Is it ever right for Christians to take one another to court? What is the meaning of “word of wisdom” and “word of knowledge” in the New Testament? Is the church using modern explanations for homosexuality rather than biblical ones? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is turmoil around us. There is moral insanity around us, which means be sober, be vigilant, and keep your eyes fixed on the Lord.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Righteousness shines! Righteousness cannot be defeated, and truth will never be overcome!
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, we’re offering two important resources from Dr. Brown, his brand new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, and his DVD debate with gay activist (and professing born-again Christian) Harry Knox. You can get both of these key resources for the super low price of just $25! Postage Paid! That’s a $15 savings!
Order Online!
Other Resources:
Nicholas,
It was a good debate and I enjoyed getting to know you and your perspective on things! Thanks for hanging out!
Bo, which laws do you believe cause enmity between Jews and believing Gentiles today?
Sheila, I don’t know anything about a millennial temple.
Ray,
The ones that are doctrines and commandments of men made by Christianity and Judaism.
Sheila,
My pleasure, thank you.
Bo,
I’ll look into those posts.
Benjamin,
Thanks to you too! It seems you’d already thought things out pretty well. Good discussion!
Bo,
I wish I could answer your last questions but you know I can’t. Good discussion on the temple, though! Thanks!
Sorry for my absence the last day or two. I am just dropping by to say that a few personal matters that have required my attention have arisen so I will not be able to follow and post much for a while.
I’ll check things when I can.
Grace and peace,
-Benjamin
Bo,
The law finds its goal in Christ. If we keep the commandments of Christ, (specifically, the commandment to love one another), we have kept the whole law, by virtue of our membership in the body of Christ, in the New Covenant, which is by the grace of God. Christ said, Treat others as you would have others treat you, and this summarizes the law and the prophets. This is the law which Christ imposes, not circumcision, not dietary restrictions.
Otherwise, your understanding of the many exhortations in the New Testament which speak to the necessity of good works is quite similar to Catholic teaching. We do not accept Martin Luther’s “sola fide” theology. Faith, by itself, does not save us, only faith working through love, by grace.
Ultimately, I have to ask a simple question: Do I have to be circumcised and keep the Kosher laws? If I do not do these things, am I in spiritual jeopardy? You have made it clear that these things are not binding on salvation, but that we must keep them anyway, in thanksgiving, or something to that effect.
Nicholas,
“Spiritual jeopardy?” In a sense we are always in spiritual jeopardy and in a sense we are never in spiritual jeopardy. If we want to do what He says and want to know what He says, we are not in jeopardy, though we fail. If we do not want to do what He says or do not want to know what He says, we are in jeopardy. Each day and hour we are in a battle to either be informed and obedient or to settle for one or the other or neither. So our obedience is not really obedience if we do not bother with the all the facts. It is not obedience if we only obey part of what we know. Partial obedience and delayed obedience is rebellion…just ask my children. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Staying in the complacency of “I know enough” is intent to disobey. It is very deceitful.
It is not a matter of “have to” but “ought to.” “Have to” is very close or identical with trusting in works to save us. “Do not have to” is very close to or identical to sinning that grace may abound and voiding the law. “Ought to” is recognizing YHWH’s authority and our accountability to Him. It is humbling ourselves to YHWH and His word. It is rejecting the carnal mindedness that cannot be subject to YHWH’s law.
To truly love does sum up the law and the prophets. If love is informed and real it fulfills the law and the prophets. “Fulfill” does not mean that it replaces them. It means that they are actuated in our lives. So John can rightly say:
1 John 5
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
We are really rightly loving our brothers only when we are devoted to YHWH and keeping His commandments. We are only really devoted to YHWH when we keep His commandments out of a heart that wants to keep them. If His commandments are “have to’s” for us, we are not in the right place spiritually. If they are “do not have to’s” for us, we are not in the right place either. It is only when they are “Ought to’s” and we want to that we are really loving Him or our neighbors. When I want to do the things that I ought to, I do end up fulfilling them…I end up doing them.
The heart that wants to keep YHWH’s commandments, keeps them. The act of keeping them proves where our hearts really are. James says as much. We can never fulfill any commandment without doing it. Real love empowers us to act appropriately and constrains us to learn what is appropriate…not just one or the other.
The test of us really loving others is not just that we want to do what is right, but that we want to know what is right to do. As a boy, how many little birds did I kill by wanting to love them? I did not know what was right to do…or I just couldn’t do it because of my love for my self in having fun with the baby bird. (A child is born with a carnal mind.) My love was not perfect because it was not founded on the righteous thing to do.
This is also what happens with those that say they love each other, but cannot stop cohabiting outside of marriage. They cannot bring themselves to stop “loving” one another. They might say that they are fulfilling the law, because love fulfills the law. We would say that they must obey the law to only have physical relations inside of marriage to really fulfill love.
So for love to fulfill the law, love must be filled full of the knowledge of what is right/righteous. We really do only love our brothers correctly when we are keeping YHWH’s commandments. Good intentions are not good enough when we ignore some of the facts or do not want to know them. And grace is there for the sincere in heart that do the best they know how. Grace is not there for those that are not sincere in heart no matter how much they do right. Sincerity is not a feeling of love, like I had for those birds or the unmarried couple previously discussed. It is the dedication to love in the best way possible and to ever be learning that way.
You do not have to do any law to become saved. You do not have to do any law to stay saved. But to do either, you have to want to do what YHWH asks you to do and you have to want to learn what that is.
Ex 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
De 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
The Rougher Way
So many times I’ve heard it said,
“The way to hell is smoothly paved
with the high and good intentions
of those that think they’re surely saved.”
But those that turn around and climb
the rocky path to heavens gates,
though they stumble often times,
for their good deeds, reward awaits.
It’s NOT the heart or thought that counts,
though pure and noble they may be,
if the hands and feet attached
are pointed toward the flaming sea.
The only kind of faith that’s true
is clearly seen by all around.
It’s not belief or what we say
but what we DO on earthly ground.
