Sermon Video: Submission for Christ - Ephesians 5:21-24

The Apostle Paul lays the foundation for a discussion about specific commands that apply to segments of the Church (wives, husbands, children, fathers, slaves, and masters) by laying a foundation of mutual submission "out of reverence for Christ."  Given that we must all submit to each other to imitate the servant's heart of Jesus, what then does Paul ask of wives (the focus of these 4 verses)?

How we understand Paul's command that wives submit to their husbands often says more about our cultural setting than that of Paul.  Rather than uplift or tear down an American cultural understanding of gender roles in society (or idolize a rose-colored vision of the 1950's), our key task is to embrace the goal/purpose that Paul's instructions had for the church at Ephesus: peace within households.

What this will look like within any given marriage is something the Holy Spirit can help that husband and wife understand as both seek God-honoring choices.

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #47: Only one ancient source gets bashed, the Christian one

 

One of the challenges that I face when responding to the false teachings of the First Fruits of Zion is that they utilize sources that most Christians are unfamiliar with.  These range from the vast collections of rabbinic sources contained in the Talmud (Mishnah, Gemara) to more obscure apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings from the centuries before and after the life of Jesus.  In virtually every instance, the source being cited isn't framed with details about it, it is simply utilized and given a measure of implicit authority.

We saw, to our horror, in lesson 46 that FFOZ was willing to name-drop the Gospel of Thomas without any word of caution related to this pseudepigraphal (NOT written by the Apostle Thomas) heretical Gnostic work.  That mention of Thomas was a serious red flag (added to our huge list), but it wasn't long before someone who had been invited to join a Torah Club sent me quotes from a different series to show that this usage of the Gospel of Thomas was only the tip of the iceberg:

Jesus my Rabbi, lesson 18, volume 2, "The Days of Noah", p. 11 (as a parallel to Lk 17:24-27)

Jesus my Rabbi, Lesson 26, volume 2 "The Four Questions" p. 8-9

Jesus my Rabbi, Lesson 28, Volume 2, The 7 Woes, p. 4 (as a parallel to Mt. 23:13)

To employ such a false gospel so broadly is beyond dangerous, to draw comparisons between it and the true Gospels that it borrows from is ridiculous.  

Which brings us to lesson 47 of the Beginning of Wisdom which will showcase FFOZ's willingness to positively interact with a variety of sources without mentioning their background or theological bent, except the one that is used that is explicitly Christian.  Note: FFOZ almost never quotes any Christian source, with the rare exception of ones that are from Messianic Jewish authors (even these are rare and limited).  This usage is thus highly unusual, a rarity.  It does, however, follow the pattern of FFOZ's long-standing hostility toward the Church.

Lesson 47, page 4

"The Torah presents life as a choice between two ways: the path of blessing and the path of curse...The path of blessing that leads to eternal life is narrow and only a few find it, whereas the path that leads to destruction is broad and well-traveled (Matthew 7:13-14)."

Before looking briefly at this quote, note that above it the lesson quotes "Sifrei" without any reference to where this quote can be found.  The glossary at the end of the lesson calls Sifrei, "The earliest collection of rabbinic discussions on the book of Deuteronomy compiled in the second century CE."  The date given is earlier than it ought to be (more likely 4th century than 2nd), but there's no reason to object to the utilization of a rabbinic source when discussing Torah, so long as we remember that the author was not someone who accepted that Jesus was the Messiah, a distinction I've yet to see FFOZ make, as that may have colored the interpretation of the scriptural text in question.

What about this usage?  The problem with using the quote from the Sifrei commentary is that the comparison of God's warnings about blessings and curses in the Mosaic Covenant and Jesus' warning of the wide and narrow paths in the New Covenant are not the same thing.  {Note: FFOZ operates under the belief that the New Covenant hasn't started yet, that we are all living still under the Mosaic}.  When ancient Israel obeyed or disobeyed the Mosaic Law it was not souls that were at stake but national blessings or curses.  Repeated disobedience might bring into question whether a particular individual had faith in God (see Hebrews 11), but Dt. 30:19 is the LORD speaking to the nation as a whole about collective blessings and curses, not to individuals.  Jesus, on the other hand, is talking to individuals about their choice to live by faith or not.  The narrow/wide path that Jesus is talking about doesn't lead to blessings/curses but to salvation/damnation.  

