Doctrine

How, exactly, did Jesus Christ die? Why did a soldier pierce Him with a spear when He was already dead?

The answer to this question might be quite surprising to some who have never heard the truth before. The fact is, a Roman soldier KILLED Christ by piercing His side with a spear. Notice what happened.

The following is excerpted from our free booklet, “Jesus Christ–A Great Mystery,” pages 78 and 79:

“How Did Christ Die?

“… Christ died by shedding His blood (Mark 14:24), and it is through His precious shed blood that we can be saved (1 Peter 1:18–19).

“When we read Matthew’s account, in the New King James Bible, we will not find exactly how Christ died. The reason is that this translation omits a crucial verse, at the end of Matthew 27:49. Several translations, as well as many old manuscripts, have retained this missing verse. For instance, verses 49 and 50 read in the Moffat translation: ‘But the others said, “Stop, let us see if Elijah does come to save him!” (Seizing a lance, another pricked [better, pierced] his side, and out came water and blood.) Jesus again uttered a loud scream, and gave up his spirit.’

“The Fenton Bible translates the missing verse as follows: ‘But another taking a spear pierced His side, when blood and water came out.’

“A.T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels, states in a footnote to Matthew 27:49: ‘Many ancient authorities add: And another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood.’

“The Revised Standard Version, and the New Revised Standard Version, add the following footnote: ‘Other ancient authorities insert, And another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood.’

“The Vaticanus–a Greek New Testament written in the 300’s A.D.–contains the missing verse as well. It reads: ‘And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came forth water and blood.’ The Sinaiticus Codex also contains the verse, and so does the Codex Ephraemi. According to The Testament in Greek, by Wescott and Hort, published in 1896, the missing verse also appears in most Syrian, Egyptian, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic translations. It also appears in Origen’s work [around 200 A.D.]. Walton’s Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, published in 1657, claims, in Vol. VI, on page 6 of the appendix, that this missing verse was still a marginal reading of the Greek text when the King James Version was made.”

Do we know WHY the inspired passage in Matthew 27:49 was deleted from the sacred text? The deletion occurred when a spurious version of the book of Matthew, which was allegedly written by Barnabas, was found, which did not include the passage in Matthew 27:49. Note the following excerpts from Westcott and Hort:

“In a letter partially preserved in Syriac… [Severus] mentions the reading [of the missing passage] as having been vigorously debated at Constantinople in connexion with the matter of the patriarch Macedonius, when the… [spurious] copy of… Matthew’s Gospel said to have been discovered in Cyprus with the body of… Barnabas in the reign of Zeno (?477) was consulted and found not to contain the sentence in question … at Constantinople the holy Gospels were by command of the emperor censored,” and the passage in question was deleted from the sacred text of the gospel according to Matthew.

Of course, no emperor–nor ANY MAN, for that purpose–has any divine authority to add to or delete from the Word of God. And so, God saw to it that the missing passage WAS preserved–and anyone with an open mind can read it today in its original form.

To continue with our quote from our booklet, “Jesus Christ–A Great Mystery“:

“We need to take note of an additional passage in John’s account. We read in John 19:32–34: ‘Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.’

“This Scripture, the way it is rendered, seems to say that the soldier pierced Christ’s side after He had already died. However, the word ‘pierced’ is in the aorist tense in the original Greek, designating a kind of action, not the time of action. It describes an action done at a single moment, and not continuously, but it does not tell us when the action takes place. Only the context can make this clear. Therefore, in John 19:34, the passage could also be correctly translated as, ‘But one of the soldiers HAD PIERCED His side with a spear.’ From the missing verse in Matthew 27:49, we know that John 19:34 has to be translated, in fact, in the past tense.”

There is, in addition, another possibility as to how to read this particular passage in John 19:30-34. It has been suggested that the original inspired ORDER of verses 30 – 34 was subsequently changed, and that the original reading of these verses was as follows:

“(30a) So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’ (34) But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. (30b) And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. (31) Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. (32) Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. (33) But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.”

To conclude from our afore-mentioned booklet:

“Christ shed His blood and died when a soldier pierced His side… We also read, in Luke 2:34–35: ‘Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul ALSO), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”‘ Finally, Isaiah 53:5 prophesied about Christ: ‘But He was wounded [margin, pierced through] for our transgressions.’ The New Testament record confirms that this is how Christ died.”

Christ died when a soldier pierced His side with a spear. This fact is also confirmed in other passages in the Old and the New Testament. Zechariah 12:10, in referring to the return of Jesus Christ, elaborates on the importance of the exact nature of Christ’s death, stating: “… then they will look on Me whom they have pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.”

Some might argue that the reference to Christ being pierced might apply just to His hands and feet. The fact that His hands and feet were pierced is most certainly included. Psalm 22:16, 18 gives the following prophecy regarding the suffering Christ: “They pierced My hands and My feet… They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.”

However, the piercing includes much more, and is primarily describing the very nature and moment of His death–not only the time several hours before, when His crucifixion began. Christ CRIED out when the soldier pierced His side with the spear.

And so, we read in Revelation 1:7: “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.”

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

You explained in a previous Q&A (in Update #341) that Christ said to His disciples that they should only call Him their Teacher. But does not the Bible refer to ministers as teachers on numerous occasions?

The Scripture in question is Matthew 23:10, which reads: “And do not be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, the Christ.”

However, as you rightly point out, there are several passages, which speak of ministers as teachers.

For instance, 1 Corinthians 12:28-29 reads:

“And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers… Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?…”

Ephesians 4:11-13 confirms:

“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith…”

Notice, too, that Paul describes himself in 2 Timothy 1:11 as “a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles…”

Also, Hebrews 5:12 states:

“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.”

In all the above-quoted passages, with the exception of Matthew 23:10, the Greek word for “teacher” is “didaskalos.” Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible defines this Greek word as “teacher” or “instructor.” It is clear from Scripture, then, that God’s ministers are, and can be referred to as “teachers” or “instructors” of the Word of God.

However, the Greek word used in Matthew 23:10 is a different word altogether. It is “kathegetes.” This word is only used three times in the entire New Testament, i.e., in Matthew 23:8 (once) and in Matthew 23:10 (twice). We have already seen the two usages of the word in verse 10. Surprisingly, perhaps, Christ is using the same word in verse 8 as well, where He says: “But you, do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher (“kathegetes”), the Christ, and you are all brethren.”

It is unfortunate that the New King James Bible translates this word “kathegetes” as “teacher.” The intended meaning is quite different. Note how the Authorized Version (AV) renders Matthew 23:8, 10:

“(Verse 8) But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your MASTER, even Christ; and all ye are brethren… (Verse 10) Neither be ye called MASTERS: for one is your MASTER, even Christ.”

The Living Bible, the New American Bible (NAB) and the Revised Standard Version (RSV) translate the word “kathegetes” also as “master” in verse 10, but the RSV and the NAB inconsistently translate it as “teacher” in verse 8. The New International Version (NIV) and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) confuse the issue even more, by translating the word as “master” in verse 8, but as “teacher” in verse 10.

Quite interestingly, the German Menge Bible explains that the word “kathegetes” actually could mean, “Fuehrer.” If the Germans would have had and applied that biblical understanding during the Third Reich, perhaps Adolph Hitler would not have been accepted as their political AND spiritual “Fuehrer” for that reason alone.

This discussion of the appropriate application of the words “teacher” and “master” illustrates important principles for correct Bible study, which we must apply when reading God’s Word:

(1) We must understand that the Bible never contradicts itself. Jesus said that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). In order to comprehend the meaning of a particular passage, it is necessary to read it in light of additional biblical passages–“precept must be upon precept… line upon line… Here a little, there a little” (Isaiah 28:10, 13).

(2) We must begin with a clear and easy passage, using it as the foundation for our understanding of a particular concept, before trying to attempt to “explain” a seemingly more difficult passage. We explain seemingly difficult passages in the light of unambiguous Scripture, and not vice versa. Peter warns us not to be “confused” by passages which might be, at first sight, “hard to understand,” so that we don’t fall into the trap of “untaught and unstable people [who] twist [Scripture] to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

(3) When reading all relevant passages in context, most “inconsistencies” will resolve themselves. However, if there still remains a perception of a contradiction, we must realize that the problem might lie with the particular translation which we might be using. TRANSLATIONS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE. We should never arrive at a teaching or doctrine by exclusively relying on a particular translation. Especially modern translations must be read with caution. For instance, the Living Bible is more of an interpretation, rather than a translation. The same can be said for numerous passages in the NIV and the NAB.

