Search This Blog

Translate

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Pascal Meal vis-à-vis Lord’s Supper



The first Passover is described in Exodus chapter 12: one lamb was slain for every household and the blood painted onto the lintels and doorposts. This was done in order that the angel of Death would not slay the first-born son of the Jewish households, but only those of Pharaoh’s people, whom God had warned He would judge. "When I see the blood, I will pass over you" the Lord told the children of Israel (Exodus 12:13). They were to eat the lamb, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, in haste prior to their departure from Egypt. The eating of unleavened bread was to continue for seven days, as their sustenance to exit Egypt and escape Pharaoh’s slavery.


Outstanding among the possible typologies or correlates—“shadows,” if you prefer—is that of the Passover or Seder meal which commemorates[i] the deliverance and exodus of the children of Israel from the dominion of Pharaoh as slaves in Egypt, around 1450 BC.

The First Passover

The setting of the Lord's Supper is in my opinion a correlate of the Passover meal; but Jesus was not hosting a proper Seder in the sense that there was no lamb since He was and is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world. Jesus Christ is Himself the Passover lamb, offered up for the redemption and deliverance of His people (I Corinthians 5:7), the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). The bread and wine speak of His death, and of the new covenant it ratifies, reconciling God and man. Jesus says "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24-25), telling His disciples that the Passover is fulfilled in Him. Until He comes again (Luke 22:18; I Corinthians 11:26), we are to remember the significance of what He has done for us.

This position is further collaborated by an ancient Christian church manual called the Didache which also suggests that the Last Supper may have been an ordinary Jewish meal. In Chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache, the Eucharistic prayers are remarkably close to the Jewish Grace After Meals (Birkat ha-Mazon).[ii] While these prayers are recited after the Passover meal, they would in fact be recited at any meal at which bread was eaten, holiday or not. Thus, this too underscores the likelihood that the Last Supper was an everyday Jewish meal.

Moreover, while the narrative in the Synoptics situates the Last Supper during Passover week, the fact remains that the only foods we are told the disciples ate are bread and wine—the basic elements of any formal Jewish meal. If this was a Passover meal, where is the Passover lamb? Where are the bitter herbs? Where are the four cups of wine?

However, there are striking parallels between the Last Supper and the Passover (Seder) Meal as can be easily seen in the following comparison: (1) The Last Supper took place in Jerusalem, (2) in a room made available to pilgrims for that purpose, and (3) it was held during the night. (4) Jesus celebrated that meal with his “family” of disciples; and (5) while they ate, they reclined. (6) This meal was eaten in a state of ritual purity. (7) Bread was broken during the meal and not just at the beginning. (8) Wine was consumed and (9) this wine was red. (10) There were last-minute preparations for the meal, after which (11) alms were given, and (12) a hymn was sung. (13) Jesus and his disciples then remained in Jerusalem. Finally, (14) Jesus discussed the symbolic significance of the meal, just as Jews do during the Passover Seder.

Why do the Synoptic Gospels Portray the Last Supper as a Passover Meal?
Having determined that the Last Supper was not a Seder and that it probably did not take place on Passover, I must try to account for why the synoptic Gospels portray the Last Supper as a Passover meal. Of course, the temporal proximity of Jesus’ crucifixion (and with it, the Last Supper) to the Jewish Passover provides one motive: Surely this historical coincidence could not be dismissed as just that.

Other examples of Passoverization can be identified. The Gospel of John, as previously noted, and Paul (1 Corinthians 5:7–8) equate Jesus’ crucifixion with the Passover sacrifice: “Our Paschal lamb, Christ has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” This too is a Passoverization of the Jesus tradition, but it is one that contradicts the identification of the Last Supper with the Seder or Passover meal.

Still others assert that there is no contradiction at all between the events of the Last Supper as shared by John and his less reliable disciple-friends. According to this theory, put forth in the 1960s by French biblical scholar Annie Jaubert and cited in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus and his disciples were adhering to the calendar of the rebellious Pharisee sect, which celebrated the start of Passover a day earlier than the rest of the Jews.

Passover Meal Challenge[iii][iv]
Now, to continue this line of argument, let’s consider Mark 14:12-26, since Matthew and Luke are in general agreement with him on the events surrounding the Last Supper:

Jesus Celebrates the Passover with His Disciples
12 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover?”
13 And He sent out two of His disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him. 14 Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 15 Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there make ready for us.”
16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover.
17 In the evening He came with the twelve. 18 Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray Me.”
19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say to Him one by one, “Is it I?” And another said, “Is it I?”
20 He answered and said to them, “It is one of the twelve, who dips with Me in the dish. 21 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born.”

