In this episode, we welcome back Michael Glodo, Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. Rev. Glodo has written The Lord Bless You and Keep You (Crossway), a new book on the Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6:24–26. We discuss several biblical-theological and practical implications for contemporary faith and practice including what it means to behold the face of God. We also explore how the person and work of Jesus secures the blessing on our behalf.

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:00:42 Revisiting A History of Dispensationalism
• 00:06:25 The Aaronic Blessing in Numbers 6
• 00:16:43 Beholding the Face of God
• 00:24:41 Faces in Scripture
• 00:30:55 The Context of Numbers 6
• 00:44:13 Jesus’ Priesthood and the Aaronic Blessing
• 00:50:33 The Aaronic Blessing in Worship and Pastoral Care
• 01:00:29 The Priesthood of All Believers
• 01:11:18 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Michael Glodo

Reformed worship is distinctive because it uses only the Bible and not human traditions or human wisdom for knowing how to worship aright. That leaves Presbyterians in a difficult position, because the Bible doesn’t provide an explicit order of worship. If we are going to follow the Bible in worship, there must be some measure of creativity.

I would prefer for Presbyterians to be more uniform in their order of worship. Presbyterians, however, have been very reluctant to have a General Assembly mandate things in a top-down fashion. Even though we have the “Directory for the Public Worship of God” in The Book of Church Order, we have wanted to give congregations great leeway in how they execute the directory. I think this has hurt Presbyterians at times—when you can go into different Presbyterian churches and have a different kind of service, a different order, and yes, even a different tone as well.

But there is a seriousness that characterizes Reformed and Presbyterian worship because trying to follow God’s Word means avoiding anything that would offend God or would be objectionable. There are all sorts of examples throughout the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, of people offending God with bad worship or false worship. Presbyterians are particularly eager not to engage in false worship, and that’s what the regulative principle tries positively to establish, but exactly what that has meant for Presbyterians has been harder to execute.

If you go to Presbyterian services in Scotland as compared to Ireland as compared to Canada as compared to present-day America, even though they all may be conservative churches, they may be following different kinds of patterns in worship, which is unlike Lutheran or Anglican churches. There you might have greater uniformity between the churches because they’re either using an Anglican prayer book or Lutheran service book. So, that uniformity is something I think Presbyterians still need to work on but with the idea of God as a consuming fire and thus the need to approach him with reverence and awe (Hebrews 12:28). I think this idea has characterized Christians throughout all times, but Reformed Presbyterians have made it particularly important.

Adapted from a transcript of the video.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

Glen Clary discusses the worship setting of Revelation 4–5 and its significance for the church’s present and future worship. While on the isle of Patmos, John was given a vision of the highest heavens. While we may consider these visions as symbols conveying cryptic messages for the church, they are a picture of the worship that occurs among the heavenly host in the highest heavens. Our worship on earth is intended to serve as a replica of this worship. And as we gather to worship in Spirit and truth, our worship is enjoined to the worship in God’s throne room.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary

Jonathan Landry Cruse speaks about worship. Cruse has written What Happens When We Worship (Reformation Heritage Books). Many churchgoers assume that worship is inherently boring, something we need to make exciting. But Cruse seeks to demonstrate that churchgoing only seems monotonous and mundane because our eyes are blinded to the supernatural wonder that is taking place all around us. In this conversation, we discuss the significance of worship and the elements that comprise it.

Rev. Cruse is pastor of Community Presbyterian Church in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jonathan Landry Cruse

Rev. Dr. David Noe joins us to speak about John Calvin, God or Baal: Two Letters on the Reformation of Worship and Pastoral Service (Reformation Heritage Books), which includes translations of two letters:

• We Must Flee the Forbidden Rites of the Wicked and Maintain the Purity of the Christian Faith
• The Christian Man’s Obligation to Fulfill or Renounce the Priestly Offices of the Papal Church

Calvin most likely wrote these letters in the fall of 1536. Both have a polemical tone and touch upon the subject of worship. These letters are Calvin’s first strong rebuke of two friends, men whom he had known for some time and had clearly expressed evangelical convictions and yet wanted to remain in the positions of privilege and power that they enjoyed within French Catholicism.

Dr. Noe is Professor of Classics at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has also published a translation of Franciscus Junius’ (1545–1602) De Theologia Vera (Reformation Heritage Books) and a translation of Theodore Beza’s (1519–1605) Plana et Perspicua Tractatio De Coena Domini (Reformation Heritage Books).

Links

• Latin Per Diem
• Ad Navseam podcast

Participants: Camden Bucey, David Noe

One of the highlights of the Christmas season is singing the Christmas hymns. Singing songs about the nativity of Jesus is one of the oldest traditions in the Christian church, and dates to the beginning of the New Testament church—even to the birth of Christ himself. Luke includes four such songs: Mary’s (1:46–55), Zechariah’s (1:68–79), Simeon’s (2:29–32), and the Angels’ (2:14).

In this episode, Glen Clary seeks to explain the redemptive-historical significance of the songs with reference to the temple cultus. These nativity canticles register a transition in the temple cultus from shadow to reality (type to antitype) in that they proclaim the arrival of the high priest of the heaven, who will bring the earthly temple cultus to its consummate fulfillment. They serve as a liturgical bridge between the old covenant and the new covenant and set the stage for the message of Luke, introducing significant theological themes developed in Luke-Acts.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary

Glen Clary speaks about the biblical basis and covenantal context of the call to worship and benediction. These elements of worship are rooted in Christ’s work on behalf of his covenant people.

In the call to worship, God calls his people to have covenant communion with him in his heavenly temple. He calls us to enter his house—to draw near to him—to have communion with him.

The benediction is the bestowal of the covenant blessing by the successful probationer. Had Adam obeyed, he would have received for himself and for all his posterity the covenant blessing. The covenant blessing would be given to those whom he represented in the covenant of works on the basis of his obedience. Now, Christ as redeemer and mediator of the covenant, the obedient federal head (successful probationer) receives and bestows the blessings of the covenant.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary

What was worship like in the early church? Did it differ significantly from our present practices? A letter written by a Roman official in 112 AD provides a window into these ancient Christian liturgical practices.

Pliny the Younger was appointed governor of Bithynia in 111 AD by the Emperor Trajan (98–117). Trajan knew that there was social unrest in that province, with a growing number of political factions causing divisions within the city. Among other things, he tasked Pliny with dissolving all associations or clubs in service of keeping the peace. This led him into a quandary regarding the Christians.

In one of the cities, trouble of some kind had arisen regarding the Christians, who were in several cases brought into court and accused of atheism, sexual immorality, incest, and even cannibalism. Pliny the Younger’s letter offers a window into the liturgical practices of ancient Christians and how they were often misunderstood by the world.

Suggested Reading

• Pliny, Letters, vols. 1 & 2. T. E. Page, E. Capps, et al. (London; New York: William Heinemann; The Macmillan Co., 1931).
• Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them
• Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
• Allen Cabaniss, Pattern in Early Christian Worship
• Ralph Martin, Carmen Christi
• W. Rordorf, The Eucharist of the Early Christians
• Hans Lietzmann, Mass and Lord’s Supper

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary

In this special quarantine episode, we discuss the theological issues and lessons learned from the initial weeks of staying at home during the global COVID-19 health crisis. Though many Christians are prevented from gathering physically to worship on the Lord’s Day, the Lord has promised that his church shall never perish. While our worship practices may be irregular for a time, God has provided means by which he cares for his people.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jim Cassidy

Faculty member and regular contributor on Christ the Center, Glen Clary recent spoke to our friends at Presbycast on worship and the second commandment. It was a great conversation on the subject with a tremendous amount of application for worship practices in the contemporary church.

Be sure to listen for the special offer from a KJV Bait Shop.

The sabbath principle is established in Genesis 2:1–3, immediately upon the completion of God’s work of creation. This Sabbath rest principle is a function neither of redemption nor theocracy. It is part of God’s creation order. We trace this theme through Scripture with particular attention to worship. Glen Clary recently addressed this subject in a conference for the Amarillo Reformed Fellowship.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary

Glen Clary compares and contrasts the Reformation liturgies of Martin Bucer, John Calvin, and John Knox. Studying each of these helps us to understand the significance of worship reformed according to Scripture and focuses our attention upon worship in our present day.

Further Reading

• Knox Liturgy
• Genevan Liturgy
• Catholic Describes Communion Service in Calvin’s Church
• John Knox and Public Prayer

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary

Our situation calls for serious self-discipline because the days are evil, and joyful celebration because God has rescued us from that evil in Jesus Christ.

Participants: Adam York, Glen Clary, Mark A. Winder, Mark Jenkins

Jonathan Gibson and Mark Earngey speak about Reformation worship. Their new book Reformation Worship: Liturgies from the Past for the Present, is an irenic plea for the Church (and especially her ministers) to engage again in the two-millennia-old question: “How then shall we worship?” Along with chapters on the Scriptural and historical basis for Reformed worship, Gibson and Earngey include twenty-six Reformation era liturgies modernized and newly translated. Dr. Gibson is Assistant Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, Westminster Theological Seminary. Mr. Earngey is a doctoral candidate in historical theology at Wycliffe Hall, University of Oxford.

Links

• Reformation Worship book website
• Jonathan Gibson, Covenant Continuity and Fidelity: A Study of Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Malachi

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jonathan Gibson, Mark Earngey

Hebrews 6 has been a challenging passage to interpret for ages. What does it mean to fall away? What is the specific nature of the apostasy? Do majority interpretations do justice to all the features of the text? In this episode, we present a redemptive-historical interpretation of the text, identifying the apostasy as a desire for New Covenant members to revert to the Old Covenant. In effect, such apostates desire to move from the mediation of Christ back to the mediation of Moses and its attendant forms of worship.

¹¹ About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. ¹² For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, ¹³ for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. ¹⁴ But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. ¹ Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, ² and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. ³ And this we will do if God permits. ⁴ For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵ and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, ⁶ and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. ⁷ For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. ⁸ But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. ⁹ Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. ¹⁰ For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. ¹¹ And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, (Hebrews 5:11–6:11, ESV)

Links

• Camden Bucey sermon on Hebrews 6:4–8
• Martin Emmrich, “Hebrews 6: 4-6-again! (A pneumatological inquiry).” Westminster Theological Journal 65, no. 1 (2003): 83–95.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary

We took to Facebook to broadcast a live Q&A session. With questions submitted through email and the live comment thread, we covered Lord’s Day observance, fasting and gluttony, and membership in the New Covenant.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jeff Waddington

We celebrate five-hundred episodes of Christ the Center with an open discussion on worship, the regulative principle, and the apologetic impetus. Join us for a conversation that ties together many of our favorite themes from the past nine+ years.

Links

• Redeemer Presbyterian ballet offertory
• Carl Trueman, “The Church of England’s Nietzschean Proposal“

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy

Earlier this week, we exhibited at The Gospel Coalition 2017 Conference, “No Other Gospel: Reformation 500 and Beyond” in Indianapolis. We were able to share 900 copies of our new book No Uncertain Sound with interested conference attendees. We had numerous conversations with people about confessional Reformed theology, worship, apologetics, and ecclesiology. In the few quiet moments, we picked up the microphones and spoke about our experience. In his plenary address at TGC, “The Reformed Tradition Beyond Calvin,” Ligon Duncan spoke of Johannes Oecolampadius and Dr. Diane Poythress’ work on the Reformer. In Christ the Center episode 269, we spoke with Dr Poythress about her dissertation, “Johannes Oecolampadius’ Exposition of Isaiah, Chapters 36–37,” which is one of the only lengthy treatments of Oecolampadius in English. She has also written an excellent book about him titled, Reformer of Basel: The Life, Thought, and Influence of Johannes Oecolampadius, published by Reformation Heritage Books.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Diane Poythress, Glen Clary, Jason Pickard, Jim Cassidy

On this episode, we are joined by Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, who speaks about the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS). Gray is a PhD Candidate at New College, University of Edinburgh. His article, “On the Theological Interpretation of Scripture: The Indirect Identity Thesis, Reformed Orthodoxy, and Trinitarian Considerations” was published in The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 77, No. 2. TIS is an approach to reading biblical texts that explicitly considers the theological nature of the texts and embraces the influence of theology on interpretation. Sutanto focuses on Francis Watson and his relationship to Karl Barth’s doctrine of revelation. He concludes that, “. . . the uniqueness of TIS depends upon the assumption of the validity of Kant’s turn in philosophical history along with its attendant ideological implications.” A NOTE ON THE AUDIO: After recording this episode, we discovered that our studio mixer is no longer supported on the current version of our operating system. While it still recorded, it did not record true to the inputs. This is most inconvenient… Furthermore, we can’t do anything about what we recorded. We humbly bring to you what sounds like a most unusual conversation among pre-pubescent theologians.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jared Oliphint, Nathaniel Gray Sutanto

As another year gets into swing, many people have begun new Bible reading plans. Reading through Scripture each day is a powerful and transformative discipline. We discuss the practice of Bible reading personally, in the home, and in the church.

Links

• Ligonier, “Bible Reading Plans for 2017“

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jim Cassidy

Several traditions within the Christian church have understood the second commandment differently. Some have understood it is a prohibition against statues. Others understand the commandment to prohibit images of God in worship. Still others argue it is a prohibition against all images as representations of God. We discuss the duties required and reasons annexed to the second commandment as well as the liturgical theology inherent to the issue.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21: Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day

1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 107. Which is the second commandment? A. The second commandment is, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment? A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry. Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jim Cassidy

We are pleased to announce the addition of Rev. Dr. Glen Clary to our list of 2016 Theology Conference speakers. Glen is the pastor of Providence OPC in Pflugerville, Texas, where we recently held our spring conference. He is also the general editor of the Ancient-Reformed Worship section of our website. This year, our conference theme is The Image of God. Glen will be bringing his expertise on Reformed worship to bear on this theme and its application for the observance of the Second Commandment. When he delivered his law to Moses on Mt. Sinai, the Lord commanded:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4–6, ESV)

The Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 109 explains that in this commandment, God forbids, “all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever …” Man is made in the image of God, and is forbidden from making images of God. Join us October 7–9 at Hope OPC in Grayslake, Illinois as Glen explores this commandment and encourages us to worship our God with greater fidelity.

The Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 107. Which is the second commandment? A. The second commandment is, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment? A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry. Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. Q. 110. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it? A. The reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, For I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments; are, besides God’s sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom; accounting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations; and esteeming the observers of it such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations.

Reformed theologians have regularly underscored the relationship between Word and sacraments. The sacraments are appended to the Word for the purpose of confirming or sealing it. The sacraments do not exist independently of the Word. It’s the Word that throws life into the sacraments. Moreover, there is no grace that is unique to the sacraments. The same grace that is received through the Word is also received through the sacraments. So Word and sacraments belong together as “two sides of the same divinely instituted instrumentality,” as Geerhardus Vos put it. Even though Vos did not produce a lengthy treatise on the sacraments, he occasionally addressed the subject in his writings. In a sermon entitled “The Gracious Provision,” Vos has the following to say about the relationship between Word and sacrament.

The word and the sacrament as means of grace belong together: they are two sides of the same divinely instituted instrumentality. While addressing themselves to different organs of perception, they are intended to bear the identical message of the grace of God—to interpret and mutually enforce one another…. Let us therefore be careful to key our preaching to such a note that when we stand as ministrants behind the table of our Lord to distribute the bread of life, our congregation shall feel that what we are doing then is only the sum and culmination of what we have been doing every Sabbath from the pulpit.

If you’ve ever studied the letters of Paul, you know how difficult they are to understand. Christians in the New Testament era and apparently even the apostle Peter found Paul’s letters “hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). Perhaps, the most difficult letter of Paul is 1 Corinthians. I’ve been preaching through the letter for several months, and nearly every text is a challenge. Lately, I’ve spent a lot of time studying what Paul says about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. 10 and 11.

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. — 1 Cor. 10:16–17. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 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.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. — 1 Cor. 11:23–29.

