What is a New Testament Church?

WHAT IS A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

By Bob Deffinbaugh

INTRODUCTION

One of the difficulties of human communication is that the same word conveys different meanings to different people. For example, the word ‘peace’ means one thing to an American and another to the communist. Let’s take another word, ‘snow.’ To our children, this word stimulates associations which are very positive. They think first of no school and secondly of playing outside with sleds and snowballs and coming inside to a warm fire and hot chocolate. To us snow may mean getting up early, hazardous driving conditions, cancelled appointments and plans, and dead batteries. The word ‘church’ has all kinds of associations to various people. Most people would associate this term with Sunday, stained glass and sermons.

The term ‘New Testament church’ is no exception. By and large this expression is as meaningless to the unbeliever as a ‘left-handed monkey wrench’ is to most of our wives. Even within the Christian community there is great variance as to what this term connotes. In the denominational and Bible church circles, it probably conveys the idea of Bible-believing, or New Testament-teaching. But if being a New Testament church is a goal to which we strive, we must surely have a more concise definition in mind. It is for this reason I would like to attempt to define what a New Testament church should be. In our first message, we shall attempt an overview or broad definition, and in subsequent messages we shall be much more specific.

We will begin by describing the most generally accepted element of a New Testament church, that of its doctrinal foundation.

FEATURES OF A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH

A. A New Testament church is a church which derives its doctrine from the New Testament.

We should all agree that a New Testament church is a church which believes and teaches the doctrines of the New Testament. Surely we are going to have some differences of opinion in some rather disputed areas of theology. We may not all agree as to the precise timing of the rapture with respect to other events, for example. There may be differences of opinion as to the exact extent of the atonement, but at least in my mind this does not make a church any less New Testament.

There must, however, be agreement in what are the so-called ‘fundamentals of the faith.’ By this I refer to the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, the literal, bodily resurrection of our Lord; the substitutionary atonement, the second coming of Christ, and the doctrine of the trinity. Without adherence to these fundamentals, no church should have the right to call itself New Testament.

If this were the only measure of a New Testament church, then every church which is orthodox in its doctrinal statement could be legitimately identified as a New Testament church, but there is much more that is necessary than this.

B. A New Testament church is a church which is structured and governed in accordance with New Testament principles and practices.

Many churches which are dogmatic about the New Testament being its only authority in matters of ‘faith and practice’ suddenly become pragmatic and relative in the matter of church doctrine and practice, formally known by its Neiman Marcus label, ‘ecclesiology.’

Some would be so bold as to say that the New Testament sheds no light on the life and practice of the church in the twentieth century. For example, Donald G. Miller states: “No particular structure of church life is divinely ordained.”1

Again he writes:

Any form … which the Holy Spirit can inhabit and to which He may impart the life of Christ, must be accepted as valid for the church. As all forms of life adapt themselves to their environment, so does the Life of Christ by His Spirit in the church.2

Few, if any, conservative Christian scholars would dare make such a sweeping statement as Mr. Miller, but while insisting that the New Testament is to be our guide in church polity and practice, there is little agreement as to just how this works out and to what principles and practices of the New Testament we are obliged to follow. A godly and highly respected church leader, Dr. Gene Getz has written:

He (Paul) was ‘a free man’—not locked into patterns and structures, either in communication or in organization and administration.3

Further, he has written,

… Paul was not consistent in the instruction he gave regarding the appointment of elders and deacons. … It is impossible, of course, to arrive at conclusive reasons as to why there is a disparity in Paul’s approach to church leadership from church to church. But, is this not part of the genius of the New Testament? Once again we see freedom in form and structure, means and methods, patterns and programs.4

Dr. Getz is not saying that the New Testament gives us no principles for church life, for later on in his book he enumerates several. The difficulty that I have with this kind of approach is this: How do we distinguish between what is binding upon us in the New Testament and what is not? The answer which Dr. Getz and others would give is that we must separate New Testament practices from New Testament principles. We must adhere to the principles and follow the practices as best as we see fit.

All of this is appealing, except for the distressing fact that Paul equated his practices with the principles that he taught:

I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me. For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church (1 Corinthians 4:16,17).

Unlike so many of us, Paul practiced what he preached and he preached what he practiced. Paul could instruct his readers to imitate his ways because they conformed with what he taught. His ways were not culturally oriented, but rather universally practiced ‘everywhere and in every church.’ How, then can we distinguish what Paul did, or apostolic practice, from what he taught, apostolic principle?

This raises a very logical and legitimate question. Are you saying, then, that I am to believe that the truly New Testament church should carry out every practice recorded in the New Testament? Should we wash feet and greet one another with a holy kiss? Should we meet in the Temple or in private homes? Should we do away with full-time ministers and all make tents? Let me suggest some practical (and I hope biblical) guidelines for discerning what practices were binding in the New Testament times and are binding upon us today as well. The answer to these four questions should help us to discern what New Testament practices we should persist in following today.

1. Was the practice in question universally and consistently followed in the churches of the New Testament? Those things which Timothy was sent to remind the Corinthians of were those things which Paul practiced and preached ‘everywhere in every church’ (1 Corinthians 4:16,17). Such was also the case with the head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:16 and with the women remaining silent in the church meeting (1 Corinthians 14:33,34).5 Consequently, the principle of the silence and subjection of the woman in the church meeting cannot be thrust aside as culturally oriented, no matter how devout, sincere or well-intentioned the followers of the liberation movement may be.

On the other hand foot washing was not practiced by the church at all. It was a lesson taught to the disciples by our Lord as an example of humility. Surely we need to learn humility and to serve one another, but unless the craze of wearing no shoes or socks continues, such would be unnecessary. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we see any evidence of the New Testament churches continuing this practice as some kind of ordinance.

The same thing can be said for meeting in houses. Although the church met in various private homes (Romans 16:3-16; Philemon 2, etc.), it also met at the Temple, in various synagogues for a time, and in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9). We must conclude that the church met wherever it was convenient to do so, and that no one kind of meeting place was superior to another.

