Religious Rules

Where Do Christian Religious Rules Come From and What Is Their Purpose?

By: Irnawan Silitonga

It seems we should begin by explaining the title above. The Christian religious rules in question refer to requirements such as attending church on Sundays in a specific building, performing certain rituals, paying certain amounts of money—whether called tithes, firstfruits, or faith pledges—as well as doing other things according to the regulations set by that denominational building. We call these rules “religious rules.”

It should also be explained that I am a Christian, meaning a ‘follower of Christ’. By ‘follower of Christ’, I mean someone who follows the guidance of Christ within my heart, and I do not follow any religious rules in Christianity unless Christ Himself leads me inwardly to do so. Of course, my ID card states my religion as Christianity, because the government requires that one’s ID must list a specific religion. I obey Romans 13 in this matter.

When speaking about the ‘purpose’ for which these Christian religious rules were made, we need to understand that these rules were created by Christian religious leaders. Thus, the meaning of ‘purpose’ in the title refers to the motivation of these Christian leaders in making such religious regulations. I should also explain that I am not a Christian religious leader. I hold no position, receive no salary of any kind, in the world of Christianity. We worship as a family of five, following Christ’s leading every day, because we have three children. So, worship happens at home.

Regarding the phrase ‘where do Christian religious rules come from’, it should be emphasized that I do not recognize any Christian tradition unless it aligns with what is written in the Bible. In other words, I only refer to what the Bible says. This must be made clear, because when it comes to the requirement of Sunday worship, some leaders connect it with Orthodox Church customs, the Catholic Church, or other traditions as justification. Our only question is: did the early church, as recorded in the Book of Acts, sanctify Sunday as their gathering day? And is there any command or regulation in the New Testament to sanctify Sunday? This brief writing upholds the innocence of the Bible. The Bible is without error in its original text, although we need to use textual criticism to find the earliest possible form of the text.

Perhaps we should begin by defining what ‘religion’ is according to the Bible. Let us look at Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve fell into sin by eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they realized/knew that they were naked, and thus they felt ashamed. They regarded nakedness as something ‘evil’ and shameful. This was the result of eating from that tree—they gained knowledge they did not previously have.

In truth, being naked was neither ‘evil’ nor something to be ashamed of, for God had placed Adam and Eve naked in the Garden of Eden. But God placed them there without knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:22). The problem for Adam and Eve came when they acquired that knowledge. As long as they did not have the knowledge of good and evil, their nakedness was not an issue and did not cause shame. The glory of Elohim ‘covered’ them so they felt no shame. Sin caused them to lose the glory of Elohim, and they became ashamed of their nakedness, for sin causes mankind to fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Because of their shame, Adam and Eve made an effort of their own: sewing fig leaves together to cover their nakedness. This attempt to cover themselves was the first religious effort made by mankind. From then on, all the descendants of Adam and Eve would create religious efforts according to their own knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, the definition of religion according to the Bible is: mankind’s effort to cover its nakedness because of losing the glory of Elohim due to sin. Every nation, tribe, or race has the tendency to be religious, and this tendency exists because mankind has eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Atheism is also a religion—namely, a religion without God.

We continue our discussion about ‘religion’ and examine whether Christianity has become a ‘religion’. We have discussed that religion is humanity’s attempt to cover its nakedness due to losing the glory of God because of sin. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden tried to cover their nakedness by sewing fig leaves together and making loincloths. This was their way, based on their knowledge of good and evil, to cover their shame from losing the glory of God.

But God was not pleased with Adam and Eve’s way. Genesis 3:21 states, “And YAHWEH God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them” Garments of skin indicate that an animal was sacrificed, foreshadowing that Christ would be sacrificed to resolve the problem of human sin.

How did Christ resolve human sin? We know that sin caused humanity to lose or fall short of the glory of God. Suffering, disease, murder, and all the bad things in human life began with the loss of God’s glory. Therefore, God resolved the problem of sin by giving Christ as the glory of God to humanity.

Colossians 1:27 declares, “… Christ in you, the hope of glory” (ILT). Young’s Literal Translation says, “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” Let’s look at Colossians 3:4 to understand the meaning of “Christ in us is the hope of God’s glory” Colossians 3:4 states, “When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory” (ILT).

Through His death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, Jesus poured out the Life-giving Spirit (zoe) into the believers’ inner being. 1 Corinthians 15:45 (ILT) states, “… the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit (zoe).” Thus, Christ, who is the glory of God, has become Life (zoe) in our inner being. Therefore, the glory of God dwells within us. And as we know, the ‘zoe’ life given to us is still in seed form and must grow. As ‘zoe’ life grows, we move from glory to glory.

We must remember that the glory of God we have is within us and not yet revealed. However, as written in Colossians 3:4 above, when Christ is revealed at His coming, we will also be revealed with Him IN GLORY. At His second coming, we will receive the manifested glory of God, visible to all creation (Romans 8:19–21).

What is the connection between the glory of God within us and the ‘religion’ we are discussing? The connection is this: religion is something external. Religious people can be recognized with the physical eye. Everything related to religion can be seen outwardly—places of worship, liturgy, creeds, written rules, preachers, and so forth. Most importantly, THE GLORY OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IS ALSO VISIBLE TO THE PHYSICAL EYE. But the glory of God within us cannot be seen physically.

Christianity has also become a religion because almost everything related to Christianity can be seen outwardly—church buildings, liturgy, preachers, pastors’ robes distinct from the congregation’s clothing, organizations, and so on. Most importantly, its glory is also visible to the physical eye. This is why many within Christianity prefer religion over simply following Christ’s guidance within. But religion is humanity’s effort to cover its nakedness, and God is not pleased with such religious efforts.

We have seen that the glory of religious people is external, in the sense that it can be seen with physical eyes, and therefore their glory is human glory. In contrast, the glory that Elohim gives to believers is internal, because Christ as the glory of Elohim dwells within the hearts of believers. However, the glory that is now internal will be revealed at the coming of Christ, and even all creation is eagerly waiting for it (Romans 8:19-21).

