The Lord's Supper — Snack or Feast?

~ fundyreformed ~ 29 Comments

This is a long post. I warned you! But I felt I had to address all sides of this topic first before opening up discussion. I hope you will consider this post thoughtfully, and I really do welcome constructive criticism.

In a previous post I considered the spiritual aspect of the Lord’s Supper. In many circles today nothing really spiritual is expected to happen at the Lord’s Table, yet Scripture says we have a participation—a communion with Christ’s death (1 Cor. 10:16) through the Lord’s Supper. I won’t repeat that post here, but I would like to quote from the tail end of that post as a way of introducing this post’s topic.

One last angle on this aspect of the Lord’s Supper concerns the idea of fellowship with God around a meal. Wayne Grudem offers Ex. 24:9-11 and Deut. 14:23-26 as examples of a special fellowship with God surrounding a meal. This he describes is a restoration of the fellowship man had with God in Eden before the Fall. Yet he stresses:

“The Old Testament sacrificial meals continually pointed to the fact that sins were not yet paid for, because the sacrifices in them were repeated year after year, and because they looked forward to the Messiah who was to come and take away sin (see Heb. 10:1-4). The Lord’s Supper, however, reminds us that Jesus’ payment for our sins has already been accomplished, so we now eat in the Lord’s presence with great rejoicing….Yet even the Lord’s Supper looks forward to a more wonderful fellowship meal in God’s presence in the future, when the fellowship of Eden will be restored and there will be even greater joy….” [1]

Feasting and Fellowship

Feasting had a prominent place in the Old Testament and in Jewish life. There were seven national feasts and three of them required the males to make a pilgrimage to the Temple–where a huge national feast would commence. It was not uncommon for marriage feasts to last days or weeks even.

A natural result of feasting is fellowship. Or you could say, those you fellowship with are the ones you feast with. Ever read a tale which depicted a medieval feast? The whole idea of feasting is wholly foreign to our minds today. Maybe the closest relative to the feast of yesteryear is the Baptist potluck dinner of today!

The Last Supper & the Feast to Come

The Lord’s Supper (yes, I am getting to the point now) was instituted in the context of a feast. The Last Supper was the time Christ and His disciples celebrated the “feast” of the Passover. This is made clear in Luke 22:15. So, in the context of the Passover festive meal, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper.

But Jesus and His disciples were not only looking back to the deliverance of Israel at the Exodus, they also were looking forward. Jesus inaugurated the new covenant at this meal, and he also looked forward to the time when he would feast with his disciples again in the kingdom of God. Luke’s Gospel makes this connection especially clear:

Luke 22:15-18 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

And then after the Supper…

Luke 22:28-30 “You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

So the context of the giving of the Lord’s Supper involves a look back at the feast of the Passover and a look forward to a future feast: the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Pass the Thimble! Cracker, Anyone?

By now you know where I am going with this. Anyone else fail to see the relation between loaf of bread and 1/2 inch square cracker? Or how about cup of wine with the common thimble sized variety? To quote a book which advocates a radical change in the way we do Communion, “Would the Twelve have somehow deduced that the newly instituted Lord’s Supper was not to be a true meal? Or would they naturally have assumed it to be a feast, just like the Passover?” [2]

Consider this. Every clear example of the Lord’s Supper in Scripture includes a meal. 1 Cor. 11 clearly states that a meal was involved. Acts 20:7-12 also seems to be a clear example of the Lord’s Supper, and there it is obvious a meal is included. Also, the word for “supper” is the Greek word deipnon which means the evening meal–a full meal. [3]

The Love Feast in Scripture and History

The New Testament church held an agape feast, or a love feast in connection with the Lord’s Supper. It was “a simple meal of brotherly love”. [4] Let me quote Merrill F. Unger a bit here:

