Thinking in terms of "we"

In Acts 2, every day believers met together in the Temple courts, broke bread in one another's homes, and ate together with glad and sincere hearts. Hebrews 3:13 suggests that many years later, Christians were still meeting daily. For this to become a part of our daily living we must develop covenant consciousness; this is a away of thinking that begins with the congregation rather than the individual--that is, thinking in terms of "we" instead of "me". It's in the context of the covenant community that we find rest and restoration.1  

...One of the serious deficits in the broader culture is that people are oblivious to others--it's all about "me." We see this in the way people talk, walk, dress, drive, and so forth. This has seeped into the Church, and, under the guise of "accepting people the way they are," we have allowed them to continue to be the way they are, and thus we contribute to the atrophy of the culture. People come to church, or come late, or fellowship, or serve, or give, or worship, or participate if they feel like it, never considering how this impacts the community. Children have often grown up with this apathy toward others. It is the epitome of immaturity.2 

1.  Randy Booth, The Church-Friendly Family [Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1012] p. 22

2.  Ibid. pp. 24-5

Reflections on Psalm 119 by John Brown of Haddington

In his famous Self-Interpreting Bible, John Brown of Haddington makes these comments while reflecting on the entirety of Psalm 119:

Let this Psalm be a touchstone by which I may try my heart and my life. Let me constantly inquire—Are these gracious tempers and holy exercises of faith, love, hope, humility, patience, and zeal, to be found in my soul? Has my heart …made these meditations, prayers, resolutions, and confessions truly my own? Is God’s Word …the sole standard of all my faith and law of my practice? Is it the channel of Jesus’ fullness of grace and comfort to my heart? Is it the instructor, the counselor, the quickener, the medicine, the armour, the treasury, the wealth, the support, the guard, the joy, and the ALL of my soul? Do I receive it as a word to me from God, and use it as my plea with him for whatever I need? Happy is he that is thus living in these delightful exercises!

St. Augustine: Gathering to worship the one supreme and true God

This Heavenly city, while it sojouns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers toether a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from resinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adapts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced. 

-- Saint Augustine, The City of God, book 19, paragraph 17

What Godly People Do

When God created man in knowledge,1 righteousness, and holiness,2 with dominion over the creatures,3 and told him to be fruitful and multiply, that was a mandate to fill the earth with godly people who would produce a godly culture. That is what godly people do. The goal was not to multiply misery or to populate hell but rather to advance God and His kingdom. The introduction of sin fouled the planet. In fact, it made it green: green with envy. Sin corrupted the culture. Soon thereafter, God promised a Redeemer.4 

1.  Col. 3:10

2.  Eph. 4:24

3.  Gen. 1:26; Psa. 8:6-8

4.  Randy Booth, The Church-Friendly Family [Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2012], p. 1

Calvin & Baptism of the Roman Church

In Peter Lillback's insightful and challenging book, The Binding of God: Calvin's Role in the Development of Covenant Theology, he notes a unique illustration which John Calvin used to connect the covenant-sign of baptism with "general election," along with it's consequential idea of falling away from such "general election" because of covenant-breaking. Calvin's illustration is of those baptized into the Roman Catholic church. He writes:

The same thing that the Prophet brought against the Israelites may be also brought against the Papists; for as soon as infants are born among them, the Lord signs them with the sacred symbol of baptism; they are therefore in some sense the people of God. We see, at the same time, how gross and abominable are the superstitions which prevail among them: there are none more stupid than they are. Even the Turks and the Saracenes are wise when compared with them. How great, then, and how shameful is this baseness, that the Papists, who boast themselves to be the people of God, should go astray after their own mad follies!1

1.  Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin's Role in the Development of Covenant Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001] p. 224, f.n. 53. Italics mine.

Cosmos, Garden, & Tabernacle: A Three Story House for Yahweh

In his book, A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament, Peter Leithart discusses the connection between the Creation & Garden symbolism of Genesis 1-3 and the Tabernacle/Temple symbolism as outlined in God's Law. Dr. Leithart writes:

The Bible's story begins by telling us about the world where the story takes place. In the Bible, the world is the real world that we live in, the world that God created. But the Bible describes the world in a particular way. In some places, the Bible describes it as a house. Talking to Job from the whirlwind, Yahweh asks:

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you know understanding,
Who set its measurements, since you know?
Or who stretched the line on it?
On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?  (Job 38:4-7)

Earth, and especially mountains, are set on "foundations" (Deuteronomy 32:22; 2 Samuel 22:8, 16; Psalm 104:5) just like the foundations that hold up a house. Blue sky is stretched out above like a "tent curtain" (Isaiah 40:22). Pillars support the earth (Job 9:6) and heaven (Job 26:11). When God first appears in the Bible, He is building a house. 

...It takes God six days to build His house, six days that are just like our days with the sun coming up in the morning and going down in the evening. After that, God rests on the seventh day, a day known as the Sabbath day. 

