An APSE Ministry Bible Study

(AskPrayStudyEmbrace)

James Spangler

Course material/Workbook

Contents

Part 2

Life in the World - First Corinthians                                                      30

Life in the World - 1 Corinthians (cont’d); Philemon                           42

Life in the World - 2 Corinthians                                                            50

Life and Law - Galatians 54 Life and Righteousness - Romans         57

30

Lecture 6:  Life in the World - First Corinthians  (written 55 A.D. or a range of 53-57 A.D.)  

Fasten your seatbelts, we’re going to Corinth! - See APSE Article: What is the Significance of Corinth in the Bible.  Apostle Paul Articles  page 34.

A snippet from that article:  First Corinthians addresses several issues of sexuality. There was a large following of the cult of Aphrodite among the Gentiles in Corinth—her temple was atop the Acrocorinthus, and her worship involved temple prostitution. In fact, the city had so many prostitutes that well-known Greeks, including Plato, openly referred to prostitutes as “Corinthians.” 

Corinth was a large city that controlled 2 ports.  Think sailors away from home.  On the high seas for weeks, months at a time.  Corinth was no different than any port city.  It may have been the first town to use this sign in hotels: Street Girls Bringing Sailors into Hotel Must Pay for Room in Advance - NO EXCEPTIONS!

Although many natives of Corinth placed faith in Jesus, many were still influenced by their immoral surroundings, which promoted sexual immorality. In 1 Corinthians, Paul mentions the problem of sexual sin in the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 5:1–2). God ultimately used this problem to bring about Paul’s inspired writing on sexual purity, marriage, and singleness (1 Corinthians 6—7). These inspired teachings have continued to instruct and guide the church regarding sexual issues. They are certainly beneficial to us in our sex-obsessed world.   

Note: Harmful as well as beneficial?  Are we to take Paul’s words LITERALLY?

Discussion:  Are we persecuting people because a group of Greco-Roman pagans brought prostitutes into their “worship of idols” in a society of a seaside port/capital city, mind you, where prostitution was a way of life.  Have we extended the term “prostitution” to include - or dwell on - that one of the 2 great unforgivable sins of Christianity - HOMOSEXUALITY and ABORTION?

Discussion:  For material for a discussion on abortion see APSE Articles: What the Bible actually says about abortion may surprise you, et. al.   Apostle Paul Articles  pages 36-44

Paul left Athens and traveled to Corinth.  We can date this time to 50-51 AD.  (Paul was hailed before Galio who we know was proconsul at 50-51 A.D.)  Paul visited Corinth 2 more times after his initial visit.  There were visits by Paul’s associates and more letters of correspondence besides the 2 we recognize.  He referred to a previous letter warning the church to stay away from immoral people.  This does NOT mean withdraw from the world (which will always have immoral people) but stay away from immoral people in the church community.  We don’t have this first letter.  

31
 

Discussion: What was the “immoral behavior?”  Don’t we always think “sexual immorality?”  At least at first?  Was Jesus more concerned with sexual immorality more than financial immorality?  After all, Jesus did teach about money more than any other topic.  Has anybody been thrown out of a church by being too rich from shady business deals?  Who defines “shady?”  What about political immorality?  

The church wrote to Paul and asked about diet, sexuality, certain worship matters (spiritual gifts, etc.).  We don’t have this letter either, unfortunately. 

1 Corinthians we do have and it is authentic.  

2 Corinthians refers to a letter Paul wrote about a member of the church that was rebuked strongly.  This MAY refer to 1 Corinthians, but probably to a different lost letter.

2 Corinthians appears to be chopped into sections and may represent several letters. 

So all we know of this early church is from letters.  And only the ones that still exist.  And these letters basically are responses to problems.  No knowledge of Paul’s personal visits or of his team members’ visits to any of the cities of churches mentioned.  We know there are missing letters.   Also, these letters are fragments of 2 way conversations and we are only hearing one side of the story.  We are not ENTIRELY sure of what the Corinthians were really up to.

We do know the Corinthian church community was very involved.  They were smart, gifted, and eager to learn.  But they struggled to put what they learned into moral everyday behavior.  Dietary issues.  Rich vs poor,  What is the best “gift?”  Who is fit to teach?  Divisions created divisions.  

Some church members were for Paul, some for Peter (the chosen one), some for Apollos (an associate of Paul and a gifted speaker), and some for Christ.  (Imagine that.  Were Paul, Peter, or Apollos NOT for Christ in some way?)  Paul, himself, was reportedly not a good speaker.

Note: Apollos was a traveling preacher like Paul.  He made his own decisions and was not sent around according to Paul’s wishes like Timothy or Titus.  Much of his knowledge of the gospel came from Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:24-26), two of Paul’s converts and students.  Aquila and Priscilla were thought martyred together.  They were considered a model “Christian couple.”

Members of Chloe’s household were reporting that people were acting out.  One case was an individual in an incestual relationship yet wanted to remain in the ”table of fellowship.”   Others were having sex with prostitutes.  Of course they were, it was CORINTH after all.  SIN CITY!  This new religion is great!   Can’t I do as I please and ask for forgiveness later?  They couldn’t figure it out. 

32

Note: Chloe was a well known Christian.  Did she head a household herself without a husband?  Was there a husband in the background?  Did she have a house church that met in her home?  Did she LEAD a church herself?  Think of how our view of women in the church would be changed if that were known to be true.

To address the concerns of the Corinthians Paul first had to establish his credentials.  The church is not a club, not led by Apollos, Peter, nor Paul himself.  This is God’s church.

Everything is a gift.  All gifts are equal.  Although there were some members of wealth, the rich and well to do were the least likely to be in the church.  Don’t forget the church is the result of a crucified messiah.  Not some powerful, rich person but a person rejected by the Jews because of the crucifixion (no one is to be hung from a tree).   A crucified Jesus was certainly not what the pagan Greeks looked for in a “god.”  This Christian God doesn’t work through you by strength, but by WEAKNESS.

Paul answered them with this  message: Quit stirring up dissension.  Paul and Apollos are COLLEAGUES.  On the same team.  Paul planted, Apollos watered, but GOD provided the growth.   Paul laid the foundation, Apollos built on it, but it is GOD’S BUILDING.  Different gifts, all important.  

But Paul made the decision.  Paul is the father figure.  In that society the father decides.  The Corinthians were to listen to Paul.  

Note: Like Animal Farm?  We are all equal, but some are more equal than others?

So now that Paul has let you know who is boss, what did he say exactly?

Consider this when addressing Paul’s response.  Was there a right or wrong answer?  Paul wanted to raise them from a “who is right” to “how can you all get along” and how can you all live together in a community.  

I think it is crucial to read all of Paul’s letters with this in mind.  Are all of his positions hard and fast rules or an attempt at reconciliation so the church members can co-exist?  

Did his words help with reconciliation or create dissension?   Dissension that still exists today?

Let’s looks at the problem: Sexual Immorality Defiles the Church

1 Corinthians 5:1-8  It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.  And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

33

Note: The general consensus is this was his STEPmother, not his own biological mother, although still considered unclean, abhorrent, immoral, even by the Greek pagans.

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?  Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.  Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Church discipline MUST be enforced against sexual perversion.  The failure of the Christian Church to enforce discipline against sexual immorality in the midst has severely compromised its inner health and outward testimony.  

Discussion: Verse 2 “... put out of your fellowship this man who has been doing this.”  What is the table of fellowship?   Does that mean a member of the church?  Or a member of church leadership?  Member OK?  Leader, no?  Member, no?  Just get out!  Does this give us guidance on LGBTQ+ and membership or leadership acceptance in a church denomination such as Methodist and Presbyterian debate over inclusion?  By the way, what was the sin?  Incest or “sexual immorality?”  - recalling this was his STEPmother.  I know a man who married his wife’s stepmother after his wife passed.  A sin?  They were happy as can be.  Jewish law mandated a widow must marry her deceased husband’s brother - her brother-in-law - , preferably the eldest brother under the law of Law of Levirate marriage (or yibbum in Hebrew).  This despite the Law in Leviticus 18:6-17 warning a man NOT to have sex with his brother’s wife.  Obviously the intent is to allow the woman to carry on her husband’s name with his closest relative, his brother.  But think of the story of Herod Antipas beheading John the Baptist.  John the Baptist accused Herodias of adultery by divorcing Phillip and marrying Antipas.  Since Phillip was Antipas’ half brother would Antipas have HAD to marry her if he would have killed Phillip instead?  Perhaps some "unfortunate accident."  That’s a stretch, but a law is a law.

34

1 Corinthians 5:9-11

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—  not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.  

Discussion: Does this mean conduct everyday business with immoral people, but NOT AT YOUR CHURCH?   Does the term “eating” involve lunch break at work?  Business dinner?  Dinner with a non-believer?  Or does “eating” mean sharing the Eucharist - the Lord’s Supper?  Business dinner ok, eucharist a no-no…

1 Corinthians 5:12-13

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?  God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Paul’ words:  Incest is awful.  Kick that guy out.  Going to prostitutes is wrong, dumb and stupid.  Stop doing it.  

But the WORST thing you do?  You go to pagan courts.  You judge others, but you don’t judge yourselves.  You worry about who is worthy to teach you, but you don’t even judge yourselves.  

