame man was healed and people were gathered to witness the miracle, Peter urged them to "repent and be converted". In Acts 8:22 when Simon the sorcerer wants the authority to lay hands on people for the baptism with the Holy Spirit, Peter told him to "repent and pray to God". In Acts 11: 18 when Peter tells the leaders how Cornelius' household were born again and received the Holy Spirit as they did, it says all of them "rejoiced that God gave the Gentiles repentance to life."

Paul is on Mars Hill in Athens and in Acts 17:30 he tells them "God...commands all men everywhere to repent..." In Acts 20:21 in his final goodbye to the leaders of Ephesus Paul says he was faithful; "to testify to the Jews and to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." In Acts 26:20 in his defense before Agrippa he says the same thing, adding that upon repentance they should do things that prove they repented.

So I wonder what would happen if we were more concerned about repentance and living right than how or when we should have the Lord's Supper. What would the body of Christ look like if we had the same priorities as God lists in His Word? What if in every Sunday morning Eucharist there was equal call for repentance? Or instead of celebrating the Lord's Supper each and every service it was replaced even half the time, by calls to repentance?

That was interesting food for thought. Now, back to the subject...
Much has been written about the early church celebrating the Lord's Supper weekly, but many of those writings are built on incorrect assumptions by interpreting ancient phrases through modern eyes.

They interpret the phrase 'breaking bread' to mean the Lord's Supper, which is incorrect - it's just a common phrase of the first century meaning a meal with others, a common meal. They didn't have sliced bread, so they broke bread at each meal - sometimes it included the Lord's Supper, sometimes it was just a meal. Jesus broke the loaves and fish but no one claims that breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper - it was just a meal. (Mt 14:19, 15: 36, 26:26)

In Acts 2: 42 it says the disciples were steadfastly in the apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking bread, and prayer. The phrase 'breaking the bread' in the Greek, means a common meal - they gathered to eat together.

That said, because it says 'the bread' in v42 and not merely 'bread', it could be understood to include the Lord's Supper. But in v46 it leaves off 'the' and just says 'breaking bread', referring to a common meal. We would conclude then that the Lord's Supper was part of what they did, but not at every meal. The emphasis was the gathering together in fellowship, food, prayer, and teaching.

We see this in Acts 20:11 when the young man was raised from the dead by Paul after having fallen out a window to his death. Once brought back to life, they all broke bread and Paul talked all through the night to the break of day, then left. They didn't have the Lord's Supper, the text says they had a late meal together.

In Acts 27:35 the same practice of breaking bread is described as Paul, in a storm on a ship as one of 276 people, assured them an angel had told him they would be safe, proving it by taking bread, giving thanks to God, the broke it and ate.

In house church,
...when the Lord's Supper is celebrated it is often included as part of a meal. The frequency is determined by the group or the host(s). Sometimes just an informal gathering of Christians for a meal can include the Lord's Supper if they wish. Even by yourself or with one other - there are very few guidelines given in scripture other than making sure our hearts are right, and that part starts next week.

When we take off the religious glasses and go back in time to the 1st century, we understand the Lord's Supper as part of a larger meal during a gathering in the homes of the believers. It wasn't always during 'church'. It is a means to remember His death and sacrifice that is not limited to where, how, or how often it is celebrated.

Another consideration is that in all the New Testament,
...from the 30 years the book of Acts covers, to all that Paul, James, John, Peter, and Jude wrote, over the course of 70 years, the only time the Lord's Supper is taught or addressed is in I Corinthians 11. It was only brought up there because of strife with one another in their celebration of the Lord's Supper. Fortunately, it was put there for our instruction.

By contrast, messages about forgiving, making allowances for one another, prayer, repentance, baptisms, and such are mentioned or taught multiple times in the New Testament. What are we to conclude that the Lord's Supper is only mentioned once while other topics are covered multiple times in those same letters? That is was part of what they did but not the focus nor the whole point of their gatherings.

What were the issues that Paul was led to address the Corinthians with the proper way to receive the Lord's Supper? That's for next week, until then, blessings,

John Fenn
www.cwowi.org and email me at cwowi@aol.com

0 Comments

Understanding America's 'Christian Patriot' movement, 2 of 2

11/12/2022

0 Comments

Hi all,
I conclude this little study with:

Using the Courts - the short cut to get what you want
Those vying for their ‘rights’ to be recognized have learned to go through the court system rather than Congress, which makes laws. Court rulings become de facto law immediately, which serves the liberal left well. Victims rights become the focus to the exclusion of the rights of the other side of the argument. The natural result is a nation of victims, all trying to get their voice heard in the court system.

The result is Government no longer protects people's God-given rights, it provides rights to those who have suffered.