These passages are rather difficult to interpret, partly because Paul’s use of the word “body” is ambiguous. He uses the word to refer to (1) the historical body of Christ that was sacrificed for our sins, (2) the sacramental sign of that body in the eucharistic bread, and (3) the ecclesiological body of Christ, namely, the church. There seems to be a deliberate play on words when Paul abruptly shifts from using “body” in one sense to using it in another sense. For example, in 1 Cor. 10:16, “body” refers to the historical body of Jesus; in 10:17, it refers to the church. And the link between these two uses of the word “body” is the eucharistic bread (i.e. the sacramental body). This play on words continues in 1 Cor. 11, and it creates some uncertainty (apparently by design) with regard to the meaning of the word “body.” Before eating the eucharistic bread, we must discern the “body,” says Paul, but what is the referent of the word “body” here? Is it the historical body of Christ given in the sacramental sign or is it his ecclesiological body, the church? The context of the passage suggests that Paul has both ideas in view. One Reformed scholar has offered the following helpful summary of Paul’s use of the word “body” in 1 Cor. 10 and 11.

Dealing with the problem of food sacrificed to idols, Paul compares the idol feasts and the Lord’s Supper. If idols were real, eating sacrifices offered to an idol would result in κοινωνία [communion or participation] with these idols (10:19–20). Similarly, eating the bread and drinking the cup at the Lord’s Table is (somehow) a participation with Christ; more specifically, it is a κοινωνία [participation] in the blood and the body of Christ (10:16). In addition Paul relates the one bread with the ecclesiological community as one body (10:17). Some exegetes have suggested an identification of the sacramental body of Christ and the ecclesiological body of Christ, implying that the church is literally the body of the resurrected Christ. I see no reasons to do so. The bread as κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ [participation in the body of Christ] is primarily combined with the cup of thanksgiving as κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ [participation in the blood of Christ]. Consequently, Paul refers in 10:16 to the body as the historical body of Christ, given in the death for us. However, in 10:17 ‘body’ denotes the communion of the church. Note that Paul does not say that the church is the body of Christ, he only emphasizes their unity as ἓν σῶμα [one body]. Nevertheless, it is still remarkable that Paul, playing around with words, uses both the sacramental and the communal concept of body. At least he suggests a relationship between communion with Christ and his (historical) body and the communion of the church as one body. The corporate communion of the believers, participating in Christ, is connected with a moment of (Eucharistic) union with Christ. This suggests the importance of a concept of union to refer to this moment. The ecclesiological use of the body-metaphor however says more about the corporate nature of the church than about union with Christ, although this corporate nature results from union with Christ. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul returns to the theme of the Lord’s Supper. It is used in an unworthy manner: some remain hungry while others get drunk. The Corinthians did not eat together and despised the church of God. The problem is clear: a malfunctioning community. Within this context referring to the Lord’s Supper, Paul emphasizes that we should διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα [discern the body] (11:29). In 11:23–28, Paul refers to eating the bread and drinking the cup. As a consequence, it is reasonable that διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα [discerning the body] refers to the bread in the preceding verses as sacramental body of Christ. However, the logic of the entire passage 11:17–34 necessitates that διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα [discerning the body] refers also to the ecclesiological body. It is undeniable here that Paul again plays with words and uses διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα [discerning the body] deliberately in an ambiguous way, hence relating the historical or sacramental body of Christ with the ecclesiological body. He sticks these two concepts of the body of Christ together on purpose. Laying this semantic relation by deliberate wordplay, he makes clear that those having communion with Christ by eating his body form together at the same time the body of Christ. Again we find a moment of union with Christ. Now the corporate union of the church and the union with Christ are related more explicitly.

In his “Summary of Doctrine Concerning the Ministry of the Word and the Sacraments,” Calvin articulates the idea of union and communion with Christ through the means of grace.

The end of the whole Gospel ministry is that God … communicate Christ to us who are disunited by sin and hence ruined, that we may from him enjoy eternal life; that in a word all heavenly treasures be so applied to us that they be no less ours than Christ’s himself. We believe this communication to be mystical, and incomprehensible to human reason, and Spiritual, since it is effected by the Holy Spirit [by whom] he joins us to Christ our Head, not in an imaginary way, but most powerfully and truly, so that we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, and from his vivifying flesh he transfuses eternal life into us. To effect this union, the Holy Spirit uses a double instrument, the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. When we say that the Holy Spirit uses an external minister as instrument, we mean this: both in the preaching of the Word and in the use of the sacraments, there are two ministers, who have distinct offices. The external minister administers the vocal word, and the sacred signs which are external, earthly and fallible. But the internal minister, who is the Holy Spirit, freely works internally, while by his secret virtue he effects in the hearts of whomsoever he will their union with Christ through one faith. This union is a thing internal, heavenly and indestructible. In the preaching of the Word, the external minister holds forth the vocal word, and it is received by the ears. The internal minister, the Holy Spirit, truly communicates the thing proclaimed through the Word, that is Christ…. so that it is not necessary that Christ or for that matter his Word be received through the organs of the body, but the Holy Spirit effects this union by his secret virtue, by creating faith in us, by which he makes us living members of Christ, true God and true man.[1]

[1] Jean Calvin, Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 170-77.

Three or four times a year, according to the will of the authorities, two tables are set up in the church, each covered with a tablecloth, and a lot of hosts are set on the left, and three or four cups or glasses on the right, with lots of pots full of either white or red wine below the table. And after the sermon the preacher comes down from the pulpit and goes to the end of the table on the side where the hosts are, and with his head uncovered and standing places a piece in each person’s hand, saying ‘Remember that Jesus Christ died for you’. Each person eats his piece while walking to the other end of the table, where he takes something to drink from one of the Lords, or another person deputized for this task, without saying anything, while sergeants with their head uncovered pour the wine and provide additional hosts if they run out. Throughout all of this, somebody else reads from the pulpit in the vernacular with his head uncovered the gospel of Saint John, from the beginning of the thirteenth chapter, until everyone has taken their piece, both men and women, each one at their different table.[1]

[1] Description taken from Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed.

COMMUNION IN CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD

1 Cor. 10:16,17:—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? Seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.” There are few injunctions as to methods of interpretation more necessary or more fruitful than the simple one, Interpret historically. That is to say, read your text in the light of the historical circumstances in which it was written, and not according to the surroundings in which, after say two thousand years, you may find yourself. And there is no better illustration of the importance of this injunction than the interpretations which have been put on the passages in the New Testament which speak of the Lord’s Supper. Little will be hazarded in saying that each expositor brings his own point of view to the interpretation of these passages, and seems incapable of putting himself in the point of sight of the New Testament writers themselves. He who reads the several comments of the chief commentators, for instance, on our present passage, quickly feels himself in atmospheres of very varied compositions, which have nothing in common except their absolute dissimilarity to that which Paul’s own passage breathes. If we are ever to understand what the Lord’s Supper was intended by the founder of Christianity to be, we must manage somehow to escape from the commentators back to Paul and Paul’s Master. Here then is a specially pressing necessity for interpreting according to the historical circumstances. The allusion to the Lord’s Supper in our present passage, it will be noted, is purely incidental. The Apostle is reasoning with the Corinthians on a totally different matter; on a question of casuistry which affected their every-day life. Immersed in a heathen society, intertwined with every act of the life of which was some heathen ordinance, the early Christian was exposed at every step to the danger of participating in idolatrous worship. One of the places at which he was thus menaced with what we may call constructive apostacy was in the very provision for meeting his need of daily food. The victims offered in sacrifice to heathen divinities provided the common meat-supply of the community. If one were invited to a social meal with a friend, it was to an idol’s feast that he was bidden. If he even bought meat in the markets, it was a portion of the idol sacrifice alone that he could purchase. How, in such circumstances, was he to avoid idolatry? The Apostle devotes a number of paragraphs in the first Epistle to the Corinthians to solving this pressing question. The wisdom and moderation with which he deals with it are striking. His fundamental proposition is that an idol is nothing in the world, and meats offered to idols are nothing after all but meats, good or bad as the case may be, and are to be used simply as such, on the principle that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. But, side by side with this, he lays a second proposition, that any involvement in idol worship is idolatry and must be shunned by all who would be servants of the One True God and His Son. Whether any special act of partaking of meats offered to idols involves sharing an idol worship or not, will depend mainly on the subjective state of the participant; and his freedom with respect to it is conditioned only by his debt of love to his fellow Christians, who may or may not be as enlightened as he is. The Corinthians appear to have been a heady set and the Apostle evidently feels it to be the more pressing need to restrain them from hasty and unguarded use of their new-found freedom. He does not urge them to treat the idols as nothing. He urges them to avoid entanglement with idolatrous acts. And our passage is a part of his argument to secure their avoidance of such idolatrous acts. The argument here turns on a matter of fact which would be entirely lucid to the readers for whom it was first intended, but can be fathomed by us only by placing ourselves in their historical position. Its whole force depends on the readers’ ready understanding of the nature and significance of a sacrificial feast. This was essentially the same under all sacrificial systems. The eating of the victim offered whether by the Israelite in obedience to the Divine ordinances of the Old Covenant, or by the heathen in Corinth, meant essentially the same thing to the participant. Therefore the Apostle begins the passage by appealing to the intelligence of his former heathen readers and submitting the matter to their natural judgment. He asks them themselves to judge whether it is consistent to partake in the sacrificial feasts of both heathen and Christian. This is the gist of the whole passage. Participation in a sacrificial feast bore such a meaning, stood in such a relation to the act of sacrifice itself, that it was obvious to the meanest intelligence that no one could properly partake both of the victims offered to idols and of that One Victim offered at Calvary to God. To feel this as the Corinthians were expected to feel it, we must put ourselves in their historical position. They were heathen, lived in a sacrificial system, and knew by nature what participation in the victim offered in sacrifice meant. We may put ourselves most readily in their place by attending to what Paul says here of the Jewish sacrificial feasts, which he adduces as altogether parallel, so far, with the significance of the same act on heathen ground. “Consider Israel after the flesh,” he says, “are not those that eat the sacrifices, communicants in the altar?” Here it is all in a nut-shell. All those who partake of the victim offered in sacrifice were by that act made sharers in the act of sacrifice itself. They—this body of participants—were technically the offerers of the sacrifice, to whose benefit it inured, and whose responsible act it was. Whether a Greek, sharing in the victim offered to Artemis or Aphrodite, or a Jew sharing in the victim offered to Jehovah, or a Christian sharing in that One Victim who offered Himself up without spot to God, the principle was the same; he who partook of the victim shared in the altar—in the sacrificial act, in its religious import and in its benefits. Is it not capable of being left to any man’s judgment in these premises, whether one who shared in the One Offering of Christ to God could innocently take part in the offerings which had been dedicated to Artemis? The point of interest for us to-day in all this turns on the implication of this argument as to the nature of the Lord’s Supper in the view of Paul and of his readers in the infant Christian community at Corinth. Clearly to Paul and the Corinthians, the Lord’s Supper was just a sacrificial feast. As such—as the Christians’ sacrificial feast—it is put in comparison here with the sacrificial feasts of the Jews and the heathen. The whole pith of the argument is that it is a sacrificial feast. And if we wish to know what the Lord’s Supper is, here is our proper starting point. It is the sacrificial feast of Christians, and bears the same relation to the sacrifice of Christ that the heathen sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices and that the Jewish sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices. It is a sacrificial feast, offering the victim, in symbols of bread and wine, to our participation, and signifying that all those who partake of the victim in these symbols, are sharers in the altar, are of those for whom the sacrifice was offered and to whose benefit it inures. Are we then to ask, what is the nature of the Lord’s Supper? A Babel of voices may rise about us. One will say, It is the badge of a Christian man’s profession. Another, It is the bloodless sacrifice continuously offered up by the vested priest to God in behalf of the sins of men. History says, briefly and pointedly, it is the Christian passover. And, so saying, it will carry us back to that upper room where we shall see Jesus and His disciples gathered about the passover meal, the typical sacrificial feast. There lay the lamb before Him; the lamb which represented Himself who was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And there was the company of those for whom this particular lamb was offered and who now, by partaking of its flesh, were to claim their part in the sacrifice. And there stood the Antitype, who had for centuries been represented year after year by lambs like this. And He is now about to offer Himself up in fulfilment of the type, for the sins of the world! No longer will it be possible to eat this typical sacrifice; typical sacrifices were now to cease, in their fulfilment in the Antitype. And so our Lord, in the presence of the last typical lamb, passes it by and taking a loaf, when He had given thanks, broke it and said, This—I hope the emphasis will not be missed that falls on this word, this—no longer the lamb but this loaf—is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. And in like manner also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in my blood; this do in remembrance of me; for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death, until He come. How simple, how significant, the whole is, when once it is approached from the historical point of view. The Lord’s Supper is the continuation of the passover feast. The symbol only being changed, it is the passover feast. And the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine mean precisely what partaking of the lamb did then. It is communion in the altar. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; and we eat the passover whenever we eat this bread and drink this wine in remembrance of Him. In our communing thus in the body and the blood of Christ we partake of the altar, and are made beneficiaries of the sacrifice He wrought out upon it. The primary lesson of our text to-day is, then, that in partaking of the Lord’s Supper we claim a share in the sacrifice which Christ wrought out on Calvary for the sins of men. This is the fundamental meaning of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrificial feast. The bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper represent the body and blood of Christ; but they represent that body and blood not absolutely but as a sacrifice—as broken and outpoured for us. We are not to puzzle our minds and hearts by asking how His blood and body become ours; how they, having become ours, benefit us; and the like. We are to recognize from the beginning that they were broken and outpoured in sacrifice for us, and that we share in them only that, by the law of sacrificial feast, we may partake of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice. It is as a sacrifice and only so that we enter into this union. A second lesson of our text to-day is, that in the Lord’s Supper we take our place in the body of Christ’s redeemed ones and exhibit the oneness of His people. The text lays special stress on this. The appeal of the Apostle is that by partaking of these symbols Christians mark themselves on the one hand off from the Jews and heathen, as a body apart, having their own altar and sacrifice, and, on the other hand, bind themselves together in internal unity, for “by all having a share out of the one loaf, we who are many are one body because there is (only) one loaf.” The whole Christian world is a passover company gathered around the paschal lamb, and by their participation in it exhibiting their essential unity. When we bless the cup of blessing, it is a communion in the blood of Christ; when we break the loaf, it is a communion in the body of Christ; and because it is one loaf, however many we are, we are one body, as all sharing from one loaf. The Apostle very strongly emphasizes this idea of communion here; and it is accordingly no accident that we have so largely come to call the Lord’s Supper the “Communion.” It is the symbol of the oneness of Christians. Another lesson which our text to-day brings us is that the root of our communion with one another as Christians lies in our common relation to our Lord. We are “many,” says the Apostle; that is what we are in ourselves. But we “all”—all of this “many”—are “one”—one body, because there is but one loaf and we all share from that one loaf. Christ is one and we come into relations of communion with one another only through our common relation to Him. The root of Christian union is, therefore, the uniqueness, the solity of Christ. There is but one salvation; but one Christian life; because there is but one Saviour and one source of life; and all those who share it must needs stand side by side to imbibe it from the one fountain.[2] Endnotes [1] Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010). [2] B. B. Warfield, Faith and Life (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990).

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

In Calvin’s commentary on this text, the Reformer makes the following observations about the signs and realities of the sacraments.

When [Paul] says that the fathers ate the same spiritual meat, he shows, first, what is the virtue and efficacy of the Sacraments, and, secondly, he declares, that the ancient Sacraments of the Law had the same virtue as ours have at this day. For, if the manna was spiritual food, it follows, that it is not bare emblems that are presented to us in the Sacraments, but that the thing represented is at the same time truly imparted, for God is not a deceiver to feed us with empty fancies. A sign, it is true, is a sign, and retains its essence, but, as Papists act a ridiculous part, who dream of transformations, (I know not of what sort,) so it is not for us to separate between the reality and the emblem which God has conjoined. Papists confound the reality and the sign: profane men, as, for example, Suenckfeldius, and the like, separate the signs from the realities. Let us maintain a middle course, or, in other words, let us observe the connection appointed by the Lord, but still keep them distinct, that we may not mistakenly transfer to the one what belongs to the other.

So Roman Catholics err by confounding the reality and the sign. Anabaptists err by separating them. Calvin argues that sign and reality must be kept distinct, but they must not be severed. The sacraments are signs, but they are not empty or bare signs, nor are they signs of something absent but of something present, given, and received. Ultimately, the reality signified by the signs is Jesus Christ himself and all the benefits of redemption which are found in him.

