# RPW and the Passover



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 11, 2005)

I have a very good friend that I am talking with about the RPW and how the Passover fits into things. I believe there are certain answers that are helpful, that I already have (from many of the theologians through history), but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks, or angles you would interject. 

Here is the question:

If the RPW teaches that we do not add into worhip what God does not command, and only follows what God does command, then how to we reconcile these two passges:

Exodus 12:11 And thus *you shall eat it*: with _a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand_. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD's Passover.

Then:

Luke 22:14-15 And when the hour came, he *reclined* at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 

We know - 1) Jesus does not sin. 2) That God commanded the Israelties to eat the passover stadning up, and in a certain manner. 3) That Jesus is celebrating the Passover.

How would you reconcile God telling the people to eat the Passover in a certain way, and the manner that Jesus ate the Passover?

Any thoughts appreciated.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

My conclusion is that the RPW is deficient. 

Now, I am not saying that what I have read on it so far is not compelling and deeply convicting. There are several grey areas though that I have found no answer for. 

Anxiously waiting to hear what hardcore RPW's will respond to the Passover dilemma.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> How would you reconcile God telling the people to eat the Passover in a certain way, and the manner that Jesus ate the Passover?



You mean "telling the _males_ to eat the Passover in a certain way," right?


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 11, 2005)

Matt,

Maybe I am being so plain as to miss the point, but isn't Exodus 12:1-12 a description of how the Israelites were to eat the Passover _on that night_ and not as a memorial? It seems as if Ex 12:14ff, and Exodus 13 refer to the memorial. For instance, the original passover was not 7 days, but the memorial feast is.


----------



## heartoflesh (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Matt,
> 
> Maybe I am being so plain as to miss the point, but isn't Exodus 12:1-12 a description of how the Israelites were to eat the Passover _on that night_ and not as a memorial? It seems as if Ex 12:14ff, and Exodus 13 refer to the memorial. For instance, the original passover was not 7 days, but the memorial feast is.



I was thinking this, but it seemed so simple I thought I must be wrong.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

I would say that it is reconciled in that God (in the person of Christ Jesus) himself was instituting a new sacrament (i.e. the Lord's supper). He has the authority to do this.

WCF:


> I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,(a) immediately instituted by God,(b) to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him;(c) as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world;(d) and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.(e)



Christ does not only obeys the RPW, he defines it (at least that's how I've looked at it).



[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 11, 2005)

I would explain it in that there was a change in the administration of the Passover from the Egyptian Passover (temporary), which is what that verse describes, versus the Levitical Passover (permanent for the nation of Israel), which is also allueded to in Ex 12 and codified in the cerimonial laws given to Israel. Both were established by God, therefore there is no real confussion between the two.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Also, Passover is a feast right ? ? Not an act of corporate worship.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Also, Passover is a feast right ? ? Not an act of corporate worship.


The Lords supper is a feast. Believers _feasting_ on Christ.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

I know Scott. And I am probably a heretic, but I think the Eucharist can be celebrated within the context of corporate worship, AND outside of that, like at a wedding, funeral, in a hospital, etc . .


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2005)

Official PB statement henceforth:

Mark Kodak is not a heretic.

:bigsmile:

You might be in error.......my opinion!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 11, 2005)

Fred, Wayne, et al. I am definitely with you there. The Passover on that night (thus the act of posture) was particularly tied to the Exodus from Egypt. 

That seems to be (to me) a simple misunderstanding of the passage to equate the Exodus (a historical redemptive event) with the Levitical passover. This certainyl gives way to the difference between circumstances in the regulating of any part of worship in this capacity, and the elements of it. Plus I also think (with Mark rightly) that the shadows of the Passover have a different regulation as it stands not being a complete corporate experiecne, and a household event that was optionally treated by each house and the manner they went about it (i.e. they could slaughter the animal or they could have the priest do it). But in terms of the passages above, it is neither here nor there in terms of the objection.

OK then - let's ask the next question and move to a different aspect of Jesus' Passover experience.

My good friend asks, in not so many words, how Jesus can celebrate the Passover by adding in the cups of blessing when the RPW does not inform us of this. Jesus 1) reclined at the table and 2) used the cups of blessing of the Seder meal - it seems He was following jewish Talmudic tradition in both these cases. 

