IBL14: Church Law

The Christian Passover

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Religious studies

Lesson: 3-10

Genre: Lecture

Track: 139

Dictation Name: RR130BZ139

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Our Scripture lesson is 1st Corinthians 11:20-34, The Christians Passover. 1st Corinthians 11:20-34, The Christians Passover.

“20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

Our concern this morning is with the law of Scripture with regard to Communion or the Christian Passover. The context of Paul’s letter must first be understood, and then the context of the communion service in Scripture. First of all we must remember that the first day of the week, Sunday, was not a holiday, not a day of worship in New Testament times, nor for centuries thereafter. For 2, 3, almost 4 centuries. Within Judea, the Sabbath was the Lords day, the Sabbath was not our Saturday as we have seen. The Sabbath changed every 6 months, it was according to the day of the month, not according to the day of the week.

But with the church, the first day of the week, 1-6 day, not date but day of the week became the Christian Sabbath, and men had to work on that day. This is why, very early the old Sabbath laws were set aside, as Saint Paul makes clear in Galatians. They were living now in a world that was not the old world of Gods government, through His appointed ruler. They had to work. They worked long hours. As a result the early church met for generations, in the evening, after men finished their work. They gathered together at the home of the person at whose place the meetings were held, and there held their services.

And remember also there was no 8 hour day for workmen. They worked 10, 12, 14 hours depending on the kind of work they had. As a result, to go home and to eat and then to go to the meeting place meant that it would be impossible to get there. As a result, they gathered together at the home where the meetings were held, and each family brought their food, it was a pot luck. And of course this is the point that Saint Paul is reprimanding them for. Some families did not want to share their food which was better with what the poorer families brought, because they felt: “Well, we aren’t going to eat as well if we have to pool our food.” And so there were certain disorders, some taking their food but refusing to share it, others being rather greedy; and so very definitely Saint Paul started the process which led to the more purely memorial aspect of the meal. “If any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation.” That the purpose of your coming together be not merely to feed yourself and to try to get someone else’s food or to hold your food to yourself, but that you come with the sacrament in mind.

Now this was the context of Saint Paul’s admonition. Let us study the further context: The context of the communion service in terms of scripture, the whole of Scripture. The last supper of our Lord was celebrated at and as part of the Passover meal. The continuity of the Old and the New Covenants was marked by this fact; not only did our Lord call together 12 disciples to indicate that His church was the new covenant of God, the new Israel of God, but He also celebrated the Covenant rite, the Covenant sacrament at the Passover meal. This was to indicate that this was the new Passover, and in fact what we call the Last Supper was very commonly called in the early church the Christian Passover. The epistles speak of it as such, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” While they were eating the Passover Jesus called attention to His betrayal and sent Judas out. Then we are told, as they were eating, He instituted the Christian Passover in His body and blood. Thus the two were one meal. To indicate their continuity, to indicate that the old now was disappearing because the new, which was its fulfillment had come into being.

To understand the Christian Passover, therefore, it is imperative that the Old Testament Passover be analyzed and understood. Because there was no break between the two, the one fulfilled the other. The one was the continuity of the other; the old was done away with because it was present in the new.

Now first of all the Old Testament Passover celebrated the deliverance from Egypt and the 10th plague. It set forth the Old Testament salvation, and commemorated it. This is clear in Deuteronomy 15:5 and Exodus 12:13, and other passages. The Passover service celebrated Israel’s day of salvation, their redemption from Egypt. Just as the Christian Passover celebrates our redemption, through the atoning sacrifice, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Passover ritual has much to tell us in its instruction concerning the meaning of the Passover. If the Passover began on a week day it commenced thus: “Blessed art Thou oh eternal our God, King of the universe, creator of the fruit of the vine. Blessed art thou oh eternal our God, king of the universe, who elected us from among all people, and exalted us among nations, and did sanctify us with His commandment. And Thou oh eternal our God, has given us Sabbath days for rest and festival days for joy. This Sabbath and the days of this feast of the unleavened bread, the time of our deliverance in love and remembrance of the departure from Egypt. For us Thou hast selected and sanctified from among all nations, in that Thou causest us to inherit the holy Sabbath and festival days in love and favor. Blessed art Thou oh eternal who hallows the Sabbath and Israel, and the festival days.”’

