Christ the Anointed King

Welcome back! This week I'm continuing our look into the word Christ (be sure to check out last week's introduction). I'll begin by looking at the word "Christ's" equivalent in the OT - "Messiah." 

The term “Messiah” is a transliteration of a Hebrew or Aramaic verbal adjective that means “Anointed One.” It comes from a verb that means “to anoint” someone as an action involved in consecrating that person to a particular office or function. While the term at first applied to the king of Israel (“the Lord’s anointed”—1 Sam. 10:1; 16:6, 13; 1 K. 1:39), the High-Priest (“the anointed priest,” Lev. 4:3) and, in one passage, the patriarchs (“my anointed ones,” Ps. 105:15), the term eventually came to point above all to the prophesied “Coming One” or “Messiah” in His role as prophet, priest, and king. The term “Christ,” a Greek word (verbal adjective) that comes from a verb meaning “to anoint,” is used in translating the Hebrew term, so that the terms “Messiah” or “Christ” are titles and not personal names of Jesus. - LASB

Not only were the Jews looking for the coming of the Messiah (Jn. 1:41), but also were the Samaritans (Jn. 4:25). Although the Samaritans expected not a Messiah in the Jewish sense, but a prophet like Moses (Dt 18:15–18) who would restore them.

In John 1:35-42 we see that Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, is the one who came to Peter saying "we found the Christ!" Later in Jn. 6:67-69 Peter said that we (the 12 disciples), ' believe and are sure you are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Though most are more familiar with the passage where Jesus asks the twelve, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" Where Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:13-16) Even Martha later moments before Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave said that she believes He is "the Christ, the Son of God." (Jn. 11:27)

Now, the title: "Son of the living God" was an appropriate title for the Davidic line, especially for the ultimate ruler (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps 2:7), as also recognized in the Qumran scrolls.

As noted above, the primary sense of the title "Christ" is king. Therefore, we'll look at some passages in light of this to better understand Jesus as the Christ/King.

 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ (the King) to sit on his throne;
 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ (the King), that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (the King). - Acts 2:30-36

Here it is easy to see that Christ is King according to the Davidic line as other passages also show:

 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ (the King) our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; - Rom. 1:3

 8 Remember that Jesus Christ (the King) of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: - 2 Tim. 2:8

By looking at these according to Christ's primary title of "the King," help us see it readily in plain English. In the following passage the disciples quoted Ps, 2, a messianic psalm, in their prayer revealing their understanding that Christ is King.

 24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

 25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
 26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ (the King).

 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed (has made King) , both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. - Acts 4:24-28

The apostle John acknowledged not only that Jesus is King, but the Chief of the kings of the earth.

 5 And from Jesus Christ (the King), who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince (ruler; chief) of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, - Rev. 1:5

 15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ (King); and he shall reign for ever and ever. - Rev. 11:15

You probably noticed above that the "kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ (King); and he shall reign for ever and ever." Reading "King" in favor of "Christ" likewise makes this clearer. In order to be a king one needs to have a kingdom, right? In Acts 8:12 we see this connection:

 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ (the King), they were baptized, both men and women.

In the book of Acts we see where Jesus and Paul both preached the kingdom of God also (1:1-3; 20:25; 28:23, 31)

Next, we see that Jesus as King will judge the living and the dead at His coming and kingdom. A king is someone who executes judgment and justice (2 Sam. 8:15; 1 K. 3:28).

 1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ (the King), who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; - 2 Tim. 4:1

Some other familiar passages that reveal this are Mt. 25:31-46; Rom. 14:10-12; 2 Cor. 5:10; etc.

Lastly, before I close, we'll look at a clear reference that the people professed Jesus to be the King of Israel during what is commonly referred to as the triumphal entry, though amazingly His own disciples didn't understand at that time, despite their earlier confession.

 12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,

 13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,

 15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

 16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him. - Jn. 12:12-16

With that, I'm going to bring this week's post to a close, since I don't want to make it too long. In the meantime I encourage you to further study on this topic. I left plenty of verses with the intent for you to search this out more on your own. Until next time when I pick up where I've left off today, grace and peace to you.

What Does The Word Christ Mean To You?

 It's been awhile since I posted in this blog, yet in this post we'll begin to look at a transliterated word that when put in simple English words will probably open the Scriptures and enlighten the understanding of a number of readers who choose to search it out.

To begin with, what is a "transliteration?" How does it differ from a translated word?

To translate is to take a word in a foreign language and convert it, or interpret it into one's own language. One example is how the Greek word theos is translated into God in the English.

Now a transliteration is when a translator takes a Hebrew or Greek word and adjusts it a little bit to make it sound more like English, in essence, creating a new English word.

Therefore it is good to know when you are looking at a transliterated word. It is vitally important to know the literal meaning of the transliterated word. Why? Because the transliterated word can have multiple definitions than the word in its original language does not confer. A good example is with the Greek word baptizo which was transliterated in the English as baptize. The word in the Greek means to submerge; to immerse. Yet, other definitions have been attached to it that do not convey the word's intent. Definitions such as pour and sprinkle have been added that are contrary to the original meaning of the word and it's intent, thus creating new doctrines foreign to the Scriptures.

In light of this it brings me to the focus of this post: the word "Christ." Christ is another word that has been transliterated even as the word Messiah has been transliterated. Christ has been transliterated from the Greek word christos, which in simplest terms means anointed.

Ok. You probably already knew that, yet do you understand what it means for Jesus to be "the anointed?" This is going to be the dossier of this post.