How could Christ, without violating the RPW, add in 1) a Jewish Talmudic tradition of "reclining" at the table, and 2) the Jewish Tradition of the Seder cups of blessing by which he even translated to become the Lord's Supper - which was never commanded by God for Passover. He did this with the disicples for Passover.

How would you deal with this next idea overall?


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 11, 2005)

Matt,

I've said this before, but first we must establish beyond a shadow of doubt - which I don't think we can - that the Last Supper meal was the Passover meal.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 11, 2005)

I think that we have to differentiate between those things that are signs and those things which are doctrine. A sign is not necessarily doctrinal in all its aspects, but only to that which it is a sign of. You can't apply a metaphor literally; the same is true for signs and symbols. 

So, the question is not whether the Passover is the OT Lord's Supper, the pre-redemptive sign of the redemtptive event, and not even whether Jesus was justified in doing as He did. The question is how do we reconcile the directive not to add when Jesus seems to justify a traditional addition. 

I would guess that it only appears to be in line with Talmudic tradition, but is not necessarily so. It needs to be shown that this is a justification of Talmudic tradition, that other possibilities do not apply. Do we know that? Or was Jesus taking a liberty freely allowed by the OT directive for the Passover. He did so on other occasions, letting his disciples gather and eat grain on the Sabbath, healing on the Sabbath, walking on the Sabbath, etc. 

Just thinking out loud.

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 11, 2005)

Fred - 

As JOhnV said - and he's right - don't get off track there. I think JohnV is on track with really what the question is.

It does not matter if the Passover = the Lord's Supper or not. 

The question is how do we reconcile the directive not to add when Jesus seems to justify a traditional addition. 



> Or was Jesus taking a liberty freely allowed by the OT directive for the Passover. He did so on other occasions, letting his disciples gather and eat grain on the Sabbath, healing on the Sabbath, walking on the Sabbath, etc.



This is the point overall - how does one deal with this "discrepency for the Passover meal. Is Jesus allowed to "add" or is this something not particular to "adding" anything to worship? Is the RPW in affect here, or is something else going on? Can Jesus bless what He drinks before the Passover, or institute the cups of the Seder here following tradition, or not? Is He doing that or not?

Thoughts...


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

> Can Jesus bless what He drinks before the Passover, or institute the cups of the Seder here following tradition, or not? Is He doing that or not?



I do not know. But, when God told Abram to cut the animals, and then walked through them, He was making a covenant with a Chaldean using a Chaldean form of treaty.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> This is the point overall - how does one deal with this "discrepency for the Passover meal. Is Jesus allowed to "add" or is this something not particular to "adding" anything to worship? Is the RPW in affect here, or is something else going on? Can Jesus bless what He drinks before the Passover, or institute the cups of the Seder here following tradition, or not? Is He doing that or not?
> 
> Thoughts...



If one takes this line of thinking, it proves too much In my humble opinion. Following this, Christ could never have instituted another sacrament because that in itself would violate the RPW (i.e. adding to revelation). He also could never stop practicing the old sacrament of circumcision/passover because that too would be a violation of the RPW.

I think it is being made too complicated. God controls what we do in worship. He instituted new sacraments and did away with the old. If it was anyone but Christ, I guess I could see this objection, but since it was God himself instituting the acts of worship, what's the problem?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 11, 2005)

Another possibility, or one that is a bit different than the one Mark suggested, would be whether we understand the RPW arightly: does it really forbid such things in lieu of it stating or commanding what it does state or command? Is it the wearing of sandals, eating in haste ( remember, the had no Bromo back then   ) etc., including standing, a circumstance to the meaning that it alludes to, namely that of remembering how God had delivered them? Would another way of remembering be allowed? Is that the intent, the intent being important rather than the specific directives of standing, shod, on the run, etc.?

