History of Knox Liturgy[1]

By Bard Thompson[2]

Edited by Glen Clary

Upon the death of Edward VI in 1553, Mary Tudor brought back the Roman religion to England; and a number of influential Protestants found it expedient to flee the realm. Two hundred of those exiles took refuge in the German city of Frankfort-on-the-Main in June of 1554. They were a divided company. Some were “prayer book men” or “Anglicans”, who, while thoroughly evangelical in their sympathies, were deeply attached to the English Prayer Book of 1552. If a further revision of worship had to be made, they wanted it to be along Anglican lines, and no mere translation of Calvin.

Opposed to them were the “Calvinists”, who were intent upon following the Reformer of Geneva in worship as in doctrine. John Knox was called to minister unto this divided congregation in September, 1554; but only “at the commandment of Mr. Calvin” did he venture to accept that difficult assignment. Although he had spoken favorably of the English Prayer Book aforetimes, Knox was now convinced that it contained many “things superstitious, impure, unclean and unperfect.”[3]

At first the Frankfort congregation used an “interim” service which was Calvinistic. Soon the proposal was made that William Huycke’s English translation of Calvin’s Genevan liturgy should be introduced for permanent use, since it was “moste godly and fardeste off from superstition.”[4] When that suggestion did not meet with swift approval, still another was proposed: that both the English Prayer Book and the Genevan order should be set aside, and an entirely new liturgy devised.

Thus, in January of 1555, Knox and four associates—all of whom were of the “Calvinist” persuasion—commenced to work, using Huycke’s translation and, we may be sure, the sober Genevan edition of Calvin’s own liturgy. Out of the labors of these men came the first version of the service being used in this celebration. But inasmuch as it savored of Geneva and therefore displeased the “Anglicans”, the manuscript was not well received; indeed it was left quite unused. The troubles at Frankfort grew daily more vexing.

Finally, Knox and Whittingham (“Calvinists”) and Parry and Lever (“Anglicans”) succeeded in bringing out a “Liturgy of Compromise” which was modeled after the English Prayer Book and accepted by the whole congregation in February of 1555. Peace endured for a short season. But in March a fresh contingent of Anglicans arrived from England; and in no time they accomplished the downfall of John Knox.

Knox repaired to Geneva. In October, he was joined there by certain of his collaborators from Frankfort. That little group, augmented by some twenty of their countrymen already in the city, proceeded to organize an English congregation at the Church of Marie la Nove. They drew their liturgy almost entirely from the unused manuscript which the committee of “Calvinists” had prepared at Frankfort, adding a collection of fifty metrical psalms and a translation of Calvin’s catechism. On February 10, 1556, The Forme of Prayers appeared from John Crespin’s press.[5]

The English congregation at Geneva, which was the inspiration of the Scottish reform after 1560, existed four years, enrolled 180 souls, and provided Knox the happiest days of his ministry. But Mary Tudor succumbed, and as early as 1559 the exiles at Geneva began to return to Elizabethan England; they carried along their liturgy which was soon taken up by Englishmen of “puritan” leanings. Knox alone was unwelcome there, on account of his ill-timed tract, First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, which was aimed, of course, against Catholic Mary, but landed instead upon Elizabeth.[6]

So he returned to Scotland, full of zeal to reform the Kirk according to the measure of Geneva, which he pronounced “the maist perfyt schoole of Chryst that ever was in the erth since the dayis of the Apostillis.”[7] Among his first accomplishments was the introduction of Genevan worship in place of the English Prayer Book, which the Protestants of Scotland had been accustomed to use. Thus, The Forme of Prayers (or The Book of Common Order, as it came to be called) was required for the administration of the sacraments in 1562, and for all other liturgical purposes in 1564. It served the Scottish Kirk for some eighty years, till the appearance of the Westminster Directory in 1645.

The spirit of the liturgy was wholly Reformed. The Scottish minister enjoyed a large measure of freedom, that “as Gods holy spirite moveth his harte,” he might now and then frame his own prayers. Nevertheless he was expected to honor the liturgy, which belonged, after all, to the whole people and was specifically called the “common order”. Schools were founded for literacy, that the Bible might be opened to everyman and the liturgy enjoyed by all. Moreover, every means was taken to make worship itself a corporate action. The vernacular was used and loudly spoken, so that everyone could participate by the direct medium of speech. And inasmuch as the people were no longer dependent upon the ceremonial to follow the service, only the simplest and most useful forms were retained. Even those symbols which had been hallowed by time and usage were cast out of the churches if they were apt to mislead the people. It was wrong to preach one thing and symbolize another; it was right to say plainly what one meant.

The ministers diminished the distinction between clergy and laity by discarding the priestly vestments and wearing none but the preaching habit. The Scriptures were also translated; and every church was admonished to “have a Bibill in Inglische,” which was expounded daily in the large towns, that even those who did not read could benefit.[8] Psalms were cast into metrical forms and set to common tunes in order to give the people themselves a voice in worship. A complete Scottish Psalter appeared in The Book of Common Order of 1564.

Calvin conducted the Sunday service from the Communion table, entering the pulpit only to preach the sermon. He followed that procedure because of his staunch belief that the proclamation of God’s Word ought normally to be followed by the administration of the Lord’s Supper.[9] In Scotland, however, the Sunday service seems to have been read from the pulpit, perhaps for acoustical reasons. Nevertheless, the pulpit and “the holy table”—together—were the most prominent furnishings in the Scottish churches.[10] What did they mean? They were the instruments of the gracious heavenly Father who speaks and gives to His people, and invites them, before all else, to hear His Word of judgment and reconciliation, and to receive His gifts of forgiveness and sonship. In that, chiefly, lies the meaning of worship according to the Reformed tradition.

That principle also governed the manner in which the minister used the Scriptures in preaching. Knox doubted that anything was less appropriate of a Christian minister than he presume to control God’s way among men by parceling out the Scriptures in bits and snatches, or by preaching a sermon in which God’s own Word was buried beneath a heap of human commentary. He insisted therefore that, in preaching, the Scriptures should be expounded book by book, chapter by chapter, in a continuous and orderly fashion. And all of this, in turn, rested finally upon Knox’s conception of preaching, which was rather unlike the one to which we have become accustomed.

The sermon was not the preacher’s prerogative, to be used by him alone for winning souls or for promoting right-living through the oncoming week. It was most of all the Word of God, made real, alive and effective in the hearts of men through the presence and action of the Holy Spirit. It is this Word which awakens our faith. And when we give expression to our faith, true worship occurs.

When we hear the message of God’s judgment and mercy, we are convicted on our sins and desire to make confession of the same. When, through the same Word, the forgiveness of God becomes real to us, we cannot but express our praise and thanks. And when the Word draws us into relationship with all sorts and conditions of men, we are bound to make prayers for our brethren in need. It is this continuous relationship between hearing and response which gives the Reformed liturgy its basic character.

A rubric (direction) in Knox’s Genevan liturgy called for a monthly celebration of the Holy Communion. Although that rubric remained unchanged in the Scottish editions of the liturgy, it was soon overcome by the first Book of Discipline (1560) which declared that “four tymes in the year” was “sufficient” for the Lord’s Supper. And since care was to be taken to avoid “the superstition of tymes” (that is, the church year), the first Sundays in March, June, September and December were arbitrarily appointed.[11]

This drift away from the teaching of Calvin, who heartily desired a weekly Communion, was caused by the shortage of ministers in Scotland and by the popular reluctance to receive the sacrament so often. At least it did not derive from a so-called “memorial” view of the Lord’s Supper. “We utterly damn,” stated the first Scots Confession, “the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs.”[12] The liturgy itself expressed rather clearly the Scottish view of Holy Communion: “We spiritually eate the fleshe of Christ, and drinke his bloude; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us.”

The first part of the Communion Exhortation was not taken from Calvin, but from Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, who prepared it for the English Prayer Book. Nevertheless, the distinctive features of Calvin’s practice prevailed even in this section of The Forme of Prayers. According to the warning of St. Paul, all who worshiped were exhorted to examine themselves before they presumed to approach the Lord’s table, and the unworthy were told to refrain entirely. The liturgy was built upon the promise that a true Christian congregation would be a disciplined congregation which lived in obedience to the will of God.

Accordingly, the Holy Communion was reserved for those who were distinguished by sincerity of faith and holiness of life. The unfaithful, who were strangers to Christ, and the callous sinners, whose conduct made it plain that they did not belong to Him either, had no place at His Communion; they were to be excommunicated, “fenced from the table,” lest the sacrament be soiled and they be guilty of the Lord’s body and blood. The critical issue of the Christian life was precisely one’s fitness to receive the sacrament.

Knox administered the Communion after a fashion which he deemed to be consonant with the New Testament. The table was never prepared before worship, apart from the Word, which (as Calvin said) “ought to resound in our ears as soon as the elements meet our eyes.”[13] Therefore the bread and wine were not brought to the table until the sermon had been preached and it came time for the Words of Institution to be read; for by these means the commands and promises, which our Lord made concerning His Supper, could be added to the elements, giving them, their proper meaning and their reality.

It was the practice in some parts of Scotland to lock the church doors after the sermon, so that none might receive the sacrament apart from the Word. That custom underscores the point that we the people, rather than the elements, are thereby “consecrated”. The Word is not addressed to the bread and wine, as if to change them; it is addressed to us, that (as Knox put it) “Christe might witnes unto owr faithe … with His owne mowthe,” promising us the Communion of His body and blood.[14]

The communicants came forward and sat down around the table, which was ample in size and usually arranged in a U or T shape in the chancel or on the floor of the nave. First the minister broke the bread—a symbolic action, called the Fraction, which the Scots deemed to be a quite distinct feature of the Lord’s Supper. Then he passed the bread and wine to the communicants on either side of him, and they in turn “divided” the elements among themselves.

Thus, the holy table was appointed for the whole family of God. By sitting down together and by serving the elements to one another, the people were able to realize their fellowship and mutual priesthood in the Body of Christ. Pew Communion was the way of the English Nonconformists; and the Scots did not hesitate to brand it a “mangling of the sacrament”—until, alas, a Glasgow divine introduced it to the Scottish Kirk in the first quarter of the nineteenth century.[15]

[1] Editor: This short treatise on the liturgy of John Knox was published at the fourth centenary of the Church of Scotland celebrated at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tennessee on October 27, 1960. For a detailed treatment of Knox’s liturgy, see Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 285–307.

[2] Editor: Bard Thompson received his Ph.D. in church history from Columbia University in 1953 and was ordained as a minister in the Evangelical Reformed Church, which later merged with the Congregational Christian Churches forming the United Church of Christ. At the time this article was written, Thompson was Professor of Church History at Vanderbilt University. He was also preparing a book on Reformed worship, which he published under the title Liturgies of the Western Church (1961). In 1965, he joined Drew University as professor of church history and served as dean of the graduate school from 1969–1986. Bard Thompson passed away in 1987 at 62 years of age.

[3] For the source of this quote, see The Works of John Knox, 41.

[4] See The Works of John Knox, 20.

[5] See http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/GBO_ch04.htm

[6] See http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm

[7] See See British Reformers: Writings of John Knox, 454.

[8] See British Reformers: Writings of John Knox, 454.

[9] Editor: As far as I know, Calvin never states that this is the reason he led the service from the communion table.

[10] Editor: Since the Scottish Presbyterians practiced table communion—in which the members of the church actually sat at a table to receive the elements—they did not ordinary have communion tables set up in the worship assembly except for those Sundays when they were observing communion.

[11] See http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/bod_ch03.htm#SEC09

[12] See http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/ScotConf.htm#CH21

[13] Editor: I have not been able to find the source of this quote. Thompson also cites it here and in Liturgies of the Western Church (p. 192), but he does not provide the source.

[14] See http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/GBO_ch04.htm#SEC11

[15] Editor: Thompson is referring to Thomas Chalmers. On the history of table communion versus pew communion, see Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield’s article “The Posture of the Recipients at the Lord’s Supper: A Footnote to the History of Reformed Usages” in Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society (1901-1930) Vol. 11, No. 6 (June, 1922), pp. 217–34.

History of the Genevan Liturgy¹

By Bard Thompson²

Edited by Glen Clary

The first Reformer to arrive on the Genevan scene was the fiery Frenchman, William Farel, a fearless campaigner for the Word of God. As soon as he had gotten the Reformation underway (c. 1534), Farel replaced the Roman Mass by a liturgy, called La Maniere et fasson, which he had written some years before.³ His simple, wordy, but ardent services constituted the first evangelical book of worship in the French language. It was Farel who persuaded the retiring young Calvin to quit the scholar’s cell and get his hands into the difficult business of transforming Geneva into an evangelical community. Working side by side, they used the plain services of La Maniere when they conducted worship.

In April of 1538, the two ministers were expelled from Geneva, having exceeded the patience of the magistrates by their program for a disciplined community. Calvin spent his exile in Strassburg, where he enjoyed the Christian wisdom of Martin Bucer, the Reformer of that city, whose influence upon the Reformed churches has never been fully appreciated. While he lived among the Germans of Strassburg, Calvin was pastor of a congregation of French refugees. For their sake, he appropriated Bucer’s German liturgy; and when he had gotten it cast into French, he revised it measurably and used it to lead his people in worship. That was the original edition of The Form of Prayers. We ought not say, as many scholars do, that it was a mere copy of the German rite of Strassburg. Actually, Calvin kept the best of Farel’s primitive liturgy and contributed much of his own spirit as he refashioned the words of Bucer.

Calvin was recalled to Geneva in 1541. In place of Farel’s liturgy, he introduced The Form of Prayers, which he had brought along from Strassburg. Though the magistrates were glad enough to have him back, they could not accept some of the liturgical ideas which were written deeply into that liturgy. Chief of these was Calvin’s lifelong insistence upon having the Lord’s Supper every Sunday: “It was not instituted by Jesus for making a commemoration two or three times a year … Christians should use it as often as they are assembled.” The magistrates feared of such an innovation; they would not even entertain Calvin’s concession of having the Supper once a month, but insisted upon the schedule of quarterly Communion which had been proposed by Zwingli, the Reformer of Zurich. Even by the end of the sixteenth century, the Zwinglian method prevailed over a large segment of Protestantism and brought about the flattening-out of Reformed worship, which came more and more to be dominated by the sermon. The Genevan liturgy stood opposed to that drift. Despite the scruples of the magistrates, it remained a unified service of Word and Sacrament; on those days when the Lord’s Supper was not celebrated, the portions of the liturgy pertaining to the Supper were simply omitted. But Communion Sunday or not, the whole service was conducted from the Lord’s Table, except when the Minister mounted the pulpit to proclaim the Word of God. The two great symbols of Reformed worship—pulpit and Table—were thereby drawn together in common expression of the God who speaks and gives to His people. The essential response of those who worshiped was to bear and receive His gracious gifts.

The Form of Prayers was the most authentic expression of the way of worship among the early Calvinists. Indeed, it was the inspiration for all the great Reformed liturgies of the Reformation age. Therefore it drew together in a fellowship of worship the Huguenots of France, the Presbyterians of Scotland, the Dutch Reformed congregations, and the German Reformed people (whose modern American representative is the United Church of Christ, through the Evangelical and Reformed branch). We should not assume, however, that all of these services were exactly alike. The Calvinists placed no particular premium upon a similarity of forms. What they really held in common was a body of ideas about the meaning of Christian worship.

What were some of those ideas? First, the Calvinists agreed with Luther that a true Reformation could never be brought about by sheer human power, least of all by sudden and drastic changes in the life of the churches. It could only be accomplished by the proclamation of God’s Word among men. Luther, in fact, was very reluctant to impose a program of radical reforms upon the people, lest they become confused and bitter. He preferred to purify and reinterpret many of the old practices which Christians had been accustomed to see, hear and do in church. At just that point, the Reformed theologians tended to exceed Luther’s prudence. They argued that if the Gospel were to be given a really clear and authentic expression in worship, then it would be necessary to abandon the Mass, without attempting to fix it up, and to find new forms which would express the Gospel with the utmost simplicity, precision and power. Therefore, the Reformed liturgies had something of a radical character. They were meant to be profoundly simple. They did a lot of teaching, explaining and exhorting in an effort to edify and be precise. They rejected all things which were deemed unscriptural, ambiguous, or sentimental. They permitted no bric-a-brac to confuse the Gospel or complicate the essential need of the worshiper to meet God in His Word. Theological integrity was their hall mark. Calvin believed that his liturgy conformed “to the custom of the ancient church,” not to the custom of the Medieval church.

