The Weekend Word

You may also like...

67 Responses

  1. Michael says:

    “Note – Jesus delivers that forgiveness in real time at the table. Some groups have difficulty with this part.’

    I have a huge problem with this…I would say it’s close to heresy.

    Our forgiveness was obtained by Christ’s actions on our behalf, the shedding of His blood bought forgiveness, not our ingestion of it.
    Forgiveness is reckoned at the cross, not the table.

  2. Jean says:

    Thanks for the new lesson MLD.

    I’m going to respectfully disagree with your very first bullet point: “•Here we have a long quote that is here for no other reason than to say God had a plan for a new covenant – because the old one was flawed.”

    It was not the Mosaic covenant that was flawed. The flaw IS in us. I’m afraid that if one begins with the supposition that the old covenant was flawed, one might get a lot of other things wrong as well.

    It is important that we understand that the new covenant (and above all Jesus crucifixion) is not a “plan B” because God miscalculated with “plan A.” By the same token, there was nothing uniquely flawed in the Israelites, as compared to the nations then or today. I am not accusing you of proffering either of these errors, but your statement could be construed those ways by a reader, so I want nip such thoughts in the bud.

    God’s problem has always been how to redeem a people who have been infected by original sin. The Mosaic covenant served a purpose in God’s plan of redemption. St. Paul described the law as “our guardian until Christ came. There is so much more we could say here, but such a discussion could take us far afield of the current passages.

    Back to my initial comment. I would prefer to place the flaw in us, rather than in God’s old covenant. But at the same time, there is no doubt that the New Covenant is a better covenant. And it supersedes the old covenant for Jew and Gentile alike. The New Covenant is better because it consists of better promises and is made by a better sacrifice.

  3. Michael says:


    You beat me to it.
    Well said.

  4. Whew, so relieve Jean and Michael address this at the gate.

  5. Michael,
    “Forgiveness is reckoned at the cross, not the table.”

    It certainly was reckoned at the cross – but may I ask how that forgiveness was delivered to you? Was it not through the physical means of grace?

  6. Jean,
    “The New Covenant is better because it consists of better promises and is made by a better sacrifice.”

    When you use the word better are you not by definition saying that something else is lesser and perhaps incomplete. It still goes back to was it a covenant that the people could keep?

    I said last week in the comments on verse 7
    Is there something wrong with the old covenant?
    Did God make a BAD covenant that took him generations to realize?
    The covenant depends on the actions of the people.
    Garrison Keilor said – “God is a great writer, but he has very bad actors.”

    But then I wonder in my next comment on v.8 – was the Levitical priesthood flawed? (I think so) – needing replacement by the priesthood that Jesus would establish in the order of Melchezidek.

  7. Michael says:

    You assume that forgiveness must be “delivered”.
    It is “declared” in the Gospel and received by faith,not by cup.

  8. Michael – well you can’t say I wasn’t upfront about this. I said right in my comments “Some groups have difficulty with this part.” 🙂

    The fact that you don’t believe that Jesus is continually delivering to us his body and blood as part of his pleading our case before the father – that we are not continually washed in his blood for the forgiveness of our sin is all part of Calvin’s teachings that there cannot be any physical presence of Jesus at this time — that the finite cannot contain the infinite.

    It’s the same with the Calvinist claim of the real presence although it is a complete misnomer as there is no physical Jesus present in the elements.

    But alas – Lutherans and the Reformed disagree once more.

  9. Michael says:


    Nice deflection, though inaccurate.

    Your position requires that one believe and practice the Lutheran position on the Table to receive forgiveness.
    That’s nonsense.

  10. Em says:

    observation and experience, not theological expertise, makes me say amen to #9

    although, sometimes i wonder just how much disagreement is simply which side of the elephant we’re looking on … when the Redeemed ones gather and take the communion cup (in remembrance) there can be no doubt that we grow/receive more of Christ – as opposed to those who simply go thru the ceremony without a thought to the significance?

