Why I Love the Church (Part 2)
July 4th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
The Church Is Being Built by the Lord Himself
The church is the New Testament counterpart of the Old Testament Temple. I’m not referring to a church building, but the body of all true believers.
It is a spiritual building (1 Pet. 2:5), the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16), the place where God’s glory is most clearly manifest on earth, and the proper nucleus and focal point of spiritual life and worship for the community of the redeemed.
God Himself is the architect and builder of this temple. In Ephesians 2:19-22, Paul writes,
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of the church in the eternal plan of God. The church is His building (1 Cor. 3:9). Moreover, He is the immutable, sovereign, omnipotent Lord of heaven. His Word cannot return void but always accomplishes what He says (Isa. 55:11). He is always faithful and cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13). His sovereign purposes always comes to pass, and His will is always ultimately fulfilled (Isa. 46:10). His plan is invincible and unshakable, and He will bring to pass all that He has spoken (v. 11). And he has spoken about building the church in the most triumphant words.
For example, in Matthew 16:18 Christ said, “I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” He who knows His sheep by name (John 10:3)—He who wrote their names down before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8)—He personally guarantees that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church He is building.
“The gates of Hades” was a Jewish expression for death. Hades is the place of the dead, and the gates of Hades represent the portal into that place—death itself. Hades is also the domain of the devil. Hebrews 2:14 refers to Satan as the one “who had the power of death,” and verse 15 says he used that power to keep people in fear and bondage all their lives. But now Christ has broken that power, and liberated His people from Satan’s dominion—in essence, he has broken down the gates of Hades. And therefore even the power of death—the strongest weapon Satan wields—cannot prevent the ultimate triumph of the church He is building.
There’s still more significance to the imagery of “the gates of Hades.” Gates are a walled city’s most vital defensive safeguards. Christ’s words therefore portray the church militant, storming the very gates of hell, victoriously delivering people from the power of death. Thus Christ assures the triumph of the church’s evangelistic mission. He is building the church, and the work will not be thwarted.
Christ’s promise in this passage should not be misconstrued. He does not suggest that any particular church will be infallible. He does not teach that any of the bishops of the church will be error-free. He does not guarantee that this or that individual church will not apostatize. He does not promise success and prosperity to every congregation. But He does pledge that the church—that universal body of believers under Christ’s headship—the spouse, the body, and the fullness of him that filleth all in all—will have a visible being and a testimony in this world as long as the world itself lasts. And the all the enemies of truth combined shall never secure the defeat or destruction of the church.
Notice also that the church is a work in progress. Christ is still building His church. We are still being joined together (Eph. 2:21). The church is still under construction (v. 22). God is not finished yet. The imperfections and blemishes in the visible church are still being refined by the Master Builder.
And here’s something remarkable: The plan for the finished product is a blueprint that was drawn in eternity past.
John,
You stated:
The church is the New Testament counterpart of the Old Testament Temple.
I say:
The New Testament Church is the “fulfillment” of the Old Testament Temple. As you know, Jesus said he came to “fulfill” and not abolish (Matt 5:17).
The New Testament Church fulfills and completes (not abolishes) what the old couldn’t until Jesus our Savior came (Gal 2:21).
Marty Barrack (Jewish convert) writes of the Jewish heritage of The Catholic Church:
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/articles/ourjewishheritage.htm
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/articles/jesusofnazarethkingofthejews.htm
The Old had the scriptures, an authoritative body to interpret them and also had an oral Tradition that was authoritative.
The New Testament Church also must have all three.
Marty Barrack writes of how the Catholic Church is the True Church for Jews coming to Christ and why: (nice overview)
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/2000-12/barrack.html
The Passover feast was fulfilled in the Mass (The Eucharist). In the Old they had to eat of the lamb after the blood was smeared on their doorways for the angel of death to “pass over” them. Steve Ray (former Baptist) does a nice job of giving a primer of the Mass from St. Justin Martyr, circa 155 A.D.
http://www.catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Documents/PrimerMass.doc
Marty also does a nice job of explaining the biblical foundations of the Eucharist from the Old and New Testaments here:
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html
Another question: Since the bible is silent on things like in- vitro fertilization, stem cells, contraception, etc… how are we to know what is true if he did not leave us with a visible, teaching, authoritative Church?