In the English language, the AV (the “old” King James Bible) is perhaps the most reliable rendition, but because of its antiquated English, it may be difficult to read for the modern student–and even it contains errors. The language of the New King James Bible has been modernized, and it is perhaps the most reliable English rendition after the AV, but it has introduced errors of its own. As mentioned, the NIV and other modern translations are unreliable in many respects, and they should NEVER be used to ESTABLISH doctrine.

Returning to the issue at hand, we have seen from a reading of the pertinent Biblical passages in context, and in applying the intended meaning of the original Greek, that God’s ministers CAN be called teachers or instructors of the Word of God–but they should not be called or viewed as MASTERS or dominating FUEHRERS.

We explained this fact in our last Q&A (in Update #341), in quoting approvingly from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, as follows:

“‘Christ’s ministers must not affect the name of Rabbi or Master… to covet or accept the honour which they have that are in kings’ palaces… They must not assume the authority and dominion implied in those names; they must not be magisterial, nor domineer over their brethren, or over God’s heritage, as if they had dominion the faith of Christians: what they received of the Lord, all must receive from them; but in other things they must not make their opinions and wills a rule and standard to all other people, to be admitted with an implicit obedience… Christ is our Master, our Teacher, our Guide… the great Prophet, whom we must hear, and be ruled and overruled by; whose word must be an oracle and a law to us… And if he only be our Master, then for his ministers to set up for dictators, and to pretend to a supremacy and an infallibility, is a daring usurpation of that honour of Christ which he will not give to another…'”

God’s people had better heed Christ’s instructions, as explained, lest they be found guilty of violating the very words of their Master.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Please explain Christ's sayings in Matthew 23:8-10.

Let us read the entire context of Christ’s sayings. Christ introduced the topic in reference to the scribes and the Pharisees (verse 2), but His application of His words were obviously much broader. He said, beginning in verse 6:

“They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher [Leader], the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers [better: masters or leaders]; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Many of those commentaries which discuss this passage–and which don’t just ignore it–conclude that these passages deny hierarchical government in the church. They conclude that Christ was teaching that all brethren are “equal” in the sense that they can decide for themselves what to do, where to worship, and whom to follow. This is, however, not what Christ was saying. It is very clear, from other passages, that there is a difference in ranks and functions in the Church of God–both in regard to the relationship between ordained ministers, deacons and members, and in regard to ministers among themselves (compare Ephesians 4:11-16; 1 Corinthians 12:28-29).

What Christ was addressing, however, was the danger of becoming proud, by accepting lofty and inappropriate religious titles. For instance, the word “Rabbi” means, “my great one” (“The New Bible Commentary–Revised”). Christ emphasized the fact that even though He bestowed on His ministry certain functions and responsibilities toward “feeding” the flock, the ministers are to understand that they are not in any way “better” than others; in fact, that they are to look at others “better” than themselves [compare Philippians 2:3]; that it is God who has given them such responsibilities; that they don’t “deserve” or are “entitled” to such functions, and that they are “nothing” in comparison with God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Far too many ministers, including those in some Church of God organizations, have allowed themselves to become proud and to be filled with self-aggrandizement–whether or not they accept lofty religious titles–and Christ warns that this kind of an attitude will cause their ultimate downfall. Christ specifically said that ministers are not to exercise “lordship” over the flock [Luke 22:24-26; compare 1 Peter 5:3]; and that they must not accept “superior” religious designations and titles which are reserved for God–including titles such as “the Anointed One,” “the Lawgiver” “the Prophet,” “Doctor of Divinity,” “His Holiness,” “Father” or even “Holy Father.” The title “Reverend” should not be used by God’s ministers, either, as the Bible uses this word ONLY in reference to God (compare Psalm 111:9, Authorized Version). The same is true for the term, “Holy Father,” which is exclusively used for God (compare John 17:11).

We need to note too, that Christ told His disciples not to BE called “Rabbi” or “Master,” but He went a step further and instructed them not to EVEN CALL another human being “our Father.”

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible states the following:

“Christ’s ministers must not affect the name of Rabbi or Master… to covet or accept the honour which they have that are in kings’ palaces… They must not assume the authority and dominion implied in those names; they must not be magisterial, nor domineer over their brethren, or over God’s heritage, as if they had dominion over the faith of Christians: what they received of the Lord, all must receive from them; but in other things they must not make their opinions and wills a rule and standard to all other people, to be admitted with an implicit obedience… Christ is our Master, our Teacher, our Guide… the great Prophet, whom we must hear, and be ruled and overruled by; whose word must be an oracle and a law to us… And if he only be our Master, then for his ministers to set up for dictators, and to pretend to a supremacy and an infallibility, is a daring usurpation of that honour of Christ which he will not give to another…

“The fathers of our flesh must be called fathers, and as such we must give them [respect]; but God only must be allowed as the Father of our spirits… Our religion must not… depend upon, any man… Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of [1 Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 1:10] but he uses that [expression] to denote… affection… God is our Father… the Father of all lights [James 1:17], that one Father, from whom are all things, and we in him [Ephesians 4:6].”

Regarding Paul’s reference to himself as a “father,” we need to understand that he was strictly talking about the fact that GOD used him as an instrument to proclaim the truth and to teach and nourish those who listened. This spiritual “father-child” relationship is also expressed in other passages in Scripture, such as Philippians 2:22; 1 Thessalonians 2:11; and 1 Peter 5:13. As can be easily seen from these passages, the word “father” is used affectionately–and NOT in any way as a religious TITLE of superiority.

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible adds:

“‘And call no man your Father’… This does not, of course, forbid us to apply the term to our real father. Religion requires all proper honor to be shown to [him, Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:4; Ephesians 6:1-3]. But the word ‘father’ also denotes ‘authority, eminence, superiority…’ In this sense it is used here. In this sense it belongs eminently to God, and it is not right to give it to people… Only God has supreme authority… Christ taught them that the source of all life and truth was God, and they ought not to seek or receive a title which properly belongs to [Him].”

Vincent’s Word Studies add the thought that the word “Father” is “Aimed at those who combed the title Abba, or Father. Compare the title Papa – Pope.”

In conclusion, we are to be careful what religious titles to use, or to accept. The safest way would be to use those titles which the Bible specifically mentions and applies approvingly to God’s ministers and deacons (compare passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 4:11-16; 1 Timothy 3:1-2, 8-13; and Titus 2:5-7). Let us not go “beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6; New International Version), because if we do, including applying and embracing titles which only belong to God, we may “wander beyond the teaching of Christ [and] leave God behind” (2 John 9, Living Bible).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Would you please explain Christ's saying in Matthew 26:26-28? Didn't Jesus clearly say that the wine and bread "are" His blood and body; therefore, aren't those correct who believe in the dogma of "transubstantiation"–that is, that every time when we eat the sacrificial bread and drink the sacrificial wine, that bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ?

First of all, we need to understand that the Bible commands God’s disciples to eat a piece of unleavened bread and drink a small portion of red wine ONCE a year–at the annual festival of Passover. When Jesus instituted the new symbols of bread and wine, replacing thereby the Old Testament Passover lamb, He did so during the evening of Passover (Matthew 26:18-20; compare Luke 22:11-20). Christ did not teach that we should partake of the symbols of bread and wine, in memory of His Sacrifice, any time we please. It is to be observed annually–once a year (compare Leviticus 23:4-5).

When Christ said that the bread and the wine “were” His flesh and blood, He used symbolic language. He had stated earlier that His disciples were to “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood” in order to have life and lasting fellowship with Him (compare John 6:53-55). Jesus used this kind of language to TEST His disciples. He knew fully well that at that time, none of His disciples would understand the meaning of His saying. But He wanted to find out how many would leave Him, and who would stay with Him, even though nobody understood what He was teaching them. Sadly, “many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can understand it’… From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more” (John 6:60, 66).

Jesus asked the twelve apostles whether they would also forsake Him. Peter did not understand Christ’s saying, either, but he knew who Christ was. And so, he answered for all of the twelve, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:68-69).

