The Book Of Acts

     The title "Acts of the Apostles" (Praxeis Apostolon) appears in P-74 (Papyrus
74), a 7th century fragment located in Geneva. Manuscripts Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,
and Bezae Cantabrigiensis from the 4th to 6th centuries also have the title of the book
as  "Acts."

     The book of Acts is undeniably a critical book of historical value in understanding
the New Testament. God through the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit is its
author, and Luke  is  the  penman  of  this  marvelous  document.  In  general  most
theologically conservative scholars date the writing of the book from the early to mid
60's AD. The books of Luke and Acts share several similarities in style, and for good
reason; they were written by the same individual.

     A close reading of the book of Acts reveals the following points of emphasis
throughout the text:

     The work of the Holy Spirit through the apostles. Jesus had promised the apostles
that the Holy Spirit would be sent from heaven to teach them, to remind them, and to
guide them into all the truth. (Jno. 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16:13) He began doing these
things on the day of Pentecost and continued throughout their work on the earth.
(Acts 2:1-5, 43; 4:31; 5:32; 8:18; 13:8-12, et.al.) In Acts, Luke shows the Holy Spirit
supernaturally enabling the apostles to perform miracles, defend the gospel, rebuke
error, interpret the intent of peoples' hearts, address rulers, etc. The Holy Spirit enabled
them to do their work flawlessly!

     The style and content of apostolic preaching. The book of Acts portrays the
apostles as courageous men who fearlessly proclaimed the gospel. We never see the
apostles depicted as doctrinally weak, timid, and soft compromisers with the religionists
of their day! On the great day of Pentecost Peter is described as a man who "stood up
with the eleven" and "raised his voice and addressed the crowd." (Acts 2:14) The word
"addressed" translates apophthengomai and it means contextually, "to speak out, to
declare boldly or loudly." Peter and John are described as having courage. (Acts 4:13)
They publicly declared the need to obey God rather than human beings. (Acts 5:29)
They never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah,
even in view of physical mistreatment. (Acts 5:40-42) When Paul obeyed the gospel
of God, even he "at once began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of
God." (Acts 9:19-20) He spoke boldly. (Acts 9:28) The apostles, unlike many today,
did not befriend those who were enemies of the cross! They showed no tolerance for
any of the religious sects of their day. Their allegiance was to the Lord Jesus!

     The preaching of the kingdom of God receives prominence in the book of Acts.
The phrase 'kingdom of God" refers to God's reign or rule administered through the
word of truth. This reign is over people who are in Christ, and it is through Jesus the
Messiah that the reign is effected. (Mat. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-27; Eph. 1:22-23)  Another
word used in the book of Acts to refer to the people who are subject to God's reign
is the word ekklesia (congregation, assembly, church). The book of Acts acknowledges
the existence of God's congregation in Acts 2:41,47. This was the result of God's
planning (Eph. 3:11), Christ executing (Eph. 3:11-12), and the Holy Spirit's revealing
(Eph. 3:5). Luke tells us in chapter 8 about Philip proclaiming the good news of the
kingdom. (Acts 8:12) He said Paul also argued persuasively about the kingdom of God.
(Acts 19:8) The other apostles did the same. There is no indication that the apostles
adhered to the "preach Christ not the church" philosophy so prevalent today. They
understood that in religion you do not separate the head from the body! (Eph. 1:22-23;
4:4)

     Numerous accounts of conversion. The curtain unfolds with the conversion of
Jews and converts to Judaism. They "repented and were immersed in order to receive
forgiveness of sins." (Acts 2:38) In doing so, they left Judaism and became followers
of Jesus Christ. They continually devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, not to
that of Moses and the prophets. More and more men and women believed and were
added to the Lord. (Acts 5:14) Later Simon himself believed and was immersed, along
with others in Samaria who heard the preaching of Philip. (Acts 8:12-13) Luke records
the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch. He likewise believed and was immersed. As
the result of obeying the Lord his sins were forgiven. (Acts 8:26-40) Saul, later known
as Paul also believed and was immersed in order to have his sins forgiven. (Acts 9:18;
22:16) The same is true of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48), Lydia (Acts 16:13-15), the
jailer (Acts 16:29-34), those of Berea (Acts 17:10-12), the Corinthians (Acts 18:7-8),
and the men of Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).  The teachings of  denominationalism that
a person is justified by faith only (Jas. 2:24), saved by grace only (Eph. 2:8-9), and
consequently may join the church of his choice (Mat. 16:18; Rom. 16:16) has no
basis in the holy scriptures!

