FASTING LIKE THE HYPOCRITES

We are again approaching the Easter season and many will be participating in what is known as Lent.  Lent lasts for about forty days and is supposed to be a time of self-denial, moderation, fasting and the forsaking of sinful habits.  It is a special day of preparation for each person, getting them spiritually ready for the celebration of Easter.  Lent is celebrated by the Orthodox Churches, a few Protestant groups, and especially by Catholics. 

 

One of the main aspects of Lent for Catholics is Ash Wednesday.  Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent, and on this day, ashes are applied on the forehead of the participating Catholic, referencing, to some extent, the Old Testament concept of using ashes during fasting or mourning (for example, 2 Samuel 13:19; Esther 4:1; Job 2:8; Daniel 9:3).  To make these special ashes, the Church uses palm leaves that are “blessed” by the priest and sprinkled with “holy water.”

But interestingly, this special day of preparation named Ash Wednesday comes right after a day called Shrove Tuesday or Mardi Gras, which is French for “Fat Tuesday.”  Mardi Gras is generally a day of decorative parades and festivities, and often a time of drunkenness, lust, revelry and wild parties, especially in cities like New Orleans.  Not only is it celebrated in many cities in the U.S., like Mobile, Galveston, St. Louis, Orlando, and San Diego, but also in other countries, including Brazil, Italy, France, Colombia, India and Canada.

But the proud revelry of Fat Tuesday certainly tends to negate the intended purity and significance of Ash Wednesday in many cases.  We know of many Catholics who see Mardi Gras as “one last wild party” before getting “serious” with God.  It is a mockery of God and of the person’s supposed new life ahead.  The participant is a lustful glutton and carouser on Tuesday, but on Wednesday, he suddenly becomes a holy vessel of God because he is wearing ashes in the shape of a cross on his forehead.  God is not fooled by this, and neither are many observers.

Ash Wednesday does indeed intend to convey the idea of public fasting, but for many people, fasting has seemed to have lost its meaning.  The prophet Isaiah spoke of a true fast, one coming from the heart and not through external appearances (Isaiah 58:3-7).

But Jesus, in the gospel of Matthew, clarified even farther the proper way to fast...  

Matthew 6:

v. 16 - And whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance in order to be seen fasting by men.  Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.  

v. 17 - But you, when you fast, anoint your head, and wash your face, 

v. 18 - so that you may not be seen fasting by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.” (NASV)

So why the ashes in public?  Why does anyone else have to know when you’re fasting?  Is it a true fast, or is it all just for show, like with the hypocrites?  Jesus said that fasting should be a private matter.  Why would any church (Catholic or otherwise) that claims to follow Jesus Christ purposely disobey His specific commands about the manner of fasting by placing ashes on the foreheads of its members for display?  It is true that no one is forced to do this, but they are certainly encouraged by the Catholic Church to do this public (and unbiblical) ritual.

Notice in the context of Matthew 6:1-6 that Jesus said that those who practice their holiness publicly (to be seen of men) already have their reward… and that reward is the attention and admiration of those who notice them.  But that’s it.  It is the reward of the hypocrite.  This is his only reward.  He doesn’t get a reward from God.  His “pious” works were wasted and his religion is a sham.

The truth is, those participating in Ash Wednesday are acting more like Pharisees than they are Christians.  Jesus strongly condemned all forms of hypocrisy, especially the religious pretension of the Pharisees (Matthew 23).

But to be fair, the Catholic Church is not the only group to be infected with hypocrisy.  It can be found in Orthodox and Protestant churches, as well.  Nevertheless, to encourage your members to openly disregard the teaching of Jesus so that they can be noticed of men is to put them in a dangerous position… it is indeed fasting like the hypocrites.  Jesus said of the Pharisees and scribes:

“You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me.’” (Matthew 15:7-8 - NASV)

THE “FAILURE” OF THE CROSS?

On September 24, 2015, Pope Francis was speaking to a group assembled in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City and he said something that caused quite a stir within the ranks of Christendom.  In this speech, the pope mentioned “the failure of the cross.”  His statement troubled many people who wondered what to make of the pope’s remarks.  Many, especially Protestants, were deeply offended by those words.  But in what context did he use that phrase?  Does the pope really see the work of Christ on the cross as a failed event?  