The second idea has been alluded to several times. Our spiritual forebears went to church not to rush into words or to give God gifts, but to hear the Good News of forgiveness and sonship, and to receive that great gift with thanksgiving and joy. They conceived it to be God who spoke in worship, provided His Holy Spirit was in the midst of the congregation, making His Word real, alive and effective in the hearts of men. Therefore, in essence, a Reformed liturgy was the fervent prayer of the people to hear the Word of God and to participate in the Communion of His Son, and a heartfelt response of praise and supplication by those who had heard and received, whose faith became articulate so that they could not contain the joy and wonder of it all.

Now, by modern practice, some things may seem strange about Calvin’s liturgy. What, for instance, is the meaning of that grisly list of sinners (on p. 7) who are told to stay away from the Lord’s Table? Calvin’s whole liturgy rested on the assumption that a true Christian community would be a disciplined community. And that idea, in turn, arose from his conviction that the Christian life was one of profound obedience to the will of God. Therefore, the Lord’s Supper was reserved for those “people who are distinguished by sincerity of faith and holiness of life.” Our Lord did not intend to give the benefits of His Table to any except His disciples, to any “except they belong to His household of faith.” The unfaithful, who were strangers to Christ, and the sinners, whose conduct made it plain that they did not belong to Him either, had no place at the fellowship meal; they must be excommunicated, excluded from the communion, fenced from the Table, lest the holy sacrament of our union with Christ and with one another become soiled and meaningless. Thus, the critical issue of the Christian life was precisely one’s fitness to go to the Lord’s Table.

Calvin also handled the elements of bread and wine differently. He much preferred the use of common household bread, because it was more primitive and less likely to foster superstition. Grape juice, had it been invented, would scarcely have been the vogue in Geneva. Never was it the custom in the Reformed churches to prepare the Communion Table before worship or apart from the Word which “ought to resound in our ears as soon as the elements meet our eyes.” Fearful of idolatry, Calvin did not have the bread and wine brought to the Table until it was time for the Words of Institution and the Communion Exhortation, through which the very commands and promises of Christ could be added to the elements, giving them their true meaning. That, said Calvin, is the “Word which seasons the elements” and makes the sacrament valid. But we ought not suppose that the elements are thereby changed. We, the people, are the ones who are consecrated by this “lively preaching of the promises of Christ.” He does not address the bread, commanding it to become His body; He speaks to us, calling upon our faith and promising us the communion of His body and blood.

Neither did Calvin believe that the ministers should be the last to receive the elements, as a gracious host would do at his own banquet. Christ Himself is both, the Host and the Food of this spiritual feast; and the ministers, who are leaders of Christians, should be the first to partake of it.

Notes

1. This short treatise on the Genevan Liturgy was published at the celebration of the four-hundredth anniversary of the Presbyterian Church held on November 18, 1959 at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tennessee.

2. Bard Thompson received his Ph.D. in church history from Columbia University in 1953 and was ordained as a minister in the Evangelical Reformed Church, which later merged with the Congregational Christian Churches forming the United Church of Christ. At the time this article was written, Thompson was Professor of Church History at Vanderbilt University. He was also preparing a book on Reformed worship, which he published under the title Liturgies of the Western Church (1961). In 1965, he joined Drew University as professor of church history and served as dean of the graduate school from 1969–1986. Bard Thompson passed away in 1987 at 62 years of age.

3. For a detailed history of the Genevan liturgies, see Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, pp. 183–224.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul compares and contrasts Adam and Christ. “In Adam all die … in Christ all will be made alive” (v. 22). Paul also refers to Christ as “the second man” and “the last Adam” (vv. 45, 47). The first Adam is the first man of God’s first creation. The last Adam is the beginning of God’s new creation. The first man was “of the earth, a man of dust”; the second man is “of heaven” (v. 47).

To the first Adam, God gave a special day, the Sabbath day (Gen. 2:2–3). To the last Adam, God gave a special day, the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10). The relationship between the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day is like the relationship between Adam and Christ. The relationship between them is one of shadow and reality or type and fulfillment. As Adam is a type of Christ, so too, the Sabbath is a type that points forward to and is fulfilled in the Lord’s Day. But the Lord’s Day is only a partial fulfillment of the Sabbath; its ultimate fulfillment is the consummate Sabbath of the eschaton.

When God created Adam, he gave him the Sabbath day to remind him of his identity and of his destination. As the image of God, he imitated God by working six days and resting on the seventh. Thus, the Sabbath day reminded him of his identity. It also reminded him of where he was going. It pointed forward to his destination: the eternal Sabbath; that is, the heavenly, unceasing rest in the age to come.

The weekly day of rest was the earthly counterpart or type of the heavenly rest that Adam would have entered had he been obedient to God. The earthly Sabbath was a temporary ordinance that would end at the consummation, when the shadow would give way to the reality. The weekly Sabbath would give way to the ultimate Sabbath. It would end because the reality of what it represented would be possessed.

When Christ, the new Adam, rose from the dead, he entered into that eternal, heavenly rest. By his personal, exact, and entire obedience, he attained what the first Adam would have attained had he been obedient. Christ, in his resurrection from the dead, received eternal life and glorification, which the first Adam never had. He entered a state of glory, the same state that we will enter when Christ returns.

However, believers are already “a new creation” because we have been united to the risen Christ, the beginning of God’s new creation. “The old [what we were in Adam] has passed away; behold the new [what we are in Christ] has come” (2 Cor. 5:17). We are no longer dead in our sins; we have been made alive together with Christ (Eph. 2:1–10). Hence, we no longer live according to the old, sinful nature, but according to the resurrection life of the new nature.

And that’s why the Lord’s Day is so significant for the Christian. It’s the day of resurrection; it’s the day of new creation. The saints in the Old Testament worshiped on Saturday because the new creation had not dawned. They worshiped on the Sabbath of the first creation, the Sabbath of the first Adam. We, however, worship on the first day of the week because it’s the day of the new creation, which emerged with the resurrection of Christ, the last Adam.

The Lord’s Day reminds us of our new identity in Christ, and worshiping on the Lord’s Day reorders our life in light of our new identity. It also points us forward to what we will become when Christ returns and gathers us to himself. When we gather for worship on the Lord’s Day, we experience a foretaste of what’s going to happen at the end of the world. Thus, the Lord’s Day orients our life toward the world to come. It teaches us to live as strangers and aliens on earth, to live as pilgrims seeking a better country, a heavenly one. It teaches us not to set our hopes on attaining paradise on earth but to fix our eyes on the risen and ascended Christ (cf. Col. 3:1–4).

Thus, worship on the Lord’s Day is absolutely essential to the spiritual health and well-being of the church and of every believer. It reorders our life in light of your union to Christ. It reorients our life away from earthly and temporary things toward the heavenly and eternal. And it redirects our steps away from the old order and toward the new order, the age of Christ and the Holy Spirit by whom and in whom we live.

On the night before his crucifixion, Jesus shared a meal with his disciples. Since this was the last in a series of meals he shared with them during his ministry, it’s known as the last supper. The disciples were discouraged when Christ said he would not eat with them again until the kingdom comes (Luke 22:18). The thought of their intimate fellowship with him coming to an abrupt end filled them with sadness.

At the time, they failed to realize that even though Christ was about to depart from this world and return to his Father, they were not going to be completely cut off from fellowship with him. To the contrary, it was better for them that Christ should depart because, after his departure, he would send the Holy Spirit to abide with them forever (John 16:7).

Christ assured them that through the Holy Spirit, they would continue to enjoy the most intimate kind of fellowship with him. In the person of the Spirit, Christ himself would come to them and commune with them. That’s why, before he ascended into heaven, he said to them, “Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

Christ not only promised to give the disciples the Holy Spirit, he also instituted a sacred meal through which they could continue to enjoy table fellowship with him, even after his departure. This meal, which is known as the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), was given to the church as a perpetual, sacred ordinance of public worship. Christ commanded his church to “do this”; that is, “eat this bread and drink the cup” as a regular part of public worship “until he returns” (1 Cor. 11:24–26).

Hence, on the night in which he was betrayed, Jesus not only shared a meal with his disciples (the last supper), he instituted a meal (the Lord’s Supper) as a sacrament through which he would continue to have table fellowship and communion with the saints by his Spirit.

In the Gospels, Jesus is frequently criticized by his enemies for eating with sinners. For example, Luke tells us that when “tax collectors and sinners” were drawing near to hear Jesus, “the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them’” (Luke 15:1–2). By making this statement, they were attempting to prove that Jesus was not a prophet.

The theological significance of Jesus eating with sinners, however, was far more profound than they realized. Jesus was not merely a prophet but was and is, in fact, the eternal Son of God. Sinners were having fellowship in the form of a meal with the one in whom the whole fullness of deity dwelt bodily (Col. 2:9). They were eating and drinking with God himself.

The simple fact that Jesus shared a meal with those who, because of sin, had been cut off from fellowship with God signified that salvation had come to sinners. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were driven out of the Garden of Eden away from the presence of the LORD. They were cut off from the intimate communion with God, which they had once enjoyed.

But the Lord Jesus Christ, the new Adam, came to restore and perfect the fellowship with God that was lost in the fall. Christ came to end the hostility between God and man and to reconcile them in a covenant bond of communion and fellowship. By eating with sinners, Christ heralded the good news that in him, “God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Cor. 5:19). His table fellowship with sinners was a visible gospel. It visibly proclaimed the good news of salvation for the lost.

In Luke 15, when Jesus was criticized for eating with sinners (vv. 1–2), he told three parables in response to the criticism: the parables of the lost sheep (vv. 3–7), the lost coin (vv. 8–10), and the prodigal son (vv. 11–32). These parables explain the significance of Jesus receiving sinners and eating with them. Eating with sinners was a sign that the lost sheep had been found, the lost coin had been recovered, and the prodigal son had returned to his father’s house and was feasting at his table. Thus, by eating with sinners, Christ visibly proclaimed the good news of salvation to the lost; his actions symbolized and confirmed the message he preached.

This is why Jesus characterized evangelism as an invitation to attend a feast in the Father’s house. In the parable of the great banquet, for example, the master of the feast orders his servants, “Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame” that they may partake of the feast (Luke 14:21). When the master discovers that there is still room, he sends his servants out again saying, “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” (v. 23). Thus, evangelism may be characterized as an invitation to all people without exception to come to the Father’s house and sit as welcome guests at his table and enjoy loving fellowship and communion with him by his Spirit through the merit and mediation of Jesus Christ.

By the simple act of eating with sinners, our Lord Jesus Christ was visibly proclaiming the good news of salvation for the lost.

Paul’s aim in 1 Cor. 11:17–34 is to correct an error in the church at Corinth. In vv. 17–22, he states the error, and in vv. 23–34, he provides the solution. To rightly interpret the verses that state Paul’s solution to the error, one needs to know exactly what the error is that he’s addressing.

Paul describes the error as eating and drinking the Lord’s Supper in “an unworthy manner” (v. 27). So the error had to do with their manner of observing the Lord’s Supper. The solution to this error is briefly stated in v. 28, “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” To understand what Paul means by self-examination, one needs to interpret this statement in light of the error in the church that Paul is seeking to correct.

How exactly were the Corinthians eating and drinking the Lord’s Supper in “an unworthy manner”? They were observing the Lord’s Supper in a way that created divisions or factions among them (v. 18). As a result, the church was divided into two groups: one group which had plenty of food to eat and drink (the haves), and the other group which had nothing to eat and drink (the have nots). The haves were selfishly feeding themselves until they were completely full, while the have nots were left with empty stomachs. “One goes hungry, another gets drunk” (v. 21).

The haves were sinning against the church. They were treating their brothers and sisters in the Lord with contempt. So Paul sternly rebukes them, “Do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (v. 22).

By their selfish behavior, the haves were depriving their brothers and sisters not only of ordinary food that would nourish their bodies (note: the Lord’s Supper was an actual meal at that time) but of the sacred food that would nourish their souls. By selfishly feeding themselves and leaving nothing of this sacred meal for others, they were cutting them off from the blessed communion in the body and blood of Christ that they would have received by participating in the meal (10:16).

Their division of the church into factions and deprival of one group of saints of these spiritual benefits was an outrageous sin against the church, against the sacrament, and against Jesus Christ himself, who died for all the saints and who gives his body and blood through the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper as spiritual nourishment for the soul of every believer. Thus, the haves were sinning against the spiritual realities signified by the bread and wine, namely, the body and blood of Christ. By eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, they were “guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27).

Consequently, they were being disciplined by God with infirmities, illnesses and even death (v. 30). It is important to note that those who were punished by God in this way were genuine believers. Their punishment was not eternal condemnation. To the contrary, they were being disciplined by their heavenly Father, so that they would not be condemned along with the world. The divine punishments that they incurred were temporal judgments not eternal (v. 32).

If the error at Corinth was that they were observing the Lord’s Supper in a manner that created divisions among the church, and the solution to that error was self-examination, then what exactly does self-examination mean?

It must mean that they should examine themselves with respect to the particular problem that Paul has articulated. Paul instructs them to examine themselves with respect to the divisions in the church created by their manner of observing the sacrament. Paul is saying to them, “Examine yourself with respect to these divisions. Are you guilty of selfishly feeding yourself and leaving your brothers and sisters with nothing to eat? If so, then repent. Seek God’s forgiveness, and seek their forgiveness. And don’t do it again. Don’t participate in the Lord’s Supper in that unworthy manner.”

If the problem that Paul is correcting is division, then the solution to the problem is don’t create these divisions when you eat the Lord’s Supper. Instead of feeding yourself to satisfaction and leaving nothing left for your brothers and sisters, wait for them and make sure they also have food to eat. That’s essentially what Paul says in v. 33, “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.” But what if someone is starving and he can’t wait for the other Christians to arrive? Well, he should eat something at home before coming to church. “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together, it will not be for judgment” (v. 34).

In context, therefore, self-examination means to examine your conduct with respect to the unity of the church and with respect to the other members of the body of Christ. If your conduct is such that you have eaten more than enough to satisfy your hunger and have left others with nothing to eat or drink, then you have partaken in an unworthy manner.

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.

Cullmann treats the subject under the following four heads: The Foundation of Baptism in the Death and Resurrection of Christ; Baptism as Acceptance into the Body of Christ; Baptism and Faith; Baptism and Circumcision.

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.

To some extent, this asymmetrical analysis of Paul’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is warranted by the text itself. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul is directly addressing the practice of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Cor. 10, he is not. Rather, he’s addressing the issue of eating food offered to idols. What he says about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. 10 is incidental to the main point of the text.

However, Paul’s sayings regarding the sacrament in 1 Cor. 10, despite the fact that they are purely circumstantial, are, nonetheless, profound. It is unfortunate that this text has been underused in eucharistic theology.

Several years ago, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that B. B. Warfield had preached a sermon on this text one Sunday afternoon to a group of students at Princeton Seminary. Warfield’s exposition clearly illustrates the importance of 1 Cor. 10 for a Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

In Warfield’s analysis of this remarkable passage of scripture, he seeks to explain the fundamental meaning of the Lord’s Supper according to the apostle Paul.

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).

His book entitled Worship Reformed According to Scripture is hands down the best volume on Reformed worship in print.

His magnum opus is his seven-volume series on The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. This is the most comprehensive study of the history of preaching ever produced in the English language.

In September of 2014, I had the enormous privilege of hearing Hughes Oliphant Old give his last public address. I was brought to tears when he called it his “swan song.”

