Venerating Mary Undermines Worshiping God

Answering a question on Quora:

How does our veneration of Mary and the saints relate to our worship of God?

According to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of WORSHIP

1: to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power

2: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion

Definition of VENERATE

1: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference

2: to honor (an icon, a relic, etc.) with a ritual act of devotion

As you can see, both worship and veneration involve reverence, respect, honor, and devotion. The only difference is the object of veneration or devotion. So they’re the same thing; people just use one word for God and a different word for saints such as Mary.

In other words, an institution plays word games when it says, “We don’t worship Mary or saints, we venerate them.”

The Catholic institution claims Mary is a “co-mediatrix” and “co-redemptrix” with God the Son, placing her on the same level, with regard to mediation and redemption, with the infinite God the Son. To be precise, although the Roman Catholic Church does not officially endorse such teachings, it allows them, and large segments of the institution actively defend and promote them.

On the other hand, the Bible says, “For there is one God, one mediator also between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all…” (1 Timothy 2:5.) Christ plus Mary = 2, not 1. So, logically, if there is one Mediator, God the Son, then depending on another mediator takes away from the reverence, respect, honor, and devotion due to the One.

As infinite God the Son, Christ is omnipresent and omniscient. As such, He can be aware of thousands of simultaneous prayers spread across Earth’s surface (and perhaps a few in orbit). But how can any mere human possess that omnipresent awareness and multi-process thousands or millions of simultaneous voices?

One priest explained to me that people see God as stern and unsympathetic, so they turn to Mary to intercede with Christ. This implies that Mary is more loving and sympathetic than Christ, and therefore quicker to intercede for us. Put another way, Mary’s love and sympathy is greater than God’s, or God is inferior to Mary. Pause for a moment and re-read that.

The scriptures, on the other hand, says Jesus is our high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses, “One who has been tempted in all things as we are” (Hebrews 4:15), and is “able to save forever those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). Closer to the hearts of those who become biblical Christians God’s way, “the [Holy] Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and… He intercedes for the saints (all believers) according to the will of God” (Romans 8:26–27).

So, rather than chanting mindlessly and praying to saints, we are commanded by God to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16). We do not know that saints in heaven hear us, let alone individually. However, we do know that the brother or sister we ask for prayer hears us, that Christ hears us, and that the Holy Spirit not only hears us, but also corrects our prayers. So, what does it say about our reverence, respect, honor, and devotion to God when we disobey the command to come directly to Him and instead give it to His creatures?

The Catholic institution says that Mary reigns with Christ in heaven. However, the scriptures say that Christ shares God’s own glory and sits on the right side of God’s throne (Hebrews 8:11, Hebrews 12:2), and the LORD (YHWH) says “I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8). Can we say of Mary,

“Yours, LORD, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and on the earth; Yours is the dominion, LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all“ (1 Chronicles 29:11)?

If a Catholic usurped titles, roles, and attributes of the Pope, you could rightly call it irreverence, disrespect, dishonor, and disloyalty. And if I usurped a title, role, or attribute of God such as Mediator, Redeemer, or omnipresence, you could rightly call it irreverence, disrespect, dishonor, and disloyalty — in short, blasphemy.

So practices of “veneration” such as creating and servicing images of saints, praying to them, and taking time away from worshiping God not only minimizes worship of God, but actually insults Him.

(Dear Catholic: I don’t hate you. I want better for you. But that requires following the gospel, which Rome has severely distorted. Biblical grace is a “gift” to be received as a free, once-for-all gift direct from God. It is not something earned because anything earned is no longer a gift. Unfortunately, that’s out of scope here.)

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Thirty Pieces of Silver

Answering a question on Quora:

When was Jehovah valued at 30 silver pieces (Zechariah 11:12,13)?

(On Quora, Jehovah's (false) Witnesses have denied that Zechariah's prophecy had anything to do with Jesus and Judas. Incredible, considering that the gospel writers explicitly linked Judas's actions to the prophecy (e.g., Matthew 27:9, etc.)! 

Zechariah 11 contains a marvelous passage that compresses messages applying to Zechariah’s day as well as to first-century Judea, Israel, and Messiah Jesus. The answer is that YHWH was valued twice at 30 pieces of silver; first, with Zechariah as His proxy, and later as the incarnate I AM, Jesus of Nazareth.

