"As oft as ye drink it": How Often Should Communion be Celebrated?

Churches vary widely as to how often they celebrate the Lords Supper. Often, there are differences even within the same denominations and affiliations. There are churches that have a communion service at every meeting, some just once per year, and just about everything in between. I was asked what frequency I thought was best and why? My answer was that weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper is preferred. In this post, I hope to give some insight into why I think that.

Before I do that, I want to point out that there is so much variation regarding how often churches celebrate the Lord’s Supper because the Bible does not give an explicit command about how often we are to do it. As a result, each church must decide based upon the examples and instructions found in the Bible, their understanding of the purpose of the celebration, and the needs of their congregations. As a result, we need to be careful about becoming too dogmatic. In fact, I hold a minority view among the elders of my own church where we celebrate monthly.

Although we do not have an explicit command in the Bible, we should nevertheless attempt to base our view on what scripture does reveal. Probably the most important verse on the matter is Acts 20:7 which says, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” The reason they were gathered together was to “break bread”. If gathering on the first day of the week to break bread is a reference to a celebration of the Lord’s Table then this is a clear indication that at least one of the congregations in the early church met weekly to celebrate communion. We know that the early church used the phrase “break bread” to refer to devotional meals. For example, in Acts 2:42 we learn the apostles devoted themselves to teaching, the fellowship, breaking bread, and prayers. All four things were associated with the worship of the church. The problem is that the Bible also uses the phrase “break bread” for the sharing of regular meals.

Even so, I do not think Luke is talking about common meals in Acts 20:7. First, Luke tells us it is the first day of the week. The only specific day of the week mentioned in relation to Christians gathering for worship in the New Testament is the first day of the week. In the context of this verse, we learn that Paul was with them for 7 days and surely he spoke to them throughout that time but only the first day of the week receives special mention. The day described obviously involved a meeting for fellowship and worship. Since they gathered to break bread, we assume that occurred. We also see them receiving the ministry of the Word from Paul. The apostle makes it clear in his letter that when the church gathers it is not for a common meal but rather for a fraternal meal (1 Cor. 11:33-34). It seems unlikely then that the church would gather on the first day simply to eat.

While I find the evidence from Acts 20:7 compelling, it is not definitive. Acts is a narrative. As such, it describes what happened but we cannot assume that this is what always happened or was always supposed to happen. Still, I think it is significant that the one New Testament reference we might have regarding the frequency of communion indicates that at least some apostolic congregations celebrated weekly.

Another passage that is important to the discussion is 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 where Paul says “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” and “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup…”  Many use these verses to support the idea that the frequency of the celebration is up to the discretion of the church. Indeed, this entire section (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) is Paul teaching on the Lord’s Supper and nowhere does he give a command that it should be done on a particular day. The phrases “as often as you drink it” and “as often as you eat this” seem to leave it open for the church to decide.

The context of the passage, however, places the emphasis on the fact that they should not use the fellowship meal as an occasion to make fleshly distinctions within the church. The point is that every time they must celebrate the meal in light of their relationship to one another in Christ. The point is how, not how often they had the meal. Although it is not specific, the context indicates that the celebration was frequent. In verses 17 and 18 we see that Paul uses the phrase “when you come together” in reference to their gathering as a church to worship. This same phrase appears in verse 20 when he says, “when you come together it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat”. It is reasonable to assume that the communion meal was therefore something they did whenever they met together as the church to worship.  The phrase appears again in verse 33 where Paul instructs them, “when you come together to eat, wait for one another” These commands make more sense if the coming together is related to gathering for worship and is frequent. At the very least, the Corinthian passage shows that we should not neglect the celebration of the Lord’s Table and should make it a frequent part of our worship.

