by Joseph N. Kickasola, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Old Testament, Ashland Theological Seminary
Outline
I. Introduction
II. General Considerations
A. Feasts
B. Offerings
C. Leviticus 17:11
III. Sacrificial Procedure: Three Categories and the Six Ritual Acts
A. Expiation (Crisis Experience)
1. Presentation
2. Leaning
3. Slaughter
4. Manipulation
B. Consecration (Changing Experience)
5. Sublimation
C. Celebration (Sharing Experience)
6. Meal
IV. Significance of Ritual Acts: Three Fulfillment Aspects
A. Objective-Central Aspect: Christ
1. Expiation (Crisis-Blood): The Death of Christ
2. Consecration (Changing-Fire): The Life of Christ
3. Celebration (Sharing-Meal): The Supper of Christ
B. Subjective-Individual Aspect: Christ within the Christian
1. Expiation (Crisis-Blood): Conversion
2. Consecration (Changing-Fire): Sanctification
3. Celebration (Sharing-Meal): Communion Joy
C. Ceremonial-Corporate Aspect: Christ in the Christian Ceremonies
1. Expiation (Crisis-Blood): Eucharist
2. Consecration (Changing-Fire): Pedilavium
3. Celebration (Sharing-Meal): Agape
V. Practical Observations
A. Sequence
B. Manner
I. Introduction
The purpose of this study, Leviticus and Trine[1] Communion, is to restudy the New Testament ceremonies of the Eucharist (the bread and cup of blessing), the Pedilavium (the ceremonial washing of feet), and the Agape (the love-feast, the Lord’s Supper) from an Old Testament perspective. This study is needful for two reasons. The first reason is that it has been more than a decade since these have been studied together.[2] The second reason is that these three have never been studied together in the light of Old Testament ceremonial (sacrificial) categories.[3] It is the view of this writer that the implications of Levitical procedure for Christian liturgy are significant, and have been largely overlooked, and are herein the distinctively new element. Perhaps a third need can be mentioned. As a professor of Old Testament at Ashland Theological Seminary I share its conservative-evangelical Christian presuppositions, but they are in the Anabaptist, Believers’ Church, tradition, and I in the Reformed. They have welcomed my private and public opinions on these things which are very precious to them, and see the need for fertile exchange of different perspectives. I reciprocate in the spirit of warm negotiability by offering this study to them, not as a critique of their ideas on this subject, but, as fulfilling the third need, namely my own independent attempt to theologize an experience they have given to me.
The quest began by an attempt to understand the meaning of the Pedilavium. The day after these feet-washing ceremonies I would feel warmly human and good about what I, in Christ, had done, and what had been done by Christian brothers to me, but could not understand why I felt that way. The idea that I was acting in imitation of and in obedience to Christ, while an impressive point, was not to me sufficient. The points of sin-washing and service were more impressive still, though inconclusive for our day. During one of these feet-washing ceremonies Delbert Flora, professor emeritus of Biblical Archaeology, shared privately with me the notion that a participant in such a service is a “priest.” Since then the idea of “priest” to me has connoted “service” in two senses: serving and ceremony. It is precisely the latter that to me is the most cogent rationale for the Pedilavium (or Agape) in the postapostolic age, namely, liturgical need. Modern man needs very much to ceremonialize his active and passive consecration to God, and the need is clearly true for Biblical man; washing and being washed expresses it in a powerful and Biblical way. We all hold to the normativity of the Eucharist. It is the position of this study that while the Pedilavium and Agape cannot be proven to be normative Christian worship, they are normal, and are intensely appropriate expressions of the ceremonial categories in both the Old and New Testaments. The large liturgical load which many believers place upon the Eucharist alone needs to be carefully yet tolerantly reexamined. We should all seek to theologize what we are doing. To those who observe Trine Communion, and to those who for innovative worship want to experiment in this area, we humbly offer this as one Biblical option.
There needs to be a word of caution here about experimentation as a hermeneutic. I am not experimenting with sacraments. There are only two: non-recurrent Baptism and recurrent Eucharist. The question is, did Jesus intend for the Pedilavium or the Agape to be an ongoing part of the second sacrament, whose constituent element is the Eucharist? As to liturgical experimentation, it is my view that while experience must not be an exegetical or hermeneutical device to open up the Scriptures, it can occassionally have the effect of opening up the person to some possibly genuine Scriptural options. But the Scriptures must still be independently exegeted. The personally creative possibilities of experience are especially true in Holy Communion where there is, as Joseph Shultz in another context has said, a shift in emphasis (but only emphasis) from propositionalizing truth to experiencing truth, from the messenger (prophet) to the message, from communication to communion, and from His revelation to the Revelation Himself.[4] It is always healthy to keep these two aspects together. Body and spirit are inseparable in this life; we sin as persons, as psychosomatic units. Though offensive to the superspiritual, it is a tribute to the altar-theology of Leviticus that there is no cleavage between ceremonial sin and moral sin. This precious pre-Christian (but not sub-Christian) book moves from one to the other without disjunction or distinction.
For those outside Trine-Communion churches, perhaps an introductory word ought to be given on the historical scope of modern practice. My colleague, Jerry Flora, professor of Christian Theology, in an informal class outline, succinctly provides us with the scope of Agape observance, several of these groups still retaining the Pedilavium as well.
The Christian Church (Disciples) formerly observed the Agape, as did also the United Brethren and many Baptists. The Methodist Church originally had what it called a love-feast, bread and water taken in the morning preceding the observance of the Eucharist in the evening. The Agape is celebrated also by the Brethren groups, the Brethren in Christ, the Church of God, the Mennonites, and the Amish.
Finally, an introductory word on the scope of this study itself. Although there follows a brief word on the appointed sacrificial feasts (Leviticus 23), and the different types of offerings, the focus is on the sacrificial ritual actions themselves, and on their liturgical-procedural categories. In a word, this is a study on the sequence and significance of Old Testament sacrificial rituals and the New Testament ramifications of these, especially for Christian ceremonies. To this task we now turn.
II. General Considerations
A. Feasts
The major passages on the annual feasts of ancient Israel are Ex. 12, 23, 34; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; and Deut. 16. Each of these six passages, in a noncomprehensive way, contributes to the total picture of Israel’s liturgical calendar. For example, Num. 28–29 concentrates on the offerings themselves (cf. 28:2, 29:39). This passage can be outlined as follows:
I. Offerings of Appointed Times (28:1—29:40)
A. Introduction (28:1–2)
B. Body (28:3—29:38)
1. Daily (Continual) Offerings (28:3–8)
2. Weekly (Sabbath) Offerings (28:9–10)
3. Monthly (New Moon) Offerings (28:11–15)
4. Annual (Feast) Offerings (28:16—29:38)
C. Conclusion (29:39–40)
There is a slightly different arrangement of material in Lev. 23, which emphasizes the appointed times (feasts) themselves. It can be outlined as follows:
I. Appointed Times (23:1–44)
A. Introduction (1–2)
B. Sabbath (3)
C. Feasts (4–43)
1. Introduction (4)
2. Feasts (5–43)
(1) Passover (5)
(2) Unleavened Bread (6–8)
(3) First Fruits (9–14)
(4) Pentecost (15–22)
(5) Trumpets (23–25)
(6) Atonement (26–32)
(7) Tabernacles (33–43)
D. Conclusion (44)
The significance of the feasts can best be gained by using the focus of Lev. 23 as a basis, and by comparing the parallel passages and New Testament with it. The following brief outline on the significance of Israel’s liturgical calendar seeks to do just that.[5]
I. The Seven Feasts of Leviticus 23
A. Three Feasts of the First Month (Spring)
1. Feast of Passover (23:5)
BLOOD. This feast is called Passover (pesah) in the Bible, and in post-Biblical literature it is also called “the feast of the liberation” (hag haheruth), or “the time of our liberation” (zeman heruthenu). It begins in the middle (full moon) of the first month of the religious calendar, on the 14th of Nisan (March-April), also called the month of Abib, just at twilight. It signifies liberation from Egyptian bondage through the BLOOD of the Passover lamb, and deliverance from our sins through the blood of Jesus the Christ, the Lamb of God, which He shed on Good Friday of Holy Week.
2. Feast of Unleavened Bread (23:6–8)
BODY. This feast, called Unleavened Bread (matsoth), is held for seven days on the 15th-21st of the same spring month (Nisan/Abib), and the bread signifies the undefiled body of our Lord which is broken for us, and the undefiled (unleavened) walk of fellowship we, the body of Christ, have in Him who is the Bread of Heaven. All day Saturday of Holy Week (and part of Friday and Sunday) the body of Jesus lay in the tomb.
3. Feast of First Fruits (23:9–14)
RESURRECTION. Just as Passover and the week of Unleavened Bread were often thought of as one Feast of Unleavened Bread, so this Feast of First Fruits and Pentecost (which follows) were thought of as one Feast of Harvest (qatsir). This feast is called the Feast of First Fruits (reshith), in which the Israelite is commanded to bring in “the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest” (omer reshith qetsirkhem, 23:10). The barley sheaf was waved before the Lord at this beginning of the harvest season, which was followed fifty days later by the Feast of Harvest (hag haqqatsir) wherein was offered the “first fruits of the wheat harvest” (bikkure qestir hittim, Ex. 34:22). The Feast of First Fruits occurs on the 16th of Nisan/Abib, the second day of Unleavened Bread, which is known in Scripture as being “on the morrow (day) after the sabbath” (mimmohorath hashabbath, Lev. 23:11, 15), the “sabbath” being the 15th of Nisan, the first day of Unleavened Bread (not necessarily the ordinary weekly sabbath), so called because it is a feast-day of rest and holy convocation (23:7).[6] The significance of the First Fruits of the harvest is that the first of the standing grain to which they put the sickle (Deut. 16:9) belongs to the Lord as the first order and token of the God-given harvest, and so too Christ, who arose on the first day after the sabbath, became “the first fruits (aparche) of those who are asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20), awaiting His second coming (vs. 23). So we see the marvelous fulfillment wrought by Jesus Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and amen (2 Cor. 1:20), who in Passion Week fulfilled the three feasts of the first month by giving His BLOOD to the altar of Golgotha on Good Friday (Passover, the 14th of Nisan), by giving His BODY to the tomb in the sleep of death on Holy Saturday (Feast of Unleavened Bread, the 15th), and on Easter Sunday by rising from the dead in RESURRECTION power of the first order (Feast of First Fruits, the day after the sabbath, the 16th of Nisan).
B. An Intermediate Feast (Summer)
4. Feast of Pentecost (23:15–22)
HARVEST. The names for this one-day feast are the Feast of Harvest (hag haqqatsir) proper, the Feast of (seven) Weeks (hag hashavuoth), and Pentecost, “the Fiftieth (Day)” (Greek pentekoste), i.e. fifty (Greek pentekonta) days from the prior Feast of First Fruits until the final “day of the first fruits” (yam habbikkurim, Num. 28:26). This represents seven weeks of grain harvesting, counting “from the time you began to put the sickle to the standing grain” (Deut. 16:9), i.e. fifty days from the barley harvest begun “on the morrow (day) after the sabbath” (Lev. 23:11, 15), the 16th of Nisan, unto “the first fruits of the wheat harvest” (Ex. 34:22), the “new grain-offering” (minha hadasha, Lev. 23:16) in the third month (the 6th of Sivan, May-June). The significance of this feast is, again, that the harvest belongs to the Lord, who will abundantly supply in the most praiseworthy manner, and the great HARVEST of souls won to the Lord by the Holy Spirit, who was poured out on this very day fifty days after the resurrection, included in which were the forty days of resurrection appearances to His disciples. The great harvest of souls includes, in just the earliest stages alone, the 3000 (Acts 2:41), the 5000 (4:4), and further, “the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith” (6:7). Interestingly, Jews further call the agricultural festival of Pentecost by a religious name, “the time of the giving of the law” (zeman mattan Tora), which by rabbinical calculation they hold to be the season of God’s giving the law to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is too, we see, the day that the Lawgiver came to Zion spreading the precepts of the Gospel in the purity of pentecostal fire. From Pentecost to the next feast the New Testament phase of the Age of the Gentiles is spanned, reaping the harvest of the Lord.
C. Three Feasts of the Seventh Month (Fall)
5. Feast of Trumpets (23:23–25)
RAPTURE. The name of this feast is Trumpets, literally “a resounding” (terua, Lev. 23:24) of voices and trumpets, or “a day for resounding” (yom terua, Num. 29:1) of voices and trumpets. The trumpets used probably were the silver clarions (hatsotseroth, much like the Roman or English post-horns) mentioned in Num. 10.
Also in the day of your gladness and in your appointed feasts, and on the first days of your months, you shall blow the trumpets (hatsotseroth) over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be as a reminder of you before your God. I am the Lord your God (Num. 10:10).
The time of this feast is the 1st of Tishri, also called Ethanim (1 Kgs. 8:2), the seventh month (September-October). This is the day of the 7th new moon, the last month of the harvesting (agricultural) season. Post-exilic Jews reckon, after Babylonian fashion, Tishri to be the 1st month of the civil year, and therefore call the feast of Trumpets Rosh Hashana, “the head of the (civil) year,” the modern Jewish New Year’s Day. This, in fact, is the early agricultural orientation of the Bible (and West Semitic nations) whereby the autumn is the “going out of the year” (Ex. 23:16), or the “turn of the year” (Ex. 34:22). But when things can begin to be harvested again in the spring it is called the “return of the year,” the dry season (April-September), also a time when kings can go forth to war (Ex. 23:16, 2 Sam. 11:1, 1 Kgs. 20:26, 2 Chr. 36:10). The designations of the rainy season (October-March) themselves show this same ancient fall orientation: the “early rain” (yoreh) is in the fall (October-November), and the “latter rain” (malqosh; I-q-sh “to be late”) is in the spring (March-April). Further, the sabbatical year begins in the fall (on the Day of Atonement, Lev. 25:8–10). The orientation of the religious calendar to spring (Nisan) is due, of course, to the exodus deliverance (Ex. 12:2, Deut. 16:1, 6). The significance of the feast of Trumpets is that God in the final moon calls His people to Himself by trumpets to prepare them for the last events and their impending judgment (Day of Atonement) when moons shall wax and wane no more. So too, by resounding shout and trumpet, Jesus shall gather His elect together to Himself just prior to the heavenly judgment day (Mt. 24:30, 31; 1 Thess. 4:14–17). This trumpet will be the “last trumpet” (1 Cor. 15:52), which apparently is the “seventh trumpet” (Rev. 11:15) terminating all earthly judgments of tribulation and ushering man before the bar of heaven. The feast of Trumpets points to the (postpentecostal) redemptive event known as the RAPTURE of Christ’s covenant peoples.
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet (salpinx, which in the LXX uniformly translates the trumpet-words hatsotsera, shophar, yovel) of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up (harpagesometha; Latin rapiemur “raptured”) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:16, 17.).