  11. “Your position requires that one believe and practice the Lutheran position on the Table to receive forgiveness.”

    This is not true – I believe that Jesus delivers his work on the cross to us in many ways – the Table being one of those promised ways.

    I believe that it is delivered through the written word – through proclamation of the spoken word – through the cleansing waters of baptism. (none of these are Lutheran, but just simply Christian.)

    That said, I do not believe as some seem to that forgiveness is delivered by pixie dust. 😉

  12. Michael says:


    Can you show me any place where it says any part of God’s work must be “delivered” like a package from UPS?

  13. You mean the part above about drinking his blood, which Jesus states is the new covenant that brings forgiveness wasn’t enough? The very words of Jesus as to his mechanism for delivering this forgiveness (the eating and drinking) is not enough? Well then you got me – I have nothing.

    But there is a flip side from Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 v 29 – “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

    If you do the eating and drinking right, you gain the forgiveness (which I pick up you deny) but if you do it wrong, then you get judgement — which is the lack of forgiveness – (you will need to let me know if you deny that also.)

  14. But the UPS is a good example of what means are. The truck delivers the package – just as baptism, the word of God and the elements are the means that deliver God’s grace to the believer.

    So yes, you are almost there.

  15. Michael says:

    So…if someone requests from God forgiveness, they have to wait for the truck to deliver it?
    I think not.

  16. My God is outside time – but in your view why are you requesting forgiveness at all – I thought you already had it?

    Again, you have made it clear that no part of Jesus’ work today is physical. I know that position and it is different than mine. But then in my tradition we don’t have people reenacting their altar call every 6 months because they are unsure since nothing has every been “delivered” to them.

    But hey – I don’t want Josh coming on and saying I made my study a communion thing.

  17. Michael says:

    “But then in my tradition we don’t have people reenacting their altar call every 6 months because they are unsure since nothing has every been “delivered” to them.”

    Nor in mine…and you well know that the Reformed also believe in the means of grace.

  18. “and you well know that the Reformed also believe in the means of grace.”

    You are going to need to define your terms – which I did at 14. The means actually deliver the grace – the forgiveness (bread & wine / body & blood deliver actual forgiveness from God).

    Your “means of grace” obviously do not mean that – so what do your ‘means’ do??

  19. Em says:

    it seems that our attempts to picture the work of God by human experiences muddies the water – it seems that it is hard to get our minds around Divine fiat and human endeavors

  20. Michael says:

    From the Heidelberg Catechism

    65. Q. Since then faith alone makes us share in Christ and all His benefits, where does this faith come from?

    A. From the Holy Spirit,[1] who works it in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel,[2] and strengthens it by the use of the sacraments.[3]

    [1] John 3:5; I Cor. 2:10-14; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29. [2] Rom. 10:17; I Pet. 1:23-25. [3] Matt. 28:19, 20; I Cor. 10:16.

    66. Q. What are the sacraments?

    A. The sacraments are holy, visible signs and seals. They were instituted by God so that by their use He might the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel.[1] And this is the promise: that God graciously grants us forgiveness of sins and everlasting life because of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.[2]

    [1] Gen. 17:11; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 4:11 [2] Matt. 26:27, 28; Acts 2:38; Heb. 10:10.

    67. Q. Are both the Word and the sacraments then intended to focus our faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?

    A. Yes, indeed. The Holy Spirit teaches us in the gospel and assures us by the sacraments that our entire salvation rests on Christ’s one sacrifice for us on the cross.[1]

    [1] Rom. 6:3; I Cor. 11:26; Gal. 3:27.

    68. Q. How many sacraments has Christ instituted in the new covenant?

    A. Two: holy baptism and the holy supper.[1]

    [1] Matt. 28:19, 20; I Cor. 11:23-26. Holy Baptism

  21. Jean says:

    Was God present in a piece of fruit?
    Was God present in a bush on fire?
    Was God present in a wooden box?
    Was God present in a tent?
    Was God present in a rock?
    Is God present incarnate in a human man?

