A God-established observance, often given as a remembrance
for generations, a memorial, always a commandment or an edict to be
carried out, noted because God’s people are a covenant people,
a perpetual statement of how God wants his people to relate to him.
Old
Testament
In
the OT the use of the word “ordinance” to translate
certain Hebrew words varies among English translations. Since
“ordinance” relates to the law, it is often mentioned
with commandments and statutes, without a clear distinction of
meaning (Deut. 7:11).
In
the OT of the NIV, the word “ordinance” is the
translation of these Hebrew words: (1) khuqqah (“statute,
decree”), at least twenty-three times in Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Ezekiel; (2) khoq (“action, statute,
decree”), twice in Exodus; and (3) mishpat (“judgment,
justice”), at least five times in the historical books, Psalms,
and Ezekiel.
The
Hebrew term khuqqah is used in all but one instance with ’olam
to note a “lasting ordinance” in the NIV. This term
refers to the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread (Exod.
12–13). The oil for the perpetual lampstand is referred to as a
lasting ordinance (Exod. 27:21), as are also the directions for the
Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:31) and the ceremonial cleanliness for the
man working with the ashes of the red heifer (Num. 19:10). Other,
more-specific laws are noted as lasting ordinances. These include,
for example, the restriction from wine for the priests (Lev. 10:9),
restriction of the Sabbath on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:31), and
the grain offering (Ezek. 46:14).
The
Hebrew term khoq is also used in conjunction with ’olam in
Exod. 12:24; 30:21, translated as “lasting ordinance” by
the NIV. It notes the Passover as a lasting ordinance and the ritual
cleansing of the priests as a lasting ordinance.
The
Hebrew term mishpat, often translated “judgment,” is also
translated in the NIV as “ordinance.” In these instances
it notes edicts such as that of the equal division of spoils (1 Sam.
30:25) and the edicts of David (2 Chron. 8:14). The Levites
state that Israel has sinned against God’s mishpatim (Neh.
9:29), and the priests will judge according to God’s ordinances
(Ezek. 44:24).
New
Testament
In
the NT, the KJV (3x) and NASB (1x) translate dikaiōma
(“regulation, requirement”) as “ordinance,”
and both also once translate diatagē (“that which is
commanded”) as “ordinance”; additionally, the KJV
translates paradosis
(“tradition”) and ktisis (“human authority”)
as “ordinance” once each. The ESV, NRSV, KJV, and NASB
translate dogma (“ordinance, command”) in Eph. 2:15 as
“ordinance.” These terms seem to refer to the edict of
God for his people, his commandments that are to be obeyed. The NIV
does not translate any noun as “ordinance” in the NT.
Christian
Theology
In
Christian theology the use of the word “ordinance” is not
dissimilar. It denotes a God-ordained observance given as a command
for his people to fulfill as a covenant people.
Protestants
generally recognize two ordinances in the NT: baptism and the Lord’s
Supper (Communion, Eucharist). The common characteristics identifying
these relate to their ordination by Christ to picture his work in the
life of believers and the church and their participation in him. (See
also Sacrament.)
Baptism.
The concept of baptism is found in five different Greek words, the
nouns baptisma (“plunging, dipping”), baptismos
(“washing, cleansing, plunging”), and baptistēs
(“baptizer”), and the verbs baptizō (“to
plunge, dip, wash”) and baptō (“to dip”). The
meanings of these words have been discussed
throughout church history, but all of them seem to denote an action
of dipping or plunging.
Christian
baptism certainly is rooted in the baptisms of John, Jesus, and the
apostles. In the book of Acts the disciples simply continue to
baptize those who repent, as they had done at the inception of Jesus’
ministry (John 4:2). There is no surprise expressed by the recipients
of baptism; the expression seems a natural follow-up to their
repentance. The connection to Judaism, however, is unclear. Judaism
was saturated with rituals of purification with water and washings.
These washings were similar to baptisms. While Jewish washings were
perpetual, only the Jewish proselyte baptism was a onetime rite. It
is unclear when proselyte baptism started or how it developed. It may
already have been in place in the time of Jesus. The Talmud later
speaks of it, but it is not mentioned in the OT and seems to be
missing from Second Temple literature altogether. Just as there were
cleansings in the OT rituals, so too the proselyte baptism was a
preparatory cleansing of the proselyte candidate. Yet proselyte
baptism before the time of Jesus has little extant evidence.
Additionally, John would not seem to look to a ritual for Gentiles.
Others
have proposed that John was in continuity with a practice of Qumran.
The two were very similar (though the Qumran rite was perpetual). At
Qumran, baptismal cleansing and repentance looks to the Messiah
(Qumran was an eschatological community). Yet it may be that this, as
well as the baptisms of John, Jesus, and the apostles, was derived
from (common?) sources not now known.
For
John, too, baptism is a sign of repentance and cleansing in
preparation. John is the forerunner of the Messiah, and as such his
focus is also eschatological. John brings an immediate focus on the
Messiah, and he draws the Israelite community together to recognize,
receive, listen to, and follow the Messiah. With this as the
significance of John’s baptism, it is surprising to find Jesus
coming to him for baptism. Although Jesus has no need for cleansing
and preparation, he is baptized in solidarity with John’s
message and his people. When Jesus is baptized, it apparently marks
the inception of the kingdom as the Spirit comes upon him and the
Father affirms him. Thereafter, Jesus notes the kingdom as being “at
hand” in his presence.