What does the Didache teach us about the theology and practice of baptism in the ancient church? Chapter 7 of the Didache addresses the topic of Christian baptism. In verse 1 of this chapter, we see a connection between baptism and catechesis. Those who were about to receive baptism were first of all instructed in the way of life. Secondly, we learn that whenever baptism was administered, God was invoked by his triune name: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The recipient of baptism was being baptized into union and fellowship with the Triune God. Thirdly, baptism ordinarily would have taken place outdoors in living water, meaning running or flowing water. This was the ordinary setting for Christian baptism, but verse 2 tells us that if such water was unavailable, Christians were free to baptize with other water, preferably cold water. Next, we see that pouring water on the head three times—which is known as trine baptism—was an acceptable mode of baptism, even though it may not have been the ordinary mode of baptism. Finally, we see that the rite of baptism was preceded by a short period of fasting. Those who were about to be baptized should fast, and the one who was going to administer baptism should likewise fast, as well as any others in the congregation who were able to do so. This fast ordinarily lasted one to two days. The Didache does not explain the reason for the pre-baptismal fast, but it was most likely understood as a sign of repentance. So there we have a brief introduction to what the Didache says about Christian baptism in the ancient church.

If you’re interested in learning more about the Didache, I recommend the following resources. I would start with O’Loughlin’s short commentary. That’s the best introduction to the Didache available today. For more detailed study, you’ll need Milavec and Niederwimmer. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary by Aaron Milavec The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. by Aaron Milavec The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians by Thomas O’Loughlin The Didache by Kurt Niederwimmer

The Odes of Solomon is the only sizable collection of Christian hymns which has come down to us from the earliest centuries of the church. They seem to have been composed at the close of the first Christian century. Originally they were composed in Syriac. They are the praises, not of the Western church, but the Eastern church, a church still very close to the Semitic roots of Christianity. The Odes of Solomon are Christian psalms in a way very similar to the canticles in the Gospel of Luke. That, of course, is implied by the title of the work. Just as Solomon, the son of David, continued the doxological service of his father by writing the Song of Solomon, so Christians continue the doxological service of the Son of David, anointed by the Spirit, by singing Christian psalms. The title is a sort of apologetic for Christian hymnody. There are more than forty of these odes, each a Christian elaboration of one of the canonical psalms. Although sometimes the imagery is a bit strange to our modern Western ears, these ancient hymns are great Christian poetry. It probably gives us about as clear a picture of the worship of the early church as any document that has come down to us. The spirit of New Testament worship is found in these hymns with an amazing freshness and vitality. And even if their language comes from the ancient Orient, they seem to have a classic evangelical quality about them. They are as eloquent about Christian love as ever the Franciscans, about grace as the Calvinists, about holiness as the Wesleyans, and they are as filled with the Spirit as ever any charismatic could wish.

I visited Hughes Oliphant Old the day after the following interview was recorded. He told me, “Someone dropped by yesterday to ask me about the Odes of Solomon.” Here’s a clip from the interview in which he describes the Odes of Solomon and explains their original purpose. Speaking purely off the cuff…

The Odes cast a spell. Something beautiful is happening here. It has a literary integrity I think that’s very important. The Odes are very unusual in the different imagery that they come up with. But that imagery is used again and again. One place where the Odes seem to have mined this imagery is the Book of Psalms. And Rendel Harris, the great scholar who really brought the Odes to the attention of the modern world, refers to these Odes as Psalm pendants. It’s as though the congregation might have sung a particular Psalm, and then, the Odes would’ve been sung as a response to it. And so many of the Odes when one reads through them one realizes that the imagery of Psalm 45 is being used or Psalm 63 is being used. And that’s one of the beautiful things about these Odes is that they’re so close to scripture.

For more on the Odes of Solomon, see Michael Lattke’s commentary in the Hermeneia series.

It’s not clear to me how the Confession of Sins and Prayer for Pardon [in Calvin’s liturgy] is compatible with the Reformed idea that man’s sins are completely forgiven at the moment of Justification and that God only views man in light of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him. Why ask for forgiveness of sins every Sunday if you believe all your sins were already forgiven and that God never counts your sins against you?

It is true that Calvin’s liturgy—like the liturgies of Luther, Cranmer, Bucer, and Knox—included a Corporate Confession of Sin and Declaration of Pardon. In Calvin’s Strasbourg service, after the Confession of Sin, Calvin would deliver “some word of Scripture to console the conscience”; then, he would pronounce “the Absolution in this manner:”

Let each of you truly acknowledge that he is a sinner, humbling himself before God, and believe that the heavenly Father wills to be gracious unto him in Jesus Christ. To all those that repent in this wise, and look to Jesus Christ for their salvation, I declare that the absolution of sins is effected, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Calvin’s Strasbourg service followed the pattern of Martin Bucer’s liturgy, which began with a Confession of Sin followed by a “Word of Comfort” from holy scripture (1 Tim. 1:15; or John 3:16; 3:35–36; Acts 10:43; 1 John 2:1–2; etc.) and the “Absolution.”

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Let everyone, with St. Paul, truly acknowledge this in his heart and believe in Christ. Thus, in His name, I proclaim unto you the forgiveness of all your sins, and declare you to be loosed of them on earth, that you be loosed of them also in heaven, in eternity. Amen.

Bucer’s liturgy makes it clear that the Absolution is an exercise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). As excommunication declares that the impenitent are bound by sins, absolution declares that the penitents are loosed from them. We find a similar pattern of Confession of Sin followed by an Absolution in the liturgies of Luther, Cranmer and Knox. How is it that Nick and Stellman can see so clearly what all these Reformers failed to see? The Confession of Faith that Stellman at one time believed and defended clearly explains why praying for forgiveness of sins every Lord’s Day does not contradict the Reformed doctrine of justification.

God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance (WCF 11:5)

J. G. Vos explains,

The justified person still can and daily does commit sin in thought, word and deed…. These “daily failings” cannot cancel his standing as a justified person; they cannot bring him into condemnation. But they can offend his heavenly Father, and cause him to withdraw the light of his countenance from the person’s soul for a time. They cannot destroy the believer’s union with God, but they can interrupt and weaken his communion with God. Therefore, the believer is daily to confess his sins and to pray for God’s pardon for his daily failings.

It is not uncommon for a drunken man to believe that he has a brilliant idea that no one else has ever thought of. His sober buddies, of course, realize that he’s making a fool of himself.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deut. 29:29).

The decretive will of God cannot be successfully opposed or resisted (cf. Psalm 115:3; Dan. 4:35; Acts 2:23; Eph. 1:11).

I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose” (Isaiah 46:9–10). [God] has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (Rom. 9:18–19).

There is also God’s preceptive will; that is, his precepts or commands. God’s preceptive will is made known in scripture. Unlike God’s decretive will (which cannot be successfully resisted), the preceptive will of God is constantly resisted and opposed by rebellious humanity (cf. Matt. 7:21; 12:50; 21:31; John 6:38; Heb. 13:20–21). The third petition of the Lord’s Prayer has in view both the secret will of God and his revealed will. As J. G. Vos says,

The third petition … refers both to the revealed will of God and to the secret will of God. We are to know and do the revealed will of God; we are to submit cheerfully to the secret will of God, that is, to the events of God’s providence. Thus the revealed will of God requires us to obey the Ten Commandments, to love God and our neighbor, etc., while submission to the secret will of God means that we will endure suffering, disappointments, hardships, bereavements, etc., patiently and without murmuring or rebelling against God.[1]

With regard to the revealed will of God, when we pray “Thy will be done,” we request, says Thomas Vincent, that “ourselves and others, who naturally are dark and ignorant of his will, may, by his Word and Spirit, be enabled to know and understand it” (cf. Eph. 5:17; Col. 1:9–10; Rom. 12:2). We also request that “ourselves and others, who naturally have in our hearts an enmity against God’s law, might be inclined and enabled to obey and do whatever it is the will of God to command” (cf. Rom. 8:7; Psalm 119:4–5, 35–36; 143:10).[2] With regard to the secret will of God, when we pray, “Thy will be done,” we request, says Vincent, “that ourselves and others might have compliance of will with the will of God, so as thankfully to accept merciful providences, and patiently submit unto afflictive providences” (cf. Luke 1:38; Acts 21:14; Matt. 26:39, 42; Luke 22:42; Heb. 5:7–8; 2 Cor. 12:8–9; Matt. 8:2). “Thy will be done” is a prayer of submission or a prayer of dedication. It prays that God will accomplish his purposes, and that we will accept his providences, and also that we will obey his precepts. Endnotes [1] Johannes G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002) 233. [2] Thomas Vincent, The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980) 87.

And Jerusalem, Your city, return in mercy, and dwell therein as You have spoken; rebuild it soon in our days as an everlasting building, and speedily set up therein the throne of David. Blessed art thou, O LORD, who rebuilds Jerusalem (Amidah 14). Speedily cause the offspring of David, Your servant, to flourish, and lift up his glory by Your divine help because we wait for Your salvation all the day. Blessed art thou, O LORD, who causes the strength of salvation (Yeshua) to flourish (Amidah 15). Exalted and hallowed be God’s great name in the world that he created according to his will. May he establish his kingdom, and may his salvation blossom and his Anointed one be near … speedily and soon (Kaddish).[1]

The kingdom of God is not simply God’s eternal, universal reign over the world but his redemptive reign in the person of Jesus Christ, who, as the only mediator between God and man, exercises the offices of prophet, priest, and king. The nature of the messianic kingdom is not geopolitical or earthly, and it is not confined to the Jews but includes all nations. The kingdom of God is spiritual and heavenly; present and future; already and not yet. To pray for the coming of the kingdom suggests that it has not yet fully come. The petition—“Thy kingdom come”—has in view the as yet incomplete nature of the kingdom. The second petition of the Lord’s Prayer is a cry for the consummation of the kingdom like the prayer of the primitive church: “Come, Lord”; “Maranatha” (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 22:20). Until the consummation, the kingdom of God will grow and advance throughout the world. “Thy kingdom come” is an eschatological prayer for the consummation of the kingdom, the return of Jesus Christ. But it is also a missionary prayer for the advancement of the kingdom through the spread of the gospel. “Thy kingdom come” prays for the reign of Christ, the growth of the kingdom, the salvation of the lost, the subjection of Christ’s enemies, the destruction of Satan’s kingdom, the return of Christ, and the consummation of his kingdom at the end of the age. All of these ideas are included in the simple petition: “Thy kingdom come!” Endnotes [1] See C. W. Dugmore, The Influence of the Synagogue Upon Divine Office (London: Faith Press, 1964). Though a bit dated, this book is still a helpful resource on the Jewish roots of Christian worship. More recent scholarship tends to be skeptical with regard to what we know about synagogue worship in the first century.

We worship God because God created us to worship him. Worship is at the center of our existence, at the heart of our reason for being…. When the Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches us, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever,” it gives witness to the same basic principle; God created us to worship him. Surely it is here that we must begin when as Reformed theologians we ask what worship is. Worship must above all serve the glory of God (Worship Reformed According to Scripture).

Why study the Reformers?

One often asks why today we should study the Reformers. We study the Reformers for the same reason the Reformers studied the church fathers. They are witnesses to the authority of Scripture. The Reformers studied the patristic commentaries on Scripture because they enriched their own understanding of Scripture. Today we study the Reformers because they throw so much light on the pages of the Bible. They were passionately concerned to worship God truly, and they searched the Scriptures to learn how. We study the Reformers because their understanding of Scripture is so profound (Worship Reformed According to Scripture).

Worship and the Holy Spirit?

If there is one doctrine which is at the heart of Reformed worship it is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It is the belief that the Holy Spirit brings the Church into being, that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church and sanctifies the Church. Worship is the manifestation of the creative and sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit. If we are to understand the worship of the early Reformed Church we must recognize that they went to worship not to do something for God, nor even so much to get something from God, but far more to be something with God (The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship).

^1:1There are two ways, one of life and one of death. And there is a great difference between the two ways.