This then becomes another example of FFOZ creating confusion between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, and between national Israel's covenantal relationship with God and that which exists between God and all who come to Jesus in faith.  For an organization that believes that Gentiles can only be grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel as "sojourners in the land" such confusion is not a bug, its a feature. 

Lesson 47, page 7

"The Apostolic-era rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah"

The lesson has no issue with quoting Eleazar Ben Azariah several times with only the small note that he is from the "Apostolic-era" {Note: Eleazar Ben Azariah isn't in the lesson glossary}.  Eleazar was indeed a first-century rabbi, having lived through the destruction of the Second Temple.  There are no preserved writings of Eleazar that mention Jesus Christ.  Once again, this is a rabbinic source that could offer some insight into the ideas/attitudes of 2nd Temple Judaism, as well as the aftermath of the loss of the Temple and Levitical system, but he also continues the pattern of relying for wisdom upon sources that rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Lesson 47, page 9

"When a person ascertains the intention behind a commandment (the so-called "spirit of the law"), he might fee liberated from literally observing the commandment.  The sages warn us not to try to be wiser than the Torah."

The first sentence would feel right-at-home among legalists in any era.  Notice the subtle ways in which the statement is framed: (1) "spirit of the law" is in quotes and preceded by "so-called," it is clear that in Lancaster's mind the attempt to seek and obey God's command on this level of principle is folly.  (2) A "literal" obedience is the only true obedience, this thought is buttressed by the support of the sages (without a quote or authority, take FFOZ's word for it).

Lesson 47, page 11

"(1 Enoch 90:38-39)...This type of apocalyptic symbolism helps explain the meaning of Peter's vision of a four-cornered sheet lowered from heaven containing "all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air (Acts 10:12)...The vision did not supplant the Bible's dietary laws." 

Another source is cited, this time it is 1 Enoch, the only information about it given is that it falls under the category of "Jewish apocalyptic writers".  1 Enoch actually has a fascinating history and a connection to Jude 1:14-15, but that background information is lacking in the lesson.  Instead, FFOZ uses 1 Enoch as an interpretive lens to frame Acts 10 in a way that preserves the all time, all peoples, all places view they have of the Law of Moses.  The problem with this particular framing attempt is that it is flat-out contradicted by the context of Peter's vision as emphasized by Luke in Acts.

Acts 10:48  So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Acts 11:1-3  The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

If Peter didn't think his vision had anything to do with dietary laws, if he thought it only concerned Gentiles and had nothing to do with how he should live as a Jewish follower of Jesus, why did he stay at Cornelius' house, eat with his family, and then defend that action when criticized?  If the Law of Moses was still binding on everyone, why did Peter sin?  Context matters, FFOZ's blithe "The vision did not supplant the Bible's dietary laws" ignores the key conclusion to the episode that is right there to be read in Acts.  Peter did what he did because he understood the far-reaching implications of the vision God had given him.

Lesson 47, page 12

"Group Discussion: Let's start an argument.  Divide the Torah Club into two competing teams, with one team arguing that Peter's vision of a sheet in Acts 10 means a change to the dietary laws and the other group arguing that the vision sanctions the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom.  Have fun." 

One last thought before turning to the harsh way that FFOZ treats the only Christian source in the lesson: What is going on here??  They've already proclaimed (wrongly) that Peter's vision does not have anything to do with what they believe to be eternal dietary laws, so what purpose can this serve?  There is no debate in FFOZ's eyes.  The end result of this play acting will be mockery of those who hold the view that followers of Jesus are not bound by the Law, in other words, mockery of Christians, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.

Lesson 47, page 15

"A forgotten Apostolic-era midrash embedded in the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas...For the remainder of this discussion about the dietary laws, we'll work inside the Epistle of Barnabas.  You won't find Epistle of Barnabas in your Bible.  It does not belong in your Bible.  The Apostle Barnabas did not write it.  The epistle dates to the early second century (circa 130 CE).  An anonymous Christian composed the epistle to marshal various proofs to support the premises of replacement theology."

