August 29, 2010

Please allow me an opportunity for a little levity concerning a very important subject.

Jon at “Jon’s Journey” has written a very good article looking at 1 Corinthians 11 concerning “The Lord’s Supper.”

As I thought about Paul’s admonition that some of the Corinthians were eating too much food while others were going hungry, I applied that to today’s practices. I pictured someone sneaking in and eating most of the little morsels of bread-like substance off of the plates.

Then, as I thought about Paul’s admonition that some were drinking so much wine that they were getting drunk, I also applied that to today’s practices. I pictured someone else sneaking in a drinking most of the wine (grape juice wouldn’t work in this case) from the small glasses and getting drunk.

For some reason, this was a funny image for me.

August 17, 2010

A few days ago, I was reading through parts of Margaret M. Mitchell’s Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991). I came across the section where she was discussing the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

Mitchell points out that linguistically the entire passage focuses on the relational problems among the believers in Corinth:

Paul next turns to admonish the Corinthians for behavior in community worship which is even more divisive than the head wear disagreements. He begins this argument with his censure of their improper behavior first named in general terms, and then he describes specifically the abuse which he will treat… (1 Corinthians 11:20-22) Because he returns to this ecclesiological concern in 1 Corinthians 11:33-34, we conclude that the disunity of the church is the main topic of this argument, to which the tradition (1 Corinthians 11:23-26) is a response. (page 263)

If Mitchell is correct, and I believe that she is, then relational divisions during the Corinthian’s shared community meals is the reason that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Thus, we should read each part of that passage as building on Paul’s argument against these relational divisions.

For example, when Paul reiterates the account of Jesus’ last supper with his disciples in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, he intended to admonish the Corinthians about the way they were treating one another. When he told the Corinthians to “let a person examine himself” in 1 Corinthians 11:28, it is in the context of communal relationships, not individual sin (although certainly individual sin causes problems with communal relationships). The same would be true about Paul’s teaching about judging ourselves in 1 Corinthians 11:31-32.

Paul began this section of Scripture by admonishing the Corinthians concerning their behavior when they came together to eat. He ends this section by again instructing the Corinthians about their behavior when they come together to eat. So, in context, we should understand that in this entire passage Paul is concerned about how the Corinthians are treating one another when they come together to share a meal.

We cannot pull parts of the passage out and choose to interpret that differently than the entire passage. Instead, the parts work together within the context of the whole.

Is this how you’ve heard this passage about the Lord’s Supper interpreted? How would it change traditional interpretations that you’ve heard?

April 29, 2010

So, when we read “breaking bread” in the New Testament, should we assume that the author is talking about “the Lord’s Supper” (or Communion or the Eucharist or whatever it is called in your tradition)?

We find Jesus “breaking bread” in the feeding of the 5000 and the feeding of the 4000:

Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. (Matthew 14:19 ESV; see also Mark 6:41)

[H]e took the seven loaves and the fish, and having given thanks he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. (Matthew 15:36 ESV; see also Mark 8:6)

Similarly, the phrase “break bread” is used in the accounts of Jesus last meal with his disciples before the crucifixion:

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” (Matthew 26:26; see also Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19)

Jesus also “broke bread” after walking along the road to Emmaus with two disciples:

When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. (Luke 24:30 ESV; see also Luke 24:35)

In Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:46, Luke tells us that the church “broke bread” together daily after Pentecost:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (Acts 2:42 ESV)

And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts… (Acts 2:46 ESV)

Paul met with the church in Troas when they got together to “break bread”:

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7 ESV)

And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. (Acts 20:11 ESV)

When Paul was on a ship in a storm for two weeks, he broke bread with the sailors:

And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat. (Acts 27:35 ESV)

Finally, Paul wrote to the Corinthians about “breaking bread” twice, once a repetition of Jesus’ words at his last meal with his followers:

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? (1 Corinthians 10:16 ESV)

[A]nd when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:24 ESV)

As far as I can tell, these are all the passages in the New Testament that refer to “breaking bread.”

