Recent Comments

Last Days Christian Messenger

This Is My Other Blog. Geared Towards Helping The Unsaved Find God

Click this link HOMEPAGE for the latest articles on this blog
Click this link MENU LIST to find an entire list of ALL Articles within this blog (as at 30 Nov 2011)
Click this link Articles Carrying Most Comments as at 30 November 2011 a league table of articles carrying the most comments.

Search this blog by entering KEY WORDS In box below

Thursday, 4 March 2010

Why The Catholic Church is Not a Christian Denomination

Updated 19 Nov 2010 (and added a new link 25 Feb 2012 & 22nd Nov 2014)
Please read this article in conjunction with my latest two articles written on 12 and 19 Nov 2010 found within these 2 shortcut links:
Peter Was Not The First Pope! Conclusive Historical Evidence Revealed and Matthew 16:18-19 Contextual Evidence

When Did Jesus Drink The Fourth and Final Passover Cup? The Mystery Truth Revealed
It is important to understand that Jesus died for us, taking our  place on the cross, being punished for what we have done. The good news of Jesus is that we are saved because of what He has done. The Bible says we are saved by grace (God's unmerited favour towards us) - not by works. The Bible makes it plain that any faith or religion that depends upon works for salvation is a false religion. Catholics depend upon WORKS! 

Here is some evidence explaining  why the religion of Rome is a false "works" and counterfeit religion: please click on this following link (newly added 25 feb 2012)
Roman Catholicism Versus the Bible

It is also important to understand the origins of the Catholic Church which prove it to be anything BUT Christian.

The origin of the Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary.
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.
So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church? 
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity.
Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). 
Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete.

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints.
Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life.
Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location.
While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.

Many more examples could be given.  These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

Please note that so called Christian festivals have their origin in Babylonic religion such as Christmas & Easter. The word Easter came from the worship of Astarte or Ashtorah, being renamed Easter and was about the rebirth of the sun god. They celebrated this time by giving Ashta eggs. The Vatican changed it to the Son god and giving of Easter eggs. The Roman church is full of such things and is simply COUNTERFEITING true Christianity with something false and satanic.
The following is an excerpt from my post  which shows how this "unchristian" system has developed up to the present day, as follows:

Babylonic Mysteries Religion and The Catholic Church
Babylonic Mysteries religion was taken over by the Vatican system. Ever since the Roman Empire hijacked the Babylonic religion it has tried to maintain its stranglehold over the whole world through the religious system (once the political system fell apart). Although Rome ceased to rule politically it ruled most of the world by a reign of terror by the Catholic Church until the reformation in the 16th Century. Ever since the Reformation the Vatican has sought ways to regain its power and even extend it to total global control.

Ignatius of Loyola is a key player in this aspect.  He and his six friends founded the Jesuit Order in 1534, and it received official Papal sanction in the year 1540. Ignatius became the Jesuit Order's first General. The Illuminati secret society then emerged.Ignatius Loyola was the Founder of the Jesuit Order, the "Spiritual Army" of the Roman Catholic Church, and he was also the Founder of the Witchcraft group, The Illuminati!

It is very clear that the Jesuit Army was merely a Witchcraft group that was used to spread Roman Catholic doctrine throughout the whole world! That is what the Jesuits are for... they are used to undo all that Protestantism has done, and to gain back lands and people that the Catholic Church has lost to Protestantism since the Reformation. One of the ways that they do this in todays world is by ecumenism.

Please check out the Jesuit Oath which speaks volumes about how Rome is seeking to infiltrate protestantism through lies and deceit to enable the success of the counter reformation:

Now here is how The Babylonic religion (as “Christianised”  and continued by the Roman Catholic church) is linked to the New Age of today and shows how the Vatican is using new age in its globalisation agenda.