Why did Pilate ask Jesus if He is the King of the Jews? (Mt. 27:11) Which Jesus declared to Pilate to be true. (Jn. 18:36-37) Remember the magi that came to Herod looking for the one born King of the Jews, which not only troubled Herod but all of Jerusalem? (Mt. 2:2-3) Remember how after Jesus fed to 5,000, that afterwards He knew that they would come and take Him by force to make Him king? (Jn. 6:15) Why, why, and why? Let me lay the foundation by looking back to the OT.

Now Hannah had referred to the Lord’s “king” in her prayer in 1 Samuel 2:10, which may seem surprising, inasmuch as kingship had in her day not yet been introduced in Israel. Prior to the book of Judges, numerous references in the Pentateuch make clear that God intended for Israel one day to have a king (e.g., Ge 17:6; 49:10; Nu 24:7, 17–19; Dt 17:14–20; 28:36). We also find that the word translated “king” here can designate the governor or chieftain of a settlement or city-state (note “the king of Jericho” in Jos 2:2). his anointed. Anointing with oil was widely practiced in ancient Israel and in the ancient Near East. Egyptian officials were anointed to high office, though it is unclear whether the Egyptian king himself, the pharaoh, was also anointed. From the Amarna letters, it appears that local kings in Palestine were anointed as an expression of vassalage to their Egyptian suzerain. Among the Hittites also, it was common for the suzerain to bind his vassals to him by formal rites undergirded by religious sanctions. Among these rites was the anointing of the vassal ruler. Hittite kings themselves were also anointed with the “holy oil of kingship,” and their titles sometimes referred to their anointed status, e.g., “Tabarna, the Anointed, the Great King.” Similar practices are represented in the OT. While both religious objects and religious personnel were anointed (Ex 30:22–33; 40:15; Lev. 16:32; Num. 3:3), it was the king who ultimately held the title “the Lord’s anointed” (e.g., 1Sa 16:6) or, in shortened form, “his anointed” (e.g., 12:5) (Also, 1 K. 19:16 - of Jehu; plus 1 Chr. 16:22 = Ps. 105:15; 1 S. 9:16; 24:6-7; 26:9; 2 S. 1:14, 16) This title expressed the king’s vassal status as the Lord’s earthly representative and his consecration to and authorization for divine service (on vassal kingship, see notes on 8:7; 10:1; 12:3; 24:6). The king’s status as the “anointed” implied his divine enabling and his inviolability. - Cultural Background SB

Not just in Israel, but in the ancient Near East generally, kingship was intertwined with religion. While in Egypt the king himself was worshiped as divine, in Mesopotamia kingship was regarded as one of the basic institutions of human life devised by the gods for mankind. The concept of divine sponsorship of kingship was foundational in the cognitive environment of the ancient Near East. In Israel, the emphasis fell on God himself as the Great King, with the human king to serve not as a demigod, but as vice-regent (vassal) to the Great King. The “law of the king” in Dt 17:14–20 makes it clear that the king in Israel was to be subservient to the divine law and was “not [to] consider himself better than his fellow Israelites” (Dt 17:20). The people have not concluded that they don’t want God leading them anymore: No one in the ancient Near East would want that, and that is not a king like the nations have. Rather they want a king who would successfully bring the deity into play so that they could carry out their national agendas instead of waiting on the action of the deity alone (as when he appointed judges over them). They wanted God’s power, but not his control. -  Cultural Background SB

Now one more look at anointing before I conclude this post.

Anointing is known from Hittite enthronement texts; Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings were not anointed, though the pharaohs anointed their vassals and officials. It is possible that anointing represents a contract between the ruler and the people, hence the anointing of David by the people in 2Sa 2:4. Texts from Nuzi show individuals anointing each other when entering a business agreement, and anointing with oil occurred in Egyptian wedding ceremonies. ruler. In this context means something like “king-elect” or “one who is designated as leader of the people.” inheritance. The Lord’s “inheritance” comprised both the land and the people of Israel (Dt 32:9). In acceding to the people’s demand for a king, Yahweh did not relinquish his rights as Great King over his inheritance to the human monarch. Rather, the human king was to be Yahweh’s vice-regent and was to subordinate himself within an authority structure that Yahweh himself would stipulate (v. 25). Prior to the monarchy, judges had been raised up by Yahweh on an ad hoc basis and had both received and carried out Yahweh’s instructions. With the inauguration of kingship, however, the tasks of receiving and carrying out Yahweh’s instructions were initially divided between prophet (Samuel) and king (Saul). The former would be Yahweh’s mouthpiece to the king, and the king was to carry out Yahweh’s instructions as received through the prophet. This authority structure is evidenced in the first charge Saul receives in vv. 7–8, and grasping its significance is essential to understanding the nature of the eventual breach between Saul and Samuel/Yahweh.  -  Cultural Background SB

I hope this post has perked your interest in how you view, interpret, or understand what Christ/Messiah conveys in the Scriptures, especially in the minds of the 1st century believers who were immersed in it, unlike us today.

I will continue down this course and build upon these blocks that we may truly understand the concept of "the Lord's Anointed" in a way that will open up your understanding of a core doctrine of our faith in a manner that you have possibly never been taught. Until then, I encourage you to study on this topic on your own, that you may compare your notes with my future posts.

Inerrancy Of Scripture, Part 2

Continuing today to define what inerrancy of the Scriptures is. As most professors of the faith adamantly declare to be true, though are not adequately able to defend their belief, in part because they are only told that the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible and are not taught why Scriptures are or are not inerrant or infallible.

I had defined inerrancy last week but will provide another definition today. It is the view "that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences". - P. D. Feinberg

Just for reference, I mentioned last time the view of limit inerrancy to matters of faith and practice. That the Scriptures make no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice. 