6. Feast of Atonement (23:26–32)
REDEMPTION. The feast of Atonement is called “the Day of Atonement” (yom hakkippurim), the famous Yom Kippur. It is held on the 10th day of the 7th month (Tishri), starting on the evening of the 9th (Lev. 16:29, 23:27, 32). The activities of this day are unique, being the most solemn holy day of ancient Israel. Only on this day of the whole year was blood brought into the Holy of Holies, and the scapegoat ceremony conducted (Lev. 16). It was a day of confession of sin and fasting (“and you shall afflict your souls,” Lev. 23:27, 29, 32, cf. Acts 27:9). In Judaism today it is ushered in by the sound of the shophar, the ram’s horn (cf. Lev. 25:9), and every Jew prays to be inscribed in the book of life for the coming year. The significance of this feast, according to Lev. 16 and Heb. 9–10, is the transferal, cleansing and removal of the guilt and penalty of sin. We have passed from condemnation unto life, for we were punished in Christ, our sacrificial Substitute, who shed His own blood, suffered outside the gate, and entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, the very throne-room of the Lord of heaven. Just as the Day of Atonement follows Trumpets, so the judgment will follow the rapture. In that judgment day when we all enter the Holy of Holies to appear before the bar of heaven, we “shall be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). For then the Lord “will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God” (4:5). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). Nothing will be omitted from the record on that day, as we have the very testimony of our Lord:
But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops (Lk. 12:2, 3).
On that day of Remembrance, God’s day in court, the books will be read before God as the final memorial. Each one of us shall give an account of himself to God (Mt. 12:36, Rom. 14:10, 12, Heb. 4:13, 13:17, 1 Pet. 4:5). But we are redeemed! We will endure the day of judgment. We will not be on our own. We have His promise that our sins are forgiven and will not be remembered against us in that day of remembrance of all things before God (cf. Ps. 79:8). The books to be read, according to the testimony of Rev. 20:12–15, are not just the Books of the Deeds of men, but also the Book of Life. Christ, who intercedes for us, will not deny His own in that day, but will confess our names before the Father (Mt. 10:32) from this book of redemption, and we with Him for that final moment of most holy justice will plead the blood for every deed in the record. Once believers and unbelievers are eternally separated, and all tears have been wiped away (Rev. 21:4), God will remember us only for good in Christ and reward us eternally, crowning Himself in us.
7. Feast of Tabernacles (23:33–43)
REST. The names of the last feast are the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths (hag hassukkoth) and the Feast of Ingathering (hag haasiph) of the final crops. The feast is named after the tabernacle or booth (sukka) in which worshippers rested for seven days, from the 15th to the 21st of the 7th month (Tishri). Tree boughs and palm branches were cut to provide foliage-shelter as a memorial of the exodus journey from Egypt when they lived in booths (Lev. 23:43). This memorial of the exodus gave the feast of tabernacles a redemptive base different from the harvest festivals of neighboring nations with their fertility myths. On the eighth day, the 22nd of Tishri, “in the last day, the great day of the feast” (Jn. 7:37), there was a Concluding Assembly (atsereth, Lev. 23:36, Num. 29:35, Neh. 8:18, 2 Chr. 7:9, 10; the word for “concluding assembly” is also used for the 7th and last day of the week of Unleavened Bread in Deut. 16:8). Before Christian times the Feast of Drawing Water (simhath beth hashoeva) was associated with this Concluding Assembly of the 8th and final day, perhaps originally in token of the rainy season about to appear in the climate of the region (cf. the “no rain” of Zechariah’s eschatological feasts of Tabernacles in Zech. 14:16–19). Jesus perhaps alluded to this practice at the Feast of Tabernacles:
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water’” (Jn. 7:37–38).
Both the 1st day (15th of Tishri) and this 8th day of Tabernacles (22nd) were called “a holy convocation” (miqra qodesh) in which no laborious work was done (Lev. 23:35, 36), and each was called “a Sabbath rest” (shabbathon, vs. 39). The significance of Tabernacles is sabbatical REST. Just as Tabernacles follows Yom Kippur, so our eternal rest will follow our redemption from judgment. Just as the Day of Atonement dealt with the guilt and penalty of sin, so our eternal rest in the tabernacles the Lord is preparing for us in heaven will be free from the presence and effect of sin. We will be saved to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25). We will have made our exodus from Satan’s tyranny over this world to dwell each one in the garden mansions of the Promised Land. This is the ultimate sabbath, resting in the rest of the Lord. God since Day Seven of creation has been in His creation rest (note that there is no refrain in Gen. 2:3, “And there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day”). He invites man on a weekly basis to taste of this rest of God. Our basic text for this survey of the feasts begins with the weekly sabbath (Lev. 23:1–3), and ends with the most sabbatical of all feasts: the seven-day tabernacle-rest of the seventh month consummating the seven feasts. Even the offerings of Tabernacles are divinely engineered to descend from the first to the seventh day by means of daily one less bullock from thirteen down to seven victims on the seventh day (Num. 29:13, 32). This remarkable sabbatical numeration is preceded and heralded not only by the weekly sabbath, but by Unleavened Bread lasting for seven days, by Pentecost being seven weeks after First Fruits, and by a seven-month inclusive period from Nisan to Tishri which God has ordained for all the feasts, which period witnesses seven holy convocations (two for each of Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles; one for each of Pentecost, Trumpets and Atonement). Outside the feast-system of one sabbath day during the week, and one sabbath week during the yearly feast of Tabernacles, there is, in addition, one sabbath year during the sabbatical seven-year cycle. Yet Scripture goes from glory to surpassing glory, from the holy place to the most holy place, from perfection to greater perfection, from seven to eight. The principle of seven-yea-eight, the day after the sabbath, is encountered many times: completed creation began its cycles on the day after the sabbath of God; Passover plus Unleavened Bread lasted for eight days; the terminus a quo for Pentecost is on the day after the sabbath; Pentecost is the 50th day (7x7 + 1); Tabernacles is eight days; its first and its eighth day are called a sabbath rest; jubilee is the 50th year (7x7 + 1); Jesus arose from the dead on the day after the sabbath; the Christian church worships on the day after the sabbath, resurrection day, the Lord’s day, observing in Him a sabbath rest over sin and death; and finally, “There remains therefore a sabbath rest (sabbatismos) for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9), for God is still in His sabbath rest of Seven-Yea-Eight, and invites all of His creation who trust in the finished work of Christ to celebrate an unending continuum of Creation-Yea-Neocreation Days with Him in glory.
With the brief word on each of the feasts complete, we may now generalize on the whole. Three times a year was pilgrimage-festival time in Israel, the feasts of the 1st, 3rd, and 7th month, summarily known as Unleavened Bread, Harvest/Weeks, and Ingathering/Tabernacles (Ex. 23:14–17, 34:18–23, Deut. 16:16). No male at these times was to appear before God empty-handed. This highlights the great importance of sacrifice in ancient Israel, which is the tribute due to the great King of Heaven from whom all blessings flow. These were truly sacrificial appointed times. Yet we see that they, by wisdom, did not interfere with the industry of the people: Passover being just before and Tabernacles just after harvesting, while Pentecost (Weeks) came between grain and vintage. There were no pilgrimages in the winter when wet and cold might make travel difficult, and when plowing and seeding had to be done (and in modern times the huge citrus harvesting). While the feasts followed the agricultural seasons, the meaning of their sequence, as we have seen, is far more sublime. They are typological in both sequence and significance, being to the eye of faith a veritable calendar of the redemptive seasons in the history of God with man, some yet to transpire in full historical form. On the negative side they eloquently are designed to show their own insufficiency, as for example in the case of the daily (continual) offering which is diminished by that of the day of Atonement since only it could enter the Holy of Holies. In turn, even it is diminished by the one offering of Christ who was offered once, not year after year, to enter not the ultimate human sanctuary, but Heaven itself. Finally, in every case, one is struck with Biblical man’s need to ceremonialize his relationship with the Lord, and God’s unspeakably rich and wise ceremonial provision.
B. Offerings
The focus of this study, as indicated in the Introduction, is on the sequence and significance of Old Testament sacrificial rituals, not on the various kinds of offerings. The sequence and significance of the feasts have just been generally considered. A still briefer word on the various kinds of offerings can be generally considered now, but here giving just enough background data from Leviticus to facilitate moving on to the stated focus of this study.
The amount of detail in Leviticus (esp. chaps. 1–7) and the rest of the Penteteuch on the various kinds of offerings with their respective regulations regarding materials and quantities, occasions and purposes, is large and complex, and may be treated in a number of ways.[7] Some of the data can be outlined as follows:
I. Kinds of Offerings (qorban)
A. Blood (Animal) Offerings (zevah)
1. Burnt Offering (ola)
Only this one could not be eaten by anyone, but was to be wholly (kalil) burnt on the altar, and therefore also called the whole burnt offering.
2. Sin Offering (hattath)
Deals with ceremonial (and moral) sin.
3. Guilt Offering (asham)
Also called the trespass offering, stressing sin against a neighbor and value compensation.
4. Peace Offerings (shelamim)
The sacrifices of peace offerings (zivhe she-lamin) stress covenant meal, communion and reconciliation (being from either shalom peace, or shillem to repay.)
a. Thank Offering (toda)
Also called the sacrifice of praise (Heb. 13:15), repaying acts of providence.
b. Votive Offering (neder)
Fulfilling a vow.
c. Voluntary Offering (nedava)
Also called the freewill offering, apparently fulfilling a good intention.
B. Non-blood (Vegetable) Offerings (minha)
5. Grain Offering (minha)
Also called the cereal offering, and formerly by the now misleading “meat offering.” It is most often used in conjunction with a preceding blood offering. The drink offerings (nesakhim) were libations used in conjunction with other offerings as well, including the grain offering.
Finally, in the Bible a sacrifice is regarded as an “offering” (qorban) which is “brought near” (qarab) to the altar where the Lord dwells (cf. Ex. 20:24), consuming the sacrifices, which are collectively known as the “gifts of holiness” (mattenoth qodesh). All of these terms reflect the consecration element in them. There is no Hebrew word reserved just for “sacrifice” (Latin sacrificium) inclusive of both blood (animal) and non-blood (vegetable) offerings. The term qorban (cf. Mk. 7:11), while clearly inclusive, does not mean just altar gift (sacrifice), but since it does mean holy or cultic gift (including minerals such as gold, silver, wood) it is most often used for the five main offerings above.
C. Leviticus 17:11
The third and last general consideration beyond feasts and offerings must be dealt with, namely the meaning of sacrifice. What was the contemporary significance of this Israelite practice? This question is logically prior to the procedure or ritual actions themselves (which follow), and is necessary for understanding the sacrificial emphasis on blood. The blood is truly the key for gaining a genuinely Biblical orientation to the whole system of Biblical atonement. One is pressed to find a more helpful and beautiful passage for this than Leviticus 17:11. This verse is germane to knowing the Lord’s own rationale for sacrifice as He revealed it to Moses, and is therefore worthy of careful exegesis. It has three clauses which can literally be rendered as follows:
a. For the life of the flesh is in the BLOOD.
b. And I Myself have given IT to you upon the altar to make atonement for your lives,
c. For it is the BLOOD by reason of the life that makes atonement (Lev. 17:11).
The immediate context (vss. 10–14) is the prohibition against the eating of blood. The predicate (comment) throughout verse eleven is the blood (here highlighted as BLOOD-IT-BLOOD), for specifically it is not to be eaten. But the reason for not eating blood is that it contains life (here highlighted as life-lives-life), the subject (topic) of the a-clause, with which “for your lives” of the b-clause is contrasted. Clearly this is vicarious life for lives, the life of animal flesh in the altar-shed blood which is vicariously, innocently, and symbolically atoning for your lives laden with impurity. The emphasis on blood in the sacrificial system is due to the fact that altar-shed blood is the very means of atonement for lives, but the ground (reason) is life itself which passes through the crisis of vicarious death.[8]
This vicarious understanding of the blood and its life accords very well with the gracious context of this legislation. God had saved His people from the tyranny of the demons of Egypt and had brought the children of Israel out with a strong hand in accordance with His covenant promises to the fathers. At Sinai He called them in covenant to be His holy nation in trust and obedience. He then revealed His standards for the sacrificial system which made possible the access of a sinner to this Holy God, and such a possibility was solely a provision of His covenant grace. The way to God through blood was provided by the grace of God and not by man, and is so indicated by the emphatic pronoun “I Myself” when He says in Lev. 17:11b, “I Myself have given it (the blood) to you upon the altar to make atonement for your lives.”
So much for the clear and general teaching of Lev. 17:11, but what is the exact meaning of the b-clause and c-clause expression “make atonement” (kipper)? This is more difficult to decide.
The oft-stated purpose of the sacrifices in Leviticus is ‘to atone’ (kipper, Lev. 1:4, etc.). This verb may be explained in one of three ways: ‘to cover’, from the Arab, kafara; ‘to wipe away’, from the Akkadian kuppuru; ‘to ransom by a substitute’, from the Heb. noun koper.[9]
The cover-obliterate-ransom selection is not as difficult exegetically as it is etymologically, although it is true that all three notions in the Old Testament are common in regard to sin. For example, the notion “to cover” is expressed in Psa. 32:1 as “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered (kasa),” which verse is quoted in Rom. 4:7 (epikalupto). 1 Pet. 4:8 says that “love covers (kalupto) a multitude of sins.” The notion “to obliterate” (wipe out, blot out) is also common, Isa. 44:22 being an example: “I have wiped out (maha) your transgressions like a thick cloud, and your sins like a heavy mist. Return to Me, for I have redeemed (gaal) you” (cf. Isa. 43:25). In Acts 3:19 the words of Peter are “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away (exaleipho) …” (cf. Col. 2:14). In Neh. 4:5 (Hebrew 3:37) the covering of iniquity and the blotting/wipping out of sin are used in parallelism (cf. Psa. 109:14, Prov. 6:33). And then there is the notion “to ransom,” such as Hos. 13:14 which says, “I will ransom (pada) them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem (gaal) them from death.”
Jesus Himself gave His life as the ransom for men (Mt. 20:28 lutron, 1 Tim. 2:6 antilutron; see the related apoluo “to redeem” and apolutrosis “redemption”). It seems that the word “to ransom” (pada) emphasizes the idea of payment, and “to redeem” (gaal) has the additional notion of a personal relationship through kinsman deliverance.
It would seem that of the common cover-obliterate-ransom images, “to atone” (kipper) comes closest to a ransom (kopher), the third etymological option, especially in the case of Lev. 17:11 with its rationale of life for lives. One may see this in the case of material goods donated “to make atonement for our lives” (lekhapper al-naphshothenu, Num. 31:50), to which should be compared the half-shekel of the sanctuary which an Israelite gave as “a ransom for his life” (kopher naphsho, Ex. 30:12), such “atonement money” (keseph hakkippurim) serving “to make atonement for your lives” (lekhapper al-naphshothekhem, vs. 16). If “to make atonement for” means most basically “to ransom,” then the idea of substitution and propitiation (expiation, appeasement) are central. This is reflected in the Greek Septuagint translation of “to make atonement” in Lev. 17:11b by the verb “to propitiate” (exilaskomai). The propitation idea is most basic to the New Testament doctrine of atonement (see the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon, p. 376), as evidenced by hilaskomai “to propitiate, expiate” (Heb. 2:17), hilasmos “expiation, propitiation” (1 Jn. 2:2, 4:10), and hilasterion “expiation gift” (Rom. 3:25), “place of propitiation” (Heb. 9:5, the “mercy-seat,” Luther’s Gnadenstuhl).
