Bob Thiel's Preoccupation With My Posts About the Paleochristian Church

Although "Dr." Bob Thiel has written two posts and produced one video challenging my narrative about the First Century Church, he claims that Banned by HWA has mischaracterized his reaction as a "meltdown." Nevertheless, I am quite content to let my readers decide whether or not the Grand Poobah of the Continuing Church of God is obsessed with trying to disprove the alternative which I've offered to the Armstrong Churches of God's narrative about the Paleochristian Church. It does seem to me, however, that Bob's interest in attempting to refute my claims are related to a realization on his part that their narrative about the transition from Sabbath to Sunday is the foundation of the whole house of cards that is their theology. In other words, I suspect that Bob is smart enough to realize that the house of cards collapses when this particular card is removed.

Many years ago, Herbert Armstrong speculated that there had been a Grand Conspiracy engineered by Simon Magus and the Roman Catholic Church to hoodwink Christians into abandoning the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ and his apostles. According to this speculative narrative (which had no basis in Scripture or history), one of the chief means of leading believers away from "THE TRUTH" was the intentional substitution of Pagan days of worship for God's Sabbath and Holy Days by these evil conspirators - influenced, of course, by their favorite bad-boy, Satan the Devil! With a limited educational background and almost no awareness of the actual history, Herbie reasoned that there must have been a deliberate campaign to substitute Sunday for the Sabbath. How else to explain the fact that Christ and his disciples kept the Sabbath, while Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians all kept Sunday? Completely ignoring the Christian writings from the First and Second Centuries which existed outside of the Biblical canon, he proposed that there had been a "lost" century, and that the Christianity which had emerged on the other side of this mini–Dark Age was completely different than the original - a "counterfeit" Christianity!

To support this false narrative, Bob has discounted and/or distorted all of the Scriptures and historical records which contradict it. For Bob, the Jerusalem Council referenced in the book of Acts did not eliminate Torah observance for Gentiles. For Bob, the Didache, the epistles attributed to Barnabas, and Ignatius weren't really speaking about the Lord's Day or Sunday - the translators had simply gotten it wrong - they had mistranslated the original Greek into English! Likewise, he ignores the fact that for Justin Martyr to have written in the middle of the Second Century that Sunday was the day that Christians gathered for worship, it would of necessity have had to have been the practice for many years prior. In other words, it must have been a long-standing tradition of the Church by that time. Moreover, his failure to understand that Christians would have had very good reason to revere Sunday based on the Gospels and Acts - Christ's resurrection and the founding of the Church both having occurred on that day of the week! Likewise, he seems to be completely oblivious to the impact that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had to have had on both the Jewish and Jewish Christian Community of the First Century. Instead, Bob chooses to focus on the Bar Kokhba Revolt early in the next century (which I'm sure contributed to the further suppression of Sabbath observance).

Bottom line, the old Adventist-Armstrongist narrative about Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church changing Sabbath to Sunday is not consistent with the available historical evidence. The Roman Church's authority to set Christian doctrine and practice was NOT widely recognized until the Fifth or Sixth Century. Likewise, the Emperor Constantine's famous decree about Sunday observance is recognized by most historians as an attempt at making religious practice within the Empire uniform and regular. In other words, the emperor could not have promulgated a decree of that nature which would upset what was already the established practice of the vast majority of his subjects, Christian and Pagan. Hence, I would encourage all of the folks in the Armstrong Churches of God to do their own research on this subject, and I would also encourage them to follow the evidence - not attempting to prove what you think you already know about the Paleochristian Church!

For those who may be interested, I invite you to explore the following:

Notice this excerpt from Early Christianity by Gaye Strathearn of Brigham Young University:

Christianity did not develop in a vacuum. The early church leaders operated in a world that was ever changing and expanding. During Jesus’s lifetime, the apostles were directed to concentrate solely on the house of Israel, but the post-resurrection ministry was fundamentally different. Expanding missionary work to include the Gentiles was a difficult transition—difficult to transition away from the law of Moses and difficult to transition into the Roman world. As Christianity grew, its adherents began to be found in all levels of society. Even so, its growth also led to significant challenges. While the Roman Empire was strong, Christianity’s political separatism and refusal to participate in the imperial religion were viewed as little more than irritants. But when the empire found itself in a state of crisis, as it did in the third century, Christianity was seen as the destabilizing force of the peace of the gods that threatened to destroy the empire.

