The ark of the covenant

Some Lutherans continue to take umbrage at an old post of mine:

Daniel Stinson

The Ark of the Covenant as a physical element did have the power to kill anyone who touched it with an unclean spirit within them or if they were sinning while touching it.

i) I believe he’s alluding to the scene in 2 Sam 6:6-7 (par. 1 Chron 13:9-10). To begin with, where does he come up with the notion that Uzzah was killed because he harbored an unclean spirit? There’s nothing in the text to support that interpretation.

ii) Yes, it was forbidden to touch the ark (Num 4:15). That doesn’t necessarily mean it was “sinful” to touch it. We’re dealing with ritual defilement, not moral defilement.

iii) Why does he imagine that the ark had the power to kill someone? The ark was an inanimate object. A gilded box. It had no inherent lethal properties.

The account says Uzzah died, not because the ark killed him, but because God killed him. The ark was a ritually sacrosanct object. A concrete symbol of God’s presence and holiness. There were special instructions for transporting the ark (Exod 25:12-15)–instructions which were flouted on this occasion.

iv) Ironically, the example of the ark undermines the Lutheran claim. The ark wasn’t sacrosanct because it contained God. It was possible to commit sacrilege because the ark was an emblem of divine presence and holiness, not because the ark was actually holy or actually localized God.

So even if we think Christians were becoming ill or dying in 1 Cor 11 because they were somehow defiling the communion elements, that would not imply the Real Presence. 

 Though I would argue beyond its physical aspects and take into account that it's in union with God as part of his covenant.

In what sense does he think the ark was in “union” with God? A hypostatic union, like the Incarnation?

I haven't seen you challenge the physical waters in baptism.

What is there to challenge?

Do the waters of baptism, lack the same level of authority…

Water doesn’t have authority. Water is just a liquid substance.

…as seen in your opinion of Christ's body and blood?

I haven’t said anything about Christ’s body and blood. Rather, I’ve discussed the bread and wine.

As far as Christ’s blood is concerned, the value of his blood lies in his shed blood, on the cross.

 Old Testament circumcision is a physical act, but a circumcision of the heart creates a covenant union with the Holy Spirit. God's free gift of his Spirit was given in circumcisions of the heart upon the 8th day of birth.

i) Really? Where does he come up with the notion that circumcision automatically conferred a new heart? In fact, the OT treats physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart as separable.

ii) Moreover, it’s not circumcision of the heart that created a covenant union; rather, a covenant union created circumcision of the heart (cf. Jer 33:33; Ezk 36:25-27).

Christian baptismal fonts to this day are octagon shaped.

And the relevance of that is what, exactly? Does he attack magical significance to an octagonal shape?

mountainman

           

Do you want to know what's actually unimpressive?

How about Lutheran arguments for sacramental realism?

 The manner in which you are arguing out of doctrinal (scriptural?) ignorance and personal emnity. If you want to dialogue, keep it civil. This sort of dismissive hubris has no place in Christian conversation. Then again, if we Lutherans are as spiritually dead as you insist, perhaps this isn't a dialogue between Christians.

I haven’t said anything about the spiritual state of Lutherans. I do think Lutheran sacramentalism fosters dead formalism. But, of course, many Lutherans are genuine Christians.

There's nothing perfunctory about taking Christ's words, as conveyed in His Word, literally.

Actually, it is perfunctory to quote Scripture without making a good faith effort to exegete Scripture. To assume ahead of time that you know what it means.

 1 Corinthians 11 is quite clear about how the early church viewed communion.

True. Unfortunately, Lutherans lack the same clarity on what 1 Cor 11 means.

 As are the church fathers.

Irrelevant.

If it is merely a cracker and wine, why do those who take it improperly find themselves guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord? This is not perfunctory, it is literal.

i) In 1 Cor 11, if you bother to study the passage in context, Paul is concerned with the corporate body of Christ. Christians sinning against other Christians at the agape feast.

Paul is using a play on words, in which he trades of fluid symbolism, where the “body” can, by turns, stand for the literal/historic body of Christ, the figurative/eucharistic body of Christ, or the corporate/ecclesiastical body of Christ (cf. 10:16-17; 12:27-28). A Pauline pun.

Since, moreover, Christians are in union with Christ, to dishonor a fellow Christian dishonors Christ. That’s the association.

ii) The Eucharist is modeled on the Passover. The Passover was a symbolic rite. Unleavened bread represents haste. Bitter herbs represents the bitterness of the Egyptian captivity (cf. Exod 12:8,39; Num 9:11). That, in itself, is a cue that the Eucharist is symbolic.

iii) The blood (1 Cor 11:25) refers back to Christ’s shed blood on the cross, by which the new covenant was ratified, which–in turn–picks up on OT usage (Exod 24:8; Jer31:31). So that’s referring to a past event. An unrepeatable event. Not something that happens every time we take communion.

To transgress the blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:27) is to transgress the new covenant–which was ratified by the death of Christ. That’s the association.

Likewise, Christ shed his blood for Christians. To dishonor a Christian dishonors the atonement. That’s the association.

If you had read Luther, you would find the same doctrine derived from the same, extremely literal hermeneutic.

I don’t care what Luther took it to mean. I care what Paul took it to mean.

Cuda

Good grief! You have addressed the proof texts, so they have no value?

They have great value when correctly understood.

 God's Word come second to your own, apparently.

Cuda is confusing God’s Word with his misinterpretation of God’s Word.

 You have not addressed the substance of Lutheran teaching, just set a straw man and knocked it down. Bravo. There is nothing sacred about putting one's faith in the Word of God and His promises?

Notice how, throughout his comments, he begs the question.

No one said they believed in a "cracker". When the Sacrament delivers Christ to you, how is trusting Christ "cut[ting]Jesus out of the picture?

Which assumes what he needs to prove.

When Baptism is Christ's work of forgiveness through His called servant, when is that cutting Jesus out of the picture?

Which assumes what he needs to prove.

You caricature Lutheran doctrine -- deceitfully -- and then present yourself as a theologian?

I haven’t presented myself as anything.

Clearly, your concept of salvation by faith through grace makes faith your work and the distinguishing thing between those who are saved and those who are not. That makes your work the saving thing - and you your own savior. All hail Steve!

Scripture does present faith as necessary precondition of salvation. Don’t Lutherans know that?