It would appear that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by the first disciples occurred daily in private houses (Acts 2:46), in connection with the agape, or love feast, to indicate that its purpose was the expression of brotherly love. The offering of thanks and praise (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24) was probably followed with the holy kiss (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20). It was of a somewhat festive character, judging from the excesses that Paul reproved (1 Cor. 11:20), and was associated with an ordinary meal, at the close of which the bread and wine were distributed as a memorial of Christ’s similar distribution to the disciples. From the accounts in Acts (2:42, 46) and from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (11:20-21) it is safely inferred that the disciples each contributed a share of the food necessary for the meal, thus showing a community of love and fellowship. To this unifying power of the Eucharist Paul evidently refers (10:16-17). [5]

Apparently most scholars agree that the Lord’s Supper was originally taken as a meal. Let me provide a few quotes regarding this:

Donald Guthrie: “in the early days the Lord’s Supper took place in the course of a communal meal.” (The Lion Handbook of the Bible) [6a]

John Drane: “Throughout the New Testament period the Lord’s Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that [it] was moved to a special building…”. (The New Lion Encyclopedia) [6b]

J.G. Simpson: “the name Lord’s Supper…derived from 1 Corinthians 11:20, is not there applied to the sacrament itself but to the Love Feast or Agape, a meal commemorating the Last Supper, and not yet separated from the Eucharist when St. Paul wrote.” (The Dictionary of the Bible) [6c]

Merrill F. Unger: “Apparently the Lord’s Supper and the Agape were originally one (1 Cor. 11:17-34). The common conservative view unites a simple repast with the Lord’s Supper on the general plan of the Last Supper.” (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary) [7]

Hulitt Gloer: “By the second century the word agapai had become a technical term for such a common meal which seems to have been separated from the ceremonial observance of the Lord’s Supper sometime after the New Testament period.” (Holman Bible Dictionary) [8]

As the giving of the Lord’s Supper became more formal and sacramentally oriented, the agape feast was separated from the Lord’s Supper. And both continued to be practiced for some time, although the Agape Feast was condemned, due to excesses and problems, at a church council in the 300s. Yet the practice continued in some places until as late as the 15th century. [9]

Before moving on, I should mention that the love feast is directly mentioned by name in Jude 12, and it is possibly referred to in a parallel passage in 2 Pet. 2:13. And as mentioned above, what we see in Acts 2 and 20, and also in 1 Cor. 11 seems very similar to the love feast.

Summary (with an Objection Answered)

At this point, it would be helpful to summarize the arguments for partaking of the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal. I will add a few extra arguments here to consider as well.

  • The Lord’s Supper was originally instituted in context of a meal
  • The Lord’s Supper looks forward to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb
  • The Lord’s Supper is called just that a “supper” not a “snack”
  • In 1 Cor. 11 and Acts 20 the clearest examples of what the Lord’s Supper as practiced by NT believers looks like both indicate a meal was eaten
  • Jude 12 indicates that love feasts were celebrated by the early church and church history confirms that such feasts were held in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper
  • The bread part of the Lord’s Supper was instituted “as they were eating” (Matt. 26:26)
  • The cup part of the Lord’s Supper was separated from the bread and it was taken “after they had eaten” (Luke 22:20, see also 1 Cor. 11:25)

Now we should respond to a possible objection.

Objection: Doesn’t 1 Cor. 11:34 say, “if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home”?

Answer: The problem in 1 Cor. was not that a meal was eaten along with the supper. The rich came to the meeting early since they did not want to eat with the poorer classes, and the poor coming late (due to work constraints) found no food left. Some of the rich remained so long at eating and drinking they became drunk. Rather than it being the Lord’s Supper, they were eating their own supper and missing what the whole feast was about. The solution to this was not to stop eating the Lord’s Supper as a meal, rather vs. 33 says, “when you come together to eat, wait for one another”. Those who could not wait, due to selfishness or lack of discipline, were to eat at home (v. 34).