Discussion: Is a PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH to thin its membership of immoral people? Not just SEXUALLY IMMORAL, but the greedy, liars, slanderers, drunkards, swindlers, and cheaters.  That would explain  the empty pews…

But send who packing?   Is incest worse than sex with a prostitute?  Is sexual immorality worse than greed or running a financial scam?

Is there a hierarchy of sins?   What sin merits expulsion and what sin is covered with a prayer for forgiveness?  What does the Bible say?

Discussion:  Do these verses support a hierarchy of sin or consider all sins equal in severity?

PAUL: Romans 3:23 For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. JAMES: James 2:10 For whoever keeps the law but fails in one part is guilty of ALL of it. {or is this just the position of James’ Jewish Christian Church that still maintains its ties to its Jewish Law roots?}  

JOHN: 1 John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer…  {Hate and Murder are equivalent?}  1 John 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin but there is a sin that does not lead to death.  

PAUL AGAIN: Romans 2:11 For God shows no partiality.   

PETER: Acts 10:34  So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality.”  

35

Partiality.  Partiality about WHAT?  The SIN?  Or the SINNER?  Are we taking verses out of context here?  

I believe so.  I think Paul is saying no partiality between JEW and GENTILE, NOT big sin - little sin.  And in Acts Peter is accepting Paul’s position that Jew and Gentile are the same in the eyes of God, not the big sin - little sin thing again.  

So what did Jesus say?  JESUS:  Matthew 5:27-28  Equating adultery with lust - they are the same sin.  

If thinking about it and doing it are the SAME, would the condemnation and punishment of the sins be the same as well?  

Discussion: I hear no words of reconciliation here.  How many times were the church members to forgive the man with the prostitute and give him another chance?  70 times 7?  Or more?   Would Jesus have voiced a different opinion?  Was incest too much?  Would Jesus have given up on the partaker of the prostitute also?  Forgiveness 70X7?  He did have a pleasant conversation with that Woman at the Well, afterall.   I wonder if Jesus ever ran into the men involved with that woman and what his advice would have been to them?

Discussion: Does ONE SINNING PERSON put our ENTIRE CHURCH in a bad light?  Is sin transferable?   One bad apple and the whole basket gets sent to hell?  Is the church judged by God - or society - because its members allow a “sinner” to remain in its pews?  Is a church judged by a “sinning minister?”  Does a minister have to be perfect?  

My former church had a preacher who got more than a little physical in his counseling.  He apologized.  He confessed his sin.  He asked for forgiveness.  He wanted to stay, the leaders wanted him out.  NOW!  He was sent packing.  Were they unforgiving or just following Paul’s orders to toss him?  What would we do? 

Didn’t Groucho Marx say: “I refuse to join a club that would have me as a member.”

Discussion: Is the safety of our fellow members of concern here?  A groomer risk?  Is the incestuous man automatically a groomer?  Is even a POTENTIAL groomer a risk?  

See APSE Article: Hate Pastor Threatens to Kill Gay Pastors After Same-Sex Couple Delivers Sermon - judgment/penalty to the extreme?}  Apostle Paul Articles  page 45.

What about guns?  OK, knives at that time.  Should we accept a 24/7 open or concealed gun toter in the sanctuary?  If others develop an interest in guns because of that person is he or she a groomer?  What if the person shoots somebody?  What would Jesus think?  What would Jesus say?  What would Jesus do? 

36

 Would Jesus advocate for carrying a weapon?  Look at Jesus' advice to his disciples as he is about to be crucified in Luke 22:36-38.  If you have a purse, take it, and also a bag.  And if you don’t have a sword, take your cloak and BUY ONE!  It is written he was numbered with the transgressors, and I tell you this must be fulfilled in me…  The disciples said here are two swords.  Jesus said: THAT’s ENOUGH.  

Interpretation 1:  Jerry Falwell, Jr. explains this is Jesus telling us to be armed so we can kill Muslims before they walk in on us (at Liberty Chapel). 

Interpretation 2:  Jesus had to look like a “transgressor” so he would be arrested.  Perhaps why Peter cut the ear of Malchus, a servant of the High Priest during Jesus’ arrest.  Jesus heals the ear.  Indicating Jesus as a transgressor but also Jesus does NOT condone violence.  

Interpretation 3:  Jesus informs his disciples things will be tough out there.  You might even need a KNIFE!  When they take him seriously he does an eye roll and says 2 will be enough.  Really?  There aren’t enough knives in the world to protect Christians from persecution.  

Sadly there aren’t enough knives in the world to protect NON-CHRISTIANS from Christians, either.  

Gay persons are often accused of being groomers.  How is it determined when a person is grooming or simply supporting a person who feels lost, lonely, or confused over their sexual orientation?  

If a straight person tries to convert a gay person to heterosexuality is that considered grooming?  

Ok.  Enough already…

But wait.  One more thing.  How does this square with Jesus saying: “Judge not, lest you be judged.”  Are we to judge or not?  Should we just try to understand?  Are judgments different in a Christian court?  Different rules for a believer and a non-believer? More lenient?  More forgiving?  Less forgiving?  Are Christian attitudes towards crime more lenient or harsher?  What about capital punishment?  

Sorry.  That was more than one thing.

So another thing:  Revenge.  Just desserts.  If you are murdered, your murderer will be destroyed by God?  Does that make you feel better?  

What if someone is killed in war?  Is that different from murder? 

37

Ok, one more.  Can the person repent?  Are they allowed back in the fold?  Into leadership?  Looking at you Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart…

Ok, one MORE!  CAN A PERSON BE TOO SINFUL TO BE CHRISTIAN?  Or is the message: Don’t EVER let someone say they are TOO SINFUL to be a Christian.  They are welcomed into God’s Kingdom through the Grace of God.  

Luke 5:30b-32  “Why do you eat with tax collectors and sinners?  Jesus answered: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance.”

Luke 7:41-43  Two men owed money to a moneylender.  One owed 500 denarii, one owed fifty.  Neither of them could pay him back.  (OUT OF GRACE) he canceled their debts.  Which one of them will love him more?  

Did they have to repent BEFORE their debts (sins) were forgiven?  How big did the debt have to be before the debt couldn’t be cancelled?  

Luke 7:36-50  Jesus and the sinful woman.  A sinner will love forgiveness more than a righteous person.  GO AND SIN NO MORE.  Hey, NOBODY CAN DO THAT!  Everybody sins and will continue to sin.  What can she do?

Discussion: Is this the conclusion?  Christian - Judge not lest ye be judged.  Paulian - Judge away, it is your DUTY.

Hold on!  Paul later said: Romans 14: 10-22   You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.  It is written:  “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.  I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.  

If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.  Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil.  For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.  Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.  It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. 

38

Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.  

But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Discussion:  Is this how it works?  Circumcision?  Up to you.  Diet (kosher foods)?  Up to you.  Sexual choices?  JUDGE AWAY!!!

Paul has given some guidance on social issues, specifically touching on “immorality.”  What does he say about ethnicity and wealth?

Paul reminds the church that although they are ethically and economically a diverse congregation:

1 Corinthians 12:12-13  Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.  For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

All people are equal.  All gifts are equal.  OR ARE THEY?

1 Corinthians 12:21-25   The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”   On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty,  while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it,  so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.

Discussion:  We give special treatment, a greater honor to the parts that are weaker.  Is Paul indicating God has created the church to give greater honor to its members that lack honor outside of it?  What would that term "lack honor outside" mean?  Poverty?  Sickness?  Disability?  Poor social skills?  

Has God provided a hierarchy in the church, putting the privileged at the bottom?

Does EQUAL CONCERN FOR EACH OTHER mean the wealthy should help the needy AND the needy in return should accept those acts with appreciation and use the gifts wisely?  Would that be respecting the wealthy?   And if they don’t?  And if they CAN’T?

Discussion: Jews and Gentiles are 2 DIFFERENT RACES of people.  ALL PEOPLE are equal and to get along in the body of Christ - the church.  Was Paul also in favor if intermarriage of Jew and Gentile?  Jews were not to marry outside the faith according to many Old Testament scriptures.  Has that changed?  Is Paul still “Jewish” and following the Law?  Could or should members of the Gentile Christian churches of Paul intermarry with the Jewish Christian church members of James?

Does this reflect on intermarriage of ALL different races?   For more on interracial marriages from a conservative perspective see this article by Rev John Piper:  Should we Celebrate Interracial Marriages?   https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/should-we-celebrate-interracial-marriage

39

1 Corinthians 2:16   We have the MIND of Christ. Determining right from wrong:

In the early church Jesus was not just a moral teacher.  Jesus was much more than that.  But we should know what our moral compass is.  What should we do?  

Let’s consider 2 positions.

1) Strong - internal - individualism.  This model downplays the body and society.  What we eat and how we have sex has no meaning or consequence. 

2) Weak - the body is important.  Worship should be in order.  We want RULES.  

Paul appeals to their imagination.  It is not who is right and who is wrong.  It is how can you all get along.  Live as a community.  

Discussion: Is THIS how we perceive PAUL in the church today?  I know strong believers who wish Paul would have kept his mouth shut.  Then again, so many are glad he is in there - some because of the saved by grace message, some because Paul gives the, the ammunition and a green light to throw flaming darts at the sinners.

Paul agrees with the STRONG, ironically.  God has gifted them and God is faithful.  Assert FREEDOM as much as possible because that is what God has given you.    BUT, he also sees the corporate body as important as the individual body and thus identifies as well with the WEAK position. 

