Is it right to serve in the Armed forces?

Saturday, 13-11-2010

This post is written in response to some views expressed by friends who believe that it is wrong to serve in the armed forces because our Lord had said in Matthew 5:38 - 42,

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Other scriptures were also quoted to support their pacifist views. For example, "He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints” (Revelation 13:10), and of course, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13)

A thought that came immediately to my mind was about two accounts in the New Testament - one in Luke chapter 3 and the other in Acts chapter 10 - about soldiers who turned sought after God and turned to him in repentance.

Luke 3:14 records that when soldiers came to John the Baptist and asked him for advice on their repentance, John did not tell them to leave the army, but had instead told them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."

The words "be content with your wages" rang loudly at me. It is obvious that in calling these soldiers to repentance, John did not tell them to leave their jobs. Instead they were to continue in them - to be content with their wages, and not to extort money from the public with violence.

Furthermore, not a single teaching of John the Baptist was ever repudiated by our Lord as erroneous. As such the words of John to the soldiers in Luke 3:14 can be taken as a clear and authoritative indication that soldiers did not have to leave the army in their endeavour to repent from sin.

A question that one should ponder over at this juncture is:

- - - WHAT exactly was John the Baptist sent for? - - -

Wasn't he sent to call the people of God to repentance in preparation for the Messiah's appearance? Are we to suspect that his instructions to those soldiers that day were faulty or inadequate in some way, that had to be subsequently corrected by the Messiah himself or by the disciples? 

No such correction is recorded in the NT. I find no instance in the NT that indicates any error in the call to repentance made by John the Baptist. He called those soldiers to repent - without telling them to leave the army.

Some people would refer to Acts 18:24 - 26, to point out that a Jew, Apollos of Alexandria who knew only of the Baptism of John, had to be brought aside and taught the way of God more accurately by Aquila and Priscilla - an incident that apparently indicates some error or inadequacy in the teachings of John the Baptist.

This incident, however, has nothing to do with the correctness of John's teaching about repentance. Instead it was because Apollos had not yet heard about Yeshua, the Messiah - he knew only of the baptism of John! Other than that, nothing is said about any errors in Apollos' beliefs or teachings.

On the contrary, knowing only the Baptism of John, and before being brought aside by Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos was already described as one who "spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord" (Acts 18:25) This is testimony that John's teachings about repentance was sound.

Likewise, the apostle Peter (who certainly knew more than just the Baptism of John), when called to speak to the Gentile household of Cornelius in Caesar-ea did not tell Cornelius the Centurion to leave his job as an army officer. In fact we read in in Acts 10 that, while being in active duty, Cornelius was already described as devout, God-fearing, often giving alms and calling on God in his prayers. Furthermore, while Peter was preaching to his household that day, the Holy Spirit fell upon all of them - including Cornelius himself.

This army office, the first Gentile believer in the Messiah, Cornelius the Centurion, did not have to resign from the army to be born again as a child of God.

May peace from God our Father and from our Lord Yeshua the Anointed be with you all.

Calling on the Name of the Lord - which Name?

Tuesday, 05-10-2010

A discussion about the legitimacy of using the name Yahweh in our prayers and worship.

I have recently come across an article, http://www.seekgod.ca/htname.htm, which carries out a critical evaluation of what people regard as the true Name of God by drawing attention to how the theophoric element YH is rendered in Hebrew texts (depending on whether it's used as a prefix or suffix) and comes to an interesting conclusion.

The author appears to have aptly pointed out that there is no record at all in the gospels of our Lord Jesus calling God by the name YHVH.

Instead he addressed God as 'Father" in his prayers and in all his discourses he would refer to God as "My Father" or "The Father". In the same manner, he taught his disciples to say "Our Father who is in Heaven" in the Lord's prayer.

Perhaps, the only time he didn't address God as Father was when he hung dying on the cross, crying out, "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachtani?" i.e. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Even at the point of death, our Lord did not call God by the name YHVH.

Likewise, after his resurrection, he told the women in John 20:17 to "Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."


Q: "The very usage of the YHVH is when Eve said in Gen 4:2 "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD. After that further down the chapter we see this verse. Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD. " So we see at this stage that men began to call on the name of the LORD. They must have know how to call YHVH. Moses and all the prophets also called YHVH. It was pronounced in the presence of the Pharoah and also Israelites when Moses had delivered them from Egypt. Actually all along YHVH 's name was been called and used."