According to official Catholic teaching, it is through the cross of Jesus Christ that we have redemption (CCC #517), justification (CCC #617) and salvation (CCC #1741).  To their credit, this is indeed biblical.  Again, this is official teaching, so they are at least giving lip service to the true effects of the cross.  But getting back to the speech, here is the context of what the pope actually said:

“To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.  The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.  Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.  And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.”

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150924_usa-omelia-vespri-nyc.html

In the context of his homily, the pope may well have been alluding to 1 Corinthians 1:18, that “the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,” thus, seeming like a failure to unbelievers.  To be fair, the pope did qualify the phrase in question by saying, “humanly speaking.”

But the magnitude and importance of this one-of-a-kind event called Calvary cannot be overstated.  So, he should have been more cautious, especially knowing that this speech was being recorded for the whole world (not just the clergy) to see and hear.  The very fact that it was controversial (even for some Catholics) demonstrates that his remarks were not entirely clear.  So, any reference to the cross as a “failure” had better be clearly explained.

 

Ok, so he certainly could have worded it more carefully.  The “failure of the cross” seemed to be a less-than-ideal choice of words (even with the qualifier), seeing how it quickly caused a commotion among Christians.  He could have used better qualifiers, e.g., “some people may think that it was a failure,” or “it only appeared to be a failure,” etc.  Anyone with his level of influence and authority should be very careful about the things he says in public, especially when it comes to the precious blood of the Savior (1 Peter 1:18-19).  Ok, so it won’t happen again.  Lesson learned, right?

Well, apparently not.

If he would have stopped there, then we would have left this alone and this article would never have been written… but he said it again.

A short time later, on November, 27, 2015, he made a similar comment.  In Nairobi, Kenya, Pope Francis said to a group of youth:

“When you don’t understand something, when desperation hits you then look at the cross. That is the great failure of God, that is the destruction of God, and it’s a challenge to our faith. And this is hope, because history did not end in that failure. Rather it’s in the resurrection of Christ that renewed all of us.”

Apparently, the pope was not fazed by the outrage that his words had caused earlier in September.  But he went much farther this time and again called Jesus’ suffering on the cross “the great failure of God,” and he also refers to “the destruction of God” and “the history of God’s failure.”  These sound more like statements from an atheist than a Christian!  See his quote here:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-powerful-unscripted-talk-with-kenyas-youth-72927

Leaders must be careful of their words – you’d think that he would have learned the first time.  But this time he repeated it without saying “humanly speaking,” or using any type of qualifier or clarification.  And worse yet, he was speaking to the youth of that country, not scholars or theologians!  These impressionable minds can easily take this to mean that God was an actual failure in sending His Son to the cross, and that God was somehow “destroyed”!

Note that never in the speech he gave in September, nor in the one he gave in November, does the pope balance his reference to the cross as a failure with calling the cross an actual victory.  Strange, but only the term “failure” is mentioned in both speeches.  Was this intentional?  So, many youngsters will be left with a false impression of the greatest act of love (and victory!) in the history of mankind (Colossians 2:14-15).

What makes all this even more of a problem is the fact that the Catholic Church, in some of its teachings, promotes the idea that Jesus’ suffering on the cross just didn’t seem to be fully sufficient to save mankind.  Therefore, making it at least a partial failure.  We’re speaking of doctrines like salvation by “faith-plus-works,” Purgatory, penance, indulgences and sacraments.  All these entail adding some sort of work or suffering alongside Jesus’ absolutely sufficient and perfect work on the cross (John 19:30; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Hebrews 9:12, 14, 26; 10:14).

Most Catholics would defend the pope and say that the Church would never say that the cross was a failure. So, if Catholics really are against the idea of the cross failing, and if the cross really means that much to them, then why do they embrace these particular teachings that deny the sufficiency of the cross to pay for the sins of mankind?

The only failure here is on the part of the pope, not the cross.  He failed to take advantage of opportunities to exalt the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, but instead, perverted the very meaning of Calvary.

DAVE ARMSTRONG ON PRAYING TO SAINTS

Popular Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong has written an article defending the practice of praying to, and praying for, the saints.  The “saints” to which Catholic theology refers in these cases are certain persons who lived especially holy lives and who have died and (it is assumed) went on to Heaven.  They are not referring to the biblical definiton, which says that every true believer is a saint (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1), but rather, the Catholic definiton.  How they know that these “saints” are really in Heaven to begin with is altogether another issue.  But Armstrong’s defense of the saints giving and receiving prayer can be found here:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/4-biblical-proofs-for-prayers-to-saints-and-for-the-dead

The first example that Armstrong uses in an attempt to make his case is the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.  He first points to the fact that in the King James Version of the Bible, the rich man used the term “I pray thee” (v. 27) and implies that this is evidence that the rich man was “praying” to Abraham.  Therefore, praying to a saint.

