Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 44
Copyright (c) 1996 Biblical Horizons
March, 1995
In a recent article in Biblical Horizons , I argued that the imagery of James 1:21 alludes to baptism, and particularly to baptism as an ordination and incorporation into the holy priesthood. This understanding of baptism as ordination to priesthood is not, I have since discovered, original, but in fact was widely recognized in the early church. For most the church fathers who mention priesthood in relation to baptism, it is not the washing of baptism per se that admits the baptized to priesthood; instead, the baptized is admitted to the priesthood by the chrismation, the anointing with oil, that follows baptism in many early baptismal liturgies. This separation of anointing to priesthood from the baptismal washing itself fits with the rather wooden way in which early treatises on the sacraments assigned different graces to each distinct act of the baptism liturgy. Whatever the early writers had in mind about the relation of the anointing to the baptism itself, we can at least conclude that the various ceremonies that accompanied baptism explicated its meaning. However this relationship is construed, it is significant that ordination to priestly service was closely associated with baptism. Here I merely offer a few examples of how this connection was highlighted in various works.
In his treatise On Baptism, Tertullian states that the anointing has its origin in the ordination of priests in the Old Testament: “We come up from the washing and are anointed with the blessed unction, following that ancient practice by which, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses, there was a custom of anointing them for priesthood with oil out of a horn” (chapter 7).
Ambrose in The Mysteries cites Psalm 133 to explain the meaning of the anointing. The oil is said to flow “upon the beard” because it represents the “grace of youth.” It is said to flow specifically upon the beard of Aaron so that “you may become a ‘chosen race,’ sacredotal, precious; for we are all anointed unto the kingdom of God and unto the priesthood with spiritual grace.” In his treatise, The Sacraments, he added that “everyone is anointed into the priesthood, is anointed into the kingdom, but the spiritual kingdom is also the spiritual priesthood.” Notice here that Ambrose associates the anointing not only with ordination to priesthood, but also with the fact that the members of the church are kings by union with Christ their king. Typologically, the anointing is based on the anointing of the kings of Israel.
In his discussion of sacramental “character,” Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, 3a, 63.1) develops a similar view. “Character” refers to the indelible spiritual sign or seal that Aquinas argues is imprinted on the soul through baptism. Aquinas uses the analogy of a soldier who, in the ancient world, was marked with a tattoo as a sign of his deputation to a particular function in the military. Similarly, through the sacramental character the individual is “deputed for some function in the spiritual sphere pertaining to the worship of God.” In a later section (63.3), Thomas clarifies how the character is imprinted on the soul. He argues that the character is imparted by Christ. Character confers participation in the priesthood of Christ: “seeing that a configuration to his priesthood is imparted to the faithful through the sacramental characters which are nothing else than a certain kind of participations in the priesthood of Christ derived from Christ himself.”
At a more general level, Thomas’s argument is that baptism is designed to prepare the baptized for certain actions, specifically the action of the cultus Dei, the worship of God. In a rather elaborate argument, he situates character in the “powers” of the soul (as opposed to the essence or passions of the soul), because “everything which is designed to lead to an act is to be attributed to a power” and character is designed to lead to an act. In this same section, Thomas rejects the idea that baptismal character most nearly pertains to grace; instead, baptism is most nearly connected to the acts of divine worship.
Another interesting dimension of this connection is the inclusion in many early baptismal rites of the “effeta.” According to Bede’s account of this rite, the priest touches the tongue, nostrils, and ears of the baptized, and says, repeating Jesus’ words from Mark 7:32, “Be opened.” To Bede, this suggests that the baptized is to have his tongue loosed to speak God’s words; the nostrils are associated with the breath of God; and the ear is touched to open it to listen to God. I have yet to find a writer that associates the effeta with the priestly ordination in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8-9, but the parallels are not insignificant. In the Old Testament rite, blood was smeared on the priest’s right ear, right thumb, right big toe. Perhaps the effeta is another indication of the church’s recognition that baptism inducted a person into the New Covenant priesthood.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 71
March, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
A prime difficulty in the interpretation of this verse is the antecedent of the pronoun "them." A number of alternatives have been offered. Some suggest that the "two" are the offices of kingship and priesthood. This view has been dismissed, rightly I think, as too abstract; a counsel of peace, we would expect, is an agreement between persons, not between institutions or offices. Others have suggested that the two are Joshua and Zerubbabel, but Zerubbabel is not mentioned anywhere in the passage.