2. Is the New Testament practice directly related to a principle which we would violate by neglecting that practice? The New Testament churches knew nothing of having one man called the pastor who was the head of the church. Was this simply a practice of the ancient church which has long since been abolished for a new and better way of church government? Behind this practice of plurality rule by elders is the principle of the headship of our Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is to have the preeminence in the church (Colossians 1:18; cf. Matthew 23:8-10). In addition, there is the principle of the ‘priesthood of every believer’ (1 Peter 2:5,9) which is cast aside by the distinction of laity and clergy.

Conversely, there is no principle underlying the meeting of the church in private homes, other than that of practicality. There is no principle which dictates that the church should meet on Saturday evening, as some would suggest was done in the New Testament churches. Rather we are told in Scripture that we should not compel anyone to regard one day above another (Romans 14:5,6; Colossians 2:16,17).

3. Is the practice in question a right or a responsibility? Paul often refused to be financially supported by those to whom he ministered. Since Paul ‘made his tents’ does this necessitate that we do likewise? If Paul was obliged to work, that is if it was a responsibility, then we should follow his example. However in 1 Corinthians chapter 9 Paul clearly established the right of every minister of the gospel to be supported by those to whom he ministered. Paul chose to forego the right of personal support in order to preach the gospel without offense to any. We must not compel others to do what Paul did voluntarily as a matter of Christian liberty.

4. Is there any higher principle involved, which might override a New Testament practice? Frequently in the New Testament we are instructed to ‘Greet one another with a holy kiss’ (e.g. Romans 16:16). As I have said previously there is a great deal of difference between a ‘holy kiss’ and a ‘Hollywood kiss.’ Paul is not suggesting that one of the brethren greet one of the women with a back-bending, spine-tingling embrace. In our culture, however, I am not certain that any type of kiss could be understood by those outside the household of God. The Scriptures instruct us to ‘avoid any appearance of evil’ (1 Thessalonians 5:22), and greeting with a kiss in the church may well appear evil to some.

In a case such as this there is a completely acceptable alternative, I believe. We must first ask ourselves what the principle behind this instruction is. I would understand it to be that Christians should give outward evidence of their deep and abiding love and affection for one another. In addition the Scriptures teach us that our relationships between members of the opposite sex should be in good taste and beyond criticism (cf. 1 Timothy 5:2). Since greeting with a kiss may bring reproach to the name of our Lord we may carry out the principle of warmth and affection by an acceptable form of greeting, such as the handshake. J. B. Phillips catches the force of Paul’s instruction when he renders the expression,

Give one another a hearty handshake all round for my sake (Romans 16:16).

What are these principles which distinguish a New Testament church from those which fall short? Let me briefly mention a few, while suggesting the application of these principles to church polity and practice.6

(a) There is only one church, or the unity of the church. The universal church consists of every believer in Jesus Christ from the death of Christ to the rapture. Although we speak of the Baptist Church and the Lutheran Church and so on there is only one church. It is the obligation of the local church to demonstrate this unity, not by setting itself apart as distinct from other biblical churches, but by identifying with them. Some of us act as though if a letter were written to the church in Dallas it would be delivered only to whatever church we happen to belong to.

(b) Every Believer in Jesus Christ is a member of the church of Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 12:27. Many churches refuse to allow an individual to partake of Communion who are not ‘members’ of their church. We should accept any believer into our fellowship without discrimination of any kind, save for disciplinary reasons, Romans 15:7.

(c) Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18. As the Head of the church, Jesus Christ should have the pre-eminence. There should be no man who exalts himself or allows himself to become the function ‘head’ of the church. This would necessitate rule by a plurality (e.g. Matthew 23:8-12; also note that in the New Testament ‘elders’ is plural: Philippians 1:1; Acts 20:17,287).

(d) Every believer in Jesus Christ is a priest, 1 Peter 2:5,9. The Old Testament distinction of laity and clergy has been abolished. The New Testament church cannot allow these laity-clergy distinctions to linger on.

(e) The church of Jesus Christ is holy, 1 Corinthians 3:17. This holiness must be maintained by church discipline, cf. Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:5, etc.

(f) In the church, as in marriage, the man is to reflect the headship of Christ and the woman is privileged to portray the submission of the church to her Lord. Men do this by assuming the leadership role, while women refrain from leadership in the church meetings (Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Corinthians 11:1-16; 14:34-36; 1 Timothy 2:9-15).

I want to be the first to emphasize that the Scriptures leave a great deal of room for variation in the application of these principles. We should not expect New Testament churches to be carbon copies of one another. The Scriptures also are very informative in what they do not tell us. It would have been very comforting to the leadership of our assembly had the Scriptures spelled out precisely how to recognize elders, but such was not the case. Principles not only demand a latitude in application, they also require faith in application.

C. A New Testament church is one that expresses the life of Christ in a tangible way.

I have a very good friend who some time ago attended what was described as a New Testament meeting of the church. In terms of its form and structure it would commonly be known as a New Testament church. That particular meeting left much to be desired (as will happen in any church). As he left the meeting my friend remarked, “I don’t know what that was, but it wasn’t what turned the world upside down.”

What my friend observed is a very significant point, which is simply this: You can have all the forms of a New Testament church and be absolutely lifeless and useless. This is why I must include this third characteristic of a New Testament church: The truly New Testament church is one that not only maintains the forms of New Testament ecclesiology (church doctrine and practice), but also continues the function of the New Testament church. A New Testament church must be New Testament in both form and function.

There are many ways to evaluate this function. Dr. Gene Getz, in his book The Measure of a Church, suggests that we evaluate on the basis of three essential ingredients, faith, hope, and love. Surely these are essential to a New Testament Church. But I would like to suggest a somewhat simpler basis of evaluation. I would put forth the standard of our Lord Jesus Himself. He surely is the ‘measure of a man’ as well as the ‘measure of a church.’