A baker who is a Christian was specifically targeted by liberals among all the bakeries in an area to provoke the courts to intervene, knowing this bakery would decline baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. The lower courts and government sided with the homosexual couple who were the 'victims' of discrimination.

What if...
...a school lunch provided cookies (biscuits for our UK friends) for all the children and had them all laid out on a table for any child to walk by and choose, but 1 bully targeted a child who was sitting alone and eating his cookie? What if that child stood up to the bully and refused to give him their cookie? The bakery case would be like the teacher defending the bully, claiming he had the right to take another child's cookie.

That would not be wisdom nor common sense. But the government championed the case of the ‘victims’ and issued rights to them. Fortunately, the Supreme Court eventually threw out the lower court ruling against the couple, recognizing their rights to run their bakery according to their religious beliefs.

At this point,
...having lost sight of the role of government being to protect Creator-given rights, government officials then make arbitrary decisions based on their belief THEY hand out rights. This is one reason Christians and conservatives are becoming increasingly involved in government. To restore traditional understanding of the role of government.

Wisdom and compromise is how things should get done, as that involves common sense and walking in love.
On a day to day basis, compromising is what government does best. It's the nature of politics in a Representative Republic such as the USA. (A representative republic means the citizens elect officials to represent them. The USA is not a democracy.)

We expect our leaders who we elected to represent us, use wisdom and weigh all the options. We elect them to represent us so they can make wise decisions considering the rights of all when involving the public. We want them to understand that God gave rights and government must manage those rights for its citizens.

Alexis de Tocqueville said of America in his 2 volume work, 'Democracy in America' (1835/1840), that everyone in America has “the chance to make mistakes that can be retrieved” and that is a privilege Americans have. He wrote that this defines America more than any other quality. We have the chance to make mistakes that can be corrected and try again, because government at that time in 1835 when he wrote it, worked to secure unalienable rights for its citizens.

Now government gives rights defined by the lowest common denominator; Whoever feels they are victimized believes their rights should be elevated above the rights of others. Now it seems, each person must stand before the government to give account as the supreme giver of rights. That is backwards from the founding Documents, and another reason Christian patriotism is rising in this nation - (again) to restore historical perspective.

That then leads to people only seeing their side of things and refusing any other point of view, unable to talk about other perspectives, editing history and refusing to hear speakers who don't agree with their beliefs.

When Rights become absolute choices...
...discussion and reasoning between groups to address their differences never needs to happen. We've lost the art of debate. We've lost the art of conversation and compromise. Each group just stands their ground on their own rights, no discussion needed or wanted. We have become a nation of tribes warring against one another, taking no prisoners. This is opposite the Christian point of view. Walking in love, talking things out, praying for one another are our culture.

In the modern world, law becomes free from human input for all the difficult conversations need never happen. We cannot argue politely our points, but Rights makes society devolve into shouting matches so that no one has to make sense of the issues, problems, differences or solutions. Generations now - Christians included unfortunately - only know knee-jerk reactions to sound bytes having lost the ability to use common sense and how to argue a point without making it into a personal attack.

This is exactly opposite life in the Spirit of God. We are told in the NT to make allowances one for another, to be patient, to be kind, to be forgiving. When government thinks it is the giver of rights, love is lost, the hearts of many turn cold due to the government supported increase in iniquity, calling it normal and that it must be accepted by all.

Founding Father James Madison wrote:
“...in forming a government of men over men, the greatest difficulty lies in this: You must enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Government becomes unable to function, weighed down under its own weight
Government then becomes a behemoth where no one is in control, no one takes responsibility, for each group, each tribe has its rights, which are set in stone so that one bureaucrat shuffles paperwork to the next bureaucrat and no one has the authority or desire to use common sense, wisdom, or to exert their will aside from the enforcement of the Law.

The Law then undermines the decisions which make a Democracy work. Why elect anyone, for nothing changes. Human input is talked about, but the Machine keeps rolling along; laws given by government must be kept over and above common sense and fairness.

For the American Christian...
But we Americans can trace it back to the 3 main points this little blog is about: The Creator gives rights, not government. Those rights cannot be transferred or infringed upon. Therefore each person is responsible for their own life. That is the Christian point of view and the traditional American culture. Unfortunately it clashes with what many are trying to do in America and other western nations.

Paul wrote that we should pray for*...
"...kings and all in authority...that we may live quiet, peaceful, and godly lives in all honesty." Most people just want that - to live in a society where honest work and godly living allows all to live in peace. That means taking personal responsibility for our lives to live according to certain moral standards.

