Martyrdom: a silent seal on doctrine

“The manner of his death sets the seal on his life,
so that even his earthly utterances are endowed with infallibility.” (1)

− Andrew Louth (speaking of Polycarp’s martyrdom)

Image via Wikipedia

There are those who carry an ominous conviction that “heroic acts alone” prove and test the truth of one’s inner belief system. While persecution can and will test the strength of one’s “perception of truth” — it holds no radar for “truth” itself.

As persecution abounded and countless died for their faith, an unwritten rule surfaced among Christians which caused the doctrinal positions of martyred Saints (and especially those with rank within the Church) to become “untouchable.”

It’s understandable considering the circumstances. I mean, who was going to question (let alone debate), the doctrinal position of someone who has just put it all on the line for their faith? Such opposition would be deemed insensitive in the least; unforgivable and possibly heretical at worst. The times were critical. Christians (under the ever present eye of the Bishops) opted to band together and bury their differences. This wasn’t the time for doctrinal squabbles — especially among the laity.

I think this is important background information to understand, because it was often the event of martyrdom that catapulted new doctrines into the arena of accepted norm.

About 20 years after Clement’s statement regarding the rules which governed the layman/laity [non-clergy], Ignatius (bishop of Antioch) was condemned to be fed to the lions in Rome. (2)

En-route to Rome, he had the opportunity to write several letters to various churches. He implored the churches not to step in and deprive him of his right to die for the cause of Christ and gave (what he considered) his last words of helpful advise to the Christian world. Needless to say, those letters became extraordinarily important to those to whom they were written and were broadly circulated after his death. Within those letters, Ignatius made the following radical observations:

“Let the laity [non-clergy] be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters [elders]; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (3)

As Earle Cairns, (in his book Christianity Through the Centuries) explains:

“[Ignatius] was the first to place the office of the bishop in contrast with the office of the presbyter and to subordinate the presbyters or elders to the monarchial bishop and the members of the church to both. The hierarchy of authority in the church is, according to him, bishop, presbyter, and deacon. However, Ignatius did not exalt the bishop of Rome as superior to other bishops even though he was the first to use the word catholic (Smyrna 8). The only superiority is that of the bishop to the presbyters within each church. Ignatius believed that without this threefold order there is no church (Trallians 3).” (4)

Building upon this platform, Ignatius made other alarming statements:

“Plainly, then, one should look upon the bishop as upon the Lord Himself.” (5)

“Surely, Jesus Christ … for His part is the mind of the Father, just as the bishops … represent for their part the mind of Jesus Christ. … It profits you, therefore, to continue in your flawless unity, that you may at all times have a share in God.” (6)

“I advise you to always act in godly concord with the Bishop, presiding as the counterpart of God … you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters.” (7)

“It is fitting not to take advantage of the bishop’s youth, but rather, because he embodies the authority of God the Father, to show him every mark of respect … the bishop is to preside in the place of God.” (8)

In a the fuller passage of the above excerpt, Ignatius begins to lay the ground work for establishing a symbolic correlation between:

• The Bishop and God the Father
• Presbyters and the Council of the Apostles
• Deacons and “the Seven” picked to become day to day helpers in Acts 6.

Of course, as Bishop, he was free to give the interpretation of that symbolic relationship with all the authority of his office at bear.

“Just as the Lord … did nothing without [the Father] … so neither must you undertake anything without the bishop and the presbyters; nor must you attempt to convince yourselves that anything you do on your own account is acceptable.” (9)

Is it just me, or does this guy begin to rub you the wrong way? Talk about a mind trip! “Nor must you attempt to convince yourselves that ANYTHING you do on your own account is acceptable?!”