First we have to point out an ambiguity in verse 13’s translation. Some translators attribute to the LORD (in Hebrew, YHWH), within the quotation marks, “Throw it to the potter, this magnificent price at which they valued me.” So the LORD is saying that they valued Him at thirty pieces of silver.

Tangent: Thirty pieces was an insultingly low wage, so “magnificent” is actually sarcastic. Let that sink in: God used sarcasm when people earned it.

Other translators include only “Throw it to the potter,” so that the valuation applies to Zechariah. However, as God’s prophet, Zechariah represented God, so the price that the owners of the flocks placed on Zechariah’s prophetic and shepherding work also represented a price placed on God.

So, either way you place the quotation marks, the price was placed on YHWH.

Anyone blessed by the Holy Spirit with New Testament-based hindsight can see that the passage contains prophecies about Jesus of Nazareth, Judas.

YHWH translates as “I AM.” When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), He used Jewish terminology to claim to be YHWH in the flesh. The New Testament confirms the claim in numerous ways. For example, Jesus forgave sins (Matthew 9:2–8), which only God can do. Jesus claimed to share God’s glory, which YHWH said He will not share (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11), and claimed to do so before God created the world (John 17:5). And God the Son created the universe (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)), which God did Himself (Job 38:4, Jeremiah 10:12, Amos 4:13). Such claims leave anti-trinitarians with huge problems.

So when the priests paid Judas thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus, they put the bounty on YHWH that was prophesied by Zechariah (Matthew 26:15).

Those in denial about the scripture’s teachings about the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh are quick to skip over other prophetic language in Zechariah 11. For example:

• Throughout the chapter, Zechariah performs the role of a shepherd who cares for the sheep, particularly the weak, diseased, and wounded. The antitype is Jesus, the Good Shepherd (John 10).
• Verse 10 signifies the severing of God’s blessings on Judea and Israel after they refused to repent of murdering God the Son. This was a recurring them in Jesus’s teachings (for example, the parable of wicked tenants, Matthew 21:33–46), and it was fulfilled in waves starting with general Titus’s siege of Jerusalem in 67 AD.
• Verse 13 parallels Judas throwing the thirty pieces of silver in the temple AND the priests using the money to buy the potter’s land in Judas’s name (Matthew 27:3–10).
• Verse 14 signifies the division between Judea in the south and Israel in the north. In New Testament times, that corresponded roughly to the geographical boundaries separating Judea from Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Syro-Phoenicia. Today, much of the division remains, although Israel has taken back (more or less) Syro-Phoenicia and half of Galilee.

With so many details of Zechariah’s prophecy fulfilled in the gospels, saying that verses 12 and 13 have nothing to do with Jesus and Judas takes wishful thinking and bad teaching of an organization that qualifies under 1 John 4:3

[E]very spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time.

Note:

1. Some may become distracted by an apparent contradiction between Matthew, who says the prophecy was made by Jeremiah, and the fact that it's written in Zechariah. A number of explanations have been proposed, including the possibility that Matthew simply had a brain fart. The most sensible to me is that Zechariah was part of the "Book of the Prophets." Jeremiah was the first book in the Book of the Prophets, so Jeremiah may have been a synecdoche, a name for the whole. Thus, Zechariah was a section of what was colloquially known as “Jeremiah.” If so, then the “contradiction” is resolved.
   
   
2. In Colossians 1, Jesus is said to be the firstborn over (not firstborn before) all creation and the firstborn from the dead. Firstborn does not always mean first one born. A number of examples can be cited in the Old Testament when later-born sons bore the title of firstborn. Rather, firstborn often means pre-eminent one, particularly when followed by the preposition over. This contrasts against firstborn from the dead, wherein Jesus actually was the first to resurrect with a glorified body; this, only figuratively, being a birth.

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due. 

Water Baptism Can Prevent Salvation

Answering a question on Quora:

Why is water baptism required for salvation from the wages of sin...?

Water baptism is not required for salvation. It is a new believer’s first act of obedience to God after having entered into salvation.

“Baptism” has two meanings. When reading about “baptism” in the Bible, always ask yourself which kind is meant.

The “baptism” that saves is done silently by the Holy Spirit. The water ceremony symbolizes part of it, namely, the death to self called “repentance” and our spiritual regeneration (more on this, below). Baptism by the Spirit also makes believers members of the universal church with unique roles and giftedness to aid in the functioning of the body of believers. See 1 Corinthians 12:4–11 and especially verses 12–13. Also see Romans 12.

