Heb. 9:1-15, A Temple Not Made with Hands!

We said that the success of any “religion” depends on appealing to the pride of the worshiper.  If I use the word “religion” to speak of a means by which a person can be at peace with his or her Creator, then what the Bible presents is a religion.  The NT tells us that any religion must have a priest, a mediator, one from among the people of the religion who can make it possible for those people to come to God (Hb. 8:1-3).  Hebrews speaks of the religion of Israel in the Old Testament (Heb. 9:1-10).  It was a religion designed by the Creator Himself.  It was as good as religion can get, better than the religions of the nations around Israel and everywhere in the world.  It was better because God designed it, God chose the priests, and God accepted the worship of that religion when it was pure from the heart. 

But, of course, the whole point of Hebrews is to say that the religion of Israel was no longer effective, no longer acceptable to God.  That religion had pointed to a perfect “religion” that would once and for all open the way for people to come to God.  In this religion Christ would be the High Priest, and He would lead worship at a perfect temple not made with hands, and would offer one sacrifice, Himself, that would secure ETERNAL redemption (Heb. 9:11-15).  Eternal!  In other words, a redemption that needs nothing more to be added.  Why would I need a new religion and temples made with hands and priests?  The only purpose all of that would be to pad my ego, so I could be seen as very religious, a picture of the “false humility” of which Paul spoke in Colossians. 

If the religion of the OT, which God ordained as the world awaited the provision of the promised Savior, is now useless after the Savior has come, then there is no reason for me to seek another religion with earthly worship.  God does not dwell in temples made with hands (Ac. 17:24), words Paul said to the Greeks in Athens who built amazing temples and whose temples have been matched by the visible church ever since the days of Constantine who mother was sent to the Holy Land to find the places important to the NT and to build temples over them. 

I am reminded of one of our trips to Ukraine, and on a day off from school we went to see an Orthodox Cathedral.  As we got out of the car, one of the drivers stayed at the car.  When we asked him why, his answer was, “why should I go; God is not there.”  That was a great answer.  But it also revealed something we saw over the years, that sometimes our Ukrainian evangelical friends also had a high view of their “buildings,” that the beauty was important to honor God.  Christians anywhere, including in my community, can easily fall into the old way of worship. 

After Jesus fulfilled all that the Law anticipated, the Christian’s body is God’s temple (1 Cor. 6:19-20).  A group of believers anywhere in the world is God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16).  Through the cross of Christ, I have a circumcision made without hands (Col. 2:11), and my hope is “a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 11:16). 

John 14:1-18, The Sufficiency of the Cross Applied (7)

I have come across various books on Catholicism, declaring it dangerous because of its roots in the Mystery Religions of Rome and tracing it back to Nimrod in Gen. 10 and the religion of Father God/Mother God/Child God.  I don’t doubt that these are real issues.  But I want you to note that in these now seven posts I have applied only one test to the RCC: the test of Col. 2:18-19!  All of these fallacies deny the full and complete work of Christ and try to get me to look elsewhere for “all I need for life and godliness.” 

That is generally the problem with Catholicism.  They tell me I need a Pope, a “Papa of Papas,” the official representative (vicar) of Christ, “the visible leader of Christ’s Church on earth” (p141).  He has the title “Pontiff” meaning bridge-builder or priest connecting God and man.  When Christ died the veil was torn in two from top to bottom, giving me access.  I need no other priest, whether the Pope or the local “Father.”  It is interesting: “the popes have rejected other titles such as ‘universal bishop,’ which might seem to derogate from the position of their brother bishops.”  Nice that the Pope doesn’t want to take away the power of fellow-bishops but will take away the fullness of Christ.

Jesus told me I could pray in His name and the Father would hear and grant the need. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it (Jn. 14:14).  The RCC says I can up the power with God if I pray to Mary, another advocate.  Or I can give my request to some saint, who by his saintly life must have a better standing with God, and let that saint pray for me.  They are trying to cheat me of my reward, trying to get me to let loose of Christ as my one and only Head.  There is no way around it!