    If you can say “yes” to the preceding, then will you agree with Scripture that His presence is here:

    The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

    How would you answer the apostle if he put that question to you?

  22. Well Michael, I had hoped that you were giving me a definition of “means” in means of grace – but instead you just told me what sacraments are according to the HC.

    I think I have figured out our difference according to the HC. Word and sacrament to you is more like a GPS function to re position your faith – to get you thinking about faith – and then it directs it to a faith topic.

    To me, the sacraments are just like we said – they deliver the promised good via UPS … and we are talking real actual promised things. When the bible says this baptism saves – we believe that through the waters of baptism God is delivering, salvation, grace and forgiveness. When the Bible says that through Baptism the Holy Spirit is delivered – I believe that is exactly what is happening. The same with the supper – through the bread & wine / body & blood, Jesus is delivering the forgiveness he won for us on the cross … forgiveness that works for us our whole christian life.

  23. Michael says:

    So… if you ask God to forgive you on Wednesday, do you have to wait until Sunday when the blood truck arrives to receive it?

    The sacraments are a way (means) through which God strengthens faith and affirms the promises given.
    I also believe there is more than a little mystery involved here…I would not simply make a mechanical definition.

    Jean, we believe God is spiritually present in the sacraments.
    If He’s physically present then they should rope off that section of Costco where we buy the bread and wine.

  24. “The sacraments are a way (means) through which God strengthens faith and affirms the promises given.”

    So if you need your faith strengthened on Wed do you have to wait until you show up to church on Sunday to get your faith strengthened?

    How can Jesus be spiritually present in the elements and not physically so? I can’t begin to list the heresies that allow for Jesus to have his physical and spiritual parts to be separated, or divided.

  25. Jean, I would like to go back to you comment at #2. I don’t think I missed the mark at all with my point – “Here we have a long quote that is here for no other reason than to say God had a plan for a new covenant – because the old one was flawed.”

    Verse 7 where we ended last week says that very thing – the ESV brings it out more clearly than the NIV I was using 3 – 4 years ago when I did this.

    ESV = For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

    NASB = For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

    KJV = For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

    I take not faultless to equal flawed.

  26. Jean says:


    The Mosaic Covenant was a 2-party, contract-like, covenant. Verse 8 reads “he finds fault with THEM when is says:” [my emphasis]

    “Fault” does not equal “flaw”. The Israelites broke the contract. They were at fault.

    But this was not a flaw in the Mosaic covenant. That covenant acted as a “guardian until Christ came” and it increased sin “beyond measure” in order to prepare the people for a Messiah.

    But the important thing to bear in mind is that these two covenants never had the same ultimate purpose. Unlike the Mosaic covenant, the New Covenant is an eschatological covenant. Jesus’ life, death and resurrection brought the first fruits of the age to come. It is in the bringing the kingdom of God that we can say that the New Covenant is a better covenant than the old. But to say that the old covenant was flawed is tantamount to saying that God made a mistake. I don’t think we want to do that.

  27. Xenia says:

    Here’as what Fr. G. says when I go up to receive Communion:

    The servant of God Xenia receives the Body and Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

    This is a very ancient belief, probably believed by all Christians until Zwingli.

  28. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    The subject of v 7 is the covenant itself – not the parties to the covenant.
    I did not suggest who was at fault but the verse does seem to suggest inadequacy.

    If only we had a contract lawyer to weigh in. 😉

  29. Today was the first day of advent and as always the message was about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt.
    We lit the Advent candle and we sang Advent hymns – one even written by Ambrose back in the 4th century.

  30. Josh the Baptist says:

    “But hey – I don’t want Josh coming on and saying I made my study a communion thing.”

    It still astounds me…I don’t know why it still does, but…wow. It’s quite impressive, but I am starting to understand your fixation. You think that the New Covenant is actually about taking the Lord’s Supper. I’m sure you’ve made that clear before, I just never stopped to realize that you meant what you said.