The obvious meaning is the ceremony of being dunked in water. By going down into the water, we identify with Christ’s death, and it represents that we died to self during the process of conversion. By coming up out of the water, we identify with Christ’s resurrection, and it represents the new, regenerated life of our spirits in Christ. Read the first paragraph of Romans chapter 6. (You will notice that pouring, sprinkling, and dabbing do not fulfill the symbolism. Even the Roman Catholic Church baptized by immersion for over 1,200 years.)

1 Peter 3:21 is often cited as evidence that water baptism saves. However, the verse says baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” In other words, it is about obeying God to gain assurance that our faith is sincere.

Many churches claim that baptism places people into God’s New Covenant, so it is analogous to the Old Testament ceremony of circumcision. That ignores that the Old Covenant was between God and a nation (not individuals), whereas the New Covenant is directly between God and individuals. The New Testament not only does not support the claim; it actually contradicts the claim. See Ephesians 2:8–9.

Paul’s epistle to the Galatians dealt with an early church heresy that added ceremonies to faith as requirements for salvation. The specific ceremony was circumcision, but I’m sure you can see the principle without having it spelled out. Paul used terms such as “foolish” and “bewitched” (chapter 3) to describe those who fell for the heresy. In fact, the term “fallen from grace” refers not to losing salvation (the pop definition); rather it refers to those who add ceremonies to simple faith as requirements for salvation (chapter 5).

Peter did advise the Jews who had just murdered Christ to repent and be baptized. However, the salvation of gentiles in Acts 10:44–48 shows that salvation and Spiritual baptism precede water baptism.

Baptism to be saved puts the cart before the horse. It tries to makes the result into a cause. It tries to make our meritorious work of going through a ceremony into a way to earn a gift. Can you see the contradiction in “earning a gift?” And if someone has tried to earn a gift that is acquired through faith alone, have they really received the gift?

I was “baptized” (dabbed) in a mainline church as a child. It did me no good. Many others who were “baptized” became atheists, joined heretical churches, or joined cults. What did me good was hearing a corrected, biblical gospel when I was mature enough to grasp it. Then I got baptized God’s way.

We don’t get baptized to acquire salvation; we get baptized to assure ourselves and tell the world that God has already saved us. 

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, provided credit is given where credit is due.

Judge Jesus: "Full of Himself?

Answering a question on Quora:

Why is Jesus so full of himself that he would condemn good loving peaceful people to an eternity in a burning lake of fire that doesn't worship him as a god?

First off, you’re not really “full of yourself” if you really are “all that.” Jesus is “all that.” If you understood the unimaginable precision of the constants of physics required to keep the universe from collapsing or exploding, you’d be just beginning to understand the greatness of God the Son. If you understood the virtual impossibility of the chain of events beginning with the formation of the right types of amino acids all having the same geometries, forming the right proteins, forming the right components that enable self-replication of RNA and DNA, and the half-gigabyte of quaternary-encoded information that enables the duplication of that environment (as well as itself) in even the simplest hypothetical biological organism, you would be just beginning to grasp how great God the Son is. He is “all that.” He is all that by nature, He is all that by virtue of being your Creator, and He is all that by virtue of the price He paid to secure your potential redemption.

Second, if you grasped the utter perfection and holiness of God the Son, you would never pretend that there’s such a thing as “good” people, This error normally results from judging people relative to ourselves or from judging ourselves relative to other imperfect people, rather than judging relative to God’s standard. What, you think your “good” outweighs your bad? Do you really think you can pay off your debts with what you already owe to your Creator? What, you think you’re perfect? You’ve never done anything wrong? Now who’s full of himself?!

Third, the unholiness of man and the holiness of God’s presence cannot coexist. The unholiness of a human would defile and insult an utterly righteous and holy God, and the glory of God would be unbearable to an unholy, unregenerated human. Neither could stand the other! Hell is not a problem, but rather, a solution.

Fourth, saying that not worshiping Christ as God sends people to hell is like saying one link in a chain suspends the load. It’s a flawed focus on a single symptom. God provided a means of redemption and regeneration. He offers it as a gift. Refusing that gift is the ultimate sin; it is a sin against oneself. But nobody goes to hell for that sin alone; it is merely one among many.