Christianity’s other major challenge arose as it developed competing theologies. Initially, those competing theologies focused on the role of the law of Moses in the fledgling church. As it increasingly expanded into the Gentile world, however, those theologies were gradually replaced by differing philosophical interpretations. The resulting posturing of different Christianities to claim legitimacy became a divisive element that the Emperor Constantine could not tolerate in his realm. If Christianity was to receive state sanction and be the means of uniting his empire, then it would need to be united. In the fourth century and beyond, this led to numerous councils whose primary goal was to orchestrate that unity.

Notice this collection of Early Christian Writings from the early Church Fathers

You can also find many of those same writings at New Advent's The Fathers of the Church

Notice this excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia Online titled Sunday:

Sunday (Day of the Sun), as the name of the first day of the week, is derived from Egyptian astrology. The seven planets, known to us as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon, each had an hour of the day assigned to them, and the planet which was regent during the first hour of any day of the week gave its name to that day (see CALENDAR). During the first and second century the week of seven days was introduced into Rome from Egypt, and the Roman names of the planets were given to each successive day. The Teutonic nations seem to have adopted the week as a division of time from the Romans, but they changed the Roman names into those of corresponding Teutonic deities. Hence the dies Solis became Sunday (German, Sonntag ). Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indicated in Acts, xx 7; I Cor., xvi, 2; in Apoc., i, 10, it is called the Lord's day. In the Didache (xiv) the injunction is given: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And give thanks (offer the Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure". St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. ix) speaks of Christians as "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again". In the Epistle of Barnabas (xv) we read: "Wherefore, also, we keep the eight day (i.e. the first of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead".

From Against Heresies, Book IV

Chapter IV.-Answer to Another Objection, Showing that the Destruction of Jerusalem, Which Was the City of the Great King, Diminished Nothing from the Supreme Majesty' And Power of God, for that This Destruction Was Put in Execution by the Most Wise Counsel of the Same God.

2. Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with them "until John." And therefore Jerusalem, taking its commencement from David, and fulfilling its own times, must have an end of legislation when the new covenant was revealed. For God does all things by measure and in order; nothing is unmeasured with Him, because nothing is out of order. Well spake he, who said that the unmeasurable Father was Himself subjected to measure in the Son; for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also comprehends Him. But that the administration of them (the Jews) was temporary, Esaias says: "And the daughter of Zion shall be left as a cottage in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers." And when shall these things be left behind? Is it not when the fruit shall be taken away, and the leaves alone shall be left, which now have no power of producing fruit?

Chapter XII.-It Clearly Appears that There Was But One Author of Both the Old and the New Law, from the Fact that Christ Condemned Traditions and Customs Repugnant to the Former, While He Confirmed Its Most Important Precepts, and Taught that He Was Himself the End of the Mosaic Law.

1. For the tradition of the elders themselves, which they pretended to observe from the law, was contrary to the law given by Moses. Wherefore also Esaias declares: "Thy dealers mix the wine with water," showing that the elders were in the habit of mingling a watered tradition with the simple command of God; that is, they set up a spurious law, and one contrary to the [true] law; as also the Lord made plain, when He said to them, "Why do ye transgress the commandment of God, for the sake of your tradition? "For not only by actual transgression did they set the law of God at nought, mingling the wine with water; but they also set up their own law in opposition to it, which is termed, even to the present day, the pharisaical. In this [law] they suppress certain things, add others, and interpret others, again, as they think proper, which their teachers use, each one in particular; and desiring to uphold these traditions, they were unwilling to be subject to the law of God, which prepares them for the coming of Christ. But they did even blame the Lord for healing on the Sabbath-days, which, as I have already observed, the law did not prohibit. For they did themselves, in one sense, perform acts of healing upon the Sabbath-day, when they circumcised a man [on that day]; but they did not blame themselves for transgressing the command of God through tradition and the aforesaid pharisaical law, and for not keeping the commandment of the law, which is the love of God.