“For sex is not just physical, it is a spiritual transaction as well.”  Look not just for your OWN desires but also for the good of the community.   

Who determines what is right and what is wrong, Pastor Mike?  See APSE Article: Bibletalk.TV Forbidden Topics.   Apostle Paul Articles  pages 46 - 56.

Pastor Mike will be introduced later in this study with a discussion of his opinions and positions on many social issues from a conservative Christian perspective.   (page 59)

But then he also disagrees with both.  Quit going to pagan courts to solve problems.  He prefers ambiguity to seeking to be “right” by forsaking righteousness which leads to separation and factions in the church community.  

Note: There was nothing ambiguous about throwing the incestual man out of the church.  But he sure was correct in predicting such actions would lead to factions and splintering of churches.

We have the spirit not of the world but of God.  1 Corinthians 2:16   We have the MIND of Christ.   (One is able to give up some strength to make others look stronger, one is able to give up some wisdom to make others look wiser.)  Build up the whole community rather than self.  

40

The strong don’t become stronger by eliminating the weak, the strong become stronger by making everyone stronger.   

Unpopular then, unpopular now.   Contentious then, contentious now.  

Discussion: Does a “smart woman” have to make it appear as though her “less bright husband” came up with thoughts, ideas, concepts so they fit in better with a society that puts the male as the head of the household?  Don’t laugh.  There are churches and Christian counselors who offer just such advice.  

Any other sage advice Rev John Piper?  (Reference to Sexual Complementarity by Rev Piper. Previously introduced, Rev John Piper also provides on-line programs addressing social and moral issues from a conservative Christian perspective.)  

1 Corinthians 3:16  Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s spirit lives in you?  If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

Discussion: So if you smoke?  Alcohol abuse?  Or is it ANY alcohol use?  Obesity?  Race car driving?  Cliff diving?  Zip lining?  Are they sins?  Should you even try crossing the street?  

Personal Note: My father was persecuted by the church for years for his smoking.  No one ever thanked him for his service in WWII where GIs picked up the habit.  Was it a habit or was it a 1940’s version of treatment for PTSD?

Discussion:  Is sexual immorality a different, greater sin because it physically involves someone else?   Then again, don't most sins involve interaction with other people?  Lying.  Cheating.  Stealing.  Greed.  Violence.

Discussion:  Paul put himself in dangerous situations in his evangelism for Christianity.  He was beaten and bruised to the point of death.  He was eventually martyred.  Was he treating his body as a temple of God?  Or was he abusing his body for the ministry of God?  Is there a difference?

1 Corinthians 6:19  You were bought at a price.  Therefore honor God with your body.  

What does this mean?  No tattoos?  Proper dress?  Proper hairstyles?  No jewelry?  Tons of jewelry?  Get braces?  Bath regularly?  Who determines this stuff?

Paul encouraged his churches to stand out from the community in their love, forgiveness, and charity.  Paul also encouraged his churches to fit in with societal norms in clothing and hairstyles, to name a few.   

Discussion:  And if societal norms change?  Now what?  Short hair?  Long hair?  No tattoos?  Covered in tattoos?  Bling?  No bling?  Does Old Testament Law factor in at all?

41

Speaking of Tattoos:  Leviticus 19:28 “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.     Revelation 19:16  On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: King of kings and Lord of lords.  Did Jesus have a tattoo?

Is posing for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue honoring your body?   Dishonoring your body?  Exploiting your body?  

42

Lecture 7   1 Corinthians (cont’d) and 2 Corinthians, Philemon

Marriage (source Wikipedia)

In studying Paul, it is important to understand what marriage customs existed at the time.  Marriages were usually arranged by the parents; on occasion professional matchmakers were used. Each city was politically independent and each had its own laws concerning marriage. 

(Here are some generalizations): For the marriage to be legal, the woman's father or guardian had to give permission to a suitable man who could afford to marry. Daughters were usually married to uncles or cousins… Scholars are uncertain whether these traditions were common throughout the rest of Ancient Greece and for those in lower classes or if these records are unique to these regions and social classes… The ancient Greek legislators considered marriage to be a matter of public interest.  Marriages were intended to be monogamous. In keeping with this idea, the heroes of Homer never have more than one wife by law, though they may be depicted as living with concubines, or having sexual relationships with one or more women.  In Plato's Laws, the would-be lawgiver suggests that any man who was not married by age 35 should be punished with a loss of civil rights and with financial consequences. He proposes that when choosing a wife, men should always consider the interests of the state over their own desires. 

See APSE Article: Forced Marriage   Apostle Paul Articles   page 57.

Paul - yes, but...  It is important to put Paul’s statements in context.  In fact, Paul did the exact same thing.  His strategy was the use of “Yes, but…”  In trying to address, minimize, or solve discrepancies of cultural and religious traditions Paul would agree with a statement or his audience.  BUT, let’s look at this in a different light.  Maybe we can learn to accept each other and get along.  

Should a man marry? 

1 Corinthians 7:1  ...it is good for a man not to marry... 

Yes, it is good for an evangelist like me not to be married. If you want to dedicate your life the way I have to missions, maybe you would be better off unmarried.  BUT, there is so much immorality. You know you would probably be better off having a wife and remaining faithful to her. 

Is the concept of priest celibacy based on this verse?  Is it contradicted in the Pastoral Letters which describe a “church leader” - not A priest - as a man married to one woman?  See page 66 for more discussion on celibacy.

Yes, The man is the head of the household (CONSERVATORSHIP).  BUT... the husband had better serve his wife as Christ served the church.  Which means serving her, cleansing her, be willing to die for her.  See APSE Article: Conservatorship  Apostle Paul Articles  page 61.

43

1 Corinthians 11:3, 11  But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

(OUCH!!!). But...

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, NOR IS THE MAN INDEPENDENT OF THE WOMAN. Wow. 

But the statement is even stronger in Ephesians:

Ephesians 5:22-26  22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.  (Yes, but...)

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word.

THIS IS REALLY EARTH SHATTERING!!!  Unheard of in its day!  Women’s rights!  Not EQUAL rights exactly, but RIGHTS nonetheless.

Discussion:  So if a church promotes male only leadership and minimizes the role of women are they using Paul’s words literally and overlooking Paul’s attempt to draw Gentiles into this new religion of Christianity?  Is submission of wives to husbands a reflection of Christianity or a reflection of Greco-Roman or traditional Jewish culture?

Question:  Is this where women’s rights ends?  Are women satisfied with this societal norm?   Some women are.  Is it right for them to impose this norm on others who feel differently?  Is this a part of Christian Nationalism?  

1 Corinthians 7:12-14   To the rest I say this (Paul, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.  And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.  For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified (made HOLY, CONSECRATED) through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.  

Discussion:  So if a non-believing husband commits murder, but his wife is a believer, he is sanctified in the eyes of God because his wife is a believer?  And HE gets to decide whether to stay married or not.  And if he does, the wife MUST NOT DIVORCE HIM.  Of course, to not sound sexist, the same applies here if the roles were reversed.

44

1 Corinthians 7:15-16  NIV  But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.  How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Discussion: Divorce is JUSTIFIED?  Divorce is ok if one is not a believer and wants out?  Is spousal abuse no reason for divorce but being married to an unbeliever is a valid reason for divorce?

But WAIT!  What did Paul say?  In a culture totally dominated by MEN Paul is giving the power of a WOMAN to leave her husband IF he is a non-believer and wants out.  Totally revolutionary in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s time.  Never mind the woman would have a very difficult time providing for herself without her husband - many turned to prostitution for sustenance - she actually was given a green light to leave her husband in a specific circumstance.  What would Paul say if the husband was abusive but a believer?  And vice versa?  Or a non-believer who didn’t want to leave?  Regardless, this is a huge shift in women’s rights in Paul’s cultural environment.

Again, remember, we may be addressing ARRANGED or FORCED marriages:  See APSE Article: Forced Marriage.   Apostle Paul Articles  page 57.

For background on discussion of divorce see APSE Article: Evangelism and Apologetics Question - The Bible and Divorce.   Apostle Paul Articles  page 64.

1 Corinthians 7:17-24  If slaves have the opportunity to become free persons they should do this.  To delve into slavery let’s take a short detour into Paul’s letter to Philemon.

From Our Daily Bread University Study of Philemon - Slavery:

Although Paul hinted he would like Onesimus made a free man and even to be free to work with him personally, he did not address slavery as we (I hope all of us) would have wished.  

1) In the ancient world slavery was not the evil that we think of in the modern context.  Some were mistreated persons, but many were servants, butlers, etc. of noble people.  (Perhaps in some of Paul’s specific circumstances, but certainly not the norm throughout The Roman Empire.   The treatment of slaves in Jesus’ time in Israel was reported to be very harsh.)  

2)  Slavery was not a product of racism. More the subjugation of conquered territories.  (Areas were conquered.  Land and material goods absconded.  And the conquered people were made slaves.  Some with good servant jobs, most were expendable - builders of the Roman Empire.  The option to slavery was simple: death.  Other slaves were subjugated due to inability to pay excessive taxes or debt repayments.)   

3)  Christianity had no power at that point to be any force to radically change the social norms.  (Would this new religion grow if it disrupted the whole economic and social norms of the day?  Maybe it should have?)  