Another reason I think “frequent” should be “weekly” is liturgical rather than exegetical. The communion is to be an anamnesis. The word comes from the Greek word Jesus used when He instituted the Lord’s Supper. He said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in [anamnesis] of me.” The word means to remember or memorialize and it seems Jesus intends a specific type of remembrance. The situation surrounding His institution of the communion provides a clue that Jesus is commanding more than the simple recollection of a past event.

Jesus is drawing upon the context of the Passover celebration. Most of us are familiar enough with the Passover Seder to know that at a particular point the youngest person asks the father the famous question “why is this night different from all other nights”. The father then shares the mighty works God has performed to save His people. This recounting of salvation history is the “remembrance” or “memorial” but it is not simply a list of historical events. The Seder itself is a celebration of those events and faithful celebrants are identifying with them not as mere historical facts but as participants through their identity in the group. God’s actions were therefore acts of salvation for them as well as their ancestors. The Lord’s Supper is the culmination of the Passover meal because His sacrifice is the greatest of all redemptive acts. When he calls us to “do this in remembrance” of Him, he is asking us to celebrate Him as the mighty work of God in redeeming His people and keeping His promises. Through our identification with Him and His people, we are not only recalling what He did as a historical fact but are also testifying to our participation in it. God, through the sacrifice of Christ has saved us.

I believe a similar memorial & celebration should accompany the preaching of the Word, which is the proclamation of God’s mighty acts to redeem His people and keep His promises. Understood this way, the communion is not a somber meal but is truly both a celebration and a memorial. Combining the preaching of the Word with a time of personal identification of believers with the sacred history provides a liturgical coherence to the worship service. The elements of preaching, prayer, praise, and the Table compliment one another to provide an unmistakable Christ-centered focus to the service.

Some argue that celebrating too frequently can cause a loss of reverence for the ordinance and it may degenerate into empty ritual. Empty ritualism, however, is a matter of the heart rather than the schedule. Most who make this argument would never suggest that we should not have weekly prayer, praise, or sermons for the same reason. I believe the pattern we see in the Bible is that a celebration of the Lord’s Supper was part of the regular worship services in the apostolic church. Although not explicitly commanded, this practice provides a depth and unity to the weekly worship service reminding us that Christ stands at the center of the promises and it is through our union with Christ that we become partakers in them. 

Crosses Along the Highway

I am one of those strange people who enjoy hours of uninterrupted driving (as long as traffic is moving) because it usually gives me a long stretch of time where I can think. Obviously, while driving I have to stay focused on the road and what is going on around me. The result is a unique interplay between a series of immediate observations, related to the world that is quickly moving past me outside the vehicle, and whatever idea I am trying to focus on. It makes for some interesting connections! Last week, I spent a lot of time driving and I was particularly encouraged by the repeated site of three crosses along the road at irregular intervals. I have seen these kinds of crosses before but I became particularly aware of them on this trip because of the frequency with which I encountered them. I was encouraged because it was a repeated incentive for me to connect whatever I was thinking about at the moment to the most important truth I know, namely that Jesus Christ died for my sins.

Each cluster was comprised of a larger gold cross, flanked by two slightly smaller blue crosses, always placed so that they are easily seen from the road. A little bit of internet research revealed, the crosses were the work of Pastor Bernard Coffindaffer of Craigsville West Virginia. Bernard Coffindaffer was a WWII veteran of the U.S. Marines who served in the Pacific at Iwo Jima and Nagasaki. After the military, he earned a business degree and went on to become a successful businessman.

When he was 42 years old, Coffindaffer converted to Christianity and eventually became a Methodist minister. While still running his business he served several small churches in West Virginia. After encountering health issues pastor Coffindaffer decided to sell his company and focus his remaining energy on ministry work. A couple of years later he had a vision that convinced him that God wanted him to plant crosses. He had earned a good deal of money from his business and in 1984 he used his own funds to start the Crosses Across America project.

