Dwelling Places of God

Holy Dwellings and God’s Association with Them

The man Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, once stood before the Sanhedrin (a legal body composed of the high priest, leaders of the people, and legal experts) and established God does not dwell in items made with hands (Acts 7:48). Yet, God chose to make His presence known within the earth, the tabernacle, and Solomon’s temple. God also commanded the temple built by Zerubbabel as a place for His name. These were not places where God lived, but those which He made holy by his association with them. Scripture identifies three other holy dwelling places of God not made by human hands. These are Christ, the Church, and the Christian. All told there are 7 specific dwelling places which are or were holy. However, not all of these remained holy. When something holy is defiled or unclean, what is God’s reaction? Is the reaction a pattern with God?

In the beginning, God created the tabernacle of the heavens and earth. For six days, God developed the creation which would house man and other forms of life. After each day, God declared everything He created was good. On the seventh day, he sanctified the day in recognition of the work He had done. It was holy, a pure dwelling place suitable for the care of man. God’s presence would be found upon it (Genesis 3:8). For man, God detailed acceptable behavior and what was not. This included what man was allowed eat (Genesis 2:15-16). Man made the decision to defy the authorized behaviors which God had established. Into the tabernacle of God’s creation was brought something unclean, unholy, and impure. Man introduced the defilement of sin into the world. What was God’s reaction? God disciplined man. The discipline brought death to all men from the time of Adam and Eve to the present day. During the age of early mankind, the pinnacle of judgment for defiling God’s tabernacle of creation was the destruction of all mankind save righteous Noah and his family. Is this reaction of discipline for defilement God’s pattern of response?

During the Mosaic age or time of Moses (1400 BC), God instructed Moses to build a tabernacle (Exodus 25:8-9). He gave miraculous inspiration to enable the exact creation of what He desired. Instructions were heeded exactly according to Exodus 39:32, including the contents of the tabernacle, creation of the Ark of the Covenant, and priestly garments. The tabernacle would represent a different manner in which God’s presence would be known (Exodus 40:34-38). God detailed authorized behavior in respect to the tabernacle. All that was directed by Him was holy. Man then introduced the defilement of sin into God’s holy wilderness tabernacle. In Leviticus 10:1-3, Nadab and Abihu determined to operate outside of faith (that which is heard from God’s Word – Romans 10:17). Nadab and Abihu offer an unauthorized fire into the tabernacle worship. What they offered was unclean, unacceptable, defiled. God reemphasizes He is to be treated as holy. How was He not? The priests were offering to God, so evidently they wanted to please Him. Their heart was right. John 4:24 states, “God is spirit, those that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth”. This means He will not only be worshipped by the appropriate attitude (spirit), but He will also be worshipped according to how He has commanded. Truth was missing in the actions of Nadab and Abihu. God was not being honored by unholy actions. Therefore, God disciplined man. He destroyed both men before the nation of Israel. Is this a pattern continued?

The nation of Israel through their sinfulness eventually demanded a King (as God said they would in Deuteronomy 17:14-15). Their second king was David. David whether by misunderstanding or not, determined to develop plans to build God a temple in place of the mobile tabernacle. These plans he handed over to Solomon his son. God agreed to be with Solomon, the people of Israel, and the temple as long as they kept His commandments (I Kings 6:12-13). As with the tabernacle, God’s glory filled the temple (I Kings 8:10-11). God made the temple a holy place and consecrated it in His name (I Kings 9:3-7). The purpose of the temple would assume the same as the tabernacle. It would be a holy place of worship and sacrifice. Solomon would later defile himself with foreign marriages and idolatrous ways. God would discipline him by splitting the kingdom of Israel. Jeroboam would assume the leadership of Israel and lead them into further defilement. Rehoboam the son of Solomon would lead the kingdom of Judah in sin. Under his leadership, the temple was defiled by Egypt (I Kings 14:25-26). This would come as discipline by the hand of God for he was not with this people in their sinful state. 350 years and 16 kings later, young King Josiah sees the defilement of the temple and people. He attempts to cleanse them. (2 Kings 23:4-7). He does what is right in the sight of God. Unfortunately, after Josiah, wickedness continues, defilement continues. 22 years later at the end of the reign of the last king of Judah (Zedekiah), the temple is destroyed. The year was 586 and Babylon plundered the nation and took them into captivity as a discipline from the Lord (2 Chronicles 36:14-19). Ezekiel from a vision in Babylon was given a vision of the Glory of God departing from the temple (Ezekiel 10:18-19). This continued God’s discipline pattern in response to the defilement of man’s sin.

Following 70 years captivity in Babylon and into the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, God’s hand of discipline would be lifted. It would be lifted to continue passage of the lineage of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. To do so, God commanded the King of Persia, Cyrus, to send Israel out of captivity to build Him a temple again. Zerubbabel would reign as governor over Judah upon his return. The temple would be known as Zerubbabel’s temple though later identified with Herod for the great restoration he would do. During the time of Zerubbabel the people would declare their allegiance to God once more (Ezra 10:10-12). The time frame covered from the completion of the temple in 516 BC to Christ in 3BC was 513 years. This period of Bible history is covered by the Bible writings of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and prophecy in Daniel. History shows Israel would put away its idolatrous ways. However, Israel did not stop its sin. This is shown in the prophecies of Daniel and the New Testament gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The priesthood would be defiled in aiding Israel’s enemies and seeking man driven power. The temple would become a “den of robbers” according to Jesus in Matthew 21:13. God would again punish the people by various incursions against them before Christ. Antiochus IV would come into Jerusalem, sack it, and defile the temple twice. This includes the pouring of boiling pig flesh over the temple and altar. The Holy of Holies was entered and the treasure was taken from the temple. These were discipline from God, but a greater punishment would be unleashed in 70 AD as prophesied by Christ in Matthew 24:1-2. Once again, as with the tabernacle of the earth, the wilderness tabernacle, and Solomon’s temple, a holy dwelling of God had been defiled; God’s commandments were ignored and God would have no part with that which was unclean and unholy. A pattern from God seems to be clear.