The church is frequently referred to as the ‘body of Christ’ (1 Corinthians 12:12ff.). This is no mere metaphor, it is a wonderful reality. When the writer of Acts, Dr. Luke, introduced this book to Theophilus, he referred to his first work, the gospel of Luke, as recording ‘all that Jesus began to do and teach’ (Acts 1:1). The inference to me is crystal clear. All that Jesus began to do and to teach the church, His body, continued (not only in Acts, but today!) to do and to teach. The function of the church in its most simplistic form is to continue to live out the life of Christ in the world. In the next several weeks we are going to study what this means in specific terms, but suffice it to say that for the present moment, no church lives up to its New Testament standard unless it is evident that Christ is alive and well on planet earth so to speak. We are to bring to the world the good news of the gospel, we are to teach and train as did our Lord, we are to minister to the physical and material needs of both saved and lost men and women. We are to worship the Father and bring honor and glory to His name.

What, then, is a New Testament church? It is a church that looks to the inspired Word of God, not only for its doctrines as they relate to the individual in His relationship with God, but also for the principles by which the church is to be governed and carry on its task in the world. Beyond this, the New Testament church is the church which lives out the life of our Lord through its various members who make up the body.

Applications

The first thing I would say by way of application is that we ought not be too quick to claim for ourselves that we are a truly New Testament church. If a New Testament church must have the function as well as the form of the New Testament church, we had better be careful about claiming to have attained to this. A New Testament church has New Testament life and vitality and growth. None of us has arrived to this standard I fear. Being a New Testament church is like attaining to ‘the fulness of the stature of Christ,’ something to strive for, but nothing to boast of.

Second, and this will sound heretical, I would not want to recommend that you attend a church simply because it claimed to be New Testament in its organizational structure. If I had to choose between a supposedly New Testament church which had no life, no vitality, no ministry, no outreach or vision, and a church which was faithful to the Scriptures in every way but in the matter of church structure, but had a vibrant ministry, I would not linger long over a decision. A church without New Testament principles, but with New Testament life is more New Testament than one with only the proper forms.

Finally, there is an ever-present danger for those of us who are a part of what are called New Testament churches to be puffed up with pride. I cannot help but be reminded of the carnality of the Corinthians in a similar fashion:

Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ’ (1 Corinthians 1:12).

Now all of us would agree about the carnality of those who sided with Paul, Apollos, and Peter. But what was wrong with those who sided with Christ? How could they be wrong? They were wrong, not so much in their doctrine as in their attitudes. So, also, we may look down our noses at those who say, “I am a Baptist” or “I am a Lutheran,” and we smugly think to ourselves, “But I go to a New Testament church.” God keep us from this kind of pride.



Bob Deffinbaugh,Th.M, is pastor at Community Bible Chapel, Richardson Texas

https://bible.org/seriespage/what-new-testament-church

From Curse to Blessing - The Story of Ruth the Moabite

BQ NO 73 - WHAT LESSONS CAN WE LEARN FROM THE LIFE OF RUTH THE MOABITE?

By Ezekiel Kimosop

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND TO THE BOOK OF RUTH

Bible scholars consider the historical background of the Book of Ruth to fall into the period of the rule of the Judges in Israel. 

The narrative of Ruth is believed to lie somewhere around the time of Gideon. This was the period in which Israel experienced a cycle of religious apostasy, affliction and restoration and then back again to apostasy.

The period of the Judges follows that of Joshua who led Israel faithfully though the conquest. However, after Joshua's generation were “gathered unto their fathers”, the children of Israel lost their spiritual footing and borrowed from the detestable idolatry and abominations of their Canaanite neighbors. They worshipped foreign gods and forsook the LORD, the God of Israel.

In Joshua’s day, the Israelites could not mingle with the Moabites or Ammonites because of a clear prohibition from God. The Bible teaches in Deuteronomy 23:3 that “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever.”

Ruth was a descendant of Lot, the nephew of Abraham, who fathered two sons with his two daughters under the incestuous incident described in Genesis 19:31-38. The two sons of Lot became the ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites. The two communities had no part in the heritage of God's covenant people despite their ancestral connection with the people of Abraham. 

Their separation from Abraham can be traced to the incident recorded in Genesis 13 when Lot and Abraham parted ways over a conflict on grazing land. This was to be a long, long separation until Ruth and Boaz came together!

The Israelites had numerous conflicts with the Moabites during their journey through the desert. The Moabites were  idolaters who worshipped some of the most detestable gods of the Canaanites including Chemosh (cf. 1Kings 11:7, 33) while the Ammonites worshipped Milcom (2Kings 23:13). 

The famine situation in Bethlehemjudah was no excuse for Elimelech to violate God’s law in dwelling among the Moabites. The Jewish society had simply declined in its moral standards. God however used the unusual circumstances to work out His redemption plan for Israel. This reminds us that God always preserves a remnant of faithful people in every generation or civilization.

THE STORY OF RUTH

Ruth is first introduced to the Bible reader in Ruth 1:4 where she is described as the Moabite widow of one of the two sons of late Elimelech. Given the order of the description of the sons, Ruth was possibly the wife of the second son, Chilion. She is later distinctly described by the servants of Boaz in Ruth 2:6 as “…the young Moabite woman who came back with Naomi from the country of Moab.” Her racial identity was distinct from that of the Jews. She was the stranger in Bethlehem but this fact did not stifle her determination to make the best out of her situation. 

It appears that God graciously overlooked and reversed the curse on Moabites for her sake. One may argue that the curse was to follow the male lineage but this argument fails. Ruth had the blood of the cursed Moabites running in her veins! God had to reverse the curse to permit her into the assembly of God’s people. She, like us, was not deserving of God’s grace! The Bible teaches in Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,  9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

Some scholars believe that the Moabites may have been people of a fairly dark skin and that David may have shared these attributes with Ruth, his great grandmother. 

Despite her idolatrous background, Ruth appears to have been positively influenced by Naomi’s virtuous life. She was determined to follow Naomi into Bethlehem despite the tragedy that the Elimelech family suffered. Unlike Ruth, Orpah, who was possibly the wife of Mahlon, returned to her Moabite people.

Choices do have consequences...

The name Ruth sounds like the Hebrew name for friendship, a significant attribute of this great young Moabite woman who courageously forsook her past; her cultural connections for a strange people in a foreign land.