    To anyone reading plain English (or Greek for that matter), verses 8-10 say nothing about the Lord’s Supper. I now realize that you translate “New Covenant” to “eating blessed bread and wine”. So I get it. It would seem that verse 10 contradicts that idea. The fact that the New Covenant is about “minds and hearts” would seem to say that it is not about physical actions, but I now realize that to you, it is completely about physical actions. We couldn’t be further apart on this, and I’m sure no amount of discussion could change that.

  31. Scott says:

    Yes, MLD has made that abundantly clear for years here. He believes the new covenant is delivered via the communion symbols. I’m assuming those symbols must be delivered via an ordained minister of the Lutheran church as well or it has no effect?

  32. You are both wrong but as I said I know that some don’t like the view of anything physical, tangible being involved in the Christian faith – it’s all mist and pixie dust.

    But you missed my point. What I said was the change in covenants was which way the blood flowed.
    In the OT, the blood flowed from our offerings to God – do you not see that???
    Now Jesus is presenting this new covenant, which by his own description is in his blood being delivered for us in space and time. When he is announcing this, he is giving us his body and blood. Through this, in Jesus’ own words comes forgiveness — which was never available in the OT.

    Now, I have made it clear the way I see a distinct difference between the old and new covenant. If I am wrong, tell me your take on the difference.

    Also as I said, many evangelicals do not think the new covenant is to the Church – what is your take there?

    The problem is, you guys never want to have an exchange – you don’t want to present your views, you just like throw rocks at my view. I wrote 750 words to explain myself — go and do likewise. 🙂

  33. and btw, I didn’t make the point about the Lord’s Supper other than to say that the most obvious place we see this difference in the new covenant – to back up Jesus’ words is in the Lord’s Supper. But perhaps you don’t think Jesus was talking was even talking about the Lord’s Supper at the time he was distributing the bread & wine.

  34. Josh the Baptist says:

    Hebrews 8:8-10 say nothing about the Lord’s Supper. There’s not much to discuss there. It does speak of the New Covenant. I took it that you were equating the two. If I misunderstood,I apologize.

  35. Josh the Baptist says:

    Eh, I’ll go ahead and jump in the banter. Tried to avoid, but this is usually fun so…

    “tangible being involved in the Christian faith – it’s all mist and pixie dust.”

    Or “hearts and minds” if you will.

    “In the OT, the blood flowed from our offerings to God – do you not see that???”

    Of course, and as the book of Hebrews tells us, that was to show us a picture pointing to the ultimate sacrifice which would be offered once for all sin.

    “Also as I said, many evangelicals do not think the new covenant is to the Church – what is your take there?”

    I would guess that 99.999999% of Evangelicals think that the New Covenant is for the Church.

    “you don’t want to present your views,”

    I haven’t presented my views on all this? Come on. Gimme a break.

  36. Steve Wright says:

    MLD in the past has said (incorrectly) my view is that the new covenant is not to the Church – which is a disservice to what I actually taught for a large portion of the sermon from which he derived that quick little nugget.

    He hears (and then repeats) only what he wants to hear.

  37. Em says:

    God was in the bush? no He used the bush and those other “vessels” including His incarnation as a means to focus, to deliver (including redemption) to mankind as He carries out His plan of redemption. IMHO – so the UPS truck analogy isn’t entirely wrong, but each delivery has been a different part of His supply 🙂 it’s the elephant, again, i suspect

  38. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    em, just FYI – the elephant story is heresy to the Christian faith. It may all make sense in all the other religions of the world – but not to the Christian.

    If you have the story read it – there is one person who sees the whole elephant (the story teller) and he has told us who the elephant is.

