A purpose filled life . . .

Malachi 3:6 declares, “I am the Lord, I change not.” So with the poet we prayerfully say,

Change and decay in all around I see—

O thou who changest not, abide with me!

— Henry F. Lyte

Life has its ups and downs, its turnarounds—that's for sure! Jesus was a great optimist. Even with the whole world crumbling around him, His faith in the future never wavered. Think of it, with the cross casting a shadow of doom and doubt over his disciples he had the courage and foresight to turn to the dying thief and promise him paradise, and to entrust His own mother to John the Beloved for safekeeping. Yes, He knew there would be a tomorrow, and He was confident that His Father and ours would see Him through this terrible ordeal, and that He would rise yet on another day to live forevermore.

Life here on earth can be tough, but we needn't worry—it's passing. It's like a vapor, James says. And, for those in the know, there's a better day coming.

No, that's not morbid thinking, that's reality. Our only permanency now and in our tomorrows is God and the sooner we learn that the better. We may never know what a day will bring but we know who is in charge. It was with this confidence that Moses said to the children of Israel,

“Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you." (Deut. 3:16)

Friends, I must tell you that the longer I live the more see change and decay, the rise and fall of great men and women, the total futility of placing faith and hope in the transiency of anything this old world has to offer. So, you are fortunate enough to own the Clippers basketball franchise and cavort with whores then fain mental illness and sell the club for a cool 2 billion dollars, what good will that do in the long run?

I am reminded once again of the words in the first stanza of that great poem by C.T. Studd, the famous cricketer and missionary, which reads,

“Two little lines I heard one day,

Traveling along life’s busy way;

Bringing conviction to my heart,

And from my mind would not depart;

Only one life, ’twill soon be past,

Only what’s done for Christ will last.”

Friends, we must focus on that. Let’s not be lured into complacency comforts of life or discouraged with the hardships.

As always, I am with you on the journey,

Truth is where you find it . . .

You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it. — G. K. Chesterton 

This week, I have pondered on Paul’s statement that: 

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Cor. 1:21)

Strange words, aren't they? Why in the name of commonsense would anyone in their right mind ever spout off a mouth full of foolishness to convince anyone of anything? Yet, we find this obviously well-educated man perfectly pleased with admitting that he was willing—not just willing, but eager, you might say—to become a fool for Christ’s sake.” (1 Cor. 4:10) 

What would ever possess a man to do that?

The true is, however, that Christianity has always run counter culture to conventional wisdom, particular on social and moral issues. Furthermore, Christianity and academia more often clashes than not; perhaps more than ever before—at least when it comes to creationism and evolution. Politically almost any imaginable sin can fly under the banner of freedom; except, of course, any act that may be construed to be politically incorrect, no matter how trivial.

Need I give examples? Ask Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball franchise, if he ever intends to use the word 'hoodie' again. Such are the trivialities of our political correctness. Want another one? Ask the former Pope Benedict XVI why he felt he had to apologize for a statement he made about Islam at the University of Regensburg in Germany in his lecture 12 September 2006. Ask both of them, and if they are absolutely candid about it they will tell you that it was not the politically correct thing to do.

Things like freedom of choice are part of our belief system that runs counter to the conventional wisdom? ? What about that?

May I suggest that, that all depends on what your choices are?

Then what about freedom to love as you please?

Well, I would have to answer that, that all depends on your definition of love and what you are in love with. For some love is expressed in a one night stand, or something far more appalling—like for instance I once read of a pedophile defending himself on the basis of love. He said that he simply loved children.

This whole scenario reminds me of what G. K. Chesterton once said—and that is,

“All that an insane man has left is his reason.”

So, logic and reason, particularly in the arena of morals and faith, must have a solid foundation on which to base conclusions. Otherwise, rightness and wrongness get all muddled up.

Let me give you a couple of historic examples. Prior to Christianity in the Hawaiian Islands it was perfectly acceptable for a brother to marry his sister to carry on the royal line. Another example of allowing society to pick and choose their morals at will is found in Polynesia on the Pitcairn Islands which was settled in 1790 by a group of British mutineers of the HMS Bounty and Tahitians. There up and until just recently young girls as early as 11 and 12 years old were forced to marry sometimes men in their 30’s and 40’s. Appalling, isn't it?
Yet, all of this made good sense to the royals of Hawaii and the bachelors in the Pitcairn Islands. Sure it was incest, and, yes, it was pedophilia, but it made sense to those folks.