It is admitted that inerrancy of the Scriptures is not presently demonstrable, nor that it ever will be! Is it any wonder that opponents to the inerrancy of Scripture are skeptical? Yet, many that proclaim the inerrancy and infallibility of their English Bibles don't even realize what the scholars admit!

This brings us to a logical question - why do Bible scholars make this admission? To start, we being the infallible, weak, ignorant and imperfect human beings that we are, are quite limited in two ways:

1) That because of our limited and sinful nature we are prone to misinterpret and come up with incorrect conclusions on all the information that we have gathered to date on the Scriptures; and

2) We do not possess all of the information needed to make the proper interpretation of certain inscriptions and texts. We do not have complete knowledge of the culture, language slang, etc that would aide us to a better understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. Let me give a couple examples of this.

My first example is found in Isaiah 65:11.

In the KJV one will probably wonder what Isaiah means by "that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto the number."

What troop and number is Isaiah referring to? Is it referring to worship of some foreign enemies army? If we look at the Hebrew words for troop (Gad), and number (Meni), we see that their English definition is good and some translations use the words Gad and Meni. Yet, thanks to archeological findings we gain a better understanding and interpretation of what Isaiah was probably saying. It has been discovered that these were the Babylonian and Syrian gods of fortune (Gad), and of destiny (Meni). 

Here we see that while the correct definition of the word is good, the correct understanding of the text was not.

My next example is a controversial passage in the Gospel account that have had many interpretations, some proven to be bogus thanks again to archeology. This passage is Matthew 19:24 - "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle".

The bogus story is that it was in reference to a gate in Jerusalem called "the eye of a needle", but to date no evidence of such a gate exist, therefore it is seen as bogus and story traced back around 300 years ago.

Another theory is that it is simply a writing error by the scribes. The Greek word for camel (kamelos), is very similar to the word for rope (kamilos) and it should read rope instead of camel. The word for rope at the time was in reference some believe to the rope used to anchor a ship, that was often braided and would likely have been of the thickest size of ropes. Which they believe makes sense since some of Jesus' disciples were fishermen. - Theodore R. Lorah 

Some have also suggested that it is an Aramaic wordplay between camel (gamal) and acts of charity (gemiluth).

The Babylonian Talmud has a similar expression, which some say Jesus had in mind, that says, "an elephant cannot pass through the eye of a needle".

So, which is it? Many believe it's hyperbolic language Jesus was employing and that seems reasonable with the context. 

Yet, here are just two of the numerous examples one can find as to why the inerrancy of Scripture cannot be fully demonstrated presently or possibly ever until the Lord's return. As in the first example through the passage of time, archeology was able to correct our understanding of a text and we are confident that others will continue to be unearthed until the Lord's return.

Hopefully this helps you to better understand the reasoning behind the definition I gave at the start - "that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences."

I hope you are able to glean a little from this. My hope is to continue on the topic next time. Until then, grace and peace to you.

The Infallibility And Inerrancy of Scripture - An Intro

 I'm starting a series on the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Today I'll begin with an introduction. I have found over the years that most people only believe what they are told on any given doctrine. Rarely do people put in the honest hard work required to diligently study what they are told and what they so adamantly believe to be unquestionable truth because their preacher, their peers, their "church", denomination, non-denominations, etc state that it's truth. If your faith, your Christianity is dependent on such, then you are not in a place in your walk with Christ that you should be. Who or what people are truly passionate about shows. I'm sure you will learn plenty that you have never know before about Scripture. Of a truth, what I will be talking about during this series will unfortunately shipwreck the faith of some, even some who believe they are strong and well learned in the faith. I know many who have taken this journey and ended up on the rocks. So if you are not sure if your faith is genuinely rooted and grounded in Christ, then this series is not for you. If you can honestly say that you believe in God and His only begotten Son Jesus, regardless, even if you have no Scripture to back it up like Abraham, the father of our faith, and others like Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Job, who did not have the written Word of God, yet believed. If you have a faith like their's in the living God, then set your sails for uncharted (to you) waters!

Many are surprised that most doctrines that we have been taught and led to hold tight and dear to our heart have come about in the past 500 years or less, out of the Reformation movement. For example, the doctrines of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture came about during the 18th to 19th centuries in the aftermath of the Enlightenment or Modernist movement.

What do the theological terms "infallibility" and "inerrancy" of the Scripture mean in simple terms?

Inerrancy is the belief that the Scriptures are without error or fault in all its teaching. [Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation]

Infallibility is the belief that the Scriptures are completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose. [Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms]

Much of what has been taught or promoted on the inerrancy of Scripture in recent decades comes from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which was formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference held in Chicago in October of 1978. 

At this conference they admit that, "Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographed text of Scripture." What they are saying is that there is no error in the original manuscripts penned by the inspired apostles or writers of what we have come to accept as the cannon of 27 books of the New Testament. Since no original manuscripts or autographs exist went on to say, "The autographic text of Scripture...in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy." This is where the study of Scripture and other available manuscripts, known as textual criticism, comes into play. 

While what came forth from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is popular and seem to be what most I talk with believe, though most don't realize the original manuscripts the Bible they read from don't exist. They always seemed shocked at this revelation. Probably because their preachers don't tell them the full truth, if they even know it.

Another common view is know as limited inerrancy. In this view they limit the Scripture's inerrancy to matters of faith and practice. That the Scriptures make no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice.

Well I did say this is an introduction, so I should bring it to a close until next time. I hope this has whet your appetite on learning more about what is known as the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

The Evangelist Philip Is Our Model - Plus, Our Call To Be "Fishers Of Men"?