The ancient name for Babylonian Mysticism (or finding ways to get in touch with "The One", "The All", or Satan) was called "Illuminism". The Babylonians who were initiated into the Mystery Religion were said to be in possession of Illumination or THE INNER LIGHT. Supposedly, this meant they had been ENLIGHTENED or aware of the fact that they were gods. (See Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 14, 1910, pg. 320)

The Western equivalent to this Eastern Mysticism is the Hermeticism or Gnosticism. The Gnostics were said to possess the secret knowledge that they were in reality, "Little gods", and that Lucifer was the rightful Ruler of this World! The name Lucifer actually means Morning Star or The Illuminated One (light bearer). Thus, the various Mystery Religions taught that it is Lucifer (or Satan) who gives us light and shows us that we are God and have no need of repentance, but that we need only realize the "God within" and bring it to it's full potential.

Various Secret Societies throughout the Ages have taught this Babylonian Mysticism, because they knew that these Mysteries were based upon the doctrine of Luciferianism. They were known for centuries as "The Illuminati". Their name was derived from Lucifer's name: "The Illuminated One”.

The illuminati has spread its tentacles throughout the world through infiltrating organisations and founding secret societies to work together for globalisation. The most powerful bankers, the Rothchild’s and the Bilderberger organisation have such Vatican links.

Ecumenicalism Is the Brain Child of The Cathoilc System,  So True Christians Should Steer Clear
Note: as has been shown, the origins of Catholic church came out of  “Christianising” pagan religion and is actually the continuation of Babylonic religion but with "christian titles". We also see that the subsequent: Vatican, Jesuit Priests and Illuminati  came from the Catholic system. Ecumenicalism, introduced from this system, does same thing of "christianising" pagan practices and creating a "romanised" church (which is why any attempt to encourage evangelical, protestant churches to become ecumenical is wrong and to be rejected. These links prove that ecumenism came from the Vatican:
What happens is that the Protestant church is only allowed to attach itself to Rome or become ecumenical by compromising truth. It has to put aside its fundamental truth in order to be accepted and also has to “Christianise” pagan practices for the sake of unity (a false and godless unity).
Therefore, it  has to do what Rome wants which is to “Christianise” pagan practices. We see in these days the evangelical protestant church embracing all kinds of pagan things. It accepts a wide range of new age practices like yoga, meditation, new age Christianity, – no longer dependant on truth but on experiences. This is what emergent Christianity is. A Christianity that draws on the experiences of the Catholic church during the dark ages.
It starts calling yoga “Christian” yoga or “Christian” karate or “Christian” psychology etc. It is actually doing the same thing of placing a “Christian” label to godless activities. It also uses the contemplative “experiential” practices of monks etc.

Any STRONG Christian leader (who would have received training in these things and in the bible) will know all the above things to be true. So any preacher (like Rick Warren) who supports the Catholic church  MUST be false! Why oh why would they support ecumenism with the RC if they were true Christian leaders?

Here is a NEW article (written in November 2014) which gives an update in the apostasy of evangelical Christianity as it officially joins in unity with Rome. It is shocking:

Please click on this following shortcut link which should answer that last question:  Why You cannot Trust Any Preacher Who Has Ecumenical Connections


Michael Gormley said...


Jesus said two things on the cross: “I thirst,” & “It is finished.”

When Jesus said, “I thirst,” he was given wine. “A bowl of sour wine stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth.” (John 19:29)

After drinking from the fruit of the vine, he said, “It is finished.”


The Passover sacrifice is finished. Jesus drank from the fourth & final cup of the Passover, the Cup of Consummation, and in His drinking, the Passover is finished.

The lamb has been slain. The sacrifice has been consummated.

Jesus is the Passover lamb. He is the Passover sacrifice. He is the perfect, spotless unblemished, lamb, no bones are broken.

He is the ultimate sacrifice for sin. His blood, the blood of the Lamb of God, is the blood of the New Covenant, reconciling man to God. The gates of heaven are reopened. Eternal life is now available for all!

Undoing the sin of Adam. Jesus willingly suffered & died, laying down his life for his bride, the Church. Adam, fearing death, refused to lay down his life for his bride.

Jesus undid in the Garden of Gethsemane, what Adam did in the Garden of Eden. His blood is the blood of the new covenant. He fulfills the promises of Isaiah’s suffering servant, the servant king messiah.

In the Eucharist we “zecher”, or make present, the Passover sacrifice of Jesus at the Mass. We re-present Jesus as the Sacrifice, this time in an unbloody manner.

