In remembrance of me
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 á¼Î¼á½´Î½ ἀνάμνησιν (eis tÄ“n emÄ“n anamnÄ“sin). The main noun in the prepositional phrase is from ἀνάμνησις (anamnÄ“sis) 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 á¼Î¼á½´Î½ (emÄ“n) which is from the possessive pronoun á¼Î¼á½¹Ï‚ (emos). According to BDAG (the standard Greek lexicon), á¼Î¼á½¹Ï‚ (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 á¼Î¼á½¹Ï‚ (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 á¼Î¼á½¹Ï‚ (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 (anamnÄ“sis) (“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 á¼Î¼á½¹Ï‚ (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.
The Lord’s table and humility
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.
————————————————————-
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.
Knowing Jesus in the Breaking of the Bread
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 ekklÄ“siai. 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?
One Bread and One Cup
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.
James D. G. Dunn on the Lord’s dinner
Judging from these quotes, I think James D. G. Dunn’s Beginning from Jerusalem will be work perusing:
We should not fail to note that ‘the Lord’s Supper’ was a complete meal, which would begin, we may suppose, in Jewish fashion, with the blessing, breaking and sharing of the bread. Paul’s own description is explicit that the sharing of the cup took place ‘after the meal’, at the close of the meal (11.25). The point is obscured by the fact that the term ‘supper’ in ‘the Lord’s Supper is an old fashioned term and now more misleading than helpfully descriptive. The term Paul uses in 11.20 is deipnon, which refers to the main meal of the day, eaten in the evening; ‘the Lord’s dinner’ would be a more accurate translation, however crassly it may ring in the modern ear. No doubt, a large part of the attractive the churches, as with associations generally, was the companionship (fellowship) and conviviality of these meals (not to mention a share in better food than many might be able to provide for themselves). The complete meal character of ‘the dinner of the Lord’ also carries an important theological corollary: to the extent that we can speak of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth as a sacramental meal – as we can (10.16) – a key consideration is that the sacramental character embraced the whole meal, beginning with the shared bread and ending with the shared cup. Integral to the religious character of the meal was its shared character; for Paul the whole meal was to be shared in conscious memory of Jesus’ last supper and, as in the earliest Jerusalem gatherings, probably in conscious continuation of Jesus’ own table-fellowship. (pg 645-646)
All this leaves unresolved the question whether unbelievers and outsiders were admitted to the Lord’s dinner. The implication of 14.23-24, that such could be present when believers came together as church, may apply only to gatherings for worship. At the same time, we should not assume that the shared meals had a specially sacred character that disbarred unbelievers and outsiders from sharing in them [cf. Rom. 14.6]. Was every shared meal ‘the Lord’s dinner’? Was the bread broken and the wine drunk at every meal ‘in remembrance’ of Jesus (11.24-25)? We have already noted the same ambiguity with regard to Luke’s references to the ‘breaking of bread’. And it would be unduly hasty to assume that the hospitality which a Christian couple like Aquila and Priscilla extended to fellow believers and others would have had a markedly different character (in their eyes) from the meals shared when the whole church gathered in one place. Whether or not the Lord’s table was seen as an evangelistic opportunity in these early years, we can be fairly confident that Christian hospitality did result in many guests and visitors coming to faith in the Lord of their hosts. (pg. 647)
(HT: Euangelion)
Witherington on the Table of the Lord
This quote is from Ben Witherington’s book Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007):
What have we learned in our examination of Paul’s discussion of meals, and in particular the Lord’s Supper? Firstly, the Lord’s Supper was taken in homes. This is clear not only from 1 Corinthians 11 but also probably from Acts 2, and furthermore, it was partaken of as a part of a larger fellowship meal. Secondly, Paul is trying to distinguish the Christian meal and its protocol from the usual socially stratifying customs of a pagan meal. The Christian meal was to depict the radical leveling that the kerygma proclaimed – whoever would lead must take on the role of the servant, and all should be served equally. This social leveling was meant to make clear that there was true equality in the body of Christ. All were equal in the eyes of the Lord, and they should also be viewed that way by Christians, leading to equal hospitality.