At the fullness of time, God, in love, sent His Son Jesus. He did so for man’s salvation from defilement. Jesus is the eternal and Holy Temple of God as identified in John 2:19-22. Jesus was pure, sinless, perfect, and holy (I Peter 2:21-23). Man exposed to the purity of Christ, attempted to defile Him. They tried to intimidate him in regard to reaching out to the publicans and sinners in Matthew 9:10-13. He could have rejected God’s will by listening to Peter in Matthew 16:21-23. The Pharisees attempted to see if He would go against Caesar in Matthew 22:17-22. The High priest would present Him with the opportunity to deny Deity in Matthew 26:63-64. In John 8:3-11, the scribes and Pharisees would try to get him to disobey Roman law or God’s Law, but He would not. In the garden, He did not lie about his identity (John 18:3-5), though for others it would have been tempting. Pilate tried to intimidate Jesus declaring “I have the power to crucify you”, but Christ would not falter. Christ endured the shame of the cross though he could have tried to escape (Hebrews 12:2). Jesus would not allow man to defile Him. He now sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven because he maintained the Holiness of God.

According to scripture, Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23). I John 2:1 establishes Christ is righteous and Colossians 1:24 states that Christ’s body is the Church. Therefore, Christ being the Temple of God, the Church being His body, by inference is also the Temple of God. Christians are said to be one in the body of Christ according to Romans 12:5 and their relationship is that of building materials (I Peter 2:5). The Church is a Holy priesthood of building stones (Christians) through Christ. They are a holy dwelling of God. Yet again, man attempts to defile this dwelling. They do so through ignorant, willful, and unauthorized worship. The Corinthians accomplished it through what they thought was love, but was really just arrogance in ignoring sin present in the Church. The Galatians defiled the Church through accepting the teachings of those holding to portions of the Law of Moses. In 2 Timothy 2:15-18, Timothy was instructed about the defilement in the Church coming from Hymenaeus and Philetus who were stating the second coming of Christ had passed. Peter told the Church in 2 Peter 2:1-3, false teachers would speak evil of the truth. In all of these situations, man brought defilement into the Church. However, the true Church will not stay defiled. God in times past cleansed the defilement through discipline. I Corinthians 3:10-13 makes it clear God will cleanse the temple of His Church. God’s pattern of treatment in respect to defilement stands strong.

The final holy dwelling which God is associated with is the Christian. God has identified Christians as His temple (I Corinthians 3:16-17). It is God who adds to the Church (Acts 2:47). He only adds the pure of conscience and those forgiven of sin (Acts 2:38, I Peter 3:21). Romans 6:3-7 demonstrates that baptism buries man into the death of Christ. It is here where the individual contacts the blood of Christ and Christ’s blood purifies like no other (Hebrews 9:13-14). Galatians 3:27 reemphasizes only those who have put on Christ are washed by His Blood. So through this process impurity, defilement, uncleanness is washed away (Acts 22:16). Yet, in this pure and holy dwelling of God, man still introduces defilement. They do so by denying Christ as Peter did (Luke 22:54-62), by lying as Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5), through immorality (I Corinthians 5), through a love of material things like the rich, young man (Matthew 19), by refusing to accept Christ as the Pharisees and Sadducees (John 11), by persecution of Christians like Saul (Acts 8), through a love of the world as Demas (2 Timothy), by being lukewarm Christians (Revelation 3), or forgetting to put Christ first (Revelation 2). The truth is man defiles himself through disobedience to God’s Word.

Every time a holy dwelling of God has been defiled, God has prepared discipline, a cleansing of the defilement. Will this pattern hold true in the case of the Christian as a temple of God? I John 1:6-2:2, establishes the blood of Christ continues to cleanse those in Christ. Defilement is washed away leaving no defilement for God to discipline over. This is not without observance to the command of God. God establishes the cleansing based on “if”. “If” the Christian no longer walks in darkness, “if” the Christian practices the truth, “if” the Christian confesses their sins, then they will be cleansed of the defilement. However, according to Romans 2:4-8, those who think it is enough to have God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience are mistaken. These are given only to lead a man to repentance. “God will render to man according to his deeds.” Those who do not obey will face eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10). In other words, God will hold to His pattern of discipline for defilement.

God commands his dwelling places be pure and holy. His creation, wilderness tabernacle, temples, son, church, and children were all initially pure. Man attempted to defile them all. Only God’s Son perfectly withstood the uncleanness and defilement of men. His Body, the Church, His bride, will stand pure and wholly as well, because of the continual cleansing of His blood. The sinful who declare they are the bride of Christ will be denied. Those who try to crash the wedding party will be removed. No unclean thing shall enter the kingdom of Heaven. This is God’s reaction to the defiled. It is His pattern.

Revelation 21:22-27 – And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof. And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb. And the nations shall walk amidst the light thereof: and the kings of the earth bring their glory into it. And the gates thereof shall in no wise be shut by day (for there shall be no night there): and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it: and there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Dwelling Places of God

No Bible, No Horse

A Man without a Bible is Like a Man Without a Horse

There was a time when the saying “a man without a horse” was widely understood.  Its meaning may not be as quickly grasped as it once was.  However, the phrase certainly is applicable even in this age where many folks do not or have never owned a horse.  “A man without a horse” is one who is incomplete.  He is lacking.  Perhaps, a similar situation today would be a man without a car, a job, or his spouse.  Figuratively a man’s horse is that which gives him the desire to go forward and conquer in life and when it is not there, he struggles with his identity.  For the next few minutes, consider how the Bible is the Christian’s horse.

In the early American west, the cowboy would rise each morning with a host of duties to do.  He did not wake to a life of idleness and uncertainty about what to do.  He had endless duties of mending fence; moving, watering, feeding, or branding cattle; and chores in town.  His constant work mate was his horse.  In this sense, the Christian and his Bible are like the cowboy and his horse:  they are workmates through each and every day.  The Christian is not meant to be idle (Matthew 25:24-30).  He has many duties to be engaged in.  In fact he was created for good works (Ephesians 2:10).  The Christian is to follow the example of Christ (I Peter 2:21), teach others (2 Timothy 2:24), encourage (Hebrews 10:24), warn, comfort, support (I Thessalonians 5:14), relieve the widow and orphan, care for saints in need (I John 3:17), and so much more.  Through each and every task, his work mate (the Word of God) is to be there with him (Psalm 40:8, 119:69, 80, 112, Ephesians 6:10-17, Colossians 3:16).