I would like to start this article with an apology. The article is a bit choppy in my opinion. Though I believe it will get some wheels turning in every one's mind that reads it to research more on some of the points or questions that I have raised. So let us begin!

When looking at the "office" or "position" of an evangelist(s) it is best to look where we first find the word, as mentioned previously in the introduction, is only found three times in Scripture. The first in reference to Philip, who is the only person ever specifically identified as an evangelist in Scripture (Acts 21:8)

We first see Philip in Acts chapter 6 as one of the seven men chosen to distribute care to the Grecian widows.  Chapter 8 is the only place we see him function as an evangelist. 

What is an evangelist? An evangelist (Greek - euaggelistes - S# 2099) is a bringer of good tidings, a messenger of the good news (gospel) of salvation through Jesus the Christ. Part of an apostle's work was that of an evangelist as seen in Paul who preached the gospel (Acts 14:15; 16:10; 17:3; Rom. 1:15; 15:20; 16:25; 1 Cor. 1:17; 23; 15:1; Gal. 1:15-16; Eph. 3:8; 1 Th. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11). We also see that Timothy was called to do the "work or function" as an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5).

We often hear and have been taught that all followers of Christ are called to do the "work or function" of an evangelist - one who preaches the good news of salvation through Jesus the Christ. Yet, show me just ONE NT verse were this is taught? In Ephesians 4:11 where we find the word "evangelist" - would be best translated from the Greek, as some do, "and some as proclaimers of good news," which makes sense. Not all, but God gave gifts (v. 8) to some to proclaim the good news. 

The "great commission" was given to the apostles only (Mt. 28:16-19; Mk. 16:14-15; Lk. 24:33, 44-49). Teachers tell us the "great commission" has been given to us, that none of us are exempt from this "commission", even though the these texts don't hint to such. Neither do we see the apostles giving the new believers in Christ such a commission. Also, we are taught we are called to be "fishers of men", even though this is what Jesus had said to some of His disciples who later became apostles that were "fishers of fish" by trade (Mt. 4:18-22). Nowhere else in Scripture do you find anyone else called to be "fishers of men", yet it is often our charge when evangelism is taught. How many of us have fallen for this line, hook and sinker? Let's not forget Acts 1:6-14 and Christ's "commission" to the apostles who were the only ones assembled to receive His charge.

Believers are told to be ready to give and answer to every man that asks you for a reason of the hope that is in you (1 Pet. 3:15). Yet, where in Scripture do we find all believers were sent out to preach the gospel? (Rom. 10:14-15) We are told as we leave the doors of the "church" building that we enter into "our mission field". We won't find that in Scripture, though it is often said and can be found above the exit at some "church" buildings. Just think of all that is taught on evangelism, that ALL believers are called to preach the gospel, or "share the gospel" - a phrase not even found in Scripture, possibly 1 Peter 3:15, or Eph. 6:15 being the closest thing to that line of thought in the NT or even 2 Cor. 5:18, though none of the three say we are all called to preach the gospel. The light of our good works and love we have for one another are to be a witness to others that we are Christ's (Mt. 5:13-16; Jn. 13:34-35). We see from history that it was the early Christian's witness that was noticed - their good works in love to others that set them apart and drew others to Christ, as well as their refusal to worship the emperor of Roman which brought persecution. In the context of one of the most memorized verses (Jn. 3:16), we find in the verses following (17-21) that light exposes darkness. As in the book of 1 John, pretty much throughout that book John talks about our Christian walk in light and love. We also see that Ephesians chapter 5, walking in light and love reproves those that walk in darkness as also seen in John chapter 3 and the book of 1 John. Let's not forget 1 Peter chapter 4, verses 1-5 and how our walk is seen as strange to those walking in darkness. That we are living epistles, known and read of all men (2 Cor. 3:2).

A common OT verse used for the charge of evangelism is Prov. 11:30 - "and he that winneth souls is wise." This could apply to saving believers that have gone astray into error (Jam. 5:19-20; Jude 1:23) as well as unbelievers. Though Prov. 11:30 doesn't necessarily imply that ALL believers be engaged in winning souls, unless you add to it. This might be a worthwhile study for you to embark upon and not something I plan to look at length in this series.

Moving back to Philip, his ministry is found in the eighth chapter of Acts. In it we see that Philip went to each place alone at first, though in Samaria when they believed the gospel, John and Peter came up to minister the Spirit, etc (Acts 8:14-17), and it's quite possible that Philip, Peter and John travelled together preaching the gospel in many villages in Samaria before parting ways, where Philip once again is alone to meet the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:25-39), where Philip heads out alone preaching in all the cities of Azotus before making his home in Caesarea (Acts 8:40; 21:8). Does that mean they always go out alone? Jesus sent them out 2 by 2 (Mk. 6:7, 12). Even in the book of Acts on their "missionary travels" they always went in at least pairs (Acts 13:2-3; 15:35-41). One could conclude that those engaged in an evangelistic type ministry often do so in pairs and at times alone. Therefore the thought that a "single evangelist" is ordained over a Body of believers is foreign to Scripture.

Which brings up another question, "How long does an evangelist, or those doing the "function or work" of one remain in one location? 