Thirdly, the Lord’s Supper was clearly not just a reenactment of the Passover meal, not least because of its prospective element, looking forward and pointing forward to the return of Christ. For that matter, the Last Supper itself was no ordinary Passover meal, for Christ modified both the elements and their interpretation so they would refer to him and his coming death. There seems to be no historical evidence that early Christians used the Lord’s Supper as an occasion to dramatize either the Passover or the Last Supper. Instead, the ceremony was incorporated into a larger and different context, that of the Christian fellowship, or agape, meal. (pg. 60-61)
What do you think of Witherington’s conclusions? Is it important that followers of Jesus continue to share the Lord’s Supper as the early believers did as described in Scripture? Why or why not? If so, then in what ways?
The Sacraments and the Church
Three years ago, I was a new PhD student and very new to blogging. In fact (believe it or not), I only wrote a few blog posts each month. During the fall of 2006, I started reading a book by Jim Peterson called em>Church Without Walls. Later that I year I would write that that book was the “Best Book of the Year” that I had read.
In a post from three years ago called “The Sacraments and the Church,” I interacted with a statement from Peterson’s book concerning one of the reformational “marks” of the church: the sacraments (ordinances, whatever). Here is that post:
————————————
I have been greatly challenged by Jim Peterson’s book Church Without Walls. In chapter nine, “New Boundaries for the Church,” he states, “One lesson that comes through in our discussion of history and of form and function is that the church has constantly tended toward narrowing.” What he means by this is that historical periods (i.e. the church fathers, the reformation), theological systems, denominational distinctives, and culture add limitations to our understanding of Scripture and, therefore, our understaning of the church. Here is one example:
One example is the Reformers’ treatment of the sacraments. Previously the pope had served as the unifying factor for the church. He defined the church. Since all the Reformers rejected the authority of the pope, a replacement symbol was needed. It is significant that the sacraments-particularly baptism and the Lord’s Supper-are included in virtually all of their definitions. But do they belong at all? Is that why the sacraments were given to God’s people? Is it baptism that makes a church a church? Is that why the Lord’s Supper was instituted? The sacraments were not given to define the church for us. And whenever we impose a second meaning on something in this manner, its true significance is diminished or even lost.
For the past few months, I have been pondering a definition of the church. I even had a series of blog posts about the definition of the church (Final post with links to previous posts). My definition did not include the sacraments. I believe the sacraments are very important, but I do not see where Scripture uses the sacraments to define the church. Are the sacraments something that the church does? Yes. Do the sacraments define the church? No. Is a church still a church if it does not practice the sacraments? Yes. Does a group become a church because they practice the sacraments? No.
Am I correct? If not, why not? If so, then what is the purpose of the sacraments (or ordinances, if you prefer)? Also, if I am correct, have we diminished the true significance of the sacraments?
Adolf Schlatter on the Church
About two and half years ago, I wrote an article called “Adolf Schlatter on the Church“. In the post, I responded to something that Schlatter wrote concerning the unity of the early church. I still wonder why we can’t live in that same unity today.
————————————–
Adolf Schlatter was an anomaly in late nineteenth and early twentieth century German theological scholarship. Though holding a teaching position at Tübingen, a university well-known for approaching the Bible through higher criticism, Schlatter maintained conservative (evangelical?) beliefs. I have wanted to buy his two volume set The History of the Christ and The Theology of the Apostles for some time. I was finally able to buy them, and I flipped through The Theology of the Apostles looking for Schlatter’s view of the church. There is certainly much more to read, but I found this paragraph very interesting:
Moreover, the public confession of Jesus’ lordship produced in them a union that oriented everyone’s conduct toward the same goal, and the Spirit’s presence invested the community with a thoroughly spiritual dimension. Baptism did not result in a multitude of autonomous congregations but the one church, because baptism called its recipients to the Christ. Likewise, the table around which the community gathered was not the table of a teacher or baptizer or bishop but Christ’s table. By receiving their share in Christ, they simultaneously entered into communion with all other believers. The concept of the church thus took on a universal dimension from the start that remained undiminished, just as the individual local Jewish congregation had always been considered to be part of the one Israel.
According to Schlatter, the universality and the unity of the church was more than an ideal. The church was universal and united because of its shared confession, conduct, goal, baptism, table, and portion in Christ, not to mention the common presence of the Spirit of God.
As I look at that list – a list of items that, according to Schlatter, once brought the church together – I recognize that many, perhaps all, are now used to divide the church instead of unite the church. While the confession (“Jesus is Lord”) was originally intended to separate believers from nonbelievers, we now use expanded confessional statements to separate one group of believers from another group of believers. While the one baptism originally represented death to self and new birth in Christ, baptism is now used to divide the body of Christ into different factions. Similarly, the Lord’s table and even conduct are often used to separate churches instead of uniting them.