    Christians know the whole elephant. 😉

  39. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    You must have a separate teaching that you are thinking of that is not posted on your website. As I had not listen to it for 3 or 4 yrs I went back to your teaching on Hebrews 8. The discussion begins at 13:45
    21:50 – When the new covenant for Israel is fulfilled… You make the point that the new covenant is the regathering of Israel into the land.
    22:05 – That this regathering is when the new covenant will come to pass.
    22:40 – You don’t just make the point but you drive home the point that the new covenant cannot be fulfilled during the time of the church.
    23:20 – You say that there is no doubt this new covenant is talking about Israel in the millennium
    26:50 – You make the plain statement that the new covenant does not apply to the church.
    27:20 – You say that anyone can come along and benefit by the blood of Jesus – that we as individuals (not the church) can benefit in THIS STILL FUTURE COVENANT..
    28:20 – we benefit from the promises to Israel

    After that you go on about how we are saved (by the blood of Jesus) but it is not in THAT new covenant.

  40. Jean says:

    I am accustomed to reading and studying differences among Bible believing Christians on some of the finer points of theology. However, I must admit that I was flabbergasted to learn this afternoon that there is a biblical argument in some circles that the New Covenant was not made for Gentiles, is not in effect for the Church, and is not even in effect at this time.

    Because such a view may reject or deny the Gospel, I think we should take a moment to set the biblical record straight. If anyone was unclear regarding whether the New Covenant is in effect, I would refer you to Hebrews 9: “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.” This folks is present tense language.

    In addition, when Jesus said at the last supper: “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood'”; who would doubt that the New Covenant was made at the cross?

    So the only question left is: Who is the recipient of the New Covenant? It is the children of Abraham, Jews and Gentiles. From the Nunc Dimmittis: “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.”

    What did John the Baptist say: “For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.”

    What did St. Paul say about who the Church is:

    “Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.”

    Let’s hash this out in the hope that we can set aside once and for all the false teaching that the New Covenant is not for Gentiles, and more specifically that it is not applicable to the Church, and that it is not yet in effect. Make no mistake, these false teachings deny the work of Christ.

    “He has shown strength with his arm;
    he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;

    he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
    and exalted those of humble estate;

    he has filled the hungry with good things,
    and the rich he has sent away empty.

    He has helped his servant Israel,
    in remembrance of his mercy,

    as he spoke to our fathers,
    to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”

  41. Michael says:

    I too had forgotten that there was such a position.

    If one wants to read a scholarly article on the matter here’s a sample.

  42. Em says:

    MLD, if the elephant is THE Christ, perhaps we all do, but, if the elephant is the sum total of the accurate doctrines of the Faith? then only God, Himself, knows…
    perhaps i am too often too hyperbolic … but then i am a just an observer, not a teacher 🙂

  43. Jean,
    Thanks for listening to it and at least confirming that I am not crazy or at least there are 2 of us.

    What you said – I summed up in my comments above – “In other words, the promise of Jeremiah for a new covenant is the way God will save Israel at a later date. Oddly this is claimed even though the writer of Hebrews is using the Jeremiah “new covenant” passage to show that Jesus is the great high priest of this very same new covenant.”

    Can you imagine what the writer to the Hebrews is saying if Steve’s position is correct – “do not return to Judaism, but stay here and experience Judaism.

  44. Michael says:

    I would be stunned if he actually said that the New Covenant didn’t apply to the church…guess I’ll have to listen

  45. Em says:

    i think i will find myself assigning various parts of the elephant to various doctrinal stands that folks take
    but who knows? i’m not really very fond of esotericism – not fond at all … “fond” is a funny word, BTW

  46. Jean says:

    God I suspect is also not fond of esotericism, which is why he uses physical means to deal with us most of the time.

    When if the Israelites would have balked at the absurdity of painting lamb blood on their door jams to save their first borns from the plague? Was that a means of grace? Wow!

  47. Em says:

    colliding covenants?
    i too would be surprised to find Pastor Steve teaching that we, the Church are not under the New Covenant
    does that make it impossible for God to make other covenants? unnecessary for Him to do so?
    time for me to go away for a time

  48. Michael and Em – be prepared to be stunned!

  49. Michael says:

    I stand corrected.
    He said it.
    Count me stunned.