Amen! How encouraging to know that He shall present us all faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy!
Gerry,
That’s pretty far fetched to make conclusions like you did: The Roman Catholic church “is” the fulfillment of the Temple??? Are you assuming that when Jesus says He fulfills the law that He meant the institution(s) known as the Western RCC? And the Mass fulfills the Passover feast? No, Jesus death and resurrection fulfills and completes it. That’s why it was the “last supper.” Once for all Jesus covered our sin through His perfect atoning sacrifice and shed blood (demonstrating violent death to propitiate for sin). The Roman Mass is a perpetual re-sacrifice of Jesus, necessary for all Catholics to participate in order to have their latest sins absolved. There is nothing fulfilling about a dogma like that. But the Bible declares that Jesus “one” sacrifice was sufficient for all sin. We don’t need a continual priesthood offering sacrifices anymore to propitiate for our sin.
And to say that the Jews had 3 equal authorities is again unbiblical (Ps. 138:2). That “oral tradition” that was authoritative to the Jews, was outright rejected by Jesus (Mat. 16:12). Can you explain to me how eating the transfigured flesh of a man and drinking his blood is in agreement with the OT passover meal, is that not against the law itself?
As a former Catholic myself, I appreciate your knowledge and understanding of Catholicism, since we can have a dialogue on these things. Almost all Catholics I know have little to no knowledge of what they believe and whether it is Biblical or not.
Dan,
Really great point about the “perpetual, re-sacrifice.” Hebrews is unmistakably clear about the once-for-all sufficiency of the atonement (Heb 7:27, 9:12, 9:26, 10:12, et al.).
Also, about oral tradition, Jesus indicts the Pharisees for that in the previous chapter in Matthew, Mt 15:1-9. Here are verses 7-9.
You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
Even in Isaiah’s time, teaching the traditions of men as if they were doctrine is condemned. (Notice also that doctrine, or Scripture, is the only thing that’s considered authoritative.)
MIKE
Dan W,
First off, I agree that some, if not most, of the dioceses do not do a good job of catechising the flock. That does not excuse the individual Catholic from learning more about the faith on their own. I know most, if not all, parishes have a bible study group and there is an ocean of resources (i.e, the Catechism) that explain the faith in great detail. It is good to question, but better still to seek and fully understand before you leave.
Jesus sacrifice WAS once and for all and it is NEVER repeated, but Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is re-presented to The Father.
http://www.adoremus.org/0501Sacrifice-banquet.html
The Cathechism of The Catholic Church states the following:
The Holy Mother Church firmly believes that “the Eucharist is a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the Sacrifice of the Cross” (CCC, no. 1366). The difference between the Sacrifice of Calvary and the Eucharist is not in the unique sacrifice that is offered, but only in the manner of its offering. The Church believes that “the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice” (CCC, no. 1367).
This was prophesied in the book of Malachi verse 11:
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
What sacrifice and pure offering do we offer from the rising of the sun to it’s setting? The Mass is Jesus’ offering of Himself on the cross for our salvation as the “pure offering”. You can probably remember what the priest says during the third Eucharistic prayer during the consecration “So that from East to West a perfect offering may be made.” More on the sacrifice of The Mass from the early fathers:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801frs.asp
As far as the last supper, did not Jesus say This is the New and Everlasting Covenant
Jn 6:35-71 – Eucharist promised
Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) – Eucharist instituted
1Cor 10:16 – Eucharist = participation in Christ’s body & blood
1 Cor 11:23-29 – receiving unworthily his body & blood
Ex 12:8, 46 – Paschal lamb had to be eaten
Jn 1:29 – Jesus called “Lamb of God”
1 Cor 5:7 – Jesus called “paschal lamb who has been sacrificed
Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 – Jesus talking symbolically about food
1Cor 2:14-3:4 – explains what “the flesh” means in Jn 6:63
Take a look at the Eucharistic prayers said at Mass:
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EP1-4.htm
Mike,
As far as the Pharisee’s authority, Jesus in Matt 23 affirms their teaching authority but rebukes their conduct.
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice
The Jews followed the Law and the prophets (written Law and Oral teaching of the prophets).