...And so, at the end of the six days of creation, God has finished a "three story" house. Above is the "tent curtain" of blue sky, then the dry land, and finally the waters "below" the earth. 

The Bible mentions this three-story house many times. In the second commandment, God forbids us to bow down to an image of anything in "heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth" (Exodus 20:4). That means we must not bow down to images of anything. "Heaven, earth, and sea" means "the whole universe."1

...Once God has made His three-story house, He puts Adam and Eve in it and gives them a job to do.2 ...When Adam is first created, he is put in the garden of Eden. The Garden is one of several different areas that God makes in the world. Remember that God initially makes a "three-story" world. In Genesis 2, we learn that the middle floor, earth, is divided into three "rooms." The Garden is only one of them. Genesis 2:8 tells us that the Lord God plants a garden "toward the east, in Eden," which means that the Garden is on the east side of the land of Eden. Eden is larger than the Garden, and outside Eden there were other lands, which are named in Genesis 2:11-13. If Adam had taken time on the first day to make a map, he would have drawn a map with several areas: the Garden, the land of Eden, and the larger world. 

It is interesting to notice how these three "rooms" of earth match up with the three "stories" of the universe. To see fully how this works, another portion of the creation has to be considered, namely, the "firmament." Made on the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6), the firmament is not just the flat surface of the sky but the whole region that we call "outer space." We know this because the sun, moon, and stars are "in" the firmament (Genesis 1:14-19). It is also called "heaven" (Genesis 1:8). This means that God created a world with two "heavens": The heavens where God dwells and the visible heavens of outer space. When we add this to our picture of the three-story house, we see that the "attic" is divided into two sections.3

The house that Israel builds at Mount Sinai is a tent called the tabernacle. ...Within the tent are two rooms. The first is the Holy Place, and the second is the Most Holy Place or "Holy of Holies." The courtyard makes a third area. The tabernacle has three zones, and each of these zones is governed by a different set of rules. Any Israelite layman may enter the courtyard, but only priests may enter the Holy Place. Only the High Priest may enter the Most Holy Place, and he may do it only once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1).4

With these observations in mind, the arrangement of the tabernacle can be understood this way5: 

Cosmic boundaries        Earthly boundaries         Tabernacle boundaries
Highest Heaven               Garden of Eden               Most Holy Place (2nd tent, High Priest only)
Firmament "heaven"        Land of Eden                   Holy Place (1st tent, Priests only)
                                    

Land                             Land surrounding Eden      Courtyard (Covenant people)
                                                                             

World & Sea                  Nations across the sea       Outside the Courtyard (Gentiles)
                                                                         

Dr. Leithart also makes this following observation concerning the Tabernacle and the Garden of Eden:

A number of things in the tabernacle remind us of the garden of Eden. Like the Garden, it has a doorway on the east side (Genesis 3:24). The cherubim embroidered into the tabernacle curtains and built above the ark remind us of the Garden (Exodus 26:31-37). When a priest enters the Holy Place, he looks at the veil that has cherubim on it and is reminded over and over of the cherubim with the flaming sword in Genesis 3. Like the garden and land of Eden, the tabernacle is mostly off-limits. From the time of Adam to the time of Jesus, no one is allowed to go back into the Garden, past the cherubim, to enjoy God's presence. As Paul put it, the Old Covenant ministry is a ministry of death (2 Corinthians 3:7; see Hebrews 9:8-10). The tabernacle is a way of keeping the people of God at a distance.6 

1.  Peter J. Leithart, A House For My Name:  A Survey of the Old Testament [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000] pp. 43-45
2.  p. 50
3.  p. 51
4.  p. 82
5.  The formatting presented here is my own, and is not identical with the formatting of Leithart in his book (p. 85), but the the arrangement is similar.
6.  Ibid. p. 85.

Matthew 10: The End Was Near (Cosmic language & the old covenant age)

In this post, I would like to identify two important aspects of biblical literature which I have not yet touched upon in this series: 1) Scripture's non-literal cosmic language of judgment & deliverance, and 2) its related themes about the end of tabernacle/temple worship and the old creation/old covenant. These are important for understanding Jesus' prophecy to his twelve apostles in Matthew chapter ten: "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

In order to appreciate this statement a bit more, let's start with the first aspect mentioned above. 

Throughout the Old Testament we find multiple references to Yahweh coming in judgment and/or deliverance for His people: Isaiah 19:1-4; 31:1-7; 64:1-4; Psalm 18:1-19; 144:1-8. Perhaps the most important example among these is Psalm 18, which speaks in very clear cosmic and apocalyptic language:

A Psalm of David, the servant of the Lord, who addressed the words of this song to the Lord on the day when the Lord rescued him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. I love you, O Lord, my strength. The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies. The cords of death encompassed me; the torrents of destruction assailed me; the cords of Sheol entangled me; the snares of death confronted me. In my distress I called upon the Lord; to my God I cried for help. From his temple he heard my voice, and my cry to him reached his ears. Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations also of the mountains trembled and quaked, because he was angry. Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him. He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet. He rode on a cherub and flew; he came swiftly on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him, thick clouds dark with water. Out of the brightness before him hailstones and coals of fire broke through his clouds. The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Most High uttered his voice, hailstones and coals of fire. And he sent out his arrows and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare at your rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of your nostrils. He sent from on high, he took me; he drew me out of many waters. He rescued me from my strong enemy and from those who hated me, for they were too mighty for me. They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the Lord was my support. He brought me out into a broad place; he rescued me, because he delighted in me.