  50. Em says:

    jean, yes, i seriously doubt that God is ever esoteric and that is a very good thing

  51. Em says:

    today @36 Pastor Steve declared: “MLD in the past has said (incorrectly) my view is that the new covenant is not to the Church – which is a disservice to what I actually taught for a large portion of the sermon from which he derived that quick little nugget.”

    so it appears that some elaboration is needed?

  52. I will elaborate – Steve is wrong in his teaching and he is wrong about what I know. 😉

    If you hadn’t noticed, when I threw it out in the article and in a comment to Josh – Steve came on and knew I was speaking of him. He and I have had this conversation in the past.

  53. Michael says:


    I listened to it to hear for myself.
    He kept saying that the New Covenant wasn’t fulfilled in the church which would be different than saying it didn’t apply to the church at all.
    But then he said that too.
    His position is that we benefit from the covenant, but it’s not our covenant.
    i disagree, but there’s not much point in arguing it.

  54. Michael.
    I am sure you listened, but if you paid attention to his proof texting you will see that he means more than it wasn’t fulfilled in the church for 2 reasons
    1.) it was never meant for the church – made for Israel
    2.) it couldn’t be fulfilled by the church as the covenant is the regathering and meant to be fulfilled by the Jews in the millennium. Steve’s position is that the new covenant does not come about until that future event.

  55. Michael says:


    I got that.
    It’s just that I’ve spent so little time listening to or reading dispensationalists over the last twenty years that it shocks me to hear some of that stuff now.

  56. Josh the Baptist says:

    Don’t have time to listen to Steve’s sermon right now, or in the near future, unfortunately. So, I’m going by what you guys are saying, what Steve has said, and what we know about Steve.

    Assuming Steve meant exactly what you said he meant, I disagree with him, and to that extent he would be in the minority of Dispensationalism. I would assume, however, that there is some missed nuance, as Steve suggested earlier.

    I’m guessing the distinction Steve was making was that Dispies believe there is a prophetic future for the nation Israel, which Covenant Theology doesn’t believe. The promise was made to Abraham and his offspring, and The Church (gentiles) are adopted into that bloodline through the blood of Christ.

    The damning implication for Steve here is that Jews will be saved outside of Christ. I have heard him say that is not the case so I will chalk this one up to his misspeaking, or your misunderstanding, or most likely…some missing context.

  57. Josh – it wasn’t about salvation. Usually the accusation is that some don’t allow for the new covenant to be for the Jews or include them. In Steve’s case he has it reversed and that the New Covenant is not for and does not include the church.
    The biggest thing is that we are not in the new covenant at this time but that it is for the Jews in the millennium.

  58. Josh the Baptist says:

    There is no salvation apart from the New Covenant. Again, that allows for a future fulfillment for Israel,but of course, not outside Christ.

    Anyway, If Steve is saying exactly what you say, I disagree with him.

  59. Em says:

    for the past hundred years the Church has seen a building of events that make the prophesied end of the age appear as a real and near possibility – we haven’t really known exactly what to do with what we see … it has encouraged some and, perhaps, also caused us to try to see more hints of God’s culmination of His plan than are there for us… i.e., the millennial reign of Christ here on earth for one thousand years, the rapturing out of the Bride to meet her bridegroom and the remnant of Jews holding the Faith at His second coming – some of us say ‘yes and amen’ – it is logical and reasonable and beautiful – others say hold up you’re making things up out of scraps and misinterpretation of prophesies and, for my part, i think either could be correct – perhaps some things should just be for ponder and speculation as possibles, not hills to die on?
    in any case, come soon Lord Jesus, come soon – can’t we all say amen to that?
    hmmm, maybe not, as there are still souls to save

