2012: Not the end of the world, but some ends are coming

2012 was the year the world was suppose to end. Yeah, people have made crazy predictions since then, whether it be doing some pseudo-math with so-called “Biblical” numbers, or finding patterns in the date’s numbers. I guess the reason most people “fell” for this date is that it’s one of the oldest end of the world predictions. But alas, the world did not end, throwing this date into the wrong date pile. While the world didn’t end, I saw some parts of my world end, or at least, parts of the world as I  know it came to an end, and it made me sad to see them go.

The first one to go was quizzing. Now you’re probably thinking to yourself, “What do you mean? I saw you at quizzing this year! You’re were timekeeping!” Yes, I was quizzing at quizzing last year, and yes, I did timekeep. While I am glad to volunteer and be involved in quizzing any way possible, I do have my priorities on where I want to be quizzing, and I’m not there. First of all, I wish to be a quiz coach. I can root for any team, but I want a team I can root for that I can all my own. I want a team that I can pass on my knowledge not, not only my quizzing knowledge (the “game” of quizzing itself), but also my Biblcal knowledge, to help the youth spiritually grow. I got that wonderful opportunity in 2010 through an internship at Conestoga, for which I am eternally grateful. But since 2010, I have never gotten the opportunity again. In 2011, I sent my “quizzing resume” and a “quiz coach application” out to 40 church, most of which either currently quizzed or had previously quizzed. Yet few responded, and the few that did respond were a “no thank you.” So this year, I tried a different approach. I took the church I regularly attended and asked them if I could have a quiz team there. Naturally, their response was, “If you can find the quizzers, you got yourself a quiz team.” So I got the Sr. High and the Jr. High youth as hyped up as quizzing as possible. But alas, I could only find 2 who were somewhat interested. So for 2013, I will once again be back to staff. But even as staff, I’m not quizmaster, I’m not judge, I’m not even scorekeeping. I’m timekeeping. I’m reduced to pressing buttons. I feel like this is a waste of my talents. I’m careful to say that because I don’t want to sound prideful, arrogant or conceited, but I did have a long-time quiz coach say that to me last year when I found out that I was timekeeping for a second consecutive year.

But during my second consecutive year of timekeeping, I had already decided that I would not let any of my spiritual gift of knowledge go to waste in quizzing. I figured that writing study materials would be useless because I did not have my own team. Instead, I decided to write a devotional commentary on John, the quizzing material, because I figured that it could be helpful not only to quizzers, but to anyone wanting to learn from John. And I have to say it was beneficial in two ways. First and foremost, I learned a lot about John’s Gospel than I would from writing rout memory questions. Don’t get me wrong; there’s much importance to learning those simple knowledge questions. In fact, I believe that real spiritual growth cannot come unless this simple knowledge is comprehended. I just think I outgrew that rout knowledge and now I am moving on to something bigger and something more my level. Second, I found myself simply enjoying writing the devotional commentary than writing quizzing questions or quizzing study material. Further proof that my mind is ready for something better.

Overall, both the timekeeping position and writing the devotional commentary over the quizzing questions, I can’t help but think that I’ve out-grown quizzing. Once again, don’t get me wrong. I loved quizzing in my past and I will cherish those memories forever. And I still love quizzing now. I wish I could stay in it forever. But we all grow out of our childhood loves, and I’m afraid that quizzing might be one of them. I fear my days with quizzing might be running short. The thought of it makes me sad.

The second end I got the first hints while watching Dr. Phil while waiting for my car to get its lube oil and filter. All of Dr. Phil’s guests were young adult men who had been in college for more than five years because they wanted to be in college longer! It wasn’t for academic reasons, but for social reasons. They loved their social lives at college so much they kept finding reasons (or should I say “excuses”) to stay at college and keep their college social life. Some were purposely failing classes in order to take them over again, while others would keep changing their majors. That was in no way me… or was it?

The real reality of it came thanks to a facebook friend who I came to know living with him for a year in my dorm section. He was at LBC for a two-year associates in Bible. (For the sake of explaining things, we’ll say he had a junior year and a senior year.) Two years later, he did graduate, right on time. But that didn’t stop him from coming to LBC on a regular basis. He would visit LBC at least twice a semester: graduation and a random day during the semester. His excuse would be “to visit friends” but besides that excuse, he had no reason to be there. But as long as he had friends there to visit, he always had an excuse to come back. Thinking about this, I did some math and my calculations concluded that by May 2013, everyone that he would have known while he attended LBC would have graduated. I wondered if he knew this. Well apparently, I think he does know that because he has seemed to devise a plan to solve this problem. He began making friends with the new freshmen! Really, it’s brilliant, for now he’ll keeping having friends whom he’ll have to visit at least once a semester. That was in no way me… or was it?

I would definitely say that my 4 year undergrad college experience was a positive experience, especially in light of the 4 years of high school before that. Even the worst days of my college experience was greater than my best days at high school. And it wasn’t just academically, but also socially. I wasn’t expecting it to go that well socially. Before I went to college, I had planned to move out of the dorms and into an apartment as soon as I was allowed, but by the time I had reached my senior year, I was upset that I had to move out of the dorms and away from my favorite roommate Dylan to leave in an apartment. At sometimes my last semester didn’t feel like my last semester. Student teaching made me more the teacher than the student, and I only saw a few friends once a week. Although I recognize it was necessary, it wasn’t the way I would have liked to end my 4 year undergrad experience.

But it didn’t have to end, did it? From the beginning, even before undergrad, I had decided to go for my Ph.D in Bible. The 4 years in undergrad showed me that not only did I want it, but I kind of needed it. Conveniently for me, LBC had a graduate school which I could continue my education. It seemed perfect. I could continue my education at LBC and everything would go back to normal, both academically and socially. I would be the student once again, learning in the classroom. I could see all my friends on a regular basis. It would have seem as if that student teacher semester was just a “hiccup” and everything would continue as normal. It felt like that for the first semester or two, but not for long. Class would only happen once or twice a week, so I felt less like a student and more like a part-time student, a student on the side. What I felt the most was the social changes. As time went by, friends, one by one, graduated. As for the rest of my friends still there, they entered their upperclassmen years, with more classes, with harder classes, and now adding internships and practicums.They became very busy, I became very busy, and our schedules conflicted so much that we could hardly see each other. Maybe for lunch or dinner, but that’s about it. It didn’t help that I moved away, but maybe I moved away because I felt like the bonds to the college were weaking.

And then in my fall semester of 2012, it hit me. I was in the same boat as my facebook friend I mentioned above. All my college friends that I knew as “seniors” or “juniors” the year I graduated had themselves graduated. All those who I called “sophomores” were now seniors, and would be graduating in the spring. All those who I called “freshmen” were now juniors. Yeah, it’s true that they won’t graduate until spring 2014, but there’s a problem with saying “freshmen friends.” Because of student teaching, I only spent one semester with those freshmen. I really didn’t get the chance to know them, and therefore, I really don’t consider any of them friends. So I really feel like I don’t know any of the current junior class (at least enough to call any “friends”). As for the current sophomores and freshmen, I have no idea who these people are, for they became students after I graduated. The sophomores and freshmen see me as an older person. I know this because last semester I accidently ran into one leaving the bathroom, and he apologized, “Sorry, sir.” Sir? Yes, I know that the proper term to address a male stranger, but I also associate that with someone older. Am I really that much older? All in all, I feel like I’ve soically outgrown LBC.

What perfect time to outgrow LBC socially because at the same time, I’ve outgrown LBC academically. After I complete my second class of Hebrew, I would be 1 class and 1 thesis away from graduating with a Masters in Arts of Bible. But this degree would hardly get me the qualifications for the career and ministry I want. After much thinking and praying, I have decided that for the equipping I need, I have to transfer out of LBC to a seminary for my M.Div. If you would told me this in 2011, I would be sad and emotionally unwilling to make such a move, but in 2012 and 2013, I don’t feel this way. I feel like I’ve outgrown LBC, both academically and socially. I feel like there’s nothing there for me anymore, both academically and socially. Therefore, I feel like it’s time to move on. But I wish it wasn’t so, that makes me sad.

Speaking of social ends, I wonder if I’m coming to an end with my home church. In June, my home church’s pastor, who started his tenure almost exactly the same time my family began attending the church quit. He insisted that (similar to me) God told him that he had outgrown the church and it was time for him and his family to move on. As much as I like to accept this answer, I have had hard time accepting this answer. Ever since he became the pastor, people and families of the congregation would slowly, over the years, leave the church. In the beginning, good excuses passed by to make it not look bad, but as the years past, the good excuses became bad excuses, and the bad excuses eventually become no excuses. But my issue is not with why it happened or how it happened, but more that it just happened.

The best person who could explain my canundrum would be the Greek philosopher Theseus. Theseus is most famously known for his paradox of a ship. Suppose someone built a wooden ship. As each plank decays, the builder removes the old plank and installs a brand new plank in its place. This continues until all the planks decay, get removed, and get replaced with new planks. This ships begs the questions, “Once all the planks are replace, is it the same old ship or is it a brand new ship? At what point does it cease to be the old ship  and become the new ship?” Some say it’s still the old ship, others say it’s a new ship. Some say as long as one plank is still is present, it’s still the old ship; other say that once a new plank is inserted, it’s a new ship. I’m not here to answer this riddle, but it does provide an answer to what I’m experiencing.

