Christianity and Islam I

Revealed Religions

All three Abrahamic faiths have the honor of all being monotheistic. The three Abrahamic faiths are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For the present, Judaism is not being considered, so I will confine my comments in this writing to Christianity and Islam. Both of these faiths are also what is called revealed religions. The adherents of a “revealed religion” believe that their God has directly communicated with mankind His existence and wishes, through oracles (prophets) and, or, holy inspired (God-breathed) Scripture. Revealed religion stands in opposition to “natural religion” which provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature. The monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) each possess scripture, which is believed to be an authentic revelation of the character and expectations of their God, with detailed instructions in worship and lifestyle: for Judaism it is the Old Testament—the Torah in particular; for Christianity it is the complete Bible consisting of both Old and New Testaments; for Islam it is the Qur’an. While the Old and New Testaments are congruent concerning the deity of Jesus the Messiah, the Qur’an is incongruent to both the Old and New Testaments in this particular: the Qur’an denies any godhood to Christ at all and seeks to supplant Him with Muhammad. The Qur’an also attempts to cast Jesus in the same role as the New Testament casts John the Baptist: an intermediate prophet that prepares the way for the Prophet like unto Moses, which the Quran claims is Muhammad.

The Holy Scripture of Both Christianity and Islam

Since the sacred scriptures of any “revealed religion” is an important, if not necessary, element of the religion’s foundation, observations must be made concerning both the Bible and the Qur’an. 

The Holy Bible is the Christian’s holy scripture. All matters of faith are drawn from its sacred pages. Christians believe that the Bible is inspired, but not in the same way as Muslims believe the Qur’an is inspired. (We will say more about inspiration later.) Christianity was founded upon the person and teachings of Jesus, both, of which, predated the Christian Scriptures. The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) were written over the lifetime of the Lord’s original apostles and their surrogates. There was a time period when the Church struggled with what writings to accept as canonical. After the canon was decided, not all Christians had it available to them in a complete corpus. These canonical writings were not complied into a single corpus for some time later. So, then, it can be stated truthfully that though different Christians, in different locations, had different portions of the New Testament, the New Testament did not exist as we have it today for almost 200 years. Yet, during that time the Church was founded and orthodoxy established without the corpus of the New Testament scriptures. In short: The Church gave the world the Christian Bible, the Christian Bible did not give us the Church. It is important to acknowledge that the Bible used by Christians today throughout the earth is virtually the very same text as at the very first, with the only differences being copyist errors, which is present in all documents copied by hand through the centuries before the printing press.

The Qur'an which is now used is a fourth edition (at least) of the Book in Heaven. Notice the four stages that the Qur’an has gone through to become what it is today:  1st. edition: the Angel to the Prophet; 2nd edition: the Prophet to the scribes; 3rd edition: scribes to the copyist and reciters; 4th edition: the copyist and reciters to Abu Bakr. Add to these four editions Uthman's destruction of all former versions of the Qur’an except the one he approved. Since the preceding information is indisputable historical facts, a question must be asked:  “How can the world be expected to accept the present Qur'an as the uncorrupted Word of Allah?”

It should be pointed out that the Scripture of Christians have never been purged as Uthman purged the Qur’an. Having said that, it would be reasonable to expect differences in phrases from version to version, language to language as the Bible spread across the world. Unlike Islam,  Christianity does not hold the belief that Hebrew, or Greek, is the language of heaven and is therefore without flaw. Whereas, Islam holds Arabic to be the language of heaven. We Christians hold that the being and workings of God are so far above the earthly that any language of this world is too frail to capture the total essence of either.

On Mohammed and Islam

What would Mohammed had been if he had not encountered the Trinity at Damascus?