Now, mind you, that is just in the area of morals. Let’s also take a close look at science and faith.
Who are we to believe here? Nothing, then the big bang? Or something, then creation? Jesus, then death? Or Jesus, then death followed by a resurrection?

The point being—although, the world at large doesn't get the picture yet—is that you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

For me, and you, of course, that something is faith; but not just blind faith, it must be faith based on something. And, that something is God and His Word, as in Jesus the Word of God and Holy Scripture as God’s written word. Leave that out of you syllogism and you are indeed a fool; but albeit, not for Christ’s sake.

This is why, Paul could say previously,

I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Cor. 1:4-9)

 For as Martin Luther discovered so many years ago,

For by grace we have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Eph. 2:8)

Now, the million dollar question is, “Do we really get it? Do we understand that our faith is God given, and that by grace? That we don’t deserve it? That, as a matter of fact, we don’t even understand it without Him telling us so.”

Such is the amazing grace of God—that we who were once alien and estranged from God and without the wisdom to understand why, are now made part of the Family of God. (1 Peter 2:11)

 Now, friends, that is true wisdom.

As usual, I am yours for the journey,

Truth and where to find it!

Early in my career, I discovered that theology is never static— that is God’s purposes and plans are progressively understood incrementally over time, and from the very beginning this has be so. This fact, however, does not mean that truth—or as Francis Schaeffer used to say, “true Truth” changes; it simply means that we understand the essence of truth better.

As for example, it is safe to say that no conscientious Old Testament Jew, prophet or otherwise, in their wildest imagination while reciting The Shema: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) would ever assume a Trinity. That refinement must wait until the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and beyond for a clearer understanding and richer insights into this deep mystery.

Now, however, who would argue that historical fact? Certainly, I wouldn’t.Thus we can say in a real sense understanding God’s purposes and plans, and as a matter of fact, His very nature has and is in a flux of refinement—the testimony of which is found in the abundance of Christian opinions. The end goal of all good theology, however, is change to us, not visa-versa. For as any believer knows, He has declared

“I am the Lord, I change not.” (Malachi 3:6)
So with the poet we can say,
Change and decay in all around I see—
O thou who changest not, abide with me!
— Henry F. Lyte

Thus we believe that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both the Father and the Son is the same God as the God of The Shema and affirmed once again when we read in Scripture that,

“Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, today and forever.” (Heb. 13:8 Phillips)

Which, to me indicates both a fulfillment of a Godly purpose as well as a further refinement in understanding His nature and purposes.

The big question is, however, ‘How do we know or understand the nature and purposes of God?’

Shall I cut to the chase since I assume that you are a Christian or otherwise you would not be reading this? The answer is that we depend entirely on God’s grace to reveal His nature and eternal intentions to us. This, we believe, He has done through nature and His Word as revealed to us in Holy Scripture. Herein, however, lies the crux of the controversy—that is ‘How can we know what we perceive and/or have been told is really true Truth?’ or just a product of a wishful imagination?

In a word, we accept what we believe is true Truth intuitively by faith—His Spirit bears witness with  our spirits that we are children of God. (Romans 8:16) Human reason alone, however, is insufficient; Godly grace is required. This I like to think of as God affirming the intuition which I believe the Greek makes clear in the verse just cited. I say this because the Greek verb (συμμαρτυρεῖ /symmartyrei) conveys the meaning of "bears witness along with"— meaning, in my estimation, that affirms the intuition.

Consider the Apostle Peter’s confession in this regard. Matthew says that—

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matt. 16: 13-17 NIV)

Surely there must have been other mitigating factors involved, a gradual dawning, or a peculiar awareness that this man Jesus must be different, someone special; but the Messiah, the Son of the living God? Hardly. No, that intuitive insight came in a flash accompanied by an affirming revelation that Jesus was God incarnate, the Son of the living God, the long awaited Messiah.

Now, if we look carefully and are open we also find that God has continued this unfolding process down through history, up to the present time. Otherwise, theology would be stagnant, wooden, and underdeveloped.

This is not to suggest that God changes; but it is to suggest that our understanding does as of knowledge of Him expands in an ever increasing revelation of who He is.