Now we will look at the initial cause of why early Christianity (the church described in the Acts of the Apostles) became the Christianity we see today. Generally, Christian leaders in the Christian world do not discuss this clearly and precisely. Many leaders even claim that the early church was the same as the current denominations. They usually refer to denominations as the church, meaning the church as Jesus called it, ‘*I will build My church*.’

Let us now see what the Bible says. Note Acts 20:29-30: “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them”. In this context, Paul was on his way to Jerusalem, and he emphasized to the elders in Ephesus (leaders of the early church) during their meeting in Miletus that THERE WOULD BE AN ATTACK OF SAVAGE WOLVES AGAINST THE CHURCH LEADERS.

We should note that this attack would cause some church leaders TO DRAW DISCIPLES TO FOLLOW THEM. How do these leaders draw the Lord’s disciples? Of course, WITH FALSE TEACHING. In the beginning, the Lord’s disciples only followed the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but now they follow this or that leader. The right path here is the path of following the Holy Spirit wherever He leads, for in this book the Holy Spirit is mentioned 70 times speaking, forbidding, and whispering to the Lord’s disciples.

Now we will see what kind of savage wolves attack the church leaders. Paul certainly did not mean literal wolves, but the devil. We can see the devil’s temptation in ‘attacking’ Jesus in the wilderness to understand this. Matthew 4:8-9 says: “The devil… showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor… All this I will give you if you bow down and worship me” The Greek term ‘doxa’ translated as ‘splendor’ actually means ‘glory’. So, the devil offered the glory of the kingdoms of the world to Jesus, as long as He would bow down and worship him. This is the “savage wolf” that tempted Jesus, offering worldly or human glory to Him.

Now, the devil attacks church leaders with the same tactic: offering human or worldly glory as long as the leaders follow and bow to him. Many leaders do not realize that denominations are human kingdoms. The glory of their leaders is also human glory. Next, we will discuss the difference between the glory of the early church and the glory of the denominations.

To discuss the glory of the early church, let’s look at Paul’s writings and also examples in the Acts of the Apostles. Let’s start by noting that Paul’s ministry was an ‘inward’ ministry. This means Paul’s ministry, as will be explained below, emphasized the ‘inward’ matters of the church. For example, in Ephesians 1:3 it is written, “Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing …” (ILT). This does not mean God does not care about our physical needs, but Paul’s focus was ‘inward’.

Let’s see how Paul explains this ‘inward’ ministry, especially in his second letter to the Corinthians. Throughout this letter, Paul explains about himself and his ministry. He did this because the church in Corinth had been influenced by some false teachers who not only preached another gospel different from Paul’s, but also incited the Corinthians to criticize him and doubt his apostolic authority.

Paul uses several expressions to explain his ministry, which he received by God’s mercy (II Corinthians 3:6-9). We will look at some of them. First, the ministry of the New Covenant. Paul explains the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. It is emphasized that the New Covenant does not consist of written law but of the Spirit. The written law kills, but the Spirit gives life (‘zoe’). The ministry of the New Covenant is ‘inward’ because it is not focused on outward things. It focuses on how a person’s inner being is renewed day by day through the work of the life-giving Spirit (‘zoe’). Unlike ‘outward’ ministry, which we will discuss later and which focuses on measurable and visible success, ‘inward’ ministry is not easy to measure. Who can measure how much of Christ’s life (‘zoe) is within a person’s inner being? Only God knows how much and how deep His work is in someone’s heart.

Second, Paul uses the term the ministry of the Spirit (II Corinthians 3:8). This ministry is compared with the Old Covenant ministry that led to death. That ministry was accompanied by God’s glory, reflected on the face of its servant, Moses, so much so that the Israelites could not bear to look at him. Paul emphasizes that if the ministry leading to death came with such glory, how much more will the ministry of the Spirit be accompanied by God’s glory. We must note that God’s glory in the Old Testament was often visible to the physical eye, but in the New Testament it is not.

The glory of God in the ministry of the Spirit was not reflected on Paul’s face in such a way that the Corinthians could not look at him. Why did the glory on Moses’ face make Israel unable to gaze at him? This is because the ministry of the Spirit is ‘inward’, whereas Moses’ ministry was ‘outward’. God’s glory in the ministry of the Spirit resides within the servant’s inner being. There are people who could see God’s glory radiating within Paul, but those who saw it were likely those who also had God’s glory within them.

Thus, the glory of an ‘inward’ ministry is not easily visible to the physical eye. This is different from most ministries in today’s Christian world, where glory is easily seen outwardly—such as the size of a congregation, the building used for worship, or the social status of its members. This shows the difference between most modern Christian ministries and ‘inward’ ministry.

It is worth noting how Paul defended himself when people doubted whether he was a servant of Christ. In defending himself, Paul did not prove how God blessed him so that he appeared to have no problems or sufferings. On the contrary, when proving that he was a servant of Christ, he revealed the hardships and sufferings he endured (II Corinthians 11:23-28): hard labor, frequent imprisonments, facing death many times, being flogged by the Jews five times, beaten three times, stoned, and so on.

So, if the glory of the early church’s ministry was ‘inward’, we can conclude that the early church also possessed an inward glory.

In fact, if the glory of the early church’s ministers was ‘internal’, and naturally their teachings were also ‘internal’, then it is already proven that the glory of the early church was ‘internal’. Nevertheless, let us look at some examples in the book of Acts that show the glory of the early church was indeed ‘internal’.

First, in the book of Acts, which only has 28 chapters, there are expressions such as ‘the Holy Spirit leads’, ‘the Holy Spirit whispers’, ‘the Holy Spirit forbids’, and ‘filled with the Spirit’, along with similar phrases, occurring 70 times. This proves that the early church was completely led by the Holy Spirit, and we know that the Holy Spirit dwells within the hearts of believers. The power of the Holy Spirit within believers was so real that we must conclude that the glory of the early church was ‘internal’.