But we have to remember that this was “King James talk,” which was the common way to speak in the day the King James Bible was written.  The term “I pray thee” can indeed be used while in prayer, but it does not necessarily mean that one is praying.  It simply means, “I ask of you,” or “I beg of you.”  

Also, biblically speaking, prayer is only to someone who is in another realm, different than your own, for example, from earth to Heaven, and more specifically, from people on earth to God in Heaven (which is the only biblical example).  In Luke 16, Abraham and the rich man were in the same realm, near to each other.  They were certainly in two different places, but in the same realm (Hades).  So, two people in Hades communicating with each other is no different than two people in Heaven communicating with each other, or two people on earth communicating with each other – they are simply talking face to face, not praying.

Toward the end of this point, Armstrong says:

“Thus we can only conclude that human beings in the afterlife can be prayed to and that they have the power… to fulfill the requests… exactly what the Catholic communion of saints / invocation of saints holds…”

No, sorry Dave, but this is not the “only” conclusion that we can come to concerning prayer in this passage.  Actually, there is nothing at all in this passage about prayer.  Not only is yours not the only conclusion, it is not even a valid conclusion, according to the Bible.  Throughout Scripture, the only God-approved prayer is directed to God alone, not to Mary, not to saints, and not to angels.

Armstrong’s second example is King Saul “petitioning” the prophet Samuel after Samuel died (1 Samuel 28:15-16).  Actually, this is the story of how Saul, acting against God’s law, sought out the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:7) to conjure up Samuel to help him.  It was (and is) a sin to be involved in necromancy or to use mediums to communicate with the dead (Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:10-12).  Even the witch knew that! (1 Samuel 28:3, 9)

It is interesting that Catholics will complain when Protestants compare praying to saints with necromancy, using mediums, or seances (all communicating with the dead), yet here, Dave Armstrong uses that very thing (the services of a medium) as an example of praying to saints!

Armstrong then states, “The Bible casually assumes that great prophets like Moses and Samuel would be praying for those on earth after they died.”  And then he uses Jeremiah 15:1 to try and support his claim:

Then the LORD said to me, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people.  Send them out of my sight, and let them go!”

But any “casual assumptions” about the dead praying for us in this passage are made by Catholics, not Scripture.  God is not saying that Moses and Samuel actually stood before Him and interceded for the people.  He was making the point that even if they would have, He wouldn’t answer even their request.  God also says something similar to the verse above in Ezekiel 14:14: 

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.

He then repeats this concept in verses 16, 18, and 20.  But in each case God is merely saying that EVEN IF great men of God like Moses, Samuel, Noah, Daniel, or Job would try to intervene (great intercessors as they were), God STILL would not answer their prayers, because of the great sin of Israel.  That’s the point God is making here.  He certainly was not endorsing the idea of prayer from these men after death.  Nowhere in Scripture do we see anyone in God’s will praying to anyone but God, nor do we see any departed saints praying for us.

Next, Dave points out that the bystanders at Jesus’ crucifixion believed that He was asking (praying to) Elijah to come and save Him.  Supposedly, “This type of petition was commonly believed at the time.”  But these Jews had no biblical reason whatsoever to believe that one could pray to anyone other than God.  

Dave Armstrong’s third example is the apostle Paul supposedly praying for the dead in 2 Timothy 1:16-18: 

[16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me – [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Notice that this is merely an assumption on Dave’s part.  There is no mention of anyone dead here.  It is possible that Onesiphorus was simply away from home, so maybe that is why Paul prayed for his household (2 Timothy 1:16; 4:19). 

 

But even if Onesiphorus was indeed dead when Paul wrote this, the final destiny of Onesiphorus was fixed, it was already decided (Luke 16:19-23; 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8; Hebrews 9:27).  No amount of prayer from anyone, even an apostle, could help his state after death.  