Even though his body was frail and he had a difficult time recalling his lecture points, his passion for the glory and worship of God clearly came through.

In this talk, Hughes Oliphant Old summarizes his life’s work in five main points.

The funny story he tells at the end of the lecture underscores his total commitment to the ministry of Word, sacraments, and prayer.

Select Bibliography

The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. American Edition. Black Mountain, NC: Worship Press, 2004.

Worship Reformed According to Scripture. Revised and Expanded Edition. Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002.

The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century. Eerdmans, 1992.

Themes and Variations for a Christian Doxology. Eerdmans, 1992.

Leading in Prayer: A Workbook for Ministers. Eerdmans, 1995.

The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. Seven Volumes. Eerdmans, 1998-2010.

Holy Communion in the Piety of the Reformed Church. Tolle Lege Press, 2014.

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 forty-two odes in the collection were most likely composed in the late first or early second century by a Jewish Christian(s) in the region of Syria.

The plural pronouns and congregational references in the odes suggest that they were composed for use in Christian worship.

Hughes Oliphant Old says,

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 is also rumored that when Martin Luther read Jason Stellman’s post on The Biblical Basis of Man-Made Liturgy, he said, “What drunken Ex-PCA pastor posted this?” I’m sure that’s just a rumor.

Nick’s article posted on the website of Jason Stellman, the self-described “drunk ex-pastor” who served as prosecutor in the Peter Leithart trial, awards Calvin a dunce cap for not realizing that his liturgy contradicted the Reformed doctrine of justification.

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 will of God is used in two senses in scripture: God’s secret will (that is, his counsel or decrees by which he foreordains whatever comes to pass) and his revealed will (that is, his precepts or commands).

The secret will of God is sometimes called the decretive will. God’s decretive will cannot be known except as it unfolds in the events of providence or is revealed through special revelation, as in the prophecies of scripture.

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.

As devout Jews in the first century were waiting for the kingdom of God, they prayed earnestly for the appearance and reign of the Messiah.

Luke tells us that when the elderly prophet Simeon, who was “waiting for the consolation of Israel,” held the child Jesus in his arms, he blessed the LORD for answering his prayers. “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:25-32).

Likewise, Mark tells us that Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Sanhedrin, was “looking for the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43).

So devout Jews in the first century were waiting and praying for the appearance and reign of the Messiah. Most of them, no doubt, had wrong ideas about the nature of the messianic kingdom, but they were praying for its arrival.

We see examples of this in the prayers of the synagogue.

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.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from his writings.

What is worship?

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.

The first three petitions have in view God’s name, God’s kingdom and God’s will; the last three petitions, our bread, our forgiveness and our deliverance. 

All six petitions—not only the first three—are God-centered. All six petitions have in view God’s glory as well as our benefit.

God is glorified in the last three petitions as much as in the first three petitions. And we benefit or profit from praying the first three petitions as much as from praying the last three petitions.

The first petition is “Hallowed be your name.”

This petition is a prayer of praise, adoration, wonderment, reverence, and awe.

Prayer is a matter of awe and wonderment. It begins with praise or adoration that arises out of our awe and wonderment as we contemplate God.[1]

We may begin our prayers by reciting (or singing) psalms or hymns of praise and adoration. Praise hallows God’s name. Praise is the gateway into God’s heavenly presence. “Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise” (Psalm 100:4).

In scripture, there are many different genres of prayer. There are prayers of praise, adoration, thanksgiving, lamentation, confession, supplication, petition, and intercession (cf. 1 Tim. 2:1; Phil. 4:6).

It is appropriate to begin our prayers with praise and adoration (cf. Isaiah 6:2–3; Luke 1:46–49; Psalm 103:1; 145:1–3; 113:1–3; 8:1).

The Shorter Catechism sums up the content of the first petition. When we pray, “Hallowed be your name,”

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.

It begins with an invocation, “Our Father in heaven.” The middle section consists of six petitions. It ends with a doxology, “For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.”[1]

The word invocation comes from the Latin word invocare, which means to call upon, to appeal to or to invoke in prayer. An invocation is when one calls on the name of the Lord.

This is one of the most basic acts of worship. The very act of calling on God’s name is itself worship.

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).

The earliest witness, however, is the Didache.

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.

As we noted in our previous post, Christians have been celebrating Easter (or Pascha) at least since the end of the second century.

Easter was the earliest feast day on the church calendar.

There is very little evidence (if any!) that Easter was celebrated by the apostolic church. That, of course, was one of the reasons why some Reformers rejected its observance.

Lawful worship, they argued, is established by God himself and cannot be the product of human invention. Thus, if God did not prescribe the observance of feast days, then it is unlawful to observe them.

When it comes to Passover and Pentecost, however, one could argue that since God did, in fact, prescribe their observance in the old covenant, it is lawful to commemorate Christ’s fulfillment of those feasts as part of Christian worship.

It is noteworthy that Paul tells the Corinthians to keep the feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

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.

This sermon gives us a taste of how Christians celebrated the feast of Pascha (the Christian Passover) in the earliest centuries of the church.

Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old says,

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.

Since one of my children is visually impaired (having vision in only one eye), we never watch 3D films. One needs both eyes for depth perception and both lenses for 3D glasses to work.

Several years ago, I realized that I had a deficient view of the Lord’s Supper because I was only looking at it through one lens. In order to perceive the depth of the significance of the Lord’s Supper, one needs to have two lenses.

One lens is the last supper recorded in Luke 22:15–20. The other lens is the meal Jesus shared with the two men in Emmaus after his resurrection. This is recorded in Luke 24:13–35.

If one looks at the Lord’s Supper through only one of these lenses, then one will likely end up with a truncated view of the sacrament. To fully appreciate the significance of the Lord’s Supper, we need to see it in light of both meals.

When the disciples shared the last supper with Jesus before his death, Jesus said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for I tell you I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:15–16).

Jesus anticipated a future meal that he would share with his disciples when the kingdom of God comes. So the last supper is not the last supper in an ultimate sense. It’s only the last of a particular series of meals that Jesus shared with his disciples prior to his death.

After his resurrection, Jesus would share another meal with them when the kingdom of God has come. The kingdom has already been inaugurated but has yet to be consummated.

The future meal that Jesus anticipated sharing with his disciples is the great and glorious banquet that Christ will spread before us at the end of the age when he consummates his kingdom.

Isaiah spoke of this joyous occasion,

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.

Now, that may seem obvious to most Christians, but there are some who believe that infant baptism is lawful even if it is not commanded in scripture.

A few years ago, I came across a book entitled Baptism: Three Views edited by David. F. Wright.[1]

The title puzzled me because I knew the book was addressing the subject of infant baptism.

I also knew that one of the contributors (Sinclair Ferguson) was for infant baptism, and another (Bruce Ware) was against infant baptism.

But I was surprised to discover that the third contributor (Anthony Lane) argued for a middle position, which he called “the dual-practice view.” According to Lane, both paedobaptism and credobaptism are legitimate options for the church and the Christian family.

Both Ferguson and Ware assume that baptism is either forbidden or commanded. But Lane argues Christian parents are free to choose whether or not to have their children baptized. Lane also argues that the church should leave the decision up to the parents.

Even though confessional Presbyterians affirm the position defended by Ferguson, in practice, some of them are following the advice of Lane. Presbyterians teach that infant baptism is biblical, but they are often reluctant to require it as a divine imperative.

I think one of the reasons is that they fail to recognize that what is deduced from scripture by good and necessary consequence (Westminster Confession 1:6) is just as binding as an explicit command. 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.”

Robert Shaw explains,

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.

More recently, however, some scholars have argued that the liturgy itself is theology, indeed, primary theology (theologia prima) from which is derived all secondary theology (theologia secunda), namely, subsequent theological reflection on the liturgy.[1]

Thus, the liturgy is primary, and formulated doctrines are secondary, derivative and subordinate.

This notion “challenges the common Reformed view that liturgy follows theology.”[2]

For several decades now, there has been a “tug-of-war” between liturgical scholars “over whether liturgy should exercise control over doctrine or doctrine should exercise control over liturgy.”[3]

One of the maxims of contemporary liturgical theology is lex orandi, lex credendi.

The expression is derived from a fifth century letter ascribed to Prosper of Aquitaine. Prosper writes, Ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.[4]

This saying is interpreted by Aidan Kavanagh and David Fagerberg to mean that “the law of praying (lex supplicandi or lex orandi) establishes (statuat) the law of believing (legem credendi)” (Moore-Keish, 63).

Thus, in their view, lex orandi exists prior to and determines lex credendi, and the latter, therefore, cannot be the foundation of the former.

The “relationship of praying and believing is unidirectional; we do not believe and then worship, but we encounter God in worship, and therefore we believe” (ibid.).

The liturgy is primary and establishes theology; the order cannot be reversed.

“Secondary theology, then, as a presentation of belief, follows from worship” (ibid.).

This interpretation of lex orandi, lex credendi has been challenged by several scholars including Geoffrey Wainwright, Kevin Irwin, and Bryan Spinks.[5]

For example, Spinks remarks that “the idea that doctrine only flowed from liturgy and that doctrine never impacted and changed liturgical practice is pious humbug and wishful thinking.”[6]

Likewise, according to Wainwright and Irwin, the Latin epigram does not presume liturgical fixity, nor does it mean that the church should draw on liturgical practice as the sole or chief norm for doctrine.

Rather, the liturgy expresses the church’s faith and may only serve as a source for establishing theology to the degree that it is founded on holy scripture. Wainwright argues,

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.

An Episcoterian (the term used for Presbyterians who ape the Anglicans) is a relatively modern phenomenon.

In the late nineteenth century, the mainline Presbyterian Church started down the Canterbury trail. But in more recent years, many conservative and confessional Presbyterian churches have followed suit.

Perhaps this fascination with Anglicanism has something to do with the love affair that some Presbyterian churches are having with N. T. Wright.

Whatever factors have given rise to Episcoterian worship, one thing is clear, Presbyterians are abandoning their liturgical heritage.

Historically, the Reformed church has argued that in matters of worship, Geneva and Canterbury are incompatible.

In Presbyterian theology, the church’s authority is not legislative but ministerial and declarative (cf. OPC Form of Government III.3).

Consequently, when the leaders of the church determine what shall be done in worship and direct the saints to participate in worship, they must not impose practices on the saints that are not prescribed in holy scripture.

This teaching is typically referred to as the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). The RPW sets the Reformed church apart from the Anglican Church, which rejects the RPW in favor of what’s commonly known as the Normative Principle of Worship (NPW).

In the vestments controversy that centered around John Hooper and in the “Black Rubric” controversy that centered around John Knox, both Hooper and Knox used the RPW to defend their views. But Archbishop Thomas Cranmer emphatically rejected it and even characterized it as “the chief foundation of the error of the Anabaptists, and of diverse other sects.”

Cranmer said that the RPW is a “subversion of all order as well in religion as in common policy.” Likewise, Richard Hooker characterized it as legalistic and irrational.

Thomas M’Crie quipped that the RPW separated Canterbury from Geneva. The school of Canterbury “held that what was unforbidden in Scripture might be treated as indifferent,” while the school of Geneva held that “what was unbidden in Scripture must be rejected.”[1]

For example, Article Twenty of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England states that “The Church has power to decree Rites or Ceremonies” provided that those rites and ceremonies are not contrary to the scriptures.

Article Thirty-four adds,

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.

One can only imagine how thrilling it must have been to meet older Christians whose parents or grandparents actually knew the apostles. If only they had left us an account of what it was like to worship with the apostles!

Well, one Christian living in Rome in middle of the second century did, in fact, leave us an account of what a service of worship looked like in his day.

Justin Martyr, the great Christian apologist, has left us a brief description of a typical worship service in the church at Rome around 150 AD. Although Justin’s account does not provide us with many details, it does give us a fair picture of Christian worship in the first generation after the apostolic era.

Through Justin’s account, we are able to peer through a window, so to speak, and catch a glimpse at how the earliest Christians worshiped on the Lord’s Day.

Justin writes,

[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.

But who discovered the regulative principle of worship? No, it wasn’t John Calvin or John Knox. It was actually an Anabaptist. Surprise!

The earliest statement of the regulative principle of worship that I have found in the Reformation era is in a letter written by Conrad Grebel (the ringleader of the Zurich Anabaptists) to Thomas Müntzer on September 5, 1524.[1]

Speaking on behalf of the Zurich Anabaptists, Grebel said to Müntzer, “That which is not taught by clear instruction” we regard as forbidden, just as if it stood written, “Thou shalt not do this.”

This principle is applied in the letter to various matters of worship including infant baptism. “Nowhere do we read that the apostles baptized children with water. Consequently, in the absence of a specific Word and example, they should not be baptized.”

Likewise, in a dispute over infant baptism with Zwingli, the Anabaptists argued, “Children are nowhere in Scripture commanded to be baptized, nor is it anywhere said that Christ or the apostles baptized children;” hence, it is a man-made tradition that “ought to be done away with as an abuse, as other papistical abuses have been done away with.”

Grebel apparently discovered the regulative principle in the writings of Tertullian.

When the works of Tertullian were published in 1521, Grebel was one of the first to study them. In De Corona, which Tertullian wrote around the year 211, we find the story of a certain Christian soldier, who refused to wear the laurel crown on the accession of the emperor Severus. This led to the soldier’s imprisonment.

Some Christians argued that the soldier was making a big deal out of nothing, a mere matter of dress. “After all,” they reasoned, “we are not forbidden in Scripture from wearing a crown.” Tertullian, on the other hand, wrote De Corona in defense of the soldier’s actions.

Tertullian writes,

To be sure, it is very easy to ask: “Where in Scripture are we forbidden to wear a crown?” But, can you show me a text that says we should be crowned? If people try to say that we may be crowned because the Scriptures do not forbid it, then they leave themselves open to the retort that we may not be crowned because Scripture does not prescribe it. But “Whatever is not forbidden is, without question, allowed.” Rather do I say: “Whatever is not specifically permitted is forbidden.”[2]

These two opposing principles—whatever is not forbidden is allowed (on the one hand) and whatever is not commanded is forbidden (on the other)—reappear in the sixteenth century debates on worship.

Both the Calvinists and the Anabaptists employed the latter principle, but the two groups had different criteria for what constituted biblical warrant to justify liturgical practice.

Specifically, the Anabaptists had a narrower understanding of biblical warrant and, therefore, a more restrictive version of the regulative principle than the Calvinists had.

“Direct biblical warrant, in the form of precept or precedent, is required to sanction every item included in the public worship of God,” claimed the Anabaptists.[3] Therefore, they rejected infant baptism, for instance, because of the absence in scripture of any clear command or example to justify it.

On the other hand, Calvinists recognized that biblical warrant could be established, not only by precept or precedent, but also by biblical inferences or, as the Westminster Confession says, deductions by good and necessary consequence.

As James Bannerman explains,

The doctrine of the Westminster Standards [WCF 1:6] and of our church is, that whatsoever is not expressly appointed in the Word, or appointed by necessary inference from the Word, it is not lawful for the Church to exercise of its own authority to enjoin; the restriction upon that authority being, that it shall announce and enforce nothing in the public worship of God, except what God himself has in explicit terms or by implication instituted.[4]

Endnotes

[1] Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old tipped me off to the Grebel-Tertullian connection.

[2] Robert Dick Sider, ed., Christian and Pagan in the Roman Empire: The Witness of Tertullian (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001) 120.

[3] J. I. Packer makes this comment about the Puritans, but in our opinion, it is more descriptive of the Radical Reformers; see Packer, Among God’s Giants: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Eastborne: Kingsway, 1991) 326.

[4] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) 1:340.