2. But that this is the first and greatest commandment, and that the next [has respect to love] towards our neighbor, the Lord has taught, when He says that the entire law and the prophets hang upon these two commandments. Moreover, He did not Himself bring down [from heaven] any other commandment greater than this one, but renewed this very same one to His disciples, when He enjoined them to love God with all their heart, and others as themselves. But if He had descended from another Father, He never would have made use of the first and greatest commandment of the law; but He would undoubtedly have endeavored by all means to bring down a greater one than this from the perfect Father, so as not to make use of that which had been given by the God of the law. And Paul in like manner declares, "Love is the fulfilling of the law: " and [he declares] that when all other things have been destroyed, there shall remain "faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of all is love; " and that apart from the love of God, neither knowledge avails anything, nor the understanding of mysteries, nor faith, nor prophecy, but that without love all are hollow and vain; moreover, that love makes man perfect; and that he who loves God is perfect, both in this world and in that which is to come. For we do never cease from loving God; but in proportion as we continue to contemplate Him, so much the more do we love Him.

3. As in the law, therefore, and in the Gospel [likewise], the first and greatest commandment is, to love the Lord God with the whole heart, and then there follows a commandment like to it, to love one's neighbor as one's self; the author of the law and the Gospel is shown to be one and the same. For the precepts of an absolutely perfect life, since they are the same in each Testament, have pointed out [to us] the same God, who certainly has promulgated particular laws adapted for each; but the more prominent and the greatest [commandments], without which salvation cannot [be attained], He has exhorted [us to observe] the same in both.

4. The Lord, too, does not do away with this [God], when He shows that the law was not derived from another God, expressing Himself as follows to those who were being instructed by Him, to the multitude and to His disciples: "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens, and lay them upon men's shoulders; but they themselves will not so much as move them with a finger." He therefore did not throw blame upon that law which was given by Moses, when He exhorted it to be observed, Jerusalem being as yet in safety; but He did throw blame upon those persons, because they repeated indeed the words of the law, yet were without love. And for this reason were they held as being unrighteous as respects God, and as respects their neighbors. As also Isaiah says: "This people honoreth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me: howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching the doctrines and the commandments of men." He does not call the law given by Moses commandments of men, but the traditions of the eiders themselves which they had invented, and in upholding which they made the law of God of none effect, and were on this account also not subject to His Word. For this is what Paul says concerning these men: "For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." And how is Christ the end of the law, if He be not also the final Cause of it? For He who has brought in the end has Himself also wrought the beginning; and it is He who does Himself say to Moses, "I have surely seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them; " it being customary from the beginning with the Word of God to ascend and descend for the purpose of saving those who were in affliction.

5. Now, that the law did beforehand teach mankind the necessity of following Christ, He does Himself make manifest, when He replied as follows to him who asked Him what he should do that he might inherit eternal life: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." But upon the other asking "Which? "" again the Lord replies: "Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, hon-our father and mother, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,"-setting as an ascending series (velut gradus) before those who wished to follow Him, the precepts of the law, as the entrance into life; and What He then said to one He said to all. But when the former said, "All these have I done" (and most likely he had not kept them, for in that case the Lord would not have said to him, "Keep the commandments"), the Lord, exposing his covetousness, said to him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor; and come, follow me; "promising to those who would act thus, the portion belonging to the apostles (apostolorum partem). And He did not preach to His followers another God the Father, besides Him who was proclaimed by the law from the beginning; nor another Son; nor the Mother, the enthymesis of the Aeon, who existed in suffering and apostasy; nor the Pleroma of the thirty Aeons, which has been proved vain, and incapable of being believed in; nor that fable invented by the other heretics. But He taught that they should obey the commandments which God enjoined from the beginning, and do away with their former covetousness by good works, and follow after Christ. But that possessions distributed to the poor do annul former covetousness, Zaccheus made evident, when he said, "Behold, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one, I restore fourfold."

Chapter XIII.-Christ Did Not Abrogate the Natural Precepts of the Law, But Rather Fulfilled and Extended Them. He Removed the Yoke and Bondage of the Old Law, So that Mankind, Being Now Set Free, Might Serve God with that Trustful Piety Which Becometh Sons.

1. And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. "For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay." And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: "Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command-namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them-is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.

2. For the law, since it was laid down for those in bondage, used to instruct the soul by means of those corporeal objects which were of an external nature, drawing it, as by a bond, to obey its commandments, that man might learn to serve God. But the Word set free the soul, and taught that through it the body should be willingly purified. Which having been accomplished, it followed as of course, that the bonds of slavery should be removed, to which man had now become accustomed, and that he should follow God without fetters: moreover, that the laws of liberty should be extended, and subjection to the king increased, so that no one who is convened should appear unworthy to Him who set him free, but that the piety and obedience due to the Master of the household should be equally rendered both by servants and children; while the children possess greater confidence [than the servants], inasmuch as the working of liberty is greater and more glorious than that obedience which is rendered in [a state of] slavery.

