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

          In prayer, our principal focus must be on God. He is to be the object of our attention and thoughts. We are in His divine presence. He answers one's prayer based on sincerity and faithfulness (v. 6). Christ's words are not a condemnation of public worship itself. Prayer is not to be done with the intent of impressing other people.

          We are not to pray in the manner that pagans do, as for instance 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). It is not to be done boisterously or in a state of ecstasy. We are not to utter rash sayings in offering up our prayers to God (v. 7). He rejects prayer tainted with self-righteousness.

          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. Thus, the purpose of prayer is communion with Him. Christ is our spiritual food. He is consumed by 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 vain and empty words of unbelievers. 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 come (v. 10). It has no boundaries in terms of extent. Our wills are to be perfectly aligned with God's will. Our desire is 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 that overflows with tragedies: poverty, wars, famine, diseases, etc. Only goodness can exist in the kingdom of God. We pray that He supply our needs on a daily basis (v. 11). He continues to provide for us according to His will. This points to the reality that we need to depend on God daily. Prayer is more than merely asking God for material items.

          In prayer, we humbly ask 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 sins because we could not possibly remember all of them or realize the degree to which we are sinful. His mercy is greater than that.

          We must follow the example of God forgiving our trespasses against Him (v. 14). That means we ought not hold anger or resentment towards other people. We do not 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 attacks from Satan and unfortunate events in our lives. Temptation is inevitable for us 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. It would make more sense to approach it with an eternal perspective in mind than our limited 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.

          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. 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. We all have the same fate. We will all meet our Creator one day. The only difference lies in our eternal destinies. The righteous will receive eternal life and the unrighteous eternal damnation. Man dies and is forgotten. The events of his life are 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. It is wrong to excessively esteem our abilities. Things that we have accomplished have been done by others who lived before us. Life from a materialistic perspective is futile. That is the reason for the author's usage of the phrase "vanity of vanities."

          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. 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.

Amazing Grace

        Amazing grace! How sweet the sound That saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see.

        ’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved; How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed.

        Through many dangers, toils and snares, I have already come; ’Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, And grace will lead me home.

        The Lord has promised good to me, His Word my hope secures; He will my Shield and Portion be, As long as life endures.

        Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail, And mortal life shall cease, I shall possess, within the veil, A life of joy and peace.

        The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, The sun forbear to shine; But God, who called me here below, Will be forever mine.

        When we’ve been there ten thousand years, Bright shining as the sun, We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise Than when we’d first begun.

Lyrics originally written by John Newton

Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible?

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Church of Rome argues that if we did not have its allegedly apostolic oral traditions, we would not have the canon of Scripture. This claim is obviously one of the Roman Catholic Church's attempts to exalt itself as an infallible authority in addition to the Bible.
          -It is claimed that the canon issue was settled at the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). Then, it was supposedly reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546 AD). As a result of this major accomplishment, we are indebted to Rome and obligated to submit to its claims to infallible teaching authority.

          -Roman Catholic apologists commonly argue that we must embrace the traditions of their church in order to know with certainty which writings comprise the Bible. These people assert that we can have no certainty as to which books belong in the canon of Scripture, apart from Rome's authoritative pronouncements.

• A Circular Appeal:

          -This point can be illustrated in the following manner: "The Bible and Tradition are true because the infallible Church defined them to be such. The Roman Catholic Church is true because the Bible and Tradition told us so." The ultimate argument offered by Rome to us on this issue is that we must accept the canon of Scripture on the basis that it says so. That is circular reasoning. How can we know that the Roman Catholic Church's claims to infallibility are true? The Roman Catholic Church's claims to authority are ultimately self-defeating, since its "infallible" dogmas must be fallibly interpreted by the individual.

• How Can We Know Which Person Wrote Which Books Of The Bible, Since The Bible Does Not Contain Its Own Table Of Contents?:

          -How do Roman Catholics know which oral traditions are inspired? Do they have an inspired table of contents identifying which specific oral traditions that we are supposed to heed to?