Now, this sets forth very clearly some of the cardinal doctrines of scripture: the doctrine of election, God chose Israel from among all nations not because of their goodness but in His sovereign mercy. Thus the priority of God in salvation, His electing power was set forth in the Passover service. And then, “God did sanctify us with His commandments”. That the law was the way of sanctification was set forth.

Similarly the Christian Passover celebrates the Christian day of salvation. Christ’s victory over sin and death, His resurrection. This constitutes the Christian Sabbath, our day of redemption. Similarly, because for the Christian Passover, the law as for the old Passover as the way of sanctification, historically, the reading of the law has been a part of the communion service.

Only in recent years, as a result of the influence of modernism and anti nomianism has the reading of the law been dropped from the communion service. It is still in the episcopal book of Common Prayer. In Calvin’s service and in Jon Knox’s service of communion, while the law is not read it is summarized, and then with warning of excommunication for all who specifically violate these commandments. So you have the law very clearly present there also. Very clearly the new Passover, the Christian Passover continued the old Passover.

Second, the Hebrew Passover was a family service. According to Exodus 13:14, a son asked the question: “What is the meaning of this service?” And then the father, conducting the service in the home, answered the child and explained to him the meaning of the Passover. It was the youngest child who asked the question, that is the youngest child who was able to speak.

The Christian Passover was also a celebration of the Passover of Christ, and they were spoken of as the Christian family. According to all the records for centuries, children partook of communion. We never find any reference to the Lords supper in any of the writings of the early church where children are not partaking of it. Not only when it was a meal, as in Corinthians, but when it was a memorial service as much later. For at least 6 centuries all over Christendom, children partook of the service. And it was a marked departure from the practice of the church when children were dropped. It was self consciously as a part of the continuation of the Old testament service. The children were included.

As a matter of fact in the early church children were baptized on the 8th day, because circumcision in the Old Testament was on the 8th day. It was only after a few centuries that in response to questions, that for emergency reasons it was changed and was permissible. And then a church council had to be called in order to change the requirement that baptism be on the 8th day because circumcision was on the 8th day. The Synodical answer of the council was this, and I quote: “As to the case of infants, whereas you judge that they ought not to be baptized within 2-3 days after they are born, that the rule of Circumcision would be observed so that none should be baptized and sanctified before the 8th day after he was born, we were all in our council of the contrary opinion. It is our unanimous resolution and judgement that the mercy of God is to be denied to none as soon as he is born.”

Thus it was changed only by a church council, and the reason was not to delay it, but to make it possible to baptize immediately after birth. Why? Well the opinion was rising among many parents, that if their child, and deaths were common in those days with newborn babes, on the first day of birth or the second or third day, would that child go to heaven? And so it was to allay these fears that they removed the old requirement of 8th day baptism, and said: “The child can be baptized immediately or very shortly thereafter if it appears the child is going to die.” And this became the standard practice which we now have today as Catholic, to guarantee the ostensible salvation of the child. At first it was done to allay the fears of parents who would be troubled by the matter, but we can see how closely they followed the Biblical patter in that it required a special council to set aside the requirement that it be on the 8th day or thereafter.

As a matter of fact some churchmen actually held that a child could take communion any time after the 8th day, that is, after baptism. As I’ve indicated this was practiced by the church, that children could partake in communion for at least 600 years.

Now the reason for the modern exclusion of children from communion is based on 1st Corinthians 11:28 “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.” The thesis was that children are not capable of thinking or examining themselves. This was a part of the Greek thinking, which was evolutionary. Now as Christians we cannot believe either in the old Greek evolutionary God or in the modern evolutionary God, a child at one day has as much intelligence as at 50 years; the only difference is that the child does not have the data, the information, with which to think. The child at 3-4 has as much reasoning power as a child at 18 and 20. The only difference is information.