²On the one hand, then, the way of life is this. First, you shall love God who made you; second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. And whatever you do not wish to happen to you, do not do to another. ³And from these words, the teaching is this. Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what credit is it if you love those who love you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? But you must love those who hate you, and you will not have an enemy. ⁴Abstain from fleshly and bodily desires. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you will be perfect. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. If someone takes away your cloak, give him your tunic also. If someone takes from you what belongs to you, do not demand it back, for you cannot do so. ⁵Give to everyone who asks you, and do not demand it back, for the Father wants to give something to all from his own free gifts. Blessed is the one who gives according to this rule, for he is blameless. Woe to the one who receives! For if anyone who is in need receives, he is blameless, but the one who does not have need will stand trial {on the day of judgment} as to why and for what purpose he received. And being imprisoned, he will be examined concerning what he has done, and he will not get out until he has repaid every last cent. ⁶But also, concerning this, it has been said, “Let your alms sweat in your hands until you know to whom to give it.” ^2:1And the second commandment of the teaching is this. ²Do not kill. Do not commit adultery. Do not corrupt boys. Do not commit fornication. Do not steal. Do not practice magic. Do not engage in sorcery. Do not abort a child or kill a child that is born. Do not covet your neighbor’s possessions. ³Do not swear falsely. Do not bear false witness. Do not speak insults. Do not hold a grudge. ⁴Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for the double-tongue is a deadly snare. ⁵Your word shall not be false or empty but confirmed by action. ⁶Do not be covetous or greedy or a hypocrite or malicious or arrogant. Do not entertain a wicked plot against your neighbor. ⁷Do not hate any person, but some you shall reprove, others pray for, and still others love more than yourself. ^3:1My child, flee from every evil and everything like it. ²Do not become angry, for anger leads to murder. Do not be envious or quarrelsome or hot-tempered, for from all these things, murders are begotten. ³My child, do not become lustful, for lust leads to fornication. Do not be foul-mouthed or let your eyes roam, for from all these things, adulteries are begotten. ⁴My child, do not become a diviner, since this leads to idolatry. Do not be an enchanter or an astrologer or a purifier or even wish to see these things, for from all these things, idolatry is begotten. ⁵My child, do not be a liar, for lying leads to theft. Do not be a lover of money or conceited, for from all these things, thefts are begotten. ⁶My child, do not become a complainer, since this leads to blasphemy. Do not be self-pleasing or evil-minded, for from all these things, blasphemies are begotten. ⁷But be meek, since the meek will inherit the earth. ⁸Be patient and merciful and harmless and calm and good, and always tremble at the words that you have heard. ⁹Do not exalt yourself or become arrogant. Do not join yourself to the proud, but dwell with the righteous and humble. ¹⁰Welcome the things that happen to you as good, knowing that, apart from God, nothing happens. ^4:1My child, night and day, remember the one who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as the Lord, for wherever the dominion of the Lord is spoken of, there the Lord is. ²And every day, seek out the presence of the saints, that you may find support in their words. ³Do not cause division, but make peace between those who quarrel. Judge justly; do not show favoritism when reproving sins. ⁴Do not doubt whether it will be or not. ⁵Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but who withdraws them when it comes to giving. ⁶If you acquire something with your hands, give a ransom for your sins. ⁷Do not hesitate to give or complain when giving, for you shall yet come to know who is the good paymaster of the reward. ⁸Do not turn from someone in need, but share all things with your brother, and do not claim that anything is your own. For if you are partners in what is imperishable, how much more in what is perishable. ⁹Do not withhold your hand from your son or daughter, but from their youth, teach them the fear of God. ¹⁰Do not give orders in your anger to your male slave and female slave who hope in the same God as you, lest they stop fearing the God who is over you both. For he does not call with partiality, but those whom the Spirit has prepared. ¹¹And you slaves must be submissive to your masters with respect and fear, as to a type of God. ¹²Hate all hypocrisy and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord. ¹³Do not forsake the commandments of the Lord but guard what you have received, neither adding to them nor taking away. ¹⁴In church, confess your sins, and do not go to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. ^5:1Now, the way of death is this. First of all, it is evil and completely cursed: murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcraft, sorceries, robberies, perjuries, hypocrisies, double-heartedness, deceit, arrogance, malice, stubbornness, greed, foul-speech, jealously, audacity, haughtiness , boastfulness. ²It is the way of persecutors of the good, haters of the truth, lovers of the lie, those who do not know the reward of the righteous, nor adhere to what is good, nor to just judgment, those who are alert not to do good but to do evil, who are far from being gentle and patient, who love vain things, who pursue reward, who show no mercy to the poor, who do not work for the oppressed, who do not know him who made them, murderers of children, corrupters of God’s creation, who turn away from the needy, who oppress the afflicted, advocates of the wealthy, lawless judges of the poor, those who are utterly sinful. May you be saved, children, from all these things! ^6:1Take care that no one leads you astray from this way of the teaching, for such a person teaches you apart from God. ²For if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect. But if you are not able, do what you can. ³Now concerning food, bear what you are able, but keep strictly away from food sacrificed to idols, for this is the worship of dead gods. ^7:1Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with living water. ²But if you do not have living water, then baptize with other water. And if you are not able to baptize with cold water, then baptize with warm water. ³But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. ⁴And prior to the baptism, let the one baptizing and the one being baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. And order the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand. ^8:1And do not let your fasts coincide with those of the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but you must fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. ²And do not pray like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel, pray in this manner: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come; your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth. Give us today our bread for the day. And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one, for yours is the power and the glory forever. ³Pray in this manner three times a day. ^9:1Now concerning the eucharist, give thanks in this manner: ²First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of your servant David, which you have revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be the glory forever. ³And concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge that you have revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be the glory forever. ⁴As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills and, having been gathered together, became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. ⁵But let no one eat or drink from your eucharist, except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, for concerning this, the Lord has likewise said, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs.” ^10:1Now after being filled, give thanks in this manner: ²We give thanks to you, holy Father, for your holy name, which you have caused to dwell in our hearts and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be the glory forever. ³You, almighty Master, created all things for your name’s sake. To all people, you have given both food and drink to enjoy, in order that they might give you thanks. But to us, you have freely given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your servant Jesus. ⁴Above all, we give you thanks because you are mighty. To you be the glory forever. ⁵Remember your church, O Lord, to deliver her from all evil and to perfect her in your love and to gather her together as the holy one from the four winds into your kingdom which you have prepared for her. For yours is the power and the glory forever. ⁶May grace come, and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the son of David![2] If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not, let him repent. Come, Lord! Amen! ⁷But allow the prophets to give thanks as long as they wish. ^11:1Whoever, therefore, should come and teach you all these things mentioned above, welcome him. ²But if the teacher should himself go astray and teach a different teaching to undermine these things, do not listen to him. But if his teaching brings righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, welcome him as the Lord. ³Now concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the decree of the gospel, act in this manner: ⁴Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as the Lord. ⁵But he shall not stay more than one day, and if there is a need, also another day, but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. ⁶And when the apostle leaves, let him take nothing except bread to sustain him until he finds lodging elsewhere. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. ⁷And you shall not test or condemn any prophet who speaks in the Spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven. ⁸And not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet, but only if he has the ways of the Lord. Therefore, the false prophet and the true prophet will be known by their conduct. ⁹And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit shall not eat from it, and if he does otherwise, he is a false prophet. ¹⁰And every prophet who teaches the truth, if he does not practice what he teaches, he is a false prophet. ¹¹And every prophet proven to be true, who acts with a view to the earthly mystery of the church but who does not teach you to do what he himself does, shall not be judged by you, since he has his judgment with God. For even the ancient prophets behaved in this way. ¹²And whoever says in the Spirit, “Give me money” or something else, do not listen to him, but if he says to give to others who are in need, let no one judge him. ^12:1And let everyone who comes in the name of the Lord be welcomed. But then, examine him, and you will know, for you will have insight of right and left. ²If the one who comes is a traveler, help him as much as you can. But he shall not stay with you for more than two or, if need be, three days. ³But if he wants to settle down among you and is a craftsman, let him work and eat. ⁴But if he does not have a craft, decide, according to your own discretion, how, as a Christian, he shall live among you without being idle. ⁵But if he does not want to behave like this, he is trading on Christ. Beware of such people! ^13:1And every true prophet who wants to settle down among you is worthy of his food. ²Likewise, a true teacher is worthy of his food, like the worker. ³Therefore, all the firstfruits of the produce of the wine press and threshing floor, of both the cattle and sheep, you shall give these firstfruits to the prophets, for they are your high priests. ⁴But if you have no prophet, then give them to the poor. ⁵If you make bread, take the firstfruit and give it according to the commandment. ⁶Likewise, when you open a jar of wine or oil take the firstfruit and give it to the prophets. ⁷And of money and clothes and every possession, take the firstfruits, as seems good to you, and give them according to the commandment. ^14:1Now according to the Lord’s Day of the Lord, when you have been gathered together, break bread and give thanks, after you have confessed your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. ²But do not allow anyone who has a quarrel with his companion to assemble with you until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled. ³For this is the thing mentioned by the Lord, “In every place and time, offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name will be marvelous among the nations. ^15:1Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are humble and not lovers of money, and who are true and approved, for to you, they themselves also minister the ministry of the prophets and teachers. ²Therefore, do not disregard them, for they themselves are your honored men along with the prophets and teachers. ³And reprove one another, not in anger but in peace, as you have it in the gospel. And if anyone wrongs his neighbor, let no one speak to him nor hear from you until he repents. ⁴And your prayers and alms and all your actions do them thus as you have it in the gospel of our Lord. ^16:1Keep watch over your life. Do not let your lamps be extinguished, and do not let your loins be loosed, but be prepared. For you do not know the hour when our Lord is coming. ²And be gathered together frequently, seeking what is appropriate for your souls, for the whole time of your faith will not profit you if you are not found perfect in the last time. ³For in the last days, the false prophets and corrupters will be multiplied, and the sheep will be turned into wolves, and love will be turned into hate. ⁴For as lawlessness increases, they will hate and persecute and betray one another. And then, the deceiver of the world will appear as a son of God and will perform signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will do unlawful things that have never been known since time began. ⁵Then, all human creation will come into the fiery trial, and many will fall away and perish, but those who endure in their faith will be saved by the accursed one himself. ⁶And then, the signs of truth will appear: first, the sign of an opening in heaven; next, the sign of the sound of a trumpet, and third, the resurrection of the dead— ⁷but not the resurrection of all; rather, as it has been said, “The Lord will come and all his saints with him.” ⁸Then, the world will see the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven. Endnotes [1] My translation of the Didache is based on the Greek text published by Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005, 1992) 246–69. An italicized word indicates that no corresponding word exists in the original. We have added the italicized words to clarify the meaning of the text. [2]Codex Hierosolymitanus has “God of David,” though “son of David” is probably original.

we pray that God would enable us and others to glorify him in all that whereby he maketh himself known, and that he would dispose all things to his own glory” (SC 101).

That’s what we pray in the first petition. In our next post, we will look at the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer. Endnotes [1] Hughes Oliphant Old, Themes and Variations for a Christian Doxology: Some Thoughts on the Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992) 23.

At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD (Gen. 4:26b). [Abraham] built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD (Gen. 12:8b). You call upon the name of your god, and I will call upon the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, he is God (1 Kings 18:24a). Oh give thanks to the LORD; call upon his name; make known his deeds among the peoples! (Psalm 105:1) The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth (Psalm 145:18). For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:12–13).

Prayer begins with an invocation. An invocation names the God to whom the prayer is addressed, and it claims God as our God.

O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! (Psalm 8:1a) Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, you are very great! (Psalm 104:1a) Praise the LORD! Praise, O servants of the LORD, praise the name of the LORD! Blessed be the name of the LORD from this time forth and forevermore! From the rising of the sun to its setting, the name of the LORD is to be praised! (Psalm 113:1–3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (Eph. 1:3). At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth…” (Matt. 11:25a).

Jesus often invoked God as Father (Abba, Pater), which is a short nickname children had for their fathers (cf. John 17.1, 11, 25; Mk. 14.36). According to the New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias,

Abba was an everyday word, a homely family-word, a secular word, the tender address of the child to its father: ‘Dear father.’ No Jew would have dared to address God in this manner. Jesus did it always, in all his prayers which are handed down to us…. Jesus spoke with God as a child speaks with his father, simply intimately, securely, childlike in manner.[2]

Jesus invoked God as Father and teaches us to follow his example. This implies intimacy and affection for God. Prayer is an “intimate conversation,” says Calvin (familiare colloquium).[3] The point is our prayers are being made from within the intimate fellowship of the household of God. God is our Father by adoption and regeneration. Moreover, it is through faith in Christ that we become his children (cf. Eph. 1.5; Jn. 1.12–13; Gal. 3.26). Thus, the Lord’s Prayer is for believers only. Only believers can call God “Father.” Faith is the foundation and necessary condition of prayer (Heb. 11.6; Gal. 4.4–6; Rom. 8.15). We can invoke God as our Father only in virtue of our faith-union to Christ. To invoke God as our Father is to pray in the name of Christ. Calvin said,

Since we call God our Father, it is certain that we understand beneath it the name of Christ also. Certainly, as there is no man in the world worthy to introduce himself to God and appear in his sight, this good heavenly Father … has given us his Son Jesus to be our mediator and advocate toward him, by whose leading we may boldly approach God, having good confidence that, thanks to this intercessor, nothing which we will ask in his name shall be denied us, since the Father cannot refuse him anything.[4]

In prayer, we approach God as children approach their father, with a childlike trust, with confidence in his fatherly goodness, with confident faith and boldness.

What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:11–3)

As Martin Luther remarked,

God lovingly invites us, in this little preface, truly to believe in him, that he is our true Father, and that we are truly his children, so that full of confidence we may more boldly call upon his name, even as we see children with a kind of confidence ask anything of their parents.[5]

Likewise, in answer to the question, “Why is God called our Father, rather than some other name,” Calvin writes,

Since it is essential that our consciences have a steadfast assurance, when we pray, our God gives himself a name, which suggests only gentleness and kindness, in order to take away from us all doubt and anxiety, and to give us boldness in coming to him personally. Shall we then dare to go to God familiarly, as a child to his father? Yes, in fact with greater assurance of obtaining what we ask. For if we, being evil, cannot refuse our children bread and meat, when they ask, how much less will our heavenly Father, who is not only good, but sovereign goodness itself?[6]

In like manner, the Heidelberg Catechism says that Christ commanded us to address God as our Father so that

at the very beginning of our prayer, he may awaken in us the childlike reverence and trust toward God which should be the motivation of our prayer, which is that God has become our Father through Christ and will much less deny us what we ask him in faith than our human fathers will refuse us earthly things (HC 120).

The first part of the invocation—“Our Father”—emphasizes God’s paternal goodness; the second part—“in heaven”—emphasizes his transcendent majesty. The first part evokes intimacy and confidence; the second part, reverent fear. The transcendence of God does not make intimacy impossible. Wonderment and intimacy are combined in prayer.[7] In prayer, we should have a heavenward disposition and direction. Jesus lifted up his eyes toward heaven in prayer.

And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven and said a blessing and broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the people. And he divided the two fish among them all (Mar 6:41a). And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me (John 11:41b). When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you” (John 17:1). To you I lift up my eyes, O you who are enthroned in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maidservant to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he has mercy upon us (Psalm 123:1–2).

When we address the LORD as God in heaven, it is the same as if we were calling him exalted, mighty and incomprehensible, so that

when we call upon him, we may learn to lift up our thoughts on high, and not to have any carnal or earthly thoughts of him, not to measure him by our apprehension, nor to subject him to our will, but to adore his glorious Majesty in humility. It teaches us also to have more reliance on him, since he is Governor and Master of all.[8]

So that’s the significance of the invocation in the Lord’s Prayer, “Our Father in heaven.” In our next post, we will look at the first petition. Endnotes [1] Some Greek manuscripts do not contain the doxology, but for reasons which we will explain later, we think it should be included in the Lord’s Prayer. [2] Joachim Jeremias, The Lord’s Prayer (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1964) 19–20. [3] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, tr. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960) 1:2:1. [4] John Calvin, Instruction in Faith (1537), ed. and tr. Paul T. Fuhrmann (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992) 59. [5] Martin Luther, Luther’s Small Catechism (Philadelphia, PA: Lutheran Publication Society, 1893) 275. [6] From Calvin’s 1545 Catechism (260 and 261); see James T. Dennison Jr., ed. Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: Volume II, 1552-1566 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010). [7] Hughes Oliphant Old, Praying with the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Geneva Press, 1980) 23. [8] Calvin’s Catechism (1545), 265, in Dennison (2010).

And do not pray like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel, pray in this manner: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come; your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth. Give us today our bread for the day. And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one, for yours is the power and the glory forever. Pray in this manner three times a day (Didache 8:2–3).

The Lord’s Prayer played a central role in the worship of the early church, both corporate worship on the Lord’s Day and daily private worship. The Lord’s Prayer also played an important role in Reformed worship. Both the Larger and Shorter Catechisms contain an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer is particularly useful, they state, as “the special rule of direction” that Jesus taught his disciples “to direct us in the duty of prayer” (LC 186; SC 99). In the Gospels, Jesus teaches us how to pray both by instruction and by example. Luke says that when Jesus had finished praying in a certain place, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples” (Luke 11:1). To this, Jesus responded by giving the disciples the Lord’s Prayer. Thus, the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer that teaches us how to pray (cf. Luke 11:1–4). In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s Prayer is surrounded by instructions concerning two auxiliary disciplines to prayer: almsgiving and fasting (Matt. 6:1–18). Pious Jews gave alms when they went to the Temple or to the synagogue to pray (cf. Acts 3:1–3; 10:1–4). Fasting was often used as an aid to prayer (Luke 2:36–37; 18:10–12; Acts 13:1–3; 14:23). Immediately before he teaches the disciples the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus gave them two warnings about prayer. First, do not be like the hypocrites (Matt. 6:5–6).

And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

That is, do not make a show of your prayers. Second, do not be like the Gentiles (Matt. 6:7–8).

And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

That is, do not try to impress God by heaping up empty phrases, “for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” After these two warnings, Jesus gives the Lord’s Prayer, which may be used as either a prayer form or a prayer guide (cf. LC 186, 187). As a prayer form, it is read or recited from memory. Notice that in Luke’s account, Jesus says, “pray these words” (Luke 11:2). As a prayer guide, it is used as a model for making our own prayers. In Matthew’s account, Jesus says, “pray this way” (Matt. 6:9). It is appropriate to use the Lord’s Prayer (both as a form and as a guide) in public worship, family worship and private worship. The Didache instructs Christians to pray the Lord’s Prayer three times a day:

And do not pray like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel, pray in this manner: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name…. Pray in this manner three times a day (8:2–3).

The first step in learning how to pray is using the biblical forms of prayer such as the Lord’s Prayer or the Psalms. To get started, one may pray the Lord’s Prayer daily and or pray through the Psalms monthly or weekly. It is also helpful to memorize the Lord’s Prayer and selected Psalms for use in daily prayer. Tomorrow, we will look at the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer: the invocation.

Cleanse out the old leaven, so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ, our Passover has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, keep the feast—not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness—but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Cor. 5:7–8).

The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ has inaugurated the feast of Passover, and that’s why we are called to celebrate the feast. Of course, “the Christian Passover,” or Pascha, as Paul understands it, is a feast that we celebrate perpetually and not as an annual event on the calendar. However, to argue that it is unlawful to commemorate the fulfillment of the Passover in the person and work of Jesus Christ on a particular Sunday of the year seems strange to me. This is what we celebrate every Sunday, including Easter. The problem, of course, is when Easter Sunday is regarded as more holy than every other Sunday of the year. In my opinion, it is lawful to observe Easter Sunday as long as we do not elevate that Lord’s Day above every other Lord’s Day of the year. The celebration of Easter began pretty early in the Christian church, but that’s not the case with the celebration of Christ’s nativity on December 25. That did not become a widespread tradition in the church until the late fourth or early fifth century. It’s not easy to trace the origins of Christmas and Epiphany (or Theophany). Christmas originated in the western part of the empire, while Epiphany originated in the east and commemorated the baptism of Jesus on January 6. Eastern churches also commemorated the nativity, but that was included as part of the Epiphany celebration. It appears that sometime in the latter half of the fourth century, in the eastern church, the commemoration of Christ’s nativity and his baptism were divided into two distinct feasts. Perhaps, our clearest witness to this division is John Chrysostom. In a homily delivered in Antioch on December 20, 386, Chrysostom announced the forthcoming celebration of the nativity.