God has not left us without a witness, however. The Church is the creation of Jesus, from whom it receives its authority; He gave authority to the Apostles to determine and institute doctrine, to declare the correct and false, to establish faith and morals. Paul highlights that in his instructions to young Timothy whom he had asked to stay in Ephesus to shepherd the fledgling fellowship in that city with these words:

 ‘[If] I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth’.” (1 Tim. 3:15)

Yes, the Church is that witness—not the opinion of some solo artist that decides that God has infused them with special knowledge that will enlighten the presumed theological idiots that by chance may disagree with them. Godly appointed authority? Never, these self-appointed magisterium of one have the answer—“Sola scriptura,” they shout in defense against any and all authority. And, for the information of any that would like to hear it, I would say that we should put them all in the same basket as all the other heretics out there. Surely there is a hierarchy of brethren to guide the church in all its fulness.

For me, I have submitted to the wisdom and leadership of my denomination which have prayerfully develop a statement of doctrine orthodoxy—albeit, a simple one; but none-the-less a sound one. I have a hunch that we are not through, but time is on our side and no doubt certain points will be fine-tuned in the years to come. As Dwight Longenecker says;

“Ironically, in rejecting an external infallible authority we are encouraged to embrace the most fickle and fallible of all authorities – our own judgment. We then cling to our opinions like a shipwrecked man clings to a splinter of wood, and before long, our opinions are unassailable. In the end we don’t have one objective, infallible authority but millions of subjective “infallible” authorities, and in this absurdity, we rejoice.” 

Remember, I am with you for the journey,

You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession . . .

Peter to whom Christ handed the keys to the Kingdom at first failed miserably, even denied Christ and following the Crucifixion seemed to prefer fishing to preaching. He was impulsive—not a good trait for any leader—cowardly at times, and had a tendency towards violence (think of poor Marcus’ ear which he lobed off) and was therefore, in my opinion, a most unlikely candidate for any form of leadership, certainly not that of handling the responsibility for the keys to the Kingdom.

Now, just think about it for a moment, would you have chosen Peter to be the inaugural speaker on the Day of Pentecost based on what you knew about him prior to that point? I think not. It doesn’t stop there either. If you were going to mention someone’s name more than that of another would you have picked Peter over Paul? Well, the facts are that Peter is mentioned more times in the New Testament than Paul. Think of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15—James presided, but Peter cast the deciding vote. Who would have ever imagined that based on what the Scripture tells us prior to the Resurrection?

We Pentecostals, I believe, love to vaunt the charisma of Paul—he gives us a basis for our theology that is his epistles are our refuge. Peter is kind of put on a side burner, as it were. Yet, it was Peter not Paul that was commissioned to introduce Christ to the Gentiles and it was he and that little band that went with him that gave testimony to the fact that even Gentiles was acceptable to God as evidenced by the fact that they received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues.

I will confess, I have always been more fascinated with Peter than Paul. Perhaps, it is because I can really identify with Peter.

Not only can I identify with Peter, but I think that his epistles have a lot to offer us. I recall that during the short time that I pastored here in the States I seemed to gravitate towards first and second Peter, particularly Second Peter because he seemed to be so pastoral and practical—at least that is the way I saw it.

Well, all of that to say this,

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (1 Peter 1: 1-2)

There are a couple of observations here that I would like to make.

Firstly, we must take into consideration that the author was not just an ordinary person who decided to send out a newsletter to a group of friends.

This was a special messenger, an Apostle, as a matter of fact many feel the chief Apostle commissioned by Christ. So, although on the surface it appears that it may have just been yet another newsletter or pastoral letter designed to cheer up the flock, it was not. The whole content of the letter was first and foremost God’s message, His letter to these men and women scattered throughout that part of the ancient world.

Secondly, we must also note these people had been scattered abroad—that is, as the original Greek indicates, they were sown, or scattered like dried leaves abroad without seemly a purpose. In other words, on surface it would appear that they were just more of the same nameless, and faceless people that struggle through life from day to day without an obvious purpose except to survive the best they can.

This is not the case, however. Notice it says in essence that God the Father was aware of their plight long before they were even born. He knew and He cared; therefore, He did what?

He set them aside for His holy purposes. He sanctified (that is set them aside for His holy purposes) by the Spirit. This was a spiritual matter, a spiritual decision. He knew what he was doing, even though at the time they may not have known and even complained of their circumstances.