I can’t help but think my home church is like this theoretical wooden ship. Ever since the pastor (now ex-pastor) came, the planks had replaced one by one. I was fine with the planks being replaced, but the more I think about it, I was fine with the planks being replaced as long as one piece remained the same, in this case, the pastor. Then the pastor quit, and it really made me wonder if this was the same church that I began attending all the way back in 1999. Sure, there are a few people and a few families who I know have attended since I first have gone there, but is it enough to convince me that it’s still the same church? I miss that old church.

Of course, there are other reason. 4 years in undergrad college meant I only spent 3 summer months and 1 winter month at the church. That really didn’t change in my graduate years either. Also, being out in Lancaster and York Counties longer that back home, I found myself more involved with churches out there than back home, so much I would continue attending these church even if I was at home. I don’t want to say I’ve outgrown the church because I could probably use the church, and the church probably could use me. Maybe a better term is I’ve “grown apart” from the church. Less attachment comes with less time at the church and less involvement. Don’t get me wrong, I love going back to reunite with my brothers and sisters in Christ there, but that’s about it. I don’t see myself stay there. Maybe it’s God’s way of telling me to move on. But I’m still sad to see an end to the Christian fellowship I had at my home church.

Speaking of social ends, I had a lot of those those this years. The first one, the big one, actually began in the fall of 2011. Actually, you can say the end itself came in 2011. I don’t need to say who it is, for everyone reading this probably knows, or at least can figure out it. Let’s just say that in a blog I wrote a few years ago called “3/4 the way through, and I think it’s ruining me” I predicted he would eventually leave me, and sadly I was right. (Darn it, I hate it when I’m right!) I have a lot of theories on why it ended, but I can say any of my hypothesises are true. Let’s just say this: A crisis arose, and when a crisis arises, it can destroy even the best relationships. A crisis arose, and even our strong friendship could not endure it. What made it feel like an end in 2012 is that in 2012 I decided to take action. First, I forgive my friend of any wrong he might have commited against me. Once I forgave him, I realized that left all blame on me. So I did everything in my power to fix and improve myself, to show him I was truly a changed man and I wasn’t the problematic young adult he saw me to be. I was even willing to give up a huge chunk of myself to him to show him how much I wanted to reconcile our friendship. I told him that I recognized I was John Mark and he was Paul, but now I wanted him to see me as Omnesius and himself as Philemon. But it meant nothing to him. He said he saw himself as Joseph and I was Joseph’s brothers, just looking for reconciliation to cover my butt. I didn’t reply to him, but my reply to him is that I have become Jacob, and he has become Esau. He is willing to forgive, but not willing to reconcile. This is the first time I felt like I wash forced to wash my hands. Before, when I had washed my hands, it was because I felt like I did everything to help the person, and thus, I could do no more to help than, so I wanted no more responsibility with them. This time, I washed my hands because I did everything in my power to fix my faults, and that still wasn’t good enough. Last time I washed my hands, I was mad, but this time I washed my hands, and I was sad.

If you don’t believe God can speak to people in dreams, then skip this paragraph and move on to the next. But if you believe God speaks in dreams, continue reading this paragraph. I was very distraught that my friend would not reconcile with me, and I still felt guilty over the matter, but God gave me revelation in a dream. I had a dream I was sharing an apartment with this ex-friend of mine. This apartment was split top to bottom; I had the left side and he had the right side. A wall divided the sides, and the enterance and exit was a single doorway with two doors. The first door, the one closer to his side was a solid steel door with a deadbolt lock. The second door, closer to my side was a steel bar door with a screen over it, also with a lock. Both doors had a typical round doorknob; the only exception was the doorknob handle was only on the ex-friend’s side of the door. Only he could open either door. In the dream, he never opened the steel bar door, but he did occasionally open the solid steel door, only for “buisness,” and in a hostile voice. The metaphors were clear. The solid steel door represnted that my ex-friend had cut off our relationship. The doorknob on the one side meant that he was the only one who could change that, for I did everything in my part to fix it. The steel bar door represents that if/when he does talk to me (at least, in the beginning), there will be hospitality. Once again, I can only hope and pray that he will open the both doors and reconcile.

This one is truly an end. It was not an outgrown relationship and I just moved on. This was a friendship I was hoping and praying would last time. At the least, I would receive a birthday and Christmas card from him every year. But he doesn’t want it so. The irony is he set out to prove to me that Christian fellowship is necessary, important and beneficial, but he only led me to the same disappointing conclusion I have come to realize since high school. Even more ironic, he abondaned our small group, doesn’t attend church regularly and left his ministry. He can’t keep up with his own Christian fellowship! To further the irony, he moved in with his best friend from his undergrad, and to further intensify the irony, the final good advice he gave me was: “Let go of the past.” Isn’t he himself trying to hold on to the past, the “good ol’ days” of undergrad by reuniting and moving in with a past friend from undergrad? But I can’t blame him. Aren’t I trying the same thing?

I think I might be guilty of trying exactly that. I’m guilty of holding on to the past too tightly. I have been holding on to Bible quizzing, LBC, my home church and my former friends in my former small group too tightly. Now my ex-friend accused me of holding on to negatives, like slip-ups and mistakes, but I think I’ve been hanging on too tight because of the positives. I’m hanging on because I feel like if I keep them, I’ll be able to keep life like the “good ol’ days” of Bible quizzing, LBC, church and friends. But the truth is that those past good days are gone. I’m no longer an undergrad, no longer a quizzer or a quiz coach. My small group changed constantly over 4 years, and I’m now starting to realize that my home church changed over 10 years.

The solution: move on. It’s as simple as moving on. I’m already in the process. After completing my second class of Hebrew, I will be transferring out of LBC. My top credentials of colleges/seminaries I want to transfer to are that they accept most of my class credits and that they have online classes. That differs from the credentials of my undergrad search, where the top credential was that it was nearby quizzing. So you guessed it right. I am well aware this could be my last year involved with ACC Bible Quizzing. If the distance is too far from quizzing, it won’t bother me. I’ll pursue continuing my education more than quizzing. On the same note, if this college/seminary is far away, I see my days at my home church running even shorter than they are now. Attending there will merely be for a pleasant visit when I am home. As for my ex-friend, I will keep up with my end of the minimum friendship. I send him birthday cards, Easter cards, thanksgiving cards and Christmas cards, reminding him that I thinking about him, praying for him, and keeping him updated with my life.

Does this mean I’ve abandoned all my past completely? By no means! I hope and pray that my friend will seek forgiveness and reconciliation one day, and that our futures will allow our paths to cross in a good way. Until then, like I said, he’ll be getting cards from me to show him I still see him as a friend. As I said above, I will visti my home church when I’m in the area. And if they ever need a guest speaker or a supply pastor, I’m more than glad to fill in. As for ACC Bible Quizzing, as long as I’m in the area and they need help, I’ll be there for them. This year, they need a timekeeper, so I will happily be a timekeeper. For LBC, I’ll hopefully be back for homecoming, and hopefully I’ll run into my old friends. Who knows? They might even hire me when I finally have all the education I need. The operative word is “need.” I’m only going to be there if God needs me and wants me to be there. If that’s not the case, I will move on.

I’d usually be scared of such change, and I’d usually be unwilling and resisting to move on, but I’m not. Why? My girlfriend Carrie. She is amazing. She tells me she wants to always be with me, and she says she’ll go wherever I go. It’s so comforting knowing that I’ll have someone beside me every step of the way. I really think she was sent from God. She is the physicall reminder that God is always with me. She is truly my “suitable helper.” And she’s also the reason I can’t dwell in the “good ol’ days” of the past. For if I were to dwell in the “good ol’ days” of the past, I wouldn’t be able to discover new “good ol’ days,” such as being a husband, a father or a homeowner. I wouldn’t know of a career or new hobbies, or even the friends that come with them. I’m not afraid of the future because I have God by my side following me wherever I go, and I have Carrie beside me, following me wherever I go.

So I guess my New Year’s Resolution for 2013 is first and foremost is to not look in the past, but look into the present for my future. And here’s a few more resolutions for me to start 2013 off right…

  1. Look in the present, not the past, for my future.
  2. Humble myself to serve in ACC Bible Quizzing wherever I’m needed
  3. Transfer out of LBC and into a seminary for my M.Div
  4. Contribute to the ministry of Stony Brook Mennonite Church
  5. Keep in regular touch with the remnants of my small group from college
  6. Take my girlfriend Carrie on a date night at least once a week
  7. Write a devotional commentary on David (and maybe Samuel and Saul)
  8. Re-boot the Spoiler Review, my video game reviews and discussion blog
  9. Learn to play a real guitar. Really, this time.
  10. Exercise more by dancing (even if it’s Kinect games)

Here are some verses that help me. I hope they help you if you come into a similar situation.

“See, I am sending an angel<sup class="crossreference" value="(A)”> ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.” -Exodus 23:20

“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified;<sup class="crossreference" value="(AA)”> do not be discouraged,<sup class="crossreference" value="(AB)”> for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.” -Joshua 1:9

“Then Deborah said to Barak, ‘Go! This is the day the Lord has given Sisera into your hands.<sup class="crossreference" value="(C)”> Has not the Lord gone ahead<sup class="crossreference" value="(D)”> of you?’” -Judges 4:14a

1 John 0: An Introduction

I’ll admit there was a reason I chose to do my devotional commentary on the Gospel of John, and if you know me well, you’ll probably be able to figure out easily. Yes, I chose it because the Gospel of John was the Bible quizzing material for the year. I wanted to study the quizzing material like the rest of the quizzers, but I wanted to study it more in-depth than just writing questions. It did come in hand elsewhere, though. At the same time, I took New Testament Theology class in graduate school. For the class, I had to write on the theology of a New Testament author. Naturally, I chose John. But to write on John, I couldn’t just read and write on the Gospel of John. I also had to read and write on John’s 3 epistles and Revelation. I did read it all, and I found I enjoyed reading 1 John just as much as the Gospel of John. In fact, in a way, I saw 1 John as a commentary on the theology in the Gospel of John because a lot of the theological themes in 1 John are similar to the theological themes in the Gospel of John. So I wouldn’t be doing justice if I were to leave out 1 John into our discussion. So without further ado, I present to you a devotional commentary on 1 John.