We see in Matt 2:23 the following:
23 He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.”
Now no where in the Old Testament is “He shall be called a Nazorean” written since it said it was spoken, not written. It was a Sacred Oral Tradition
Gerry,
“re-presenting” – I ask the question to you just for logic sake…Why? What’s the point of re-presenting? If what He offered at Calvary was sufficient, then it’s sufficient, justification is done. All my sins were taken away on that cross 2000 years ago (Col. 2:14). It makes complete sense to me to take Zwingli’s view of communion – memorial, not re-presenting. What is the benefit in performing a mass with a priest, and a transfigured host, offered on an altar, each and every Sunday? Do you believe that their is meritorious grace being imparted to the participants? If so, I disagree entirely. Your use of Malachi as a prophecy of the Mass is not acceptable to me, because animals, Israel, the Temple, and the Aaronic priesthood are the context. We in the Christian age have no animals, no national and historical identity in terms of the covenants, a heavenly temple, and A Melchizedek priest who serves forever having offered only one sacrifice.
In response to Jesus’ “eat my body…” the meaning was not eat my physical body and drink my actual blood transfigured into this bread, it was eat the Bread of Life and drink the Living Water per se…that is believe in Me and receive my atonement for your justification. He was by no means saying perform this act of communion and it will save you. That would contradict His gospel.
Dan,
If Jesus was not taken literally, why did those that followed him leave? Better yet, why didn’t Jesus call them back and say that he was speaking symbolically?
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp
(The following taken from the above link)
Justin Martyr
“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).
John Chrysostom
“When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).
“Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the sacrificial victim who is placed thereon!” (Homilies on Romans 8:8 [A.D. 391]).
“In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself” (ibid., 24:2).
“What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice” (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]).
Augustine
“In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness” (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).
“For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it” (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).
Gerry,
in the passage you quoted in John you commented: “If Jesus was not taken literally, why did those that followed him leave? Better yet, why didn’t Jesus call them back and say that he was speaking symbolically?”
YOu are applying isogesis to that text if you say Jesus was talking about the Eucharist and Wine. Communion isn’t even a part of the context here. So they are concluding that he was referring to canabalism, which is forbidden by the Law. If Jesus said drink the living water or eat the bread of life, would the people think there was an actual mystical loaf or supernaturally empowered water He was offering? Yes, they probably would, but Jesus, time and again, was always referring to believing in Him and obeying His Words (John 6:29ff., 63-64, 68).
One of the major beefs I have with the Church of Rome (and others who do the same) is that when it searches for authority it goes to places like the church fathers (as you are doing) or human reason, human wisdom, or human tradition. The Reformation was largely about rejecting that as the final rule of authority for faith and practice and only appealing to the Word rightly divided (sola scriptura). If Augustine didn’t interpret the Word properly than I reject it. If you can dialogue with me from careful exegesis from the Bible, then we have something to strive together for. But if you’re going to quote the fathers, from carefully selected places, then we’ve got little to go with, because I don’t accept their words as inspired and final. I’m sure I can quote the same authors in ways that contradict the Roman Catholic dogmas…
Dan W,
It is interesting to note that John 6:66 (666) refers to His former disciples leaving Him on account of His speaking of physically eating and drinking His body and blood. The Apostles didn’t fully understand it at that point either as shown in verses 68 and 69, but they would later. Also interesting is that this is where Judas fell away…
Let’s look in 1Cor 10:16,
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
**Cup that is blessed and bread broken a participation of the body and the blood of Christ.
In 1 Cor11:27-31,
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
***Eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. If it is symbolic how can this be?
**Examine himself because anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement. How can this be if it is only symbolic?
I quote the fathers not “authoritatively” but to show that it was consistently believed from the beginning. I would like for you to show me what fathers rejected this.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
Please also read the links that I had supplied in my earlier post about the Eucharist being the fulfillment of the Passover:
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html
http://www.adoremus.org/0501Sacrifice-banquet.html
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/articles/ourjewishheritage.htm
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/articles/jesusofnazarethkingofthejews.ht
The reformers couldn’t even agree whether or not it was symbolic.
The following are Martin Luther’s words concerning the Eucharist:
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
Interesting how even Luther speaks of the early fathers in the same way that I do…
God bless.