Somehow I think I talked myself out of that one just by trying to explain it. Sorry about that. But I think it is still a valid question whether we understand the RPW rightly. You know, in applying it one way we are obviating it another way by doing so. We could be breaking it in thinking we are keeping it. It is a legitimate question.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 11, 2005)

I believe the answer lies in what consitutes elements (bitter herbs, lamb, etc.) and what constitutes circumstance (sitting, standing, leaning, red cloak, blue cloak, white cloak, etc.). Without making those distinctions there is no possibility between doing what God directs, and what we think He directs.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 11, 2005)

Well, I guess that says it better than I did. I tried to avoid using the words "circumstance" and "element". Not a good idea, I suppose. Still, you have to admit, then, that it is a question of definition, not of "whether to", concerning the RPW. This question does not necessarily call into question the RPW, but rather of how it applies. Or, to say it another way, it defines for us not the RPW itself, but rather what are elements for the RPW as opposed to circumstance of it.

So if your friend is using this as a contradiction in which the RPW is juxtaposed to Jesus' own commands and example, then I would say it is a _non sequitur_, that his conclusion does not follow. At least not strictly speaking.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2005)

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12218


----------



## Saiph (Oct 12, 2005)

> Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the LORD at Jerusalem to keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel. For the king and his princes and all the assembly in Jerusalem had taken counsel to keep the Passover in the second month-- for they could not keep it at that time because the priests had not consecrated themselves in sufficient number, nor had the people assembled in Jerusalem-- and the plan seemed right to the king and all the assembly. So they decreed to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, that the people should come and keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel, at Jerusalem, for they had not kept it as often as prescribed. So couriers went throughout all Israel and Judah with letters from the king and his princes, as the king had commanded, saying, "O people of Israel, return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that he may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria. Do not be like your fathers and your brothers, who were faithless to the LORD God of their fathers, so that he made them a desolation, as you see. Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the LORD and come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever, and serve the LORD your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you. For if you return to the LORD, your brothers and your children will find compassion with their captors and return to this land. For the LORD your God is gracious and merciful and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him." So the couriers went from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them. However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD. And many people came together in Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the second month, a very great assembly. They set to work and removed the altars that were in Jerusalem, and all the altars for burning incense they took away and threw into the Kidron valley. *And they slaughtered the Passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the second month. And the priests and the Levites were ashamed, so that they consecrated themselves and brought burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. They took their accustomed posts according to the Law of Moses the man of God. The priests threw the blood that they received from the hand of the Levites. For there were many in the assembly who had not consecrated themselves.* Therefore the Levites had to slaughter the Passover lamb for everyone who was not clean, to consecrate it to the LORD. For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, * had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. *For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, *"May the good LORD pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, the LORD, the God of his fathers, even though not according to the sanctuary's rules of cleanness." And the LORD heard Hezekiah and healed the people. * And the people of Israel who were present at Jerusalem kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with great gladness, and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with all their might to the LORD. And Hezekiah spoke encouragingly to all the Levites who showed good skill in the service of the LORD. So they ate the food of the festival for seven days, sacrificing peace offerings and giving thanks to the LORD, the God of their fathers. * Then the whole assembly agreed together to keep the feast for another seven days. So they kept it for another seven days with gladness. *For Hezekiah king of Judah gave the assembly 1,000 bulls and 7,000 sheep for offerings, and the princes gave the assembly 1,000 bulls and 10,000 sheep. And the priests consecrated themselves in great numbers. The whole assembly of Judah, and the priests and the Levites, and the whole assembly that came out of Israel, and the sojourners who came out of the land of Israel, and the sojourners who lived in Judah, rejoiced. So there was great joy in Jerusalem, for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem. Then the priests and the Levites arose and blessed the people, and their voice was heard, and their prayer came to his holy habitation in heaven.



Doen's the idea too keep it an additional 7 days seem as arbitrary as not consecrating themselves was ? Or is that circumstance and not element ? This whole passage sems to be a worse violation of the RPW than Nadab and Abihu.

Thoughts ?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 12, 2005)

I've been reading these threads and thinking about them. And this thought came to mind: it is not possible not to have some kind of regulation for worship. To argue that there is no RPW is self-contradictory, because it is a regulatory remark. It is similar to the argument that Exclusive Psalmody by virtue of the RPW is actually a breaking of the RPW instead, because it introduces something extra ( a rule not found in Scripture ) into the commandment. Or we could say that this notion which I just expressed, that to argue that there is no RPW constitutes a RPW itself, is about the same as arguing to the effect, as some charismatic churches like to do, of "no doctrine", which of course is a doctrine itself already. It is a futile argument; either one has _Sola Scriptura_ for his principle or one has the ruling or whims of the elders or leaders as his principle, but one necessarily has a principle. So there is a RPW either way. 