He set up an office in his home, hired a secretary, and employed seven work crews to travel across the country erecting the crosses on land donated for the displays. From 1984 until his death in 1993, pastor Coffindaffer spent over $3,000,000 of his own money and erected 1,864 clusters of crosses in 29 states, the District of Columbia, and the countries of Zambia and the Philippines. Dedication services were held at each site that included scripture reading and prayers. Pastor Coffindaffer explained the meaning behind the crosses saying, “They're up for only one sole reason, and that's this- to remind people that Jesus was crucified on a cross at Calvary for our sins, and that He Is soon coming again.” If there is a single message we all need to be reminded of constantly, it is that one.

I do not know much about pastor Coffindaffer or his theology but I appreciate the simple yet profound reminder that the crosses he planted have offered me in my travels.

King David's Righteousness

One of the fundamental assumptions of conservative Christians is that the Bible is the Word of God. As such, it must be without error and contradiction. This does not mean, however, that it is easy to understand how every passage fits together. Many things in the Bible are difficult to understand because they create tension in our fallen minds. I have found, however, that studying and meditating upon these difficulties often results in a deeper appreciation for the unity of the Bible and the depth and power of its teaching. I recently came across an example of this when thinking about God’s assessment of King David.

David is such a major example of faith in the Bible that he serves as a type of Jesus Christ. God often mentions David favorably. He is called a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14, Acts 13:22), he is commended for keeping the commandments and walking in the way of God (1 Kings 3:14), and the general pattern of his life was to worship and glorify God. In 1 Kings chapter 14, however, God says that king Jeroboam was not like David who “… kept my commandments and followed me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in my eyes…” (1 Kings 14:8).

If asked to list the heroes of the faith I am sure most of us would list David but how can God say that he did only what was right? After all, David violated the law on multiple occasions. He was an adulterer (2 Sam. 11:4), a murderer (2 Sam. 11:15), was prideful (1 Chron. 21:1, 7, 8), and a negligent father (1 Kings 1:6). His sins caused tremendous pain and anguish for himself, his family, and the nation. We know that God was aware of David’s sin and He cannot lie (1 Jn. 3:20, Heb. 6:18). We also know that God could not simply overlook the sins of David because of who David was (Acts 10:34, 1 Jn. 1:6). How then could God refer to David as someone who did only what was right?

The answer is great news for David and for you and me. Indeed, it is The Good News. God does not declare David righteous based on his keeping of the law. He does so based upon David’s connection to Jesus Christ through faith. Paul helps us to understand this in his letter to the Romans where he explains, 

“…the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Romans 3:21-28)

David lived before Jesus was crucified but Paul explains that God had passed over former sins. He made His grace available to those who believed prior to the cross even though the sacrifice had yet to be made. It is because of people like David, just as much as you and I, that the cross was necessary. The cross is a vindication of God’s righteousness in light of His acceptance of sinners like David on whom God showed favor. The cross, as just punishment sin, means that God’s declaration about David is true because through faith God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). David, through faith, was a partaker in the promise to stand holy and blameless before God in Christ (Eph. 1:4). Christ was his righteousness.

Although Christ was not yet crucified when David was alive, the sacrifice was a certainty. So certain that it is often described as made before the foundation of the world. The very identity of God Himself was the basis of its inevitability. He is all knowing, all-powerful, all merciful, and his grace endures forever. Because of this, His promises are absolute certainties. David believed in the promises and trusted God. God’s declaration that David is righteous therefore stands on the same foundation as His declaration of the righteousness of sinners who believe today. 

We are also sinners who deserve punishment and yet are declared justified by God if we are united to Christ through faith. David knew he was a sinner saved by grace through faith. David understood that the righteousness credited to him was an act of grace through faith and was unearned. This is why Paul says “David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” (Rom. 4:6-8)

God is just in not counting these sins because Christ has paid the penalty for them on behalf of those who believe (2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Pet. 2:24, 3:18). What a blessing it is to have such hope through the work of our wonderful savior. Jesus Christ saved David. We see the evidence of David’s faith in that although he sinned, he was repentant (Ps. 51:1-2). He was a child of grace whose desire was to glorify God and to worship Him alone. He was not a perfect man but was perfected through his union to Christ in faith (Heb. 10:14). I pray that the same is true for you.

