Christian Living

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 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

Please explain Jesus' sayings in Mark 9:43-48.

This particular passage has caused great confusion for many readers, and has prompted some Christians to adopt wrong and unbiblical teachings.

This is what Jesus said in Mark 9:43-48:

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched–where ‘Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.’ And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched–where ‘Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.’ And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire–where ‘Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'”

This passage raises numerous areas, requiring clarification:

(1) What “life” is Christ referring to?
(2) Are we to literally cut off our hands and feet and pluck out our eyes when they “cause” us to sin?
(3) What is the fire that shall never be quenched?; and
(4) Why do their worms not die?

Let’s review these questions one at a time.

(1) “Enter into Life”

Christ is referring here to ETERNAL life, equating it in Mark 9:47 with entering the KINGDOM OF GOD. We find similar phraseology in Matthew 19:16-30. There, a rich man asked Christ how to enter “ETERNAL life” (Matthew 19:16). Christ answered in verse 17: “… if you want to enter into LIFE [obviously referring to ETERNAL life–that was the question of the rich man], keep the commandments.”

When the rich man revealed his unwillingness to keep ALL of God’s commandments, including the one against idolatry, Christ said, “… it is hard for a rich man to enter the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN” (verse 23), identifying it later as the KINGDOM OF GOD (verse 24). And finally, in verse 29, He emphasized that He was speaking of inheriting ETERNAL LIFE. He showed thereby that “entering into life” means, inheriting ETERNAL life in the Kingdom of God.

What did He mean, when He said that we should cut off our hands and feet and pluck out our eyes, if they cause us to sin, and that it is better to enter into life maimed, lame and blind, than to “go to hell”?

(2) Cut Off Your Hand and Feet and Pluck Out Your Eye

We have to state very emphatically that Christ did NOT mean this in a literal way. If it were to be understood literally, then no Christian would enter life with two feet, two eyes or two hands, as ALL Christians have sinned and still sin, and not only once (compare Romans 7:15-16, 24; 1 John 1:8-10). We should also note that sin originates in the mind (James 1:14-15). Even a maimed, lame or blind person can and does still sin. The Lamsa Bible explains that the expressions “plucking out your right eye” and “cutting off your right hand” (compare Matthew 5:29, 30) are Aramaic idioms, meaning “stop envying” [with your eyes] and “stop stealing” [with your hands]. [Likewise, the Lamsa Bible explains that the phrase “turn your cheek,” as used in Matthew 5:39, is another Aramaic idiom, meaning, “Do not start a quarrel or a fight.”]

The Nelson Study Bible adds: “Cut it off should be taken figuratively; it means to take whatever drastic action is necessary to avoid sin.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary points out: “… if what you desire to do, or the places you long to frequent, or the things you are greedy to possess… would entice you into a path departing from the way [of life]… whatever sacrifice is necessary must be made. This is no command for mutilation of the body. But there cannot be two masters in life; either you ‘deny yourself’ and accept a new master (‘follow me’) or you lose your [eternal] life.”

What Christ was referring to was the need to cease using our members in the practice of sinful conduct. For example, He warns His disciples not to look at a married woman with evil thoughts, as this constitutes adultery in the eyes of God. Coveting our neighbor’s possessions already constitutes using our hands in committing theft in the eyes of God, and hating our fellow man already constitutes murder in God’s eyes–using our feet to walk on an evil path. We read in Colossians 3:5, 8, that we have to put to death our “members,” which are then described as including fornication, evil desire, covetousness, anger, malice and lying. Paul says in Romans 6:13, not to “present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but… as instruments of righteousness to God.”

James warns us that our tongue is a little member which must be controlled (James 3:5), lest it causes irreparable harm. And finally, he states in James 4:1 that “wars and fights come from… your desires for pleasure that war in your members.”

Jesus was using certain members of our bodies (foot, hand and eye) to illustrate the principle that a Christian must strive to eradicate sin in his life–even if it means, breaking a sinful HABIT which may be as painful to overcome as perhaps losing a foot, a hand or an eye. But Christ said it is better to forgo the passing pleasures of sin (compare Hebrews 11:25)–even if it “hurts”–than to be cast into hell fire.

What did Christ mean when He talked about “hell fire that shall never be quenched”?