If you remember me correctly, you’ll know I’m a literalist…of sorts. I’m not a literalist in the sense I try to take a Bible verse and put in a timeless, spaceless bubble to make a timeless truth out of it. Actually, I sharply disagree with that method. I don’t know if there is a term for me. If there isn’t, I’ll make up a term: “contextual literalist.” I believe the most literally way to understand the Bible is to understand it in its context, especially the historical and cultural context. After all, the Bible was written in a timeless, spaceless bubble, but in history and in culture. The context will include, the author, the audience, the date, the location, the historical occasion and the purpose. So before we dive into any of the material, let’s look at the introductory information. We’ll start with the author, for that’s the most obvious (although it’s not as obvious as it seems). Next, we’ll go over the setting, with the location and the date. The setting will bring light to audience, and all 4 of these pieces will bring light to the historical occasion and the purpose, and the purpose will explain how the letter is structured.

THE AUTHOR WHO wrote the book was John, just like the title of the book tells us. But there are quite a few Johns in the Bible. No, this is not John, also known as Mark. The only book John Mark wrote is the Gospel of Mark. No, this is not John, the father of Peter. No, this is not the John in Acts 4:8 who is in the family of the high priests. And this is definitely not John the Baptist, the son of Zechariah, the second cousin of Jesus. This is John, the son of Zebedee, the first cousin of Jesus. And with that last statement, you got two facts about his family history. Let me throw in a third: his brother was James (and there’s 4 men named James in the Bible, but that’s a different discussion for a different day). John started out his life in the family trade of fishing with his father Zebedee and his brother James. Everyone knows John and James were disciples of Jesus, but not everyone remembers that John and James were first disciples of John the Baptist. Being disciples of John the Baptist, they were probably baptized by John the Baptist and they probably listened carefully to his preaching about repentance and the coming Messiah. Yet their following wasn’t too serious, as it seems like they followed him on the side and stayed focus on their job trade. This seems also true of being disciples to Jesus. When John points the two of them out to Jesus Christ in John 1, they follow him a bit and even acknowledged Jesus as a Rabbi, but then they went back to fishing. It wasn’t until Matthew 4 that Jesus needs to call them to follow to get through their thick skulls to stay with him longer. John, along with his brother James and Peter, were among the 3 disciples in the inner circle of disciples, who were the closest of Jesus, perhaps because they were the first ones called to be disciples. They got to see special events, like the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the transfiguration, and they got to be closer to Jesus in Gethsemane. This inner circle of 3 will stay tight until the end. When we see John in Acts, he’ll always be with Peter.

I will briefly mention here that while John is the traditional author of the book, and the author widely accepted by conservative scholars, not everyone agrees that John, or more specifically, “John the disciple/apostle” is the author of the book. Why? Most scholars believe that 1 John, 2 John and 3 John are all written by the same person, for all have the same writing styles. 1 John has not signature, but 2 John and 3 John are signed “The Elder” with no name. Now the conservative scholars will tell you that John the Disciple/Apostle became known as John the Elder later in the senior citizen days of his life. But liberal scholars will disagree, and they will point you to another source. This source is a letter, one that dates to the 2nd or 3rd century AD. The author of the letter claims to be a disciple, or a student, of John the Elder. The author then writes that his mentor, John the Elder, was a disciple, or a student, of John the Apostle. One of the lines in the letter says something along the lines of, “I asked my mentor, John the Elder, what it was like to be mentored by John the Apostle.” Liberal scholars conclude that John the Elder and John the Apostle were two different people. While John the Apostle may have written either the Gospel of John or Revelation (or both), the 3 epistles were written by John the Elder. What do I have to say about that? As you will find other conservative scholars saying, there were many Johns around that time, for John was a common name. On top of that, the title “elder” was a common title to any old, wise leader in the church. So it’s very possible and very likely that both men, John the Apostle, and John the Disciple of John the Apostle, both had the title “elder” and were both called “John the elder.” I can say I am certain John the Apostle wrote the 3 epistles because I believe the writing styles and theological themes of the 3 epistles match up with the Gospel of John and Revelation of John. So without a doubt, I am sure John the Apostle is the author of the 3 Epistles. If John the disciple of John the Apostle was involved, at the most, he might have dictated what John the Apostle said.

THE DATE WHEN the book was written is in relation to the Gospel of John. Clearly 1 John is written after the Gospel of John. The themes in 1 John are found in the Gospel of John. John assumes that the reader has already heard and understood what John has talked about in his Gospel. What John is out to do is to present new, different information on the same theological themes. In a way, 1 John can be seen as a commentary to the Gospel of John, but more about that in the structure. The point is the structure can reveal the date. 1 John has to come after the Gospel of John. The broad range for the Gospel of John’s date is 85-95 AD. The specific range for the Gospel would be 85-90 AD. If the Gospel of John is between 85-90 AD, then 1 John has to be between 90-95 AD. For simplicity’s sake, the date will be 90-91 AD.

THE LOCATION WHERE 1 John was written was Ephesus. Ephesus is a key location. Ephesus is located in on the coast of Asia Minor, which is modern-day Turkey. Being on the coast, Ephesus had ports for ships, making it a busy place for commerce. Not only were the seas an excellent way to reach Ephesus, but the rivers were also large enough for boats. A sailor could get to Ephesus either be sea or by river. Ephesus also had a main Roman road going through it, increasing the commerce. Between the ports and the roads, Ephesus was a really busy place. It always had people coming in and out of it. In fact, by the 1st century AD, Ephesus was most likely the 4th biggest city in the Roman Empire! What a wonderful place it would be to build a church and spread the Gospel message! Well, that’s exactly what happened. Paul began a church in Ephesus. He would minister many times, both by visits and by letters. He would also send those who studied under him, like Timothy and Tychicus. But that’s Paul, Timothy and Tychicus. How did John get there? Well, truth to be told, we don’t really know. It’s only tradition from the early church fathers that tells us so. But we have no reason to the church fathers’ tradition because it is very likely John is there. Revelation not only helps demonstrate why Paul was in Ephesus but it will also display proof why Ephesus is the right location setting for John’s 3 Epistles. Look at the 7 churches John writes 7 letters to. Now look on a map of 1st century Asia Minor and locate these churches (simply Google Image search “1st century Asia Minor Map” or “7 Churches in Revelation map” if you don’t have the map available in a book). You’ll notice that the follow a nice curved path on the major Roman road[s]. This is why I mentioned the trade routes going through Ephesus. One of those roads was the mail route, and the mail route begins in Ephesus. Because of such, Ephesus became a capital of the Asia Minor region of the Roman Empire. So it’s quite possible while the setting where the epistles are being written is in Ephesus, the letters could be going out all the other 6 cities mentioned in Revelation. With that in mind…

THE AUDIENCE WHOM John was originally writing to would be the Church in Ephesus or the Christians in Ephesus. You can use either one; they are one and the same. If I were to make a famous saying that would be quoted over and over again, it would be this: “Church is the plural for Christian.” So the Christians in Ephesus are the Church in Ephesus. But keep in mind what I wrote above. Just like Ephesus is the capital of Asia Minor, in a way the Church in Ephesus was a “capital church” in Asia Minor. And just like the news/mail would start in Ephesus and move along the mail route to other important cities in Asia Minor, it’s very possible, and very likely that this letter started in Ephesus, and then migrated to other cities and towns in Asia Minor, such as Symrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Phiadelphia, and Laodicea. Thus one could easily say that the original intended audience is the churches in Asia Minor or the Christians in Asia Minor. But for simplicity’s sake, we’ll stick to the Christians in Ephesus.

Alright, already there are 4 pieces of introductory matters we have at hand: John is the author, the date is 90-91 AD, the location is Ephesus in Asia Minor, and the audience is the church in Ephesus (possibly expanding to the churches in Asia Minor). Those 4 pieces are crucial in setting up the setting for the historical occasion and the purpose. So without further ado, let’s set up the historical occasion and the purpose.

THE HISTORICAL OCCASION is WHAT was happening with the people in the setting that caused the author (John) to write the book, or as in this case, the letter. It hasn’t changed much since the Gospel of John. Altogether, it’s false teachers. There are two main camps of false teachers: early forms of Gnosticism and early forms of Docetism (I say “early forms” because these cultic religions haven’t fully developed their beliefs, so they are slightly different in the earlier stages than in the later stages). Early Gnosticism was saying that Jesus was only human and Jesus was never God. The early Docetism was saying that Jesus was only God and never really human. He only appeared to be human while on earth (thus, the name “Docetism,” coming from the Greek word dokeo, meaning “it seems”). Both Gnosticism and Docetism were denying that Jesus was the Christ. It’s not certain if these groups were explicitly teaching that Jesus wasn’t the Christ, but as John will show us, the only way for Jesus to be the Christ is for Jesus to be both God and human, so anyone who only preaches one side is declaring Jesus was not the Christ. These incorrect teachings on doctrine were effecting the application on behavior. These false teachers were teaching that people who believed in Jesus did not need did not need Christian fellowship, did not need other people in their lives, even they didn’t need to love other people, both the Christians and the non-Christians. They were also teaching that since Jesus died on the cross to atone for sin, God does not care about sin anymore, since the price has been paid. Therefore, it didn’t matter how much or how little a person sinned because the sin was paid for. Obviously, Gnosticism denying Jesus was human and Docetism denying Jesus was God was already confusing the Ephesians because they contradicted themselves, but even the behavioral application was confusing because even if the false teachers agreed on that, it was contradictory to what the true Apostles were teaching. Confusion like this can easily lead to doubts, and doubts can lead someone to fall away from the faith. John doesn’t want the Ephesian Christians, nor any Christians in Asia Minor, to convert to either Gnosticism or Docetism. In fact, John wants them to avoid it all together. John also doesn’t want unsteady or shaky beliefs. So John needs to teach the right doctrine to the Church in Ephesus, as well as the churches in Asia Minor.