Christ’s sayings in John 6, and His words at the last Passover which He kept with His disciples as a human being, were to be understood symbolically. They were not to be understood to mean that at the moment when Christ gave the bread and the wine to His disciples–and at the moment when we partake today of the symbols of bread and wine at Passover–those symbols were or are “transforming” or “changing” into the actual body and blood of Jesus. The Roman Catholic dogma of the “transubstantiation,” which was also believed in and taught by Martin Luther, is in fact unbiblical.

The reasons for our conclusion are many, including the following:

1) First of all, Christ is no longer today a human being. He WAS God (John 1:1), BECAME man (John 1:14), and was CHANGED again into a God being–a life-giving Spirit being–at the time of His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:45; Titus 2:13). Paul said that we do not know Jesus Christ any longer as a human being–“according to the flesh” (2 Corinthians 5:16). As a Spirit being, Christ does not have flesh and blood. Therefore, the wine and the bread could not possibly change today into the flesh and blood of Jesus.

2) We also read that Jesus was offered ONCE to bear the sins of many (Hebrews 9:28). His supreme Sacrifice was necessary, but also sufficient for the forgiveness of our sins. The claim that the bread and the wine change today–and have been changing for the last 2,000 years–into the body and blood of Christ would mean that Christ was and is being sacrificed again and again–every time when His disciples have been partaking of the symbols of bread and wine.

This concept is clearly contradicted by Scripture–in fact, the Bible contains a strong warning for those who attempt to sacrifice Christ again through their conduct or belief. We read in Hebrews 6:4-6: “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, SINCE THEY CRUCIFY AGAIN FOR THEMSELVES THE SON OF GOD, AND PUT HIM TO AN OPEN SHAME.”

3) In addition, we are prohibited in God’s Word, the Bible, to consume any kind of blood (Acts 15:19-20, 28-29; 21:25; Leviticus 17:14). Therefore, the wine could not possibly change into the literal blood of Jesus, to be consumed by His disciples.

4) We should also note that when Christ spoke His words to His disciples, giving them the bread and the wine, He was a human being, and He–the human being–was present with His disciples. The bread and the wine were not “identical” with–but separate from His body; and they were not changed, in any way, to become (part of) His blood or body–as otherwise, Christ would have somehow “divided” Himself at that moment into eleven or twelve “components.”

Many commentaries have pointed out the utter absurdity of a belief in the dogma of “transubstantiation.”

a) Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible point out:

“It is not improbable that our Lord pointed to the broken bread, or laid his hands on it, as if he had said, ‘Lo, my body!’ or, ‘Behold my body!’ – ‘that which “represents” my broken body to you.’ This could not be intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was not. His body was then before them ‘living.’ And there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his ‘living body’ there changed at once to a ‘dead body,’ and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that all the while the ‘living’ body of Jesus was before them.

“Yet this is the absurd and impossible doctrine of the Roman Catholics, holding that the ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ were literally changed into the ‘body and blood’ of our Lord. The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover [Exodus 12:11:] ‘It’ – that is, the lamb – ‘is the Lord’s Passover.’ That is, the lamb and the feast ‘represent’ the Lord’s ‘passing over’ the houses of the Israelites. It serves to remind you of it. It surely cannot be meant that that lamb was the literal ‘passing over’ their houses – a palpable absurdity – but that it represented it.

“So Paul and Luke say of the bread, ‘This is my body broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ This expresses the whole design of the sacramental bread. It is to call to ‘remembrance,’ in a vivid manner, the dying sufferings of our Lord. The sacred writers, moreover, often denote that one thing is represented by another by using the word is. See [Matthew 13:37:] ‘He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man’ – that is, represents the Son of man. [Genesis 41:26:] ‘the seven good kine [cows] are seven years’ – that is, ‘represent’ or signify seven years… The meaning of this important passage may be thus expressed: ‘As I give this broken bread to you to eat, so will I deliver my body to be afflicted and slain…'”

b) Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible adds the following:

“‘This is my body’ – Here it must be observed that Christ had nothing in his hands, at this time, but part of that unleavened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supper, and therefore he could mean no more than this, viz. that the bread which he was now breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a few hours, was to be crucified for them. Common sense, unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds, – and reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign authority, could not possibly take any other meaning than this plain, consistent, and rational one, out of these words.

“‘But,’ says a false and absurd creed, ‘Jesus meant, when he said, Hoc Est Corpus Meum, This is my body, and Hic Est Calix Sanguinis Mei, This is the chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were substantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood, bones, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate humanity and adorable divinity!’ And, for denying this, what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state persecutions and by religious wars! Well it may be asked, ‘Can any man of sense believe, that, when Christ took up that bread and broke it, it was his own body which he held in his own hands, and which [he] himself broke to pieces, and which he and his disciples ate?’…

“Besides, our Lord did not say, hoc est corpus meum, (this is my body), as he did not speak in the Latin tongue… let it be observed that, in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, as used in the Bible, there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, denote, though both the Greek and Latin abound with them: hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for, it signifies… And following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek, we find in [Revelation 1:20:] The seven stars Are (represent) the angels of the seven Churches: and the seven candlesticks Are (represent) the seven Churches. The same form of speech is used in a variety of places in the New Testament, where this sense must necessarily be given to the word…”

c) John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible agrees, adding the following observation:

“Now when he says, ‘this is my body’, he cannot mean, that that bread was his real body; or that it was changed and converted into the very substance of his body; but that it was an emblem and representation of his body, which was just ready to be offered up, once for all: in like manner, as the Jews in the eating of their passover used to say… of the unleavened bread, this is ‘the bread of affliction’, which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Not that they thought that was the selfsame bread, but that it resembled it, and was a representation of the affliction and distress their fathers were in at that time: to which some think our Lord here alludes: though rather, the reference is to the passover lamb, which is frequently, in Jewish writings, called ‘the body’ of the lamb…

“And now it is, as if Christ had said, you have had ‘the body’ of the lamb set before you, and have eaten of it, in commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and as a type of me the true passover, quickly to be sacrificed; and this rite of eating the body of the paschal lamb is now to cease; and I do here by this bread, in an emblematical way, set before you ‘my body’, which is to be given to obtain spiritual deliverance, and eternal redemption for you; in remembrance of which, you, and all my followers in successive generations, are to take and eat of it, till I come.”

In conclusion, the Bible does NOT teach the dogma or doctrine of “transubstantiation.” Rightly understood, that unbiblical teaching changes, and actually denies the very meaning and essence of Christ’s Sacrifice.

The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is of unspeakable importance for us. It is God’s greatest gift to mankind. We must never belittle it by partaking of the symbols of bread and wine in an unworthy manner (compare 1 Corinthians 11:27-29); or by partaking of the symbols more than once a year; or by doing so on any other occasion than the annual Passover; or by falsely believing and teaching that the symbols of bread and wine change into the very body and blood of Christ.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Would you please explain Matthew 19:12. Does Jesus teach the concept of compulsory celibacy; that is, that ministers or priests must not marry?

When the disciples heard that marriage was for life, and that it can only be dissolved under very limited circumstances, they responded, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Jesus answered that “all cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given” (verse 11). He continued, in verse 12:

“For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Most commentaries are in agreement that Christ was not teaching “compulsory celibacy” for anyone. The Nelson Study Bible explains the meaning of the passage as follows:

“Jesus indicates [in verse 11] that remaining unmarried is only for a few people… Some people do not marry because they were born with no sex drive. Others do not marry because they are castrated. Still others forgo marriage for the sake of serving God. Some have been given the spiritual gift of celibacy in order to do this (see 1 Cor. 7:7).”

The Life Application Bible points out:

“Couples should decide against divorce from the start and build their marriage on mutual commitment. There are also… reasons for not marrying, one being to have more time to work for God’s kingdom… Some have physical limitations that prevent their marrying, while others choose not to marry because, in their particular situation, they can serve God better as single people. Jesus was not teaching us to avoid marriage because it is inconvenient or takes away our freedom. That would be selfishness.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary adds the following observations:

“The alternative to marriage is celibacy. Jesus made room for both as honorable and proper to discipleship. He warned, however, that the demands upon celibacy are high, just as they are upon marriage. Some are incapacitated for marriage because of physical impotence or impairment. They are those who are ‘eunuchs who have been so from birth,’ or those ‘who have been made eunuchs by men.’ In royal courts, especially, there were slaves who were made eunuchs through surgery so that they would not be a threat to their masters’ household. Those who ‘made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven’ are those who forego marriage with a view of life given more fully to the service of Christ.”