Let's stop and think about this imagery for a few moments. David describes the Lord "coming" down to deliver him according to his prayer. He also describes the earth rocking and the mountains shaking at the anger of the Lord. Glowing coals shoot out of the Lord, and smoke rises out of his nostrils. The Lord even rides on a cherub (an angel) that flies, and he "comes" swiftly on the wings of the wind. Thunder, hailstones, and coals of fire shoot down through the thick, dark clouds which surround Him. The Lord shoots out arrows of lighting, and by the breath of His nostrils the sea parts so that the ocean floor is laid bare before everyone. And all of this, as David says at the beginning of this Psalm, is a description of the Lord rescuing him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of King Saul. Obviously, this apocalyptic language is not literal, nor was it ever intended to be interpreted as literal occurrences at the time of the Lord's deliverance. Such language is describing a mighty deliverance --a deliverance so mighty that extraordinary cosmic language suits it best-- but it is not a description of literal cosmic events. 

This is but one Old Testament example cosmic and apocalyptic language which describes the Lord's judgment upon His enemies and the deliverance of His children. This, I contend, is virtually identical to the cosmic and apocalyptic language mentioned in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Acts 2, I Peter 3, and Jude 17. 

Second, we find themes surrounding the end of tabernacle/temple worship and its relationship with the old creation/old covenant. These themes become very apparent through a comparison of multiple new covenant references about the “last days,” “last time,” and end of the Old Covenant "age": I Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:1-2; 9:1-10, 23-26; 10:19-25; Acts 2:14-21 (referencing Joel 2:27-32); II Tim. 3:1-5; I Peter 1:3-9, 20; 4:7-11; 5:4 (w/ reference to I Jn. 2:28-29); I John 2:18; Jude 17-23. Perhaps the most important examples among these are found throughout the book of Hebrews:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he framed the ages. (1:1-2)

Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section,1 performing their ritual duties, but into the second2 only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is a parable for that time into the present).3 According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (9:1-10)

...Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. ...He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (9:23-26)

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain... let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith... Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who is promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (10:19-25)

In these passages, the author of Hebrews sees a certain "Day" drawing near, and the people of God are encouraged to stir up one another to love and good works, and to meet together regularly, and to hold fast the confession of their hope without wavering because that Day is drawing near. Before that the author speaks of Christ appearing at the "end of the ages." What ages? The ages which led up to the New Covenant and the inauguration of the Kingdom of heaven on earth. This "end of the ages" is also described as a "time of reformation" in which Jesus would pass through the first "tent" and into the real "Holy of Holies"; and these laws pertaining to the Old Covenant priesthood (with the high priest passing through the first "tent" into the "second" tent) are said to be "a parable of that time into the present." 

In I Cor. 10:11, the apostle Paul uses similar language when he references God's judgments upon the disobedient people of Israel in the wilderness. And Paul says that "these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come." Clearly then, according to the apostle Paul, his own generation was living in the time when "the ages" would "end." But what "ages"? Well, in the mind of the author of Hebrews (and many people have argued that Paul was it's author), the answer was simple. The Mosaic tabernacle and it's laws taught the people of Israel that its own system of worship had to end and a better system had to be inaugurated at the end of that age. Ages would pass operating under the old covenant and it's tabernacle/temple system of worship, but a "time of reformation" was promised, according to the Mosaic Law's own "parable."

All of these references, I contend, are describing the end of the Old Covenant along with it's essential tabernacle/temple, sacrificial, and priestly structure. Furthermore, I contend, that the cosmic and apocalyptic language of Matthew 24, Luke 21, Acts 2, I Peter 3, and Jude 17 describe the end of the old creation as it is symbolized and foreshadowed in the destruction of the temple/tabernacle system and it's laws which are structured with cosmic symbolism.4

1.  i.e. the Holy Place was the first section, or "tent," of the Tabernacle

2. i.e. the Most Holy Place (or "Holy of Holies") was the second section, or "tent," of the Tabernacle. According to the Law of Moses, the High priest was the only priest allowed into the second "tent," and he had to walk through the first tent to get to the second "tent." The author of Hebrews argues that this symbolism engraved in ceremonial law was "symbolic of the time now present."