LESSONS IN RUTH’S RESOLVE TO FOLLOW NAOMI

Ruth made a powerful resolve to follow Naomi into Israel. Her firm conviction clearly rings out when she declares to Naomi in Ruth 1:16-17  "Entreat me not to leave you, Or to turn back from following after you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, And your God, my God.  17 Where you die, I will die, And there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, If anything but death parts you and me."

Five important lessons  can be distilled from this statement.

First, Ruth was unshakable in her resolve. She had made up her mind on the way forward and not even the return of Orpah could break her resolve.

Secondly, we notice that Ruth was convinced that Naomi was a great mentor, a mother and a virtuous woman worth following in life. She saw in Noami much more than a relative or a mother in law. Naomi was an icon of virtue, a pillar of integrity, a mentor.

Thirdly, Ruth had determined to convert to Judaism and abandon her idolatrous past. Her  conversion had probably occurred much earlier in her life and Naomi may have noticed her moral and spiritual transformation. 

We later learn from the testimony of Boaz that Ruth was a kind and diligent woman. She faithfully supported her mother in law in Moab. In Ruth 3:11 Boaz says to Ruth during their meeting “…I will do for you all that you request, for all the people of my town know that you are a virtuous woman.”

Notice the kind words of Boaz earlier in Ruth 2:11-13  which says “And Boaz answered and said to her, "It has been fully reported to me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, and how you have left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have come to a people whom you did not know before.  12 "The LORD repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge."  13 Then she said, "Let me find favor in your sight, my lord; for you have comforted me, and have spoken kindly to your maidservant, though I am not like one of your maidservants."

Ruth’s testimony of faithfulness had already spread to Bethlehem even before she set her foot there. It appears that some relatives of Elimelech who possibly used to visit Moab came with the good report. 

Ruth was not just an ordinary Moabite but one chosen by God for His divine purposes.

This teaches us that we should never tire in doing good to others, even those we do not know. Even if no one notices or appreciates our acts of kindness, we need to remember that God will never forget them.

The Bible says in Hebrews 6:10-12  “For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister.  11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.”

Fourthly, we notice that Ruth did not consider returning to Moab no matter what happens in Israel. Her going to Israel was a sealed deal. She was prepared to live in Israel for the rest of her life and be buried there. 

She had consciously forsaken her immediate family, relatives and friends to follow Naomi, who in this case was a type of Christ. 

This reminds us of our resolve to follow Christ. Our walk with God is eternal, never again to reverse to the dark evil ways of our disobedient past.

Finally, Ruth sealed her promise to Naomi with an oath. She swore by the God of Israel that she would keep her promise (Ruth 1:17). The statement she makes here was a solemn oath which invokes God as a witness. This was a cultural way of affirming an oath or a solemn pledge among ancient Middle Eastern societies. 

Several Bible characters in the Old Testament made or proclaimed oaths in this manner. Abraham and Abimelech made a covenant through an oath (Genesis 21:23-24). 

Esau foolishly sold his birthright through an oath he hurriedly made because of hunger pangs! Genesis 25:33-34 says “Then Jacob said, "Swear to me as of this day." So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob.  34 And Jacob gave Esau bread and stew of lentils; then he ate and drank, arose, and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.” 

What a shame to sell one’s birthright in this cheap manner! 

Similarly, Jacob’s remains were returned to Israel under an oath by Joseph his favorite son who went to bury him in Judea after 70 days of mourning (Genesis 50:3), which, according to Bible scholars, was only two days shorter than the 72 day period prescribed for the mourning of a dead Pharaoh! 

This confirms that Jacob was highly respected by the Egyptians, being the father of the second in command in the land at the time.

Now back to the story of Ruth…

Ruth’s oath was therefore solemn and came from the depth of her heart. She was not coerced into making the decision. She did it under a firm conviction. God grafted Ruth into the heritage of Israel in the same way that those who choose to cling to Christ are grafted into the household of God and share in His divine heritage! 

John 1:12-13  says: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Have you resolved by an oath to follow Jesus? If so, please keep your promise... 

RUTH AND THE FAVOUR OF GOD

Arising from her resolve to join God's covenant people and be counted among them, Ruth was later to become the wife of Boaz and the great grandmother of King David. 

God was touched by her great love for God’s people and her virtuous life of chastity. She, like Rahab before her, was counted among God’s covenant people and God graciously permitted her to fall into the lineage of our Savior, Jesus Christ. 

She, like us, may have been a despised, disadvantaged foreigner who was separated by the curse of sin, but once we, like her, walked into the presence of God, our lives were never the same again.

Finally, in the life of Boaz and Ruth, we see the ultimate reunion between Abraham and Lot after centuries and generations of separation. This reunion mirrors our ultimate reunion with God in Christ under our eternal covenant relationship which Christ secured for us at Calvary. 

We are in Christ purely by God's grace yet we are counted as true sons of Abraham who are entitled to the divine heritage in Christ alongside the Jewish people. 

Galatians 3:7-8  says “Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.  8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand,saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

What a privilege we have in Jesus!

CONCLUSION 

Let me conclude by stating that Ruth, like us, came from spiritual poverty to eternal riches in Christ. She rose from obscurity to prominence; from widowhood to a fulfilled marriage; from childlessness to motherhood; from hopelessness to eternal security in God; from curse to blessing, from alienation to inclusion, from a destitute life to a life of adoption, from infamy to fame, from death to life!

Does this describe your journey of faith in Christ? 

May we always, like Ruth, be grateful to God for divinely inviting us to share in the eternal glory that awaits us when Christ shall be revealed (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). 

Shalom

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2019

[This article was originally posted on L & D WhatsApp Forum on 17th January, 2017. It was sparingly revised on 15th July, 2021]

The Foundation of the Christian Faith

STUDIES THROUGH THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

By Ezekiel Kimosop

I just began a new series that is dedicated to an expository study of Paul's Letter to the Romans.

I will be sharing brief exhortations from my reflections through the passages of this book.