Again, the only true evangelist noted in Scripture is Philip. From his "ministerial deployment" when persecution hit the believers in Jerusalem he went to the city of Samaria and preached. Philip seemed to be there a short time before the apostles heard about the Samaritans receiving the gospel and came to the city. As noted earlier, they were there a brief time before preaching in many villages in Samaria on their return to Jerusalem. No long term stays are apparent. (vs 5, 14-15, 25) Then the Lord sent Philip to Gaza for a brief encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch (v. 26). Afterwards Philip preached in all the cities of Azotus, until he came to Caesarea (v. 40) as mentioned earlier. Nowhere does anyone that I'm aware of believe that Philip stayed at any length in any of the cities or villages he preached in until he came to Caesarea. 

Looking into Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus we learn that Paul left/sent Timothy to Ephesus and Titus to Crete for a very short period of time to aid in establishing the assembly of believers there. If they are "evangelists" as the some like to claim, then they are still not following the NT pattern!

"Evangelists" remain at congregations for years, or even as a popular "evangelist" told me, for decades, citing Philip at Caesarea where there is nothing known about the congregation there, let alone what, if any, role Philip would have had in it. Therefore using Philip at Caesarea as an "evangelist" heading up the congregation there for years are simply things cooked up in the imagination of their own hearts and are vain and not Scriptural. As a popular slogan in the Church of Christ declares, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." Not so in this case as is evident! It is a clear case of eisegesis on their part.

Also, if "evangelists" were to head up the local assembly (for years), why do we not find this pattern in Scripture? Look at Acts 14:23 where Paul and Barnabas returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, ordaining or appointing elders in every congregation, and then left. Notice what is missing? They, being apostles, didn't appoint (an) "evangelist(s)" and elders in EVERY CONGREGATION,  only elders. If "evangelists" are to head up every congregation, why would they not appoint this essential piece? 

Again, Paul instructs Titus to ordain or appoint elders in EVERY city (Titus 1:5). Notice again that Paul does not mention the ordaining or appointing in every city of "evangelists!" If "evangelists" are the essential piece in leading the congregation to grow in the Lord, why aren't they even mentioned by Paul? Could it be that some have been led astray with false doctrine? I believe so.

It's the elders who are called overseers that are to feed the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4), they are the ones that watch over their souls (Heb. 13:17).

An "evangelist" on the other hand as I've shown previously is a proclaimer of good news. No other functions do we have for an "evangelist" apart from leading others to salvation in Christ. Yet, some have corrupted the Scriptures in applying duties of an elder to an "evangelist." 

One last example from Scripture, if "evangelists" were to lead congregations and play an essential part in the feeding and governing of every assembly, why were they not mentioned at a crucial time in "church" history where Jewish converts were trying to put a yoke of bondage on the Gentile converts in Acts chapter 15? Who were assembled to decide what the practices should be for those Gentile converts? "Evangelists?" No! It was the apostles and elders! (vs. 3-4, 6, 22-23)

Many years later when Paul returned to Jerusalem to worship. Many of the unbelieving Jews were ready to kill Paul because they believed he was teaching Gentile converts to forsake Moses and not to follow after their customs. So in whose presence did Paul receive counsel from on how to conduct himself in this manner? The "evangelists?" No! Once again it was the apostles and elders! (Acts 21:18)

If the "evangelist" is a central and essential piece in the spiritual growth and governance of every assembly as some claim, why were they absent in the last two examples noted above? I think you see the pattern. They do not hold the prime position that some teach that they do.

Therefore the idea of some today that an evangelist is sought out by an eldership, or committee to put on a performance or two before the flock to determine whether or not they like his style enough to anoint him as the new face of their "church" in the community to lead them for years to come is not found in the example of Philip, nor in Scripture. Yet this pattern had to come from some where, right? All things Bible? Maybe not!

The Evangelist. An Introduction

Continuing on the path of apostles and prophets, I can't help but make a stop at the office or position of the ministry of and evangelist. My focus will be more on what some people make up an evangelist to be based on one verse, namely, 2 Timothy 4:5 -

 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

The word "evangelist(s)" only appears in Scripture three times - in Acts 21:8, in reference to one of the first seven deacons - ministers - servants in Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-5), which is the ONLY time anyone is called an "evangelist" in Scripture.

In Ephesians 4:11, which has been the starting point for my discussion on the ministry gifts, which this verse only tells us what gifts the Lord has given to equip the Body with.

The other verse where "evangelist" is used is in the verse I'm addressing today, 2 Timothy 4:5. As I mentioned at the start of this article, some use this verse to claim that Timothy was an "evangelist" because in most translations it has Paul telling Timothy to do the work of an "evangelist". Therefore they conclude that everything Timothy is instructed to do is what all "evangelists" are called to do. 

While this view of Timothy is not uncommon, there are two other views of him which are believed: like the most common, that Timothy and Titus are pastors. Which is why the epistles that bear their names are referred to as the "pastoral epistles". 

The other view is that Timothy is a special representative, delegate, emissary of Paul sent to Ephesus.

I have discussed 2 Timothy 4:5 with preachers who are called "evangelists" and not one has any Scripture to support their teaching that their congregation and those associated with them claim is how the congregation is set up to operate, that is, with an "evangelist" at the head. 

Some arguments they tell me are:

1. The "evangelist's" role is to see to public reading of Scripture and prayer; and
2. "Evangelists" we're given commands for oversight of the public service - which is why Paul sent "evangelists" to congregations who had shepherds, but were without an "evangelist".

As I had stated, there is no Scripture that implies these two above arguments. The first argument is based on Paul telling Timothy to "give attention to reading". (1 Tim. 4:13) Though the role of "public prayer" isn't found in the epistles to Timothy, unless one claims 1 Tim. 2:1-4 is an instruction for "public prayer", though it seems to simply be Paul's charge to Timothy to pray for all people.