Authorial Intent in Christ Centered Preaching, Part 2

In the previous post, I tried to show that although Christ centered preachers are often criticized for disregarding authorial intent in order to “make” every text about Jesus, a christocentric emphasis is not so much the result of exegetical method as of hermeneutical convictions. If Jesus is the culmination of all that the Old Testament writers said then applying their words to Christ and His work is recognizing rather than disregarding their original intent.

Nevertheless, the Bible is not a wax nose to be twisted into any shape that one desires, even if that shape is the shape of the cross. In this post, I would like to argue for a balanced approach to preaching Christ from all of the Bible while not ignoring the authorial intent of Old Testament writers. After all, if the Old Testament writers intend to present Christ then a faithful exegesis will be Christ centered and yet never disconnected from the purpose, structure, and context of their words.

If we take a balanced approach and explain the plain meaning of the text before making application of Christ, we will avoid many of the deficiencies of the positions at the extremes of either position. For example, some critics of Christ centered preaching accuse it of being light on practical application for a life of holiness while supporters criticize exemplary preaching of the Old Testament as bare moralism. The approach I am advocating allows for exemplary preaching within the context of redemptive-historical application. Some advocates of Christ centered preaching insist that every Christian sermon must explicitly present Christ while critics assert that the purpose of every sermon is to explain the meaning of the passage and that not every passage explicitly focusses on Jesus. The approach I support allows for the preacher to present Christ while explaining the plain meaning of Old Testament passages. I believe that these applications develop naturally from the text because Jesus and His work are the culmination of all Old Testament teaching.

There is not room here for a detailed analysis of the topic but a few basic concepts help provide boundaries for balancing authorial intent and Christ centeredness. First, as Walter Kaiser Jr. argues, we must read the Bible from front to back rather than back to front. Many advocates of Christ centered preaching insist that the fullness of New Testament revelation should inform our understanding of Old Testament passages. Some Christ centered advocates such as Ed Clowney and Graeme Goldsworthy argue that the full meaning of particular Old Testament texts may transcend the language and context of the original passage. Certainly, we should not read the Old Testament as if we do not have the New but as Kaiser points out, to disconnect the meaning of a passage from the actual words, context, and structure of the human author is to undermine the Bible as a standard of truth.

If, however, this is the case then how is it that I can claim that every passage is about Jesus Christ if many Old Testament texts are not explicitly messianic? The reason is that every passage to one degree or another connects to a series of trajectories that culminate in Christ and His work (past and/or future). Every text is related to God in some way, whether it is His kingdom, His promises, His people, etc. These grand themes such as God dwelling with His people, the coming King, the blessing to the nations, God creating for Himself a holy people, run throughout the Bible from start to finish. The connection between God and the full revelation of Himself to human beings in Christ is the basis for a natural application of Old Testament passages to Christ. If we are preaching with the whole Bible in mind and yet are reading it from front to back we can clearly explain the natural meaning of the Old Testament passage based upon the context and purpose of the human author and then make legitimate application to Christ and His work. Since Jesus Christ is the perfect revelation of God, we are to understand God the Father through Him (Jn. 14:9, 2 Cor. 4:4, Heb. 1:3). We therefore are able to make the proper and intended application of the Old Testament without reading meaning back from the New Testament. The New Testament revelation is the culmination rather than the foundation of the Old.

If the preacher faithfully preaches the meaning of the Old Testament passage, there will be a natural pathway to Christ or His work. The text does not have to be explicitly messianic in order for the application of the text to be legitimately Christological. The reason is that even the non-messianic texts work together to build toward a fulfillment in Jesus and His work. Here are just a few of many examples that would encompass a wide range of Old Testament texts.