Mohammed, as a young man, made many trips to Damascus with the trade caravan owned by his soon to be wife, who was a Nestorian Christian. Mohammed had learned of the ONE God of the Jews and Nestorian Christians whom he lived around. In Damascus he encountered the Trinitarian brand of Christianity. The Trinitarian God was different from One God of his Jewish and Nestorian neighbors. This sent him off on a crusade against a Christianity that had given the one true God companions, which the Roman Empire had embraced. Islam sees itself as the defender of the ONE God of Judaism and the Arian brand of early Christianity. In the process, however, a new faith developed that was something of a Frankenstein Christianity, made up of various parts of Judaism, Arian and Nestorian Christianity with a little of Arab paganism thrown in for good measure. Thereby, Islam has become the menace it is today.

So, the question: What would Mohammed had been if he had not encountered the Trinity at Damascus? is meant to spotlight the fact that Islam is a religious reaction against the Trinity which it sees as a worship of three Gods. It was this encounter that framed and molded Muhammed’s life; and, consequently Islam today.

The best that can be said for Muhammed is that he was a sincere, but delusional man who took elements from the trash heap of Judaism and Christianity and a little Arab paganism and forged a new faith. This was most likely an expected outcome, given the region of the world from which Islam sprang. Refugees from the Roman world fled to the Arabian Peninsula. This was true for the Jews that fled Roman conquest and true for heretical Christian groups fleeing from the Orthodox. Arabia was a refuge for all. Muhammed’s wife and uncle (his family) were Christians — of a sort. What Muhammed knew of Christianity he got from the Christians that were living around him — they were the outcasts of the Orthodox. They had the many apocrypha writings that surfaced during the 2nd and 3rd centuries that denied the deity of Christ and a multitude of other blasphemies. Consequently, then, the Qur'an contains many Christian apocrypha stories — which, by the way, Muhammed claims was told him by the angel. Perhaps his people knew of the Gospel of the Nazorenes (which I will comment on later) and the Gospel of Barnabas. That would be reasonable to assume. So, there it was, the off scourings of both Judaism and Christianity, the discarded heresies of both religions waiting for just the right personality to gather them together and make use of the rejected. That personality was supplied in Muhammad. In short, Islam is a Christian heresy founded on Christian heresies.

Orthodox Christianity was in the field and established 500 years before Muhammed was born. Islam, therefore, is a Johnny-Come-Lately to the field of religion. For Islam to take the ground, Christianity must be dislodged from its defenses. To my Muslim friends I say: Your faith has come into the precincts of religion too late. Your religion claims to be the correct faith, and claims all others in error. Since you are the recent arrival, the burden of proof is on you. Our theological strongholds are built with mighty walls. If you are to take the field you must breach our fortifications.

Can Islam Change?

I would like to make an observation about the hope expressed by some that Islam can change and become more amenable to civilized society. I am not optimistic on that score, not in the least. And here is why: By Muhammed's insistence that he was the last prophet, Islam has been trapped in a religion that can not grow beyond Muhammed’s world view. 

World standards have evolved since the days of the Prophet. By present day world standards, Muhammed was a rapist, war monger, adulterer, pirate, pedophile, and mass murderer. In the court of world opinion he is tried and found guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. Certainly, not a desirable figure for the founder of a world religion.

Even if Islam wanted to move past that, it cannot.

For instance, If Christianity was still caught in the throes of Old Testament “stuff” it would be equally as sad. But the Old Testament was meant to only be temporary until Messiah came and fulfilled all the law and brought salvation.

Alas, Islam can have no such Savior, no such reformation, because Muhammed's ego was so large that he insisted on being the final word.

To be continued:

Apostolically Speaking,

☩ Jerry L Hayes

Holy Communion: An Affirmative

Affirmative On Holy Communion

By: Bishop Jerry L Hayes

Strange as it may seem, there are those who call themselves Christians who do not observe a literal Lord's Supper. Moreover, these simple ones besmirch those that do observe the Holy Communion and accuse us of being papist. Because these unhappy circumstances exist in the Lord's Church it becomes necessary to speak and write in defense of this truth which is so clearly taught and demonstrated in Holy Scripture that it would seem  no sensible person would dare naysay it. 

What follows is our humble attempt to defend this most holy ordinance of the Lord's church.