  60. Em says:

    after a quick run through, i find no reference in Hebrews of drinking the blood of Jesus… and Hebrews is full of reference to the blood – the blood of animals and the blood of The Lamb of God… when Jesus assigned significance to a cup of wine representing His blood, He instructed those there with Him (and us?) to take the cup in remembrance – His blood had not been poured out yet … i have heard a theory that He took that shed blood and presented it to the Father when He returned to the Throne… we seem to want to locate it somewhere… Jesus’ blood, above all else, is incredibly significant and powerful… did it have a type? as in O+? i really doubt it… ? … but i do appreciate being goaded to think on it … and us tonight… now i think i’ll have to think on covenanting a bit

    God keep

  61. Josh the Baptist says:

    “after a quick run through, i find no reference in Hebrews of drinking the blood of Jesus…”

    And Em, you have perfectly summed up my issue with MLD 🙂

  62. Em says:

    i’m not too fond of the term “mystical,” but the cup and cracker have way more significance than just a nod to God … i do think that most of us who identify as either non-denoms or evangelical fundies ( 🙂 ) do not take the Lord’s Supper/communion anywhere near as serious as we should … in the repetition the reality becomes yesterday’s news …the time of prayer and self examination, the concentration on the cross is far too ritualistic (as i suspect it is for the real body and blood contingent also) … and that may be what has generated the mysticism – just do it, because Jesus said to? …?… dunno

  63. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I had asked the question how we see the change in the testaments. I offered up that it was in the direction you saw the blood go.
    In the old we took it up to God – In the new, Jesus brings his blood to us.
    I then suggested that the place we see this in at the Lord’s Table.

    Without that, there may be a change in covenants but nothing we can actually participate in.

  64. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Em, I haven’t said this for a long time, but to many communion is a Toast to Jesus – and the communion song could just as well be For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.. But I am nicer now and more gentle.

    But just the wording of what we call the elements tells what people think.

    Listen how he says “Jesus said this represents my body” and then 30 sec later he said Jesus said “drink this grape juice” and “this grape juice represents my blood.

    Jesus did not call it grape juice and he used the word this IS — not thei represents.

    Folks need to be dishonest to deny what Jesus says.

  65. Em says:

    does anyone sing this quaint, beautiful old hymn anymore?
    “1. O teach me what it meaneth,
    That cross uplifted high,
    With One, the Man of Sorrows,
    Condemned to bleed and die!
    O teach me what it cost Thee
    To make a sinner whole;
    And teach me, Savior, teach me
    The value of a soul!

    2. O teach me what it meaneth,
    That sacred crimson tide,
    The blood and water flowing
    From Thine own wounded side.
    Teach me that if none other
    Had sinned, but I alone,
    Yet still Thy blood, Lord Jesus,
    Thine only, must atone.

    3. O teach me what it meaneth,
    Thy love beyond compare,
    The love that reacheth deeper
    Than depths of self-despair!
    Yes, teach me, till there gloweth
    In this cold heart of mine
    Some feeble, pale reflection
    Of that pure love of Thine.”

    it has a very draggy melody and these are only the first three verses, but we need to think on this more… more than the “how to do Christianity better” topics, perhaps

  66. Jean says:


    Regarding the hymn,

    (1) The lyrics are beautiful and thank you for sharing them.

    (2) The lyrics demonstrate a serious contrast with the praise music that is all too prevalent in many churches today. If you notice, in this hymn, the lyrics are about Jesus and what he has done for us. By contrast, much of today’s contemporary praise music is about “me” and my love, commitment or admiration for Jesus or God. It’s an entirely different orientation in worship.

    (3) the lyrics all out the true and (in contemporary culture) uncomfortable reality and significance that our Savior died, was humiliated and bled. This is theology of the cross. Blessed are the poor in spirit… You will find in much of contemporary praise and worship music little or no reference to the crucifixion, much less blood.

    Is there every a true Christian worship service where the cross, the pierced side of Jesus, and his blood poured out for sinners is not at the center?

  67. Jean says:

    My #66 has a typo: in paragraph (3), “the lyrics all out…” should read “the lyrics call out the true and….”

    In the last paragraph, “Is there every a true Christian…” should read “Is there ever a true Christian….”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading