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. 

One Core Religion, Progressively Elaborated

Responding to questions in a thread:

One Core Religion, Progressively Elaborated

Background

Me: The “religion” of Noah and Moses was the same “religion,” handed down from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Jacob’s (“Israel’s”) twelve sons. In Egypt, most of Israel forgot those beliefs and adopted Egyptian practices. Moses merely wrote it down as God restored it and elaborated on it.

Response: Does that mean Jesus modified and changed the eternal religion by deeming everything allowed to be eaten?

Secondly, do you have a proof of your claim that it was the same religion, or is it just a conjecture?

Response

First, the trend of the “religion” of Elohim/YHWH/Jesus as defined in the Bible has a constant thread of depending on God instead of on self-righteousness, and being rewarded with enjoying a personal relationship with God. The doctrines of the “religion” developed through punctuated elaboration. That is, at various times, more details were added so that it forms a continuum, just like the education of any student. The Jewish authorities of Jesus’s time dropped out by rejecting the next layer of elaboration and the corrections that laid its groundwork.

To me, calling that process “modifying and changing” is like saying that conducting a student from sixth grade into seventh grade is “changing” his education. There is a change in the student’s stage, but the stages of the plan have been there all along. So, from the religionist’s perspective, perhaps; from the Planner’s perspective, no.

Just as some schools will put part of their students on a path toward manual vocations and others on a path toward college, God separated the descendants of Abraham from the rest of the world. The purpose of the Abrahamic path became clear when God singled out Jacob’s descendants to become Israel, a nation of priests to the world (they failed miserably) and the path through which the Redeemer would come. A special role required special policies.

The Mosaic Law had a number of purposes, among which was conveying a message about holiness. The need for holiness was symbolized, for example, by dietary regulations. However:

• The dietary regulations were part of the Mosaic Covenant (or “Law” or “contract”) between God and Israel. The Law never had jurisdiction outside of Israel (“gentiles”).
  
  
• Israel abrogated the Law through breach of contract, violating it repeatedly, ultimately by rejecting the promised Messiah.
  
  
• God abrogated the Law by fulfilling it through the Messiah (“Christ”).
  
  
• God supplanted the Law with a new covenant (“New Testament”) with simplified requirements: Trust the sacrifice of Christ for redemption instead of trusting self-righteousness; Love God; love your neighbor; and love fellow believers. The simplification was new, but it continued “the spirit of the Law” that had always existed.

The butterfly is still the same creature that it was when it was a caterpillar. When a child discards the toys of a toddler in favor of the toys of a pre-pubescent, the process of maturation is not “modified or changed.” You aren’t changing the “religion” by moving it into a more mature phase.

Second, the genealogies do not say, “X begat Y and taught him his religion, and Y begat Z and taught him his religion,” etc. However, the whole of the scriptures emphasize that beliefs are passed from generation to generation; that the beliefs God defines should be passed down; and there were generations such as Abel, Seth, and Enoch between Adam and Noah that were specifically said to walk with God. And isn’t it the hope of every parent that their child will follow their religious (or non-religions) belief?

I’m accustomed to people (specifically, atheists) who ask for “proof,” demanding unreasonable, tangible, irrefutable, complete, and constantly available evidence. Since time machines are fantasy, I’m prejudiced to say that, according to their standards, “No, there’s no proof.” But if you’re a reasonable person, I’m sure a time machine won’t be necessary. 

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

Will God Forgive Bitterness?

From a question on Quora:

Will God still forgive those who hold bitterness in their hearts towards others?

Bitterness is wrong. It hurts others and it hurts you. It means that you have not seen yourself through God’s eyes because you see yourself as superior to the other person. You must know this, so I’ll keep the focus on God’s forgiveness.

There are two routes to heaven. If you depend on the first route, then, along with obeying numerous other commandments, you must forgive everyone who offends you in order to earn God’s forgiveness. If you have depended on the second route, God has already forgiven you as Judge, although He may chastise you as a loving Father.

The Jews of Jesus’s day, most people around the world, and many “Christian” denominations and offshoots pursue the first route. This route depends on human merit.