What about self examination? This brings us then to our third point, the Old Testament Passover did have preparation for the Passover. The child was to ask the question. And the question called for the parent answering the child, so that the child searched his heart and understood, and new exactly what the meaning of the Passover was. Moreover in terms of this, a custom was developed in the Old Testament which prevailed throughout the Old Testament, of searching the house with candles, the night before the Passover, to find out if there were any leaven, and to destroy it. Hence the New Testament echoes this in a number of passages, to “Cast out the old leaven.” What was done? The Father would take the children of the household. Each would hold a candle. They would go through the house in this ritual search; they would open all the cupboards and closets, look everywhere, to cast out the old leaven. And the father would explain the meaning of this.

Leaven stood for corruptibility; not as the Schofieldians say, for evil. There were requirements in the scripture that people bring leavened offerings. Now God would not require us to bring leavened offerings if leaven represented evil; the Schofield Bible and the dispensationalists are very, very wrong in their interpretation here, and they have confounded the meaning of Scripture. God required men to bring a leavened offering, which stood for man and his works. Because mans works are corruptible works, they pass away. We build churches, schools, and in time they disappear. We do things, and we disappear and our works disappear; but they are a labor unto the Lord, and God requires them and delights in them, so he receives a leavened offering. But at the Passover the work that is represented at the offering then is the work of Christ, and therefore there can be no leaven, because Christ’s work is incorruptible. Therefore the leaven had to be removed from household by the requirement of Scripture.

At that one time, the Passover could not have a leavened offering. And thus as the family went from room to room, from cupboard to cupboard, to search out the old leaven in this ritual service, the Father would explain the meaning that they were to cast out everything that represented their works. Because the Passover represented the work of God in salvation, the work of the atoning lamb whom God himself provided.

Thus there was self examination in the Hebrew Passover, and the requirement in the Christian Passover was that the father before the sacrament, leave his household in self examination. To enable them to realize that they brought nothing to their salvation, it was entirely Gods work. Thus the self examination had been met, was beautifully met, and was echoed in eh epistles when the people were enjoined to cast out the old leaven. This referred to the ritual of self examination in the Old Testament.

Then fourth the Passover commemorated the victory, the victory of Israel of Egypt, and it looked forward to more victory, towards deliverance into the Promised Land. Salvation as we have seen, means victory. The old Jewish Passover service, reads at one point: “May He who is most merciful, break the yoke of our captivity from off our neck, and lead us securely to our land.” To be led from Egypt to the promised land, in captivity to be led from captivity, back to the Promised Land. Similarly the Christian Passover reads in 1st Corinthians 11:36 “For as often you do eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lords death till He comes.” Now through the centuries the commentators have pointed out that to show the Lords death till He comes means to show His victory; that He has overcome the power of sin and death, and that we are victorious in Him, and that He is now as our victorious leader risen from the dead, leading us into the new creation; He himself the first fruits of them that are asleep, He himself the first fruits of the new creation.

So that indeed the meek shall inherit the earth, and delight themselves in the abundance of peace. Their victory is to be in time and in eternity. The dimension of victory therefore is so basic, that not to declare it is to deny the meaning of the sacrament.

And then 5th and finally, the death of the firstborn was basic to the Passover. The Passover was celebrated on the night when the firstborn of Egypt were slain. All the unredeemed, all the guilty, and all the first born of the covenant were either dedicated to God, preserved by the blood of the lamb, or they were slain. The Passover is life and victory to those who are within the covenant, who are given, who are dedicated to the Lord. And Jesus Christ is our firstborn, our representative, having given himself in our stead, assumes our debt, and by His death destroys the power of sin and death for us.

Thus the Passover celebrates the death of the enemies of God, and the life of His people. So the Passover, the Christian Passover, cannot be celebrated if we do not realize that it means from the days of Egypt to the days of our Lord, that outside the firstborn of Egypt, the firstborn of Pharaoh are sentenced to death. And we are preserved by the death of the lamb. So that to celebrate the communion means to say: “We believe in deed oh Lord that the firstborn of Egypt around us are given over to death, and we are delivered to life and to the Promised Land.”

