The Lord's Prayer (An Exegetical Analysis Of Matthew 6:6-14)

          In prayer, our principal focus is to be on God. He ought to be the object of our attention and thoughts. We are in His divine presence. God answers a man's prayer based on his sincerity and faithfulness (v. 6). Christ's words are not a condemnation of public worship itself. Rather, prayer is not to be done with the intent of impressing other people. It is more so a matter of one's heart (what a person is like in the inside) than his outward posture (what a person looks like to other people).

          We are not to pray in the manner that pagans do, like the worshipers of Baal (1 Kings 18:26). Prayer should be intelligent and coherent. Repetition itself is not a problem (Matthew 26:42–46). Prayer is not to be done boisterously or in a state of unrestrained euphoria. We are not to utter rash sayings in offering up our prayers to God (v. 7). He rejects prayer tainted with self-righteousness, which infected the religious leaders of Jesus' day.

          God knows everything, which includes our prayer requests, even before we even go to Him (v. 8). We do not know ourselves as well as He does. Only pagans think that their gods need to be told about human needs. That is not the case with the living God. Therefore, the purpose of prayer is communion with Him. Christ is our spiritual food. He is consumed by us through faith.

          We acknowledge that God is the Creator and Lord of all. It follows from that premise we are to give Him rightful honor and worship (v. 9). We must approach Him in humility and respect. Jesus Christ was giving to His disciples a proper model for prayer in contrast to the empty words of unbelievers, who only wanted temporal blessings. It would also indicate who was one of His disciples. Israel had failed to properly honor God's name (Ezekiel 36:22-23).

          We pray with knowledge beforehand that God is sovereign for His kingdom to be inaugurated (v. 10). It has no boundaries in terms of depth or extent. Our wills are to be perfectly aligned with God's will. Our desire is to be that good conquers the evils of this world. God has a plan, which cannot be thwarted. It will be fully brought to fruition when Christ returns for a second time.

          We live in a world overflowing with tragedy, poverty, war, famine, and disease. Yet in the kingdom of God, only goodness endures. We pray that He will supply our needs continually and abundantly, without end (v. 11), for He provides according to His will. This reminds us that our lives must rest in constant dependence upon Him. Prayer, then, is more than a request for material things. It is the posture of trust before the one who sustains us.

          In prayer, we humbly petition God for the forgiveness of our sins (v. 12). Sin is an offense against Him. We have repeatedly violated His perfect standard of morality, the Law. We must pray for sins committed, even after conversion. This does not mean we must approach God with a list of our misdeeds because we could not possibly remember all of them or realize the degree to which we are sinful. His mercy is greater than that, knowing no limits.

          We must follow the example of God forgiving our trespasses against Him (v. 14). We ought not hold anger or resentment toward other people. We are not to hold offenses committed against us by others in the past over their heads. We must forgive the sins of other people because that is what He has done for us. We too are sinful beings. Forgiveness is the essence of the Christian message. It eliminates human pride and boasting.

          We pray to God that He protects us from succumbing to the influences of evil in this world. This request encompasses both support against attacks by fallen angels and other human beings who seek to bring harm to us. Further, temptation is inevitable as long as we live on this earth. God will bring His purposes to pass in His own timing. He is entitled to perpetual glory (v. 13). 

Surveying The Book Of Ecclesiastes

          The Book of Ecclesiastes describes what life is like in a fallen world. It gives an account of man living out his life in temporal terms and God's control over him (Ecclesiastes 3:15; 9:1). The author of this work, traditionally ascribed to Solomon, portrays eating, drinking, and work in a positive light. He says that there is a time for everything, whether it be laughter, joy, or sorrow. These things are beneficial to man in their own way. 

          This work is distinct from other writings of the Old Testament due to its seemingly pessimistic language in regard to the continued pursuit of earthly pleasures. Taken at face value, this piece may not be an enjoyable read. However, it would be better approached with an eternal perspective in mind than with our finite human understanding. It is from the former point of view that optimism shines through in our lives. We are hereby compelled to change how we think about things.

          Ecclesiastes is similar to Philippians in that all earthly pursuits are subordinate to the surpassing worth of knowing Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:8). The author of this work uses the phrase "under the sun" more than once in writing. He made observations about the transitory nature of our life and achievements. They are as a grain of sand in a desert. All the flattery that this life has to offer is nothing in the face of the reality of spending eternity with our Creator.

          Ecclesiastes illustrates the futility of placing an over emphasis on worldly passions. It destroys the mentality of a materialist by showing him the futility of his own ways. Even if one could find satisfaction in earthly possessions and success, death lies at the door. He will meet his maker sooner than he thinks. Compare Ecclesiastes 3:19 to Genesis 3:19. We can honestly say with Abraham that we are but dust and ashes (Genesis 18:27).

          The fate of man is the same as that of a beast, death. The fate of the righteous man is the same as that of the unrighteous man, death. Our souls will return to God and our bodies will return to the earth from which they were made. The only difference lies in our eternal destinies, whether it be eternal life or eternal damnation. Man dies and is forgotten. His life is but a candle that dims upon melting. His life is forever hidden from posterity. Man no longer partakes of things in this world once he passes away (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6). 

          Ecclesiastes crushes any form of human pride by setting forth a proper perspective of life. The point being made is not that earthly pursuits as such are bad in and of themselves. Rather, it is a grave error to excessively esteem our status and achievements. We are mostly reinventing the wheel, so to speak. Life from a materialistic perspective is futile. It is vain and pointless. That is the reason for the author's usage of the phrase "vanity of vanities." He decries the futility of the ways of mankind and his lack of wisdom.

          The human heart longs for something more than this life. That is why man is instinctively religious. He has a strong desire for something that transcends this temporal order. Man wants an ultimate sense of fulfillment which he cannot find in the various forms of entertainment that the world has to offer, and is available to someone wealthy like Solomon. The human heart finds its fulfillment in God. The world and the things therein are perishing. The things of our fallen world are subject to wear and tear. The human heart can only rest content in God.