To interject, some have taken this statement literally [“there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”]; apparently, Origin castrated himself in obeying this “supposed obligation.” This is, however, NOT what Christ meant. He had already mentioned the category of literal eunuchs who had become such “by men.” The third category of “eunuchs” for the sake of the kingdom of God deals with those who VOLUNTARILY forgo marriage. Christ did not imply that they ought to literally castrate themselves.

The Broadman Bible Commentary continues:

“As Jesus spoke of marriage and celibacy he did not say that one was morally higher than the other… Each is an honorable choice to be made on an individual basis… ”

Jesus did not teach supremacy of celibacy over marriage. At least some of the apostles were married, including Cephas or Peter, as well as the believing brothers of Jesus (compare 1 Corinthians 9:5). Paul adds in Hebrews 13:4 that “marriage is honorable among all.”

It is correct that Paul seems to be giving celibacy a preferred state over marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:1, 6-8, 32-33, 40. But we must realize the context–it is because of “the present distress” (verse 26), prompting Paul to say that even those who have wives should be as though they had none (verse 29). He said this because of the ensuing persecution, which would cause married couples “to have trouble in the flesh” (verse 28). Christ said, in Matthew 24:19: “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days”–immediately preceding the Great Tribulation. He also stated in Luke 23:29: “For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!'”

On the other hand, Paul did not teach that it was ever sinful to marry, even in times of great physical distress, and he added that for some, it was necessary to marry even then. He stated in 1 Corinthians 7:9, 28: “… if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion… if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.”

To clarify, the Church of the Eternal God in the USA and its corporate affiliates in Canada and Great Britain do NOT advise to forgo marriage because of the soon-coming return of Jesus Christ. We simply don’t know the exact time of Christ’s return. At one time, many felt that Christ might return in the early 1970’s. Now, after more than 30 years, He still has not returned. If people had forgone marriage in the 1970’s because of their anticipation of Christ’s return, which will be preceded by the Great Tribulation, just imagine what they would have missed–including seeing their children and grandchildren growing up.

Proverbs 18:22 tells us that “He who finds a wife finds a GOOD thing, And obtains FAVOR from the LORD,” and God said at the beginning, after He had created man, that it was NOT GOOD for the man to be alone. He then made the woman to be the man’s companion and helpmate (Genesis 2:18). It is true that those who will, in the future, enter the Kingdom of God as immortal spirit beings, will not marry nor are given in marriage at that time (Matthew 22:30), but this is not to be applied today to mortal human beings on a physical level.

As can easily be seen from the very wording of Christ’s sayings in Matthew 19:12, He was not teaching that anyone MUST forgo marriage to enter the kingdom of heaven. He was clearly talking about a VOLUNTARY individual decision, without coercion from anyone. Biblical examples of those who decided for themselves, not to get married for the sake of the Kingdom of God, were Jesus Christ Himself, as well as John the Baptist. As a former Pharisee, Paul would have been married, but his wife apparently died, and he decided not to re-marry, but to remain a widower.

Since the Bible does not teach coerced celibacy, why is it, then, that the Catholic Church teaches compulsory celibacy for their priests–prohibiting them to get married?

An interesting explanation is given by James Hastings, in his “Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,” Vol. 3, pages 272-273:

“Two influences contributed especially to the rise of sacerdotal celibacy… To the Gnostic…, ‘marriage and generation are from Satan… marriage [was pronounced] to be corruption and fornication.’… To these we must add the influence of the religion of Isis and the worship of Mithra… both of which were wide-spread throughout the Roman Empire and had a powerful following in the 1st and 2nd century. The former had its… tonsured men and women–emblematic of a higher purity. The latter had its grades of initiation and its companies of ascetics and virgins… Catholic Christians were not to be outdone by heretics and heathens in self-renunciation… the outcome was inevitable. The highest type of Christian was the celibate… Christian teachers praised virginity, and marriage came to be in their eyes only a secondary good for those who were unable to preserve continence… [Ultimately,] superiority of virginity or celibacy to the marital state [had become Catholic Church doctrine]. Anathemas [being accursed from Christ] were pronounced on all who held to the contrary. This remains the law of the Roman Catholic Church…”

As we can see, the Catholic Church came to teach mandatory celibacy for their priests in direct or indirect consequence of Gnostic teachings and the worship of Isis and Mithra. This teaching was not derived from Scripture. On the other hand, Protestants have mostly rejected the concept of compulsory celibacy. Hastings continues to explain, on page 275:

“The Protestants vigorously denounced clerical celibacy… Luther, as early as 1520, advocated allowing pastors their freedom in the matter, and denounced compulsory celibacy as the work of the devil… he said that the celibacy of the clergy was ‘a popish innovation against the eternal word of God’… Calvin… denounced the ‘vile celibacy’ of the priests and the interdiction of marriage to priests as contrary to the word of God and to all justice… Ulrich Zwingli… condemn[ed] vows of chastity… [The] Anglican Church… asserts that ‘Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by God’s Law either to vow the state of single life or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge…’

“The attitude of Protestants and Catholics has remained practically unchanged to the present time, and the subject is unlikely to be touched UNLESS A PROPOSAL FOR UNION BE MADE” (emphasis added).

As the fruits have shown over the centuries, coerced celibacy is a very bad concept. Some who wanted to become Catholic priests and were forced, as a consequence, to take the vow of celibacy, have either been having their “affairs” with unmarried women, including nuns or their “housekeepers,” or they have been having homosexual relationships, sometimes even with minors and altar boys. Human regulations and man-made restrictions, which go beyond or contradict the Word of God, bring forth unnecessary and avoidable pain and suffering. Compulsory mandatory celibacy is one of those wrong concepts, which is clearly not taught in the Bible.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Why does the Bible say that Christ's body was broken, when we read that not one of His bones was broken?

The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:23-24: “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He BROKE it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is [meaning “represents”] My body which is BROKEN for you; do this in remembrance of Me.'”

John 19:31-37 reports that at the time of Christ’s crucifixion, a soldier pierced His side with a spear and killed Him. When other soldiers came to break the legs of Christ and the two robbers, they noticed that Christ had already died. Therefore, they did not break His legs. Verse 36 informs us that “these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, ‘Not one of His bones shall be broken.'”

It is important that we realize the different words used in the Greek for the English word, “broken.” In John 19:36, the Greek word for “broken” [in the phrase, “Not one of His bones shall be broken”] is “suntribomai,” meaning “to be wholly broken.” Also, when we read that the soldiers came to break the legs of the crucified victims (in verses 32 and 33), the word is “katagnumi,” meaning “to break down.”

However, the word for Christ’s “broken” body, in 1 Corinthians 11:24, is “klaomai,” which is derived from the word “klao,” (just meaning, “to break”). “Klao” is also used in 1 Corinthians 11:24 (“He broke” the bread), and in 1 Corinthians 10:16 (“The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”).

The use of different Greek words shows that there is no contradiction. Even though Christ’s bones were not wholly broken or broken down, His body was clearly “broken” for us, which is signified by the “broken” Passover bread.

John Gill’s Exposition to the Entire Bible points out:

“… for though a bone of him was not broken… his skin and flesh were torn and broken by blows with rods and fists, by whippings and scourgings, by thorns, nails, and spear…”

Some claim that the word “broken” in 1 Corinthians 11:24, referring to Christ’s broken body, is not contained in some old manuscripts, but even they admit that it needs to be supplied, in context with the broken bread. For instance, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown state: “The oldest manuscripts omit ‘broken,’ leaving it to be supplied from ‘brake.'” Others add the word “given” instead of “broken,” but this seems to be insufficient when analyzing the context: Christ did BREAK the bread and then gave it to the disciples, explaining that the BROKEN bread symbolized His body.

In any event, old Greek manuscripts DO include the word “broken” in 1 Corinthians 11:24, when referring to Christ’s body, and the Authorized Version, which is based on the so-called “textus receptus,” does include it in its translation. It is also included in the Greek Text of Stephens [or Stephanus], together with the Interlinear Literal Translation.

The broken Passover bread has tremendous symbolic meaning for us today. As we explain in our booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days“:

“The bread which Christ ate, and which He wanted His disciples to partake of, was unleavened bread, symbolizing Christ’s sinless life. When Christ broke the unleavened bread and handed it to the disciples to eat, it foreshadowed the pain and suffering He would have to endure, being beaten and pierced with a [spear] at the cross. THE BROKEN BREAD includes healing from physical pain, sickness and injury (Isaiah 53:4–5; Psalm 103:1–3; Matthew 8:16–17).

“In addition, the broken bread symbolizes spiritual healing or reconciliation with God, as man’s sins separate him from the Father (1 Peter 2:21–25; Colossians 1:19–22). Man must also be spiritually reconciled or ‘healed’ with each other. If we devour each other (Galatians 5:14–15), we can’t expect to receive physical healing from God.

“We must pray fervently, in faith, for our physical healing, calling for the elders of the Church to be anointed, while at the same time asking for forgiveness of our transgressions and sins against God and against each other that might have caused or contributed to our physical sickness (James 5:14–16).”

When we pray for God’s healing for our sicknesses, we are to remember Christ’s broken body and the excruciating suffering and pain He endured on our behalf. It is through the Sacrifice of Christ’s broken body that we can obtain physical healing from our sicknesses and injuries. Isaiah 53:4-5 tells us, in the Jewish Tanakh translation:

“Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, Our suffering that he endured. We accounted him plagued, Smitten and afflicted by God; But he was wounded because of our sins, Crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, And by his bruises we were healed.”

The margin of the New King James Bible clarifies that the meaning for “wounded” is “pierced through,” and the “bruises” or “stripes” describe “blows that cut in.” We were and are healed by Christ’s “stripes”–when He was scourged or flogged with a Roman scourge (possibly TWICE), and when He endured the pain inflicted upon Him through thorns, brutal blows on the head, nails and the piercing spear of the Roman soldier (John 19:1; Matthew 27:26, 29-30; John 20:25; compare too Isaiah 50:6). For more information on the terrible events of Christ’s suffering and crucifixion, please read our free booklet, “Jesus Christ–A Great Mystery.”

We must never forget, or be indifferent or negligent about the fact, that Christ allowed His body to be broken FOR US–for the healing of OUR sicknesses and infirmities.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Is it correct to refer to the New Testament Passover as the Lord's Supper?

The use of the term “Lord’s Supper” for our observance of the New Testament Passover is not biblical–and it only adds to the confusion surrounding the CORRECT observance of the New Testament Passover.

We pointed out the following in a previous Q&A (Update #88; compare also Update #189, under “Feasts”):

“The Passover was kept once a year — ‘as a memorial.’ On the night when Christ was betrayed, He kept the Passover. The Passover was at that time celebrated as a supper — that is why it is called in Scripture ‘the Lord’s Supper.’ We are today to continue keeping the Passover, but not as a meal — not as ‘the Lord’s Supper.’ We are to only partake of the symbols of bread and wine on the Passover night — we do not eat a full meal during the Passover service. In fact, we are told that we must ‘discern the Lord’s body’ — we must distinguish the symbols of bread and wine from an ordinary meal (1 Corinthians 11:29). 1 Corinthians 11:20, 34 tells us, ‘Therefore when you come together in one place, it is NOT to eat the Lord’s Supper… But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.’ (As an aside, nowhere does the Bible speak about ‘communion,’ during which we are to partake of bread and/or wine).”

In Update #336, we explain in detail why the Church of God does not observe today the Passover together with a meal. For that reason alone, it would be inappropriate to call the Passover “the Lord’s SUPPER.”

In addition, some who use the term “Lord’s Supper” for the Passover are confusing two separate events–the Old Testament Passover, when the death angel went through Egypt and PASSED OVER the Israelites, and the Night to Be Much Remembered or Observed, which occurred about 24 hours LATER, when Israel LEFT Egypt. The Church of God remembers this event of Israel’s exodus as well, and it has been keeping IT–but NOT the previous Passover observance–with a meal.

Let us note the distinction between these two events, which are set aside by a period of about 24 hours.

In a previous Update on Exodus 12:14, it was pointed out:

“The evidence that the Passover was and is to be kept at the BEGINNING of Nisan or Abib 14, not at the end, is overwhelming [The first month of the year, in accordance with the Hebrew Calendar, is called Abib or Nisan. Abib, the original name, means ‘sprouting’ or ‘budding.’ The name Nisan was adopted following the Babylonian captivity. The first month is comparable to the Roman calendar period of March-April, and begins, in Biblical terms, with a new moon.]… Christ and His disciples kept the PASSOVER at the BEGINNING of the 14th, and they should have known when to keep it. Further, the death angel went through Egypt on the night of the 14th, not the 15th, and that event is called Passover because the death angel passed over the Israelites, when he saw the blood at the doors of their houses (Exodus 12:27)… Passover [and this has to include the actual event of the death angel’s PASSING OVER the Israelites] was on the 14th — not the 15th (Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16). Also, the Israelites were not to leave their houses until morning (Exodus 12:22), and still we read that they left Egypt by night (Deuteronomy 16:1). Since it could not have been the night of Nisan 14, it had to be the next night — of Nisan 15.”

While the Israelites had to stay in their houses to observe the Passover at the beginning of Nisan 14, they left Egypt the following night, the night of Nisan 15, on the very first Day of Unleavened Bread (Remember that days start and end with sunset according to the Hebrew calendar). It was THAT night–which occurred about 24 hours AFTER the Passover–which was ALSO to be kept as a memorial, in addition to Passover.

Exodus 12:40-42 reads, in the Authorized Version: “… even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out of the land of Egypt: this is that NIGHT of the Lord to be OBSERVED. . . .” The New King James Bible calls it “night of solemn observance.” The Revised Standard Bible refers to it as a “night of watching.” Others render the phrase, “night of vigil,” or “night to be remembered.” German translations say mainly, “night of watching” (“Nacht des Wachens”).

Exodus 13:9 calls Israel’s exodus from Egypt–including the entire seven Days of Unleavened Bread and the “Night to Be Much Observed” at the beginning of the first Day of Unleavened Bread–a “memorial and a sign” (compare verse 3). As mentioned, the Days of Unleavened Bread begin 24 hours AFTER the Passover.

The origin of the Night to Be Much Remembered or Observed is also explained as follows in our booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days“:

“… the Bible makes a definite distinction between the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. Both are annual Feast days, to be kept once a year. The Passover is to be observed at the beginning of the 14th day of the first month (which month is called Abib or Nisan), according to the Hebrew calendar (Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16)…

“The First Day of Unleavened Bread is to be observed once a year at the beginning of the 15th day of the first month, according to the Hebrew calendar (Leviticus 23:6; Numbers 28:17)…

“It was during the Passover night—the night of the 14th day of the month—that the death angel passed over the Israelites who were in their houses (hence the name ‘Passover’), while killing the firstborn of the Egyptian households (Exodus 12:6–13). But it was on the 15th day, ‘on the day AFTER the Passover’ or one entire day LATER, that the Israelites went out of Egypt, and it is on THAT day (at the beginning of the 15th day of the first month) that Church members celebrate the Night To Be Much Observed—’a night of solemn observance to the LORD’—when they gather together for an evening meal. On that occasion, they reflect on the events of the exodus of ancient Israel when they came out of physical slavery in Egypt, and the spiritual exodus by Church members from their slavery of sin (Exodus 12:42; Numbers 33:3)…

“The name, The Night to Be Much Observed, has been used by Church of God members in modern times. This title is taken from the Authorized Version as translated in Exodus 12:42: ‘It is a night to be much observed (‘Shim-moor,’ meaning night watch, watching, vigil) unto the LORD for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of the LORD to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.’

“The Church of God continues to keep this beginning part of the first Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread—after sundown, which marks the start of the time God has established for His people to keep. Exodus 13, verses 3 through 10, explicitly casts God’s instructions as an ongoing regulation for those who seek to obey Him—note, in particular, verse 10: ‘You shall therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year.’”

Church members continue to have a meal during the Night to Be Much Observed. However, even though this occasion marks the beginning of an annual Sabbath–the First Day of Unleavened Bread on Nisan 15–it itself is not conducted as a Church service. Rather, members gather together for a meal in smaller groups in the privacy of their homes or at other private and appropriate locations. The Church of God conducts Church services during the subsequent daylight portion of the first Day of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7).