PROPOSITION TO BE AFFIRMED

The Scriptures teach that an ordinance of memorial is to be kept by the Christian church to commemorate the death of our lord; and that literal elements of broken bread, representing our Lord’s body broken on the cross, and the fruit of the vine, representing our Lord’s shed blood, are to be used. This ordinance was instituted on the evening before our Lord’s death.

Permit me to open the discussion by defining the proposition. 

By “The Scriptures,” I  mean all 66 books of the Bible, Old and New Testaments;  by “teach,” I mean to instruct by precept, example, or inference;  by “ordinance,” I mean an authoritative decree; by “memorial,” I mean serving to reserve remembrance;  by “Christian church,” I mean those who have repented, been baptized in Jesus’ name and filled with the Holy Spirit;  by “commemorate the death,” I mean to call to remembrance the death of Christ;  by “our Lord,” I mean Jesus Christ;  by “literal,” I mean according to the letter of the Scriptures, adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or the primary meaning of a term or expression;  by “elements,” I mean the bread and the wine used in the holy eucharist;  by “bread,” I mean common bread made from flour, water, and yeast;  by “fruit of the vine,” I mean the fermented juice of the grape;  by “institute,” I mean to establish, set up, fix, originate, ordain;  by “the evening before His death,” I mean at the time of His last meal with the disciples before His death.

Having defined my proposition I will begin my affirmative by stating that I intend to prove that the Scriptures teach by 1. Command, 2. Example, and 3. Inference, the proposition stated above. If holy communion can be found taught in the Bible by any one of the three ways just mentioned it will be sufficient proof enough; however, we will see that communion is taught not only by one but by all three of the avenues of teaching.

First, I would like to show why we believe the Lord’s Supper to be an ordinance for the New Testament church. Remember that I said an ordinance is an authoritative decree. A decree is a command. With this in mind it would be good to look at the commands we have in the Scriptures concerning keeping the holy communion meal with literal elements.

I will deal with the commands of Jesus first—this is authoritative as we can get. 

In the Gospel of Luke the Bible says in chapter 22 and verses 19-20, “He took … bread … gave thanks … break it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” We read in the book of Mark chapter 14 and verse 23 that they all drank from the cup. The Apostle Paul adds an element to this command of Jesus as recorded by Luke: Paul records that Jesus also said, “as often ye drink it” (the cup). Now we know from the accounts of both Luke and Paul that Jesus told His disciples to eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of Him. However, Paul records that Jesus told His disciples to do it often: see 1 Corinthians 11:25 where we read: “This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Jesus said, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you” (John 15:14).

Dear friend, Jesus commanded us to keep the meal with literal elements. Therefore, would you be His friend and do whatsoever He has commanded you?

I would like to look closer at the command “This Do.” 

I cannot imagine anyone not understanding that Jesus was referring to the bread which He held in His hand, the very bread that He had just (broken), when He said, “This is my body which is broken for you” (1 Corinthians 11:24).  That He was referring to literal  bread is made clear by the fact that He broke it. The literal bread represented His flesh as it would be broken on the cross. Further, can we not see that it was the very cup He held in His hand to which He referred when he said, "This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25). The Scripture is equally clear in the matter of the cup: Paul informs us that Jesus took the cup and said,"This cup…." not another cup, but "This cup” that I hold in my hand “is the New Testament in my blood".

Now that I have set forth these reasons for believing Jesus referred to literal bread and a literal cup, permit me to add that the very command, "This Do," itself, proves the elements to be literal, because it was something that the disciples could imitate. Thus, the command: ”This Do".

THIS DO. This command is an imperative, without argument, without debate, THIS DO.

We might ask, “Do What?”

The answer of course to the question, “Do What?” is simple enough: Whatever Jesus was doing and commanding His disciples to do at the time He said "This Do”, is the very thing we are to do. We must find out what Jesus was doing and then do it ourselves. First, Jesus took bread—therefore we must take bread; second, He blessed the bread—likewise we are to bless the bread; third, Jesus broke the bread—therefore we are to break the bread; fourth, the disciples ate the bread—even so, must we eat the bread; fifth, Jesus blessed the literal cup—likewise, we bless a literal cup; sixth, the disciples were told to drink in remembrance of Him (Jesus)—therefore, we drink from a literal cup in remembrance of our Lord. We do these things because we (His disciples) were commanded, “This Do".

