Or we could go to the other extreme …
Scot McKnight, who has recently published a number of very successful books, has just started a new series at his blog: Zealotry. He writes,
Evangelicals tacitly assume or overtly claim that they believe the whole Bible; they practice the Bible much better; and their theology is based on the Bible and the Bible alone. The contention is simple: liberals deny the Bible; we (evangelicals) don’t; we (evangelicals) are faithful and liberals are unfaithful. Let me suggest that evangelicals, too, do plenty of Bible-denying but they deny in a different way. They question the sufficiency of Scripture at times.
I call this problem Zealotry. Here’s what I mean: Zealotry is conscious zeal to be radically committed, so radically committed that one goes beyond the Bible to defend things that are not in the Bible. Which is the mirror image of the accusation made by many evangelicals against liberals. The “beyond the Bible” stuff is not in the Bible and it means evangelicals get themselves committed to things that are not in the Bible.
Very interesting …
Does this just maybe, possibly, perhaps apply to our tribe?
Yes, Jay!
Dwight and Price,
I agree with Price that the early church history is very interesting if not convincing. As Bobby notes, “artos” normally just means ordinary bread, not unleavened bread, and this is according to a branch of the early church whose first language was Greek.
If the original practice was unleavened bread in the churches, how did both Eastern and Western churches develop the practice of leavened bread?
In Exo, the symbolism of being unleavened is not purity but haste. The Israelites did not have time to leaven the bread because of the pursuing army. What NT truth is this a type or antitype of? (I have no idea.)
Jesus is indeed referred to as the Passover lamb, but the Lord’s Supper doesn’t associate the lamb or mutton with Jesus’ body. Although Jesus is the Lamb, we omit the meat course altogether and replace it with bread. Why? I don’t know, but the symbolism is surely significant. Or is it as mundane as most early Christian homes couldn’t afford a meat course? Or that lamb is only in season in the spring? Again: no idea.
And I’ve never felt entirely comfortable with Jesus’ statement that he would eat the Lord’s Supper with his disciples after his death and resurrection, given that there’s no recorded eating of communion by Jesus post-death. Is another recorded meal the fulfillment of this prophecy? Or was Jesus referring to eating with us at every Lord’s Supper because he’s present at all our assemblies?
So I have lots of questions about the Lord’s Supper. Plenty of opinions, too. But the presence of so many unanswered questions warns me that there are likely symbols and meaning here that I’ve not even guessed at. Which is great, because it means there’s much more to learn.
Hence, on the leavened/unleavened bread question, I reserve judgment. I will happily fellowship those on both sides. Of course, once I make up my mind, all who disagree with me will be damned, because they’d be wrong on a clearly answered question. 😉
By the way, what day did the Lord institute the LS?