45

Discussion: Because the new religion, Christianity, was in no position to speak out on slavery in the times of Paul can we apply his thinking and words to chattel slavery of the 18th and 19th century times of the United States?  Or any other time in history, for that matter.

4)  Paul’s concern was more about inward spiritual liberation than outward slave liberation. 

5)  Paul did say in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24  if slaves have the opportunity to become free persons they should do this.  According to history Onesimus was freed and made a leader in the church.  (True history or what we hoped happened?)

Note: Jesus’ take on the economic conditions and social justice was FAR DIFFERENT than that of Paul, perhaps a result of Jesus growing up as a poor Jew and Paul being a ROMAN CITIZEN (with presumed wealth) as well as being a Jew.  Reading the gospels closely one can see Jesus was deeply concerned with the oppressed.  

He (Jesus) would NEVER be an advocate for slavery and NEVER state the positions that Paul has put forth (the opinion of ODB - I agree).  

For further information on Slavery see APSE Article: Slavery and the Bible: Does the Christian faith condone slavery?   Apostle Paul Articles page 95.

For more information on slavery in the Roman Empire see APSE Article: The Invisible Romans by Guy de la Bedoyere.  Also See APSE Article: Trapped in Servitude - Ancient Greek Slavery.

Apostle Paul Articles  page 66 and page 70.

1 Corinthians 7:25-28  Virgins

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.  Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.  Are you pledged to a woman?  (Not in love, not engaged.  PLEDGED.)  Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.  But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Virgins, stay virgins, BECAUSE OF THE PRESENT CRISIS.  

What crisis is that?  Persecution?   The disciples were married and they were persecuted.  Christians were and will always be persecuted, so will every other religion.  It’s part of the deal.   Married, stay married.  Unmarried?  Don’t get married.  You will face too many troubles in life.  

Discussion: Does verse 29 provide an answer?  What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not.  Don’t bother having children because they won’t be around long?  Paul seems to be saying forget your life.  Jesus is returning SOON - next week, next month? - and everything will be different.  If not, Nero’s gonna get you anyways.  Fatalistic?  Is that why Jesus died on the cross?  For this?

46

Non-virgins.  What about them?  Damaged goods?  They don’t count?  Expendable?

I’m betting a young lady (girl?) would be in MORE trouble in Paul’s Greco-Roman society if she denied her role in society - marriage and producing babies - than if she got married.  

Discussion: How many cults have adopted these verses verbatim?  Celibate communities.  Perhaps this position was embraced in Paul’s time especially by women locked into arranged marriages for production of offspring.  Is it relevant today?  Did Paul change his mind in later epistles?

1 Corinthians 7:32-34  CELIBACY and CELIBACY AND THE PRIESTHOOD  (From various reference sources including from Dr. Johnson’s lectures.)

This is an interesting question to answer, as the Bible does not even teach that there are to be “priests” in the New Covenant established by Christ. The Bible addresses the celibacy of church leaders, but not celibacy of priests.

In regards to celibacy of church leaders, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, the apostle Paul teaches, “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs — about how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world — how he can please his wife — and his interests are divided” (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). In some instances, celibacy has a positive impact on ministry. If a church leader is free from spousal and familial responsibilities, he can better focus on ministering to others. Jesus mentions some church leaders becoming “eunuchs” for the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:12). Celibacy is definitely allowed for church leaders, and to a certain degree, it is encouraged. However, Scripture nowhere requires celibacy for those serving in positions of church leadership.  (Dr. Johnson’s position)

In 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, the Apostle Paul seems to assume that elders, bishops, overseers, and deacons would be married. Notice the phrases “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6), “he must manage his own family well” (1 Timothy 3:4,12), and “his children obey him with proper respect” (1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6).  (And if they don’t, Reverend Hale?  A reference to an acquaintance at Burton Baptist Bible Camp.  His daughter was a friend.  Her zest for life didn’t exactly fit the “Baptist mold.”  Should he have had to resign?)

While these Scriptures are not a requirement for church leaders to be married, they most definitely present an allowance for church leaders to be married. It is therefore anti-biblical for any church to require celibacy of its leaders. (Again, lecturer’s opinion)

Why, then, does the Roman Catholic Church (and a few other Christian denominations) require celibacy of priests /church leaders? The celibacy of priests has an interesting history. The first official church statements requiring celibacy appeared at the Councils of Elvira (A.D. 306) and Carthage (A.D. 390), although clerical celibacy, to a lesser degree, definitely predated these councils. Ultimately, though, celibacy became the official requirement of the Roman Catholic Church due to the practice of nepotism. Church leaders were giving their children positions in the church, despite a lack of any qualifications or training. Further, church leaders were giving church property to their descendants. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church mandated celibacy in order to keep its priests from having familial attachments which made nepotism attractive. (Various sources.)

47

What did the Old Testament say?  Leviticus 21:13  Rules for priests.  Marriage was OK but it had better be a virgin.  

Paul adds more.  1 Corinthians 9:3-5   This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me.  Don’t we have the right to food and drink?  Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 7:39  A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.  But if her husband dies she is free to marry anyone she wishes BUT… HE MUST BELONG TO THE LORD.  

Discussion: Paul sounds anti-woman but he was actually pretty progressive at the time in giving women any rights at all.  A husband was to treat his (possibly or probably arranged) wife with love and respect.  But if he doesn’t?  Let the beating begin?  Bound unless a desperate woman murders her husband?  This is written for 1st century Greek society.  We are not there anymore.  Should we be?

1 Corinthians 8  Eating food sacrificed to idols was no big deal since idols were man-made items and of no significance.  Nothing happens to the food.  It is still just food.  So eat it if you want, but if it bothers you and makes you turn from God then avoid it.  

Discussion: This certainly sounds like common sense positions to 1) blend belief in Christ with a different culture - anything can we learn from this?, and 2) provide a wider diet of food for poorer members of the church community.

I Corinthians 11:3  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 

Is this to be taken literally or an allegory of the man representing God and the woman representing the church?

1 Corinthians 11:2-16    Wearing head coverings and hair length.   Three possible issues involved in the customs of the day..

1.  Does this reference about hair styles indicate that the blurring of differences between the genders is a sin?  Is this merely a recommendation of Paul to have the church of Corinth not buck the norms of Corinth at that time?  

Given Corinth’s reputation as a den of sin I would think they would want to be different.  Known as “sin city,” Corinth was influenced by the goddess Aphrodite and included temple prostitution as well as public prostitution.

48

2.   A second possibility is the interpretation proffered by the Church of Christ’s Pastor Mike Mazzalongo.  (More material from Pastor Mazzalongo is presented in Life and Righteousness - Romans later in this study.)  When Paul talks about the wearing of veils in I Corinthians, for example, he is addressing a problem in the church about continuing this tradition. Some women wanted to do away with the wearing of veils (which signified that this woman was in subjection to her father or husband). Women who became Christians felt that their freedom in Christ also freed them of all social conventions, especially those which were a burden. However, in doing so they were getting ahead of social norms too quickly (in that culture, a woman without a veil in public was seen as immoral. The net result of doing away with this cultural symbol before its time, therefore, was to create scandal and confusion.

Paul teaches that the true meaning of modesty is not being too far ahead or behind social conventions so as to draw attention to oneself in how we dress or act. He wasn't making a new rule about the wearing of veils but rather teaching the church concerning the way it dealt with social customs without creating a negative opinion about people of faith. We know that the wearing of veils and its meaning eventually changed and the church's customs about these things changed with the times. The church could do this because this matter was guided by human opinion and custom and not instructions or commands from the Bible.

3.  A third possibility references the rampant sexual immorality of the times – the orgies, the desire for young boys, the nakedness of athletics.   

Author Sarah Ruden’s interpretation of the head coverings issue addresses the distinction of married vs. unmarried women, and the connotations associated with unmarried women at the time.  With no means of support society tended to consider all older unmarried women as prostitutes.  How else could they support themselves?  By promoting ALL women to wear head coverings there would be no distinction and therefore no judgment between married and unmarried women.  

If so, this speaks of a Paul who progressively supported women’s rights.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 - Women are to remain silent in the church.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.  Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.  (What law is THAT?  Jewish Law?  Church Law?  Greco-Roman Law?  Paul’s Law?  Man’s Law?)  If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

From: Bible.org  Robert L. (Bob) Deffinbaugh Dallas Theological Seminary.  

The Old Testament evidence is beyond dispute: God distinguished between males and females on the basis of gender alone. This mountain of evidence sufficiently explains Paul’s concluding words in 1 Corinthians 14:

Paul teaches that women are to remain silent in the church. We know that this means women cannot teach the men, and that they are not even to ask a question. But what does it mean to be “silent”? Some may conclude that this means absolute silence. Thus, a woman could not even sing with the congregation, or lean over to tell one of her children to be quiet. We have drawn the line elsewhere. We believe that the woman’s silence is directly related to the leadership and authority of men in the church. Thus, we believe that a woman should not “lead in prayer,” “teach the congregation,” or exercise authority when the church is gathered.

49

Do all the same rules apply in the home or when a ministry group meets? Some might think so. We don’t allow women to teach men, even in small groups and in the context of the home. We do allow women to share observations and to ask questions in these smaller and less formal settings. Could our “lines” be challenged? No doubt.  But wherever we do draw the line someone is sure to disagree.