In a letter written to John Erskine, Jonathan Edwards wrote,

We ought not only to praise God for every thing that appears favourable to the interests of religion, and to pray earnestly for a general revival, but also to use means that are proper in order to it; and one proper means must be allowed to be, a due administration of Christ’s ordinances: one instance of which is that, which you and Mr. Randal have been striving for; viz. a restoring the primitive practice of frequent communicating. I should much wonder … how such arguments and persuasions, as Mr. Randal uses, could be withstood; but however they may be resisted for the present, yet I hope those who have begun will continue to plead the cause of Christ’s institutions; and whatever opposition is made, I should think it would be best for them to plead nothing at all short of Christ’s institutions, viz. the administration of the Lord’s supper every Lord’s day:—it must come to that at last; and why should Christ’s ministers and people, by resting in a partial reformation, lay a foundation for a new struggle, an uncomfortable labour and conflict, in some future generation, in order to a full restoration of the primitive practice.

Edwards finds the case for weekly Communion convincing and calls for the full reformation of the church, which, among other things, includes the “full restoration of the primitive practice” of weekly Communion.

Edwards also said,

They were wont to have the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the primitive church very often, by all accounts of ecclesiastical history. And it seems by the account of holy Scripture that they were at first wont to celebrate this ordinance daily, as Acts 2:46, “and they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and in breaking bread from house to house”; afterwards weekly, every sabbath day, Acts 20:7, “and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.”[1]

In this episode of East of Eden, three Reformed scholars explain why Edwards was in favor of weekly Communion, despite the controversy at Northampton regarding the Lord’s Supper.

I have reservations regarding Edwards’ interpretation of self-examination in 1 Corinthians 11, and I disagree with his understanding of the nature of the punishment of the unworthy communicant. But I agree with him regarding the apostolic practice of weekly Communion. I want to commend this episode to my readers.

Endnotes

1. Jonathan Edwards, “Self-Examination and the Lord’s Supper,” in M. Valeri & H. S. Stout, eds., Sermons and Discourses, 1730–1733, vol. 17 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1999) 264.

While Scripture contains no explicit command regarding communion frequency, it does commend the practice of celebrating the eucharist frequently (cf. Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17–34). There are many reasons why a more frequent celebration of the eucharist is desirable and beneficial for the church, and I want to briefly state some of those reasons here. These four reasons are derived from the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as summarized in the Westminster standards.

First of all, the Lord Jesus Christ and, in him, all the saving benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed and applied to believers by means of the sacraments (WSC 92). The sacraments are not bare, empty signs but true means or instruments of saving grace. They are, in fact, “effectual means of salvation for the elect” (WSC 88, 91).

They truly communicate and confer what they signify to those who receive them in faith. The “grace promised” by God is “not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit” through the sacraments (WCF 28:6). A frequent observance of the Lord’s Supper is desirable and beneficial for the elect because it is an effectual means of their salvation.

Secondly, the benefits that are offered, given and conferred in the Lord’s Supper are all the benefits of the new covenant. Worthy receivers do “really and indeed” feed “upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death” (WCF 29:7). Christ himself is given to us in the sacrament as nourishment for our souls.

By the agency of the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Christ are no less truly and really “present to the faith of the receiver” than the “elements themselves are to their outward senses” (WLC 170). Through the mouth of faith, we “truly and really” feed on Christ as the bread of life given by the Father through the Spirit to our “spiritual nourishment and growth in grace” (WLC 168, 170).

By faith, we “receive and apply” to ourselves “Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death” (WLC 170). A frequent observance of the eucharist is desirable and beneficial for the saints because of all the glorious benefits received by means of it.

Thirdly, the eucharist is also designed to strengthen the unity of the saints and nourish their Christian love for one another. In the Lord’s Supper, says John Knox, Christ himself gathers us “unto one visible body” and knits us together so that we become “members one of another.”[1] Paul teaches that although we are many in number, we become one body when we all share in the one bread of the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 10:17).

A frequent observance of the eucharist is desirable and beneficial because the sacrament nourishes and strengthens the unity of the church and establishes a bond of mutual and fraternal love among the saints. Likewise, the Lord’s Supper calls us to live in peace with one another. It incites us to reconcile with our brothers if there is enmity between us. Since it is a sign that we are one body, it calls us to pursue the restoration of broken relationships among believers (cf. Matt. 5.21–26; Didache 14:2). 

Fourthly, the Lord’s Supper calls the saints to repent of their daily failings and to look to Christ alone for forgiveness, assurance and strength to obey. It calls us to love the Lord will all our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Paul’s instruction that we examine ourselves before participating in the Supper teaches us to inspect our faith, repentance, love and obedience—all of which are essential and constitutive elements of the Christian life (1 Cor. 11:17–34; WSC 97). Hence, we should examine ourselves in these areas frequently not occasionally.

Furthermore, if a member of the church has been suspended from the Lord’s Table or excommunicated, these censures lose much of their impact on that member if the Lord’s Supper is celebrated infrequently. Every celebration of the eucharist reminds those who are excluded from the Table of their need to pursue repentance and restoration.

A frequent observance of the Lord’s Supper enables the censure to have a more significant impact on them. For these reasons and for many others, a frequent celebration of the eucharist is desirable and beneficial for the church.

Endnotes

[1] Kevin Reed, ed., The Selected Works of John Knox (Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1995) 67–68.

Even though Knox was not a pioneer in the area of liturgical reform, he played a significant role in shaping the service of worship among English-speaking Protestants. Knox was deeply devoted to the purification of Christian worship, and he endeavored to lead the church in worship that was faithful to Scripture and free from man-made inventions. Knox followed the liturgical paths cut out before him by other Reformers, especially Martin Bucer in Strasbourg and John Calvin in Geneva. However, he was no mere carbon copy of these men; rather, he took their pioneering work and improved it considerably.

The influence of Calvin’s liturgy on Knox is clearly seen in the “worship wars” that took place in the city of Frankfurt on the Main. Some two hundred Protestants from England had taken refuge in Frankfurt, after Mary Tudor began her reign, and Knox was called to serve as their pastor. The congregation was divided on matters of worship, with some insisting on using Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer and others desiring to follow the liturgy of Calvin. Knox had increasingly become convinced that the Book of Common Prayer contained some things that were “superstitious, impure, unclean and imperfect.”[1] He therefore sided with those who wanted to use Calvin’s liturgy, deeming it “most godly and farthest off from superstition.”[2] However, his ministry in Frankfurt came to an abrupt end due to opposition.

The Genevan Book of Order

After leaving Frankfurt, Knox settled in Geneva and became the pastor of the English-speaking refugees who were permitted to worship in what is now known as the Auditoire de Calvin. For their services of worship, Knox used an order that was drawn from Calvin’s liturgy. This order was published in 1556 as The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, etc. used in the English Congregation at Geneva: and approved by the famous and godly learned man, John Calvin.[3] Today, it is often referred to as the Genevan Book of Order or simply as Knox’s liturgy. Knox served this congregation until his return to Scotland in 1559. These were the happiest years of his ministry, and he considered Geneva to be “the most perfect school of Christ … since the days of the apostles.”[4]

The Genevan Book of Order was already known in Scotland by the time that Knox returned. In 1564, it was officially adopted as the standard of worship by an act of the General Assembly, which required every minister to “use the order contained therein, in prayers, marriage, and the administration of the sacraments.”[5] This Book of Common Order, as it came to be called, continued to be used in Scotland until it was superseded by the Westminster Directory for Public Worship in 1645.

One of Knox’s greatest contributions to Reformed worship was his development of public prayer. At the beginning of his liturgy, we find a prayer of confession of sin and supplication for God’s mercy. Knox gives two different forms for the Prayer of Confession. The liturgy instructs the minister to use one of the forms or one “like in effect” and to exhort “the people diligently to examine themselves, following in their hearts the tenor of his words.”[6] Though Knox (like Bucer and Calvin) always led public prayer with written or printed guidance, he did not prescribe the reading of liturgical formulas. He did not produce “a fixed liturgy like a medieval service-book or the Book of Common Prayer,” nor did he produce a mere directory.[7]

On the one hand, the Reformers wrote forms of prayer for worship that could be read right out of the book. On the other hand, ministers were given a large measure of freedom to frame their own prayers, provided that those prayers were in keeping with the liturgy. That is, they could either use the prayer forms or pray “in like effect.” A minister had to honor the liturgy and not simply pray what seemed good in his own eyes. At the same time, however, he was allowed to pray, says Knox, “as the Spirit of God shall move his heart.” In later years, Pietism would make this allowance such a mark of sincerity and piety that all prayer forms, even the biblical forms such as the Psalms and the Lord’s Prayer, were eventually excluded from the service.

For the Reformers, however, prayer was not a matter of human creativity but of speaking to God in his own words. For this reason, the forms of prayer that they produced were drawn from the Holy Scriptures. Knox’s Prayer of Confession, for example, is based on Daniel’s confession of sin on behalf of the nation of Israel (Dan. 9:1–19). This was a particularly appropriate confession to use for a congregation of exiles, such as Knox pastored in Geneva. Knox had a profound sense of biblical typology that shaped his understanding of ministry and often colored his prayers.

In Reformed liturgies, the Prayer of Confession was often followed by an Assurance of Pardon spoken by the minister and a Psalm of Thanksgiving sung by the congregation, after which came the reading and preaching of Holy Scripture. The ministry of the Word was also prefaced by a Prayer for Illumination. In Knox’s liturgy, no form is provided for this prayer, but “the minister prays for the assistance of God’s Holy Spirit, as the same shall move his heart.” Here, Knox is again following the example of Calvin’s Genevan liturgy, which provides no form for this prayer, but leaves it up to the discretion of the minister.

The longest prayer in the service came after the sermon. The exposition of Scripture quite naturally led the congregation into prayer. There was a Prayer of Intercession, or, as it is called in Knox’s liturgy, “a prayer for the whole estate of Christ’s church.” Here the church prays for the ministry of the Word, for the faithfulness of church officers, for the perfection of the saints, for the salvation of all people, for the deliverance of the afflicted, and, as Paul instructed Timothy, for all civil authorities (1 Tim. 2:1–8). This long Prayer of Intercession was concluded by the Lord’s Prayer, which, in turn, was followed by a Confession of Faith using the Apostles’ Creed.

Prayer during the Lord’s Supper

When the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was observed, the Creed was followed by the reading of the Words of Institution from 1 Corinthians 11, in order to establish the biblical warrant for the sacrament. This was followed by a Communion Exhortation and a Prayer of Thanksgiving (or Eucharistic Prayer). The form for this prayer in Knox’s liturgy is one of the most beautiful liturgical texts produced in the Reformation. It is a thanksgiving for creation and redemption that resembles the great eucharistic prayers of the ancient church.

The Eucharistic Prayer recounts with thanksgiving the incarnation of Christ, his death to satisfy divine justice, and his resurrection to destroy the author of death and bring life again to the world, “from which the whole offspring of Adam most justly was exiled.” The prayer also gives thanks for all the benefits of the new covenant (explicitly naming many of them), which are given in Christ and sealed in the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood. Knox concludes the prayer with a Trinitarian doxology acknowledging that “these most inestimable benefits” are received by God’s free mercy and grace, through his only beloved Son, Jesus Christ, “for the which therefore, we thy Congregation, moved by thy Holy Spirit, render thee all thanks, praise, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”

In the liturgy of John Knox, we see an attempt to give the congregation a full diet of prayer. The various biblical genres of prayer are represented in the service in one manner or another. The three main prayers are the Prayer of Confession and Supplication at the beginning of the service, the Prayer of Intercession following the sermon, and the Prayer of Thanksgiving at the Communion table. Complementing these public prayers is a full course of Psalm singing, another prominent feature of Reformed worship.

Presbyterian worship has seen many changes since the Reformation era, and in some ways we have strayed far from our roots. By God’s grace, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church still holds firmly to the biblical principles of worship taught by our forefathers, and we desire, as they did, to worship the Lord in accordance with Scripture. As we celebrate the five hundredth anniversary of the birth of John Knox this year, we would do well to remember his contributions to the shape of Reformed worship and to follow his example of public prayer.

Endnotes

[1] Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 288.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 295.

[4] John Knox, Works, ed. David Laing, vol. 4 (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1855), 240.

[5] William D. Maxwell, The Liturgical Portions of the Genevan Service Book (Great Britain: Faith Press, 1965), 8.

[6] The Genevan Book of Order, available online at http://http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/GBO_ch04.htm.

[7] Duncan B. Forrester and Douglas M. Murray, eds., Studies in the History of Worship in Scotland (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 40.

This article was originally published in New Horizons, October 2014.

Calvin is well known and appreciated as a biblical commentator. John Murray said, “Calvin was the exegete of the Reformation and in the first rank of biblical exegetes of all time.”[2] He wrote commentaries on several books of the Old Testament and on every book of the New Testament except Revelation, and all his commentaries are still in print.[3]

Calvin was also a lecturer on the Bible. In fact, this was his first appointment in Geneva, and he retained this role throughout his entire ministry. He delivered his lectures weekly, going through whole books of the Bible for the benefit of students, the other ministers, and especially candidates for the Gospel ministry, who go on to pastor churches in France and elsewhere.[4]

Calvin also expounded Scripture at a weekly meeting each Friday morning, which was called the congrégation.[5] This was essentially a preachers’ workshop. The ministers of Geneva and of the surrounding villages came together each week to study Scripture. The usual practice was to study whole books of the Bible, chapter by chapter, verse by verse.[6]

The point here is that in all these activities, Calvin was fulfilling the role of “servant of the Word of God.” “His whole theological labor was the exposition of Scripture.”[7]

Of course, Calvin’s primary task as servant of the Word was the reading and the preaching of the Scriptures in the worship of the Church. This was given top priority—the living voice over the written commentary; the pulpit over the lectern.

In 1909 (at the Calvin 400 celebration in Geneva) émile Doumergue (the leading Calvin scholar of the day) delivered a speech entitled, “Calvin, the Preacher of Geneva.”[8] Doumergue paints a portrait of Calvin, not as a man of action or as a man of thought, but as a man of the Word. Calvin was a man who spoke.

Here [in Geneva], like Moses and the prophets, whose speech lifted up and moved the Hebrew people; [here] like saint Ambrose or saint Chrysostom, those great bishops whose speech held the crowds of Milano or Constantinople in sway, at the foot of their pulpits; [here] like Savonarola, the reformer whose words, over a two-year period, transformed Florence, Calvin spoke. He spoke for 25 years! He spoke from his pastor’s or professor’s pulpit, sometimes every day, for month on end, sometimes two times per day, for weeks on end. He spoke with endless exhortations to the Consistory, to the Friday Congregation, to the Town Council. He spoke in his treatises, those ardent improvisations he dictated as though in a single breath. He spoke through his countless letters, letters of consolation, letters of a spiritual counselor, letters of a statesman, letters, especially, of a friend…. Here is the Calvin who seems to me the true one and the authentic Calvin, the one which explains all the others: Calvin, the preacher of Geneva, shaping the reformed soul of the 16th century by his word.[9]
Calvin was first and foremost a minister of the Word. And as T. H. L. Parker says, “he is not fully seen unless he is seen in the pulpit,” and “it is impossible to do justice to his work in Geneva unless preaching be given the main place.”[10]

Many of Calvin’s recent biographers agree that all of his labors were tethered to and structured around the pulpit. Bernard Cottret wrote,

Preaching was at the center of the Reformer’s activity; in his last years it utterly exhausted him and wore him down. His frail appearance, his short breath, his voice as if from beyond the tomb, and his back bowed by illness regained a sudden energy and a last grandeur under the impulse of the Spirit that animated and subdued them. Calvin was a man who spoke.[11]
For Calvin … preaching was not just one literary genre among others; it was the very essence of the Reformation.[12]

And so, in this presentation on Calvin, the servant of the Word, we will focus our attention on Calvin’s preaching. This is an area of Calvin’s work that has been largely neglected, at least until recent years. Thomas J. Davis observes,

When we speak of Calvin’s preaching, we approach one of the two final frontiers … in studies of Calvin; the other is exegesis. Calvin the theologian … has been the subject of a great tradition of scholarship. Within the last generation, however, many within that tradition find it no longer acceptable to study Calvin as theologian in the traditional manner: by reading solely the great Institutes of the Christian Religion. With great vigor, a number of scholars have begun the task of taking on the commentaries and are beginning to relate Calvin’s theology and exegesis in fruitful ways. Calvin’s preaching, however, is just now beginning to come into its own as an area of study.[13]

I have already mentioned Doumergue’s lecture on Calvin’s preaching delivered at the 400th anniversary in Geneva. This was indeed a rare topic in his day. At Calvin’s 500th anniversary, however, virtually every major conference on Calvin has included (or will include) a lecture on Calvin’s preaching.