As a cowboy goes about his daily work, the horse is his source of power.  It transports him, cuts cattle when needed, holds taught the rope that binds a calf, and totes any supplies that he requires.  The horse is a power which saves the cowboy much time and effort.  The Bible is the source of power for all Christians.  It is a power for their salvation by the deliverance from sin (Romans 1:16, I Corinthians 1:18).  It is the knowledge of God which gives man all things for life and Godliness.  The Word of God provides strength for that Word is Christ (John 1:1, Philippians 4:13).

The horse helps a cowboy travel farther.  If he were left to his own path, he would stumble about and become weary.  Yet, the horse enables a man to cover terrain with endurance and speed he does not have on his own.  The horse gives the cowboy an advantage he simple would not have on his own.  The word of God is guide for man’s feet (Psalm 119:105) and if man were left to his own way he would only find destruction  (Proverbs 14:12, I Peter 4:17).  If a Christian holds fast the Word of God which he is taught he will reach the end of his journey no matter how long it may be (2 Thessalonians 2:15, Hebrews 5:9).  The advantage the Bible gives is the key to heaven and life.  In it are the words of Jesus (John 6:68) and it is only through Him man will be able to go to the Father (John 14:6).

Being a cowboy is often a lonely profession.  There may be long periods of time when there is no one around, but the cowboy’s horse.  The horse becomes a good trusted friend, one he often trusts above men.  The cowboy relies on the horses steps to be true and relies upon it as a warning in time of danger.  He learns the horse in and out and treats it with respect and care.  In the same manner a Christian learns to properly handle God’s Word (2 Timothy 2:15).  Men may mock or belittle the Christian, but he trusts God’s word above them (Psalm 119:42).  Sometimes in this world a Christian feels alone, but if he simply turns to God’s Word, there is comfort (Psalm 119:50).

It should be easy to see the great many similarities between a cowboy with his horse and a Christian with his Bible, but what happens when someone – spiritually speaking – is “a man without a horse”?  Consider that a great number of people are like “a man without a horse”, except, they have no clue what they are missing.  They have a great ache, but don’t know how to fulfill it.  They pursue self actualization, possessions, good works, self denial, approval, recognition, and love of others, yet, at the end of the day, it isn’t enough.  Everything comes up empty for them.  They are lonely for something and growing weary.  Those who seek a true identity will find it (Matthew 7:7). Yet many like the rich young man of Matthew 19:16-22, when presented with the solution to their dilemma, cannot accept it.  They become frustrated and reject it as those of Acts 7:57-58.  One may point out that many individuals calling themselves Christians also seem to struggle with who they are and what their purpose is.  Sadly, this is true.  This author and other Christians have at times forgotten where our solace lies.  We have ridden on the horse so long that we take it for granted.  We begin to think we can do just as good or better on our own.  So, we put the Word aside and begin to struggle.  Sometimes it takes awhile to realize the foolishness of our choice.  Sometimes, folks refuse to admit their foolishness and keep on walking by the power of their own two feet or they just sit down and don’t go anywhere at all.  They have once again become incomplete, lacking, “a man without a horse”.

The Word is a steed indeed.  Christians must trust it, work with it, rely on its power, and allow themselves to be comforted by it.  If their desire is to live eternally in heaven, the Word of God will be there (Isaiah 40:8).  It will be just as faithful and true as it has always been.  In every good western movie, there is a scene where the cowboy is heading off to happier trails.  The movie is ending, a good day’s work has been done, and the cowboy is a silhouette against a sun setting on all cares and troubles.  He may have been battered, bruised, beaten, tested, and forsaken.  However, his trusted horse is under him and he knows better days lie ahead.  When the final day sets on this ball of earth, may those hailing the name of Christ have the trusted Word with them, so they too can draw close to the Son.

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on No Bible, No Horse

Civility and Censorship

During the Rush Limbaugh radio show a comment was made by a caller that civility is a term the leftist individual and government equate to censorship. This statement has a lot of truth to it. There are not only examples of this in the current era, but in past eras. To be clear, the terms are not synonymous. Civility is being polite or courteous by definition. Censorship is the limiting or elimination of the sharing of speech, ideas, or actions.

Currently, the United States is in the midst of a very emotionally charged cultural atmosphere. The issues at hand relate to freedom, stewardship, and morality. The leftist agenda has been widely pushed by liberal media outlets and a democrat congress voted in starting 2006. In 2008, the most liberal senator in the United States along with the third most liberal senator in the United States (as determined by voting record) were voted into the white house. Those individuals were Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Biden. Immediately directing government through a series of unaccountable czars, socialists, Marxist Communist association, and criminals; the new regime set about on a course which would ignore the will of the people and its constitutionally concerned representatives.

The American people soon began to wake up to the disaster that was at hand. They engaged in peaceful gatherings and formed equally peaceful associations to counteract the atrocities which were occurring. Their words were clear and direct. “Give us back the America that our founding fathers gave us.” They were civil, but unwavering. The America those founders shared was one established in freedom and a trust in God. The issues of freedom, good stewardship, and morality have been a continual bone of contention in America for some time, seeing a slow deterioration for decades. However, the 112th congress and white house decreased all at alarming rates. As Americans began to voice their opposition, they were told they were not being civil in their request for the atrocities to stop. They were supposedly uncivil for demanding their representatives be faithful representatives to the people who elected them, rather than themselves. They were accused of being uncivil for asking the administration to stop spending the people’s money at a frantic rate. The leftist government being faced with their failings responded by saying the concerns of the people were rhetoric, hate speech, racists, violent, and divisive. In other words, they covered their ears and went on the attack.