To press on, we know that Paul has forbidden women to teach men. But we also know that women can teach their children in the context of the home.  Can a woman teach a Sunday school class? We believe so, but we draw the line at the junior high level. Women can teach children, and they can teach women, but we don’t allow them to teach young men. Where these lines are to be drawn is somewhat arbitrary. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and so we try to make these distinctions wisely, realizing that others may draw them elsewhere.

Discussion:  Is this a proper interpretation and implementation of Paul’s words?  What are your thoughts?  Would you want to belong to this church?  

What are the odds these interpretations and rules were made up by a panel of MEN?

1 Corinthians 15  Paul discusses end times - 

The resurrection and change to spiritual life at Christ's return are a mystery.

"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

This is a different answer than Paul gives in the earlier penned epistle 1 Thessalonians.   Take a look:

The Thessalonians are waiting for the end times, they have nothing yet.  The Corinthians are the opposite.  They think they have it ALL ALREADY!   Paul mocks them.  You can’t be on a throne.  You only have the FIRST FRUITS of God’s kingdom.  Christ’s resurrection.  God’s triumph is not yet complete.

In order for God to triumph over sin and death they (and WE) must undergo a moral transformation.  We will not all fall asleep before Jesus comes but we all must be changed.  A moral transformation.   Verses 20-28 describe Jesus’ return and dominion until all the world is “under his feet (Psalm 8:6).”   

Note: Still, doesn’t it appear as though Jesus’ return and the beginning of his reign will occur before some of them “fall asleep?”  Paul still thinks Jesus’ return is imminent?  At what point does he begin to suspect he may be wrong in his thinking?

50

Lecture 8: Life in Christ - 2 Corinthians  (Thought written 55-58 A.D.)      

Paul’s letters are complex, precisely written, and meant to be read OUT LOUD.

Paul’s 2nd letter to the Corinthians addresses more misunderstanding and alienation.  Paul revisits “the mind of Christ.”

The spirit is not of rivalry, but of the mind of Christ.  If so, then reconciliation is the goal.

The letter is authentic, but was it a single letter or a collection of several letters?  It doesn’t flow well.   It seems to be a collection of notes put together as best as the historians could do.  Is it possible some of 2 Corinthians were part of the “lost letters?”

Paul is trying to reconcile Jew and Gentile churches.  How?  THROUGH A MASSIVE COLLECTION OF MONEY.  His Gentile community wants nothing  to do with this reconciliation. 

(The hypothesis is the Gentile church was composed of wealthier Greco/Roman citizens than the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.  Recall the poverty of the Jewish citizens in Jesus’ time.  Things hadn’t gotten much better.)

The issue:  The Jewish community was poor.  But the Gentile church was beholden to the Jerusalem church since it is where Christianity started. Jerusalem was the “mother church.”  Paul wanted Gentile money sent to bolster Jewish churches.  They deserved it.  Paul’s mission was ironically opposed by Jewish churches when he reached out to Gentiles.  There were cultural differences.  And there was ANTI-SEMITISM (long before the Christian community “perfected it…”).  Paul sought Jew-Gentile harmony - a difficult undertaking.  

Discussion:  Have you ever been skeptical of Paul receiving this “VISION” of taking the grace of Jesus Christ beyond the Jews to the Gentiles?  Well so was I.  Wasn’t Peter “the Rock” upon which the church would be built?   Was God’s master plan changed to Paul instead?  

See APSE Article: What did Jesus Mean by “Upon this rock I will build my church” in Matthew 16:18?   Apostle Paul Articles  page 72.

I have become far more sympathetic to Paul and the work he did.  Something powerful had to come over this man to try to meld a common bond to these two very different groups of people:  The Gentiles and the Jews.  Paul was BOTH.  He saw the possibility of WORLD PEACE through Jesus Christ.  Responding to the words of Rodney King: Can’t we all just get along?  Yes.  Yes we can.  

For his effort Paul was attacked by the Jews: Acts 13-15 the Jews follow him around on his travels and incite crowds to violence against him.  Acts 21 While visiting Jerusalem during a Passover, Jews from Asia perceived Paul’s teachings as a direct attack on the Jewish people, the LAW, and the temple - he brought an uncircumcised Gentile into the Holy Place!  Horrors!  That is punishable by DEATH that is backed up by ROMAN LAW!  Seems the temple leaders and the Roman rulers are still in cahoots - just what Jesus railed about.

51

But it was no easier on the other side. 

Jewish Christians were wary of the wealthier Greco/Romans.  Because they were “shrewder?”  Had they treated Jews poorly and unfairly over the years (YES!), a part of why they were wealthier?  Did they have a history of taxing them to death?  (YES!)  Or did the Greco/Romans have more money because they were greedy and did not give money to or support the poor.  Jewish Law always had a portion of the tithe set aside for the poor, although its use was certainly suspect in Jesus’ time.  Did Greco-Romans support the poor?

Discussion:  Could this possibly be analogous to the Civil Rights struggle?  Did “whites” have an obligation to help the freed “black” slaves who had worked for years as slave labor to build the country?   Has the payment been sufficient?  Has the debt been repaid?  Time to stop?  Then again, did it ever start?  Should it have?

Discussion:  In a similar vein, is it time for Christian churches and/or countries to stop supporting the Jewish people who started the first Christian churches?  Should we support the Jewish people?  We certainly spent enough time persecuting them…  What about Gaza?

Here’s a thought: Did Paul think the Jerusalem church could be bought off?  If the Jewish churches recognized Gentile churches, Paul would then financially support the Jewish Jerusalem church.  

(Remember in the beginning of this study Paul was accused of being a “faker” and questioned on his proper handling and/or distribution of money.  Alas, money is always a sticky issue…)

2 chapters involve this collection idea.  8 and 9 point out the Corinthians were making a HUGE contribution, but Philippi and Thessalonica lagged.  Just as THEY kicked in the Corinthians reneged on their pledge.  Paul embarrassingly asked Corinth to resume.  

The Corinthians accepted Paul and resumed their giving.  All three churches ended up contributing to the Jerusalem church.  

Paul wasn’t always the preferred teacher for Corinth.

1.  They thought Paul to be a bit high-handed.  He tried to FORCE their obedience.  He demanded the excommunication of the incestual member.  

52

Discussion:  Is reconciliation achieved by tossing someone out the door - excommunication - because of one’s behaviors?  What other behaviors deserve excommunication?  Who determines what those behaviors are?  Paul wants behaviors that do not upset the common good.  Who determines that?  Is it sufficient to say: “Just use common sense”?

2.  Paul was considered unreliable, maybe even FRAUDULENT in his financial dealings.  Paul taught for free - but he didn’t need to - in fact he should have been paid.  Well, in fact, he WAS paid.   The Philippian church WAS supporting him on the side.  When Paul sent via Titus the BIG collection to Jerusalem he was accused of profiting - FRAUD.  Paul denied this accusation in 2 Corinthians 12:17-18  Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent to you?  I urged Titus to go to you and I sent our brother with him. Titus did not exploit you, did he? Did we not walk in the same footsteps by the same Spirit?. 

3.  Some in Corinth preferred other apostles who had a different message.  In 2 Corinthians 11:1-6 Paul talks about the “super apostles.”  They did miraculous signs and acts.  They touted their suffering for the church.  They were more entertaining, I guess.  And they wanted to be paid.  Up front.  (Televangelists long before TV?)  This scenario was better understood by Greco/Romans than Paul and Peter’s attitude.  Philosophers/Teachers admitted students to the schools.  Payment was up front.  Payment expected, payment demanded, payment made.  Paul and Peter et. al. were suspect because they were so laissez faire, pay us when you can.  It smelled of fraud and deceit to this audience.  Quite a paradox.  But like everything, money lies at the heart of the whole mess.

Paul addressed this by comparing his life to the life and morals of Jesus.  The message is so glorious but it is communicated through weak and humble servants.  

Paul compared himself to these “super apostles.”  Paul is weak, but weakness is the vessel by which God’s work gets done.  The Son of God was crucified and provided salvation to the world - past, present, and future.  Quite a feat for “weakness.”

Discussion:  Can we compare these “super apostles” to the mega church preachers of today?  Do we teach weakness and humbleness or the “prosperity gospel.”  Should ministers strive for wealth or take a vow of poverty?  Who should we compare to?  Jesus?  Paul?  Peter?  Super Apostles?

Paul urged the Corinthians to join the reconciliation by sharing their wealth with the Jerusalem church.  That is the reconciliation of the ministry of Jesus who gave ALL for others.  If two factions are apart, one is poor and one is wealthy, it is the WEALTHY one who has the ability to reconcile.  That is what Jesus did.  He (without sin) gave all for those who had NOTHING (fully sinful).  Jesus said I will become poor so that YOU may become rich.  

Share your wealth by engaging in reconciliation.  The Corinthians received God via the Jerusalem church, in return they should support the Jerusalem church by their financial gifts.  

53

Discussion: Is this a model we should be using today for church growth?  Do you see any problems that might arise from such an arrangement?

One last topic from 2 Corinthians:

Should a man marry an unbeliever? 

2 Corinthians 6:14  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.  For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?  Or what fellowship has light with darkness?  

(Personal note:  My cousins never approved of my mother’s marriage to my father.  And they let me know it.  Dad had no exposure to religion in his youth.  His main focus was trying to have some food in his stomach.   He accompanied my mom to church often.  But no public confession.  No baptism.  Certainly not in the club by their definition.  So THIS is where their comment came from.  Huh.  Love and compassion at its finest.)

