Wait for one another
To me, one of the most interesting passages of Scripture is 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. In that passage, Paul deals with issues surrounding the “Lord’s Supper” at Corinth. In fact, the problems are so great that Paul says that the believers are coming together for the worse, not for the better.
But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 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.” 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.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another – if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home- so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34 ESV)
Most of the time, when people teach from this passage, they grab the verses out of the middle which deal with Jesus’ words during his last supper with his disciples. Usually, the teachers will also talk about “examining himself” and also the possibility of becoming sick or dying because of improper eating and drinking. Thus, we are encouraged to search our hearts for sin and to ensure that we have asked God for forgiveness before we partake of the Lord’s Supper.
That would be a nice and tidy sermon if it wasn’t for the surrounding context. You see, Paul was not writing to the Corinthians because of personal, spiritual sin issues. He was writing to them because of corporate, social sin issues.
There are a few items in particular that we should notice. First, the Corinthians were eating and drinking. Paul does not attempt to correct their meal activities. However, Paul tells them that the act of eating and drinking does not constitute the “Lord’s Supper”. The believers in Corinth were not partaking of the Lord’s Supper because of their attitudes toward one another. They could eat bread and drink wine all they wanted, but it would not be the Lord’s Supper as long as they were not relating properly to their brothers and sisters – even those who could not afford to provide their own food.
(This is somewhat off the subject, but I believe that Christians today should consider this passage very carefully. Even if we are participating in certain activities – singing, reading Scripture, praying, baptizing, taking the Lord’s Supper, etc. – our activities in and of themselves does not indicate that we are obeying God and meeting together in the way that he wants us to meet.)
For Paul, the bread and the cup represented the new covenant in Christ – a covenant that included all of the believers in Corinth. As fellow partakers in the new covenant, the believers in Corinth should relate to one another differently – not in the social, cultural, political, racial, ethnic, and class structures of their day – but as equal fellow citizens of the kingdom of God. This new covenant relationship affects every part of a believer’s life – including, but not limited to, eating and drinking. Because of this new covenant relationship, the people no longer simply looked out for themselves and their own interest, they cared for one another, even to the point of sharing their food with those who did not have food.
Paul’s call for examination and judgment in this context deals primarily with our relationships with other believers – not simply our own personal sin struggles – which we all have. But, if our sin is manifesting itself in our relationships with other believers, then we need to take steps to reconcile those relationships. And, as fellow family members, we need to “judge” others in a way that helps them reconcile broken relationships as well.
When we come together as new covenant family members – under what James calls the royal law – we will love one another. And, that love will demonstrate itself in the way that we act toward one another. Specifically, we will “wait” for one another. “Wait” in 1 Cor 11:34 is not simply biding our time, but a sense of expectation. We will look forward to our time eating together, recognizing that God is working through our relationships to mature us in Christ.
We can eat a piece of bread and drink from a cup all we want. But, if our eating and drinking is not tied to a new covenant relationship with other brothers and sisters in Christ, then we are not eating the Lord’s Supper. If our thoughts are not on our family – how to help each other mature in Christ and in our relationships with one another – then we are not partaking of the Lord’s Supper. If our meditation on God does not lead us toward caring for our brothers and sisters in Christ, then we are not taking the Lord’s Supper. If we are sitting with a group of people that we don’t know – that we don’t care about – that we don’t want to spend more time with – then we are not eating the Lord’s Supper.
Jesus invites us to gather around his table with his family, and he serves us a common loaf and a common cup. He does not serve us alone. If we attempt to dine alone – even in a crowd – then we can be certain that the host of our dinner is not Jesus Christ.
Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 3
This is the third installment in a series concerning Tertullian’s descriptions of the meeting of the church sometime around 200 AD (see “Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1” and “Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2“). This passage also occurs in Chapter 39 of Tertullian’s Apology. Between the previous passage and the current passage, Tertullian denies that the Christians share their wives, although he says that they share everything else. He also denies that their feasts are “extravagant” or “wicked” as some critiques have claimed.
Then, Tertullian ends his discussion of the church meeting with this passage:
Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agape, i.e., affection [love]. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment,-but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing,-a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of virtue rather than a banquet.
Give the congregation of the Christians its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is like assemblies of the illicit sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any complaint can be validly laid against it, such as lies against secret factions. But who has ever suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congregations just what we are when separated from each other; we are as a community what we are individuals; we injure nobody, we trouble nobody. When the upright, when the virtuous meet together, when the pious, when the pure assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction, but a curia-[i.e., the court of God.]