     Local  congregations  were  organized  to  accomplish  the work  that  God
assigned. There was a congregation of Christ in Jerusalem. (Acts 6:1-7) Elders were
appointed in Jerusalem when men were qualified. (Acts 15:2,4,6,22) The disciples in
Judea  also  had  elders. (Acts 11:30)  The  congregation  in  Ephesus  had  elders.
(Acts 20:17,28) Elders were appointed in other congregations who had men qualified
to do the work of overseeing the flock of God. (Acts 14:23)  The congregations
sent men out to preach the gospel and provided financial support for their work.
(Acts 15:3,22). They also provided benevolence for the members who were in need.
(Acts 6:1-6; 11:27-30). They  provided opportunities to come together and worship
God. (Acts 2:42; 20:7) God was glorified through their work and they were edified.
(Acts 20:32) None of the relatively modern denominational efforts, organizations, and
officers were needed for them to do exactly what God led them to do under the guidance
of the apostles! No popes, cardinals, presidents, vice presidents, presiding bishops,
ministerial alliances, "socio-religious" clubs and societies,  missionary societies, and no
human organizations stood between the congregations and the work that God had
appointed them to do. There were no synods, conferences, inter or intra congregational
organizations that existed. The spiritual growth and stability of the congregations were
not dependent on any colleges, universities, or other human societies. The congregations
were independent  (their  existence  was  not  dependent on any other organization or
group.) They were autonomous (they "governed" themselves by applying the commands
and principles taught in God's word.) They simply did their work the way God intended
and were continually blessed in doing so. These are the things that are prominently seen
in the book of Acts.
                                                                                                            R. Daly

Copyright 2012 

Believers Marrying Unbelievers

     Though  it  is  not  always  wise,  it  is  not  inherently  sinful  for a believer to marry
an unbeliever. The New Testament does not explicitly state, nor does it imply that such a
marriage is sinful. Therefore, we must be cautious not to make laws that God did not 
make. To do so is itself sinful. "There is one lawgiver and judge, the one who is able to
save and to destroy. But you, who are you, the one judging your neighbor?" (James 4:12)
God is the lawgiver and judge! When we makes laws for God we impeach his perfect
wisdom, and we meddle in an area that is off limits for human beings. I can think of a
number of reasons why a Christian should marry a faithful member of Christ's body, but
I refuse to formulate a law that says it is sinful for a Christian to marry an unbeliever.
There are certain  believers  who  should  not  marry  other  believers  because  they
lack the qualities that are conducive to a successful marriage.

     Paul wrote, "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is
an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman
has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not
divorce him." (1 Cor. 7:12-13, ESV) Some people argue that this refers to a marriage
that occurred while they were both unbelievers. I ask, "So what?" It doesn't matter. The
fact is, Paul said the believing mate is "not to divorce him/her." If the relationship is inherently
wrong, how can they remain married? Paul goes on to say, "For the unbelieving husband
has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through
her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."
(1 Cor. 7:14, NIV-2011) The unbelieving husband or wife "sanctified" through the
believing wife or husband? Yes, that is exactly what Paul wrote. The unbelieving mate is
not "sanctified" in the sense of being consecrated in the Lord, that is a Christian and saved.

     A  person  becomes  a  Christian  by  obeying  the  gospel  of  Christ.  (Mat. 28:19;
1 Cor. 12:13;  Acts 11:26) The word from which "sanctified" is translated is used in a
specialized sense. In this text the meaning is the unbelieving mate is in an acceptable
union, and the unbeliever is acceptable as a mate. God  accepts the marriage as a
legitimate relationship. The word  "sanctified"  (Grk. hagiazo),  in  the  context  of
1 Cor. 7  connotes  to be "accepted or acknowledged" by God as being in an approved
state (marriage) with a Christian, a child of God. A believer, if faithful to the Lord,  who is
married to an unbeliever, wields a powerful influence for good, and to the extent that the
unbeliever yields to the mate's life of holiness, they are "set apart" for each other in the
marriage. If the relationship is not acceptable to God, the children born in the union
would be unclean, but they are "holy" (consecrated, that is, legitimate).  (1 Cor. 7:14) 

     Some teach 2 Cor. 6:14-16 forbids a believer marrying an unbeliever. The context of
the passage discusses an "unequal yoke," namely, "Christ and Belial," "the temple of God
with idols," and the like. A marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is not necessarily
an unequal yoke, anymore than a believer being employed by an unbeliever is an unequal
yoke. The unequal yoke Paul discusses must be dissolved, for he says, "Therefore go out
from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord..." (2 Cor. 6:17) Yet, he tells
the believers who are married to unbelievers in 1 Cor. 7 not to separate from or divorce
their mates.