Historically, covenant theologians have used this verse as one of the prooftexts for an eternal covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son. I think these theologians are on the right track in recognizing that the only two persons mentioned in the relevant verses are the "Lord" and the "Branch." Yet, without wishing to dismiss the notion of an eternal covenant of Father and Son, it is certainly not in view in Zechariah 6.
To see why, we need to look at the Zechariah 6:9-15 as a whole. First, we may note that 6:9-15 are structured chiastically, as follows:
B1. Branch on throne, v. 13b A1. Crown as memorial of returned exiles, vv. 14f.
From this arrangement, we learn that the building of the temple is the crux of the matter. The building of the temple is the hinge on which everything turns.
It is important to see the fulfillment of the prophecy in the restoration period. Zechariah’s prophecy of the crowned, enthroned, temple-building Branch (vv. 11-13) refers first of all to Joshua the high priest. The crown of the Davidic kingdom was held in trust by Joshua and his successors until Messiah came; this passage thus provided Scriptural warrant for the high priests’ royal powers during the restoration and "intertestamental" periods. (Commentators usually assume that the crown was placed on Joshua to symbolize the future Messiah, then taken off and placed in the temple as a memorial [vv. 11, 14]. But the text does not say the crown was taken from Joshua; it seems preferable to conclude that the crown was in the temple because it remained on Joshua’s head [cf. 3:9, possibly a reference to the priestly "crown"].)
If Joshua is the branch who builds the temple and sits on a throne, then the peace established is between Joshua and the Lord. As high priest, Joshua, of course, stands as a representative of the people; a counsel of peace between Joshua and the Lord is also a counsel of peace between the Lord and Israel. Previously in Zechariah’s visions, Joshua has been cleansed and filled with the Spirit (Zech. 3-4); now, he has been crowned; Joshua is thus equipped to build the temple whose desolate condition angered the Lord (cf. Hag. 1:1-11; Zech. 1:16). When the temple is completed, Joshua (and Israel with him) will enter on even greater privileges (i.e., he will be enthroned), and the treaty of peace between the Lord and His priestly people will be renewed.
The Branch of verse 12 is ultimately Jesus Christ, the Greater Joshua. That he "sprouts up from underneath" may refer to his origins from the Davidic line or to His lowly beginnings. In either case, the sprouting up of the Branch implies His appearance in history for our salvation. Already, the text places us in a redemptive-historical setting; it is not concerned with the eternal intimate relations of Father and Son.
What "temple" is being described (vv. 12b-13a)? Taking this as a prophecy of Jesus Christ, we must say the temple is not architectural but spiritual. This still does not answer the question, since Jesus built two temples: His body (in the resurrection) and the church. While Zechariah 6 could be taken in either sense and while the two temples are inseparable in any case, it makes better sense as a reference to the rebuilding of His body-temple after three days in the grave. Thus, verses 12-13 describe the appearance of the Jesus "from below," the rebuilding of His temple-body in His resurrection, and His exaltation to the right hand of the Father in His ascension. As we saw above, everything turns on the rebuilding of the temple, that is, on the resurrection.
It is in this context that the "counsel of peace" between the Lord and the Branch is mentioned. In context, the counsel is between the incarnate, risen, and exalted Son, the Priest-King of a new Israel, and the Father. The counsel of peace that is described here comes into effect after the Branch has "sprouted up," after He has built the temple, after He has received honor and taken His place as a priest on His throne. Whatever is going on here, it is describing something that is brought into effect by the historical work of the Branch.