Did The Catholic Church Give The World The Bible?

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Church of Rome argues that if we did not have what it considers to be apostolic oral tradition, then we would not know what books belong in canon of Scripture. This claim is obviously an attempt by Rome to exalt itself as an infallible authority in addition to the Bible. If we cannot know which books are inspired by God, then Sola Scriptura is rendered unworkable at best.
          -It is claimed that the canon issue was settled at the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). Then, these decisions are said to have been cemented by the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD). Therefore, we are indebted to the Roman Catholic Church and personally obligated to accept its claims to having been founded by Christ Himself.

          -Roman Catholic apologists oftentimes argue that we must embrace the traditions of Rome in order to know with any degree of certainty which writings of both testaments are canonical. It is argued that we have no ability to know for ourselves which writings are authentic, apart from Rome's authoritative declarations on the matter.

• This Claim Is A Circular Appeal:

          -It is the Roman Catholic Church that defines what the contents of the Bible are and what constitutes apostolic tradition. That same institution interprets those same sources in a way that gives credence to its claim of having been given infallible teaching authority by Christ. That is a circular position for one to embrace. For starters, we cannot know for sure whether Rome's claims are true, unless we are permitted for ourselves to evaluate the meaning of Scripture and weigh that against various oral traditions, a move denied to us at all times. If that were to be allowed, then Rome's highly skeptical approach to our ability to make sense of divine revelation without an infallible teaching office has been undermined. After all, we would be competent to assess the truthfulness of religious claims on our own, defeating the very purpose for which Rome claims to exist. This is obviously an awkward position to hold from which there is no escaping.

• What About The Councils Of Hippo And Carthage?:

          -The councils of Hippo and Carthage were only provincial. The decisions of these groups were limited to their respective regions, despite there being debates with broader implications than their associated localities like clerical discipline, baptism, and heretical practices. However, their rulings were not binding on the Christian church as a whole. Further, these were African councils, not decisions made by Rome. Neither the councils of Hippo nor Carthage were able to definitively settle any issues occurring in the church during the time in which they occurred. Most of the texts that Christians now regard as canonical were already long regarded as such, making the councils of Hippo and Carthage less relevant within that context.

• The Problem Of The Old Testament Canon:

          -How did the Jewish people, who lived centuries prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, correctly identify which Old Testament books were inspired by God? How did they know what writings were inspired without the assistance of an infallible teaching authority? For example, the Prophet Daniel makes mention of the Book of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2). Moreover, Jesus cited the Prophet Isaiah by name (Matthew 15:7-9) and spoke of the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47). Peter cited Joel by name (Acts 2:16-18). Paul specifically cited Isaiah (Romans 9:27-29). The author of Hebrews quotes David from the Psalms (Hebrews 3:7-11). The author of Matthew quotes Jeremiah by name (Matthew 27:9). Recognition of inspired writings happened emergently within the biblical period itself, not centuries later by an external authority.

          -The Roman Catholic Magisterium could not have identified the inspired books of the Old Testament for the Jews because it did not exist before the birth of Christ. There is no historical evidence pointing to any sort of belief in the infallibility of the Jewish religious leaders. In fact, Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for doctrinal errors (Matthew 15; Mark 7). This undercuts any claims made by Rome that we need an infallible authority to declare which books are canonical, since the Jews did so by themselves and had no such thing available to them.

• How Can We Know Which Person Wrote Which Books Of The Bible?:

          -We must be dependent on outside sources of information in order to correctly identify the canon of Scripture. No figure from the early church can directly tell us which texts are authoritative because they are now deceased. The apostles themselves are no longer alive to be able to tell us anything. Therefore, we must resort to the extant extra-biblical writings of the early church (for the New Testament canon) as well as Jewish authorities (for the Old Testament canon). We must draw a number of our conclusions from people who lived before us.

          -As far as the New Testament canon is concerned, there was surprisingly little disagreement over its contents. Early councils only affirmed what was already widely regarded as canonical. There has been nearly unanimous consensus on that matter for over 1,500 years. This picture is contrasted with something like the apocrypha, which has always been challenged as to its reliability.

          -As far as apocryphal gospels are concerned, they contain fanciful stories of Jesus bringing deceased friends back to life, Him healing the bones of people, and turning clay birds into living ones that fly away. None of this silliness is consistent with the simplicity of the four canonical gospel accounts, which points to their authenticity. Spurious works usually were written long after the apostles were deceased, which eliminates them for consideration into the New Testament canon.

          -Canonical writings such as Job and Hebrews have unknown authors, yet the Roman Catholic Church has never officially identified who wrote those books. If not knowing the author automatically means a denial of the divine inspiration of a text, then would Roman Catholics be willing to discard those books of the Bible, since their authors are unknown?

• The Irony Of Affirming The Need Of Infallible Certainty Over The Canon:

          -“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, page 29, Copyright 1967; Under “Canon, Biblical”)

            *If infallible certainty over the canon is as important as Roman Catholic apologists make it sound, then why did it take Rome over 1,500 years to officially settle the issue at the Council of Trent? Why would an infallible institution wait so long to give adherents infallible certainty as to the canon of Scripture?

            *If the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically settled the issue of the canon during the fourth century, then why did other canon lists continue to get produced and circulated at much later times? Was Rome unsure of itself on this issue?

            *The claim that Rome is the custodian of the canon is absurd, for many of its own scholars no longer hold to the traditional authorship of various biblical books. Further, there is no universally recognized or explicitly defined list detailing the precise number of infallible statements made by popes throughout history. This absence invites inquiry into the practical application and scope of infallibility, especially given the Catholic insistence that infallible certainty is essential for understanding divine revelation and guiding the faithful.