Second, it is undeniable that the majority of early church members were not wealthy, influential, or educated. This does not mean that if someone is poor, God’s glory automatically dwells within them. But in the case of the early church, God did choose those who were not influential, even despised by the world (I Corinthians 1:26-28). Yet, all of them were filled and led by the Holy Spirit. That is why we emphasize that the glory of the early church was ‘internal’.

Third, let us look at the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and draw conclusions from it (Acts 5:1-11). In the early church, offerings for the church were given voluntarily according to the leading of the Holy Spirit. The collected funds were mainly distributed to poor members, widows, and those in need.

A man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of land and gave the proceeds to the apostles. However, they held back part of the money and only gave the remainder. By the leading of the Holy Spirit, Peter said that while the land remained unsold, it was theirs, and even after being sold, the money was still theirs to manage. But Ananias and Sapphira acted as if they were giving the ‘entire’ amount. Because of this deception, God judged them severely, and they died.

Naturally, we ask, what motivated Ananias and Sapphira to act in this way? If we read the previous verses, we see that there was a man named Joseph who was honored by the apostles and called the son of encouragement. Joseph sold a field he owned and gave the money to the apostles. It is very likely that Ananias and Sapphira wanted the same honor and praise from the apostles, just like Joseph. But because they lied, they came under God’s judgment.

What lesson can we take from this case? We see that those who sought human glory (wanting praise and recognition) immediately faced God’s severe judgment. From this case, we conclude that the early church truly upheld the glory and honor of God. Those who sought human honor and outward glory had no place in the early church. From this case, we conclude that the glory of the early church was ‘internal’ and not ‘external’.

Today we will discuss what kind of glory these denominations have. Is their glory 'inner' like the early church, or is it external, human, and even worldly?

To explain this matter, we need to look at the Book of Revelation and pay attention to the woman in chapters 17-18. It should be emphasized that Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ (and, of course, His bride) given to the Apostle John 'in symbolic language’. Revelation 1:1 states, "…He signified it to His servant John" (ILT). The term 'signified' is translated from the Greek 'semaino,' which comes from the root word 'sema’, meaning 'symbol' or 'sign’, Therefore, John received the revelation conveyed in symbolic language. Throughout the Bible, a woman is a symbol of the church, because Adam is a symbol of Christ, and Eve is a symbol of the church (Romans 5:14).

Let us look at the woman in Revelation 17 and 18. Revelation 17:18 states that the woman John saw is the great city, while Revelation 18:2 declares that Babylon is the great city. Thus, the woman is called the ‘great city’, which is Babylon. In Revelation, Babylon is symbolic, but in Genesis, Babylon was an actual city built by Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-10). Nimrod and his followers built the city and tower with the motivation to ‘make a name for themselves’ (Genesis 11:4). The term 'name' is translated from the Hebrew 'shem’, meaning a memorial sign, glory, or authority of a person. Therefore, Nimrod and his followers sought glory and authority by creating a memorial for themselves.

Furthermore, the woman is seen sitting on a beast (Revelation 17:3). In the Bible, a beast symbolizes a human government system (Daniel uses this symbol). This means that this church became a ‘great city’ because it was supported by a human governmental system (hierarchy or levels of authority). There are many more characteristics attributed to this woman, but for now, it is sufficient to prove that this woman is the Catholic Church (the mother) and her daughters, the Protestant churches (Revelation 17:5)—or more precisely, Catholic and Protestant denominations.

Let us look again at who Nimrod really was. Many think that Nimrod was one who served and lived before the Lord (Genesis 10:9). But we know that Strong’s Concordance reveals that the Hebrew word 'PANIM' translated as 'before' (in verse 9) has a wide range of meanings. In Genesis 10:9, as in Numbers 16:2, 'PANIM' can literally mean 'in rebellion’. And in the Jewish Encyclopedia, the name Nimrod means ‘he who made all the people rebel against God’. The ILT (Indonesian Literal Translation) notes that 'before' here means 'stubbornly opposed.' We can conclude that Nimrod was one who rebelled against and stubbornly opposed God, and Nimrod established his own kingdom, one of which was Babylon.

From this brief explanation, is it not clear that these denominations are human kingdoms established by ‘Nimrods’? And it is also clear that the motivation of these ‘Nimrods’ is to seek name, reputation, or human glory. Thus, the glory of the early church was 'inner’, while the glory of denominations is 'outer,' human, and worldly.

This fulfills what we discussed regarding Matthew 4:8-9, where the fierce wolf's attack against Jesus was also directed at church leaders. Thus, the "fierce wolf" attack on church leaders leads them to seek human glory rather than the glory of God.

We have briefly discussed that due to the attack of “fierce wolves” on church leaders, they began to seek human glory, or honor from people, rather than the glory of God. It must be emphasized here that if people respect us for our wealth, education, or other physical matters, it does not necessarily mean we are seeking human glory. Just as when someone seeks money, it cannot be immediately concluded that they love money.

The Bible affirms that the love of money is the root of all evil. Loving money is a matter of one’s heart. A poor person can also greatly love money. Conversely, a rich person does not necessarily love money, although the Bible warns to guard one’s heart as wealth increases. There are also many other warnings for the rich. Therefore, the issue we are discussing is that the attack of “fierce wolves” on church leaders will cause THEIR HEARTS to seek human glory.

Let us look at these verses related to our discussion. Galatians 1:10 says, “...am I now trying to win the approval of human beings? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (ILT). John 12:42-43 says, “...many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God” (ILT).

The matter of ‘seeking human glory’ is not trivial. A church leader who seeks human glory or tries to please people can no longer be called a servant of Christ. Church leaders who refuse to be cast out of the ‘synagogue’ or the Christian world will become hypocritical religious leaders. They believe in a certain truth but do not confess it openly because of the ‘Pharisees’. Such behavior from hypocritical religious leaders is what Jesus rebuked in Matthew 23. Christian leaders who fear being excluded from the Christian world will inevitably act hypocritically.