Jesus Institutes the New Covenant
22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. (Mark 14:12-26 (NKJV)

And now with these verse in John’s Gospel that seems to conflict with the Synoptics:
Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. (John 17:1); and,
2 And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him.

With the verse that seems to conflict with the Synoptics:
Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away…” (John 19:31)

Problem Observed:
Do you see the problem here? The problem is best presented in the form of a question: “How could Jesus eat the Passover meal with his disciples, then be crucified and the Jews ask that he be taken down off the cross before the Passover meal they were to eat later that day?” (John 19:31)

The answer is, obviously if one accepts that the Last Supper was the Passover meal, followed by yet another Passover meal after he was crucified, then there is definitely a contradiction.

The Choice is Yours:
At this point, the choice is yours. Either the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God or it is simply a good book full of advice, some good perhaps, and some bad; but, nonetheless, errant in its narratives and with an archaic prescientific worldview. It cannot be both.

As for me, I would find it very hard to place my confidence in a book riddled with such apparent errors and prescientific mythologies. Yet, some continue to hang onto this straw and proudly proclaim that they are Christians.

I say, foolishness.

Possibilities Considered:
With this clearly in mind, let us allow our thoughts to run down an imaginative trail of possibilities. What if those New Testament authors living in time and space only had one option? Now, what if that option was that they could only declare in space and time what originated in the mind of the Eternal One? Is this not precisely what Peter said, when he wrote:
For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

Does not the scripture also say?
From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do. (Isaiah 46:11)

We cannot have both. God is eternal, He changes not. He cannot, and does not lie. (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29)

The Inauguration of a New Covenant:
Firstly, the Lord’s Supper mentioned was not a Seder or Passover meal at all but the inauguration of a new covenant. This conviction is based on the fact that there is no mention of eating the sacrificial lamb—since He was, indeed, the sacrificial lamb. And, he clearly states that:
"This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes." (1 Corinthians 11:25, 26)

So, instead of celebrating the Passover, since he knew that he would be the Passover lamb the next day, he clearly is saying the old Seder meal is therefore null and void and is no longer necessary. I am the bread, I am the lamb, I am the wine in ways that these old symbolisms never were. For, as the scripture says,

Hebrews 8: 7-13
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, (8) “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; (9) not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. (10) “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their god, and they shall be my people. (11) “and they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, ‘know the Lord,’ for all will know me, from the least to the greatest of them.  (12) “for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”

(13) When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

And, disappear it did!

Therefore, if this position is taken—and I believe it is the correct one—one of our major problems is solved; that is, that Christ was crucified and died precisely during the time the Passover lamb was sacrificed that the High Priest would eat later that night at the traditional Seder meal.

Regardless of one’s view of history, we must agree with Wilhelm Herrmann a liberal theologian, who readily admits the flaws in depending on history for a final judgment call on Biblical doctrine,
“[It] is a fatal drawback that no historical judgment, however certain it may appear, ever attains anything more than probability. But what sort of religion would that be which accepted a basis for its convictions with the consciousness that it was only probably safe?

It is a fatal error to attempt to establish the basis of faith by means of historical investigation. The basis of faith must be something fixed; the results of historical inquiry are continually changing.”[v]

Conclusion:

The Last Supper in Summary

The Story

The last meal that Jesus shared with his disciples is described in all four canonical Gospels, namely in Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-39 and John 13:1-17:26.
This meal later became known as the Last Supper or the Lord’s Supper.

Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (11:23-26), which was likely written before the Gospels, includes a reference to the Last Supper but emphasizes the theological basis rather than giving a detailed description of the event or its background.

The Critics

"Date and time of the crucifixion”

All the sources agree that Jesus was crucified on 14 Nisan. Some dispute as to whether the Passover was on Thursday or Friday. Some feel that The Synoptics seem to suggest that Jesus’ Last Supper with the disciples on Thursday night was a Passover meal. I disagree. This was not the traditional Seder meal, but rather the introduction of the New Covenant. John agrees that Jesus did share a Last Supper with his disciples on Thursday night in the upper room prior to his betrayal and arrest.

John also says that the Jewish leaders wanted to remove Jesus from the cross before the Passover meal began Friday night. So was Passover on Thursday or Friday?