3.  The Greek text says ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, which, if woodenly translated  would say: "which is a parable into the time then-to-now-present." That is why I translated the passage as saying: "which is a parable for that time into the present." The ESV translates this parenthetical remark as "(which is symbolic for the present age)." The NASB translates it this way: "which is a symbol for the present time." The NIV translates it this way: "This is an illustration for the present time." And finally, the NLT translates it this way: "This is an illustration pointing to the present time." 

4.  See L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus [Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2012]; G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004]; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996]; Peter J. Leithart, A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000]; James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing A Biblical View of the World [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999]

A prayer about falling away again, by John Calvin

John Calvin

A Prayer About Falling Away Again

Grant, Almighty God, that as thou hast not only of late adopted us as thy children before we were born, and as thou hast been pleased to sign us, as soon as we came forth from our mother's womb, with the symbol of that holy redemption, which has been obtained for us by the blood of thy only begotten Son, though we have by our ingratitude renounced so great a benefit --- O grant, that being mindful of our defection and unfaithfulness, of which we are all guilty, and for which thou hast justly rejected us, we may now with true humility and obedience of faith embrace the grace of thy gospel now again offered to us, by which thou reconcilest thyself to us; and grant that we may steadfastly persevere in pure faith, so as never to turn aside from the true obedience of faith, but to advance more and more in the knowledge of thy mercy, that having strong and deep roots, and being firmly grounded in the confidence of sure faith, we may never fall away from the true worship of thee, until thou at length receivest us into that eternal kingdom, which has been procured for us by the blood of thy only Son. Amen.1

1.  John Calvin, Commentary on Hosea 2:4-5 [Grand Rapids, MI; Baker House Book, 1989 reprint] p. 85

Lutheranism 101: Are Lutherans Cannibals?

In Lutheranism 101, a question arises out of concern for their traditional view of eating the Lord's "real body and blood." This question is framed this way: "Are Lutherans Cannibals?" The author responded this way:

Because Lutherans teach that Jesus is really present with His body and blood, they have been accused of cannibalism. Rest easy; it isn't true. A cannibal eats physical flesh with his teeth. While we teach that Jesus is bodily present, we do not teach that He is physically present. Things are physical when they take up space; we believe that Jesus is really present with His body and blood but in a mode that doesn't take up space. Can He do that? Yes!1

Now, let's try to break down the meaning of these claims. As far as I can tell, it seems like his argument goes something like this: "Lutherans are not cannibals because cannibals eat physical flesh. But Lutherans don't teach that they are eating Jesus' physical flesh. They're eating Jesus' non-physical flesh." Now, if I'm correct in viewing the meaning of his statements this way, I'm still not quite sure what non-physical flesh is, exactly. I mean, I understand the difference between physical and non-physical as a concept, and I even understand that Jesus' body and blood was very physical in substance, but I'm still not quite sure what the author of Lutheranism 101 means by that. Of course the author tries to explain himself. He says that Lutheranism does not teach that Jesus is physically present. Check. He also says that things are physical when they take up space. Check. But then he says, "we believe that Jesus is really present with His body and blood but in a mode that doesn't take up space."

But what does the author mean exactly by "in a mode that doesn't take up space"? In his usually fantastically brilliant, earth-shattering manner, this author answers that very question. He writes:

After rising from the dead, Jesus appeared to the disciples in a locked room and showed them His hands and His side (John 20:19-20). How did He get into the locked room? The Bible doesn't specify, but somehow He moved His body through the walls or locked door without displacing the barrier and creating a hole. As He went through, His body didn't take up space (we call this His "incomprehensible mode"). During the Lord's Supper, the bread doesn't change in size with Jesus' body present; His body is present without taking up space. One can't eat something that isn't physically present, so, no, Lutherans aren't cannibals.2 

There you have it. Problem solved. Mystery discovered. This is Lutheran biblical exegesis at it's finest. Jesus says "This is My body," and that means he is "really present" in the bread and wine "in a mode that doesn't take up space." What other biblical proof is there for believing in this special  mode? Well, that's easy! Jesus walked through the walls or the locked door without displacing the barrier and creating a hole! And the author knows this for certain. And because he knows this for certain, we can be certain too, even though he admits that "The Bible doesn't specify" how Jesus got into the locked room. 

Did you catch that slight of hand too? 

Let me rewind and show that again. The author begins by admitting that the Bible does not specify how Jesus got into the locked room, but nevertheless (mysteriously!) this author knows how Jesus got into the locked room. And because this author knows how Jesus got into the locked room (i.e. he walked through the locked door), John 20:19-20 becomes a proof-text for believing that Jesus is "really present" in the bread and wine "in a mode that doesn't take up space."

Now, what really bothers me about this strained exegesis of Scripture is that this Lutheran author knows his traditional interpretation is not comprehensible, but their precious long-standing tradition is held to anyway. They even have a name for how Jesus walks through walls: they call this his "incomprehensible mode." 

