Follow
Last to Know, Part 4
As we noted in our previous entry, it is assumed by Roman Catholics that Jesus promised to build His Church upon “this rock,” Peter. When that invalid assumption is allowed, Jesus’ next words — “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” — are infused with Petrine significance, as if the perseverance of the Church rested upon the shoulders of Peter and his successors. And when that assumption is allowed, His next words about “the keys of the kingdom” and binding and loosing, are infused with Magisterial authority. However, as we demonstrated in our harmonization of the Loaves Narratives, Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession was made in the context of Isaiah 54, a context established by the Johannine account: “It is written in the prophets [Isaiah 54:13), ‘And they shall be all taught of God'” (John 6:45). In Matthew, Jesus confirms that context, explaining that Peter had converted because the Father had taught him (Matthew 16:17). The benefit of harmonizing the Loaves Narratives is that we need not wonder what Jesus was thinking when He responded to Peter’s confession. He was thinking about the preaching ministry described Isaiah 54. Isaiah 54 not only identifies upon which “rock” Jesus would build His church, but also why the the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And when we see that the Apostles were commissioned, as Jesus had been, to preach the Word of the Father, we see plainly what Jesus meant by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Last to Know, Part 3
It is commonly assumed by Roman Catholics that Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Peter” because He planned to build His Church upon “this rock.” Catholic Answers, for example, says Jesus did this to assign to him “a particular powerful role” as “the foundation stone of the Church.” And yet, the Scriptures nowhere say why Jesus changed his name. Where the Scriptures do give reasons for assigning or changing names, we safely grasp the meanings. Where the Scriptures do not give the reason, we are not at liberty to assign a meaning on our own. The fact is, as with several other name changes and assignments in the Bible, the Scriptures provide no explicit reason for calling Simon “Peter.” Context, however, provides the information we need.
Last to Know, Part 2
We left off last time with a harmonized account of the loaves narratives, in which the Feeding of the 5,000 and the Feeding of the 4,000 were integrated into a single harmonized narrative using information from all four Gospels, beginning with the death of John the Baptist and ending with Peter’s confession of faith. That confession is typically taken to mean Peter was the first to believe, but in reality he was clearly the last. Jesus’ response to him should be understood in that context. From this harmonized account we understand statements that have confounded Roman Catholics, but are clear in the light of God’s revelation to us in the Scriptures. We understand what it means to eat “the true bread from heaven”, to “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood”, why the loaves miracles were the antidote to the leaven of the Pharisees, upon which “rock” Jesus promised to “build My church,” why “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”; and what it means to receive the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose on earth that which has been bound or loosed in heaven.
Last to Know, Part 1
The scriptural argument that Jesus built His Church upon Peter is itself built upon a single Bible verse without context: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). What is lost in the argument, whether from Patristic writers in antiquity or medieval theologians or modern Roman apologists—and yes, even some Protestants—is that Jesus said this to Peter in the aftermath of the two miracles of the loaves: the Feeding of the 5,000 and the Feeding of the 4,000. The events immediately following those miracles concluded with Jesus posing two different but related questions to the apostles: “Whom do men say that I am?” and “Will ye also go away?” Peter’s answers to those questions revealed that he had finally believed Who Jesus was, and in fact was the last of the apostles to do so. Only then did Jesus utter those famous words, “and upon this rock I will build my church.” By studying and harmonizing the loaves narratives, it becomes clear that the two questions Jesus asked arose concurrently and were answered at once. By understanding those questions, Peter’s answers, and Jesus’ response, we may also understand that “the rock” upon which Jesus would build His church was neither Peter, nor his confession, but something else entirely.
The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 5
With this post, we conclude our series on the creative but unconscionable rewriting of the early liturgies to make them conform to the late-4th century novelty in which Christ is said to be offered to the Father in the Eucharist. From the earliest days of the Church, the Eucharist was a sacrifice of thanks and praise to the Lord, a tithe offering. It was followed by an “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) and then bread and wine from the thank offering were taken and consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. The moment of Consecration originated as a simple recitation of Christ’s words of institution: “This is My body, broken. … This is My blood, shed…”. It later came to be called “the Epiclesis,” literally, the Invocation, the liturgical moment when God—the Spirit, the Son or the Trinity—is asked to make the bread and wine into a spiritual meal for His people. And thus, a very simple liturgy prevailed for three hundred years: A Eucharist. An Amen. An Epiclesis. At the end of the 4th century, the order changed and the Epiclesis was moved before the Eucharist offering, which changed a simple tithe offering for the poor into a sacrifice of consecrated bread and wine. Thus was born the abominable Roman Catholic liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. That discontinuity in the history of the liturgy puzzled and confounded scholars, historians, translators and apologists who could not explain why the early liturgy was so fundamentally different from the medieval one. Attempting to establish retroactive continuity, the academic community therefore engaged in a reprehensible campaign to edit, redact, mistranslate and subvert the early liturgies to “correct” the ancient writers and force them into conformity with the late 4th-century novelty. The effect of the historical revision has been to make the ancient Eucharist consecratory, essentially collapsing the ancient Eucharist into the Epiclesis, and thus creating the appearance that the ancient Eucharist offering of the early church was itself the Consecration.