The Creator of our world has said
He fights against the ones that think
that they can go their asphalt way
proudly blinded to how low they sink.
But grace and strength await the soul
that can bring himself to say
“I was wrong…I’ll do Your will.”
And continue up the rougher way.
Shalom
Bo,
I agree with your essential message but never in the New Testament do the inspired authors demand that we obey the legalism of the Torah. Christ proclaims all foods clean. Later, in Peter’s vision, this is brought to a more perfect decree. Peter and Paul make it clear that no one need feel obligated to bear the “yoke” of circumcision. I simply cannot reconcile your views with the Scriptures or with established Christian teaching.
If today they don’t in effect say, “To the cross and the gospel of his grace.”, Isn’t it because they don’t walk in the light?
Nicholas,
Where does Messiah declare all animal flesh clean?
Where in the interpretation of Peter’s vision does it say that unclean animals are clean to eat?
Where does it say that circumcision in and of itself is a yoke?
Shalom
Ray,
That is a cute statement, but try this one that is not so cute but very serious:
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Messiah spoke according to the law and the testimony/ten commandments. You do not. So you can agree with false witnesses if you want.
Ac 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
Ray,
Who is it that walks in the light?
1 John 1
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Those that confess their sin are cleansed and and walk in the light. What is John’s definition of sin?
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
If you think that it is fine to transgress the law, you will not confess that it is sin when you transgress it, and you will be walking in darkness because you refuse to obey YHWH’s commandments.
1John 2
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Nicholas,
And for the record, nowhere does it say that circumcision is wrong or that it ruins your salvation. It says that trusting in circumcision for obtaining righteousness is wrong. Paul circumcised Timothy. We do not need to be circumcised to get saved, just like we do not need to honor our parents to get saved. But both are the right thing to do. One is an aspect of living righteously the other is a an aspect of holiness. Holiness is not speaking in hushed tones in a cathedral. It is doing the things that YHWH has asked us to do as a sign that we are His special people. Without holiness, no one will see YHWH. Without holiness, you might get to be a street sweeper in the millennium, but you will not enjoy being a close confidant of the King. Those that keep and teach even the least of the commandments will enjoy be called great in the kingdom. Paul proved and testified that he kept all the law. He will be great in the kingdom.
Ac 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Ac 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
I await the answers to the three questions that I asked.
Shalom
Ray,
1 John 1
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
You say that you have no sin when you transgress YHWH’s law instead of confessing it as sin and repenting. How can the truth be in you? How can you be being cleansed with out confession and repentance?
Pr 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
14 Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.
Pr 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
Abomination means disgusting. Do you really want to go there?
If a man can not believe in righteousness without the law, he can not believe the gospel.
Ray,
If a man does not start doing what is righteous after he supposedly believes, then his faith is dead and is no better than the demons that believe and tremble. If only men that have this dead faith would even tremble when the word of YHWH is presented to them it would be better. But when they just shirk it off with platitudes and without giving those scriptures that are brought up a second thought, is very discouraging and telling.
Bo,
#1) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. (Mark 7:18-20)
(Yes, I know that the phrase, “In saying this, he made all foods clean” is a later addition, but it is nevertheless an accurate exegesis.)
#2) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)
(And this is also the Messiah speaking, since the Messiah is God, so we can use this for #1, too.)
#3) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts 15:10)
(The context demonstrates that this is also a reference to circumcision.)
Now, I know that you are going to re-interpret these passages in a way totally inconsistent with the understanding of Christian teaching from the earliest times, so it was quite pointless for me to have gone through the effort of cutting and pasting verses.
Really, Bo, we have to be honest with ourselves. Forget about Roman Catholicism for a minute. Even what you understand to be the primitive church did not impose circumcision on gentile converts, and I think this is quite clear from scripture. The legalistic measures which God demanded in the Torah served their purpose for their appointed time. This was not the eternal plan of God, that we should all mutilate our bodies. To what end would he have desired this? Christ’s death and resurrection has brought us into a new father-son relationship with God, a relationship based upon the reality of our adoption.
Nicholas,
I know that you will want to go with Roman Catholic belief no matter what is presented, but let us be faithful to what the scriptures actually say in context.
Concerning Mark 7 and Acts 10 here is Dr. Brown’s assessment.
“Now, this has often been interpreted as a
divine command for Peter to eat treif (i.e.
unclean food), but the text says nothing of
the kind. Rather, as Peter was soon to
understand…”God has shown me that I should
not call any man impure or unclean.” (Acts
10:28b). But that is not the point I want to
emphasize here. Rather, it is Peter’s earlier
response to the visionary command to kill and
eat unclean animals…If his Master and Teacher
had revoked the dietary laws, as some have
understood Mark 7:19, surely Peter would have
understood, especially if Peter had been a
primary source of mark’s information.”-Dr. Michael Brown, in “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”, volume 4, says this of Acts 10:9-16 on page 27-275:
He agrees with you that it is fine for gentiles to eat unclean animals, but he does not think that it does justice to the words of the two texts in question to interpret them to mean that Messiah cleansed unclean animal flesh. I hold that he is being intellectually honest about these two texts, but disagree with him about concerning the legitimacy of gentiles having permission to eat unclean things. The other texts that supposedly support such a thing are inconclusive at best.
I wrote this earlier to Benjamin:
“Mr 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mr 7:19 because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.’(YLT)
means that Messiah cleansed all foods, then all I have to say is nothing in scripture says that pork or mice or reptiles are food. “Meats” does mean food in the passage in question. And no person that He was speaking to would have thought that unclean animal flesh was food. But the passage does not say that He cleansed all unclean animals. It says that the body is purged of food, or at least the impurities in it, via the latrine.
And yes it is not what goes into a man that defileth him…it is that which is in his heart that comes forth in our actions and words. Let’s look at the list of things that defile us.