Possible Benefits

Greater Unity. 1 Cor. 10:17 says “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Let me quote from Ekklesia (the book I referred to above) at some length here:

The one loaf not only pictures our unity in Christ, but according to 1 Co 10:17 even creates unity. Notice careful [sic] the wording of the inspired text. “Because” there is one loaf, therefore we are one body, “for” we all partake of the one loaf (1 Cor. 10:17). Partaking of a pile of broken cracker crumbs and multiple cups of the fruit of the wine is a picture of disunity, division, and individuality. At the very least, it completely misses the imagery of unity. At worse, it would prohibit the Lord from using the one loaf to create unity in a body of believers. [10]

More Fellowship. From the above verse we see that partaking of the Lord’s Supper creates unity. Now picture the typical Lord’s Supper service. Everyone has their own private celebration where they spend time examining themselves and on meditating on the wonder of Christ’s death. They are interrupted from their individual worship (sadly for some they are interrupted from their distracted thoughts or daydreams) and look up in time to chew their food or gulp their juice in unison. This creates unity and promotes fellowship, really???

Surely coming together around the Lord’s table for the Lord’s meal, sharing food with one another, tarrying until we can all eat together–this would promote more fellowship and foster unity. This too is closer to what the Passover feast looked like and what the Marriage supper of the Lamb will look like–a joyful communal feast celebrating the victory performed on our behalf by our Gracious Lord.

Steve Atkerson in Ekklesia puts forth the idea that in Acts 2:42 “fellowship” and “breaking of bread” are “linked together as simultaneous activities”. [11] He sees this because there is no “and” between them, while there is an “and” between “teaching” and “fellowship”, and between “bread” and “prayer”.

Increased Appreciation. I am of the opinion that a cracker and a thimble do not enable me to appreciate the significance of the Lord’s Supper ritual to the proper extent. Is it possible that when Christ instituted the ordinance he intended some benefit to come from the fact that we would be chewing a large piece of bread all the while we are meditating the significance of the fact that Christ’s body was broken? Could he have intended us to think of the bitterness of his life’s blood flowing from him, as we drank a good draught from a wine which is often acidic?

We are not strictly spiritual beings nor shall we ever be. We are a physical-spiritual-emotional being. What we experience physically can be felt in our spiritual senses. I think that with both baptism and the Lord’s Supper, God teaches us verbally and non-verbally. Baptism is a picture to see, the Lord’s Supper is a meal to eat. Seeing, hearing, and eating–all are physical things. I think we shortchange the physical element of the Lord’s Supper when we use a cracker and a thimble.

Especially for us who have an innate tendency to avoid anything with sacramental overtones or that remotely smells of Rome, we do not like rituals. So even in our Christ-ordained rituals, we try to be as un-ritualistic as possible. Perhaps this attitude robs us of experiencing the benefit that a physical/spiritual ritual was meant to have for us.

Greater Focus on the Cross. Many of the groups who celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a meal today, emphasize a weekly observance of the Supper. Church History (and even the New Testament–Acts 20, 1 Cor. 11) seems to clearly indicate that the church used to observe the Supper weekly. In fact the Lord’s Supper became “the focus of the church’s life and practice”. [12] Perhaps a return to a focus on the Lord’s Supper will help us as a church to become more cross-centered.

What This Might Look Like

The book that first set me to thinking along these lines, Ekklesia, also advocates house churches. In a smaller setting, such an observance of the Lord’s Supper could easily be performed as a communal, pot luck meal, with the Lord’s Supper given first, or last, or during the meal.

I can understand where they are coming from with the house church ideal, and perhaps a larger church which advocates small groups would permit the smaller groups to have communion like this from time to time. But how would this work in a larger setting?