In previous posts, I showed that this very same author loves to talk big about how dangerous it is to add or subtract from God's Word, and how important it is to listen to exactly what Jesus says; but this particular Lutheran tradition encourages people to do the very opposite by throwing away their rationality. And perhaps there is no more appropriate proof-text, other than John 20:19-20, to show off this blatant inconsistency. (Remember, the author of Lutheranism 101 used this as their proof-text for Jesus' "incomprehensible mode" in the Lord's Supper.) Notice what John 20:19-20 says: 

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

Notice that it mentions absolutely nothing about how Jesus got into the locked room. It just says that the doors were locked and that "Jesus came and stood among them." Now, if I were a betting man, I would bet $100.00 that in a room filled with traditional indoctrinated Lutherans, 75% of them would interpret this verse as though Jesus had to walk through the walls or the locked door. But if I were in a room filled with Calvinists, I would bet $100.00 that 75% of them would see a third alternative -- namely that Jesus simply appeared before them without needing to walk through anything, and without needing to "displace the barrier" of anything. From the text itself, it reads as though Jesus simply appears out of thin air. Jesus appears and disappears elsewhere in John's gospel, both times after Jesus has been raised with his glorified body, but there is no mention of Jesus walking through anything. Moreover, in Luke 24:13-43, Jesus meets two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and after a while he sits down to eat and break bread with them; and suddenly, after breaking the bread, Jesus disappears. Then suddenly, when these disciples flee to their friends in Jerusalem, Jesus suddenly reappears again (all within a few verses too). 

Now, let me ask this question: What Lutheran scholar would seriously argue that Jesus had to walk through all the walls and trees and people and locked doors on his way from the road to Emmaus to Jerusalem in order to reappear with the other disciples? If someone is going to argue that arbitrarily --when the text simply mentions that he disappears and reappears suddenly-- they might as well argue that Jesus broke the bread and jumped into it through this silly incomprehensible mode, and his disciples carried him all the way back to Jerusalem. That way, they could argue that Jesus was "really present" in the bread too.

All of these Lutheran arguments are mysterious because they're nonsense. I mean, if they really believed that Jesus walked through the walls of the locked room, and that somehow this teaches us that Jesus' body and blood is "really present" in a non-physical mode, what they're really saying is that they believe Jesus' body and blood could share physical space. But that's not what they're saying. They're saying that Jesus manifests his body and blood in a non-physical mode which doesn't take up space. But where in Scripture do you find a rational basis for believing that? They might argue, in the words "This is My body, This is My blood" (Actually, Jesus doesn't say, "This is my blood," but I digress.) But that commits the fallacy of begging the question. They are assuming what needs to be proven rationally. Then they might respond, "But John's gospel shows that Jesus walked through locked doors!" To which I would respond, no John's gospel doesn't say that. Nor does Luke's gospel. Then they might argue, "but we know there are sufficient reasons to believe this because we even have an official, confessional name for it: it's called the incomprehensible mode."

My response would be something to this effect: If they can't prove their case  rationally from the Bible, then why insist that the Bible is their source for this incomprehensible mode? And if they don't expect their precious doctrine to be proven rationally, then why do they bother proving anything about it at all? Again, it seems like the author of Lutheranism 101 is well exercised in mental gymnastics and potentially dabbles in Jedi mind tricks from time to time, but those tricks are subtly deceptive and foolish, and Christians should be trained by their pastors and teachers to know better than this. Christians should have more assurance from the Word of God than this irrational Lutheran indoctrination about "the real presence" of Jesus and how His body and blood is really present in a non-physical, incomprehensible mode that doesn't take up space.

I've got an alternative idea to all of this eating-Jesus-for-dinner talk. Why don't Lutherans argue that Jesus is "really present" in the bread and wine, and that through faith Christians really do eat the body and blood of Christ, but only in a literal spiritually-present sense. Oh, yeah. I forgot. Lutherans wouldn't believe that because that's what Calvinists teach. 

1.  Scot Kinnaman [General Editor], Lutheranism 101 [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2010] p. 150

2.  Ibid. p. 151

Lutheranism 101: The Big Mystery

When discussing the Lord's Supper in Lutheranism 101, the reader is reminded to "Remember the warning from before." But what is this warning? (And keep in mind that this "warning" is not found anywhere in God's Word.) The author answers this way: 

We human beings like to solve mysteries and explain everything. However, some of God's gifts to us are far too great for us comprehend. We can't explain them. If we try, we might explain the mystery away. We may actually explain the forgiveness away.1

There are a few things which I find very interesting about this argument. First, it almost admits to being nonsense, but instead of calling this "gift" nonsense, it is called a "mystery" instead. Some gifts, the author says, are far too great for us to comprehend; and if we try, we might explain the mystery and forgiveness of it away!  Yet, ironically, this author insists on explaining this "mystery" and "forgiveness" to us so that we can comprehend it. It seems as though he puts in one hand what he takes away from the other. That's like arguing, "We can't explain this mystery, and it's far too great to comprehend it; so let me explain it in a way which you can comprehend. Oh, but remember, if we try to explain this mystery, we might explain its mysteriousness away. So let me explain that mysteriousness in a way which doesn't explain the mystery away. I will even explain it just enough so you can comprehend that I'm not explaining it away." 

