Things You Never See in the Bible

Have you ever wondered what someone might think if all he had ever read were the Scriptures? Suppose someone only knew the Scriptures and had no knowledge of nearly 2,000 years of the way traditions and culture had affected religion. In reading a newspaper, such as the Orlando Sentinel on December 17, 2017, for example, what might he think when he saw the picture and headline on page A15?

Three women are lifting up some objects to put on top of what looks like a small flat surface, supported by two ornate pillars. They are dressed in blue or gray with something on their head that flows down to their waists. In small letters under the picture, the reader is informed, "Nuns carry the relics of five new saints during a canonization ceremony at the Vatican."

That's nice, but what does it mean? The word Vatican does not appear in the Bible; neither does nuns. It's becoming apparent that one needs a specialized vocabulary to understand this story. Relics does not have a Biblical meaning; neither does canonization ceremony. New saints? At last, maybe this article does have something to do with religion. A new saint would be someone who had just been baptized into Christ, right (Rom. 6:3-5)? Paul wrote to the saints all the time. (Rom. 1:7; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2). However, that definition does not seem to make sense in its context.

The title of the article is: "Vatican Issues New Rules for Relics in Saint-Making Process." This headline does not explain anything any better than the caption under the photograph. As the article begins, it actually sounds a little grisly.

The Vatican's saint-making office has updated its rules governing the use of relics for would-be saints, issuing detailed new guidelines Saturday that govern how body parts and cremated remains are to be obtained, transferred and protected for eventual veneration.

What? A saint-making office? Body parts? Veneration? Is this supposed to have something to do with the Scriptures? No, it does not, and that is exactly the point. These terms pertain to manmade religion. The Roman Catholic Church is not mentioned in the Bible. Over a period of a few hundred years, some came to call themselves Catholics instead of Christians. As more time went by, they developed a hierarchy that no one can find in the New Testament. In the Bible, congregations were self-governing and had two or more elders (also called bishops or shepherds).

In the Catholic Church the local congregation has a priest—a concept borrowed from the Old Testament. In the New, all Christians are priests, and Jesus is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 1 Peter 2:5). Churches were independent of each other in the first century.

As the Roman Catholic Church developed, they had men to be over a geographic region. The hierarchy grew until it culminated in one man being exalted over the whole church. No, it was not the Lord, as the Bible teaches (Eph. 1:22-23); it was someone they called the pope. Eventually the place where he lived became called Vatican City (since 1929). It consists of 110 acres of ground within Rome; its population is about 1,000. It considers itself an independent state. Inside it are various places of interest, such as St. Peter's Basilica, the Sistine Chapel, and the Vatican Museums.

One could never imagine all of those things just from reading the New Testament. Jesus is the Head of the church, and He is in Heaven at the right hand of God—a place far more glorious than Vatican City. The heavenly realm exists by the authority of God; Vatican City exists by the authority of men. It shall be burned up, along with the rest of the Earth when Christ returns to receive His saints (literally, the "holy ones").

So, what are relics? They are the strands of hair, "hands, teeth and other body parts" of the dead. Some of them, it will be alleged, belonged to various individuals in the Bible, such as Stephen, Peter, or Paul. Others may belong to "faithful" followers and martyrs who lived later on. For some reason, the Catholic Church calls these long-dead individuals saints, but the New Testament 15 out of 16 times uses saints of Christians who are still alive. The only exception is Matthew 27:52, where it is said that saints who had died arose and walked into Jerusalem. Even in this one anomaly, however, these people still do not fit the Catholic idea of what constitutes a saint.

The reader probably noticed that the Vatican has a "saint-making office." First, the Catholic Church has to pronounce someone a saint; then relics from that body may be cherished. This is far different from the New Testament where every Christian is pronounced a saint. Why is that the case? A person who is a Christian had to obey the gospel, which means he repented of his sins and was baptized in order to have them removed (Acts 2:38). With sins removed by the blood of Jesus (Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16), the person is born again. He was buried in water with Christ in baptism (immersion) and comes forth from the watery grave a new creation (Rom. 6:3-5). Each one has been made holy by virtue of sins being forgiven.