Well, we would have to be more creative, but I am sure it could work. There could be a potluck meal on a larger scale in a fellowship hall or something. Perhaps you may not celebrate the Supper every week, but rather monthly or something. Another idea could be to go back to having a larger piece of bread and a larger cup of wine, yet not re-instituting a full meal. I think it would be a step in the right direction, but I like the idea of coming together around tables to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

Side Note about the Elements

Concerning the elements, let me give a brief side note. It is somewhat funny to me that while Baptists, especially, are very careful to infer that since unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper (and first Lord’s Supper) we should always use unleavened bread, they turn around and say it does not really matter what kind of wine you use. It seems fairly clear that “the fruit of the vine” is a Jewish ceremonial expression referring to wine, and that Jesus only uses it in the context of the Passover because this is the expression that was used by the Jews.

With regard to the bread, we must note that nowhere are we told what kind of bread to use, and while unleavened bread was symbolic of the Exodus, we are not told that the presence or absence of leaven has any symbolic significance with regard to the Lord’s Supper. While leaven can symbolize sin or the Pharisee’s false teaching, it also is used to symbolize the kingdom of heaven and its fast and pervasive spread.

And with the drink, it does seem clear that wine was used (in 1 Cor. 11 people were getting drunk with Communion wine). Yet with the modern confusion over alcohol, it seems prudent to not demand that wine always be used. There seems to be some liberty in this matter, but not such liberty that “bagels and coke” (as Pastor Piper lamented in a recent message) could be used.

Some Final Caveats

I do not want to be dogmatic about this whole thing, however. The book Ekklesia makes a big point out of the fact that we should follow apostolic traditions. And indeed several passages are clear in this regard (1 Cor. 11:2, 16; 14:33b-34; Phil. 4:9; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6-7a). However, the particular practices which Ekklesia wants us to follow are not themselves abundantly clear from the text alone. So I view this particular thing–eating a meal with the Lord’s Supper, as not ultimately clear enough in Scripture.

I do not see it specifically mandated for us to follow. Although there seems to be some awful strong implications in this regard. I found it interesting to note that in a defense of the Brethren position on the Lord’s Supper from 1915 (ISBE), that they saw the need to divorce the Lord’s Supper from the historic Passover meal in order to find support for the modern requirement of observing an Agape feast (they also advocated foot-washing, and celebrated the Lord’s Supper only once or twice a year). [13]

Also, Barnes brought up a point which seems to show that this modern house church movement is a little inconsistent here. He points out that “supper” means evening meal, and he actually says it is wrong to celebrate the Supper in the morning/midday. [14] Yet it seems that they celebrate the Lord’s Supper and Agape meal in the early afternoon.

So, while I believe there is liberty here, I do see much benefit in considering changing from bread crumbs and drops of wine, to something closer to a meal.

At last my post is at an end. Now I am interested to hear what my readers think. Am I totally off base? Or do you have similar thoughts or concerns?

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Further Resources

The Lord’s Supper celebrated weekly as a full, fellowship meal and as the main reason for the weekly church meeting (Ac 2:42 , 20:7, 1Co 11:18 -20, 11:33 ). In the center of the feast there is to be the one cup and the one loaf (1Co 10:16 -17), both symbolizing and creating unity. The mood of the meal is to be joy, not solemn reflection, because the focus of the Lord’s Supper is the excitement of the Second Coming. It is a rehearsal dinner for the future Wedding Banquet of the Lamb (Re 19:6-9)! [See all their beliefs here.]

Footnotes

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1995), pg. 969.

[2] Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia…To the Roots of Biblical Church Life (New Testament Restoration Foundation: Atlanta, 2003), pg. 24. [You can click here to download a sample chapter of this book, or click here to order it/learn more.]

[3] Atkerson, pg. 25. Also, Barnes Notes at 1 Cor. 11:20

[4] Merrill F. Unger, “Agape”, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Moody Press: Chicago, 1988), pg. 32.

[5] Merrill F. Unger, “Lord’s Supper”, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 783.

[6a-c] These 3 quotes are taken from Atkerson, pg. 26 (no bibliographical info on the quotes given).

[7] Unger, “Agape”, ibid.

[8] Hulitt Gloer, “Love Feast”, Holman Bible Dictionaryonline edition (Trent C. Butler, editor, Broadman & Holman, 1991).