Mark 7
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
The word covetousness is in the list. When we lust after things that are not allowed to us…like another’s wife or home, we show that we are defiled in thought. When we act on those lusts, we are unclean. Unclean animal flesh is not allowed to us as food. It is never called food in scripture. It is called making ourselves abominable/disgusting to YHWH. It is pride to insist that we have a fight to eat something that YHWH has disallowed. It is foolish to eat those things also. It is lasciviousness (unbridled lust or licentiousness) to not be able to pass up unclean animal flesh. On four counts, purposely eating unclean animal flesh defiles us from the inside.
But lets look further into Mark 7.
Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition…
There is a commandment of YHWH to not eat unclean animal flesh. Our man-made commandments and doctrines say that it is fine to eat such things. We have laid aside YHWH’s commandment to hold to our traditions. Full well we reject YHWH’s commandment. Matthew gives us a little more information about this exact incident.
Matthew 15
6 …Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
When we refuse YHWH’s commandments to keep our own ideas, we make the word of YHWH of none effect, we are found to be hearers of the word instead of doers of the word, our hearts are far from Him and our worship becomes vain.
Concerning Peter’s vision. It nowhere states that YHWH has made unclean animals, clean. It says that we should not call any man common or unclean. It says not to call common what YHWH has cleansed. We there is no statement in this passage or any other in scripture that says that YHWH has cleansed unclean animals. The last book of the Bible which is also the last one written contains proof that YHWH continues to call some animals unclean. He would be contradicting Himself if He had cleansed all unclean animals. He does not contradict Himself. There are still unclean animals.
Re 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
And if you are tempted to say that it is meant to be taken symbolically in Revelation, you have just proven that you are inconsistent and wrong to take Peter’s vision literally when you want to take John’s as symbolic. This is especially true because Peter was given the interpretation of His vision and it had nothing to do with unclean animals being made clean.
Concerning Acts 15:
Acts 15
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved…
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses…
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
So when we look at the context, we find that the yoke was not circumcision in and of itself. It was circumcision for salvation. The issue was was righteousness by works for salvation. Peter said that the yoke was too heavy to bear for both his generation of Jews and their ancestors. What is too difficult about being circumcised at 8 days old? How is that a yoke. It is a little cut that is symbolic of a covenant. It would be like us saying that it is too difficult for us to wear a wedding ring or to get a marriage license. It is a bit of discomfort to be circumcised as an adult, but it is not a yoke that is too heavy for us.
The yoke that is too heavy is trying to live perfectly to be saved. The contrast is not between being saved by grace or being circumcised, it is between being saved by grace or being saved by works. No one is capable to maintain a perfect record of sinlessness. Anyone can survive a small cut.
Deuteronomy 30
10 if thou shalt obey the voice of Jehovah thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
The law is not too difficult for us to do if it is in our mouths and our hearts…if we can speak it (know it) and want to do it. The law is not too heavy of a yoke in and of itself, but only if we are trusting in our ability to keep it to be saved. Grace is supposed to change our hearts to what to do what YHWH says and to want to know what YHWH says. We should want to be obedient children.
Our adoption does not give us permission to disobey the rules of the house. By virtue of adoption, we ought to want to keep the rules of the house. Our works will prove whether we are obedient sons or children of disobedience.
Ephesians 2
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
We are created unto good works that were lain down long before we came to faith. (The law and the Prophets) We are not saved by those works, we are saved unto them. It is not YHWH’s Spirit that instructs us or pulls us toward disobedience. It is the spirit of the world.
Ephesians 5
3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
The list above contains some of the same words in Mark 7. And there are other words that we should pay close attention to. Namely: uncleanness, filthiness, and unclean person. The wrath of YHWH comes upon the children of disobedience that are given to these things. Inheritance in the kingdom is at stake. Those that do and teach all the commandments will receive a great inheritance. Those that fail to keep some of the smallest commandments and teach others that it is fine to break them will be least in the kingdom…receive a small inheritance. Those that refuse to keep and teach others to keep the big commandments, where will they be?
I am sure that this is new to you. I know how you feel. There is still time for you to repent and join your Father in his vineyard doing His will in even the small matters.
Matthew 21
28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
What think ye? Which do you want to be? The son that gives lip service or the son that ultimately can’t resist obeying his Father when he comes to his senses? The will of the Father is the Law and the Prophets. Judaism and Christianity both say, “I go Sir.” Messiah told us that the commandments of men keep us from keeping the Father’s commandments. Judaism is guilty on some counts. Christianity is also guilty on some counts. Both religions cause vain worship. Both make the commandments of YHWH of none effect.
A real believer does the works because he wants to do them and he wants to know what they are. Those that endure till the end are those that do two very important things.
Revelation 14
12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
Shalom
Bo,
Thank you for your input. You know the Bible far better than I do, but, then again, I have not been studying scripture for very long. But I do know my faith. I cannot be persuaded to abandon the church of 2,000 years just because a fellow on the internet puts forth certain arguments. I say this will all respect and affection.
I must say that I think that even a non-Trinitarian could, using your methods of logic, present tangible evidence to demonstrate that there is no such thing as the Trinity, but that it is a later invention of the Catholic Church. I have seen them do it. With such a person I could argue for days, trying to convince him of his error, but then he would keep citing verses with absolute conviction. And we would get nowhere. This is why I affirm that there has to be a third party who steps in and settles the matter definitively. As you know, I believe that this responsibility falls upon the Church.
The Church is in a time of crisis. I am the first person to admit this. However, her teachings are still available to all who will heed them, even if the pope himself no longer presents them to the faithful. But they are there nevertheless. Christ Jesus never gave us a Bible, but he set up a system, whether we recognize it or not. This very system produced the scriptures over which we are arguing. Frankly, I think our discussion is spiraling into oblivion, because I can think that these verses mean one thing ,and you can think that they mean something else, and we can think and ponder until the day we die, but we will never arrive at any conclusive situation. Unless you view yourself as a prophet of God, I think you should re-examine your understanding of the Bible, which is at odds with the credentials of the entirety of Christendom, not just my church.
So, I’d prefer to leave it at that.
Thank you and God bless.
