BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 12
April, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
In retrospect and at first glance, many of the issues that have plagued and divided the Church seem incredibly trivial. The Quartodecimians were branded as heretics for celebrating Easter on 14 Nisan. One of the issues that divided the Eastern and Western Churches in 1054 was the kind of bread that was appropriate to use in communion. The Eastern Church insisted on leavened bread, while the West used unleavened bread. Another dispute between East and West concerned the propriety of mixing water with the wine of the Eucharist.
The modern tendency to sneer at the apparent triviality of these issues is highly hypocritical, however. Churches today claim on the one hand that symbolism is insignificant, yet divide over issues that have to do with proper symbolism. At least the early Church admitted that it considered symbolism important.
Without wishing to raise divisive issues anew, it is worth asking which branch of the Church was correct about the bread in the Lord’s Supper. Should we use leavened or unleavened bread? On the one hand, it can be argued that we should use unleavened bread because this is evidently what Jesus used when He instituted the Supper. Unleavened bread was used in the feast of the Passover (Ex. 12:8); the Lord’s Supper is the New Covenant Passover; therefore, we should use unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper.
This argument fails in two important ways. First, while it is true that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper at the celebration of the Passover, it must also be recognized that the Lord’s Supper is a replacement of the Passover meal (among other things, of course). We do not, after all, eat bitter herbs or roasted lamb when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, nor do we eat with staffs in our hands (Ex. 12:8-9, 11). There is both continuity and discontinuity between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover.
Second, the Last Supper was precisely that, the Last Supper of the Old Covenant. Jesus emphasized this point when He said that He would not drink the fruit of the vine again with His disciples until He drank it with them in the Kingdom (Mt. 26:29). This implies not only that there is a certain discontinuity between the Last Supper and later celebrations of the Lord’s Supper, but also that the later celebrations would be Kingdom Suppers. At the Last Supper, Jesus had not yet entered into the glory of the Kingdom, but when the disciples broke bread after His resurrection and ascension, they ate and drank (in a preliminary way) with Jesus in the Kingdom.
Thus, the symbols used in the Supper of the Kingdom should be appropriate to the Kingdom, and not bound by the symbolism of the old order. Leaven is emphatically a symbol of the permeating influence of the Kingdom and Spirit, and of the maturity and fullness of the New Covenant (Mt. 13:33). It is therefore more appropriate to use leavened than unleavened bread.
Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 seems to contradict this line of argument. Paul compares the Church to a lump of dough; in this analogy, leaven is a symbol of wickedness within the Church. Paul instructs the Corinthian Church to purge out the old leaven, the man guilty of incest (v. 1), so that the entire Church would not be leavened by his evil influence. The Church, Paul says, is already leavened, and therefore her members must act in accord with that fact.
The reason the Church is unleavened is that "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed." Paul is here making a New Covenant application of the Old Covenant calendar: The Passover was followed by the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread. Since Christ the True Passover Lamb has been sacrificed, the Church has entered a perpetual Feast of Unleavened Bread. She is to be continually purging herself of the leaven of malice and wickedness. In context, this applies to Church discipline first of all, but by extension applies to the individual member’s duty to mortify sin (Rom. 8:13).
Having laid out this theological background in verse 7, Paul goes on to exhort the Corinthians in verse 8: "Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness (Gr. porneia), but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." In trying to understand how this verse applies to the liturgical question we have raised, we must answer two questions. First, what feast is Paul talking about here? It might be thought that Paul is talking about a continuation of the celebration of the Passover or the Feast of Unleavened Bread by the New Testament Church. This is unlikely, since he is here writing to a Gentile Church, and since all of Paul’s writings emphasize that the death and resurrection of Christ have done away with the Old Covenant festal calendar.
Charles Hodge says that Paul does not refer to any particular feast, but to the Christian life as a whole. Given the figurative nature of Paul’s entire argument, this is not an entirely abstruse conclusion, but it still reveals more about Hodge than it does about the text. I think the best reading is to view this as a reference to the Lord’s Supper, but the Supper as the concentration point of the whole Christian life. This is consistent with the context, which has to do with Church discipline (cf. v. 11), and it is also consistent with the connection Paul draws between the Old Covenant Passover and Christ’s paschal sacrifice. Just as the Israelites ate the flesh of the lamb slain for them, so we also eat the flesh of the True Lamb of God whose blood cleanses and protects us from wrath.