[9] William Smith, “Love Feasts”, Smith’s Bible Dictionary online edition (William Smith, editor, 1901). Also, see Unger, “Agape”.

[10] Atkerson, pg. 28.

[11] Atkerson, pg. 29.

[12] Henry Riley Gummey, “Lord’s Supper”, “General” section, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia online edition(James Orr, editor, 1915), under the heading VII/2./(1) Ignatian Epistles.

[13] Daniel Webster Kurtz, “Lord’s Supper”, “According to the belief and practice of the Church of the Brethren (Dunkers)” section, ISBE online edition.

[14] Albert Barnes, Barnes New Testament Notes online edition, on 1 Cor. 11:20.

The Glorious God behind the Story of Esther

~ fundyreformed ~ 1 Comment

The only book of the Bible to not mention God at all is Esther. This feature has led to some canonical questions concerning the book. Yet, perhaps no book so clearly shows the hand of God in the background of the story.

Nathan Pitchford in a recent post on Esther, points out the many things God did to prevent the destruction of His people so that He might still bring the Messiah, Jesus Christ into the world. Nathan makes many helpful observations and even presents a picture of Christ as seen from the book. One important point he makes is this: since God is at work behind the scenes (and only “behind the scenes”)  in accomplishing His purposes in the story of Esther, we can draw encouragement and trust that God is at work behind the scenes in our own lives to bring to completion that great work He has begun in us.

Beyond an excellent example of a redemptive, historical, hermeneutical approach to the book of Esther, Nathan gives us a feast for our souls. He takes the many intricacies of the story of Esther and paints a glorious and stunning picture of our great sovereign God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

I encourage you all to read Nathan’s post, but I want to quote two paragraphs of it below, to whet your appetite.

We see the immutability of God’s purpose to accomplish the coming of Christ from the seed of the Jews in two circumstances: the first is how he sovereignly effects the minutest details of history to preserve the line from which he should come. Consider how many incidents he brings about for the preservation of the Messianic line: first, he causes King Ahasuerus, in whose pleasure resides the fate of the Jews (in an earthly sense), to become angry against his queen. Then he causes Esther, who is of Jewish seed (although unbeknownst to him) to find favor in his eyes. Then he provides for Esther the godly counsel she needs in the person of Mordecai, her cousin. Next, he reveals a plot against the king to this same Mordecai, and gives him the opportunity and desire to report the plot and deliver the king from the potential assassins. He causes Haman, the next in power to the king, to be angry with Mordecai, and with the Jews in general; he causes Haman, through the use of lots, to mark a certain day for the destruction of the Jews; he gives Esther the counsel and the courage to seek an audience with the king; he gives the king a favorable reception to this brazen request for an audience; he allows Esther such trepidation that she is unable to ask for her true request, and causes her instead to prepare a feast for Ahasuerus and Haman; he gives Haman the false sense of flattery, that he alone was invited to Queen Esther’s feast; and he does the same thing a second time, so that Haman is emboldened to construct a gallows for Mordecai; he causes the king, on the night before the second feast, to be smitten with insomnia, so that the chronicles of the kingdom should be read to him, so as to put him to sleep; he causes that very portion of the chronicles to be read which speak of Mordecai’s heroic saving of the king from the assassins; he leads the king to desire to honor him who saved his life; he causes him to seek counsel how to honor him from Haman; he stirs up Haman to think that the king wishes to honor himself; he instructs Haman of a method by which true honor might be shown to him who is worthy; he causes the king to command Haman himself to carry out this true honor for Mordecai, whom he hates; he gives Esther boldness, at the proper time, to declare to the king Haman’s wickedness; he causes Haman to fear, and to fall upon the bed of Esther in seeking her mercy; he causes the king to find him in this position; he stirs up anger in the king, at the false supposition that Haman is attempting to force Esther in the king’s own house; he gives Ahasuerus the heart to grant Esther’s request to overturn the intention of wicked Haman; he brings to the king’s attention the gallows of Haman, and gives him the desire to have Haman hanged on the gallows he built for Mordecai; he gives the Jews a mighty victory out of what should have been their annihilation, from the counter decree of Ahasuerus. He brings to his people a feast of celebration out of the sorrow of defeat; and finally, he causes Haman’s own sons to be hanged upon the gallows of their father, while the Jews celebrate their victory. It is simply staggering to consider how many tiny details God worked together for the salvation of his people.