The first serious work on Calvin’s sermons was written by the German scholar, Erwin Mülhaupt in 1931, Die Predigt Calvins.[14] This is what led to the Supplementa Calviniana. “The editors of the Opera Calvini did not place a lot of value on the sermons,” so they only included less than half of them, but now, “almost all remaining sermons preserved in manuscript” have been “published in the Supplementa Calviniana. Occasionally new manuscripts of sermons are found and printed.”[15]

For example, in 1994, another eighty-seven sermons on Isaiah were discovered in the library of the French Protestant Church in London.[16] Thus, the homiletical corpus of Calvin is expanding. The history of the sermon manuscripts is a tragic tale, and unfortunately, of all the sermons that he preached, only about one-third of them have been preserved.[17]

In the English world, says Davis, pioneering work into Calvin’s preaching starts, in many ways, with T. H. L. Parker’s The Oracles of God (1947). “This represents the kind of historical spadework necessary to establish the actual work of Calvin’s preaching.”[18] First of all, Parker gives us the logistics of his preaching activity. He tells us how many sermons he preached on what book and when. Secondly, Parker analyses Calvin’s homiletical form and style.

It is unnecessary to repeat here what can easily be found in hundreds of books, but just to give you an idea of the scope of Calvin’s homiletical activity—between 1549 (when a stenographer, Denis Raguenier, was hired to take down his sermons)[19] and 1564, Calvin preached over 2000 sermons, including: 123 on Genesis, 200 on Deuteronomy, 353 on Isaiah, 43 on Galatians, 86 on the Pastoral Epistles and 186 on 1 and 2 Corinthians. He also (in that time period) expounded Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Job, Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Acts, Ephesians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians. And beginning in 1559, he started preaching a Harmony of the Gospels, which series remained incomplete at his death in 1564.[20]

Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old says, “In more than twenty years as preacher at Geneva, Calvin must have preached through almost the entire Bible.”[21] His normal practice was to preach New Testament books on the Lord’s Day—except, at times, he preached the Psalms in the evening service—and Old Testament books during the week, except for holy week, when he preached through the Passion narrative.

With regard to his homiletical style, it is well known that Calvin adopted what has rightly been called the “Protestant plain style.” Calvin refused to embellish his sermons with rhetorical decorations. This was a matter of theological conviction. Dr. Old explains,

What surprises the modern reader of Calvin’s sermons is the simplicity of his sermons. We find no engaging introductions, no illustrative stories nor anecdotes, no quotations from great authors, no stirring conclusions. Although Calvin was one of the most literate men of his age and a master in the use of language, his sermons depend not at all on literary elegance. The forcefulness of his sermons is to be found in the clarity of his analysis of the text. Calvin seems to have no fear that the Scriptures will be boring or irrelevant unless the preacher spices them up. In fact, Calvin seems to have a horror of decorating the Word of God. Scripture does not need to be painted with artists’ colors! So confident is the reformer that God will make his Word alive in the hearts of his people, that Calvin simply explains the text and draws out its implication. The simplicity and directness of his style is based in his confidence that what he is preaching is indeed the Word of God. This simplicity is an expression of reverence.[22]

This is all the more significant when one realizes that Calvin was a master of classical rhetoric. Being educated in the schools of Christian humanism, he was greatly influenced by Cicero and Quintilian. His first published book was a commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, in which he “shows himself acquainted with the whole of Greek and Latin classical literature, citing 155 Latin authors and twenty-two Greek, and citing them with understanding.”[23]

Calvin may have even taken the name of his great theological work, the Institutes from Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory. Lester De Koster remarked that the Christian humanists regarded the Ciceronian style as the equivalent of Christian beatitude.[24]

“Cicero had distinguished among three types of style: the plain, the intermediate and the sublime. Calvin deliberately eschewed the use of the sublime and even of the intermediate styles and restricted himself severely to the plain” style.[25] According to Doumergue, Calvin’s language is “simple, more than simple, familiar, popular …. It is the tone, the true tone of the people.”[26]

This is important for Calvin, and it is something that Reformed ministers ought to take seriously, but looking at Calvin’s homiletical activity or style is surely not where we should spend most of our time. Parker laid the foundation for the study of Calvin’s preaching, but unfortunately, it seems that few have advanced beyond it. If we are going to find something that constitutes a legacy in preaching, then we really need to look to something more substantive, something more significant than Calvin’s preaching activity or style. To discover Calvin’s homiletical legacy, we must, first of all, examine his understanding of preaching as divine worship.

Preaching as Divine Worship

One of the primary concerns of the Reformers was to restore the reading and the preaching of the Scriptures to a central place in the worship of the Christian Church. Thus, “for the twelve thousand people of Geneva, there were fifteen services with sermon every week,” distributed throughout the three parishes of Geneva.[27]

In the Reformation, “preaching occupied a position which it had not held since” the ancient Church.[28] With Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century and his mystagogical catechesis and his plan to revitalize the city of Jerusalem by turning it into a pilgrimage center, the worship of the Church took a tremendous turn toward ceremonialism.[29] More and more, the reading and the preaching of Scripture in the worship of the Church receded into the background. Ceremonialism won the day, and preaching suffered greatly.

In the middle ages, more and more frequently, public worship omitted even the simplest kind of sermon.[30] There were great preachers in the middle ages such as Bernard of Clairvaux, and there were efforts to revive preaching such as the preaching orders of the Franciscans and the Dominicans, but it is not until the Reformation that preaching was restored to its central place in the worship of the Christian Church.

Calvin sums up the popular attitude toward preaching among the papists when he says, “The pope, his bishops and all his vermin” are busy with blessing organs, baptizing bells, consecrating vestments and ornaments, but preaching? “That’s trivial stuff, they’ll not deign to touch it. That’s for the mendicants, the friars.”[31]

So, the Reformers sought to restore biblical preaching after the example of the apostles and the ancient Church. But it should be born in mind that “there is no credit due to Calvin in this recovery, for he was … a member of the second generation of Reformers, who entered into the work which the first generation had done.”[32]

When Zwingli was called to Zurich in January of 1519, he began preaching through the Gospel of Matthew day after day, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, for a whole year.[33] This kind of systematic exposition of Scripture—the lectio continua or continuous reading—was patterned after the great preachers of the ancient Church. “Zwingli’s friend Johan Froeben, who at that time was Basel’s leading publisher, had sent him a copy of Chrysostom’s lectio continua sermons on Mathew shortly after they were off his presses.”[34]

Adopting this systematic exposition used by the Church fathers and the homily form of the sermon, Zwingli restored the lectio continua to the worship of the Church. This was the very first liturgical reform of Protestantism. It is Zwingli’s great contribution to the Reformation.[35] “One by one the Christian humanist preachers of the Upper Rhineland began to follow his example.”[36] Of particular importance in terms of influence on Calvin are the Reformers of Strasbourg (Matthaüs Zell, Wolfgang Capito, and Martin Bucer) and also John Oecolampadius, who won the city of Basel for the Reformation by preaching through Isaiah. Calvin closely followed the example of the Church fathers, with the same devotion to expository preaching and to the lectio continua that his Rhenish predecessors had.[37]

Like the other Christian humanists, Calvin was greatly influenced by the Church fathers. His admiration of Augustine as a theologian is well known, but with regard to preaching, he was more influenced by Chrysostom. In fact, he set out to translate all of the homilies of Chrysostom into French, but he did not get very far with that project; he never actually made it past the preface.

Since Calvin rejected the Alexandrian school of exegesis in favor of the Antiochene school with its grammatical-historical approach, he thought that while Augustine was a better theologian, Chrysostom was a better exegete. John L. Thompson observes,

Calvin’s recommendation of Chrysostom above all other patristic writers points directly to one of his hallmarks as an exegete, namely, his avowed commitment to the “literal” or “historical” sense of the text. While Calvin admits that Chrysostom’s theology has its flaws, he lauds him above all for sticking in his interpretation with the plain meaning of Scripture and the simple meaning of its words (simplici verborum sensu). Calvin’s position here is hardly new or unique, of course, for he was preceded by many other reformers who felt that the church had been badly misled by fanciful and capricious exegesis, particularly the so-called “spiritual” or allegorical exegesis of many patristic and medieval writers.[38]

Now, in addition to his grammatical-historical exegesis, Calvin was also impressed by Chrysostom’s commitment to a contextual exposition of Scripture as exemplified in his use of the lectio continua. Chrysostom wrote, “How do we find [Paul] employed at Thessalonica and Corinth, in Ephesus and in Rome itself? Did he not spend whole nights and days interpreting the Scriptures in their order?”[39] By the phrase in their order, Chrysostom means lectio continua.

It was this commitment to contextual preaching that impressed Calvin. When passages of Scripture, says Calvin, are seized on thoughtlessly and the context is ignored, it should not surprise us that mistakes arise everywhere.[40] Calvin saw that this was one of the problems with the lectionary of the Christian year. It cut up the Bible into unrelated scraps. Dr. Old writes,

It imposed an arbitrary arrangement on Scripture. As Calvin saw it, the pericopes of the lectionary often separated a text from its natural context. The texts of Scripture should be heard within the total message of a particular biblical author. A lectionary could not help but encourage over the years a stereotyped interpretation.[41]

Calvin declared, “We must not pick and cull the Scripture to please our own fancy,” but we “must receive the whole without exception.”[42] Again, commenting on Paul’s example of preaching the whole counsel of God, Calvin writes,

What order must pastors then keep in teaching? First, let them not esteem at their pleasure what is profitable to be uttered and what to be omitted; but let them leave that to God alone to be ordered at his pleasure. So shall it come to pass that the inventions of men shall have none entrance into the Church of God. Again, mortal man shall not be so bold as to mangle the Scripture and to pull it in pieces, that he may diminish this or that at his pleasure, that he may obscure something and suppress many things; but shall deliver whatsoever is revealed in the Scripture ….[43]

So, for Calvin, the lectio continua was not only to be preferred over a selected reading of Scripture, it was essential, for we have no right to pick and choose what we want to preach.

The story is well known, but perhaps it is worth repeating here. One could hardly give a presentation on Calvin’s preaching without mentioning it. After Calvin was exiled from Geneva and returned three years later, he resumed his exposition of Romans at the exact place where he left off without saying anything about his banishment. In a letter to William Farel, Calvin wrote,

When I preached to the people, everyone was very alert and expectant. But entirely omitting any mention of those matters which they all expected with certainty to hear … I took up the exposition where I had stopped—by which I indicated that I had interrupted my office of preaching for the time rather than that I had given it up entirely.[44]

So, we see that Calvin—like the other Reformers—sought to restore the contextual preaching of Scripture to its central place in the worship of the Church. And this leads us to the main point that I want to emphasize. For Calvin, “the whole purpose of preaching is to glorify God, to worship him in Spirit and in truth.”[45]

He sees it as worship every bit as much as the celebration of the sacraments and every bit as much as the service of prayer. Calvin thought of the reading and preaching of Scripture in the midst of the assembly of God’s people as worship and worship at its most profound.[46]

Furthermore, preaching is not an act of worship on the part of the minister alone but on the part of the whole congregation when it hears the Word and receives it in faith and love. Hearing “the Word of God is of the essence of worship.”[47] Dr. Old sums up Calvin’s thought:

[It] is not only the preaching of the Word, but the receiving of the preached Word, which is worship. The whole congregation worships God by receiving his Word with humility and obedience. The ministry of the Word is not a solo sport, like a game of solitaire or playing tennis against the garage door. Preaching both honors God and builds up the Church. It is, as prayer, and in fact as all worship, the work of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ to the glory of the Father.[48]

Again he writes,

The more Augustinian theology of the Reformers brought them to understand worship not as a human work but as a divine work. The reading, the preaching and the hearing of the Word was the work not of the minister or of the congregation or even of the Church as a whole, as it was the work of the Holy Spirit. That being the case, then, the minister of the Word was a listener just as much as the believing congregation.[49]

The doxological nature and goal of preaching is clearly underscored by the fact that Calvin ended “virtually every one of his thousands of sermons [with these words] ‘And now let us bow down before the majesty of our gracious God…. ‘”[50] On this point, Sinclair Ferguson remarks that Calvin’s preaching “made God great and man bow down. By contrast, much modern preaching seems to have as its goal making man feel great, even if God Himself has to bow down.”[51]

There is much more that could be said about the subject of preaching as worship in Calvin’s pulpit, but we must move on to the next point in examining Calvin’s homiletical legacy, namely, the real presence of Christ in preaching.[52]

The Kerygmatic Real Presence of Christ

Richard Stauffer observes that for Calvin, preaching is not only a moment of worship, not only a task of the Church, but also something of a divine epiphany. In preaching, the Holy Spirit uses the words of the preacher as an occasion for the presence of God in grace and mercy.[53] Calvin says, “When the gospel is proclaimed to us, it is a manifestation of Jesus Christ.”[54]

This concept of Christ’s living presence through the preached Word is at the very heart of Calvin’s gospel.[55] The preaching of the Gospel not only conveys information about Christ, but it conveys Christ himself.[56] Christ is present in the midst of the worshiping assembly clothed in his Gospel.[57]

There are several angles from which we may examine this concept. We will limit ourselves to three. First, Calvin asserts that the minister is the mouth of God.

The word goeth out of the mouth of God in such a manner that it likewise “goeth out of the mouth” of men; for God does not speak openly from heaven, but employs men as his instruments ….[58]

When a man climbs up into the pulpit, is it so that he may be seen from afar and that he may have a higher place than the rest? No, no! But so that God may speak to us by the mouth of man and be so gracious to us to show himself here among us and will have a mortal man to be his messenger.[59]

Thus, for Calvin, the voice of God is heard in the mouth of the minister. Therefore, the preaching of the Word is the Word of God. According to T. H. L. Parker, this is a claim advanced in the sermons times without number. There cannot be many sermons where it is not asserted explicitly or at the least implied.[60]

Now, this raises the question, “In what sense did Calvin understand preaching to be the Word of God?” Mark Beach rightly notes that, for Calvin, there is a distinction between the Word of God as inspired and inscripturated and the exposition of that Word.

When the preacher preaches, his words are not verbally inspired; his message is not infallible or inerrant. In fact, the preacher’s message may have a number of errors and flaws or other shortcomings. That does not mean, however, that the voice of Christ does not come through or that Christ does not admonish his people in that sermon or instruct them or console them.[61]

[Furthermore,] To call preaching the voice of Christ does not mean that God’s Word inscripturated is incomplete or that Christ is adding new chapters to the Bible through the Sunday sermon. God’s inscripturated Word is complete. Everything we need to know for our salvation has been given to us. However, although God’s revelation is complete, the administration of that message written in the Bible is not complete. That is why Christ instituted preaching.[62]

For Calvin, the preached Word is the Word of God because it is a transmission of the Word as inspired and inscripturated. It is the Word of God in a derivative sense, but this does not make it any less the Word of God in an actual sense.[63]

The message of Scripture is the Word of God whether or not it comes from the lips of an inspired apostle or a non-inspired, post-apostolic minister. But in the post-apostolic era, preaching, ” ‘borrows’ its status of ‘Word of God’ from Scripture.”[64] The difference between apostolic and post-apostolic preaching is in the mode by which the message is mediated. The apostles preached the Word in a non-derivative fashion, but their successors do so only in a derivate fashion. The apostles spoke directly from God to the people. We, however, must take the text of Scripture and expound it for God’s people.