The Issue

In essence the Synoptics are very much the same. Mark 14:12-16 seems to encapsulate the story well; Matthew and Luke give less detail, but otherwise read the same:
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover.

Scripture of controversy
John 13:1-2 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him.

Thus it is argued that Jesus was betrayed and thus crucified prior to the Passover.

Let us consider whether or not this is true by closely looking at the scriptures.

1st statement:
“Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.”
2nd statement:
“And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him.” (John 13:1-2)

So from these two statements alone, what do we discover? Firstly, we discover that the 1st statement says “before the feast of the Passover” which to me indicates that the Last Supper may have been prior to the Passover feast, say the day before. Granted, John does immediately introduce the Last Supper meal by saying “And supper being ended,” Judas betrayed him later that very evening.

My question is, What meal? A Seder meal. No, because a proper Seder meal must be eaten at the beginning of Nisan 15, which was at earliest the next day. The sacrificial lamb was prepared for sacrifice and killed during the day on Nisan 14; whereas, the Last Supper had to be prior to that and not the Seder meal since bluntly speaking dead men do not eat!

That being established—at least in my thinking—we must deal with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

For the record, from all indications He was crucified at 12 PM noon on Nisan 14, and died at 3 PM on the same day. Thus, he was placed in the borrowed tomb at around 6 PM that evening which was the beginning of Nisan 15 and the start of the paschal Seder meal that very evening.

Therefore, it seems to me that all we must account for are the three days and three nights that scripture says he was to be in the bowels of the earth as Jonah was in the belly of the whale (or great fish, if you prefer).

Now, in essence, the major conflict between the Synoptic Gospels and The Gospel of John concerning the Last Supper, his betrayal and trial and crucifixion, including his burial and resurrection has been settle, all we must do now is to account for statements concerning otherwise insignificant activities—such as, when and which Mary visited the tomb, and how many angels were present and so-forth.






[i] The Feast of Passover (Exodus 12:1-28)

The Passover meal was (and still is) held as an annual event in each Jewish household. The meal commemorates the deliverance and Exodus of the children of Israel from the dominion of Pharoah as slaves in Egypt, around 1450 BC.

The First Passover
The first Passover is described in Exodus chapter 12: one lamb was slain for every household and the blood painted onto the lintels and doorposts. This was done in order that the angel of Death would not slay the first-born son of the Jewish households, but only those of Pharoah's people, whom God had warned He would judge. "When I see the blood, I will pass over you" the Lord told the children of Israel (Exodus 12:13). They were to eat the lamb, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, in haste prior to their departure from Egypt. The eating of unleavened bread was to continue for seven days, as their sustenance to exit Egypt and escape Pharoah's slavery. God ordained that the children of Israel would commemorate the Passover every year to remember their deliverance, almost 3,450 years ago.

Early Commemorations of The Passover
Commemoration of the Feast of Passover was the first major event after the Tabernacle was first built. The building was finished on schedule, two weeks prior to the first anniversary of the Exodus. The Tabernacle was consecrated and anointed with oil (Exodus 40:9, a definite foreshadow of the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Christ). Aaron and his sons (the Levites) were also consecrated and anointed to serve in the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:13).

During the first four decades of the Tabernacle, all of the children of Israel were together in one place in the wilderness to commemorate the Passover. Once they had entered into the good land of Canaan, Jerusalem eventually became the focus of worship, at the time of King David, around 1000 BC. From then onwards, the Feast of Passover was to be held every year in Jerusalem, in accordance with God's word to Moses in Deuteronomy 16:1-8.

The ordinances of the Passover, specified in Exodus chapter 12, state that the lamb was to be examined for four days, to ensure it was without blemish. Then at evening (Jewish days begin at sunset) the lamb was to be slain, its blood applied to the lintels and doorposts and then roasted for sustenance for the Exodus journey.

How is the Passover commemorated today?
Today, the Passover (Seder) meal follows a fairly standard pattern in every Jewish household. There is a 'Haggadah' (which means 'telling', 'portraying', see Galatians 3:1) to guide the proceedings, which is based on four 'Cups'.

At the start, candles are lit and a prayer is offered to bless the First Cup of wine: "Blessed are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, the Creator who brings forth the vine from the earth with its fruit" (Genesis 1:11). This First Cup is called the Cup of Sanctification, signifying "I the Lord will bring you out from under the yoke of slavery" (Exodus 6:6); this was God setting the children of Israel apart for Himself.

Next all the participants wash their hands: "Who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart" (Psalm 24:3-4). This was probably the point where Jesus washed His disciples' feet (John 13:4-12).