Doesn't that kind of an argument seem strange? I know that when I read it, it  seems like the author is pre-empting me from believing that it makes no sense, while encouraging me to believe that it doesn't have to make sense. And the reason why it doesn't have to make sense (even though he won't describe it that way) is because this portion of God's Word is just "too great for us to comprehend."   

But what is this "mystery" that's too great for us? What is this "mystery" which we can't explain?  The author says:

When you hear these next words of Jesus, listen to exactly what He says. Don't try to make this mystery into something you can understand:  Of the bread, Jesus said, "This is My body." Of the wine, Jesus said, "This cup is the new testament in My blood."  "Is."  It's the linguistic version of an equal sign. Jesus said that in the Lord's Supper the bread is His body. The wine is His blood. This is the big mystery at the heart of the Lord's Supper: Under the bread and wine, we also receive Jesus' body and blood--the same body that was nailed to the cross and the same blood that was shed for our sin. It is also the same body and blood that Jesus showed to His disciples after He rose from the dead. If Jesus' body and blood are there, Jesus is there. He is present under the elements of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. We call this the real presence. ...Beyond that, we can't explain the real presence.2

So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to listen to "exactly" what Jesus says, and I'm told not to try to make this mystery into something which I can understand. Well, I'm definitely listening .... Still listening .... Still listening .... And I'm not understanding. I guess this is where I'm supposed to throw my hands up in the air and shout Hallelujah! Mission accomplished! I don't understand what this means at all and Jesus didn't want me to!  Halellujah!

But seriously, even the author didn't really mean that. He didn't actually mean that Jesus doesn't want us to understand the "mystery" of the Lord's Supper. He couldn't, because he explains this alleged "mystery" with the entire paragraph that follows. What the author is really try to express is that Jesus' Words of Institution are indeed understandable and explainable. However, what the author does not tell his readers is that this "mystery" really isn't exactly what Jesus said. This "mystery" is actually what his tradition of Lutheranism wants to believe. And it's that unique traditional interpretation of Lutherans which is truly mysterious. 

Plus, if you think about this author's argument, it's loaded with lots of logical problems. For example, this author is not doing what he insists his readers should do; he's not listening to exactly what Jesus said. Jesus did not say, "The wine is His blood." Jesus didn't even mention wine. His exact word, if the author was listening, was "cup." Plus Jesus didn't even say that the cup is his blood. He said "This cup is the new covenant (i.e. testament)...". And he also said that "covenant" or "testament" is in his blood, not his blood itself. This ought to be especially important to keep in mind for those who are willing to accept this type of traditional Lutheran indoctrination. If the word "Is" is the "linguistic version of an equal sign," --as the author insists-- then Jesus definitely did not say that the wine is his blood; yet look back and see for yourself: that is exactly what the author claims Jesus said and meant! The author said, "The wine is His blood." Once again, this shows that this author is not playing by his own rules. This might be a display of inconsistency at its finest.

But it gets worse. The very next principle which the author insists we learn is "The Danger of Saying More than Jesus says." Underneath this gigantic headline within the book, the author writes these incredibly ironic words:

More than once in the Bible (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18), God warns about adding to His Word. There's a good reason for this: when we add what we mere sinful mortals think God says, we run a good chance of subtracting from what God actually meant for us to hear and to have.  ...Jesus didn't say, "This bread is changed into My body," but "This is My body." ...Jesus didn't say, "My body is now with this bread." He said, "This is My body." Holding strictly to the words He spoke, Lutherans believe that they receive both bread and His body, because the bread is His body.3

I get a kick out of reading the tremendous lengths this author is willing to trek in order to shape God's Word into his own "Lutheran" tradition. Rationalization like this is just plain old mysterious nonsense. I wish the author would just come right out and admit it. That would at least help his readers throw the book in the trash-bin sooner. 

1.  Scot Kinnaman [General Editor], Lutheranism 101 [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2010] p. 149

2.  pp. 149-50

3.  p. 151

Lutheranism 101: Partaking in a worthy manner

I recently came across a book distributed by a pastor of a local LCMS1 church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The book is titled Lutheranism 101, and it's a fairly basic book even though it fills almost three hundred 8"x10" pages with "official" Lutheran dogma (which I think is a fairly large sized book of basic "essentials"). I was especially caught off guard by a few "official" doctrines in the book, not that I had never heard of them before. It's just that I never heard contemporary answers to basic questions answered this, well, basically. For instance, in the section on the Lord's Supper, the question is asked, "Who Is Worthy?" with regard to participants in the sacred meal itself. The answer to that question is as follows:

