In your post titled "Cross-Referencing", you mentioned that some Catholic printers do reference apocryphal books.  My original 1611 King James also has multiple cross-references to the apocryphal books… also, my Geneva Bible printed fifty years earlier.  The reason for this was that the New Testament authors were quoting the Septuagint.   Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora, and therefore, also the ancient church, used the Septuagint as authoritative Scripture.  The New Testament writers used and quoted the Septuagint, which included what modern Protestants call apocryphal books.  If a person says, “Our church is just like the first-century church,” then for that to be true, they’d have to use Bibles that include the Apocrypha.  My question is: under what authority did printing companies remove the apocryphal books found in all christian Bibles up to the 1800's?

Sincerely,
Book Worm

Dear Book Worm,

The Greek-speaking Jews never treated the apocryphal books as divinely inspired Scripture.  Even though some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint, they were never considered God-breathed Scripture.  Printed Bibles include maps, commentaries, and footnotes… and yet, we don’t consider those things to be Scripture; in the same way, the Septuagint included apocryphal books that were never viewed as the Word of God.

It is well documented that Jews didn’t consider the apocryphal books to be authored by God.  Josephus, a venerated Jewish historian, specifically stated that the apocryphal books weren't from God in his writing Against Apion.  The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls stated that the Apocrypha wasn’t inspired.  To further prove the point, the Apocrypha itself says that it isn’t Scripture!  The apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees, specifically says that it isn’t inspired by God in 15:38-39, and the author apologizes for any inaccurate information he might have provided.  Though the apocryphal books are unique historical accounts, they are never quoted in the New Testament, and they were never accepted by the church or the Jewish community as divinely inspired text.  That is exactly why it isn’t necessary that they be included in modern translations of the Bible – they aren’t Bible, just secular history.

Is it unsound for members of a congregation to have a potluck in their building, if it's not intermingled with the Lord's Supper, is provided by individual members, and not funded by the collection of the saints?

I know in 1 Cor 11:17-34, Paul gives instructions regarding the Lord's Supper, on how christians should conduct themselves, admonishing what was apparently a common practice of combining the Lord's Supper with a common meal.  His final instruction was that if anyone was hungry, they should eat at home.  Of course, this was within the context of their worship.  What about if worship is over?  I've always had the understanding that this was prohibited, but I'm currently in a congregation that practices this, yet they seem to desire to glorify the Lord in all things.  I need to find an answer, so I can either participate with a clear conscience or kindly decline and hope to not become ostracized.

Sincerely,
Not Hungry

Dear Not Hungry,

The key to the whole issue is to remember what the work of the church is.  The Bible specifically outlines three things that the church has a responsibility to do: care for needy christians (Acts 4:34), preach to the lost, and teach the saved (Acts 15:35).  Anything that a church does with its financial assets needs to fit into one of those three categories.  A congregation’s building is part of its financial assets, and that is why what happens in a church’s building has to be limited to those three areas.

Bible classes, worship services, etc. all easily fit into the work of the church… but what about a social gathering?  The problem is that socializing is never shown to be part of the church’s work.  It certainly is important for individual christians to spend time with one another… but that is a command to individuals – not the church.  Individuals have a lot more freedom in what they do than the church does.  Social gatherings in the church building simply don’t fit the Bible pattern of the church’s work.  We aren’t condemning the attitude of these kind folks, but zeal isn’t the same as Bible accuracy (Rom 10:2).  We here at AYP cannot find Bible authority for the church’s building, which is part of the church’s assets, to be used for a purely social gathering.  Once we begin to do small things that don’t have Bible authority for them, we’ve cracked the door to more and more behavior that goes beyond what God has written (1 Cor 4:6).

My fiancé just joined the army and is going to basic training.  He is a member of the church of Christ, but there is only Catholic and Baptist services offered on Sundays, so he can't go to church during training.  Is this a sin?  He will miss about ten weeks of worship services.

Sincerely,
Concerned Fiancé

Dear Concerned Fiancé,

His situation is difficult, but not unique.  There have been many soldiers that have served Christ and country.  Cornelius the centurion was the first Gentile convert (Acts 10:1), soldiers asked John the Baptist how to be faithful (Lk 3:14), and another centurion humbly sought Christ’s help (Matt 8:9).  So take courage, you and your fiancé are not alone in your dilemma.

We consider his situation to be a 2 Cor 8:11 case.  He is accountable for what he is able to do.  If he is out in the middle of the deserts of Iraq, he is physically unable to make it to worship services.  Therefore, he is not condemned for that which he cannot do.  An analogous situation would be a mute Christian; he is commanded to confess Christ with his lips (Rom 10:9), but nobody expects a mute man to do this because he physically unable.  If your fiancé is able to make it to services – DO IT.  If he can’t attend, he should do what he can – pray (1 Thess 5:17) and study (2 Tim 2:15) on his own.  We recommend that he ask some christians that are veterans of the military for tips and advice on what they did to make it through those times where they were unable to make it to services.

Is lying for your own safety still a sin?

Sincerely,
On The Defense

Dear On The Defense,

God hates lying (Pr 6:16-17), but you don’t have to tell everyone everything about your life.  Even Jesus ignored His brothers’ request to know His comings and goings on occasion (Jhn 7:8-10).  Jesus never lied (Tit 1:2, Heb 4:15), but He did deflect their question because what He did (or didn’t do) wasn’t any of their business.  In a life-or-death situation, you have every right to deflect someone from the truth in order to preserve life.

It is worth noting that good christians are of mixed opinions on this issue.  Some believe it would be perfectly appropriate to deceive or deflect because you would be protecting human life – preserving human life is of great importance (the Egyptian midwives of Ex 1:15-22 are often cited as an example of this)  Other christians believe that it would be better to die and go face God.  Both sides have good arguments, and in such extreme circumstances, each person would need to choose what they believed was the most faithful and godly option.

Are Jews Jesus' chosen people?  And why?

Sincerely,
Yay For Yarmulke

Dear Yay For Yarmulke,

The Jews are not Jesus’ chosen people; the church is.  Jesus says that christians are His royal priesthood and chosen race (1 Pet 2:9).  Under the Old Testament, the Jewish people were God’s nation (Deu 7:6).  The Jewish nation was warned that if they rejected God’s Son, they would be rejecting God, and God would make a new nation out of those who believed in Christ (Jesus explained this to the Jews in the parable of the vineyard – Lk 20:9-19).  The vast majority of Jews didn’t believe in Jesus, and therefore, they never became a part of Jesus’ kingdom.  Jesus’ chosen people are those that love Him and keep His commandments (Jhn 14:15).  The Jewish people rejected God because they would rather have their traditions than God’s Son (Mk 7:9).