“Do nothing without your bishop … Let all respect the deacons as representing Jesus Christ, the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s high council and as the Apostolic college. Apart from these, no church deserves the name …

… cling inseparably to God Jesus Christ, to the bishop and the precepts of the Apostles. He that is inside the sanctuary is pure; he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words: he that does anything apart from bishop, presbytery, or deacon has no pure conscience …” (10)

“Heed the bishop that God may heed you, too.” (11)

“… it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love-feast [Communion; Lord’s Supper] independently of the Bishop.” (12)

“You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father … reverence the deacons as you would God’s [own] commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church apart from the bishop.” (13)

“Surely, all those that belong to God and Jesus Christ are the very ones that side with the bishop.” (14)

“Whatever he [the bishop] approves, that is also well-pleasing to God.” (15)

According to Ignatius, the way to give glory to Jesus Christ was to be submissive to and acknowledge the authority of one’s bishop:

“It is only right that you should give glory to [Jesus Christ]; and this, (if sanctification is to be yours in full measure), means uniting in a common act of submission and acknowledging the authority of your bishop and clergy.” (16)

My how far we’ve fallen — and in such a brief time period — from Jesus’ original instructions about servanthood leadership.

“You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you IT WILL BE DIFFERENT. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant … for even the Son of Man came not to BE SERVED but to SERVE OTHERS.”

(Matthew 20:25-28, New Living Translation, emphasis mine)

___________________________

Next up: Martyrdom: A Silent Seal on Doctrine (part 2)
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

---

Footnote References:

(1) Maxwell Staniforth & Andrew Louth, Early Christian Writings (London, Penguin Books, 1987), page 117 (speaking of Polycarp’s martyrdom).
(2) James Rutz, Mega Shift (Colorado Springs, Empowerment Press, 2005), page 216
(3) MegaShift, by James Rutz, page 216 (org source: Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans I, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, American Edition, Volume I, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 1885, chapter 40, “Honour the Bishop”), emphasis mine.
(4) Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries – A History of the Christian Church, Third Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), page 76, emphasis mine.
(5) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page 124 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 6, no. 1, ACW 1:62), emphasis mine.
(6) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002) page 123-124 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 3, nos. 1-2, chap. 4, nos. 1-2, ACW 1:61-62), emphasis mine.
(7) MegaShift, by James Rutz, page 216 (org source: Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians, in Bettenson, op, cit., The Early Christian Fathers, pp. 42-44), emphasis mine.
(8) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page 126 quoting Ignatius of Antioch (org source: Epistle to the Magnesians, chaps. 3, no. 1; chap. 6, nos 1b, 2b, ACW 1:69-71), emphasis mine.
(9) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002) page 127 (org source: Ignatius, Epistles to the Magnesians, chap. 7, nos. 1-2 ACW 1:71), emphasis mine.
(10) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page129 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, prologue, chaps. 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 13 in Epistles, ACW 1:75-79), emphasis mine.
(11) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002) page 138 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp, chap. 6, nos. 1-2, ACW 1:98).
(12) MegaShift, by James Rutz, page 216 (or source: Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:8-9, J. B. Lightfoot, translator) emphasis mine.
(13) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002), page 135 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chaps. 1-2, 6, 8, in Epistles, ACW 1:90, 92-92), emphasis mine.
(14) Rod Bennett, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2002) page 134 (org source: Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, chaps. 2-3, ACW 1:85-86)
(15) MegaShift, by James Rutz, page 216 (or source: Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:8-9, J. B. Lightfoot, translator) emphasis mine.
(16) Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth and Andrew Louth (Penguin Books, England 1987), Ignatius to the Ephesians, page 61, emphasis mine.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The Apostolic Church — AD 30-100

During the Apostolic Church age, the prevailing concern was spreading the gospel and preserving “sound” doctrinal beliefs. Of course, who determined what was sound? The original Apostles, for a rather long time, still thought that Christianity was a Jews-only religion. Paul, quite against his will, was forced to come to the understanding that it was God’s desire to “save” Gentiles as well.

Even after Paul had long been preaching to the Gentiles, Jewish Christians still had many questions about who could be saved and what constituted salvation. Some believed, if you were Gentile, then you had to also accept Jewish law (for instance, you needed to be circumcised). It was kind of like the stepping stones of faith: you converted to Judaism first, then you could become a Christian. Others believed baptism was required.