Apparently, in Tertullian’s day, the meeting of the church included a feast – eating enough food to be satisfied, and drinking but not so much as to be unchaste. From this passage it is impossible to tell whether or not this feast occurred at the same time and place as the exhortation described earlier. (For example, when Pliny interrogated some Christians, he found out that they met twice on the same day – see “Meeting with the Early Church – Pliny’s Letter“.) However, it is clear that this “feast” was not limited to a piece of bread and a drink of wine. At the same time, however, it was also not a time of gluttony and drunkenness.
This is the second time that Tertullian remarks that the Christians act a certain way because of their belief that God is with them. Here, though, he continues by recognizing that their manner of living is consistent both during the meeting and after the meeting – both when they are with other believers, and when they are away from other believers. Apparently, the belief that God is with them carried over outside the meeting of the church, and greatly affected they way that they lived their lives.
Besides eating and drinking, the feast also included prayer – both before and after the meal – as well as singing, as each one is requested to sing either from Scripture or a self-composed song. There is also interesting reference to “bringing in the lights”. I do not know what this points to. Perhaps a reader can help me out with this one.
At the beginning of this passage, there is another reference to benefiting the needy, this time in reference to the feast. Tertullian does not give us details of this benefit – whether Tertullian is referring to needy believers who are provided with food for the feast, whether the needy are invited to dine with the believers, whether the believers again receive contributions during the feast to benefit the needy, or whether that benefit comes in some other manner. However, even during this feast, the thoughts of the believers are turned to “the least”. Why do they desire to benefit the needy through their feast? Because they see it as the way of God himself. For this reason, “a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly”.
What do you think about Tertullian’s description of the “love feasts” in 200 AD? How does Tertullian’s description of Agape meals compare to those of today (“Lord’s Supper” or “Eucharist”?)? How does Tertullian’s description compare to Scripture?
—————————————————–
Series:
1. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1
2. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2
3. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 3
When you come together…
So, today is Mother’s Day and Pentecost Day. We started the day by celebrating my wife – actually, we started celebrating yesterday, but Jeremy and Miranda gave her some gifts and cards this morning.
Then, we met with the church. Today, we were not able to meet in our normal location. We usually meet together in a rented reception room, but there was another event scheduled there today. So, a family offered to let us meet in their home. Actually, the plan was to meet in their backyard under the huge trees there. But, God had other plans – it rained.
So, we went to their house around 9:30 this morning and helped them set up chairs around their house – mainly in the living room and kitchen which are open to each other. We also through some pillows on the floor for the children to use.
Once everything was set up, and while we were waiting for other to arrive, we sang songs that the children chose. As others arrived, they suggested other songs, and we had a great group sing for several minutes.
When most people had arrived, I read Psalm 16 (we’re reading through Book 1 of the Psalms to start our Sunday morning meetings). One of our brothers led us in singing several songs – even one that he wrote. We also read Acts 1:1-11 and all of Acts 2 to remind us of the Day of Pentecost. I taught from Matthew 6:19-24, focusing on three questions: 1) What do you treasure? 2) What controls your perception of the things around you? 3) What is your master?
When I finished teaching, several brothers and sisters shared what God has been doing in their lives lately. It was encouraging to hear how God was teaching people to trust him in truth, not just in theory. I ended our teaching time by reading from 1 Corinthians 10:14-33. This passage was a great way to prepare for the Lord’s Supper, reminding us that we were planning to eat from the Lord’s Table, not from our table or the hosts’ table.
Next, we planned to baptize four people outside. But, since there was a chance of thunderstorms, we decided to baptize in our hosts’ garden tube. The families and a few others would join those being baptized in the bathroom, since everyone wouldn’t fit.
We ended our meeting with the Lord’s Supper. But, don’t think of this as a short ending. We broke a loaf of bread and shared it between us as we remembered the broken body of our Lord. Next, we poured from a common cup and remembered the blood of our Lord which brought us into the New Covenant. Finally, we shared a meal together, sharing the fellowship that we have through the Spirit.
After eating, we talked for a while. One couple asked us to pray for the wife and their newborn son, because they had both been sick. I talked to a few people about what God has been doing in their lives. A couple of people asked if they could talk to me further in the next few weeks. After talking and helping our hosts clean up, we left around 3:30. So, if someone were to ask me, “How long does your ‘church service’ last?” I would have to answer, “Somewhere between 2 and 6 hours…”
What a blast we had “coming together” with the church today!