The counsel of peace is, most simply, the New Covenant. Like Joshua, Jesus appears as the representative man, to make peace between the Father and all who are in Him. As Hebrews makes clear, in Jesus’ ascension as High Priest and King into the heavenly sanctuary the benefits of His work are secured; the treaty of peace is fulfilled in His enthronement in the heavenlies. Through His historical work (and not in eternity), the Branch has established a peace treaty with the Father.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 71
March, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
Though the epistle of James is considered a "general" epistle, the letter originated from particular circumstances that can be discerned from the New Testament. In order to sketch its background, it would be helpful first to determine its author. Several possibilities present themselves: James the brother of John and son of Zebedee; the other James among the Twelve, called James the son of Alphaeus (Mat. 10:3) and usually identied with "James the Less" (Mk. 15:40); and James, the presiding elder of the church at Jerusalem, who is called the "Lord’s brother" (Gal. 1:19; Mat. 13:55; cf. Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18).
Few scholars argue that James the son of Alphaeus wrote the letter. Contemporary scholarship is also generally agreed that the best-known James in the Gospels, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, did not write the epistle of James. In a lengthy discussion defending authorship by James the brother of Jesus, Douglas Moo has only this to say about James the son of Zebedee: He "died a martyr’s death in ad 44 (Acts 12:2) and it is unlikely that the epistle was written as early as this" (James. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985], p. 20). Ralph Martin, in his commentary on James in the Word Biblical Commentary, offers the same argument.
These comments about James the son of Zebedee ought not to stand unexamined. This conclusion is based, after all, on a New Testament chronology that is hardly immune from criticism. In order to present an alternative, however, the question of authorship must be put aside for the moment, until the historical situation of the letter has been established.
James identies his original audience as the "twelve tribes in the diaspora." The phrase alludes to the scattered Jews, and is made all the more signicant by the fact that the author who addresses the twelve tribes is "Jacob" (in Greek). Imaginative commentators have attempted to relate each of the sections of the epistle to a particular son of Jacob, comparing the epistle to the blessings of Jacob in Genesis 49. For our purposes, the relevant question is, what is the referent of the phrase "twelve tribes," the old Israel or the new? The phrase is seldom used in the New Testament, and in two passages it is almost certainly a description of the church (Mat 19:28; Lk 22:30; cf. Rev 7:1-8). It is thus possible that James is referring to the new Israel of God.
The New Testament’s use of the word "diaspora" supports this interpretation. Of course, the word was used in Jewish literature to describe the scattering of exiles from the promised land, but this is not the most frequent New Testament use. In fact, the New Testament contains only one reference to the Jewish diaspora, and it is a rather off-hand reference at that (Jn. 7:35). Most often, the New Testament uses the word-group "diaspora" with reference to the church. Peter refers to his readers as being in the diaspora, and he is clearly speaking of Christians (1 Pet 1:1f.). In Acts, the verb form of "diaspora" is never used of Jews per se, but only of those Christians who were forced to flee Jerusalem because of the persecutions that erupted in the aftermath of Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 8:1; 11:19). The New Testament’s ecclesiology incorporates and transforms "diaspora" language just as it incorporates other Old Testament descriptions of Israel.
The Christian "diaspora" is not merely a spiritual dispersion, but a specic event in the early history of the church. Because of the persecution that followed the martyrdom of Stephen, the Jerusalem church became a diaspora church. James’s audience would, in the nature of the case, be a predominantly Jewish audience. But James addresses them as the "twelve tribes of the diaspora" not because they are exiled Jews but because they are members of the new Israel who have been driven from their city.
This ts well with James’s description of his readers as "firstfruits" (1:18). As James Jordan has argued in several recent studies in Revelation, the Jews and Gentile God-fearers who came into the church prior to ad 70 had a unique role in redemptive history. They constituted the firstfruits of the coming harvest of nations and provided the foundation of the new temple. It is thus tting that James, addressing the very first converts – the Christianized Jews and God-fearers of Jerusalem –, calls them "firstfruits."