3. And for this reason did the Lord, instead of that [commandment], "Thou shalt not commit adultery," forbid even concupiscence; and instead of that which runs thus, "Thou shalt not kill," He prohibited anger; and instead of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, [He told us] to share all our possessions with the poor; and not to love our neighbors only, but even our enemies; and not merely to be liberal givers and bestowers, but even that we should present a gratuitous gift to those who take away our goods. For "to him that taketh away thy coat," He says, "give to him thy cloak also; and from him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; and as ye would that men should do unto you, do ye unto them:" so that we may not grieve as those who are unwilling to be defrauded, but may rejoice as those who have given willingly, and as rather conferring a favor upon our neighbors than yielding to necessity. "And if any one," He says, "shall compel thee [to go] a mile, go with him twain; " so that thou mayest not follow him as a slave, but may as a free man go before him, showing thyself in all things kindly disposed and useful to thy neighbor, not regarding their evil intentions, but performing thy kind offices, assimilating thyself to the Father, "who maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust." Now all these [precepts], as I have already observed, were not the injunctions] of one doing away with the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and widening it among us; just as if one should say, that the more extensive operation of liberty implies that a more complete subjection and affection towards our Liberator had been implanted within us. For He did not set us free for this purpose, that we should depart from Him (no one, indeed, while placed out of reach of the Lord's benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation), but that the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him. Now the more we have loved Him, the more glory shall we receive from Him, when we are continually in the presence of the Father.

4. Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us and to them (the Jews), they had in them indeed the beginning and origin; but in us they have received growth and completion. For to yield assent to God, and to follow His Word, and to love Him above all, and one's neighbor as one's self (now man is neighbor to man), and to abstain from every evil deed, and all other things of a like nature which are common to both [covenants], do reveal one and the same God. But this is our Lord, the Word of God, who in the first instance certainly drew slaves to God, but afterwards He set those free who were subject to Him, as He does Himself declare to His disciples: "I will not now call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things which I have heard from My Father I have made known." For in that which He says, "I will not now call you servants," He indicates in the most marked manner that it was Himself who did originally appoint for men that bondage with respect to God through the law, and then afterwards conferred upon them freedom. And in that He says, "For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth," He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. But when He terms His disciples "the friends of God," He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became "the friend of God." But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am" ), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it. 

From Against Heresies by Irenaeus of Lyons

 1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

See Early Christian Writings: Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies

First Century Christianity: Putting Together the Available Evidence

Over the ten plus years of this blog's existence, I have put together a narrative about what happened within the Christian community of the First Century. To be clear, my narrative is very different from the one put forward by Herbert Armstrong, his successors, and most Sabbatarian Christians. And, although my narrative draws upon the evidence provided by Scripture, Josephus, the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Catholic scholars, modern Biblical scholars (like Gerd Ludemann, Bart Ehrman, James Tabor, etc.), secular history, and Roman Catholic scholars, I believe that the narrative provided here is unique and distinctive from the ones provided by all of them individually. In short, I do NOT believe that the available evidence supports the narrative of a Christianity hijacked by Gentiles or pagans, or a Church imposing its beliefs on a diverse and growing movement (NO grand conspiracy theories here).

According to the Gospels, Christ appeared to a small, core group of his disciples after his resurrection and told them to carry the message of his kingdom to the ends of the earth (a message that focused on the salvation that was available to all through him). Moreover, as the Gospels make very clear, an important part of that message was the fact that God had resurrected Jesus after the Sabbath, during the dark portion of the Jews' first day of the week - the one that the Romans called Sunday (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1-2, and John 20:1). Nevertheless, it is the "Acts of the Apostles" which recounts the story of what happened within the movement during the first four decades of its existence. From this historical narrative (in conjunction with the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John), we can piece together the story of what was really going on within the movement. 

Thus, the narrative begins with a small group of people who were wholly Jewish in their ethnicity, religion, and culture. Like Jesus, it is important to understand that these original disciples of his were observant Jews. In other words, they were accustomed to observing the Sabbath, Holy Days, clean and unclean, etc.. In short, they were familiar with Torah and had always employed it as the standard for their lives. Moreover, it is clear that this continued to be the case throughout the first decade of the movement's existence. Indeed, the book of Acts portrays a rather insular group which had little interest in expanding outside of the Roman province of Judea.

