RPW and the Passover
- Thread starter C. Matthew McMahon
- Start date
- Status
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Is a distinction commanded? What?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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 )
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
Christian Preacher
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?
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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.
Mark,
That's not novel. It's called Anglican/Lutheran worship.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
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.
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.
Originally posted by Saiph
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.
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.)
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
unless your 'filled with the spirit' 
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.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Mark, check out the articles here: http://members.aol.com/rsichurch/worship.html
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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 ?
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 ?
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
Christian Preacher
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
Puritan Board Junior
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]
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
Christian Preacher
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!
More later....need gas for the geenrator!
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
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]
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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.
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.
- Status