(3) Unquenchable Hell Fire

The Greek for “hell” in the phrase “hell fire” is “Gehenna.” Gehenna, which designates the valley of Hinnom, is located outside Jerusalem. Trash, animal carcasses and even the dead bodies of criminals were thrown into that fire to be burned up. Jesus applied the concept of that Gehenna fire to the fire awaiting the wicked to destroy them. That fire is referred to in many places as the “lake of fire” or the second or final death (compare Revelation 20:14). The wicked will be thrown into that “hell fire” to be burned up and destroyed–they will not be tortured for ever and ever. The act of their extinction will occur with sudden finality, and the wicked will quickly perish with only a brief comprehension of their empty fate!

The Nelson Study Bible states: “The imagery of hell (frequently called gehenna) comes from a garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem. Jesus’ hearers were familiar with the smoldering fires that always burned there.”

For further information on the concept of “hell” or “Gehenna,” please read our free booklets, “Do You Have an Immortal Soul?” and “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” as well as our Update #194, “Do the Wicked Go to Hell?”, Update #195, “Revelation 14:11”; and Update #196, “Revelation 20:11.”

But why did Christ say that the fire would not be quenched? Does this “hell fire” burn forever?

Note that Jesus does not say that the fire will burn forever, and that it will never go out. He said that it would not and could not be “quenched”–that is, nobody would (be able to) put it out as long as there was fuel to keep it burning. Once there is no more fuel, it will cease to burn.

The same terminology is used throughout the Bible for fire–or God’s wrath burning like a fire–but this does not mean that that fire or the wrath of God will burn forever. It burns as long as there is reason or “fuel” to burn. Note Jeremiah 4:4: “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it, Because of the evil of your doings.” Compare, too, Jeremiah 21:12 and Amos 5:6.

But we also read that God’s wrath, even though no one can quench it, will not “burn” forever. Psalm 30:5 says: “For His anger is but for a moment, His favor is for life.” And Micah 7:18 adds: “He does NOT retain His anger forever, Because He delights in mercy.”

God uses the same terminology of “unquenchable fire” for the ancient destruction of Jerusalem at the time of Jeremiah. We read God’s words in Jeremiah 17:27: “But if you will not heed Me to hallow the Sabbath day, such as not carrying a burden when entering the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.”

We read that this prophecy came to pass in the days of King Zedekiah of Judah, when King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, destroyed Jerusalem under his captain Nebuzaradan. We read in 2 Kings 25:9 that he “burned the house of the LORD and the king’s house; all the houses of Jerusalem, that is, all the houses of the great, he burned with fire.”

But that fire is not burning any more today. Jerusalem was rebuilt. It existed at the time of Jesus. The fire was never quenched, that is, deliberately put out, but it went out on its own when there was no longer any fuel to keep it burning.

The same is true for the Gehenna fire–the lake of fire. We read that it will ultimately engulf and burn up the surface of the entire earth–we are told that “both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up” (2 Peter 3:10). In fact, even the “heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat” (verse 12). But after that, God will create “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (verse 13). At that time, there will be no more burning lake of fire, because nothing will exist anymore which needs to be burned. Revelation 21:4 tells us that at that time, there will be “no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain.”

For more information on the new heavens and the new earth, please read our free booklet, “Angels, Demons and the Spirit World.”

The Gehenna fire will apparently be burning throughout the time of the Millennium, the Great White Throne Judgment and the Third and Final Resurrection to “damnation” or “the final destruction” of the wicked. Why does Jesus say that during that time, the worms of the wicked will not die?

(4) Their Worms Won’t Die

Again, Christ uses language pertaining to the fire of Hinnom, which was burning outside Jerusalem, to illustrate a point. When some animal or body of dead criminals caught on the ledges below the rim, it would be devoured by “worms” or maggots. However, the maggots would not live forever–they would develop into flies. Those flies would deposit new eggs, and maggots would hatch from these eggs, eat the flesh, continue in the larval form for a few days, go through a metamorphosis and emerge as flies. Nothing would exterminate the maggots–as nothing or no one would extinguish or quench the fire. But without fuel to burn or without flies to deposit new eggs, the fire would go out and maggots would cease to develop. Technically, Christ’s point is well taken, as maggots in fact did not die–they developed into flies–which would ultimately die. But His spiritual application is much more telling: The fate of the unrepentant wicked is inescapable. As no one quenched the fire or prevented maggots from developing into flies, so no one can change the fate of the unrepentant sinner.

Jesus quoted from a future prophecy in Isaiah 66:24, which says: “And they shall go forth and look Upon the CORPSES of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” Please note that the “worms” or maggots are those developing on the corpses of dead people–they are NOT the dead people themselves.