It seems to me that the RPW would be two-fold: first, that true worship consists only what is acceptable to God, in obedience to the commands given in Scripture, not adding elementally to it; and second, that the consequence of worship is to consist of the proper and good ruling of the elders, who themselves strive not to mix foreign elements to worship while accommodating the free worhip of the congregation in accordance with Scripture. 

For example, it may happen that a dispute of a disruptive nature breaks out over the inclusion of some hymns. As it may be that the elders are ill-equipped for a time to sort out every hymn that is included in the hymnal, but nevertheless they decide that the hymnal does not meet their requirements for Scriptural and unified worship, they may institute a policy of singing only of the Psalms. In this case they have ruled well without breaking the RPW, assuming that a ruling that Scripture demands the singing of only Psalms is a breaking of the RPW. 

I am not arguing here that the RPW does not include a directive to only sing Psalms. That's not the point. I am assuming it for the sake of argument to show that elders have the right to rule, and are ruling well, in administering a regulation for the peace and unity, and for the facilitation of the free worship ( free of strife and vexation, that is ) of their charge, the congregation. 

I could use another example: the elders may decide to administer the bread and the wine from a table to which the congregation does not ascend, by virtue of the fact that many in the congregation are too infirm to do so. ( Think of a congregation of elderly people in a community for the elderly, which includes a church. I know that this is stretching things a bit, but it is to demonstrate the authority given to the elders to translate some things into practical administration for the purpose of removing obstructions to worship and yet upholding a fully regulative and Scriptural policy.) I am suggesting that the ruling of the church requires the elders to freely exercise their just judgments for the purpose of the worship of the congregation, even in areas not specifically mentioned in Scripture without the fear of obstructing or breaking the RPW. 

This, I think, is Schlissel's problem, as stated in the other thread: he cannot justify nor rule out even his own judgments unless he contradicts his own policy of refutation of the RPW. He has not only lost the RPW, but also the freedom of his elders to rule well as to the peace, unity, and freedom of their own congregation on extra-Biblical issues; and he has lost those because he has no RPW to apply, as he believes. In order to rule the circumstances, one must rule the elements in accordance with Scripture. 

So all he has done in actuality is call into question what constitutes the RPW, not refute it. The same would be true for those who place circumstances or even elements of Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper against His own commands for worship. They are not showing contradiction in use of the RPW, but rather suggesting contradiction in our Lord Himself. For no one can actually do without a RPW, even when they make a specific rule that there be no RPW, for that itself constitutes a RPW. If they back up their notion with Scripture, then it is just a different RPW, not a negation of it. Either way, they claim to be guided by Scripture alone in their worship.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Matt,
> 
> I've said this before, but first we must establish beyond a shadow of doubt - which I don't think we can - that the Last Supper meal was the Passover meal.



Hmmm ... what does that say about all those "Christ in the Passover" presentations so popular among certain Christians?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 12, 2005)

Matt and Tom:

I think you misunderstand Fred's post here. Typology is not exact point for point replacement. The application asked for in the question posed is a _non-sequitur_; that's saying exactly the same thing that Fred said.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Oct 12, 2005)

The Last Supper: was it a Passover Seder? Part 1


----------



## tcalbrecht (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Matt and Tom:
> 
> I think you misunderstand Fred's post here. Typology is not exact point for point replacement. The application asked for in the question posed is a _non-sequitur_; that's saying exactly the same thing that Fred said.



I understand Fred's point. However, if Jesus and the disciples were participating in a passover meal when He instituted the Lord's Supper, how does one reconcile what is decsribed there with what we find in Exodus and Leviticus? I don't think that is a non-sequitur.

Granted that we do not need to keep the particular circumstances from the type to the anti-type, but Jesus was in an old/new situation.

Of course the RPW problem goes away if it was not a passover meal, but was a meal on the night before the passover was usually celebrated.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Matt and Tom:
> 
> I think you misunderstand Fred's post here. Typology is not exact point for point replacement. The application asked for in the question posed is a _non-sequitur_; that's saying exactly the same thing that Fred said.