Of course, the matter of ‘seeking human glory’ in the Christian world does not stop there, because in the Christian world there are “follow-up blessings,” namely money and positions that could not be obtained in the early church. Generally, Christian leaders do not understand the false teachings of Jezebel, Balaam, and the Nicolaitans that cause them to gain money and positions that could not be obtained by the apostles in the early church, whether Peter, Paul, or John (Revelation 2-3).

We will now move on to the first religious rule, which is that one MUST attend Sunday services at a certain denominational building. The religious rules mentioned earlier in this writing, such as having to attend Sunday services, perform certain rituals, pay a specific amount of money—whether called tithes, firstfruits, or faith pledges—as well as doing other things according to the rules of that denominational building, which we call ‘religious rules,’ are actually interconnected. Why are they connected? Because we will later see that the motivation of the leaders in making these religious rules is the same: seeking human glory as a result of the attack of “fierce wolves.”

We begin with the first religious rule: attending Sunday worship in a specific building (a denominational building). There has been much discussion and differing opinions on this matter. Even among Christian leaders, there are various views regarding why the congregation must worship on Sunday. This short piece does not aim to discuss in detail the necessity of attending Sunday worship. What we will focus on is the MOTIVATION of Christian leaders who insist that the congregation must worship on Sundays.

If one reads the New Testament with a ‘clear mind’ — I will explain later what I mean by that — it becomes clear that there is no explicit command for the church to worship on Sunday or to keep Sunday holy. In fact, the early church did not sanctify Sunday, except that there is an example of them gathering on ‘the first day of the week’ (Sunday). Initially, the early church gathered daily to pray and break bread, and then there is an example of them meeting on ‘the first day of the week’ (Sunday). Thus, if Christian leaders insist on Sunday worship, it is merely an interpretation, and there is certainly a motivation behind it.

Let’s examine a few reasons typically presented by Christian leaders. First, Sunday is the day of Jesus’ resurrection, therefore we must celebrate it and keep it holy. The question is, WHERE IS THE COMMAND TO CELEBRATE THE DAY OF JESUS’ RESURRECTION? Jesus’ explicit command was related to HIS DEATH. Jesus clearly said, DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24-25). The church must remember Jesus’ death with the symbols of bread and wine, and the early church celebrated it DAILY (Acts 2:46-47). Christian leaders match the day of Jesus’ resurrection with the day the church should gather and worship. THIS IS THE FIRST “MATCHING INTERPRETATION”.

Second, the Lord’s Day in Revelation 1:10. The Greek phrase ‘ho kuriakos hemera’, translated as ‘the Lord’s Day’, appears only once in the New Testament. Christian leaders interpret ‘the Lord’s Day’ as Sunday. Meanwhile, in the Old Testament, the Lord’s Day refers to the day of God’s judgment or the day God visits His people. Therefore, it is more accurate to interpret ‘the Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10 as the day the Lord visited the Apostle John, that is, the day when ‘I was in the Spirit’. Again, we see a “matching interpretation” from Christian leaders by interpreting the Lord’s Day as Sunday.

Third, the Jewish Sabbath has been changed into the “Christian Sabbath”, which is Sunday. Notice Colossians 2:16-17: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Therefore, the Sabbath has been fulfilled, and its fulfillment is Christ. The Jewish Sabbath no longer applies to believers, let alone a “Christian Sabbath”, which is Sunday. This interpretation is no longer just “matching”, but outright fabricated, interpreting the Bible as one pleases. There are, of course, other reasons put forward by Christian leaders, but for now, this will suffice.

Now I want to explain what I mean by a “clear mind”. A person with a “clear mind” is someone who studies the Bible with no hidden agenda other than a sincere desire to know God. Again, I emphasize that if someone has no hidden agenda, it is clear to them that there is no requirement for the congregation to worship on Sunday.

The hidden agenda of Christian leaders is to DRAW DISCIPLES TO THEMSELVES (Acts 20:29-30). Christian leaders who draw the Lord’s disciples to themselves need a specific day to gather with them. That is why they create a religious rule requiring Sunday gatherings. THERE IS A HIDDEN MOTIVATION BEHIND THIS RELIGIOUS RULE. Meanwhile, Jesus clearly said that WORSHIP MUST BE IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH. This is the rule that Jesus Himself made (John 4).

We have stated that the motivation of Christian religious leaders in requiring congregants to worship and sanctify Sunday is to draw the Lord’s disciples to themselves. Let us now look at the form of worship that Jesus taught His church, or His sheep.

John 4 recounts the conversation between the Samaritan woman and Jesus. The Samaritan woman had a religious concept, saying that worship must be on Mount Gerizim (Samaria) or in Jerusalem (Israel). Her concept of worship was the same as that of Christian leaders who require Sunday worship. For those with a religious mindset, worship must be ‘on this mountain or in that place’. But Jesus affirmed that the time had come for people to worship in spirit and truth, for such worship is what pleases the Father.

Worship in spirit and truth is inward worship. Those who worship in spirit and truth are not visible to the physical eye. But those who worship according to religious rules—religion—are visible to the physical eye. We have explained this before. Therefore, Jesus taught His disciples, His sheep, to worship in spirit and truth.

How do we worship in spirit and truth? By ONLY listening to Jesus’ voice and following Him. Jesus said clearly, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). That’s why Revelation 14:4 emphasizes of His chosen people (the firstfruits of the church), “…They follow the Lamb wherever He goes…” This is why the apostle John said about His chosen ones,

“…Therefore you do not need anyone to teach you…” (1 John 2:27). This does not mean God’s chosen people never learn from leaders—John also sent letters to them so they could learn from him. However, it means GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE DO NOT FOLLOW ANY LEADER EXCEPT BY HEARING JESUS’ VOICE AND FOLLOWING JESUS.