The Lord’s Supper, Idolatry, and Unity
Tomorrow, God willing, I’ll be teaching from this passage:
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Matthew 6:19-24 ESV)
We’ll also eat the Lord’s Supper together, so I’ve been thinking about this passage:
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 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? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. (1 Corinthians 10:14-24 ESV)
Can you see the connection between the Lord’s Supper, idolatry, and unity in these passages?
Thinking about 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, where some of the Corinthians were eating, but it was not the Lord’s Supper because of the way they were treating one another… I wonder how many tomorrow will eat and drink, but it won’t be the Lord’s Supper because of idolatry (having another master) or disunity. I wonder if I will be one of those…
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.
House Church Workshop – Session 4
This weekend, my son Jeremy and I are attending a House Church Workshop put on by New Testament Restoration Fellowship. The notes below are from the third session called “The Lord’s Supper” which was led by Tim Melvin. These thoughts are primarily Tim’s, and not my own. I’ll be glad to interact with any of the information below in the comments.
———————————————————
Session 4 – The Lord’s Supper
(Tim Melvin)
Also called the Lord’s Table, the Agape. This is one of the irreducible minimums in our understanding of the NT church. It was practiced as a full meal through the fourth century AD. In every denomination: symbolic, regular, fundamental belief.
The NT practice as three aspects: past, present, future. Yet the modern church emphasizes only one of the three aspects of the Supper: past.
The Lord’s Supper
1) Looks back to the sacrifice and covenant
2) Celebrates the present reality
3) Looks forward to the ultimate fulfillment in the marriage supper of the Lamb
OT background – Covenants: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, New Covenant – included sacrifices and meals
Passover – Exodus 12:1-14 – covenant, sacrifice, meal
Mt. Sinai – Exodus 24:1-11 – covenant, sacrifice, meal
Looking back to the sacrifice
Luke 22:19-20; Matt 26:26, 28; 1 Cor 11:26
“This cup poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.â€
“… you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.â€
Celebrating the present reality
Purposes and results of the Supper
– Breaking bread together – Acts 2:42, 46
– Reason for meeting – Acts 20:7 (“in order to eatâ€), 1 Cor 11:33 (“in order to eatâ€)
– A Cause of Unity – 1 Cor 10:14-17 (“one cupâ€, “one loafâ€)
Portion of the meeting
– Passover was a full meal
– Celebration of the feast in 1 Cor 5:6-8
– From the Greek for “supperâ€/“dinner†(deipnon)
– Abuses in Corinth prove the Lord’s Supper was a full meal – hungry and drunk
– The Lord’s Table
– The Agape
Looking to the Future Hope
1 Cor 11:26b – “until he comesâ€
– The objective of this proclamation of His death through eating and drinking the meal is to bring about his return.
– “Do this in remembrance of me†– can be a past remembrance, memorial, or reminder. This is a reminder similar to how the rainbow is a reminder to God about his covenant with Noah. The reminder can belong to Jesus, or it can be about Jesus. The pronoun is not “mou†but “emos†which means the reminder is Jesus’ reminder, not a reminder about Jesus.
– Joachim Jeremias said that Jesus used anamnesis (“remembrance, reminderâ€) in the sense of a reminder for God: “The Lord’s Supper would thus be an enacted prayer.†(from NIDNTT, Vol III, p. 244)
– Luke 22:30 – the disciples are promised a place at his table
– Rev 19:9 – the ultimate reality is the marriage supper of the lamb
Practical aspects
– Wine or juice?
– Leavened or unleavened bread?
– Unbelievers/children?
– Incorporating loaf and cup?
– Planned or unplanned menus?
– Other mechanics: bring plenty, view it as a ministry, plastic and paper, single table is impractical for large group
House Church Workshop
Session 1 – Apostolic Traditions
Session 2 – Participatory Church Meetings
Session 3 – Elder-Led Congregational Consensus
Session 4 – The Lord’s Supper
Summary Remarks
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.