Observations only confused matters. Paul and Barnabas had witnessed God’s mighty hand in miracles performed among the Gentiles and observed their changed lives as they turned to Christ — and this absent from keeping Jewish law. Peter had beheld personally the conversion of Cornelius and his household (a non-Jewish group) and watched as the gift of the Holy Spirit descended upon them. An event he was not expecting, which occurred while he was yet preaching and certainly before anyone had an opportunity to be baptized (Acts 10).

The experience of these men, left questions, but not too many died-in-the-wool answers. That God was working among the Gentiles was easy enough to conclude. But the specific definitives of salvation were yet a mystery.

Because opinions abounded, (and persecution tends to follow strong opinions), we read in Acts 15 of a council in Jerusalem that resulted in the common consensus. Paul, Barnabas, the apostles and elders — indeed the whole church gathered — agreed that since it was obvious God was working among the Gentiles that they should not also be burdened by Jewish law. Instead they encouraged them to abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.

By today’s standards, it seems a strange set of advise to give new believers. But it was advise relevant in that day to those believers — who were turning from a pagan lifestyle. In different generations, diverse groups or emerging cultures — some things will always seem to stand out as more important (for a time) than others. This was the case in the early church — it was the case as different ages set upon the church — it is the case today.

___________________________

Next up: Meet The Players Within Early Christianity
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Clement of Rome

Image via Wikipedia

“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter,” records Eusebius, “the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus … Then, in the second year of Titus’s reign Linus, Bishop of Rome, after holding his office for twelve years yielded it to Anencletus.” Practically nothing is known about either of these two men … “after twelve years as Bishop of Rome, was succeeded by Clement.” (1)

While much is known about Paul’s life, little is known of Clement, still less of Linus or Cletus — whose sole contributions seem to be that they are names on a list of “succession”. One would think that if these men were really that crucial to early church life, some living record would have remained to testify of them. Instead, for instance, what is known about Clement, is either from a singular letter to the Corinthians or from writers who wrote over one-hundred years after his death (often inconsistently). A second letter (once attributed to Clement), proved to be a sermon written by someone else entirely who was “inspired by Clement” or possibly a forgery written in his name (which was common in the time to give credence to a particular work).

It’s not known when he was born and the events surrounding his death are disputed. The general consensus is that he died a martyr, when he was thrown overboard from a boat with a ship’s anchor tied to him. However, this version of history didn’t start circulating until the ninth century — earlier records indicated he died a natural death, perhaps in Greece. (2) History often rests on shaky ground mixed with folklore, myth, and political agendas.

Whether Clement was the second or fourth “official” Bishop (er, Pope) following Peter and whether or not he died as a martyr is really a Roman Catholic concern. For our purposes these things really do not matter. However, as stated earlier, the crux of the whole Catholic religion holds or falls on the basket they put all their eggs in: Apostolic Succession.

If you can’t faultlessly prove the first four, it really doesn’t matter if you can systematically prove all those that followed. And without doubt, the first four cannot be proved by a credible source — they must be simply accepted by faith.

___________________________

Next up: Running With Blind Faith
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:

(1) FOUR WITNESSES pg 80-81; original source chap. 2, in EHC 65; chap. 13, in EHE 80; and chap. 15, EHC 80, emphasis mine.

(2) Source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Rome

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Linus, When?

Image via Wikipedia

While the majority agree that Linus was second in line, what they can’t seem to agree on is when he actually reigned.

The Liberian Catalogue and Liber Pontificalis both date his Episopate to AD 56-67, Jerome dates it at 67-78, Eusebuis dates the end of his Episcopate at AD 80, while the Catholic Encyclopedia lists his dates as 67-76.

But such details from those who should know is like asking, “well, was the light red or green?” Who cares, right?