So, one good thing we can learn about this is that nothing, absolutely nothing ever happens to us at random. God knows, and cares. So, we must be thankful. In that regards Peter writes (1 Peter 1:3-5):

“Let us thank the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was through His loving-kindness that we were born again to a new life and have a hope that never dies. This hope is ours because Jesus was raised from the dead.  We will receive the great things that we have been promised. They are being kept safe in heaven for us. They are pure and will not pass away. They will never be lost.  You are being kept by the power of God because you put your trust in Him and you will be saved from the punishment of sin at the end of the world. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

  

Then in the very next verse, we find that Peter says,

With this hope you can be happy even if you need to have sorrow and all kinds of tests for a while. (1 Peter 1:6)

Many times these ancient text leave us baffled. Well, we say to ourselves in this instance, I haven’t been scattered abroad in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia—as a matter of fact, I am not even sure where these places are, so how may this apply to me, today?

Well, first of all, you may feel that you are a nobody like these nameless Christians, just another Christian that lives in an insignificant little fishing village or that you are lost in the masses of a great city like New York, Dallas or Delhi.. A nobody. No purpose. Just flung as if by chance by the forces of fate and dropped without purpose in some small remote place, or lost in a forest of anonymous faces. But that is not true.

You have been chosen by God. You are someone important in His eyes. As a matter of fact, just like these people that we have read about today,

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)

You may wonder, why you of all people was chosen? What is your mission in life? Is there any purpose? Well one of the salient reasons is found in verse 9 which was just quoted. You were chosen as God’s special possession

“[T]hat you may declare the praises of him that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

That’s your purpose. Your purpose is to share with others what has happened to you, and help them understand that this great truth offers hope. The hope of a wonderful treasure that has been reserved in Heaven for us! (1 Peter 1:4)

That is the good news. The Gospel.

Give me that old time religion!

"Preach often, and if necessary use words."  St. Francis of Assisi

Think back with me for a while. What and when was the greatest lesson that you were taught in life? Chances are it was not from some book (other then the Bible, of course). I dare say that it was not in a class lecture you heard once, or gleaned from some politician's campaign speech. Furthermore, I will be so bold as to say that it was most probably not from the pulpit, either.

No, chances are it was from that silent language that some people seem to be able to communicate without saying a word. Things like courtesy, or an honest example and a life well lived most often speak louder than words.

Often, I think of those men of God who influence me. One was an old country pastor, a carpenter by trade, who absolutely murdered the queens english. Ain't was a verb for all seasons, that's for sure. Preach? He couldn't preach his way out of a paper bag, as the saying goes. You know, come to think of it, he didn't smile a lot, either; but he always had a pleasant expression on his face. You could tell that he was at peace with himself and God, and for that matter everyone else, too, including a little 12 year old want to be preacher—that being me, of course.

Looking back, I must have been a nuisance. Always wanting to tag along. Asking questions about the most mundane things. Mimicking the way he said "Hallelujah!" I remember once during a tent revival at which hardly anyone turned up for, he got blessed. He started laughing after the altar call (that was before the user friendly days and we still had altars in all of our churches) and  he sat on the altar and begin to laugh and cry at the same time. Well, I had to have that too, so I started laughing too, then I got really tickled at myself and had a barrel of fun. Never did manage to cry, though. Looking back, yeah, it was kind of odd, but it certainly did not drive me from the church. I just wanted God, and more of Him, and if laughing did the trick, I was all in for it.

Now, of course, I realize that getting tickled at yourself is not a move of the spirit but it was fun, nonetheless. And, it was Pentecost. I loved it, and still do. Pentecost, that is.

Sure there were and are a lot of excesses. I suppose it always has been that way. Think of the Day of Pentecost. Those with any commonsense at all said, "These men are drunk." But, they weren't.

And, you know something? I saw the revival of those days change people's lives. Ignorant, uneducated people, those without an ounce of formal theological training shaped a generation and beyond, of course.

So, I thank God for men and women who preached the greatest sermons possible without uttering a word. They simply lived the Gospel. It glowed in their lives, and shined all through the darkness in that little neck of the woods where I first met Jesus.

I guess that's why I am old fashioned. I still like hymns with some meat to them, not some la-la make me feel good little ditty thrown up on the screen. I also like to know that communion is more than just a slight interruption in an otherwise routine service, hurried along so we can listen to yet another torturous 45 minute sermon on pop psychology. I also appreciate knowing that the pastor has done his or her homework not just for the classroom but also in the prayer chamber. After all, man shall not live by bread alone. (Luke 4:4)

Funny thing. There's not much of that old timey religion around any more; and there won't be until we return to the fundamentals.