The propitiating substitute nicely dovetails with the whole Old Testament system of vicarious substitution-representation (pars pro toto “the part for the whole”). This can be seen in both the first-born and the first fruits, and by the laying on of hands. The token portions of the blood offerings (blood and fat) belong here, as well as the azkara (token, “memorial”) portion of the non-blood offerings. Animal life-death-blood-body for human life-death-blood-body find their ultimate vicarious substitutionary expression in the divinely innocent life for lives— the Christ for His people. All the nuances of atonement point in the same direction—substitution. Its function is to remedy the situation of the exposure of sin before the holy gaze of God, and the corresponding alienation. The substitute takes the place of sin as ransom, thus appeasing the righteous wrath of God toward sin; the substitute covers sin from His sight; the substitute blots out sin, erasing the ordinances against us.
Far beyond a general homage or thanksgiving, we see that the meaning of sacrifice is atonement, the main end of whose holy gifts is expiation. The three ends of sacrifice are expiation, consecration and celebration, and will be developed somewhat fully in the next section on Sacrificial Procedure. We have seen here that sin makes expiation necessary. Consecration, however, does not find its base in sin, it being the natural activity of sinless creatures (such as man before the fall). But this severely externalized form of consecration may be the result of sin. This is but one facet of the tremendous teaching function of the law of God.
III. Sacrificial Procedure: Three Categories and the Six Ritual Acts
OUTLINE
The outline for this somewhat involved section, which subsumes the six sacrificial ritual acts under three ceremonial categories, is as follows:
A. Expiation (Crisis Experience)
1. Presentation (of the beast)
2. Leaning (on the beast’s head)
3. Slaughter (of the beast)
4. Manipulation (of the beast’s blood)
B. Consecration (Changing Experience)
5. Sublimation (of the corpse)
C. Celebration (Sharing Experience)
6. Meal (communion-feasting on the offerings)
A. Expiation (Crisis Experience)
1. Presentation. Here the offerer presents, i.e. “brings near” (hiqriv), or “brings” (hevi), or simply “makes” (asa) his offering of a clean beast.
Only the blood (animal) sacrifices could be used for expiation, due, of course, to the presence of blood in them, but they were also used for consecration. The non-blood (vegetable) sacrifices functioned for consecration alone. In the blood (animal) sacrifice the two ideas of expiation and consecration found joint expression, and the intimate union between the two is also brought out in the rule that no non-blood sacrifice could be brought except on the basis of a preceding blood sacrifice. There appears to have been only one exception to this rule, namely, extreme poverty: in the trespass offering a lamb or goat was to be presented, but if poor then two birds, and in the case of extreme poverty just fine flour (Lev. 5:11). It is not that any of the bloodless sacrifices negated the idea of expiation, but rather they presupposed it, and in this case of extreme poverty God graciously condescends in mercy to reckon it so. The book of Hebrews takes account of an exception to the rule, apparently this one, when it says, “And according to the Law, one may almost (schedon) say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22).
All of the animals had to be ritually pure, ceremonially clean. But not all that was clean was allowed for sacrifice. From the animal kingdom: oxen, sheep, goats and pigeons. From the vegetable kingdom: grain, wine and oils. Together they represent the entirety of the offerer’s life in consecration to the Lord, both what sustained the life of the offerer, and what the toil of his life produced. With these specific clean things he had a familiar “biotic rapport,” perhaps thus qualifying them for sacrifice to serve as his double, representing in a vital substitutionary way the totality of his life. Sacrifices may be characterized as the gift of life to God.
Parenthetically, the observation perhaps should be made that the vegetable offerings, which presuppose the blood offerings, are subordinate to them, but not inferior. Just as Christ is subordinate (but not inferior) to the Father, His Coequal, and just as a woman is created to be subordinate (but not inferior) to her coequal man (Gen. 1:27), so, in a sense, the vegetable offerings are not inferior to the blood offerings, but find their proper office, function and role in being subsequent to the shedding of blood which, in the realm of sin, must be prior. Perhaps this is the best explanation of the Cain and Abel story. Cain’s faithlessness is not to be proved by a vegetable offering reckoned as if inferior. Could it be that Cain was jealous of the sequence? Could it be that he wanted, in untypological fashion, to be first? Would a man who is not thinking the thoughts of God willingly yield in love and truth priority to a coequal? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but pride goes before a fall.
Finally, one question remains in regard to the presentation of a clean beast. How can the perfectly normal and flawless animal figure as a double (substitute) for a sinner? It is simply, yet profoundly, that God graciously reckons it to be so in a symbolico-vicarious way. He substitutes for the imperfect offerer the perfect animal-substitute, but not groundlessly, for all this is because of its typological union with Christ, Whom it foreshadows. We have been redeemed “with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:19).
2. Leaning. The offerer lays his hand(s), literally leans (samakh) his hand(s), upon the head of the beast.
It appears that this action of the offerer was an act of faith, confession and transfer, signifying the transfer of the sin and its death penalty to the animal substitute. All of the passages refer to bloody offerings (for Leviticus see 1:4, 3:2, 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33), the (bloodless) vegetable offerings never receiving this symbolic action of laying on of hands. This very definitely strengthens the idea of transfer, for bloodless offerings were not expiatory, being unsuitable for carrying away sin. Contrary to the Roman Catholic position (cf. Roland deVaux), the laying on of hands did not signify mere identification, ownership, or donation (cf. the mass). The vegetable offerings were just as much “owned and donated,” yet they did not receive this ritual act of the laying on of hands. From the analogy of other occasions where the laying on of hands symbolized the transfer of blessing or curse from one person to another (e.g. Gen. 48:13–14, Lev. 24:14, Num. 8:10, 27:18–20, Deut. 34:9), the case for transfer with regard to animals is strengthened.
Perhaps the strongest case for transfer can be made from Lev. 16:21, even though the verse refers to the live scapegoat (azazel-goat) of the day of atonement. Below is Lev. 16:21–22, the expressions most significant for this study being underlined, or even transliterated in parentheses.
(21) Then Aaron shall lay (samakh) both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess (hithwadda) over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel, and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay (nathan) them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. (22) And the goat shall bear (nasa) on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness (Lev. 16:21–22).
While the other goat, mentioned earlier in the chapter and slain as a sin offering, symbolized the transfer of sin and its death penalty, the live scapegoat of verses 21 and 22 symbolized the transfer of sin and its visible removal away from the presence of the Lord and His people. Parenthetically, it can be noted here that removal of sin is further symbolized by the fact that in specific cases certain portions of the sin offering were taken outside the camp and burned (Lev. 4:12, 21). “Therefore Jesus also … suffered outside the gate,” and bearing His reproach we “go out to Him outside the camp” (see Heb. 13:11–13).
So here we have the Biblical idea of imputation, whereby God reckons or ascribes a transfer—a vicarious situation. Again, how can the life blood of an animal be reckoned as a double for the believer? It is imputed to be so. Why would God so reckon it? Totally because of the grace and merits of Christ here foreshadowed, God’s lamb, our Passover.
3. Slaughter. The offerer then slays (shahat) the beast on the altar.
The offerer, not the priest, slays the beast at the altar, which is in fact a house of God (cf. Bethel), a tabernacle in miniature. Hence it is described as the place where God records His name and meets with His people, blessing them with His presence (Ex. 20:24). Here the holy gaze of God and the sin of man are covenantally covered by the satisfactory and atoning blood (Ex. 24:6). The laws about the tabernacle in the closing chapters of Exodus are immediately followed by the altar-theology of the opening chapters of Leviticus, the altar being the microcosmic tabernacle of God’s soteric Lordship.
The word “altar” (mizbeah) means “the place of slaughter.” Altar-death (slaughter) is not merely the means to get blood and fat, but is in fact the penalty itself. This fact is more clearly brought out in other examples, such as breaking the neck of the heifer as expiation for an unknown murderer’s crime (Deut. 21:4), and Moses offering his life in the place of his covenantally wayward people (Ex. 32:32).
4. Manipulation. The priest manipulates the blood by tossing (zaraq) it against the sides of the altar, or by taking (laqah) some of it, dipping (taval) his fingertips into it, and putting (nathan) it on some objects, while sprinkling (hizza) it on others. The remainder of the blood may be simply poured (shaphakh, yatsaq) or (with fowl) drained (matsa) into the altar.
Whereas it was the offerer himself who performed the three ritual acts of presentation, leaning, and slaughter, the above act of manipulation of the blood was performed by the priests, who alone handled the blood in various ways and places. The sheer bulk of the Levitical terminology shows how large this liturgical action looms in the Mosaic books. The key passage on the role of blood is Lev. 17:11, which has already been discussed under General Considerations, and, as indicated there, life works atonement for life through the altar-shedding of blood, which serves to ransom-cover-obliterate sin and death from the presence of God. Blood in its normal state does not expiate. The only expiatory blood is that which has passed through the crisis of altar-death. “And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22). Blood is a symbol of life, life departing, death, and cleansing (cf. Lev. 16:30). So with manipulation of blood the Mosaic expiation paradigm is complete: BLOOD = LIFE (presentation of guiltless) + SIN (hands transfer-impute guilt) + DEATH (the slaughter penalty) + CLEANSING (restoration of guilty). This collocation is Messianic as well:
But God demonstrates His own love (LIFE) toward us, in that while we were yet sinners (SIN), Christ died (DEATH) for us. Much more then, having been justified (CLEANSING) by His blood (BLOOD is the life-symbol, the life-paradigm), we shall be saved (CLEANSING) from the wrath (DEATH as SIN’S wage) of God through Him (LIFE) Rom. 5:8–9).
Before leaving the subject of blood, a practical word of caution to Christians might be in order. The large role of blood and substitutionary atonement should serve to guard against nonsubstitutionary and humanistic views of atonement, and views which fail to reckon with the seriousness of sin. We must not be ashamed of the blood of Christ as God’s only way. We should be ashamed not of the blood but of our sin, and the horrible cost of our sin in God’s plan of redemption. On the other hand, Bible believing Christians who emphasize the message of being washed in the blood of the Lamb of Calvary should not attribute magical powers to the blood itself. With all the emphasis on blood one must be aware that, in a technical sense, it is not, per se, the blood of Christ that saves us, but rather His life, life which has vicariously undergone the crisis of death, death at the bloody altar of Golgotha.
With presentation, leaning, slaughter and manipulation the Levitical expiation category is complete.
B. Consecration (Changing Experience)
As stated in the General Considerations, the three ceremonial categories which serve to integrate the bewildering mass of redemptive details are expiation, consecration and celebration. Again, expiation (payment) was the main end of the sacrificial system, synthesizing four of the six ritual acts. Moving from the crisis experience of expiation (propitiation) we now turn to the changing experience of consecration (dedication). Consecration is the category of complete commitment or devotion to God, and for this there is only one action in the sacrificial ritual that is exclusively consecratory, namely the fifth ritual act— sublimation.
5. Sublimation. The priest “burns” (hiqtir) certain animals, parts and organs of animals, and certain grains upon the altar for “a sweet-smelling aroma to the Lord” (reah nihoah ladonay).
The verb descriptive of burning at the altar is everywhere hiqtir, meaning “to make sacrificial smoke or incense, to fumigate.” In modern chemical terminology the word would be “to sublimate,” or slowly turn a solid substance into a gas. The point here is that the burning at the altar is not the rapid destructive burning (saraph), but the slow, incense-producing kind (hiqtir), reducing the offering to a finer substance. This would be true both of the burnt offering (ola) which was burnt as a whole (kalil), and of portions of all other offerings. Of course, the purpose of sublimation, burning of the sublimating kind, was to yield a sweet aroma of delight to Yahweh. By contrast, in the case of an offering whose parts are burned outside the camp (removal of sin), the regular verb for rapid destructive burning (saraph) is used (e.g. Lev. 4:12, cf. 7:17).
All of the burning was an act of consecration, as is shown by the fact that the vegetable offering, which was not expiatory (because bloodless), underwent burning in exactly the same manner as the animal offering. In fact, all offerings enter this consecration category in that all offerings involved some burning on the altar, and could therefore be called ishe, “an offering by fire” (e.g. Lev. 1:9, 2:11).
Just as expiation was substitutionary, so too consecration. The commitment of the animal or grain victim to the altar-flames was total. Christ is our substitutionary consecration. As Eph. 5:2 says: “Walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.”
C. Celebration (Sharing Experience)
The third and final category of sacrificial ritual acts is celebration, the sharing experience of reconciliation-joy. While celebration has lately loomed large in innovative worship, it is sadly neglected in the secondary literature on Leviticus and Old Testament sacrificial worship. Expiation is there rightly stressed, followed by a discussion of the consecration aspect. We suggest that celebration be added, as it is clearly taught by the sixth and final ritual act, the meal of holy communion-feasting.
6. Meal. The offerer “eats” (akhal) the sacrificial meal of peace offerings (shelamim) with the cultic personnel, being the guest of God in holy communion.
This final meal-stage of the ritual of sacrifice is unique to the peace offerings (Lev. 7:11–18, Deut. 12:13–19, 14:26, 16:10–11, 26:10–11, 27:7), offerings which express the bond of fidelity and covenantal well-being. (Compare the Passover of Exodus 12 and Deuteronomy 16, which is an annual species of peace-offering meal eaten in redemption fellowship, celebrating deliverance from Satan’s tyranny in Egypt.) The offerer celebrates positive favor and blessing with God in the joy of forgiveness. The peace-offering meal is a gift of Yahweh, for He, not the offerer, ordains the meal at His house, the tabernacle-temple. Yahweh is the Host, as in the case of His meal with the nobles of Israel in the covenant ratification ceremony on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24, especially vs. 5 with “peace offerings,” and vs. 11 with “… they beheld God, and they ate and drank”). The worshipper was the guest of Yahweh, sharing in His altar, partaking of His table. Such is also confirmed by the apostle Paul who speaks of the nation of Israel which ate sacrifices as being sharers in the altar, partaking of the table of the Lord (1 Cor. 10:18–21), and contrasts all other sacrificial “worship” as sacrificing to demons. (For sacrificial communion with demons, see Ex. 34:15.)
Predictably, any celebration which is “in Christ,” presupposing altar-shed blood, is substitutionary celebration. Christ is not only specifically our Passover (1 Cor. 5:7), but also more generally is our Peace Offering. This is probably expressed by the apostle in Eph. 2:13–14:
But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, …
The two groups, the Jews and the Gentiles in Christ, have been reconciled to each other and to God, for the Gentiles, formerly “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise” (vs. 12), have now been brought near to God by the blood of Christ our peace. There seems to be a double wordplay here. The expression “brought near” seems to allude to both reconciliation of those afar off, and to the Hebrew sacrificial expression (hiqriv) “to bring near, present sacrifice,” now through the blood of Christ. The expression “our peace” (he eirene hemon) seems to allude to both peaceful restoration, and to the Old Testament peace offering (zevah shelamim, LXX thusia soteriou, “offering of well-being, reconciliation,” both private blessing and corporate harmony), now through the blood of Christ. The alienation has been removed, for Christ Our Peace removes the holy gaze of an offended God. Truly “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).