• The Canon Of Scripture And Church Councils:

          -While church councils helped to make more pronounced the canon of Scripture, they did not assign to those books their authority. Further, that claim is not an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but a popular assertion parroted by its apologists. Church councils mostly reflected what was already the popular opinion of their times. They were symptomatic of the direction which the church was headed on various issues.

          -The degree of certainty that one can possess regarding the canon is sufficient certainty. The early Christians identified inspired writings and affirmed them as such. The lists produced by church councils were not inspired, but the lists named inspired books.

          -There were already lists containing almost the entire New Testament canon by the second century. Given that our knowledge of this period is fragmentary, it is possible that there may have been earlier lists that corresponded exactly to what we have today.

          -Rome was never the sole contributor to the development of the canon or its sole possessor at any given time. Eastern churches, heretical sects, Jews, and even pagans possessed copies or fragments of biblical works. It is an oversimplification to claim that any single church council decided for all time and for everybody else what books belonged in the canon of Scripture.

          -"It is a remarkable fact no early Church Council selected the books that should constitute the New Testament Canon. The books that we now have crushed out all rivals, not by any adventitious authority, but by their own weight and worth. This is in itself a strong proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the books that have survived. It is not until the close of fourth that any Council even discussed the subject." (Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 25)

          -"The question of the limits of the canon may be theoretically open; but the history of the church indicates that it is for practical purposes closed. The 27 books are there in the church, at work in the church. They are what Athanasius called them, "the wellsprings of salvation" for all Christendom. And in the last analysis, the church of God can become convinced and remain assured that they are indeed the wellsprings of salvation only by drinking them." (The Word of the Lord Grows: An Introduction to the Origin, Purpose, and Meaning of the New Testament, Martin H. Franzmann, p. 295)

Loving One's Neighbor

We all have the tendency to act selfishly toward others. In our world, people are constantly thinking of themselves and fail to recognize that it is not right or proper for them to behave in such a manner. If we can support ourselves and focus on our own desires, then what barrier is preventing us from doing the same with other people? A distinguishing characteristic of Christian piety is not simply love for one's own, but love even for enemies. We often do not live according to Christ's teaching ourselves. Why would God create us if our purpose was only to live in a dungeon of sin? Jesus Christ commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our purpose in life is to know, love, and serve God in this world with the intent of spending eternity with Him.

We act according to God's will when we love our neighbors as ourselves. His Son gave Himself up on a cross for our sake so that we could be with God eternally in heaven. We who worship Him can give ourselves up by spreading the Gospel of Grace. We can help others to see beyond a self-serving scope which is created by the lenses on the glasses of sin. We know God through His work. We can see things clearly when we put on the glasses of godliness. What is the right decision in life? The proper decision is to demonstrate our love for God by loving our neighbor. We can do kind deeds for others such as raking lawns for the elderly, giving food to the poor, and forgiving the wrongful actions against us committed by others.

We more fully understand what it means to love God when we love our neighbors. If we do not love them, then we do not love God and cannot serve Him. Jesus said,"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Our lives as Christians are to be lived out in obedience to Him. Human life itself has intrinsic value. God judges without showing partiality. The love of self is the natural predisposition of man. It is our assumed state of being. The challenge lies in projecting that love away from ourselves. We ought to love God and neighbor. 

We serve the Creator when we love our neighbors as we love ourselves. When we serve others, we are fulfilling His message of doing good for others. When we feed the hungry, we are serving God. When we cloth the naked and visit the prisoners, we are serving God. When we do any form of charity, we are serving God. Preaching the gospel should be our utmost way of serving Him.

We live in a world that is selfish. This is not the way that God intended things to be. That way of life is contrary to His morality. We must look beyond ourselves and our passions. We must extend a helping hand to others, especially our brethren in the church. We are fully capable of doing good works through the grace of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He changes the hearts of people who repent of their sins and believe on Christ for salvation. We are to devote ourselves to the will of God with an eternal perspective.

What Is The Relationship Between Faith And Reason?

          Secular people tend to believe that religion and science contradict each other. They are depicted as not being compatible entities. It is claimed by atheists that faith and reason together cannot be used to construct a coherent worldview. A dichotomy is set up between an irrational, old-fashioned person who believes in religion and the rational, educated, sane person who believes in science alone. On the contrary, that is a misguided conception of things. It would be akin to saying that one has greater faith in science than in faith itself.

          The truth of the matter is that people who maintain that faith and reason are utterly opposed to each other have presented us with a false dichotomy. A logical person can also be religious. A religious person can indeed be intelligent. Further, foundational scientific advancements were made during a time when most scientists were openly religious people. While faith and reason are distinct from each other, they function together in different degrees.

          Faith and reason are inseparable. Faith cannot operate without reason. Reason cannot operate without faith. One cannot function independently of the other. Both co-exist harmoniously. Faith and reason overlap. The two do not stand in contradiction to each other when their relationship is properly understood. They complement each other. Beliefs rest on both faith and reason. Faith exists no matter how strong the evidence for a given proposition is.

          Our faith should not be blind, but informed by evidence. We occupy reason to grasp scientific concepts such as DNA, the atmosphere, and dinosaurs. Truths revealed solely through divine revelation would include the Trinity and virgin birth. These spiritual truths transcend the natural realm. Faith and reason overlap in areas such as intelligent design, objective moral laws, and the resurrection. These matters require both elements. 

           When faith and reason walk together, we see completeness in our lives. Rather than opposing forces, they enhance our understanding of reality. Intertwined, they provide a balanced lens through which we can view the world. By harmonizing the spiritual with the rational, faith and reason together enrich our journey, offering profound insights and guiding our pursuit of truth. It forms a holistic perspective of things.

Is Mandatory Celibacy For Church Leaders A Biblical Custom?