The Church of God keeps the New Testament Passover exactly at the same time when Jesus kept it–at the BEGINNING of Nisan 14. Since Christ changed the Passover observance from that of eating a meal to that of partaking in a footwashing ceremony and partaking of the symbols of unleavened bread and red wine (not grape juice), His Church is following such directives. Paul told the Church at Corinth not to eat a meal in Church at Passover, but to eat at home. Instead, God’s Church partakes of a meal the following night, memorializing Israel’s exodus from Egypt which symbolizes spiritual Israel’s exodus from sin (For more information on this astonishing parallelism and symbolism, please read the pertinent sections in our afore-mentioned booklet on God’s Spring Holy Days).

It is therefore misleading to call the New Testament Passover the Lord’s Supper–as this might imply that a “supper” or “evening meal” should be eaten at Passover. This is not the case–Christ, our Passover Lamb, replaced the Old Testament Passover ceremonies with New Testament observances, as described. Members of the Church of God partake of an evening meal the following night, which is known today as the Night to Be Much Remembered or Observed.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Should we eat a Passover meal in Church on Passover evening, before we partake of the New Testament Passover symbols of bread and wine?

We find that, in New Testament times, certain local congregations apparently had a Passover meal in Church before partaking of the Passover symbols of bread and wine, as can be seen in the passage in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 (Authorized Version):

“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not…”

When discussing this passage, many commentaries conclude that at least some New Testament churches–like the one in Corinth–had a practice of eating a meal in Church on Passover eve, before partaking of the symbols of bread and wine. (Please note that many of the commentaries refer to the Passover with incorrect terms, such as, “Holy Communion” or “Eucharist.” An upcoming Q&A will also explain why the terminology of “Lord’s Supper” for the Passover today is misleading.)

The Broadman Bible Commentary states that “Verses 17-22 and 33-34 indicate that a meal was eaten at the time [when] the Lord’s Supper was observed… it appears that the Lord’s Supper is separate from the main meal and is taken after the meal has been eaten… “

The Ryrie Study Bible agrees: “The early Christians held a love feast in connection with the Lord’s Supper, during which they gathered for a fellowship meal.”

The New Bible Commentary: Revised adds: “In the early days the observance of the sacramental acts of the Holy Communion took place in connection with a common meal or ‘love feast’ (Jude 12) in imitation of the Last Supper.”

Commentaries are divided on the question whether local congregations should have observed the New Testament Passover in this way at all; that is, whether they should have had a meal in Church before partaking of the Passover symbols. When focusing on Paul’s statement, “This is not to eat the Lord’s Supper”, the commentary of Adam Clarke points out: “They did not come together to eat the Lord’s Supper exclusively, which they should have done, and not have made it a part of an ordinary meal.”

Other commentaries conclude that at least the way it was done in Corinth was wrong, so that Paul instructed them not to continue in that practice.

The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown writes:

“‘… there is no such thing as eating the Lord’s Supper; ‘it is not possible’ where each is greedily intent only on devouring ‘HIS OWN supper,’ and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for, where some are ‘drunken,’ while others are ‘hungry’. The love-feast usually preceded the Lord’s Supper (as eating the Passover came before the Lord’s Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord’s Supper during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the question.”

It adds: “‘at home.’ That is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren.”
Matthew Henry’s Commentary agrees:

“In this passage the apostle sharply rebukes them for much greater disorders than the former, in their partaking of the Lord’s supper, which was commonly done in the first ages, as the ancients tell us, with a love-feast annexed, which gave occasion to the scandalous disorders which the apostle here reprehends.”

The People’s New Testament writes, commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:22: “‘What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?’ The practice is rebuked. The place to eat… was at home.”

So, we see that Paul PROHIBITED the brethren in Corinth to have a Passover meal in Church, before partaking of the Passover symbols. Paul told them to eat at home, before coming to Church to partake of the New Testament Passover symbols (compare verse 34, Authorized Version: “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye may not come together unto condemnation.”). This fact alone should tell us that it is therefore not mandatory to have a Passover meal in Church prior to partaking of the Passover symbols; otherwise, Paul could not have told them to eat at home. He would have SINNED when telling them that; and God would not have inspired it to be written down as a command in the Bible–and He would not have preserved it for us today–IF God had required of His disciples to eat a Passover meal in Church prior to partaking of the New Testament Passover symbols.

The fact that some New Testament Church congregations might have had that practice does not prove that it had to be done in that way. For instance, the early New Testament Church still offered sacrifices until the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., although it was no longer necessary to do so. It was not sinful to offer sacrifices, nor was it sinful NOT to do so. Even though Paul had clearly explained that sacrifices were no longer necessary, he himself subsequently brought sacrifices for the sake of unbelieving Jews (compare Acts 21:20-26).

The same can be said about circumcision. The early New Testament Church made the administrative decision, during a ministerial conference, as reported in Acts 15, that circumcision was not necessary in order to become a Church member. At the same time, the practice of circumcision was not sinful–Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of unbelieving Jews (compare Acts 16:1-3). However, he did NOT circumcise him because he felt that circumcision was in any way necessary for salvation. He made it very clear that it was not. In fact, he stated that if someone felt that it was, then Christ died in vain for such a person, and that Christ’s death profited him nothing (Galatians 5:2). As will be discussed, the same is true when we think it is necessary to have a Passover meal (including the prior killing and roasting and the subsequent eating of a Passover lamb), together with partaking of the New Testament Passover symbols of bread and wine.

We can also ascertain that in Old Testament times, New Moons were celebrated–even though the Bible does not command this. Therefore, it is of course not sinful NOT to celebrate New Moons.

When focusing on a Passover meal in Church, though, additional considerations must be taken into account. It is true that in Old Testament times, beginning with Moses and the Israelites in Egypt, one Passover lamb was slain for each household, and the Passover lamb was eaten at home, in individual houses, as part of a family meal. However, as can be seen from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, this was no longer true in New Testament times, when the Passover ceremony was observed by some in Church–not in private homes. Further, Christ did not only change the symbols of the Old Testament Passover (by introducing footwashing and the symbols of bread and wine, and replacing thereby the Passover lamb, see below), He also changed certain aspects of the Passover observance: He did NOT partake of the Passover with His family in the privacy of His home, but He observed it with His twelve apostles in a “rented” facility. Neither the wives nor family members of the twelve apostles were present, nor was Mary, the mother of Jesus, nor were any of His brothers and sisters and other relatives.

It has been said that Jesus observed the Passover only with His apostles, because He was away from home, perhaps on a missionary journey or a baptizing tour, while the rest of His disciples and family members were still at home, and not in Jerusalem, so that they could not have participated with Jesus at His last Passover. However, the Bible does not support this conclusion at all. We read that Christ was accompanied by many of His disciples (male and female) when He was on “missionary travels”; and we also read that His mother and other family members and disciples WERE present in Jerusalem to observe the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. Please note that Mary and other relatives and disciples were assembled at the cross, or looking at it from afar, after the Passover evening and before the first day of Unleavened Bread began (Matthew 27:55-56; Luke 23:49; John 19:25-27). It specifically says in Mark 15:41 that many of His female disciples had come up with Him to Jerusalem. To claim that they only reached Jerusalem AFTER the Passover eve is contradicted by Scripture. Mary and Joseph, for instance, kept the Feast of the Passover in Jerusalem, together with their children, as was their CUSTOM–and they arrived in Jerusalem before the Passover began, and they stayed in Jerusalem for all the DAYS of the Feast (compare Luke 2:41-43; Exodus 12:15).

Further, we read that we are to “eat” Jesus Christ–the New Testament Passover Lamb–by partaking of the SYMBOLS of bread and wine. There is no hint that we are still to kill and eat lambs, in addition (compare 1 Corinthians 5:7). As mentioned, if we were to insist that we ought to do that, then we would go backwards–as those Jews did in Galatia who insisted that Gentiles need to become circumcised. Paul said that with such an approach, Christ will profit us nothing (Galatians 5:2, 6; compare 1 Corinthians 7:19).

We should realize that at times, physical observances (“shadows of things to come”) may end, when the spiritual purpose has been completely achieved, which purpose was foreshadowed by the physical observance (compare Hebrews 10:1-10; Galatians 3:24-25, referring to the sacrificial law which foreshadowed things and events which by now HAVE come to pass). At the moment of the complete spiritual fulfillment, the necessity of the physical observance, foreshadowing that fulfillment, might have ceased. (However, this is not to imply, as some have erroneously concluded, that the Sabbath or the annual Holy Days are no longer to be observed, as, allegedly, the “spiritual reality” of the Sabbath, Jesus Christ, has come. Nowhere in Scripture do we find such an analogy. See discussion below.)