The second question is: If Paul is referring here to the Lord’s Supper, does he use "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" in a purely metaphorical sense, or is he also making a liturgical point? Should we, in other words, use unleavened bread in the Eucharist to symbolize that the Church is a new, unleavened loaf?
It is easy to see how one would draw this conclusion, but I think it is the wrong conclusion. I said above that the Church is in a perpetual Feast of Unleavened Bread, since the definitive Passover has been sacrificed. But the Feast of Unleavened Bread was a seven-day feast. On the eighth day, the people returned to leavened bread. In the New Covenant, the "common day" cycle is a perpetual Feast of Unleavened Bread, during which we should be constantly mortifying sin. But the Eucharist does not take place within the seven-day cycle. The Eucharist is celebrated on the eighth day, the day of the Resurrection, and is celebrated with Christ in His Kingdom. Thus, the Eucharistic bread is not to be the unleavened bread of the Old Creation week, but the leavened bread of the new heavens and new earth.
If this is true, what does it mean to "celebrate the feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"? It seems to have the same force as Paul’s later exhortation to avoid eating in an unworthy manner. In this way, keeping the Eucharistic feast involves living each day in sincerity and truth.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 12
April, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
The gifts of the wise men have been commonly interpreted as royal gifts to the infant King of the Jews. Each of the three gifts is, indeed, connected with kings and kingship in Scripture. The Lord’s anointed is pictured wearing a crown of gold in Psalm 21:3, and the gold of Sheba is brought to honor Solomon (Ps. 72:15; cf. 1 Ki. 10:2, 10). The coach of Solomon is, moreover, perfumed with both myrrh and frankincense (Song of Solomon 3:6; cf. 4:6, 14; 5:5). Gold, frankincense, and myrrh are, indeed, gifts fit for a king.
From this perspective, the coming of the magi is seen as an antitype of Sheba’s visit to Solomon, a prototype of the fullness of the Gentiles coming in, and a preliminary fulfillment of such prophecies as Isaiah 60:1-14. The magi represent the kings coming to the brightness of the Lord’s rising (Is. 60:3; incidentally, the word for "east" in Matthew 2 can also meaning "rising"). The magi are the sons who come from afar bringing the wealth of the nations to Israel (60:4-6). Isaiah specifically mentions the gifts of gold and frankincense (60:6).
This interpretation of the coming of the magi has much to recommend it. Still, I think it is likely that their gifts point also in a somewhat different direction. In the Old Testament gold, frankincense and myrrh come together in one place when the priest offers incense and prayers on the altar of incense. The altar of incense was made of gold (Ex. 30:1-10). A special blend of incense, including frankincense, was to be burned upon the altar of gold (Ex. 30:34-38). And myrrh was used in the anointing oil that was poured out on the priests and upon the tabernacle and its furniture (Ex. 30:22-33).
Thus, the gifts of the magi were not only kingly gifts, but priestly gifts as well. The magi brought as gifts the materials for a new priesthood in a new tabernacle. This fits with several other details of the text of Matthew 2. First, it fits with the theme of the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles. This, in fact, is one of the over-riding themes of the story of the magi. The Jews, represented by the half-breed King Herod, were "troubled" at the news of the birth of a King. Though surrounded by scribes of the law, Herod had to be informed of the Messiah’s coming by Gentiles from the East. Instead of seeking to worship the newborn king, as the magi do, Herod instead sought by deception and then by brutal cruelty to kill Him. The Jews, in short, had become apostate, and the slaughter of the innocents was a miniature prefiguring of God’s ultimate judgment upon His unfaithful people.
By contrast, the Gentiles, represented by the magi, sought to worship the King of the Jews. They made great efforts to find Him. They brought Him gifts, and worshiped Him. They were, in fact, the first to worship the Christ child. They listen to and obey the Word of the Lord, both the Word of the prophet and the Word of the angel.
In this context, the priestly character of the magi’s gifts is fitting. For the rejection of the Jews, and the entrance of the Gentiles into the Kingdom require that a new priesthood be formed. This priesthood is a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, the priest-king, so it is appropriate that the magi bring gifts that suggest both sides of the Messiah’s office.
Another, less significant, indication that the gifts of the magi have a priestly character lies in the fact that the magi were themselves in all probability descendants of a priestly caste. Though tradition suggests that the magi were kings, the evidence indicates that magi were originally priests, who, when later deprived of their priestly status, turned to astrology and magic. If the magi were associated with a priestly caste, it would be appropriate for them to bring priestly gifts.