• The Kingdom / Christ is the promised king
• The Law (holiness of the people of God) / New Covenant in Christ’s blood & His perfect righteousness
• The Wisdom of God / Christ the divine Logos & wisdom of God, also Christ who applied the Law perfectly and is the wise teacher who is greater than Solomon
• Defeat of the enemies of God / the Cross & the 2^nd coming
• God dwelling with His people / the incarnation & new Jerusalem

We can preach wisdom and exemplary points and still connect the texts to their culmination in Christ through either promise-fulfillment or a redemptive-historical approach. Many strong authorial intent advocates are critical of the methods of the redemptive-historical school but if you agree that the intent of the Old Testament prophets was to point to Christ, (1 Pet. 1:10-12) it is possible to incorporate much that is valuable in their methods without abandoning a commitment to a plain hermeneutic.

For example, Ed Clowney is well known for his triangle diagram that shows the relationship between a particular Old Testament event and its typological reference to Christ. Clowney argued that many Old Testament events have symbolic references to broader themes that then develop throughout the history of redemption until they finalize in Christ. His method was to preach those typological references to Christ always emphasizing an organic relationship between the promises and their fulfillment.

Many criticize the direct move from Old Testament symbol to New Testament referent because it opens the door to potentially disregard the Old Testament passage in its own context and the symbolic connections can only be certain if they are explained in the New Testament. I agree with Clowney that there are many more typological connections between the Old and New Testaments than are directly explained by the New Testament writers and I think it is legitimate to preach them. Clowney’s method is very helpful (as are his oft-ignored guidelines on identifying legitimate O.T. symbols). However, in order to maintain control of the exegesis it is more helpful for the preacher to walk the congregation through the process of moving from passage to symbol to fulfillment than moving direct from symbol to fulfillment (move along the 90-degree turn rather than along the hypotenuse). That way, the typological insights are clearly presented as arising from the relationship between the Old and New Testament passages in their natural contexts with the Old culminating in the New.

Other advocates of Christ centered preaching have suggested additional approaches that can be used while remaining true to authorial intent. For example, Bryan Chappell suggests that we pay particular attention to what he calls the fallen condition focus. This means that every Old Testament text in some sense reveals something about a particular sinful condition. By examining that condition, we can demonstrate that our contemporary congregations struggle against the same fallen condition. We can examine God’s response to that condition in the Old Testament and place that response in the broader story of God’s ultimate solution to the problem in Christ. Sidney Greidanus also argues for the need to build from the Old Testament text and suggests seven legitimate ways to move from the Old Testament message to Christ. These include:

1)      Redemptive-Historical Progression

2)      Promise-Fulfillment

3)      Typology

4)      Analogy

5)      Longitudinal Themes

6)      New Testament References

7)      Contrast

It is true that sometimes preachers use Christ centered approaches in ways that fail to honor authorial intent, but the blame lies with those preachers and not the general conviction to preach Christ from all of scripture. It is possible to take a balanced approach that allows us to draw out the Christological focus already present in the Old Testament (as well as the other lessons) without superimposing the New Testament over the Old. Rather than following any particular preaching fads, we are called to present the Word of God in a way that honestly emphasizes both the unity of the scripture as well as the unique contribution of each part.

“… our concern is not to preach Christ to the exclusion of the “whole counsel of God” but rather to view the whole counsel of God, with all its teachings, laws, prophecies, and visions, in the light of Jesus Christ.  At the same time, it should be evident that we must not read the incarnate Christ back into the Old Testament text, which would be eisegesis, but that we should look for legitimate ways of preaching Christ from the Old Testament in the context of the New.”