In Catholicism I guess Jesus’ shed blood was enough to get me out of hell.  But not purgatory.  Because I still have to make up for my sins, all the suffering that I brought upon Jesus.  But wait: you can pray for me when I’m in purgatory and get the sentence reduced.  Do I need to say it!  I will have none of that, but I will hold fast to one Head, Jesus Christ, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God!

I expect in the next post to talk about others who are trying to rob me of my reward.  I have spent considerable time on the RCC because they have built a system that is based on “the traditions of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).  Then they offer this to the world, a religion that can make you feel really religious, because you get to take delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which (you) have not seen, vainly puffed up by (your) fleshly mind (Col. 2:18).  The success of any religion, outside the religion of the Bible, depends on appealing to the pride of the worshiper.  The RCC has excelled in this!

Rom. 7:13-20, The Sufficiency of the Cross Applied (6)

Quoting from page 271f of Christ Among Us, we read this about preparing for Easter from “Ash Wednesday and on through Lent – (violet vestments).  Through this time of prayer, fasting, and voluntary self-discipline, we make up for our sins which caused Christ’s sufferings.”  This “making up for our sins” is common language in the RCC.  Repentance I understand.  Abhorring sin I understand.  Putting to death the deeds of the body I understand.  The Bible teaches me about this.  The Bible does not indicate that Jesus needs me to “make up for” my sins.   (If you can explain how this fits being “under grace” leave a comment on this blog.)

Further, there is a question about the 40-day period of time set aside for lent.  The evangelical pastor of whom I spoke did tell me there would be great value in this time of self-discipline.  He explained from the Bible the issue of self-discipline or temperance.  He then told me I “should” join them in this exercise.  In this case he is in agreement with the RCC.  He reminded me that Jesus was 40 days in the wilderness, Elijah was 40 days running from Jezebel, Moses was 40 years in the desert in the middle portion of his life, and he might have mentioned that it rained 40 days and nights in the time of the flood.  I noticed he did not tell me I should spend three years in the desert re-structuring my theology as Paul did.

But the problem is, none of these things were what is called “lent.”  Jesus was led into the desert for 40 days of fasting.  If the Spirit leads you to do that, you should do it.  But Jesus never, that we know of, told His disciples that they should do that.  After 40 years Moses was adamant that he was not interested in accepting the calling God had on his life.  And who needs to say anything about Elijah. 

I will just suggest to you that what is called “lent” in my view is addressed in Col. 2:20-23.  If you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations – do not touch, do not taste, do not handle.  This is exactly what “lent” is, and the basic wisdom of the world is: “if you can do it for 40 days, and let everyone know, the limited experience will make you a better Christian.”  The world always thinks like that because in the world the essence of religion is keeping rules and laws.  But Paul says, These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.  No value!

You might ask, how can a program for self-discipline be of no value?  It’s the making of laws and rules that is the problem.  Go back several posts and review: we are not under law but under grace.  I.e. we don’t come to know Christ by keeping any law and we don’t grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ by keeping any law.  Not even a law I came up with myself that fits some problematic issue in my life. 

Again, I see in the encouragement to keep “lent” someone trying to cheat me of my reward, someone trying to keep me from holding fast to the Head! I think I need one more post on this area of application, and then we will consider others.

Psalm 101

Time and again in the Scriptures, God’s people are encouraged to be patient, to wait on the Lord.  In my Bible reading today this theme showed up in the great 40^th chapter of Isaiah.  The point of the chapter is that comfort is coming to Israel.  God’s word is eternal; and God is fully capable of fulfilling what He has promised.  So don’t think that God does not see your way, or that He has passed you by.  God is faithful and will not grow weary.  He will keep His word!

The reason for this repeated theme is that it is a repeated occurrence in the lives of the saints.  We grow weary.  And in our weariness we may have the tendency to mix our impatience with ungodly shortcuts.  What we mean is that we grow tired of the affliction and may choose to try ungodly means so as to avoid the pain or the disappointment. 

These shortcuts are frequently extenuated (i.e. we decide our impatience is excusable or not as serious a sin) because we set our focus on the wicked around us who, we think, are enjoying much easier lives.  Psalm 73, among others, dealt with this problem.  And so does Psalm 101.  Except that in the case of today’s Song the writer is addressing the problem head-on.