I wish to welcome you to walk with me through the Scriptures.

INTRODUCTION

Paul's letter to the Romans is arguably one of his earliest writings that falls into the same period with the two Letters to the Corinthians and possibly the Letter to the Galatians. Bible scholars agree that the dating of the Letter is consistent with Paul's early ministry period between 51-54 AD.

Scholars estimate that there were about one million people living in Rome at the time of the writing of the Letter to the Romans. Jewish population in Rome was placed at 40,000 - 50,000.

The Letter was most likely written from Corinth during Paul's third missionary journey. Some scholars say that Paul was not the founder of the church in Rome had possibly never met them. However, the greetings conveyed in Romans 16:3-16 strongly suggest that Paul was familiar with a number of Christian leaders in Rome and may have visited the Roman church in the past.

The Letter does not appear to address any particular issues raised by the Romans but was primarily intended for outlining the basis of salvation in Christ. The Romans were possibly not well instructed in the way of Christ though Paul later commends them for their exemplary  faith in 1:8. The letter was therefore largely a presentation of the Christian faith.

Paul had not been confined by the Roman authorities at the time of writing this Letter but it appears that some inundation of missionary schedules had possibly held him back from traveling to Rome. Paul possibly never traveled to Rome as a free man because he was finally arrested and taken to Rome for trial (implicit from Acts 26:32).

What can we learn from the salutation section of this Letter?

First, we learn that Paul was familiar with the spiritual condition of the Romans and often prayed for them just as he did for other believers in his Gentile communion. He was a caring Christian shepherd who sought to strengthen his flock in the word of God.

Secondly, we discover that God's calling lies in the hearts of those who serve God with a sincere motive. Faithful ministers respond to the calling of God and this stands out in their service and ministry.

The salutation section of this Letter introduces the Apostle and affirms his calling to the preaching of the Gospel (1:1).  He was separated for ministry. No one can truly serve God in ministry without Christ having called and sanctified them in the first place.

Paul also makes an apologetic defense of the authority of the Gospel, saying that it had been promised before through God's holy prophets and revealed in Christ Jesus through His finished works of the cross (1:3-4). He had a conviction of the truths that lie at the heart of the Gospel message.

The calling of God's people into faith and ministry stands on the foundation of the finished works of the cross and in nothing else (1:5-6). Paul elsewhere said that his desire was to preach Christ crucified   (1 Cor. 1:23, 2:1). Jesus is at the centre of God's engagement with humanity. He is the person of interest in the proclamation of the gospel message.

We can therefore conclude that a true Christian community stands on the foundation of Christ and His finished works. This is the fundamental biblical truth. Any teaching that violates this foundation does not originate from God. It should be rejected.

In our next study series, we shall examine the passage of Romans 1:8-15 which is dedicated to Paul's desire to visit Rome.


Shalom



© Ezekiel Kimosop 2019.

Is Jesus the Messiah?

BQ NO 98 - WHO IS THE MESSIAH? IS THE MESSIAH GOD OR JESUS CHRIST?

By Ezekiel Kimosop

ABOUT THE MESSIAH

The Messiah is mentioned nine times in several passages of the Old Testament Scripture beginning with Psalm 2:1 and ending with Micah 5:2 which speaks of His coming.

It says "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,

Yet out of you shall come forth to Me

The One to be Ruler in Israel,

Whose goings forth are from of old,

From everlasting” (NKJV)

Two things stand out in the above scripture touching on the Messiah. 

First, His will be coming at a future date from the town of Bethlehem and from the tribe of Judah.

Secondly, he will be a majestic ruler over Israel and will sit on David's throne (2 Samuel 7:16).

Finally he is described as "from everlasting" which speaks of His eternity. He is the one who was, who is, and who is to come (Rev. 1:4).

We learn from the New Testament Scripture that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and is from the tribe of Judah. Judah was the 4th son of David by Leah after Reuben, Simeon and Levi. He was followed by issachar and Zebulun. 

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18-25).

We can therefore authoritatively declare that Jesus is the Messiah whose incarnate birth and earthly ministry fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures.

IS THE MESSIAH GOD OR JESUS CHRIST?

The next question touches on the identity of the Messiah. Is the Messiah God the Father or Jesus Christ or both? 

The Bible reveals that Jesus Christ is God the Son who was revealed in the flesh in order to accomplish the works of the cross (Philippians 2:1-11).

Jesus was fully God and fully Man at the same time. This is what is referred to in theology as the "hypostatic union" in which His divinity and humanity is indivisible. Gnostics could not comprehend this truth and this is the basis of Paul's defense of the christology of Jesus in Colossians 1:1-18.

Jesus is eternally God the Son. This is in accordance with the doctrine of eternal sonship which is affirmed in the Scriptures (see John 8:58). He is elsewhere described as the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:8).

Jesus shares full and equal divinity and eternal union with God the Father and with God the Holy Spirit. 

Jesus voluntarily left His divine glory in heaven with God the Father during His incarnate coming to earth. This glory was restored to Him in all divine fullness when He ascended to heaven after His resurrection (see Rev 1). 

Jesus never lost His divinity at any time, not even during His incarnate coming or upon His death on the cross!

THE FUTURE MESSIANIC WORKS OF JESUS CHRIST

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ will come for His church at God's appointed time (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Thereafter, He will come a second time in glory to the Earth with the glorified church and will rule from Jerusalem as the Messiah for 1000 years (Zechariah 14:1-15; Rev 20:4-6). This reign fulfills God's promise to David concerning His seed sitting on David's throne forever.

Jesus will be worshipped by the nations of the earth who will finally acknowledge His Messianic authority. (Zechariah 14:16-21). 

After the thousand years are fulfilled, Satan will be temporarily loosed and will go out to deceive the nations of the earth before he is bound again (Rev 20:7-15). He will finally face the judgment throne of God and will be consigned to the Lake of 🔥 together with his followers.