• The Jewish leaders, being descendants of Abraham, believed their heritage earned heaven for them. You will hear similar claims today, such as “My mother was a saint!” or “Grandpa was a Baptist preacher.”
• Many believed that the sacrifices made by their parents or ceremonies such as circumcision that their parents put them through brought them into a special relationship with God. When I was 18, I thought that because I was born an American and my parents had me “baptized” when I was little, I would see heaven.
• Others believed that if they kept the Ten Commandments, related commandments, traditions, and ceremonies; did acts of love and generosity; and kept themselves separate from things that would defile them (such as eating pork of shrimp), God would forgive them. Much of that continues today. The standard may be as simple as “Love one another” or may include performing sacraments, works of charity, refraining from offenses, or forgiving others.

Jesus often preached against depending on the first, heritage. He also preached that the second, what others do for you, was worthless unless you embrace the third in your heart. He did often preach the third, personal righteousness. But there’s a catch.

If you depend on personal righteousness, then the standard is perfection. The test is Pass/Fail, and any score less than 100% is Fail. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours (Matthew 6:15). Jesus implied that the personal righteousness standard was so high that, instead of saving people, it condemned them. All (except Jesus) have fallen short of God’s standard. Because of this, God cannot allow us to defile His presence. Even if we could, we could not bear to be in His presence.

Not everybody reaches sufficient humiliation to admit in frustration and self-condemnation, “I can’t.” For those who do give up on the futile self-merit route, God has created the second route.

The word grace means gift or unmerited favor. If something is a gift, you don’t insult the Giver by trying to earn it either before or after the fact. You don’t mix faith and works or mix grace and merit the way many churches do.

God’s grace is an attitude, not a money-like stuff that comes bit-by-bit. Someone made up an acronym to explain g-r-a-c-e: God Redeems At Christ’s Expense. Jesus, Son of God, like a Big Brother taking his little brother’s punishment, took God’s punishment for our sins. Jesus’s sacrifice was sufficient for all sins of all people; and God demonstrated His satisfaction by physically raising Jesus from the dead.

God applies that payment to those who trust God instead of themselves. That includes several points of faith such as our guilt and its consequences, Christ being God, Christ dying on a cross and rising from the dead, and God’s promise to save trusting people from being judged for their offenses.

When you have that kind of repentance and faith, God grants total forgiveness. That means you will never face God as Judge because He has changed your relationship. He births you into His family and adopts you as His heir. So now He’s your Father who will never leave or abandon you, even if you have not yet overcome bitterness in your heart.

Does that mean you can do anything you want — such as failing to forgive — without consequences? Absolutely not! God chastises His children when they will not turn from offensive ways. Sometimes, chastisement can be as severe as sickness or death. But your sin cannot change what you are.

So if you want to earn your way to heaven, go ahead: Hold yourself to an impossibly high standard. And when you fall flat on your face, go to God in humility. As Judge, God will forgive all your sins — and by all I mean all, including bitterness. And as Father, he will train you, using internal influence over your spirit, positive reinforcement, and chastisement. 

Copyright 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, and please give credit where credit is due.

Could God Be a Monad?

Can God the Father be God without Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

(From a question on Quora)

The question is asked in present tense, and it is a bit ambiguous. I take it to mean, Is God the Father able to remain God if God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were split off, eliminated, or retracted from the universe?

Your question could also be taken to mean, Could God the Father have chosen to be a unitary God without having also existed as Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

Based on the relationship between God and the universe, I would say yes with respect to His substance but no with respect to His character. The same answer applies to either interpretation of the question.

One of the arguments for the existence of God is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It states:

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  
• The universe began to exist (around 13.8 billion years ago)
  
• Therefore, the universe has a Cause. 

From the nature of the universe and related arguments, one can derive (without turning to revealed information such as the Bible) that the Cause is timeless, spaceless, non-contingent, unimaginably powerful, volitional, and unfathomably intelligent. In other words, God.

According to General Relativity, time, space, matter, and energy are so intertwined that if God created the universe, He created time and space, as well. Creative power over time and space allows their Creator to be omnipresent and omnitemporal — which explains omniscience with respect to both every location and every time.

Creative power over time and space also allows God to enter and experience time and space as one Person (or center of consciousness) or as a billion Persons, yet remain One God outside of the Universe. As it happens, He chose to exist in time and space as three Persons. Those three Persons, while remaining in every way equal, voluntarily took on different roles and titles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Due to the feat of entering time and space, all three Persons have the same substance (spirit). If God were a creature of the universe, this would be counter intuitive. However, with God having His “home” or “natural” existence outside of time and space, all three Persons can consist of the same spiritual substance.