However, in the Catholic Church, which is not the church of the New Testament, saints refers usually to those who have died. Then a process can develop to "venerate" that individual, which appears to mean that he or she can be beatified and canonized—two more concepts that are not found in the New Testament. Then a part of that person's body can be publicly venerated and displayed. Of course, a person might want to ask the question, "Why?"

Fascination for the Physical

One might understand why a husband might want a lock of his wife's hair once she is gone or why a woman might want to keep pictures of her husband—because in both cases a strong physical attachment existed besides the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual ones. But why would someone be interested in some artifact from centuries past when no human closeness ever existed? Does the Bible tell us how to determine if someone is a "saint"? Does it discuss the correct care of "relics"? No, instead we honor the spiritual accomplishments of what someone achieved. In fact, so far from being taught to venerate relics, one physical object was actually commanded to be destroyed.

When Israel sinned on one occasion, God sent fiery serpents among the people as punishment. The people repented and asked Moses to have God take away the serpents. Instead, God had Moses make a serpent out of bronze and put it up on a pole; then when people looked at it, they lived (Num. 21:4-9). Eventually, the serpent itself became an object of worship. The people even burned incense to it—until Hezekiah destroyed it (2 Kings 18:4). Is it not this same type of thinking that causes people to reverence relics? Any physical object with an alleged spiritual connection becomes worthy of worship in the eyes of many.

Christians should, first of all, abide by the teachings of the New Testament and not get caught up in jargon and ideas that never existed in the church in the first century. Second, instead of vainly trying to pursue holy physical objects (which may or may not be genuine), how about presenting our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is our reasonable service (Rom. 12:1). Which would be more valuable to others—a piece of wood from an ancient ossuary, in which a "saint" is buried—or live saints living a Christian life? Jesus' followers are commanded to be "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:14-16).

"Lead us Not into Temptation"

According to an article in The Washington Post (from December 13, 2017), the current pope of the Roman Catholic Church (neither of which is mentioned in the New Testament) has suggested changing one of the best-known prayers found in the Bible. In Matthew 6:13, Jesus gave the following words as something we would want to pray for: "And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

The pope thinks these words should be clarified. He thinks those words might cause confusion. He thinks it ought to say: "Do not let us fall into temptation." His rationale is that God would not lead anybody toward sin. Therefore, the current translation is "not good" even though Catholic translation referred to as the Confraternity uses those words. No one has the authority to make a translation say what he desires for it to say. The question must always be: "What does the Greek language actually say?"

As it happens, the verse is already correctly translated. The word translated "lead" sometimes is rendered "bring," but either one is correct and thus translated by the KJV, the NKJ, the ASV, the NAS, the RSV, the NIV, and the ESV. What about the claim that the verse gives the impression that God brings us to a point of temptation? Does He? That idea is both true and false. Does God actually tempt anyone? No. James 1:13 makes that answer very clear:

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

The one who relishes in tempting all human beings is Satan. God only has so many options when it comes to Satan's desire to tempt us to sin. He can either allow Him to do so, or refuse to let him do so. It should be obvious, by our own behavior, that God does not prevent Satan from having access to us all the time. Two verses come to mind. In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus told Peter:

"Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren."

Satan got to Peter in some measure, or He would not have denied Jesus three times, but it could have been much worse—which brings us to the second verse:

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way to escape, that you may be able to bear it (1 Cor. 10:13).

Jesus Himself "was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being tempted forty days by the devil…" (Luke 4:1-2). Did God tempt Jesus? No. Did He lead Him to a place where He would be tempted? Yes. If He refused to allow Satan to tempt us 100% of the time, we would never be tested. He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear, but He does not keep Satan away from us permanently. In that He allows us to be tempted, it can be said that He is leading us into temptation. Did God know that Jesus would be tempted in the wilderness? Yes, but He led Him there anyway.

Did God allow Job to be afflicted by Satan? Yes. The conversation allowing the devil to do so is recorded in the first two chapters of the book. In that He authorized Satan to do what he did, God can be said to be responsible—since He did not prevent it. Could God have kept the devil from troubling Job? Yes. He had the power to prevent it. His allowance of it caused Job to say, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21b). Although God prohibits Satan from tempting us beyond what we can bear, He does not prevent him from tempting us, period. Thus, we pray not to be led into temptation.