But obviously, Onesiphorus was a godly man, or Paul would not have spoken so highly of him.  Therefore, if he was dead, there was no need to ask God for mercy for Onesiphorus, since he had already obtained that final mercy.  But there was something else going on here.  If Onesiphorus was actually dead, Paul’s “prayer” for him to find mercy in that day was not specifically a petition to “help” him, but rather, a pious wish, an expression of a heart-felt desire toward him.  Like when we say “May you rest in peace” to someone who is dead.  It is not really praying for him or to him, but it is simply a sentiment toward the dearly departed, a commending of them to God.

But Catholics may ask, “But what about Purgatory?  Couldn’t Paul have been praying for Onesiphorus’ well-being in Purgatory?”  No, Scripture does not speak of such a place.  After death, there is only Heaven or Hell.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-1.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-2.html

And the fourth example Armstrong gives us is both Jesus and Peter supposedly “praying to saints and for the dead.”  He points to Acts 9:36-41 where a girl named Tabitha had died.  And elsewhere, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (John 11:41-42), speaking “directly to a dead man (in effect, ‘praying’ to him).”

This is desperation.  There is a difference between 1) praying to a dead person who is supposedly in Heaven to help someone on earth, and 2) authoritatively and miraculously speaking to a dead body to raise it from the dead.  Neither Jesus nor Peter was asking these dead persons for help, i.e., they were not praying “to” them.  And neither were they praying “for” them in the Catholic sense of praying to aid them in Purgatory.  Again, this is a ridiculous attempt by Dave Armstrong to validate the Catholic practice of praying to the dead to help the one praying, and praying for the dead to help them to get out of Purgatory.  This is a desperate, shameful, and irresponsible manipulating of Holy Scripture, confusing and deceiving multitudes of Catholics.

For more information on praying to saints, see these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/02/praying-to-saints.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/11/praying-to-saints-revisited.html

ANOTHER ATTACK ON SOLA SCRIPTURA

Attacks on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) are frequent and most of them come from members of the Catholic Church.  These attacks come in many forms and we’ve addressed many of them here on this blog.

But yet another subtle attack on Sola Scriptura comes from some Catholics’ interpretation of Nehemiah 8:1-8.  This passage is about the return of some of the Jews from Babylon to Jerusalem who had been exiled to Babylon seventy years earlier.  

In Nehemiah 8, the wall had been rebuilt and a special solemn gathering of the Jews was called to read the Book of the Law to the people.  At this time, several leaders were called on to help with this endeavor.  Today’s enemies of Sola Scriptura focus on this verse:

“So they read in the book in the Law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:8)

They’ll say, “You see!  The common people needed a ‘magisterium’ here, an authoritative interpreter.  They needed leaders and teachers who could infallibly tell them what the Scriptures said.  They couldn’t interpret the holy Scriptures on their own and they didn’t dare use ‘private interpretation’!”

Now, we don’t discourage the role of teachers in the church today, since they are certainly a biblical concept.  Anyone saying that we don’t need teachers would be misrepresenting Sola Scriptura.  But there is not a hint of the need for an “infallible magisterium” in this chapter in Nehemiah, and it is not at all the purpose of this passage to condemn private interpretation.      

So, what’s the point of this passage in saying that the leaders gave the people the “sense” of the meaning, “causing them to understand” (v. 8)?  Does this mean that the common people were not allowed to interpret Scripture, but could only understand it from God-inspired interpreters?  No, it doesn’t.  Does this disprove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?  Not at all.

Many years earlier, in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 Moses commanded a similar solemn reading of the same Law every seventh year.  But there was nothing mentioned here about interpreting God’s Word at that time.  So why was there no need to interpret for the people in Moses’ time?  By contrast, why did Ezra have to interpret the Scriptures for them in the book of Nehemiah?

We have to remember that for Nehemiah and his people, it had been 70 years since the Jews had been in the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the use of the Hebrew language by the Jews was not as common in Babylon.  No doubt, many Jews had died within that time and a new group of young Jews existed which had been raised in Babylon.  The Jews had assimilated into the Babylonian culture and language, and most of the Jews were now speaking the Chaldean (Babylonian) language and/or Aramaic.  But Ezra’s reading of the Law (in Nehemiah 8:8) was probably in pure Hebrew, to which many of the Jews were not accustomed.  Thus, the need for interpretation.

So, no, Sola Scriptura is not refuted in Nehemiah 8:1-8 in the least.  This passage does not demonstrate that an infallible magisterium (as the Catholic Church claims to have) is necessary.