I want to make a quick aside to say that even though the historical occasion is for the audience 2,000 years ago, it could easily been the same historical occasion for the 2000s century. It’s not so much the doctrinal false teachings. Most Christians (and these are all the true Christians) will teach that Jesus is both God and man. Those that don’t are quickly denoted as Christian cults or different religions. Rather, the historical occasion stays true in the behavioral application sense. Of the 2, the biggest one would be that God doesn’t care about our sins. The best example I can give is from my Xanga page. For those who do not remember, Xanga was the popular social networking/blogging website before MySpace and Facebook. One day, I wrote in my banner (the best equivalent I can give you is the status on Facebook), “Can there be too much of a good thing? Can too much of a good thing be a bad thing?” Within a week, some random stranger from far away (how she found my Xanga site will always be a mystery to me) commented on my banner, saying it was true, citing the example that drinking too much water can be harmful to a person’s body. But I digress, for this is not the point. Curious to who this person was or even to figure out how she found me, I went to her Xanga site. On her banner, she had written, “Sex is a sin, but sin is forgiven, so let’s begin!” Now I could go on a long rant on how this is incorrect, on how sex isn’t a sin but rather the misuse of sex is a sin, but that’s not the point either. The point is that there is a belief floating around my generation and the next generation that Christ’s atoning death on the cross paid for sin, so therefore Jesus becomes like a hippie who allows you experiment with different sins, and allows you to keep the sins you like. They believe that since sin is forgiven, we can sin because it will ultimately be forgiven. It’s like you are about to sin, but then you have a quick, sudden jolt of guilt for sinning. You ponder to yourself, “Should I really be doing this?” but then you say to yourself, “It’s OK, Jesus will forgive me afterwards” and then go through with it! Let me tell you, you won’t get past the first chapter of 1 John if you hold on to this belief.

Although not as prevalent as the prior application belief, another one slowly and steadily beginning to float around modern Christianity is the denial of love or fellowship with other people, both Christian and non-Christian. This belief stems out of Christianity’s most recent correction to ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church. The universal church has finally got it into their minds and their parishioners’ minds that going to church or being a member of a church (church here means more like a building or a systematic assembly) does not bring salvation to a person. This is good, for this is true. The problem is, however, that it has caused the pendulum to swing in the opposite extreme. Now all of a sudden Christian church parishioners are abandoning church (once again, referring to the building or service), Sunday School, small groups, Bible studies, and/or prayer meetings. Why? Well, since salvation does not come from church, and since most spiritual disciplines can be done by the person’s own self (at least, so they claim), there is no need to fellowship with Christians. It may sound crazy, but I do think that some Christians truly believe this, whether they explicitly state it or not. For example, a few years ago I worked with a ministry that focused primarily on evangelism, but also did a little bit of discipleship for those that they evangelized to and were newly saved. Their top 4 disciples for spiritual growth were (I believe I have them in proper order, too): reading and obeying your Bible, prayer, confession of sin, and witnessing/evangelizing to other non-Christians. Nowhere in the top 4 is any form of Christian fellowship. Going to church did rank as 5th on their list for spiritual discipline, but notice I said “Going to church” and not “Christian fellowship.” Their reason to go to church was so a person can learn more about God and worship him there, not to fellowship with other Christians. Although church is a means of learning about God and worshipping God, fellowship with other Christians is just as important for church as worship and learning. Without fellowship, church would missing a big part of it. This also can be dangerous. How it can be dangerous? I’ve noticed that a lot of people who believe that church is not necessary and have separated themselves from church become quite prideful, believing that what they are doing is better than the Christian attending church. This selfish pride can easily lead to a lack of love towards other Christians. John is going to show his readers how big of a piece would be missing in the Christian’s life without fellowship or love of other Christians.

THE PURPOSE is WHY the author wrote the book. When looking for the purpose, the first clue would be to look for a verse that would explicitly state a purpose or explicitly state why the author wrote. 8 times in 5 different verses John writes something along the lines of “I write to you” or “I write this/these things,” most of which are in chapter 2. But the one, the only one, that is not in chapter 2 is in chapter 5, and I feel confident that this verse is the purpose statement. Why? Just compare it to the Gospel! John waited until near the end of his Gospel to write the purpose statement, so it would make sense John would wait near the end of his epistle to state his purpose. The other reason I like the purpose statement found 1 John 5 is that it parallels the purpose statement of the Gospel of John very well. If you look both of them, you’ll see they parallel each other. Take a look…

John 20:31-
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

1 John 5:13-
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

I took the liberty of bolding the similar words. The most obvious and explicit seen differences is that 1 John 5:13 does not say Christ, nor does it even use the name Jesus. But by the time you get to 1 John 5:13, the reader has no doubts that John is talking about Jesus and John is proving that Jesus is the Christ. Also, you may notice a slight shift. In the Gospel of John, John writes that the reader may believe (or continue to believe) Jesus is the Son of god. In the Epistle of 1 John, John says he writes to those who already believe Jesus is the Son of God. Yet both times the end result is the salvific knowledge that brings about eternal life. Therefore, I see John doing the same thing in the Epistle of 1 John. John is trying to get his Christian believers to continue believing what they are believing, and not changing their beliefs to agree with the false teachers. John wants the Christians in Asia Minor to believe that Jesus is both God and man. John wants the Christians in Asia Minor to love one another and fellowship with God in a sinless lifestyle.

John wrote the book of 1 John to persuade Christians in Ephesus to continue believing that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and to love God and other people by not sinning against them.

THE STRUCTURE is HOW John wrote his epistle to get his purpose across. How does John address that Jesus is God, Man and the Christ? How does John teach the importance of holiness, fellowship and love? At this time, I would talk about outlines and writing styles. 1 John is infamous for not being easy to outline. So we’ll wait to outline 1 John until we’ve read it all. Instead, let’s look at the writing styles John will choose.

First of all, what is will strike this epistle as weird is that it’s not epistle-like. Maybe I’ve been tossing around a word that is unknown to you, so let me define it. An epistle is a letter, simply put. In the Greco-Roman world of the 1st century, people wrote letters differently. A letter would usually start with the “from line,” or a line stating who the letter was written by. The next line would be the “to line,” or a line stating whom the letter was written to. The third line would be some kind of greeting. It could be as simple as “Greetings!” or be a little more complicated, like “Grace and peace be to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Then the body of the letter would start. The first paragraph is a personal opening that would give a prayer of thankfulness and would also praise the recipients for their good condition and what they are doing correctly. Then the rest of body of the letter would commence. The letter would finish out by giving a personal farewell. Once again, the author will praise the audience for the good people they are and then will extend specific greetings with specific exhortations and specific commands. This is typically how Greco-Roman letters went, and this is typically how New Testament epistles went.

But take a look at 1 John. Anyone will notice that 1 John is not like the typical epistle or the epistle described above. 1 John does not a “from line” that states the author’s name. 1 John does not have a “to line” that states the recipients’ names. That third line, the greeting line, is missing. The author does not address the recipients with a greeting line of any sorts. Expanding on that idea, the body of the letter does not have any kind of opening of prayer or thanksgiving. The letter dives right into the material. On the other end, the epistle of 1 John does not have any personal, individual remarks at the end. The closest we get to personal remarks is the last line in 1 John 5, where John says in verse 21, “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.” Even this seems thrown in a random. We’ll talk more about it when we get there, but the point is that it lacks the typical ending for an epistle. With all this against the epistle, some have suggested that 1 John should be seen less as an epistle and more as a sermon, like the book of Hebrews. Yet I’m not read to throw this book out of the window as an epistle. While it is true that there is no opening and closing personal remarks, that doesn’t mean this epistle is not personal. John does seem to be personal with this letter. John’s commands are serious because he is concerned about the spiritual well-being of the people. His pleas are emotional and heart-wrenching for the same reasons. He even calls his readrs by affectionate names, such as “friends,” “brothers” and “children.” John seems to have a personal connection with his readers, a personal connection that can only be found in an epistle.

While there may be little proof that 1 John is an epistle in its form, it can easily be shown in its function and its features. The function of most epistles was to give instruction for both doctrine (what to think) and application (what to do). 1 John gives both theology and practical ways to live out that theology. How does John present this theology? He uses argument. No, this is not argument like yelling, screaming and fighting. This is argument as in using evidence and claims to prove that his theology is correct. The evidence can come from logic, reason, history, culture, geography, philosophy, religion, etc. John will use these evidences, and they will come in handy.