Then each person takes some herbs (usually Parsley) and dips them in salt water and eats them (Matthew 26:23; also, it was probably at this point that Jesus gave the sop to Judas, John 13:26). The salt water and herbs remind all present that the Passover was originally eaten with 'bitter herbs' (Exodus 12:8). The herbs are dipped in salt water to remember the tears as "the Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help went up to God" (Exodus 2:23). In connection with the herbs, the Lord is remembered and blessed as the Creator of the fruits of the earth.

Next, the head of the family takes the middle one of the three flat cakes of unleavened Matzah bread; he breaks it and puts one half aside, wrapped in a white linen cloth. The hidden bread is called the 'Afikomen' (meaning dessert). There are three pieces of bread to remember that the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is One who keeps His covenant; He it is that delivered the children of Israel from bondage (Exodus 6:2-9). But why is it the middle piece that is broken? This is because the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is an indication of the tri-unity of God. Just as Abraham was willing to offer up His "only son" (Genesis 22:2,12), so God the Father willingly offered up His Son, Jesus (John 3:16). Jesus was broken on the cross for our redemption (I Corinthians 11:24) and wrapped in linen for burial (Luke 23:53).

Part of God's purpose in requiring the children of Israel to remember the Passover was to inspire questions from future young generations, for their instruction (Exodus 12:26-27). Children customarily have to ask four questions:

Q. Why tonight?:
A. "A night to remember" (Exodus 12:42)

Q. Why bitter herbs?: 
A. "To remember the anguish of slavery" (Exodus 2:23)

Q. Why dip the bitter herbs in the salt water twice?
A. "It was really bad in slavery, but our HOPE was in God" (Psalm 42:5)

Q. Why do we eat reclining?
A. "Because now we are free to come to God" (Exodus 3:18-20; Galatians 5:1; Matthew 11:28)


The history of the first Passover is read aloud from Exodus chapter 12 and Psalms 113 and 114.
The second cup, the Cup of Plagues is filled and passed round. The ten plagues on Pharoah's Egypt are verbally recounted (Exodus 7:14-12:36):
Blood!
Frogs!
Lice!
Flies!
Cattle Disease!
Boils!
Hailstones!
Locusts!
Darkness!
Death of the Firstborn!

This Cup of Plagues is the last cup before the Passover Lamb is considered (see Luke 22:17).
The climax of the Seder meal should be the festive meal of roast lamb. However, since the Temple no longer stands in Jerusalem (where the Passover lamb was sacrificed), a shankbone is presented as a reminder of the Passover Lamb.
It was after this point that Jesus instituted 'the Lord's Supper'. He took the Afikomen bread (laid aside earlier) and gave thanks (Matthew 26:26): "Blessed are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, the Creator Who brings forth bread from the earth", according to the Jewish Haggadah. Then He broke the Afikomen bread and passed round the third cup of wine, called the Cup of Blessing or the Cup of Redemption. Jesus said "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:20).
(Incidentally, Jesus' words "this is ..." (Matthew 26:26,28) must mean 'this represents...' since He was Himself there, giving the disiples the bread and wine.)
The final cup of wine, the Cup of Praise, is drunk as the Seder meal concludes with the singing of the remaining 'Halel' (or Hallelujah) Psalms (115-118) and the 'Great Halel', Psalm 136 "God's love endures for ever". These psalms are probably the 'hymn' mentioned in Matthew 26:30. Psalm 116 is particularly pertinent to the Lord's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39,42).
The final sentence expresses the hope of how next year's Passover will be remembered:

"Next year in Jerusalem!"

The setting of the Lord's Supper at the heart of the Passover meal explains its meaning. Jesus Christ is Himself the Passover lamb, offered up for the redemption and deliverance of His people (I Corinthians 5:7), the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). The bread and wine speak of His death, and of the new covenant it ratifies, reconciling God and man. Jesus says "Do this in rememberance of Me" (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24-25), telling His disciples that the Passover is fulfilled in Him. Until He comes again (Luke 22:18; I Corinthians 11:26), we are to remember the significance of what He has done for us. (Page authored by Martyn Barrow.)
[ii] For more on the parallels between the Didache and the Jewish Birkat ha-Mazon, see Enrico Mazza, The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), esp. pp. 19–26 (where he discusses these parallels) and pp. 307–309 (where he provides translations of the texts).
[iii] http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/was-jesus-last-supper-a-seder/
[iv] Eternity and time PowerPoint (available)
[v] Wilhelm Herrmann, The Communion of the Christian with God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), pp. 72, 76.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Contemporary Church Music . . . really? Is that where it's at?