We would be bothered by the physical law that two things can simultaneously occupy the same space at the same time. However, God’s substance is Spirit, not physical; so He is not subject to the same limits as we are.

Since all three Persons consist of the same substance, eliminating one or two of the Persons would not affect the existence of the third Person. Neither would it affect the existence of God outside of time and space.

So, with respect to God’s substance, one Person of the Trinity could exist without the other two.
But is this consistent with God’s character? God is relational and loving, and He has no needs. To exist as a unitary Person (a “monad”) would leave a relational God without any source or object of love until He created intelligent life. If God has no needs, then this makes it probable that God existed as three Persons even “before” creation. As Genesis 1:1 says, In the beginning, Gods (Elohim, “gods”) created (singular) the heavens and the earth.….

If the Son and the Holy Spirit ceased to exist in the universe, God the Father would still be God. However, He would cease to be “the Father” because you can’t be a father without at least one person in the role of “the Child” (or “the Son”).

Also, the roles of the three Persons teach us about relationships and solve problems that I won’t go into now. (For example, how can God remain untouched by corruption and at the same time experience incarnation? Or how can God simultaneously express His wrath and be the subject of that wrath in our place?) God would have to either fulfill the functions of all three Persons or eliminate some of those functions.

If God is God, then He is maximally great. If God is maximally great, then any other form in which He existed in the universe would be less than maximally great. By definition, a less-than-maximally great god would not be God.

To Modalists such as Oneness Pentecostals and to sects such as the Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Oneness is not a problem. Modalists believe God is a quick-change artist, switching between three hats in order to deceive people into thinking He is three Persons. But that makes God a deceiver. The Watchtower teaches that only the Father is God because the Son is just an exalted archangel and the Holy Spirit is just an impersonal force of God.

But we are approaching this from the view that all three Persons are God, so a lonely, God is an unsolvable problem for Modalists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, and Muslims.

So my final answer is that, if two Persons ceased to be, the third Person could continue to be God. However, as a monad, God would have had or might still have unfulfilled needs and would be less than maximally great, so without the Son and the Holy Spirit, He would not be God.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Since I originally posted this answer on Quora, I probably lost the right to claim copyright. However, I ask that if you use this material, please give credit where credit is due.

Orthodox Church Reliance on Church Fathers

Apologists and polemicists for the Orthodox Churches invariably invoke the writings of pastors from the first few centuries to promote their beliefs.

The implied premise of the question is that the standard for judging doctrine is the beliefs of second, third, and subsequent early generations of Christians. It must assume that those who had closest access to the apostles were more spiritual or had more thorough teaching. Nevertheless, that premise is illogical and leads into heresy.

The church was not born with as complete an understanding of doctrine as we can know it today.

Just as the prophets searched and studied diligently — and mostly, futilely — to understand their own prophecies (1 Peter 1:10–12), the apostles had to study and debate to apply what they had learned. 

When Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, the Jews needed a major improvement to their worldview. God destroyed their nation because their theology remained frozen and they refused to repent. Freezing doctrine at the point defined by the primitive church commits the same sin. 

Study and debate have always focused on the issue of the day. At Pentecost, the prime issue was the Jews’ rejection of their Messiah. As Acts records, the next major issue was acceptance of gentiles into the church (Acts 11) and freedom from the Mosaic Law (Acts 21, Galatians 2). 

Doctrines form an ontology, and the fleshing out of that ontology took centuries. The assignment of superior authority to writings of the primitive church comprises a rejection both of known authority, the scriptures, and of what was discerned, debated, rejected, and built upon by equally holy men in later generations. Forming a standard out of what was written at the beginning of the learning curve can only lead to error. The standard cannot be the changing interpretations of men whose writings we do not trust to be inspired and who had yet to wrestle with many great questions. 

Disagreements abounded among the church fathers. 

Heresies abounded even among the apostles’ contemporaries. Even among the most orthodox of the church fathers, there were major disagreement about vital issues, and where disagreement exists, error exists. 