Why did Paul write these letters to Timothy? In 1 Timothy, to deal with problems that had arisen in the Ephesian church, such as false doctrine (1:3-7; 4:1-3; 6:3-5), disorder in worship (2:1-15), the need for qualified leaders (3:1-14), and materialism (6:6-19). In 2 Timothy, where some believe Paul, aware that his end was near, passed his "apostolic mantle" of ministry to Timothy (2:2) and exhorted him to continue faithful in his duties (1:6), hold on to sound doctrine (1:13, 14), avoid error (2:15-18), accept persecution for the gospel (2:3, 4; 3:10-12), put his confidence in the Scripture, and preach it relentlessly (3:15-4:5)

I will bring this introduction part on the "evangelist" to a close for this week. I hope it has helped to wet your appetite on the "evangelist" and cause you to start digging into your view and what you have been led to believe by those that have trained you up in the milk of the Word and hopefully into a soldier of the cross (2 Tim. 2:3), able to eat the solid food (Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2) of the Scripture of Truth (Dan. 10:21)

Who Do You Serve?

This long article is mostly a letter I sent to a preacher I know several years ago, who felt like the weeping prophet Jeremiah observing the sins of the "church" and nation. In my letter I shared with him what I thought was a big part of the spiritual decline, namely the "church" seeking out the government to voluntarily submit itself to it's headship through the 501(c)3 non-profit tax exempt status for worldly benefits. I have written on this topic before, so you can search my blog to glean more on this subject.

This letter is still quite appropriate today. I made some modifications in the article, and my hope and prayer is that it will help educate you, cause you to pause and ponder and hopefully make the changes I believe are required to purify Christ's bride that she may be without spot or blemish when He returns.

It's starts with his quote:

I wanted to be Joshua, Gideon, David or Nehemiah but I'm Jeremiah! cry emoticon ‪#‎weepingprophet‬

You spoke about being like unto the prophet Jeremiah. I know you, I understand that. Yet there is another prophet that come to my mind when thinking of the "churches" spiritual condition and it may come as a surprise to you. That prophet is none other than Balaam!

You know the story how Moab tried to get Balaam to curse God's people, yet all he ever did was bless them! Yet, Balaam was greedy for gain (though popularity and applause could have been part of the reward he sought), and came up with a plan for the king to get God's people to sin through idolatry and fornication - through marriage to the Moabite women - to defile themselves before God, Who called them to holiness or separation. 

 14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. (KJV) Rev. 2:14

Yet, the "church" and her preachers have committed spiritual adultery with the world and has befriended the world and cast a stumblingblock before His flock, that are purchased with His precious blood (Acts 20:28) by joining herself with a wicked multitude, according to the arrangement and order of the government in the form of a 501(c)3. You weep over the sins of the "church" and wonder why she is so sick. Have you honestly examined it's love affair and harlotry to the world with it voluntary seeking out of it's affection in the loving arms(?) of the 501(c)3 corporation?

 4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. (KJV) James 4:4

Jesus told his brothers that "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." (Jn. 7:7) When His Body has decided it wants a new worldly head and make a league with the world by enslaving itself to be a worldly corporation, how can it testify to the world that it's works are evil when she looks more like the harlot of Babylon than the pristine bride of Christ? Has His children, the salt of the earth, lost their savour? How can we influence the world if we have compromised with it ourselves? 

Do you realize that by being a 501(c)3 you have joined yourself to all kinds of wickedness? Look at the list of others that are also 501(c)3's. All kinds of false religions! Not to mention organizations like Planned Parenthood. Are we to be unequally yoked with them? Are we to have communion (joint participation) with them? Are we not called to be separate from them?

 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

  7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (KJV) 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1

Yet, I am reminded of other passages of Scripture where we are told to beware that we are not lead away from the truth unto something other than we learned from Christ. Remember the slogan "All things Bible"?

 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (KJV) Col. 2:8

I'm sure you remember the time Jesus was telling His disciples how He would suffer many things and be killed and raised the third day and Peter rebuked Him saying, "be it far from thee, Lord this shall not be unto thee." (Mt. 16:21-22)

Then Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offense to me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (v. 23) In essence Jesus told him he was "carried away by human views of the way of setting up Christ's kingdom, quite contrary to those of God." (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) Interestingly in the next verse Jesus said, "if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

In Luke 16 Jesus told a story about riches and how you cannot serve both God and mammon. (v. 13) When the covetous Pharisees heard it they derided Him. (v. 14) Then Jesus told them that "they justify themselves before men; but God knoweth the hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God." (v. 15) I believe the same thing can be said of His people looking to profit from their covenant with the government for nonprofit incorporation status.

In Isaiah 30, God called Israel "rebellious children, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering not of my spirit, that they may add sin unto sin. That walk to go down to Egypt...therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion." (vs. 1-3) Sounds similar to His people running to the government to make an agreement to do their bidding for financial, worldly gain with a 501(c)3 status.

Do you know the difference between what is lawful and was is legal? That which is lawful comes from God. That which is legal originates from man. Therefore the whole 501(c)3 is not lawful, but rather legal! Remember that Jesus told Pilate that His "kingdom is not of this world"? (Jn. 18:36) Jesus also told the Father that those He had given them are "not of the world, even as He is not of the world." (Jn. 17:14)

Speaking of legal, let me ask you some questions.

1. Where in Scripture do you see the "church" going to Caesar to start a "church"? I don't remember Paul doing this on his missionary journeys. 

2. Where in Scripture to we see that the giving of the saints, some refer to it as tithing, doesn't belong to the "church", rather the government, which is it's head?