Jesus Christ–our Passover lamb–died for us; hence, it is no longer necessary to kill a lamb which foreshadowed THE Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ. By analogy, remember that Israelites placed blood on their doorposts in Egypt to be protected from the death angel; however, there is no evidence that they ever did so again during subsequent Passover celebrations [NOR, that they ever did so BEFORE the events in Egypt]. The purpose of the blood on the doorposts–protection from the death angel–was limited to that one spectacular event in Egypt and had been achieved during that first Passover night. Although we are commanded to keep today the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread, partly as a memorial of what God did for Israel in Egypt, we are not commanded to place blood on the doorposts of our houses.

There is another important reason why it could be dangerous to eat a Passover meal while partaking of the bread and wine. That reason is that the Passover bread must be DISTINGUISHED from an ordinary meal–it must NOT be viewed as part of an ordinary meal. Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 not to eat the bread and drink the wine in an unworthy manner. Rather, we must examine ourselves and then partake of the Passover symbols in a worthy manner. We must “discern” the Lord’s body (verse 29), which is–in the context of that passage–symbolized by the bread. As we break and eat a small piece of unleavened bread, we meditate on the fact that Christ’s physical body was beaten for our transgressions–so that we can obtain healing from our physical sicknesses. In order to AVOID the danger NOT to discern the Lord’s body; NOT to reflect on the symbolic meaning of the piece of the Passover bread; NOT to just treat it as part of an ordinary meal; the apostle Paul tells us to eat at home first, if we are hungry (verse 34). We are NOT to eat the Passover bread to satisfy our hunger.

The commentary of Jamiesson, Fausset and Brown explains: “… not discerning-not duty judging: not distinguishing in judgment (so the Greek: the sin and its punishment thus being marked as corresponding) from common food…”

The Geneva Study Bible adds: “The supper of the Lord was instituted not to feed the belly, but to feed the soul with the communion of Christ, and therefore it ought to be separated from common banquets.”

It is therefore strongly recommended that we eat at home to satisfy our hunger BEFORE we come to Church services to partake of the New Testament Passover symbols of bread and wine. But as will become clear below, we should not prepare and eat a time-consuming elaborate meal at home, just prior to attending Passover services. [For further explanations on that important aspect of the Passover service, please read our free booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days.”]

Ultimately, it all boils down to an administrative issue–to a question which needs to be decided by the Church, so that there is no confusion in the body of Christ. Paul said that it is the Church that must determine and “judge” how to keep the Sabbath and the Holy Days. Colossians 2:16-17 says, correctly translated from the Greek (compare the Authorized Version, which is close to the Greek, but not totally accurate): “Let no man therefore judge you in eating and drinking, or in respect of an holiday, or of a new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of Christ.”

It is the body of Christ–the Church of God (Colossians 1:18)–which is to judge, HOW to keep the Sabbath and the Holy Days. Paul said: “Let no one judge you… but the body of Christ”; in other word, let the body of Christ–the Church–judge or determine this issue.

As we explain in more detail in our booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” and in our new booklet, “Is That in the Bible?–Man’s Holidays and God’s Holy Days,” the weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days are still to be kept today. They are, in part, memorials of what God did in the past, and they are foreshadowing certain future events (the spiritual fulfillment of those “things” has not yet come–compare Hebrews 4:1-11). This is still true in respect to those who have been called today into God’s truth–and it is most certainly true for the vast majority of mankind, who will be called during the Millennium and the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:4-6, 11-12).

It was the Church–the “body of Christ”–that made the administrative decision, based on Scripture, that it was not wrong to eat and drink on the Sabbath and the Holy Days (with the exception of the Day of Atonement), even though some were judging the brethren in Colossae for doing so, wrongly insisting that they had to fast on all of those days.

It was the Church which made the administrative decision, in Acts 15, that Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised.

And it was the Church which, through the apostle Paul, explained to the Jewish Christians, for instance in the book of Hebrews, that they did not have to offer sacrifices anymore, or participate in Temple worship and services.

The Church of the Eternal God and its international affiliates, the Church of God, a Christian Fellowship in Canada, and the Global Church of God in the UK, have made it clear from their inception that they will follow the teachings of Mr. Armstrong, as long as they are not contradicted by Scripture. Our Statement of Beliefs reads, under “Doctrinal Foundation”: “The major doctrines of the Church are those, which were taught by Herbert W. Armstrong, derived from the Biblical teachings as followed by God’s faithful servants, and originally established by Jesus Christ through the founding of His Church in the time of His chosen early apostles. Since we are to increase in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, we are committed to review and alter any of our teachings, if and when proven to be wrong by the Bible.”

Under Mr. Armstrong, the Church never had a “Passover meal” in services, combined with the partaking of the symbols of eating bread and drinking wine. Part of the reason for the Church’s practice and decision was Paul’s explicit prohibition of a Passover meal in Church prior to the solemn occasion of partaking of the New Testament Passover symbols.

Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the practice of the Church, as established under Mr. Armstrong, is to be upheld.

The Passover evening is one when we reflect on the supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and what He did for us; it also focuses on the terrible hours of His arrest, trial and subsequent death. The elaborate preparation and the eating of a “family” meal in Church [or even at home, see above] just prior to partaking of the Passover symbols does not seem to be appropriate for such a solemn, deeply meaningful and thought-provoking occasion. The preparation of an elaborate meal in Church [or at home] just prior to Passover would also mean added work and labor, especially for the ladies, forcing them to focus on physical matters such as time-consuming and elaborate cooking, thereby diverting their attention from the real spiritual meaning of the solemn New Testament Passover evening. As one lady said, “There would be no rest for the women and they would be so tired that the whole purpose would be in vain. We could not even reflect on the true meaning of the Passover night.”

In conclusion, the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates continue to adhere to the decade-long practice of the Worldwide Church of God, which was established under Mr. Armstrong, to conduct a Church service, on Passover evening, during which we participate in the footwashing ceremony and during which we partake of the symbols of bread and wine. At that time, we reflect on the supreme love and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, rather than allowing ourselves to be detracted by a family meal in Church, which would be accompanied by inherent dangers, as the example of the Corinthian Church has shown.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Does the New Testament say that we should not swear, but that we are allowed to affirm? Is it advisable to raise our right hand, when affirming?

Even though the ancients in Old Testament times did swear, the New Testament tells us that we should not do so today.

We read Christ’s words in Matthew 5:33-37: “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”

James adds in James 5:12: “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No,’ lest you fall into judgment.”

We note that Jesus, when here on earth as a human being, did not swear. We read in Matthew 26:63 that the high priest attempted to have Christ swear, when he said: “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

Note HOW Christ responded, in verse 64: “It is as you said.” He did not answer by saying, “I swear,” but He confirmed–or we might say, “affirmed”– the accuracy of the high priest’s statement.

It is therefore correct that a Christian is permitted by God’s Word to affirm the truth. For instance, we read that Paul used a strong “affirmation” for the accuracy of his statements in Romans 9:1-2, when he said: “I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and a continual grief in my heart.”

He even called “God as witness against his soul,” when affirming the truth of his statement in 2 Corinthians 1:23: “Moreover I call God as witness against my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth.”

Paul made a similar statement in Galatians 1:20: “Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.”

However, as we can clearly see, Paul did not “swear” when he made those statements. Nor do we read that he raised his right hand in connection with his statements.

We do read, however, that angels, who are mightier than man and who are allowed to swear in the New Testament, raise their right hand (or even both hands) when they swear. This shows that raising the right hand is considered as a part of the act of swearing.

We read in Revelation 10:5-6 (New Revised Standard Version): “Then the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and the land raised his right hand to heaven and swore by him who lives forever and ever…”

The following commentaries confirm the fact that the right hand is raised in conjunction with swearing:

The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown gives the following explanation to Revelation 10:5-6: “It was customary to lift up the hand towards heaven, appealing to the God of truth, in taking a solemn oath.”