The Broadman Bible Commentary agrees, stating as follows: “Hell with its unquenchable fire is ‘Gehenna’… Gehenna historically was a valley at the western edge of Jerusalem. Used at one time by worshippers of Molech as a place where their sons or daughters were offered in sacrifice, the valley was defiled during King Josiah’s religious reformation… Since that time it had been used as a dump for all kinds of refuse. Therefore it was correctly described as a place where maggots continually fed and multiplied (‘their worm does not die’) and where fire was always smoldering (‘the fire is not quenched.’).”

In conclusion, Christ’s statement in Mark 9:43-48 is a warning to all of us. He cautions us to be very careful about how we live–and to break any sinful habits which we might have–even if that process hurts and is painful. If we are neglectful in our efforts to overcome sin, we might end up in the lake of fire. We are told in Hebrews 2:1-3: “Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we NEGLECT so great a salvation.” Again, we read in Hebrews 4:11: “Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.” And finally, note this warning in Hebrews 10:26-27: “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and FIERY indignation which will DEVOUR the adversaries.”

Therefore, as we are admonished to do, “… be even more diligent to make your call and election SURE… for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the EVERLASTING KINGDOM of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:10-11).

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

Should Christians participate in New Year's Day celebrations on December 31 and January 1?

They should not.

New Year’s Day celebrations are linked to pagan customs and even demonic activities. Professor Philippe Walter’s book, “Christianity—the Origins of a Pagan Religion,” copyright 2003, 2006, makes several startling statements about the real origins of New Year’s Day, as well as its customs.

Walter explains the pagan belief that by the end of December and on “New Year’s Day” (January 1), “fairies… enter the homes of those who worship them… One must take pains to prepare the meal that should be offered to them in a clean and isolated room…”

A German magazine, PM, wrote the following about New Year’s Day, and the customs associated with New Year’s Day, in an article, titled, “What is special about New Year’s?”:

“There is no objective reason, why January 1 is a better day for the New Year than any other day. The Macedonians began the new year in the autumn, and the ancient Greeks in the middle of the summer, at a new moon.

“January 1 as the beginning of the New Year goes back to Roman arbitrariness. Consul Fulvius Nobilor was prevented in 153 B.C., because of a war, to begin his rulership on March 15, which had been the day of the New Year up until then. Therefore, the Consul transferred the day of the New Year to January 1, which was more convenient to him.

“This date was accepted by Julius Caesar and has endured, thanks to the Julian calendar, as it was favorable towards new beginnings. After all, the double-faced Roman God Janus was the protector of the month of January. Pope Gregory XIII, who corrected the Julian Calendar for us, maintained January 1 as New Year’s Day. But the Chinese and the Arabs still determine New Year’s today by using the moon-calendar. And according to the Jews, New Year’s – Rosh Ha-Shanah – is in September/October. The civil celebrations of New Year’s took place for a long time on January 6, the [perceived] day of the [so-called] holy three kings.”

The Bible makes it clear that a new year begins in the spring–not in the midst of winter or in the autumn (compare Exodus 12:1-2). For instance, in 2007, the New Year began on March 21, according to the Hebrew calendar, and in 2008, it will begin on April 6. But the Bible does not command us to celebrate the New Year according to the Hebrew calendar.

The article in the P.M. continued:

“In 1742, a decree of the Pope transferred church celebrations of the New Year to January 1; at the same time, this day was declared to be a fast day, in order to counteract the ‘unchristian’ actions between the two years. For between Christmas and January 6, the ghosts became active. When winter storms howled around the houses of the Germanic tribes, Wotan’s [Wodan’s] wild hunt was present—a frightening train of gods, demons and ghosts of the dead… These ghosts were driven away with big fires and cracks of whips. The ancient placed sacrificial offerings and gifts for the demons in front of their doors… Christianity could not eradicate those pagan customs. Quite to the contrary… The cracks of whips changed with the invention of black powder to fireworks….”

“Why do we still have to drive away – symbolically – ghosts with mortar shots and rockets? Why do we still maintain those New Year’s rites? Psychologists explain this with…the power of tradition, with superstition…This word reminds us of what is ‘standing above,’ what is ‘still there’, what has endured from the pagan past and from the ancient fears of man.”

The article also explained that in Munich, Germany, “Christian” celebrations are held on New Year’s Day with choirs and trumpets to “awake the new sun.”