On that note, remember the historical occasion. John does want to demonstrate that following the false teachings of the false teachers are wrong. But John is not going to be as direct as you think. John will neither give a defense nor give a counter-attack. John will not attack the false teachers’ teachings or attack the false teachers personally. John will not even simply defend himself or his teachings. John will simply present the real truth, the gospel. Then, by the end of the letter, John will simply ask rhetorically, “After hearing the truth, whose teachings are right, mine or the teachers who disagree with me [aka the false teachers]?” The evidence will be too strong, and any reader will be forced to acknowledge that John and the other apostles are the true teachers of the truth, while any others are false teachers.

Now that we have all the introductory information, we are ready to trek into 1 John, chapter by chapter. My goal is that this will be a devotional commentary that will serve both evangelism purposes and discipleship purposes. If after 21 chapters of the Gospel of John, you are still not convinced that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, I hope that by the end of the 5 chapters of 1 John, you will be convinced, and you will come to a saving faith that leads to eternal life. If you do already believe in Jesus as Christ and God, I hope that 1 John will teach you how to take your belief and practically live it out. I will do my best to point both of these out. I pray that by the end of my devotional commentary, I have either have new Christians or stronger Christians.

9 Ways the modern-day* church has gone wrong with worship

Ok, this is something that has been on my heart since fall 2007 (perhaps attending LBC started it), but I have repressed for the benefit of not harming any relationships in the body of Christ. But as we all know, if we fill the gun power keg too full, and if it kept it the heat too long, it might spontaneously combust into a huge explosion. This is something I cannot hold back anymore. I entrust that I can get appropriate feedback from trusted people, instead of just hateful spews from people who barely know me. But I can no longer turn my head and ignore what is going on in the worship time. There are just some things that irk me about the way we have approached worship in the church. I hope that someday worship will be reformed, just like Martin Luther reformed the church. I may not have 95 Thesis, but I do have at least 9 points that the church needs to address to be able to successfully reform worship.

9 ways the modern-day* church has gone wrong with worship

  1. Worship is self-centered. It’s all about me.
  2. Worship is all about the emotions
  3. Worship songs are not always Biblically accurate
  4. Worship songs tend to focus more on the death and resurrection
  5. Worship teams does not lead, but rather performs
  6. When worship teams do “lead,” they are commanding
  7. There is not always unity in worship
  8. Worship can get too complex with instruments and sounds
  9. Worship and the rest of the service are separate, where worship becomes the center

But before I go on, let me say that these observations I had made were in a “scientific” way. How is it scientific? I kept score; I did a survey. In my notebook, I made 7 columns to find 7 things I thought I would find in worship songs: number of times God is mentioned explicitly (Lord, God, Jesus, Christ, Holy Spirit, Yahweh, etc.), number of times God is mentioned implicitly (any title of God or Jesus that does not use God or Jesus, or any time “You” is used mentioning God or Jesus, but not really stated in the verse or chorus), numbers of time the self is mentioned (I, me, my, myself, etc.), number of times “you” is used (an altruistic use of “you,” the ones not in reference to God), number of times the church or the Body of Christ is mentioned (pretty much “we”), number of times the creation is mentioned to worship God, and the number of times the passion weekend and redemption is mentioned (this is Christ’s death, resurrection, or any redemption themes, like paying for sins, etc.). These are my results:

Times God/Jesus is explicitly mentioned: 108 times
Times God/Jesus is implicitly mentioned: 138 times
Times God/Jesus is mentioned altogether: 246 times (top 2 added together)
Times the self (I, me, etc.) is mentioned: 247 times
Times the alturistic sense of “you” is used: 1 time
Times the body of Christ/church is mentioned: 6 times
Times the creation is used in praise: 49 times
Times passion week and redemption is used: 56 times

Possible Conclusions:
-We focus more about ourselves rather than God
-We focus more on 3 days of Christ’s early life over the whole redemptive history
-While we might understand worship, the non-Christian or new Christian may not
-Very little time is dedicated to building each other up

1. Worship is self-centered. It’s all about me.
One of the most eye-opening discoveries in my survey is that the column that won was the high numbers that the self was mentioned, even more than God implicitly mentioned or God explicitly mentioned. I can only naturally conclude that in praise and worship, we sing more about ourselves than about God. In a way, we’re not worshipping God, but ourselves, or at least our relationship of God. Do I dare even say we’re asking God to praise us for deciding to follow Him? I blame the modern era influence on Christianity during the 20th century. 20th century modern philosophy is very centered around the self. Now don’t get me wrong. I do believe that salvation comes with every one’s individual decision to follow Christ. But we forget that when we do make this individual decision, we become part of a community, the Body of Christ. One of the reasons we go to church is to help fellow Christians be edified by one another. But the praise and worship time seems to say different. The worshipper sings so little about the church community and even less about others in the church community. It means praise and worship has become narcissistic, which is not Christian.

2. Worship is all about the emotions
Are you familiar with the term “sensual”? Today it has a bad reputation because it is often seen as a synonym to the word “sexual”. But the etomology of the word shows the word sensual simply means “exciting, arousing, or appealing to the senses”. I want to argue that all music gives us a sensual experience. We play music that reflects our emotions. We play upbeat songs when we are happy, we play downbeat songs when we’re sad, and we play loud music when we’re angry. No matter what genre you like listening to, this is true. May I go further on to this is true for both secular and religious music. The Bible does this. In David’s good times, he wrote Psalms of praise, and in David’s bad times, he wrote painful laments. So emotional involvement in praise and worship isn’t fully wrong, but it isn’t fully right. We have to remember our emotions is only one part of us, one part among many (physical, mental, social, spiritual, etc.). We also have to be careful with driving up emotions so high. Emotional thinking and decision-making isn’t always the wisest. It may contradict the logical answer. Sometimes feeling good will become more important than expressing truths. And if that gets to an extreme, a wolf in sheep’s clothing can sneak in, exchange the truths with lies, and we won’t notice because all we care about is the emotional high. It calls for extra accountability to the worship leaders. Lastly, extra attention on the emotions can cause the intellect or anyone who is less in tune with emotions to feel left out of the worship experience. God wants us to worship Him in spirit and in truth, both emotionally and intellectually.

3. Worship songs are not always Biblically accurate

This piggy-backs off the last point. When all we care about is the emotional connection, we ignore the heresies and blasphemies that enter our praise songs. We need to make sure the songs we sing speak Biblical truth. Anything else is a lie. I can go on and on with this, but I will try to limit to a few examples. First example: “Come, Now is the Time to Worship.” The song says in one line, “Come, just as you are to worship.” This is not right. The Bible says we need to prepare and cleanse our hearts and minds as we enter God’s presence. This is found in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Second example: “Above All.” Yeah, it’s a cute song about how Jesus died for us, but the biggest error is what i said in point 1: it’s self-centered. Hello, Jesus was thinking about [God] the Father’s Will above all. Because Jesus always put the Father before His ministry, just as we should. Third example: “Blessed Be Your Name.” Now this one isn’t as bad because it is taken from Scripture. The only problem is that it is used out of context. It’s true that the bridge is a taken right out of the book of Job. But when Job says that, he is lamenting in the deepest sorrows. We sing it in a upbeat, happy praise. Trust me, it’s better sung as a lament. Fourth example: “The Heart of Worship.” It says “I’ll bring you more than a song.” Hello, this is a song! And people get caught up in the song, too! I don’t know, I just never got it. And there is enough more. I once heard this one song (forget what it was called, but it’s not like I want to remember) where the song said that something is missing in life, and that the writer is searching for it, but left it at that! No mention of the Lord, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or how God gives more to life. Worship songs have to come back to praising Jesus in a Biblical way. Furthermore, I call for worship songs to mention God and Jesus more explicitly. Notice in my survey that Jesus and God’s name usually came in the form of “You” or some title given to either part of the trinity. Yes, the mature Christian on spiritual meat knows what the song is about, but the non-Christian or the newborn Christian on spiritual milk may be clueless, and it wouldn’t be edifying to them. It is key for church to be edifying to all, which means understandable to all.

4. Worship songs tend to focus more on the death and resurrection
My survey alone should show that is true. The survery showed we sung more about redemptive themes than even the creation. Now in writing this, I don’t want it to seem like I’m favoring hymns in worship just for the sake of favoring hymns, but if there is one thing I like about hymns, it’s the variety. Open a hymnal (if you can find one), and you’ll find hymns on peace, hope, love, joy, prayer, praise, thanksgiving, suffering, wisdom and so much more. You can find hymns on the advent of Christ’s birth, Christ’s birth, Christ’s ministry, Christ’s works, Christ’s death, Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s ascension, and Christ’s Body, filled with the Holy Spirit. But when it comes to comtemporary praise and worship, most, if not all, songs can be placed in two categories: praising God for His creation or praising God for his sacrifice. And the survery shows which one is more used. Is it wrong to sing praise of Christ’s work on the cross. Not at all, or at least not fully. Where does it go wrong? When we can’t move on. Let me explain better by explaining how worship has ended up just focusing on passion weekend (Good Friday to Resurrection Sunday). To briefly sum up the Bible and redemptive history, it can be done in 4 stage: creation, fall, redemption, re-creation. To say it in sentence form, “God created you, you fell into sin, Jesus saves those from sin who receive him, and makes them a new creation through sanctification.” But over time the 20th century evangelical church has shaved off the ends of the redemptive story, leaving only the fall and redemption side in. So the evangelical’s method of evangelism is saying to non-believers, “You have fallen into sin, but Jesus can save you from sin if you receive him.” Is there anything wrong with this saying? No, but I believe this saying robs people of the full picture, of being wonderfully made in the image of God and, as Christians, being remade into a new creation. But no. Instead, it’s just fall & redemption. The four parts are now: humans sin, Christ died, Christ, receive the gift. And this idea has sneaked into our worship time. Our worship singing is all about the fall and redemption. We keep reminding ourselves that we are fallen sinners, totally dependant upon Christ. Is this a lie? Not at all. But it does have a negative effect on us when we don’t have the full redemption story on it. Ever feel guilty of your sin, even after being saved. Why would you be? Hebrews tells us that once we are saved, God remembers our sins no more. Romans says that if we are in Christ, there is no condemnation. So why do Christian still feel condemned? They are constantly reminded in worship they are sinners dependant on Christ’s salvation, so they keep worshipping God in that aspect, as if God will not forgive them if they don’t. Instead, what should be happening is we should be hearing more praise and worship songs that talk about re-creation and sanctification, so that we can grow in those areas. Sometimes I think God can do so much more with us if we moved on in the way of sanctification, and stop groveling at the cross, thanking for forgiveness that we have already received. It is like Jesus is crying out to use, “Yes, I get it you’re thankful you’re saved. Can we move on to working in my kingdom and in my ministry?” Or better yet, it is like Jesus is saying, “I am off the cross. Are you?” Finally, I’d to close with pointing out a Biblical proof for this: the Psalms. There is not just 1 genre of psalms. There are quite a few: laments, praising God for rescuing, praising God for who He is, and wisdom psalms. If the Psalms are in variety, shouldn’t the comtemporary worship be as well?