The second notable circumstance is how God accomplished this great orchestration, as it were, behind the scenes. In no place at all is the name of God mentioned in the book of Esther. And yet, even when he is not seen, God is sovereignly and mightily at work to effect his great plan. How comforting is this reality to all who are his! God truly does cause “all things to work together for good to them that love him” (Romans 8:28)! And more comforting yet is the reality that the purpose for which he is exercising this minute and staggering sovereignty is nothing other than to bring Christ into the world. Christ alone is the good that God has purposed to bring about for his children, through every circumstance. The effect of God’s great control over history is that “nothing can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:39). Oh Christian, do you despair at the manifold trials which attend the insignificant details of your life? Rejoice, for God is at work, even when you cannot see him; and he is at work to bring to you Christ, your only hope of glory and eternal satisfaction! [Read the whole article here.]

“O Church Arise” by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

I have a long post in store for this week, but it is taking a long time to finish it. (Especially since the cold bug has me down right now.) So I wanted to at least give you a music post.

“O Church Arise”  is yet another excellent modern hymn by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend (they gave us “In Christ Alone”, and Stuart also wrote “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us”, among many other good hymn-like songs). It has the aura of a hymn written three or four hundred years ago, yet it is popular over a wide spectrum of churches today. It’s rich lyrics and fitting melody make it perfect for corporate worship, and when sung in a full congregation, it has almost the same effect as Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”. It is theologically sound focusing on the sure hope we have despite our struggles to fight the good fight of faith. This song could even enrich the worship of church’s who emphasize strictly traditional hymns. I encourage you to look well at this song and let it bless your heart (and others).

  

O Church Arise
by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend

O Church Arise and put your armour on
Hear the call of Christ our Captain
For now the weak can say that they are strong
In the strength that God has given
With shield of faith and belt of truth
We’ll stand against the devil’s lies
An army bold whose battle-cry is Love
Reaching out to those in darkness

Our call to war to love the captive soul
But to rage against the captor
And with the sword that makes the wounded whole
We will fight with faith and valour
When faced with trials on every side
We know the outcome is secure
And Christ will have the prize for which He died
An inheritance of nations

Come see the cross where love and mercy meet
As the Son of God is stricken
Then see His foes lie crushed beneath His feet
For the Conqueror has risen
And as the stone is rolled away
And Christ emerges from the grave
This victory march continues till the day
Every eye and heart shall see Him

So Spirit come put strength in every stride
Give grace for every hurdle
That we may run with faith to win the prize
Of a servant good and faithful
As saints of old still line the way
Retelling triumphs of His grace
We hear their calls and hunger for the day
When with Christ we stand in glory

Copyright  © 2005 Thankyou Music

  

To listen to a sample of the song (and get an idea as to the melody) click  here [if you do not have RealPlayer, and that link does not work, try this link (mp3)]. You should be able to preview some sheet music on the song here  and you can order some there or at this link.

The Blessings of a Sunday Sabbath

~ fundyreformed ~ 10 Comments

Many of us don’t give much thought as to the implications of our worship on Sunday rather than Saturday. We understand Christ rose on Sunday, and for many that is a simple enough reason for worshipping on Sunday. Now, I have had the privelege (?) of debating with a good number of Seventh Day Adventists and to them it is not such a simple question.