     There are many reasons why a believer should not consider an unbeliever as a first
choice for a mate. For example, a person should marry someone who will help create an
atmosphere conducive to growth and stability in the home, and who can encourage both
partners to seek heaven as an eternal home. Nevertheless, care must be taken not to make
and bind laws that Yahweh has not made!  He  has  made  no  law  forbidding  marriage
between believers and unbelievers.
                                                                                                                       R. Daly

Copyright 2012

Nations That Forget God

     Psalm 9:17 says, "The wicked go down to the realm of the dead, all the nations that
forget God." (NIV-2011) The word translated "nations" is the Hebrew word goy, and
it means "nation or people."  No  nation  is  so strong militarily, financially, politically, or
socially that it will continue to stand  if  it  defies  the  will of Almighty God! There have
been  several  large  and  powerful  empires  and kingdoms of days gone by, that were
thought to be invincible, but they met their demise when things  got  so  bad  that  there
was no conscience and no turn around in sight. Ancient Babylon, Greece, and Rome
are examples of  "Oh, how the mighty have fallen." We learn from history that there are
several telltale signs that the road leading to an ultimate fall is being traveled. What are
some of the signs that indicate a nation is traveling the road leading to destruction?

     First, when it forgets God! This is seen when those who are its leaders have little if
any concern for governing according to principles of righteousness and fairness. Instead,
they are seekers of pleasure, hungry for corruptly obtained wealth, and they seek the
good-will of human beings rather than God. No nation is stronger than those who lead
it. Leaders tend to be the "voice" for the people, especially in a society that elects its
leaders. People generally elect leaders who reflect their political, social, and religious
beliefs. Something  is  amiss when a nation disregards principles of righteousness and
elects leaders based on race, intellect, or in order to send a message, instead of right and
wrong. Principles of right and wrong should be the guiding light in all situations.

     Second, a nation is traveling the road to destruction when it devalues human life. There
is nothing that magnifies this attitude more than the practice of abortion. Abortion is the
murder of innocent unborn human beings! Life begins at conception. What has an unborn
baby done to deserve death? We often hear people say, "It's about the mother's rights."  
No, it's about the baby's life! No nation that murders its own innocent people can
survive the wrath of God. Murdering unborn children is the taking of innocent life. One
thing that should bother us is the fact that generally speaking, relatively few of God's own
people realize the seriousness of abortion. Some even cringe when abortion is condemned
as sinful. God teaches us that the attitude underlying such a senseless act is inexcusable
and wrong! (1 Tim. 1:8-11) Where is the same clear, emphatic, and bold denunciation
of abortion as there is of sins of a doctrinal and moral nature? There's a dead cat on the
line somewhere! 

     Third, a nation's demise is forthcoming when God's law of morality and marriage is
disregarded. God's  word  clearly  teaches  that  the  sins  of  bestiality, adultery, child
exploitation and molestation, lesbianism, rape, and homosexuality will end in hell unless
those who practice such things repent. (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rev. 21:8) Sexual sins are not
only addictive, but they are also destructive to one's body, mind, soul, and society.
Who would have believed that this nation would "progress" to the point that lawmakers
would support same sex marriages and civil unions? A person cannot believe the Bible
and support, accept, and defend same sex marriages! God joins an eligible man and
woman in marriage. He does not join those of the same gender! (Mat. 19:1-9) Yet,
many of those who accept and defend such are "religious" people. This proves that many
people have no real concept of God teaches about true religion. To them religion is just a
"belief system." Atheism is a belief system, and it is corrupt to the core!

     In order to survive, people must seek God by reading his word, loving his will,  and
practicing righteous principles. There is no other acceptable way. Nations that forget God
will perish!
                                                                                                               R. Daly

Copyright 2012

Where's The Choir?