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 quoting 2 Samuel 7:14; 7:8  Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.  Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”  And, “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”

Discussion: So a non-believer is “unclean?”  I will be your Father and you will be my sons and daughters.  But not if you marry an unbeliever.  Is Paul trying to placate someone here?  Jews, by quoting 2 Samuel and referencing a Jewish scripture?  Is he trying to play matchmaker?  Thinking a couple where BOTH believe has a better chance of staying faithful to a church than a couple where only ONE believes? 

54

Lecture 9:  Life and Law - Galatians

This epistle is Paul’s most embattled and his boldest defense of his ministry.  This book shapes Christianity for the west, influencing Augustine and Luther.

He defends his words as “the truth.”  He calls Peter a hypocrite.  He calls the Galatians you “stupid people.”   Have they been bewitched?

Does a Christian have to follow Jewish law?  

Circumcision?  Really?  For a 70 year old convert?  He has to go through that for salvation?  Didn’t Jesus die for that?

Galatians 5:2  I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.  

In other words, if you think you become righteous by one little cut of the knife you are wrong.

Galatians 5:12  As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!  

You demand circumcision to be a Christian?  Let the knife slip and cut the whole thing off! 

Paul is no longer himself but “Christ living in him.”  He bears the marks of Jesus in him. 

The church leaders want to be under “the (Jewish) law?”  Fine.  In chapters 3 and 4 Paul said let me show you how the law works.  Paul showed he knew his Torah.  Do you REALLY want to be buried under that?  

Note:  Paul had lived under “the law.”  It was restricting.  Cumbersome.  Judgmental.  Who wants to live like that when belief and trust in Jesus is SO much easier?   Although Paul, when Saul, said living under these laws “was a pure JOY!”    When did it become anything but “pure JOY?”

Discussion:  In the beginning of this class (page 5) we were given this statement: Paul was missionary to the Gentiles, not the Jews.  But he, personally, remained a Jew.  A Pharisaic Jew at that.  Did he remain solely a Jew?  Did he keep “the Law?”  A Jew who believed in Christ?  Does that make Paul a Christian?  Is he BOTH Jew and Christian?  Are Jews today who believe in Jesus still Jewish?  Are they Christian?  Are they BOTH?  Are they Jewish by belief in God or Jewish by heritage or by “genetics?”

Many things are not known about Galatians.  What area of Galatia?  It's a BIG area.  When was it written?  How many churches was it written to?  Was it a letter that was passed around? (Probably)  Paul started these churches.  They were on good terms.  They experienced miraculous events.  They were baptized into the word.  Something happened?   What was it?

55

We DO know someone decided Christian men MUST be circumcised (a PART given for the whole - an act of initiation into the faith).  

Greco/Romans were used to and comfortable with the need for INITIATIONS.  Perhaps they expected or WANTED an initiation act.  Hey, what’s the big deal?  PAUL was circumcised, why shouldn’t THEY have the same “mark?”  Didn’t circumcision mark the Jewish male as the PINNACLE of society?  Was Paul telling them they weren’t “good enough” to be part of the “elite?”

So some church members were undergoing the act of circumcision.  

Was this for a religious meaning or for a STATUS symbol.  Were they saying Jesus (or Baptism) was not enough, we need the mark of circumcision as well?  

3 LESSONS From Galatians

1.  Jesus was not just a JEWISH Messiah.  He is Messiah for ALL - circumcised and uncircumcised.  

2.  If they want to follow Torah, then Jesus is not the Messiah, because the Torah states “cursed is everyone hung on a tree,” and Jesus was hung on a tree.  It's a choice: Torah or Jesus.  Jesus fulfilled “Torah.”  There is a new way.  Jesus.  The Christians’ faith in Jesus’ faith IN GOD is what puts one right with God.  Torah is secondary to Jesus.

Discussion: That lingering question.  Paul DID remain a Jew.  So he accepts Jesus CHANGED this part of the Torah about “hung on a tree.”  What else did Jesus change?  Dietary rules?  Social rules?  Cleanliness rules?  Sexual behaviors?  Who decides how we pick and choose from “the Law?”

3.  Seeking higher status through circumcision upsets the equality of Christians.  A circumcised MALE is better than an uncircumcised MALE, and DEFINITELY MALE above FEMALE (who obviously cannot be circumcised).  Under God there is NO hierarchy, there is no male nor female, no slave nor free, etc…  So if you think being circumcised makes you better than someone else IN GOD’S EYES?  It is not true. 

And if you think Paul was anti-woman, read this 3rd lesson again.

Galatians 4:21-31  A VERY IMPORTANT ALLEGORY.  PAUL EXPLAINS THE SEPARATE PATHS OF ISAAC AND ISHMAEL

CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS – CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

  Paul explains the two covenants – one from Hagar who represents Israel under bondage and her son Ishmael who mocked Isaac.  Hagar and Ishmael represent “Jerusalem under bondage – as slaves – because THEY WERE OF THE FLESH, NOT OF FAITH IN GOD.  The other covenant is represented by Sarah and her son Isaac.  Isaac was blessed by God because he was the product of FAITH IN GOD, NOT FAITH IN THE FLESH.  Sarah eventually wanted rid of Hagar and Ishmael because of Hagar’s ungraciousness, with Ishmael mocking Isaac as the final straw.  THIS REPRESENTS THE JEWS MOCKING AND REJECTING JESUS, AND HENCE, THE DISCONTINUATION OF THE OLD COVENANT (OF MT SINAI) AND THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW COVENANT UNDER JESUS CHRIST.  

56

Discussion: Ishmael represents the JEWS rejecting Jesus?  Doesn’t Ishmael represent the lineage of today’s Arab peoples? (See below)  Paul appears to be equating the Jerusalem that crucified Christ with the cursed slave descendants of Hagar.  The New Jerusalem under Christ gives you freedom.  You were slaves to Sadducees and Pharisees of the temple.  You now have freedom in Christ.  That is quite a statement.  

Sarah represents the NEW JERUSALEM.  The product of faith in God.  Spiritually speaking, Sarah is the mother of all Christians, of people who are not merely the product of human resources, but of the supernatural work of God in their hearts.  

Isaac of course is the representative of Israel. 

Galatians 4:30-31 “Get rid of the slave woman (Hagar) and her son (Ishmael), for the slave woman’s son will NEVER SHARE in the inheritance with the free woman’s son (Isaac).”  Therefore, we ARE NOT children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Note: Historically Islam promotes Ishmael as the good guy, the prophet, mentioned in the Qu’ran but expounded in other teachings.   

Surah  (5:21) My people! Enter the holy land which Allah has ordained for you; and do not turn back for then you will turn about losers.  (This signifies Palestine which had been the homeland of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.)

Discussion: Can there be, will there ever be peace in Israel?  

57

Lecture 9: Life and Righteousness - Romans

Perhaps this is Paul’s LAST letter, although listed FIRST in the New Testament.  In chapter 15 Paul was planning a mission to the WEST, Spain.  (There is no confirmation nor any evidence that he actually got there, but maybe?)  He had been as far EAST as Yugoslavia, founding churches.  He needed money to do this.  

His mission to date addressed the issues in Corinth (diversity in practice), and Galatia  (Christ and Torah).  Both of these are covered in Romans.  Paul is not CORRECTING the Romans, but persuading the Romans to support his new mission.  

The Book of Romans has been divided into Doctrine (chapters 1-11) and Ethics (chapters 12-15).  Many of Paul’s favorite themes are missing in Romans. 

Romans has had a strong influence on several Christian scholars.  Martin Luther focused on chapters 1-8, the struggle between sin and faith.  Luther paid no attention to chapters 9-11.  They talked about Jews and Gentiles, and Luther was an anti-semite.  John Calvin DID use 9-11 because they discuss predestination, one of Calvin’s main focuses.

Paul used an interlocutor, asked rhetorical questions, and gave terse answers.  Should one do…   Absolutely NOT…  

Paul offered a thesis, then offered and anti-thesis, then discussed the arguments.  

Romans 1  I am not ashamed of the good news.  It is revealed first to the Jew, then the Greek.  

The righteous person will live OUT OF FAITH.  

If the Gentiles have this good news, what about the Jews?  Has God failed?  This is dealt with in 9-11.  

Discussion:  I like the wording: I am not ashamed OF THE GOSPEL.  The GOSPEL being the saved by grace part through Jesus’ death and RESURRECTION, NOT JUST Jesus’ message of love your neighbor as yourself.  So Paul is PROUD to represent this version of Christianity and not the gnostic version of “saved by special secret knowledge.”  How comfortable are you when discussing the Gospel?  Ashamed?  Proud?

Romans Chapter 1  Does Paul CONDEMN homosexuality?   Homosexuality is NOT the THEME of Chapter 1, but many people cannot get past it.  It is but one of several illustrations of the issue.  Why do we focus on that and not the other “sins'' listed therein?  There are plenty to choose from. 

Discussion:  Is homosexuality the cop out?  It's the worst, so as long as we persecute THEM, then the other sins listed can be overlooked.  “We ALL do some or all of the other sins, but we don’t do the BIGGIE!”  See APSE Article: Is There a Christian Litmus Test?  

Apostle Paul Articles  page 74.