IV. Significance of Ritual Acts: Three Fulfillment Aspects
The three basic Biblical ceremonial-procedural categories of Old Testament sacrifice—expiation, consecration, and celebration—have been discussed, and we now turn to draw out the New Testament ramifications of these by seeing all three of the above categories from each of three additional fulfillment aspects—objective, subjective, and ceremonial. The first aspect to be considered by way of New Testament application is the objective-central, namely Christ Himself. The second aspect is the subjective-individual, which is Christ within the Christian. The third and final aspect of New Testament ramifications is the ceremonial-corporate, being Christ in the Christian Ceremonies (recurrent ceremonial worship). The rituals to be considered are the recurrent Christian rituals of Holy Communion (Eucharist, Pedilavium, Agape), omitting in this study the non-recurrent (“once for all”) ritual continuum of circumcision-baptism. Special emphasis will be given to clarifying the significance of the less frequently discussed ceremonial washing of feet (Pedilavium) and the love-feast (Agape). Plentiful attestation to the sacrificial language of the New Testament will now be given and highlighted, but is not intended to be exhaustive. The New Testament is very rich in sacrificial quotations, allusions and terms which relate to these categories and aspects.
A. Objective-Central Aspect: Christ
1. Expiation (Crisis-Blood): The Death of Christ
Christ is our expiation, and Scriptural application at this point is extremely rich. It was during the Passover holiday (Mt. 26:2, Lk. 22:15, Jn. 13:1) that Jesus was crucified as the expiation for the sins of His people. While the priests were caring for the Jerusalem temple, Jesus offered His own flesh for sin, and the temple veil guarding the Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom (Mt. 27:51, Mk. 15:38, Lk. 23:45). This is the new, living way, the veil of His flesh (Heb. 10:20). Sanctifying power now comes through the offering of the body of Jesus (Heb. 10:10). He bore our sins in His own body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), whose flesh is bread from heaven (Jn. 6:51). Christ died for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6), who have now been reconciled to God by His death (Rom. 5:10). God delivered up His own Son for us all (Rom. 8:32), and yet He willingly offered up Himself (Heb. 7:27, 9:26, 28, 1 Jn. 3:16), an offering without blemish (Heb. 9:14), which He, being faithful High Priest, offered once as the one sacrifice for sins (Heb. 10:12, 14, 1 Pet. 3:18). This expiatory offering is none other than the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:29, 36), who as victorious Lord-Lamb is both the temple and its lamp (Rev. 21:22–23). This unblemished Lamb made atonement by means of His own precious blood (1 Pet. 1:19). Indeed, Christ purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28), for it is He who says, “This is my blood of the covenant” (Mt. 26:28, Mk. 14:24, Lk. 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, Heb. 13:20). It is through His own blood that He entered the Holy Place once for all (Heb. 9:12, 10:19), which blood-sprinkling speaks of better things than Abel (Heb. 12:24). In His blood He suffered outside the gate (Heb. 13:12), yet the blood of His cross (Col. 1:20) our Peace, has brought us near to God (Eph. 2:13–14), for we have been purchased for God by His blood (Rev. 5:9). His blood is our propitiation (Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, 1 Jn. 4:10), and by it we have been released from our sins (Rev. 1:5). It is difficult to say it more concisely than has the apostle in 2 Cor. 5:21 by saying, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
2. Consecration (Changing-Fire): The Life of Christ
In addition to the expiatory (body-)blood of Christ, His (body-)life is also our consecration. Scripture speaks of both his active and passive obedience. Having been reconciled through His death, much more we shall be saved by His life (Rom. 5:10). We are commanded to walk in love just as Christ has loved us, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma (Eph. 5:2). This shows that Christ’s life of love, even unto death, is the sweet savor of a sublimating sacrifice, on fire and well-pleasing in consecration to God. Christ is a faithful and compassionate high priest whose consecration is complete, even being tempted (yet without sin) in that which He suffered (Heb. 2:18). Christ is our Passover, the consecrated unleavened bread of sincerity and truth which has been sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:6–8). Perhaps the ultimate and most scandalous servanthood of Christ is in the washing of His servants’ feet (Jn. 13:5, 7–8, 12, 14–15). He washed, but was not washed by any, since He needed no cleansing from sin. He loved His own and loved them to the end (Jn. 13:1). He is Lord, Teacher and Servant (vss. 13–16) who with basin and towel challenges all human notions of consecration, service and greatness.
3. Celebration (Sharing-Meal): The Supper of Christ
Christ is also our Celebration. The blessed marriage supper toward which all history presses is the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9). Such consummation celebration will be when His joy is full. His last supper in the upper room was a type of it—a prophetic action both sacramental and typical, participating in both “the already” and “the not yet.” Jesus said that He would not objectively celebrate it with them again until His return, not drinking of the fruit of the vine again until He drinks it new with us in the kingdom of God (Mt. 26:29, Mk. 14:25, Lk. 22:17–18), and not eating the Passover again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God (Lk. 22:16). At the marriage of the Lamb, the sharing experience of celebration-feasting will find exhaustive expression, and so shall we ever be with the Lord, eating and drinking at His table in His kingdom (Lk. 22:30, Mt. 8:11; cf. Ex. 24:11).
B. Subjective-Individual Aspect: Christ within the Christian
Although it is the active and passive obedience of the Christian that is in view here (the subjective-individual aspect), it is the Christian conforming to the image of God in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit (Christ within the Christian). While we think, do, and say things which relate to the categories of expiation, consecration, and celebration, we are recipients and agents of these categories. Without Him we can do nothing (Jn. 15:5). This “nothing” not only excludes our doing anything relating to expiation, obvious to most, but also anything consecratory or celebrative! For it is not we that live, but Christ lives in us (cf. Gal. 2:20), and therefore we must surely experience all three of these categories in Him, because He wants us to conform to His image, and He has willed to experience them anew in us.
1. Expiation (Crisis-Blood): Conversion
Essentially, the subjective-individual aspect of expiation is the Christian’s conversion-crisis (die to sin; redeemed), and that of consecration is his sanctification-changing (live to righteousness; growing). There is a lot of sacrificial language in the New Testament for these aspects also. While they are inextricably related to one another in the Bible, the Bible at time highlights one or the other. We are recipients and agents of all three sacrificial categories, but with regard to expiation alone, we are passively so. For to the Lord Jesus expiation alone is wholly active, and for His own it alone is wholly passive. We can do nothing expiatory. Jesus paid it all.
As recipients of Christ’s expiation, the Scriptures declare that we have been justified by His blood (Rom. 5:9). He Himself is the propitiation of our sins (1 Jn. 2:2). We have redemption through blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:7), having been redeemed with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless (1 Pet. 1:18–19). We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all (Heb. 10:10, cf. vs. 29), and so also by His own blood (Heb. 13:12), having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22). We have been foreknown by the Father, set apart by the Spirit for obedience to Christ, by whose blood we have been sprinkled (1 Pet. 1:2). For Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God (1 Pet. 3:18). Yes we, afar off, have been brought near by the blood of Christ, our Peace (Eph. 2:13–14). We have both died and risen with Christ, and are therefore dead to the greed of the world, which is essentially idolatry (Col. 3:1–3). Through the cross, “the world has been crucified to me and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14).
2. Consecration (Changing-Fire): Sanctification
Christ is both our expiation and consecration as is demonstrated by their frequent collocation in Scripture. We have been reconciled by His death, and shall be saved by His life (Rom. 5:10, Col. 1:22). The blood of Christ cleanses the conscience from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:14, 1 Jn. 1:7). We have been healed by the wounds of Christ, who bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24). It is He “who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Tit. 2:14). Having released us from our sins by His blood, He has made us priests to His God and Father (Rev. 1:5–6). We also have been made the unleavened bread of God, which constrains us to clean out any remaining old or renewed leaven, that we might celebrate the feast of unleavened bread through consecration, not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Cor. 5:6–8). How truly rich this language is! Yet in the imitation of Christ, how encompassing also this consecration can be, by not loving one’s life even to death, but overcoming every foe through the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 12:11). “By this we know love, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (1 Jn. 3:16).
When coming to the verses which speak exclusively (or almost so) about subjective-individual consecration, again in the language of sacrificial terminology, one is impressed again how large this theme looms in the New Testament, especially in the epistles. Christ Himself spoke of the “cross” of a Christian, and how he must deny himself, take up his own cross and follow the Lord (Mt. 10:38, 16:24, Mk. 8:34, Lk. 14:27), even daily (Lk. 9:23). We are to present our bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, being our spiritual service of worship (Rom. 12:1). We are as living stones, being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (I Pet. 2:5), even specifically a royal priesthood for proclaiming His excellencies (1 Pet. 2:9). These “spiritual sacrifices” (pneumatikai thusiai) which we, in Christ, offer up to God are the many and varied aspects of (His-our) consecration, such as the list in Hebrews 13, where we are commanded to go out to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach (Heb. 13:13), and where then follows the sacrificial list of first praise (cf. 12:28, Psa. 119:108, Hos. 14:2), and then doing good and sharing (cf. Mt. 9:13, 12:7, Mk. 12:33):
Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips that give thanks to His name. And do not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased (Heb. 13:15–16).
The gift sent to the apostle Paul by the believers of Philippi was a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God (Phil. 4:18). Paul himself was ministering as a priest the gospel of God so that his offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable (Rom. 15:16). Not only are those won to Christ a sweet offering to God, but the knowledge of Christ itself, and we through whom it is manifested in mission, are also a sweet aroma, for as Paul says, God “manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. For we are a fragrance of Christ to God …” (2 Cor. 2:14–15). Paul viewed this as His calling and joyful mission, even if he were to be “poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith” (Phil. 2:17). Paul told Timothy that his life was already being poured out as a drink offering (2 Tim. 4:6). He always carried about in his body the dying of Jesus that the life of Jesus also might be manifested in his body 2 Cor. 4:10). He bore in his body even the consecratory brand-marks of Jesus’ own consecration (Gal. 6:17).
Among the “spiritual sacrifices” which have been enumerated as manifestations of our subjective-individual consecration to the Lord are the spiritual sacrifice of service, of righteousness, of purification, of zeal for good works, of priestly service, of sincerity, of truth, of martyrdom, of self-denial, of obedience, of worship, of proclamation, of praise, of doing good, of sharing, of giving, of converts won by us, of knowledge spread by us, of faith-service, of our mission, of our life and body.
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, … work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12–13).
3. Celebration (Sharing-Meal): Communion Joy
Finally, Christ is also our celebration, even in its subjective-individual aspect. What is in view here is the human participant’s joy in Holy Communion, the blessing of a sacrificial meal, the sharing experience of covenantal feasting. When God had given the Ten Commandments, He further gave instructions for the altar, including peace offerings, and promised His sacramental presence by saying, “I will come to you and bless you” (Ex. 20:24). After the book of the covenant had been given, the covenant was ratified by communion meal on Mount Sinai with Yahweh as Host, and the nobles of Israel as His guests, “and they beheld God, and they ate and drank” (Ex. 24:11, cf. the peace offerings of vs. 5). As has been earlier stated, within the regular sacrificial system the peace offerings could be eaten by the worshipper with the cultic personnel, celebrating the joy of sins forgiven (Lev. 7:11–18). The exhortations of Deuteronomy frequently enjoin great rejoicing at these sacrificial meals with the refrain, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deut. 12:12, 18, 16:11, 26:11, 27:7; cf. the peace offerings of Deut. 12:11, 17, 16:10). In regard to eating the second tithe and firstlings at the sanctuary, the Lord enjoins that “there you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household” (Deut. 14:26), and on occasions, in addition to the offerer, his household and the Levite, joining the feast are the alien, the orphan, and the widow (Deut. 12:12, 18, 14:29, 16:11, 26:12). These sacrificial meals furnished both an occasion and an object of rejoicing before the Lord. Those who joyfully ate these sacrifices were “sharers in the altar” (1 Cor. 10:18).
The Lord Jesus at His last supper, in spite of its sorrowful circumstances, maintained the joy of covenant meal and fellowship. He had an earnest desire to eat that Passover with them before He suffered (Lk. 22:15–16). He gave thanks for the cup in the meal just before the Eucharist proper (Lk. 22:17). He displayed the spirit of thankfulness when he gave thanks for the bread of the Eucharist (Lk. 22:19). He blessed that bread (Mt. 26:26, Mk. 14:22, 1 Cor. 11:24, cf. Lk. 24:30), and gave thanks for the subsequent cup (Mt. 26:27, Mk. 14:23). He urged them to take this and to share it among themselves Lk. 22:17). In the spirit of Biblical praise they concluded by singing a hymn, the sacrifice of their lips, exalting God’s goodness and its consequent blessings (Mt. 26:30, Mk. 14:26). The inimitable manner with which Jesus performed these joyful actions, including His deeply-felt blessing of the Father, no doubt caused Him to be recognized at the point of His breaking the bread by the men who were on the way to Emmaus (Lk. 24:30, 35).
Joy in the Holy Spirit characterized the early church at meal together. They went breaking bread from house to house, taking their meals together “with gladness and sincerity of heart” (Acts 2:46). Since the early church met in private homes (e.g. Philemon 2), the Eucharist easily continued in the context of a fellowship meal. They met together for the purpose of eating the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 11:20), a love-feast (Agape) in Jesus Christ the Savior (Jude 12). It was a time of thankfulness (1 Cor. 10:30), sharing in the body (bread) and blood (cup) of Christ (vs. 16), and in unifying oneness (vs. 17). When they in the imitation of Christ engaged in the washing of feet, their blessing must have increased through service and sharing, for Jesus said knowing these things they would be blessed if they did them (Jn. 13:17). Above all, through these meals they were proclaiming the Lord’s death until He comes again (1 Cor. 11:26). Then communion joy will be complete, when we eat and drink at His table in His kingdom (Lk. 22:30). “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:9). Then we will go on from regeneration and sanctification unto glorification, from glory to greater glory, entering into the joy of our Lord, the very joy which was set before Him who endured the cross, and is at the right hand of the throne of God (Heb. 12:2).
C. Ceremonial-Corporate Aspect: Christ in the Christian Ceremonies
The question at hand is to determine what are the New Testament ceremonial or ritual reflexes to the Old Testament ceremonial categories of expiation, consecration and celebration. From these categories, as we have seen, flowed the six sacrificial ritual acts of presentation, leaning, slaughter and manipulation; sublimation; and meal. In terms of fulfillment aspects, all three of these categories have already been discussed both from their objective and subjective aspects in New Testament fulfillment, but not from the aspect of ceremonial fulfillment. In other words, our task now is to determine what New Testament rituals correspond to expiation, consecration, and celebration.
1. Expiation (Crisis-Blood): Eucharist
The New Testament ceremonial reflex to expiation is, without question, the Eucharist. The body and blood of the innocent Victim passing through the crisis experience of death on the altar of Golgotha is powerfully memorialized by the (unleavened) bread and the (red) wine of the Holy Communion service.
Some of the names of this sacrament are “Eucharist” (eucharistia, “thanksgiving”), “Communion” (koinonia), “the bread and the cup of blessing” (eulogla), or “the bread and cup of thanksgiving” (eucharistia), so indicated by 1 Cor. 10:16 as follows: “The cup of blessing (eulogia) which we bless, is it not the communion (koinonia) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion (koinonia) of the body of Christ?” The variant Greek reading here for “blessing” (eulogia) is “thanksgiving” (eucharistia). The identity of “blessing” and “thanksgiving” stems from the Greek attempt to translate the Hebrew (and Aramaic) term “bless/blessing” (berakh/berakha), which means to bless God for something, i.e. to return thanks. The term “communion” (koinonia) means “sharing, participation, fellowship,” having things in common (cf. koine, the common Greek). The reference in Acts 2:42 to the “breaking of the loaf” (ho artos, so also in 1 Cor. 10:16) probably refers to the Eucharist as well.