The law of Moses prescribed that the Passover lamb must be consumed in its entirety. We, too, at our sacrifice, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, must consume the Lamb.

Jesus, God made man, comes to us body, blood, soul & divinity, in the Eucharist, giving us the grace we need to pick up our cross & follow in Him. Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on us!

John Chingford said...

Just to let you know that Michael's comment above has been copied and pasted from another article as it is more appropriate here.

This was my answer:

Hi Michael

I would like this sort of discussion to take place on the "Why The Catholic Church is Not a Christian Denomination" article rather than here. Reason, to keep this type of topic in just one place, ie discussion re Catholic traditions.

However (to avoid being swamped with too many replies) I will only publish from those who have something constructive to say, in support of what the Bible teaches, as opposed to the traditions or writings of mere men.

Michael, that is not to say that I have anything against what you have written because I can see that you are trying to be constructive.

Indeed I would say that you have almost "got it" apart from just one point but it is ENORMOUS.

In answer to your question I will simply say (for now) that the New Testament teaches that Jesus died ONCE. The sacrifice did not need to be repeated.

Here are 2 examples (of many) that illustrate that the sacrifice of Jesus did not need to be repeated

Romans 6:9-10
"For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin ONCE for all"

See Hebrews 6:6
".....and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

That final passage is referring to the sacrificial system. Some believers were falling away from grace (a once and for all time acceptance of Jesus as the Saviour and sufficient to save us from our sins by what HE has done) and returning to works and to sacrifices. The writer is saying that there is no remaining sacrifice required because the sacrifice of Jesus lasts for eternity. He does not keep on being sacrificed through transubstantiation.

We do not need Jesus to keep on entering us through the eucharist because He already lives in us permanently through His Holy Spirit, the moment we first receive Him as our Saviour.

To my regular readers, I would appreciate further replies about the points made by Michael, as I do not have time (at present) to tackle it now.

God bless

Michael Gormley said...

Dear John,

Private interpretation of Scriptures can be exceedingly harmful to self and others.

Too many individuals claim their position is right and are unwilling to freely discuss the position taken or to be submissive to moral authorities.

John Chingford said...

I have had to edit some of Michael's comments because there were some unhelpful parts.

I have pasted the part that was relevant and could be answered sensibly.

As already stated, I will only publish comments that stick to the scriptures. But, as this comment attacks that stance, I will (just on this occasion) make my stance clear.

John Chingford said...

Dear Michael

It seems that Catholics (generally) teach that we should not follow solar scriptura. They keep quoting 2 Peter 1:20

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

They teach that no-one is allowed to interpret the scriptures "privately" other than the inspired fathers of the Catholic faith.

I will now show that even this verse is completely twisted in its interpretation and taken completely out of context.

Actually, I will quote the whole passage in context before I answer:

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" 2 Peter 1:19-21

This passage is not talking about privately interpreting the scriptures!!! It is talking about God giving PROPHECIES to His servants.

It says that THEY did not interpret what God had given them privately, but they simply spoke and wrote down what God had given them.

In other words, if they had of interpreted God's message first they would have written down their version rather than what God actually said and that would have been a distortion and no longer "God breathed" (inspired).

Praise God that they did not alter anything and wrote it down as God inspired them.

Now that God's Word is written down, we can read and study it because it is God's Word and not the interpretation which we are reading.

The New testament says that God wants to speak to all of us through the teaching (or interpretation) which comes from the Holy Spirit. Paul said that the things of God are spiritually understood and revealed to ALL of us (who have received the Holy Spirit) so that we can understand the scriptures.

It is available to us all, not just the elite in hierarchical powers.

John Chingford said...

Hi Michael

re your comment

"After drinking from the fruit of the vine, he said, “It is finished.” WHAT IS FINISHED?

The Passover sacrifice is finished. Jesus drank from the fourth & final cup of the Passover, the Cup of Consummation, and in His drinking, the Passover is finished."

I didn't answer immediately because I wanted to check this out as something was niggling me that there was something inaccurate about your quote.