5. Worship team does not lead, but rather performs
It’s typical for the worship team, especially the leader of the team to be incredibly talented musically. Is there anything wrong with that? No. In fact, it seems like they are the first ones willing to do it. Do I think that musical talent should be the discerning factor in choosing a praise and worship band. I don’t believe so. I do believe there is a difference between the spiritual gift of worship leader and musical talent. But the problem I am about to discuss can happen to worship leaders who are talented and not as talented; it just seems more prevailant in those who are musically talent. It might be because the worship team is musically talented, or it might be because the stage is set up like a concert. But whatever the cause, it seems like the worship team is performing than leading worship. First sign of a performing worship team: singers, especially the lead singer, uses his/her/their full octive range in singing. Obviously less talented singers in the audience/congregation aren’t going to be able to reach these notes. So why are doing it? Second sign of a performing worship team: instrumental solos. Yeah that’s cool to hear at a concert, but how is it edifying the rest of the congregation? I won’t even rule out it’s an act of worship to God, but the soloist is not leading the rest of the church with the soloist. Pretty much, today’s worship scene is set up like this: the worship team is the performers, and the church congreation is the audience. It needs to switched as God is the audience, and the performers are both the worship team and the rest of the church congregation. It’s time we define the lead in “worship leaders.” They are worship leaders, not worship performers.

6. When worship team does “lead,” they are commanding
Ever have a worship team tell you what to do, what to think or how to feel? I have a problem more with the last two then the first one, but let’s go in order. Now I don’t have a problem of worship leaders telling their audience to sit or stand. It tells the congregation, both members and visitors, what the appropriate stance or position is while worshipping. But I think when the worship teams tells the congregation to sing a certain way, say a certain line, or put their hands in a certain position, that goes to far. Those actions are suppose to be something that comes from the heart. Speaking of which, I can move on to my dislike of worship teams telling the congregation on how to think or feel. This is just wrong inside and outstide of worship. If you’re telling me how to think or feel, and it’s contrary to how I really think or feel, then changing it would not be genuine. And I might be getting something else out of the worship time, but if the worship team tells me to think/feel another way, I might feel wrong, and lose spiritual growth. God made everyone individually special, and the Body of Christ must recognize that it will create different worship styles. I believe the worship team’s job is to encourage worship, no matter what the style.

7. There is not always unity in worship
This goes beyond the fact of the powerpoint not matching the worship team. Ever have this happen: half the worship team repeats a verse, another repeats the chorus? Or have the singers repeat a verse, while the instrument players repeating the chorus? This can lead the worshipping congregation confused on what to sing! Heck, that happens, too! The worshipping congregation goes to continue to song as normal, and the worship band decides to change order. Now we, as Christians, claim that the Holy Spirit is with us in worship, and that the Holy Spirit unites. This is true. But what do you say when you the above incidents happen? It is embarrassing! It’s a bad witness of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is there at worship, uniting us, this shouldn’t happen. Now don’t get me wrong: I claim both statements about the Holy Spirit as truth. So that leads me to want to question the motifs of the praise band when it does happen, especially if the praise band has been practicing too. But I will not question too much, so I don’t have to face judgment. All I’m saying is that at least at hymns, the hymn leader would say what verse are being sung ahead of time.

8. Worship can get too complex with instruments and sounds

Sometimes I think worship can get too carried away with how we sound. First is the instruments. I think the biggest worship team I saw had 10 performers on stage: 4 guitars (lead, rhythm, bass, and acoustic), 2 pianists (baby grand piano & keyboard), 2 drummers (full drum set & double bongos), and 2 singers. Another time I saw 3 acousitic guitars. I turned to one of my friends, who is musically talented, and asked him, “Is there really a point to 3 acoustic guitars?” and his reply was “No, not really.” Doesn’t this kind of seem ridiculous? Truth to be told, if we really cared about sound, the better worship teams I’ve heard are the ones with the fewer instruments, the better. Ever listen to the Amish? They don’t believe in playing instruments, and their voices are wonderful. Second in this subject is the singing. As I said above, some worship leaders will sing full octives. Others coordinate the church into 4-part singing. Still others don’t care and just have everyone sing in unison. The worst causes is I heard worship leaders say in a low-tone, implicit, “nice” way, “If you can’t sing, don’t sing” (they will say something like “pause and silently think about the words” but that’s what they mean). Last time I checked, Psalm 100:1 says to make joyful sound unto the Lord, not necessarily a pleasant sounding one. Point is that it’s about the heart. It may even be true that the worshipper who sings “badly” might have a better heart in worship than someone singing “well.” Third part would just be sound in general. This ranges anywhere from designing the church building to have good acoustics to installing microphones and speakers in the right place. For this I say the same I said for singing. It’s not how we sound, but where our heart is.

9. Worship and the rest of the service is separate, where worship becomes the center
I’ve noticed the typical pattern for worship is: call to worship, praise and worship music, announcements, offering, sermon, prayer requests, bendiction. Sometimes prayer time comes between offering and sermon, but not the point. Somehow this setup is group in sections, instead of one whole thing. Thus, sometimes more attention is given to one than the other. The popular choice is the praise and worship time. I’ve seen people give their all in praise and worship, singly loudly and waving their arms, but then after they are unlively, so unlively it’s like they are do. They zone out for rest of the service. Heck, I’ve even seen some people leave the sanctuary, and even leave the church, after the praise and worship time, as if church is done. Why is this? It could be something as simple as they put in all their energy in the beginning, and by the time praise and worship singing is over, they are out of juice and pooped. But I think there is something more. I think it’s because they are in the wrong mindset. They believe that the preacher giving the sermon is merely the preacher’s act of worship, not theirs. But this is only paritally true. Sure the preacher is worship God by preaching, but he’s also doing it to edify church. He’s giving you just as much spiritual food as praise and worship will. And if you believe as I, that the Holy Spirit is speaking through the preacher, then the Holy Spirit might be speaking to us in the sermon as in praise and worship singing. Then those that zone out will be missing out on God’s Word. I know that I truthfully get more out of the sermon than the praise and worship music. If you give it a try, you might find that out as well. As an LBC chapel speaker once said, “If you refuse to listen to God through His Word the Bible, then why would God speak to you any other way?” This kind of goes back to my second point. Church, it is time you stop just feeling, and start thinking.

In closing, I want to leave you with a verse and an experience I had. The verse is Hebrews 5:13,14- “Anyone who lives on milk, still being an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by cosntant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.” I love the imagery the author (possibly Paul, because Paul uses the same imagery) uses here. When infants start eating, they have to start on milk first, but as they mature and need more calories, they move on to solid food. In fact, a lot of infant nutritionists say it’s unhealthy to push solid food on an infant. But you ever think of this way: is it unhealthy to keep an infant on milk when it needs to move up to solid food? That might be denying the baby the important nutrients, like calories, that the infant needs to keep growing. I will tell you of the experience I had. I went on a fast for five days, having nothing but a quart of milk for every meal (which is about a half gallon a day). See what happened to me and try to connect it with the verse. Did I survive? Yes. Was I hospitalized? No. Did it keep me alive? With the help of God, yes. So on the surface level, it did its job. But deep down inside, I was lacking something. At the end of my milk “meals,” I was still hungry. Even though it gave my the nutrients to stay alive, I robbed myself of other nutrients that were neccesary to grow. I could feel inside that I was lacking solid food, and I craved for it. I crave for something to fill me. Some days I felt aching muscles, and I wondered if that had anything to do with the fast. See the connection? While milk keeps us alive, we need to eventually move on to solid foods to keep growing strong. This is true in the spiritual aspects, too. See, I believe that when we are only focusing on a praise & worship time where the individal is center, where feelings are more imporant than thinking, and where passion week and redemption themes are the only themes mentioned, we are just feeding ourselves spiritual milk, the same we did as when we received Christ. When people who have been Christians for a long just feed themselves spiritual milk, they are depriving themselves of the nutrients they need to continue growing spiritually. This will leave them as weak as infants, depending on a “spiritual high” to keep themselves going. They will be aching and yearning for something more. Look at Hebrews 5:13,14 as an encouragement to grow up. Many of you Christians are ready to grow up after many years in the faith. But you must move on from your milk and eat solid food. I believe if we can approach and conquer these 9 ways, we as a church can move on to bigger and better things. Once again, I call the church to grow, taking on solid food instead of staying milk, and to start thinking.

*I chose the term “modern-day” although I was tempted to use “evangelical” instead because these problem seem prevailant in the evangelical church. Yet I’ve noticed these problems sometimes in the emergent church, as well as the pentacostal/charsmatic church. The only churches who have less of these problems are the older churches with older traditions. Therefore, I think the problem isn’t a church movement issue, but rather a time period issue. Thus, I settled with the term “modern-day”

Covenants (Part 2): Christians & Jews, Church and Israel

In continuing with my last post, my views on how the covenants progressed shape how I view how Israel in the church play in those covenants with God. Some say the church is the new Israel. Others say Israel is number one, and the church is number 2. Still others say Israel and the church are separate but equal. Those in the Old Covenant do their thing, those in the New Covenant follow that. Yet others say with time, the roles switch from Israel to church to Israel. This is my beliefs.

Let’s start with the Adamic Covenant. Why? Two things: First it is the original announcement of the Messiah (Genesis 3:15). Second, I remind you that the covenant was for humanking. The second part goes the Noahic Covenant was well: the Noahic is for Noah and his descendants, and since his descendants are all humankind today, it is also for all humans. It’s almost like renewing the Adamic Covenant to Noah after the “second creation,” if you will. So following that logic, God brought salvation from the flood to Noah, and from Noah the Savior will come, who will bring salvation of sins.

Now onto the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant establishes Abraham’s descendants, who will become Israel, God’s people. But remember, God still has all humanity in mind for salvation. It will be through Israel that this Messiah will come from. But the Messiah will bring salvation to all man, not just Israel.

I want to focus on a lot of the Mosaic Covenant. This covenant between God and Israel is conditional, but the unconditional promises of the Abrahamic Covenant still have to be fulfilled. So how will this work out? When Israel sins and falls away from God, they will be punished, enslaved and taken captive, but they will not be totally destroyed. The remnant kept alive can get rid of the curse by simply confessing sin, repenting, and seeking forgiveness. Then will come God’s restoration of the promises. This will become Israel’s perk of being God’s people. Time after time they will sin and fall from God’s Law. They anger God and God leaves them. Then they cry out to God, and God saves them. This becomes the “Israel cycle” seen through Judges, the Samuels, the Kings, and the Chronicles. Why does this happen?

It is the result of 2 covenants progressively being fulfilled togather, one unconditonal and the other conditional. The unconditional keeps the nation people-wise, but the conditional is what makes Israel a nation land-wise. Yet this only applies for Israel and not other nations. Consider Assyria and its capital Nineveh. Assyria can be a blessed nation if they bless Israel, but they don’t. They become idolatrous and lead Israel into idolatry. So God saends Jonah to call them to repentence. They do repent, and God spares them. But afterward, they fall back into sin. Does God once again call them repentence? No. He sends Nahum to pronounce judgment. After Nahum’s word, Assyria is no more. Israel, being God’s chosen, gets to experience grace and mercy with several second chances. God’s covenants with Israel are truly covenants of grace. The other nations have only one shot.

Back to the Messiah. The Messiah is once again promised in the Mosaic Covenant. In Deuteronomy 18:15-19, as Moses is running out of time, he says God will raise up among the Israelites a prophet like Moses. They must lsiten to this prophet, for if they don’t, they will be cut off from the people, God’s Covenant, and God Himself. This prophet is the messiah, who we will later know as Jesus.

In the Davidic Covenant, the messiah is identified as a descendant of David, the king of Israel/Judah (Jeremiah 31 & Ezekiel 37). So if you’re keeping track of titles, it’s Savior, messiah, prophet, king. As stated earlier, the Davidic Covenant is unconditional. No matter what any king does, there will always be a kingly ruler available. But since David and his descendants are Israelites, they are under the conditional Mosaic Covenant. So what does this mean? If a king falls away, or leads a nation away, the kingship will be taken away from that king. But there is always a candidate ready, even if they are not king. Take Zerubabbel, for example. He was in the kingly line (Matthew 1:13), but because of the sins of his fathers, the Persians were in control. Yet Zerubabbel became the governor of formally known Israel. In short, while David’s household may fail, in the end, it will be rebuilt, as Amos says (Amos 9:11).

The promises of the Messiah in the Old Covenats are fulfilled in Jesus, the Son of God (even the Old Testament states the Messiah is divine!). This is the offspring of Eve that will strike the serpent’s (Satan’s) heel and crush gis head. This is the Judah-king promised to Abraham and David. This is the prophet Moses foretold. Jesus fills all those roles. So it is the Messiah who is to start the new covenant. Naturally. Yet Christ’s message is not received by all, His opposers execute Him. Death does not stop Him. Three days later He rises from the dead. During His last days on the earth, He founded the church, and asked for Peter to lead until His return.

My argument is that the church does not officially begin until Acts 2, when the Holy Spirits comes on the first believers. This the start of the church age. In the beginning, the church is all JEwish. The cloest thing to now-Jewish are Greek prosletyes, but they are circumcized and [Mosaic] Law-abiding. It is not until Acts 10 do Gentiles come into the picture. This opens the door for Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, as God states in Acts 9. Now a church is on the scene made up of both Jews and Gentiles. The church is clearly a product, and maybe even the audience, of the New Covenant. Just like Israel was the recipiant of the Old Covenants, so the church is the recipiant of the New Covenant. Does this cause inconsistancy in the covenants?

The first thing I want to state, if I haven’t enough, is that all the Covenants, both the Old and New Testament ones, are both for the Jews and the Gentiles. Both the Jews and Gentiles would receive salvation. Both the Jews and the Gentiles would receive blessing. While Israel is God’s chosen people and the center of the Old Testament, I believe it is incorrect to say it is Israel soley and push out the foreign nations.

Remember what Moses said about the Prophet God will send like Moses? The people must accept him. Anyone who rejects Him will be cut off. This means the Israelites/Jews were not playing “The Messiah Game” (The Dating Game with the Messiah). It’s not like God said to Israel, “Alright, I’m going to start sending one messiah after another. If you like him, keep him. But you don’t like him, get rid of him and we’ll go on to the next canidate.” No. Israel did not have a choice. God chose the Messiah. This is one of the things I do believe is predestined. Jesus, God’s Son, was predestined to be the Messiah to save the world. Since Israel had no choice, they must follow Him. If they don’t, they have no part will be condemned with their sin. Thus, I believe that any Jew that rejects Jesus rejects God’s Covenants, reject God, and reject salvation. The Jews of the 1st century (as well as the 1st century Roman Gentiles) who are responsible for Christ’s death, are condemned. This is backed up in the narrative called “The Sign of Jonah” (Matthew 12:39-41, Luke 11:29-32). In this narrative, Jesus says this generation (1st century Jews) will be condemned (and by sinful Gentiles, too!) because they did not adhere to the message of the one greater than Jonah, who is Jesus. They had to accept the Messiah Christ Jesus, or they will be condemned.

So first, I believe it is wrong to say Israel and the church are two separate camps. Why? For starters, it gives froom for Pluralism. You can get saved by a relationship with Jesus OR be following the Law and offering sacrifices. This is contradictiong to John 14:6 and Acts 4:12, which says Jesus is the only way and the only one who can give salvation. Also, this idea renders evangelizing to Jews useless. What’s the point of telling the Jews how to get saved when they will be saved anyway? Yet we see Paul going to the synagogues with the gospel (hold on to the thought; I will use it again on my correct view of the debate). This must mean the Jews need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. So pretty much this makes a Jewish Christian redundant, and then would mean church only makes sense if you’re a Gentile. This doesn’t make sense since the church in its earliest stage is all Jewish.

Second, it is wrong to say that Israel has been replaced by another nation. No nation is the “new Israel,” not even nations “founded on Christian ideals.” I’m not 100% where this idea comes from. All I can think up is that God chose Israel based on obedience to God’s Law. I think it’s just national pride seeking God’s favor in national and international decisions. Simply why not, this idea is unbiblical. Nowhere in Scriptures does it mention God choosing a new nation for His people.

Along with that notion, it is wrong to say that the church completely replaces Israel. If that were true, this would mean God has abandoned His promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David, and all the Israelites. This also allows lots of room for anti-semetism. It is not in the Bible, not even in the New Testament, do we read God abandoning Israel and the Jews. Like I said earlier, the apostles evangelize to Jews first, seen both in Acts and the epistles. The end times in Revelation (arguably) focus more on Israel than on the church. Jesus Himself spends more time with the Jews in Israel than to the Gentiles. Heck, Samaritans get more attention than the Gentiles. So it’s not church replacing. I declare replacement theory a heresy (see Romans 11).

But at the same, it cannot be said Israel is above the church or above any nation, especially modern-day Israel. I say the last part because there is a difference between Israelis (those living in the land owned by the modern state of Israel) and the Israelites (descendants of Israel/Jacob, who are also called Jews or Hebrews). While primary outreach is to Israel, there is much outreach to the Gentiles. The second half of Acts is focused on Gentiles coming to Christ. (As a matter of fact, most of the time when Jews are mentioned, they are the opposition!) The New Testament also denies the idea that Christians must become Jews first. In the end, in Revelation, we see people from all tribes, all languages, and all nations in heaven, not just Israel. Pretty much, I want to sum this all up by saying that with the New Covenant, God no longer sees nations, especially in the Jew/Gentile divide. In the context of New Covenant, it is an individual matter. God sees the personal choices of individuals decidin whether or not to have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Yes, it is true with Mosaic and Davidic Coveannts, salvation was by nation. Now in the New Covenant, salvation is an individual decision. The only other way is God sees the communal fellowship of the church. It is God’s kingdom, but not to be compared by the kingdom of this world.