Prior to page 15 this lesson has quoted Sifrei, Eleazar ben Azariah, Sifra Kedoshim, 1 Enoch, Josephus' Antiquities, Genesis Rabbah, and Leviticus Rabbah, all sources that were pro-Torah keeping, all referenced with a positive usage and no further explanations necessary.  How will the Epistle of Barnabas be treated in comparison?  The contrast couldn't be more stark.

Let me be clear, while this epistle was copied in Codex Sinaiticus (along with Shepherd of Hermas) it is not scripture, and had no genuine prospect of being included in the canon.  It was written by a Second Century follower of Jesus, and like any non-inspired writing from God's people has both positive and negative aspects, both truth and error.  It thus has as much authority as any of the other sources regularly utilized by FFOZ in Torah Clubs, with one hugely important distinction: Its writer believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  The same cannot be said of anyone else quoted in this lesson.  Does that make him automatically smarter or more trustworthy?  Of course not, but if the topic-at-hand has any connection to the Gospel (i.e. faith, grace, works, Law, Messiah, etc.) its author is someone who has accepted what God has revealed as humanity's means of salvation.  That difference matters.

How is Barnabas treated?  (1) It is labeled as "apocryphal" and that idea is followed-up with a factual statement, "The Apostle Barnabas did not write it."  Amazingly, shockingly, appallingly, The apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (replete with heresies about Christ) is not given this modifier, to my knowledge, any of the times that FFOZ cites it.  Why would one pseudepigraphal (from Greek, "false writing") work be noted while another example is ignored?  The reason is simple, Barnabas' message is one of Torah abrogation by Christ, Thomas' message is of Gnostic mysticism.  FFOZ vehemently rejects the first truth, but embraces the second lie.

Notice also how FFOZ describes the unknown author of Barnabas: A "Christian" working to "support the premises of replacement theology."  Given that FFOZ has many times equated replacement theology (with a massively broad definition that includes the whole Church throughout our history) with racism in the form of antisemitism, they are letting Torah Club members know that the author of Barnabas is one of the bad guys.

Note: Later on page 15 FFOZ gives credit to everything they like in Barnabas as having originated with "the Jewish community - most likely from the Jewish disciples of Jesus" which ensures that everything negative can be contributed to the unknown Christian author.

Remember, we have noted multiple times when FFOZ utilizes a deeply heretical work (in lesson 46 it was the Clementine Homilies and Gospel of Thomas, many other examples have been given) in its teaching, almost never with any kind of warning or disclaimer, but when an author dares to write that the finished work of Jesus Christ has brought the era of the Mosaic Law to a close, the opposition is full-throated and sustained.

Lesson 47, page 16

"Contrary to this logic, there's no reason to suppose that 'a spiritual meaning' invalidates the literal application of a commandment, but many Bible teachers make the same mistake.  For example, many New Testament teachers declare the abolition of the Levitical worship on the basis that the sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's death.  Likewise, they might argue for the dissolution of the Levitical priesthood because the New Testament teaches that Christ has become a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.  Flawed logic like the type on display in Epistle of Barnabas is still alive and well in the Gentile Church.  Let's ignore the author's anti-Torah agenda and see what we can learn from the early Messianic Jewish midrash he uses.

1. What is the Epistle of Barnabas, and why is it not included in the Bible?

2. What was the purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas, and what theological position did it support?

Group Discussion: Explain why Torah Club uses the Epistle of Barnabas in this discussion if its a spurious epistle that should not be in the Bible.

In the quote, FFOZ draws a comparison between the author of Barnabas and "many Bible teachers" and "many New Testament teachers" who foolishly believe that because of Jesus a "literal" obedience to the Mosaic Law is not longer necessary.  Another reminder for us that to FFOZ the Church is the opposition and proselytizing its members is their growth plan, so it is little wonder to see historic orthodoxy called "flawed logic" that is "still alive and well in the Gentile Church."  A danger to the Church?  How could anyone think that about FFOZ? 

Note that FFOZ's strong opposition to the Epistle of Barnabas is reinforced by two study questions and the group discussion that includes the term "spurious" as its descriptor.