Were the actions of those in opposition to the behavior of the government uncivil? Is it uncivil to tell someone they are in error and pointing out the specific error? Is it uncivil to gather in protest? It is uncivil to establish there will be legal punishment if the actions do not change – i.e. “America will vote you out of office if you do not straighten up?” This is what is being called uncivil by the left, as they make wild unfounded claims and accusations about their opponents. Efforts to boycott, intimidate, or legislate away American opposition have been tried, but they have not been successful. In other words, censorship has not yet prevailed.

Consider a waiter at Red Lobster presenting a bill to your table for the food you have consumed. Is he uncivil for asking accountability for the food consumed? Or is he uncivil when he politely asks your children to follow the rules of the restaurant which state there is no climbing on top of tables? The government’s response would be to call it uncivil and then demand the waiter go away. Would a restaurant manager be uncivil in quietly telling the table that they would have to leave if they did not contain their children? Gasp! Consequences! Threat! Punishment! According to the leftist, this would be uncivil.

The Bible is the mind of a God of peace. Civility by men of God, supporting freedom, good stewardship, and morality is described throughout scripture. If any being is civil, it is God, being courteous enough to give man chance after chance regardless of their sin. It is established in 2 Peter 1:2 that through knowledge of Him grace and peace will be increased. The knowledge of Him was shared by prophets of old by apostles during the timeframe of Christ as commanded in Mark 16:15. It was to be done in the civil manner of discourse: preaching (I Corinthians 1:21). Yet, many men refuse to know this civility. They want censorship. The response of King Ahab to the prophet Elijah in I Kings 18:17 was to call him a troubler of Israel. The king was not happy to see someone who would disagree with him. He considered someone who spoke truth to be a trouble maker. In fact, he so believed this that he had been trying to kill the prophet. He wanted censorship!

The man of God, Stephen, in Acts 7, shared the peaceful word of God. As he told the Jews of their atrocities, they became defensive. They did not want to know about their failings. They did not want to hear what they should do. They wanted to do only things pertaining to their own design. Just like the American left, they covered their ears and went on attack (Acts 7:54, 57). They felt Stephen was uncivil. They wanted censorship!

The apostle Paul sharing the gospel to the governor Felix (Acts 24:25) was sent away. Paul was not being uncivil, but the governor did not want to hear Paul’s words. The truth frightened Felix as it frightens many men. Civil men desire what is right and stand up for change. They point error. Felix chose not to adhere to civility, enforcing censorship upon Paul. He did not want to hear the truth. He did not want civility, but Censorship!

Like the men who rejected civility in the Bible, today’s leftist individuals and government have no qualms making threats, false accusations, or censoring those in opposition to them. They do not believe in civility or discussion. As stated by Barrack Hussein Obama when given the opportunity for discussion and civility, “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” In other words, sit down and shut up, Barack is the driver. Or how about when Americans wanted to discuss the financial freedom sucking monster called Obamacare? Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, told folks it would have to pass before people could know what was in it. In other words, “sit down and shut up”.  A government promising civil transparency has been characterized by censoring opposition through closed door meetings and strong arm tactics.

Civility is not censorship despite the leftist desire for it to be so. Civility in America has, however, often become a one way street. This is frequently tied directly to the moral compass of the parties involved. God demands civility of His people as He is civil. However, people without God have no higher reason than themselves to care about civility. Sadly, civility is a now being tied closely to weakness. This has been pinned to many past administrations as they have allowed the leftist mindset to dominate. This does not bode well according to Mark 3:25: “And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” Civil discussion must be allowed to correct faulty behavior. But the past civil actions of administrations to allow the leftist mindset to dominate is not weakness, it is foolishness. To equate civility with weakness is a mistaken definition. God though civil is not weak. He will punish the sinful (Galatians 6:7-8). Americans tired of leftist attempts at censorship, have been quite civil. However, they were not weak, choosing to punish the leftists heavily in the 2010 elections. They will no doubt continue to do so in the future, exercising muscles of civility, if changes do not come about in America. Civility is strong, moral, and needed in America and the World. Censorship would do away with it.

During the Rush Limbaugh radio show a comment was made by a caller that civility is a term the leftist individual and government equates to censorship. This statement has a lot of truth to it. There are not only examples of this in the current era, but in past eras. To be clear, the terms are not synonymous. Civility is being polite or courteous by definition. Censorship is the limiting or elimination of the sharing of speech, ideas, or actions. Currently, the United States is in the midst of a very emotionally charged cultural atmosphere. The issues at hand relate to freedom, stewardship, and morality. The leftist agenda has been widely pushed by liberal media outlets and a democrat congress voted in starting 2006. In 2008, the most liberal senator in the United States along with the third most liberal senator in the United States (as determined by voting record) were voted into the white house. Those individuals were Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Biden (http://www3.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc#results). Immediately directing government through a series of unaccountable czars, socialists, Marxist Communist association, and criminals; the new regime set about on a course which would ignore the will of the people and its constitutionally concerned representatives. The American people soon began to wake up to the disaster that was at hand. They engaged in peaceful gatherings and formed equally peaceful associations to counteract the atrocities which were occurring. Their words were clear and direct. “Give us back the America that our founding fathers gave us.” They were civil, but unwavering. The America those founders shared was one established in freedom and a trust in God. The issues of freedom, good stewardship, and morality have been a continual bone of contention in America for some time, seeing a slow deterioration for decades. However, the 112th congress and white house decreased all at alarming rates. As Americans began to voice their opposition, they were told they were not being civil in their request for the atrocities to stop. They were supposedly uncivil for demanding their representatives be faithful representatives to the people who elected them, rather than themselves. They were accused of being uncivil for asking the administration to stop spending the people’s money at a frantic rate. The leftist government being faced with their failings responded by saying the concerns of the people were rhetoric, hate speech, racists, violent, and divisive. In other words, they covered their ears and went on the attack.

Were the actions of those in opposition to the behavior of the government uncivil? Is it uncivil to tell someone they are in error and pointing out the specific error? Is it uncivil to gather in protest? It is uncivil to establish there will be legal punishment if the actions do not change – i.e. “America will vote you out of office if you do not straighten up?” This is what is being called uncivil by the left, as they make wild unfounded claims and accusations about their opponents. Efforts to boycott, intimidate, or legislate away American opposition have been tried, but they have not been successful. In other words, censorship has not yet prevailed.