James Cargal, in his Ph.D. dissertation, Restoring the Diaspora: Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James (SBL Dissertation Series #144; [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993]), connects the opening of James with its nal verses: "if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins" (5:19-20). Based on the opening and closing of the epistle, Cargal argues that "diaspora" takes on a moral-spiritual meaning in the course of the epistle. The original readers would have picked up the hint from the initial use of "diaspora": the "twelve tribes" of the Old Covenant were dispersed, after all, because they had "wandered from the truth." James was writing to the scattered members of his church to warn them that, in the midst of their geographic diaspora, they had to take care not to wander from the truth. James’s letter performs the kind of restorative act he commends at the close of his letter: He is attempting to turn wandering sinners from the errors of their ways.
James, then, wrote to Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, who, faced with persecution (cf. Jas. 1:2-4), scattered from their homes, and as a result of their sufferings were in danger of apostasy (cf. Mat. 13:21). Though his approach was very different, James was writing to the same sort of audience as that addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews.
With this understanding of the setting and overall purpose of the letter, we can return afresh to the question of authorship. When did the "diaspora" of Jerusalem Christians begin? James Jordan has argued persuasively that Paul’s conversion took place in ad 30, and the diaspora began before Paul went to Damascus (Acts 8:1-4; 9:1-22). Thus, the firstfruits church was dispersed from Jerusalem within a few months of Pentecost, in ad 30.
What does this date suggest about authorship? James the brother of Jesus became the presiding elder of the Jerusalem church following Peter’s arrest and departure in 44. Prior to that time, this James did not play a prominent role in the Jerusalem church. If James the brother of Jesus wrote the epistle prior to becoming the chief elder in Jerusalem, it is difficult to see how it would carry much weight. If he wrote the letter of exhortation and encouragement to scattered exiles after he became presiding elder, it was some 14 years late. Neither scenario is likely.
James the brother of John, however, was a prominent figure in the church from the beginning. Not only was he one of the central three of the Twelve, but he was a witness to the ascension (Acts 1:2, 4), was present during the days of waiting before Pentecost (1:13), and spoke in tongues at Pentecost, having received the Spirit (2:1-4). He evidently stayed in Jerusalem when the persecutions began, and remained important enough in the leadership of the church for Herod to kill and for the Jews to delight in his death (12:2-3). One would expect a letter to exiles to be sent shortly after the exile begins. James the son of Zebedee was in precisely the right place at the right time to do just that. If I am correct about the purpose of the letter, there is good reason to think James the son of Zebedee composed the letter of James in the early 30s.
The discussion of faith and works in 2:14ff. seems to provide evidence against this date. James, by many accounts, was consciously responding to Paul’s teaching on justification by faith alone. Many commentators believe this implies that Paul had been teaching for some time when James wrote his letter. Two comments can be made. First, it is not certain that James is responding to Pauline teaching at all. Perhaps he is responding to distortions of the teaching of Peter, another of the Twelve, or even Jesus.
Even if James is addressing issues raised by Paul, this is not decisive evidence of a late date. Moo points out that James is responding to a distorted understanding of Paul’s teaching. Far from providing evidence of a late date for James, Moo asks, "Could it not be that the perverted form of Paul’s teaching contested in James 2 is very early and that James is not yet aware of Paul’s true intent because they have not yet met?" (p. 28). Moo goes on to note that Paul began teaching soon after his conversion (Acts 9:19-22), and we find evidence in Paul’s letters that his teaching on justification was misunderstood (Rom. 6). Between the initial scattering of the church in ad 30 and the writing of James, we need only assume enough time for Paul’s teaching to have been circulated and distorted. Given the human propensity for error and the violence of early Jewish opposition to Paul (Acts 9:23-25), this need not have been very long. Thus, James 2 does not refute the hypothesis that James was written in the early 30s.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 71
March, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
To complete our previous articles on the angels in Revelation, let us take up the angelic hierarchy as the book of Revelation presents it.