Another source from the Internet tells us that rituals on New Year’s Day included purgations, purifications, exorcisms, extinguishing and rekindling fires and masked processions. Often exorcisms and purgations were performed with much noise as if to scare away the evil spirits. In China, Ying, the forces of light, fought Yang, the forces of darkness, with cymbals, noisemakers, and firecrackers.

It should be easily seen WHY it is wrong for TRUE Christians to participate in New Year’s Day’s customs.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Does God require an individual to tithe on the gross or on the net? Also, is an individual required to tithe on the sale of investments, such as real property, including a house or a condominium?

The answer to this question depends on many different circumstances.

As a general statement, God makes it very clear that His tithing laws are still in force and effect today, and that He commands us to tithe to Him. For a full explanation and discussion of this vital question, please read our free booklet, “Tithing-Today?”

In our booklet, we also discuss how to calculate God’s tithe. We state the following, which sets forth the teaching of the Church of God for many years:

“MONEY—a sensitive subject for many people. Those who have money, don’t want to part with it. Those who don’t have it, long for it. Yet from the time of man’s creation on this earth, God has given instructions on tithing—paying ten percent of our income to God who gave it in the first place…

“The question has been asked many times whether we are to pay tithe from the gross (before taxes are deducted from our paychecks) or from the net (after deduction of taxes). It has been the long-standing policy of the Church to advise that there is no duty to tithe on the gross, as this would be impossible in certain countries, where taxes are so high. At the same time, the Church has always emphasized that it is up to the individual whether he or she wants to tithe from the gross or the net. Many tithe from the gross, following the principle as expressed in Luke 17:10, but this is a personal decision, based on personal circumstances. God looks at the heart of a person. If one chooses to tithe from the net, he would then be obligated, of course, to pay tithe on any tax refunds he might receive in the next year…

“God requires that we pay tithe from our increase. This would include everything that we have acquired through our own labor or our own money (such as salaries and profits from our business, as well as profits from capital investments, interest from savings accounts, or money from renting out property). We are permitted to deduct from our [tithable] income the amount we need to use in order to achieve the increase. For instance, if we own a business, we are permitted to deduct all the costs we spend to run the business. We are only required to pay tithe from the actual increase or profit…

“God requires that we tithe from our increase—what we ourselves produce through our efforts or investment. Gifts or inheritances are not acquired through our own labor and don’t have to be tithed on. The same is true for money given to us in the form of unemployment benefits, pensions or social security. However, it would be advisable, at least in some of those cases, to consider whether a generous special offering would be appropriate. If in doubt, it is always better to err on the side of generosity, again, showing God where our heart is.”

The general guidelines are clearly revealed: We are to tithe from our profit–which is Biblically defined as the increase from our labor and investments. To determine the amount of increase, we are allowed to deduct our expenses. Increase from our labor or our money does not include gifts and inheritances. Therefore, if a person inherits real estate, such as a house or a condominium, or if they are received as gifts, there is no obligation to tithe on them. If a person sells his own house or condominium and uses the proceeds to buy another house or condominium of equal or higher value, there is no tithable increase, either.

Generally speaking, houses or condominiums are paid for over a long period of time. Also, for many, these homes are paid for out of money that was tithed on–if the person has known of this Godly command and has practiced it. Due to increasing values over the years, most homes are sold for more than their original purchase price, and it is this increase that involves tithing considerations.

If a person is selling his house without buying another one–because, for example, the person may own more than one house–then, generally, the person is obligated to tithe from the increase, while being allowed to deduct the amount for any existing mortgage; expenses which were incurred over the years for the upkeep of the house; as well as any loss or decrease in value incurred due to inflation or depreciation. If someone buys a house for $200,000.00, and sells it ten years later for $500,000.00, then the increase would be $300,000.00, minus deductible expenses, as described above. If the calculated final increase turns out to be $200.000.00, then the amount to be paid as tithe would be $20,000.00.

As mentioned, these are very general guidelines, but the principle of paying tithe is clear. God warns all of us not to rob Him by refusing to pay tithes and offerings. He says in Malachi 3:8-9:

“‘Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, “In what way have we robbed You?” In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me…'”

Surely, no one–and especially no true Christian–would want to be called a cursed robber–and not only an ordinary thief, but one who robs from God and is guilty of defrauding Him.

If in doubt, a Church member should counsel with a minister of God about this matter, before assuming that a tithing obligation exists –or that no such obligation exists–regarding the sale of a house or condominium, or any other matter related to tithing.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

©2024 Church of the Eternal God