Consider a waiter at Red Lobster presenting a bill to your table for the food you have consumed. Is he uncivil for asking accountability for the food consumed? Or is he uncivil when he politely asks your children to follow the rules of the restaurant which state there is no climbing on top of tables? The government’s response would be to call it uncivil and then demand the waiter go away. Would a restaurant manager be uncivil in quietly telling the table that they would have to leave if they did not contain their children? Gasp! Consequences! Threat! Punishment! According to the leftist, this would be uncivil.

The Bible is the mind of a God of peace. Civility by men of God, supporting freedom, good stewardship, and morality is described throughout scripture. If any being is civil, it is God, being courteous enough to give man chance after chance regardless of their sin. It is established in 2 Peter 1:2 that through knowledge of Him grace and peace will be increased. The knowledge of Him was shared by prophets of old by apostles during the timeframe of Christ as commanded in Mark 16:15. It was to be done in the civil manner of discourse: preaching (I Corinthians 1:21). Yet, many men refuse to know this civility. They want censorship. The response of King Ahab to the prophet Elijah in I Kings 18:17 was to call him a troubler of Israel. The king was not happy to see someone who would disagree with him. He considered someone who spoke truth to be a trouble maker. In fact, he so believed this that he had been trying to kill the prophet. He wanted censorship!

The man of God, Stephen, in Acts 7, shared the peaceful word of God. As he told the Jews of their atrocities, they became defensive. They did not want to know about their failings. They did not want to hear what they should do. They wanted to do only things pertaining to their own design. Just like the American left, they covered their ears and went on attack (Acts 7:54, 57). They felt Stephen was uncivil. They wanted censorship!

The apostle Paul sharing the gospel to the governor Felix (Acts 24:25) was sent away. Paul was not being uncivil, but the governor did not want to hear Paul’s words. The truth frightened Felix as it frightens many men. Civil men desire what is right and stand up for change. They point error. Felix chose not to adhere to civility, enforcing censorship upon Paul. He did not want to hear the truth. He did not want civility, but Censorship!

Like the men who rejected civility in the Bible, today’s leftist individuals and government have no qualms making threats, false accusations, or censoring those in opposition to them. They do not believe in civility or discussion. As stated by Barrack Hussein Obama when given the opportunity for discussion and civility, “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” In other words, sit down and shut up, Barack is the driver. Or how about when Americans wanted to discuss the financial freedom sucking monster called Obamacare? Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, told folks it would have to pass before people could know what was in it. In other words, “sit down and shut up”. A government promising civil transparency has been characterized by censoring opposition through closed door meetings and strong arm tactics.

Civility is not censorship despite the leftist desire for it to be so. Civility in America has, however, often become a one way street. This is frequently tied directly to the moral compass of the parties involved. God demands civility of His people as He is civil. However, people without God have no higher reason than themselves to care about civility. Sadly, civility is a now being tied closely to weakness. This has been pinned to many past administrations as they have allowed the leftist mindset to dominate. This does not bode well according to Mark 3:25: “And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” Civil discussion must be allowed to correct faulty behavior. But the past civil actions of administrations to allow the leftist mindset to dominate is not weakness, it is foolishness. To equate civility with weakness is a mistaken definition. God though civil is not weak. He will punish the sinful (Galatians 6:7-8). Americans tired of leftist attempts at censorship, have been quite civil. However, they were not weak, choosing to punish the leftists heavily in the 2010 elections. They will no doubt continue to do so in the future, exercising muscles of civility, if changes do not come about in America. Civility is strong, moral, and needed in America and the World. Censorship would do away with it.

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Civility and Censorship

Colossians 1:18-29

It is my pleasure, by request, to present the topic “ Setting Our Minds on the Church of Christ and the Peace from Christ ”.  In attempt to simplify this topic in my mind, let me restate the topic in this way: “Who Is Christ and Who Were We”.  It seems fitting to state it this way as we shall see a study of Christ cannot be truly separate from the Church and the peace He brings represents a transformation from the former state of man.  The guidelines of examination require the primary text to be Colossians 1:18-29.  As the text is examined, the role of Christ, man, the role of the apostle Paul, and the role of the Word of God will be laid forth.  Furthermore, the analysis requires the inclusion of the following three concepts: First – The work of Christ bringing to the saints the peace from Christ.  Second – The Church of Christ, the only church in prophecy.  Third – We all must obey God and serve Him through the church to be saved.  With these objectives in mind, let us tackle Colossians 1:18-29.

THE ROLE OF CHRIST IN THE CHURCH

Colossians 1:18-19 as read in the American Standard Version – ASV – (Utilized throughout this article unless otherwise stated) states:

“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;”

From these verses, the Role of Christ is put forth.  He is the head of the Church.  And what is the Church?  The Church of God was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.  It consists of those who repented from the perverse things of the world and were baptized in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38-41, 47).  Verse 38 presents the requirements for entry in the Church, the reason for entry is expressed in both verse 38 and 40, and the destination is presented in verse 47 – “The Lord added to the Church Daily” (KJV).

To be head of the Church establishes Christ as the one with authority.  In fact, Jesus has all authority over heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18).  He has preeminence!  He is judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42).  Jesus will reward those faithful to Him (Revelation 22:12) and eternally destroy those ignorant and disobedient toward Him (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9).  The authority of Christ to the Church is described as that of a husband to his bride in Ephesians 5.  The bride is subject to her husband in all things and he loves her.  He gives himself up for her, cherishes her, leads her by the Word of God such that He presents her as holy and blameless.  How is Christ able to do this?

All fullness dwells in Christ.  This fullness is mentioned further in Colossians 2:9 – For now understand it as the nature of God.  Within the flesh, Jesus had the power to control the wind and seas (Mark 4:41), cure all illnesses (Luke 4:40), Raise the dead (widow’s son, Synagogue Ruler’s daughter, Lazarus), prophecy his own death and resurrection among many other things (Mark 9:31), command spirits (Matthew 8:16), and forgive sin (Matthew 9:2).  He himself was without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) and he was the perfect definition of all aspects of the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).  In Christ’s eternal Deity of which there is no beginning or end, Jesus had no lack.  This is what qualified Christ in the role as head of the Church, Husband, Shepherd, Savior, Physician, and Leader.  There is only one head to every body and only one body which is the Church (Ephesians 4:4).