I asked another reader for help. I also checked out all 4 accounts of this episode in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

John Chingford said...


Actually in none of the gospels does it state "Jesus DRANK". Saying He drank is adding an interpretation that may or may not have been meant. Let us stick to what it ACTUALLY says

"Then they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to drink, but He did not take it." Mark 15:23

"A vessel (jar) full of sour wine (vinegar) was placed there, so they put a sponge soaked in the sour wine on [a stalk, reed of] hyssop, and held it to [His] mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished"
John 19:29-30

"The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar"
Luke 23:36

"Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink.
Matthew 27:48

In none of these accounts does it say He drank it. The nearest we get to a possibility He drank was the words in John "He received it", but Mark says He refused it! Which one is correct. Well, scripture does not contradict itself, so both must be correct! Question is what did John mean by "receive"?

John Chingford said...

cont ......

This is the help I got from a learned person:

“I thirst” – dipsao.

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not”. Vs.24 ( then) …they crucified him…

This wine based drink was an opiate to help relieve suffering before they crucified Jesus. Yet He refused that help at the beginning of his suffering, so why would He want to be drugged when it was at the completion in John19:28?

Dipsao – (thirst) Thayer’s gives two definitions.
1) Can literally mean ‘I need to drink’.
2) Also figuratively, we can ‘thirst’, or painfully feel the need of something we eagerly long for. Those things which refresh, support or strengthen the soul.

I believe the context reveals the 2nd definition. Jesus knew all things were now accomplished and was ‘thirsting’ eagerly longing to complete the sacrifice
(and thirsting to be restored to the Father as He had become separated because of our sin [last part added by John Chingford] ).

I cannot accept that Jesus actually drank ANY of the wine based opiate; is because first of all, Jesus HAD to suffer with no outside help (like angels) to comply with the terms of His sacrifice. As the sacrificial Lamb of God, the Passover lamb had no such assistance.

Much more importantly, at the last supper with His disciples in Luke Jesus clearly stated he would not drink of the fruit of the vine UNTIL the kingdom had come. That is still future.
Luke 22: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

Near his death, the wine based painkiller was lifted up to his face for him to suck out the fluid.

John19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and PUT IT to his mouth.

I feel sure that this was Satan’s last ditch attempt to cause Jesus to fail in His mission. If Jesus had drunk (of the vine) regardless of its dilution, Jesus’ words to his disciples in Luke 22: would have become a false prophecy, and he would have suffered in vain by accepting outside assistance.

Yet it has been said that he did not just sip the wine, but drank it deeply.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Mark15:36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
37. And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost

Comparing with Mark 15:23 who says Jesus did Not drink and a careful look at the English translation it is not even suggested in John 19:30 or Mark15:36 that he drank at all, let alone deeply.

Having a drink put to his lips, does not automatically mean it was actually be swallowed.

lambano translated ‘received’ means to take hold with the hand, yet obviously Jesus crucified hands could not possibly allow for this action. Jesus merely had possession of it by his mouth, held there by another. But according to Mark15:36,Jesus was offered the drink and immediately stated ‘it is finished’. He was dead.

Vines say’s “Sometimes it means ‘to receive as an action without necessarily a favourable reception”. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

Michael Gormley said...

Dear John,

Do you understand the 4th Cup?

After the beginning of Jesus' Last Passover Supper (Seder) Judas Iscariot left to do what he had to do. The twelve left in the room were at the point where the second of four traditional cups was about to be drunk. (The first is at the beginning of the Seder meal.)

Jesus took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them and said, "Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes."

More of the lamb meal was consumed. During that He took a loaf of unleavened bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples saying, "This IS my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me".

After the supper He took the third cup saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This IS my blood of the NEW and everlasting covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

A hymn was sung, which is a combination of several psalms called The Great Hillel, and they went out to the Mount of Olives.

What happened? The Passover ceremony and ritual was not complete. There was no fourth cup. There was no announcement that it was finished.

Could it be that Jesus was so upset with what He knew was about to happen that He forgot? Doubtful! Not only Jesus, but also the 11 others had participated in the Passover Seder every year of their lives.