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2019

For more articles by this writer visit www.ezekielkimosop.blogspot.com

Tower of Babel Demystified

LESSONS FROM THE TOWER OF BABEL

By Ezekiel Kimosop

INTRODUCTION

Before we examine the theological issues surrounding the Tower of Babel, the rule of context requires that we scan through the teaching in the preceding passage of Genesis 10 which carries the genealogy of the sons of Noah. This will give us the insights we need in understanding the biblical characters mentioned in Genesis 11.

The three sons of Noah are Shem, Ham and Japheth. We shall briefly study their lineages.

SONS OF JAPHETH

The sons of Japheth are listed in Genesis 10:2-5. Bible scholars believe that Japheth was the ancestor of the white European communities such as the Greek, Latinos and the Caucasians. Tarshish is the place that Jonah fled to and is believed to be an ancient town in modern day Spain which is about 2500 miles from Jerusalem.

SONS OF HAM

The sons of Ham are listed in Genesis 2:6-14. They are Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. Again we can notice that Cush is the father of the Cushites including Ethiopians Libyans and of course the Somalis.  Mizraim is the Hebrew name for the Egyptians. This was the ancient Egyptian race as opposed to the current predominantly Egyptian Arab population which had crossed over from Arabia during the Islamic crusades.

One of the prominent sons of Cush is  Nimrod who is singled out as "a mighty hunter before the Lord". Some Bible scholars identify this description with his arrogance!

It is instructive that Nimrod is mentioned as the founder of the kingdom of Babel. He later moved on to build the port city of Nineveh in Assyria, among others (Genesis 10:9-14). Both cities were identified with spiritual wickedness and violence.

Some Bible scholars say that Nimrod was the ancestor of the people of ancient day Mesopotamia who include the Persians and Babylonians. This could include the Indians and the orientals as well.

SONS OF SHEM

Bible scholars say that the sons of Shem consist of the Canaanites, Sidonians, Philistines and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. God later gave the land of Canaan to Abraham. Canaan was the son of Ham and the grandson of Noah. He is also believed to be the father of the black race.

The Arabs descended from Ishmael the son of Abraham.

The sons of Shem were five but the outstanding among them was his last born son Aram who was the father of Selah and grandfather of Eber from which Abraham's lineage was derived (Genesis 10:22).

THE BABEL GENERATION

Let us now keep our focus on Nimrod the son of Cush as we move to our passage of context of Genesis 11:1-9.

Notice that the name "Babel" is mentioned in Genesis 11:9, leaving no doubt that Nimrod's generation is under reference here.

The Hebrew word "Babel" means "confusion" and it twice appears in the Bible (Gen. 10:10, 11:19). This speaks volumes about the spiritual state and direction of a community that had lost its spiritual bearing.

Genesis 11 definitely describes a post-flood society since the three sons of Noah were all in the ark when the flood fell and destroyed the wicked. The people of Babel must have been a number of generations after Noah.

The Babel society resembles that of Judges 2 where the Israelites had forgotten their God and sought their own ways. They worshipped Canaanite gods and were given to evil and apostasy.  God punished them severely for their disobedience.

Now the opening statement of the Babel story describes the attempt by Nimrod's descendants to achieve unity and purpose in advancing their society but it is apparent that the people were alienated from God.  Notice further that there is no evidence of any spiritual communion or godly leadership among them as happened with Noah who was a prophet of his day. They had imploded into their individualistic consciousness. The "Yes We Can" slogan associated with former US President Barak Obama perhaps more aptly describes their psyche!

There is evidence from the passage that the people were moving away from their original land perhaps seeking greener pastures for their livestock or escaping from their enemies. The Bible says that they raised the city of Babel for the sole purpose of keeping themselves together (Genesis 11:4). They were focused on attaining social and economic progress but God was however not in the picture of their vision. This happens lots of the time in modern individualistic societies where the focus on human achievement obscures its spiritual priorities.

The people decided to erect a tower that would reach the heavens so that they may make a name for themselves and maintain their identity (Gen. 11:4). This script is consistent with their ethos. They sought to leave a towering legacy of their human sophistication. Sadly, they never consulted the Creator, the One in whom lasting wisdom resides! The construction of the tower attracted God's attention.  He keenly chose to watch their solo moves (Gen. 11:5-6).

The idea that God came down to see the work of the people of Babel does not imply that God has to physically inspect human activity but that He is omniscient or all knowing and that nothing escapes His divine eyes.

Why did God scatter these people?

The people of Babel were definitely not relying on God in their unity and effort and their objectives were not godly either. It appears that they possessed the same arrogance that we earlier described in relation to their ancestor Nimrod who chose self determination rather than seeking to depend on God. They chose to erect a tall tower to their glory. This is apostasy per excellence! 

Some of the most sophisticated societies in our day sit on different type of human towers. They have painstakingly built and stored stockpiles of weapons of mass extermination at their disposal. These weapons range from nuclear arsenal to assortments of land, air and naval defense armor and equipment that is believed to secure their safety in the unfortunate event of mass warfare or a surprise attack by their enemies. Some of these nations have developed biological weapons of various descriptions. Some have speculated that COVID 19, the latest global pandemic to confront humanity, is part of these inventions and that it may have accidentally escaped the confines of a heavily guarded military laboratory!

Are these nations truly safe? Do these stockpiles of deadly arsenal guarantee their safety? My answer is in the negative...

Some of the most powerful societies in human civilization are now found in the relics of medieval and classical writings. The Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman and Ottoman empires rose and fell and are no more. Perhaps the most recent of these powerful empires is the British empire which is now a pale shadow of its former self, having lost its colonies to the natives.

My view is that the most successful empire or nation is one in which the fear of God pervades its structures norms and customs. The United States of America is said to have been founded on the tenets of the Christian faith in the 16th century but somewhere down its civilization path, America's claim to this spiritual heritage appears to have been reduced to a slogan! Its "progressive" and liberal society has consistently witnessed the sustained assault on the practice and proclamation of the Christian faith in nearly one century.  It is now illegal to publicly preach the gospel in some American states! So much about civilization and modernity!

If our towers of human achievement are secured outside the purview of God's divine providence, they will some day come down tumbling the Babel way! 