-Dr. SidneyGreidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament pg. 227-228

Authorial Intent in Christ Centered Preaching

“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (Jn. 17:7)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (Jn. 14:6)

One common criticism of Christ centered preaching is that it fails to pay enough attention to the authorial intent of Old Testament passages. What many critics of Christ centered preaching fail to appreciate; however, is that the exegetical conclusions of Christ centered preachers are based upon a hermeneutical principal that is deeper than simply inserting Jesus into their sermons. The argument of Christ centered preachers is that the Old Testament authors’ original intent was for their writings to be understood and applied christologically. They argue that we do not need to read Christ back into the Old Testament because He is already there. The debate should not be about the contrast between an emphasis on authorial intent and Christ centeredness, but rather on the degree to which the authors intended their writing to be about Jesus Christ.

 Before we begin, I would like to make a couple important points. First, authorial intent and context are essential to a proper understanding of the Bible. Allegorical or mystical interpretation is improper and undermines the authority of scripture. It is simply not appropriate to ignore the words, structure, and context of the Old Testament passage in order to have Jesus pop out of every story. Second, there are many examples of irresponsible exegesis in Christ centered tradition just as there are in other traditions. I am not defending irresponsible applications of a Christ centered reading of the Old Testament.

The Bible itself teaches that the Old Testament is to be understood christologically. As a result, interpreting an Old Testament passage without regard to its function in the broader redemptive narrative that culminates in Christ and His kingdom is to ignore the larger context of those passages and the intent of the human authors. Jesus taught that the writers of the Old Testament were speaking about Him. He criticizes the Jewish leaders for their misunderstanding of the scriptures in that they did not recognize that they spoke about Him (Jn. 5:39). He tells them that Moses is the one who accuses them before the Father because had they believed Moses, they would believe in Him because Moses wrote of Him (Jn. 5:46). The implication is that the authorial intent of Moses was to speak of Christ and that those who read his words without a christological focus misunderstand him.

Jesus does not only make this claim about Moses, He says similar things about all of the Old Testament writers. He said that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced (Jn. 8:56).  After His resurrection when He appeared to the disciples on the road to Emmaus he calls them fools because they did not recognize the Old Testament teaching regarding the messiah (Lk. 24:25-26). Luke then records that He then gave them a Christ centered interpretation of the entire Old Testament (Lk. 24:27). We should not assume that he simply pointed out a few messianic passages because we are told in verse 32 that He “opened” the scriptures to them and again in verse 45 that “opened their minds to understand the scriptures” (Lk. 24:32,45).  Jesus is teaching them that He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

This teaching is central to the ministry of the apostles. Indeed, it would not be an overstatement to say that to a large degree the New Testament is a commentary on the Old Testament. Peter explains to the crowd at Pentecost that David spoke about the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:25,31). Like Jesus, he does not limit this claim to one prophet but also claims that all the prophets spoke of Jesus (Acts 3:18). Later, when he writes 1 Peter he makes a claim that has astounding hermeneutical consequences regarding authorial intent. He says,

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” (1 Peter 1:10-12)

Peter is writing to those who have believed the Gospel and says the prophets wrote about the salvation that was to come to them, that the prophets inquired about this, that the prophesy came through the Spirit of Christ working in them, and that they predicted the sufferings and glory of Jesus. He also says explicitly that it was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but “you” (believers in Christ)! This is astounding because it reveals that not only is Jesus the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies but that the prophets knew that. Of course, they did not have a complete picture and they inquired about the timing etc., but they intended their words to refer to something beyond their immediate circumstances.

In a similarly amazing statement, the author to the Hebrews tells us that the great heroes of faith in the Old Testament did not receive what was promised. In fact, apart from those who have trusted in the Gospel of Christ they would not be made perfect (Heb. 11:39-40). The coming of the kingdom of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ is the culmination of all the promises and faith of the Old Testament.

Paul likewise assumes that the Old Testament writers intended to speak about Christ. His references to this are so numerous and so intertwined with his writing that it would be nearly impossible to list them. It is clear that he understands his ministry as building upon what the Old Testament taught (Acts 24:14, 26:22-23). Paul describes his ministry and that of the other apostles as preaching Christ crucified, or preaching the riches of Christ (1 Cor. 1:23, Eph. 3:8). It is interesting to see how he actually did this.