No, this was done on purpose. The last supper of Jesus was not over. On the Mount of Olives, in the Garden of Gethsemane, the disciples slept while Jesus prayed, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will but yours be done." He prayed that three times.

Then Jesus was arrested, illegally put on trial by the Sanhedrin, then by Pontius Pilate, sentenced and crucified. While on the cross He wept. Jesus, who was in excruciating agony, was so merciful that He prayed for the forgiveness of His executioners.

He was offered some wine with a pain killer, myrrh, in it. He refused it. "Later, knowing that all was now complete, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled and the kingdom established, Jesus said, 'I am thirsty.'"

A man dipped a sponge into sour wine; he placed it on a hyssop branch and lifted it up to Jesus lips. He drank. (We recall that it was the hyssop branch which was used to paint lambs blood around the Hebrew's door for the Passover of the angel of death.)

It was then that Jesus said, "It is finished." He then bowed His head and gave up the spirit to His Father.

The fourth cup now represented the lamb’s blood of the first Passover, a saving signal to the angel of death. The Lamb of God was now sacrificed. The last Passover supper of Jesus Christ was now complete with the fourth cup. It was finished.

The tie in with the Passover is unmistakable. The Lamb of God was sacrifice and death was about to be passed over come Easter day. The promise of eternal life for many was about to be fulfilled. Christ’s Passover was finished, but His mission was not until he rose from the dead.

John Chingford said...

Hi Michael

It has taken me a few days to research your question re the 4th cup, but I have now put together my answer on: When Did Jesus Drink The Fourth Cup?

Let us consider the question by looking at what the Bible actually says and get it into Bible context.

First of all, none of the 4 gospels mention Jesus drinking wine at the Last Supper (it doesn’t mean He didn’t drink wine – just that it doesn’t mention it). Besides Jesus already stated He would not drink. More on that later.

Every account only states that He distributed the wine to the apostles only. It only mentions 2 cups at the table. The second one was taken AFTER supper. Of course just because it only mentions two cups does not mean there were not 4, but the point is that we cannot state (as fact) something which the Bible does not state as fact

Please note the following statement by Jesus in Matthew 26:29 which is the whole crux of this article and is an indication when the final cup will be drunk:

“I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

There we have it! Jesus declared that He will drink no more wine until He does so in His Father’s Kingdom. Let us compare this with what Jesus also said at the Last Supper in John 14:2-3:

“In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also”

So Jesus was going to the Father’s House in Heaven to prepare a place for us and would return later to bring us to it. The Father’s House is in Heaven – not on the Earth. Jesus said He will not drink again until He drinks it (with us) in Heaven. So this means He could not have drunk any wine on the cross.
So, where do we get the idea of 4 cups from?

John Chingford said...

2nd part
We get it from Jewish tradition (not the scriptures). At traditional Passover meals there are 4 cups. Each cup represents an act of God in Exodus 6:6-7

“say to the Israelites: ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.”

1st Cup) I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians
2nd Cup) I will free you from being slaves to them
3rd Cup) I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment
4th cup) I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God.

These promises were given to ISRAEL alone and were all fulfilled at that time. So why the need to continue the practice of the 4 cups at Passover. Was it just a remembrance or to point to a future and greater fulfilment?

Obviously it was pointing to something greater which would be fulfilled in Jesus.

Jesus came to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and instructed His apostles to do the same thing. Even Paul (an apostle to the Gentiles) preached first to the Jewish people in a City before he preached to the Gentiles. He said “to the Jew first”.

God has a special relationship with Israel. Throughout their history is a record of backslidings followed by repentance, but God never Totally rejected the Jewish race and (because He has this relationship with them) will always restore them and there will be a FINAL restoration.

Ezekiel 36 to 39 is a clear indication of a future restoration. Zechariah 12-14 also.

Jeremiah 31 makes it clear that God’s relationship with Israel and His love for them will continue on throughout eternity. It also describes the New Covenant with Israel, in this chapter Romans 11 tells us that Gentiles have been grafted into (believing) Israel through Jesus.

John Chingford said...