This brings us to the question: Was the command, “This Do”, only for the 12 disciples or is it for all disciples of Christ? Was this a one-time command or was it a command for all time? The answer can be quickly found in the Greek text of Luke 22:19. In the Greek, the statement "This Do" is in the present tense, active voice, and the indicative mood. The present, active, and indicative means to keep on doing it repetitious. (See A.T Robertson, Word Pictures of the Greek New Testament, Page 268.)

The present, active, indicative, of the Lord’s command, along with the words of Jesus "As often as you drink .…” shows clearly that Jesus taught the keeping of the holy communion to be a thing that the Christian church would do over and over again. One might ask, for how long? Paul taught that Christians were to continue to re-enact this ordinance until Christ returns. (See 1 Corinthians 11:26,  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.)

Dear friends, I have established the fact that the command “This Do“ meant for the believers to do what Jesus was then doing with His disciples and what He was instructing them to do, which was having a literal meal of bread and wine. Having, further, established that the command is in the present tense, active voice, and the indicative mood, which means to do it now and keep on doing it, we see no escape from the Lord’s command. Since some calling themselves "bread of Life" willfully abstain from a literal Lord’s Supper, we, the obedient, charge them and with disobedience of the Word of God.

To further substantiate the keeping of the Lord's Supper as a command from the Lord I will now look to John 6:51-53. 

Jesus said in John 6:53, "I say to you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, …” It is important to notice that in the 51st verse Jesus said that the bread that He would give to His disciples would be His flesh. Now, this puzzled the Jews, and they asked in verse 52, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” The Bible gives us the answer to this question in Matthew 26:26-28, ”And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

The conclusion of the matter is that the bread equals His flesh (body), and the cup equals His blood. I speak of the literal bread and the literal cup of Matthew 26:26-28. Jesus said that unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you have NO LIFE in you (John 6:53). It is clear from the Scriptures that the Lord's Supper is the ONLY way taught whereby we can eat His flesh and whereby we may drink His blood. There is no other way taught in the word of God to eat the flesh of Christ or to drink His blood. Perhaps, dear friend, you think otherwise. Perhaps you feel that the Bible gives another way whereby we may eat His flesh and drink His blood. If so, would you be so kind as to produce the scripture. I will concede this debate if anyone can show the biblical verse where any other way is provided the eat the flesh of Christ and/or drink His blood.

In the light of the information I have just put forth, to have life one must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. The Lord has shown us, Himself, how this is to be done: namely, by means of the Lord's Supper. If this cannot be refuted by the holy Scriptures then we are left with the conclusion that the Lord's Supper is an imperative.

Next, I would like to deal with the command as given by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. 

In verse two of 1 Corinthians chapter 11, Paul says, "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I deliver them to you." In this passage it is the word ordnance that I wish to consider first. The word "ordinance" as found in 1 Corinthians 11:2 is the Greek word paradosis. Paradosis also means tradition. The definition of the word “paradosis” here, (in this verse called "ordinance") as taken from A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures of the Greek New Testament, Vol IV, page 159, is as follows: 1. and authoritative decree. 2. something handed on from one to another.

With the above definition of the word "ordinance" in mind, permit me to point out Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11: 23a, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you." Then Paul rehearses the account of the institution of the ordinance. See verses 23, 24, and 25. The statement of Paul, at the beginning of verse 23 makes the Lord's Supper a true ordinance, or paradosis; or, something passed on from one another; it is here that Paul states: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you”.