      Those  who  visit  the  assemblies  of  the Lord's people sometimes ask, "Where's
the Choir?" They are astonished that faithful congregations of Christ seek to tenaciously
adhere  to  the  teaching  of  the  apostles when  they  worship  God  in  spirit and truth.
(Jno. 4:24; Acts 2:42) The New Testament does constitute a "pattern" and we must be
careful to do only  what  it  authorizes. (Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:11)  This  brings  us to the
reason  we  do  not  see  choirs, choruses, duets, solos,  trios,  quintets, sextets, or
any  other  kinds  of  "tets" singing  to  or  performing  for faithful congregations when
they are assembled for worship. The New Testament does not authorize such things.
If you believe these things are authorized, I ask, "Where is the passage that warrants
choirs, choruses,  duets,  soloists, and  the  like  to  sing  to  or perform for the local
congregation?"

     Paul wrote "to the holy people and faithful brothers and sisters at Colossae" and said,
"whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks
to God the Father through him." (Col. 3:17) Before an act can be right in God's sight it
must be authorized, or done "in the name of the Lord Jesus." We do a thing in the name
of our Lord when he authorizes it by means of a direct statement, approved apostolic
example, or implication in the sacred text. For instance, by direct statement we learn
that people are to be immersed in order to receive forgiveness of their sins. (Acts 2:38)
By apostolic example we learn that water is the element in which one is to be immersed.
(Acts 8:36-39; 10:47) By implication, that is, a necessary or logical conclusion, we learn
that when a person is immersed in water in order to have his sins pardoned, he becomes
a Christian and a member of the body of Christ. (Mat. 28:19; Acts 11:26)

     There is no direct statement in the New Testament that tells us a choir is to  perform
for a congregation with God's approval. There is no apostolic example that shows us that
a choir did perform for a congregation with God's approval. Neither is there a passage that 
implies  a choir  may perform  for  a congregation assembled to worship God. Therefore
there  is  no divine authority for choirs,  choruses,  and  "special"  singing  groups  in  our
congregational worship. When we "gather together in congregation" (1 Cor. 11:17-18),
we " speak to one another" and "teach and admonish one another," as we sing and make
melody with our hearts to the Lord. (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)  The "group" that God tells to
sing is the congregation. Singing is an act of worship and  is to be a  corporate  experience;
an  act  in  which  the  voice  of  every  man, woman, boy, and  girl is lifted up to Yahweh.
We do not sing for show or entertainment! "Where's the choir?" You won't find one in the
congregations of Christ that are faithful!
                                                                                                               Ron Daly
Copyright 2012


    
 

"Why Have You Forsaken Me?"

     "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lema
sabachthani?' that is, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' " (Matthew
27:46, ESV)

     It is commonly believed by many religionists, that Jesus' statement indicates God
abandoned or turned his back on his Son, because Jesus while on the cross, took on
the sins of the whole world, and thereby became the greatest sinner the world has ever
known.

     First, let us consider the following facts: (1) Jesus said he and the Father are one,
that is, harmonious in work and purpose. (Jno. 10:30; 5:17) Is it conceivable that the
Father would abandon or desert his own Son with whom he was working harmoniously
or  as  one?  (2)  Jesus  said  he  came  to do  and  always did the will of his Father.
(Jno. 5:19; 8:29) This shows he was perfectly obedient to his Father. Is it possible that
the Father would abandon one who obeyed him in every respect? (3) The Father always
heard the Son. (Jno. 11:42) This indicates that God always approved of him. Therefore
Jesus was righteous. Is it even in the realm of possibility that the Father would desert one
whom he approved and who was righteous? (4) The Son always pleased the Father.
(Jno. 8:29) This proves the Father and the Son were in perfect fellowship. The Father
was "well pleased" with the Son. (Mat. 17:5) Is it conceivable that the Father would
abandon one who was in perfect fellowship with him, and was well pleasing to him?
(5) The Son never sinned. Never committed a sinful act, nor did he ever entertain a
sinful thought. (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22-23) In  view  of  the  preceding facts, is it in
harmony with the scriptures to believe God deserted his sinless and beloved Son while
he was on the cross?

     Second, while on the cross did Jesus cease being "one" with the Father? Did he stop
doing the will of the Father and become a disobedient Son? Did he become unrighteous
and  thereby  meet  God's  disapproval?  Did  he  stop  pleasing  God the Father and
consequently cease having perfect fellowship with him? Did the Son of the living God
who never sinned, suddenly abandon his life of perfect holiness, and become the greatest
sinner the world has ever known? The answer to the questions above is absolutely not,
even to the bane of Calvinists.