A: "Another article entitled, Must we call God by a sacred Name?, by a monotheistic Christian author expresses somewhat balanced views on what you have observed from the OT.

After acknowledging that YHVH was originally used in the OT, the author nevertheless goes on to discuss the question of whether it is necessary for us to actually call our God by his sacred name. He asserts that the original pronunciation of YHVH is lost and, as in the earlier article which I have mentioned, he observes that our Lord Jesus never called YHVH by his name, but instead called him "Father".

Towards the end, and to my surprise, this article takes a step further to address the question of whether Christians should address even the Lord Jesus personally by his name "Jesus". He points out interestingly from the Gospels and the Epistles that his disciples never addressed him face to face in the second person as "Jesus" but instead as "Lord" and called him "the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

As such, while I agree with you, by examples you have cited from Genesis and from the account of Moses in Exodus, that God's people called upon His Name YHVH in the OT, I would at the same time be concerned that the exact pronunciation of the Sacred Name is debatable and that neither our Lord Jesus referred to God by His Name nor command his disciples to do so."

Q: " in the OT, Psalm 79:6 says,""Pour out Thy wrath upon the nations which do not know Thee, And upon the kingdoms which do not call upon Thy name." Psalm 80:18, "Then we shall not turn back from Thee; Revive us, and we will call upon Thy name."
It seems to me implication is that those who do not call on His name will only stir up His wrath and those who do not call on His name may have turn their hearts from Him. And when the heart be revived will call upon His Name. in the Psalms I see the joy and delight of David calling on the name of the LORD.
In the OT, Israelites must remember the goodness of God, How to exalt the name of YHVH? Israelites must call on His name. Isaiah 12:4, "And in that day you will say, "Give thanks to the LORD, call on His name. Make known His deeds among the peoples; Make them remember that His name is exalted."
Zechariah 13:9 "And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, 'They are My people,' And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'" - those who are refined by fire are those who call on His Name. God will say to them, they are MY people. and the people will say YHVH is my God.
Coming to the NT, Romans 10:13 for "Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved."
I see that again Paul said that those who call upon the Name of the LORD will be saved. Who are those who call on the name of the LORD? They are those who believe in God. Only those who believe in His Name will call on Him.
2 Timothy 2:22 "Now flee from youthful lusts, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart" This verse, 2Tim 2:22 seems to imply that there are a group of people who are calling on the name of the LORD. "

A: " I am reminded that in the NT, God has highly exalted our Lord Jesus and has given to him a name above all other names. In Phil. 2:9-11, the apostle Paul wrote:

"God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth -- and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Thus, we see that in the NT, our Father, YHVH, is glorified when we confess and bow at the name of his Anointed, our Lord Jesus.

Furthermore, when Paul and Sosthenes greeted the Corinthian Christians in 1 Cor. 1:1-3, they referred to them as: "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all those calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place -- both theirs and ours:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!"

This strongly indicates that the early Christians called upon the name of Yeshua (meaning YHVH Saves) instead of calling upon the name YHVH itself, a name which many believe that in the NT times, had already been regarded as an ineffable* Name by the Jews themselves.

*ineffable = cannot be pronounced

As such, in instances like Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32) and 2 Tim. 2:22, it is the name Yeshua (Jesus) rather than the name YHVH that Paul was referring to when writing about "calling upon the name of the Lord".

Thus, it may be argued that when Paul quoted Joel 2:32 in Rom. 10:13, he regarded the name Yeshua (or YHVH Saves) so highly - as a name above all other names - that he had used it in place of YHVH in his teaching.

When these observations are taken together with the earlier ones about the practice of the Lord Jesus not calling God YHVH, but instead "Father" and "My God, my God . . ." in his dying moments, one must conclude that calling upon the name of Yeshua (Jesus) is the proper practice in the NT.

Let us remember that when our Lord gave the great commission to his disciples in Matt. 28:18-20, he said "All authority is given to me in heaven and on earth . . ." , and that in Acts 4:12, there is no other name given under heaven among men by which we must be saved. It is no surprise that the apostles had taught the NT Christians to call upon the name of our Lord Jesus."

Reasons why you should not believe in The Trinity.

Saturday, 25-9-2010

The following are some points raised by a friend recently on the doctrine of the Trinity, and my replies to them:

(1)
Jesus is submissive to the Father. But only in humanity sense, but not divine sense. He is submissive to the father until the end, but only in humanity sense.