John, I'm not really interested in the Lord's Supper at all, or a transition from one to the other. I AM interested in how Jesus partook of the PASSOVER itself. (Forget the LS for now.)

If Jesus partook of the Passover, and He did, can He add to the Passover by the cups of blessings and instituting Jewish Tradition (blessings the cups) at Passover without a "direct command" of God to do so?

This is the question.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 12, 2005)

Matt:

OK. I wasn't sure because of Tom's post, so I added your name to it too. I understand what you're getting at. I would still answer that an argument against the RPW is merely an argument for another RPW instead, because whether one has a RPW or one does not have a RPW, one has a RPW ( to abuse Aristotle's quote on philosophy somewhat. ) The only question would be whether he has *the* RPW or not.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 12, 2005)

Here are my friend's questions:

_________________________________________

First, you now have a sort of artificial way of reading Exodus 12:1-12 as applicable to the Egyptian Passover "œexclusively". It might be easy, but it ain´t right! That dog won´t hunt. May I remind you of your words?

Exodus 12:1-12 a description of how the Israelites were to eat the Passover on that night and not as a memorial"¦.There was a change in the administration of the Passover from the Egyptian Passover (temporary), which is what that verse describes, versus the Levitical Passover (permanent for the nation of Israel), which is also alluded to in Ex 12 and codified in the ceremonial laws given to Israel. Both were established by God, therefore there is no real confusion between the two.

There are several items in Exodus 12:1-12 that are recognized in the other so-called Levitical Passover passages that recognize and confirm the perpetual binding authority of these items which crossovers into the so-called Levitical Passover. 

Example # 1 "“The date and time in Exodus 12:1-12 is normative for all Passovers not unique to the Egyptian Passover.

Exodus 12:1 Now the LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, 2 "This month shall be the beginning of months for you; it is to be the first month of the year to you"¦. Exodus 12:6 6 'You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight.

Leviticus 23:5 5 'In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the LORD'S Passover.
Numbers 28:16 16 'Then on the fourteenth day of the first month shall be the LORD'S Passover.
Deuteronomy 16:1 "Observe the month of Abib and keep the Passover to the LORD your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night.

The exact day of the Passover is first noted in Ex. 12:1-2,6 and reaffirmed in the so-called Levitical Passovers thus the "œday" marked in the "œEgyptian Passover" is the day reiterated in Lev. 23:5 and Num, 28:16. Oddly in Deut 16: 1 only the month is mentioned. 

Example #2- Although in the so-called Levitical Passovers ( Ex.23:14-19; 34:18-26; Lev 23:4-8; Num 28:16; Deut.16:1-9) RPW proscribes where a sacrifice is to be offered when God placed them in the promise land it nowhere proscribes what precisely is to be sacrificed nor how precisely it was to be prepared nor what was to occur with the leftovers. All of this comes from Exodus 12:1-12 which you relegate to a one time exclusive Egyptian Passover. 

Exodus 12:3-6 3 "Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, 'On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers' households, a lamb for each household. 4 'Now if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his neighbor nearest to his house are to take one according to the number of persons in them; according to what each man should eat, you are to divide the lamb. 5 'Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 'You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight.

Exodus 12:8-10 8 'They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 9 'Do not eat any of it raw or boiled at all with water, but rather roasted with fire, both its head and its legs along with its entrails. 10 'And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire.

In none of the so-called Levitical Passover instructions are the following issues addressed which are exclusively addressed in the Egyptian Passover. 

1.	The fact that the sacrifice was to be a lamb (Ex. 12:3)
2.	The fact that it was to be a male lamb one year old (Ex.12: 5)
3.	The fact that it was to be a lamb per household unless the household was too small in which case it was to be shared (Ex. 12:3-4)
4.	The fact that it was to be killed at twilight (Ex. 12:6)
5.	The fact it is suppose to be roasted with fire (Ex.12: 8)
6.	The fact that leftovers were to be burnt before morning (Ex.12:10).
7.	The fact that it cannot be eaten raw or boiled (Ex. 12:9)
8.	The fact that it is to be roasted with head and legs along with its entrails (Ex. 12: 9).