The Lord’s Supper as Communion
As I mentioned a few days ago in my post “A Spiritual Remembrance“, I am reading through Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper, edited by John H. Armstrong. The first “view” is the “Baptist View” presented by Russell Moore. Since I was raised in Baptist churches, I’m very familiar with the popular version of this view. There are problems with this popular view, which I’ve mentioned before. However, Moore speaks against many of these same problems. He says:
The need for a community focus around the table cannot, however, be eradicated. Baptist churches that celebrate a curt “Communion” every three months still find themselves with this need for a truly communitarian Lord’s Supper. Often these churches seek to fill this need for table fellowship with a “Dinner on the Grounds” Sunday meal or coffee and doughnuts before the Sunday School hour or lunch after services at the local steakhouse. These moments of fellowship are crucial, but they cannot take the place of the Supper Jesus has given us. Part of the problem is the individualized way we present the elements themselves. Most contemporary Baptist churches – and many other evangelical Protestant churches – distribute chewing gum-sized pellets of bread and thimble-sized shot glasses of juice. Increasingly this practice is even more individualized by companies that sell to churches “disposable” Communion “sets,” a plastic container filled with juice with a wafer wrapped in cellophane on top (ideal, we are told, for the college group’s summer retreat in the mountains).
This practice nullifies the thrust of the New Testament emphasis on a common cup and a common loaf, both of which signify the unity of the congregation in Christ. It also mitigates the meaning of the Supper as a supper, as a meal. The meaning of the Supper would go a long way toward recovery in our churches if we asked the congregation to tear apart the bread and to drink together from a common cup of wine – practices that would have been commonplace in the early New Testament communities. Some would shrink from such a practice, no doubt, out of fear of illness or discomfort with such close contact with others. But that is precisely the kind of American individualism that is obliterated by the gospel emphasis on the church as the household of God, a family united through the Spirit. As we encourage the congregation to eat together around the table of Christ, we call them to faith, asking them to recognize and welcome the presence of Christ – not in the elements or in the heavens about them, but in the body he has called together, the assembly he rules and protects even now as King. Only then will we understand what the New Testament Scriptures mean when they call us to “fellowship”. (pg. 41-42)
Similarly, in the last sentence of Moore’s chapter, he says, “It is true that, in one sense, ‘the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking’ (Rom. 14:17). But we must remember that, in another sense, the sounds of the kingdom of God are not those of eerie cosmic silence but of the murmur of voices, the clinking of cups, and the tearing of bread.” (pg. 44)
From my experience, the popular Baptist view – that is, the view that I heard and saw growing up as it was expressed in many different Baptist churches of many different sizes and in different states – focused on many good things. They encouraged quiet retrospection. They required everyone to eat and drink at the same time. They reminded us that the bread was unleavened.
However, I think that while these focuses are good, they completely miss the best about the Supper that is stressed in the New Testament: the one loaf, the one cup, the sharing of a meal, the equality around the table, the concern for one another. Primarily, they missed the idea of the Lord’s Supper as it reflected the church as a community – a group of believers in fellowship with one another through the Spirit.
A Spiritual Remembrance
For “fun reading” before the start of the semester, I’ve been reading Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper, edited by John H. Armstrong. So far, I have only read Armstrong’s introduction. I have not read any of the four views yet.
On section of the introduction is called “A Spiritual Remembrance”. In this section, Armstrong discusses 1 Corinthians 11:28-32:
Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:28-32 ESV)
Armstrong says:
The context of this counsel, often misunderstood by modern Christians who fear that they have committed a particular sin that must keep them from coming to the Lord’s Table, is about the unity of the church (see 1 Cor. 10:17; 11:21). The great sin in Corinth was the way the church humiliated the poor in their midst. Well-off Corinthians appear to have prevented the less fortunate from celebrating the various feasts. This problem carried over into the Lord’s Supper context. Their behavior was utterly selfish and a scandalous contradiction of the meaning of this meal. This action equates to what Paul calls “despising” the church of God in 1 Corinthians 11:22. What this underscores is not personal sin but actions and attitudes that would keep a person from fellowship with all the members of the congregation. This meal is a fellowship – with Christ and one another. It is a meal of peace; thus, to refuse to be at peace with our brothers and sisters is to eat and drink “judgment” on ourselves. Given the fact that schism and pride plague every congregation on earth, the Lord’s Supper is an appointed time for reconciliation and renewed fellowship. Here God’s grace is given to heal and to unite us again to our Lord and to each other.
Ben Witherington covers many of these same points in his book Making a Meal of It.
I agree with Armstrong and Witherington in this respect. The “examining” related to the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 is an examination of our relationship with other brothers and sisters in Christ. This is not “navel gazing” to determine if there is any sin in us – there is. However, if this sin causes disruptions in fellowship between us and other believers, then we need to correct this – to restore those relationships. This is an opportunity to both ask for forgiveness and to offer grace to others – to reject pride and to demonstrate humility by preferring others above ourselves.