It may be objected that this interpretation requires that the magi possessed a fairly deep understanding of the tabernacle and temple systems. Several responses may be made. First, the magi apparently had some access to biblical sources; after all, they interpreted the star as indicating the birth of the king of the Jews. Second, it may be that the magi did not fully understand the character of their gifts, but simply brought what they considered most valuable. It is only in retrospect and in the context of the Old Testament that we recognize that these gifts pointed to the priestly status of Jesus.
It remains now to suggest more specifically the import of the three gifts. In the short compass of this article, I cannot examine each gift in detail. But several possibilities come immediately to mind. As a single composite image, the anointed priest offering incense on the altar of gold is an image of prayer (cf. Rev. 8). It is through the mediation of the anointed priest that the prayers of God’s people ascend to the Father. Christ, thus, in receiving these gifts is presented as the Priestly Mediator, our Advocate before the Father, who continually stands at the heavenly altar interceding for us.
Specifically, the incense itself that is offered on the altar symbolizes the prayers themselves, and in particular prayers that turn God from wrath to mercy (cf. Nu. 16:46-47). The myrrh with which the priest was anointed symbolized the Holy Spirit. Jesus was, even from His conception, anointed with the Holy Spirit beyond measure, and thus was qualified to act as a perfect mediator. It is only the Spiritual man who can be the Mediator. The gold of the altar of incense points to the glory of God, and particularly to the reflection of that glory in created things and in men. It is appropriate that incense (prayers) are associated with the altar of golden glory, since it is by prayer that men draw near to the glorious throne of God and are transformed into an image of that glory.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 12
April, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
The Church is not in good shape. Nearly every week we hear about another prominent Christian leader who has fallen into scandalous sin. Many shepherds feed their flocks a diet of baby food, if not outright poison. Few Churches celebrate the Lord’s Supper regularly, and few Christians appreciate its importance.
In the face of these facts, we can ask the question in the title of this essay with great urgency. Does God really require that I join a local Church? Do I really need to take formal vows of Church membership?
We believe that the answer to both questions is, Yes. Membership in a local congregation of Christ’s Church is not an option. Christians should join a local Church, and their effectiveness as Christians suffers if they do not. The following are biblical reasons for joining a local congregation.
God commands us to meet together to worship before Him. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were commanded to meet at the sanctuary three times a year to celebrate feasts (Ex. 23:14; Deuteronomy 16:16). In addition, they met every Sabbath in a "holy convocation" (Lev. 23:3). In the New Testament, God’s people are again commanded to assemble to worship their Lord (Heb. 10:25). There are no solitary Christians in the Bible; God always calls those He loves into a community.
God commands us to submit to the authority of His representatives, the elders of a local Church. The apostles set up an organized government for the Church. The community of God’s people is an organized community. Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders in each city (Tit. 1:5). Throughout the book of Acts, we find references to these rulers of local Churches (Acts 11:30; 15:2ff.; 16:4; 20:17ff.) Hebrews 13:17 instructs us to obey the leaders who keep watch over our souls. Clearly, this verse refers to the elders of a local Church. If God wants us to submit to the authority of a local Church government, He surely wants us to join a local Church. Otherwise, who keeps watch for our souls? Who warns us when we stumble?
In the Lord’s Supper, we share in the body and blood of Christ. We have no life in ourselves. Christ is our life (Col. 3:4). Whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life, and will be raised, because His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink. By eating the flesh and blood of Christ we abide in Him, and He abides in us (John 6:52-56). The bread we break and the cup we drink at the Lord’s Table is a sharing in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Faithful participation in the Lord’s Supper is the source of our life. Moreover, when the Church eats the one bread, it shows itself to be one Body. Just as full citizenship in Israel was marked by participation in the Passover, so citizenship in the One Church is marked by participation in the Lord’s Supper.
The Church, through its leaders, has power to admit people to and to exclude them from the Lord’s Supper. This is shown in the fact that the most serious Church censure is excommunication, that is, exclusion from communion at the Table of the Lord. Jesus gave the apostles stewardship of the keys of the Kingdom (Mt. 16:13-20; 18:15-20). This power was granted to the Church, and is exercised in Christ’s name and in His place by the courts of elders of the Church (1 Cor. 5:1-5; 6:1-4). In order to eat from the Table, one must be admitted by the elders.