Do you mean to suggest that all this information which is present in Exodus 12:1-14 is not the RPW for the Levitical priests when they administer the service of sacrifice in the temple? Surely Ex.12:1-14 is not "œtemporary", but "œnormative" with only slight exceptions and even those are explained in light of Christ (blood on the doorposts). Thus there is no nice clean cut division between the Egyptian Passover and all subsequent Passovers rather there is a high level of continuity. 

3. In the so-called Levitical Passovers certain things are demanded which only find their answers in Exodus 12:1-12

Example 1 Israelites are commanded in the so-called Levitical Passover texts not to appear before the Lord empty handed but what are they to bring? It is specified in Exodus 12:1-14 namely a 1 year old lamb without blemish. How would they know? 

Exodus 23:15 You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. None shall appear before me empty-handed.
Deuteronomy 16:16 "Three times a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God at the place that he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths. They shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed.

Example 2 In the so-called Levitical Passover the Israelites are commanded to have nothing leftover in the morning but what were they to do with if they could not finish it? Only Ex. 12: 10 supplies the proscription

Exodus 23:18 "You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; nor is the fat of My feast to remain overnight until morning.
Exodus 34:25 "You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread, nor is the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover to be left over until morning.

4. Your compartmentalizing the "œeating in haste" passage of Ex. 12:11 to the "œexclusive Egyptian Passover" is apparently subverted by RPW in the OT itself. The "œhaste" motif is continued in the so-called Levitical Passover. The overwhelming continuity of all the above places the burden of proof on you to tritely dismiss the posture of the meal to a flippant circumstance which can easily be discarded. 


Deuteronomy 16:3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it. Seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction- for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste- that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt. 

5. I never said that eating with staff in hand etc was an element simply that your disabled analogy was a red herring. Its still a red herring with regard to the handicapped. For example the handicapped would have been barred from presenting offerings as a priest.

Leviticus 21:17 "Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the bread of his God.


Here is an honest question where I need an honest answer. God prescribed that the Passover be eaten staff in hand "˜loins girded etc. For the sake of discussion in your opinion was that a "œcircumstance" in the Egyptian Passover or was that an "œelement"? If a "œcircumstance" were the Israelites free to use or discard it at their discretion without corrupting worship? If it was an "œelement" then why not normative in light of the above? 

For the sake of brevity I cannot explore the actual Passovers which occurred in the OT which have elements that come exclusively from the Egyptian Passover and find no sanction on the so-called Levitical Passovers. There are some instances where what your would consider the Puritan RPW of Passover worship was wholly set aside such as in Josiah´s Passover which you recently preached on. 

___________________________________

I've already answered him, and think he is making a few fundamental mistakes. Your thoguhts?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 12, 2005)

Just though of something. Is the distinction between "circumstance" and "element" commanded in the Bible ? I have not come across that yet in my readings on the RPW, yet everyone mentions it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 12, 2005)

Is a distinction commanded? What?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 13, 2005)

Just off the top of my head, which is usually fuzzy with hair, I would ask how the question follows the givens, the premises as laid out? Who says that Jesus was not clad in such as way as to celebrate the Passover in haste? Was He not always clad that way, as an itinerant preacher, going from place to place, with no place to hang His turban? It is said that He had a home in Capernaum, but He was on the road most all the time. And He even said one time that He had no home; and Isaiah and John testify that his own received Him not, so that He was not at home among His people, like those fleeing the slavery of Egypt. 

At the time of the Passover, He was in Jerusalem, or at least in a small town nearby Jerusalem. 

As someone who was always on the road, His reclining at table was as much an obedience to the directive as the command for those who celebrated in their homes who ate as if on the move. In fact, the circumstance for Him was real, not so as to imagine for remembrance sake. Whether He reclined or stood, or whatever circumstance, His partaking was more literally obedient than those who did all the right things by directive for the sake of tradition or piety, or even for the sake of their religious obeservances. He was in haste, no matter his posture or clothes. 

When Jesus gave the morsel to Judas, He said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." Later He says, " Yet a little while and ye will see me no more", as He speaks to His disciples about His departure and going to the Father. "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you." And he repeats to them, "Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid" as if something was immediately impending. 

At the end of this discourse He says, "I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe. I no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming." It seems to me that Jesus is implementing the directives even more than the RPW calls for, not less. 