Blood moon a sign of the end times?

Kerby Anderson has written,

Many prophecy teachers point to the fact that some verses of Scripture mention the moon turning to blood and believe this tetrad of blood moons might signal the end of the age. The first blood moon occurs today during Passover (April 15). The next takes place during the Feast of Tabernacles (October 8). Then a third occurs next Passover (April 4, 2015). And the last takes place during the following Feast of Tabernacles (September 29, 2015).

The question is, is this really a sign of the end times spoken of in Scripture? According to Mr. Anderson,

These are significant events in the heavens, but do they predict the return of Christ? Authors of books on the four blood moons usually point of a number of biblical passages, such as Joel 2, Matthew 24, and Revelation 6. I realize that Christians have different views of prophecy, but I think we might at least be able to agree on a basic interpretation of these passages.

Joel 2 was written to people who needed to repent. He prophesied about the "day of the Lord" and Revelation 14 seems to confirm that the prophet Joel was referring to Armageddon in his prophecy. Jesus in Matthew 24 talks about a great tribulation and predicts a time when the sun is darkened and the moon is not giving its light. A blood moon would only occur if the sun is giving its light. Likewise, you have in Revelation 6 the sun becoming black and the moon becoming like blood. Both of these verses seem to be talking about something supernatural not a lunar eclipse.

Admittedly, the coincidences are intriguing; however, we must point out that coincidences are not  necessarily mutually contingent and there may be other factors like for instance since the Jewish calendar is a lunar calender and the coincidence of the first blood moon falling on the Passover by necessity astronomically will place the other three blood moon on a Jewish holiday also. So, as with so much that goes with prophecy identifying the signs for and of fulfillment can sometimes get really wonky depending on the inclination or the predisposition of the interpreter. Therefore, I don't think I would hock the country store to wager a bet on this one. Besides, admittedly I am color blind, but it looks more orange than blood red to me. 

Furthermore, what these doomsday sayers neglect to tell you is that the coming four blood moons will be the eighth time this has happened since 1 AD. They mean nothing as far as the Bible is concerned, as far as I can see.

It has been my observation that prophecy is understood more thoroughly after the fact, consequently, it is best not to sell one's theology out to specifics which may or may not be there. As the song goes, "Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be Will Be)" and I would just leave it there in the knowledge that we are safe and secure in His presence and forever safe there in HIs loving arms.

Passover is only one 24 hour period while Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts for seven days.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread is a feast that is generally mistaken for Passover. Passover however is only one 24 hour period while Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts for seven days.

Summary verses:

KJV of Mark 14:12

12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?

Correct Translation:

Mark 14:12, “At the beginning of the season of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said to Him, Where will you that we go and prepare that you may eat the Passover.”

Or as NIV puts it: 12 “On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

7 The day came during the Festival of Unleavened Bread when the Passover lamb had to be killed. 8 Yeshua sent Peter and John and told them, “Go, prepare the Passover lamb for us to eat.” (Names of God Bible) Luke 22:7

Further clarification:

THE “FIRST DAY” OF UNLEAVENED BREAD Mat 26:17 Now the first (#4413) day (not in original) of the feast of (not in original) unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

Mark 14:12 And the first (#4413) day (#2250) of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?

Luke 22:7 Then came the day (#2250) of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

The translators have grossly mistranslated these three verses in regards to the words “first” and “day”.  They knew that the Greek used both of these words generally, as well as specifically.  They chose to translate these words specifically – creating a contradiction in the scriptures.  Moreover, nothing in the immediate context requires a specific translation.  In fact, a perusal understanding of the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread reveals that a specific rendition of these words creates a contradiction.  Because of this mistranslation, commentators have stumbled over the intent of these verses for centuries!

Let us look at the word in Matthew 26:17.  2Peter 2:20 uses the same word.  There the KJV translates it as beginning.

2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning (#4413).

Realizing that the word and are not in the original in Matthew 26:17, the verse should be translated as follows: Matthew 26:17, Now at (toward) the beginning of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus (Yahshua - Joshua), saying to Him, Where will you that we prepare for you to eat the Passover?