John Gill’s “Exposition of the Entire Bible” concurs and adds the following remarks to Revelation 10:5-6: “… lifted up his hand to heaven; the Oriental versions read, ‘his right hand’; and so [do][ some copies, and the Complutensian edition… the lifting up of the hand was a gesture used in swearing… so the Jews say… ‘the right hand’, or by the right hand… ‘this is an oath”, according to [Daniel 12:7] or whether the right hand or the left, is an oath, according to [Isaiah 62:8].”

Albert Barnes writes in his “Notes on the Bible” to Revelation 10:5-6: “… Lifted up his hand to heaven–The usual attitude in taking an oath, as if one called heaven to witness.”

The Jewish Tanakh rendition adds an interesting footnote to Genesis 14:22, where Abram said, “I swear to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth (Tanakh).” The footnote reads in regard to the word “swear”: “Lit. ‘lift up my hand.'”

Based on the foregoing, members of the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates may affirm to tell the truth, but they should not swear or raise their right hand. We would also advise against including words in an affirmation that appeal to God, such as “so help me God,” or something to that effect, as to do so could lead to a violation of the Third Commandment (“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain…”, compare Deuteronomy 5:11). It is much safer to abide by the clear instructions of Jesus and James, telling us not to swear (or affirm) by heaven or earth or Jerusalem, as all of these are in some way related to God, or not even by our own head, “nor by any other oath.”

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Does Galatians 3 teach that the Law of the Ten Commandments is abolished?

Even though many professing Christians believe that the Ten Commandments are no longer binding on us today, and although some Biblical “scholars” quote, amongst other Scriptures, the book of Galatians as evidence for such assumptions, the Bible totally rejects and disproves such ideas.

In fact, if you are a truly converted Christian, you have received the Holy Spirit of God, dwelling in you, and through the Holy Spirit, you have received the love of God (Romans 5:5). The love of God is defined as keeping the commandments. 1 John 5:3 says: “For this IS the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” Paul tells us that “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Love does not do away with it; quite to the contrary, it FULFILLS or KEEPS it. Rather than thinking that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, God’s Holy Spirit in you reveals to you that they are still binding for you, and God’s love in you will motivate you to KEEP them.

One good way for a person to determine if he has really responded to his call to repentance and conversion, is to analyze and examine himself to find out whether he is willing to keep ALL of God’s Ten Commandments–including the Seventh-Day Sabbath. If a person believes that these laws are no longer required and that he is “free” to ignore or break them, then it is extremely unlikely that he is truly converted, and that God’s Holy Spirit dwells in him. If this applies to you, then you need to pray to God that He may open your understanding to the truth, REPENT of your errors and sins; ACCEPT and BELIEVE IN the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ; understand that Christ DIED for YOUR transgressions of His LAW; and become baptized to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. To help you, please read our free booklets, “And Lawlessness Will Abound” and “Baptism–A Requirement for Salvation.”

Some teach and believe that you will automatically do what is right, if you have God’s Holy Spirit living within you–and that you do not need “rules” to tell you what to do. First of all, this concept is a contradiction in terms. If God’s Holy Spirit “tells” you to do what is right and how to live a “holy” life, then it tells you to keep God’s Law of the Ten Commandments, as God’s Law is “holy, just and good” (Romans 7:12). For instance, Paul explains to us in Ephesians 6:1 that it is “right” that children obey their parents, continuing that such conduct is in conformity with the “first commandment with promise” (verse 2).

Secondly, you don’t know, by yourself, what is right. In fact, God chides those who live by their own standards, doing what is right “in their own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8; compare Judges 17:6; 21:25). You might think, if you “love” your neighbor, you won’t do him any harm, but that is a false assumption. With that rationale, people have killed others in war; they have aborted their unborn children; they have engaged in “alternate lifestyles”; and they have committed fornication and adultery (after all, isn’t it “love” to have an “affair” with a “misunderstood” or “unloved” woman?). Without God’s love in you, you don’t really love God, either. People may think they do, but, again, they are wrong–and so, they have created idols for themselves, believing they serve God thereby; they have created their own weekly “day of worship” and their annual religious holidays; and they have trampled God’s Sabbath under foot, thinking that God does not care whether we keep it or not. Man’s “love” is a misguided counterfeit of the true love of God, which, we repeat, is DEFINED as KEEPING the commandments of GOD!

The apostle James silenced those who claim that we today do not have to keep all of God’s Ten Commandments. We read in James 2:8–12: “If you really fulfill [that is, keep] the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep [or, fulfill] the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.”

James tells us that we sin if we break just one provision of the “whole” law. He makes it clear that the “law” he is talking about is, in fact, the Ten Commandments. He illustrates this point by selecting two of the Ten Commandments—the law against murder and the law against adultery. He explains to us that, if we violate even one of the Ten Commandments, we are still a “transgressor of the [entire] LAW.”

How, then, are we to understand Galatians 3?

In Galatians 3:17–19, 22, 24–25, Paul states the following: “And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator… But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in [of] Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe… Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

Does this passage teach us that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, as some claim? Does Paul even have the Ten Commandments in mind when he talks about the “law” that “was added because of transgressions”?

In order to understand this passage properly, we must recognize that the Bible sometimes uses the word “law” for just a portion of the entire law system. We must consider the context of the particular passage in order to ascertain whether the word “law” refers to the entirety of God’s law system, or just a portion, and if just a portion, which portion. We do the same today in human affairs. We might say, “the law requires you to do this or that,” and we may be speaking about a particular provision in the Civil Code, or the Criminal Code, or some administrative law.

We learned from Galatians 3:17 and 19 that “the law” was “added” “four hundred and thirty years” after God’s covenant with Abraham. This “law” was added “because of transgressions.” We also learned in verse 22 that the Scripture confined everybody “under sin.” Sin is the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4, Authorized Version). The physical law referred to in Galatians 3 was added because people had sinned—because they had transgressed God’s spiritual Law (Romans 7:14) of the Ten Commandments.

Paul’s use of the word “law” in the third chapter of the book of Galatians then does not relate to the Ten Commandments at all, but to an altogether different set of rules–the sacrificial law SYSTEM which was added some time after Moses had brought the nation of Israel out of Egypt (compare Jeremiah 7:21-23).

Paul uses the same language in Romans 5. A careful analysis shows that he speaks there, again, about two sets of law–the Ten Commandments and the sacrificial system which was ADDED because of sin. In Romans 5:12-14, Paul says: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin [death came through sin, because death is the penalty for sin, compare Romans 6:23], and thus death spread to ALL men, because ALL SINNED–(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. NEVERTHELESS death REIGNED from Adam to Moses…).”

Notice carefully, and don’t be deceived by those who teach falsely that the Law of the Ten Commandments has been abolished. Paul says here that ALL sinned; that all incurred the DEATH penalty BECAUSE they had sinned; and that there is no penalty if there is no law. THEREFORE, SINCE there was a death penalty, there had to be a LAW. But then, Paul says that that situation already existed before the “law” was in the world. How clear–he is talking about TWO different sets of law! The law which came into the world had to be different from the law which already existed from the time of Adam.

Paul continued in verse 20: “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound.” What law entered? What law was added? NOT the Law of the Ten Commandments, which was in force and effect since Adam, but the sacrificial law system which “entered” or was “added” more than 430 years after Abraham’s covenant with God.

The Bible does not contradict itself. One Scripture does not “break” or “make of no effect” another Scripture (John 10:35). A law was added because of transgressions. This law cannot be the Ten Commandments. Rather, because people had transgressed the Law of the Ten Commandments, an additional law was given to the people. Paul’s statement that the law was added because of transgression (Galatians 3:19), and that a law “entered” the world AFTER sin and death were already in the world (Romans 5:12-14, 20), refers to that part of the physical law which has to do with sacrifices and other rituals. Because the people had sinned by transgressing the spiritual LAW of the Ten Commandments, as well as those statutes and judgments which embellish those righteous commandments, ANOTHER “law” was ADDED and came into the world — the temporary physical law dealing with sacrifices and other rituals.

Professing Christians are deceived, as is the rest of the world (Revelation 12:9). If you think you are free to break God’s Law, you ARE deceived–no matter what Christian group or denomination you may claim to be a member of. “Christian” commentaries of worldly scholars add to the deception, by concocting ridiculous “explanations” in their terrible desperate attempts to contradict the clear and timeless message of Jesus Christ, which is beyond debate for those who are willing to believe and OBEY their Master. Read for yourself Christ’s words in Matthew 19:17: “But if you want to enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.”

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

©2025 Church of the Eternal God
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.