The next step in our consideration of Homo Liturgicus, Man the Worshiper, is somewhat obvious.We have seen thus far that man was created with a sacrificial goal in mind, and that part of Adam’s priestly duties as guardian of the Edenic sanctuary included his being willing to engage in holy war with the serpentine intruder, even it meant laying down his life for his bride. Adam’s priestly failure resulted in his being desecrated, profaned, and rendered unfit to offer acceptable sacrifice to his Creator.
In my last post I tried to show that the Son of God, in his life of self-emptying kenosis, both fulfilled man’s sacrificial role and vividly demonstrated before man’s eyes the very self-giving dynamic that has existed within the Godhead for all eternity.
We now turn to Calvary.
The Bible is very clear that what was happening upon the cross of Jesus Christ was much more than would have met the eye. To the casual observer, what was transpiring was a fairly typical Roman execution: Crosses? Check. Centurions? Check. Condemned criminals? Check.
But all the faithful understand that this was no ordinary crucifixion, at least not for the Man in the middle of the two thieves on his right and his left. For him, this was nothing short of a sacrifice. We read in Hebrews 9:24-26; 10:5-7, 10-14:
For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
The sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death is so ingrained in us that we rarely ask the question, “Where did the apostles get this idea in the first place?” It’s a fair question if you think about it, for none of the elements of a Jewish sacrifice were present there on that hill outside the city’s walls: Temple? Nope. Priest? Nope. Altar? Nope.
I think the best answer to this question is found as we root the crucifixion in the context of the Jewish Passover that was in full swing at the very same time in Jerusalem. In my next post I will seek to do this in greater detail, but for our purposes here I would just point out that this is indeed how the apostles understood Christ’s death:
I think the best answer to this question is found as we root the crucifixion in the context of the Jewish Passover that was in full swing at the very same time in Jerusalem. In my next post I will seek to do this in greater detail, but for our purposes here I would just point out that this is indeed how the apostles understood Christ’s death:
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (I Cor. 5:6-8).Note that Christ is here called “our Passover Lamb” whose sacrifice enables us to “keep the festival.” In ch. 10 Paul draws a comparison between the paschal sacrifice offered by the Jews under the Old Covenant and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper:
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 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. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons I Cor. 10:14-21).We see from this passage that the early church clearly understood the death of Christ to be a sacrifice that was intimately connected with the Jewish Passover sacrifices, for it was this transformation of the Jewish Passover instituted in the upper room that set the stage for a sacrificial interpretation of the events of Calvary in the first place. Thus Christ’s death is to be seen, in part at least, as his fulfillment of the role that had been given originally to the first Adam: Adam should have offered himself in self-giving love on behalf of his bride, which is precisely what Christ in fact did:
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.... Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:1-2, 25-27).
Thoughts?

Of course there are those who would see your choice of imagery as a violation of the Second Commandment...
ReplyDeleteReally? I specifically made sure I chose an image that didn't depict the man Jesus.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, an odd statement.
ReplyDeleteJJS:
ReplyDeleteI like the direction your thought is headed in, but I'm still not clear on how you think that Passover prefigured the fulfillment, in Jesus' passion, of the role that Adam failed to perform. Fleshing that out would clarify the historical connections.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI'll get there eventually, but basically my point is that there is such a thing as sacrifice that is non-propitiatory (Israel's law contained various sacrifices, some of which were sin offerings and others were thank offerings). Thus Adam could be said to have had a sacrificial telos before the fall, even when there was no sin to atone for.
Once the fall happened, all man's attempts to give back to God were rendered illegitimate because of man's condition as a desecrated priest. Thus Christ's sin offering enabled man to once again offer himself in fulfillment of Adam's original mandate.
So the Passover prefigured Jesus' sacrifice, by which Adam's original mandate is fulfilled (since he was supposed to have been willing to lay down his life for his bride). Once the sin barrier is removed, man can, by virtue of his union with Christ, live the sacrificial life that we were originally created to live.
Ka-peesh?
I get how Christ's self-offering "removed the sin barrier" to man's "sacrificial telos," but I still don't get what the OC Passover has to do with it.
ReplyDelete[Describing work being carried out by order of the Puritan Long Parliament - you know, the same one that appointed the members of the Westminster Assembly]
ReplyDelete"As well as work at Westminster Abbey, the Harley Committee was also directly involved in overseeing the reformation of St. Margarets...[A] receipt, dated 10 June, 1645, give us a clue to the sort of imagery which was being removed. Some thirty-five feet of new glass was installed in the north side of the chancel 'where the holy lames were'...[which included] the lamb as a symbol of Christ."
(J. Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm during the English Civil War, [Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2003], p.93)
Say, I apologize for the snarkiness of my last comment. It was uncalled for. It's just that I thought more people would be aware of this kind of attitude toward paschal imagery among the Puritans than appear to be.
ReplyDeleteJJS, Charles G., et al,
ReplyDeleteI’m glad that Passover imagery and the Cross are brought up. I’ve tried for days to post at another blog I frequent where the issue of imagery has been recently discussed, but where despite the championing of un-tethered criticism of others my comments remain silenced, so I’ll take a bit of liberty here, if I may. Both JJS and Charles G. offer sound admonition, and as consistent with Reformed theology, but language is a curious thing, as are exegesis and hermeneutics, not to mention faithfulness of conformity to the transformational nature of divine Word – to a church in splendor, without spot or blemish, walking in love. We may scrutinize the commandment on imagery from many a perspective, as many have, but we’re still left with the perspicuity of definition, analysis, interpretation, and application. Many of us have long debated the issues prior, and, for my part, I find the images of Christ quite problematic, but without going into a lot of detail, I just want to briefly offer four things for further consideration.