This is the meaning, and it was in this faith that the suffering saints of the early church celebrated the Passover, the Christian Passover. They could say as they celebrated it: “Babylon is fallen, is fallen and shall rise no more.” Rome around them had already a death sentence passed against it from God, and the world should be given into their hands. Dare we who live in comfort say less? And is the church not derelict, is it not blaspheming the Lords supper when it does not celebrate it as victory? The Jews at least through the centuries, although their Passover now has no meaning, have echoed the sense of victory in that every time they observe it, they say: “Next year, in Jerusalem.” Echoing the belief that it carries hope and victory. But having forsaken he Lamb of God, the hope and the victory has not been there. But those who claim the name of the lamb, have forsaken Him also. Let us therefore so trust in Him, that He who is our firstborn be ever our guarantee of victory; the blessed assurance that in His death we are preserved from the death that God pronounces against the firstborn of every Egypt in every generation. Let us pray.

Almighty God our Heavenly Father we give thanks unto Thee that Jesus Christ is our Passover, and that in Him we are redeemed from the death Thou hast pronounced against the Egypt round about us, and has given us such great promises of victory. Our Lord and our God teach us so to walk therefore in this confidence that we may evermore be conquerors through Him that loved us, even Jesus Christ our Lord. In His name we pray, amen.

Are there any questions now, first of all with respect to our lesson? Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Let’s just stay first with the Christian Passover, and we’ll go to other questions later. Are there any questions? Yes.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, we will come to that later, we are going to discuss the possibilities of that sometime in the near future. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Not necessarily, because the church is now home of the larger family, the large family of Christ, so the requirement of a home was ended when the Christian family became more than a single home. But in a sense every meal is an echo of communion; and hence the prayer, hence the dedication of the food. It is not properly a communion service, but it is an echo of it, and is in that sense, sacramental.

Well, if there are no further questions with regards to our lesson, we can take some other questions now.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes. Now what we must recognize with regard to election or predestination, is not that it sets aside human agency, but that it coincides with it. Thus, to put it philosophically, there are two kinds of causes, first causes and second causes. The freedom of man is similar in that man’s freedom is not the freedom of a first cause, we are not God. It is the freedom of the second cause. Now a second cause is determined by a first cause, but it is none the less a real cause, is it not? Thus, our agency is real, our freedom is real, but it is secondary, it is never a primary or absolute freedom, or absolute causality. God uses us to win souls. We have a commission to go out, to make disciples of all nations. This does not mean that Gods election is still not primary, not only in the redemption of the person, but in the use of you as an agency.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] No, you were instrumental in the winning of souls, but you were used by God to win them. There is a distinction. We are instruments.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, right.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, well, the meaning of the word there is not the same sense as we have it today, you see. The modern usage is entirely Arminian, and here it is not. It is a different kind of vocabulary. So in the sense in which it is used today it has a different meaning, it means that the person himself does it. It does not mean that at all in Proverbs, because Proverbs and the language of Proverbs is emphatic in distinguishing between primary and secondary causes. Proverbs is a masterpiece of subtly in its language. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] God raised up a number of enemies, He declared that if they disobeyed Him He would raise up enemies, as He did, other nations. Very often, ungodly nations, commonly so, and used them to scourge, chasten, or sometimes virtually destroy His people.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Right, they themselves were judged.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Right, again and again they were in captivity to other powers for their disobedience. You see, their disobedience was greater in the sight of God, than of the nations He used, because to whom much is given, from Him much shall be required.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] They will be, yes. And in some cases already have been.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Well, God alone can answer that question, but we know how great the mercy of God is, because He said for 10 he would spare Sodom, you see, for 20 or 30 he would spare Sodom. And we mustn’t underestimate the patience and mercy of God, or underestimate the apostasy of those to whom He has brought judgement.

Any other questions?

Well, if not there is something I would like to pass on to you, It is on a very different and a very much lighter vein. I read a book on the French written by a Frenchman, and there was a section if I can locate it, on Gastronomy. Very interesting in that it showed the fact that people are inescapably religious, and having abandoned God, food has become virtually a religion to the French. It is a very amazing chapter, because it shows how religious their concern over food has become, it cites the case of one very prominent chef who was dealing with a very distinguished audience or guest list, and he was expecting a large shipment of fish, but only two baskets arrives, and since he was not able to get anything to replace it immediately, and he has vision of the dinner folding up when a particular specified menu had been requested of him, he was so upset that he went to his room and committed suicide. And the reaction of the very distinguished guests was that it indicated a certain nobility on the part of the chef, but on the other hand he had spoiled their dinner.