"Man, ain't church fun? Whoopee bring on the band, turn up the treble, there's going to be some rocking tonight!"—Does that, or similar words sound familiar?

What does Nat King Cole, Ella Fitzgerald, Bing Crosby, Stan Kenton, Jack Jones, Peggy Lee, Julie London, Al Martino, Roger Williams and Jim Roane have in common? 

Well, not a whole lot except Ralph Carmichael taught me song direction for pastors while I was in seminary, and he wrote musical arrangements for them. I know, these are some lesser known impressive facts about me that some of you didn’t know. Now, if you really want to understand what is going on in contemporary church music you need not go much farther back than the "Father of Contemporary Christian Music” himself.

However, contemporary church music has always challenged the traditional. Charles Wesley was ridiculed because he composed Christian songs to fit secular tunes—not many, I am told, but far too many for some. Contrary to popular opinion though Charles never degraded sacred music by setting his tunes to that of some rip-roaring beer drinking song like 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall, so don't for it there ‘cause you won’t find it.

Today, however, it is nothing to be suddenly jarred out of your senses on Sunday morning by some facial pierced nincompoop banging on a poorly tuned guitar trying to outdo the antics of the drummer in the glass cage behind him, and all under the guise of worship.  Amazing Grace? Forget the sound—there’s nothing sweet about it.

And, do you know what is amazing? Current church polls have shown a significant trend among the youth away from this. Yet, it seems as if some of us have got stuck in the “user friendly” rut so long that we can’t seem to steer ourselves clear of it.

Last Sunday, for example, I looked around, as I usually do, and the only ones singing with any enthusiasm—mark that as hype—were the “worship” leaders.

I am not complaining, I am just saying.

Is this all necessary? Absolutely not. Pastor Church Swindoll at Stonebriar Community Church one of our area’s mega churches no only preaches excellent expository sermons but you are not deaf by the time you get to hear him. Now, not every church is perfect. Chuck is in my opinion is just a little too Calvinistic for my taste, but I am willing on occasions to filter some of that out just to enjoy the rest of the sermon and the music prior to that.

Now, mind you, I said occasionally, because after all I do have denominational loyalties. But, I do feel obliged to sample success in other church venues in order to at least come up with a few new ideas.

I’ve got more to say about the contemporary church, but that will have to wait for another blog.

I am, however, yours for the journey,

Sunday, January 05, 2014

New Years Resolutions: are they scriptural?

Amazing isn't it, how we can get stuck in a rut?


We repeat the same old habits over and over again, thinking somehow, I suppose, that if we do it often enough things will change. Like for instance, making a list of new year resolutions that we know deep down inside we will never carry out. In that regard, someone has said that a definition of insanity is when someone repeats the same thing over and over again expecting different results. If that is true, then I sure do know a whole lot of insane people (including myself, at times, too!)

I can't tell you the number of exercise machines, treadmills, weights, thigh masters, "Amazingly Wonderful Abdominal Crushers" and the likes that I have seen down through the years stashed away in garages, backyards, and under beds cluttering up space. As, a matter of fact, there's a booming industry out there taking care of a whole lot more of that stuff—it's called the storage business, and every neighborhood has one of them.

I imagine that if the average Christian put the same amount of money into supporting missions as they do to buy junk to fulfill some whimsical grandiose dream of having abs like some Olympic athlete we could fund most of if not all of our mission’s budgets and with money left over. I am serious. And, you and I both know it is true.

So, I don't believe in making New Year's resolutions that I know for the most part I am going to break sooner or later (usually, sooner) anyway.

My firm belief is that if a person sets their mind to it, there is no better time than right now, forget waiting until the New Year or tomorrow to make the resolution. Do it now!

That's goes for just about everything is that is worthwhile in life, too. Don't wait for Valentine's Day to tell you wife or husband that you love them, do it now! Who knows what will happen between now and Valentine's Day? One of you may be singing bass or alto in that celestial choir along with Gabriel and the angels by then. Who knows?

That goes for your children, too. I can't tell you the number of times that I have had some young man tell me that they do not remember a time that their dad said, "I love you." Sad, but true. The same goes for girls, too. 