There’s also an interesting occurrence of the phrase “break bread” in Jeremiah – doubly interesting because it also includes reference to a “cup”:

No one shall break bread for the mourner, to comfort him for the dead, nor shall anyone give him the cup of consolation to drink for his father or his mother. (Jeremiah 16:7 ESV)

So, which of these instances of “break bread” do you think definitely refers to “the Lord’s Supper”? Which ones definitely do NOT refer to “the Lord’s Supper”?

April 16, 2010

Four years ago, when I first started this blog, I wrote a post called “Activities during the gathering of the church.” I think Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 11 (when speaking of the Lord’s Table/Supper) that activities themselves do not produce a “successful” meeting of the church. I think this applies to other activities as well.

——————————————

Activities during the gathering of the church

Most books on ecclesiology are surprisingly silent concerning the actual gathering of the church. In many cases, the gathering is assumed, and there is no distinction made between ethical requirements for individuals and requirements for the body as it is assembled. (Note: One notable exception is David Peterson’s book, Engaging with God. However, Peterson’s book is not a study in ecclesiology per se, but a biblical theology of worship. It is an excellent read!)

When ecclesiologies do examine the gathering of the church, they usually turn immediately to proper activities that constitute “worship.” (Again, there is rarely any distinction made between “worship” and the “gathering of the church.” They are usually assumed to be synonymous.)

Should proper activities be our first concern when we consider the church assembled? It is true that many Scripture passages discuss the practices of the NT church: Acts 2:42-47, Acts 11:26, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 5:4, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, 1 Corinthians 14. More importantly, is God, first and foremost, concerned that we are including the proper activities during our church gatherings?

In Acts 20:7, Luke tells us that Paul spoke to the disciples in Troas when they came together on the first day of the week “to break bread.” This is usually seen as an indication that the church gathered to participate in the Lord’s Supper weekly. This is confirmed in other passages, especially 1 Corinthians 11. However, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul teaches the Corinthians (and us!) something very important. He says:

Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. (1 Corinthians 11:20-21)

Paul indicates that the Corinthians were gathering to partake of the Lord’s Supper – they were eating and drinking. However, Paul says it was not the Lord’s Supper in reality, because they came together with wrong motives, wrong attitudes, and in wrong relationships with one another. The activity itself did not constitute a proper gathering!

Perhaps when our churches gather, there are more important matters than what activities we should include in our gatherings. We must continue to study Scripture to see what God says about our gatherings!

April 9, 2010

Earlier this week, I wrote about our church meeting last Sunday. (see my post “Meeting Around the Table of the Lord“) After publishing that post, I remembered that there was another time 3 years ago that we had the bread, then a meal, then the cup as part of our meeting. But, that time was a different kind of meeting. That was a meeting set aside to reading through the entire Gospel of John in one night. Here is what I wrote about it 3 years ago in a post called “Reading John“. (By the way, as we’re finishing our study of the  Gospel of Matthew, we’ve talked about getting together to read through that entire Gospel in one sitting also.)

———————————————

Reading John

Last night, our family gathered with about 40 other brothers and sisters to read the Gospel of John. The family that hosted last night also hosted a reading of the Gospel of Luke in December. Our family was not able to attend the reading of Luke, so this was our first time to sit through a community reading of a gospel.

We started by breaking bread as part of the Lord’s Supper. Then, we all shared a meal. After the meal, we sang a song and began reading John. One person read each chapter (the chapters had been assigned as people arrived). After each group of seven chapters, we took a fifteen minute break. During the breaks, we would eat and sing songs again. After reading all twenty-one chapters, we shared the cup of the Lord’s Supper.

This was a very special time for us. It was amazing to hear the Gospel of John read in one sitting in a community of believers.