• Introduction:

          -For centuries, the Church of Rome has enforced strict regulations regarding the marriage of clergymen. Bishops and priests have been required to remain in an unmarried state as long as they practice their profession. However, we must ask whether this custom has any grounding in solid biblical or ethical principles? Is it lawful for any church government to establish as a discipline the prohibition of ministers from having marital relationships? This Roman Catholic practice is here weighed against the bar of Scripture and the historical record.

• Consider This Quotation From The Roman Catholic Catechism:

          -"In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry." (CCC, 1580).

• Pope Paul VI, In His Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, On The Ministry And Life Of Priests, Says That The Celibate Life Is:

          -"...not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, as is apparent from the practice of the early Church and from the traditions of the Eastern Churches, where, besides those who with all the bishops, by a gift of grace, choose to observe celibacy, there are also married priests of highest merit. This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them."

• Consider These Words From The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia On The First Lateran Council:

          -"Canons 3 and 11 forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to marry or to have concubines; it is also forbidden them to keep in their houses any women other than those sanctioned by the ancient canons. Marriages of clerics are null pleno jure, and those who have contracted them are subject to penance."
          -In 1079 AD, celibacy was first enforced for priests and bishops by Pope Gregory VII. Previously, they were permitted to marry.

• Apostolic Teaching Permits Ministers To Have Spouses:

          -The New Testament teaches that a bishop (also known as an "elder" or "overseer") can be married and have children (1 Timothy 3:1-5; Titus 1:5-9). In fact, how a man raises his family shows whether he can handle a position of authority in the church. Clergymen at least have the right to make that decision for themselves without being required to give up their ministerial position.

• Examples Of Married Church Leaders In The New Testament:

          -The Apostle Peter was married (Matthew 8:14). This is significant because the Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter was its first pope. In addition, the Apostle Paul said that the other apostles (including Peter) and all brethren in the Lord have the right to marriage (1 Corinthians 9:5). The Bible routinely speaks positively of that ordinance (Genesis 2:18). Sex within the confines of marriage does not make one unfit to uphold a position of leadership in the church.

• A Route Into Apostasy:

          -The Holy Spirit warns that "forbidding to marry" and "commanding to abstain from meats" are "doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1-4). Not only does the Roman Catholic Church forbid leaders from marriage, but it also teaches adherents to abstain from meats for long periods of time such as Lent. In fact, the Church of Rome used to forbid adherents from eating meat every Friday. However, no elder in the church has any authority to impose these kinds of restrictions on the people of God. Rome has therefore clearly been shown to be in error. These kind of things happen when leaders are not held accountable for their actions.

• Any Scriptural Support?:

          -Biblical texts such as Matthew 19:11–12 commend celibacy as a gift, not a requirement. Jesus affirms that some may choose celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” but He also makes clear that “not everyone can accept this word.” This passage celebrates spiritual discipline, not institutional exclusion.
          -Nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate that ministry must be reserved for the celibate. Instead, the Bible consistently upholds marriage as honorable and godly. The Apostle Paul affirms in 1 Corinthians 7 that both marriage and singleness are gifts from God.
          -To force a man to choose between being a minister and becoming a husband and father is not only arbitrary, but cruel. It denies the fullness of his calling and the richness of his humanity. A man who can nurture a family has already demonstrated the capacity to shepherd the people of God with love, patience, and responsibility.
          -Let us not confuse tradition with truth. Celibacy should be honored, but never imposed. The church thrives when its leaders reflect the diversity of God’s call, some single, some married, all devoted. It is time for the Roman Catholic Church to embrace a more compassionate and biblically faithful vision of ministry.

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Biblical?

• Introduction:

          -Transubstantiation is the belief that, during the mass, the elements (i.e. bread and wine) are changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. They are to be literally consumed by all faithful Roman Catholics. There is said to be a change in the substance, but not in the appearance, of the bread and wine. This transformation occurs at the elevation of the elements by a priest. The center of the mass is the eucharistic sacrifice, which is called a bloodless "re-presentation" of Christ's death. The most common biblical references cited to substantiate Roman Catholic eucharistic theology are the instance of the Lord's Supper and Bread of Life Discourse.

• There Is No Evidence That Christ Intended His Words To Be Understood In A Woodenly Literal Sense:

          -There are no implications in the biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper that the apostles believed the elements to literally be changed into the body and blood of Christ. Nor are the consecrated elements ever worshiped as God in the New Testament. Jesus presented bread and wine to his disciples, stating that they were His body and blood. Yet, He sat there with them, whole and unblemished. Obviously, Christ's words were metaphorical, emphasizing a symbolic act rather than a literal transformation.

• After The Institution Of The Lord's Supper, Both The Elements Were Still Called Bread And Wine:

          -Jesus Christ spoke figuratively of His blood as being the "fruit of the vine," even after transubstantiation was supposed to occur (Matthew 26:28-29). The Apostle Paul mentions the Lord's Supper and still refers to the element of bread as bread and the element of wine as wine (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Further, no one clarified that the teaching on communion was to be understood literally.

• The Mass Violates Old Testament Prohibitions Against Drinking Blood:

          -The Law of Moses consistently forbade the consumption of blood (Genesis 9:5; Leviticus 17:10–14; Deuteronomy 12:23). Blood was sacred, representing life itself, and was reserved for God alone. Against this backdrop, Christ’s words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood must be understood in light of the Law’s unchanging holiness. The New Covenant was not inaugurated until His blood was shed on the cross (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:15–16). Any interpretation that suggests literal consumption prior to the cross would place Christ in violation of the very Law He came to fulfill, undermining His mission of atonement. The consistency of God’s commands makes clear that figurative meaning is the only way His teaching harmonizes with divine holiness.