3. Where do we find that the preacher needs to be licensed (ordained) by the government to be able to conduct business?

Question number one - I think I found the answer in the book of 2 Acts 1:3 - as Paul entered every community and preached the gospel; many believed. So Paul sought out a lawyer, to fill out government business forms, so this group of believers could legally reap the benefits of Caesar and the world and build "church" buildings. Ok, you won't find that in Scripture, yet you, who stands up before the flock telling them that you follow the pattern shown in NT Scripture and the first century "church" are lying to them. Deceiving them. Maybe ignorantly, though its the truth. Don't play the hypocrite! "All things Bible?" Really? 

Now we know, or at least I hope you know, that man was created by God in His image and was granted certain "unalienable rights" that are protected by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. That our Founding Fathers totally understood that the Church is under the sovereign and sole jurisdiction of the Lord Jesus Christ and that civil authorities should not dare attempt to encroach upon that authority. It was so important to clarify and authenticate their respect for the Church, the very first sentence of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

"...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black stated, "The establishment clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither the State nor the Federal Government can set up a church." - Emerson vs. Board of Education, 1947. (Church In Chains, pgs 35-36).

Remember that the "church" of the Lord Jesus Christ is tax immune. Why would anyone of a sound mind choose to go to the government and submit to them and their policies and regulations to form a tax exempted corporation? Again, where do we see Paul using this approach in the book of Acts? 

Question two - Now if people are bringing all their tithe into the storehouse (Mal. 3:10), where do we find in Scripture that they get some of their tithe back every year? If you are a 501(c)3 state "church" you get a portion of your tithe back every year! Remember "All things Bible"! So because they are bringing all their tithe into the storehouse and not robing God, the government rewards their faithfulness by giving some of it back?! How does not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing (Mt. 6:3) apply, since all contributions are recorded, and that record is given back to them so they can prove to the government that they gave to a certain corporation ("church") that they may get some of it back? Do they have to do this? No! But most do for the money and, or on account of their ignorance on this matter. Remember, "All things Bible!"

I also like what former IRS commissioner Roscoe Edgar said:

"The IRS for many years has had the right to examine church records, because churches have been collecting taxes for many years for the government; the churches therefore hold in trust that which belongs to the government. We have a right to examine church records to see if the churches are handling funds properly."

Well, how about that. I am quite sure the former commissioner knows what he's talking about. That also reminds me of something else. Why is it that so many "church" buildings are used for government elections? Could it be that they have a license from the government to conduct business? Hmm.

Question three - Where in Scripture do we find that a preacher or the school of their education is licensed or state accredited? I "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so". (Acts 17:11) Truly, it's our Lord that gives us gifts to minister (Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4). Yet, for example, by whose authority do you marry a couple? By God's or by man? Do you sign, seal, a government marriage license? By whose authority do you join that couple together by? By man's of course! 

 23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

 24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

 26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

 27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. (KJV) Mt. 21:23-27

The following are some requirements for 501(c)3's that can be found in the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Publication 1826 (9-94) Cat. no. 21096G, that a 501(c)3 must observe:

1.  Have a recognized creed and “IRS approved form of worship.”

2.  Have “IRS approved code of doctrine and discipline”.

3.  Have ordained ministers educated in “state accredited colleges.”

4.  Pastor must answer to the IRS as to “daily activities of the church.”

5. The IRS must be privy to “all financial transactions” of the church.

6.  Pastor must supply “names of all donors” – make books, records available.

7. Be neutral on political issues.

8. Be engaged in activities furthering exclusively public purposes.

9. Open its services to the public.

10. Submit names of all church workers; pastors, teachers, clerks, counselors, educational directors, office help, associates, and maintenance personnel.

11. Not publicly oppose licensing of church ministries.

12. Give unlimited submission to civil magistrates pertaining to all laws – federal, state, and local – including public policy.

13.  May only use “IRS approved” fundraising methods.

14.  Pastor will be “called to account over any stand taken against the tax system.”

"All things Bible" - right? So by whose authority do you choose to function by? If you are a 501(c)3, or a licensed preacher, or have an approved degree from an state accredited institution; then your authority is by your sovereign, the state and not Jesus Christ! You may say that Jesus is the head of the body you belong to, but that doesn't make it so. You chose to leave Jesus as your head and chose the state to be your head instead.

Also, if you are a child of God, walking in the light, speaking the truth and having honest dealings with all - why would you voluntarily submit yourself and the Body of Christ to a contract that you have no plans to honor in it's entirety, but like Thomas Jefferson, cut out the parts you don't agree with. Just because Thomas Jefferson refused to accept parts of God's Word, it didn't that mean they were disannulled. Likewise, you go to the government seeking their benefits package agreeing to play by their rules, yet the entire time are being deceitful in that you only intend to pick and choose, as if these non-negotiable requirements of your contractual agreement are optional? Do you honestly think God is pleased with this money making scheme?

Back in colonial times there were preachers like Isaac Backus and John Leland who had a significant impact on the matters of Church and State relations. Leland for example believed that the "Government has no more to do with religious opinions of men than it has with principles of mathematics". 

In 1785, a bill came up in the Virginia Legislature to tax the people to pay pastors. The Hanover Presbyterians opposed the bill in a memorial.