This is a correct translation because the 15th of Nisan is the first day of unleavened bread.  As the evidence points out that the time of this verse was earlier than the 15th Nisan, the KJV translators made an error in translating this verse as though it was already the 15th, when the Greek did not require this narrow translation.

Now let us look at Mark 14:12.  This verse uses the same word for (#4413).  We have already shown how one should translate this word.  This verse does include the word (#2250), in the original.  Notice how the following passages translates this word day (#2250):  Acts 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days <2250> of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days <2250>; where we abode seven days <2250>.

Lu 1:5 There was in the days <2250> of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Lu 1:18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, whereby shall I know this?  For I am an old man, and my

wife well stricken in years <2250>.

Lu 9:51  And it came to pass, when the time <2250> was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, As we see from above scriptures, the word #2250 is general.  It can be specific, if the context requires specific information.  By translating this verse as they have, the KJV translators made the day specific.  The problem is that the translation is in error because the first day of unleavened bread is on the 15th and the Romans put the Messiah on the tree on the 14th!  Therefore, we have an impossible translation – it does not agree with the facts.  The 14th is not the first day of unleavened bread!

The word #2250 is many times translated as in a general sort of way as in  Luke 1:5 above.  A correct translation of Mark 14:12 follows:

Mark 14:12, At the beginning of the season of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said to Him, Where will you that we go and prepare that you may eat the Passover.

It was at or toward the beginning of the time or season of unleavened bread that this took place.  Moreover, we all know that it was during the season of unleavened bread when the Passover was slain. The disciples came to Jesus (Yahshua – Joshua) before the evening began, and when the evening came, they sit down together; therefore, this had to be no later than the 13th Nisan.  Consequently, if anyone wants to call the 14th the first day of unleavened bread, which it is not, the translation is still in error – for the day in question was earlier than the 14th Nisan!

The thrust of the time is the beginning days or season of unleavened bread, which began, directly, on the 10th of Nisan.  The Jews did prepare roads, reconstruct bridges, and whitewash tombs – among other activities – before the 10th Nisan, but the penning of the lambs specifically for the Passover began on the 10th Nisan.  We will see that it had to be even earlier than the 13th when the disciples came to Christ for instructions to prepare for the Passover!

Luke 22:7 is even more revealing.  The Greek word is Strong’s #2250.  We have seen a correct translation using that word.  Moreover, unless one translates it, as we have shown, we have a gross error.  The day the Passover was slain was not a day of unleavened bread!  The Festival of Unleavened Bread encompassed only 7 days.  If we include the 14th Nisan, the day for slaying the Passover lambs, as a day of unleavened bread, we have 8 days of unleavened bread.  This would be an impossible translation – even if one accepted the erroneous idea that the day involved was the 14th Nisan!  Here is a correct way to translate this verse:

Luke 22:7 Then came the season of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

Correct interpretation:

A correct translation of these scriptures must reveal that the writers referred to the season of unleavened bread, rather than a specific day of unleavened bread – otherwise we have a contradiction.  Additionally, the above translation is well within the meaning of the Greek.

"Life Gets Sweeter as the Days Go By"

The more I hang around this old world the more I am reminded that life is short at best and the rest is played out in eternity. Funny thing about life, we spend most of it getting ready to die, that is if we are smart. 

My journey began 76 years ago in a cold old country house (I am told) just after midnight December 3, 1937. Grandpa saddled up a horse and road into town to get the doctor who had a car which got stuck in the mud several times on the way out. Thank God for a stout horse to pull the car out. Now, grandma was a good Church of Christ woman, but I am told that to ward off the cold that night she and the good doctor sipped on a little Jack Daniel's every once in a while to stay warm. So, it was more or less left up to grandpa to play midwife that night and basically deliver a little premature runt that had to be wrapped and place in a shoe box and put up close to the wood burning stove to keep warm enough to stay alive. Well, I made it; but barely I am told.

Then growing up in places like Christine, Texas, population 189, cats, chickens and dogs and a few stray bums thrown in to round out the count, life was very interesting indeed. My folks were as poor as church mice, someone said, but I disagree, the mice had cheese to eat at least. But we did have plenty of pinto beans and corn bread--when I say, corn bread, I mean the good kind that is make from yellow meal and fried just a little in a hot skillet before baking. Now, that's corn bread; and I still like it today. Trouble is beans don't like me, and corn bread is not good with much else, so I don't get much of that anymore.