According to the Gospels, however, this was not what God and Christ had in mind for the people of the New Covenant. After all, Jesus had told his disciples at the conclusion of his own ministry: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20, ESV) Indeed, the inertia was so strong within the early Church, that we are informed that Peter was given a special vision to accept Gentiles into the movement (Acts 10). Interestingly, just prior to this event, we are informed that a Jew named Saul (who had been enthusiastically persecuting Christ's disciples) was converted and welcomed into the Church (Acts 9:1-30). This man, of course, went on to become the Apostle Paul - the apostle to the Gentiles.

Initially, the book of Acts informs us that Paul preached in synagogues around the Eastern Mediterranean provinces of the Roman Empire (Acts 13 and 14). Eventually, however, there was a backlash against Paul and his associates within the Jewish community, and the Gentile audience for their message increased over time. Now, as more and more of these non-Jewish people came into the Church, some of the Jewish Christians became disenchanted with the fact that these folks weren't observing the tenets of God's Covenant with Israel (as outlined in Torah). Sure, they had accepted Christ, been baptized, and received God's Spirit; but they were ignoring circumcision, the Sabbath, and a host of other commandments. These circumstances enraged some of the Jewish Christians within the Church (mainly those who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees).

Hence, we read in the fifteenth chapter of Acts: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'" (Acts 15:1-5, ESV) Clearly, the question before the gathering was: Will the Gentile believers be required to adopt the tenets of God's covenant with Israel?

The account continued: "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.'" (Acts 15:6-11, ESV)

Notice first, that Peter spoke "after there had been much debate." This was NOT an easily settled question. Obviously, both sides of the debate recognized that the stakes were high - that the theological questions which this debate had engendered went to the very heart of the nature of the new faith. Next, Peter pointed out that God had already made the decision to give his message to the Gentiles, draw them into his Church, and had given them his Holy Spirit. Then Peter reminded his mostly Jewish audience that Christ had been the only Israelite who had ever successfully borne the yoke of Torah. As a consequence, Peter concluded that BOTH Jews and Gentiles "will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus."

In the account, Peter's remarks gave Paul and Barnabas the space they needed to recount the story of what God had used them to do among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). When they had finished, we are told that James addressed the assembly (Acts 15:13). He began by reminding them about what Peter had told them about God making the decision to make these Gentiles part of his people (Acts 15:14). Next, James pointed out that the prophets of old had predicted that David's heir (Christ) would make it possible for Gentiles to seek the Lord (Acts 15:15-18). According to the account, James then concluded his remarks with his own judgment of the matter: "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:19-20, ESV) The account in Acts ends with the assembly writing a letter to the Gentile Christians which encouraged them to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:22-29) In other words, they gave them a short list of things that would distinguish them from the Gentiles around them and make them less likely to offend the sensibilities of their Jewish brethren. They would NOT, however, be forced to become Torah observant Jews.

Now, although Acts gives us the impression that this settled the matter, we know from Paul's letter to the Galatians that some of the Jewish Christians continued to advocate for Gentiles to obey the commandments of Torah. Even though almost two thousand years have elapsed since Paul wrote this epistle, his anger and frustration with those Jewish Christians is still palpable. In the letter, Paul recounted the story of his and Barnabas' trip to Jerusalem. He wrote: "because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Galatians 2:4-10, ESV) Once again, the leadership among the Jewish part of the Church are portrayed here as accepting Paul and Barnabas and their work among the Gentiles.

Even so, Paul went on to give an account of a previous confrontation he had with Peter over his hypocritical behavior in front of those Jewish Christians who advocated Torah for Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-14). For Paul, these folks were clearly NOT to be appeased - this went to the very heart of his message about salvation through Christ. He wrote: "We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." (Galatians 2:15-21, ESV)

For Paul, Gentile Christians trying to obey Torah was akin to a freeman submitting to slavery. He summarized his position: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." (Galatians 5:1-6, ESV) Paul believed that Christ had fulfilled Torah, and that any Christian (Jew or Gentile) who was actively trying to be justified before God by obeying the Law had effectively severed him/herself from participating in salvation through Jesus Christ!