Notice the two parts of an ordinance:  one: an authoritative decree; and two: something that is passed on from one to another. In the Lord's Supper we have both qualifying factors. A. The authoritative decree: namely, "This Do". See 1 Corinthians 11:20 3b & 24, "That the Lord Jesus… took bread… and said, Take, eat: this is my body… this do in remembrance of me.… Also he took the cup… this do ye as often as you drink it in remembrance of me." And, also, we have the second qualifying factor,   B. something passed on from one to another; namely, Paul had received the decree from the Lord and had passed it on to the Corinthians: See 1 Corinthians 11: 23a,  “For  I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you.”

From the above biblical proofs there is only one conclusion that any honest Bible believer can come to, and that is, Observance of the Lord's Supper, with literal elements, is an ORDINANCE for the New Testament church.

To further the command of Paul, we will look to 1 Corinthians 11:26. Here, Paul says, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” From this passage we know two things: 1. the church was to eat and drink often, not just once; and 2. the purpose for the eating and drinking was to show the Lord’s death until He returns. The old English word “shew” means: to proclaim; this is according to Vine’s, volume 4 page 21. Proclaim means to declare publicly, typically, insistently, proudly or defiantly; this is according to Webster. Therefore, the church is to declare publicly, proclaim, is to preach insistently, proudly, and even defiantly, the Lord's death by eating and drinking the Lord's Supper "Til he come”.

"Til he come," clearly refers to a future coming of the Lord, that is future in time to the time Paul spoke these words. You see, this coming, spoken of here, cannot possibly be the day of Pentecost, because Paul spoke these words in the spring of A. D. 55 and the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out, came in A. D. 30.

The conclusion of this matter is clearly this: the church is to proclaim the Lord’s death publicly, by keeping the literal supper often, until the Lord Jesus returns the second time in the clouds of glory.

Next, I would like to look to the "Law of the testament”. 

This law is found in the book of Hebrews chapter 9 verses 16 & 17. This law simply stated is this: A testament is only in force after the death of the testator. Notice, if you will please, the Word of God on this matter, "For where a testament is there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is a force only after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator live.”

The section of the Scriptures that we call the New Testament, it's just that, the last will and testament of the Lord Jesus Christ. The dictionary defines the word "testament" as “a solemn, authentic instruments in writing disposing of the estate of a person deceased.” Therefore, the commands and promises of the New Testament are all part of the last will and testament of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

The writer of Hebrews has something important to say about the validity of any testament. He says, "Where a testament is there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Hebrews 9:16-17).

There are two facts that I wish to put forward here that will bring us to an undeniable conclusion: Fact #1. All things pertaining to a testament are enforced only after the death of the testator (Hebrews 9:16-17); Fact # 2. The elements of communion do pertain to the last will and testament of Jesus Christ. Notice, that Jesus did in very fact say, “For this is my blood of the new testament”… and, “this cup is the new testament in my blood.” (See Matthew 26:26-28 and Luke 22:19-20.) The incontestable conclusion to be drawn from the above two facts is this: when Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me,” He fully intended for the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup to be repetitiously performed by His followers AFTER HIS DEATH, because, only then would it have any strength.

Permit me to show some parallels from holy Scriptures. This was not the first time that the Lord gave a command that could not be of value until after His death (and for the same reason), notice the following: Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water… he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).  And also, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved …” (Mark 16:16). Water baptism was commanded by Jesus but could not be enforced until after His death: see Romans 6:4, "Therefore we are buried with him in baptism… .”  We cannot be buried with Him if He is not yet dead and buried. For this reason, those baptized by John the Baptist before the death of Jesus had to be re-baptized by the apostles and preachers of the NEW TESTAMENT (see Acts 19:1-7). Also, Jesus breathed upon His disciples and said, “receive ye the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). Jesus commanded the disciples to receive the Holy Ghost although the Holy Ghost was not given until the day of Pentecost: see John 7:39,  (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

All of the above are true because water baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost (like the Lord's Supper) are part of the NEW TESTAMENT and, therefore, not enforced until after the death of the testator. “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise, it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Hebrews 9:16-17).

I have submitted the above to show that Jesus commanded us to eat and drink literal elements in remembrance, and that command could only be fulfilled AFTER His death.