The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 4
As we have noted in this series, from the earliest days of the Church through the end of the 4th century, the Eucharist was a thank offering to the Lord, a tithe, an expression of gratitude for the Lord’s provisions to His people. It was followed by an “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) and then bread and wine were taken from the tithe offering to be consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. That Consecration came to be called “the Epiclesis,” or invocation. And thus, a very simple liturgy prevailed for three hundred years: A Eucharist. An Amen. An Epiclesis. But by the end of the 4th century, the order was changed and the Epiclesis was moved before the Eucharist, turning a simple tithe offering into a sacrifice of consecrated bread and wine. Thus was born the abominable Roman Catholic liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, an offering utterly foreign to the Scriptures and the Apostolic Church. That sudden 4th-century shift in the liturgy puzzled and confounded scholars, historians, translators and apologists who could not explain why the early liturgy was so different from the medieval one. So the rewriting of history began, and the academic community participated in a painstaking campaign to establish retroactive continuity. Early liturgies were translated, edited, reinterpreted, mistranslated and even rewritten to “correct” the ancient writers and force them into conformity with the late 4th-century novelty. The effect has been to give the appearance that the ancient Eucharist offering was itself the Consecration, essentially collapsing the Eucharist into the Epiclesis.
Continue reading The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 4The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 3
As we have noted in this series, for three centuries, the Eucharist—which is to say, the thanksgiving or the tithe offering—was followed by an “Amen” in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:16, at which point bread and wine were taken from the thank offering and consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. A Eucharist. An Amen. An Epiclesis. But that order changed at the end of the 4th century, and the Eucharist was moved after the Epiclesis so that consecrated bread and wine began to be offered as a liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. As a result, the “Amen,” instead of a corporate affirmation of gratitude to God, became an affirmation of the Consecration. The academic community could find no explanation for the shift, and so through creative editing, translation and redaction of the ancient evidence, revised the early liturgies to conform to the later novelty. That editorial revision of history created the false impression that the medieval Roman Catholic liturgical sacrifice of consecrated bread and wine had been handed down from the Apostles.
The mode of the revision was to collapse the early Eucharist into the early Epiclesis, essentially combining two distinct, ancient liturgical events into one. The effect has been to hide the evidence and give the impression that the ancient Eucharistic prayer was actually the Consecration, suggesting that the ancient tithe offering was really a liturgical sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. It was not.
Continue reading The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 3The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 2
— The Eucharistic Anaphora of Hippolytus (215 A.D.)
We continue now with our series on the liturgical shift that occurred in the latter part of the 4th century, three hundred years after the Apostles. For three centuries, the Eucharist—which is to say, the tithe offering—was followed by an “Amen” in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:16, at which point bread and wine were taken from the tithe offering and consecrated for the Lord’s Supper. A Eucharist. An Amen. An Epiclesis. What was offered in the Eucharist was simply the unconsecrated first-fruits of the harvest and the grateful prayers of the saints. What was consumed in the Lord’s Supper was consecrated bread and wine. Unconsecrated food was offered as a tithe as a fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 and consecrated food was consumed as a memorial meal, in accordance with the instruction of Christ at His Last Supper. The Apostolic “Amen” separated those two liturgical events. But that order changed at the end of the 4th century, and the Eucharist was moved after the Epiclesis so that consecrated bread and wine began to be offered as a liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. The academic community—men of every stripe—were puzzled and confounded by that sudden shift, and instead of acknowledging and discerning its significance, opted instead to bury it. The early liturgies have for centuries been handled in such a way—through editorializing, mistranslation, redaction and suppression—as to collapse the Eucharist into the Epiclesis, essentially combining two distinct liturgical events into one. The effect has been to hide the evidence and give the impression that the ancient Eucharistic prayer was actually the Consecration, suggesting that the ancient tithe offering was really a liturgical sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. It was not.