Often I reflect on those days. It does me good. And, I am thankful for humble beginnings, and, yes, a humble ending, too, I am sure. But, I wouldn't have it any other way. If I had life to live over, of course I would want to change a few things, but I can assure you they are all spiritual. I would try to be a better person, but other than that nothing else I can think of. Why would I? I've got the best wife that a man could ask for. Four wonderful and successful children--all of whom I am equally proud of. 16 grandkids, and goodness I am losing count of the great grandkids. Kind of like pop corn, after a while you stop counting the kernels and start enjoying the feast. And, a feast it is. I am enjoying every minute of it.

So, I would like to say that I am so thankful for God's goodness in allowing Bonnie and me to live life to the fullest, and to serve as missionaries at this time in our lives. You get a lot of credit for that, too. So, thank you also for helping us make this possible.

In closing, just in case one of my teary eyed children thinks that this newsletter is my swan song, I would like to leave one of my favorite poems with you.

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
Robert Frost

Whose woods these are I think I know.

His house is in the village, though;

He will not see me stopping here

To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer

To stop without a farmhouse near

Between the woods and frozen lake

The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake

To ask if there is some mistake.

The only other sound's the sweep

Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep,

And miles to go before I sleep.

Early Church Fathers: Eucharistic Theology

It has been alledged by some well intended Christians that the real presence of Christ under the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist (Lord's Supper) ceremony was a doctrine that developed late in Church history, culminating in the Council of Trent  (1545–63).  However in summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: 

"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Personally, I find it difficult to accept such a literalist position, I do believe however that Christ  is truly present at the table with us, as He has promised that "where two or three are gathered to gather in His Name, He is in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20)

However, historically, from the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).


Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). 

Justin Martyr 

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). 

Irenaeus 

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). 

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2). 

Clement of Alexandria 

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]). 

Tertullian 

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]). 

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., 
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan 

"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]). 

Theodore of Mopsuestia 

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]). 

Augustine 

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). 

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). 

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272). 

Council of Ephesus 

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

In Conclusion

Truly Symbolism is always based on realism, or if it is to be believed, it should be. Did Christ truly die for our sins? Yes, indeed, He did. Was His body pierced for my iniquities, and am I by His stripes healed? Yes, indeed. Was His blood offered as an atoning sacrifice for my sins? Yes, indeed it was. Has He kept His promise that, "Lo, He is with us until the end of the age?" Yes, indeed He has. Does, He live in my heart? Yes, indeed He does. By His kind gift of salvation am I assured of my Heavenly reward? Most definitely, I am. Then in obedience I pledge to remember His death, burial, and resurrection until He comes again by commemorating His sacrificial gift of Himself for me, once and for all time.

The real question is, however, is Jesus truly present in the wafer and the wine when I participate in this commemorative act? Yes, I believe that He is present in the process, but am I prepared to say that the wafer contains the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus in form as well as essence? In the sense that He is omnipresent, yes. And, is it not true that He dwells in me? Yes, it certainly is. However to objectify this form in the same way in which His earthly body was objectified and transform and posit Him in bodily form in the thousands of eucharistic services that are conducted each day seem rather unnecessary—not to mention impossible since God can not be divided into pieces—since God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth. 

However, since I do not understand how something is done does not give me a right to deny it; otherwise, I would have to deny the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and a host of other miracles recorded in scripture. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church the following caveat is given for just that reason. It reads:

"The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1350)

Although, this fails to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, it does none-the-less make the singularity of the event significantly a matter of faith. In good conscience, however, I can not as Zwingle did consider the ceremony in which the bread and wine are simply symbols or signs not unlike the symbol of a country's flag that invokes a sense of patriotism or a reminder of what a great country we live in. To put the Lord's supper in the same category of a memorial, say  for instance, like the The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C. is not what I think Christ intended.

So for me, The Lord's Supper is not just a reminder, it is also a meeting place where I in communion with the Body of Christ (i.e., His Church) and with Him consider these signs as a reminder that He is indeed with us in the fullness of His presence. 

Seder Meal or New Covenant Meal? The choice is not up for grabs!

The Feast of Unleavened Bread is a feast that is generally mistaken for Passover. Passover however is only one 24 hour period while Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts for seven days.

Summary verses:

KJV of Mark 14:12

12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?