The Eucharist is, above all, a memorial of atonement, recalling the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Lk. 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25). We are proclaiming our Lord’s past death until He comes again (1 Cor. 11:26). It is at once a memorial (of the past), a sacrament (presently realized eschatology), and a type (futuristic action) of our union with each other and with Christ, “for we all partake of one bread (1 Cor. 10:17), “a sharing in the body of Christ” (vs. 16). We remember “Christ our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7), just as Israel was commanded to observe the Passover feast memorializing the deliverance from Egypt (Deut. 16:3; cf. Jer. 16:14–15).
The Eucharist is the consummation of all strands of covenant meal: (1) the annual family Passover in Exodus 12, (2) the covenant ratification meal of the elders in Exodus 24, now in the New Covenant of His blood with His disciples, (3) the peace-offering meal of communion between the laity and priests in Leviticus 7 celebrating the joy of forgiveness in covenant renewal and affirmation (so also Deut. 12, 14, and 16), eating the sacrifices as sharers in the altar (1 Cor. 10:18), and possibly (4) a common fellowship meal (havura) of a small group of friends (haverim) in the faith, meeting for the uncommon purpose of sanctifying the law of God in their hearts, and celebrating as sacred all the social occasions which give expression to it.[10] Not only do all these sacrificial meals adumbrate the Last Supper, but so too does the (pot of) manna, the bread from heaven, which symbolizes the flesh of Christ, the living bread from heaven (Jn. 6:49–51), of which the bread of the Eucharist is the emblem. The same too may be said of the show-bread of the priests in the tabernacle-temple, the priesthood of all believers now feeding on this divine provision.
Now what has been said about these meals, manna and showbread with regard to the Eucharist may also be affirmed of the love-feast (the Agape meal), but with a different emphasis and role. Both Eucharist and Agape hark back to all of these, especially the Passover (see the discussion below of the Agape), but whereas the Eucharist maximizes on the expiatory category of Paschal body and blood for the atonement received, thus highlighting the covenantal aspects of ratification and renewal, the love-feast, on the other hand, emphasizes the celebrative category of Paschal body and blood for the atonement given, thus highlighting the covenantal aspects of sharing and fellowship. The longer and fuller activity of the Agape meal sustains the setting of covenant feasting. Perhaps one of the many reasons Eucharistic doctrine grew in importance to being almost a magical rite in medieval thought was due to losing its original setting of a meal of which it was the climaxing final act. The setting of sustained feasting, fellowship and sharing with one another in the perfect bond of Christian love and joy is not counter to the due solemnity of the Eucharist, but is, in fact, climactically conducive to it.
This difference of emphasis and function is not to deny that all three categories of sacrificial ritual acts are, in fact, represented in the Eucharist. Expiating body and blood are paramount, but evidence of the substitutionary consecration is that the Paschal lamb was roasted in the fires of consecration, and that the Paschal bread was unleavened, i.e. consecrated bread, which symbol was probably perpetuated by Christ’s own Last Supper and by present-day Eucharistic wafers. Substitutionary celebration is represented by ingesting the elements, a formal similarity it shares with the Passover meal. Both our Lord’s Last Supper and its crowning Eucharist were unquestionably in a Passover setting. Jesus told His disciples to prepare the Passover (Mt. 26:17–18, Mk. 14:12, Lk. 22:7–8, 11); they prepared the Passover (Mt. 26:19, Mk. 14:16, Lk. 22:13, 15), and He ate the Paschal meal with them, climaxing with the bread and cup (Mt. 26:26–27, Mk. 14:22–23, Lk. 22:19–20), which He signifies is “My blood of the covenant” (Mt. 26:28, cf. Ex. 24:8; Mk. 14:24), “the new covenant in My blood” (Lk. 22:20). Finally, we also have His words of institution, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19, cf. 1 Cor. 11:24–25). For a further description of the Passover Seder and the meal-segment of the Lord’s Supper, see below the discussion of the love-feast under “Celebration.” In short, the emphasis of the Eucharist is on the crisis experience of altar-shed blood, as is indicated by the fact that in all Eucharistic services the cup in His blood is the terminal and climaxing ritual act.
2. Consecration (Changing-Fire): PedUavram
The New Testament ceremonial reflex to consecration is, in my view, the Pedilavium, i.e. the ceremonial washing of feet. This ceremony is also known as “feet-washing,” “foot-washing,” or “washing the saints’ feet.” The term “ceremonial washing of feet” (Pedilavium) is the best in that it distinguishes the corporate rite from the common or customary or hospitable pedal cleanliness. It is here that the full dedication of the sublimating (slow-burning) sacrificial offering finds fullest expression. So does the priestly laver at the tabernacle-temple receive its ectype (antitype) in Jesus Christ, the Servant of the Lord, who washes His disciples feet, and Who commands them as a priesthood of believers in His image to wash each others’ feet.
The only New Testament text which speaks directly to this is Jn. 13:1–20, but is itself a major revelation of that ministry of our Lord which initiated the Farewell Discourses recorded by John in chapters 13–17. Like the farewell discourses of Moses in Deuteronomy, Jesus gives these priceless Paschal addresses. But first He washes His disciples’ feet, an act filled with the meaning of the cross and beyond.[11]
In vs. 1 it indicates that Jesus, having loved His own that were in the world, loved them unto the end. The Pedilavium and the cross illustrate the extent of this loving service. The feet-washing was during the evening meal (vs. 2),[12] from which He rose (vs. 4), and at which he later reclined again (vss. 12, 26). Such timing shows that this action of Jesus was more than social courtesy or mere humility, since in such a case He would have washed them upon arrival. In vs. 4 Jesus strips to the loincloth, just as a slave would do, and begins His rounds having clothed Himself with humility (cf. 1 Pet. 5:5). We think of the humble and submissive words of Abigail to David at his proposal of marriage, “Behold, your maidservant is a maid to wash the feet of my lord’s servants” (1 Sam. 25:41). We further think of the words of John the Baptist when he said, giving as lowly an example as he could, that he was not worthy even to stoop down and untie the thong of Jesus’ sandals—a job of a personal slave who removes the shoes of his master and then washes his feet. Yet it is Jesus who says, “But I am among you as the one who serves” (Lk. 22:27).
We, somewhat like Peter, shrink from this. We are willing, to a degree, to be humble before God, but He humble before us?! Peter says (vs. 6), “Lord, do You wash my feet?” Jesus explains that Peter will later understand this action (vs. 7). In vs. 8, Peter’s reaction is characteristically vigorous. He brushes aside Jesus’ suggestion that something is going on whose significance he does not yet know. To him it is unthinkable that Jesus should ever engage in the menial activity of washing His servant’s feet…. “Peter is humble enough to see the incongruity of Christ’s action yet proud enough to dictate to his Master” (MacGregor).[13]
To Peter’s reply of “never,” Jesus says, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me” (vs. 8), which surely refers to both this washing of his feet and that symbolized by it which is necessary to being a Christian, namely to be washed from sin by the blood of Christ (cf. 1 Jn. 1:7). Peter responds again (vs. 9), submitting feet, hands, and head.
Now we have a characteristic Petrine touch. Convinced by Jesus’ words, Peter will not do the thing by halves. Hands and head must be washed as well as feet. Peter may not have meant the words to be taken literally, but as a wholehearted renunciation of his previous refusal to be washed at all. But we should not overlook the fact that the answer is still the product of self-will. Peter is reluctant to let Jesus do what He wants. He prefers to dictate the terms. There is also a misunderstanding of the meaning of the action. It is not a way of cleansing the disciples, but a symbol of that cleansing. It is not the area of skin that is washed that matters, but the acceptance of Jesus’ lowly service.[14]
Then follows in vs. 10 one of the most important statements of Jesus for our discussion here. “Jesus said to him, ‘He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.’” Jesus is countering Peter’s request for a bath, and is asserting his need only to wash. When a man is going to a feast he will bathe his whole body, and when he arrives he needs only to wash part of his body, namely his feet, to be completely clean for the meal. The contrast between “he that is bathed” (ho leloumenos) and “to wash” (nipsasthai) means at least that much. But it is equally certain that Jesus is applying this imagery in a symbolic and spiritual sense, for He did not wash them on arrival, and further, Jesus washes, but is Himself at this time not washed by any (contrast Lk. 7:44 where Jesus says to Simon the Pharisee, “… you gave me no water for my feet …”), the reason being the sin-connection implied in vs. 8, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me.” Jesus had no sin from which to be symbolically washed. Peter and all the others did. But even they who have been thoroughly cleansed (bathed) by Christ and incur defilement in their daily walk (feet), do not need to be radically cleansed (radical renewal), but need only to wash or rinse their feet (daily cleansing from sin). So, therefore, at least in this instance by Christ, feet-washing and sin-washing are inextricably related, apart from whatever social benefits may or may not have been received (i.e. whether they had or had not already washed their own feet upon entering the upper room before dinner). Although not presently known to the disciples, both the crisis experience of regeneration (bathing) and the changing experience of sanctification (washing, rinsing) through the work and merits of Christ had been alluded to by Christ Himself. This they would later understand once His cleansing blood of expiation and consecration shed on Calvary’s cross was applied in the outpourings of the Holy Spirit’s power.
We may wonder if beyond feet-washing and sin-washing, Jesus was thirdly alluding to Christian baptism in His expression, “He that is bathed.” Some, for example, would say, “But apart from the fact that this appears to be reading something into the narrative, there is the further point that we have no evidence for thinking the apostles were baptized (unless with John’s baptism).”[15] But just as they would have a future understanding of what Christ was doing, and just as the future work of the Spirit of Pentecost was being symbolized, so too future Christian baptism could be signified.[16] While such is by no means a necessary inference and surely not proven, John and all other Christians who would reflect on these words of our Lord would find it difficult to resist such a possibility. In any case, beyond the primary feet-washing and secondary sin-washing, a tertiary baptism-bathing is not germane to anyone’s argument for either a voluntary or regular celebration of the of the Pedilavium-segment of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
The implications of Jesus’ symbolic action are brought out by verses 12–20, with the command that we follow His example and wash one another’s feet. Are these words of literal command, or words of moral essence (that is, are we rather commanded to imitate only the moral essence of loving and lowly service symbolized by Christ’s washing of their feet)? In either case, the latter essence is always presupposed and true. And not only that, but if the former were also intended by Jesus, then He surely did not mean mere feet-washing, for more than an external action is enjoined, namely that we do it with a loving spirit or attitude toward others, analagous to Christ, our Exemplar (vss. 1, 15, 34). Further, it must be mixed with faith to be Christian. This is illustrated by the fact that although Jesus washed the feet of all twelve of His disciples (vss. 10–12, 18), including Judas Iscariot who had not yet left the room (vss. 21, 26–27, 30), only the faithless traitor remained “not clean” (vss. 10–11), and was excluded from the blessing of future performance (vss. 17–18). “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for He who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6).
The force of Jesus’ feet-washing command in Jn. 13:14–17 is fourfold: OBLIGATION-EXAMPLE-COMPARISON-BLESSING.[17]
OBLIGATION. (14) If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed (nipto) your feet, you also ought (opheilo) to wash (nipto) one another’s feet. EXAMPLE. (15) For I gave you an example (hupodeigma) that you also should do as (kathos) I did to you (hina KATHOS ego epoiesa humin KAI humeis poiete). COMPARISON. (16) Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater (meizon) than his master; neither one who is sent greater (meizon) than the one who sent him. BLESSING. (17) If you know these things, you are blessed (makarios) if you do them (makarioi este ean poiete aula).
The disciples are commanded to be ready and willing to perform the lowliest service in His name, and in whose honor nothing is below their dignity, including the washing of one another’s feet, for we have His example in order that we might do as He has done (vs. 15).[18] And truly they did do this, for which we have one Biblical example. In 1 Tim. 5:10 it says that a widow on the list is proper if she, among other things, “has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed (nipto) the saint’s feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.” In such a context of hospitality to strangers and works of mercy, it does appear that the voluntary social service of feet-washing is in view here, rather than the ceremony, but such lowly labor is still in obedience to His command and is an honor to her Lord.
So, it seems to us, that Jesus specifically stipulates that the action of washing one another’s feet be among the lowly tasks of service to which He called His disciples and for which He set the foundational example. But we are by no means done. Three questions remain: (1) the sin-washing, (2) the ceremony, and (3) the social value. The answers to these questions are given below, but all are inconclusive.
The first of the remaining questions pertains to the sin-washing. Can it be shown that when the disciples obeyed the feet-washing command that it would carry for them the sin-washing connection and connotation which it had when Christ performed it? The answer is “no, not conclusively.” There is no specific statement to this effect in John 13 (our only text). The connection in the case of Christ, as we have shown, is unmistakable. Christ’s desire and need to ceremonialize His consecration that sorrowful night was very great indeed. This was the night before the cross—service to the uttermost. In washing the feet of His disciples He was engaging in the typology of His cross, a prophetic action dramatizing His willingness for ultimate service to His people, even sacrificial death, just as His prophetic spirit dramatized the typology of Pentecost when He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 20:22). The word of the prophets (prophecy) is history prewritten, and the action of the prophets (typology) is history prefigured. Christ, God’s Final Word, has deep passions for both. Christ further wanted to ceremonialize not only his own consecration, but the consecration of His disciples as under the blood and cleansed from sin. Jesus ceremonialized the power of His blood to cleanse from all sin, both for initiation into the kingdom of God and for continuing cleansing from daily defilement. As such their passive consecration is powerfully symbolized. “All of you,” except Judas Iscariot, “are clean.” But now for the crux of the matter as this writer sees it. Jesus Christ had ceremonialized His active and passive consecration to His Father by vicarious loving service and vicarious accursed death. He further ceremonialized the passive consecration of His own. But the active consecration of His disciples would only be ceremonialized as they, in the imitation of Christ, washed one another’s feet. This is to say, while there is no explicit reference to a ceremonialized sin-washing in an imitative feet-washing ceremony, it is implied and needful, ceremonially needful. We as creatures in the image of God need to ceremonialize our active and passive obedience to God. The sublimation of the vicarious sacrificial corpse given by the offerer to the flames of God in repentance and faith in the Old Testament superbly expressed both. Jesus expressed both in His fulfilling yet typical washing of His disciples’ feet, at once both a loving service of cleansing and a supreme resignation to the impending blood of His cross which cleanses from all sin. And so, to a believer who knows it and can receive it, both his active and passive consecration are respectively ceremonialized in his washing and being washed during the Pedilavium. The daily cleansing by Jesus from daily sin is being ceremonially given and received in Jesus’ name and merits. The crux, in other words, is one of liturgical need—the need of a believer not only subjectively and individually to work out his consecration to the Lord but also to ceremonialize it in corporate worship. We are to be living sacrifices to God, aflame and ever pure. The need is antecedently Scriptural, being part of the very fiber and procedure of Old and New Testament ritual acts. Our need remains as great as Peter’s, and we are both invited and enjoined to fill it.