Paul lived in a time when Rome ruled and allegiance to Caesar was mandatory. Christianity was a counter-culture about taking responsibility for your own life because you will stand before God to give account, Who is greater than Caesar. The wrestling between Caesar and Christian culture is still going on today, and we all are part of it. *(I Timothy 2:2)

I hope this has helped explain why America's Christian Patriot movement is rising. New subject next week, until then, blessings,
John Fenn
www.cwowi.org and email me at cwowi@aol.com

0 Comments

Understanding America's "Christian Patriot" movement, 1 of 2

11/5/2022

0 Comments

Hi all,
This is an attempt to explain in part why American Christians and American politics are so closely linked, focusing on 3 main points. It will show what is happening here politically, and in several Western nations.

US Declaration of Independence, Constitution (and Bill of Rights) based on traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs
When our forefathers declared the United States independent from Great Britain on July 4, 1776, the first paragraph after the opening statement (preamble) of that Declaration states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" mean these truths are obvious to everyone. Like saying leaves turn green in summer or the sky is blue, it's obvious to all.

"That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Because the context of the Declaration covers all men, women, and children in America, the word 'men' refers to mankind, to all concerned with the business of the Document. Only by pulling 'men' out of context can one twist the meaning to think it is only talking about the gender, man.

"..endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Unalienable means; 'Cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred to another'. It says the Creator has given to all people rights and that is self-evident and cannot be taken away, denied or transferred by government (for He is God). To 'secure these rights' a government is formed.

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals: God gives rights, not government.
Up until July 4, 1776 no other nation had declared that it was founded upon the concept that God gives all people rights, and the role of government therefore is to help citizens secure those rights. Liberals by contrast, believe government gives and takes away rights.

This is the core of why the 'Christian Patriot' movement is rising. It is to counter the liberal belief that government gives rights rather than God, and their assault on those who believe in the traditional Documents as written of our founding.

About those rights and why Christian patriotism is growing
Below are the 3 main points I'm covering to explain why Christianity and traditional American culture are so closely aligned with our founding documents.

1.         The Creator gives rights
2.         Those rights are unalienable (cannot be denied, infringed upon, transferred to another)
3.         1 & 2 therefore establish that each person is responsible (to God) for their own life (how they handle those rights)

What we see happening now among liberals in the US and other nations:

A. The government gives rights
B. Those rights may be determined by the government according to how they wish
C. A & B establish that each person is responsible to the government

The natural consequences of believing government gives rights, is that if anyone doesn't accept the government's C, they are branded unpatriotic or treasonous. Christians in particular are singled out because of their refusal to leave the original 3 principles. Government wants all to be in unity on A, B, & C. Inclusion to them means the acceptance as long as they adhere to A-C. Christians cannot compromise on the original #1-3, which sets the stage for conflict.

Understand this: This is why the media attacks those who believe in the traditional family of married mom, dad, and children as 'far right' or 'fascist'. Before you enact a totalitarian government you must destroy the family, because those whose first allegiance is to family will not automatically obey government mandates that go against the traditional values. Therefore adherents to the traditional American culture must be vilified, called all kinds of names (Nazi's, fascists, traitors, unpatriotic, as we've seen in American politics and media, etc).

The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights are written in the negative
That means they outline what cannot be done by government rather than outline ‘positive’ actions it or others must obey in terms of rights. For example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It tells what government cannot do, not what it can do. It's written in the negative.

President Ronald Reagan said in the early 1980's: "I've read of other countries and how they are like ours in many ways, except for that one difference. Their Constitutions are documents in which the government tells the people what they can do. And ours is a Document that says the people are telling the government what it can do."

Our Documents are written in the negative, describing what the government cannot do, thus empowering the citizens to tell it what they will allow their government to do. When in our times liberals have made the government rights-givers, seen for instance in the weaponizing the FBI and Department of Justice against conservatives*, people are rising up in the voting booths and by running for office to restore the core limits and role of government. From school boards to the Presidency, these are some core reasons we are seeing a Christian Patriot movement in the US.

*As of this writing, a Roman Catholic pro-life leader had his home raided by a SWAT team and arrested, for a shoving match more than a year earlier involving a man endangering his young son with him. The other man sued and a court dismissed his case and claims. But over a year later the DOJ and FBI resurrected the case and raided the man's home, taking him away in chains in front of his wife and children. For a case dismissed in court about a shoving match proven to be in self-defense, maybe the authorities would talk to the man or his attorney if they wanted to further investigate, but never a SWAT team of more than a dozen heavily armed police.

Actions like these in the west are one reason why people are rising up to vote in conservative valued officials. Similar voting for conservative values have taken place in the leadership of European nations for similar reasons - the 'populist' movement is electing conservatives who do believe in traditional family, national identity and so on - and are called all sorts of names in the media.

I hope this first part has been interesting to learn the core differences in perspectives and what is happening in the US and so many western nations. Next week, how the liberals use the courts to enforce their way. Until then, blessings,
John Fenn
www.cwowi.org and email me at cwowi@aol.com

0 Comments