How do we judge those disagreements without turning to the scriptures? If the scriptures are sufficient for teaching doctrine, how can they fail to be sufficient for determining doctrine? The proper use of early church writings, then, is as commentary, and dated commentary at that.

The inspired writings of the New Testament warn us not to embrace teachings that run contrary to Scripture. Of which church father did the Spirit say, his writings are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works”? None. 

The standard cannot be the changing interpretations of men whose writings we do not trust to be inspired and who had yet to wrestle with many great questions. This is not to say that we cannot consider earlier or later writings, but merely to correctly identify our Standard and warn against overemphasis on other sources.

Third, the reliance on the “church fathers” implies that we should bypass Scripture and instead resort to the early Christians’ writings.

This implies that Scripture is insufficient. It argues from borrowed authority and replaces the Spirit’s illumination with men’s opinions. It also implies an injection of a priesthood between God and believer, a continuation of the Jewish religious hierarchy in Christianized form. That low view of Scripture is heretical because it opens the door to other heresies and inserts a barrier between God and His people. 

The psalmist did not say, How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to the writings of priests who interpret your Word for me. At the cross, God destroyed the veil of partition between the area accessible only to the priest and the court of the ordinary believer. He made of all believers a royal priesthood who all have access to God and His gifts (1 Peter 2:9). Though the heresy may be unintentional, it is what it is. When you devalue the Word, you disrespect the Author of the Word.

Metaphorically, if you want adult-level knowledge, would you read a book written by people who have studied the subject for generations, or by children who have not even finished first grade? The scriptures form the Christian’s objective standard of doctrinal truth, not cherry-picked quotations from members of the primitive church.  

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal and non-profit use, but please give credit where credit is due.

God Brings Samaritans Into the Church

Question from Quora: Can you explain Acts 8:12-17?

Few people catch the meaning of this passage, so this is a good question.

The theme sentence of of Acts is chapter 1, verse 8. Before departing Earth for heaven, Jesus told the disciples, you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth. 

The events in Acts 8 form one of the high points of the outline.  If you understand the outline, you understand the significance of 8:12-17.  That outline unfolds as follows:

Jerusalem

In chapter 2, the Holy Spirit makes His grand entrance. The Holy Spirit descends on the disciples, causing the believers to speak in languages they had no way of knowing, along with other signs. This is followed by Peter preaching the gospel and many joining the disciples.

The language phenomenon had prophetic significance. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul cites Old Testament prophecies to explain the primary purpose of miraculously speaking in foreign languages. The spectacular event that day was a warning to the Jewish nation that they had come under God’s judgment for rejecting their Messiah. As prophesied by Daniel and other prophets, Judea was destroyed by waves of Roman armies in 67 to 70 AD.

The Grand Entrance of the Holy Spirit marked a revolutionary change. Previously, He had come upon just a few believers for specific purposes such as guiding a king, empowering a warrior, or delivering revelation through a prophet. Now He had come upon all believers, not just for a narrow ministry, but to abide. What had previously been a temporary or conditional gift now became a permanent, sealing gift. Whereas only a chosen few had received ministries from God, now all received ministries and were empowered with “spiritual gifts.”

Judea

Chapter 8 briefly describes how the believers were scattered throughout Judea by persecution. Jerusalem represented the initiation of the gospel among the Jews, and Judea represents spreading of the gospel among the Jews.

Samaria (chapter 8)

The Samaritans had a mixed heritage, having descended from a mixture of Israelite and local ancestors.  Some followed the God of Israel, but most followed the religions of their non-Israelite ancestors or of the occupying armies.

The Jews descended primarily from Judah, one of the few families of Israel that had not been scattered into the world by invaders.  They were very inwardly focused.  God had commissioned Israel as a nation of priests to the world, but they had failed to maintain their own religion, let alone spread it.  In their minds, they were God’s chosen, and that was that.  They considered their half brothers, the Samaritans, unclean, second-class, and enemies. So what was about to happen required a major shift of thinking. 

Up to that time, all of the Christians were Jews.  Some began to recognize what God was doing, but it took decades for others.  Phillip went among the Samaritans anyway and preached Christ to them.

• 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

(The story of Simon is a tangent, so I'll skip verse 13.)

Shockingly to the Jews, the Samaritans converted. But something was missing. There was no miraculous evidence that the Holy Spirit had come upon the Samaritans.