Nicholas,
Messiah did not set up a system that gave us the Bible. He inspired men called prophets and apostles to write down His words to us. These words are there for all to see from Genesis to Revelaton. The systems that have come about via different interpretations of the inspired words of YHWH always get stuck in a rut and cannot get out. I think that I have presented a fair case from all of scripture to show that the Catholic and protestant and Jewish systems have failed as concerning doing and teaching YHWH’s commandments. The words of scripture attests to the fact that commandments of men and false doctrine prevails in the current systems. It is time to come out of her and be truly holy to YHWH instead of a partaker of Babylons sins and thus her plagues.
Shalom
Nicholas,
I am Catholic and mostly enjoyed your sound Catholic scholarship. Though a few times you seemed close to implying that the Catholic Church was close to being apostate. And the use of private revelation may not be helpful or realistic in these discussions. Some of it will not hold up to scrutiny and could lead people astray through confusion if not actually heretical in their apparent (private) revelations.
Sheila was charming, scholarly and good natured. Much appreciated.
And while I appreciate the scholarship and obvious intelligence of Bo and Benjamin I am just left bewildered and disheartened at this, virtually new, chasing after something else – something never seen in the early Church and much outright rejected there.
I just can’t help but think that in this type of individualism people are just chasing after whatever suits them with absolutely no deference to what early Church practice and belief (tradition) showed was the true apostolic teachings. You know – from Jesus.
What we are being subjected to now is just an extraordinary cacophony of confusion of private interpretations.
All that was held as true from the early (apostolically taught) Church is disregarded in favor of ones own exegesis (or rather eisegesis).
Its as if the people of today reject apostolic authority and divine protection as if it means nothing. As if God would not protect us and provide a sanctioned refuge.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
But now, no generation can trust in any real verifiable truth except for that which leads them along the path of their own interpretation of scripture.
With rejection of the Catholic Church (the early Church) the reset button has been pushed but now there is no authoritative teacher and teachings and everyone sits in the chair of Peter (Matthew 16:16-19), or the Chair of Moses for those messianic types.
And the organic traditions from the apostles to the early faithful from Jesus are tangled and tangling.
The mustard seed has grown large but other planters are sowing crops that threaten to overwhelm the tree.
This is the extremely grave inconsistency that Protestantism cannot deal with and leads to such abominations as Hypergrace that Dr. Brown rightfully attacks.
But Dr. Brown still fails to address Sola Scriptura problem and the underlying result of us being left orphans on earth. Our God never left us orphans in OT days. Never. Why now?
If we extrapolate a few thousand more years, there will be such a confusion of beliefs we won’t know what to beliefs. Thank you Martin Luther.
May God help us all.
Hi Rockypath1,
First, I’d like to thank you for the compliment. I’ll try to better live up to it!
Don’t be so pessimistic, though. On the important matters of salvation, justification, sanctification and all the major areas of orthodoxy, I can say that Benjamin, Nicholas and I are completely in agreement—Bo, not so much, although, he does state that his salvation is through grace alone, but, then he throws the law in for good measure, I guess… I think he’s got holiness mixed up with keeping the law, as if you couldn’t be holy without it. I strongly disagree with him on that, as you probably guessed.
When it comes to prophecy, though, it really is open for discussion. I don’t see where it harms anyone or does violence to the Bible to have an educated opinion based on Scripture. Of course, that’s where the variation comes in, because we each may interpret it a bit differently based on our knowledge and reading of Scripture. I don’t see the harm in bantering ideas about concerning the Millennium or the reality or not of a Third Temple. That’s where our discussion was fruitful. I got to hear other perspectives and ideas on it and I actually came away with a better appreciation of the nuances concerning the Millennial reign of Christ. Some questions weren’t answered to my satisfaction , but, that gives me something to do in my personal studies! 🙂 To accept someone else’s opinion or interpretation on matters of Sola Scriptura, I’d like to know, first, for myself, whether or not they’ve got it right. Do you see? If they’re in error, then my understanding will be in error and who knows where that could lead?
So, rest assured, on the Majors, we’re all in agreement! Those things unimportant to salvation, such as prophecy is, are open for discussion and debate and that’s what we’re engaged in.
Bo is one of a kind–although, there’s more who think like he does these days. Of course, you’re right that Protestants certainly do have a smorgasbord of denominations and disagreements, especially in light of the current social issues of abortion, homosexuality and Israel’s place in redemptive history. But, overall, we’re all saved by the blood of Jesus and that’s where we all stand together. It’s the common denominator even between Catholics and Protestants! Not that there aren’t major differences, just that Salvation remains the same. 🙂
So, don’t be so pessimistic, the Lord will certainly gather us all together in Himself when the time is fulfilled and we’ll know all things for certain! Glorious Day!
And…we can meet in person.
Be well.
Hey Sheila,
Thank you, just got to see this now.
Yes, at the common denominator, we are in agreement.
God bless.
Hi rockypath1,
Our Evangelical brethren lack a magisterial authority. This leads to a fair amount of confusion. A faith which divorces the Church and Sacred Tradition from Scripture denies the fullness of revelation.
I walk a fine line here. We are in agreement with Protestants on that which C. S. Lewis terms “mere Christianity,” this is true. But, the question we have to ask is, are these fundamental points, these common denominators, are they sufficient for salvation? I think that, as Catholics, it is our obligation to encourage Christians of non-Catholic confessions to consider the call to unity, which is, in fact, Christ’s own call, which can only be fulfilled within his Mystical Body. Christ prayed that we may all be one. However, most do not recognize that this prayer was in fact answered and granted when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles on Pentecost. The Church is the source of this oneness, which exists in perfect order inside her walls. Outside of her, there is chaos. There is truth, but truth mixed with falsehood. In the shelter of the Church, there is the safety of orthodoxy.