Hell was created for Lucifer and the angels who followed him in rebellion against God. We are born as citizens of Lucifer’s kingdom, and we all ratify that with by breaking God’s commandments. God’s gift can regenerate us so we gain citizenship in God’s kingdom. If we are so full of ourselves that we fail to receive that gift, we have only ourselves to blame.

Fear of hell is not a wrong reason to receive the gift and then worship God. But there is a better reason. God is good. In fact He is the ultimate standard of goodness. He not only gave us life, but also, at His own expense, created the means for our forgiveness, redemption, and regeneration. He balanced justice and love by paying a price that would have destroyed any mere human. In His kindness, He freely offers that to each of us.

When we rebel against physical laws, we pay a price. The price of rebelling against gravity by walking off a cliff is paid when you hit the bottom. You have only yourself to blame. Likewise, there is a moral law. If we fail to receive the gift of redemption, we will hit the bottom in hell. And how much more accountable will be those who actively reject the gift.

You can reframe the consequences to shift the blame to the One who enforces the law. You may rage against Him for all eternity. But in all honesty, you will have only yourself to blame. 

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please cite sources when copying.

Benevolent Hell

Answering a question on Quora:

Is there anything benevolent about hell, no, right?

Yes, wrong.

First, consider the question’s two non sequiturs.

A. Taken literally, the question assigns moral significance to hell. However, hell is merely a place. In itself, it is neutral. Saying, “no, right?” is like saying that the law of gravity is evil because a tourist stood too close to the edge of a waterfall. Any moral significance derives not from the existence of hell, but from how it is used. In other words, whether it is benevolent or not depends on whether it is used justly or unjustly.

B. Whether hell is used at all by a human is like the tourist and the waterfall. The tourist can use the trail to walk away, and the human can use the Way God provided to walk away from a sentence of hell. The Way (John 14:6) is available to all. An intellectually honest person will realize that any fault, any lack of benevolence, must be assigned on the basis of the answer to this question: If there is a lack of benevolence, who is responsible, the One who provides the way of escape, or the one who decides to ignore the law of justice? 

Ignoring the non sequiturs, consider the question itself.

Violating God’s laws insults infinite God and disrespects His plans for us to have relationship with Him. Would God be benevolent to Himself if He ignored such insult and allowed unredeemed sinners to defile His presence?

Let’s take an extreme case: When Hitler’s Dr. Joseph Mengele dissected people alive, would it have been benevolent to Mengele’s victims if God ignored justice?

Now let’s take the case of people who use their judgment about hell as a rationalization for refusing God’s gift of redemption. In essence, they refuse to be rescued from a sentence of punishment for their sins. (Rejecting God and His gift is merely one sin out of many.) They refuse the post-mortem transformation that would allow them to enjoy God’s presence. Would it be benevolent to force them to endure the “unapproachable light” in which God dwells (1 Timothy 6:16)?

Hell was created not for us, but for the devil and the demons. By tempting Adam to revoke his citizenship in heaven, the devil trapped all of us in his own kingdom. He triggered all the suffering and death in history, including the suffering of any human cast into hell. If God did not prepare a hell in which to punish the devil, would God be benevolent to the human race?

My conclusion is that hell is, indeed, benevolent. But by itself, it is a half-truth.

God prepared a way to resolve the tension between justice and love. He provided Himself a sacrifice sufficient to redeem us from our sins and rescue us from the consequences of justice. God the Son paid the price at His own expense. This leads to a final question that returns us to the first question: If God debased the price He paid to rescue us from hell and thus demeaned Himself, would He be benevolent to Himself?

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Jesus: Only Way to God the Father

Answering a question on Quora: 

Where in the Bible does it say the only way to the Father is through the Son?

New Testament

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Acts 4:12

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.

Note that approaching the Father requires “being saved.” This means that God must do what we cannot: redeem, regenerate, justify, and sanctify. Since the Son provided the means of redemption, it is not too much to ask that we acknowledge that the Son is whom He is and receive the gift as a free gift.

Old Testament

Psalm 2:11–12

Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

Additional Evidence

The relationship between the Son and the Father is defined explicitly in the New Testament. Old Testament clues are there, but relevant passages are better interpreted in hindsight, that is, in light of the New Testament.

The first clue is in the opening lines of the Bible, where God says, let us make…. People who deny that the one God used creative power over space-time to experience it as three Persons frequently explain away “us” as a “royal we.” However, the literal interpretation is reinforced by the plural, “Gods,” in In the beginning Gods created the the heavens and the Earth. And the unity of the plural Gods is reinforced by the singular number of made. The best interpretation is that one God exists in space-time as three Persons in communication with each other.