For from this feast [that is, the Nativity], the Theophany and the holy Pascha and the Ascension and the Pentecost take their origin and foundation, for if Christ had not been born according to the flesh, he could not have been baptized, which is the Theophany; he could not have been crucified, which is the Pascha; he could not have sent the Spirit, which is the Pentecost.

Thus, Christ’s nativity and his baptism are mentioned as two distinct feasts. Five days later (December 25, 386), Chrysostom said to his congregation,

And really, this date of Christ’s birth has been manifest and known to us less than ten years…This, which has been known from of old to the inhabitants of the West and has now been brought to us, not many years ago, is suddenly growing and bringing fruit.

From this statement, we may draw several conclusions. First, the practice of commemorating the birth of Christ on December 25 was instituted at Antioch sometime just before 380. Second, this practice was brought over from the western churches, which had observed that date for a long time, “from of old.” Third, one does not get the impression that the commemoration of Christ’s birth was a new practice in Antioch but only that the day had been changed. Chrysostom does not say that the practice was learned from the west but only the date. Fourth, keeping the feast of the Nativity on December 25 appears to be a rapidly growing practice in the east. It is “suddenly growing and bringing fruit.” Thus, it seems clear that part of what was celebrated at the feast of Epiphany was now being celebrated on December 25, as a separate and distinct feast. This interpretation is confirmed by Chrysostom’s Epiphany sermon the very next month (January 6, 387).

We shall now say something about the present feast. Many celebrate the feast days and know their designations, but the cause for which they were established they know not. Thus concerning this, that the present feast is called Theophany – everyone knows, but what this is – and whether it be one thing or another, they know not.

Chrysostom goes on to argue that Theophany is not the day in which we commemorate the birth of Christ but, rather, his baptism. And he explains the reason.

Why is not that day, on which the Lord was born, considered Theophany – but rather this day on which He was baptized? This present day it is, on which He was baptized and sanctified the nature of water…. Why then is this day called Theophany? Because Christ made Himself known to all – not then when He was born – but then when He was baptized. Until this time, He was not known to the people…. Even the Baptist did not know Him until that day….

In the mind of our preacher, the celebration of Christ’s baptism as a theophany is deeply rooted in the biblical narrative itself. It was at his baptism, that his identity was first revealed to John and to all who heard John bear witness of him. The fact that Chrysostom feels the need to explain why Christ’s birth is not being celebrated at the present feast suggests that at one time (in the recent past) it was. We conclude that these two events, Christ’s nativity and his baptism, were now starting to be distinguished and commemorated on two separate feast days in the eastern churches. Beginning in the mid-fourth century, a very different kind of festal observance was originating in another area of the east. As part of his innovative plan to revitalize the city of Jerusalem by turning it into a pilgrimage center for saints from all over the empire, Cyril of Jerusalem was developing a festal calendar linked to certain sacred destinations. “The central figure in all the changes that took place in the liturgy and festival calendar of the Jerusalem Church was the liturgically-minded Cyril.”[1] From the beginning of the century, Constantine had been ordering monuments of glorious splendor to be erected at these holy sites. When his mother, Helena, journeyed to Palestine around 325, the Christians living in Bethlehem were able to show her the cave where Christ was born. This site had been regarded as the genuine location of the nativity for a long time. Around 248, Origen of Alexandria refers to a living tradition in Bethlehem,

[I]n conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is displayed at Bethlehem the cave where Jesus was born and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in the surrounding places – even among the enemies of the faith. They say that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians.

Over this cave, Constantine ordered a church to be built. The project was completed in 333. If a festal calendar linked to the holy places were going to be constructed, then certainly, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem had to be on the list. No doubt, Christians would want to visit that sacred site! Cyril seized the opportunity to revitalize the city of Jerusalem by turning it into a liturgical theme park, and waves of pilgrims from all over the empire started coming to Palestine to participate in the festal celebrations, which increasingly took on a theatrical nature. One such pilgrim was a Spanish nun named Egeria (also spelled Etheria), who took an extended pilgrimage to the holy land from 381 to 384. Thankfully, she left us a journal of her experiences, from which we can reconstruct some of the liturgical dramas that Cyril bequeathed to Jerusalem and ultimately to Christendom because they gradually spread to other parts of the empire.[2] As these pilgrims returned home and told their friends about their worship experiences, other churches began more and more to imitate the local rites of Jerusalem. Thus, Cyril unwittingly set the trajectory of the worship of the Church for centuries to come. With regard to Epiphany, we gain the following picture from Egeria’s diary:

On 5 January the Christians of the Holy City went in procession down to Bethlehem to the Church of the Nativity, where they held a vigil very similar to the Easter vigil, in which a long series of Scripture lessons was read, outlining the history of salvation. There is a missing leaf in the manuscript at this point, however, and we can derive from the document in its present condition only something about a return to Jerusalem. Once back in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre the pilgrims received a blessing from the bishop, and the monks spend the rest of the night in prayer at the church. At eight o’ clock on the morning of 6 January there was a celebration of the Eucharist. This being a festive occasion, a number of the presbyters preached on the lessons, which were read before the bishop took the pulpit and preached his sermon. For a full octave the feast of Epiphany was celebrated in the various sacred sites: the Church of the Upper Room, the Church on the Mount of Olives, and the church at Bethany. Spreading the services out like this meant that an Epiphany service was held in each neighborhood, which gave pilgrims who were in Jerusalem for a shorter time a chance to get to all the sites.[3]

The practice of reading a series of scripture lessons that recount the history of salvation stretches back at least to the second century. Clement of Alexandria bears witness to such a practice in connection with Christ’s baptism. Clement also lists numerous views regarding the day of Christ’s birth. He writes,

[O]ur Lord was born in the 28^th year, when…the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus…. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the 28^th year of Augustus, and in the 25^th day of Pachon [May 20]. And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings. And they say that it was the 15^th year of Tiberius Caesar, the 15^th day of the month Tubi [January 10]; and some that it was the 11^th of the same month [January 6]…. Further, others say that He was born on the 24^th or 25^th of Pharmuthi [April 19 or 20].

What is notably missing from Egeria’s description of Epiphany is any reference to Christ’s baptism. The fact that Eusebius of Caesarea, in his descriptions of Constantine’s donations, makes no mention of a building erected on the site at the Jordan where Christ was baptized suggests that no such monument existed. If Epiphany commemorated the baptism of Jesus, then surely the pilgrims would have visited the Jordan. On the other hand, the picture we get from Egeria’s journal is that Epiphany is all about Christ’s nativity and not his baptism. Instead of mass baptism taking place at Epiphany (as in other eastern churches), in Jerusalem, it was done at the Paschal celebration, after a period of mystagogical catechesis. Another important witness to the Christmas celebration at Bethlehem is Jerome. In the same year that Cyril of Jerusalem died (386), Jerome settled into a monastery at Bethlehem and began his monumental work for which he is most commonly remembered, his Latin translation of the Bible. Sometime after his arrival, he preached a sermon during the Christmas celebration at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Jerome carefully expounds a passage from Luke 2, which was, no doubt, one of the traditional scripture lessons used for the service. Apparently, he was only one of several preachers in this service, who took turns expounding the lessons in their order. Egeria had mentioned that several Presbyters would do this before the bishop himself preached. At the end of his sermon, after apologizing for the length, Jerome concluded by saying, “Let us be ready now to give our attention to the Bishop and earnestly take to heart what he has to say on what I have left out.” Since Jerome worked for almost thirty five years in Bethlehem, it is hard to date this sermon, but it was clearly delivered after a major change in the celebration of Epiphany had taken place. The sermon was preached, not on January 6 or on any of the festive days of the epiphanic octavia, but on December 25. Thus, we see that even in Jerusalem, the nativity commemoration was eventually moved from the eastern date to the western date just as it had been moved in Antioch in the 380s. Apparently, this was not done without some objection because Jerome includes, in his Christmas sermon, an apology for the new date.

Since [Mary] was pondering [these things] in her heart, let us, likewise, meditate in our hearts that on this day Christ is born. There are some who think that he was born on Epiphany [namely, many eastern Christians including those in Judea]. We do not condemn the opinion of others, but follow the conclusions of our own study…. Both those who say the Lord is born then, and we who say he is born today, worship one Lord, acknowledge one Babe. Let us review a few facts, however, not to rebuke others by our reasoning, but to confirm our own position. We are not airing our own opinion, but supporting tradition [the tradition of the west]. The common consent of the world is contrary to the thinking of this province. Perhaps someone may object: “Christ was born here; are they who are far away better informed than those who are close by? Who told you?” They who are of this province, of course, the apostles, Peter and Paul, and the rest of them. You have rejected tradition; we have accepted it; Peter who was here with John, who lived here with James, taught us also in the West. The apostles are both your teachers and ours.

Jerome continues with this apology for the new date by arguing that the apostolic tradition was preserved in the peaceful west. In the east, however, it was lost because of conflict and war. He reminds them of the overthrow and destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of Vespasian and Titus and the expulsion of the Jews and Christians. Hadrian followed and destroyed whatever was left of the province, banning all Jews from entering and making it a thoroughly pagan city. The point here is that apostolic tradition was more easily preserved in the west because of the wars in Palestine. Hence, the western date of December 25 is more reliable than the eastern date. Indeed, it is apostolic, argued to Jerome. Jerome goes on to make the same distinction between Christmas and Epiphany that we saw in Chrysostom.

Now, we say that Christ was born today. On Epiphany, he was reborn [that is, baptized]. You who maintain he was born on Epiphany prove for us generation and regeneration. When did he receive baptism, unless you face the consequence that on the same day, he was born and reborn?

Once again, the former composite-feast has been split in two. As in Antioch, so in Jerusalem—“Epiphany was everywhere deprived of half its meaning, and now continued to be observed only as the festival of Christ’s baptism.”[4] Jerome continues,

Even nature is in agreement with our claim, for the world itself bears witness to our statement. Up to this day, darkness increases; from this day on, it decreases; light increases, darkness decreases; the day waxes, error wanes; truth advances. For us today, the Sun of Justice is born.

Without question, Jerome is alluding here to the Roman festival of the Invincible Sun, dies natalis solis invicti, celebrated on December 25, the traditional date of the winter solstice. This pagan feast was instituted in 274 AD by the emperor Aurelian. Those who argue for the derivation of Christmas from this festival lay great emphasis on the role of Constantine, who is known to have been a devotee of the Sun prior to his protection of Christianity. However, it should be noted that although we find several places in the Church fathers where Christmas is compared and contrasted with Sol Invictus, it does not necessarily follow that Christmas was instituted as its substitute. One manifest weakness of this theory is that Constantine did not institute the observance of Christmas on December 25 in Bethlehem after dedicating the Church of the Nativity. As we have just seen in Jerome’s sermon, Bethlehem continued to observe January 6 as the Nativity until the end of the fourth century or even the beginning of the fifth. Furthermore, Constantine does not institute the observance of Christmas in the new capital of his empire either. Christmas first came to Constantinople in 380 when it was introduced by the newly installed bishop, Gregory of Nazianzus. One conclusion that we may draw from this historical data is that the nativity of Christ was not widely observed in the church on December 25 until the late fourth or early fifth century. That is not to say that Christians did not celebrate the nativity of Christ before that time. They certainly did! But the point is that December 25 was not regarded as a holy day by most Christians until pretty late in church history. The church calendar is something that evolved over a very long period of time. Even after the first two or three ecumenical councils, the church calendar was still in a state of flux. As diligent students of the church fathers, the Reformers were well aware of that fact. The Reformers knew that there was an unbroken tradition of Lord’s Day worship handed down from the apostolic age. And they were eager to preserve that apostolic practice. But many of them had misgivings about the church calendar. One reason for those misgivings was the lack of evidence from the ancient church to substantiate its apostolic origins. Endnotes [1] Merras, Origins of Epiphany, 157. [2] See Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 285. For an English version of Egeria’s journal, see G. E. Gingas, Egeria: Diary of a Pilgrim, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 38 (New York: Newman Press, 1970). [3] Old, 136. Egeria also notes that each day during the octavia the saints returned to Bethlehem for another service only to return to Jerusalem each night with the bishop. Cyril probably did not originate this annual commemoration of the Nativity in Bethlehem; it is much more likely that he elaborated on an already existing tradition that probably went back to the day when the church was first built. [4] Lietzmann, Early Church, 3:316.

The sermon was apparently preached during the Quartodeciman celebration of Easter. It follows a reading of the Passover account from the book of Exodus and possibly the Song of the Suffering Servant from Isaiah 52 and 53, adhering to the synagogue tradition of using a text from the prophets to interpret a passage from the Law.[1]

Melito uses Isaiah 53:7 to interpret the Passover story to demonstrate that the “suffering of the innocent lamb that redeemed Israel from Egypt” is the “prophetic type of our redemption in Christ” (ibid., 286). Melito’s sermon is a beautiful example of patristic typology. As post-resurrection readers of the Old Testament, the fathers of the church interpreted the scriptures through the person and work of Jesus Christ. In this regard, the fathers were following the example of the apostles, who taught that the Old Testament gives us the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 3:15). Hughes Oliphant Old observes that Melito’s sermon was likely preached “at the paschal vigil where numerous Old Testament lessons were read. The opening lines of the sermon tell us that the story of the Passover has just been read from the book of Exodus and that now the preacher intends to explain the reading” (ibid., 290).

We know that during this period there was considerable disagreement as to the nature of the Easter celebration. In Asia Minor it was the custom to celebrate Easter on the day after the Jewish Passover, no matter what day of the week it happened to fall on, while in other places it was celebrated on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover. Debate over this question continued for some time. Melito of Sardis, being a bishop of a city in Asia Minor, would have preached his sermon according to the Quartodeciman system for reckoning Easter (ibid., 291).

For Melito, the Christian celebration of Pascha was an occasion for proclaiming the story of redemptive history and its climactic fulfillment in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Melito’s sermon, the oldest extant Easter sermon from the ancient church, is an excellent model for festive preaching today.