After I told you what I don’t believe, now onto telling you what I do believe. I can’t say a single word or phrase to describe my views. This is why I had to be more precise by describing what I don’t believe. The best way I can try to describe is to describe it in a more general term: God’s people. Both the church and Israel is God’s chosen people. They are both from the start chosen to receive redemptive salvation, whether it be Jew or Gentile. Once more, I will repeat it both Israel and the church are God’s people. Yet it is not equal. While Israel and the church are God’s chosen people, the church is greater than Isreael. why? The Christian Chrch is in the New Covenant, the Jewish Israel, is still following Old Coveannts, and the New Covenant is greater than the Old Covenant. But make sure you understand when I say the church is “greater” Israel, I in no way mean that God has rejected Israel, God hates Israel, God had replaced Israel, or God looks down on Israel. None of these are true. They are still His chosen people. It is just that the church has chosen the better, the greater. A good illustration to this is John the Baptist. Of him Jesus says he was the greatest of the Old Coveants, but the weakest in the New Covenant is greater than him.

So where does this leave Israel and the Jews? To start with basics, Jews was the foretold messiah. The promised redeeer to all peoples, and the promised king for the Jews. The Jews are the first ones to receive the gospel. We see this in the Gospels with Jesus, the Acts with the apostles, and in the epistles with Paul. Even in the 21st century, there are missions focusees specifically for outreach to the Jews. When presented the gospel, they have the choice of accepting Jesus as the promised Christ or rejecting Him. Idealistically, the Jew will receive Jesus as their messiah. He goes from Jew to Christian, and “upgrades” from a member of Israel to a member of the church. As a member of the church, he is equal to his gentile brothers and sisters. But the Jew who rejects Jesus will then be rejected by Jesus. Without Jesus, they have no part in the covenant. Let me propose that the Jewish convert to Chistian has more in common with the Gentile Christian than a Jewish person who is not a Messianic Jew. That is because the Christian Jew and Christian Gentile are now part of a new “nation”, the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God consist of those who make Jesus, the Son of God, their king. A Jew must make Jesus Messiah and king to be part of the kingdom.

There’s a couple sections I want to look at to prove my point. First, Luke 4:24-27. To set the picture a bit, Jesus is preaching is his home town Nazareth, and the audience is looking down on him. Jesus starts out by saying “No prophet is accepted in his hometown.” Christ then gives two examples to prove His point: Elijah and Elisha. Elijah helped a widow in Zarephath, a town in Sidon, instead of helping any of the widows in Israel. Elijah helped Naaman, a commander of the Syrian army, instead of bring healing to an Israelite with leprosy. Now the main point here is that a prophet usually has to leave his hometown for his ministry to be accepted, but I think Jesus is bringing up another point in here. God does not choose who to help based on nationality. The reader sees the prophets ministering to Gentiles over the Israelites in this section. They must have had faith for the miracles to happen there (Matt. 13:58 states that lack of faith can lead to lack of miracles). So that concludes God chooses to look at people by faith over their nationality. The Israelites back in the time of Elijah and Elisha, including the widows and lepers, were probably idolatrous just like their king. But Naaman and the widow at Zarepheth must have shown some kind of faith for the prophets to work.

Another demonstration of my beliefs is the narrative of the Syro-phoencian woman. This story is found in Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30. Jesus is in the vicinity of Sidon and Tyre, when a local women comes to him, and cries out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession” (Matt. 15:22). It is interesting alone that the Greek woman calls Jesus by a title referring to Christ’s role in the Davidic Covenant, something a Jew would be familiar with. Christ’s actions might strike the reader as odd. He seems to be ignoring the woman. Only Matthew records Jesus uttering, “I was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), referring to the Jews. Some believe what Jesus is doing here is testing the woman to see if she simply gives up or keeps persisting. Others think Jesus is reminding the woman that is mission on earth is not healer, but to bring the promised salvation to the Jews. Another opinion says Jesus is telling the woman he must help the Jews before helping her. This continues the story. Jesus says to the woman, “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs” (Mark 7:27). The idea of “first” here is ordinal. Jews get first dibs. Jesus uses the imagry of dogs begging at the table, as some as our house pet dogs might do. Why would a parent make a meal for their children, only to give it to the dogs? That would be downright wrong. In the same way, it would be wrong to tell the Jews the whole Old Testament their Savior was coming, only to give his undivided attention to the Gentiles. It would be wrong to give the blessings to the Gentiles which the Jews have been waiting for. The cool thing is that the woman counters Jesus with the same illustration: “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” (Matt. 15:27). Pretty much, the woman says that while the master should feed the child the bread, the dogs should be allowed to pick up what the children drop. If the master is Jesus, the children is Israel, the dogs are the Gentiles, and the bread is the blessings, let’s draw up a literal picture. Jesus says to the woman that is wrong for Him to go to the Gentiles to give them blessings when it was meant for Him to bless the Jews all along. The woman would reply that if Israel rejects Jesus, it’s not wrong for the Gentiles to pick up the blessings they are throwing out. Jesus seems to like her answer, as the woman returns home, to find her daughte healed. The Greek woman speaks truth. God does go to the Jews first, for he promised them blessings from the start, including forgiveness of sins. But if the Jews reject Jesus, the promised Savior, it is free game for the Gentiles. Paul reacts similiarly in Acts 18:6. When the Jews become abusive towards about the gospel he is preaching, Paul gives up on preaching to the Jews and from then on, speaks only to the Gentiles.

The Syro-Phoenecian woman is not the only Gentile who seeks Christ’s healing powers. There is also a Roman centurion who also needs Jesus for His healing power. The centurion’s servant is sick and about to die. Jesus begins on a trek to lay hands on the servant, but on the journey, He is stopped by a messenger with a message from the centurion. The centurion says he doesn’t deserve to have Jesus under his roof, but understands that Christ’s words alone can heal the servant, so all Jesus has to do is say the word, and the servant will be healed. Jesus replies, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith” (Matt. 8:10). Now the Matthew account of this story gives more that Jesus says. In verse 11, Jesus continues, “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11). Let’s start back at verse 10. Jesus remarks that of all the people that he has run into on this earth, the one with the greatest faith is not a Jew, but a Gentile. Jesus prefers the Gentile with faith over the unfaithful Jew. Now onto verse 11. Remember that Matthew’s Gospel is written to a Jewish audience. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are well know to the Jews as the patriarchs of Israel. To dine with them would be considered being a part of their blessing. The phrase “from the east and the west [and north and south (Luke 13:29,30)]” simply could be said, “from all over.” This means outside Israel. Jesus is saying in the end the Gentiles will join the Jews in the promised salvation and blessings. The Gentiles will be those who have the faith like the Roman centurion. In conclusion, the great faith is what catches God’s attention for salvation and blessings, not nationality.

Romans chapter 11 is a really intersting chapter on the subject. First, starting in verse 1, Paul make it clear that God has not rejected Israel. Skipping down to verse 11, Paul repeats that Israel has not fallen out of the picture. This is where it gets interesting. Paul’s explanation for Gentiles receiving salvation is to make Israel jealous. One commentary I read suggested that if a Jew walked into a church service, he should be jealous that he doesn’t have what the Christian has. Back to Paul in Romans, he admits that some of the Jews has fallen away. Interesting enough, Paul says the Jews falling away opened a window for the Gentiles receiving salvation. Paul uses two allusions: a batch of dough and branches. The first image is the batch of dough. Just when two batches of dough are mixed together to become one, when the unholy is mixed with the holy, it becomes holy as well. The second picture is with branches, but also roots and wild shoots. The wild shoot is the Gentiles. The natural branches are the Jews. The roots are traditionally the patriarchs (and the Abrahamic Covenant), but I can see it being Christ, the root of our salvation. The Gentile Christians have been grafted in with the believing Jews in place of the Jews who do not believe. Both the believing Jews are Christian Gentiles are coming from the same roots, the same source. The common denominator is faith (Rom. 11:20). The ones who belong with God are those with faith, the same faith that credited Abraham with righteousness (Gen 15:6). Paul makes it clear to the Gentiles that they have a reason to be prideful. For if God will not give Israel a second chance, the Gentiles will most definitely not get a second chance. Thus, naturally, the branches cut off can be grafted back in.

So the main question: what happens to God’s people in the eschaton? Since I refuse to acknowledge or take a stance on the rapture (that’s a whole different subject), I am aware this leaves a whole bunch of possibilities. Christians may live through all, some or none of the tribulation. In any case, we see this draw back to Israel. Has God abandoned the church? No. Being the greater one, the church has been dealt with and sealed, possibly in the form of the rapture. As for Israel, they get a second chance. Like I have shown before with the combination of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant, Israel always gets a second chance. This will be their last second chance. By the time the tribulation comes, there will be no more Gentiles coming to the Lord. As the world comes to an end, God will make one last call to the Jews. Still, it is a call for Israel to have faith in Christ. They will not get saved by following sacrifices or obeying laws, but faith in Jesus. They will have all the way up to the Great White Throne judgment to make the decision to have faith in Christ. Thos Jews who still reject Jesus will be judged and condemned, but those who accept Him as messiah will become part of the kingdom of God.