The Church is a covenant community. When Peter described the Church in his first epistle, he quoted several phrases from the Old Testament, all of which describe the covenant relationship between God and His people (1 Pet. 2:9-10). Just as Israel became God’s people through the covenant at Sinai (Dt. 5:2-3), so also the Church was constituted God’s covenant people by the covenant sealed with blood on Calvary.
Admission to the covenant community is by vow. In the Old Covenant, Israelites were admitted to the privileges of the covenant by circumcision, and in the New Covenant, admission to the Church is by baptism. Both circumcision and baptism are, among other things, vows of allegiance to God and to His people (e.g., Acts 8:37). Many people today, however, do not remain in the Church in which they were baptized, and some go for years without being a member of any Church. It is appropriate, therefore, when one attaches himself to a new local body, to reaffirm publicly the vows taken in baptism.
Finally, to show that this view of the importance of Church membership is the historical Reformed, Calvinist, and Presbyterian view, let me end with two quotations:
From the Westminster Confession of Faith, XXV.22:
"The visible church . . . consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."
From John Calvin, Institutes IV.1.4:
". . . because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title `mother’ how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her [i.e., the Church]. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like angels. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives" [emphasis added].
Jesus taught us to pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." We should strive, then, not only to make sure that our names are enrolled in heaven, but also to have them inscribed on the gates of the earthly Zion (Heb. 12:23).
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 12
April, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
7. Two things I asked of Thee, Do not refuse me before I die: 8. Keep deception and words of falsehood far from me, Give me neither poverty nor riches, Feed me with the food that it my portion, 9. Lest I be full and deny Thee, And say, "Who is the LORD?" Or lest I be in want and steal, And profane the name of my God
We have looked at the first part of these verses from Proverbs 30 already (February, 1990 issue). Now we take note that the Sojourner prays for the "food that is my portion," that is, "Give me the right amount for me." Of course, the right amount will vary from person to person. Some people can handle more, some less. God gave Job and Abraham great wealth, but it was not too much for them.
By way of contrast, Isaac inherited Abraham’s wealth, and it was too much for him. He thought he would just give it to Esau, even though God had said no. He became "full" and denied the Lord. God was gracious to him, though, and rebuked him.
Assuming that the Sojourner who authored Proverbs 30 is Jacob, or at least that the life of Jacob illustrates these proverbs, what can we learn from Jacob’s life about this? I believe that we can see in the life of Jacob four keys to acquiring moderate wealth, so that we have enough but not too much.
The first is to work steadily at one job. Jacob’s life would indicate at least seven years (Gen. 30:26-43). It is a general rule of the covenant (God makes exceptions, of course) that if we work diligently and tithe and obey the moral law, we ought to prosper. But we don’t see it the first year, or the second year, and we begin to wonder if God’s way is correct. By and large, though, if we stick with it we will begin to see significant financial change by the seventh year. If we flip from one situation to another, however, this is much less likely to happen.
The second key is tithing. Tithing is giving to God’s sanctuary ten percent of the income from your work or the money that comes to you from the labor of others (e.g., stocks, interest, etc.; not gifts or inheritance, unless these were not tithed on already). Jacob promised God a tithe before he embarked on his life of work, and God blessed him (Gen. 28:20-22).
The third key is worship. Jacob was diligent to worship God, in whatever way he could. For us this means never spitting in God’s face by failing to show up to worship on the Lord’s Day (unless you’re sick). The Church is in bad shape today, but that is no excuse for failing to attend the worship God has set up. Lord’s Day common prayer with God’s people is not optional, though it should be supplemented with daily prayers and family devotions.
The fourth key is obedience to the moral law of God. While some people see Jacob as a rotten character, the Biblical testimony is that he was a "perfect" man (Gen. 25:27). This means that he obeyed God, and when he stumbled he repented. (I have discussed Jacob’s moral character in my book Primeval Saints, available for $12.00 from Biblical Horizons .)
There are a lot of dishonest ways to acquire wealth and prestige in this world, but God does not bless them. It is those who obey Him, who worship Him, who tithe to Him, and who patiently wait on Him, who acquire the kind of moderate prosperity for themselves and their children that we need. Dishonestly acquired wealth makes us too rich too fast, so that we tend to despise the Lord even more than we already have done by cheating; while failure to tithe and worship leads eventually to the poorhouse, and there we may curse God even more than we already have done by staying away from Church and stealing from Him.