Throughout James Madison's life he fought against taxing people to support pastors and against "church" incorporation. In the debate on the infamous "Religious Assessments Bill" he noted a list of the evils that would follow assessments and "church" incorporation. He believed that:

1. Regulation of religion is not within civil power,

2. Religion needs no 'artifical props'.

3. History proves religious Establishments were detrimental, and

4. These benefits would 'entangle the state' in determining which were Christian and which were heretical.

So even in Colonial America there was a push to have "churches" incorporate, yet many resisted the temptation. Why today are people so comfortable in their 501(c)3's? Knowing that it's not necessary for any "church" to go to the government to come under the umbrella of it's favors with a 501(c)3 status? So why would Jesus' disciples want to grant their jurisdiction to the IRS?  In the words of a former IRS Senior Revenue Officer, Steve Nestor:

“I am not the only IRS employee who’s wondered why churches go to the government and seek permission to be exempted from a tax they didn’t owe to begin with, and to seek a tax deductible status that they’ve always had anyway.  Many of us have marveled at how church leaders want to be regulated and controlled by an agency of government that most Americans have prayed would just get out of their lives.  Churches are in an amazingly unique position, but they don’t seem to know or appreciate the implications of what it would mean to be free of government control.”  (From the Forward of In Caesar’s Grip, by Peter Kershaw)

I wondered that too! Yet, I also wonder why would a "church" want to remain in Caesar's grip. Remember, "all things Bible!" Who are you a slave, a servant to? God? Or rather to the dictates of man? Do you honestly believe that God is pleased that you sought out someone else to be your head. A way to conduct business (the Lord's work) in a manner or pattern that you have not learned of Him from the Scriptures? Do you acknowledge God in all your ways? (Prov. 3:6)

I have talked with a number of preachers, professors and even a founder of a seminary about this and they all pretty much acknowledge what I say is true, yet their typical answer to me is: "Not now, only when we are forced to. Only when push comes to shove. It's still profitable for us in getting our the gospel and making disciples of all nations." Funny how Paul and the first century "church" didn't need such props. "All things Bible, right?"

Yet these same preachers that benefit from an ungodly, unholy and unscriptural alliance and syncretizing with the government corrupting themselves and parading around as a corporation (or is it more like a sheep in wolves clothing?), such as Church of Christ Inc. condemning others that call themselves Christians for the way they do "church"  business and operation by syncretizing with the world and it's ways, oops, or do you prefer the better religious sounding titles of advancement of the gospel, service and worship? What hypocrites! Blind leaders of the blind! (Mt. 15:14) Ignorant! (Is. 56:10) Who have made the outside of the cup clean, but within are full of extortion and excess. (Mt. 23:25) White walled sepulchers filled with dead men's bones and all uncleanness! That appear righteous and beautiful in the outside but inside are filled full of hypocrisy and iniquity! (Mt. 23:27-28)

Choosing to establish, and set up a "church" through the government as shown above is like taking a devil's food cake and adding to it the white vanilla frosting of Christianity to make it appear as something it is not. The frosting will not change the cake, only give it a different taste to those that eat it. In a similar way adding some Christianity to something worldly will not make it Christian. Calling it by a "Bible name", doesn't "magically" "Christianize" it, just like frosting the devil's food cake doesn't make it a strawberry cake.

We need more men of faith like Moses to rise up and make a stand. Will you be one of them? When Moses became mature he refused, rejected, denied the rights and privileges he had through Egypt and Pharaoh's daughter - types of the world and it's system. (Heb. 11:24) 

Moses chose to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures (S# 2192 - external things such as property, or riches, or goods; being joined to any bond of friendship, duty, or law, or companionship) - of sin (S# 266 - to miss the mark, to err, be mistaken; miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honor, to do or go wrong) - for a season, temporarily (as some preachers have admittedly told me they will do - milking the cow as long as they can profit from it without repercussions). (Heb. 11:25-26)

Again I ask, will you be one like Moses? Do you think he would have sought out Pharaoh for 501(c)3 benefits? No! He told Pharaoh to let God's people go! (Ex. 5:1; 7:16; 8:20; etc) Moses was faithful in all his house (Heb. 3:2, 5). Are you striving to be a faithful servant (Mt. 24:45; 25:21, 23; Lk. 12:42; 16:10-12) like Moses? 

Consider our Apostle and High Priest Jesus, Who called us to a heavenly calling (Heb. 3:1) (in contrast to a worldly calling which He called us to come out of - Jn. 15:19; 17:16). When Jesus began his ministry in Galilee (Mt. 4:14-17), did he go to the local authorities seeking financial benefits for His ministry? I know, sounds absurd doesn't it? Jesus said that "the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has no where to lay His head. " (Mt. 8:20) Did Jesus try to build a house of worship or instruct His disciples to do so? No! He was not impressed with the temple like they were (Mk. 13:1-2) which took 46 years to build! (Jn. 2:20) Christ is building a spiritual house! (Heb. 3:3-6; 1 Pet. 2:5; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Eph. 2:20-22) Are you following Christ's pattern of building an eternal spiritual house and kingdom or man's pattern of a temporary worldly building and kingdom?

Did Paul ever in the book of Acts try to build a house of worship or commission one to be built? Did he ever place importance on a "church" building? Never! Then why do you? In Paul's "pastoral epistles" not once was a physical building a priority in his instructions to Timothy and Titus. Paul's concern was in building a spiritual house on the Chief Cornerstone Jesus Christ! So again I ask, why is a "church" building so important? We didn't learn it from Christ and the apostles.

You may be wondering why it seemed I switched my topic from the 501(c)3 status to a "church" building? If you are a wise and discerning person you know they are related! (If you haven't read last week's blog, "Is The Church Building An Idol?", you may want to read it as well.)

Now I close as I began this article, with an address to the preacher in my letter. 

You are one who weeps over the sins of the nation and the Lord's "church", yet you will not separate yourself from the wickedness of the 501(c)3? Examine yourself. (2 Cor. 13:5) Will you, or will you not come out? It is my duty to share. What you do, is your choice.