While the expiation-consecration-celebration paradigm may find powerful ceremonial expression in the concepts of Eucharist-Pedilavium-Agape, the divine institution and consequent norma-tivity of the Pedilavium (the ceremonial washing of feet) remains unproven, and must not be used to bind the conscience of the church. It should never be a compulsory or expected part of one’s service at the Eucharistic feast of the church. While it cannot certainly be said to be normative worship, it is surely normal worship, for it is an intensely appropriate expression of the entire Bible’s plan of redemption. And parenthetically, for those who either voluntarily-occasionally engage in this ritual or those who regularly celebrate it, a benefit beyond ceremonialized consecration is acquired. Just as the laver (Ex. 30:17–21) was for the priest to wash his hands and feet in preparation for divine service at the altar, so the Pedilavium is preparation, symbolic cleansing preparatory to the Eucharistic service—cleansing the hands through washing the feet of another, cleansing the feet through being washed. By the water of cleansing and by the fire of devotion we go from purity to greater purity in the Spirit of holiness.
The second and third remaining questions flow logically from the first. The second question concerns the ceremony. If sin-washing is signified by our imitative feet-washing, did Jesus intend to institute for that generation the Christian ceremonial of the Pedilavium as an integral part of the Lord’s Supper? As indicated above, we do not know for sure what His intentions here were, and therefore we may not require it. But in our judgment, the sin-connection along with the Biblical pattern of ceremonializing consecration make the answer, “possibly yes.” The Lord could have intended his disciples to engage in the recurrent ritual of the ceremonial washing of feet. Such would be the fullest expression of sin-washing.
The third question concerns the social value: did Jesus expect the first century Palestinian ceremonial washing of feet to continue after it had lost its social value or social expressiveness? The action was always awkward; this is part of its design to teach us unquestioning service. However, in progressing from the dusty-road-and-sandal culture to the paved-road-and-shoe culture, the awkwardness is increased, and though spiritually beneficial, its social utility and expressiveness have clearly ceased. Is it the Lord’s desire that this part of His Last Supper ordinance continue? Our answer, again, is guardedly, “yes.” As was pointed out in the exegesis of John 13, during the ceremony of feet-washing the social aspect, though perhaps for a few centuries present, was not the point of Jesus’ service, and probably not of any imitative ceremonies either. Ceremonial feet-washing is ceremonial sin-washing. If anything, its increased awkwardness drives home more severely the concept of disinterested service. The Lord often calls us to do cheerfully some unpleasant tasks, and such could be a part of a Biblical ceremony. We should do what is our duty to do, without complaint. We do not do the Pedilavium to be humble, for one cannot do humility. The purpose of the Pedilavium is service, and we are all servants, priests to God and men. No service is below our dignity. Pride, fear, apprehension or doubt may conceivably keep someone from the Pedilavium, but the Pedilavium does not instill humility, nor remove pride, fear, apprehension or doubt. It is a sad commentary on the disciples that they recoiled at Jesus’ humility and lack of pride. They ought rather to have marvelled at His radical concept of service and self-giving love. Instead of thinking about which of them would be the greatest in the kingdom of God (Lk. 22:24–27; cf. 9:46–48, Mk. 9:33–37), they should have thought about being a servant of all, and about the Servant of the Lord in their midst. Whereas the Eucharist memorializes the atonement (expiation) of Christ, the Pedilavium memorializes the obedience and service (consecration) of Christ. The Pedilavium is not inspirational and one does not feel euphoria. One feels warmly human, like an obedient slave or priest in the image of Christ who is True Humanity. The blessing comes the day after when you think of what Christ and your brother have done for you, and what you, in Christ, have done for him and for Christ. I am my brother’s keeper, because Jesus, the sin-bearer of Israel, is the Keeper of us both.
Again, it must be repeated, in my view the answer to these questions in inconclusive. We must take them to God and continue to search the Scriptures. The biggest problem is that, unlike the Agape and Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11, the Pedilavium is not mentioned, not directly at least (see 1 Tim. 5:10 above), outside the Gospel of John. We simply do not know the apostolic ceremonial practice, if any. This is the main reason why opinions vary, and must be respected. To those in fellowships which find this service meaningful there must be a searching of Biblical categories of meaning. That is why this study of Levitical sacrificial procedure and Christian liturgy has been developed. The author is seeking to authenticate by means of Scripture, and Scripture alone, an increasingly rich and theological experience in these areas being discussed.
It is possible, in fact likely, that some readers are saying that Christian baptism is fully adequate to symbolize all the washing we need, both initial (incorporation) and continuous (sanctification). To this we would respond two ways. First, though they may be right, a burning question remains. It was Jesus who said, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet …” (Jn. 13:10). What is the relationship of the supposed total adequacy to this need mentioned by Jesus? This bathing could refer to baptism-bathing as well as to the obvious social and spiritual connotations (see the exegesis of Jn. 13 above), in which case something in addition liturgically is needful. Which leads to the second point, that the ordeal nature of the non-recurrent covenantal signs of circumcision and baptism stresses incorporation (bathing), whereas the waters of consecratory sanctification are more centrally expressed in the Pedilavium (washing). The Pedilavium was apparently designed by Jesus to be a public pledge of renewed devotion to Christ upon repentance and cleansing from sins committed after conversion, and perhaps still has this design. The purpose and liturgical load of each, Baptism and Pedilavium, appears to be beautifully and divinely suited for Christ’s church.
A light concluding note on the Pedilavium can be given by tracing the interesting history of a word and idea based on Jn. 13:34, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” The opening phrase, “a new commandment,” is rendered in the Latin Vulgate version, “novum mandatum.” This word for “commandment” is not only the basis of our word for “mandate,” but is the specific context for our word “maundy,” as in Maundy Thursday (“Mandate Thursday”). According to The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, “maundy” is a noun meaning “the ceremony of washing the feet of the poor, esp. commemorating Jesus’ washing of His disciples’ feet on Maundy Thursday.” It traces the English word “maundy” from Middle English maunde, from Old French mande, from the Latin of this verse mandat(um), meaning command, mandate. It can also refer to maundy money, “money distributed as alms in conjunction with the ceremony of maundy… .” This perhaps has its basis in Jn. 13:29 where the disciples thought that Jesus in His command to Judas Iscariot, “What you do, do quickly,” might be saying “that he should give something to the poor.” Aims were associated with the Passover, and in the Christian church have been associated with the Eucharist by means of a special offering, in the love-feast by feeding the poor (see 1 Cor. 11 below), and in the Pedilavium by the maundy alms just indicated. While alms in connection with any of these ceremonies would surely ceremonialize our consecration, it is extremely doubtful that the giving of alms, good, proper and required in themselves, is the ceremony Jesus specifically intended in Jn. 13, and in any case, such conjoined maundy money does not negate the maundy itself, nor the specificity of Jesus’ maundy-mandate that they wash one another’s feet. “Maundy Thursday,” etymologically, is ‘ ‘Mandate-to-love-as-He-loved-by-washing-feet-as-He-washed-feet Thursday.”
3. Celebration (Sharing-Meal): Agape
The New Testament ceremonial reflex to celebration is, most probably, the Agape, also known as the “love-feast,” and, in the fuller sense, “the Lord’s Supper.” The direct Scriptural references to it outside the Last Supper of the four Gospels are I Cor. 11 and Jude 12, with possible references in II Pet. 2:13 (some MSS) and Acts 2:42, 46. The two explicit epistolary-references to the love-feast, I Cor. 11 and Jude 12, are to correct abuses of an already existing practice.
In order to arrive at a definition of the Agape, what it signified, and how it was practiced, one must exegete these Scriptures, beginning with the Gospels and the most difficult question of all in this definition: was the Last Supper a Passover meal or some common meal with an uncommon significance? This places us squarely in the middle of a problem in Gospel chronology: which day was Passover in the week Jesus died? Was Passover that year on the very Friday of Jesus’ crucifixion, the Last Supper being the night before Passover, or was it on Thursday, the day before Jesus’ death, the Last Supper then being the Paschal meal? One of the most recent summaries of this discussion is again that of Leon Morris in an appendix to his commentary on the Gospel of John.[19] We will barely summarize his summary, giving just enough information on this difficult subject to provide a setting for the Last Supper, so as to quickly return to a definition of the Agape.
Morris begins with the obvious, namely that the Synoptic Gospels appear to record the Last Supper as a Passover meal, while John seems to indicate that Jesus was crucified on the same afternoon that the Passover victims were being slain, so that the Last Supper preceded the Passover. After giving the evidence for each of these two positions—a Maundy Thursday Passover (apparently the Synoptics) versus a Good Friday Passover (apparently the Fourth Gospel)—Morris, eliminating those who accept the trustworthiness of none of the four Gospels, and confining himself to views which allow for substantial historicity in one or more accounts, then lists five possible views for the date of the Passover in Holy Week.
(1) The two accounts cannot be harmonized and John is to be preferred. (2) The two accounts cannot be harmonized and the Synoptists are to be preferred, (3) The Passover took place as in the Synoptists (i.e. the Last Supper was a Passover meal) and John is not really in contradiction. (4) The Passover took place as in John and the Synoptists are not really in contradiction. (5) There are calendrical differences so that the Synoptists follow one reckoning and John another.[20]
The first two views are modernistic. Most modern commentators prefer the first view. The third view is the preference of Lane (commentary on Mark) and Geldenhuys (commentary on Luke), just to name two conservative-evangelical works. The fourth view is held by people like Dom Gregory Dix, and by a number of the Brethren writers (who practice the love-feast). The fifth view is the preference of Strack and Billerbeck, and Morris himself. My own choice is primarily the fifth, which presently has the edge (i.e. that both Maundy Thursday and Good Friday were Passovers of different calendrical reckoning among rival Jewish groups and practices, such as represented at Qumran). My secondary choice, however, is the fourth (i.e. that Jesus died on Passover), with the stipulation that regardless of whether Maundy Thursday was or was not a rival Passover day, it was still nonetheless a Passover meal (as was indicated above in the exegesis of the Eucharist under “Expiation”). I personally see the origin of the love-feast in what Jesus did to His Last Paschal Supper, which clearly was an altered and Christian form of the Jewish Passover of the first century. This is to say that the Passover meal demanded by the Synoptics, be it a rival Passover day or an anticipative Passover meal (Jesus holding His own Passover a day early knowing that He was about to be killed), was far more than a specialized fellowship meal, such as either a fellowship havura or a Sabbath-eve kiddush. In fact, it was far more than a Passover meal, as will be developed.
Both a rival and an anticipative Passover would have to be altered in several details by law and by the innovations of Jesus. “If the temple authorities held one day to be the correct day and Jesus and His followers agreed with those who had the alternative view, then they would not be able to obtain a lamb and their celebration would necessarily differ from what might have been expected.”[21] Such a lambless Passover might have been held anywhere outside Jerusalem too. Calendrical divergence might account for the Gospels not mentioning a lamb or Paschal dishes such as the bitter herbs, but such is arguing from silence. Jesus did several new things at His Last Paschal Supper. Instead of the pater familias (the father of the family) presiding over the Passover meal with his whole family (men, women and children), Jesus presided with just the Twelve, terminating with only the faithful Eleven. He further astonished them by introducing the Pedilavium, and by identifying the bread and the penultimate cup of the Seder with His own impending sacrificial death.
At this point it is best to discuss briefly the sequence of the Passover Seder, for which Lane’s discussion at Mk. 14:17 is adequate and up-to-date.[22] The family head (who presides) and the singing of the Hallel Psalms (113–18) are central to the ceremony. The head begins the ceremony by blessing the festival (the Passover Kiddush—sanctification of the day) and then blesses the wine. All partake of the first cup of wine. The food is then brought it, usually consisting of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, greens, stewed fruit, and roasted lamb. The question of the youngest son regarding the uniqueness of the night is then asked, followed by the head recalling the exodus story. All join in song by singing the first half of the Hallel (Psalms 113–15), after which comes the second cup of wine for all. The head then begins the meal proper by blessing and fracturing the bread. The bread is then eaten by all with the bitter herbs and stewed fruit. The main course of roasted lamb then takes place. The head then blesses the wine with a prayer of thanksgiving, which is followed by all drinking a third cup of wine. The last half of the Hallel (Psalms 116–18) is sung by the group, which then in consummation drinks the terminating fourth cup of wine.
It appears from our discussion within other headings above that the feet-washing could have taken place, with the subsequent identification of the traitor, during the meal. Toward the end of the main meal Jesus took additional bread and wine and gave the two words of institution. The second word of institution (wine of His blood) perhaps came at the end of the main meal at the point where the head would have blessed the wine and given thanks for the third cup. This third cup, the cup of redemption in the Passover, probably became the very cup of the Eucharist. Here, probably, Jesus said that He would not drink the (fourth) kingdom-cup of consummation until His return to finish the meal, which will be at the marriage feast of the Lamb. With the bitter third cup of His suffering willingly drunk, and the fourth cup of consummation temporarily refused, all that remained was to complete the Hallel. So after singing the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives (Mt. 26:30, Mk. 14:26).
On the significance of the cups Lane has an intriguing datum from the Jerusalem Talmud:
The cup from which Jesus abstained was the fourth, which ordinarily concluded the Passover fellowship. The significance of this can be appreciated from the fact that the four cups of wine were interpreted in terms of the four-fold promise of redemption set forth in Exod. 6:6–7: “I will bring you out … I will rid you of their bondage … I will redeem you, ,. I will take you for my people and I will be your God” (TJ Pesahim X. 37b).[23]
The Lord’s Paschal Supper is an unfinished meal, cut short by a bitter third cup of redemptive wrath which did not pass Jesus by. But we proclaim by such the Lord’s death until He comes to complete and extend the feast in the kingdom of God (Mt. 26:29, Mk. 14:25, Lk. 22:18, 30; cf. Mt. 8:11, Lk. 14:15, Rev. 3:20, 19:6–9).
Returning now to a definition of the Agape, we can see that both the Pedilavium and the Eucharist occurred in the context of a Paschal meal, being a part, respectively, of its initial and terminal stages. The Scriptures already studied indicate that it was during the evening meal (Jn. 13:2) that Jesus washed their feet, from which meal He rose (vs. 4), and at which He later reclined again (vss. 12, 26). Jesus made His Pedilavium a part of the Last Passover Supper. Furthermore, the Eucharist was not a token meal after the Paschal meal, but was an integral part of it. He took the bread and the cup “while they were eating” (Mt. 26:26, Mk. 14:22), the cup of the Eucharist probably being the third cup of the Passover. Other Passover events then followed the Eucharist, namely the declaration of the significance (1 Cor. 11:26) of and postponement of the fourth cup, followed by the singing of the terminal hymn regular to the Passover service. Our Lord’s Last Supper was a Paschal service and meal which was being conducted by Christ before, during, and after the Pedilavium and Eucharist. This supper of love (Jn. 13:1, 34) when celebrated with the Eucharist, and possibly even with the Pedilavium (see above), is most likely what the New Testament calls “the love-feast” (Greek he agape “the love,” Jude 12), and “the Lord’s Supper” (Greek kuriakon deipnon, 1 Cor. 11:20; cf. Rev. 1:10 for a similar Greek expression). Again, in our judgment, most fundamental to a proper definition of the Agape is the fact that the Lord’s Supper (the Agape, the love-feast) is what our Lord did to His Last Passover Supper the night before His Passover death. In both ceremonial meal and atoning death it is “Christ our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7–8).