My reply:
Regarding the first point that Jesus was submissive to the Father "only in the human sense, but not in the divine sense" I'd like to point out that this is not taught in the NT.
Instead the NT teaches us that the Son of God learned obedience from his sufferings and that he became the source of eternal salvation to those who obey him only after he has been made perfect. (Heb.5:8,9).
Similarly, Phil. 2:8,9 teaches that God exalted him and bestowed on him the name above every name because he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death on the cross.
Words like "learned obedience", "made perfect" clearly shows that the Son of God is not God himself.
Likewise the fact that God "exalted" and "bestowed on" him a name above all names again clearly tells us that our God is also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. There are at least four instances in the NT where the apostle referred to God as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ - 2Cor 1:3, Eph. 1:3, Col. 1:3, 1 Pet. 1:3 etc
In fact if you browse through the Pauline epistles you will find that the apostle Paul has in many places worshipped, praised, given thanks and prayed to God alone and never to the Lord Jesus. For a more detailed list please visit:
http://thefishermanspage.blogspot.com/2010/03/thanksgiving-prayer-and-praise-in.html

After Jesus was raised by God, he said to his disciples in John 20:17,
"I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."
As such, the only sense in which we should understand the submission of the Lord Jesus Christ to God our Father is the sense of a man submitting to God. Any other sense is a distortion of the truth.

(2)
But the YeHoVaH=triune God himself according to trinity, when u said God raised Jesus up, trinitirian might think the God is refer to the triune God, not the father...and the preacher said that God cant shows us love if he is not 3 persons in one, which is relational ( involved that kind of relationship in order to show love)

My reply:
Interesting reasoning. If Jesus were part of the 3-in-1 God, it will be very hard to understand why the apostles repeatedly asserted that GOD raised Jesus from the dead, instead of just "God The Father" raised "God the Son" from the dead.
I read somewhere that there are 27 or more scriptures in eight NT books that say that God raised Christ from the dead. Haven't checked it out yet, but I know of a few, as follows:

This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:32)
Paul, an apostle-not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. (Gal. 1:1)
Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well.(Acts 4:10)

But God raised him from the dead, (Acts 13:30)

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:4)

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12)

who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (1 Peter 1:21)

We can conclude that our Lord Jesus had no power to raise himself from the dead. He had to be raised by God, the same God called YHVH, the same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The same God whom our Lord Jesus affirmed when he recited the Shema:Hear O Israel, YHVH our God, YHVH is one. Deut 6:4 / Mark 12:29
God cannot die. The whole idea that God raised himself from the dead is absurd.

(3)
3a. i don't see what is the BIG problem of Paul addressed distinctly between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. This in fact, is Paul's assertion of the two persons of the Trinity. I am glad he did, because he distinctly differentiated the two roles of God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ (for example, the Father did not die on the cross for our sins, the Son did).
3b.Thanks, I found something interesting
Psa 2:7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD(YWHW): He said to Me(Jesus), 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. ... YeHoVaH is the Father of Jesus... which the speaker denied by saying YeHoVaH is the Triune God....

My reply:
Amen. Psalm 2:7 indeed teaches us that YHVH is the Father. It is a prophecy written in the voice of the first person singular pronoun "me" - the Son of YHVH.
The fact that God is the Father and the Father is God is explicitly mentioned all over the NT, is beyond all doubt and I've cited some NT references in my previous comment.
What is less well-known among Christians, and even among Jewish people, is that the OT also refers to God, YHVH, as THE Father. e.g.

Isiah 64:8

But now, O YHVH, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Isaiah 63:16

For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O YHVH, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.

Deut. 32:6

Do you thus repay YHVH, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?

This is the BIG problem for believers in the trinity - who believe "God the Father" as one of the 3-in-1 instead of believing the fact so explicitly stated in both OT and NT, the truth that God IS the Father.
Our Lord Jesus said, beyond all doubt, when he prayed to the Father in John 17:3 - "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
Let us love the explicit assertions that has been so clearly written down in scripture instead of dabbling with implicit allusions which have deluded so many generations of Christians.

May I add: If we turn to John chapter 8, we find that,
(1) The Father sent Jesus, and the Father was with him (v. 16, 29).
(2) Subsequently, in verse 42 - Jesus said more succinctly, that God sent him.
Thus, it is clear that when Jesus referred to his Father, he was referring to the Only true God, YeHoVaH Almighty: his God and our God (see John 17:3, 20:17).
(3) Jesus told only what he heard from the Father, who sent him (v.26, 38, 40).
(4) He always did what pleased the Father (v.29).
(5) Note especially verse 40, Jesus told the truth that he heard from God.
Here, again, we can see without doubt that God is the Father.