Another clue, less clear in the Old Testament, is that, while God remains in heaven and unseen by any human, He also walked the earth in the appearance of a human. This can be traced from the Garden of Eden, through Abraham’s entertainment of strangers, to God’s revelation of Himself to Moses. The earthly liaison, so to speak, gave Himself a descriptive name, I AM — as contrasted with all other gods, who are not. He chose this name for our sakes but does not actually need one. No previous god existed with the authority to name Him, and no other god exists from whom He needs to be distinguished.

(The Hebrew word translated I AM and the LORD is YHWH. Note that the word has no vowels and the pronunciation was lost a few centuries before Jesus was born. Anybody who makes a big show about its pronunciation “knows” more than what the facts establish.)

To prevent desecration of God’s “name,” translators began a tradition of translating YHWH as the LORD (in capital letters). This is the God whom all Jews and Christians aspire to know.

In the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth reveals Himself to be YHWH, the I AM (John 8:58), the Word who was God, who was in the beginning with God, and through whom all created things were created (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17). In this light, passages such as Isaiah 9:6 make sense:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

If you aspire to know the Lord, that is, God or God the Father, you aspire to know the Son. If you know the Son, you know the Father as well (John 14:7–11), but you cannot know the Father if you reject that the Son is who He says He is (John 8:9).

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

God Shoulda Created an All-Good Universe

An Absurd Atheist Remedy for the Problem of Evil

Many atheists argue that, if God has foreknowledge, He should have created a universe in which evil would not exist. The argument has multiple non sequiturs.

• Evil is not a thing that "exists." As darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good and therefore the rejection of God. 
  
  
• The argument assumes that preventing His rejection (i.e., creating a vacuum that constitutes “evil”) would have been better than what He did create. 
  
  
• Using the word “better” makes a moral judgment based on either the atheist's mere personal preferences, which have no authority, or a standard the atheist rejects, God's goodness. So the atheist has no foundation on which to say one thing would be "better" than another.
  
  
• The argument assumes that no higher purpose exists that justifies God's allowance of His rejection. For example, it ignores that, in an all-good-always universe, love, mercy, and grace would be meaningless, and no creature would, by nature, be worthwhile for God to have a relationship with.
  
  
• In an all-good-always universe, only one option exists: God's perfect will. Any other choice would be non-compliance and, therefore, evil. If non-compliance with the perfect were an option, evil would happen. But if evil cannot happen, only one option exists. Thus, choice would be non-existent. Love, mercy, grace, and any other good would be meaningless because they would be forced. In fact, love, mercy, and grace would not exist because they would not be needed.
  
  
• The argument assumes that temporary material existence, not an everlasting spiritual existence that takes into account things done during material existence, is the correct courtroom in which to judge God’s plans. 

The argument is often accompanied by a claim that God created imperfection or evil. That is like saying that if I build a house and my client rejects me by vandalizing the house, I made a vandalized house. Like the main argument, it’s logically absurd. 

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. For your own conscience's sake, please give credit where credit is due. (You do know what remunerated means, don't you?)

Astounding Magnitude of Adam's "Little" Sin

Do you think the choice by Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a minor thing?

On the surface, their offenses consisted of disobeying God by lusting for and then seizing something forbidden -- a mere piece of fruit. 

First, that violates "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal. That's three of the Ten Commandments right off the bat. But we can go a bit deeper.

Hebrew use of "to know" means to personally, intimately experience something; for example, Adam knew his wife, and she bore a son. So to know evil is to know it experientially: that is, to commit evil. Thus, choosing knowledge of good and evil means choosing to participate in evil.

Someone has asked, what's wrong with wanting to be like God? You should bear in mind, first, that it was the serpent who suggested that knowledge of good and evil  would make them like God. Be careful whom you choose as a source! But was the desired result really to be like God?

While God understood evil and had performed the good and just act of punishing evil when He put down Lucifer's rebellion, God, being all-good, did not "know" (participate in) evil. The serpent lied: Having the knowledge of good and evil would not have made them like God.

Had they wanted to be like God, with no other context, it might not have mattered. But that is NOT all it was. 