Lesson 47, page 19

"At this point in the manuscript of Epistle of Barnabas (10:6-8), the text departs abruptly from the Jewish source material by clumsily inserting three additional examples of prohibited land animals: the hare, the hyena, and the weasel.  The interruption is artless, comical, and obscene."

The assumed Jewish source material isn't the problem, it is the author's "artless, comical, and obscene" departure from it.  Got it.

Lesson 47, page 19

"After the interpolation concludes, the text of Epistle of Barnabas continues with a ridiculous criticism of the Jewish people for taking the Torah literally:...it's a fallacious argument."

To anyone who doesn't take the Torah literally (yes, this is not the right use of literally, legalists love the term, FFOZ included): Your ideas are ridiculous and fallacious.  

We just have one small problem: Jesus.  Ok, that's actually a huge, insurmountable problem for FFOZ.

Jesus in the Gospels repeatedly elevates the teachings of Torah to matters of the heart, including rough take-downs of those within 2nd Temple Judaism whose focus was on taking the Torah "literally" and not embracing the "so called 'spirit-of-the-law'" by putting God's intention and God's people first.  Jesus purposefully heals publicly on the Sabbath to make this very point, "Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.'” (Mark 2:27-28)

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #46: Venerating false Messiahs as men who pleased God

 

Would you expect a Christian ministry to include a story in one of their publications about the purity and righteousness of Joseph Smith?  How about one that speaks of the actions of Charles Russell (founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses) as an illustration of what the Apostle John was trying to teach about the love of God?  If that sort of veneration of false teachers was found in any publication of any reputable Christian ministry or denomination, the uproar would be loud, widespread, and entirely justified.  I could have chosen Buddha or Confucius to make this point, Gandhi or the Dalai Lama, or any number of people that are admired by many, even millions of people, but who did not have a relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  We can admire someone, we can be fascinated by their life story or what they accomplished, but only God sets the standard for who is righteous in his sight, and that status is only possible through his Son.  To venerate anyone as a righteous person who pleased God WIHTOUT Jesus is an anathema to the Gospel, it is blasphemy.  

That's exactly what First Fruits of Zion has done in Lesson 46 of the Beginning of Wisdom, they just did so by using 18th century European mystics that are not as familiar as my examples are to an American.  To be clear, this objection is not an indictment of the life of either of the two Jewish leaders that FFOZ chose to venerate, nor is it an indictment of Judaism, or even Hasidic Judaism, the branch of Judaism the two of them were instrumental in founding / shaping, in particular.  They may have been good men, they may have been wise in their area of study, they may have been loving and kind, even exceptionally so.  They may be worthy of veneration within the religious movement they helped give direction to.  What they are not, what they cannot be, no matter what, is an example of someone whose righteousness pleased God.

To a universalist, that's an absurd statement.  If we set aside the bedrock truth of God's Word that, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" because, "There is no one righteous, not even one." (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10 & 3:23), and we set aside the bedrock truth spoken by Jesus, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," (John 14:6), we would find ourselves in a world where people who are decent, good, even righteous in human eyes who should be lauded and praised for rising above the evil in this world.  BUT, we don't live in that world.  The reality is that there are none who are righteous in God's sight, all have sinned, and "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23).  Without Jesus Christ, without faith in him to save us from our sins, we are entirely and irrevocably lost, period.  Whether this Truth is palatable or not, it is the Gospel given to us by God.  There is no other path, no Plan B or consolation prize, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is not other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).

Unless you are a universalist of some kind, someone who doesn't believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation, at least for some people...

Lesson 46, page 15
"A similar story is told about the Baal Shem Tov.  It happened once that the Ball Shem Tov realized a heavenly decree had been issued against the Jewish community.  He determined to persuade God to reverse the decree.  Like Moses praying to enter the promised land, he threw himself into prayer and fasting, wrestling with God, so to speak.  He refused to relent until hie managed to reverse the decree and save the Jewish community.  However, the victory came at a great personal price.  A heavenly voice informed him that he had forfeited his own place in the World to Come.  Rather than grow despondent over the prospect, the Baal Shem Tov rejoiced.  He said, 'At last, I will know that my service of God is born purely out of a heart of love for Him and devotion to Him and not out of any hope for reward or fear of punishment.'"