In college I teach a Psychology of Religion course which is intended to introduce the students to the interrelationship between the human mind and religion—all religions, yes, and all types of thought processes, the wonky as well as the sane.  I must tell you that I am utterly amazed at the number of young people who feel as if God is harsh, vengeful and just down right unfair. Why? Well, in many of, not most cases, it is because they identify God with their dad or mom.
The sad fact is that the trail of troubled youth is strewn with the disappointments of never hearing, or hardly ever hearing a parent say unconditionally, "I love you."

Friends, I don't care how mad we get at one of our children, or our spouse there should never be any doubt left that we don't love them.

One of  my little grandsons was visiting recently—and let’s face it, grandpa is not as patient as he used to be, so I have got to confess his rambunctious behavior just about got the best of me, so I scolded him for being a kid. What else can I say since in all reality he was just acting out his age? None-the-less, after he settled down, I reached over and drew him near me and gave him a good grandfatherly hug. Later on someone said that he had remarked, “You know, Poppy sure can get mad at me, but then he loves me.”

Of course, hearing that made me happy. Not because I did the saintly thing, but because that is precisely what he needed. Interestingly enough the Bible says that he “loved us, then washed us.” (Rev. 1:5 KJV) From that I understand that His love is stronger than our mistakes. Normally, we want to do just the opposite. We want to get kids or whomever all cleaned up morally and otherwise before we love on them. Not so with Jesus. He loves us dirt and all; then he washes us.

Think of the marriage that could be saved if only the husband or wife would say, “Honey, you’re not perfect, but I love you just the same.”

Jesus, not once, left the impression with any of his disciples that he did not love them. Peter denied him, yet he knew that Jesus still loved him. Thomas doubted that Jesus had really risen from the dead, but I can't find anywhere that even old "Doubting Thomas" ever doubted for one minute that Jesus loved him. Of course, I could go on and on, but you get the picture: Jesus loves us, and he lets us know it, too! And, for that I am thankful.

Yours for the journey,

Friday, November 29, 2013

Same Sex Marriages . . .

Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight
In June 2002, the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster authorized its bishop to produce a service for blessing same-sex unions, to be used in any parish of the diocese that requests it. A number of synod members walked out to protest the decision. They declared themselves out of communion with the bishop and the synod, and they appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican primates and bishops for help.

J. I. Packer, an executive editor of Christianity Today, was one of those who walked out. Many people have asked him why. Though one part of his answer applies specifically to Anglicans, his larger argument should give guidance to any Christians troubled by developments in their church or denomination.
Why did I walk out with the others? Because this decision, taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth.
My primary authority is a Bible writer named Paul. For many decades now, I have asked myself at every turn of my theological road: Would Paul be with me in this? What would he say if he were in my shoes? I have never dared to offer a view on anything that I did not have good reason to think he would endorse.
In 1 Corinthians we find the following, addressed it seems to exponents of some kind of antinomian spirituality:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (6:9-11, ESV).
To make sure we grasp what Paul is saying here, I pose some questions.
First: What is Paul talking about in this vice list? Answer: Lifestyles, regular behavior patterns, habits of mind and action. He has in view not single lapses followed by repentance, forgiveness, and greater watchfulness (with God's help) against recurrence, but ways of life in which some of his readers were set, believing that for Christians there was no harm in them.
Second: What is Paul saying about these habits? Answer: They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God's kingdom of salvation. Clearly, self-indulgence and self-service, free from self-discipline and self-denial, is the attitude they express, and a lack of moral discernment lies at their heart.
Third: What is Paul saying about homosexuality? Answer: Those who claim to be Christ's should avoid the practice of same-sex physical connection for orgasm, on the model of heterosexual intercourse. Paul's phrase, "men who practice homosexuality," covers two Greek words for the parties involved in these acts. The first, arsenokoitai, means literally "male-bedders," which seems clear enough. The second, malakoi, is used in many connections to mean "unmanly," "womanish," and "effeminate," and here refers to males matching the woman's part in physical sex.
In this context, in which Paul has used two terms for sexual misbehavior, there is really no room for doubt regarding what he has in mind. He must have known, as Christians today know, that some men are sexually drawn to men rather than women, but he is not speaking of inclinations, only of behavior, what has more recently been called acting out. His point is that Christians need to resist these urges, since acting them out cannot please God and will reveal lethal impenitence. Romans 1:26 shows that Paul would have spoken similarly about lesbian acting out if he had had reason to mention it here.
Fourth: What is Paul saying about the gospel? Answer: Those who, as lost sinners, cast themselves in genuine faith on Christ and so receive the Holy Spirit, as all Christians do (see Gal. 3:2), find transformation through the transaction. They gain cleansing of conscience (the washing of forgiveness), acceptance with God (justification), and strength to resist and not act out the particular temptations they experience (sanctification). As a preacher friend declared to his congregation, "I want you to know that I am a non-practicing adulterer." Thus he testified to receiving strength from God.
With some of the Corinthian Christians, Paul was celebrating the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in heterosexual terms; with others of the Corinthians, today's homosexuals are called to prove, live out, and celebrate the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms. Another friend, well known to me for 30 years, has lived with homosexual desires all his adult life, but remains a faithful husband and father, sexually chaste, through the power of the Holy Spirit, according to the gospel. He is a model in every way. We are all sexually tempted, one way or another, yet we may all tread the path of chastity through the Spirit's enablement, and thereby please God.