THE ROLE OF MAN IN THE CHURCH

Moving on to Colossians 1:20-23 we see the following words presented:

“and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens. And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him: if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister. ”

Though information is provided about the work of Christ as Savior, we want to examine the role of man in these verses.  Reconciliation reaches its goal when compatibility exists.  That reconciliation exists only through Jesus’ bloodshed on the cross.  Who needed this reconciliation?  Man did.  What needed reconciliation?  The relationship between man and God!  Man by his own choosing rejected the righteousness of God.  By accepting sin in our lives, we separated ourselves from God (Isaiah 59:1-2).  We became incompatible with God.  Christ brought the opportunity for compatibility between God in heaven and man upon the earth with His sacrifice.  Thus, man is able once again to return to the spiritual image of God.  Yet, this is a conditional state which highlights the role of man.  A great “if” in the control of man.

To continue to be compatible with God through Christ, man must stay in Christ.  Man can reject this role and choose to return to his sinful ways or choose the role presented by the Gospel.  But man cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24).  He cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons (I Corinthians 10:21).  Rather the role of man in Christ must be as stated by Paul in Ephesians 4:14-16:

“that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error; but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love.”

Paul spoke those words to the Ephesians expressing how man is to operate within the body which is the Church.

THE ROLE OF PAUL IN THE CHURCH

Moving to our Colossians text, verses 24-26, describe Paul’s role as related to the Church.

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church; whereof I was made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which was given me to you-ward, to fulfil the word of God, even the mystery which hath been hid for ages and generations: but now hath it been manifested to his saints,”

Paul was an apostle of Jesus, but like all men, he needed to be reconciled to God through Christ (Acts 22:16).  He needed to be a Christian.  This passage certainly establishes that God made Paul a minister of the Word and that Paul shared that Word.  However, at its core is the reiteration of the role of man and Paul establishes in this he was not exempt.  This passage states he was “filling up what was lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of the… church”.  This does not in any way mean Christ was lacking in the affliction which he went through during his life in the flesh, including his ministry, trials, and crucifixion.  Rather, Paul declares, as a Christian, he serves God with his best effort and endures the Christian destiny to aid the Church.  What affliction must all Christians meet?  We will be persecuted (Romans 12:14), hated (Matthew 10:22), and suffer (Romans 8:16-18).  Christians will suffer in the name of Christ such that they will even cry from death to be avenged (Revelation 6:10).  Was Paul put in a role that caused him to suffer more than most Christians?  Yes.  However, each Christian is called to pick up his own Cross in service of Christ (Luke 9:23) and for the love of others (2 Corinthians 8:8-9).  Paul stated in I Corinthians 11:1, “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ”. Paul’s role here, as stated in Colossians, provides further example for us.

THE ROLE OF THE WORD IN THE CHURCH

The Final portion of the Colossians text to be examined is verses 27-29:

“to whom God was pleased to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we proclaim, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ; whereunto I labor also, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.”

“[The Word of God] is suitable for doctrine, evidence, correction, and teaching that the man of God might be perfect, equipped for every Good work” (2 Timothy 3:16).  In both Colossians and 2 Timothy the reference to the word “perfect” means complete.  The Word of God provides the knowledge of Christ and thus all that is necessary for life and Godliness (2 Peter 1:1-3).   When the perfect Word of God came, man was enabled to put away childish things (I Corinthians 13:10-11) and become a fullgrown man not carried away with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:13-16).

Christ dwelling in us, in unity with us through the Word of God, making us compatible with God, gives us hope!  The hope of Glory!  The hope that heaven is real and we will be there with Him forevermore!  God sent his son that we might have everlasting life (John 3:16)!  Everlasting life has to be somewhere!  Jesus dwells in heaven at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33).  He has prepared a place where He dwells and He wants us there!

John 14:2-3 – “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”

The Word of God provides this hope!

As we have finished our exegesis of our main text, let us thrust our attention upon our three thesis statements.  First we turn to: “The work of Christ bringing to the saints the peace from Christ”.  The work of Christ as we have studied it, can be identified as “Reconciliation”.  Jesus made the incompatible man, compatible.  Jesus provides every man the opportunity to shed the filth of their sins and be reunited with God.  This thesis has been clearly born out in our text.

Now our second thesis: “The Church of Christ – The only church in prophecy.”  Verse 18 of our text called Jesus the head of the body, the church.  Ephesians 4 said there was one body.  Acts 2:47 said the Lord added to the Church.  In Matthew 16:15-18 the scriptures read:

“[Jesus] saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus declared He would build his church – singular.  If He planned on doing this, when did He do it?  He declared Peter will have the keys to the kingdom.  Paul declares it is the foolishness of preaching that saves (I Corinthians 1:21).  Thus, the keys are the preaching.  In Acts 2 where we first see people added to the Church, we see Peter preaching Jesus and salvation from sin through Him for the first time.  That freedom from sin is called justification.  Men were made as if they were innocent.  Jesus could only do this because all fullness dwelt in Him.

As Peter Spoke on the day of Pentecost he identified that day of salvation as prophesied by the prophet Joel (Joel 2:28-32).  Isaiah 2:1-4 and Micah 4:1-3 both point to a time when the Word of God would go from Jerusalem to all men.  On that day when men submitted themselves to the authority of Christ, as Head of the Church, they found salvation in an eternal kingdom started in Jerusalem.  Daniel prophesied the eternal kingdom set up on the time of the Romans in Daniel 2:31-35, 44.  The eternal kingdom was headed by the one spoken of in Daniel 7:13-14.  The individual appearing as a son of man ascended to heaven and none has done that except Jesus (John 3:13).  The Old Testament scriptures point toward Jesus.  Jesus declared one Church and He stated: “I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but through me.” (John 14:6)  Christ’s Church is the only Church in prophecy and Colossians sums that up by declaring Him as its Head.