• The Mass Reduces The Glory Of God To A Physical Likeness:

          -Isaiah 42:8 declares that God will not share His glory with another. The transformation of bread and wine into a supposed divine essence assigns glory to created elements, which Scripture warns against. Deuteronomy 4:15–16 cautions against crafting tangible forms of the divine, and Isaiah 40:18 reminds us that no image can compare to God. To attribute divinity to physical matter blurs the distinction between Creator and creation, reducing God’s majesty to a likeness that Scripture explicitly forbids. The uniqueness of God’s glory is safeguarded only when worship remains directed to Him alone, unmediated by physical representations.

• There Is No Remission Of Sins Without The Shedding Of Blood (Hebrews 9:22):

          -Christ's atonement is propitiation for our sins. His blood was shed on the cross. That is what is required in order for the wrath of God to be turned away from us. The idea of a bloodless atonement sacrifice would have been unintelligible to Jewish ears in Jesus' day. The context of Hebrews 9:22 allows for no new economy of sacrifices for sin like that of the Levitical system. In fact, it explicitly denies that such a category exists.

• Jesus Christ's Body Was Shed On The Cross Once For All, Not On A Continuous Basis:

          -The Book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus Christ made atonement for our sin once and for all during these last days (Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:10-18). His act was done a single time for eternity. That means His work is not ongoing or continuing to be offered as the Roman Catholic Church claims.

• The Kingdom Of God Does Not Consist Of Food And Drink, Which Contradicts The Emphasis Of Eating The Eucharist To Receive Divine Grace:

          -Rome elevates the eucharist as the means by which Christians sustain spiritual life, calling it the summit of communion with God. Yet the Apostle Paul speaks plainly: “The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17). The blessings of the kingdom flow from God’s grace, not from repeated acts of consumption. If salvation truly depended on the continual eating of Christ’s body, Paul’s teaching would have been the perfect place to affirm it. Instead, he categorically dismisses food and drink as defining features of the kingdom. His words leave no room for a system that ties divine grace to ritual eating, but rather point believers to the Spirit’s work as the true source of life.

• Exegetical Comments On Eating Christ's Flesh And Drinking His Blood:

          -Jesus oftentimes spoke to the crowds using parables (Matthew 13:10-11; 34; Mark 4:11; 34). Notice that the Gospel of John itself records many symbolic statements made by Jesus. Examples would include "born again," "living water," "meat that ye know not of," and "destroy this temple." Moreover, Christ made several "I am" statements throughout John's gospel (John 15:5; 8:12; 10:7; 10:11). Out of the four gospels, only in John are these terms used by Jesus. Thus, we have good reason to believe that He was speaking metaphorically in John chapter 6. Jesus often used physical metaphors to illustrate spiritual truths.

          -In the Old Testament, eating bread was considered the equivalent of obedience to God (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4). This kind of reasoning in regard to the Book of the Law is echoed in the Jewish apocrypha (Sirach 24:20-22). Ben Sira also spoke of being fed with the bread of understanding and given the water of wisdom (Sirach 15:3). The Book of Proverbs employs similar imagery in the context of receiving instruction (Proverbs 9:5). The Jewish Philosopher Philo spoke in terms of consuming divine wisdom.

          -Just as God had provided manna to the Israelites in the desert as deliverance from starvation, so He had sent Jesus Christ into this world as a sacrificial provision to deliver us from eternal condemnation. That is the meaning of Christ being "bread from heaven."
          -Unlike the Torah, Christ can completely satisfy our spiritual huger and thirst (John 6:49-51). "Eating flesh" and "drinking blood" is to be understood as trusting in Christ for salvation. We consume Him by faith and He sustains us spiritually by that same means.

          -The use of future tense (i.e. "The bread which I shall give") refers to the forthcoming crucifixion and the spiritual nourishment that comes from Jesus' sacrificial act. This act is foundational for belief in Him and the salvation that He offers. When the Jews murmur about Jesus' statement of coming down from heaven, the focus remains on belief rather than literal consumption. The continuation of metaphorical language in this context suggests that the introduction of “flesh” and “blood” as elements to be "eaten" and "drunk" are intended to deepen the metaphor, not pivot to a literal sacramental understanding.
          -It is the words of Christ that impart life to those who believe (John 5:24; 6:63). This perspective of eating finds its basis in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 15:16; Ezekiel 2:8-3:3). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood means coming to Him and believing on His name (John 6:35).

          -The teachings about faith surrounding the discourse on eating Christ's flesh suggest a continuous theme: that spiritual nourishment and eternal life come from believing in Jesus and accepting His sacrifice. The "eating" and "drinking" metaphorically describe the depth of this spiritual communion and dependence on Christ. Just as the food and drink that we consume becomes a part of our being, so we become one with Christ as we abide in Him by faith.

          -"We shall be one with Christ, as our bodies are with our food when it is digested (v. 56): He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, that lives by faith in Christ crucified (it is spoken of as a continued act), he dwelleth in me, and I in him. By faith we have a close and intimate union with Christ; he is in us, and we in him, ch. 17:21-23; 1 Jn. 3:24. Believers dwell in Christ as their stronghold or city of refuge; Christ dwells in them as the master of the house, to rule it and provide for it. Such is the union between Christ and believers that he shares in their griefs, and they share in his graces and joys; he sups with them upon their bitter herbs, and they with him upon his rich dainties. It is an inseparable union, like that between the body and digested food, Rom. 8:35; 1 Jn. 4:13." (Excerpt taken from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Bread of Life Discourse)

          -Just as circumcision was a symbol of the Mosaic Covenant (Genesis 17:10-11), bread and wine are used as symbols by Jesus for the New Covenant (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). The Lord's Supper has sacrificial overtones because the elements point to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary, not themselves.