Correct Translation:

Mark 14:12, At the beginning of the season of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said to Him, Where will you that we go and prepare that you may eat the Passover.

Or as NIV puts it: 12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

Luke 22:7 Then came the season of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

Further clarification:

THE “FIRST DAY” OF UNLEAVENED BREAD Mat 26:17 Now the first (#4413) day (not in original) of the feast of (not in original) unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

Mark 14:12 And the first (#4413) day (#2250) of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?

Luke 22:7 Then came the day (#2250) of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

The translators have grossly mistranslated these three verses in regards to the words “first” and “day”.  They knew that the Greek used both of these words generally, as well as specifically.  They chose to translate these words specifically – creating a contradiction in the scriptures.  Moreover, nothing in the immediate context requires a specific translation.  In fact, a perusal understanding of the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread reveals that a specific rendition of these words creates a contradiction.  Because of this mistranslation, commentators have stumbled over the intent of these verses for centuries!

Let us look at the word in Matthew 26:17.  2Peter 2:20 uses the same word.  There the KJV translates it as beginning.

2Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning (#4413).

Realizing that the word and are not in the original in Matthew 26:17, the verse should be translated as follows: Matthew 26:17, Now at (toward) the beginning of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus (Yahshua - Joshua), saying to Him, Where will you that we prepare for you to eat the Passover?

This is a correct translation because the 15th of Nisan is the first day of unleavened bread.  As the evidence points out that the time of this verse was earlier than the 15th Nisan, the KJV translators made an error in translating this verse as though it was already the 15th, when the Greek did not require this narrow translation.

Now let us look at Mark 14:12.  This verse uses the same word for (#4413).  We have already shown how one should translate this word.  This verse does include the word (#2250), in the original.  Notice how the following passages translates this word day (#2250):  Acts 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days <2250> of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days <2250>; where we abode seven days <2250>.

Lu 1:5  There was in the days <2250> of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Lu 1:18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this?  For I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years <2250>.

Lu 9:51  And it came to pass, when the time <2250> was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,As we see from above scriptures, the word #2250 is general.  It can be specific, if the context requires specific information.  By translating this verse as they have, the KJV translators made the day specific.  The problem is that the translation is in error because the first day of unleavened bread is on the 15th and the Romans put the Messiah on the tree on the 14th!  

Therefore, we have an impossible translation – it does not agree with the facts.  The 14th is not the first day of unleavened bread!

The word #2250 is many times translated as in a general sort of way as in  Luke 1:5 above.  A correct translation of Mark 14:12 follows:

Mark 14:12, At the beginning of the season of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said to Him, Where will you that we go and prepare that you may eat the Passover.

It was at or toward the beginning of the time or season of unleavened bread that this took place.  Moreover, we all know that it was during the season of unleavened bread when the Passover was slain. The disciples came to Jesus (Yahshua – Joshua) before the evening began, and when the evening came, they sit down together; therefore, this had to be no later than the 13th Nisan.  Consequently, if anyone wants to call the 14th the first day of unleavened bread, which it is not, the translation is still in error – for the day in question was earlier than the 14th Nisan!

The thrust of the time is the beginning days or season of unleavened bread, which began, directly, on the 10th of Nisan.  The Jews did prepare roads, reconstruct bridges, and whitewash tombs – among other activities – before the 10th Nisan, but the penning of the lambs specifically for the Passover began on the 10th Nisan.  We will see that it had to be even earlier than the 13th when the disciples came to Christ for instructions to prepare for the Passover!

Luke 22:7 is even more revealing.  The Greek word is Strong’s #2250.  We have seen a correct translation using that word.  Moreover, unless one translates it, as we have shown, we have a gross error.  The day the Passover was slain was not a day of unleavened bread!  The Festival of Unleavened Bread encompassed only 7 days.  If we include the 14th Nisan, the day for slaying the Passover lambs, as a day of unleavened bread, we have 8 days of unleavened bread.  This would be an impossible translation – even if one accepted the erroneous idea that the day involved was the 14th Nisan!  Here is a correct way to translate this verse:

Luke 22:7 Then came the season of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

Correct interpretation:

A correct translation of these scriptures must reveal that the writers referred to the season of unleavened bread, rather than a specific day of unleavened bread – otherwise we have a contradiction.  Additionally, the above translation is well within the meaning of the Greek.