It is needful at this point to ask what of significance are the precedents and successors to the Last Supper. This will improve and sharpen our basic definition of it as the Christian ceremonial reflex to the Passover. As stated above in the Eucharist (“Expiation”) discussion, what was affirmed about ceremonial meals as precedents to the Eucharist may be also affirmed here of the Lord’s Supper, but with, again, a difference of emphasis, for they are the body and consummating final ritual act of the same covenant meal. The annual family Passover of Exodus 12, the covenant ratification meal of the elders in Exodus 24, and the peace-offering meal of laity and priests in the sacrificial system of Leviticus 7 as “sharers in the altar” (1 Cor. 10:18), and possibly any covenantal fellowship meals, all find their fulfillment in the Lord’s Supper and its consummating Eucharist. The body and final course of the Passover, as stated, find their liturgical expression in the Christian feasting and celebration of the Agape when accompanied by the climaxing and expiatory expression of the Eucharist.
Indeed, the Lord’s Supper was more than a Passover. It was a covenant ratification meal with the elders of Christ’s church (the Eleven), with Christ as Mediator of the New Covenant in His own blood, fulfilling the pattern (type) of Moses as mediator of the Old Covenant in the blood of peace offerings, dining in the presence of God with the elders of Israel (Ex. 24). Such would explain why Christ did not hold a family Passover meal, but only with His disciples as the ratifying body of elders in His new church. Jesus Himself alludes to Ex. 24, for when taking the words of Moses, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you” (Ex. 24:8), Jesus Himself said in transforming fulfillment, “This is My blood of the covenant which is shed on behalf of many” (Mt. 26:28, Mk. 14:24), being in fact, “the new covenant in My blood” (Lk. 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25). The Lord’s Supper was at once the Messiah’s final pre-glory Passover and the New Testament’s only ratification meal.
But it was still more. It is the recurrent ritual meal celebrating the joy of Christian forgiveness and deliverance. For Christ commanded future observance and did not limit future observance to the Eleven when He said in His words of institution, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Lk. 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24), and the church so understood it as for all believers (1 Cor. 11). The Christian Agape sustains the setting of covenant feasting, commemorating, as the sacrificial meals of Leviticus 7 (and Deut. 12, 14, 16), the celebration of forgiveness, and, as the Passover meals, the celebration of deliverance. The Lord’s Supper is the New Testament ritual reflex to the themes of expiation, consecration, and celebration. The meal itself provides the context of celebration, in the train of Passover and sacrificial meal. This context is for the celebrative ceremonializing of the consecrating service and expiating death by which our Lord ratified the New Covenant, and by which we in covenant renewal ceremony memorialize, sacramentalize and typify Him who is Himself “My servant, … a covenant to the people, … a light to the nations” (Isa. 42:1, 6).
The Eucharist, the crisis experience, memorializes the death and atonement of Christ. The Pedilavium, the changing experience, memorializes the obedience and service of Christ. The Agape meal, the sharing experience, memorializes the love and joy of Christ, a sharing joy, His joy given to us, unspeakable and full of glory. Agape love is simply His love, the sharing love. When we break bread together we are sharing this love and joy in covenant meal. The breaking of bread is both a covenant symbol and pledge of brotherly love. How painful the treachery of Judas must have been, initially at the meal of peace (Jn. 13:18, Psa. 41:9; cf. Psa. 23) and then with the garden kiss of peace, a veritable unholy kiss of death! Whereas the Eucharist emphasizes expiation and atonement, the Agape emphasizes koinonia (sharing and fellowship).
This, in turn, leads us to the successors of Christ’s Last Paschal Supper, i.e. the references and practice of the Lord’s Supper mentioned in the New Testament after the Gospels. The first reference may be in the Acts of the Apostles.
And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer…. And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart (Acts 2:42, 46).
The key phrases here are “the breaking of bread” (vs. 42), “breaking bread from house to house,” and “they were taking their meals together” (vs. 46). Bruce, in commenting on these verses, and quoting Otto, makes the following observations (italics mine).
The “breaking of bread” here denotes something more than the ordinary partaking of food together: the regular observance of the Lord’s Supper is no doubt indicated. While this observance appears to have formed part of an ordinary meal, the emphasis on the act of breaking the bread, “a circumstance wholly trivial in itself,” suggests that this was “the significant element of the celebration…. But it could only be significant when it was a ‘signum’, viz. of Christ’s being broken in death”…. Day by day, then, in the weeks that followed the first Christian Pentecost, the believers met regularly in the temple precincts for public worship and public witness, while they took their fellowship meals in each other’s homes and “broke the bread” in accordance with their Master’s ordinance…. The community was organized along the lines of the voluntary type of association called a haburah, a central feature of which was the communal meal. The communal meal could not conveniently be eaten in the temple precincts, so they ate “by households”… .[24]
With these statements we are in agreement, but they have to be brought into focus. It is my view that the Eucharist, which was celebrated in the context of and as the climax to Christ’s Last Passover Supper, was now, weeks after Passover and Pentecost, celebrated in the context of and as the climax to their daily Christian fellowship meals. All the evidence points toward the fact that the commonness of property, possessions and meals in Acts 2–7 (8:1–4 is the death of Stephen and the scattering of the church) was a temporary and very short-lived expedient to establish the church. After this, the Eucharist was celebrated in the context of and as the climax to an occasional fellowship meal, perhaps even weekly on the Lord’s Day, known as the Lord’s Supper or the Agape (love-feast; 1 Cor. 11, Jude 12). The nature of these meals subsequent to the feast of Passover was surely not Paschal, though their significance was, thanks to the crowning Eucharist. By the time Passover rolled around again it is possible that the meal on that day imitated some of the other Passover courses, but even this would-be seasonal Christian Seder is very doubtful due to the fresh break between the church and the temple persecutors. So the point here is not that the early Church’s love-feast was a Passover with its traditional courses, but rather that it was a common fellowship meal with Paschal significance, of which Christ, our Passover, was the necessary Ingredient ceremonialized in the constitutive and institutional final ritual act.[25] But note, the common denominator is that the New Testament church celebrated the Eucharist in the context of and as the climax to a meal, be it Paschal (as initially with Jesus), communal (as subsequently with the early church), or occasional (finally, as at Corinth). This warrants us to say that the imitative Eucharistic meals were ceremonial meals (by virtue of the crowning Eucharist), which is to say they were common meals with an uncommon significance, non-Passover meals with the Paschal significance of Christ Himself. The Lord’s Supper or love-feast is the Eucharistic fellowship meal of Jesus Christ, the Paschal Lamb of God, with His assembled church, who ceremonially celebrate His finished work and abiding presence.
A final note on Acts 2 may be applied to the phrase “house to house.” The early church met in homes, e.g. Philemon 2: “… and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the church in your house.” This setting would be very conducive to meals and washings, such as the ceremonial ones of the Agape and Pedilavium. Eating and washing require neither beautiful sanctuaries nor cultic instruments. Christians had no sacred buildings, altars, or sacrificing priests, and nothing usually associated with religion and public worship. It is common knowledge that their pagan neighbors called them “atheists,” thinking that they had no god, at least not in the “proper” sense.
There is a clear reference to the continuance of the love-feast in Jude. In Jude the ungodly who have “crept in unnoticed” (vs. 4) are described in very severe language, especially in verse twelve.
These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love-feasts when they feast with you (en tais agapais humon … suneuochoumenoi), without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted.
There is a very similar description of the unrighteous in 2 Pet. 2, especially verse 13, where there is a textual problem, however.
They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions when they feast with you (en tais apatais auton suneuochoumenoi humin).
The variant text of 2 Pet. 2:13 has in the place of “deceptions” (apatais) the word “love-feasts” (agapais).[26] Both readings have a high degree of manuscript probability, although the reading “deceptions” (apatais) is more probable. In any case, the common denominator of Jude 12 and both readings of 2 Pet. 2:13 is the visible church gathered to feast together (suneuochoumenoi). What does it mean “to feast together” (from suneuocheomai)? Surely in Jude it is the love-feast we have been describing, and although not explicitly perhaps, Peter is surely describing the same thing.
Finally, the longest and most explicit New Testament reference to the Lord’s Supper is that of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 11, specifically 11:17–34. We render the text in full here according to the New International Version of the New Testament (NIV), highlighting the phrases most pertinent to us for this discussion.
(17) In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. (18) In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. (19) No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (20) When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, (21) for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
(22) Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
(23) For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, (24) and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” (25) In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (26) For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
(27) Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks of the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. (28) A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. (29) For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (30) That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. (31) But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. (32) When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
(33) So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. (34) If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.
Several things in this text are obvious. It is certain that a full meal was eaten by the Corinthian church in conjunction with the Eucharist, regardless of whether it was the full church-meal itself or the manner in which they ate it that Paul objected to. The full church-meal is certain, regardless of whether Paul was outright prohibiting it (thus leaving the Eucharist only), somewhat limiting it (leaving only a token meal followed by the crowning Eucharist), or merely regulating it (the rules being on the manner of observing the church-meal and its consummating Eucharist). In regard to this full church-meal, was Paul suggesting prohibition, limitation or just regulation?
The last option of regulation is easily, it seems to me, the most consistent understanding of the text. That the Eucharist was part of a full church-meal is obvious from notions in the text such as meals at home as opposed to those with the assembled church of God (vss. 22, 34), and such notions totally-inappropriate to the small portions of the Eucharist as hunger (vss. 21, 34) and drunkenness (vs. 21). Further, the notion of the humiliation of those who have nothing (vs. 22) presupposes not exclusion from the Eucharist, but the poor who were not fed by the others who could afford to bring extra food for the love-feast.
The problem seems to center around consideration of others, the very heart of the love-feast. Such despite for the church of God (vs. 22) manifested itself by people coming in cliques, eating everything which they had brought for themselves, not sharing it with the poor who came with nothing (vs. 22). They were, further, contemptuous of other groups, not eating in unison or fellowship with them, but rather preferring to jump in rather than wait (vss. 21, 33). This kind of a potluck supper was unloving and unchristian. It was not the intended Lord’s Supper (vs. 20). The intended Lord’s Supper is one in which all eat and drink in remembrance of the Lord, who gave of Himself completely, both body and blood, and whose death they proclaim. But the Corinthian selfishness in the light of His selflessness was sin against the body and blood of the Lord and for which they were being chastened.
How did Paul deal with this? Paul points out the very close connection between the love-feast and the Eucharist, which is its constitutive final act. He calls this evening meal (deipnon) the “Lord’s Supper” (kuriakon deipnon), which term is already familiar to the Corinthians and implies an existing institution, namely the Eucharistic evening meal that Jesus instituted with His disciples the night before His death, which it proclaims.
Was Paul now, due to abuse, prohibiting the traditional meal-part of the Eucharistic feast? After all, the Eucharistic part of our Lord’s Supper does contain the moral essence of celebrative ingesting, the emphasis of the Agape, even though its own emphasis is expiation-death. Moreover, Jesus did not explicitly command anything but the Eucharist. Its meal-context, though theologically and traditionally a good inference, is not a necessary inference from His command. To our question of what did Jesus intend we add the question of what did Paul intend. Again our answer below is inconclusive.
It is the opinion of many, even many who do not hold to the normativity of the love-feast context of the Eucharist, that Paul is not forbidding a full-meal celebration of the Lord’s Supper when he says, “Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? … If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home” (vss. 22, 34).
It is the view of Grosheide, for example (among many other commentators), which takes the word “hungry” in vs. 34 to mean “only hungry” or “merely hungry” so as to fit the whole context. “If anybody is only hungry, i.e. if he attends the meetings of the congregation only to eat and to drink and not to enjoy the communion of the saints, let him eat at home.”[27] And such really fits the context, for merely the Eucharist would not be sufficient to meet the physical need of the poor who have nothing at all, and further because Paul says “when you come together to eat, wait for each other” (vs. 33). This is so that all, poor too, might have access to the food, which can be eaten by all at the same time and shared equally—much like our smooth functioning potluck suppers of today. We would put it this way: for those who are bent on an anti-Eucharist supper at church, the apostle mandates an “ante-Eucharist supper before church. Mere physical hunger is not sufficient preparation to come to the Lord’s table. Physical hunger does not disqualify, but only spiritual hunger qualifies. “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you” (Mt. 6:33).
There is, just barely, a middle option. It is possible that Paul is compromising between the two extremes of outright prohibition on the one hand and mere regulation on the other by requiring a token meal which would be sufficient in scope to sustain the theme of celebration, thus preparing the church for the solemnities of the Eucharist as the final ritual act. Such would somewhat relieve the burden of the church to provide abundance as well. The poor could eat all they want, while the others who had eaten their main evening meal at home, would partake of the token memorial at church in much the same fashion formally as the sacrificial offerings known as “memorial” or “token” in the Old Testament.[28] The established legal precedent here is obviously pars pro toto, the part for the whole. This, as has been already pointed out earlier in the study, is common in Scripture, whereby the part recalls the whole, as, for example, blood on the ear lobe, thumb, and large toe symbolizes the notion of being totally covered by the blood. But against such a supposed Pauline limitation of Corinthian practice is the point that such an anomaly would be a token followed by a token. There are only two consistent approaches. One takes the approach of this study, viewed as more consistent with Leviticus, the Gospels, Acts, Corinthians and Jude, that the Eucharist is best viewed not as a token, but as the constitutive final ritual act of the Lord’s Supper, and that such a full and celebrative Eucharistic meal was apostolic practice. The other approach reckons the constitutive Eucharist in moral essence to be a token of such a meal, and as such expresses all the features required by our Lord, whether or not the apostolic fellowship meal-context is imitated today. But the middle option of viewing both the Agape and the Eucharist as tokens would appear to be untheological with respect to covenant meals, and unexegetical with respect to First Corinthians. It is my thinking that only full covenant feasting completely expresses the traditional and intended setting for the Eucharistic elements. Such is consistent with the Corinthian evidence, with the Passover feasting of our Lord, and with all of the other Scriptures studied.
Here too, at the conclusion of the Agape, the caution must be given that, as in the case of the Pedilavium, normative (obligatory) observance of the Agape has not been proven. Unlike the Pedilavium, however, the evidence is more specific. We have apostolic practice and approval of the Agape portion of the Lord’s Supper, though not explicit command. Such is not only appropriate worship, as in the case of the Pedilavium, but also apostolic worship, though perhaps not a specific command. While in our view restriction of the Lord’s Supper to the Eucharist, so common today, is ritually somewhat unsatisfactory in that it makes the Eucharist bear too much of a liturgical load out of balance with its emphasis, such is nonetheless lawful, and representational, in a nuclear form at least, of all the sacrificial categories. The Agape must not be mandatory to Eucharistic celebration, and Eucharistic exclusivism must be tolerated and appreciated as fully compliant, at the very least, with the moral essence of New Testament teaching. The Agape, on the other hand, should not only be tolerated, but encouraged as the more Biblical expression of ritual categories and apostolic celebration.
Trine Communion not only enjoys the distinction of being an ultimate in liturgical-ceremonial expressiveness conformable to the law of God found in the book of Leviticus but also an ultimate in corporate obedience beyond command to Him, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, who first performed and uniquely embodies its three ritual acts.
V. Practical Observations
Here are some practical observations which, though only ancillary to the above discusssion, may be helpful to groups which observe Trine Communion. Again, they are not offered as a critique of existing practices, but as a functional extension of my own thinking. These, it seems to me, flow from the premises demonstrated in this study, but some may in fact be merely my own functional preferences. I have comparatively little practical experience in these things, and therefore hesitate to offer them. But I have, nonetheless, been encouraged to do so since variety already exists in current practice, and discussion does take place. These suggestions, it is hoped, will facilitate the discussion, not diminish it.