Dates aside, there are some who dispute line of succession altogether. Tertullian claims that Linus and Cletus were never a part of the pope’s official lineage. Rather Peter was directly succeeded by Clement I.

“For in this way Apostolic Churches declare their origin : as, for instance, the Church of the Smyrnaeans records that Polycarp was placed there by John; and the Roman Church that Clement was ordained thereto by Peter. And exactly in the same way the rest of the Churches can produce persons who, ordained to the episcopate by Apostles, became transmitters of the Apostolic seed.” (1)

— Tertullian, On the “Prescriptions” of Heretics

Yet another differing opinion is offered by the Apostolic Constitution, (2) which says that Linus (first bishop of Rome, ordained by Paul) was succeeded by Clement (second bishop of Rome, ordained by Peter).

Oh my head hurts. So which is it?

Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liberian Catalogue, and the Liber Pontificalis all claim:

1. St. Peter
2. St. Linus
3. St. Anacletus (aka Anacletus, Anencletus, or Cletus)
4. St. Clement I (Clement of Rome)

Tertullian claims:

1. St. Peter
2. Clement of Rome

The Apostalic Constitutions (purportedly the work of the Twelve Apostles and “complied” by Clement) claims:

1. St. Peter
2. Linus (ordained by Paul)
3. Clement of Rome (ordained by Peter)

Our real problem appears to stem from Clement’s claim to second chair in Rome, for he seems to be at variance with a large body of other witnesses, namely, those already mentioned (save Tertullian).

Today it is commonly believed (and officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church) that Clement was the fourth bishop in succession in Rome. And the only real witness we have to the contrary is Tertullian and the Apostolic Constitution, which Clement is said to have “compiled.”

Add to this the evolving terminology of bishop to pope, and we arrive at the darkest of all possible secrets: that Clement simply made the whole thing up.
___________________________

Next up: Clement of Rome
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:

(1) Tertullian, On the “Prescriptions” of Heretics, Chapter 32

(2) The Apostolic Constitution is a collection of eight books (from the late fourth century) of independent, though closely related writings on Early Christian discipline, worship and doctrine. Purported as the work of the Twelve Apostles, and said to have been gathered and compiled by Clement of Rome, it was intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy and to some extent the laity. It now is comprised as a part of the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) collection and has ranged in estimation from such extremes as ‘the sacred Christian laws or constitutions delivered from Christ Himself to the eleven apostles” — to “canonical” — to “documents that contained heretical interpolations.” For more information visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Apostolic Succession

Image via Wikipedia

Because opinions tend to abound, a system needed to be put in place that could control out-of-control opinions. That system took on the name: Apostolic Succession.

The crux of the whole Catholic religion is based on Apostolic Succession. This belief provides a historical basis for the spiritual authority of the bishops of the Church. Apostolic Succession refers to the uninterrupted lines of bishops, being historically traceable back to the original Twelve Apostles (1) — the foremost being Peter. It is believed that Jesus, having hand-selected the twelve original Apostles, gave them similar instructions to each to hand-choose their successors prior to death. Further it is believed that among the disciples a special place of prominence was given to Peter (Matt. 16:18). Accordingly, the Pope must be able to trace his ordination through uninterrupted lines of bishops all the way back to Peter, specifically.

A System Based on Fear

The whole system was developed because of fear. Fear that the people, not led by strong human leadership, would fall into grave doctrinal error and that Christianity would therefore not survive. Through Apostolic Succession, “the Church” could control what was deemed as “acceptable” and “unacceptable” beliefs — and ultimately, they would control the very interpretations of Scripture.

The first four bishops are “officially” recorded by the Roman Catholic Church as:

•    St. Peter (30 to 67 CE, approximately)
•    Linus (64/67 to 76/79)
•    Cletus (76/79 to 88)
•    Clement of Rome (88/92 to 97/101)

You really have to start here, because the shadows begin at the first slight of hand.