• Believing the serpent's claim that they would not die, rather than God's warning that they would, effectively called God a liar, which is bearing false witness.
• Believing God wanted to keep knowledge to Himself calls Him selfish, which is bearing false witness against the One who is Truth and Love.
• Doing so constituted violation of the commandment to love God.
• Setting up the serpent and themselves as superior arbiters of truth constituted idolatry.
• Rebelling against God's authority constituted taking His name in vain (i.e., treating it as worthless).
• Desiring what belonged to God alone constituted the first act of covetousness. 
• Taking the fruit (it does not say it was an apple) was stealing. 
• Dishonoring their Creator was a variation on failing to honor one's parents. 
• The sin brought about their spiritual death and made physical death inevitable. It passed their deaths down to billions of descendants. That is, at best, manslaughter; and at worst, mass murder. 

And I haven't even gone into the even weightier secondary consequences, namely the Fall of all creation, its effects, and the cost imposed on God to redeem us from that Fall.

Please explain how taking the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil could be NOT a big deal! 

One more thing. Adam and Eve could have gone to the Tree of Life before God pronounced judgment. But they didn't have the faith to do so. Most of the world follows that same pattern. A metaphorical Tree of Life is available to all in the cross of Christ. Tragically, only a few turn to Him before it is too late.

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use as long as credit is given where credit is due.

God's Commandments Don't Change; Their Jurisdiction Does

Answering a question on Quora:

Do God’s commandments change?

The quick answer is no. However, you need to define which commandments. If you mean the Ten Commandments and hundreds of other commandments given through Moses (the “Mosaic Law”), then they had limited jurisdiction, and their proper usage is not what most people think.

Which commandments?

God has given more than one set of commandments:

• Commands to Adam and Eve to tend the Garden, name the animals, have children, and abstain from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
  
  
• Commands to Noah to build an ark and take shelter in it.
  
  
• Commands to Pharaoh to free Israel.
  
  
• Commands to Moses to follow certain instructions to deliver, feed, and water Israel.
  
  
• Commands to love God, love your neighbor, worship God alone, and abstain from certain generic sins (the “Ten Commandments”).
  
  
• Hundreds of specific civil and personal commands in support of the Ten Commandments, taken together as “the Mosaic Law.”
  
  
• A command to believe in Jesus of Nazareth for redemption instead of trusting self-righteousness.
  
  
• A command for followers of Jesus to love one another.

By “God’s commandments,” most people mean the Ten Commandments and may mean the Mosaic Law.

Different Jurisdictions, Different Commandments

The Mosaic Law (or “The Law”) was given to ancient, pre-Messianic Israel. The Law was not given to gentiles (non-Hebrews), and it does not apply to followers of the Anointed One (Hebrew: Messiah; Greek: Christ), Jesus of Nazareth. 

Not every commandment applies to everybody. For example, a commandment to a priestly descendant of Aaron to sprinkle the blood of a sacrifice on things in the Temple’s Holy of Holies obviously would not apply to a jeweler from the tribe of Benjamin. 

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law [Judaism], so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.

Jesus used this technique many times. For example, who loves God with all their heart, from birth to death? Who has never broken the commandments against adultery, murder, and coveting in their hearts?

Following the Ten Commandments is profitable, but not for redemption. Redemption comes only through trusting God’s gift through Christ.

Thus, we have the commandment, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.

The New Testament is emphatic.

Knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

The change in jurisdiction happened because, as others have answered, Christ fulfilled the Law. The Law is also called a Covenant. Today, we would use the word contract. A contract becomes ineffective when either of two conditions happen:

• One party fails to fulfill its obligations. Then the penalties become effective. At a national level, this happened when Israel rejected her Messiah and God destroyed national Israel, including its Temple, in 67–70 AD. At an individual level, it happens to every Hebrew who rejects Messiah Jesus.
  
  
• The obligations of the Law have been fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled God’s side of the Law by fulfilling the prophecies and the symbols (especially the sacrifices).

From a religious angle, the Law itself did not change. However, the applicability of the Law changed. Hebrews 7 explains that when the priesthood changes, a new law replaces the old Law. This is like when the United States of America formed and its Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, and the states had to rewrite the laws that they had when they were nations and, before that, colonies.

Under the Mosaic Law, a change in priesthood occurred. The Priesthood was given to Aaron, of the tribe of Levi, and to his descendants. Correspondingly, a change in the law occurred when God gave the Mosaic Law. In the same way, when God made Jesus a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, God gave a new Law. The new Law was not mere written commandments, but it was the Spirit of the law, written upon the hearts of those who entrust their redemption to Christ.

"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Underlying this, the Mosaic Law cannot save, but rather presents a mirror to show us our condemnation. For, Cursed is every man that continues not in all the words of this law to do them…. In contrast, the “Perfect Law of Love and Liberty” written on the hearts of those who bend their knee to Messiah Jesus shows how God has already delivered them from condemnation. God makes believers a kingdom of priests, Jesus being the High Priest; and with that, applies a new, better Law.

The Lawful Use of the Law

Some may object that Mosaic commandments were repeated in the New Testament. This is true, but it does not contradict anything written here. Two jurisdictions can have the same laws. Florida and Arizona both have laws against murder, but a Floridian would not refrain from murder because it's Arizona's law. The fact that Arizona has a law against murder does not mean that the Floridian is under Arizona law. Similarly, the fact that the New Testament condemns murder does not mean that Christians are under the Mosaic Law.

It is a common mistake to apply commandments given to ancient Israel to people living under the New Testament’s Perfect Law of Love and Liberty. For example, many insist on resting on the Sabbath (which is Saturday). Others say that baptism replaces circumcision, and people must be baptized to go to heaven. They focus on human merit instead of on the merit of Christ’s sacrifice.

The Mosaic Law still has applicability. People who think they will be good enough to go to heaven have to face that Law. In evangelism, it may be necessary to review the Law so people test themselves. Jesus did that often. Notice that the closer you look at any commandment, the more detail you see. Here’s a sample, using just four of the Ten Commandments:

• Have you honored your father and mother? Have you always obeyed them? This includes not just doing what you were told. Honoring goes beyond obedience. It includes obeying without delay, eye-rolling, sarcasm, or resentment. It means actually respecting them in your heart.
  
  
• Perhaps you don’t think you’ve committed adultery. But if you have had sex before marriage, you have. In fact, since God is Spirit and we have spirits, what we do in our thoughts are just as real to God as our physical actions are. So if you have looked at someone with sexual desire, you have broken this commandment.
  
  
• You may not think you are a thief. But have you downloaded music or ‘borrowed” a cable TV connection that you should have paid for? Have you taken anything from work without returning it? Have you found something that belonged to someone else and not even tried to find the owner? Or have you even thought about taking something that was not yours?
  
  
• You probably have not killed anyone. But Jesus said that if you even hated somebody without just cause, you committed murder in your heart. And if you have even called someone a fool or empty-headed, you are dangerously close to that line.

If you have kept the Ten Commandments from the heart all your life, congratulations! You are as perfect as God! I’m being sarcastic, of course.

In evangelism, Christians want to share the good news that God offers forgiveness as a gift on the basis that Christ acted as our proxy on the cross. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

But people who think they are righteous do not realize that they need that redemption. So the “lawful use of the Law” today is to use it as a mirror so people will turn from (a) justifying their sins or (b) self righteousness, and turn to trust alone in Christ alone.

What remains to believers is to Love God, our neighbors, and our spiritual brothers and sisters. The Perfect Law of Love and Liberty fulfills the spirit of all commandments. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Believers don’t keep this commandment to redeem themselves, but rather, because God has already redeemed them.

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use if you give credit where credit is due. 

Why Christians Don't Use "Jehovah" As Often

Answering a question on Quora:

Why do you rarely hear Christians who are non-Jehovah's Witnesses, referring to God as Jehovah God (or rarely even Just Jehovah) like the Jehovah's Witnesses do?

The Watchtower (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organization) teaches that God has a personal name, and it is Jehovah. It teaches that knowing and using God’s name is critical to being able to worship Him.

Many Christians (non-Jehovah’s Witnesses) do use the name Jehovah, but much less for several reasons. If you want a short answer, skip to the end; but if you want to learn the reasons behind the answer, keep reading.

A more complex doctrine of God requires more terms.

The Bible gives evidence that Persons called the Father, the Son (Jesus, Christ, Messiah, the Lord, the Son of Man), and the Holy Spirit are God — and yet, there is but one God. Modalists such as Oneness Pentecostals try to solve this apparent paradox by saying that God switches between personas. However, this creates problems such as when the Son and the Father speak to each other and when scriptures say the Father subjects all things to the Son except Himself. Latter Day Saints (“Mormons”) say Jesus was, like all angels, demons, and humans, a spirit-child of God the Father who will become a god of his own world on Judgment Day. This, like the Modalist god, violates the scriptures’ teaching that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. The Jewish faith denies the evidence that Jesus was divine, and many deny that He even existed. The Watchtower accepts that Jesus existed, but teaches that He was an angel, a small-g god who became Jesus of Nazareth and then became an exalted angel (again, see Hebrews 13:8).

Christians resolve the paradox by supposing that the Creator of the universe – meaning that God created not only matter and energy, but also space-time – can do anything He wishes, so long as it is good and not a logical impossibility. From the scriptures’ claims, they conclude that God used creative power to function in and experience space-time as three Persons. This Tri-unity (one God as three Persons) is a solution, not a problem. It bypasses many problems that Bible-recognizing religions face when they reject the Trinity.

As a result, to Christians, God has a more complex identity. They can speak of God in general as God, the Almighty, the Creator, etc.; or they might speak of a specific person, namely, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. (Note that God is “Lord,” regardless of which Person you speak of; but for the sake of communication, the scriptures often distinguish the Father from the Son by calling the Father, God, and calling Christ, Lord.)

Jehovah is not God's name.

Another reason Christians do not use the term Jehovah very often is that it is not actually God’s name! God does not need a name. There are no other real gods from whom to distinguish Him. Also, no god preceded and created Him, so nobody had the authority to name Him. On the other hand, God does take many descriptive titles and names, not for His own sake, but for ours.

The name "Jehovah" started when the Israelites were enslaved in a land with many so-called gods. (You will see, a few paragraphs later, why I put "Jehovah" in scare quotes.) When God was commissioning Moses to lead the Israelites, Moses asked whom he should say was sending him. God responded, “say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" This was a functional name chosen by God, not for His own sake, but for Israel’s. He is the I AM, as contrasted with all the other gods, who ARE NOT.

Jehovah is an incorrect pronunciation

The Hebrew word translated I AM is YHWH. Note that ancient Hebrew writing had no vowels. It had only consonants.

During the 400 years before Christ, the Jews had a revival of respect for God. They became so obsessed with rules that they would not dare to pronounce YHWH. Instead, when speaking, such as when reading scriptures aloud, they substituted the name Adonai, which means Lord. Consequently, they forgot how YHWH was pronounced! By the time of Christ, it had become common practice to combine the vowels from Adonai with the consonants YHWH, which produced Yahowah or Yahweh.

Now, transliterate Yahowah to Greek, transliterate that to Latin, and transliterate that to English, and you get Jehovah. So Jehovah is, at best, a twisted pronunciation of a word whose pronunciation was lost over 2,000 years ago.

Jehovah is an obsolete transliteration

In 1611, the Authorized Version (King James Version or KJV) used the word Jehovah in some places (and LORD, in all caps, in most places) to translate YHWH. Many readers of the KJV use the word Jehovah as a name for God. But many others simply use God or Lord, and the spread of modern Bible translations that do not use the word Jehovah reinforces that trend.

Within and outside Christianity there are movements such as Hebrew Roots that make a big deal about pronouncing YHWH and Jesus with original Hebrew pronunciations. This sounds cool and may make a person feel that he has special knowledge or special reverence for God, but biblical Christians do not think there is magical power in words and pronunciations. The power is in the meaning they convey, and God is omni-lingual.

Jehovah is Jesus

There’s yet another reason Christians use the word Jehovah less often. John chapter 1 teaches that Jesus is the Word, meaning that He is the expressive member of the Tri-unity. Jesus Himself said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” In other words, it was God the Son, before he took on the bodily form we call Jesus, who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush. So, in a monumental irony, the term that the Watchtower uses to label God actually refers to the Person whose deity they deny!

Summary

Christians use the word Jehovah less than Jehovah’s Witnesses do because the Jehovah's Witnesses inflate its usage and misuse it. Christians use it even less than they used to because laymen (as contrasted with clergy) are growing in awareness that it is a descriptive label rather than a personal name, it is a bad transliteration of a word whose pronunciation has been forgotten, it is not a general label for God, it is an incorrect label for God the Father, and Christians reject the idea that words and pronunciations have intrinsic power. God is just as good a "name" for the Creator as any other.

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use (meaning, you don't make money by plagiarizing it). But please give credit where credit is due.