I listen intently when people call into Dr. Brown’s show. More often than not he provides excellent responses, and I find myself agreeing with him most of the time. However, he is not always correct. I cannot be his judge, but I can pronounce on certain of his opinions when they contradict established dogma. He would disagree but he only has his own personal understanding of the Bible to substantiate his claims. I think that many call into his show in the mindset that he is a kind of magisterium unto himself, and that he has all the answers. Sometimes he tends to speak with a kind of presumptive authority. I say this of course with all due respect to him. He is a very learned scholar. His credentials are excellent, there’s no doubt about it. At the same time, he’s not infallible.
{continuing from previous}
The point is that, in Evangelical circles, teachers, who act on their own, become puffed up, as if they are beacons of absolute truth and unique guardians of orthodoxy, when they stand only on their fallible interpretations of Scripture. As if they are prophets, the faithful flock to them with all that exasperates them in life, laying before them all their concerns and hoping for relief.
Regarding the crisis in the Church, I will try to address that topic a little later on.
Just to clarify, I am not accusing Dr. Brown of puffing up himself. He is gracious and often self-examining.
I only mean to express that some who seek the advice of individual teachers may run the risk of puffing them up, as if they have a direct connection to God. In effect, the teachers assume the role of the Church, or fill the void, as it were. They fill the place which the Magisterium would normally occupy in the life of the Christian.
Nicholas,
I agree with you completely here. Dr. Brown is about as good as it gets and I have a certain amount of admiration for him. With all the come-hither voices beckoning in the evangelical world he walks a line that is steady and reasonable but unfortunately still is able ignore the realities of what was ALWAYS believed by the early Church and therefore is apostolic – from Jesus – and under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
I am often shocked at the presumptive and arrogant nature of evangelical/fundamentalist leadership (and their supporters) as displayed by their own Youtube videos. MacArthur, Hagee, Zins, etc., etc., etc. are more of mischief than of God. With OSAS-Hypergrace leading many down the garden path what else is to be expected.
I have spent too much time on the Youtube channels defending the Catholic faith from the egregious attacks of bible-only Christians who read the bible but do not fathom. Too much time fending off zombie-like same old-same old attacks spawned by Boettner and fertilized by Chick. So much false witness born of severe ignorance. And not a little malice.
One must acknowledge that the Youtube venue attracts the worst elements and is not necessarily the best barometer.
I have had to pull away from that venue so as to keep peaceful.
It helps to see such separated brethren as Dr. Brown for his integrity and goodwill and those like Sheila who have gentle hearts.
rockypath1,
Thanks. It really is good to find another Catholic here.
I agree with your observation that Dr. Brown would make a great Catholic. He defends the Arminian position exceptionally well against Dr. White, and, of course, Arminians are nearly Catholic in their understanding of predestination. To be honest, because the Israel issue is so important to him, I think that it would be nearly impossible for him to digest the Catholic perspective, which teaches emphatically that the Israel of God is the Church. From what I understand, Dr. Brown does not separate his Christian faith from dispensationalism. If I am not mistaken, the belief that the modern state of Israel is the chosen nation, as opposed to the Church, is a foundational to Dr. Brown’s beliefs.
Nicholas,
It is hard to fathom the role of Israel and the role of Jewish faithful in terms of the New Covenant. I know that God has not turned his back on the Jews or the covenant he made. How that is played out remains to be seen.
Dr Brown failing seems to be similar to that of Protestantism in general. And this, bluntly, is a failure (grand delusion) to see the organic development of the sacramental Church from the teachings of Jesus through the apostles and to the early Church and then to ALL generations. This includes the development of the Church authority (episcopoi (bishops) and elders (presbyteroi (priests)) through laying of hands etc.
Its all there in the bible and early Church. Who dares then to recreate the faith in their own image. Not me.
I was just reading through an essay by Fr. Dwight Longenecker at
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/stewards-of-the-kingdom
Irenaeus writes (in the 2nd century),
“Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world . . . therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies . . . by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned apostles Peter and Paul . . . for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.” (Against Heresies, 3:3)
and…
Obedience to the bishop as the head of the Church was crucial. Ignatius of Antioch (student of John the Apostle) (lived AD c. 35 or 50 – 98 to 117) writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns congregationalism using language that is clearly hierarchical:
“All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated . . . it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)
and…
The New Testament and the writings of the apostolic Fathers portray the Church as centralized, hierarchical, and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Allegiance to the hierarchical chain of command guarantees unity: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the apostles. The apostles appointed their successors. The bishops are in charge.
So Pope Clement of Rome (died 99 AD) writes:
The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)
Nicholas,
By the way. There are a lot of good Catholic posters on Youtube pages such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuJ077vOXTI
But I do not recommend YouTube venues for anyone who cannot be patient, loving and charitable. And since this only sometimes describes myself I have pulled back from posting there and mean to end it completely. Its an unpeaceful addiction.
Perhaps this venue is less insane and less-filled with anti Catholic false witness. I think it probably is from what I have seen so far.
rockypath1,
It is true that God has not turned his back on the Jews. The Devil has blinded the firstborn people, and so the Church prays for their conversion. I do believe in a future conversion of the Jews, but most will probably not convert. Even so, dispensational Zionism has no place in Catholic teaching, but it is foundational in Dr. Brown’s theology, foundational and, furthermore, absolutely non-negotiable. Dr. Brown affirms that the Jews have to accept Christ. I applaud him for that. Many Evangelicals today tend to embrace dual-coventantism. Dr. Brown does not.
{For the record, I support Israel, but I am not, properly speaking, a Zionist, not in a theological sense.}
Honestly, when we quote the Fathers to Protestants, they tend to be in denial. I can only say that they’re in denial, I wouldn’t venture to accuse them of being intellectually dishonest. Dr. White, for instance, has no way of dealing with the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist, but he often cites him in debates against Muslims when he defends the primitive belief in the deity of Christ, which is terribly inconsistent. The unanimous testimony of the Fathers speaks volumes on the Real Presence and on the mass as a sacrifice. It’s really just impossible to reinterpret them without being completely anachronistic.
Nicholas,
Although I know many aspects of dispensationalist (pre-millennialism etc), I am relatively ignorant on its overall beliefs and foundations, particularly its notions of Israel versus Church, and the seven dispensations following Darby and Scofield.