So, this was the situation within the Church about twenty years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Over the previous twenty years, there had been a large influx of Gentiles into the Church - people who had little to no familiarity with Torah and no tradition of practicing its tenets. Nevertheless, there was still a substantial group of Jewish Christians - both within Judea and in the synagogues of Gentile cities around the empire. Within that camp, there was also a small but vocal group of people who continued to believe that Christians were obligated to obey the commandments of Torah (Sabbath and Holy Day observance, circumcision, clean and unclean, etc.).

Within the Church as a whole, there were also a number of elements of the faith that had become universal (practiced by both Jewish and Gentile Christians). For example, both the Gospels and Paul's epistles make very plain that things like baptism, the Eucharist, and Christ's resurrection were held in high esteem by all. Indeed, in this connection, both the writings of the New Testament and of the people who immediately followed the apostles (the so-called Ante-Nicene Fathers), affirm that Sunday was a day highly regarded by ALL Christians by the close of the First Century. It was, after all, the day upon which Christ had been resurrected, and the Church had been founded (Pentecost). Moreover, as I have pointed out many times over the years, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans, it became physically impossible to observe the tenets of Torah in the manner prescribed by those writings. The old priesthood ceased to function. The Law of the Central Sanctuary was now defunct (there wasn't any Temple). Over the years that followed, Jews were forced to reimagine and reinterpret Torah in the light of their new circumstances.

In short, at the dawn of the Second Century, what had formerly been a wholly Jewish institution had been transformed into a Gentile one. The Jewish roots and traditions of those original disciples were replaced by the new and universal elements of the new faith. The Ekklesia of God was no longer an appendage or sect of the Jewish religion. Instead, it was now composed mostly of non-Jewish people and was rapidly expanding in reach and popularity within the Roman Empire. There hadn't been any Grand Conspiracy or deception, just the natural evolution of a new faith centered on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

  

The Jerusalem Council from Paul's Perspective

Galatians 2:1 "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (English Standard Version)

Know God Better: Don't Ask Living Church of God!

On the Living Church of God's website, they have an article posted by Dexter Wakefield titled Know God Better Through His Statues. For those who are familiar with the Armstrong Churches of God, that title will come as no surprise to them. However, for Christians of a more traditional inclination, it may provoke a bit of a puzzled look - as in what do they mean by that? For Mr. Wakefield, as for most Armstrongites, Torah is a window into the heart and soul of God. For these folks, Torah IS GOD's Law!

Never mind that the "commandments, statutes, and judgments" of Torah were addressed to the children of Israel over and over again throughout those writings. Never mind that those "commandments, statutes, and judgments" were designed to meet the needs of a primitive and tribal people who embraced paternalism, polygamy, and slavery and were surrounded by pagans. Never mind that after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood, it became literally impossible to fulfill many of the requirements of those "commandments, statutes, and judgments" of Torah. Never mind the New Testament claim that Christ fulfilled those same "commandments, statutes, and judgments." Never mind that Christ summarized Torah into Two Great Commandments, which he claimed comprehended the entire legislation! Never mind, that the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John all point to LOVE as the foundation and focus of God's Law!

That's right, according to Scripture, GOD IS LOVE (I John 4:8, 16). Hence, if you really want to know God better, it seems to me that the best way to do that is to learn about what motivates God and his "commandments, statutes, and judgments." Indeed, when Christ was asked about the greatest commandment(s) in Torah, he replied: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40, ESV) The Apostle Paul said that "love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:10, NKJV) Notice, that it isn't the Law which defines love, it's love that defines the law! In other words, Torah was motivated by God's love for the children of Israel. Moreover, Christ underscored this principle for his followers when he gave them a "new" commandment. He said: "Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples." (John 13:34-35, NLT)

Interestingly, the above Living Church of God article references God's prediction through the Prophet Jeremiah that God would establish a New Covenant someday: We read there: "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:33-34, NKJV) They quote it, but they apparently completely miss how God intended to fulfill this prophecy about putting his law in their minds and writing it on their hearts. Remember, Jesus Christ's mission was to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17)

In his famous "Sermon on the Mount," Christ did just that! For his followers, the law would be internalized. The Old Covenant outlined in Torah and typified by a long list of dos and don'ts was to be fulfilled and replaced by him. Christ's disciples would be expected to measure their behavior by the principle of LOVE. In other words, is this behavior motivated by (and consistent with) loving God and each other? Now, as Torah was motivated and summarized by the same principle, we can see that many of the commandments which are associated with how they behaved toward other people and God are consistent with this new iteration of God's Law. For instance, we can readily see that being unfaithful to one's spouse would NOT be consistent with loving him or her. Likewise, we recognize that striking someone or murdering them is NOT consistent with the principle of love. Indeed, as Torah was motivated by love, one would expect the "commandments, statutes, and judgments" found therein to reflect the love which motivated them!