Thus, His chosen people worship in spirit and truth. They are led by the Holy Spirit daily. If on Sunday the Holy Spirit leads them to stay home with family, eat, drink, and praise God, they obey. Wherever the Holy Spirit leads them, they follow. THERE ARE NO RELIGIOUS RULES EXCEPT OBEYING THE HOLY SPIRIT’S LEADING. This is worship in spirit and truth.

Such worship, as described above, will never be taught by Christian leaders, because if people worship in spirit and truth, Christian leaders cannot draw the Lord’s disciples to themselves. That is why Christian leaders make religious rules—MANDATING attendance in a certain building on Sunday. The hidden motivation is clear to His chosen people: to draw the Lord’s disciples to themselves. And all this is caused by the attack of fierce wolves.

It’s worth noting the difference between an “ordinary wolf” and a “fierce wolf.” An “ordinary wolf” generally attacks thugs at bus terminals or markets, and people avoid them. From their appearance and clothing, people can identify such thugs. But a “fierce wolf” attacks Christian leaders, whose “religious robes” actually deceive the congregation, making them harder to recognize. However, once again, His chosen people have an inner anointing, so they will understand (I John 2:20,27).

Today we will discuss the next religious rule, which is the requirement to give money to a certain denominational building, whether in the form of tithes, first fruits, or faith pledges. Let’s begin with examples from the early church and the New Testament teachings regarding monetary offerings.

First, let’s take an example from the early church in managing offerings. In Acts 2:44–45, it says, “... all that they had was held in common, and there were those who sold their property and possessions and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had need.” The phrase ‘held in common’ does not mean that a person could not have private property. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, Peter clearly stated, “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?...” (Acts 5:4). Therefore, the meaning of “held in common” is that all offerings collected into the church treasury were distributed to all members according to their needs. As a result of this method of managing money, no one was in need (Acts 4:34).

The church’s funds were specifically distributed to widows regularly in daily service (Acts 6:1). When the number of disciples increased and problems arose, the apostles appointed seven men full of the Spirit to oversee this distribution to the widows, while the apostles focused on prayer and the Word. It is clear that the early church received money from wealthier members (those who owned land or extra houses), who gave it voluntarily through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and the money was redistributed to other members according to their needs.

Second, the apostles’ ministry concerning finances. Galatians 2:10 affirms, “They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do”. The ‘they’ here refers to James, Cephas, John, and of course, Paul. For the apostles, giving money to the poor among the church members was an important ministry. Paul even organized offerings from certain churches for the believers in Jerusalem who were in need.

Third, what about the needs of the apostles and church leaders? There is no indication that the apostles received regular offerings from the church, such as a monthly salary. Paul occasionally received help from the church in Philippi or from others. To meet his own needs and those of his companions, Paul also worked making tents. For elders who lead well and work hard at preaching and teaching, they should be “worthy of double honor,” which can be interpreted as financial support (I Timothy 5:17). However, there is still no indication of them receiving regular financial support from the church.

Thus, these are some examples from the early church and its ministers regarding church finances. Next, we will further elaborate on Paul’s teachings about finances.

Before we delve into Paul’s teaching about church finances, it is important to first understand his attitude towards money. Why? Because anyone’s teaching on church finances will inevitably be influenced by their *inner condition* or personal attitude toward money. If someone hopes to ‘get rich’ from their ministry, they will certainly find Bible verses—whether from the Old or New Testament—that support this desire. They will likely find strong support for teachings on tithes, first fruits, faith pledges, and similar concepts. In reality, it is pointless to try proving biblical teachings about church finances to someone who seeks wealth through ministry. Hopefully, this short writing will not be read by such people—though it’s unlikely they would read it anyway. Therefore, let us first examine Paul’s attitude toward money in his ministry.

Acts 20:33 states, "I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing”. In I Timothy 6:5-10, Paul writes, "…who think that godliness is a means to financial gain… But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that… Those who want to get rich fall into temptation… For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith…". Paul had no financial issues—he didn’t expect silver, gold, or clothes from anyone, because he served the Lord without seeking monetary gain. For him, food and clothing were enough. He also occasionally made tents to provide for his needs and those of his fellow workers.

Paul’s focus in ministry was clear: "…I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me…" (Acts 20:24). Whether he received human honor or not, whether he got money from his ministry or not, even if he died for serving God—it did not matter to him. What mattered was finishing the race and completing the task Jesus gave him. No wonder, at the end of his life, he said, "I have finished the race" (II Timothy 4:7).

If someone enters ministry with the same mindset as Paul, they will easily grasp biblical teaching about church finances. In Christianity, entering ministry—say, as a “full-time” worker in a denomination or as a pastor—usually comes with specific job descriptions and a monthly salary. Or, if one pioneers a ministry, they will gather followers—and often, their financial support. This is normal in modern Christianity because it has become a system (‘kosmos’).

Due to this ‘system’ created by Christian leaders, ministry in the Christian world often becomes a profession, like being a doctor or an employee in a company. The Bible clearly reveals the origin of this ‘kosmos’, whose ruler is the devil—but that’s a discussion for another time.

Therefore, it is nearly impossible for someone to have Paul’s attitude toward money unless they serve outside the Christian ‘kosmos’. Paul received his task directly from the Lord Jesus. He didn’t work for any person or organization. He was a free man, fulfilling the mission Jesus gave him. Thus, to truly understand Paul’s biblical teachings on church finances, we must have the same attitude and ‘inner condition’ as Paul. Without it, one will inevitably create religious rules to justify their position within the Christian system.

There is one more thing that needs to be clarified before we look into some facts regarding Paul’s teaching on church finances. In the time of Paul and Peter, the church was still in its state as an organism, where each member was directly led by the Holy Spirit. However, in the time of the apostle John, the church experienced a change in its ‘basic nature’, causing John to have no fellowship (‘koinonia’) with the churches, especially those in Asia Minor where he ministered. This is why John wrote a general letter (I John) to the churches, so that whoever received his teaching could have fellowship with him (I John 1:3).