Before we look at what FFOZ said about him, the Reader's Digest version of who Baal Shem Tov was: Baal Shem Tov, or "Master of the Good Name," is how Israel ben Eliezer (1700-1760) is known.  Israel was a Polish Jewish mystic who is regarded as the founder of Hasidic Judaism (a segment of ultra-Orthodox Judaism originating in Eastern Europe, most followers of it today live in the USA or Israel).  Today his life is surrounded by legends of miracles, so much so that the apostate Bart Ehrman has used him as an example to discredit the eyewitness account in the Gospels of the miracles of Jesus Christ by saying that eyewitnesses believed Baal Shem Tov to be a miracle worker too.  

From the Jewish Encyclopedia article on his life: {Besht is an abbreviation of Baal Shem Tov}

"The foundation-stone of Ḥasidism as laid by Besht is a strongly marked pantheistic conception of God. He declared the whole universe, mind and matter, to be a manifestation of the Divine Being; that this manifestation is not an emanation from God, as is the conception of the Cabala, for nothing can be separated from God: all things are rather forms in which He reveals Himself. When man speaks, said Besht, he should remember that his speech is an element of life, and that life itself is a manifestation of God. Even evil exists in God. This seeming contradiction is explained on the ground that evil is not bad in itself, but only in its relation to man."

With that brief consideration of the life of Baal Shem Tov (Israel ben Eliezer) in mind, how does FFOZ choose to connect this mystic to its lesson?  By praising a bold assertion of heresy.  In the story related to the Torah Club members by Lancaster and FFOZ, God rewards Baal Shem Tov by answering his prayer, but at the cost of condemning his soul.  This supposed "bargain" with God not only elevates Baal Shem Tov to a messianic level (he supposedly saved his entire people from destruction by sacrificing himself), it also portrays God in a blasphemous way as a God who would trade the soul of one he loves simply to change his own mind.  God has never condemned a soul unjustly as he is portrayed as doing in the story FFOZ cites.  Such a God is unworthy of worship and praise, that's who God would be if he let Abraham go through with sacrificing Isaac, such a God is NOT the God of the Bible.  

To recap the dangerous errors of using this example of Baal Shem Tov in the lesson: (1) It venerates a false Messiah-figure, (2) it treats the actions of a non-believer as righteous before God without reference to faith in Christ, (3) and by extension it puts an implicit stamp of approval on Baal Shem Tov's heretical pantheism.

Lesson 46, page 15
"Once, it happened that the disciples of Schneur Zalman (1745-1812), the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, overheard their rabbi in ecstatic prayer, crying out, 'I don't want your Paradise, I don't want your World to Come, I want only You.'  These stories illustrate the Apostle John's words, 'There is not fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.  We love, because He first loved us.'"(1 John 4:18-19)."

Before we look at what FFOZ said about him, the Reader's Digest version of who Schneur Zalman was: Schneur was a Russian Jewish rabbi commonly known as the Alter Rebbe who was the founder and first Rebbe (spiritual leader) of Chabad (a dynasty with chosen successors), which is a branch of Hasidic Ultra-Orthodox Judaism.  The 7th Rebbe Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (d. 1994) taught that Baal Shem Tov was a divine manifestation (known as Sephirot) of infinite faith, and that Schneur Zalman was a divine manifestation of infinite wisdom.  By many of his followers in the movement, Schneerson is believed to have been the Messiah; that's the movement that Zalman founded, and the one that FFOZ is linking its teaching to.  

In case you are wondering, linking to the Lubavitch Movement and its messianic claims is the kind of thing that would shock both liberal and conservative rabbis within Messianic Judaism.  FFOZ isn't building bridges here, they're lighting them on fire.