The supreme Angel is the Angel of Yahweh, the Archangel Michael (Jude 9 + Zechariah 3:2), the second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ. He appears fourteen times:
1. The First Other Angel, 7:2.
2. The Second Other Angel, 8:3, 4, 5; 14:6,18.
3. The Second Strong Angel, 10:1, 5, 8, 9,10.
4. Michael, 12:7.
5. The Third Other Angel, 18:1.
6. The Key Angel, 20:1.
The four cherubim are also angelic beings. They are called "four living creatures" in Revelation, and appear twenty times:
1. Mentioned as four living creatures, 4:6, 8, 9; 5:6, 8, 11, 14; 6:6; 7:11; 14:3; 19:4.
2. Mentioned separately, 4:7 (4x); 6:1, 3, 5,7; 15:7.
The archangels or 24 elders are chiefs among the angels. They are mentioned twelve times: 4:4, 10; 5:5, 6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4. These archangels are heavenly priests. One of them explains matters to John (5:5; 7:13). He is probably to be associated with the Archangel Gabriel, who explains matters to Daniel (Daniel 8:16; 9:21) and to Zacharias and Mary (Luke 1:19, 26). And he is probably the Prophetic Bowl Angel.
The 24 archangels appear specifically in Revelation as follows:
1. The two strong angels of
a. 5:2, a priestly guardian.
b. 18:21 a kingly administrator.
2. The four corner angels of 7:1 & 2 (nature angels: wind); and 9:14 & 15 (kingly administrators).
4. The seven trumpet angels.
5. The seven libation-bowl angels, including:
a. The prophetic angel.
b. The water angel of 16:5 (nature angel).
c. The solar angel of 19:17 (nature angel).
6. The two herald angels of 14:8 & 9.
7. The calling angel of 14:15.
8. The reaping angel of 14:17 & 19.
Finally, there is the heavenly host of angels.
With the coming of the New Covenant, all these angels are replaced by men in the Church. Angels no longer rule the world; the Church does. The flaming sword given to the cherubim in the beginning is now given back to the Church as the keys of the kingdom, proof of which comes with the tongues of fire distributed on Pentecost. The angels have judged the Old Creation, and now the New Creation is under human authority.
1. The Son of Man replaces the Angel of Yahweh.
2. The 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles replace the 24 elders (21:12, 14, 19-21).
3. The Church replaces the heavenly host.
4. The keys of the Kingdom pass from the cherubim to the Church.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 44
Copyright (c) 1996 Biblical Horizons
March, 1995
Like certain kinds of music, the unchanging rhythm of Aquinas’s Summa gets into your bones. Read a few sections and it begins to run through your head. You start drumming your fingers, humming, swaying gently to the rhythm of Videtur-Sed Contra-Responsio, Videtur-Sed Contra-Responsio, “It seems-On the contrary-I answer.” The only way to get a tune out of your head is to sing it out loud. The best thing to do to get Aquinas out of your head is to write it down. This article is not so much information for readers as therapy for the writer.
Aquinas actually raised the question of why there continue to be sacraments under what he calls the “New Law.” I do not think, however, that he raised the strongest objections or gave the strongest answers. Hence this revision, the first and probably only section of a Reformed Summa. For the aid of readers, I have chosen not to write in Latin.
Article 1: Should there be sacraments in the New Covenant?
1. It seems that there should not be sacraments in the New Covenant, for Paul tells us in Hebrews tells us that the Old Covenant rites and ceremonies were shadows of the reality (Hebrews 10:1). The reality has come through the work of Christ. Therefore, when the truth comes there is no longer any need for shadowy rites, and in fact it is a great sin to revert to shadows.
2. Paul wrote in Galatians that the law was a schoolmaster leading us to Christ (Galatians 3:23). Central to that law were the rites and ceremonies of Old Covenant worship. Now that we are mature, we have no need of the schoolmaster. Therefore, we have no need of rites and ceremonies.
3. Also in Galatians, Paul wrote that circumcision means nothing, but what matters is a new creation (6:15). Rites such as circumcision are therefore irrelevant in the New Covenant.
4. Under the Old Covenant, there was need of mediators between God and man. The priests were mediators, and the rites and ceremonies mediated Israel’s approach to God. In the New Covenant, we can have direct contact with God, without the need of mediators. Therefore, there should be no sacraments in the New Covenant.