___________________________

Next up: Framing the First Four — Peter we know, but who was Linus?
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:

(1) Source: Catholic.com  http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Monarchial Episcopate — Three is a Very Good Number

The “monarchial episcopate” was a three-tiered structure that placed a single bishop as the authoritative leader over a particular city. Beneath him were lower authoritative positions: elders and deacons.

Monarchial: Pertaining to, characteristic of, befitting to or having the status of a monarch (a hereditary sovereign, as a king, queen, or emperor; one who holds a dominant position).

Episcopate: the territorial jurisdiction of a bishop.

Image via Wikipedia

American Christians might well wonder why a system of church government didn’t involve a more democratic approach. Why trickle down government — the division of clergy and laity — in preference to spreading the gospel as equals, or at least the process of “electing” one’s leaders? But when you consider the time period in which church government evolved, there was no democratic government from which to model it. As Jesse Hurlbut comments, “Christianity arose not in a republic where citizens chose their own rulers, but in an empire ruled by authority.” (1)

As church government became more and more necessary, bishops rose to fill the leadership void. The church willingly submitted to this leadership because they were accustomed to a similar form outside the church.

The monarchial episcopate system worked well in governing a particular city — but what do you do when you have doctrinal disputes between cities? Well, that was the next hurdle to be overcome. Enter the Pope.

Over the slow course of three centuries, “the church” moved from a body of believers (ecclesia) — to a people who were loosely governed by a ruling presbytery (elders) — to the addition of an overseeing bishop for each city (bishop) — to a full-blown Catholic structure where the Pope was the ultimate authority at the very top.

Soon Christianity would have a new King — or at least the earthly representation of such — and for all practical purposes the same thing.

___________________________

Next up: Papal Infallibility
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________

Footnote References:
(1)  Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, The Story of the Christian Church, page 48
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Running with the Exceptions

Paul was an exception from day one. By his recorded testimony, upon conversion Paul “did not immediately confer with flesh and blood” (Gal 1:16) but rather went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. Finally after three years he met with Peter and James for about 15 days. Afterwards he went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia and was unknown by face to the churches of Judea. Then fourteen years later, he went up again to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1).

This means that Paul spent his first seventeen years as a Christian without “input” from the Christian community in Judea — save those 15 days with Peter and James. Let me ask you a good question, “Who was Paul’s pastor during those formative years?”

By today’s standards we would classify Paul as a backslidden Christian or an unfortunate shipwreck simply waiting to happen. Can you imagine someone coming to a revival service, getting saved then immediately moving out of state. One day, after 3 years he returns to spend 15 days with a leading pastor (or his associate), before disappearing for another 14 years. You might say that this man’s evolving doctrine would be pretty suspect — right? But this is the description of the guy who just wrote two-thirds of the New Testament. Maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to judge? And, maybe, the Holy Spirit was actually telling the truth when He said He could and would lead us into all truth.

Judaism vrs. Christianity?

Torah of Judiasm

Indeed initially, all understanding of the differences between “Christianity” and “Judaism” (Old and New Covenant) came by revelation — Paul being the central recipient of this information. Over time this information became formalized into theology and doctrinal beliefs. Paul’s letters became “canonized” and today two-thirds of our New Testament are comprised of his writings.

It is, however, interesting to understand one of the underlying reasons why Paul’s writings (and the other writers of Scripture) were canonized.

As time pressed on, it became increasingly evident that the last of the original 
“Apostles” would die before Christ’s anticipated return. This posed a very serious problem: who would solve future doctrinal disputes? Simple — the surviving writings of those who previously solved the debates would serve future generations as a final authority (of course, this assumed that future generations wouldn’t come up with new debate material).

Future “issues” aside, this solution led to an even greater challenge. Who would interpret the meaning of the writings — now that those who originally penned them were dead?

If you’ve been around Christian circles long, you’ve found that people are amazingly creative in interpreting Scripture in order to make it say what they want it to say. This was no less a problem in the early church. So who would become “interpreter” for the people? Who’s interpretation would be considered truly “authoritative”?