God gave us skills and resources to apply and we need to honor Him for what we seek to achieve in our human societies and to rely on His divine wisdom in advancing His divine purposes. A godless generation is one whose moral foundation is built on quicksand. It is a shadow of the Babel society!

We should bear in mind that God cannot share His glory with human deities or inventions. He seeks our submission and worship. He is the almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth! The tower of Babel is a perfect representation of naked human glory. It is vanity of vanities!

Anything that exalts our human intellect and ingenuity rather than glorifying God is obviously a spiritual snare. The rich fool whose story is conveyed in Luke 12:13-21 had erected a similar tower with his riches, making him the ultimate object of his success and placing God in the periphery. Just as happened with the tower of Babel generation, God snuffed off his ivory tower of riches by taking away his life! The rest is history...

God brought down the tower of Babel as a reminder to human societies that He is and will forever remain sovereign over all creation and that true and lasting success under the sun can only be achieved if we fear and honor God. No human society is outside His sovereign reign or authority, no matter how advanced it may be. This lesson was hopefully learned by the brick and mortar society of Nimrod's civilization. 

The NKJ 2007 Commentary observes that when God dispersed the people of Babel, this marked the third divine judgement after the expulsion Adam and Eve from Eden (Gen 3) and the flood that destroyed the wicked generation of Noah's day (Gen 6-9).

MORAL LESSONS FROM THE BABEL GENERATION

What do we learn from the story of the Tower of Babel?

1) Evil is perpetuated under a society that walks away from God and rejects His sovereignty. Their succeeding generations will perpetually wallow in moral ruin until a godly person or generation rises and draws people back to God. Nimrod fell away from God and his offspring went further and further away from the revelation and knowledge of God. The rest, as they say, is history.

2) Human effort and ingenuity that does not glorify God is doomed. Some contemporary societies today have template humanistic prescriptions for the problems confronting this world. They are dead wrong! This present evil world is so polluted with wickedness that nothing can secure it against God's judgement. Jesus' lament in Matthew 11:20-24 is instructive. 

It is regrettable that some technologically advanced societies have today "locked" God out of their way of life by passing laws that limit and control religious freedoms and outlaw the preaching of the gospel of Christ. 

3) True religion is one that leads men to God rather than away from God. Jesus says in John 14:6 that "I am the Way the Truth and the Life". There is only one way and He alone is that Way. Many religions today attempt to lead people to God by their own means. We can only reach God through the way outlined in the Bible and by no other means.

Have you found the way to God?

Some argue that all religions ultimately reach God. This statement is informed by New Age deception based on the Babel philosophy. Only the worship of the true God of Scripture guarantees us eternal security now and in the world to come. 

4) Human civilization and advancement is not secured by its innovations or sophistications but by the fear of God. The Bible teaches that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10-11). 

5) God's thoughts and ways should prevail over man's ways. Isaiah 55:8 says that God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Do you follow your ways or God's ways?

6) Except the LORD build the house they labor in vain that build it (Psalm 127:1). Once we get the foundation of lives on the wrong footing, we shall be doomed to fail in the end. Jesus used the metaphor of a city built on quicksand rather than on rock to show that only true faith survives the turbulences of this evil world. 

On what foundation is your faith anchored?

7) True spiritual unity is only attained when God's covenant people are united under the Spirit of God and the authority of His word as one body belonging to Christ. Any organized religion in which Christ is not at its center is doomed. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we can say that the generation that erected the tower Babel is a perfect illustration of our godless and evil society today that mocks God's covenant community and frowns at the revelation of Scripture. They are so deceived by the advancement of human civilization that they no longer sense the presence and reign of God in their midst. Such a society is on a ticking time bomb to self destruction.

Where do you belong?


Shalom



© Ezekiel Kimosop 2019


This article was revised on 16th July 2021. 

For more articles by this writer visit www.ezekielkimosop.blogspot.com

A Celebration of Christian Faith

CELEBRATING OUR TRUE FAITH AND HERITAGE IN CHRIST: LESSONS IN THE STUDY OF COLOSSIANS 1:1-8

By Ezekiel Kimosop 

INTRODUCTION

Today we embark on our first lesson in the study of the Letter of Colossians. 

This letter opens with Paul's apostolic salutation in Colossians 1:1-2. 

UNDERSTANDING TIMOTHY 

Notice that the letter was written by apostle Paul in the presence of Timothy, whose mention here is significant. 

Timothy was one of the key companions of Paul and his key emissary or envoy to the Gentile churches in Asia Minor (cf. 1Thess. 3:6-7). 

Paul had mentored Timothy in ministry right from the moment he picked him up in Lystra and Derbe (Acts 16:1-3) and he rose to serve as Paul's principal assistant. 

Early Church sources say that Timothy later served as Bishop of Ephesus after Paul's death. 

The two letters of 1 & 2 Timothy reveal the spiritual intimacy and rich tradition that Paul shared with Timothy. They were both raised under strong Judaism and were well learned in the Hebrew Scriptures. Unlike Paul who was Jewish, Timothy was of dual heritage: his mother was Jewish and his father Greek. 

His grandmother Lois was instrumental in shaping his spiritual worldview and so did his mother Eunice.

Paul completed Timothy's mentorship through practical field ministry. He was truly Timothy's spiritual father in Christ.

Paul was forced to circumcise Timothy to avoid controversy in his missionary work among the Jews which required them to enter into Jewish synagogues.

Lois, Eunice and Timothy were probably Paul's converts during his first missionary journey and they grew in the faith. 

Timothy is identified in Acts 16:1 as "a certain disciple", leaving no doubt that he had earlier been converted to Christ .

The purpose of Timothy's visit to Rome is not specifically revealed in the Letter to the Colossians but we later learn from Colossians 4 that he was among a larger team of Paul's ministers and associates who Paul probably summoned for an apostolic address.

It is also possible that Timothy had gone to report to Paul about the status of the churches in the region of Ephesus and to encourage him because of his imprisonment. 

Who would not be touched by a brother or sister who seeks our comfort during our moments of grieve and pain? 