(4)
thank you for highlighting Psalm 2:7.
The writer of Hebrews 1 also quoted Psalm 2:7 in verse 5:
5For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?
6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.”
8But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."
Look carefully at verse 8: about the Son..., "Your throne, O God...." - which means the Son is God.
And who is saying that? who is the "He" in verse 8? God the Father!
God the Father is saying to God the Son.

My reply:
I'd like to point out that Hebrews 1:8, a quotation of Psalm 45:6,7 can be also be translated as "God is your throne forever . . ." . For example, please see the footnote for this verse in the TEV, and also the NEB.
Furthermore, in the next verse Heb. 1:9, we can read that. "You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
cf Psalm 45:6,7 - "you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;" (ESV)
Our God is also the God of our Messiah. It is God who anointed his firstborn son, our Lord Jesus, with the oil of gladness, to be our eternal King.

There is no such thing as "God the Son" in the new testament. Instead there is only One True God, YHVH, our Father, and Jesus, the Christ, the only begotten Son of God.


Concluding remarks:
I pray that we all will hold fast to the truth that we can see so clearly in the scriptures - that there is no such thing as "God the Son" nor "God the Holy Spirit", but only God, our Father, our Only True God who raised Jesus, our Messiah from the dead and gave him a name above all other names.

Let us remember that as we wait for the end, our Lord Jesus will reign until God has put all enemies under Jesus' feet in fulfillment of Psalm 8:6, cf 1 Cor. 15:27

"You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet,"

(Reference: 1 Cor. 15:20-28)

After the Son of God has destroyed all rule, authority and power, he will deliver the kingdom to God and he will be subjected to God, so that "God may be all in all" 1 Cor. 15:24, 28

Have the Ten Commandments been abolished?

Tue, 17-8-10, Reading Romans 13, followed by 1 Cor. 9.

I have recently replied to a friend's assertion that the Ten commandments, along with the Law, have been abolished:
Dear (brother). Thank you for making the observation from Heb. 7-9 that the first covenant has been made obsolete. However, I'm not sure if we can categorically assert, solely on the basis of Heb.9:4, that the Ten commandments has already been made obsolete too. This is because, we read in other places in the NT that:

• (a) we should "uphold the Law" (Rom. 3:31),
• (b) we are to practice love in fulfilling commandments like the 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th (Rom.13:9,10)
• (c) we are to obey the 5th commandment - it is the first of the Ten Commandments that carry a promise (Eph. 6:2), and
• (d) we can be sure that we know God, "if we keep his commandments" and live just as our Lord Jesus did.(1 John 2:3-6)

It is noteworthy that our Lord Jesus lived in this world by obeying God's commandments, including the fourth.
And finally, I'd like to ask with reference to Jeremiah 31:33, which is quoted Heb. 8:10 (see also Heb. 10:16):

. . . 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.

What are THOSE laws that are put into our minds, and written in our hearts today? Are those some new laws that are different from the Law given in the OT, particularly the Ten Commandments? If so, why are we commanded to obey the commandments above? and If not, then shouldn't we uphold ALLthe Ten commandments?
This morning, at devotion:
Reading Romans 13, followed by 1 Cor. 9.
While Paul wrote in Rom 13:8-10 that he who loves another has fulfilled the law, and that love is the fulfillment of the law, he explicitly referred to several of the Ten Commandments in 8:9 as examples: regarding adultery, murder, theft, bearing false witness and covetousness.
This clearly shows that, to the apostle, the Ten Commandments have NOT been abolished, i.e. they are not to be ignored, but they are, instead, to be upheld in our lives. In other words, when we say we fulfill the law by practising love, we do NOT say that the commandments are obsolete or done away with. Instead, we make it come true in our lives.
Then, moving on to 1 Cor.9, my attention was drawn to Paul's detailed explanation of why he believed that, as an apostle who preached the gospel of Christ, he was entitled to "reap material things" from the Corinthian Christians. He did this by referring to Deuteronomy 25:4, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain" (NKJV), likening his work to that of the ox treading out the grain and hence his right to "eat and drink" (1 Cor.9:4), and arriving at the conclusion that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14).
Nevertheless, the apostle made up his mind graciously to forgo that right, and chose instead to preach the gospel of Christ without charge (1 Cor. 9:18)
To me, this morning's reading is one of the most inspiring occasions in my devotions over the recent months. It has answered a question which I have asked from time to time about what Paul wrote in Rom. 3:31, How shall we "uphold (establish) the law"?. It makes me ponder over the fact that very few preachers teach like him: using the truth of the Torah as the basis for reasoning and argument and for deciding on what is good for Christian living.
Brothers and sisters, let us imitate the apostle Paul in our reasoning and understanding. Let us use the truth of the Torah, along with the Neviim (prophets) and Chetuvim (writings) as the basis for our lives. This was the "Scripture" referred to in 2 Tim. 3:16,