___________________________

Next up: Who Qualifies as Final Authority?
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A Place of Beginnings

Acts, accurately portrays two emerging groups of Christians: Jewish and Gentile. Early Jewish Christians continued to hold to many traditional Jewish practices. However, the failure of the Bar Kochba Revolt (also known as the Second Jewish-Roman War), forever changed the landscape of the Jewish Christian.

By AD 135 Jerusalem had been conquered, for the second time. The Jewish Temple had long since been destroyed during the first Jewish-Roman War (AD 66-73). Remaining Palestinian Jews faced certain annihilation, slavery, or exile. Obviously this affected Jewish Christians as well as traditional Jews. There was a brief resurgence of the Jewish Christian movement during the second century, before it disappeared from the historical record altogether, their activities being absorbed into the growing Gentile church.

The Emerging Gentile Church

The singular man largely responsible for the initial spread of Christianity to Gentile nations, was a figure well known to Christians as the Apostle Paul. Soon, however, displaced Jewish Christians added their influence to the mix.

In those early days of Christianity, false teachers and false prophets arose among the people, spreading every kind of “version of truth” imaginable. Remember, the Jewish core had been scattered to distant lands, and the “new” Christian-core were comprised of converted pagans. Obviously each of the converted brought their own set of unique baggage.

The focus of the church quickly swung from “spreading the good news to the ends of the earth” to “solving doctrinal disputes.”

Initially, when a suspect doctrine would arise, Christian leaders would defer to a consensus of the Apostles. This unfortunately became a standard practice for resolving issue in matters of faith. It seems that it never occurred to anyone to ask God what He thought about this or that doctrine — even though Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead God’s people (not just the original Apostles) into ALL truth.

___________________________

Next up: Running with the Exceptions
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A Battle Cry for Relationship

After 430 years of Egyptian slavery, the God of Heaven and Earth declared a freedom battle cry for his people, “Let My people go!” (Exodus  5:1).

Three months of freedom brings the Israelites to Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:1) and now the God responsible for their new found freedom wants to embark on a personal relationship with His emancipated people. Having already met with Moses on numerous occasions (proof you could meet with God and live to tell it), God sends Moses back to the Israelites with a message:

“You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself.  Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.  And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’” (Exodus 19:4-6 – NKJV).

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. And let them be ready for the third day. For on the third day the LORD will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people” (Exodus 19:10-11 – NKJV, emphasis mine).

Notice that it was on the “third day” that the God of Heaven would break out of a hierarchal mold and speak directly to the people — without aid of human mediator. Types and shadows of a day in the distance future where the temple veil would be rent from top to bottom and the common people could approach God for themselves.

But God’s people were not ready for such a relationship.

The awesome display of glorious power manifested in the eyesight of the people produced plenty of the “fear of the Lord,” but no desire for intimacy with such untamed power. Instead they said to Moses,

“You speak with us, and we will hear;
but let not God speak with us, lest we die” (Exodus 20:19 – NKJV).

Disappointment must have filled the heavenlies, as the first of many successoral men rose to fill the role of mediator between God and the masses.

___________________________

Next up: Man Takes Center Stage
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Relationship Now

For 2,000 years
we’ve missed the main message

Christianity (becoming “Christ-like”) isn’t gaining a moral creed, sitting in a pew on Sunday morning, becoming a “better person,” or studious education of dusty doctrines — it’s about embracing a relationship with someone Jesus called “Father.”

“You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” (John 8:19) NKJV

Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning …I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him [Father].” (v. 25-26)

“I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.” (v. 28, emphasis mine)

“No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6 NKJV, emphasis mine)

“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” (v. 7)

“THIS is eternal life, that they may know You [Father].” John 17:3 NKVJ, emphasis mine)

“I have manifest Your name [“Father” – that’s the name He was always talking about] to the men whom You have given Me out of the world …  As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world [to manifest Your name].” John 17:6,18 NKJV

Discovering Christianity’s true origins (and how far we’ve strayed from those origins) is what this blog is about.