( Passages from John 13-14 )


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 13, 2005)

Here is the dilemma that is an important point for us to wrestle with - 

1) The Reformed RPW teaches that in worship, things that are not commanded are forbidden. 

2) Jesus celebrated the Passover. Passover is corporate worship (sacrament).

3) In the Passover there is no command to 1) insitute cups of blessing during the Passover, or 2) bless those cups as part of the Passover meal. Both of which Christ did. These also, the disciples would have known about, being raised on Seder - and THEY were commanded to set up and prepare teh Passover. Intertestimental and Jewish documents talk exstensively about the cups of blessing - so these things were TRADITION. Jesus combined the cups of blessing with the Passover BEFORE the change with the words of institution to the Lord's Supper AFTER Passover, or after the Passover meal. SO the cups of blessing, a Jewish Tradition, were added INTO the Passover meal with no positive prescription by God to do so. 

4) If Jesus "added" to the Passover that which God DID NOT command, *how then does the Reformed RPW stand?*

Thoughts?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 13, 2005)

My take on RPW is now very different. And, I will probably be branded a heretic. So here it is.

We DO what God commands.
We ABSTAIN from what He forbids.
And in the grey areas, we look to those two ends of the spectrum, and find biblical reasons to affirm or deny any given element, or circumstance.

Worship, above all, must be reverent, and orderly, and directed to God alone.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> My take on RPW is now very different. And, I will probably be branded a heretic. So here it is.
> 
> We DO what God commands.
> ...



Mark,

That's not novel. It's called Anglican/Lutheran worship.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

Oh yeah, I am Anglican . . . 

So, where do you think it breaks down ?

Frame says everything we do is either aligned with or departs from a direct command. There are no grey or "morally neutral" decision.
Even buying cabbage fits into the RPW.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)




----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 14, 2005)

It is a failure to discern between what God commands as a corporate body, and what He commands in private worship. 

DG Hart in his book, "Recovering Mother Kirk" is very good in pointing out Frame's mistakes based on post-modernism. I don't agree with all his book, but there are some very good chapters. That was one of them.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Oh yeah, I am Anglican . . .
> 
> So, where do you think it breaks down ?
> ...



That is further evidence of why Frame is out to lunch on Reformed worship. I would rather discuss worship with an Anglican who knows what he believes and is intellectually honest.

For Frame, it is all about saying that you believe in the Regulative Principle, then redefining the RPW to include all of life, then stating the (logical conclusion) that there is no way that Scripture can cover every aspect of life, and therefore (SURPRISE!) the RPW is actually exactly like the Anglican position. (I've just summed up _Worship in Spirit and Truth_, one of the worst books ever written on the subject.)


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

Ah, my understanding of the RPW, derives mostly from Frame's essays and book.

Cannot afford to buy _Jus Divinum . ._ just yet.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

On one level, you realize, we should have an RPW for private worship, as well as one for Public worship perhaps ?

I mean, I cannot just do whatever I want during family worship in my living room can I ? ?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 14, 2005)

unless your 'filled with the spirit'


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Ah, my understanding of the RPW, derives mostly from Frame's essays and book.
> 
> Cannot afford to buy _Jus Divinum . ._ just yet.



Mark,

You seriously need to look at something else. You will at least want to reject the reality rather than a straw man (and not a particularly well build straw man at that).

Jus Divinum would not be the place to look for the RPW. I would suggest the modern _Leading in Worship_ by Terry Johnson, _Give Praise to God_ an anthology edited by Ligon Duncan and Derek Thomas, and explanations on the Confession by Williamson,Shaw or Hodge. Sam Waldron also has an excellent explanation in his commentary on the 1689.

You could also look at the classics - Calvin's chapters in the Institutes, Burrough's _Gospel Worship_ and others - but I think it might be easiest to start with some good modern defenses of the RPW.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

I have read Williamson, Hodge, and Calvin. So I will look for the others on your list Fred. Thanks.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

Mark, check out the articles here: http://members.aol.com/rsichurch/worship.html


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 14, 2005)

Mark had a good question about 2 Chronciles 30. How could Hezekiah institute a Passover after it had passed?