April 6, 2010

I’ve written several times on this blog about the Lord’s Supper, or Communion, or the Eucharist, or whatever you want to call it. I’ve talked about how the Lord’s Supper is described as a meal in Scripture. I’ve also written about how we usually eat together when we gather with the church.

Still, though, there has usually been a disconnect between our meeting together, the bread/cup, and eating a meal together. I’ve often thought about how this disconnect could be remedied.

Last Sunday – yes, Easter Sunday – we had an opportunity to meet in a different way that brought together the bread/cup, a meal, and our whole meeting.

We began by meeting around tables. People knew that we would be eating together, so they brought food with them – rows of crock-pots, casseroles, dishes, and other assorted goodies. We then milled around and talked and discussed our week and different things like that.

Eventually, one of our brothers started leading us in some singing. Since it was Easter, and since we were planning to study the resurrection passage in Matthew 28:1-17, we sang several songs about the resurrection. We’re also reading through Acts together, so at one point two brothers read from Acts 18, one reading the first half of the chapter, and another reading the second half of the chapter.

After a few songs, we talked about the significance of the bread and breaking the bread. We talked about how the bread signified both Jesus’ broken body as a sacrifice on our behalf, and how the broken bread signifies the beginning of our meal with Jesus as our risen, living host. It remains his table, not ours.

Since I was planning to lead our discussion of Matthew 28:1-17 that morning, I suggested several questions that people could discuss together around their tables as they were eating.

Then, after we broke and shared the loaf of bread together, we began eating. As we ate, we discussed the questions that I suggested. After most people had finished eating, and while a few were finishing dessert, I asked each table (we had five tables) to share something about their discussion.

Next, I read and led a discussion of Matthew 28:1-17. Of course, our discussion around the table led into this teaching/discussion. Since people had already been talking about the issues in smaller groups, it seemed our larger group discussion was even more open and focused on the topic.

Finally, after a few announcements, we passed around the “cup” (actually a bottle of grape juice) and shared this together.

There are many ways for the church to meet together. I really appreciated the way we met together last Sunday. I liked the way that our meeting format combined the bread, cup, meal, and teaching all together in a unified format. The bread/cup and meal were not “tacked on” to the meeting, but were an integral part of our meeting together.

February 12, 2010

Two years ago, after attending an ecclesiology workshop, I wrote a post called “In remembrance of me” concerning that phrase in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. The question is this: Does the phrase “in remembrance of me” in Paul’s description of the Last Supper indicate a reminder for us or a reminder for Jesus? In my post I said that I was hoping to study this in more detail. It’s been two years, and I still haven’t studied it in more detail. What do you think?

—————————————–

In remembrance of me

The title of this post is more than a phrase carved in the side of the communion table at the front of most church buildings. The phrase comes from Luke and 1 Corinthians concerning the Lord’s Supper:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22:19-20 ESV)

For I [Paul] received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25 ESV)

In each case, the bread and/or cup is said to be given “in remembrance of me”. Last weekend at the “House Church Workshop” by New Testament Restoration Fellowship, Tim Melvin said something interesting about this phrase. He said that this reminder is not for us, but for Jesus. I have not come to a conclusion about this phrase, but I wanted to put Tim’s argument down in print in order to consider it and in order to get feedback from others.

To begin with, the phrase “in remembrance of me” is a translation of the Greek phrase εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (eis tēn emēn anamnēsin). The main noun in the prepositional phrase is from ἀνάμνησις (anamnēsis) which is usually translated “reminder, remembrance, or memory”. Every Christian group agrees that the Lord’s Supper is a form of reminder, although some would say that it is much more than that.

The questions concerns the pronoun ἐμὴν (emēn) which is from the possessive pronoun ἐμός (emos). According to BDAG (the standard Greek lexicon), ἐμός (emos) always demonstrates possession (i.e. “my”, “mine”, “what belongs to me”), except in Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In those three occurrences, BDAG says that the pronoun ἐμός (emos) does not demonstrate possession but content. Thus, according to BDAG, the content of the reminder is Jesus. This is the normal interpretation of this passage.