With that brief introduction into Schneur Zalman in mind, how does FFOZ choose to connect this mystical rabbi to the lesson?  By making him an example of what the Apostle John was teaching about perfect love.  This use is beyond the ordinary false teaching of FFOZ into the realm of outright blasphemy as it is telling Torah Club followers that the Apostle John, the very disciple whom Jesus loved, was talking about someone like Schneur Zalman in 1 John.  What's the problem with this connection?  The answer is simple, and it doesn't have anything to do with Zalman's life except one fact about it.  John's entire contextual (the part FFOZ likes to ignore) thesis in 1 John is that any true and genuine believer must have 3 things to prove they have the genuine faith that pleases God: (1) walking in the light / obeying God's commands, (2) love for our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith, and (3) affirmation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  Take away one of them and the whole thing falls apart.  

1 John repeats these 3 factors over and over, fifty-two times to be exact {I know because I wrote a book on the subject: Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John}, with thirty-one positive statements on how to demonstrate you are part of God's family, and twenty-one negative statements that show who is not.  Of these, seventeen are about what we believe, eleven times John says we must affirm Jesus (as the Christ, the Son of God, who came in the flesh) and six times we are told we cannot deny Jesus and be in God's family.  In case you're curious now, there are fourteen statements in John about our need to love each other, which leaves twelve about our need to follow God's commands.  That is what John is actually teaching, in context.

HOW could Zalman know the "perfect love" that "casts out fear" if he didn't know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?  If he had confidence before God, it was a false confidence because it was based upon his own work not that of Jesus Christ.  If he did not feel fear when contemplating standing before Almighty God in judgment, he should have, because all who will stand before God without the being clothed in the righteousness of Christ will be condemned.  Being good, kind, loving, smart, zealous, none of it matters.  Our faith is in Christ, and Christ alone.  Faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone.  As a reminder, FFOZ utterly rejects the Five Solae of the Reformation: Rethinking the Five Solae

The stories of Baal Shem Tov and Schneur Zalman are NOT stories that illustrate what the Apostle John was teaching in 1 John.  To claim this, as FFOZ has done, is to deny the necessity of the saving Blood of Jesus Christ because John's entire point is that our connection to the love of God must be through Jesus.  We already know from Aaron Eby's, "What Replaces Replacement Theology?" that FFOZ is willing to hint that the Jewish people don't need Jesus to be saved.  This lesson is a much bolder assertion, it proclaims that men who have been elevated to the status of prophets, or even that of a Messiah, by their followers, who have thus led many astray away from God's salvation, should be venerated as wise and righteous despite having no connection to Jesus Christ.

The average American sitting in a Torah Club hearing this lesson won't know who either of the Jewish mystics are that FFOZ chooses to proclaim as heroes of the faith.  Most will assume that both were Messianic Jews, that they shared with them a belief in Jesus.  Ignorance is not bliss.  What FFOZ is doing in this lesson is heretical (an implicit statement that Jews don't need Jesus since these men who rejected him are elevated to saint-like status), blasphemous (ascribing "perfect love" to someone who doesn't know Jesus, thus equating human effort with divine grace), and grossly cynical as it depends upon their followers being unwilling to examine what they're being taught.

For the sake of those who are being led astray by FFOZ, I wish I was only able to find small errors or follies, but the opposite is true.  The dangers of FFOZ are very, very real.

An incredible story of God's love chasing after his lost sheep: A family's 20-year journey into the Hebrew Roots Movement & back out again.

 

In a powerful story of God's grace and faithful love for us, Joshua and Carla share their own story spanning twenty years and three countries as they journeyed into the Hebrew Roots Movement, wandered from the Church they had been raised in, and were pursued by God until his grace called them back home to a place where Jesus Christ is the absolute center of their relationship with God (and not their own effort at Torah observance).

This story also is a message to family and loved ones who are concerned about someone in the HRM: (1) Pray for them, (2) Be patient, (3) show compassion, (4) and don't let the relationship be broken for the sake of an argument.

Sermon Video: Sing and Make Music to the Lord - Ephesians 5:15-20

After warning disciples of Jesus that they need to make "the most of every opportunity" through wise living because the "days are evil," the Apostle Paul transitions naturally to our need to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

How then do we embrace our connection to the Spirit of God?  One key way is through worship, particularly worship through music and song.  So, whether you like to sing or not, whether you can carry a tune or not, sing to the Lord!