At this point, we need to reach farther back for context. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus tells Peter,

• I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Acts 8 is a an example of the fulfillment of Peter using those metaphorical keys. (It has nothing to do with creating a permanent office or making Peter into a “pope.”)

• Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.  For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (verses 14-16).

Here, Peter fulfills his commission. He and John pray for the Samaritans to receive the full blessings of salvation, just like the Jewish believers had in Jerusalem. So the gospel expands outside of the Jews, and the Samaritans are now included.

• 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.

The passage does not state how Peter and John knew that the Samaritans had received the Holy Spirit, but it is safe to infer that something miraculous happened. The likely possibilities are that some began prophesying and speaking in foreign languages in a manner similar to what had happened in Jerusalem.

You may notice that I don’t call it speaking in tongues. According to Acts 2:5–11, it was not the unintelligible babbling that you hear today. People from foreign lands heard the speakers in their own native languages, and 15 specific languages were understood by unconverted bystanders.

The evidence showed several things: God had expanded the blessings of belief and ministry beyond the Jews.  Previously, the Holy Spirit had only come upon people of Israel.  The Jews thought they had a unique claim on their relationship with God. This destroyed that misconception.  Since the Holy Spirit came upon people for the purpose of ministry, this meant that not only belief, but also the priesthood, was being taken away. And again, the sign warned the Jews of the destruction to come.

Thus, Peter had fulfilled his role, bringing, so to speak, the Grand Entrance of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans.

To the Ends of the World

In chapter 10, we see the gospel and the Holy Spirit expand to a Roman soldier, Cornelius, and his household. The Samaritans were half Israelite, but Romans were unclean occupiers from a distant land!  Even Peter needed special visions to prepare him for dealing with a Roman.

After Cornelius converted and spoke in foreign languages, Peter had some explaining to do back in Jerusalem before the council of apostles.  They were offended that Peter had even eaten with gentiles.  Once again, God had expanded the group called “God’s people,” and the Jewish Christians had to adjust how they saw themselves and the rest of the world.

The remainder of Acts mostly describes the continued expansion of the gospel to Asia Minor and Greece. We even see the church’s first heresy when Jewish believers demanded that gentile believers start living according to Jewish customs. Although Acts shifts to following Paul's evangelistic journeys, Peter had used his "keys" to reflect that God had unlocked the kingdom for the Jews, the Samaritans, and the rest of the world.

Note to Charismatic and Pentecostal brethren: Christ’s prophesy in Acts 1:8 was fulfilled. The opening of the gospel and the grand entrance of the Holy Spirit to expanding circles of people does not constitute a pattern that applies today, and the prophetic meaning of “tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:20-22 plus Deuteronomy 28:49, Isaiah 28:11,12, and Jeremiah 5:15, and their contexts) was fulfilled over 1900 years ago.

Note to Catholic apologists: Peter in Matthew 16:18 is a masculine noun, denoting a stone by itself, whereas rock is a feminine noun, denoting a formation in the ground.  The difference denotes a play on words in which Peter and the rock cannot be conflated or confused.  In addition, throughout the Old Testament, Rock is a name for God, in general (Psalm 18:2), and for Christ, specifically (1 Corinthians 10:4). Even Peter used the word that way (1 Peter 2:8). This rock could not, therefore, refer to Peter. It had to refer to Peter’s confession.  To call Peter the Rock on which Christ founded the church is to equate Peter with God, and that is blasphemous.

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler; permission to use excerpts is granted for personal, not-profit use.  Please give credit where credit is due.  

The Perfect Peace Promised in Isaiah 26:3

What is the background to, and meaning of, Isaiah 26:3?

I first published this commentary on Quara on 28 Janury 2019.

For my answer, I quote extensively from my answer to a similar Quora question about Isaiah 12:4. 

Quotes below are from the New American Standard translation.

Short Answer

3“The steadfast of mind You [God] will keep in perfect peace,
 Because he trusts in You.”

The verse promises complete security to people of a future age who will have placed their trust entirely in God and His works. Although the verse does not apply to this age, the principle behind it is universal. In this age, those who place their trust entirely in God and His works are promised emotional peace, but not the physical victories indicated by the context of Isaiah 26:3. To teach the promise of peace to people of our times, careful teachers will use other verses.