Jesus
baptizes at least some of the disciples (John 3:22), though the
disciples are noted as those who regularly do the baptizing (John
4:2). No doubt this baptism referenced cleansing and preparation, as
the Messiah was present. Apparently, the baptism of Jesus’
disciples subsided, since there is no further reference to it by the
four evangelists.
On
the day of Pentecost, repentance and baptism with regard to the
Messiah are begun by the apostles postresurrection. This is according
to the command of Jesus before the ascension to make disciples by way
of baptism and instruction (Matt. 28:19–20). This baptism
commanded by Jesus is to be done “in the name” of the
three persons of the Trinity. The early baptismal creed was “Jesus
is Lord,” and it may have included a threefold query of belief
in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Postresurrection baptism
symbolizes cleansing; the inundation in the water symbolizes this
cleansing as effected in the death and resurrection of Christ,
“buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:4).
Baptism
is always assumed of a believer (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3–4;
1 Pet. 3:21). It would have never occurred to the early church
to dichotomize salvation and baptism as is often done today. The
exception can be seen in Paul’s writings, where he emphasizes
the kerygma over the act of baptism (1 Cor. 1:17). For Paul, the
watershed is the preaching of the gospel to be received by faith, but
he perpetually appeals to the baptism of his readers.
Some
have overemphasized baptism by seeing it as the salvific entity. Acts
10:47 applies for Cornelius and his family the permanent reception of
the Spirit before baptism. This reception of the Spirit is later
likened by Peter to the original gift of the Spirit at Pentecost
(Acts 11:15). Although it would be unwise to infer doctrine from the
mere sequence of narrative events, the passage in Acts 10 at least
shows the nonnecessity of the sequence of baptism to come into union
with Christ. This is enacted by the operation of the Spirit alone.
In
every case in the NT, the candidates for baptism are those who have
come to repentance, and they are always adults. There is no direct
reference to infant baptism. Some in the church have assumed infant
baptism in family contexts, thought to be especially effectual in
dealing with original sin. But overall, the biblical testimony seems
to indicate that baptism is for believers who have repented. Because
it is usually NT authority figures who administer baptism, a general
consensus arose that only the bishop of the church should administer
baptism. Ignatius calls for the bishop only to minister both
ordinances. The tradition that baptism be administered by an ordained
officer of the church is largely maintained today, though there is no
edict in the Scripture.
With
regard to mode, the Didache calls for immersion in running water as
the preferred method, with still water being the second choice. If
water is not available for immersion, then a threefold pouring is
allowed. In church history, those who prioritize the symbol of
cleansing use sprinkling as the mode. In any event, when anything
with regard to mode can be discerned from Scripture, it involves
dipping into water (“he went up out of the water” [Matt.
3:16]; “they came up out of the water” [Acts 8:39]). (See
also Baptism; Infant Baptism.)
The
Lord’s Supper.
The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is also referred to as the
Lord’s Table, Communion, and the Eucharist. The Lord’s
Supper is a memorial of the death of Christ. In the partaking of the
bread and the cup there is remembrance of the ground of salvation
effected in the sacrifice of the cross. Most evangelical Christians
consider the bread and the cup to symbolically represent the body and
blood of Christ. Other Christian traditions claim that the bread and
the cup are transformed into the real body and blood of Christ
(transubstantiation) or that the real body and blood of Christ are
present alongside the bread and the cup (consubstantiation).
The
narrative of Jesus’ Last Supper is found in Matt. 26:26–29;
Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26.
This meal as recorded in the Gospels is the covenant meal celebrated
in view of the ratification of the new covenant that would soon be
accomplished (“this cup is the new covenant in my blood”
[Luke 22:20]). Jesus instituted the supper on the night before the
crucifixion. The Last Supper of Jesus with the apostles in the upper
room also looks to the past redemption effected in the Passover
on that fateful night in Egypt. It looks to the present work of
Christ as the covenant meal. It anticipates the messianic meal in the
eschaton. Just as the bread and the cup with Jesus in his Last Supper
were connected with the Passover meal, so in the early church it was
observed with the love feast. The fellowship of the church contained
the love feast, with the bread given before or after the meal and the
cup following the bread. But by the second century, the bread and the
cup took on a more liturgical air, being separated from the love
feast.
Much
of what we know about the Lord’s Supper comes through
discussion of problems in the Corinthian church. The very thing that
the Lord’s Supper was to foster—unity around the cross of
Jesus Christ—was denied. The exact abuse in Corinth is unknown,
but it probably involved the rich oppressing the poor by exclusion or
denial of food. The response of the apostle is that if they cannot
eat in equal moderation with all socioeconomic strata in the body,
they are to eat at home (“Don’t you have homes to eat and
drink in?” [1 Cor. 11:22]). (See also Last Supper; Lord’s
Supper.)