The final thesis statement is “We must obey God and serve Him through the Church to be saved”.  This has thoroughly been confirmed in our Colossians text.  When Christ by reconciliation (verse 20), brought us to God through justification (verse 22), he made our state of salvation contingent upon sanctification (verse 23).  That is: He set us apart from the filth of the world as “holy and without blemish” and as long as we continue setting ourselves apart in the role of filling up the affliction of the body of Christ, as Paul, we have the hope of Glory.

Who is Christ and who were we?  Christ is the head of the Church, our Savior who we are exhorted to serve without wavering.  We were sinners, unclean, impure, and far from God.  Faced with an eternity of that horrible condition, Christ came and made us compatible with God once again by reconciliation through justification resulting in sanctification.  Christ brings us peace and for that we should be eternally faithful.

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Colossians 1:18-29

Second Serving of the Lord’s Supper

The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are central to Christianity.  Christ lived His life upon earth knowing He would be sacrificed for mankind and it would be in brutal fashion.  Today Christians proclaim the message of the Lord’s death, how and why it came to be, and how death was defeated, when they partake of the Lord’s Supper.

Many questions have arisen about partaking of the Lord’s Supper.  How often is it to occur?  Is there a specific time?  Is it the real body of Christ?  Can the fruit of the vine be alcoholic?  Who can partake of the Lord’s Supper?  Does partaking make our sins forgiven?  The list of questions goes on and on.  This examination aims to answer more questions regarding the Lord’s Supper and specifically address the practice of offering a second partaking of it.

When we ask questions about our current practices or traditions, some folks become very concerned.  They worry that by asking these things we may disrupt unity and sow discord.  Certainly doing that would be terrible.  God hates discord (Proverbs 6:16-19).  Yet understand that unity as Christians only comes in Christ through the Word of God.  There is one Faith according to Ephesians 4:5.  This is the gospel Christ brought.  It is a gospel that brings a sword of division between strangers, friends, and family (Matthew 10:34-39).  In wielding this sword, Jesus did not sow discord disrupting unity, He shared the truth of the Word of God (John 17:17) and brought about unity.  Truth shatters the vices of the wicked and its value is beyond measure (Proverbs 23:23, Matthew 13:44).

All Christians should be comfortable with finding authority for partaking of the Lord’s Supper whenever they do so (Colossians 3:17).  That is the aim of our examination.  As we look at different passages and ask questions, we will try to come to a clearer understanding of our worship practices.  We will also consider differing points of view and weigh their merit.  Ultimately, it is up to each of us to study and confirm the scriptures (2 Tim. 2:15).  Remember “[We do] not live by bread along, but by every word of God.”(Matthew 4:4).

Why do Christians partake of the Lord’s Supper?  As mentioned in the beginning, it is a proclamation of the message of the Lord’s death (I Corinthians 11:26).  In Matthew 26:26-29, Jesus gives his disciples unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine.  Before doing so in each case He acknowledges God.  With the unleavened bread Jesus expresses it is His body.   With the fruit of the vine He expressed it as His blood.  This language was figurative and meant to be representative of His coming sacrifice.  This is the first account of four gospel accounts of this setting.  From these accounts we know Jesus told the disciples to remember Him in this supper.  Later, following Jesus resurrection, He instructed the disciples to teach all nations to observe what He had commanded them (Matthew 28:18-20).  This evidently included the partaking of the Lord’s Supper as Paul conveyed to the Corinthian Church the necessity of doing so (I Corinthians 11:23-26).

When do Christians partake of the Lord’s Supper?  The partaking of the Lord’s Supper is something that widely varies in different religious bodies.  Some eat it yearly, quarterly, monthly, and weekly.  There are many variations.  The importance as always is discovering what the first century Christians did.  Historically, we know they partook once each Sunday, the first day of the week.  However, history does not hold any weight when it comes to the scriptures.  It is from the mouth of God we find authority.  Acts 20:7 provides an example as to when the Christians met and partook of the Lord’s Supper and that was the first day of the week.  No other direct example with a specific time regarding the Lord’s Supper is mentioned in scripture.  However, with Biblical authority, once is enough if that is all the Bible has to say on the matter.  Such a time certainly makes sense though as Jesus was resurrected overcoming death on the first day of the week (Mark 16:2-9).

How do Christians partake of the Lord’s Supper?  It has already been seen that the elements are to be unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine.  God is to be approached before the partaking of each.  Also stated previously is that the supper is a proclamation of the Lord’s death until He comes.  I Corinthians 11:27-32 expresses those partake unworthily drink judgment unto themselves.  Because this partaking is directed at the Lord, it is worship (John 4:24). It must be done with minds on Christ and according to truth (which is the proper pattern of partaking the supper).  Partaking in the proper way is the crux of the context in I Corinthians 11 and will take up the remainder of this examination.  The context of this passage focuses predominantly on Christians breaking up into divisions (vs. 18) in a common meal rather than partaking as a complete assembled body.  Whether or not Christians should partake apart from one another is a very important aspect of taking the Lord’s Supper in truth or not.

When tackling the topic of assembly and the Lord’s Supper, the entire purpose of the first day of the week must be contemplated.  Going back to Acts 20:7 the disciples met for the purpose of taking the Lord’s Supper.  Did they do other things?  Yes.  However, they met for the purpose of the Lord’s Supper.  We have no other record of assembling on the first day of the week for another stated purpose.  Moving to I Corinthians 11:18-34, Paul starts out by identifying the Church was broken up into factions.  He also identified they were making the Lord’s Supper a common meal.  Most importantly he states they were not coming together to eat the Lord’s Supper.  The inverse of that is they were supposed to be assembling for the purpose of eating the Lord’s Supper.  This is the same purpose given for assembly in Acts 20:7.  Where other spiritual activities going on?  Yes, but twice now the stated purpose has been the Lord’s Supper.  The actions of the Corinthians made them partakers who were spiritually sick and eating judgment unto themselves.  In exhortation, Paul tells them to separate their common meals from worship and to wait for one another before eating the Lord’s Supper as an assembled body.  One other very important passage in this discussion of assembling and partaking the Lord’s Supper is I Corinthians 10:16-17.  Here Paul states eating the Lord’s Supper is a sharing, a fellowship, a communion in the body and blood of Christ.