• Why Did Many Disciples Leave Jesus Christ During The Bread Of Life Discourse? Was It Because He Taught They Literally Had To Eat His Flesh And Drink His Blood?:

          -The audience left Jesus because it did not accept the claims that He had established concerning His divine messiahship (John 6:52). Unbelievers, who were in this case the Jews, had hardened their hearts against God. They remained around Christ because they were physically hungry. They were thinking only in material terms, whereas He pointed them to greater realities. The Jews were not searching for the truth of the gospel, which satisfies all longings of the human soul. Their thinking was not spiritual, but carnal. Misunderstanding does not prove literalism. It proves the statement was shocking, not necessarily physical.

          -If Jesus were teaching literal flesh‑eating, His statement that “the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63) would directly contradict His own command. In John’s Gospel, “flesh” consistently refers to mere physicality, and Jesus’ clarification shows that His words were never meant to be taken in a crude, bodily sense. His teaching points to a spiritual reality that only God can open the heart to receive. Christ Himself is the life‑giving source, and we partake of Him not by physical consumption but by believing in Him with the faith that unites us to His saving work.

          -Even if the Jews had understood His words literally, that does not prove such an interpretation to be correct. It is clear throughout the four gospel accounts that Jesus Christ did not have a problem with speaking bluntly and offending those who clung to their man-made traditions. He was not afraid to offend Jewish sensibilities. He spoke in a figurative manner, which requires interpretation. Jesus did not always explain His teaching (e.g. John 2:19-21), nor was He obligated to do so. Further, Christ knew from the very beginning who would have faith and who would not (John 6:64). 

          -Jesus often taught difficult and seemingly paradoxical truths (e.g. "the first shall be last," "lose your life to find it"). The difficulty that the disciples faced was about grasping the profound spiritual truth and the need for faith, not a literal directive to eat His flesh. Moreover, the Jews had erroneous ideas as to what the Messiah would be like. Therefore, Christ did not meet their expectations. His focus was on the kingdom of God, whilst theirs were political aspirations of an earthly kingdom.

• Why The Bread And Wine Jesus Spoke Of Cannot Be A Synecdoche:

          -Roman Catholic apologists sometimes argue that when Jesus refers to “bread and wine” at the Last Supper, He is using synecdoche, naming the outward appearances while the underlying substance changes. But this move opens the door to symbolic or spiritual‑presence interpretations. Even the most literalist view of communion admits symbolic elements, and once symbolism is admitted, the question becomes one of degree, not kind.
          -The deeper problem for this Catholic claim is that this use of synecdoche is linguistically inconsistent. A synecdoche never eliminates the literal referent, but expands it. When Scripture or ordinary language uses synecdoche, “breaking bread,” “all hands on deck,” “the cup,” “circumcision,” “the Law and the Prophets,” the original object remains present. The figure of speech works because the literal thing is still real. If “bread” is a synecdoche, then bread must still be bread. Otherwise, the term is not functioning as synecdoche at all but as equivocation.
          -This means the Roman Catholic argument collapses under its own category choice. If defenders of Rome insist “bread” is a synecdoche, then the continued presence of bread is required by the very definition of the figure of speech. If they deny the continued presence of bread, then they cannot appeal to synecdoche to defend their reading. Either way, the argument fails. 

          -Furthermore, biblical synecdoche always preserves the literal object. Scripture never uses synecdoche to mean “this thing is no longer here at all.” If Catholics allow themselves to redefine “bread” as “not bread,” then any biblical metaphor or figure of speech becomes unmoored from meaning. The interpretive method becomes arbitrary.
          -This is why symbolic or spiritual‑presence traditions are not linguistically overreaching. If Catholics appeal to synecdoche to defend their reading, others can appeal to the same rhetorical device to defend theirs, and with more internal consistency. Once it is acknowledged that the words “bread and wine” can carry layered meaning, it cannot be demanded that only one metaphysical interpretation is possible.

• Why The Catholic Literal‑But‑Non‑Physical View Of The Eucharist Cannot Be Sustained:

          -Roman Catholic apologists often claim that the eucharist is “literally” Christ’s body and blood while simultaneously denying that the elements possess any physical properties of a human body. This attempt to merge literalness with non‑physicality creates a category that Scripture never uses and ordinary language cannot support. A literal body without physical characteristics is not a literal body at all, but a metaphysical abstraction.
          -The deeper problem for this Catholic claim is that it redefines the word “literal” beyond recognition. In both biblical and everyday usage, literal language refers to what something actually is in observable reality. A literal body has flesh, blood, tissue, and physical substance. If the eucharist lacks all physical properties of Christ’s body, then calling it “literal” is not a faithful use of language but a philosophical reclassification foreign to Scripture.
          -This means the Roman Catholic argument collapses under its own terminology. If the eucharist is literally Christ’s body, then it must possess the characteristics of a body. If it does not possess those characteristics, then it cannot be literal. Catholic apologists attempt to preserve literalness by appealing to Aristotelian categories of “substance” and “accidents,” but these categories are not biblical and cannot rescue the contradiction. Either the eucharist is literal in the biblical sense, or it is non‑literal. It cannot be both literal and non‑physical.
          -Furthermore, Scripture never uses “body” or “blood” to refer to non‑physical realities. Christ’s body was born, suffered, died, and rose. His blood was shed physically on the cross. A non‑physical “body” and non‑physical “blood” are not the realities described in the New Testament. If Catholics redefine these terms to mean “non‑physical substance,” then biblical language becomes unmoored from its historical and theological meaning.
          -This is why symbolic or spiritual‑presence interpretations are not linguistically or theologically inferior. They preserve the integrity of biblical language without forcing it into philosophical categories foreign to the text. Once it is acknowledged that “body” and “blood” can carry theological depth without requiring a literal‑physical identity, it cannot be demanded that only one metaphysical interpretation is possible. The Catholic literal‑but‑non‑physical view is therefore not the strongest reading, but the most strained.