Apostolically Yours,

☩ Jerry L Hayes

If you have enjoyed this essay you would like to own the book written by Bishop Hayes entitled "The Lord's Supper." You may own your personal copy by ordering it from the link provided here:

In "The Lord's Supper" Bishop Hayes presents a comprehensive study of the holy Sacrament. The book answers important questions, like: "What is the Lord's supper?" Who may partake of the Lord's supper?" "Is the body and blood of Christ really present in the elements or do the elements actually change into the body and blood of Christ?" "How often should the Lord's Supper be observed?" These are but a few of the questions addressed in the book. It is safe to predict that this work will be a standard volume in the libraries of those who love the Sacrament.

Order you personal copy of this classic work from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Supper-Apostolic-Concerning-Corinthians/dp/148254380X/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244230&s=books&sr=1-5

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY

PURCHASING OUR BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Revelation 2:17; Commentary, Promise of Hidden Manna

 2:17 “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”

“He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;” ～ See commentary on 2:7.

Hidden Manna

“To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, ...” ～ The victor (Gk., tō nikōnti, lit. “the one overcoming;” the idea is: not finished but an ongoing work) is promised an amazing reward, i.e. “ ... will I give to eat of the hidden manna.” This statement appears nowhere else in the Bible; but, the meaning is quite clear from its Rabbinical association to biblical events. Though the statement concerning eating “hidden manna” is introduced in our holy Scriptures here for the first time, it was a traditional saying of the Rabbis. Such phrases are called Rabbinical speech. It was part of a manner of speaking common to all public speakers in the arena of popular thought, such as religion or politics. Such statements as this convey a wealth of information with only a few words. The reference is to the “manna” which was placed in a golden jar by Aaron at Moses’ command and “hidden” in the Ark of the Testimony (Ex 16:33 cf. Heb 9:4), beneath the Mercyseat. In the course of time the Ark of the Testimony, with its lid (i.e. the Mercyseat), disappeared from the holy temple in Jerusalem. There are different traditions as to the vanishing of this most sacred article of the Jewish faith. About the only thing the traditions have in common is roughly the time of disappearance; namely, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon (586 BC). This was in the days of the prophet Jeremiah, who figures into the tradition, prominently.

One story is that prior to the fall of the city, many treasures of the temple were “hidden” somewhere in Jerusalem, presumably on the temple mount. It is thought that Jeremiah oversaw this concealment. This could very well have been the case, since Jeremiah was a priest, a member of the household of Hilkiah. His home town was Anathoth (Jer 1:1). So, he was most likely a descendant of Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26). Chiefly among the hidden items was the Ark of the Testimony. The “hidden” Ark became referred to by the term “hidden manna.” The Rabbis believed that both the “hidden” Ark and their long awaited Messiah would appear at the same time. Or, at least, the discovery of their Ark of the Testimony would be the signal that their Messiah was imminent. Therefore, when the teachers of the law would announce in the synagogues, “Soon we will eat the hidden manna,” all understood the idiom to mean, “Soon the Messiah will come.” Of course, the discovery of the Ark is intended by the phrase, “eat hidden manna;” but by extrapolation, and the primary message covertly hidden, three layers deep in idiom, is the coming of the Messiah—the Son of David.

Christ (which is the Greek word for Messiah—the anointed one) is telling the Church at Pergamos, and the church of God in general: Messiah has come, and for those of you who are overcoming, the hidden manna is available to eat. One might do well to associate this with the words of Jesus from John’s gospel:

“The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. ... This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” (John 6:41, 47-51, 58)

   John, under the  direction of the Holy Spirit, was led to record the above discourse that was given in the Capernaum synagogue (John 6:59). Rarely had Jesus been more straight forward. In the Jewish synagogue, to the Jewish crowd, as he stood in the place of the teaching Rabbi, in the very spot where the “hidden manna” was commonly spoken of for the purpose of arousing the emotional expectation of the crowd to anticipate the arrival of their Messiah, now, before them all, against the backdrop of the miracle of the loaves and fishes (same ch vv5-14), the carpenter from Nazareth says, I am the true manna which came from heaven. If you eat of me you shall have eternal life.

