Friday, March 13, 2009

Closing Thoughts on Mark 2:1-3:6

In Mark 2:18-22, Jesus is confronted about fasting and he gives (explicitly) two reasons why his disciples don’t fast: 1) They don’t fast like John’s disciples because everything represented by John (the Old Covenant types and shadows) is fulfilled in Jesus (the substance); and 2) They don’t fast like John’s disciples because those forms represented by John (Old Covenant ceremonies, rites, rituals) are inadequate for “containing” New Covenant realities. If the Pharisees represent merit based religiosity, I think Jesus essentially ignores that part of the question, implying that what the Pharisees do is so far off the mark that it’s not even a legitimate part of the equation.

Obviously Jesus is answering a specific question at a given time and his answer is meant to press his hearers to follow this transition from Old to New. So in one manner, being Christian rather than a Jewish proselyte is itself an application of Jesus’ teaching.

To draw the Old forms / New reality principle out a little further, it is also inappropriate to carry on with a system of sacrifice, either atoning or penitential. That may go without saying for some, but others still feel a need to “do penance,” or to devote themselves to spiritual exercise as “extra sacrifice.” We often object to such ideas from a systematic theology perspective: Jesus was the once-for-all sacrifice, which of course is true.

Here in Mark, Jesus gives us another way to think of it. The Old forms of the sacrificial system were ritualistic rather than relational. Animal sacrifice, as well as personal sacrifice, is too impersonal to adequately accommodate the New Covenant reality, namely, that we have a direct, intimate relationship with God the Father. Certainly we should be sorry for our sin. Certainly we should repent. And spiritual exercise may do well to help us more fully embrace our relationship with God. But we don’t need to “make things right” with our Father. That’s already been done “by Christ’s physical body through death” (Col 1:22).

Rather than paying penance, we already have the freedom to walk away from our mistress (repent from the sin into which we were tempted) and enjoy the intimate companionship of our Beloved. The Old Covenant forms pointed to this reality, but now the reality is here.

And so, in our ceremony, our order of worship at Covenant Presbyterian Church (Columbia, SC), we have the call to come to God followed by the confession of sin and assurance of grace. We respond to grace by acknowledging that we belong to God: Our offering given as a token of ourselves reminds us that we belong to God, not as property, but in a familial way. Then we receive instruction from our Father (think of Proverbs chapters 1-10 and the deep concern the father shows for his son in giving instruction). And finally, we, like Jesus’ disciples, commune with our Beloved, the Bridegroom present with us in a special way in the Lord’s Supper. Hence, our New Covenant forms carry with them an intimacy and joy that the Old forms only pointed to.

The pattern of our worship service is meant also to be the pattern of our lives the other 167 hours of the week. Following Jesus’ teaching in Mark 2:18-22, while there may be appropriate times for sorrow, in general the Christian life is not one of fasting but of feasting, every day.

May the remainder of your week be one of feasting with our Father and our truest Love, our Lord Jesus.

2 comments:

  1. Good writing. Thanks.

    Perhaps the only notion of sacrifice that may remain the the new covenant is the "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" that is offered as a response to God's mercy, not as an atoning or penitential sacrifice. I find that most folks don't know about this kind of 'sacrifice' and assume the word sacrifice is limited to the concept of an atoning or meritorious offering. This comes up because we call our Eucharist "a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" and people sometime hear the first part and don't connect it with the second and assume we have a sacrificial offering of atonement (Roman style) in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a good point, Greg. It's hard to rid New Testament teaching of all "sacrifice" language. After all, in most of Paul's writing he calls his readers to some form of sacrificial living, giving up personal rights and liberties for the sake of a brother.

    Context has so much to do with how we interpret words. I can see how the word "sacrifice," spoken in the context of the Eucharist, would bring a certain meaning to mind. It's only because I know you, and because you offered a word of explaination, that I'm clear on your usage of the word.

    In our church, we've been trying to help people see the "eu" of the Eucharist, the goodness of communing with our Lord in the fellowship of his banqueting table. That's why we concentrate on the Holy Supper aspect involved.

    ReplyDelete