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Let us teach and practice the Torah.

The Two Great Assurances

Sunday, 8-8-2010. 1 John 2: 3-6 TEV

3 If we obey God's commands, then we are sure that we know him

4 If someone says that he knows him, but does not obey his commands, such a person is a liar and the truth is not in him.

5 But whoever obeys his word is the one whose love for God has really been made perfect. This is how we can be sure that we are in union with God:

6 whoever says that he remains in union with God should live just as Jesus Christ did.

This morning, as I was meditating on this short passage in John's first epistle, I realise that we can be sure of two very important conditions in our Christian life.

The first assurance we have is stated in v.3, which says that we can be sure of our knowledge of God, "if we obey God's commands".

This statement is followed by an elaboration in verses 4 and 5 of a two-fold implication. Firstly, anyone who claims that he knows God but disobeys God's commands is lying, and "the truth is not in him" (v4). Secondly, on the other hand, anyone who keeps God's commands (or God's words, v5), has made perfect his love for God.

The second assurance in our Christian life is found in v.5b,6: which may be understood as a reflection of or a parallel to the earlier in v3 above. It says that we can be sure of our union with God if we live just as Jesus Christ lived.

This reminds us of our Lord's prayer in John 17: 21-23, for all believers to be in union with God, in the following words:

"I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you . . ." (v.21)

and

". . . I in them, and you in me so that they may be completely one, in order that the world may know that you sent me and that you love them as you love me"(v.23)

This also helps us to understand what our Lord had said earlier in John 10:38, telling the people who wanted to stone him for his alleged blasphemy, ". . . that you may know once and for all that the Father is in me and that I am in the Father".

This was the kind of union that our Lord Jesus had with God, and this is the same union with God that we can assure ourselves of, if we live just as our Lord had lived when he was in this world.

Brothers and sisters, Hebrews 5:7 tells us that our Lord Jesus in his life on earth offered up prayers and petitions "with loud cries and tears" to God who could save him from death. It was because our Lord was humble and devoted that God heard his prayers. Verse 8 of the same chapter further says that Jesus learnt to be obedient to God through his sufferings.

Let us therefore hold fast to these two great assurances in our lives: to obey God's commands and be sure of our knowledge of God, to live like our Lord Jesus did, in learning obedience through sufferings. and be sure of our union with God.

Did Jesus claim to be God?

Tue 13July2010

Over the past ten months since I stopped believing in the trinity and turned to YHVH, our Heavenly Father, as the Only True god, I've often been posed a question by well-meaning trinitarian Christian friends who are very concerned about my "falling away" from the Faith.

The question is, "Didn't our Lord Jesus himself claim to be God?" And it is usually substantiated by references to John 11:25, where our Lord said, "I am the resurrection and the life . . ." and also John 5:18, "Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God."

The Jews first accused our Lord Jesus of having broken the Sabbath.

Our Lord had just healed a sick man at the pool of Bethesda by Sheep gate of Jerusalem. This man had been an invalid for thirty-eight years of his life. It must have brought great joy to that man and all his family and friends.

Alas, it was not so for the Jews. For that day was the sabbath, and our Lord had told the man to pick up his mat and walk. To those Jews, the mere act of picking up one's mat and walking with it was tantamount to breaking the fourth commandment. Thus, both Jesus and the man whom he healed were accused of having broken the Sabbath.

On another occasion in Luke chapter 6, his disciples had merely picked some heads of grain, while walking through a grain field, rubbed them in their hands and ate the kernels.

The Pharisees took offence at that incident. In their eyes, the disciples had broken the fourth commandment. When questioned by some of the Pharisees, our Lord had told them in his reply that "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath".

Did Jesus break the Sabbath? All of us know that this accusation was based on narrow interpretations by those Jews on what constituted "working" on a Sabbath day. As such, their accusation was false, we know that Jesus didn't break the fourth commandment.