Think about it, if you wanted some insight into the character of the United States would you study the laws of the nation or the principles on which those laws were promulgated? Which came first: the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? Didn't the principles espoused in the Declaration motivate and serve as the foundation of the laws that followed? In other words, these Armstrongites have it all backwards. To truly know and understand anything, one must start with the foundation. What is the motivating principle? Sure, you may eventually discern that principle by studying the many individual laws but isn't that taking the long way around and increasing the likelihood that you might get bogged down in the details and miss your destination? Hence, if we are really interested in knowing God better, we might want to start with reading about what love is (see I Corinthians 13:4-7). What do you think?

Torah Was for ISRAEL!

The Armstrong Churches of God, like the Christian Pharisees of the First Century, have always taught that Gentile Christians are obligated to obey some of the precepts of Torah. A few days ago, on Banned by HWA, Scout wrote a post entitled Notes on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. In it, he made clear that the WHOLE Church (including the Jewish part of it) decided that believers would NOT be required to adhere to the tenets of the Old Covenant - Torah. Scout went on to make the point that this did NOT mean that the Church was discarding Torah, just that it wasn't a pathway to salvation under the New Covenant. Armstrongists, however, insist that Christians can lose their salvation by failing to observe some of the laws of Torah (like those related to Sabbaths and Holy Days). 

In my previous post on this topic (Was Torah for Everyone?), I said that "what is offered here is only a FRACTION of the many passages contained in Torah which make very clear that Torah was intended for the people of Israel." In making that statement, I was on very solid ground. To demonstrate the truth of that statement, and because it is so important for Christians to understand that we are operating under a different iteration of God's Law, I have decided to include a few more of the Scriptures which make very clear that Torah was intended for the people of Israel.

In the book of Leviticus, we read that God told the Israelites that he had separated them from the other peoples of the earth (Leviticus 20:24, 26). In the original Hebrew, the sense is that they were severed from other nations and people. They were to be clearly different from other peoples, and it wasn't just male circumcision which delineated that difference. The Sabbath was also a sign between them and God which distinguished them from all other people (Exodus 31:13, 17). Moreover, there were a number of other things that were to distinguish them from the Gentile nations surrounding them. For instance, in the book of Deuteronomy, we read: "You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat." (Deuteronomy 14:1-6, ESV) There were even regulations about how they were to cut their hair, and what kinds of fabrics they were to wear! All of these things distinguished them from the Gentile nations.

Over and over again, the commandments of Torah were addressed to the children of Israel and reiterated throughout that these instructions were intended to distinguish them from the nations which surrounded them. Near the end of the book of Leviticus, we read: "These are the statutes and rules and laws that the Lord made between himself and the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai."  (Leviticus 26:46, ESV) Indeed, later, in the book of Deuteronomy, we read: "When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this." (Deuteronomy 18:9-14, ESV) Clearly, God intended through Torah for the Israelites to be different from the Gentile peoples which they were displacing (and would be surrounded by) in every aspect of their lives!

Hence, once again, the Armstrongist narrative about Torah does NOT fit. We see that God clearly intended this iteration of his law for the people of Israel. Indeed, we have seen that the commandments of Torah were meant to distinguish them from the other peoples of the world. Armstrongists love to point out that Christ and his disciples kept Torah, but they completely ignore the fact that they were ALL Jews! Paul was also a devout Jew. Moreover, it was necessary that Christ observe the commandments of Torah to fulfill the Law and make his sacrifice of himself efficacious for securing our salvation! The PLAIN TRUTH is that Torah was never intended for Gentiles, or the Church which Christ founded. Christ fulfilled Torah for Israel and instituted a new iteration of God's Law for Christians (based on the same principles that were the basis for Torah - love for God and each other). Thus, for those who have accepted Christ's sacrifice and received God's Holy Spirit, their lives will reflect obedience to Christ's iteration of God's Law.