Do we recognize that who we are as the church has little (if anything) to do with the things we say or even the things we do? I would suggest (along with Schlatter) that who we are as the church is instead associated with us having received a “share in Christ”. But, that also means that who other people are does not depend on the words they say or the things they do. Instead, those who have received Christ have “simultaneously entered into communion with all other believers” – not because of their actions or a prayer or a confession, but because they now belong to Christ and they now belong to the Father’s family. Certainly, there may be a need for discipleship and teaching people to live as a part of the Father’s family, but we do not have the right nor the authority to dismiss someone from the Father’s family nor to choose to disassociate with someone who Christ has claimed as His own.
Can we know with certainty that someone belongs to Christ? No. But, then again, no one can know with certainty about us either. With the “confession of Jesus’ lordship” (“Jesus is Lord”) someone claims acceptance into the family of God and the presence of the Spirit. As a family, we are then required (yes, I do mean required) to accept that person, to disciple that person, to bear with that person, to love that person, to serve that person, to teach that person, to forgive that person even if (especially if!) that person disagrees with us. We come together in community, but that community is not based on us and our beliefs and our confessions. That community is based solely on our individual and mutual relationships with God through Jesus Christ enabled by the Holy Spirit.
When we separate from someone that we consider a brother or sister in Christ, we are usurping the authority of God. And, when we refuse to hold brothers and sisters accountable to their confession “Jesus is Lord”, then we are ignoring our mutual responsibilities as part of God’s family.
Community becomes ceremony
In commenting on a passage from Charles Spurgeon (which I quoted in a post called “Spurgeon’s ‘Building the Church’“), Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” has made some excellent observations in a post called “On the Lord’s Supper and genuine, Biblical Christian fellowship“. First, read the Spurgeon quote, either on Arthur’s post or mine, then read Arthur’s comment:
That is a far cry from how we break bread with one another today. I think that the problem with the prior post on denying the table to Christians is that we are not talking about the Lord’s Supper in the same frame of reference that the Bible speaks of the Supper. We see the Lord’s Supper, the fellowship, the breaking of bread as being something that is reserved for formal, organized meetings “at churchâ€, on schedule and in the proper format. Nothing could be further from the Bible. We have lost the sense of the Supper being an act of worship, of fellowship, of community among the redeemed. It is now a ceremony, a function, a sacrament. We are poorer as a people for it and the Supper is less meaningful because of it.
Again, this is not to discount the need for and the value of corporate gathering and worship. We have been in fellowship with other believers in a corporate setting every Sunday since we moved, often multiple times on Sundays. But we as the Body of Christ have so modified the idea of Christian fellowship and the breaking of bread and worship from how it appears in the Bible that I fear that we are doing a lot more tradition following than we are Bible following. Especially from those of us who are Reformed, who believe in the inerrancy, perspicuity and sufficiency of the Bible. We, of all people, should seek in the spirit of semper reformanda to constantly test what we believe and what we do with the words of Holy Writ and not let our theology and practice be dictated by tradition or culture or confessions, but instead be guided by the Word of God. What is tragic is that being “Reformed†seems to require greater and greater form and structure. What is ironic is that being “Reformed†is looking less and less like a reformation and more and more like what Christians were trying to reform in the first place.
Are we willing to admit that we’ve replaced community with ceremony? Are we then willing to move beyond ceremony and seek true community in Christ?
What makes a meal the Lord’s Supper?
Over at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia…“, Arthur continues a discussion on the Lord’s Supper in his post called “Ouch!” (see my post “Lord’s Meal“)
In this post, Arthur questions:
Is there not a place between the two extremes of rigid sacramentalism and informal meals? Can believers in a home experience the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace or must it be in a church building? Can a potluck among fellow believers exhibit the sobriety and gravity that the breaking of bread and drinking the cup demands? I have broken bread and had (non-alcoholic) wine in my home with believers and it was as meaningful and perhaps more so than a church ceremony. But I have also had meals in my home with fellow believers that were social but not at all in keeping with 1 Corinthians 11 nor would I consider those meals an adequate replacement for the Lord’s Supper. It has less to do with location and more to do with the spirit.
Arthur asks some very interesting questions. I’d like to modify these questions a little:
What makes a meal between believers the Lord’s Supper?
What makes a meal between believers NOT the Lord’s Supper?
I’m asking these questions because I’m not sure of the answer myself. What do you think?