The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 1
In our previous post, we observed that the Pauline liturgy placed an “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) between the thanksgiving (the Eucharist) and the Consecration (sometimes called the Epiclesis), and that the Scriptures and the ancient liturgies consistently place the Eucharist prior to the Consecration. We also showed that the Eucharist in the early Church consisted of the grateful prayers and the tithe offerings of the Church. These were offered during the Sunday liturgy in imitation of Christ Who gave thanks to His Father at the Last Supper. Those prayers and tithes were understood by the early writers to be the fulfillment of the “incense” and the “pure offering” prophesied by the prophet Malachi (1:11). Only Christians in good standing could participate in that tithe offering, for only in Christ could one bring “the tithes into the storehouse” (Malachi 3:10) with a pure heart and a clear conscience. The unbeliever, the catechumen and the backslider were therefore dismissed from the service at the time of the offertory. The original Sacrifice of Dismissal (oblationem missa) or what eventually came to be known as the Sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, was simply a reference to the tithe offering that occurred immediately after the Dismissal. It did not refer to an offering of consecrated bread and wine.
The Apostolic “Amen”
Ironically, one of the most profoundly divisive practices in the history of Christianity is the Lord’s Supper. It separates denominations, one from another, and divides denominations from within. Protestants and Catholics certainly celebrate it differently, Roman Catholics understanding the Supper to be a sacrificial offering of Christ’s body and blood, and Protestants generally, though not universally, understanding it to be a memorial meal rather than a sacrifice. Within the broader classification of Protestants, there are divisions. Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists and Presbyterians all celebrate it differently, some weekly, others monthly or quarterly. Yet even within denominations there are differences of opinion. Anglicans, for example, historically have been divided on whether the Lord’s Supper, or “the Eucharist”, is a sacrifice or a commemoration.
Continue reading The Apostolic “Amen”Come Hell or High Water, part 9
We return now to our series on Revelation 12, an Exodus narrative in which we find the Woman, fleeing from the error that proceeds from the mouth of the devil, seeking her place of safety in the wilderness. As we have noted in this series, many saints avoided the apostasy as Roman Catholicism was coming to power as the prophesied successor to the Roman Empire. Their objections were consistently raised against the oppressive episcopal hierarchy, clerical celibacy, the continuation of the Passover sacrifice in the form of the Roman mass, prayers for the dead, intercession of the saints, the inordinate magnification of Mary, the veneration of human remains in the form of relics, veneration of the wood of the cross, baptismal regeneration and Roman primacy. If we would find the Woman of Revelation, we need only discover the flood of error from the mouth of the serpent, and then find the people who stood on the Word to resist it. The flood of error is not hard to find, nor is it difficult to find the people who countered it with the Scriptures. Continue reading Come Hell or High Water, part 9
The Ashes of Isaac
As our readers know, we have long held that the 70 Week prophecy of Daniel 9 is Mosaic rather than Messianic. Thus the prophecy finds its fulfillment under the Old Covenant rather than under the New. Instead of prophesying the advent of Christ and the end of sacrifices, the prophecy was rather that Cyrus, King of Persia, an anointed ruler (Isaiah 45:1), would be raised up to rebuild Jerusalem, that Onias III, the anointed high priest would be murdered, and that Antiochus IV would come and end sacrifices, but that faithful Jews would cleanse the sanctuary, anoint the altar, the most holy (Exodus 40:10) and restore Mosaic sacrifices. The fulfillment of that Seventieth Week, from 171-164 B.C. was Mosaic, not Messianic. Continue reading The Ashes of Isaac
Come Hell or High Water, part 8
We continue now with our series on Revelation 12, a chapter that is an Exodus narrative in which the Woman is shown fleeing from the error of that proceeds from the mouth of the devil and seeking her place of safety in the wilderness. As we have noted in this series, the Woman of Revelation 12 must have taken her leave sometime between the end of the Diocletianic persecution (313 A.D.) and the rise of Roman Catholicism to the seat of civil power among the fragments of the Roman Empire in the last decade of the 4th century. Continue reading Come Hell or High Water, part 8
Come Hell or High Water, part 7
We continue now with our series on Revelation 12, a chapter that is an Exodus narrative in which the Woman is shown fleeing from the error of that proceeds from the mouth of the devil and seeking her place of safety in the wilderness. As we have noted in this series, the Woman of Revelation 12 must have taken her leave sometime between the end of the Diocletianic persecution (313 A.D.) and the rise of Roman Catholicism to the seat of civil power among the fragments of the Roman Empire in the last decade of the 4th century. Continue reading Come Hell or High Water, part 7