Might we be so bold as to suggest: Just as the manna in the wilderness was hidden in the Ark of the Testimony (an earthly chest made of shittem wood overlaid with gold—representing purity), even so, the true “bread which came down from heaven” was hidden in the virgin womb of an earthly vessel, which was truly a pure Ark for the covenant of God—we call that Ark, Mary.

Lest we be the object of ridicule, and even stoning, the obvious must be stated, somewhat parenthetically: The Ark of the Testimony was not the object of Israel’s worship. The object of Israel’s worship was He for whom the Ark was but the host, that is: the Shakinah that dwelt on the Mercyseat between the Cherubim. This personal presence of Yahweh was represented by the three testimonies within the chest: 

The Law, which speaks to the Father; 

The golden jar of manna, which speaks to the Son, the                     bread from heaven; and

Aaron’s rod that budded, which speaks to the Holy                           Spirit. 

All of this in Mary’s pure womb.

The priesthood was expecting the Ark of the Testimony, hidden some 586 years earlier, to be discovered at any moment, Messianic expectation was high. It should have come as no surprise to them that the Ark was, indeed, discovered in the hill country of Judea, in the home of a priest of Aaron. In fact it was a daughter of Aaron, Elisabeth, who made the initial find (Luke 1:39ff),

“And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.” (Luke 1:39-45)

It is more than happenstance that Mary remained in the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth for a period of three months (Luke 1:56). Luke, a Gentile, who was most likely from the city of Antioch of Syria, writes here in a true Hebraic fashion by recording great truths in a covert manner. He mentions this three month stay in the home of Zacharias, because the Ark of the Old Covenant spent a similar stay, for the same amount of time, in the home of the priest Obededom (2 Sam 6:11 cf. 1 Chr 26:4). The home of Obededom and the home of Zacharias were located in the same place—about 1000 years apart. Such a wondrous event could not have been arranged by human effort—the hand of God was at work here. What could it all mean? The Ark of the Covenant pictures the person and ministry of Christ in a marvelous manner.

The Rabbis had been more right than they knew. The discovery of the Ark by the daughter of Aaron signaled the coming of the Messiah; who would come into the world via the womb of Mary. Thus, the contents of the Ark of the Covenant, i.e. the tablets of the Law, the golden jar of manna, and the budded rod of Aaron that speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively, were robed in flesh, and dwelt among us. We beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). In one place (John 14:6) He would speak of His relationship with the aforesaid tablets of the Law, the golden jar of manna, and Aaron’s budded rod this way,

“I am the way,” (the Law);

“I am the truth, (the manna, representative of the Word);

“I am the life, (the budded rod). (John 14:6)

(Parentheses mine.)

The Apostle Paul knew the revelation of this mystery, which was kept secret since the world began; he and the other New Testament writers have made it manifest by the scriptures of the prophets to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom 16:25-26). Paul makes a clear declaration of who Jesus is in Col 2:9-10,

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:”

The discovery of the Ark and its “hidden manna,” namely, the Messiah, was entrusted to one priestly family: Zacharias, his wife, Elisabeth; and their son, John the Baptist. All three had their lines of introduction. 

Elisabeth announced her discovery upon her encounter with Mary, “And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.”(Luke 1:41-45)

 And Zacharias upon the birth of his son John proclaimed, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;” (Luke 1:68-69). In these lines Zacharias spoke of Mary’s baby, that was but three months inside her womb. He, further, spoke in harmony with his wife. As Elisabeth called Him her Lord (Luke 1:43), so, too, does Zacharias in v76. Speaking now to his son John he prophesies, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;” (Luke 1:76 cf.  Is 40:3). (See Luke 1:43 cf. 3:4.)