One of the best examples is Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:13-43. He was in Pisidian Antioch and after the reading of the Law and Prophets; he was invited by the leaders to address the congregation. He begins with the Old Testament and works through the narrative of redemptive history right into the New Testament. While connecting all of this material he presents Christ as the central theme. I just quickly looked over that sermon and I counted between 18 and 20 distinct references to the Old Testament. This sermon is saturated with the Old Testament and is designed to present Jesus Christ and the Gospel explicitly. There is no allegory; Christ is presented as the intended focus of those texts. This is apparently not a unique sermon for Paul because he delivers it extemporaneously and we are told that it is Paul’s normal approach to go to the Jews first and reason with them from the scriptures (Acts 17:2). Remember, that “the scriptures” means the Old Testament.

All of the apostles used preaching opportunities to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ and they usually do this by showing that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. It is the assumption of the New Testament writers that Jesus is very much present in the Old Testament and is in view when the prophets are writing. The authors are so confident of this that on occasion they attribute the very words of the prophets to Jesus Himself. Just one example is found in Hebrews where the author quotes Psalm 22 as being the words of Jesus (Heb. 2:10-12, Ps. 22:22).

Hundreds of other examples could be given but I hope this is sufficient to show that a commitment to preaching Christ from the Old Testament is not simply the result of disregarding authorial intent. Rather, redemptive historical preaching assumes as a hermeneutical principal that the Old Testament authors intended their words to be applied to Christ. The question is therefore not if it is OK to ignore authorial intent in order to present the gospel (it is not), but how we can understand and apply the Old Testament to Christ and the church properly. I plan to examine this exegetical question in the next post.  

Read Part 2

For No Word of God is Impossible

The Bible teaches that God is omnipotent, meaning that He is all-powerful. This truth is a great comfort to believers not because power itself provides comfort but because it means that God is capable of doing what He promises. Our only hope in salvation is trusting in the promises of God, that He is willing and capable of keeping His word. The idea that there is nothing in the universe powerful enough to thwart the purposes of God is the reason for the hope that sustains the Christian life.  

The Bible emphasizes the connection between the power of God and the performance of His word in various ways. One of my favorite examples I first heard in a lecture by Dr. Edmund Clowney as he was commenting on the Christmas story.

In the first chapter of Luke, after the angel explains to Mary that she will have a son who will be the fulfillment of the messianic promises, Mary asks how this is possible since she is a virgin. The angel explains that the child will be the child of God and then he says, “For nothing will be impossible with God.” (Luke 1:34-38)

We might read this as a simple statement about the power of God but the statement is not merely an assertion of the omnipotence of God. It also highlights a connection between what God promises and His ability to bring it to pass. What the angel actually says is ὄτι [For] οὐκ [not/nothing] ἀδυνατήσει [shall be impossible] παρὰ [with] τοῦ [the] θεοῦ [God] πᾶν [every] ρῆμα [thing spoken or uttered]. The word ρῆμα (rhema) literally means that which is spoken or uttered.

The usual translation that no-thing is impossible draws upon a Hebrew pattern where a reference to a spoken work can either mean the word itself or the thing the word refers to. The typical translation communicates the main point that God has the power to bring this to pass and so is not a bad translation. The phrase, however, can also be translated “for no word of God is impossible” or “for no word of God will fail”. Translating the statement more literally highlights a number of important connections both in the immediate text and in the overall Biblical story.