3rd part
Jesus fulfilled the first 3 cups up to redemption, but the 3rd cup is still not fully fulfilled “acts of judgement” which takes place during the Tribulation (although I suppose it could be referring to the Father’s judgement of Jesus because of our sins).

By the way, the Passover could not have been completed until AFTER Jesus had died. The Passover lamb had to be killed. Jesus could not have been referring to the Passover being finished because He was still alive. He was referring to the punishment of our sins being finished. Where does it say (in the Bible) that a cry is made at the end of the Passover, anyway? Again this is Jewish tradition.

It does not make sense that the Passover meal was completed until the death and resurrection had taken place.

Jesus said He would not drink of the vine until the Kingdom had been established ie the 4th cup:

The ultimate fulfilment of “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” has still not yet happened for Israel and (if it refers to the church) did not happen until the Holy Spirit was given. If Jesus had of drunk the fourth cup (which He had already stated He wouldn’t do until the Kingdom had been established) why in Luke 24:30 (after the resurrection) does Jesus break bread but not distribute wine.

Jesus had said that He would drink it in the kingdom of God, but you do not read of Him drinking wine before His ascension, but we do read (in the Book of Revelation and in Matthew 25) of a future marriage supper of the Lamb in which wine will be drunk.

Why would Jesus have drunk bitter wine (vinegar wine) anyway? If it was true the Passover was finished it would have been sweet (for victory) not bitter for sorrow. Besides, the sorrow was already over at that point. But as we pointed out Jesus had not yet died so the Passover was not yet completed.

Vinegar speaks of counterfeit wine. It looks like wine but it is not. Maybe satan was trying to upset the plan of God by offering a counterfeit 4th cup but the scriptures do not say Jesus “DRANK” it. It just says He received it, but remember Jesus’s hands were nailed so it may have touched His lips but it does not mean Jesus drank it.

Or maybe it was a third cup that represented what Jesus had completed but it wasn’t THE 4TH cup. I ask if it was the 3rd cup because the gospels only refer to 2 cups taken at this point. Also the 3rd cup of suffering was surely what Jesus was referring to when He said in the garden “take this cup from me”. The 4th cup is surely a cup of completion. Passover was not complete until Jesus was resurrected and ascended.

John Chingford said...

4th part
There are different types of cups mentioned in the Bible. For examples “my cup overflows” “take this cup from me” . These cups are not necessarily cups of wine. In Jesus case He is referring to a cup of suffering He has to face. He may hold the cup metaphorically because He is about to suffer something terrible. This can be seen more clearer by the request made by James and John in the following passage.

“They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

They said they were able to drink the cup of suffering that Jesus was drinking from. Jesus did not say that that cup was only reserved for Him, because it wasn’t a literal cup. Indeed Jesus said that they WERE able and indeed: James was martyrd by Herod and John was exiled to the island of Patmos.

They did not drink a literal cup. So when Jesus said “take this cup from me” He wasn’t necessarily referring to one of the 4 physical cups.

When Jesus said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, he may well have been saying that we need to be full of Him (which later became possible on the Day of Pentecost) it also means to digest His words, live His life and suffer and die for Him.

Jesus said that He was the bread of Heaven and that we should feast on Him. The bread represents His body. He is known as the Word made flesh. When we receive Him into our hearts (permanently) we are eating from His very Life. He also calls His flesh “food indeed” and “man shall not live by bread alone (our physical needs) but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (our spiritual needs)”.

This tells us that the flesh Jesus is referring to is His words which feed our souls.

To re-emphasise this from John 6:63

" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”

Jesus was referring to His words that would feed the soul and awaken the spirit.

In Hebrews it says that “God’s Word is living and active, sharper than any two edged sword”. So we need to feast upon Jesus through his Words and we drink His blood by being willing to suffer and die for Him. That is what Jesus said to James and John, that they could also drink of Jesus cup of suffering, by suffering for the faith.

Paul also said “that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death” Phil 3:10

In fact Jesus (like Paul) is saying that we need to become like Him by denying ourselves and taking up the cross to follow Him. To be His true disciples we need to be feeding upon Him, drinking His very life so that we can serve Him properly at a time when being a Christian means facing the death penalty. No wonder the people left one by one, but the disciples understood.