A. Sequence
This study has shown that Jesus washed His disciples feet during the evening meal (Jn. 13:2), from which He rose (vs. 4), and at which He later reclined again (vss. 12, 26).[29] The Eucharist, of course, followed. It would seem that the most appropriate sequence for celebrating Trine Communion would be A + P + E (Agape + Pedilavium + Eucharist), or A-P-A + E (i.e. the Pedilavium being celebrated during the Agape, small groups going and coming in succession). The former praxis (A + P + E) creates less motion and distraction, and allows the stewards in attendance over the Pedilavium to participate fully in the Agape. Both have the ceremonial advantage of conducting both the Pedilavium and Eucharist in a context of feasting and celebration important to both the Old Testament Passover and New Testament Agape. Such festivity not only heightens the climactic solemnities of the Eucharist, but in a very natural and friendly way provides a “warming-up” process which establishes an easing social base for the intimacy of the Pedilavium. And most obviously, both forms of initial Agape permit hot covered dishes to be eaten while they are still warm. The sequence P + A -f- E, however, with initial Pedilavium, does not have that social and ceremonial advantage, and is least imitative of the account in John’s Gospel. This P + A + E sequence does, however, like A + P + E, solve the problem of steward absence, and clearly provides the feast-context for the Eucharist itself. It unfortunately is usually limited to a token evening meal, such as sandwiches and fruit, without hot food. This token is often provided by the institution and thus for some celebrants has less consecration symbolism, since in the potluck situation celebrants bring their dishes for others to enjoy in mutual gift and sharing.
Before leaving the subject of sequence, a word of clarification might be in order. The reason this study discussed the New Testament rituals in the sequence Eucharist + Pedilavium + Agape (rather than A + P + E) was that such a sequence merely followed the sacrificial categories of the book of Leviticus, namely expiation + consecration + celebration. As to the question why did Jesus, in divine wisdom, invert the logical and ceremonial order of expiation + consecration + celebration to become celebration + consecration + expiation (i.e. the expected *E + P + A in fact becoming A + P + E), one can only guess. His Passover being lambless on Maundy Thursday as either an anticipative or rival Passover (the temple lamb being slain on Good Friday while He was being crucified), gave Him the opportunity to dramatically declare to His disciples that He Himself is the Lamb of God. It is lawful to guess, even further, as to why Jesus disclosed this at the end of the Passover meal. Perhaps He wanted to specifically utilize the symbolism of the (third) redemption cup, and consciously postpone the fourth cup of kingdom consummation. Finally, such a sequence (A + P + E) not only climactically declares that expiation-redemption has finally come for the salvation of the world, but obversely also changes the tone and setting of Old Testament covenant meal to the New Testament rejoicing evermore. In other words, just as the curse-emphasis of circumcision (excision or cleansing) became the blessing-emphasis (bathing or drowning) of baptism, so the terminal celebration of Old Covenant meal became the initial celebration of New Covenant meal. The jubilee has come, the acceptable year of the Lord when all the captives are set free. Today is the day of salvation. All ritual acts of the New Covenant are in a setting and tone of joy unspeakable and full of glory. This new emphasis of abundant joy in life and ceremony is due to the wonderful fact that the long-awaited Messiah has indeed come. “And the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which shall be for all people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior who is Messiah-Lord (Christos-Kurios)’“ (Lk. 2:10, 11). As His guests we take our meals together with gladness (Acts 2:46).
B. Manner
It is my personal belief that Trine Communion is more expressive, fulfilling and worshipful when each of the following items occurs in abundance: food, singing, and conversation. The food presents a marvelous opportunity for variety, and changes should be made often in the nature of the meal. Some occasions, perhaps seasonal, could be designed to be imitative of either regular Passover courses or creative Chavurah stages (such as the dipping of bread in broth) punctuated with the Law, the Psalter and spontaneous singing. Other occasions, conversely, could be of marked simplicity and convenience, closer to a lunch than a dinner. The mean, it would seem, could be the festive potluck, whose main feature is the sheer goodness and variety of so many homemade dishes, a quasi-smorgasbord of coordinated tender loving care. Just as the Passover enjoyed interspersed psalms of praise, so can one who presides lead several brief and intermittent songs fully familiar to the group. It helps too for the one who presides to encourage the group, perhaps at the opening prayer of thanksgiving, to speak to one another about the things of the Lord, including anything that will edify the body in the faith. In a word, the key, even unique opportunity, as I see it, is variety. The Lord has given us an instrument that is fully capable of such. The common denominator is that these are all Eucharistic meals, culminating in memorialized body and blood.
Abundance also implies frequency. It seems to me that it would be a greater good for us to celebrate Eucharistic meals much more frequently than it would be to observe the Pedilavium on each occasion. It seems totally illogical to me personally to believe that the ceremonial washing of feet took place at every instance (or even the majority of times) of those many Eucharistic meals mentioned in Acts and Corinthians. Rigidity at this point, in any case, clearly causes Trine-Communion groups to have infrequent Holy Communion (2, 3, or at most 4 times annually), due to its length and involved richness. The same would be true, to a lesser degree, of always having the Eucharist in the context of a meal. The difference is a couple of minutes or more as oposed to a couple of hours or less. It probably was just this convenience that caused the early church to move in the direction of exclusive Eucharistic celebration, rather than a rejection of the meal-idea. Rigidity will not sell the meal-idea, but variety will definitely heighten the fuller expressions of meal, and of feet-washing. Considering the greatest good of the Eucharist (granted by all), and the total worth of perpetuating the full expression of Trine Communion (herein defended), and considering the points made about variety and liturgical creativity, this writer, to state just one man’s preferences, would like to see pastors set the goal, if only experimentally, of having the Eucharist twelve times a year (monthly), four of which are to be Eucharistic meals (quarterly), and two of which are to be full Trine Communion services (biannually).
Most would prefer that one of these Trine Communion services be held sometime during the Lenten season. Due to the complexity of modern work and scheduling, with the necessity of meeting the greatest number of needs and circumstances of work and worship, variety in times of Eucharistic worship seems preferable, but Eucharistic meals in the evening and mere Eucharistic elements in the morning would be common. Such should enable all to come to the Lord’s table with increased frequency.
Notes
- The words trine and triune can be distinguished, although in fact they are often used interchangeably. Trine means “threefold” (Latin tri- “three,” plus -nus “fold”), and, therefore, appropriately expresses the three phases of the Lord’s supper (Agape-Pedilavium-Eucharist). The word triune means “three in one” (Latin tri- “three,” plus -unus “one”), and suitably expresses the Trinity of the Godhead (Latin trinitas means “triad,” or “trio,” encompassing each Person in One Essence). Incidently, those who practice triple baptism (thrice forward) call it either “triune baptism” (thus stressing the unity of one descent into the waters of Christ’s ordeal), or “trine baptism” (stressing that the submerging dips forward from the kneeling position are thrice in succession, being in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit).
- Joseph R. Shultz, The Soul of the Symbols: A Theological Study of Holy Communion (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966). For those who have not read in the area of the Brethren tradition see Charles F. Yoder, God’s Means of Grace (Elgin, Ill.: Brethren Publishing House, 1908), pp. 283-416.
- The present study is an expansion of the second of two previously published cassette tapes. Joseph N. Kickasola, “The Relationship of Law and Grace,” and “The Significance of Sacrificial Ritual Acts,” Westminster Media Tapes JK 101 and JK 102, The Harry A. Worcester Lectureship of Westminster Theological Seminary, March 8-9, 1976, “Two Theological Studies in Biblical Law: A Foundation and Application” (Westminster Media, P.O. Box 27009, Philadelphia, PA 19118).
- Shultz, ibid., p. 27.
- For a general and somewhat popular (though dispensational) treatment of the main features and applications of the Jewish feasts, see the cassette tape of the Hebrew-Christian Zola Levitt, “The Passover & Other Jewish Feasts,” 1975. Liberation Tapes, P.O. Box 6044, Lubbock, Texas. For a table showing the Hebrew calendar with its month names, agricultural seasons, and festivals, see J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), p. 177.
- For a discussion of the time and activities of the 16th of Nisan (and for a commentary generally helpful on all of Leviticus), see C. D. Ginsburg, “The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus,” in A Bible Commentary for English Readers by Various Writers, ed. Charles John Ellicott (London: Cassel and Company, Limited, n.d.), 1:443 (Lev. 23:11).
- For a truly excellent and brief article on these things, with some helpful discussion of ritual and meaning, plus a good bibliography for further reading, see R. J. Thompson, “Sacrifice and Offering,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), pp. 1113-22.
- This translation and understanding of Lev. 17:11 is clearly supported by the grammar of its clauses. The a-clause reads ki-nephesh habbasar baddam hi. It is a nonverbal clause whose subject (topic) is nephesh (life) and whose predicate (comment) is baddam (in the blood) followed by the feminine subject enclitically resumed in hi. The word dam (blood) is masculine and serves as the antecedent to the objective pronoun in the following clause. The b-clause reads vaani netattiv lakhem al-hammizbeah lekhapper al-naphshothekhem. It is a verbal clause with frontal emphatic personal pronoun ani (I Myself), and with masculine suffix pronoun -v (it) resuming the a-clause masculine antecedent dam (blood). The object of the infinitival phrase lekhapper al- (to make atonement for) is naphshothe-khem (your lives), and is in contrast with a-clause nephesh (life), which contrast is unfortunately blurred for the reader by most translations: AV 1611, RV 1885, ASV 1901, RSV 1952, NAS 1963 unfortunately have “life … for your souls,” but it is not obscured by the ancient versions, nor by some modern ones (French 1910 ame … pour vos ames, Dutch 1951 ziel … over uw zielen, JB 1966 life … for your lives). The c-clause reads ki-haddam hu bannephesh yekhapper. It is a cleft nonverbal clause with frontal predicate haddam (the blood) so marked by subjective enclitic hu which in turn relativizes (nominalizes) yekhapper to serve as the subjective noun phrase (that which makes atonement). The word bannephesh (by reason of the life) is a predicative adjunct of haddam, and is here correctly translated as such. What the c-clause is saying is this: “That which makes atonement is the blood by reason of the life which is in it).” Better still in the emphatic word order of the Hebrew, the c-clause is saying: “For it is the blood by reason of the life (which is in it) that makes atonement.” This has been perfectly translated by the modern German translation of Hans Brans (1962): “denn das Blut ist es, das Suhne durch das (in ihm enthaltene) Leben bewirkt” (the parentheses are mine). Most modern versions have caught the essence of bannephesh with the phrase “by reason of the life,” such as RV, ASV, RSV, NAS, Dutch 1951 (door middel van de ziel); the French (1910) also, but with the cleft slightly misplaced: “car c’est par I’ame que le sang fait l’expiation” (better would be *car c’est le sang par l’ame que fait l’expiation). The AV, following the ancient versions, has missed the nuance by connecting bannephesh with yekhapper to give the rendering “for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (and wrongly equating yekhapper be- “to make atonement with” and b-clause lekhapper al- “to make atonement for;” cf. the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, p. 498a). As indicated, nearly everyone today prefers the rendering “by reason of the life (soul)” over the unidiomatic “for the life (soul).”
- R. J. Thompson, ibid., p. 1120.
- For this last kind of fellowship meal, including the Kiddush (the fellowship supper ushering in the Sabbath), see F. Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments (New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1928), p. 64, and compare Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, New International Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), pp. 779-80, 782.
- For the general thrust of this passage see Leon Morris, ibid., pp. 610-23, and Note H, pp. 774-86.
- The translation “and during supper” of RV, ASV, RSV, and NASB is correct against the AV which has “and supper being ended” (the Greek kai deipnou ginomenou is literally “and supper taking place”).
- Morris, ad loc, p. 617.
- Ibid., pp. 617-18.
- Ibid., pp. 618-19.
- The Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon says that louo means to “wash, as a rule of the whole body, bathe” (p. 481b), and that ho leloumenos means “the one who has bathed (in contrast to the one who has his feet washed, and with allusion to the cleansing of the whole body in baptism)” (p. 482a). The cognate noun, loutron, means “bath, washing of baptism” (p. 481a), and is used in Eph. 5:26 and Tit. 3:5. A contrast is made in Lev. 15:11 between rinsing the hands (Hebrew shataph, LXX Greek nipto) and washing/bathing the body (Hebrew rahats, LXX Greek louo).
- Cf. Joseph R. Shultz, The Soul of the Symbols: A Theological Study of Holy Communion (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 76-77.
- Contrast Morris who, in commenting on this “as I did … you also should do” (kathos … kai) of vs. 15, drives a wedge between “do as I have done” and “do what I have done,” by saying: “kathos …kai shows how closely they are to follow the example given. At the same time we should notice that this is not identical with ‘what I have done’. It is the spirit and not the action which is to be imitated” (ibid., p. 621, n. 36; italics mine). His statement is remarkable in the light of the Semitic substratum of John’s language whereby “do as …” means “do (according to) what…” (Hebrew asa ke/al, Aramaic avad ke/al). For Aramaic examples see Dan. 4:32 (English vs. 35), Ezra 4:22, 7:18 (cf. avad kenema “do thus,” Ezra 6:13).
- Ibid., pp. 774-86 (“Additional Note H: The Last Supper and the Passover”).
- Ibid., p. 777.
- Ibid., p. 785.
- William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, New International Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), pp. 501-2.
- Ibid., p. 508 (at Mk. 14:25).
- F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, New International Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 79 (at vs. 42) and p. 81 (at vs. 46).
- As a matter of fact it cannot be proven that the Eucharist was specifically unleavened bread and red wine. Morris, citing Higgins, says that “the Eastern church uses leavened bread at Holy Communion; so apparently did the Western church until about the eleventh century” (Morris, ibid., p. 775).
- The reading “deceptions” (apatais) is supported mainly by the Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (before correction) MSS, whereas the reading “love-feasts” (agapais) is supported mainly by the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (after correction) MSS.
- F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953), p. 277 (at 11:34).
- For examples, see the azkara (“token”) portion offered by fire to the Lord (Lev. 2:2, 9, 16, 5:12, 6:8 (English 6:15), 24:7, Num. 5:26).
- Jesus washed the feet of all twelve of His disciples (vss. 10–12, 18), including Judas Iscariot who had not yet left the room (vss. 21, 26–27, 30). As a matter of fact, it appears that the traitor also partook of the Eucharistic bread and cup, since according to Lk. 22:20–21 it was just after the words of institution that Jesus said, “But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Me on the table” (vs. 22). Jn. 13:30 is not really in contradiction with this which says of Judas, “And so after receiving the morsel he went out immediately (euthus); and it was night.” Dipping the morsel was earlier in the Seder than the terminal Eucharist. But the word “immediately” (euthus) need not be translated so. This temporal adverb can definitely have an inferential use, meaning “then” (e.g. Mk. 1:21, 23; see the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon, p. 321b). After the morsel, he then went out (John omits the Eucharist facts which intervened; in fact, John omits the words of institution entirely). It appears that the traitor left very soon after the Eucharist, but before the Farewell Discourses of Jn. 14–17 (cf. 18:1–3).
No comments:
Post a Comment