The angel has just explained that Mary’s child is the fulfillment of the prophesies of the Old Testament. He is declaring to her that all of those seemingly impossible promises in which Israel had placed its hope were to be fulfilled in her child. These prophesies and promises were the words that God had uttered. To trust in the promises is the same as trusting in His word. Notice the way that Mary responds. She says, “I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” She is essentially saying that the words she just heard sound impossible but she believes them because she is a servant of God (Lk. 1:38). The emphasis of this dialogue is not God’s power as an abstract concept. What is emphasized is the connection between the power of His word and His faithfulness in acting to bring those promises into reality.

The phrase the angel uses also highlights a particular connection between the ultimate fulfillment of the promises in Mary’s child with a previous promise that pointed toward it. Remember that God had promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations and that the world would be blessed through his seed. When he was 99 years old, still without the promised child, The Angel of the Lord visited him and told him that Sarah would have a child the next year. Sarah, who was listening to the conversation, laughed because it seemed absurd that she would have a child at her age (Gen. 18:12-13).  The Angel knew she laughed, and asks Abraham “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Gen. 18:14). This is the same statement made to Mary but in question form. The Hebrew word dabar, translated as “anything” literally means a word that is spoken. As mentioned above, it often refers to the thing spoken about rather than the statement itself but in this case, the question could be translated “Is any utterance (word) of Jehovah too marvelous?”

The statement of the angel to Mary is not just information, but is also intended to remind us of God’s previous faithfulness to Abraham and Sarah. Sarah thought that an old barren woman having a child was impossible but God showed His power in keeping the promise when Isaac was born. The name Isaac means laughter so the very name of her child was a reminder of the answer to the question that the angel had asked, “Is any word of Jehovah too marvelous/difficult?” The promise to Mary is even more unlikely than the one given to Sarah so it is understandable that Mary asks how it is possible. The angel’s answer, while sufficient in itself, would almost certainly have reminded Mary of the story of Sarah and the birth of Isaac. Her attention is therefore called not only to the power of God but also to His history of keeping His promises.

While Isaac was a partial fulfillment of the promise, final fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham would not happen until Jesus Christ came. Christ is the ultimate answer to the question about God’s ability to bring His word into reality. The answer to Mary’s question is also the answer to the question that The Angel of the Lord asked Abraham. The answer is that no word of God is impossible and the proof is God keeping His promises in Jesus Christ. Jesus and His work secures the fulfillment of all the promises to the patriarchs and prophets (1 Pet. 1:12, Heb. 11:39). The power, grace, mercy, and love of God are made apparent through His sure word “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

What an encouragement this is to us! The angels who visited Sarah and Mary did not encourage them by pointing to their unique experiences or circumstances. They were encouraged by a reminder of the trustworthiness of God’s word. We have hope because the marvelous promises of God’s word are 100% certain because they are secured by His sovereign power (1 Pet. 1:3-5, 1:23-25). 

Review: Next Generation Leader by Andy Stanley

http://christianaudio.com/next-generation-leader-andy-stanley

Christianaudio.com has recently released Next Generation Leader by Andy Stanley. In the book, well-known pastor Andy Stanley teaches five traits that he sees as essential to the development and success of any leader. As the title suggests, the book is aimed to provide helpful advice to those who are emerging as, or desire to be, the next generation of leaders. The book is clearly written, easy to follow, and the narration by Lloyd James is excellent.

Stanley explains and gives examples of the following five essential leadership traits:

1. Competence
2. Courage
3. Clarity
4. Coaching (even leaders need coaches)
5. Character

Much of the advice found in the book is helpful and practical. The lessons are good but anyone who has read almost anything else on the subject of leadership will have heard most of this already. There is nothing revolutionary about Stanley’s suggestions.

As someone who is both a business manager as well as serving in ministry, I was disappointed that Stanley indiscriminately applied general leadership ideas that are common in the business world to ministry. He used the Bible more often to furnish illustrations of how to apply common management wisdom than using it as the source of a distinctively Christian view of leadership.

* I received a free copy of this book from christianaudio.com as part of their Reviewers Program. Reviews are not required to be positive and the opinions I have expressed are my own.