First, while admitting they were still formative times on this and many issues (cf. it initially contained Apocryphal texts as well), a star of the Reformation for English-speaking peoples, the 1599 Geneva Bible was an illustrated one, and contained a few depictions in symbolic stature worthy of note, including, an illustration of Ezekiel’s vision of the wheels with a throne above the firmament on which sat “the similitude of a man”, and at the start of the New Testament, a depiction of the Lamb of God, a lamb with a cross and banner, that is somewhat iconic even to this day.
Second, most alphabets began as rough or rudimentary pictorials or hieroglyphs, making our very words of “God” and “Lord” a consideration of some level of symbolic imagery, most assuredly not what the Second Commandment had in mind. Somewhat ancillary, to this day many among the Jewish or Messianic communities drop vowels or otherwise render “G_d”, “L_rd”, or such; which still, of course, mean “God”, “Lord”, and such. That is, to what extent is the commandment to be qualified in representative image?
Third, by way of storied illustration, I once had the opportunity to help decorate or furnish a new church facility. In the religious art I provided, I was most knowledgeable of our Presbyterian sensitivities and careful not to offer any pictorial painting of Jesus. But this had not always been the case for this particular church (and no doubt many others), where a dedicated, enthusiastic, and providential family had years previously gifted the church with a most traditional painting of Christ, which the church refused to the loss of continued membership of the family. That is, sensitivities run both ways, and while we’re admirably upholding Reformed doctrine and safeguarding our congregants, the application of such ought always to be ministerial of peace as well as purity. Slapping the hand of a theological child who’s finger-painted Jesus on the wall needs a good hug and assurances of love amidst discipline. Give us the hug even amidst debate, it's the non-propitiatory sacrificial thing in love to do.
And finally, where would we be without the imagery shadowed in the Old Testament and fleshed out to clarity in the New? In the sometime Reformed claiming of Jewish symbolism as anachronistic, we lost the better appreciation of the intimate connection and continuity between the sacrificial covenants which the Early Church clearly appreciated by way of symbol and imagery, even without Temple and Ark, Tablet and Rod, by way of the Cross. I’ve noticed many an iconoclast bulletin depicting the bread and cup. Are they any less a testament in imagery of Christ than a sacrificial lamb (or Sacrificial Lamb)? We may rightly frown on use of a crucifix, or of idolatrising many an other image, but images are not always idols, and, in love, the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death is graphic sometimes beyond the extent that mere symbol of word conveys.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI get how Christ's self-offering "removed the sin barrier" to man's "sacrificial telos," but I still don't get what the OC Passover has to do with it.
It was in the context of the Jewish Passover that Jesus instituted the Eucharist, which effectively transformed the feast (I Cor. 5). If it were not for the transformed Passover meal, the apostles would not have been able to see the crucifixion as a sacrifice instead of an execution.
Thanks for your thoughts, Grit.
ReplyDeleteBut to be honest, I was hoping for more interaction with the words in the post rather than the picure (insert frowny emoticon here).
(happy faced emoticon) I tried to offer a bit of both. I like the summary start very much, where "man was created with a sacrificial goal in mind", expectant of an acceptable sacrifice. It fits very well into my considerations of supralapsarianism.
ReplyDeleteTransformation of the Jewish Passover is worthy of its own post topic (as maybe too the picture). Again, I think in throwing out the Roman wash, many of we Reformed have been more inclined toward seeing Chist as abrogating the Jewishness of Christianity by substitution, rather than sacrificially transforming the mandated feasts and Law. Many Reformers tend to see both Judaism and Romanism as Pharasaical leven to be cleansed out. As you note, 1Cor. 5:8 still would have us, "celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (ESV).
JJS:
ReplyDeleteYou're right, of course, but I think there's something still more basic here. Can we not see the Exodus, of which the Passover Feast is the commemoration, as God's making the Jews into his liberated Bride? And does not the Bride, incorporating the Gentiles, achieve her union with her Groom in Jesus, precisely by emulating his self-sacrifice in her life?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteCan we not see the Exodus, of which the Passover Feast is the commemoration, as God's making the Jews into his liberated Bride? And does not the Bride, incorporating the Gentiles, achieve her union with her Groom in Jesus, precisely by emulating his self-sacrifice in her life?
Yes, absolutely. I don't want to say everything in one post, of course, but you are rightly anticipating where I am headed. Jesus offers the consummate Passover sacrifice, the point of which is that we partake of it. That can only happen through our union with him, by which Jew and Gentile are united to form one new man. Through the sacraments we participate in Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice, and by them we are enabled to live out that sacrificial dynamic in our daily practice.
Baby steps, though. Baby steps....
JJS:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the lead post. It is arresting, isn't it, to see this exodus redemption in, for example, the writings of John, Peter, and Paul?
You said above: ... we rarely ask the question, “Where did the apostles get this idea in the first place?” It’s a fair question if you think about it, for none of the elements of a Jewish sacrifice were present there on that hill outside the city’s walls: Temple? Nope. Priest? Nope. Altar? Nope.
I've wondered if it isn't related to the way the biblical authors see cosmography. In Scripture, creation, Eden, man (individually and corporately) are all viewed as temples (aka holy places, houses, dwellings). Hebrews 3.1-5 and chs. 8-9 are two places where some of this cosmography is more explicit. It appears that, as God moves us through the history of His revelation and redemption, He shifts our attention from earthly, temporary copies and shadows (symbols, types) of heavenly, eternal realities (archetypes, antitypes) to the heavenly, eternal realities themselves. The shadows are not simply replaced by the realities; they are fulfilled in them.