Notice that he is in a situation where he desires God to bring an answer (v2).  But notice that he openly confesses his desire and plan to maintain a walk in holiness, to walk within my house with a perfect heart.  There is no place more difficult to walk in holiness than in our own home because we may feel we have the possibility of hiding our unfaithfulness.  We may find it hard to continually keep from setting wickedness before our eyes (v3). 

But notice that the hymnist also confronts the issue of those in his inner circle, so to speak.  He commits to have none in his focus who will lead him astray.  Rather my eyes shall be on the faithful of the land that they may dwell with me (v6).  This issue of focus is fundamental.  In the New Testament we see it often when we are urged to set our minds on the things of the Spirit (Rom. 8:5), with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:18), to not lose heart as we look on the eternal things which are not seen (2 Cor. 4:16-18), to meditate on the things that are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report (Phil. 4:8), to seek those things which are above, where Christ is (Col. 3:1-4), to remember that Jesus Christ … was raised from the dead (2 Tim. 2:8), to look unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith … to consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls (Heb. 12:2-3), to rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:13).

We must choose what we set before our eyes so as to behave wisely in a perfect way and with a perfect heart!

Mk. 7:1-8, The Sufficiency of the Cross Applied (5)

Before coming to the issue of “lent,” as background for this I came across the issue of the “liturgical year.”  The Catholic doctrine says “through the liturgical year the Church systematically brings forth before us God’s Word, the bible” (p271).  So that is interesting, in light of the fact that the RCC for generations forbade church members to have their own Bibles and read and study them.  The Church was the only valid interpreter of Scripture.  I say “was.”  I am aware that Vatican II encouraged Catholics to read the Bible.  But while it seems there is some of this evident in the USA I will be interested to see whether it is the case when we are in a country where Catholicism is the dominant religion.

Further, I was not aware that for different times in the year the priest apparently wears different colors of robes.  The 4 advent Sundays before Christmas involve “violet vestments;” Christmas, Jan. 1 and Epiphany on Jan. 6 get “white vestments;” the Sundays after Epiphany get “green vestments.”  Where does all this come from?  It is strange to me.  But here is the explanation:

The liturgical year … is not a cold and lifeless representation of the events of the past, or a simple and bare record of a former age.  It is rather Christ himself who is ever living in his Church.  Here he continues the journey of immense mercy which he lovingly began in his mortal life, going about doing good with the desire of bringing men to know his mysteries and … live by them. (From Pope Pius XII)

One observation about the Pius’ words: he tells me that all this liturgy is the means by which Christ is merciful with the mercy He began in his mortal life.  I am sure Pius will object to this, but he is speaking of a Christ who did not finish the work of grace and mercy on the cross.  The veil was torn in two to give me access to God and His grace and mercy.  I come to Him for grace and mercy (Heb. 4:14-16).  I do not need additional mercy.  And furthermore, as RCC theology says, for me to receive God’s mercy requires “the bible and the liturgy – ‘Word and Sacrament (p187).’” 

The answer to my question as to where the various robes and the liturgy is that it is TRADITION.  It does not come from the Bible but from men.  Why should I not have the same attitude about this that the Lord Jesus had: This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.  And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Mk. 7:6-7).  Jesus spoke of Judaism: For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men – the washing of pitchers and cups and many other such things you do (7:8).  Why would He not have the same judgment for Catholicism?  They have added to the requirements that must be fulfilled to have access to God and His grace and mercy, and what they have added is “the tradition of men.”  Whoever tells me I must make this part of my relationship with God is cheating me of my reward (Col. 3:18).

1 Cor. 11:23-26, The Sufficiency of the Cross Applied (4)

In the previous post we mentioned seven sacraments in Catholicism.  You may be aware that non-Catholic denominations do practice baptism and the Lord’s Table or “communion.”  As we mentioned previously, we do not believe that these works bring grace.  Again, Catholicism says,

The bible gives us God’s teaching, and at the same time prepares us to receive his grace in the sacraments.  Christ speaks to us through the scriptures, arousing faith in us, leading us to respond by the sacraments.  The better prepared we are by the scriptures, the better is our worship and the more of God’s grace-presence the sacraments bring us. (p188)

The one consistent truth about water baptism (immersion, that is what the Greek term means) is that it is for those who have already received the grace of God through faith in Christ.  “Communion” is all about remembering what Christ did for us (1 Cor. 11:23-26).  But in Catholicism the “mass” is both a reenactment and a continuation of Christ’s death for us.  Here is Catholic doctrine:

Christ wants us to take part with him in his death and resurrection

… the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ.  By the power of Christ working through the priest the bread and wine, though still appearing to be bread and wine, become Christ.