Come Hell or High Water, part 6
As we noted in our previous installment, Revelation 12 is an Exodus narrative in which the Woman is depicted as fleeing from the error of the devil and seeking her place in the wilderness. In a word, she leaves. The Church simply departs, and takes up refuge in the Wilderness, and is nourished there by Her Savior. In that installment, we provided evidence of the objections of Ærius, Jovinianus, Vigilantius, Sarmatio and Barbatianus to the novelties being introduced in the latter part of the 4th century. These men, according to the historical record, were all taking their leave of the company of error and striking out on a separate path (except Jovinianus, who was apparently imprisoned for his objections). Continue reading Come Hell or High Water, part 6
Come Hell or High Water, part 5
We continue this week with our series on the Woman of Revelation 12. As we have maintained thus far, the Flood of Revelation 12 is the sudden irruption of error toward the end of the fourth century, which error in practice became known to the world as Roman Catholicism. The flood that emerged from the Serpent’s mouth was nothing else than the sudden step-wise emergence and nearly universal acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrines beginning at the end of the fourth century. In our pursuit of the Woman of Revelation 12, we seek out those late fourth century saints who resisted the flood of error, and escaped from it. Continue reading Come Hell or High Water, part 5
Come Hell or High Water, part 4
We continue our series this week on the Woman of Revelation 12, turning our attention now to the Flight of the Woman, the Flood of Error from the Serpent and in particular the Woman’s resistance to the Flood by the Word of God. As we noted in part 2, the Flight, and therefore the Flood, must occur in the period of the Toes of Daniel 2—after the 5th Seal of Revelation 6 is opened but before the Little Horn of Daniel 7 accedes to civil dominion. As we described in Do Not Weep for Nicomedia, the 5th Seal occurred in 311 A.D., and as we described in The Fifth Empire, part 3, Roman Catholicism took up the mantle of civil power in 395 A.D.. The Flight and the Flood occur between those two events. This week, we begin to examine the fledgling resistance movement—the first signs of protest against the emerging Roman leviathan. What we find is a group of godly Christian men who, against all odds, stood on the Scriptures to withstand the Flood of error that proceeded from the mouth of the Serpent. The whole world was swept up in the novelties being introduced at the time, but the Church was not.
Continue reading Come Hell or High Water, part 4
Come Hell or High Water, part 3
In our previous installments of this series, we addressed the structure of Revelation 12 in which John provides a time frame for the events described, as well as the identity of the Woman and her Man Child as well as the duration of her time in the wilderness (Revelation 12:1-6). As we noted in part 1, the time frame of the chapter covers the period of the persecution by the Little Horn of Daniel 8 for “time, times, and an half” (Daniel 12:7) through the persecution by the Little Horn of Daniel 7 for “time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25). The chapter thus straddles not only the transition of the Woman from National Israel to Ecclesial Israel, but also the transition of world empires from Bronze to Iron to Iron & Clay in the statue of Daniel 2, from Legs to Feet to Toes. In part 2, we showed that the flight of the Woman must therefore occur in the period of the Toes of Daniel 2—after the 5th Seal of Revelation 6 but before the rise of the Little Horn of Daniel 7. Continue reading Come Hell or High Water, part 3
Come Hell or High Water, part 2
In our previous installment, by mapping key events in Revelation 12:4,7 to the book of Daniel, we sought to identify the bounds of the time frame of the events depicted in Revelation 12 as well as the identities of the Woman and the Man Child. As we noted there, the time frame in chapter 12 encompasses everything from the persecution of the Jews by the Little Horn of Daniel 8 “for a time, times, and an half” (Daniel 12:7), to the persecution of the Church by the Little Horn of Daniel 7 for “a time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25). The Woman of Revelation 12 begins as National Israel suffering under Greek persecution as the stars of heaven are cast down (Daniel 8:10, Revelation 12:4), and then under Roman imperial oppression as the serpent attempts to devour the Man Child when He is born (Daniel 12:1, Revelation 12:4). The Man Child is Christ who lived, died, rose and “was caught up unto God, and to his throne” (Revelation 12:5) during the Roman Empire, by which time the Woman has become Ecclesial Israel who would flee to the wilderness after being persecuted by the devil, only to endure even more persecution by the ungodly empire that would succeed Rome. It is in the context of that transition from National to Ecclesial Israel that Michael “standeth for the children of thy people” (Daniel 12:1) and “fought against” the accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:7-10). In this installment we now turn our attention to the timing of the Flight of the Woman and the Flood let loose by the Serpent by evaluating the effects of Michael’s extradition of Satan in the context of Daniel’s prophecies. Continue reading Come Hell or High Water, part 2