But the second-hand nature of post-apostolic preaching does not alter the nature of the Gospel as God’s Word. Of course, “the all important factor,” says Parker, “is not whether the preacher has received the message directly from its giver or received it at second hand, but whether the message which reaches the recipient shall be the message originally given.”[65] Calvin explains,

[This is] the difference between the apostles and their successors: the former were sure and genuine scribes of the Holy Spirit, and their writings are therefore to be considered oracles of God; but the sole office of others is to teach what is provided and sealed in the Holy Scriptures.[66]

According to Calvin, God reveals himself by accommodation. He accommodates himself to human capacity. He stoops down, as Calvin says, and clothes himself in human form, which means, primarily, human words and, ultimately, a human being, the incarnate Christ.[67]

What we want to point out here is that this concept of accommodation is also used by Calvin to explain what happens in the act of preaching. Ronald Wallace writes, “The preaching of the Word by a minister is the gracious form behind which God in coming near to men veils that in himself which man cannot bear to behold directly.”[68] Calvin says, “God has graciously condescended to stoop down to us, [so] let us not be ashamed to give this honor to [the preached] Word and [to the] Sacraments—to behold [God] there face to face.”[69]

Again, he says, Christ, “the living image of God, is evidently set before our eyes in the mirror of the gospel!”[70] Calvin frequently employs this mirror analogy to describe how we behold the face of Christ and of God in preaching.[71] Commenting on 1 Corinthians 13:12, he writes,

[There can be no doubt that Paul’s mirror metaphor refers to] the ministry of the word [and Sacrament] … For God, who is otherwise invisible, has appointed these means for discovering himself to us … The ministry of the word, I say, is like a looking-glass. For the angels have no need of preaching, or other inferior helps, nor of sacraments, for they enjoy a vision of God of another kind; and God does not give them a view of his face merely in a mirror, but openly manifests himself as present with them. We, who have not as yet reached that great height, behold the image of God as it is presented before us in the word, in the sacraments, and … in the whole of the service of the Church … we walk by faith, not by sight. Our faith, therefore, at present beholds God as absent. How so? Because it sees not his face, but rests satisfied with the image in the mirror.[72]

Another angle from which we may examine the concept of the presence of Christ in preaching is by looking at the role of the Holy Spirit. And we could not very well do justice to Calvin’s theology of preaching without giving much attention to the Holy Spirit.

Christ is present in the preached Word by the agency of the Spirit. The preaching of the Word is not merely a human work; it is a work of the Spirit. Preaching has a dual nature; it is a divine-human activity. Calvin says, “we see how God works by the Word which is preached to us, that it is not a voice which only sounds in the air and then vanishes; but God adds to it the power of His Holy Spirit.”[73] Again, he says,

For first, the Lord teaches and instructs us by his word. Secondly, he confirms it by the sacraments. Finally, he illumines our minds by the light of the Holy Spirit and opens our hearts for the Word and sacraments to enter in, which would otherwise only strike our ears and appear before our eyes, but not at all affect us within.[74]

Preaching, therefore, is powerless for salvation without the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that preaching is ever ineffectual. On the contrary, preaching is never in vain.[75] But without the Spirit, it cannot produce any saving effects. Although Calvin embraces the distinction between the Verbum Dei externum and the Verbum Dei internum, he rejects the notion of the Anabaptists that the external Word is powerless.

For delirious and even dangerous are those notions, that though the internal word is efficacious, yet that which proceeds from the mouth of man is lifeless and destitute of all power.[76]

So, for Calvin, preaching has a dual nature. God condescends to joins himself to the ministers of the Gospel and ” … shows that he uses them as his hands and his instruments.”[77] In the act of preaching, the minister is a co-laborer with God.[78] It is a divine-human activity, and Calvin consistently maintains this teaching without (on the one hand) blurring the distinction between the work of God and the work of man and (on the other hand) without separating the two. As John Leith explains, Calvin’s doctrine of preaching

enabled him both to understand preaching as a very human work and to understand it as the work of God…. From one perspective the human work of the sermon is critically important. The sermon’s fidelity to scripture, the skill of the syntax and rhetoric, the liveliness of the delivery, are of a fundamental importance that ought not to be minimized. From another perspective a sermon is a work of the Spirit of God, which may make a “poor” sermon the occasion of God’s presence and a brilliant sermon barren of [redemptive] power. Calvin unites the work of God and the work of man in the sacrament and in preaching without separation, without change, and without confusion.[79]

There is another angle from which we may examine the concept of the presence of Christ in preaching, namely, by comparing it with the presence of Christ in the sacrament. Standing in the Augustinian tradition, which defines a sacrament as a visible Word, Calvin posits the closest possible connection between Word and sacrament. The sacraments are “joined to [the Word] as a sort of appendix, with the purpose of confirming and sealing” the promises of the Gospel.[80] The sacraments cannot exist apart from the Word. The Word “throws life into the sacraments.”[81]

Furthermore, the sacraments have the same office as the Word of God: to “offer and set forth Christ to us and in him the treasures of heavenly grace.”[82] Calvin’s explicit rejection of a memorialistic understanding of the Lord’s Supper and his insistence on the real presence of Christ is well known, but not many have made the necessary connection between the eucharistic presence of Christ and, what Dr. Old has called, the kerygmatic real presence of Christ in the Word.[83]

I say this is a necessary connection because there can be no eucharistic presence of Christ apart from his kerygmatic presence. This is one reason why the sacrament cannot exist apart from the Word. The eucharistic presence of Christ is grounded in his kerygmatic presence. In both cases, Christ is really present by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Christ is near, says Calvin, “and exhibits himself to us, when the voice of the gospel cries aloud; and we do not need to seek far, or to make long circuits, as unbelievers do; for he exhibits himself [and by exhibits, he means nothing less than gives] to us in his word, that we, on our part, may draw near to him.”[84]

The main point to remember here is that in the same way that Christ is present in the eucharist, he is also present in the preached Word. What is received in the sacrament is the same thing that is received in the Word. And just as Calvin denies that the sacrament is a bare sign, so too, the preached Word is never void of the reality it proclaims. The Word is efficacious; it gives what it declares, and that is nothing less than Christ himself, the whole Christ, the living Christ and all his saving benefits with him. In the Word, we receive the same Christ that we receive in the sacraments. Robert Bruce expressed the point perfectly when he said,

[We] do not get a different or better Christ at the supper than we get in the preaching of the Word; but because the supper-sign is added to the Word preached by God’s grace and the Spirit’s ministry, we may get the same Christ better.[85]

Thomas J. Davis has set forth the thesis that just as Calvin’s doctrine of the real eucharistic presence of Christ has largely been unappreciated or even rejected by his successors, so too his doctrine of the real presence of Christ in preaching has been virtually forgotten.[86] This is certainly something worth considering for those of us who claim to be Calvin’s spiritual heirs.

Union and Communion with Christ through Preaching

The third topic with regard to Calvin’s homiletical legacy is union and communion with Christ through preaching. For Calvin, the believer’s union with Christ is established and nourished through the preaching of the Word. Calvin’s entire soteriology is based on the notion of faith-union with Christ that is effected by the work of the Holy Spirit through the ministry of the Word.[87]

Calvin underscores the importance of union with Christ in that famous passage from the Institutes, “As long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”[88] Calvin adds that this necessary union with Christ is brought about by “the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits.” “The Holy Spirit,” he says, “is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself.”[89]

Now, what does this have to do with preaching? The preaching of the Word is the instrument through which union with Christ is effected by the Spirit.[90] The gospel is not merely an invitation to fellowship with Christ; it is a vehicle by which Christ is communicated to us or, to put it another way, “the effective means by which communion with Christ is brought about.”[91] Calvin says,

We ought … to understand that preaching is an instrument for effecting the salvation of the faithful, and though it can do nothing without the Spirit of God, yet through his inward operation it produces the most powerful effects.[92]

Again, he writes, God has “ordained his Word as the instrument by which Jesus Christ, with all his graces, is dispensed to us.”[93]

The Holy Spirit establishes this union with Christ by working faith in the hearts of the elect. And for Calvin, there is a permanent relationship between faith and the Word; one could not separate them any more than one could separate the rays of the sun from the sun itself.[94] “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word” (Romans 10:17). Calvin says,

[T]his is a remarkable passage with regard to the efficacy of preaching, for he [declares that by preaching] faith is produced. He had indeed before declared, that of itself [preaching] is of no avail, but that when it pleases the Lord to work, it becomes the instrument of his power.[95]

Preaching is the mother, which conceives and brings forth faith.[96] Take away the preaching of the gospel, and no faith will remain.[97]

The closest thing we have from Calvin to a treatise on preaching is his “Summary of Doctrine Concerning the Ministry of the Word and the Sacraments.”[98] In this document, we find the clearest statement regarding union and communion with Christ through preaching.

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.[99]

The Present Reign of Christ through Preaching

For Calvin, preaching is of the very essence of the kingdom of God; indeed, the kingdom “consisteth in the preaching of the gospel.”[100] Calvin goes so far as to call the pulpit “the throne of God” and the judgment seat of Christ from which he judges the world.[101]

As the exalted Son of David, our Lord Jesus exercises his royal dominion mediately, through the preaching of the Word. Calvin says Christ calls himself Lord and King of heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18) because when he draws men to obedience by the preaching of the Gospel, he is establishing the throne of his kingdom on earth.[102] Indeed, “Christ does not otherwise rule among us than by the doctrine of his gospel.”[103] He exercises and administers his kingly authority by his Word alone.[104]

Describing the messianic reign of the Son of David, Isaiah prophesied that Christ would strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips, he would kill the wicked (Isaiah 11:4). Calvin comments,

The Prophet here extols the efficacy of the word, which is Christ’s royal scepter…. The Prophet does not now send us to secret revelations, that Christ may reign in us, but openly recommends the outward preaching of doctrine, and shows that the gospel serves the purpose of a scepter in the hand of Christ, so far as it is preached, and so far as it is oral … otherwise it would have been to no purpose to mention the mouth and the lips. Hence it follows that all those who reject the outward preaching of the gospel shake off this scepter, as far as lies in their power, or pull it out of the hand of Christ…. Here we must again call to remembrance what is the nature of Christ’s kingdom. As he does not wear a golden crown or employ earthly armor, so he does not rule over the world by the power of arms, or gain authority by gaudy and ostentatious display, or constrain his people by terror and dread; but the doctrine of the gospel is his royal banner, which assembles believers under his dominion. Wherever, therefore, the doctrine of the Gospel is preached in purity, there we are certain that Christ reigns; and where it is rejected, his government is also set aside.[105]

Christ, therefore, has been appointed by the Father “not to rule after the manner of princes, by the force of arms … but his whole authority consists in doctrine, in the preaching of which he wishes to be sought and acknowledged; for nowhere else will he be found.”[106] “Whereas David ruled over his earthly kingdom by a golden scepter, Christ’s heavenly kingdom is presided over by the scepter of the preached gospel.”[107] It is through preaching, therefore, that Christ executes the office of a King; he advances his kingdom, subdues us to himself, rules, governs and defends us, restrains and conquers all his and our enemies and takes vengeance on all those who do not know God and obey the gospel.[108]

It is in this context that Calvin understands the power of the keys of the kingdom. The keys have a double function: to loose and to bind, to remit and to retain (Matthew 16:19, John 20:23).

But when it is a question of the keys, we must always beware lest we dream up some power separate from the preaching of the gospel …. [A]ny right of binding or loosing which Christ conferred upon his church is bound to the Word. This is especially true in the ministry of the keys, whose entire power rests in the fact that, through those whom the Lord had ordained, the grace of the gospel is publicly and privately sealed in the hearts of the believers. This can come about only through preaching.[109]

Thus, when Christ promised the apostles that they would be given the keys of the kingdom and would be able to bind and loose and to remit or retain sins, “he was referring to the effect their preaching of the Word of God was to have on its hearers.”[110]

The comparison of the keys is very properly applied to the office of [preaching, for] there is no other way in which the gate of life is opened to us than by the word of God; and hence it follows that the key is placed, as it were, in the hands of the ministers of the word …. [And] as there are many, who not only are guilty of wickedly rejecting the deliverance that is offered them, but by their obstinacy bring down on themselves a heavier judgment, the power and authority to bind is likewise granted to ministers of the Gospel.[111]

T. H. L. Parker sums up Calvin’s thought,

The “legate of Christ” is the preacher. The “mandate of reconciliation” is the Gospel. The absolution is declared by the preaching of the Gospel. He that believes receives forgiveness; he that refuses forgiveness has his sin still “retained” to him. Because the Gospel preached is God’s Word, this is the verdict of God himself from, so to say, his judgment seat the pulpit.[112]

It is also in this concept of the present reign of Christ through preaching that Calvin finds the motive for missions.[113] “The world is to be formed, so far as may be, into the kingdom of Christ,” through the proclamation of the gospel to the nations.[114]

When our Lord Jesus Christ appeared, he acquired possession of the whole world; and his kingdom was extended from one end of it to the other, especially with the proclamation of the Gospel …. God has consecrated the entire earth through the precious blood of his Son to the end that we may inhabit it and live under his reign.[115]

It was through the preaching of the Word by Jesus himself that the kingdom was inaugurated (Mark 1:14-15), and after his ascension, Jesus continues this ministry through the apostles as his Spirit-empowered agents. When the apostles asked the risen Christ, “Lord, is now the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel,” they misunderstood the true nature of the kingdom.[116] They were still thinking of an earthly, geo-political kingdom, confined ethnically to the Jews and geographically to Palestine. “They dream,” says Calvin, “of an earthly kingdom, which should flow with riches, with dainties, with external peace, and with such like good things ….”[117]

But, “the nature of the kingdom is of another sort than they judged it to have been.”[118] It is a Spiritual, heavenly kingdom; it is international in scope, encompassing all nations. And the means through which it is established and extended is the preaching of the gospel. Jesus tells the apostles that it is through their Spirit-empowered preaching that he will authoritatively exercise his rule as King and advance his kingdom throughout the world (Acts 1:8). Thus, “Christ reigns whenever he subdues the world to himself by the preaching of the gospel.”[119]

No set limits are allotted to them, but the whole earth is assigned to them to bring into obedience to Christ, in order that by spreading the gospel wherever they can among the nations, they may raise up his Kingdom everywhere.[120]

When Jesus “causes His Gospel to be preached in a country, it is as if He said, ‘I want to rule over you and be your King.'”[121] Even though the era of the apostles has ended, this worldwide effort to extend the kingdom of Christ through the preaching of the gospel continues. According to Calvin, the so-called great commission

was not spoken to the apostles alone; for the Lord promises his assistance not for a single age only, but even to the end of the world …. In like manner, experience clearly shows in the present day, that the operations of Christ are carried on wonderfully in a secret manner, so that the gospel surmounts innumerable obstacles.[122]

The ministry of the Word had transformed Geneva into “the most perfect school of Christ, which has been seen on earth since the days of the apostles,”[123] and Calvin longed to see the gospel have the same effect in other parts of the world. Although Calvin lived “before the era of self-conscious world evangelism,” Philip E. Hughes argues that Calvin may rightly be seen as a “Director of Missions.”[124] It is well known that in the generations following Calvin, the Reformed Church excelled in missions, and this may rightly be traced back to Calvin’s theology of preaching, particularly, his doctrine of the present reign of Christ through preaching.[125] This doctrine, therefore, is part of Calvin’s homiletical legacy.

Having examined Calvin’s theology of preaching under these headings (preaching as divine worship, the real kerygmatic presence of Christ, union and communion with Christ through preaching, and the present reign of Christ through preaching), it should not surprise us to hear Calvin speak so highly of the ministry of the Word. The preaching of the Word is so critical to Christianity that:

If the gospel be not preached, Jesus Christ is, as it were, [still] buried.[126]

If there be no preaching, the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ will come to nothing; the world will not know him to be the Redeemer of the world; it will avail us nothing at all, that he was delivered to death for us.[127]

Of what advantage would it be to us that the Son of God had suffered death and risen again the third day [if there be no preaching]?[128]

Near the end of his life, when his poor health prevented his free movement, Calvin asked to be carried to St Peter’s in a chair in order to carry out his ministerial duties.[129] On February 6, 1564, he preached his last sermon. After that, he held on “for some months, growing slowly weaker, until he died in the evening of May 27. ‘Behold as in an instant,’ mourned Beza, ‘how that very day the sun did set, and the great light that was in the world for the building of the Church of God, was taken into heaven.'”[130]

Calvin was truly, above all else, a servant of the Word of God.