All students of the Bible everywhere, and in every age of the Lord’s church, understood Zacharias to be speaking about Jesus—for whom John is sent to prepare the way. It is plain that this family of Aaron understood the weighty circumstances surrounding the identity of the person being clothed within the womb of Mary, for Zacharias is quoting Is 40:3. It is here that the prophet sees the son of Elisabeth and the son of Mary, and speaks of them in these terms:

“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, 

Prepare ye the way of the LORD, 

Make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” 

(Is 40:3 cf. Luke 3:4)

In this messianic passage, concerning John and Jesus, which Zacharias clearly applied to the two; Jesus is referred to as “LORD” (YHWH, or Yahweh) and “God.” When Luke uses the Grk kurios to translate both Elisabeth’s and Zacharias’ reference to Jesus, he uses it in the sense of “supreme master,” for it is used in the place of the tetragrammaton, “YHWH,” of Isa 40:3 which is the name of God Almighty, Yahweh. The message is clear indeed—the Messiah, before whose face John would prepare the way, is Yahweh God. Concerning the identity of the Messiah as Yahweh, one should consult Old Testament messianic prophecies. Of particular interest is Mic 5:2, 

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” 

Micah declares the Messiah to have existence “from everlasting.” The Hebrew word translated “everlasting” is ôlâm (Strong’s #H5769), which means: eternity; always; perpetual; used here in the sense of “the days of eternity.” (Note: It is unexplainable why the Jews, then and now, did not—and have not—accepted their Messiah as their God; for truly, Who is eternal but Yahweh?

The parents of John the Baptist had discovered both the Ark and the Messiah. The revelation was yet to come to the son who, as a priest, was led not to minister in the Temple, but, forsaking the Temple, went into the desert until the appointed time (Luke 1:80). His testimony concerning the “hidden manna” (the Messiah) was this:

“ And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” (John 1:33-34)

John could state the preexistence of the Messiah in these terms:

“He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.” (John 1:27)

and

“ He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.” (John 3:30-31)

And, further,

“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29)

To conclude this thought on the “hidden manna” we will bring our focus to the first advent of Christ as its realization. The Lord is not saying in the text under discussion, that once believers have finished overcoming they will be given “hidden manna” to eat. No. What He articulated by the word nikōnti is literally “the one overcoming.” The verb is present tense and implies continuous action. That is: the “hidden manna,” i.e. Christ Jesus, is available to those that are actively overcoming, and being victorious. Remember, Jesus said of himself,

“I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:48-51)

The Scripture says, “The Jews therefore strove amongst themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52). Jesus was to supply the answer to this question the night before His crucifixion. With his disciples around him, “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body” (Matt 26:26). He had, earlier, taught in the Capernaum synagogue that,

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

Apostolically Speaking
☩ Jerry L Hayes 

If you are enjoying this commentary you would appreciate owning "The Apocalypse" from which our commentary is excerpted.

The Apocalypse, is the introduction to the biblical book of Revelation. Here Bishop Hayes also gives a verse by verse commentary of the first three chapters of the Apostle John's Revelation of Jesus Christ, covering the letters addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor. The Bible student will thrill at the Bishop's easy evangelistic style of presenting deep and unique truths never before published. In this study a wealth of information will be shared with the disciples of Christ on each verse of this great manuscript.

Own your personal copy of this enlightening work by ordering at the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Introduction-Epistles-Seven-Churches/dp/1686423152/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+Apocalypse&qid=1568308793&s=books&sr=1-1

Companion to "The Apocalypse" is "Letters to My Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology."

After spending over forty years in the dispensational doctrine, and having raise my children in that theological framework, I became a convinced adherent to a "kingdom" theology that recognizes the Church as the Israel of God, and that the first century actually saw the fulfillment of most of Matthew chapter 24. "Letters to My Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology" is a compilation of twenty four letters written to my children explaining my journey. These "Letters" provide a systematic approach to Apostolic Eschatological study of Scripture. It is sure to interest all students of Scriptures

Order your personal copy today from the link provided here:

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Children-Apostolic-Kingdom-Theology/dp/1482716712/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_2?keywords=Letters%2C+Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1558365492&s=books&sr=1-2-fkmrnull

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY PURCHASING MY BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY. -JLH

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