4. Eternal predestination secures our salvation. We are saved because God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world. This truth has been revealed more clearly in the New Covenant than in the Old. Since our salvation depends upon God’s choice, and nothing we do can add to God’s determination to save, rites and ceremonies are superfluous. God does nothing superfluous, and hence there should be no sacraments in the New Covenant.
On the contrary: Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:25) and He commanded His apostles to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:18-20). Thus, Jesus commanded the performance of certain rites in His church, and therefore there are sacraments in the New Covenant.
There are three reasons why it is fitting for the Church to observe sacraments in the new covenant. First, as St. Jeffrey of Missouri has said, the Persons of the Divine Trinity perform rites of homage in relation to each other. The Son glorifies the Father, the Father the Son, and the Spirit glorifies the Son who glorifies the Father; the Three are bound in a Unity of mutual subjection to and glorification of one another.
Moreover, as St. James of Niceville has said, in creating the world God followed a ritual pattern: taking hold of the world, restructuring it, distributing it, evaluating it, and enjoying it (Genesis 1). Since man is made in God’s image, and since God is a God whose actions follow regular, “ritual” patterns, man is inherently a creature of ritual. This is as true in the New Covenant as in the Old. Since the New Covenant brings a renewal of creation, it is appropriate that sinful man’s perverse rituals be replaced by the true. Therefore, it is fitting that the church, which is the beginning of a new human race, should have ritual forms in the New Covenant. The sacraments are the most important of the New Covenant ritual forms.
Second, man is a unity of soul and body, and therefore he should offer worship in his whole nature. It is not the case, as the Doctor of Aquino said, that the body is merely an instrument of the mind. Nor is it the case, as Plato implies, that man’s ideas are a mental picture that comes to visible expression in his bodily actions. It is rather the case that all the actions of a man are actions of both mind and body. Even our thoughts are thoughts of our brains, and the expression of our thoughts involves either movements of tongue, lips, and wind in speech or of the hand in writing.
It is not the case, moreover, that pre-existing thoughts merely come to expression in external actions; instead, thoughts are often, perhaps normally, formulated in the performance of external actions. When I began to write, I did not have a fully-formed mental picture of the final article. I began with a vague and general outline, but my thought actually came to be formed as I performed the physical (and mental) action of typing on a keyboard. This view of the relation of thought to action provides a strong antidote to Platonism. One should not think of the “real me” hidden inside a casing of flesh; instead, my body and soul are together the real me, and just as my soul or mind moves my body, so the actions of my body shape and mold my thoughts.
Because man is a physical/spiritual (or mental) unity, the purpose of rites is not simply to bring to mind certain ideas through symbols but also to cause our bodies (with our minds) repeatedly to perform certain actions, including acts of speech. Through repetition, our bodies and minds are inscribed with certain physical and mental habits. Through years of typing on a keyboard, my hands have been trained to find the right key. I could not draw a picture of a keyboard on a piece of paper, since the keyboard is not pictured in my head; instead, my fingers act out of habitual practice without any direct or strong intervention of my thoughts. Knowledge of the keyboard, to overstate the case, is located in my fingers as much as in my brain. Pianists and other musicians will have had the same kind of experience. So also, the rites of the church, and especially the Eucharist, inscribe through repetition the mental-physical habits appropriate to life in the body of Christ ‘ habits of thanksgiving, of sharing, of communion. Through years of training, we “instinctively” give thanks over our daily bread. Through years of training, we develop the habit of sharing our lives with those with whom we share eucharistic bread.
Third, rites are necessary to the body of Christ as a visible, public body. St. Augustine of Hippo said that men cannot be bound together in a religious association without some common signs and sacraments. For worship to be a public and social act, regular forms and patterns are necessary, lest worship become indecent and disorderly. The sacraments are the most essential of these public and social rites of the church. Moreover, Paul said that we manifest ourselves as One Body by partaking of the One Loaf. Therefore, the Eucharist is important for the strengthening and manifestation of the unity of the Church.