[Calvin] saw himself to be the servant of the Word. God had called him to be such a servant, and he devoted all his energies to be faithful in that service …. John Calvin had such a strong sense of standing under the authority of Scripture that it kindled the devotion of a whole generation of preachers.[131]

And may God graciously grant his church a new generation of servants of the Word of God!

Endnotes

[1] David Wright and David Stay eds., Serving the Word of God: Celebrating the Life and Ministry of James Philip (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2000), 219.

[2] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 1:308.

[3] See Wulfert de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin, Expanded Edition: An Introductory Guide (Louisville; London: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 75-90.

[4] See Wulfert de Greef (2008), 90-93 and Wright and Stay (2000), 219.

[5] According to James H. Nichols, “This practice began in Zurich in 1525, and it was called prophesying …. A similar practice was followed … in à Lasco’s Church of the Strangers in London and in the English refugee congregation in Geneva.” See James H. Nichols, “The Intent of the Calvinistic Liturgy” in The Heritage of John Calvin, ed. John H. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 92.

[6] See Wulfert de Greef, “Calvin’s Writings” in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 45-46. Cf. Wulfert de Greef, (2008), 101-104.

[7] John Dillenberger, John Calvin, Selections from His Writings (Scholars Press, 1975), 14.

[8] This address was given at the 400th anniversary of the birth of Calvin at Saint Peter’s Cathedral in Geneva; “Calvin le Prédicateur de Genève,” Conférence faite dans la Cathédrale de Saint-Pierre, à Genève, par M. le Professeur E. Doumergue, Doyen de la Faculté de Théologie de Montauban (édition Atar, Corraterie, 12, Genève). I am indebted to the kind assistance of Mrs. Barbara Edgar for the English translation of this text. Je vous remercie pour votre aide, Madame Edgar!

[9] Doumergue (1909), 8-9.

[10] T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin (England: Lion Publishing, 1987), 114.

[11] Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 288.

[12] Ibid., 295.

[13] Thomas J. Davis, This is My Body: the Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 94.

[14] For a brief survey of Mülhaupt’s work, see Lester Ronald De Koster, Living Themes in the Thought of John Calvin: A Biographical Study (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, 1964), 294-296.

[15] Wulfert de Greef in McKim (2004), 45.

[16] Max Engammare, “Des sermons de Calvin sur Esaïe découverts à Londres,” in Calvin et ses contemporains, ed. Olivier Millet (Geneva, 1998), 69-81; “Calvin Incognito in London: the Rediscovery in London of Sermons on Isaiah,” in Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, XXVI 4 [1996]: 453-62.

[17] For details see, Wulfert de Greef (2008), 93-100. Cf. Richard Stauffer, “Les sermons inédits de Calvin sur le livre de la Genèse,” in Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 3 ser., XV [1965]: 26-36; Lester De Koster (1964), 291ff.; and Bernard Gagnebin, “L’incroyable historie des sermons de Calvin,” in Bulletin de la Société d’Historie et d’Archéologie de Genève, 10/4 [1955]: 311-34.

[18] Davis (2008), 94.

[19] It should be pointed out that Calvin preached without manuscript or notes, with only a Hebrew or Greek Testament open in front of him. Wright and Stay (2000), 220. Calvin objected to the practice of “reading from a written discourse;” see his letter to Somerset, 22 October 1548, in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, 7 vols., ed. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet (repr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 5:190.

[20] For details, see T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 153ff.

[21] Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship: Reformed According to Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 76.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Allan Menzies, A Study of Calvin: and Other Papers (London: Macmillan, 1918); cf. Lester De Koster, Light for the City: Calvin’s Preaching, Source of Life and Liberty (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 28.

[24] Lester De Koster (1964), 296.

[25] Ibid., 299.

[26] Doumergue (1909), 10-11.

[27] James H. Nichols in Bratt (1973), 89.

[28] T. H. L. Parker, The Oracles of God: An Introduction to the Preaching of John Calvin (London; Redhill: Lutterworth, 1947), 10.

[29] For more on this subject, see Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and the Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 3-31.

[30] Old, Worship (2002), 68.

[31] Wright and Stay (2000), 232.

[32] Parker (1947), 20.

[33] Old, Worship (2002), 71.

[34] Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and the Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 46.

[35] Ibid., 43-46.

[36] Ibid., 46.

[37] Old, Worship (2002), 75.

[38] John L. Thompson, “Calvin as a Biblical Interpreter” in McKim (2004), 63.

[39] John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, trans. W. R. W. Stephens, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 4.7 (emphasis added).

[40] Cf. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (vol. 1; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005) 442 (Isa. 14:12).

[41] Old, Worship (2002), 75.

[42] From Calvin’s sermon on 2 Timothy 3:16, citied in LeRoy Nixon, John Calvin: Expository Preacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 52.

[43] John Calvin, Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 251 (see Acts 20:26). Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Calvin’s commentaries are taken from this series.

[44] Cited in Parker (1947), 34.

[45] Hughes Oliphant Old, “Preaching as Worship in the Pulpit of John Calvin” (Paper given at Calvin500 in Geneva, Switzerland, July, 2009), 29. Cf. Old, Preaching (2002), 132ff.

[46] Ibid., 2.

[47] Ibid., 12.

[48] Ibid., 17.

[49] Old, Preaching (2002), 76.

[50] Sinclair Ferguson, “Preaching to the Heart,” in Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching, ed. Don Kistler (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002), 197.

[51] Ibid.

[52] For more on the subject, see Hughes Old’s Calvin 500 Paper, “Preaching as Worship in the Pulpit of John Calvin,” (July, 2009).

[53] Cited in John H. Leith, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Proclamation of the Word and Its Significance for Today in the Light of Recent Research,” in John Calvin and the Church: A Prism of Reform, ed. Timothy George (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 211.

[54] John Calvin, Sermons on the Saving Work of Christ, trans. LeRoy Nixon (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1980), 14 (sermon on 1 John 1:1-5).

[55] Cf. B. A. Gerrish, “John Calvin and the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” McCormick Quarterly 22 [1969]: 92.

[56] Cf. Dawn DeVries, Jesus Christ in the Preaching of Calvin and Schleiermacher (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 17.

[57] Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 3.2.6.

[58] Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah 55:11.

[59] Jean Calvin, Sermons on the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983) 269. Quotations from this work are given in modern English.

[60] Parker (1992), 41.

[61] Mark Beach, “The Real Presence of Christ in the Preaching of the Gospel: Luther and Calvin on the Nature of Preaching,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 [1999]: 125.

[62] Ibid., 126.

[63] Parker (1947), 50.

[64] Parker (1992), 23.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Institutes, 4.8.9.

[67] See Ford Lewis Battles, “God was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity,” Interpretation 31 [1977]: 38.

[68] Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 84.

[69] Ibid., 26. Cf. Commentary on Haggai 1:12.

[70] Calvin, Commentary on Genesis 32:30.

[71] See Wallace (1957) 24ff.; cf. Davis (2008), 118ff.

[72] Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:12.

[73] Cited in Parker (1947), 55.

[74] Institutes, 4.14.8.

[75] “Whether the outcome be life or death, [the Word] is never preached in vain;” Calvin, Commentary on 2 Corinthians 2:15; cf. his comments on Isaiah 6:10, 34:16, 55:11 and Hebrews 4:12.

[76] Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews 4:12.

[77] Cited in Parker (1992), 28.

[78] Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 3:9; cf. Commentary on Malachi 4:6 and Institutes, 4.1.6.

[79] John Leith in George (1990), 211-212.

[80] Institutes, 4.14.3.

[81] Calvin, Commentary on Ezekiel 2:3.

[82] Institutes, 4.14.17.

[83] Old, Preaching (2002), 133.

[84] Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah 55:6.

[85] Wright and Stay (2000), 216.

[86] See Thomas J. Davis, “Preaching and Presence: Constructing Calvin’s Homiletical Legacy,” in The Legacy of John Calvin, ed. David Foxgrover (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 2000). Cf. Randall Zachman’s response in the same work.

[87] Cf. DeVries (1996), 9.

[88] Institutes, 3.1.1.

[89] Ibid.

[90] Cf. B. A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: the Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 76ff.

[91] Ibid., 84.

[92] Calvin, Commentary on Romans 11:14.

[93] Jean Calvin, “Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” in Tracts and Treatises on the Reformation of the Church, ed. Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 2:165-166.

[94] Institutes, 3.2.6.

[95] Calvin, Commentary on Romans 10:17.

[96] Calvin, Commentary on 2 Corinthians 13:5.

[97] Calvin, Commentary on Acts 16:31.

[98] Jean Calvin, Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 170-77. Despite the questions concerning the authenticity of this document, there are several good reasons for attributing it to Calvin as does Beza; see Reid’s introduction, Ibid., 170.

[99] Citations are from Ibid., 171-173.

[100] Calvin, Commentary on Acts 1:8. On the relationship between the reign of Christ and preaching, see Wallace (1957), 85ff. Cf. Lester De Koster’s remark, “Calvin aptly profiles how the ruling Lord exercises his authority: the pulpit as Throne of the Christ in the midst of his City!” in Lester De Koster (2004), 19.

[101] Cited in Parker (1992), 26; see Calvin, Commentary on John 16:8.

[102] Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:18.

[103] Calvin, Commentary on Micah 4:2. Cf. his Commentary on Psalms 96:10.

[104] Institutes, 4.3.1.

[105] Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah 11:4.

[106] Ibid., 49:2. Cf. his Commentary on Hosea 1:11.

[107] Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin, Geneva and the Reformation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1998), 132.

[108] Larger Catechism 45.

[109] Institutes, 3.4.14.

[110] Wallace (1998), 132-33.

[111] Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 16:19.

[112] Parker (1992), 43.

[113] For Calvin’s view of missions, see the overview and bibliography in Lester De Koster (1964), 365ff. See also Philip E. Hughes, “John Calvin: Director of Missions,” and R. Pierce Beaver, “The Genevan Mission to Brazil,” in Bratt (1973), 40-73.

[114] Lester De Koster (1964), 366.

[115] From sermon no. 45 on Deuteronomy, cited in William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 192.

[116] “There are as many errors in this question as words,” says Calvin; Commentary on Acts 1:6.

[117] Ibid.

[118] Ibid., 1:8.

[119] Calvin on Acts 1:8 as cited in Wallace (1957), 86.

[120] Institutes, 4.3.4.

[121] Calvin’s sermon on Acts 1:1-4 as cited in Wallace (1957), 87.

[122] Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:20.

[123] This was how John Knox described Geneva; cited in Bratt (1973), 44.

[124] Ibid., 40-54. Hughes notes that in 1556, missionaries were sent from Geneva to Brazil, and although this missionary project was unsuccessful, it testifies “strikingly to the far-reaching vision Calvin and his colleagues in Geneva had of their missionary task,” Ibid., 48.

[125] See Henry H. Meeter, “Why Calvinism Excels in Missions,” in Banner LXXVI [February 7, 1941]: 127ff.

[126] Jean Calvin, The Mystery of Godliness: And Other Selected Sermons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 99.

[127] Calvin, Sermons on Timothy and Titus, 951.

[128] Ibid., sermon on 2 Timothy 1:9-10.

[129] Theodore Beza, The Life of John Calvin (England: Evangelical Press, 1997) 101. Cf. Charles Washington Baird’s romanticized account of Calvin’s last communion service in Eutaxia: Or, the Presbyterian Liturgies (New York: M. W. Dodd Publisher, 1855), 43ff.

[130] Parker (1947) 44. Beza (1997), 118.

[131] Old, Preaching (2002), 131.

This lecture was originally given at the pre-Assembly conference (held in honor of John Calvin’s 500th anniversary) of the Seventy-sixth General Assembly in 2009. It was first published in Ordained Servant.

Moses at Mount Sinai

The public reading of Scripture played a central role in the worship of Israel at Mount Sinai (Ex. 24:1–11). After writing down all the words of the Lord, Moses read the book of the covenant in the hearing of the people (vv. 4, 7).[1] The Israelites responded to the Word by making a solemn vow: “All that the LORD has spoken, we will do, and we will be obedient” (v. 7). The covenant between God and Israel was then sealed with two visible signs: the sprinkling of blood and the sharing of a meal in the presence of God (vv. 8–11). As Moses threw the blood on the people, he exclaimed, “Behold, the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words” (v. 8, italics added).[2] The main point is that the public reading of Scripture was a central part of the ceremony at Mount Sinai which is “the prototype of the worship of God’s people down through the centuries” (cf. Josh. 8:30–35; 2 Kings 22:8–13; 23:1–3; Heb. 12:18–29).[3]

Ezra at the Water Gate

The Book of Nehemiah records another event that highlights the public reading of Scripture in worship (Neh. 8:1–9; cf. 8:13–15, 18; 9:3; 13:1). After rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem, the Israelites assembled to hear Ezra the scribe read the book of the Law of Moses (Neh. 8:1).[4] Standing on a wooden platform built for the occasion, Ezra and his assistants read from “the Law of God, clearly and gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading,” meaning they either translated the text into Aramaic or gave an actual exposition of the text or both (v. 8).[5] The reading of Scripture was prefaced by certain liturgical acts. When the scroll was opened, the Israelites stood and lifted their hands in prayer; Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God, and the people bowed their faces to the ground in worship (vv. 5–6). Clearly, the reading of Scripture was regarded as an act of worship; it served the glory of God just as much as the prayers and sacrifices that were offered during that festive month (Neh. 8:2; cf. Lev. 23:23–43; Num. 29:1–39). This account of the public reading of Scripture is “the oldest description we have of a liturgy of the Word”; accordingly, it became the model for the liturgical reading of Scripture in both synagogue and church.[6]

Jesus in the Synagogue

By the time of the New Testament, the public reading of Scripture was a regular part of the synagogue service.[7] At the Jerusalem council, James observed, “From ancient generations, Moses has had in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21).[8] In other words, reading the Law in the synagogue was a long-standing, widespread, and regular tradition.[9] Moreover, the Law was read on a lectio continua—beginning with Genesis and continuing each Sabbath where one left off the previous Sabbath, until one reached the end of Deuteronomy.[10] This lectio continua of the Law was only interrupted during annual festivals and fast days when special lessons, corresponding to the significance of the day, were read.[11]

The Gospels make it clear that Jesus regularly participated in Sabbath worship, including the reading and preaching of Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:39; Luke 4:44; John 6:59; 18:20; etc.). Luke’s account of Jesus’s participation in the service at Nazareth is most informative (Luke 4:16–30).[12] When Jesus stood up to read, the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him, and he found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18–19).[13] After reading the text, Jesus rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant (chazzan) and sat down (v. 20).[14] Here, we see a clear distinction between the act of reading and the act of preaching. Jesus stood to read and sat to preach; also, the scroll was rolled up and returned to its place before the sermon began.[15] Thus, in the synagogue, the reading of Scripture was treated as a distinct act of ministry.[16]

That Jesus read from the prophet Isaiah and not from the Law indicates that this was the second Scripture lesson in the service.[17] In each service, there were two Scripture lessons: the Law (torah, parashah, seder) and the Prophets (haftarah, pl. haftarot), which in the Jewish division of the Scriptures also included the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.[18] Thus, Moses was read every Sabbath (Acts 15:21) and so were the Prophets (13:27). Unlike the torah, the haftarot were not read as a lectio continua but were specifically chosen to complement the torah lessons and provided the key to their interpretation.[19] In Luke’s account of the service that Paul and Barnabas attended in Pisidian Antioch, both readings are mentioned:

After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent a message to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.” (Acts 13:15)
The sermon (“word of exhortation”) immediately followed the Scripture reading in the order of service because it was an exposition of the biblical text.[20] Accordingly, whenever Jesus preached in the synagogue, he was expounding the Law and the Prophets, by which he provided a model of systematic, expository preaching for his disciples to follow.