They said “we cannot leave, You have the words of eternal life”

Basically, they are saying, we are prepared to die for you because nothing in this world can offer what you offer.

John Chingford said...

5th part
Back to the fourth cup.
Jesus said “I go to prepare a place for you”.

In Jewish weddings the Groom has to go to his father to help prepare a place for the bride (before the wedding ceremony takes place) but leaves a gift behind. Jesus went to the Father to prepare a place for us and left us the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The Groom will return to collect his bride, then the marriage supper begins. This is when the 4th cup will be taken as the final and full redemption of God’s people.

By the way, when we look at Jacob serving 14 years for his 2 wives, we see that each 7 years are referred to as weeks. In the Book of Revelation it talks about the 7 years during the Tribulation as being the final week of Daniel’s prophecy.

In historical Jewish weddings the marriage supper lasts 7 days. Therefore, the marriage supper of the lamb also lasts 7 days ie 7 years. This could indicate that the Supper takes place during these 7 years (but that’s another subject). Israel will not be there, at this stage but will be on Earth at the commencement of the thousand years (could be because they are already the wife of God?).

However, the drinking in the Kingdom which Jesus is referring to is either in Heaven or in His Kingdom reign on Earth during the thousand years. In Matthew 26:29

“I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom”.

The Church age is NOT the Fathers Kingdom. Jesus said “I go to my Father (in Heaven) In my Father’s House are many rooms”.

If you want to use Jewish tradition re the 4 cups, then (to be consistent) why not also use the Jewish wedding tradition (but again it is not scriptural so cannot be taken as complete truth) which illustrates that the final cup will be drunk by Jesus in Heaven. This is what it says:

“the Jewish wedding ceremony and how it relates the Bride of Christ to her bridegroom, Christ Jesus, the Lord.

Shiddukhin: This was often the first step in a Jewish betrothal. It was not uncommon for the father of the groom to select his son’s bride. Sometimes the father could not do this himself, but would use a marriage broker or matchmaker. We have a perfect example of this in GEN 24:1-4.

Hmmm…this has a familiar ring for the born again believer. Doesn’t God, the Father do the same for His Son? “Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” (EPH 1:4)

John Chingford said...

6th part
Ketubah: The next step in the betrothal is ketubah. This is another word for the marriage contract. It would include provisions for the proposal; the groom agrees to support his wife to be and she declares her financial status, or dowry which she pays to the groom. This is illustrated in GEN 24:52-53.

Jesus Christ does this through the New Covenant. “And he said to them,

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (MARK 14:24)

He promises to love the Bride and gives Himself for her. The Bride also promises to pay her dowry.

“For you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” (1COR 6:20) Her price is a yielded life, keeping herself for Him.

Mohar: This is known as the bridal payment or bride price. It is paid by the groom’s family, but ultimately, it belongs to the bride. It sets her free from her father’s household and we see it illustrated in GEN 24:53 and GEN 29:20, 27.

We are told by God that our relationship to Jesus is with a price. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” (1COR 6:19-20)

Our price is not material things like gold and silver, but the life of our Groom. “knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” (1PET 1:18-19)

Mikveh: The next step was ritual immersion, done separately by the bride and groom. It was symbolic of spiritual cleansing. “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.” (MATT 3:13)

The bride also performs a ritual immersion symbolic of the spiritual cleansing of the Holy Spirit. “But deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.” (HEB 9:10)

Eyrusin: This is the formal betrothal act. The word “eyrusin” means “betrothal.” This period is also known as “kiddushim,” meaning sanctification or “set apart.” The couple set aside to prepare themselves to enter the marriage covenant. After the couple underwent “mikveh” they would appear under the “huppah” or canopy to publicly declare their betrothal.

They would usually exchange items of value and share a cup of wine to seal the vows. This period would then last for one year. They were considered married, but did not have sexual relations.

One of the last acts of Jesus, was to bless the cup of the New Covenant. “”This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (MARK 14:24)

He said He would not drink this cup again until the wedding feast.

“Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” (MARK 14:25)

We are betrothed to the Messiah. It would take a religious divorce to nullify the contract. Only the husband could obtain this bill of divorcement. “”And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy.” (HOSEA 2:20)

It is not in God’s character to divorce. (MALACHI 2:16) We are secure in our contract with Jesus. We cannot break it and He promises He will not break it. “Give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” (JOHN 10:28)

These are some things to consider if one believe that one can lose their eternal security.

John Chingford said...

7th part
Matan: The matan or bridal gift would follow this public ceremony. The groom would return to his father’s house, but would leave his bride a gift before his departure.

It was a reminder that he was thinking of her and would return to make her his wife. Both parties had responsibilities during the betrothal. It was the custom for the groom to return to his father’s house and usually add rooms to his father’s house for his new family.

He would then wait for the father’s determination and go ahead to go and claim his bride. The bride was to keep herself busy, sewing and preparing her wedding garments. How beautifully illustrated does our savior do this for His Bride.

We receive our “matan” from our Lord.

“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” (EPH 1:13-14)

He is busy preparing us a place to live. “In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.” (JOHN 14:2-3)

He is waiting for the day and hour when His Father says, “go and get your Bride.” Meanwhile, we are preparing our wedding garments. “So that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” (EPH 5:27)

To echo the old hymn; “are your garments spotless? Are they white as snow?”

Nissuin: The final step in the betrothal is nissuin and literally means, “to carry.” During betrothal, there was great anticipation. The bride had no idea at what hour or time the groom would come. It would always be a surprise. Then one day, the groom’s father would say, “go” and the bridal party would set off down the street to the bride’s house. It was customary for one of the groom’s party to shout,

“Behold, the bridegroom comes!”

This would be followed by the sounding of the shofar. The entire bridal party would go through the streets of the city to the groom’s house and the groomsmen would once again set up the “huppah” or canopy. The couple would once again say a blessing over a cup of win and they would finalize the promises and vows.

The whole event was followed by the marriage supper. It included seven full days of celebration, dancing, eating and music. “Complete the week of this one, and we will give you the other also in return for serving me another seven years.” (GEN 29:27)

It culminates with the groom taking his bride to their new home. We too, do not know the hour of our groom’s return. “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” (MATT 24:36)

We experience the blowing of the shofar and the wedding procession.

“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.” (1THESS 4:16-17)

After our wedding ceremony in heaven, we will also experience the wedding feast. “Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready” (REV 19:7)

Our wedding feast will continue for seven years and will include “the friends of the groom” or OT saints. “And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?” (MATT 9:15A)”

John Chingford said...

I realise that I have things slightly wrong regarding the sequence of events in Heaven regarding the wedding ceremony and the supper.

Someone has so kindly pointed me to this excellent audio from Arnold Frauchtenbam (an experienced Jewish Bible teacher) who talks about the Jewish wedding and its relevance to the marriage ceremony of the Bride of Christ and the subsequent supper. I recommend it to you. Please go to:

Expected Imminently said...

Hello John
You said 'WE' are preparing our wedding garment Eph 5:27* Just to place an asterisk to note, but say no more as it isn’t what this thread is about, and you have already mentioned to get further info.

This has been most interesting to read through; and I have no ‘but’s’ , just a very important point to consider imo; that all of this dialogue has been based upon an assumption made by Michael, that the ‘Last Supper’ was the ‘Passover Feast’.

It isn’t!

It was a meal taken after the preparations have been made ready for the actual Passover Feast to be eaten.

A few quick points that need to be considered for another time. (there are more).

a)The Passover is not just one day.
b)The Jewish ‘day’ starts in the evening at 6p.m. ‘Supper’, in the evening, is at 3p.m. with three hours to go until that day’s ending.
c) At the ‘Last Supper’, it was evening and the Lamb was due to be slain the following evening at 3p.m.

Something important to consider, when comparing the Biblical account, with Roman Catholic tradition.


John Chingford said...

Thanks EI

Yes that is an important point. I wasn't certain on the exact timing of the passover meal so decided to leave that to one side for now. Please see my latest article re the Final Cup dated 19 Nov 2010. I will also place your comment on that article too as it is also appropriate there.