This post is really not going to get into the proof that the Christian Sabbath is now Sunday, nor is it going to explore the question of just how a New Testament believer is to observe the 4th commandment. Rather I want to share a beautiful insight into the ramifications of our worshipping on Sunday that I gleaned from O. Palmer Robertson’s excellent book The Christ of the Covenants.

Before I give the quotation from Robertson, you need to know that he points out 2 reasons for the command to observe the Sabbath. 1) Creation (God’s resting on and blessing/hallowing the seventh day)””Ex. 20:8-11. 2) Redemption (from Egypt)””Deut. 5:12-15.

Now I will close with the quotation from Robertson himself. I hope it will bless you all as much as it did me.

 

Now the reason for Sabbath-observance relates not only to creation but also to redemption. Because God gave rest by redemption, Israel must observe the Sabbath.

The two alternative reasons for keeping the Sabbath focus on the two great pivots of God’s historical dealings with his people. These two events have equal significance. Creation originates a people of God. Redemption recreates a people of God. In each case, the Sabbath plays a vital role.

When the place of the Sabbath under the new covenant is considered, this perspective must not be forgotten. By his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ consummated God’s redemptive purposes. His coming forth into new life must be understood as an event as significant as the creation of the world. By his resurrection, a new creation occurred.

…

For this reason, the Christian perceives history differently. He does not only look forward to a redemption yet to come. He does not merely hope for a future Sabbath rest. He looks back on a redemption fully accomplished. He stands confidently on the basis of what the past already has brought.

Therefore, it is fitting that the new covenant radically alters the Sabbath perspective. The current believer in Christ does not follow the Sabbath pattern of the people of the old covenant. He does not first labor six days, looking hopefully toward rest. Instead, he begins the week by rejoicing in the rest already accomplished by the cosmic event of Christ’s resurrection. Then he enters joyfully into his six days of labor, confident of success through the victory which Christ has already won. (emphasis added)

 

Cited from: O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980) p. 73

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Bobspotted Blogroll: September 16, 2006

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Interesting  New Blog

  • I discovered an interesting new blog recently by someone who has come to embrace Calvinism and leave some of the more extreme elements of fundamentalism. Many of his articles are very thought provoking and I am sure you all would be interested in perusing some of them. The blog is aptly titled The Reforming Baptist, and as for who that fellow is, his name is William Dudding.
  • I like to read new blogs chronologically and so I was pleasantly surprised that his second post (from back in August) dealt with the topic my most recent post addresses. William’s post is entitled “Legislated Holiness” and it is a must read. He says a lot with a short post, and he drives his point home: legislation cannot truly produce holiness. (He follows it up later with a good post on legalism.)
  • This post’s title should grab your attention: “Do You Listen to Preaching or Squawking?” The post is even better than the title, it is the best critique of IFBx preaching that I have seen since Regler Joe gave us the universal outline for an IFBx Conference Sermon.
  • The last post of note to mention from William’s blog touches a more somber note. His post entitled “Mis-Representing God” concerns the all too common, tragic results of fundamentalist extremism: kids who grow up in that movement only to walk away from Christianity and faith completely. “If that is Christianity”, they reason, “I want nothing to do with it!”

On the Rise and Fall of Fundamentalism

  • Ryan DeBarr has some very interesting thoughts concerning Fundamentalism being a victim of its own success. He suggests that Fundamentalism helped spawn the conservative resurgence in the SBC as well as the birth of the PCA. And these two movements now are a major factor in fundamentalism’s decline. It is a very worthwhile read.

On Perception, Reality, and a Culture of Fear

  • Bob Bixby has a very thought provoking post on fundamentalism’s tendency to focus too much on perception rather than reality. He is talking mainly about something promoted by leadership whereby they create a culture of fear where everyone is afraid of  how they might be perceived if they are caught doing  various things. It is kind of hard to  talk about the post, you really need to read it. But I will post a few excerpts to whet your appetite.  (HT: Ben Wright)

One pastor chastised a member in his church for allowing a prohibited music at that person’s private function. The music wasn’t bad. It just gave someone the perception of bad music. She had “lost her testimony,” she was told. Several large ministries that I know of, “flagship ministries,” now permit the staff women to wear pants in public as long as no one sees them. [Yeah, yeah, I said that right.] Another major ministry allows its staff members to go to theaters as long as it is outside of a fifty mile radius of the ministry. Hmmm. I wonder what they can do if they go one hundred miles away? Two hundred miles? Tantalizing stuff!