Missing Paul's point


As one who assumes the full seriousness and sincerity of all who take part in today's debates among Christians regarding homosexuality, both in New Westminster and elsewhere, I now must ask: how can anyone miss the force of what Paul says here? There are, I think, two ways in which this happens.
One way, the easier one to deal with, is the way of special exegesis: I mean interpretations that, however possible, are artificial and not natural, but that allow one to say, "What Paul is condemning is not my sort of same-sex union." Whether a line of interpretation is artificial, so constituting misinterpretation, is, I grant, a matter of personal judgment. I do not, however, know how any reasonable person could read Robert A. J. Gagnon's 500-page book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001), and not conclude that any exegesis evading the clear meaning of Paul is evasive indeed. Nor from now on can I regard anyone as qualified to debate homosexuality who has not come to terms with Gagnon's encyclopedic examination of all the relevant passages and all the exegetical hypotheses concerning them. I have not always agreed with James Barr, but when on the dust jacket he describes Gagnon's treatise as "indispensable even for those who disagree with the author," I think he is absolutely right.
The second way, which is harder to engage, is to let experience judge the Bible. Some moderns, backed by propaganda from campaigners for homosexual equality, and with hearts possessed by the pseudo-Freudian myth that you can hardly be a healthy human without active sexual expression, feel entitled to say: "Our experience is—in other words, we feel—that gay unions are good, so the Bible's prohibitions of gay behavior must be wrong." The natural response is that the Bible is meant to judge our experience rather than the other way around, and that feelings of sexual arousal and attraction, generating a sense of huge significance and need for release in action as they do, cannot be trusted as either a path to wise living or a guide to biblical interpretation. Rhyming the point to make what in my youth was called a grook: the sweet bright fire / of sexual desire / is a dreadful liar. But more must be said than that.

Two views of the Bible


At issue here is a Grand Canyon-wide difference about the nature of the Bible and the way it conveys God's message to modern readers. Two positions challenge each other.
One is the historic Christian belief that through the prophets, the incarnate Son, the apostles, and the writers of canonical Scripture as a body, God has used human language to tell us definitively and transculturally about his ways, his works, his will, and his worship. Furthermore, this revealed truth is grasped by letting the Bible interpret itself to us from within, in the knowledge that the way into God's mind is through that of the writers. Through them, the Holy Spirit who inspired them teaches the church. Finally, one mark of sound biblical insights is that they do not run counter to anything else in the canon.
This is the position of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and of evangelicals and other conservative Protestants. There are differences on the place of the church in the interpretive process, but all agree that the process itself is essentially as described. I call this the objectivistposition.
The second view applies to Christianity the Enlightenment's trust in human reason, along with the fashionable evolutionary assumption that the present is wiser than the past. It concludes that the world has the wisdom, and the church must play intellectual catch-up in each generation in order to survive. From this standpoint, everything in the Bible becomes relative to the church's evolving insights, which themselves are relative to society's continuing development (nothing stands still), and the Holy Spirit's teaching ministry is to help the faithful see where Bible doctrine shows the cultural limitations of the ancient world and needs adjustment in light of latter-day experience (encounters, interactions, perplexities, states of mind and emotion, and so on). Same-sex unions are one example. This view is scarcely 50 years old, though its antecedents go back much further. I call it the subjectivist position.
In the New Westminster debate, subjectivists say that what is at issue is not the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation. I do not question the sincerity of those who say this, but I have my doubts about their clear-headedness. The subjectivist way of affirming the authority of Scripture, as the source of the teaching that now needs to be adjusted, is precisely a denying of Scripture's authority from the objectivist point of view, and clarity requires us to say so. The relative authority of ancient religious expertise, now to be revamped in our post-Christian, multifaith, evolving Western world, is one view. The absolute authority of God's unchanging utterances, set before us to be learned, believed, and obeyed as the mainstream church has always done, never mind what the world thinks, is the other.
What are represented as different "interpretations" are in fact reflections of what is definitive: in the one view, the doctrinal and moral teaching of Scripture is always final for Christian people; in the other view, it never is. What is definitive for the exponents of that view is not what the Bible says, as such, but what their own minds come up with as they seek to make Bible teaching match the wisdom of the world.
Each view of biblical authority sees the other as false and disastrous, and is sure that the long-term welfare of Christianity requires that the other view be given up and left behind as quickly as possible. The continuing conflict between them, which breaks surface in the disagreement about same-sex unions, is a fight to the death, in which both sides are sure that they have the church's best interests at heart. It is most misleading, indeed crass, to call this disagreement simply a difference about interpretation, of the kind for which Anglican comprehensiveness has always sought to make room.

