On Saturday, April 26, 2008, is the Last Day of Unleavened Bread. Dave Harris will give the sermon in the morning, titled, “The Goal.” Norbert Link will give the sermon in the afternoon, titled, “Let There Be Light!”
The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 9:00 am and 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 11:00 am and 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.
A new StandingWatch program (#164) has been posted on StandingWatch, Google Video and YouTube It is titled, “Coming–The Great Depression?” In the program, Norbert Link discusses the fact that most Americans are worried about the economy. Many financial analysts and commentators around the world have similar fears. But what can YOU do in these times of recession and potential depression? How can you avoid going into debt, and how can you become debt-free? Does God, in His Word, the Bible, show you what you must do?
Norbert Link’s most recent video-recorded sermon, which was given on April 12, 2008, has been posted on Google Video. It is titled, “Bible Study–Paul’s Message to Corinth.”
by Shana Rank
As I sit and ponder some of life’s challenges and experiences, there has always been ONE constant–more constant than friendships or living conditions, more reliable than a paycheck or automobile, and more patient than a diligent teacher. God, of course, is that ONE constant. A truth I take much courage in, is that God does not change.
I, on the other hand, am not always constant–with family, friendships, attitudes or even paying bills. God’s perfect mercy understands the ebb and flow of my life, and waits to see growth. I must bear fruit, and my labor must be with a happy heart.
Even though I will never achieve perfect consistency–I can still try! My constant faith in God will insure His support through all of my life’s adventures.
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
On Friday evening, April 18, 2008, is Passover.
On the weekly Sabbath, April 19, 2008, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “The People of God.”
The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.
On Saturday evening, April 19, 2008, is the Night to Be Much Observed.
On Sunday, April 20, 2008, is the First Day of Unleavened Bread. Rene Messier will give the sermon in the morning, titled, “Conformed to the Image of His Son.” Norbert Link will give the sermon in the afternoon, titled, “Anger and Wrath!”
The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 9:00 am and 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 11:00 am and 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.
A new StandingWatch program (#163) has been posted on StandingWatch, Google Video and YouTube. It is titled, “Where Do Evil and Strife Come From?” In the program, Norbert Link asks the questions why is it so difficult for man to live in peace with his neighbor? Why is there so much violence and war in the world? Did God create man with an evil human nature? Are we incapable of doing good and overcoming evil? The Bible gives us answers to all of these questions, but are we willing to believe God and do what He says?
A new member letter by the ministry was written and sent out via mail. The letter gives a report of our conference and raises important questions regarding the Passover season and the Work of God.
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
As we quickly approach Passover, we are once again reminded of the great sacrifice that Christ made. After divesting Himself of His Godhead, Jesus walked the earth as a righteous man, doing no wrong. For this He was rewarded with ridicule, abuses and ultimately death. Christ willingly did this so that we may have opportunity to have God’s ear when we go before Him on a daily basis, and as well as being offered the chance for salvation.
Having had such great possibilities laid at our feet, what are we willing to sacrifice in order to make the most of what we have been given? Presently, we have not been asked to physically give up our life, but merely to be a LIVING SACRIFICE by means of SERVICE (Romans 12:1).
We read from our booklet “The Sacrificial System and the Tabernacle in the Wilderness“: “As the burnt offering was completely burned (Leviticus 1:9), so we must give ourselves completely and without reservation to God. As members of God’s Church, we have to become without blemish (Ephesians 5:25-27).”
We do this through the righteousness which is following God comprehensively and unconditionally with all of our ability (Mark 12:33; Proverbs 21:3; Hebrews 13:16; Romans 14:17-18).
When we contemplate the magnitude of what Christ did for us and contrast it with what we have been asked to do, surely we must come to the conclusion that it is the least that we can do. Every time we choose right over wrong and God’s way over our way, we offer up our spiritual sacrifice (1 Peter 2:5). Let us keep this in mind for this season, the rest of the year and the years that we have remaining, before the return of the One whose sacrifice made this all possible.
On April 12, 2008, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Paul’s Message to Corinth.”
The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.
We want to thank all of you for your prayers for a successful conference, which ended Wednesday, April 2. Your prayers were surely answered, and Norbert Link will give a report during services on this Sabbath, April 5. A pre-Passover member letter, including a detailed report on the conference, is being prepared.