I answer: 1. The Old Covenant ceremonies were types and shadows of the work of our Lord. But our Lord has commanded us to continue to perform certain ceremonies in his church. The Old Covenant ceremonies have passed away, but the Lord has instituted New Covenant ceremonies. And this is appropriate for the reasons stated above. The reason for rites in the New Covenant, it is well to note, is not that the New Covenant continues to be a shadow in relation to the eschatological order, though this in itself is true. The Doctor of Aquino was wrong to say that in the new heavens and new earth, ceremonies would pass away and everything would be revealed in naked truth. St. John shows clearly that there are rites of homage and worship in heaven (Revelation 4-5). So long as men are bodily creatures ‘ that is, throughout all eternity ‘ so long will men perform rites.
2. Paul’s statement about the necessity of circumcision should not be generalized to apply to all rites whatever. Paul is speaking specifically of Old Covenant rites, which have now passed away.
3. It is true that what matters in the New Covenant is a new creation. But part of being a new creature is obeying the words of our Lord, and our Lord commands us to perform certain rites. Moreover, as we have said, man is created as a ritual being and he remains so when he is renewed in Christ.
4. As St. John of Escondido has said, the Word of God is always mediated by creation. When we hear the Word preached, the sounds we hear are products of the physical actions of the speaker’s mouth and the movement of sound waves through the air. When we read the Bible, our encounter with God is mediated through symbolic marks of ink on paper. Since God’s revelation is always mediated through the creation, it is not inappropriate that there should be mediating rites in the New Covenant.
5. The fact that our salvation is dependent upon God’s election and therefore fully certain does not imply anything about how the elect express their homage to God. Even in heaven, as we have seen, the angelic beings perform rites of worship. Moreover, although the ultimate cause of our salvation lies in the will of God, God uses means to achieve that salvation. The sacraments are means toward our individual sanctification and salvation. Salvation, however, is not a merely individual matter, but also restores our relationships to others. Since the sacraments are necessary for the being and for the health of the body of Christ, they are means of salvation in this social dimension.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 38
Copyright (c) 1995 Biblical Horizons
March, 1995
The Book of Revelation is a gold mine of liturgical information. The various hymns and exclamations in Revelation have always been used in Christian worship. As I have been studying Revelation this year, it occurred to me that make a complete hymn out of the various hymns in the book.
I have set it up first as a responsive or antiphonal reading. The minister can read the first line with the congregation reading the second, or you can divide the congregation in half and read it back and forth (see Deuteronomy 27:11-26).
The sequence of the stanzas as a whole is covenantal, so you could use it all at once any time in the service, or break it up:
Stanza 1 (Rev. 4:8, 11) praises God for who He is in Himself and for creating the world. It would go well at the very beginning of the service.
Stanza 2 (Rev. 5:9-10, 12, 13; 7:10, 12) praises God for salvation, and would go well after the confession of sin and after the absolution, the declaration of forgiveness.
Stanza 3 (Rev. 11:15, 17; 12:10) praises God for the reign of Christ, and would go well in the ascent of praise that follows the absolution.
Stanza 4 (Rev. 14:7, 13) calls on us to fear God and worship Him. I would use this as a call to prayer after the sermon and offering.
Stanza 5 (Rev. 15:3-4) praises God that all nations will come and worship Him. I would use this in connection with the prayer after the sermon and offering.
Stanza 6 (Rev. 19:1-2, 5-7, 9) praises God for the marriage supper of the Lamb, and thus goes with the Lord’s Supper.
An alternative way to use the hymn is for everyone to read it together. To bring out the wonderful rhythm of the words and thoughts, I like to set out the lines of the hymn in such a way that people know when to pause. If you read the hymn for several weeks in a row, people will begin to feel the rhythm, which is part of the Word of God itself, since the Word was written to be read aloud. Responsive and unison readings should be done in a strong, loud voice. It should be “called out,” not mumbled, or just “read out loud.”
You are free to use the following pages as photocopy masters for use in home and church.