58

Let’s first put homosexuality in the context of Paul’s world - a collision of Greek and Roman cultures and ancient Jewish Law.  Jewish Laws that were addressed (modified?) by Jesus - the Sabbath,  Honor thy parents, other conflicts in the Law, and some that were modified by Paul - diet, circumcision.  Paul was trying to mesh Jewish Law on “lying with the same sex” and his new audience, the Gentiles - Greeks and Romans.  See APSE Article: Homosexuality in Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman Cultures.  Apostle Paul Articles  page 75.  

Romans 1:28-32  Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,  slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;  they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.  Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve DEATH, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. 

Discussion:  Depravity?  What does depravity include?  Lying?  Stealing? Deceit?  Or have we been trained to go straight to sexual acts?  Specifically homosexuality.  For now let’s assume it is.  Is the depravity the same sex love and relationship or just the sexual acts?  Do they deserve death?  Are you obligated to kill them?  Are we sinners if we do not kill them?  

How many people go straight to sexual behaviors and miss the other sins listed here?  Do thieves deserve death?  Slanderers?  God-haters?  

See APSE Article: Homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity.   Apostle Paul Articles  page 76 -86.

Discussion:  Do homosexuals consider their lifestyles a sin?  Do “adulterers?”  If you marry a divorced person you are an adulterer (Matthew 5:32).  Jesus said ask for forgiveness and “go and sin no more (John 8:11).”   Should the “adulterers” get divorced?  Do they keep sinning if they don’t?  Should they be removed from the church? 

Discussion:  What is the SIN of homosexuality?  The relationship of a same sex couple or the sexual acts themselves (THE PARTS DON’T FIT PHILOSOPHY)?  Is the act NOT sinful if performed by a same-sex couple?  

59

Ponder this:  80-85% of Americans have engaged in some form of oral sex.  80+% find it pleasurable.  73.5% find it “fun.”  About 21% find oral sex “dirty,” gross, or shameful.   Are they all sinners, including the Chrsitians who, according to the math, are engaging in oral sex as well?  

As far as anal sex, 40% of Americans have tried anal sex at least once (43% of men and 37% of women).  And it is rising among heterosexual couples ages 16 to 24 years of age, from 12.8% to 28.5% in a 2022 publication.  Heterosexual couples where the parts do fit.  For what reason?  Pleasure?  Experimentation?  Curiosity?  A show of “commitment” (if you REALLY love me then…)?  Low self esteem?  Non-consensual sex?  

By these acts are these individuals out of the club?  Condemned to hell?  Not                                   welcomed in your church?

The following are discussion topics from online classes and forums provided by the Church of Christ under the banner Bibletalk.tv.  The presenter is Pastor Mike Mazzalongo.  (Notes from the complete online presentation are found in the Referenced Articles for The Apostle Paul Study.)

Apostle Paul Articles  pages 45-56.

Bibletalk.tv  The conservative Christian’s conservative - Pastor Mike Mazzalongo.  

Liberal free speech advocates argue: If you make pornography illegal where will it end?  You will stop my free speech.  

Pastor Mike says: That is ridiculous.  For porn, anyway.  Pornography is a psychological narcotic.  It is addictive.  It must be made illegal.  It won’t snowball against free speech. 

How it (pornography) is defined is still to be determined.  But it won’t snowball.  

It seems that is not the case for gun control, though.  You take away an AK-47 next you will be coming for my BB gun.  Where will it end?  

And it seems the same for abortion as well.  30 weeks, no 20 weeks, no 15 weeks, no 6 weeks, exception for incest, exception for rape, save the life of the mother, no…  forget it.  NO ABORTION.  PERIOD.  End of discussion.  

So some things declared illegal will lead us down a slippery slope, others will not.  

Pastor Mike says: There is no limit to the creativity that occurs in the marital relationship.  

Huh?  Like doing WHAT?  Like sex for pleasure?  Like certain sex acts that do not involve procreation?  Like certain things homosexuals would do?  That God has given sex such pleasure that you can explore what you want?  

Seems so.  As long as you are married… and heterosexual.

In the Old Testament God wanted ENTIRE PEOPLES to be wiped out because they were unholy and would pollute the Israelite people.  They did sex acts and unholy acts.  In Old Testament times there WERE LIMITS?  Or were they in unmarried homosexual acts?  Do we need to look closer at the shenanigans of Kings David and Solomon?  Weren’t they some of  God’s most favored kings of Israel?

60

Pastor Mike cites an Old Testament lesson.  The only sexual fantasy should be for your marriage partner.  God says ENJOY YOURSELVES!!!!  “Let her breasts satisfy you AT ALL TIMES!!!”  Be completely satisfied with your wife, and in turn each wife should be satisfied the same.  Communicate!  What do you want?   

For 5 minutes Pastor Mike put NOTHING in the sex world off limits as long as it is with your spouse.

(So much for homosexuality being a sin because you cannot procreate…)

While we are at it, let's try transexuals…

Transexual - Bibletalk.tv having sport with Rachel Levine, a transsexual doctor from Pennsylvania.  Pastor Mike says:  The speaker is not a woman.  He does not act like a woman.  He cannot feel like a woman.  He also cannot understand there are people who do NOT feel that way.  He is pre-wired to be a man.  But God does not pre-wire you to be a woman in a man’s body.  So there.  

Nor does he prewire you to be gay, evidently.  

Note: This prewired theory is used a lot.  I find it inconsistent.  Statements in 2 courses provided by Dallas Theological Seminary give different examples.  

1. Dr. Mark Yarborough   “I need to get outdoors sometimes to be with God – IT’S JUST THE WAY I AM WIRED.”  2.  Dr. Tom Constable worked as a counselor at a summer Bible camp and wanted to continue that position so he could counsel the campers.  The staff kept giving him administrative positions.  He was told because they recognized his ADMINISTRATIVE GIFTS from God.  He had to accept that HE WAS HARDWIRED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATOR. 

So evidently it is possible to be prewired or hardwired for many things - homosexuality or transexuality just aren’t two of them.

There is more:

Every cell in your body has been stamped with the code “male” or “female” and that is how you will be judged.  God will judge you according to how he made you.  Woe to those who try to change that.  He will judge your soul on how you respond to faith in Christ.  You can come to Him no matter how lost and broken you are and He will ALWAYS receive you.  

WAIT.  You just said God will receive you even if broken.  Does living a life as a transexual change a person?   I assume that makes one “broken.”  And that person will be received.  By God.  As in loved?  Accepted?  Judged?  Sent to hell?  Gehenna?   

What if we find a genetic code that identifies a link to LGBTQ behavior?  There is a genetic code for male and female.  That is set in stone.  IF there is a genetic code for “gayness” is that set in stone too?  Will it make a difference?  An XX for female and XY for male is a code given by God.  Would a “genetic sequence” that is associated with gayness be a code given by sin?  Or was it given by God too?

If LGBTQ behavior is a “mental illness,” a deviant behavior, are all other mental illnesses that result in deviant behavior unforgivable sins for people?

61

It was stated: God will always receive them.   If God will always receive them, are WE allowed to abandon these people?

Discussion:  Some data.

Every 73 seconds another American is sexually assaulted. On average, there are 433,648 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year in the United States. 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted).

What percent of girls are sexually assaulted in college?

Approximately one in five women and one in 16 men are sexually assaulted while attending college, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

RAPE

15% of all college girls are raped in their freshman year, 98% are by heterosexual men.

34% of people that sexually abuse children are their heterosexual male family members.

19,000 rape cases reported by the Army yearly.

What percentage of girls are sexually assaulted before 18?

One in 9 girls and 1 in 20 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault. 82% of all victims under 18 are female. Females ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

What is the relationship between homosexuality and rape/sexual abuse?

80%+ of rape of boys is by straight males.  Most were married and most had children of their own.

It is NOT that the abuse is BY the homosexual; it is the rate of homosexuality of the abused that is evident.

In one study 42% of sex abuse LGBTQ students reported being sexually abused vs. 21% of heterosexual students.  (Sex abuse leads to LGBTQ identification?)

In addition: there are 0 - zero, none -  cases of transgender women assaulting girls in public bathrooms.

ARE WE MISDIRECTING OUR OUTRAGE?

62

Romans Chapter 8  I want to do what the law says but I CAN’T do what the law says.  

Paul, in chapter 8, says because of the POWER OF THE SPIRIT we CAN do what the law says.  Context is ALWAYS fundamental in reading Paul (why sometimes Paul seems to contradict himself).  

Discussion: Is this circular logic?  I can’t do what the law says so we need Jesus.   Jesus sent the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49).  With the help of the Holy Spirit we now CAN obey the law.  So should we again have to obey the law - knowing full well we still can’t?  We are guided by the Holy Spirit and can pray for forgiveness.  So we don’t obey the law?  Or do we try but fail?  Do we just give it our best shot?  Is it enough?  Who decides that?  Are we allowed to get a lawyer for that?  Counsel?  Is Jesus our counsel?  Phew!

Romans Chapter 9  Paul, in chapter 9, shows he is definitely NOT anti-semetic and NOT favoring Gentile over Jew.  He says if the Jews are cut off from the religion under Christ, HE wants to be cut off too, because he is a Jew himself.   (and remained so?)