     So, what is the significance of the Lord's cry,  "My  God,  my  God, why  have you
forsaken me?" Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1, a psalm for deliverance. It reads, "My God, my
God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words
of my groaning?" (ESV) In this psalm David cries out to God for deliverance from scornful
people (v.6); from mockers (v.7); from the bulls of Bashan, an idiom meaning the strong
ones  of  Bashan  (v.12); from dogs, a  metaphor  meaning  gang  of  evil  doers,  moral
reprobates (v.16); and  from  the  lion,  used   metaphorically   of  those  who  mercilessly
destroy  (v. 21, cf. v.13)

     We may be assured that Yahweh had not actually forsaken David because David says in
the same psalm, "You who fear Yahweh, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him,
and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! For he has not despised or abhorred
the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard,
when he cried to him." (verses 23-24, ESV, all emphasis mine, RD)

     If indeed neither David nor Jesus had been actually forsaken by Yahweh, then what is
the significance of the question, "Why have you forsaken me?" It would seem to those
who were onlookers of both the persecution of David and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ,
that  God   had  abandoned David and Jesus because  he  allowed   their   enemies   to 
carry out their evil schemes.  The first line of Psalm 22:1 holds the clue to the interpretation.
"Why  are  you  so  far  from saving me, from the words of my groaning?" As Yahweh
allowed  David  to suffer, so he allowed Jesus to be  delivered  up and suffer  at the  hands
of  lawless men. (Acts 2:23) It is not as though Jesus was asking the Father for an answer
to   the  question. Both  Jesus  and  the  Father  knew  why  Jesus would die (Jno. 1:29;
Mat. 20:28; 26:28) There is very likely an element of rhetorical effect in the words Jesus
speaks; "Why have you forsaken me?" You have given me up to death that people might 
live. 

                                                                                                                       R. Daly

Copyright 2012

Word Impact

     There are many people in the religious world who are seeking something "better felt
than told," by  which  they  mean, they  are  seeking  an  extraordinary  or supernatural
influence that will lead them to a "religious experience." They often ridicule the idea that
God has designed his written word in such a way that it, without a direct  operation  of
the Holy Spirit is capable of convicting and converting sinners, and equipping the saved
to live a life of faithful service to God and preparing them for an eternal home in heaven.

     Nevertheless, the New Testament  teaches there  is  nothing in addition to the word
of God, as a written message from God, that is needed to convict the sinner and  bring
him to  the knowledge of the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. One biblical example will
suffice to prove this point.

     In the second chapter of  Acts  we  read  that the Holy Spirit filled the apostles. The
"filling" was a miraculous  manifestation of  the  Spirit  on  the apostles, not on the other
people. The text says "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak
with other languages as the Spirit gave them the ability." (Acts 2:4) The pronouns refer
to the "eleven apostles" plus Matthias who was chosen to replace Judas, and that equals
twelve apostles. (Acts 1:26) Notice the result of the apostles being filled with the Holy
Spirit; "they began to speak." The salvation that would come to the Jews on that day
would  be  the result of God's  saving  grace, manifested  through  what the apostles 
would preach, and the compliance of the Jews to God's will.  I call it "word impact."

     When the Jews mocked the events that were transpiring on the day of Pentecost,
they accused the apostles of being filled with new wine. Peter corrects them by saying,
"...give attention to my words. For these are not drunk as you suppose; seeing it is but
the third hour of the day..."  The Holy Spirit guides him to quote that which was spoken
"through the prophet Joel." (verses 16-21) He further says, "You men of Israel, hear
these words." (verse 22) Peter quotes from David with regard to the resurrection and
lordship of Jesus. He tells the Jews that "God has made this Jesus whom you crucified
both Lord and Messiah." (verse 36) "Now when they heard this, they were pierced
in the heart , and said to  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles, 'Men, brothers, what
should we do?" (verse 37) It  is  what  the Jews heard that pierced (convicted) them.
The words of Peter  made a  profound  inward  impression  on  them. It  was "word
impact."

     Luke says "With many other words he testified and was appealing to them saying,
'Save yourselves from this perverse generation." (verse 40)  As  the  result of Peter's
testimony and appeal, "The ones then having welcomed his word were immersed."
(verse 41) This is clear and convincing evidence from the scriptures  themselves  that
"word impact" worked then and "word impact" will work now.