Hezekiah had probably thought, "The time has elapsed for this year; we cannot have it right now". "Not many people attentive to what's going on, the priests are not prepared (see verse 3). What are we going to do? Should we wait until next year?" That would be like waiting until next year to take the Lord's Supper because we missed it this Sunday (to a certain extent - but you get the point). Therefore, finding a "proviso" in the law is the ansswer - certain persons who were unclean in the first month might keep the passover the fourteenth day of the second month and be accepted (Num. 9:11). So he extended it without a problem.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 17, 2005)

Something else I wonder about. 
In Esther, the commemorative feast of Purim is established arbitrarily.
I do not see where God commanded it. Wouldn'e this be similar to Christians today celebrating Easter or Christmas ?

And in John 5 Christ was in Jerusalem for an unnamed feast, and a few scholars have rejected the idea that this was Purim because it is considered a "œminor" feast and not one of the shelosh regalim (three pilgrimage festivals). But we know Jesus DID celebrate Chanukah (John 10:22) which is also another "œminor" feast.

How do these things fit into RPW ?
It is because these are not acts of corporate worship in the templw but feast days, which even Paul says we should not judge each other regarding such things ?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Something else I wonder about.
> In Esther, the commemorative feast of Purim is established arbitrarily.
> I do not see where God commanded it. Wouldn'e this be similar to Christians today celebrating Easter or Christmas ?
> ...



Plug: David Lachman deals with these arguments from the non RPW side, as presented in R. J. Gore's dissertation (which he later condensed into his book Covenantal Worship) in _Reframing Presbyterian Worship,_ an article in the 2005 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal. See this offer soon to expire here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=14177

For free, check out the appendix to the article, _The Religious Observance of Christmas and 'Holy Days' in American Presbyterianism,_ where an extract from Thomas M'Crie's lectures on Esther is given, representing one Presbyterian author's understanding of Purim.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/americanxmas.htm
See also:
Calderwood's Reasons against Festival Days
http://www.naphtali.com/days.htm
and
Gillespie on Holy Days
http://www.naphtali.com/GGhodays.htm
and
Gilfillan on Holy Days
http://www.naphtali.com/holidays.htm


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Something else I wonder about.
> In Esther, the commemorative feast of Purim is established arbitrarily.
> I do not see where God commanded it. Wouldn'e this be similar to Christians today celebrating Easter or Christmas ?
> ...



Mark,

Great question. This may falls under the authority of lawful oaths and vows, or the Civil Magistrate instituting a day of thanksgiving, and the like. 

"Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[7] neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.* [Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.*" WCF 22:3


----------



## Saiph (Oct 27, 2005)

After reading the links posted, and thinking about this more, I think Fred may be on to something.

Is Christ actually celebrating Passover ?

Was the seder meal really the Passover God prescribed ? No.
So was Jesus using the "occasion" of the seder to introduce the new feast of the Lord's supper, since the imagery of Passover would still be usefull in drawing their minds to the sacrificial Lamb ? (He used the cup of Jewish tradition to emblem His blood)

This would imply that Eucharist has more to do with Mechizadek, and the manna (John 6), than Passover right ? ?

Or am I on the wrong track ?

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 27, 2005)

I think you are on a good track. There is an overlap here that should be considered. Christ took the occasion, providentially, to deal with the inauguration of the Covenant Meal.

More later....need gas for the geenrator!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 31, 2005)

One interesting response I have seen is that the Jews distinguished in their literature (which literature is admittedly around 200AD in the form we presently have it) between the Egyptian Passover and the Permanent Passover. The "added items" of the Permanent Passover were not considered mitzvoth and may be left undone. That simple. We have similar
items in our worship today that fall under rubric, form, and circumstance. This does not touch on the fundamental teaching of the RPW at all.



[Edited on 11/3/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 31, 2005)

Considereing this thread, I do not think that He merely used the "occasion" of Passover with the non RPW elements to initiate the new covenant meal.



> Luk 22:15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.



Hidden _Sensus Plenior_ ?

Zechariah 7 and 8 have interesting connotations as well regarding how God responded to man made worship practices.

Nadab & Abihu being in the Levitical administration of the COG is not convincing for the RPW. That makes Purim, Hannukah, Passover, for the regulativist _crux interpretum_.


----------