Who are they afraid of? Is there anyone in the real world that will be permanently ill-affected by the sight of a Christian woman in slacks? Is there any normal person that will have his faith ransacked by the mere sight of a staff member going into a cinema. Is there any regular Joe that will fall from the faith by the beat of music? Come on! Who are they really afraid of? The reality is that they are pandering to legalistic, judgmental, Christians who have been bred in a church culture that follows leaders who say “perception is reality” and canonized their misperceptions. And how can you “lose your testimony” to judgmental Christians who are bent on drawing their conclusions from their perceptions when their misperceptions carry within them the power to constrain sincere people? Or why should you care?

…

Leaders actually try to control people based upon their perception even if they misperceive. The problem with believing that perception is reality is that it forces your hand to treat a harmless perception like a grotesque reality. It invites harsh over-reactions. Everybody knows that the male staff member should not have taken the female staff member back to her home without a third party, but you don’t have to can the guy and pin the scarlet letter on him as if he had committed adultery. The perception is dubious, granted, but the reality is probably that the staff members didn’t even think about the negative suggestions their ride home might provoke. Give “˜em a break. Merely consciously admitting the obvious that you don’t know reality for sure will temper how you respond to the perception. But, unfortunately, since perception is reality with these leaders they cultivate a culture of fear and they train their followers to control their leadership by the same means. Now, many leaders today are hamstrung by the cultures they cultivated.

…

Christians need an environment where they know that they will get the benefit of the doubt. They long to be free from the “misperceptions” and accepted on the basis of, and even in spite of, the reality. It is only in an environment like that where they will flourish….[Be sure to read the entire article.]

On Finney and Fame

  • Okay, fame is misleading, but it does go nicely with Finney.    Four links to my post on Finney and the altar call is hardly fame, although one of the links was from Phil Johnson in a Pyromaniacs’ Blogspotting post. (Thanks to David Kjos, Micah Fries, and “seeker” for the other links!)
  • Confession time: If you  have yet to  put two and two together,  you may  be interested  to learn that  Phil’s use of the term “blogspot” is where I came up with the idea for “bobspotted”, as in “Bobspotted Blogrolls” and “Bobspotted Blogs”.
  • I cannot leave this point without mentioning that Micah Fries‘ link is in the context of his own good article on the altar call and Charles Finney. He furnishes us with an interesting quote by Finney on his own use of that method. I encourage you guys to go check out his article, if you were interested in mine.

On A Free Book Offer

  • Can’t  pass up letting you all know about a freebie! The book is entitled The Graham Formula: Why Most Decisions for Christ are Ineffective and it is by Patrick MacIntyre. Here is the deal, the book is free for pastors from now through September 29th. The rest of us can buy it for $7.99 (+ $3.99 S/H even if you qualify for a free book), or download it for $2.99, like I did.
  • The book looks really good. It makes several of the same criticisms I pointed out in my recent post on Finney and the Altar Call. However, the book is actually dedicated to Finney, with the  belief that the altar call itself is not bad, rather  it is Billy Sunday’s innovations which are at fault. The book also praises Billy Graham in ways I had not heard before. But I think that idiosyncracies aside, the book does a good job in making an important point. The methodologies in vogue today are producing hundreds of false conversions. The book is filled with statistics and quotes from others who make his same point. And for that it seems even more valuable. It is worth $2.99 for sure, and if you can get it for free, go for it! Here is the link for the free deal, and here again is the link for ordering the book.