Romans 9:1-5 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit—  I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.  For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race,  the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.  Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Note: Ironic how a church that was and is so dependent on the teachings of this man, Paul, a proud Jew, could have held anti-semetic positions and openly persecuted the Jewish people over the years.  Jews were “Christ-killers.”  Do people feel this way about the Apostle Paul, a Jew himself?

God’s final plan is for ALL ISRAEL to be saved.  Is this Paul’s plan?  That by saving GENTILES Paul could stir his OWN people (the Jews) to recognize that God is up to something.  Maybe there is something going on here after all.  We need to pay attention to the good news of Jesus Christ.  

Paul’s central argument in Romans is his interpretation of the story of Jesus.  Jesus represents God’s impartiality and fairness.  Romans 2:11 There is no respecting of persons with God. Stated better as: For God does not show favoritism.  This is drawn from Leviticus 19:15  ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.  You should not be a respecter of faces but judged by their merits. 

63

Discussion: No favoritism even for non-Jews?  Was it not favoritism if one could not intermarry?  Was it not favoritism if this “Promised Land” is OURS, not THEIRS?  Was it not favoritism if the Israelites are to kill every man, woman, child, and animal and take the spoils (sometimes, sometimes not) for themselves?  Is Paul saying this is the story of Jesus?  Proving God is fair?

Which leads us to this rhetorical question:

Romans 3: 27-31   Is God the God of the Jews ONLY or also to the Gentiles.  YES to both.  There is ONE God for all humans.  But God must be fair (righteous) for ALL humans.  God can’t show favoritism (which it seems He has done for thousands of years).  Torah was given ONLY to the Jews, so if keeping the laws was the only way to salvation then God is not FAIR, and that can’t be because God IS fair!  So there must be some principle that ALL humans can be in a right relationship with God.  Paul calls this Pistis - FAITH.  Faith means more than BELIEF, it means belief + trust + obedience + loyalty to the CREATOR.  Faith requires a RESPONSE.  

An aside: So it seems Paul and James can reconcile.   Paul’s saved by faith alone (Sola Fide) and James’ faith without works is dead.  But since Paul’s definition of faith includes A RESPONSE, he essentially agrees with James:  Faith WITHOUT WORKS is dead because faith without works is not really faith. 

Romans Chapter 4  Paul explains why circumcision is NOT a requirement for salvation.

Abraham had FAITH.  Abraham was righteous with God, AND CIRCUMCISION WAS NOT A MARK OF THE COVENANT YET!  Abraham had faith AND WAS LOYAL TO GOD (trust, obedience, etc.), therefore circumcision is NOT required to be right with God.  

Note: Not to mention women can’t be circumcised.  How did women participate in the Abrahamic covenant?  By marrying a circumcised man.  So don’t marry outside the faith.  Except men did.  Notable men.  Moses.  Abraham.  David.  And Boaz who, as an elderly man, married Ruth, part of the lineage of Jesus.  Of course THEY were circumcised so their status was not in doubt.  So the lesson appears to be that MEN could marry outside the faith because MEN rule the roost, and the Gentile wife MUST be faithful to Judaism (your God will be my God).  Women could not marry outside the faith because their man would still rule the roost and he would demand faithfulness to the pagan gods.

Remember Abraham was a Gentile when he was right with God.  He only became a Jew when he was circumcised.  So potentially ALL people have (and always DID HAVE?) the ability to become right with God by FAITH just as Abraham did, but they have been tainted by the power of sin.  

64

Discussion: So too then, shouldn’t Muslims be right with God?  Why should Isaac be a chosen one and not Ishmael?  Because of the spat between Sarah and Hagar? (See above: Galatians)  Are we going to blame a woman (women?) for all the ills of the world again like we blame sin on Eve (being  that she gave in to the serpent first so she must be under MAN)?

So for Paul, sin is the opposite of faith.  Sin is the willful refusal to acknowledge that one is answerable to a CREATOR, and it spawns all other sin.  We were born into sin, and Jesus is the answer.  Jesus was the human who broke through in his trust and loyalty to GOD.   Jesus died because of that trust and loyalty.  He also was resurrected (as we will be) for that loyalty.  

Note:  DID GOD HAVE A CHOICE TO REDEEM JESUS OR NOT?  Did God HAVE to resurrect Jesus?  Paul seems to provide the answer to this question.  Because of Jesus’ TRUST and LOYALTY Jesus HAD to be redeemed.

For Paul the law is mere words.  If you are ill you do NOT become better by reading the prescription bottle.  You need the MEDICINE, and the medicine is the HOLY SPIRIT.  The gift from the power of God.  You CAN live in a certain way by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

Discussion:  What does “live in a certain way” mean?  Live as a “Christian?”  Live as a “good person?”   You can only live as a Christian by following the Holy Spirit.  Can you live as a good person without being a Christian?  Can you live as a good person without the Holy Spirit?  Is the Holy Spirit the same “spirit of a Native American tribe, et.al.?  (For more see page 67 - The Westminster Confession of Faith.)

Discussion: Can not the same be said about Christians and the Bible?  Isn’t it how we live?  It’s not how we read scripture and worship or follow a bunch of rules (the Law).  How many of those rules are man-made and how many really come from Jesus?  Jesus had 2 rules…  (We will discuss this more in Chapter 10 - Is There a Christian Litmus Test?)

Romans 12:15-16  Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.  Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.  Do not be conceited.

65

Discussion:  “Don’t judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.”

“You never really know a man until you understand things from his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

Jesus never said either one.  Paul didn’t either - exactly.  But he did hint at it in Romans 12:15-16. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.   Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.   Do not be conceited. 

Is it important?

What does Romans 13:1-7 mean?  

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

SHOULD WE OBEY: Titus 3:1-2  Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.  

See APSE Article:  What Does Romans 13 Mean?  Apostle Paul Articles  pages 87 - 93.

SHOULD WE RESIST: Contrast this with the words of Peter and John in Acts 4:19-20  “Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”  

This in response to the authorities - in this case the Sanhedrin - telling Peter and John to pretty much shut their traps.  They obviously disobeyed the authorities.  How does this correspond with Romans 13?

OR SHOULD JUST WALK AWAY:  Matthew 10:14  And…  if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

Discussion: Do you willingly submit to authorities?  Continue to speak the truth despite what the authorities say, even if you create conflict?   Or do you shake off the dust and move on to a more receptive audience?  

If you broke a law while there, do you stay and pay the penalty or do you bolt out of town?

Romans 13:4 When is the only time it is justifiable to kill?  

THOU SHALT NOT KILL… Except?

Romans 13:4  For he (the authority, the government) is God’s servant to do you good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.  He is God’s servant, an angel of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  (EVILDOERS, the term used by President George W. Bush.)  

66

Discussion: What say we to Hitler?  Stalin?  Capital punishment?  This exact passage was used by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prosecute undocumented people - illegal aliens if you prefer - who crossed the border into the United States in the early years of the Trump Administration.  It was also used to justify slavery. If the government says it's legal, it’s legal.  And evidently “right” as well.  The sword will (rightly?) bring justice.  Pain.  Suffering.  And if the result is death? So be it, I guess.  What would Jesus say? 

So did Christianity win when Constantine made Christianity an official “state religion?”  Should we have Christian Nationalism?

From The Politics of Jesus by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr.  

Assessing Constantine:  Was he the greatest emperor for the advancement of Christianity - OR - the greatest distorter of the true message of Jesus in Roman history?

Did Constantine promote the message of Christ by making Christianity the official religion or was Jesus’ message distorted to become a part of the political oppression of the Roman Empire and subsequent governments, including our own today.  Did Constantine justify his actions - including violence - by invoking the name of Christ?  

Do we do this today?

Romans 14:23  But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; AND EVERYTHING THAT DOES NOT COME FROM FAITH IS SIN!

This position is echoed in 1 John 4:7b  Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.  

Hebrews 11:6  Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE GOD, because anyone who comes to him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

WITHOUT FAITH IN GOD AS OUR MOTIVE WE CANNOT DO GOOD WORKS.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states: “Unless a work is done in the name of God, no matter how good, it is an abomination in the sight of God.  It must be done in the name of God, to the glory of God, with the right motive, in the right frame of mind, with the right goal, to be accepted by God and receive blessings from God.”

Discussion:  Must you know God to love something or someone?  Can a work be “good” only if done by someone who knows God?

Romans 14:14-16 …I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself… If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.  Do NOT, by your eating, destroy your brother for whom Christ has died.  DO NOT ALLOW WHAT YOU CONSIDER GOOD TO BE SPOKEN OF AS EVIL.  Vs 19  Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification.  Do NOT destroy the work of God for the sake of food.  

Discussion: AND WHAT ELSE?  If one considers something “good” does that mean it is not evil?  Is this  just about food?  Circumcision?  Prostitution?  Immorality?   Homosexuality?

67

Vs 22 SO WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THESE THINGS KEEP BETWEEN YOURSELF AND GOD.  BLESSED IS THE MAN WHO DOES NOT CONDEMN HIMSELF BY WHAT HE APPROVES.  

Discussion: THESE THINGS?  What are THOSE?  Sounds like “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  Determining right and wrong, good and evil.  It’s what you believe that counts.  Just don’t talk about it.  Keep it between you and God.  As long as it leads to peace.  Is this naive?  Pollyannaish?  Unrealistic?  Utopian?  A pipedream?  If something is kept between a man and his God does this put the judgers and condemners out of business?