Background

During Isaiah’s time, Israel had been split in two. The northern segment, “Israel,” had been conquered, and its survivors had been carried off to other lands. The southern segment, “Judah,” remained but was overtaken with other religions and corruption. Followers of God not only received mistreatment from their own neighbors, but also saw the same thing that had happened to Israel threatening to happen to Judah.

Those who listened to the prophets knew that God’s punishment was coming if the kingdom did not return to God. At this time, prophets such as Isaiah not only foretold about the punishment, but also foretold that God would later restore their people to Judea. Such promises were accompanied by other details. Such details described a savior who would save not only their people, but all who would turn to Him.

So the prophesies not only warned of judgment, but also promised hope.

Since these prophesied events were future, they were like mountain tops lined up in the distance. The hearers could not tell them apart. That is one reason the Jews rejected Christ. They wanted the Second Coming to establish their national independence and dominance. They did not accept that the spiritual redemption and the political redemption could be two different events.

From our position between peaks, it’s easy to see the difference. One mountain top was the restoration of Israel as a nation that was a territory of Greece and then of Rome. The second mountain top was the incarnation of God the Son. The third was a Second Coming. During the incarnation, Messiah would provide redemption through faith in His suffering; whereas during the second coming, He would assert His authority, judge the wicked, and establish peace on earth.

Meaning

To appreciate Isaiah 26:3, we first have ask about which age the verse directly applies to. Let’s start by connecting it to the preceding verses.

1 In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah:
“We have a strong city;
He [God] sets up walls and ramparts for security.
2“Open the gates, that the righteous nation may enter,
The one that remains faithful.
3“The steadfast of mind You [God] will keep in perfect peace,
Because he trusts in You.”

The “that day” in verse 1 refers to the age resulting from second coming of Christ. We could re-read chapters 10 through 25 to point out the evidence, but I’ll go back just to verse 8 of chapter 25 to illustrate one of the characteristics of “that day.”

8 He will swallow up death for all time,
And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces….

Compare verse 8 to 1 Corinthians 15:54

But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.

Revelation 21:3-4
And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

1 Corinthians 15:54 refers to the beginning of the age marked by Christ’s return, and Revelation 21 refers to the end of that age, which culminates in the reward of the justified, the judgment of the unconverted, and the commencement of a re-created heaven and earth. The direct interpretation of Isaiah 26:3, then, must recognize that it applies to age which is, to us, in the future. 

That does not mean that the principle stated in the verse cannot apply in our age. The promise of both emotional and physical perfect peace applies to that future age, but the promise of emotional perfect peace applies to all times. Verse 4 continues,

4“Trust in the LORD forever, For in GOD the LORD, we have an everlasting Rock.

Compare Psalm 62, written centuries before Isaiah’s day

6 He [God] only is my rock and my salvation,
My stronghold; I shall not be shaken.7 On God my salvation and my glory rest;
The rock of my strength, my refuge is in God.8 Trust in Him at all times, O people;
Pour out your heart before Him;
God is a refuge for us. 

and in Isaiah chapter 12, concerning the age following the incarnation

2“Behold, God is my salvation,
I will trust and not be afraid;
For the LORD GOD
is my strength and song,
And He has become my salvation.”

Trust in God and having emotional peace — the opposite of fear — is a universal promise throughout the scriptures. For example, in Ephesians 2:11–22, Paul writes of a peace between Jews and non-Jews, and between man and God, that Christ established. He established this peace by providing redemption from the condemnation that the Old Testament commandments make us aware of and joining Jews and non-Jews into a single body, the church. 

Conclusion

Do not believe the lie of many highly visible, false, evangelical leaders who teach that the promise is for peaceful circumstances today. Jesus said in John 16:33, These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. In the close to his letter, 2 Thessalonians, Paul writes

16 Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance. The Lord be with you all!

For this age, the perfect peace means emotional peace in every circumstance. The promise is conditional, it is for The steadfast of mind who trusts in You [God].  To teach the promise of peace to people of our times, careful teachers will use other verses.

Differences between the Persons of the Trinity

Differences between the Persons of the Trinity

Raymond, a Oneness Pentecostal, challenges the Trinity. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are One in nature and One in substance, how can we tell them apart? If there's no difference, the Trinity must be pointless and a Unitarian God makes more sense.