Spiritual dangers


In addition, major spiritual issues are involved. To bless same-sex unions liturgically is to ask God to bless them and to enrich those who join in them, as is done in marriage ceremonies. This assumes that the relationship, of which the physical bond is an integral part, is intrinsically good and thus, if I may coin a word, blessable, as procreative sexual intercourse within heterosexual marriage is. About this assumption there are three things to say.
First, it entails deviation from the biblical gospel and the historic Christian creed. It distorts the doctrines of creation and sin, claiming that homosexual orientation is good since gay people are made that way, and rejecting the idea that homosexual inclinations are a spiritual disorder, one more sign and fruit of original sin in some people's moral system. It distorts the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification, calling same-sex union a Christian relationship and so affirming what the Bible would call salvation in sin rather than from it.
Second, it threatens destruction to my neighbor. The official proposal said that ministers who, like me, are unwilling to give this blessing should refer gay couples to a minister willing to give it. Would that be pastoral care? Should I not try to help gay people change their behavior, rather than to anchor them in it? Should I not try to help them to the practice of chastity, just as I try to help restless singles and divorcees to the practice of chastity? Do I not want to see them all in the kingdom of God?
Third, it involves the delusion of looking to God—actually asking him—to sanctify sin by blessing what he condemns. This is irresponsible, irreverent, indeed blasphemous, and utterly unacceptable as church policy. How could I do it?

Changing a historical tradition


Finally, a major change in Anglicanism is involved: Writing into a diocesan constitution something that Scripture, canonically interpreted, clearly and unambiguously rejects as sin. This has never been done before, and ought not to be done now.
All the written standards of post-Reformation Anglicanism have been intentionally biblical and catholic. They have been biblical in terms of the historic view of the nature and authority of Scripture. They have been catholic in terms of the historic consensus of the mainstream church.
Many individual eccentricities and variations may have been tolerated in practice. The relatively recent controversial permissions to remarry the divorced and make women presbyters arguably had biblical warrant, though minorities disputed this. In biblical and catholic terms, however, the New Westminster decision writes legitimation of sin into the diocese's constitutional standards.
It categorizes the tolerated abstainers as the awkward squad of eccentrics rather than the mainstream Anglicans that they were before. It is thus a decision that can only be justified in terms of biblical relativism, the novel notion of biblical authority that to my mind is a cuckoo in the Anglican nest and a heresy in its own right. It is a watershed decision for world Anglicanism, for it changes the nature of Anglicanism itself. It has to be reversed.
Luther's response at Worms when he was asked to recant all his writings echoes in my memory, as it has done for more than 50 years.
Unless you prove to me by Scripture and plain reason that I am wrong, I cannot and will not recant. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe [it endangers the soul]. Here I stand. There is nothing else I can do. God help me. Amen.
Conscience is that power of the mind over which we have no power, which binds us to believe what we see to be true and do what we see to be right. Captivity of conscience to the Word of God, that is, to the absolutes of God's authoritative teaching in the Bible, is integral to authentic Christianity.
More words from Luther come to mind.
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages is where the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.
Was the protest in order? Was "no" the right way to vote? Did faithfulness to Christ, and faithful confession of Christ, require it? It seems so. And if so, then our task is to stand fast, watch, pray, and fight for better things: for the true authority of the Bible, for the "true truth" of the gospel, and for the salvation of gay people for whom we care.
J. I. Packer is an executive editor of Christianity Today.