MELITO OF SARDIS

On the Passover

First of all, the Scripture about the Hebrew Exodus has been read and the words of the mystery have been explained as to how the sheep was sacrificed and the people were saved. Therefore, understand this, O beloved: The mystery of the passover is new and old, eternal and temporal, corruptible and incorruptible, mortal and immortal in this fashion: It is old insofar as it concerns the law, but new insofar as it concerns the gospel; temporal insofar as it concerns the type, eternal because of grace; corruptible because of the sacrifice of the sheep, incorruptible because of the life of the Lord; mortal because of his burial in the earth, immortal because of his resurrection from the dead. The law is old, but the gospel is new; the type was for a time, but grace is forever. The sheep was corruptible, but the Lord is incorruptible, who was crushed as a lamb, but who was resurrected as God. For although he was led to sacrifice as a sheep, yet he was not a sheep; and although he was as a lamb without voice, yet indeed he was not a lamb. The one was the model; the other was found to be the finished product. For God replaced the lamb, and a man the sheep; but in the man was Christ, who contains all things. Hence, the sacrifice of the sheep, and the sending of the lamb to slaughter, and the writing of the law–each led to and issued in Christ, for whose sake everything happened in the ancient law, and even more so in the new gospel. For indeed the law issued in the gospel–the old in the new, both coming forth together from Zion and Jerusalem; and the commandment issued in grace, and the type in the finished product, and the lamb in the Son, and the sheep in a man, and the man in God. For the one who was born as Son, and led to slaughter as a lamb, and sacrificed as a sheep, and buried as a man, rose up from the dead as God, since he is by nature both God and man. He is everything: in that he judges he is law, in that he teaches he is gospel, in that he saves he is grace, in that he begets he is Father, in that he is begotten he is Son, in that he suffers he is sheep, in that he is buried he is man, in that he comes to life again he is God. Such is Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen. Now comes the mystery of the passover, even as it stands written in the law, just as it has been read aloud only moments ago. But I will clearly set forth the significance of the words of this Scripture, showing how God commanded Moses in Egypt, when he had made his decision, to bind Pharaoh under the lash, but to release Israel from the lash through the hand of Moses. For see to it, he says, that you take a flawless and perfect lamb, and that you sacrifice it in the evening with the sons of Israel, and that you eat it at night, and in haste. You are not to break any of its bones. You will do it like this, he says: In a single night you will eat it by families and by tribes, your loins girded, and your staves in your hands. For this is the Lord’s passover, an eternal reminder for the sons of Israel. Then take the blood of the sheep, and anoint the front door of your houses by placing upon the posts of your entrance-way the sign of the blood, in order to ward off the angel. For behold I will strike Egypt, and in a single night she will be made childless from beast to man. Then, when Moses sacrificed the sheep and completed the mystery at night together with the sons of Israel, he sealed the doors of their houses in order to protect the people and to ward off the angel. But when the sheep was sacrificed, and the passover consumed, and the mystery completed, and the people made glad, and Israel sealed, then the angel arrived to strike Egypt, who was neither initiated into the mystery, participant of the passover, sealed by the blood, nor protected by the Spirit, but who was the enemy and the unbeliever. In a single night the angel struck and made Egypt childless. For when the angel had encompassed Israel, and had seen her sealed with the blood of the sheep, he advanced against Egypt, and by means of grief subdued the stubborn Pharaoh, clothing him, not with a cloak of mourning, nor with a torn mantle, but with all of Egypt, torn, and mourning for her firstborn. For all Egypt, plunged in troubles and calamities, in tears and lamentations, came to Pharaoh in utter sadness, not in appearance only, but also in soul, having torn not only her garments but her tender breasts as well. Indeed it was possible to observe an extraordinary sight: in one place people beating their breasts, in another those wailing, and in the middle of them Pharaoh, mourning, sitting in sackcloth and cinders, shrouded in thick darkness as in a funeral garment, girded with all Egypt as with a tunic of grief. For Egypt clothed Pharaoh as a cloak of wailing. Such was the mantle that had been woven for his royal body. With just such a cloak did the angel of righteousness clothe the self-willed Pharaoh: with bitter mournfulness, and with thick darkness, and with childlessness. For that angel warred against the firstborn of Egypt. Indeed, swift and insatiate was the death of the firstborn. And an unusual monument of defeat, set up over those who had fallen dead in a moment, could be seen. For the defeat of those who lay dead became the provisions of death. If you listen to the narration of this extraordinary event you will be astonished. For these things befell the Egyptians: a long night, and darkness which was touchable, and death which touched, and an angel who oppressed, and Hades which devoured their firstborn. But you must listen to something still more extraordinary and terrifying: in the darkness which could be touched was hidden death which could not be touched. And the ill-starred Egyptians touched the darkness, while death, on the watch, touched the firstborn of the Egyptians as the angel had commanded. Therefore, if anyone touched the darkness he was led out by death. Indeed one firstborn, touching a dark body with his hand, and utterly frightened in his soul, cried aloud in misery and in terror: What has my right hand laid hold of? At what does my soul tremble? Who cloaks my whole body with darkness? If you are my father, help me; if my mother, feel sympathy for me; if my brother, speak to me; if my friend, sit with me; if my enemy, go away from me since I am a firstborn son! And before the firstborn was silent, the long silence held him in its power, saying: You are mine, O firstborn! I, the silence of death, am your destiny. And another firstborn, taking note of the capture of the firstborn, denied his identity, so that he might not die a bitter death: I am not a firstborn son; I was born like a third child. But he who could not be deceived touched that firstborn, and he fell forward in silence. In a single moment the firstborn fruit of the Egyptians was destroyed. The one first conceived, the one first born, the one sought after, the one chosen was dashed to the ground; not only that of men but that of irrational animals as well. A lowing was heard in the fields of the earth, of cattle bellowing for their nurslings, a cow standing over her calf, and a mare over her colt. And the rest of the cattle, having just given birth to their offspring and swollen with milk, were lamenting bitterly and piteously for their firstborn. And there was a wailing and lamentation because of the destruction of the men, because of the destruction of the firstborn who were dead. And all Egypt stank, because of the unburied bodies. Indeed one could see a frightful spectacle: of the Egyptians there were mothers with dishevelled hair, and fathers who had lost their minds, wailing aloud in terrifying fashion in the Egyptian tongue: O wretched persons that we are! We have lost our firstborn in a single moment! And they were striking their breasts with their hands, beating time in hammerlike fashion to the dance for their dead. Such was the misfortune which encompassed Egypt. In an instant it made her childless. But Israel, all the while, was being protected by the sacrifice of the sheep and truly was being illumined by its blood which was shed; for the death of the sheep was found to be a rampart for the people. O inexpressible mystery! the sacrifice of the sheep was found to be the salvation of the people, and the death of the sheep became the life of the people. For its blood warded off the angel. Tell me, O angel, At what were you turned away? At the sacrifice of the sheep, or the life of the Lord? At the death of the sheep, or the type of the Lord? At the blood of the sheep, or the Spirit of the Lord? Clearly, you were turned away because you saw the mystery of the Lord taking place in the sheep, the life of the Lord in the sacrifice of the sheep, the type of the Lord in the death of the sheep. For this reason you did not strike Israel, but it was Egypt alone that you made childless. What was this extraordinary mystery? It was Egypt struck to destruction but Israel kept for salvation. Listen to the meaning of this mystery: Beloved, no speech or event takes place without a pattern or design; every event and speech involves a pattern–that which is spoken, a pattern, and that which happens, a prefiguration–in order that as the event is disclosed through the prefiguration, so also the speech may be brought to expression through its outline. Without the model, no work of art arises. Is not that which is to come into existence seen through the model which typifies it? For this reason a pattern of that which is to be is made either out of wax, or out of clay, or out of wood, in order that by the smallness of the model, destined to be destroyed, might be seen that thing which is to arise from it–higher than it in size, and mightier than it in power, and more beautiful than it in appearance, and more elaborate than it in ornamentation. So whenever the thing arises for which the model was made, then that which carried the image of that future thing is destroyed as no longer of use, since it has transmitted its resemblance to that which is by nature true. Therefore, that which once was valuable, is now without value because that which is truly valuable has appeared. For each thing has its own time: there is a distinct time for the type, there is a distinct time for the material, and there is a distinct time for the truth. You construct the model. You want this, because you see in it the image of the future work. You procure the material for the model. You want this, on account of that which is going to arise because of it. You complete the work and cherish it alone, for only in it do you see both type and the truth. Therefore, if it was like this with models of perishable objects, so indeed will it also be with those of imperishable objects. If it was like this with earthly things, so indeed also will it be with heavenly things. For even the Lord’s salvation and his truth were prefigured in the people, and the teaching of the gospel was proclaimed in advance by the law. The people, therefore, became the model for the church, and the law a parabolic sketch. But the gospel became the explanation of the law and its fulfillment, while the church became the storehouse of truth. Therefore, the type had value prior to its realization, and the parable was wonderful prior to its interpretation. This is to say that the people had value before the church came on the scene, and the law was wonderful before the gospel was brought to light. But when the church came on the scene, and the gospel was set forth, the type lost its value by surrendering its significance to the truth, and the law was fulfilled by surrendering its significance to the gospel. Just as the type lost its significance by surrendering its image to that which is true by nature, and as the parable lost its significance by being illumined through the interpretation, so indeed also the law was fulfilled when the gospel was brought to light, and the people lost their significance when the church came on the scene, and the type was destroyed when the Lord appeared. Therefore, those things which once had value are today without value, because the things which have true value have appeared. For at one time the sacrifice to the sheep was valuable, but now it is without value because of the life of the Lord. The death of the sheep once was valuable, but now it is without value because of the salvation of the Lord. The blood of the sheep once was valuable, but now it is without value because of the Spirit of the Lord. The silent lamb once was valuable, but now it has no value because of the blameless Son. The temple here below once was valuable, but now it is without value because of the Christ from above. The Jerusalem here below once had value, but now it is without value because of the Jerusalem from above. The meager inheritance once had value; now it is without value because of the abundant grace. For not in one place alone, nor yet in narrow confines, has the glory of God been established, but his grace has been poured out upon the uttermost parts of the inhabited world, and there the almighty God has taken up his dwelling place through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen. Now that you have heard the explanation of the type and of that which corresponds to it, hear also what goes into making up the mystery. What is the passover? Indeed its name is derived from that event–”to celebrate the passover” (to paschein) is derived from “to suffer” (tou pathein). Therefore, learn who the sufferer is and who he is who suffers along with the sufferer. Why indeed was the Lord present upon the earth? In order that having clothed himself with the one who suffers, he might lift him up to the heights of heaven. In the beginning, when God made heaven and earth, and everything in them through his word, he himself formed man from the earth and shared with that form his own breath, he himself placed him in paradise, which was eastward in Eden, and there they lived most luxuriously. Then by way of command God gave them this law: For your food you may eat from any tree, but you are not to eat from the tree of the one who knows good and evil. For on the day you eat from it, you most certainly will die. But man, who is by nature capable of receiving good and evil as soil of the earth is capable of receiving seeds from both sides, welcomed the hostile and greedy counselor, and by having touched that tree transgressed the command, and disobeyed God. As a consequence, he was cast out into this world as a condemned man is cast into prison. And when he had fathered many children, and had grown very old, and had returned to the earth through having tasted of the tree, an inheritance was left behind by him for his children. Indeed, he left his children an inheritance–not of chastity but of unchastity, not of immortality but of corruptibility, not of honor but of dishonor, not of freedom but of slavery, not of sovereignty but of tyranny, not of life but of death, not of salvation but of destruction. Extraordinary and terrifying indeed was the destruction of men upon the earth. For the following things happened to them: They were carried off as slaves by sin, the tyrant, and were led away into the regions of desire where they were totally engulfed by insatiable sensual pleasures–by adultery, by unchastity, by debauchery, by inordinate desires, by avarice, by murders, by bloodshed, by the tyranny of wickedness, by the tyranny of lawlessness. For even a father of his own accord lifted up a dagger against his son; and a son used his hands against his father; and the impious person smote the breasts that nourished him; and brother murdered brother; and host wronged his guest; and friend assassinated friend; and one man cut the throat of another with his tyrannous right hand. Therefore all men on the earth became either murderers, or parricides, or killers of their children. And yet a thing still more dreadful and extraordinary was to be found: A mother attacked the flesh which she gave birth to, a mother attacked those whom her breasts had nourished; and she buried in her belly the fruit of her belly. Indeed, the ill-starred mother became a dreadful tomb, when she devoured the child which she bore in her womb. But in addition to this there were to be found among men many things still more monstrous and terrifying and brutal: father cohabits with his child, and son and with his mother, and brother with sister, and male with male, and each man lusting after the wife of his neighbor. Because of these things sin exulted, which, because it was death’s collaborator, entered first into the souls of men, and prepared as food for him the bodies of the dead. In every soul sin left its mark, and those in whom it placed its mark were destined to die. Therefore, all flesh fell under the power of sin, and every body under the dominion of death, for every soul was driven out from its house of flesh. Indeed, that which had been taken from the earth was dissolved again into earth, and that which had been given from God was locked up in Hades. And that beautiful ordered arrangement was dissolved, when the beautiful body was separated (from the soul). Yes, man was divided up into parts by death. Yes, an extraordinary misfortune and captivity enveloped him: he was dragged away captive under the shadow of death, and the image of the Father remained there desolate. For this reason, therefore, the mystery of the passover has been completed in the body of the Lord. Indeed, the Lord prearranged his own sufferings in the patriarchs, and in the prophets, and in the whole people of God, giving his sanction to them through the law and the prophets. For that which was to exist in a new and grandiose fashion was pre-planned long in advance, in order that when it should come into existence one might attain to faith, just because it had been predicted long in advance. So indeed also the suffering of the Lord, predicted long in advance by means of types, but seen today, has brought about faith, just because it has taken place as predicted. And yet men have taken it as something completely new. Well, the truth of the matter is the mystery of the Lord is both old and new–old insofar as it involved the type, but new insofar as it concerns grace. And what is more, if you pay close attention to this type you will see the real thing through its fulfillment. Accordingly, if you desire to see the mystery of the Lord, pay close attention to Abel who likewise was put to death, to Isaac who likewise was bound hand and foot, to Joseph who likewise was sold, to Moses who likewise was exposed, to David who likewise was hunted down, to the prophets who likewise suffered because they were the Lord’s anointed. Pay close attention also to the one who was sacrificed as a sheep in the land of Egypt, to the one who smote Egypt and who saved Israel by his blood. For it was through the voice of prophecy that the mystery of the Lord was proclaimed. Moses, indeed, said to his people: Surely you will see your life suspended before your eyes night and day, but you surely will not believe on your Life. Deut. 28:66. And David said: Why were the nations haughty and the people concerned about nothing? The kings of the earth presented themselves and the princes assembled themselves together against the Lord and against his anointed. Ps. 2:1-2. And Jeremiah: I am as an innocent lamb being led away to be sacrificed. They plotted evil against me and said: Come! let us throw him a tree for his food, and let us exterminate him from the land of the living, so that his name will never be recalled. Jer. 11:19. And Isaiah: He was led as a sheep to slaughter, and, as a lamb is silent in the presence of the one who shears it, he did not open his mouth. Therefore who will tell his offspring? Isa. 53:7. And indeed there were many other things proclaimed by numerous prophets concerning the mystery of the passover, which is Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen. When this one came from heaven to earth for the sake of the one who suffers, and had clothed himself with that very one through the womb of a virgin, and having come forth as man, he accepted the sufferings of the sufferer through his body which was capable of suffering. And he destroyed those human sufferings by his spirit which was incapable of dying. He killed death which had put man to death. For this one, who was led away as a lamb, and who was sacrificed as a sheep, by himself delivered us from servitude to the world as from the land of Egypt, and released us from bondage to the devil as from the hand of Pharaoh, and sealed our souls by his own spirit and the members of our bodies by his own blood. This is the one who covered death with shame and who plunged the devil into mourning as Moses did Pharaoh. This is the one who smote lawlessness and deprived injustice of its offspring, as Moses deprived Egypt. This is the one who delivered us from slavery into freedom, from darkness into light, from death into life, from tyranny into an eternal kingdom, and who made us a new priesthood, and a special people forever. This one is the passover of our salvation. This is the one who patiently endured many things in many people: This is the one who was murdered in Abel, and bound as a sacrifice in Isaac, and exiled in Jacob, and sold in Joseph, and exposed in Moses, and sacrificed in the lamb, and hunted down in David, and dishonored in the prophets. This is the one who became human in a virgin, who was hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from among the dead, and who raised mankind up out of the grave below to the heights of heaven. This is the lamb that was slain. This is the lamb that was silent. This is the one who was born of Mary, that beautiful ewe-lamb. This is the one who was taken from the flock, and was dragged to sacrifice, and was killed in the evening, and was buried at night; the one who was not broken while on the tree, who did not see dissolution while in the earth, who rose up from the dead, and who raised up mankind from the grave below. This one was murdered. And where was he murdered? In the very center of Jerusalem! Why? Because he had healed their lame, and had cleansed their lepers, and had guided their blind with light, and had raised up their dead. For this reason he suffered. Somewhere it has been written in the law and prophets, “They paid me back evil for good, and my soul with barrenness plotting evil against me saying, Let us bind this just man because he is troublesome to us.” Isa. 3:10 (LXX). Why, O Israel did you do this strange injustice? You dishonored the one who had honored you. You held in contempt the one who held you in esteem. You denied the one who publicly acknowledged you. You renounced the one who proclaimed you his own. You killed the one who made you to live. Why did you do this, O Israel? Hast it not been written for your benefit: “Do not shed innocent blood lest you die a terrible death”? Nevertheless, Israel admits, I killed the Lord! Why? Because it was necessary for him to die. You have deceived yourself, O Israel, rationalizing thus about the death of the Lord. It was necessary for him to suffer, yes, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be dishonored, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be judged, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be crucified, but not by you, nor by your right hand. O Israel! You ought to have cried aloud to God with this voice: “O Lord, if it was necessary for your Son to suffer, and if this was your will, let him suffer indeed, but not at my hands. Let him suffer at the hands of strangers. Let him be judged by the uncircumcised. Let him be crucified by the tyrannical right hand, but not by mine.” But you, O Israel, did not cry out to God with this voice, nor did you absolve yourself of guilt before the Lord, nor were you persuaded by his works. The withered hand which was restored whole to its body did not persuade you; nor did the eyes of the blind which were opened by his hand; nor did the paralyzed bodies restored to health again through his voice; nor did that most extraordinary miracle persuade you, namely, the dead man raised to life from the tomb where already he had been lying for four days. Indeed, dismissing these things, you, to your detriment, prepared the following for the sacrifice of the Lord at eventide: sharp nails, and false witnesses, and fetters, and scourges, and vinegar, and gall, and a sword, and affliction, and all as though it were for a blood-stained robber. For you brought to him scourges for his body, and the thorns for his head. And you bound those beautiful hands of his, which had formed you from the earth. And that beautiful mouth of his, which had nourished you with life, you filled with gall. And you killed your Lord at the time of the great feast. Surely you were filled with gaiety, but he was filled with hunger; you drank wine and ate bread, but he vinegar and gall; you wore a happy smile, but he had a sad countenance; you were full of joy, but he was full of trouble; you sang songs, but he was judged; you issued the command, he was crucified; you danced, he was buried; you lay down on a soft bed, but he in a tomb and coffin. O lawless Israel, why did you commit this extraordinary crime of casting your Lord into new sufferings–your master, the one who formed you, the one who made you, the one who honored you, the one who called you Israel? But you were found not really to be Israel, for you did not see God, you did not recognize the Lord, you did not know, O Israel, that this one was the firstborn of God, the one who was begotten before the morning star, the one who caused the light to shine forth, the one who made bright the day, the one who parted the darkness, the one who established the primordial starting point, the one who suspended the earth, the one who quenched the abyss, the one who stretched out the firmament, the one who formed the universe, the one who set in motion the stars of heaven, the one who caused those luminaries to shine, the one who made the angels in heaven, the one who established their thrones in that place, the one who by himself fashioned man upon the earth. This was the one who chose you, the one who guided you from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Isaac and Jacob and the Twelve Patriarchs. This was the one who guided you into Egypt, and guarded you, and himself kept you well supplied there. This was the one who lighted your route with a column of fire, and provided shade for you by means of a cloud, the one who divided the Red Sea, and led you across it, and scattered your enemy abroad. This is the one who provided you with manna from heaven, the one who gave you water to drink from a rock, the one who established your laws in Horeb, the one who gave you an inheritance in the land, the one who sent out his prophets to you, the one who raised up your kings. This is the one who came to you, the one who healed your suffering ones and who resurrected your dead. This is the one whom you sinned against. This is the one whom you wronged. This is the one whom you killed. This is the one whom you sold for silver, although you asked him for the didrachma. O ungrateful Israel, come here and be judged before me for your ingratitude. How high a price did you place on being created by him? How high a price did you place on the discovery of your fathers? How high a price did you place on the descent into Egypt, and the provision made for you there through the noble Joseph? How high a price did you place on the ten plagues? How high a price did you place on the nightly column of fire, and the daily cloud, and the crossing of the Red Sea? How high a price did you place on the gift of manna from heaven, and the gift of water from the rock, and the gift of law in Horeb, and the land as an inheritance, and the benefits accorded you there? How high a price did you place on your suffering people whom he healed when he was present? Set me a price on the withered hand, which he restored whole to its body. Put me a price on the men born blind, whom he led into light by his voice. Put me a price on those who lay dead, whom he raised up alive from the tomb. Inestimable are the benefits that come to you from him. But you, shamefully, have paid him back with ingratitude, returning to him evil for good, and affliction for favor and death for life–a person for whom you should have died. Furthermore, if the king of some nation is captured by an enemy, a war is started because of him, fortifications are shattered because of him, cities are plundered because of him, ransom is sent because of him, ambassadors are commissioned because of him in order that he might be surrendered, so that either he might be returned if living, or that he might be buried if dead. But you, quite to the contrary, voted against your Lord, whom indeed the nations worshipped, and the uncircumcised admired, and the foreigners glorified, over whom Pilate washed his hands. But as for you–you killed this one at the time of the great feast. Therefore, the feast of unleavened bread has become bitter to you just as it was written: “You will eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs.” Bitter to you are the nails which you made pointed. Bitter to you is the tongue which you sharpened. Bitter to you are the false witnesses whom you brought forward. Bitter to you are the fetters which you prepared. Bitter to you are the scourges which you wove. Bitter to you is Judas whom you furnished with pay. Bitter to you is Herod whom you followed. Bitter to you is Caiaphas whom you obeyed. Bitter to you is the gall which you made ready. Bitter to you is the vinegar which you produced. Bitter to you are the thorns which you plucked. Bitter to you are your hands which you bloodied, when you killed your Lord in the midst of Jerusalem. Pay attention, all families of the nations, and observe! An extraordinary murder has taken place in the center of Jerusalem, in the city devoted to God’s law, in the city of the Hebrews, in the city of the prophets, in the city thought of as just. And who has been murdered? And who is the murderer? I am ashamed to give the answer, but give it I must. For if this murder had taken place at night, or if he had been slain in a desert place, it would be well to keep silent; but it was in the middle of the main street, even in the center of the city, while all were looking on, that the unjust murder of this just person took place. And thus he was lifted up upon the tree, and an inscription was affixed identifying the one who had been murdered. Who was he? It is painful to tell, but it is more dreadful not to tell. Therefore, hear and tremble because of him for whom the earth trembled. The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel. O frightful murder! O unheard of injustice! The Lord is disfigured and he is not deemed worthy of a cloak for his naked body, so that he might not be seen exposed. For this reason the stars turned and fled, and the day grew quite dark, in order to hide the naked person hanging on the tree, darkening not the body of the Lord, but the eyes of men. Yes, even though the people did not tremble, the earth trembled instead; although the people were not afraid, the heavens grew frightened; although the people did not tear their garments, the angels tore theirs; although the people did not lament, the Lord thundered from heaven, and the most high uttered his voice. Why was it like this, O Israel? You did not tremble for the Lord. You did not fear for the Lord. You did not lament for the Lord, yet you lamented for your firstborn. You did not tear your garments at the crucifixion of the Lord, yet you tore your garments for your own who were murdered. You forsook the Lord; you were not found by him. You dashed the Lord to the ground; you, too, were dashed to the ground, and lie quite dead. But he arose from the dead and mounted up to the heights of heaven. When the Lord had clothed himself with humanity, and had suffered for the sake of the sufferer, and had been bound for the sake of the imprisoned, and had been judged for the sake of the condemned, and buried for the sake of the one who was buried, he rose up from the dead, and cried aloud with this voice: Who is he who contends with me? Let him stand in opposition to me. I set the condemned man free; I gave the dead man life; I raised up the one who had been entombed. Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death, and triumphed over the enemy, and trampled Hades under foot, and bound the strong one, and carried off man to the heights of heaven, I, he says, am the Christ. Therefore, come, all families of men, you who have been befouled with sins, and receive forgiveness for your sins. I am your forgiveness, I am the passover of your salvation, I am the lamb which was sacrificed for you, I am your ransom, I am your light, I am your saviour, I am your resurrection, I am your king, I am leading you up to the heights of heaven, I will show you the eternal Father, I will raise you up by my right hand. This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age. This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen. The Peri Pascha of Melito. Peace to the one who wrote, and to the one who reads, and to those who love the Lord in simplicity of heart. Endnotes [1] Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) 285.