Oneness refers to the Unitarian belief that God exists as only one Person. Some Unitarians believe that God is a quick-change artist who switches costumes to appear as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Others believe the Father is God, the Son was just a man, and the Spirit is an impersonal force.

Raymond says no Trinitarian has ever answered his question, How can we distinguish between the Persons or personalities of the Persons of the Trinity? With that claim he implies that the Trinity does not make sense.

Differences in Person

The question has two answers because it has two parts. By Person, we mean all that makes up the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. There is no reason to expect any difference in nature (the characteristics) or substance (whatever spiritual stuff they are made of. If there are differences, no mortal mind could grasp them.

We except from that statement the body of Christ Jesus. God translated the body of Jesus from physical form into spiritual form when Jesus ascended to Heaven. So the Son may have that additional "substance."

I'm sorry, but I have to hedge even on the exception. Jesus said, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (John 14:11). Also, after His baptism by John, Jesus "returned from the Jordan [river], full of the Holy Spirit" (Luke 4:1). Therefore, the Father and the Spirit may share the the body of Jesus in Heaven. That brings us back to the Three having identical substance, even during and after the Son inhabited a physical body!

More than one in one

How does one program in a computer differ from another? They share the same hardware. They share access to all the power, interfaces, and data within the computer. Since a computer's existence is limited to the physical universe, the programs have to take turns checking the keyboard buffer, executing instructions in the CPU, storing data to or retrieving data from RAM, displaying information on the monitor, and so forth.

They differ not in substance, but in information. Each contains instructions and data that correspond to their roles. You cannot look at a computer and see the programs. Even if you examined the magnetic states on the hard drive, the logic states in the CPU, or the electrostatic states in the RAM, you would need yet more information to know where to look and to decode it. 

One, but more than One

Since God is spirit in nature, omnipresent, and eternal, it would be unrealistic to think we could "look" with our mind's eye at God or at the three Persons of God, let alone have the ability to recognize differences in what we see. It's not like the Father would have flowing white hair and a bald spot, the Son would wear gold chains and would have his pants hanging down below His butt, or the Holy Spirit would wear a butler's uniform.

The difference until the incarnation would appear to have been strictly informational. The three Persons have self awareness and, although we could not tell them apart, they know each other. Even if there were no differences in nature between the three in their transcendent reality, each would still be able to distinguish the other two because, to the extent that they exercise such knowledge, they know each others' minds (for example, Romans 8:27, "He [the Father] who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit"). 

As a result of accepting different roles and executing the functions of those roles, the three Persons accumulate differentiation in "their" memories. Yet even in that I must again hedge because, since the Trinity shares a common substance, the three Persons can share in each other's experiences.

Differences in Personalities

I would define personality as the aggregate of inward and outward attributes. Inward attributes would stem from one's nature. Having the same nature and shared substance, the three Persons of the Trinity would have identical inward attributes.

Outward attributes would result from the combination of the inward attributes and the Person's role. Whereas inward attributes express the nature, outward attributes put the role into action consistent with the inward attributes.

Listing the personality differences between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit rockets past my pay grade (if I had one). Having just enough knowledge to be a danger to myself, though, I'll attempt to name at least one unique outward attribute for each Person.

Personality of God the Father

• Christ said that not even He knew the day or hour of the end of the age; only the Father knew, so the Father is the Planner.
• The Father deploys the Son and the Spirit to execute His plan, so the Father is the Coordinator.
• The Father receives Change Requests from the Son and Spirit and issues Change Orders, so He presides over the Change Control Board.

These tell me that the Father is the Manager among the Three. Although the Father delegates certain judgments, He takes responsibility for the divine plan and its execution. Would He be better than the other two at those roles? No, His leadership does not indicate a difference in nature; but we perceive a recognizable outward attribute that ensues from a difference in role.