     Those who are the adherents of the teaching of Augustine who lived approximately
354-430 A.D. and  John  Calvin, the  French  reformer  who lived from 1509-1564,
are implying that God's word is inadequate to do exactly what  God  says  it  can do.
( Acts 20:32;  Rom. 1:16-17;  1 Cor. 1:18, 21;  2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jas. 1:18,21)  Both
Augustine and Calvin taught that man is so morally corrupt and depraved that something
in addition to the word of truth must prepare the heart to receive the word and be saved.
Both men were  wrong and those who teach today what they taught long ago are also
wrong.
                                                                                                                 R. Daly

Copyright 2011

The Churches of Christ

     The   churches  of  Christ  were  established  by  Christ   long   before   Alexander 
Campbell, Walter  Scott, and  any  of  the other so-called "restorers" were born. This is
proven by the fact that in the letter Paul wrote to the brothers and sisters in Rome, he said,
"Greet one   another  with   a   holy  kiss.  All   the  churches   of   Christ   send   greetings."
(Rom. 16:16, NIV-11) This  poses  insurmountable problems for denominations and we
will explain why later in this article.

     The  word  "churches"  translates  ekklesiai, the plural form of the collective noun
ekklesia. In the New Testament, ekklesia means "congregation or assembly." It is used
in Acts 19:39 with reference to a secular assembly. When used in religious contexts it refers
to the community of God's people; the saved, those who are consecrated to God's service.
(Mat. 16:18; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18, 24, etc.) The descriptive phrase "churches of Christ"
refers  to  local  congregations in various places. The  New  Testament   tells   us   there 
were    congregations      in      Jerusalem     (Acts 15:4),    Ephesus     (Acts 20:17,28), 
Corinth  (1 Cor. 1:2) , Philippi  (Phil. 1:1; 4:15),  Galatia (Gal. 1:2),  Smyrna (Rev. 2:8),
Thessalonica (2 Thess. 1:1), and many other places.

     Many denominational people are convinced that when we speak of the "church of
Christ" that we have reference to either the sign on the building or the building itself.
Those who are knowledgeable of Bible teaching are aware that the "church of Christ"
refers to neither. The  "sign on the building"  should accurately reflect who meets in the
building, though it does not always do so. The "church of Christ" is the people of God,
and no group is a "church of Christ"  unless it has the characteristics  that  meet  God's
standard revealed in the New Testament.

     The expression  "of Christ"  tells  us  that  they belong to the Messiah and they are
subject  to  his authority. Those who are in Christ were purchased by his blood. They
are recipients of  the  benefits of Christ blood. (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5)
The Lord, not the so-called "restorers" or any other human being including the pope of
Rome has supremacy over the congregation of Christ. The Lord Jesus is "head over all
things  to  the  assembly, which   is   his   body."   (Eph. 1:22-23)   "He   is   the  head
of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so
that in everything he might have the supremacy." (Col. 1:18, NIV-11) No denomination
was purchased by the Lord's blood and they are not subject to the Lord's authority.
They  are  man-made  from beginning to end and are not "of Christ." When Jesus said,
"Upon this rock I will build my congregation," he was not speaking of any denomination,
for none of them exists by divine authority in the word of the living God! They are not
named in, authorized by, or based upon the New Testament of Christ. The Lord's own
words emphatically declare all  religious "groups" except his unacceptable to the holy
God  of  heaven.  He  said, "I will build my congregation." (Mat. 16:18) Ask yourself,
"Whose congregation did he promise to build?" Now answer the question. If he said
"my church  or  congregation"  is  it  not his, therefore the "church or congregation of
Christ?"

     It  is sometimes said,  "Okay, I  will  accept  the  fact  that  we  read of  'churches
(congregations) of  Christ'  in  the  New  Testament, but  the phrase is not a name, it
indicates possession." Even if that were true it would disqualify denominations such as
Baptist, Methodist,  Lutheran,  Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  etc. because  no passage in
the word of God speaks of  Baptist  Church  or  Baptist Churches; Methodist Church
or Methodist Churches, Lutheran Church or Lutheran Churches, etc.  So,  even  if  the
phrase "churches of Christ" is not a name, but merely a descriptive phrase, it does not
describe   denominational   churches.  Why    not?   There  is  nothing   about   them
that honors Christ. Nothing  about  them  meets God's standard of what constitutes
"churches of Christ."

     The  expression  "churches  (congregations)  of  Christ"  is genitive of relationship,
and is used by Paul to describe the congregations as belonging to Christ.

                                                                                                              R. Daly
Copyright 2011