When the early church was still an organism, there was no teaching of Balaam as described in Revelation 2:14. But in John’s time, some people had already embraced this teaching. Let’s look at II Peter 2:15 and Jude 1:11 respectively: “… following the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness… for the sake of reward, they rushed headlong into Balaam’s error…”. The way of Balaam and the error of Balaam are related to the desire for payment in ministry. Simply put, the teaching of Balaam is a teaching that justifies a wage system for serving God.

Let’s see how this teaching of Balaam entered the church. It began when some church leaders drew the Lord’s disciples to themselves (Acts 20:30). Leaders were supposed to only equip the Lord’s disciples (Ephesians 4:11-12). However, when leaders drew the disciples to themselves, they began to need money to build their ministry (read: enterprise).

They needed a place (building) to gather the disciples, and money to meet their own needs and those of their co-workers. Therefore, they began to collect money from the congregation through various false teachings such as tithes, firstfruits, faith pledges, and others. None of these practices were ever done by Paul or the other apostles, who only equipped the Lord’s disciples without drawing them to themselves.

These leaders who drew the Lord’s disciples now needed to manage finances for various purposes and also pay those who worked with them. Here we begin to see the teaching of

Balaam: those who ministered (read: worked) began to receive regular wages, whether called a salary, love offering, or any other term. Thus began the wage system in serving God.

In fact, church leaders who followed the teaching of Balaam inevitably engaged in trade within their ministry. Traders sell goods or services, and these leaders sold their preaching and Bible teaching services. Some even sold what they called ‘anointing oil’ to the congregation. I once watched on television (TBN: ‘Trinity Broadcasting Network’) decades ago, where Benny Hinn sold ‘anointing oil’ for $20 for just a small bottle. Christianity has become filled with commerce, from books to Christian souvenirs, all bringing profit to leaders.

In a church whose ‘basic nature’ has been altered by this teaching of Balaam, it is no longer possible to apply Paul’s teaching on church finances. Paul’s teaching can only be applied to those ministering outside the teaching of Balaam—the teaching that justifies a wage system in ministry. Paul’s teaching applies only to those serving within the context of the church as an organism.

Now we come to some facts related to Paul's teaching on church finances. Once again, it should be remembered that Paul's teaching can only be applied to those who serve God in the context of the church as an organism. The Christian world (hierarchical church) that has been infiltrated by the teaching of Balaam can no longer apply Paul's teaching on church finances, because the context has changed. In the science of interpretation (hermeneutics), anyone who takes verses out of context and applies them directly to the present situation violates what is called in hermeneutics the principle of ‘context’, in this case, ‘historical context’. Therefore, this brief writing is indeed intended for those who serve God in the context of the church as an organism.

Let us begin with some facts. First, do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain (I Corinthians 9:9 and I Timothy 5:18). These verses do not support the wage system at all as it exists in the Christian world. The church in Corinth, which Paul pioneered, criticized Paul regarding the validity of his apostleship. This happened due to the presence of false teachers/apostles who were teaching in the Corinthian congregation. These false teachers naturally expected money from the congregation in Corinth, because a clear measure of whether someone is a false teacher often relates to money. Therefore, Paul refused to receive money from the Corinthians, even though it was indeed his right as a servant of God to be supported occasionally (I Corinthians 9:12). We need to emphasize the word ‘occasionally’, because Paul never received regular financial support from any church, including those he pioneered. The church in Philippi only helped Paul occasionally.

Furthermore, Paul taught Timothy that elders who lead well and also preach and teach are worthy of double honor, meaning they should receive financial support from the church. Even here, we do not see any indication that it must be given regularly. In fact, true widows should receive regular support from the church’s finances (I Timothy 5:3). Supporting widows regularly was indeed a custom of the early church (Acts 6:1).

Second, giving must be done willingly (2 Corinthians 9:7). Paul never taught tithing, first fruits, or faith pledges as is commonly done by teachers in the Christian world.

Third, giving to the poor and helping churches in need. For Paul, ministry to the poor and to churches needing assistance was important (Galatians 2:10). Paul also brought aid to the church in Jerusalem to be given to its members who were in need. The finances of the early church were indeed prioritized for widows and the poor. This contrasts with the Christian world today, where money collected is generally used for the needs of the ministers and their ministry, including buildings and other expenses.

In truth, Paul's teaching on church finances is not difficult to understand. It is clear that church money was primarily given to members in need, while church ministers only occasionally received support from church finances. This is the core of Paul's teaching on church finances. The early church never used its funds to build buildings, because during the first 200 years of Christianity, no buildings were constructed. Since Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity (AD 313), the construction of buildings, cathedrals, and so forth began. Buildings were indeed needed by church leaders who gathered the Lord’s disciples. However, the early church met only in homes.

We have affirmed Paul’s teaching on church finances, as well as the example from the early church, namely that CHURCH FUNDS WERE PRIMARILY GIVEN TO MEMBERS IN NEED. Meanwhile, church ministers only occasionally received support from church funds. Even widows, who were truly widows, were to receive regular financial support in the daily ministry of the church.

Before we discuss Christian rules/teachings such as tithes, first fruits, faith pledges, and others regarding finances, we need to first compare the management of finances in the early church with the financial management generally found in denominations in the Christian world today. This is very important to understand, because this matter concerns the ‘nature’ of the church that has changed due to the attack of savage wolves on some early church leaders (Acts 20:28-30).

It is undeniable that, in general, in denominations, finances are controlled by leaders (often just one person called the ‘senior pastor’), and used to meet the leaders’ needs, as well as to fund the expansion of their ministries. This expansion includes building costs, ministry expenses, and so on. Of course, there is money for ‘*diaconal*’ ministry, BUT THIS IS NOT THE MAIN FOCUS AS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. Many Christians do not understand this and consider it a normal development of Christianity. The problem is, the Bible does not say so.