Personality of God the Son

• Since the Father fulfills a role of Leader, the Son and the Spirit fulfill roles as Followers. 
• Following requires obedience. While the Spirit obeys, the Spirit does not need to obey sacrificially. For a time, the Son forsook the glory of Deity and the comfort of Heaven. He took on the weakness and vulnerability of a child and a man, took upon Himself the weight of the guilt of the world, and suffered torture and physical death. He "learned obedience," not just as a matter of being obedient by nature, as all three Persons are, but by experience.
• As a follower of the Father, the Son demonstrates humility by representing and obeying the Father.
• As one who experienced the discomforts, risks, temptations, and agonies of earthly life and death, the Son understands our experience, so He has empathy.

This tells me that, although the nature of any of the three persons would have led to identical behavior, the Son acts with humility and grace in ways that the other two members do not have opportunity to express. Moreover, all three Persons can sympathize, but only the Son can empathize with us because He shared the human experience. As we consider the Son's sacrifice and see His humanity and brotherhood, which presents God as accessible, relateable, and an object of affection.

Personality of God the Holy Spirit

• The Spirit enlightens man that he might see and births believers into life.
• What the Son demonstrated, the Spirit enables. The Spirit imbues and empowers spiritual gifts in accordance with the Father's plan.
• The Spirit glorifies not Himself, but the Son and the Father by teaching, through the Sword of the Spirit, the written Word of God, all spiritual knowledge that we need.

This tells me that the Spirit enacts the quiet humility of a servant, teaching and equipping the saints for their own role in the spiritual economy that they might enjoy the benefits of God's love and glorify their Father and Brother.

The difference is also intuitive

It should be obvious to anyone that, although the Trinity is one in substance and its members are equal in nature, if we relate to the Father as our Father, to the Son as our Big Brother, and to the Holy Spirit as our Teacher, Quartermaster, and King's Messenger, we innately recognize differences of personality, even if we fail to consciously recognize them.

Is "moderate Islam" an oxymoron?

I received an email, with the above title, that makes the case that all Muslims are extremists. I have to disagree. The key to understanding my position lies in a look at Judaism and Christianity.

Judaism has what Christians call "apostates," those who have left the faith; and it has "heretics," those who were raised outside the faith and either through error or through hostility, undermine the faith. At the extreme, some of these people remain religious and follow cults such as Kabbala or (from their perspective) our Yeshua. In the middle, the vast majority follow some semi-agnostic variety of Judaism that is Jewish primarily by culture. The real Jews are the Orthodox Jews, whose males often wear some element of a uniform such as yarmulkes or beards to identify themselves.

Christians are the same way. There are plenty of heretical sects such as Mormons, The Watchtower (Jehovah's [false] Witnesses, and Unitarians. In the middle are the mainline denominations that use a Christian vocabulary but have lost the Christian faith. For example, in the United Methodist Church, a poll many years ago revealed that half the pastors denied the virgin birth and the resurrection. With so many holes cut in their Bibles, it's no surprise that most "mainstream" Christian churches cooperate in the ecumenical movement, whose aim is to join with all theologies, even including New Age religions, animist, aboriginal religions, and "moderate" Islam -- essentially, a precursor to the One World Religion of Antichrist. I would put  the apostate Westboro Baptist Church in that category. I think you might be willing to put the Liberation Theology branch of Catholicism in that category, too.

The main thing that ties together all those "heretical" and "apostate" varieties of Jewish and Christian beliefs is their treacherous lip service to The Bible. They either believe God isn't god, or God doesn't care enough to communicate truthfully with man and then preserve that communication. Functionally, they are agnostics who prefer to err on the faith side instead of erring on the side of atheism. They contrast with evangelical or fundamentalist believers, and they make up the majority of Christians. (The sense with which I mean "evangelical or fundamentalist" includes those who have a strict faith in Catholicism.)

Islam has a similar distribution of faith. I don't know whether the majority of Muslims are functional agnostics the way most Christians are, although I've met a lot who are. I've met a few who might compare to mainstream Christians that border the Evangelicals. They retain the culture and worship; but in practice, they don't treat the Koran as a reliable revelation of their god.

I've described a perspective that views a moderate in anything as falling short of "true believer." For example, if you disagree with the Constitution and the reasoning behind it, you are fooling yourself if you claim to believe in Americanism and be a patriot. Similarly, "moderate Islam" is an oxymoron, just like "mainstream Christian" or "non-Orthodox Jew" are oxymorons. If the words apply to one, they have to apply to the others.

The difference is that, in Islam's case, moderation is a very, very good thing.