Tim Melvin (and he told me that he got this from Steve Atkerson) says that we should translate the pronoun ἐμός (emos) as a possessive pronoun. Thus, the Lord’s Supper is not a reminder whose content is Jesus (that is, it reminds us of Jesus), but instead the Lord’s Supper is a reminder which belongs to Jesus (that is, it reminds Jesus of something).

This may sound very strange. Why would God need a reminder? However, this would not be unprecedented in Scripture. Consider what God told Noah about the rainbow:

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” (Genesis 9:12-16 ESV)

While we normally think of the rainbow as a reminder to us, this is not what Scripture says. In this passage, God says twice that he will see the rainbow, and that the rainbow will remind him of the covenant.

Therefore, according to this argument, the Lord’s Supper is a sign of the new covenant, much like the rainbow was a sign of God’s covenant with Noah. And, just as the rainbow would remind God of his covenant with Noah, the Lord’s Supper reminds God (through Jesus) of the new covenant that he has made with his children.

By the way, NTRF is not the only people to suggest this interpretation of the phrase “in remembrance of me” or “for my reminder”. Apparently, Joachim Jeremias said that Jesus used ἀνάμνησις (anamnēsis) (“remembrance, reminder”) in the sense of a reminder for God: “The Lord’s Supper would thus be an enacted prayer”. (from NIDNTT, Vol III, p. 244) I have not yet looked up this reference to check the quote in context.

As I said earlier, I have not decided what I think about this argument. I will say that in my cursory study, they are correct about the use of the pronoun ἐμός (emos). It seems that in all other occurrences of the pronoun, the pronoun is used to refer to possession, not content. Also, it is true that this would not be a unique reference to something reminding God (or Jesus) of his covenant. Therefore, the argument is persuasive.

I hope to continue to study this view of the phrase “in remembrance of me” or “for my reminder”. Furthermore, I hope to continue to think about some of the implications of this view concerning the Lord’s Supper. I would love to hear your thoughts concerning their position and any implications for the Lord’s Supper.

January 29, 2010

Two years ago, I wrote a post called “The Lord’s table and humility.” I’m still amazed when I read through the New Testament and see how much emphasis is placed on simply eating meals together. I still don’t understand it all. I also don’t understand how someone could take something that was once the center of fellowship among brothers and sisters and turn it into a reason for separation.

————————————————————-

The Lord’s table and humility

As I’ve mentioned previously in the posts “A Spiritual Remembrance” and “The Lord’s Supper as Communion“, I’m reading through Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper, edited by John H. Armstrong. The “Reformed View” of the Lord’s Supper is presented by I. John Hesselink.

While there is much that I would agree with in Hesselink’s presentation, I would disagree with some of his conclusions as well. (Interesting, since I could say the same thing about Moore’s presentation of the “Baptist View” of the Lord’s Supper.) However, I was very encouraged by one part of Hesselink’s presentation. In these paragraphs, he quotes John Calvin as Calvin considers the “secret”, “mystery”, and “wonder” that we call the Lord’s Supper:

I urge my readers not to confine their mental interests within these too narrow limits, but to strive to rise much higher than I can lead them. For, whenever this matter is discussed, when I have tried to say all, I feel that I have as yet said little in proportion to its worth. And although my mind can think beyond what my tongue can utter, yet even my mind is conquered and overwhelmed by the greatness of the thing. Therefore, nothing remains but to break forth in wonder at this mystery, which plainly neither the mind is able to conceive nor the tongue to express (Inst. IV.17.7).

Hesselink then comments on the quote above by John Calvin:

Since this heavenly mystery is beyond comprehension but is at the same time such a precious gift of God’s generosity and kindness, our proper response should not be frustration because of our inability to understand the mysteries of the sacrament, but rather gratitude and a reverent openness to what God would give us through it. We should emulate the spirit of Calvin, who was not “ashamed to confess” that the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper is “a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare.” In short, he concludes, “I rather experience than understand it” (Inst. IV.17.32).