If Acts 20:7, I Corinthians 11:18-34, and I Corinthians 10 are to be followed then this sharing occurs on the first day of the week as part of an assembly whose purpose for assembling was to partake of the Lord’s Supper together.  There are no passages in scripture showing any other manner of eating the Lord’s Supper at any other stated time. Biblical authority is very clear.  At this point let us turn our attention to arguments against what we have examined and to questions about second offerings of the Lord’s Supper.

The first common objection to the stated Biblical fact that Christians were coming together on the first day of the week for the purpose of partaking of the Lords Supper is that it minimizes or cheapens the other aspects of worship.  Of course, this is not true at all.  In regard to the acts of worship, giving, praying, singing, teaching, partaking of the Lord’s Supper, all are directed toward God (John 4:24) and are thus of equal importance and should all be treated with the same reverence.  They are equally bound together as worship the same as hearing, believing, having faith, repenting, confessing, baptizing, and living faithfully are bound together for salvation. None are greater than the other.  It has been said by some that I Corinthians 16:1-2 is an example of giving being a purpose for gathering.  However, being commanded to give when an assembly occurs is not the same as that being the purpose for the assembling in the first place.  For instance, I can tell my son that every Saturday when he goes to visit his friends to greet their Mother and Father.  I can also tell him each week I want him to go to His friends because he needs to build the friendships.  The purpose for the visit is building friendships, the greeting of parents is commanded, but not the purpose for the visit.  Giving appears to be incidental to the day and specifically tied to the expedience of Paul avoiding collections.

Another objection is cited using I Corinthians 10:16-17 to support partaking outside of the assembly of Christians on the first day of the week.  It is offered that the communion or sharing going on is stated by Paul to be with the Corinthians while he himself was far away.  In other words the sharing did not have to be literal.  Thus, Christians can take part in the communion anywhere and be authorized to do so.  But if this is true, why would it be stated in I Corinthians 11 that the Christians were to be coming together to partake of the Lord’s Supper.  This would be a contradiction.  Rather consider Paul, in his location, literally met with Christians on the first day of the week the same as those in Corinth and they did so for the purpose of sharing the Lord’s Supper.  Thus, he discusses the worship practice they both were engaged in.

Third and fourth objections focus on the concept of “tarry” or wait in I Corinthians 11:33.  First it is stated that tarry means the Corinthians were to wait for others so they would not be hungry.  However, that would be applying to something which Paul said to remove from the worship – the common meal.  Paul certainly did not condone the common meal.  Second it is argued if the Christians had to tarry for others before they partook then they would never be able to partake because someone is always sick, traveling, working, etc.  Rather than this, what Paul was trying to establish was the Corinthians not partake in their divisive groups when they chose, but rather eat together in a full assembly of those present to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

Having observed some objections to what we have examined thus far in scripture, it is time to turn out attention to the second serving of the Lord’s Supper.  Typically, this is done during an evening Bible Study assembly.  This practice is very common in a great number of Churches.  It is offered for those who missed the earlier serving.  In all instances I have heard of or experienced the majority of the body of the church has not come together for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper and does not commune with those partaking.  This is an interesting situation because we have no scriptural example for this behavior.  Even outside of scripture, second services weren’t heard of until the 1600’s and then they were simply presented as Bible Studies most often for children.  It appears the practice most likely came into being during WWII at which time there was no small objection to it.  However, history does not determine Biblical authority.  The problem again, we have no Biblical authority for such a scenario.  That being said, let us look at arguments for having a second serving of the Lord’s Supper.

The first argument is that Christians are commanded to partake of the Lord’s Supper.  As noted this started with Jesus and was taught by the apostles.  However, we also noted this was to be done with authority and meet the pattern set – the assembly, the proper purpose, the proper elements, the proper manner, the proper time, etc.  Biblical authority shows us churches meeting on the First day of the week as the Body of Christ and eating the supper together as that body, not in small groups apart from one another, at different times, and with most of the body not there for the purpose of eating the Lord’s Supper.  If a Christian is not forsaking the assembly, God certainly will not condemn the Christian missing the partaking.  I would say this of the sick, infirm, those with emergencies, and other aspects that are not forsaking.  No second serving would be needed.

A second argument is made based upon expedience.  I Corinthians 6:12 and I Corinthians 10:23 are used to point out that it may be lawful to set a worship time at 11 am, but it may also not be expedient for some.  Let me suggest as above, that those not forsaking would certainly be forgiven by God and therefore would not need a second service.   However, let me say I know of a situation similar to this.  I am aware of a congregation with so many people that the group comes in two different groups at two different times to the same building for the purpose of partaking the Lord’s Supper.  The purpose is right and the pattern of partaking is right.  The elders have used the expedience of two separate times to engage an action that is identical to the first century as far as the action of partaking.  The entire body may not be together in this instance, but it’s not because they do not want to do so.  Tarrying would not help in this case.   If this situation is in violation of God’s Word, I cannot pinpoint the violation clearly.  It would have to be in the area of not having the full body present. However, the case is not a portion of the body choosing to not be present, they simply cannot be present.

There are two items I would like to address because I have been asked to do so.  The first situation is that of an individual who is baptized in a congregation who has already partaken of the Lord’s Supper. It is my conviction that this individual simply wait until the next week to partake with the body because it is God’s intention that Christians partake with the body.  Second is the situation of the chronically infirm, aged, or others simply physically unable to assemble.  In this case it is my conviction that God will not hold that person accountable for not partaking of the Lord’s Supper which is something outside of their control.

In closing, I want to add some personal thoughts.  Whatever your current position on partaking the Lord’s Supper, I suggest you do not violate your conscience.  This is discussed in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8.  If you fully believe from your study you need to partake of the Lord’s Supper some other time on Sunday because you missed Sunday morning, then I certainly don’t condemn you.  Also if you missed Sunday morning and you don’t partake of the Lord’s Supper, I won’t condemn you either.  Let us continue to grow in the matter and strive to glorify God.

Posted in Travis Main | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Second Serving of the Lord’s Supper