I just quickly reviewed two tracts to get a better idea of dispensationalism that you are much more familiar with than I.
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/colson_eschatology_jun06.asp
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4531.htm
“A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct…
2. This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation…
3. A third aspect… concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world… namely, the glory of God… To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself.”
The whole Israel vs Church argument/issue has not quite gelled with me yet. If you have any better tracts than these let me know.
*************
I gather White is persona non grata amongst Catholic debaters now. Here is a blog I stumbled across awhile back that takes issue with White’s “Abuse” of rhetoric in his debates.
http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2007/11/defense-of-my-opinion-on-james-whites.html
***********************
Most discussion I have, or try to have, regarding the overwhelming evidence on the Real Presence Eucharistic nature of the early Church is either ignored, denied or obfuscated. What else can they do.
For protestants to admit to the historic reality that the early Church was absolutely Real Presence Eucharistic in nature and function requires a change in course.
Real Presence Eucharist history confirms John 6 in its literal meaning as given by Jesus in this his longest exhortation on any one issue.
If the early Church was in fact Real Presence Eucharistic then this was unequivocally a teaching from the apostles.
Would one rather follow Calvin and Luther on this issues than the apostles.
It would seem so.
It is simple logic and is only ignored if history itself is denied.
Sadly it always seems to be this way.
Nicholas,
Is it your understanding that Dr Brown, as a dispensationalist, is entitled or required (by this ideology) as a Jew to NOT be part of the Eucharistic-Petrine Church even if he determined it (the Catholic Church) historically and theologically correct and divinely established. But correct and established only for gentiles?
Rockypath1,
I’d like to respond to your post if you don’t mind. Let me gather my thoughts and I’ll post later on.
Thanks!
Rockypath1,
Meantime, could you elaborate on the Real Presence Eucharist history, please? What is the evidence you have of the Apostles understanding of the Passover outside of the Bible—which doesn’t contain anything that I can discover about it? Do you have anything that I could read about the earliest writings confirming your statement?
Thanks!
Hi Rockypath1,
The understanding I’ve developed about Israel, as an entity separate from the Church and all other nations as well, is derived from Scripture, mostly in the Prophets and from Paul’s discourse about it. I also had to consider the Lord’s own words about how the prophets were understood by the Apostles. Taken as a whole, one can’t help but accept that Israel is the nation in whom the Lord will be glorified when He returns. “And His feet shall touch down that day on the Mount of Olives…” is the fulfillment of the Lord’s last discourse with His disciples and is stated in Zech 14, being the fulfillment of Acts 1.
Acts 1:4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”
In the previous exchange, we have the Disciples asking the Lord when the kingdom will be restored to Israel. Notice the Lord’s answer. He doesn’t tell them that’s it’s no longer in the cards for them, He says, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.” In other words, “It’s not for you to know when.” Then He closes with the Great Commission.
To leave off a very important discussion about Israel’s future destiny isn’t the best way to get a correct understanding of their place in God’s plan of redemption. I think a lot of people completely negate the caveat inherent in the Lord’s words. He doesn’t say it’s not going to happen, He says what He says, “It’s not for you to know when.” Big difference which leads to a shallow understanding of Israel’s future, especially when you’d have to negate quite a few prophecies in order to write them out of God’s plan of salvation.
I understand the truth that Jew and Gentile are now one new man in Messiah, and I’m not saying the Israelites will get a free pass to redemption. They won’t come into the fold or the Congregation (the Church) of believers until they repent and believe the Gospel. That this will only happen at the zero hour is outlined by the Prophets. I think perhaps you’re of the mind-set that we all believe God has a special admission set aside for the Jews and that’s not what I believe and neither is it what Dr. Brown believes. Taken solely from Scripture, God’s plan is that He has a remnant of Israelites who will yet be saved, en mass, at the last before He returns. I’m not saying every Jew living at that time will be saved, but, a remnant will be saved through Grace at the last trumpet, probably on the Day of Atonement.
If you need me to outline why that is so, I’d be happy to!
Thanks!
rockypath1,
There may be different camps in the dispensationalist movement. Moreover, Dr. Brown may not consider himself a dispensationalist, per se. I am using the term broadly, to describe those who believe in a literal state of Israel at the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, one which exists separate from the Church. Dr. Brown does not believe that the Church of Christ is the New Israel. But the Catholic Church teaches this emphatically. There is no Israel apart from the Israel of God, which is the Catholic Church, the bride of the Lamb. This is the whole point: Israel, as a nation in the Old Testament, pre-figured the more perfect Israel which would come: the Church, into which the Jews and the gentiles would exist together, intermingled and no longer set apart from each other. In the Church, there is no longer Jew or gentile. St. Paul explains, “All are one in Christ Jesus.” Therefore, as Catholics, we cannot be theological Zionists. Political Zionism is acceptable. We can support Israel as a country, but not as a divinely mandated polity. God fulfilled his promises to Israel. The Jews have every opportunity to enter the land promised to their forefathers. It is the Universal Church and its gates are open. Within its walls everyone is welcome, irrespective of ethnicity.