Let us honestly discuss why there has been a shift in church financial management, from being focused on the needy to being focused on leaders’ needs and ministry expansion. This happened because the church’s ‘nature’ has changed due to attacks from savage wolves. Leaders draw the Lord’s disciples to themselves, thereby exercising authority over them (justified by Jezebel’s teaching). Leaders who were once SERVANTS of God and the church have now become MANAGERS who control everything.

As we know, managers function to plan, organize, lead, motivate, and create systems of control, especially financial control. Denominational leaders act as the BOSS of a company, and it is not uncommon for all “church assets” to belong to the leader personally. This is clearly not the church that Jesus built when He said, ‘I will build My church’. But all this has been justified by the teachings of Nicolaitans (subjugating the laity) and Balaam (commerce). The change in the church’s nature due to “savage wolves” attacking the leaders is clearly written in Acts 20:28-30 and Revelation 2-3.

In such a situation, it is natural that denominational finances are PRIMARILY DIRECTED TOWARD LEADERS’ INTERESTS. Just as company managers in the world would never prioritize employees’ needs over the leaders’ needs and company growth, so it is in denominations.

The Bible exposes this change in the church’s nature, especially through the writings of the apostle John. Christianity, which was once an ‘organism’ led directly by the Holy Spirit, has become a ‘hierarchy’ where ultimate authority is in the hands of the senior leader, perhaps even as the ‘*owner*’. John used the term ‘kosmos’ (system=world) in his writings to describe this condition. We will not discuss that here.

These church MANAGERS inevitably create rules/teachings related to finances—tithes, first fruits, faith pledges, and others—to draw in money for their needs. The PRIMARY PURPOSE and MOTIVATION is clearly for the leaders’ needs and ministry expansion. We will call these teachings FALSE TEACHINGS, because none of the apostles of Jesus ever practiced or taught them. Of course, some church managers do not teach these false doctrines, but their role as MANAGERS still fulfills the false teachings of Balaam, Nicolaitans, and Jezebel.

So far, we have discussed two Christian religious rules that are obviously related: having to come on Sundays to a certain denominational building, and having to collect money for that denominational building. Now we will discuss the ways/teachings/rules of Christian leaders to get the Lord’s disciples to give them money.

Let’s start with a Bible verse used to connect the two religious rules above. We’ll take just one example from a senior pastor’s teaching on YouTube. I must mention the teacher’s name and YouTube channel so that we can all verify it. The channel is ‘El Channel’, the teacher is Rev. Stephen Tong, and the title is ‘Why Do We Worship on Sunday, Not Saturday’?

The first religious rule—worship on Sunday—we won’t discuss again, but at minute 1:50, Rev. Stephen Tong quotes I Corinthians 16:2: “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up at home...” He connects this with Acts 20:7: “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day...” From these two verses, he concludes that the first day of the week is the holy day or the Lord’s day, and THE CHURCH GATHERS AND GIVES MONETARY OFFERINGS. On another occasion, he also teaches that the congregation must give tithes because it belongs to God and cannot be called an offering. Only after giving God’s portion (the tithe), money given for God’s work or other purposes can be counted as an offering.

Let’s examine the context of I Corinthians 16:2. Verse 1 says: “Now about the collection for the Lord’s people...” The context is collecting money for the saints. Paul advises that this collection should not be made when he arrives, but that everyone should set aside money at home so that it can be gathered when he comes. The money was to help the saints in the Jerusalem church. This was part of Paul’s and other apostles’ ministry to care for those in need (Galatians 2:10).

So how could Rev. Tong take this verse (I Corinthians 16:2), pair it with Acts 20:7, and teach that the early church gathered on Sundays and gave money? In fact, the early church did not make Sunday a holy day at all. At first, they broke bread daily to commemorate the death of Jesus with bread and wine (Acts 2:46). The example of meeting on the first day in Acts 20:7 was because Paul was leaving the next day, and the meeting went on until dawn. This was not a regular, rule-based meeting.

The clear rule Paul gave for church gatherings is in I Corinthians 14:26: “What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.” So, when the church gathers, every member should bring something—not money—but a psalm, teaching, revelation, or spiritual gift, for the purpose of building up one another. Paul never said, “When you gather on Sunday, because we sanctify Sunday...” — not at all.

Why would a pastor of Rev. Tong’s stature resort to such ‘fit-the-verse’ tactics to teach that the congregation must come on Sundays, to a certain building, and give money? The truth is, it doesn’t matter whether a pastor is senior or not—they all share the same interest: they need money from the congregation for their own purposes and to expand their ministry. Meanwhile, Paul and the other apostles never practiced or taught such things. Therefore, the rules requiring people to come on Sundays to a denominational building and give offerings are rules made by Christian leaders—not ones found in the Bible.

Let us continue with the next religious rule still related to money, namely the rule of tithing. Not all denominations enforce the rule of tithing, but all denominations certainly collect money (in whatever form the rule takes) from the congregation for the needs of the leaders and the development of their ministries. This is quite common in the Christian world, but we must emphasize once again that the apostles never practiced or taught such things. This happened because the early church leaders were attacked by savage wolves, causing the church to split into tens of thousands of denominations (Acts 20:28–30).

We will not discuss tithing in detail here. Many arguments have already been made that the New Testament does not teach tithing. For now, we will only focus on the priesthood in the context of Israel and in the context of the church. We know that in Israel, the priesthood followed the order of Aaron, meaning only the tribe of Levi could serve in the Temple. But in the church context, all are priests (I Peter 2:9), where the Temple is the members of the church themselves. The question now is: what priestly order applies in the church?

Hebrews 7 clearly explains that the priesthood of Christ follows the order of Melchizedek. The book of Hebrews details the differences between the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood because the central theme of Hebrews is the matter of priesthood. Hebrews 8:1 emphasizes, “The main point of what we are saying is this: we do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven”.