When Jesus Christ living among us in the holy eucharist prolongs his death and resurrection so we can take part, this is the Mass.

At Mass, we are not only present at Christ’s actual death and resurrection, we can actually take part in them to the extent that we want to. (p244-245)

You see that the priest is required for this event; it is only as he blesses the bread and wine that it is changed into the actual body and blood of Christ.  This challenges the fact that Christ was our High Priest, with a sufficient sacrifice for sin, so that there is no longer a need for a priest to bring us to God.  But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.  Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:11-12).  We do not need another priest.  We do not need to literally drink His blood and eat His flesh.  Those words of Christ (John 6:51-58) refer to the faith that is required to receive Him by the grace of God.  It is past tense, once and for all that He “entered” heaven’s tabernacle, “having obtained” eternal redemption.  Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many (Heb. 9:28).  But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God (Heb. 10:12).  We do not need to continually be joined to Christ in His death and resurrection.  Again, it is past tense: as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death (Rom. 6:3).  Anyone who tells me I need another priest or a repeat of the cross is seeking to cheat me of my reward!

Gal. 6:11-15, The Sufficiency of the Cross Applied (3)

Along time ago, when we started talking about the “sufficiency of the cross,” and the Son being forsaken by the Father, and Christ refusing anything that would diminish His full identification with sin and sinners, I mentioned some recent non-Catholic churches we attended (I have attended 2 Catholic services in my lifetime: a funeral and a wedding, if you need to know) where the sermons were encouraging me to observe “lent.”  I also mentioned being aware of claims that many young people are moving to the Catholic Church these days. 

As we seek to apply the “sufficiency of the cross” I want to return to those situations and to the subject of Catholicism.  I am not picking on the RCC.  As I have said, every religion seeks to cheat believers of their reward.  I am going to speak of this particular one for the reasons I already gave: it has come up in my own experiences.  I understand as well that, especially in the USA, practicing Catholics might not understand the official doctrine of the Church.  For that reason, my issue is not with what people think about Catholicism but about what the Church actually teaches.  One additional reason for this approach is that we plan, Lord willing, to be in a very Catholic country for three months in the near future, where the teachings of the RCC are not so “debatable” as they seem to be in the USA.  My source for RCC doctrine is Christ Among Us: A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith for Adults (6^th edition) by Anthony Wilhelm.

Let me begin with the general issue of the “sacraments,” as I referred to these in the previous post.  There are seven (p187): baptism, confirmation, the holy eucharist, penance, the anointing of the sick, holy orders and marriage.  Here is the summation:

“The great means by which God gives himself to us are the bible and the liturgy – “Word and Sacrament.”  Each is a special meeting with Christ and the Trinity.  God uses them above all else to give us his grace and teaching.  Together they form the Christian’s way to God.”

Note that the Bible, and thus the gospel, alone is insufficient for a Christian to come into relationship or fellowship with God.  Sacraments are essential.  They are essential because they are means of receiving grace.  The “doing” of these things bring grace.  What the Bible says is that if our work is essential to receive grace then it is no longer grace but reward or payment (Rom. 11:6).  Faith along is the means by which we receive the grace of God (Eph. 2:8-9).  And do not fall for the idea that a sacrament is an “act of faith.” Paul spoke of circumcision, a Jewish “sacrament” (they didn’t call it that but it fits the definition) saying it does not avail anything.  Instead he said, God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:14-15).  The above paragraph violates every doctrine of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, therefore Solo Cristo, and thus Soli Deo gloria!  Whoever tells me that the Bible is insufficient to bring me to God is trying to cheat me of my reward (Col. 2:18-19).