Being worthy and well prepared to receive the Lord's Supper involves believing the words "given and shed." What is given and shed? Jesus' body and blood. In other words, worthiness involves believing that you are receiving Jesus' very2 body and blood. In the previous chapter, we mentioned that some believe that they receive only bread and wine, not Jesus' body and blood. To believe this is to contradict what Jesus Himself says in the Words of Institution; and that makes one unprepared for the Sacrament.3

Here are a few of my thoughts on this matter. First of all, I find it interesting that the author inserts the parallel phrase, worthy and well prepared, as he defines worthiness. Clearly, the author did not consider Paul's own words to be clear enough -- words which only warn Christians to not partake "in an unworthy manner" (I Cor. 11:27).  This author felt the need to add to what Paul actually said and to emphasize that additional concept. After all, neither Jesus or Paul made any mention of being "well prepared." In the last sentence of this definition, the author again mentions being "unprepared" for the Sacrament. And so, being "unworthy" is doctrinally and conceptually synonymous with being "unprepared." 

But what is another oddity of this view (besides adding terminology to what Paul actually said)? One other oddity is that Paul is the only one who mentions worthiness. Jesus doesn't mention that at all. Now, I realize that the doctrine of plenary inspiration necessitates Paul's canonical words to be the authorized words of God, and since Jesus is God, Paul's words are the authoritative words of Jesus. However, isn't it a bit odd that the author insists that Christian beliefs should not contradict what Jesus Himself really says, yet the author doesn't even reference the actual words of Jesus regarding "worthiness"? Let's not forget that he adds to Paul's terminology as well. 

But this operating definition looks even more suspicious when viewed much closer. The author says that receiving the Lord's Supper involves "believing the words 'given and shed.'" Well, I certainly believe that the meaning of Jesus' words "given" and "shed" were in some sense involved in receiving the Supper. But the author of Lutheranism 101 simply takes for granted what that sense is without clarifying that Jesus' statements don't necessarily share the same assumptions as this Lutheran author. It's a subtle maneuver, but it's definitely there; and this traditional Lutheran assumption is arbitrary as well. Let's see how this plays out practically.

Notice carefully that this author sneaks in two ideas while assuming that they both share a literal one-to-one correspondence in meaning. The author doesn't prove it. It is assumed in advance and taken for granted. On the one hand he says that worthiness "involves believing the words 'given and shed,'" but on the other hand he says that worthiness "involves believing that you are receiving Jesus' very (i.e. real or genuine) body and blood"; which is to say that if you don't believe you are receiving Jesus' real or genuine body and blood, you are not believing the words "given and shed." Did you catch that slight-of-hand too? He is assuming that the meaning of Jesus' words must share a literal one-to-one correspondence, but he's not telling you that the Words of Institution can mean something else, only one of which is that Jesus mysteriously amalgamated the real bread and wine with his real body "given" and his real "shed" blood. There are, in fact, other potential meanings to Jesus' Words of Institution. One does not need to adopt this traditional Lutheran assumption, especially if the Scriptures themselves do not infer that such assumptions are necessary to partake worthily or unworthily. 

Let's keep in mind what Jesus actually said in his Words of Institution:

This is my body given for you, do this in remembrance of me. ...This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20)

Let's now think of some alternatives. One possible meaning could be that Jesus mysteriously turned the bread and wine into his literal human flesh and blood. That is to say, those who partake of the bread and wine don't really partake of real bread and wine at all. They partake of something which appears to be bread and wine, but really is Jesus' flesh and blood. This, to me, seems to be an exaggerated claim. It assumes all sorts of things, one of which is that eating literal human flesh and blood would be lawful in God's sight, even though God strictly prohibits drinking sacrificial blood (Gen. 9:1-6; Lev. 17:10-14). Likewise, the Bible illustrates cannibalism in a handful of places, but it never condones it (Lev. 26:29; Deut. 28:53-57; 2 Kng. 6:28-29; Jer. 19:9; Lam. 2:20; Ezek. 5:10); rather it treats eating human flesh as a curse from God, which is probably why the Jews were abhorred by Jesus' words in John 6:52. They thought Jesus was speaking literally when he spoke of eating his flesh and blood; and so they thought, "How can this man [Jesus] give us his flesh to eat?"

Another possible meaning could be that Jesus mysteriously turned the bread and wine into his real body and blood, but only for his twelve apostles. That's at least possible. After all, he does say "this is my body...for you ...This cup is ...for you." And who was that particular "you"? It was the twelve apostles! Of course, because that seems to conflict with Paul's address to the Corinthian church, which included more participants in the Lord's Supper than just the twelve apostles, it's reasonable to conclude that such an interpretation would be completely arbitrary. Now, if there was a worldwide tradition which held that view, would you believe it just because it's traditional? I would hope not. Scripture itself should be the final authority for the Christian, not tradition.