Dr. Brown does not hold to dual-covenantalism. Sheila laid it out well. Dr. Brown would never say that the Jews have a special route to salvation apart from the body of Messiah (that is, apart from faith in Christ). So, in effect, Dr. Brown would agree that, in order for the Jews to be saved, they have to convert to Christianity. Thus, in a certain sense, Dr. Brown also believes that the Jews have to enter the Church. He would define “church” differently, of course. The idea that the Jewish people have a path to salvation apart from Jesus Christ has been embraced in many circles of mainstream Christianity, especially by pop Evangelicals like John Hagee, who at one point had the audacity to claim that Christ “did not come to be the Messiah.” Such a claim blatantly defies the scriptural witness. It is preposterous and downright blasphemous. Unfortunately, this is being promoted even in Catholic circles, with many bishops fostering the notion that the Church should no longer concern itself with proselytization.
rockypath1,
In response to your last post,
I have no doubt that, if Dr. Brown were to become convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ, he would become Catholic, and he would encourage everyone to be Catholic with him, Jew or gentile. I know that Dr. Brown is a sincere man. If he believed that Catholicism was the truth, he would not let his views on Israel stand in the way of his becoming Catholic.
rockypath1,
I just want to add: Because “replacement theology” is the official position of the Church, Dr. Brown would necessarily find this immediately off-putting, and this is a major hindrance for a Messianic Evangelical. It is certainly true that a history of anti-Semitism in the Catholic tradition is also another obstacle. What we can do is remind our friends that the Catholic Church never officially held “anti-Semitic” views. The Church never taught that the Jews corporately are responsible for the death of Christ, and Vatican II officially repudiated the notion. Vatican II is not my favorite council, as I made clear in other posts, but some good came of it. The Church never taught that the Jews have been accursed by God, although this was believed by many Catholics historically, but more so due to European cultural prejudice.
Shiela,
Thanks for your posts on Israel Shiela. There is room for theological speculation to be sure, as long as it does not alter or conflict with revealed truth. Your points regarding Acts 1 and the restoration of Israel are reasonable and may in fact suggest some sort of reality.
By the way, I do not believe that God has a special admission set aside for the Jews at all.
I have to try to make a living so this is all I can say for now, having used up most of todays allotment on a YouTube response.
I will definitely get back to you ASAP.
Nicholas,
Thanks for your edifying posts. I will back on here soon.
Interestingly I stumbled onto a Catholic Answers Radio Show yesterday with guest Roy Schoeman, a Jew who had a road to Damascus type conversion (in two parts) to Catholic Christianity. He seems legit.
http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/evangelizing-the-jewish-people-13459
I am presently half way through the following recording from his website.
http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/videophilly.html
I have bookmarked the following but have not yet listened to his three part testimony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-ptx70y1SQ
Shiela,
Just briefly. The centrality of Real Presence Eucharistic faith gatherings is conveyed by the writings of the early fathers and the didache. for me it follows that the apostles taught this to the early Church. And in this any contentitious issues regarding John 6 are edified.
There many excerpts I could list but that usually is just results in glaze-overs. My favorite early Church Father quote is from Ignatius.
Ignatius 100AD (student of John the apostle)
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,..” – Ignatius, third Bishop of Antioch, “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, @ 80-110 A.D.”
Books on the Passover/last supper/Eucharistic understanding
A Father Who Keeps His Promises
by Scott Hahn
The Lamb’s Supper
by Scott Hahn
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist
(Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper)
by Brant Pitre.
The book by Pitre remains in my reading queue. I am not voracious reader or significant scholar. so do not expect too much from me. 😉
The compendium on the Church Fathers I most often hear of is the following:
William A. Jurgens (Translator)
Faith of the Early Fathers: Three-Volume set
Youtube is good in that you can go back and edit your comments and correct typos etc. I am always sloppy with putting “there” for “their” or for “they’re”.
Sheila,
I just found this synopsis from Hahn who has made a study of Passover and Communion.
The Eucharist as The Lamb’s Supper – HAHN
from a talk by Scott Hahn
One of the most important ways that the Old Covenant foreshadows the New is in its use of the image of the sacrificial lamb. Let’s see how this relates to the Eucharist in Scripture.
First, take a look at Revelation 5. In Revelation 5, there is a scroll with seven seals that nobody can break open and everybody is really upset. In fact John almost begins to cry. In 5, verse 2, “A strong angel proclaimed with a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?’ And no one in heaven and on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it.” What is the scroll? The word is biblion. Most likely it’s a reference to a covenant document, the New Covenant document that nobody is worthy to break open. “And I wept much, but no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it,” because this scroll would consummate and fulfill the promises of the Old Testament.
“Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Weep not. Lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, he has conquered so that he can open the scroll and seven seals.'” You could almost feel the hallelujah rising up from within your soul. The Lion of the tribe of Judah! You turn. You look and John turns to look and what does he see in verse 6, ” And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw,” what? Aslan, the lion? No. David crowned with glory? No. You’d think so, a lion and a king are the words used to describe it. “I turned and I saw a lamb standing, looking as though it had been slain.”
Jesus Christ is the son of David and the king of the new and heavenly Jerusalem. He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah and He is the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, as it said elsewhere in Revelation. But here in heaven on the throne of glory, after His crucifixion, His resurrection, His ascension, His enthronement, He still looks like a lamb. He still looks as though He had been slain. Why not clean up the body? Why not wipe away the wounds? Why continue resembling a lamb? Because He’s continuing the Passover offerings, the sacrifice. Not by dying, not by bleeding and not by suffering but by continuing to offer up Himself as the firstborn and as the unblemished lamb, as the perpetual, timeless, everlasting sacrifice of praise to the Father.
And what do the people do? They rejoice and they break out into a song. And what is the song, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals for thou was slain.” Past tense, “And by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” And what has he done? He’s become a priest to be sure, but for what purpose? “He has made them a kingdom and priest to our God.” He has made those whom he has saved priests. And what do priests do? They offer sacrifice.
Has Christ’s sacrifice ended all sacrifices? No. Christ’s sacrifice has ended all ineffective, bloody animal sacrifices that never did anything anyway. Now for the first time in history we can really begin to offer sacrifice to God. Romans 12 says, “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” And it wouldn’t be holy and acceptable except that it’s united to Christ’s perpetual sacrifice. He’s not bleeding. He’s not dying. He’s not suffering, but he is offering a sacrifice as a lamb does, as a priest king does continually, forever.
And that’s what it’s all about. John wouldn’t see a lamb looking as though it had been slain if the whole kit and caboodle was completed and done. Yes, it’s completed and done, but it’s still going on, and it’s going to go on forever in the future. Why? Because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, as Hebrews tells us.