Similarly, the Jews also accused Jesus of making himself equal with God in John 5:18. Our question now is,

"Did Jesus claim to be God?"

In John 5: 26, 27, Jesus said "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man."

This clearly shows that both life and authority were granted by the Father, who alone is the Only True God. As such, when Jesus said in John 11: 25 that he is the resurrection and the life, he did not mean that he is the ultimate source of life. Instead, he meant that he had life in himself which was granted by his Father in heaven.

Furthermore, in John 5:43, 44: Jesus also said, "I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?"

Again, without any doubt, it is clear that when Jesus described himself as having come in His Father's name, he meant he had come to seek the honor that came from the Only God!

Also, in Matthew 26:64, our Lord replied the High Priest who had put him under oath and asked him to state whether he was the Messiah, the Son of God:

"It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Note that the Son of Man sits at the right hand of the Power (YHVH), the Son of Man is NOT the Power himself.

Eventually, at his crucifixion, the chief priests, along with the scribes and elders, mocked Jesus with these words, " . . . He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God." (Matthew 27:43)

Even his accusers acknowledged explicitly that he trusted in God, and it was for that reason that they mocked him at his crucifixion. They did not mock him for claiming to be God himself.

My brothers and sisters, I am certain that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not claim to be God.

The Ten Commandments.

Draft started on Tue 13July2010

The Ten Commandments or the Ten Words (Ex 34:28, Deut. 5:22)
I have been pondering over the well-debated question of whether the Ten Commandments have been ignored, neglected or even, possibly, disobeyed by most of today's Christians. I have not come to a conclusion, and this post merely states my reflections on this matter:

1. Both Gal 5:14 and Rom 13:8-10 assert that having the Love of God in us is the fulfillment of the Torah. The passage in Rom. 13 lists the 6th to 10th commandments as examples. And it is in line with the Lord Jesus' teaching that Lev.19:18 is the second of the two greatest commandments on which "hang all the commandments and the Law". My question is how about the first five commandments? How does Love fulfill them, in particular the fourth?
2. Did Paul and the other Apostles observe the sabbath along with Jewish feasts and holy days? 1 Cor. 16:8 tells of Paul tarrying in Ephesus until Pentecost. Were those the only celebrations observed by Christians in NT times?
3. Ironically the 4th commandment - the least talked about or taught in Church - appears to be the most elaborate of the Ten commandments. It is the longest commandment of all.
4. 1 Cor. 7:19 says that keeping the commandments of God is what matters. This is consistent with all that the Lord Jesus had taught in his sermon on the Mount - "You have heard that it is said . . . . but I tell you . . ." largely elaborates on how to obey the Ten commandments from the heart.
5. The Apostle Paul taught from the Torah of Moses in 1 Cor. 9:9 (Deut 25:4). Similarly, he taught from the Neviim in 1 Cor. 14:21 (Is. 28:11,12). Another significant example is 2Cor. 6:16 where Paul referred to Lev 26:12, Jer 32:38, Ezek 37:27 Isaiah 52;11, Ezek 20:34, 41 and 2Sam 7:14 with the words, "And God has said . . ." The apostle clearly upheld the OT scriptures in his life. (Rom. 3:31)
6. A caution, however, is given in Gal 6:16, which appears to be the epitome of the entire epistle to the Galatians, "walk according to this rule" citing circumcision as the case in hand, v. 15 says,"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.".
7. What is this "rule"? Many Christians today interpret this to be the abolishment of the Torah, and to imply that we no longer live under any obligation to keep the Torah, including the Ten Commandments? see 2Cor. 3:11, "that which is fading away", Eph 2:15, Christ "abolished in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations"
8. In Acts 15 and the entire epistle to the Galatians, the issue was that some people insisted on circumcision according to the custom of Moses - in order to be saved!
9. Strangely, no such issue was raised by the opponents of Paul regarding the keeping of the Sabbath. Wouldn't they be even more unhappy with Paul's teaching if the Gentile churches did not, perhaps along with Paul himself, observe the seventh day as a day of rest?
10. It may be highly likely that the early Christians who turned to God from idols had also learned from the apostles to observe the sabbath. As such the Judaizers had nothing to say against them on this matter.
11. And how about Paul's arguments in Rom. 14 "4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God."
    
    Was Paul referring to the 4th commandment when he talked about some people esteeming one day as better than another?
12. (To be continued)