Then, it speaks of the kind of recipes they went for, very precious. For example, Louis the 18th, about a century ago, a little more than that, invented a recipe for chops. You put three chops in the oven, one on top of the others. But you only eat the one in the middle which has absorbed the juice of the two others.

Then it goes on to tell of some of the things that gourmets went in for, one of the most highly prized men between the wars was a Frenchman, Maurice (Celande?) who called himself (Cronansky?), a name he took from the Latin, who was elected prince of Gourmets by all the gourmets society. And when he was invited to dinner, he ordered the menu, saying for instance: “Make me a leg of Lamb with red beans, and if the skin is not crackling and if it is not the color of a babies cheeks inside, I am leaving.” He could have made a fortune if he had been willing to compromise his standards, a margarine firm offered him an income for life if he would say that margarine replaces butter. “Nothing replaces butter”, he replied. Then it speaks to the fact of, well, the kind of menus that were popular, and how obesity was once a sign of prosperity, and he says that after the German advance of 1914 my Grandfathers contribution to the war effort was to limit the amount of meat courses to three per meal.

(Krononsky?) This great gourmet, prince of gourmets, killed himself in 1966 at the age of 44, feeling that it was pointless to go on living if his pallet and digestive tract no lingered functioned. His parting words to a friend were: “Never eat the left leg of a partridge. For that is the leg it sits on, which makes the circulation sluggish.”

Then it cites the kinds of recipes which a delight to the gourmets of France; they are, to put it mildly, over-refined. This one is… I’ll read: “Introduce an olive into the beak of an (orflin? An Orfelin is a small bird.) Place the Orcelin in a clean turkey eggshell, with its head emerging from the shell like a baby chicken. Place the eggshell over embers; the fat on the Orcelin melts until it covers him up to his beak and perfumes him. When the fat has evaporated, you replace it with Alicante wine, and after 5 minutes, you serve it like a soft boiled egg. Do not eat the Orcelin, only the olive in its beak.”

I could go on at great length, I will say no more than to say that the chapter turned my stomach. I am not that kind of a gourmet. The only thing that I enjoyed in the chapter was the response of one Frenchman to an Englishwoman, who was objecting to some of the things in the French diet, the fact that they ate snails and frog legs and so on, and at that moment the Frenchman was eating tongue. She said: “How can you eat that when you know it came from some animals mouth?” ”Why madam,” said her dinner partner, “have an egg instead.” (Laughter)

The book is very worth reading, it doesn’t have a Christian or moral perspective, it is (Sanche du Gromant the French?) but it is interesting to see how, form has become everything for the French, and whether it is with regard to food, the preciousness of it, or whether with respect to business, you develop a bureaucracy in which positions, in which the office, the trappings of office are everything, a government in which the bureaucracy perpetuates itself, and the most important thing is that you have all the forms. And this is what happens to people, it becomes a religion to have formality, the precious elements of form, everything, to replace reality, life.

One or two announcements, the Chalcedon dinner is this Saturday, and there are no more reservations possible. We could have taken another 100 or more, I think, if we had room for them. But all reservations are already filled. The Chalcedon Seminar next month at Knox Berry farm, it looks as though we may be filled for that, too. Because reservations are coming in very early, and fast and furiously. So if you are interested I suggest you make reservations for that, because it looks as though the Chalcedon guild is getting off to a glorious beginning , and one problem for events, at least these first two, may be space.

Are there any other announcements I should make with regard to our Saturday? You all know the place, those of you who have reservations, I think. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] uhh, I am not sure that it can be done, because there is a limit to the number of people who can be seated in the building, and I think we have reached the limit entirely, in fact with the people who are serving we may be passed it. Perhaps we can repeat it, sometime. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Very good. We will plan on a larger place the next time, we have had a marvelous response.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony]Yes, the talk will be taped, and will be available from 10 Thursday. Let us bow our heads now for the benediction.

And now go in peace, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, bless you and keep you, guide and protect you, this day and always, amen.