• Does Christ's Use Of Graphic Language Prove His Teaching To Be Literal?:

          -The shift from a generic term for eating in John 6 to a more graphic term in Greek (i.e. phago) would be the intensification of a metaphor. This shift is best understood as a way of stressing the importance of fully taking in Jesus' sacrifice and teachings, not as a command to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. The stronger language works like a metaphor that grabs attention and makes the point clear: just as food must be consumed to give life, so faith in Jesus must be deeply received to bring eternal life. Rather than pointing to a physical act, the passage highlights the need for a deep, personal trust in Christ that nourishes the soul the way bread nourishes the body. Metaphors often intensify when the speaker wants to drive home a spiritual point. Graphic imagery is a common device for deepening a metaphor, not abandoning it. Here are a few examples from the Bible: “Cut off your hand” (Mark 9:43), “Pluck out your eye” (Matthew 5:29), and “Eat the scroll” (Ezekiel 3:1–3). No one takes these commands literally, yet the graphic nature intensifies their seriousness.

• Does The Repetitive Nature Of Christ's Words Prove Them To Be Literal?:

          -Repetition can be a method to ensure a consistent message throughout different lectures. It does not necessarily prove any degree of literalness, but serves to reinforce a particular teaching or theme. In many cultures, especially in ancient times, repetition was a common rhetorical device used to emphasize important points. For instance, Ezekiel repeatedly laid on his side for long periods to symbolize the siege and suffering of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1-8). The prophet's use of vivid imagery and repetition helped to emphasize his messages and make them memorable to his audience. Further, Ezekiel frequently repeated phrases such as "Thus says the Lord God" to emphasize the divine authority behind his prophecies. Ezekiel often reiterated themes of judgment and restoration. Another example of phrases and themes happening again and again would be that of Solomon in Ecclesiastes (e.g. "vanity of vanities" in 1:2, "a time for" in 3:1-8, the theme of the pursuit of knowledge, and themes of toil and labor). This piece of wisdom literature emphasizes the transient nature of life and recounts man's quest of finding joy and meaning. It uses repetition to drive home philosophical points. Repetition helps in memorization and emphasis, which are important in oral traditions.

• Does The Forcefulness Or Vividness Of Christ's Words Prove Them To Be Literal?:

          -The use of vivid language can often be attributed to the author's literary style rather than a call for a literal understanding. Religious texts use powerful imagery to convey deeper meanings and evoke emotional responses. Vivid language in religious texts often serves to captivate and persuade the audience. For example, the Book of Revelation, authored by John himself, used incredibly vivid and powerful imagery to convey his eschatological visions (Revelation 6:1-8; 13:1-10). This persuasive technique was meant to leave a lasting impression, not ensure a literal interpretation of said teachings.

• Does Genesis 14:18 Foreshadow The Roman Catholic Eucharist?:

          -The bread and wine Abraham offered to Melchizedek was in celebration of victory over Kedorlaomer and his allies. It has nothing to do with some alleged change in the communion elements into the literal body and blood of Christ during the Last Supper. Bread and wine were actually commonly used in the days of Abraham. Further, even if the bread and wine in Genesis 14:18 did somehow foreshadow the bread and wine used during the Lord's Supper, they could just as well serve as a memorial of His passion. This is not a matter of literally eating the Jewish Messiah's flesh and drinking His blood for eternal life.

          -The offering of bread and wine by Melchizedek can be seen as a symbolic act. In this context, they symbolize God's provision and blessing through Melchizedek. If bread and wine are symbolic in the Old Testament, they can be seen similarly in the New Testament. The communion elements, then, symbolize His body and blood. The use of bread and wine as symbols shows a continuity of God's message through different covenants. In this view, the elements in the Lord's Supper serve as symbols that remind believers of Christ's sacrifice and the New Covenant established through His death.

• Does Malachi 1:11 Prove That The Lord's Supper Is A Sacrifice?:

          -The "incense" is a reference to prayers (Psalm 141:2; Revelation 8:3-4). The "pure offering" is a metaphorical reference to believers offering their praise and good deeds as sacrifices, which satisfy God (Hebrews 13:15-16; Philippians 4:18). The theme of spiritual sacrifice or offering is found throughout Scripture (Psalm 51:17; Isaiah 66:20; 1 Peter 2:5).

• Does Hebrews 9:23 Support The Repetitive Sacrifices Of The Catholic Mass?:

           -When the author uses the word “sacrifices” in the plural, he is not suggesting that Christ offered Himself repeatedly. He is speaking broadly about the old sacrificial system, where priests had to offer animals again and again because none of those offerings could fully deal with sin. In contrast, Christ’s death is presented as a single, decisive act that accomplishes everything those many sacrifices never could. The writer of Hebrews emphasizes this by showing how the priests stood performing the same rituals daily, while Christ offered Himself once and then sat down, signaling that His work was complete. This supports the idea that one perfect sacrifice has the power and effectiveness that countless earlier sacrifices lacked, making Christ’s offering uniquely sufficient.

The Wrong Idiom

"We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he “wants a woman.” Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus."

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 134

What Is Love?

        "If anyone says, 'I love God', but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother." (1 John 4:20-21)

        On what basis or by what standard can one claim to have authentic love? Why is love significant? Love extends our focus beyond ourselves and what we want. It directs our attention to the plight and trouble of others. Love puts others before itself. It is the foundation of morality. Love is different from a mere instinct or psychological obsession because it is recognized by reason and acted on by free will. It is not something which we have no control over. It does not have unrealistic expectations. Love is therefore a pillar which gives even a semblance of peace in this world. It is not an empty sensation, but something acted on.

        Just imagine what this world would be like if the concept of love was merely a product of the mentally deranged; not something beautiful and universally experienced. Love is kind. Love is caring. Love entails self-sacrifice. All these concepts are interrelated. They function together in perfect harmony. If love did not exist, then human life would cease to be in just moments. Further, the existence of love presupposes the existence of care. Love rejoices in the truth, and weeps tenderly in the presence of falsehood. Animosity and vindictiveness negates any demonstration of love.