If there are moments that people will never forget, it is those moments they needed someone to be there beside them and someone stood close to them. 

The fact that Timothy is here introduced as a brother affirms his shared fellowship in Christ with Paul and other believers. 

All believers irrespective  spiritual offices or positions in the church are primarily brothers and sisters in Christ. We all have a shared fellowship that should be cherished. 

In other Letters by Paul, Timothy is introduced as "a beloved and faithful son in the Lord" "(1 Cor. 4:17), "a true son in the faith" (1 Timothy 1:1), and "a beloved son" (2 Timothy 1:2). 

These adjectives underscore and illustrate not only Paul's mentorship of Timothy but his confidence in the men he had raised in ministry.

OTHER MINISTERS PRESENT WITH PAUL 

Note further that there were several other companions of Paul who were present in Rome at the time and who are later mentioned in Colossians 4:7-15. 

Notable among these are Tychicus, Mark, Justus, Epaphras, Luke and Demas. 

This possibly confirms that Timothy was first among equals given his special mention in the salutation address. 

THE OUTSTANDING FAITH OF THE COLOSSIANS 

After the salutation in Colossians 1:1-2, Paul moves on to commend the church of Colosse for their vibrant faith in Christ and their love for all the saints Christ. 

Notice that Paul's immediate reaction to the good report was to give thanks to God and pray for the Colossians!

Our prayers should foremost consist of thanksgiving for what the Lord has done for us. Never overlook the "usual things" of life that we often take for granted. 

If ever we cannot recall any specific item for which to thank God for, why not even thank him for the hope of glory that we share in Christ,? 

What about His daily sustenance, His divine peace that we enjoy, our good health, the immeasurable grace in His divine providence?.... 

Let us now return to Colossians 1:4 which spoke of their love for "all the saints." 

Paul does not qualify what exactly he meant here. Could he be referring to their love for the saints at Colosse or even those beyond? 

It is most probable that Paul had both contexts in mind. 

True love for God's people always oozes beyond our immediate confines, touching the people of God as well as the lost who are far beyond. 

The Colossians probably stretched their love beyond Colosse. They could have reached out to other congregations. This stood them out as a church worthy of apostolic commendation. 

One of the marks of a vibrant church community is their impact on their immediate community of context. 

Someone said that people don't care about our testimony until they are convinced that we truly care for them in their circumstances of need. 

Genuine and practical faith in a Christian community livens the society around them and draws people to Christ (cf. 1 Peter 3:1-7).

In Colossians 1:6, Paul recognizes that the ministry effort among the Colossians was never in vain. There were probably two sets of outreach missions to Colosse in the past. 

The first was by Paul's companions which is remotely mentioned in Acts 19:10. 

Paul held a ministry camp in Ephesus during his two year stay and there was a powerful explosion of the word of God that stretched out to the entire region of Asia Minor. 

Bible scholars believe that Epaphras may have been among those who were converted at this time by Paul and that he later took the gospel to his home region of Colosse where he founded the church. 

There is further evidence from the Bible that Paul may have previously lodged with Philemon at Colosse during one of his missionary journeys and may have ministered in Colosse (see Philemon 1:22).

Now back to Colossians 1:5-6, Paul speaks of "the hope which is laid up for you in heaven". 

This is the spiritual heritage that we have in Christ and which must be proclaimed by any faithful Christian community (see Titus 2:11-14). 

Paul attributes this hope to the spiritual transformation that was shaping out among the Colossians and which was impacting other regions where the gospel was being preached. It had born fruit! 

The lesson here is that the gospel effort will always result in some spiritual impact, however insignificant it may appear to be at the beginning.

What we witness today in a mature Christian community is the aggregate effort of several ministry workers at different times.

It is primarily the working of God through various vessels of honor (2 Timothy 2:15-21).

Paul admonished the Corinthians for their pride and divisiveness and told them that even though he founded the church in Corinth and Apollos and other ministers later served there, only God could cause the ministry to grow. 

Paul declares in  1Corinthians 3:6: "I planted, Apollos watered but God the increase." 

The story is told of how Dr David Livingstone, the great missionary and explorer, once found an old lady in southern Africa who had been evangelized decades before but who did not receive any discipleship teaching.  

The old lady was glowing in faith and remained true to the truths she had heard despite her difficult circumstances. 

We should never ignore the opportunity to present the gospel message to people even if they are stubborn. It will, in God's time, germinate in their hearts and grow into a large spiritual canopy!

EPAPHRAS THE FAITHFUL MINISTER 

Our final Scripture for today and which concludes our passage is Colossians 1:7-8, focuses on Epaphras. 

Paul mentions Epaphras as one of the ministers who faithfully taught the Colossians the way of Christ and had also delivered a good report to Paul on their spiritual standing. 

Again, Paul employs beautiful adjectives to describe Epaphras as a "our dear fellow servant who is a faithful minister of Christ." 

The Bible declares that those who serve God faithfully in teaching the word of God with dedication are worthy of double honor (cf. 1 Timothy 5:17). 

However, ministers should not be looking for recognition or acclaim for their ministry effort. 

They should instead stay focused on serving God and rest assured that our Father in heaven will reward our diligence (Hebrews 6 :10-12).

CONCLUSION 

This passage has exposed to us powerful spiritual truths regarding the fellowship and practical ministry work of a true Christian community that walks in biblical truth. 

Such works of faith and love for God's people will never goes unnoticed by God. 

Secondly, we learn that the gospel effort is not a one man show. It is the aggregate result of the combined efforts of various actors in the Christian community; from its leaders to the rank and file. 

Thirdly, those who serve with diligence should be commended by the church leadership so that they may set practical examples for others to emulate.

Finally, we learn that when our time to depart this world comes, we shall access our spiritual heritage which God has laid up for us in heaven. 

Our faith and service and hope in Christ is never in vain. 

In our next study we shall examine the passage of Colossians 1:9-15 which deals with proper christology. 

Shalom

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2017

21st June 2017

For more articles by this writer visit www.ezekielkimosop.blogspot.com