RPW, Water and Feast of Tabernacles again...

[AV1611]

What do you make of the argument below:

Schwertley's use of 1 Kings 12:32-13:10 to demonstrate that all man-made holidays are wicked falls to the ground as soon as you remember that Jeroboam was king of Israel. Since Jerusalem was the only place where the people could worship God, Jeroboam decided to institute a new feast at Bethel--including sacrifices and a new priesthood. The idea of having a new feast is actually not condemned. The problem was that Jeroboam created a new place of worship--contrary to what God had told him to do in 1 Kings 11:38! The prophet who came to Jeroboam did not mention the new feast as the ground for condemnation, but rather condemned the altar itself.

Second, Schlissel demonstrates that the priests had added ceremonies to the prescribed feasts, and properly points out that Jesus participated in them. For instance, in John 7:37-39, at the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus uses the priestly innovation of the "water ceremony" to point to himself as the source of living water. The priests had used the water ceremony as an illustration of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus uses their image to great effect. Likewise, in John 8:12 Jesus uses the language of the "Light of the World"-which was also used in the Feast of Tabernacles as the priests lit large lamps as reminders of the pillar of fire in the wilderness. Of course, the whole Feast of Tabernacles was designed by God to remind Israel about their wanderings in the wilderness, and how he led them by the pillar of fire, and provided water from the rock to quench their thirst. Schlissel points out that Jesus uses these two human innovations in worship to show the Jews that he was the true light and the living water. Finally, Schlissel points out that Jesus used wine in the Lord's Supper-which was not prescribed by God for the Passover meal, but had been prescribed merely by human tradition.

Was Jesus saying by his actions that he approved of these innovations? Of course. Go back to the institution of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23 and Deut. 16). God had commanded Israel to hold these feasts. He told them what the feasts were supposed to commemorate. But he did NOT tell Israel everything that they were supposed to do. The feast was supposed to last for seven days. They were to dwell in booths. They were to offer certain sacrifices. What were they supposed to do during the feast? They were to remember the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings. How better to remember those wilderness wanderings than by replaying those events symbolically? God frequently taught his people through signs and symbols-not merely through words. Therefore the symbolic reenactment was equally appropriate with reading or teaching. Therefore Jesus approved of these very useful traditions because they did precisely what God had commanded that the Israelites should do. In other words, these traditions were nothing but good and necessary consequences from what God had commanded them to do.​

Taken from http://www.michianacovenant.org/sermons/rpw.html

 

[AV1611]

I have found this:

Another argument (that Jesus countenanced human traditions in worship) is based on the idea that our Lord gave his blessing to two Jewish ceremonies that were likely added after the close of the Old Testament canon. These rituals were associated with the feast of Tabernacles. It is argued that Jesus’ strategically placed statements (that played off these ceremonies) prove that he did not condemn such human traditions. A brief examination of these passages will prove that such a conclusion is unwarranted.

This first passage is John 7:37-39. “On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” F. F. Bruce give an explanation of the festival as it would have been celebrated in Jesus’ day.

The festival lasted eight days, and on the eighth day was ‘a holy convocation...a solemn assembly’ (Lev. 23:36; cf. Num. 29:35ff.; Neh. 8:18). When the people thanked God at the celebration of Tabernacles for all the fruits of the past year—vine and olive as well as barley and wheat—they did not forget his gift of rain, apart from which none of those crops would have grown. An association of this festival with adequate rainfall is implied in Zech. 14:16f., and although the ceremony of water-pouring, well attested in connexion with Tabernacles for the two centuries preceding AD 70, is not mentioned in the OT (with the doubtful exception of 1 Sam. 7:6), it was probably of very considerable antiquity. This ceremony, which was intended to acknowledge God’s goodness in sending rain and to ensure a plentiful supply for the following season, was enacted at dawn on the first seven days of the festival. A procession led by a priest went down to the pool of Siloam, where a golden pitcher was filled with water, and returned to the temple as the morning sacrifice was being offered. The water was then poured into a funnel at the west side of the altar, and the temple choir began to sing the Great Hallel (Pss. 113-118).104​

Jesus made his statement on the eighth day when no water was poured by the priests. Many commentators believe our Lord purposely timed his statement to dramatize and emphasize the need for true spiritual life-giving water.

The second passage is John 8:12. “Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, ‘I am the light of the world, He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.’” Some commentators believe that Jesus’ statement regarding “the light of the world” was a purposeful comparison of himself to the large brilliant golden lamps that were placed in the Court of Women and were lit at the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles.

There are a number of reasons why the idea that these passages prove that Jesus accepted and approved of human traditions in worship must be rejected. First, neither of the passages in question say that our Lord approved of man-made traditions. The idea that Christ approved of human additions is simply assumed with no textual evidence. Is it not wise to follow what the Bible says instead of rejecting what it says in favor of what it does not say? Second, a theory, hypothesis or speculative interpretation should never be used to overturn the clear teaching of Scripture. The whole idea that Jesus was setting forth his approbation of human traditions is an argument from silence. It is not founded upon the text but on the uninspired Mishnah which was composed by unbelieving Jews in A.D. 189. (Commentators are not in agreement regarding these passages. In fact, most commentators do not believe that our Lord was comparing himself to certain rituals but rather was comparing himself to events in the book of Exodus (the water from the rock [Ex. 17:6; Nu. 20:7-11] and the pillar of fire [Ex. 13:21-22]).105 Perhaps we should heed Hengstenberg’s comment. He writes: “It is needless to spend time in forming hypotheses, externally accounting for the saying of our Lord, by the rising of the sun, the kindling of the lamps in the temple, etc. If anything significant of this kind had taken place, the Apostle would not have left us to guess about it.”106 Third, even if Jesus did make his statements to coincide with certain Jewish rituals, it does not mean that he approved of man-made additions. If a pastor (who happens to be anti-Christmas) passes out gospel tracts at the shopping mall in December, or preaches in the mall and refers to Christ’s work of redemption as a gift from God, it does not mean that he approves of Christmas. One should be careful not to read something into a passage that is not there. Fourth, a more logical and scriptural inference from these passages is not that he was approving of their additions but rather that he was teaching that the law and the prophets did not point to silly rituals but to himself.107​

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear AV,

The problem I see with all these arguments is that they do not appreciate how Christ's work has transformed the Jewish cult.

Worship in the OT was centered on the temple and sacrifice. However, the OT temple pointed to Christ, the true temple where we encounter God in his presence (John 2:21). And believers, having been united to Christ, are also the temple (1 Cor. 3:16).

Hence, because we are united to Christ all the time, we are to worship God all the time. We now sacrifice with our whole life as worship (Rom. 12:1). Worship is not confined to the public gathering.

Therefore, you will never find the NT saying that the purpose of the church gathering is "worship" because we worship God in all of life. Is this not precisely what Jesus meant when he spoke of worshipping God not on some mountain (i.e. tied to physical location) but now in "spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). The purpose of the church gathering explicitly mentioned in the NT is now edification (i.e. building the church through the word of God) so 1 Cor. 14:26 and Heb. 10:24-25 (see Cranmer's introduction to the BCP).

It's amazing how the word "worship" has taken on a life of its own since it has been detached from its scriptural use.

Without this understanding of new covenant worship debates about the RPW get bogged down.

For more information on this see David Peterson, Engaging with God.

God bless you brother.