Now let's consider the traditional Lutheran view again, only in more detail. The traditional Lutheran view is that Jesus' statement, "this is my body," was literally and mystically united with the bread in it's physical essence. I will admit, this is a possible interpretation. After all, when referencing the bread, Jesus does say "this is my body." Martin Luther himself is famous for this belief. There is even a famous incident at a meeting in Marburg, Saxony (modern day Germany) where various church leaders could not come to an agreement about Jesus' Words of Institution, and in the midst of the dialogue Luther began to pound his fist on the table, saying over and over again, "Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est corpus meum." ("This is my body, This is my body.")  In contrast with this famous incident, I find it very interesting that Luther did not insist in a literal interpretation of the phrase, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood." Luther interpreted the first statement as literal, but the second statement as representative and figurative. In other words, Luther assumed that the first statement was literal, and excused himself from needing to interpret the second statement as literal too, even though Jesus uses the exact same words to consecrate both elements. Jesus said "This [bread] is my body" and "This cup is the new covenant." 

Moreover, if Lutherans who hold to these traditional assumptions were consistent, they would need to argue that Jesus mysteriously united his real (physical & spiritual, human and divine) body and handed it (his real body) to his disciples in the form of bread, and that he did the same thing with the cup too. That is to say, with the cup, they would need to argue that Jesus mysteriously united the physical cup of wine in his hand as the literal new covenant itself. No other physical substance, other than the "cup" of wine, could possibly become mysteriously united with the new covenant. Jesus must have meant that the cup of wine would become the new covenant every time Christians partook of his blood "in a worthy manner." But what would it actually mean to literally unite a physical/non-spiritual cup of wine with a non-physical/spiritual covenant? Lutheranism 101 doesn't give an answer to that question, and I suspect that the traditional answer (if there even is one) would be arbitrarily based upon mere Lutheran tradition. Furthermore, why would anyone insist that such a distinction is essential to partaking worthily? One might expect Jesus or the Apostle Paul to have been a bit clearer in their presentation of the facts. (Were they clear enough?)

But let's get back on track with how serious the meaning of these Words of Institution are. Are these meanings the only viable options? The author of Lutheranism 101 is aware of at least one other optional tradition. He insists that,

...some [Christians] believe that they receive only bread and wine, not Jesus' body and blood. 

He then asserts with great confidence that, 

To believe this is to contradict what Jesus Himself says in the Words of Institution. 

That's quite an assertion. One would think that arbitrarily interpreting the bread as becoming his literal body, but the cup of wine not literally becoming the new covenant, would be a more blatant contradiction. And as far as I can tell, it's not contradictory at all to interpret both the bread and the cup of wine as representing Jesus body and blood. That, actually, would be very consistent and reasonable because the bread would represent his "given" body and the cup of wine would represent his "shed" blood. Neither the bread nor the cup of wine become anything other than sanctified bread and wine. Nothing mystical or supernatural invades or transforms the elements themselves. 

Moreover, if the bread and the wine of the new covenant represent the broken body and shed blood of Jesus which was given for us, then there would also be no need to strain the meaning of Jesus' words beyond what was actually spoken by Jesus and reiterated by the Apostle Paul. We wouldn't need to conjure up some rationale for Jesus uniting his "real" body and blood with a "real" loaf of bread and a "real" cup. We also wouldn't need to conjure up some strange "spiritual" extension of his dual-nature (as though the Scriptures allude to some extension, addition, or subtraction from his human & divine essence). And so, one very rational and reasonable meaning of the Words of Institution is actually what the author of Lutheranism 101 falsely claims to be contradictory, namely that the bread which Jesus broke represented Jesus' broken body, and that his blood shed on the cross was represented by a cup of red wine, and because of that participants in the Lord's Supper receive real bread and wine, not Jesus' real body and blood. Paul certainly seems to have interpreted it this way when he concludes, saying:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.4

Notice, Paul does not even come close to hinting in agreement with this claim of Lutheranism 101. Paul doesn't spend any time distinguishing between those who receive the real body and blood, and those who merely receive real bread and wine. Instead, what he says is that by eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord's Supper, they proclaim --they show forth-- their Lord's death. They don't receive the "real" body and blood of the Lord who died. They proclaim the Lord's death. They commemorate the unique covenantal meal in which Jesus and his disciples participated the night he was betrayed, leading to his death. In other words, when the Christian church eats the bread and drinks the cup, they don't proclaim the death of a literal Passover lamb, thereby renewing the old covenant. Instead, they proclaim their Lord's death over and over again as often as they do that together. They proclaim what the Passover lamb represented and what the old covenant anticipated. They ratify their covenant --the new covenant-- with Jesus. They receive a real covenantal meal, with real bread and wine, and they proclaim the real sacrifice for their sins -- Jesus Christ. One might even get the acute feeling that through faith, the Spirit of our risen Lord is present in the midst of his people as they feast on bread and wine together, uniting them in one love, one faith, and one baptism. If so, then thanks be to God.

1.  LCMS stands for Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod
2.  "Very" means real or genuine.
3.  Scot A. Kinnaman [General Editor] Lutheranism 101 [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2010] p. 155
4.  I Corinthians 11:26