After years and years of battles with words and swords concerning “the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper”, it is encouraging to read these words of Calvin and Hesselink. Calvin held very strongly to his convictions concerning the Lord’s Supper, and yet he was able to voice (at least) his inability to understand the mystery and wonder of the Supper. Perhaps this is a good starting place for those who disagree about “the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper”.

I’ve found that most disagreements concerning the Lord’s Supper do not begin with Scripture. Instead, they begin with someone’s interpretation of Scripture – whether a patristic writer, or a reformation writer, or a modern day writer. Those who hold to certain views of the Lord’s Supper defend their favorite authors. In the meantime, they often ridicule (at best) or condemn (at worst) those who disagree with their favorite author. Thus, the common table of the Lord becomes a shouting match or even an ultimate fighting arena for those who hold different interpretations of the Supper itself. These fights – with words or with swords – end up dividing what Christ brings together.

However, if we can approach the table with humility – holding to our convictions and yet admitting that our convictions may be wrong – we will find that the table ceases to be a weapon and becomes the communion for which it was intended. We may find that we can stop dividing over Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et. al. and instead find common grace, mercy, and forgiveness in Jesus Christ. Of course, that means that we will have to admit that we (and our favorite interpretation and author) may be wrong. We also have to admit that we can learn from other followers of Jesus Christ who come to the table from different perspectives and hermeneutical traditions.

As long as we try to find unity in the writings and interpretations of men, we will only find factions and divisions. We will only find unity in the person of Jesus Christ. That unity may display itself more when we stop trying to prove ourselves right, and instead use the freedom that we have in Christ to serve others – even those who disagree with us about the table of the Lord.

At the table, the Lord lowered himself to the position of a slave and washed the feet of his followers. Those disciples did not understand him completely. Peter would soon deny him. Yet, Jesus served them. May we follow his humble example.

January 26, 2010

Today’s ordinary Catholic mass or mainline Protestant communion service bears little resemblance to what we can glean from the New Testament about the first celebrations of Jesus’ presence in the breaking of the bread. Arguments that have divided denominations over the question of the relationship between the blessed bread and the whereabouts of Jesus would certainly have seemed strange and irrelevant to the first ekklēsiai. The New Testament speaks simply, both in the Gospels and in other writings, of memory and presence without theological elaboration. Because of our modern historical obsession with what one might call “left-brain” (rational) inquiries about a “right-brain” (affective) experience, we have often lost the essence of what Jesus intended and Paul understood about the Eucharist. (Wes Howard-Brook, The Church Before Christianity, New York: Orbis Books, 2004, p. 50)

Is the author correct? Would our arguments and disagreements concerning “The Lord’s Supper” or “The Eucharist” or “Communion” seem strange and irrelevant to the first churches? Are they, in fact, irrelevant today?

December 31, 2009

Dave Black is writing about the Lord’s Supper again (Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at 3:50 pm):

I remain convinced, in an obscurantist sort of way of course (being the ultimate obscurantist), of the necessity of having one loaf of bread and one cup during the Lord’s Supper. If you will tolerate yet another reference to the sixteenth century Anabaptists, in 1541 Peter Riedemann wrote that the one loaf is formed by the grinding and mingling of many grains of wheat, and the wine exists only because many individual grapes have been crushed. “Thus, the meal … is a sign of the community of the body, in that each and every member declares himself to be of the one mind, heart and spirit of Christ.” The point is that, in the Lord’s Supper, individualism is given up for unity. Forgive me, but — isn’t that powerful?

Interestingly, churches often put emphases on the “Supper” that we can’t find in Scripture. For instance, can you find anything in Scripture that says it’s important for the bread in the Supper to be unleavened? What about only have “ordained” (whatever that means) people serve the “elements”?

No… but Scripture does say something about the one bread and one cup and the focus on unity, fellowship, and community.