The Apostles in Worship

The first converts to Christianity (being either Jews or God-fearers) were personally familiar with the liturgical customs of the synagogue.[21] In fact, the earliest Christians continued to participate in synagogue worship as long as they were permitted, and some Christians (e.g., Paul) even carried out a teaching ministry in the synagogue.[22] It is not surprising, therefore, that the basic pattern and elements of Christian worship came from the synagogue service.[23] Nowhere is this clearer than in the reading and preaching of Scripture in worship.[24]

After commending the Scriptures to Timothy, Paul solemnly charges him to “preach the Word,” namely, “all Scripture” which is inspired and profitable (2 Tim. 3:16–4:2). In other words, the Law and the Prophets that were read and preached in the synagogue every Sabbath were to be read and preached in Christian assemblies as well. Paul instructs Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and to teaching (1 Tim. 4:13).[25] This, of course, refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, but “the reading and exposition of the New Testament Scriptures soon joined that of the Old Testament.”[26] This is already hinted at in the New Testament (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27; 2 Pet. 3:15–16; Rev. 1:3), and by the middle of the second century, it was firmly established. Justin Martyr, writing at Rome around the year 150, says that on the Lord’s Day, “the memoirs of the apostles” and “the writings of the prophets” are read as long as time permits.[27] According to Ferguson:

The Gospels and Prophets may have been a Christian counterpart to the Jewish readings from the Law and the Prophets. Justin does not say whether the reading was part of a continuous cycle of readings (a lectionary) or was chosen specifically for the day. The phrase “as long as time permits” implies that the reading was not of a fixed length, but it does not have to mean a random selection. There is a third possibility: the reading may have been continuous from Sunday to Sunday, taking up where the reading left off the last week, but not of a predetermined length. The indication is that the readings were rather lengthy … The sermon [which immediately followed the reading of Scripture] was expository in nature, based on the Scripture reading of the day and making a practical application of that Scripture to the lives of those present.[28]

Although Justin’s description of Christian worship is brief and at some points vague, one thing at least is clear: “By the middle of the second century the writings of both the Old Testament and the New Testament were read in worship side by side as Holy Scripture.”[29]

A Biblical Model for the Lord’s Day

From this brief survey of the public reading of Scripture in worship from Moses to the apostles, we can develop a basic pattern (a biblical model) for carrying out this act of ministry in our services today—a model that can be adapted and applied in a variety of ways. The public reading of Scripture (according to this model) is: (1) prefaced by prayer, (2) distinguished from interpretation, (3) followed by exposition, (4) sealed with visible signs, and (5) systematically conducted.

1. Prefaced by Prayer

Before the reading of Scripture, the people of God “bless the Lord” in prayer—as in the example of Ezra (Neh. 8:5–6). In this prayer, it is appropriate to petition the Lord for the Holy Spirit, who enlightens the eyes, opens the heart, and makes the reading of Scripture an effectual means of salvation (WLC 155).[30]

2. Distinguished from Interpretation

The reading of Scripture is a distinct act of ministry that is never confused with, but distinguished from, the interpretation of Scripture in the sermon. The exposition of Scripture does not begin until the whole lesson has been read (cf. Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15).[31]

3. Followed by Exposition

That the people of God may understand the meaning of Scripture and know what they are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of them (WSC 3), the reading of Scripture is followed by a sermon that is an actual exposition and application of the text read (Neh. 8:8).

4. Sealed with Visible Signs

As in the covenant ceremony at Mount Sinai, the proclamation of Scripture is sealed with visible signs (Ex. 24:1–11). In the new covenant, this is done by means of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which, as Calvin said, are added to the Word as a sort of appendix, with the purpose of confirming and sealing it.[32]

5. Systematically Conducted

In the regular services of worship on the Lord’s Day, the Scriptures are read and preached as a lectio continua. While there are certain occasions when the lectio continua may be interrupted (as was the case in the synagogue during festivals), the continuous, systematic reading and exposition of Scripture is the basic rule (Deut. 31: 9–13; Neh. 8:1–9; 2 Tim. 3:16–4:2).[33]

Endnotes

[1] “The book of the covenant” probably included the Decalogue and its exposition (Ex. 20:1–23:33). See Victor Hamilton, Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 438–43; Peter Enns, Exodus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 488–89.

[2] On the significance of “the blood of the covenant” (cf. Zech. 9:11; Matt. 26:28; Heb. 10:29; 12:24; 13:20), see Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 60–107.

[3] Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 22; cf. John Hilber, “Theology of Worship in Exodus 24,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39, no. 2 (June 1996): 177–89.

[4] “The book of the Law of Moses” may refer to the Pentateuch as a whole. See John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976) 391–92. On the teaching ministry of priests and scribes (cf. Lev. 10:11; Deut. 33:10; 2 Chr. 15:3; Ezra 7:6–12; Mal. 2:7), see Craig Evans et al., Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2000), 1086–89; Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second Temple Period (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); David Orton, The Understanding Scribe (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989); George Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 37–47.

[5] This could have included both the targum and the midrashic sermon. See Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1971), XIV; cf. Charles Perrot, “The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue” in Mikra, Martin Mulder et al., eds. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 155; Donald Binder, Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 401; Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 151, 156; William Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), 41.

[6] Old, 1:96; cf. Binder, 399; Elbogen, 130–31; Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship Reformed According to Scripture (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002), 60–61.

[7] Attempts to reconstruct the synagogue service in the Second-Temple period are somewhat conjectural since most of our sources come from a later period. There is no question, however, that the public reading of Scripture on the morning of the Sabbath was “a universally accepted custom in the first century of our era both in Israel and the Diaspora,” Perrot, 137. Cf. Heather McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1994).

[8] Some first-century Jews (e.g., Philo and Josephus) believed that Moses had instituted the study of Scripture on the Sabbath. According to Binder, the septennial reading of the Torah prescribed by Moses (Deut. 31:9–13) was “extended both temporally and spatially so that the weekly synagogue assemblies served as microcosms of the larger, national convocation,” Binder, 399. When this practice was established is unknown. See Perrot, 137–59; Mann, XIII–XIV; Elbogen, 130–32; Eric Werner, The Sacred Bridge (London: Dennis Dobson, 1959), 51.

[9] Darrell Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007) 507.

[10] Old, 1:99; cf. Perrot, 137–59; Mann, XII–XIII, XXI–XXIII; Elbogen, 129–42; Moore, 1:296–307.

[11] Cf. Perrot, 145, 147–50; Ferguson, 580; Mann, XIX; Werner, 57; Elbogen, 129–31.

[12] See Larrimore Crockett, “Luke 4:16–30 and the Jewish Lectionary Cycle” in Journal of Jewish Studies 17 (1966): 13–48.

[13] That Jesus “found the place” may mean that the lesson had been previously prepared and marked in the scroll in such a way that Jesus could easily find the prescribed passage (Werner, 56). However, Wacholder conjectures that the particular book (Isaiah) was predetermined (either by custom or by the synagogue officials), but Jesus was free to read any text from that book (Mann, XVI; cf. Elbogen, 144). Although not recorded in Luke, it is likely that Jesus offered benedictions before and after the reading (e.g., Neh. 8:6; cf. Perrot, 144, 155; Elbogen, 146; Werner, 53).

[14] On the chazzan, see Aaron Milavec, The Didache (New York: Newman Press, 2003) 594–602; cf. Binder, 343–87; Evans and Porter, 1146–47; Perrot, 154–55; Ferguson, 581. The chazzan “carried out the orders of the president of the congregation. It was he who asked the members of the congregation to lead in prayer, to read the Scriptures and to preach. It was his task to take the Torah scrolls from the ark and to return them; it was he who opened the scroll at the portion to be read,” David Hedegård, Seder R. Amram Gaon (Lund: A.-B. Ph. Lindstedts Universitets-bokhandel, 1951), XXXI.

[15] On sitting to teach, see Elbogen, 139, 158; Binder, 72, 306; Kenneth Newport, “A Note on the ‘Seat of Moses’ (Matthew 23:2),” Andrews University Seminary Studies 29 (1990): 127–37; L. Y. Rahmani, “Stone Synagogue Chairs: Their Identification, Use and Significance,” Israel Exploration Journal 40 (1990): 192–214.

[16] Gerhardsson writes, “Scripture reading was … a distinct entity, sharply distinguished from explanatory translation … and the expository or practically applied sermon … which also had its place in worship. Scripture reading did not, then, merely form a basis for instructional translation and preaching, but had its own intrinsic value,” Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 68.

[17] Binder, 401.

[18] Paul Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (Oxford University Press, 2002), 37. See Binder, 400; Perrot, 137–59; Mann, XI–XXIII; Elbogen, 129–63. I agree with Elbogen that the word haftarah indicates the conclusion of the reading and not the conclusion of the service. Elbogen, 143; cf. Perrot, 153. See 2 Macc. 15:9; 4 Macc. 18:10–18; Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16, 29; 24:27, 44; John 1:45; Acts 24:14; 28:23; Rom. 3:21, etc.

[19] Perrot, 153, 157; Elbogen, 143–39; Werner, 55; Old, 1:10, 102, 130.

[20] Among Hellenistic Jews, “word of exhortation” was an idiom for the synagogue sermon (Acts 13:15; Heb. 13:22). It also “appears to be a fixed expression for the sermon in early Christian circles,” William Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (Dallas: Word, 1991) 568. See Lawrence Wills, “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” Harvard Theological Review (1984): 277–99; Carl Black II, “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon,” Harvard Theological Review (1988): 1–8.

[21] On the synagogue liturgy in the Second-Temple era, see Bradshaw, 21–46 and works cited therein; Binder, 389–435; cf. Elbogen; Oesterley.

[22] See Acts 6:9–10; 9:20; 13:5, 13–48; 14:1; 16:13–16; 17:1–3, 10–11, 17; 18:4–8, 19, 24–28; 19:8–10; 28:23.

[23] This is not to ignore the influence of the Temple on early Christian liturgy. In my opinion, one should not dichotomize Temple worship and synagogue worship as if they were contradictory. As Binder demonstrates, it is simply incorrect to categorize the Temple as “the place of the cult” on the one side, and the synagogue as “the place of the scroll” on the other, Binder 403–4; cf. Peter Leithart, “Synagogue or Temple? Models for the Christian Worship” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2002): 119–33. See Aidan Kavanagh, “Jewish Roots of Christian Worship,” in Paul Fink, The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990), 617–23; Hedegård, XIII–XL; Oesterley; Clifford Dugmore, The Influence of the Synagogue Upon Divine Office (London: Faith Press, 1964). For more recent studies, see Bradshaw, 21–46 and works cited therein.

[24] See Crockett; Leon Morris, “The Saints and the Synagogue” in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church, Michael Wilkins et al., eds. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 38–52; Michael Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974); Leon Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale, 1964); Aileen Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960).

[25] The word “reading” in this verse indicates “the public reading of Scripture” in particular. See Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Frederick Danker et al., eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 60–61; cf. J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1963) 105; see Luke 4:16; Acts 13:15, 27; 15:21; 2 Cor. 3:14–15; Deut. 31:11 (LXX); Neh. 8:8 (LXX); 1 Esdr. 9:48; 2 Clem. 19:1; Melito 1:1. According to Lane, “The definite expression ‘the exhortation’ is a synonymous designation for the sermon. It referred specifically to the exposition and application of the Scripture that had been read aloud to the assembled congregation,” William Lane, 568; cf. Old, 1:244–50.

[26] Willy Rordorf, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1968) 267; cf. Werner, 58.

[27] See Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 3–10; cf. Old, 1:265–69; Rordorf, 262–73; Oesterley, 117–18.

[28] Everett Ferguson, “Justin Martyr and the Liturgy,” Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994), 271–72.

[29] Old, 1:267.

[30] See Hughes Oliphant Old, Leading in Prayer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 139–74; cf. Hughes Oliphant Old, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship, American ed. (Black Mountain: Worship Press, 2004), 211.

[31] This is also the model found in The Westminster Directory for Public Worship. See Richard Muller et al., Scripture and Worship (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2007), 121, 122, 146.

[32] See Glen J. Clary, “Holy Communion in the Theology of John Knox,” The Confessional Presbyterian 7 (2011), 18.

[33] The lectio continua was carried over from the synagogue into Christian worship and remained the basic rule for the first few centuries of the church, as we see in the sermons of Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, etc. It was eventually supplanted, however, by lectionaries and the liturgical calendar. See Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

This article was originally published in the January 2013 issue of Ordained Servant.

Throughout that year, day after day, hordes of hungry saints swarmed to Zwingli’s pulpit to feast on the spiritual banquet that God’s servant set before them from the Holy Scriptures. His sermons were electrifying, “and the excitement of revival and reform came upon the city.” It was Zwingli’s preaching that “gave birth to the Reformation, maintained it, and carried it through to a successful conclusion.”

Under Zwingli’s leadership, the city of Zurich began to reform its liturgical customs one by one. The Mass, the baptismal rite, the church calendar and the daily office were all reshaped according to the Word. Relics and images were removed from the churches; altars were replaced with tables; priestly vestments were discarded. The whole liturgy of the church was gradually and thoroughly overhauled. It was reformed according to scripture, the only infallible standard for worship.

At the center of the Reformers’ efforts to purify Christian worship was the sacrament of holy communion. The enormous amount of attention that they gave to the doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper is bewildering to many modern evangelicals, who tend to treat the Supper “casually, as a pleasant and cozy ceremony,” which seldom inspires serious theological reflection. For the Reformers, however, it was a matter of first importance, one that often led to vigorous controversy. From the Colloquy of Marburg (1529) to the Colloquy of Montbéliard (1586), eucharistic doctrine was fervently debated among Protestants. Indeed, “intramural Protestant polemics focused on the Lord’s Supper more than on any other single issue.”

In the century of the Reformation the Supper was the single most commonly discussed topic. Protestants and Roman Catholics alike spilled more ink over this than over justification by faith or the authority of the Bible. It was the litmus test that defined a man’s religion.

The Reformers were zealous to recover the Biblical doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper. Their concern was not only with eucharistic theology but with eucharistic worship. Hence, in the early 1520s, they turned their attention to revising the communion service. Their first attempts to reform the liturgy were rather modest. They generally involved at least three things: translating the prayers into the common tongue, removing all sacrificial language and serving both elements to the whole congregation.

In February of 1524, Diebold Schwarz, a minister in Strasbourg, “celebrated a German Mass much like the service Luther” had proposed in his Formula missae (1523). Although the service “was not a Reformed communion liturgy but an expurgated Mass, it was an important step toward a truly Reformed celebration of the sacrament.” That same year, the Strasbourg Reformers began calling for “a more radical reform of the eucharistic liturgy,” and by Easter of 1525, they had instituted a Reformed communion service.

Over the next few decades, the Reformers of Strasbourg and other cities continued to revise the liturgy, and by the time that Calvin produced the Genevan Psalter (1542), he had at his disposal a rich tradition of Reformed eucharistic customs to build upon. Indeed, the Genevan Psalter is the culmination of a widespread, communal effort to reform the liturgy. As Hughes Oliphant Old says, it is “in a very real sense the liturgy not of Calvin, not of Geneva, but the liturgy of the Reformed church.”

It is significant that Calvin’s title for the Genevan Psalter claims that the liturgical forms contained therein are modelled after the customs of the ancient church:

La Forme des prières et chantz ecclésiastiques avec la manière d’administrer les sacremens … selon la coustume de l’église ancienne.

Calvin and his colleagues frequently claimed patristic support for their liturgical ideas, and we have every reason, says Hughes Oliphant Old, to take them seriously. They deliberately developed their approach to worship by returning, first and foremost, to the scriptures but also to the fathers of the church, whom they regarded as fallible, though generally reliable, interpreters of scripture.

As Calvin understood it, to worship in continuity with the “the primitive and purer church” was to align oneself with the apostolic tradition. This, of course, was his motivation for reforming the liturgy “according to the custom of the ancient church.”

[This excerpt was taken from The Eucharist in the Didache by Glen Clary.]