         If people cannot work together because of hatred, then life on earth would come to an unnecessary, abrupt termination because no further progress could be made. Love and hatred cannot co-exist because they are diametrically opposed to each other. In addition, hatred brews other states of heart such as being prideful, jealous, selfish, and unforgiving. Hatred is the foundation of immorality and lawlessness. Without love, life would collapse like a line of dominoes. Mankind cannot thrive without love, any more than a tree can survive without water. Hatred presents us with a rather hopeless and miserable picture of life in general.

         We cannot claim to love God while possessing contempt and ill will in our hearts for other people. It is not possible for us to obey Him while holding animosity toward other people. In fact, no Christian has power in himself to faithfully live out the Christian life. It is not something natural to man, but must be brought about by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. We have even been admonished by the Apostle Paul to not let the sun set on our anger. Remaining in such a spiritual condition can have ominous consequences (Ephesians 4:26). Jesus Christ Himself associated hatred with murder (Matthew 5:22-26).

          Hatred is incompatible with the self-sacrificial love demonstrated by the life of Jesus Christ. It is entirely out of touch with Christian charity. Thus, people who claim to be serving God faithfully, who at the same time are continually harboring hatred for others in their hearts, are liars. They are not acting according to God's revealed will for us. They are not acting consistently with their profession of faith. Their profession is unreliable and without merit. On the basis of divine revelation and plain reason we can claim to know what love is. God Himself is love.

          Love of God and love of neighbor fulfills the Law. Love of God and love of neighbor is the basis on which true morality stands. We cannot grow in our relationship with Him, if we do not love Him and other people. It rather counts as evidence against any claim one can make to actually knowing Him. We are called to hate that which is evil, but hatred toward others is destructive to who we are as people. No one really lives up to the standard of love which God expects us to live up to.

Is The Lord's Day Saturday or Sunday?

• Introduction:

          -The observance of the Sabbath, originally instituted by God in the Old Testament, was intended as a day of rest from physical labor and an opportunity for His people to focus on worshiping Him. The term "Sabbath" originates from the Hebrew word shabbat, meaning "rest" or "cessation." This is first used in Genesis 2:2–3, where God "rested" on the seventh day after the work of creation. The idea of "rest" here conveys more than physical inactivity. It symbolizes completeness and divine satisfaction.

          -This command to abstain from physical labor is later formalized in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:8–11), where the Sabbath is explicitly tied to God's rest following creation. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates the term "Sabbath" as sabbaton, which retains the meaning of cessation and rest.
          -Notably, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath did not extend to acts of necessity or mercy. Jesus Himself highlighted this principle in Matthew 12:1–12, where He clarified the spirit of the Sabbath law, showing that compassion supersedes ritual. For Christians, the observance of the Sabbath as a covenantal sign (Exodus 31:13) is no longer binding under the New Covenant. The Apostle Paul, writing in Greek, uses the term sabbata in Colossians 2:16–17, explaining that the Sabbath, along with other ceremonial observances, was a "shadow" of things to come, with the reality being found in Christ.

• Sabbath Worship Nowhere Mentioned In The New Testament:

          -The New Testament restates nine of the Ten Commandments. Worshiping God properly covers the first three. Six deal with proper conduct toward other people. However, the Sabbath is the missing one. Why did the apostles not mention that commandment? The reason is that Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8), and He is our rest (Hebrews 4). The Sabbath rest of the Old Testament was only temporary, whereas the rest we have in Christ is of eternal value.

• What Is The Purpose Of Gathering On Sunday?:

          -Christians have historically gathered on Sunday, referred to as the "Lord's Day" (Kyriake hemera) in Revelation 1:10, to commemorate Jesus' resurrection. In Acts 20:7, we find believers meeting on the first day of the week for worship and the breaking of bread. This practice became a central aspect of Christian tradition. However, they do not have a Sabbath to observe like the Jewish people.

• Sunday Observance: Custom Or Dogma?:

          -The idea of Christians gathering on Sunday can be traced back as early as the Didache (early second century). However, it is still not an inspired document like the writings of the New Testament. It therefore does not carry the same weight or authority in the development of doctrine. Further, it is never appropriate practice to take statements from later sources and treat them as representative of earlier time periods. We start with the New Testament as our earliest source for doctrine, and then move onward to evaluate what later writers believed. 

          -It is totally fair to disagree with assertions made by patristic authors, as we do not have to accept ideas just because they were believed to be true in prior eras. They are subjective opinions without an objective standard (e.g. Scripture) to evaluate them. Their statements are not inherently authoritative. The statements of patristic writers ought to be put into their proper place. In all fairness, however, one disagreeing with such positions should explain why his position is correct or better.

          -Sunday worship is special and important to certain people, but that does not mean it is something that God commanded us to do. The only thing that the New Testament exhorts us to do is to assemble ourselves together. It does not specify which day of the week that is to be done. Custom does not translate into dogma. If the fact that the apostles gathered themselves together on Sunday to honor Christ means that we are allowed to do so only on that day, then does it follow that we can only celebrate communion in the evening, since the New Testament records the apostles doing so at that time?

• How Often Should We Celebrate Communion?:

          -The New Testament does not identify a specific time when Christians are to partake of the communion meal. Notice how the Apostle Paul quoted a statement of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11:25: "Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." We can infer from those words that we have been given some degree of flexibility. The frequency of participating in the communion meal is not as important as our state of heart when we do it. We should observe the Lord's Supper often enough to make it a vital part of our ongoing worship. To partake of the meal too frequently would reduce it to an empty ritual, devoid of real significance. To partake of communion in too seldom of a manner would cause people to forget the meaning of Jesus Christ's work.