Now, is this strange? Is this teaching novel? Well, let’s take a look at 1st Corinthians and see how natural it seems to the apostle Paul. We have already looked at 1st Corinthians 5, “Christ, our Passover,” that’s in verse 7, “Christ, our Paschal Lamb has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” What’s he talking about? Is he talking about leaven being like sin. No. He’s saying let us celebrate the feast with unleavened bread. What feast? The Eucharist! The sacrifice continues because communion must be celebrated. We’ve got to eat the lamb, the resurrected, glorified, enthroned lamb that still looks as though he’d been slain because he’s still giving himself to us.
Turn over with me now to Corinthians, chapter 9, verse 13. He says, “Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings in the same way the Lord commanded. That those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” Now we might be tempted to read Corinthians 9, 13 and 14 and say, “Well, back in the Old Testament they did temple service and altar service and sacrifice, but now in the New Testament they only proclaim the word.”
The problem with that is that Paul goes on to say, Corinthians 11, as we will see, how Christ’s death is proclaimed. Take a look with me at 1st Corinthians, 11:23-26. “For I received from the Lord what I shall deliver to you.” Interesting, he received it not from Peter and the apostles. When Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus or perhaps at some other time, what did Jesus deliver to Paul? Instructions for the Eucharist. “I received from the Lord what I also deliver to you. That the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup after supper saying, ‘This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this.” Commandment, imperative tense. “As often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
You proclaim the gospel. Let’s go back then to Corinthians 9, verse 14, “In the same way the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” How does Paul proclaim the gospel? Just by preaching? Or by celebrating the Eucharist? “As often as you do this, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” That’s the gospel. Paul is talking in verses 13 and 14 about how he should be supported as an apostle and he does so in conjunction with temple service at an altar where there is sacrificial offerings which he as an apostle has the right to receive from. What’s he talking about? A New Covenant temple? A New Covenant altar? A New Covenant sacrifice where he proclaims the gospel by celebrating the Eucharist.
Now let’s go on to Corinthians 10 and get things straight really quickly here because Corinthians 10, gives us a proper warning. In the first ten verses of Corinthians 10, Paul says that back in the Old Testament with Moses, verse 3, “They all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink.” The water from the rock and the manna in the wilderness and both, Paul says in a sense, were signs of Christ’s presence among them. Nevertheless, verse 5, “with most of them God was not pleased for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”
In the next three verses he describes the Golden Calf incident where thousands of them died. In other words just because you receive supernatural food and drink doesn’t mean you’ve got it made in the shade. You have to set things right with God and keep things right with the Lord. Verse 11, “Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction upon whom the end of the ages has come.” We now have a greater and much more supernatural food and drink. So we can relax? No. We’ve got to be even more circumspect in searching out our hearts and making sure we are right with God.
He goes on in verse 16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a coenia, a communion, a participation in the blood of Christ?” Not a symbol. But a share, a communion. The bread which we break , is it not a coenia, a communion in the body of Christ. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body for we all partake of the one bread.” He doesn’t mean to say that there’s one enormous loaf that we all take a piece from. There are many loaves of bread. There are many breads in that earthly sense, but there’s only one bread in the heavenly sense, and that’s Christ. Because we receive from one bread Christ, the Bread of Life, we who are many become one body, namely, the Body of Christ. He’s suggesting that we become what we eat.
He goes on to contrast our sacrifice with other sacrifices and he says, verse 18, “Consider the people of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?” What he is saying is back then when you eat the sacrifice, you have a communion in the altar of those animals. Now we have a communion on all of our altars in the New Covenant with Christ, the Lamb of God. Verse 21, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord with jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” For some reason God takes this with the utmost seriousness. Why?
Corinthians 11, he spells it out even clearer. We’ve already read verses 23 through 26. Now we can conclude with verse 27 where he says, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord.” Now that language is actually like civil judicial language. Somebody who’s practically guilty of murder or capital offense is guilty of the body and blood. Now if it’s only a symbol, he might be guilty in some lesser sense, but when you profane the Lord’s Supper, you actually become guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord. “Let a man examine himself, therefore, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning,” — the symbolism? No. “…the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
Now is he just speaking metaphorically? He couldn’t be because in the next verse he says, “That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died.” To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is playing with fire of the worst sort. He goes on in chapter 12, verse 12, “For just as the body is one,” the Church, that is, “…and has many members and all the members of the body though many are one body, so it is with Christ for by one Spirit we were all baptized in the one body.” When we received the water of Baptism, we received the Spirit of God. “And all were made to drink of the one Spirit.” When we receive Eucharist, Communion, we receive the Spirit as well as the flesh and the blood and the body, soul, humanity and divinity of Christ.
This is significant, very significant. This, in fact, gives us the whole interpretive key to the Book of Revelation. Many non-Catholic as well as Catholic scholars have noticed that the whole structure of Revelation is a big Passover liturgy where Christ, the Priest King, the firstborn Son and the Lamb looking as though it’s been slain conducts and celebrates the heavenly liturgy. And the earthly liturgy is meant to be a reflection in that, a participation in that, and the early Church took it for granted. There is the Lamb looking as though it’s been slain and making all of the people in heaven priests so they can assist in the offering of the firstborn son of God to the Father and join themselves with it.
________________________________________
Abridged from Scott Hahn’s audio and video tape presentation,
“Eucharist: Holy Meal” as it appears in the “Catholic Adult Education on Video Program”
Rockypath 1 and Nicholas,
Would you please read this short article about how the early chruch fathers did not believe in the real presence in the bread and wine? It is respectfully done without rhetoric or insult.
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
Shalom
rockypath1,
Thanks for that. I’ll read it over again as I just quickly glazed over it the first time.
I just read the Didache and this is all that was said about the Eucharist:
Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.. And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
the Twelve Apostles Early Christians (2009-12-16). The Didache (Kindle Locations 119-121). BooksAndSuch. Kindle Edition.
I don’t really have time right now to read another book but I’ll most likely choose one that you suggested in order to gain a better understanding of your belief concerning the Eucharist.
Thanks.
Sheila,
You will like the article I linked to.
Shalom