          -Canonical writings such as Job and Hebrews have unknown authors, yet the Church of Rome 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 throw away those books of the Bible, since their authors are unknown?
          -We must be dependent on outside sources of information in order to gather information regarding the canon of Scripture. No figure from the early church can directly tell us which books of the New Testament are canonical because they are now deceased. So we must resort to the extant extra-biblical writings of the early church. We must draw some of our conclusions from the early church fathers.

• The Problem Of The Old Testament Canon:

          -How did the Jewish people, who lived prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, know how to identify Old Testament books such as Isaiah and Jeremiah to be inspired by God? How did the Jews know that such books were inspired without the assistance of an infallible teaching authority? How come God did not simply give the Jews an inspired table of contents specifically identifying which Old Testament books were inspired?

           *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).

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

          -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 a supposedly infallible institution wait so long to give its members infallible certainty on the canon of Scripture?

           *“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”)
           *“The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under the category titled "Canon of The Old Testament")

• The Councils Of Hippo And Carthage Were Local Synods, Not Ecumenical:

          -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. Their rulings were not binding on the Christian church as a whole. These were African councils. In fact, neither the Councils of Hippo nor Carthage were able to definitively settle any issues occurring in the church during that specific time.

• The Canon Of Scripture And Church Councils:

          -While church councils helped to make more pronounced the New Testament canon, they did not give the New Testament books their authority (which is not official Roman Catholic teaching but, a popular assertion parroted by its apologists). Scripture is inherently authoritative because it is God-breathed. The degree of certainty that one posses regarding the canon is sufficient certainty. The early Christians identified the inspired writings and affirmed them as such.

          -"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)

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 thereby 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 person who believes in religion or the rational and sane person who believes in science alone. That is a misguided conception, however. It would be akin to saying that one has greater faith in science than faith itself.

          The truth of the matter is that people who maintain that faith and reason are incompatible have presented a false dichotomy. A logical person can also be religious. A religious person can indeed be reasonable and intelligent. In fact, foundational scientific advancements were made during a time when most scientists were religious people. While faith and reason are distinct from each other, they function together in different amounts.

          Faith and reason are inseparable. Faith cannot operate without reason. Reason cannot operate without faith. One cannot function independently of the other. Both must co-exist. 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.

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. But we must ask whether this custom has any biblical basis? Is it lawful for any church to establish as a discipline the prohibition of leaders from having marital relationships? If so, then why? Allow us to examine the validity of this Roman Catholic practice by weighing it against Scripture and history.

• 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).

• The Second Vatican Council, In Its 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(35) 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 This Excerpt From The Encyclopedia Britannica: 

          -"The first Lateran Council, the ninth ecumenical council (1123), was held during the reign of Pope Calisto's II; no acts or contemporary accounts survive. The Council promulgated a number of canons (probably 22), many of which merely reiterated decrees of earlier councils. Much of the discussion was occupied with disciplinary or quasi-political decisions relating to the Investiture Controversy settled the previous year by the Concordat of Worms; simony was condemned, laymen ere prohibited from disposing of church property, clerics in major orders were forbidden to marry, and uncanonical consecration of bishops was forbidden. There were no specific dogmatic decrees." (The canons of the First Lateran Council in 1123 AD during the reign of Pope Calixtus II)

• Consider These Words From The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

          -"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.

• What Does Scripture Say About The Matter?:

          -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.

• 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). Scripture always speaks positively of marriage (Genesis 2:18). It is not as though sex within the confines of marriage makes 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 its 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 all of its 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 that commend the concept of celibacy say nothing about making an entire profession only to celibate men or women. Rather, they affirm that marriage is a matter of choice. It is simply cruel and arbitrary to make a man choose between being a minister and becoming a husband and father.

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Biblical?

• Defining The Issues:

          -Transubstantiation is the belief that during the Lord's Supper the elements (bread and wine) are changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ (to be consumed by the attendees of the worship services). 