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, “Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation” (Isaiah 25:6–9).

This lavish feast of rich food and well-aged wine is the ultimate, consummative last supper. It is a joyful feast and celebration of the salvation of the one for whom we have waited. Rejoice and be glad, for his salvation has come! Death itself will be destroyed. And God will wipe away every tear from our eyes. There will be no more mourning or crying or pain, for the former things will pass away. And God will make all things new. It’s impossible to imagine how joyful it will be on that day when we share this feast with our risen Lord in the kingdom of God. The joy that we will experience on that day will be even greater than the joy that the two disciples experienced on Easter Sunday when they shared a meal with the risen Christ. Luke tells us that when the two disciples were returning to Emmaus from Jerusalem where they had just observed the Passover, that their hearts were filled with sadness. They had just witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus, and all their hopes in the restoration of the kingdom were shattered. Jesus appeared to them, but they didn’t recognize that it was the Lord. When they arrived at Emmaus—about the time that Jesus finished showing them from the scriptures that it was necessary for Christ to suffer and enter his glory—the three men sat down to share a meal. It was in the breaking of the bread that Jesus made himself known to them. And they realized that they were breaking bread with the risen Christ. Their table fellowship with Jesus completely transformed their sadness into unspeakable joy. Although Jesus was in their home, at their table, as their guest, he assumed the role of the host of the meal and served them as if they were his guests at his table eating his supper. That’s when the two men realized that they were having no ordinary meal with an ordinary stranger. But they were eating with the risen and reigning Christ. They experienced a true foretaste of the final banquet at the consummation of the kingdom. Having inaugurated his kingdom by his death and resurrection, Jesus was once again sharing a meal with his disciples, and thus, he was proleptically anticipating the great feast at the end of the age. The relationship between this post-resurrection meal that Jesus shared with these disciples and the great feast at the end of the age is not merely that between symbol and reality but that between commencement and fulfillment. It is true that we must await the return of Christ to celebrate the messianic banquet in its consummative form, but even now, we already have the privilege of proleptically participating in the messianic banquet by sharing a meal with the risen Christ. This is what happens every time we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a joyful meal that we celebrate with the risen Christ. It is, in fact, the messianic banquet in its inaugural stage. When Christ returns, we will celebrate this glorious feast in its consummative form. But through the means of grace, we already have union and communion and table fellowship with the risen Christ in his inaugurated kingdom. Luke 24 has as much to do with the Lord’s Supper as Luke 22. The first supper Jesus shared with his disciples after his resurrection has as much to do with the sacrament as the last supper he shared with them before his death. So to fully appreciate the significance of the Lord’s Supper, one needs to see it in light of both meals. They are like the two lenses in 3D glasses. Both lenses are needed to perceive depth. If we only look through one lens, we are likely going to end up with a truncated view of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is not merely a memorial of Christ’s death. It is a celebration of his resurrection. And when we eat the eucharist, we are breaking bread with the living and reigning Christ who is present in our midst.

In maintaining the perfection of the Scriptures, we do not insist that every article of religion is contained in Scriptures in so many words; but we hold that conclusions fairly deduced from the declarations of the Word of God are as truly parts of divine revelation as if they were expressly taught in the Sacred Volume. That good and necessary consequences deduced from Scripture are to be received as part of the rule of our faith and practice, is evident from the example of our Savior in proving the doctrine of the resurrection against the Sadducees,—Matt. xxii. 31,32; and from the example of Paul, who proved that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, by reasoning with the Jews out of the Old Testament Scriptures.—Acts xvii. 2, 3. “All Scripture” is declared to be “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;” but all these ends cannot be obtained, unless by the deduction of consequences. Legitimate consequences, indeed, only bring out the full meaning of the words of Scripture; and as we are endued with the faculty of reason, and commanded to search the Scriptures, it was manifestly intended that we should draw conclusions from what is therein set down in express words.

Michael Bushell rightly explains that the Westminster Confession of Faith “clearly operates on the assumption that principles derived from the Word by ‘good and necessary consequence’ [cf. WCF 1:6] are every bit as binding upon us as those ‘expressly set down in Scripture.’”[2] James H. Thornwell argued that this interpretation of the Confession has always been the Puritan view.

We have not been able to lay our hands upon a single Puritan Confession of Faith which does not explicitly teach that necessary inferences from Scripture are of equal authority with its express statements: nor have we found a single Puritan writer, having occasion to allude to the subject, who has not explicitly taught the same things.

So if infant baptism may be deduced from scripture by good and necessary consequence, then it is a divine imperative, just as if it stood written, “Thou shalt baptize infants.” Those who hold to the regulative principle of worship—which asserts that “not to command is to forbid”—must either affirm that infant baptism is commanded by God or it is forbidden by God. What seems to me to be incompatible with the regulative principle of worship is Lane’s “dual-practice view.” Either we must baptize infants or we must not baptize them. It’s either lawful or unlawful. But the one thing it cannot be—if the regulative principle is true—is optional. [1]David F. Wright, Baptism Three Views (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2009). [2]Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody (Pittsburgh, PA: Crown and Covenant, 1993) 123.

The Latin tag lex orandi, lex credendi may be construed in two ways. The more usual way makes the rule of prayer a norm for belief: what is prayed indicates what may and must be believed. But from the grammatical point of view it is equally possible to reverse subject and predicate and so take the tag as meaning that the rule of faith is the norm for prayer: what must be believed governs what may and should be prayed. The linguistic ambiguity of the Latin tag corresponds to a material interplay which in fact takes place between worship and doctrine in Christian practice: worship influences doctrine, and doctrine worship (Wainwright, 218).

Thus, the relationship between theology and liturgy is dialectical; it is a two-way relationship. Lex orandi, lex credendi is a two-directional principle; theology and liturgy are mutually formative; they are “correlative norms” (ibid., 161). Another theologian who has weighed in on the issue is Paul Marshall. Marshall offers a stinging critique of the interpretation of lex orandi, lex credendi by Kavanagh and Fagerberg.[7] They present, says Marshall, “the liturgy as simply a given that ‘the people’ receive passively, rather than actively participating in the formation and critique of that liturgy.” To claim that there is “a one-way street, from the divinely given liturgy to the human response of believing” is to perpetuate “a view of the liturgy that is fixed, authoritarian, and hierarchical” (Moore-Keish, 65). Contrary to this interpretation, Marshall claims that Prosper “never intended to posit liturgical action as the single norm that establishes Christian believing” (ibid.). Rather, “Prosper’s overall point, arguing against semi-Pelagianism, is that believing is a gift from God, not a human achievement” (ibid.). Prosper writes,

[L]et us look at the sacred testimony of priestly intercessions which have been transmitted from the apostles and which are uniformly celebrated throughout the world and in every catholic church … so that the law [or rule or pattern] of supplicating [not the more general orandi, ‘praying’] may establish [or confirm] the law [or rule or pattern] of believing [not ‘the faith’] (Marshall, 140).

Thus, Prosper appeals to the universal liturgical practice of praying for the salvation of all people, “not because it is the only source, or even the first source, for theological reflection, but because it is a reliable source that demonstrates the broad apostolic Christian faith” (Moore-Keish, 66). Whatever Prosper may have intended by his maxim, it has provided the occasion for a modern debate over the relationship between theology (lex credendi) and liturgy (lex orandi). This debate has divided Protestants and Catholics since the time of the Reformation. The Reformers’ Catholic opponents usually conceded that, while the substance of their eucharistic theology had its foundation in scripture, there were aspects of the Mass (such as the Roman Canon) that had developed over time. Like their medieval forebears, 16^th century Catholic apologists assumed that the lex orandi should determine the lex credendi. Scripture was a source of Catholic doctrine but so were the liturgical practice of the church and testimony of the fathers. Thus the fact that many Catholic liturgical practices had no explicit scriptural warrant was not necessarily problematic for Catholic apology.[8] On the other hand, the Reformers believed that certain biblical doctrines were incompatible with various liturgical practices in the Roman church. For example, the Roman Mass—particularly the sacrificial language of the Latin canon—was hardly compatible with the doctrines of the perfection of Christ’s atonement and of justification by faith alone. Like the gift of justification, Protestants saw the Lord’s Supper as a gift (beneficium) received from God and not a sacrifice (sacrificium) offered to God. Protestant theology, therefore, inevitably led to changes in the liturgy. Hence, the Reformers believed that lex credendi could exercise control over lex orandi “when it came to forms of existing worship that needed correction” (Irwin, 16). Theology can critique worship and improve it where necessary. The Latin maxim lex orandi, lex credendi offers a helpful corrective to the common tendency in modern Protestant circles to bifurcate theology and liturgy as two independent branches of ecclesial life.[9] Theology and liturgy are, in fact, interrelated and mutually formative. True doctrine forms the foundation of true worship, and true worship is an expression of true doctrine. Theology shapes the church’s liturgy, but over time, the worship of the church will inevitably influence its theology. Both theology and liturgy must be derived from scripture alone, since it is the only infallible rule for faith and worship. Endnotes [1] See David W. Fagerberg, Theologia Prima: What is Liturgical Theology? (Chicago/Mundelein, IL: Hillenbrand Books, 2004) 39–69. [2] Martha L. Moore-Keish, Do This in Remembrance of Me: A Ritual Approach to Reformed Eucharistic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008) 12. [3] Frank C. Senn, The People’s Work: A Social History of the Liturgy (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006) 227. [4] See Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology, The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life: A Systematic Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980) 225–26. [5] See Kevin Irwin, Liturgical Theology: A Primer (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990) 46–47. [6] Bryan D. Spinks, Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Eucharist from the Early Church to the Present Day (London: SCM Press, 2013) xii. [7] Moore-Keish, 65. See Paul V. Marshall, “Reconsidering ‘Liturgical Theology’: Is There a Lex Orandi for All Christians?” in Studia Liturgica 25 (1995): 129–51. [8] Nicholas Thompson, Eucharistic Sacrifice and Patristic Tradition in the Theology of Martin Bucer, 1534–1546 (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 4–5. [9] Cf. Alexander Schmemann, “Liturgy and Theology,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17, no. 1 (1972): 86–100.

Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, does openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like), as he that offends against the common order of the Church, and hurts the authority of the Magistrate, and wounds the consciences of the weak brethren.

This was why Puritans and Covenanters could be disciplined or persecuted for refusing to submit to man-made rites and ceremonies. John Owen traces the bloodshed and persecution of many saints back to this rejection of the RPW.

The principle that the church has power to institute any thing or ceremony belonging to the worship of God … beyond the observance of such circumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ Himself hath instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition and idolatry, of all the confusion, blood, persecution, and wars, that have for long a season spread themselves over the face of the Christian world.[2]

Furthermore, the Puritans, following the teaching of Calvin, pointed out that the corruption of the human heart rendered man unable to determine acceptable forms of worship. The heart of man is a perpetual factory of idols, argued Calvin. William Young puts it this way,

The total corruption and deceitfulness of the human heart disqualifies man from judging what is to be admitted into the worship of God. It may be that before the fall, our first parents had written on their hearts the law of worship and by looking within the depth of their own beings, could read off the commandments of God. Yet even then, they were not without direct external communication of the will of Him who walked and talked with them in the garden. Since the fall, however, though the human conscience still witnesses in all men that worship is due to the supreme Being, no information can be gained from the heart of man as to how God is to be worshiped.

In rejecting the RPW, Anglicans failed to recognize the danger of allowing fallen men to determine liturgical rites, traditions and ceremonies. The RPW guards against the idolatrous nature of the corrupt human heart. The RPW also addresses the nature and extent of church power or authority. The authority of the church is limited by the Word of God to the Word of God. The church has no authority independent of scripture. The RPW restricts the power of the church and, therefore, protects liberty of conscience. No mere human authority has the right to bind one’s conscience in matters of religion. The Belgic Confession says,

We believe, though it is useful and beneficial, that those who are rulers of the church institute and establish certain ordinances among themselves for maintaining the body of the church; yet they ought studiously to take care that they do not depart from those things which Christ, our only Master, has instituted. And, therefore, we reject all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatsoever.

Likewise, the Westminster Confession of Faith states that man’s conscience is “free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship” (20:2). The distinction here in the Confession is between “civil matters” and “religious matters.” In other words, the distinction is between those aspects of life governed by church-officers versus those that are not governed by church-officers. James Bannerman explains,

The direct object of the Confession in this passage is no doubt to assert the right and extent of liberty of conscience; but along with that, it very distinctly enunciates the doctrine, that neither in regard to faith nor in regard to worship has the Church any authority beside or beyond what is laid down in the Bible; and that it has no right to decree and enforce new observances or institutions in the department of Scriptural worship, any more than to teach and inculcate new truths in the department of Scriptural faith.

Again, this is contrary to the Anglican position, which limits matters of faith to scripture but not matters of worship. Presbyterians, however, limit the authority of the church to what is expressly taught in scripture in all matters religious—whether doctrine, polity, worship or discipline. So the RPW guards the Christian’s conscience from being bound by human authority in matters of religion. The NPW, however, says the church has the right to require acts of worship as long as those acts are not forbidden in scripture. On this principle, the church can invent all kinds of ceremonies and rites and impose them on the saints so long as the required actions are not in themselves sinful. Crossing oneself, smearing ashes on the forehead, fasting during Lent, anointing with oil, burning incense, lighting candles, etc. There are many activities that are not in themselves sinful and yet, as acts of worship, they are unlawful because they are not prescribed. To be fair, Anglicans argue that the NPW does not mean that anything goes in worship as long as it’s not forbidden in scripture because whatever ceremonies or rites the church invents must be deemed beneficial and edifying for the church for them to be appropriate. Article Thirty-four states,

Every particular or national church has authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

This principle of edification keeps Anglican worship in check, so to speak, but if man-made worship is, in fact, unlawful (that is, if the RPW is true), then no act of worship invented by man can be deemed edifying for the church. Episcoterians (or Wanglicans, which is short for wannabe Anglicans) have ignored the liturgical theology and heritage of the Presbyterian church. Perhaps this is the real reason that Episcoterianism came to exist in the first place. Endnotes [1] Thomas M’Crie, Annals of English Presbytery (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1872) 110. [2] John Owen, Of communion with God the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, each person distinctly in love, grace, and consolation, or, The saints fellowship with the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, unfolded (Oxford, 1657) 170.

Here is briefly declared in a summary, according to the Holy Scriptures, what opinion we Christians have of the Lord’s Supper, called the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ.

Although this statement is only seven paragraphs in length, it is, nevertheless, brimming with rich theological insights on the doctrine of the sacrament. One of the striking features of this treatise on the Lord’s Supper is that Jesus Christ is the subject of every sentence. Knox does not look at the Lord’s Supper as a work of man but as a work of Jesus Christ. Christ “lifts us up unto heavenly and invisible things.” Christ “confirms and seals up to us his promise.” Christ “represents … and makes plain to our senses, his heavenly gifts.” Christ “gives unto us himself.” Christ “gathers us unto one visible body.” Christ “calls us to remembrance of his Death and Passion.” James McEwen observed

In this little document, in a remarkable and striking way, the whole action of the Sacrament is referred to Christ. There is nothing at all about what “we” do, or what the Church does. The Sacrament is not looked on as a ministerial act, or a Churchly ordinance. It is, first and last, something that Christ does for us.[1]

Here is Knox’s summary of what he considered to be the biblical doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

A Summary, According to the Holy Scriptures,
of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper

Here is briefly declared in a summary, according to the holy scriptures, what opinion we Christians have of the Lord’s Supper, called the sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ. First, we confess that it is a holy action, ordained of God, in the which the Lord Jesus, by earthly and visible things set before us, lifts us up unto heavenly and invisible things. And that when he had prepared his spiritual banquet, he witnessed that he himself was the lively bread wherewith our souls are fed unto everlasting life. And therefore, in setting forth bread and wine to eat and drink, he confirms and seals up to us his promise and communion (that is, that we shall be partakers with him in his kingdom); and he represents unto us, and makes plain to our senses, his heavenly gifts; and also gives unto us himself, to be received with faith, and not with mouth, nor yet by transfusion of substance; but so, through the virtue [power] of the Holy Ghost, that we, being fed with his flesh, and refreshed with his blood, may be renewed both unto true godliness and to immortality. And also [we confess] that herewith the Lord Jesus gathered us unto one visible body, so that we are members one of another, and make altogether one body, whereof Jesus Christ is the only Head; and, finally, that by the same sacrament, the Lord calls us to remembrance of his death and passion, to stir up our hearts to praise his most holy name. Furthermore, we acknowledge that this sacrament ought to be come unto reverently, considering there is exhibited and given a testimony of the wonderful society and knitting together of the Lord Jesus and of the receivers; and also, that there is included and contained in this sacrament, [a testimony] that he will preserve his kirk. For herein we are commanded to show the Lord’s death until he come (1 Cor. 11:26). Also we believe that it is a confession, wherein we show what kind of doctrine we profess; and what congregation we join ourselves unto; and likewise, that it is a bond of mutual love amongst us. And, finally, we believe that all the comers unto this holy Supper must bring with them their conversion unto the Lord, by unfeigned repentance in faith; and in this sacrament receive the seals and confirmation of their faith; and yet must in nowise think that for this work’s sake their sins are forgiven. And as concerning these words, Hoc est corpus meum, “This is my body” (1 Cor. 11:24; Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19), on which the Papists depend so much, saying that we must needs believe that the bread and wine are transubstantiated unto Christ’s body and blood: we acknowledge that it is no article of our faith which can save us, nor which we are bound to believe upon pain of eternal damnation. For if we should believe that his very natural body, both flesh and blood, were naturally in the bread and wine, that should not save us, seeing many believe that, and yet receive it to their damnation. For it is not his presence in the bread that can save us, but his presence in our hearts, through faith in his blood, which has washed out our sins, and pacified his Father’s wrath towards us. And again, if we do not believe his bodily presence in the bread and wine, that shall not damn us, but the absence out of our hearts through unbelief. Now, if they would here object, that though it be truth, that the absence out of the bread could not damn us, yet are we bound to believe it because of God’s word, saying, “This is my body” (1 Cor. 11:24); which who believes not, as much as in him lies, makes God a liar; and, therefore of an obstinate mind not to believe his word, may be our damnation: To this we answer, that we believe God’s word, and confess that it is true, but not so to be understood as the Papists grossly affirm. For in the sacrament we receive Jesus Christ spiritually, as did the fathers of the Old Testament, according to St. Paul’s saying (1 Cor. 10:3-4). And if men would well weigh, how that Christ, ordaining his holy sacrament of his body and blood, spoke these words sacramentally, doubtless they would never so grossly and foolishly understand them, contrary to all the scriptures, and to the exposition of St. Augustine, St. Jerome, Fulgentius, Vigilius, Origen, and many other godly writers.

[1] James S. McEwen, The Faith of John Knox (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961) 56.

[O]n the day that is called Sunday all who live in the cities or in rural areas gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read for as long as time allows. Then after the lector concludes, the president verbally instructs and exhorts us to imitate all these excellent things. Then all stand up together and offer prayers…. [W]hen we have concluded our prayer, bread is brought forward together with the wine and water. And the presider in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability. The people give their consent, saying “Amen”; there is a distribution, and all share in the Eucharist. To those who are absent a portion is brought by the deacons. And those who are well-to-do and willing give as they choose, as each one so desires. The collection is then deposited with the presider who uses it on behalf of orphans, widows, those who are needy due to sickness or any other cause, prisoners, strangers who are traveling; in short, he assists all who are in need.[1]

According to Justin, a typical service of worship in Rome in the middle of the second century would have included the following elements in this order:

1. Reading of scripture – Old and New Testaments
2. Preaching – an exposition of the text(s) read
3. Prayers
4. Eucharist
5. Collection

Though this account of a typical worship service is only a brief summary, it is clear that the same four elements of worship mentioned in Acts 2:42 were included.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (Acts 2:42, ESV).

The apostles’ teaching, of course, refers to the ministry of the Word—the reading and preaching of holy scripture. The word translated fellowship in this verse refers to the sharing of material goods. In other words, it refers to charitable or diaconal giving, and the distribution of material goods to those in need. Justin said that such material goods were collected and

deposited with the presider who uses it on behalf of orphans, widows, those who are needy due to sickness or any other cause, prisoners, strangers who are traveling; in short, he assists all who are in need.

The other two elements are “the breaking of bread” (which is the eucharist, the sacred meal of the church) and prayer. Thus, from Justin’s account of the worship in Rome, we see that a typical service of worship in the generation that followed the apostolic age consisted of (1) the ministry of the Word, (2) prayer, (3) the eucharist and (4) alms. Endnotes [1] Johnson, Worship in the Early Church, 1:68–69; cf. Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961) 3–9.

Almost overnight, scholars in Europe, England, and America expressed their complete astonishment that such an ancient and important work had finally surfaced. When the first English translation prepared by Hitchcock and Brown was released on 20 March 1884 in New York bookstores, five thousand copies were sold on the first day.[2]

If the Reformers are correct in assuming that the fountain stream of liturgical tradition is purest at its head, then the Didache may very well preserve the purest example of the celebration of the eucharist in patristic literature. Hughes Oliphant Old does not exaggerate its value when he refers to it as “the most important document we have concerning the celebration of Communion in the earliest days of church history.”[3] The Didache represents the springtime of the liturgy and portrays a “picture of Christian worship in its simplest and purest form.”[4] As Jonathan Draper observes,

The Didache presents evidence of the utmost significance for the study of the origins of Christian liturgy and worship, since it offers the earliest picture of baptism (7–8) and eucharist (9–10) in the early Church. It differs strikingly from traditional pictures and later practice, offering a markedly Jewish emphasis. Moreover, since liturgical practice was likely to be long established in the community before it was written down and collected in the Didache, it offers witness to a practice pre-dating the text by some time.[5]

The rediscovery of the Didache provides a critical resource for doing precisely what the sixteenth-century Reformers aspired to do, namely, “reform the church’s worship in light of the Biblical witness and the practice of the ancient church.”[6] What we find in the Didache is a discretionary liturgy much like the liturgies produced in the Reformation era by Martin Bucer, John Calvin, and John Knox. A discretionary liturgy does not prescribe the reading of set forms but provides sample forms that could, in fact, be recited verbatim, yet it also allows the minister a large measure of freedom to frame his own prayers, provided that those prayers are in keeping with the liturgy.[7] That is, a minister could either use the prayer forms or pray “in like effect, as the Spirit of God shall move his heart.”[8] Freedom in public prayer continued for the first few centuries of the church but was later restricted to prevent unorthodox bishops from using heretical expressions.

In the earliest days it is clear that the bishop was free to compose the eucharistic prayer for himself. … Hippolytus provides a specimen prayer, but adds that a bishop need not use it, provided that his own prayer is orthodox. By the end of the fourth century, unorthodox prayers were becoming a problem in North Africa, leading to the imposition of controls; and finally in 535 the emperor Justinian insists that no one should be consecrated bishop until he can repeat the prayer by heart, which implies the existence of an accepted text for him to learn.[9]

This accounts for why we have so few liturgical texts prior to the fourth century. Christians “generally do not seem to have written down their prayers but preferred oral transmission and improvisation.”[10] The prayer forms in Didache 9–10 provide the structure, framework and basic content for the eucharistic prayers of the community, but they were not regarded as fixed formulas that had to be recited at each celebration of the eucharist. Below is my translation of the eucharistic prayers in Didache 9–10. The theology expressed in these prayers is very rich and full of redemptive-historical connections, especially between King David and Jesus Christ. ^9:1Now concerning the eucharist, give thanks in this manner: ²First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of your servant David, which you have revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be the glory forever. Amen ³And concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge, which you have revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be the glory forever. Amen ⁴As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills and, having been gathered together, became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. Amen (⁵But let no one eat or drink from your eucharist, except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, for concerning this, the Lord has likewise said, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs.”) ^10:1Now after being filled, give thanks in this manner: ²We give thanks to you, holy Father, for your holy name, which you have caused to dwell in our hearts and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be the glory forever. Amen ³You, almighty Master, created all things for your name’s sake. To all people, you have given both food and drink to enjoy, in order that they might give you thanks. But to us, you have freely given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your servant Jesus. ⁴Above all, we give you thanks because you are mighty. To you be the glory forever. Amen ⁵Remember your church, O Lord, to deliver her from all evil and to perfect her in your love and to gather her together as the holy one from the four winds into your kingdom which you have prepared for her. For yours is the power and the glory forever. Amen ⁶May grace come, and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the son of David! If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not, let him repent. Come, Lord! Amen. (⁷But allow the prophets to give thanks as long as they wish.) Endnotes [1] Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003) xii. [2] Ibid. [3] Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship: Reformed According to Scripture, Revised and Expanded Edition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002) 121. [4] R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992) 3. [5] Jonathan A. Draper, “The Apostolic Fathers: The Didache,” in The Expository Times, vol. 117, no. 5 (London: SAGE Publications, 2006): 177–81, 180. The majority of modern Didache scholars date the composition of the document to the first century, ca. 50–90 A. D. [6] J. Dudley Weaver Jr, Presbyterian Worship: A Guide for Clergy (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press 2002) 28. [7] See Duncan Forrester and Douglas Murray, eds., Studies in the History of Worship in Scotland (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996) 40. [8] This is from Knox’s liturgy; see The Genevan Book of Order (Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1993) online at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/GBO_ch04.htm. [9] Jasper and Cuming, 5. [10] Ibid.; cf. Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson, The Eucharistic Liturgies (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2012) 36.