One thing we must understand about the priesthood is what law governs it. The Aaronic or Levitical priesthood was clearly governed by the Law of Moses. But the Melchizedek priesthood is governed by another law. Let us look at Hebrews 7:12, which says, “For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also”. This means that since the priesthood of Jesus is not Levitical, the law that governs it must also change. Not even a fragment of the Law of Moses may enter into the Melchizedek priesthood. Jesus made it clear that not one jot or tittle would disappear from the Law until it was fulfilled—and Jesus fulfilled the Law completely.

Now, consider Hebrews 7:15–16: “And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.” The term ‘life’ here comes from the Greek word ‘zoe’, which is the kind of life that God Himself has and lives. Thus, the rule or law governing the Melchizedek priesthood is the LAW OF LIFE (‘zoe’). This is the purpose for which Jesus came to earth: to give His Life (‘zoe’) to everyone who believes (John 10:10).

How do we live according to the Law of Life (‘zoe’)? We know that the ‘zoe’ given to us is still in seed form, placed by the Holy Spirit into our spirit or inner being. We must follow the leading of this ‘zoe’ life in our daily walk. Wherever the ‘zoe’ life leads, we must obey. This is the true meaning of worship as taught by Jesus—in spirit and in truth—not in man-made religious rules established by Christian leaders. By following the leading of the ‘zoe’ life, the ‘zoe’ within us will grow, and we will come to know the true God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3).

Therefore, the rule of tithing no longer applies to the church. The church must live under the law of life (‘zoe’) in daily life. The law of life (‘zoe’) is the same as the law of love that Jesus gave to His disciples (John 15). The law of love is called the new commandment—not because it was unknown in the Old Testament era, but because love is the very essence of the Law of Moses.

Let us continue with the next religious rule related to money, namely the rule of the ‘firstfruits’ offering. The teaching of the ‘firstfruits’ offering, as far as I have heard on YouTube, began with Pastor Niko N. in 2012. His interpretation of the ‘firstfruits’ offering is that the entire income for the month of January must be submitted to his denomination in February. The verse used to support this teaching is Proverbs 3:9-10: “Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.”

Of course, many people, including pastors, have opposed this ‘firstfruits’ teaching. But what caught my attention was Pastor Niko’s statement, roughly: ‘If those who oppose are people out there, that’s normal. But if the people here (his congregation, i.e., his followers) oppose, that’s extraordinary’. We will not respond to the ‘firstfruits’ teaching itself, because in my opinion it is far too deviated from Biblical teaching. This teaching is more than just outright fraud by a leader seeking to draw money from his followers. Instead, let’s take a verse from James 1:18: “That we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures” (ILT). In the New Testament context, the firstfruits are believers who mature earlier, and therefore are “harvested” at the coming of Jesus Christ (Revelation 14:4,15).

What we will respond to is Pastor Niko’s statement that if outsiders oppose, that’s normal. Why respond to this? Because to me, his statement represents the general condition of the Christian world. The Christian world consists of leaders who draw the Lord’s disciples to become their own followers. This is what is called a denomination, even though these leaders call it a church.

The leaders who draw the Lord’s disciples to become their followers have been justified in the Christian world through the false teaching of ‘NICOLAITANS’ (Revelation 2:6,15). This is not the name of an actual leader, for in John’s time no church leader was named Nicolas. In keeping with the symbolic language of Revelation (Revelation 1:1), ‘Nicolaitans’ means: Niko = conquer (Latin term), Laos = laity (common people). Thus, the teaching of the Nicolaitans is the doctrine that justifies the conquest of the laity by leaders. This means the leader has subjugated the laity so that they become his followers. Some followers are so devoted to their leader that whatever he says is considered true by these fanatical followers.

In such a condition, leaders can freely make religious rules for their followers. For such a leader, it doesn’t matter if “outsiders”, as Pastor Niko puts it, oppose his teaching. What matters is that his followers obey it. These followers already feel blessed, attracted, in awe, and respectful toward their leader, making it nearly pointless to explain what the Bible actually says about his teaching.

But clearly, any religious rule is essentially intended to bind the follower to the leader.

We will continue discussing religious rules related to money, namely the ‘faith promise’, and we will conclude this short writing. Perhaps it is better if I share my personal testimony regarding the teaching of the ‘faith promise’. At that time, five of us were building a ministry together, and I happened to be the youngest among them. So, when we needed a building for worship services, we applied the faith promise teaching to all members of our congregation. Since the five of us served as pastors/elders, naturally, we had to set an example for the others.

At that time, I also made a faith promise—a certain amount of money to be given for the construction of the building, which had to be paid every month. For our situation then, the monthly amount we promised was quite significant. I did not know that the building was registered under the name of the most senior among us and an influential church member. I must honestly admit that we five leaders often quarreled and each wanted to be the most important, so conflicts arose in every elders’ meeting. When we eventually split, the building naturally became the personal property of the senior leader and the influential person.

If we followed a ‘sense of justice’, all the elders should still have been able to use the building for their respective ministries. But in reality, the building was controlled by the senior leader and the influential member. In short, the building had become ‘private property’. Cases like this happen frequently in the Christian world, and there are even senior leaders who openly claim all church ‘assets’ as their own.

What I want to emphasize in this story is our “tactic” of drawing money from the congregation through the faith promise teaching, which ultimately only served our personal desires as leaders. Yet the New Testament’s teaching on monetary offerings is clear—it must be given willingly, without coercion, and according to what one has, not what one promises.

From my experience above, in truth, any method or teaching by Christian leaders to draw money from the congregation violates the principles of the early church’s finances. This is because the purpose and motivation of these leaders no longer align with the purposes and motivations of the early apostles of Christ.

I will close this short writing by reminding all of us, as those who serve, that our ministry in this world will be judged before the judgment seat of Christ. Nothing hidden will remain concealed. May we receive grace so that we serve with purposes and motivations pleasing before Him, and thus be able to serve Christ in the age to come. Amen.