          -There is a change in the substance but not in the appearance of the bread and wine. This transformation occurs during the Mass at the elevation of the elements by a priest. 

          -The center of the Mass is the eucharistic sacrifice, which is called a bloodless "re-representation" of Christ. 

          -The most common biblical references cited to substantiate Roman Catholic eucharistic theology are 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 that the elements were "changed" into the body and blood of Christ. The communion elements were never worshiped as God in Scripture.

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

          -Jesus 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 refers to the element of bread as bread and the element of wine as wine (1 Corinthians 11:23-28).

          -If Roman Catholic apologists claim that the words "bread and wine" are a synecdoche, then that at least opens the door to more symbolic Protestant interpretations of that meal as being valid. Even the literalist view of communion admits a degree of symbolism. 

• The Mass Violates Old Testament Prohibitions Against Drinking Blood:

          -The Levitical Law condemned the practice of drinking blood (Genesis 9:5; Leviticus 3:17; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:23).
           *The New Covenant was not established until Jesus' blood was shed on the Cross (Luke 22:10; Hebrews 9:15-16). Thus, taking Christ's words literally (especially during the Lord's Supper and Bread of Life Discourse) would make Him an impostor who is guilty of breaking the Law.

• 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. While the context of Hebrews relates to the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant, the point remains that eucharistic sacrifices are unbloody. They therefore are not valid before God. The context of Hebrews 9:22 admits of no new economy for sacrifices for sin like that of the Levitical system.

• Jesus Christ's Body Was Shed On The Cross Once For All:

          -The Book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus Christ made atonement for our sin once and for all in 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. There is no "re-presenting" His work on a weekly basis as the Roman Catholic Church claims.

• The Kingdom Of God Does Not Consist Of Food And Drink, But Godly Living:

          -Rome teaches that the eucharist is the means by which Christians maintain spiritual life. It is viewed as the summit of communion with God. The Apostle Paul, however, says that the kingdom of God does not comprise of food and drink (Romans 14:17). The blessings that He provides are a result of His grace. If Paul believed that the repeated consumption of Christ's body as the eucharist was a requirement for salvation, then this would have been a place for him to affirm such rather than categorically rejecting matters of food and drink as relating to the kingdom of God.

• Exegetical Comments On John 6:51-58:

          -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.

          -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.
          -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).

          -Just as circumcision was a symbol of the Mosaic Covenant (Genesis 17:10-11), bread and wine are used as symbols 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 as opposed to themselves.

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

          -No, the audience left Jesus Christ because it did not believe 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 only remained around Christ temporarily because they were physically hungry. The Jewish people were not searching for the truth of the gospel, which satisfies all longings of the human soul. Their thinking was not spiritual but carnal. The Jews were not right with God.
          -After the departure of the 5,000, Jesus told the twelve remaining disciples that the words of His lecture were not literal but spiritual (John 6:63). In other words, His speech was not to be understood in a physical or materialistic sense. We must come to Jesus Christ and place our trust in Him for salvation. He is life to us, and we partake of Him by faith.
          -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, nor was He obligated to (John 2:19-21). He knew from the very beginning who would have faith and who would not (John 6:64).

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

          -Jesus is called the Lamb of God or the Lamb thirty times in the New Testament. If repetition proves literalness, then Jesus must be a literal lamb. But this is obviously figurative language. Repetition, whether it be closely spaced or spread far apart, does not prove "literalness."

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

          -As for the vivid language found in John 6:51-58, the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel, and the Book of Psalms also occupies quite vivid language or undeniably symbolic material. Furthermore, the Book of Revelation was also written by the Apostle John. "Vivid" simply does not translate into "literalness." The context determines the literalness of any text.

• 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?:

          -"sacrifices--The plural is used in expressing the general proposition, though strictly referring to the one sacrifice of Christ once for all. Paul implies that His one sacrifice, by its matchless excellency, is equivalent to the Levitical many sacrifices. It, though but one, is manifold in its effects and applicability to many." (Excerpt taken from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary on the Whole Bible)