But, it is at this point that we need to be careful. It is easy to assume that the “relationships” that need to be restored are limited to the relationships that we have with our close friends. But, what about our neighbors and coworkers and family members? What about the people who meet together down the street or across town? What about the church that does things a little different than us? What about that group that is more organized or less organized that we are? How are our relationships with them?
Remember that we are brothers and sisters with all of those who are in Christ – not just those who believe and act like us. If we maintain relationships with only those who believe and act like us, then we are guilty of the very sectarianism that Paul rejects. If we refuse to related with or if we ignore those brothers and sisters in Christ who believe or act differently than us, then we are guilty of creating schisms – which Scripture calls heresy.
As we prepare to eat the bread and drink the cup let’s consider the relationships with all brothers and sisters in Christ whom God has brought into our lives – not just those who are sitting around the table with us at that moment. If our brother has something against us, then let’s work to restore that relationship. If we have something against our sister, then let’s work to restore that relationship. And, let’s allow the one loaf and the one cup to be a reminder of the unity that we have in Christ together with all of God’s children.
Ambiguous Baptism in the New Testament
This is my sixth and final post in a series on baptism. Primarily, my concern is to determine the various meanings of the Greek verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ), and how those meanings may be used in the New Testament. So far, by examining the usage of the verb in the LXX, in Philo, and in Josephus, we’ve seen that βαπτίζω (baptizÅ) is very similar to the English verbs “immerse” and “plunge”. They can be used to mean “to submerge under water”, but they can also have other meanings. Thus, context becomes very important in understanding the meaning of the verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ). In this post, I want to examine several passages in the New Testament that do not mention the medium of baptism in the context. Thus, these passages are ambiguous – at best – in terms of the meaning of the verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ).
Now, before I start listing some of the passages, please note that I am not making a particular claim about these passages. I am merely recognizing that Scripture itself does not give us the medium for baptism. And, since we have seen that the authors of the New Testament use the verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ) with meanings other than “to immerse in water”, we must at least acknowledge that the meaning of the verb in these passages is ambiguous.
Also, some of these passages are very popular, and some are used in doctrinal positions for certain groups of Christians. Again, I am not making a statement about the meaning of these passages. I am only suggesting that “to immerse in water” may or may not be the best way to think about the verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ) in these passages.
First, consider the “Great Commission” from Matthew 28:19-20:
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV)
When Jesus instructs his followers to “baptize”, does he mean “immerse in water”? Perhaps. This is the traditional interpretation. However, water is not mentioned in this context at all. As we’ve seen before, when the meaning of “baptize” is “immerse in water”, we usually find water in the context. If the phrase “in the name of the Father…” was changed to “in the water…”, then we would immediately know how to interpret the verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ).
Could it be, then, that instead of “immersing in water”, Jesus has something else in mind? Could it be that in order to “make disciples” (the command), we need to “immerse” people in the “name” (character, authority, etc.) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? This seems to fit better into the context, especially when “teaching” is considered along with “baptizing”.
Again, I’m not making a definite claim at this point. I’m only demonstrating that this use of the verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ) is ambiguous – that is, unclear from the context.
Also, consider the following passage from the second chapter of Acts:
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37-41 ESV)
Again, the traditional interpretation of the two instances of the verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ) in this passage is “immerse in water”. Thus, Peter was instructing the people to “repent and be immersed in water”, and three thousand people were “immersed in water”. However, again, notice that water is not indicated in this context either.
If we begin back at Acts 1:4, we read the following:
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:4-5 ESV)
Jesus told his followers that they would be “baptized with the Holy Spirit” soon, pointing to the day of Pentecost. Later, the Spirit did descend on his followers, just like Jesus promised. In fact, the purpose of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 is to demonstrate that the coming of the Holy Spirit was predicted in Scripture, made possible because of Christ, and was available to everyone listening to his words. Re-read Acts 2:37-41 above. When people ask Peter, “What should we do?”, his response was to tell them that the Promise (the Holy Spirit) was available to them. Those who received his words were “baptized”… in water? … or in the Spirit?
These are only two passages where the meaning of the verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ) is ambiguous, that is, the medium of immersion is not clear from the context. If you would like to consider other “ambiguous” passages, look at Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, Acts 19:1-5, Romans 6:3, 1 Corinthians 12:13, and Galatians 3:27. If some or all of these passages are not specifically about “immersing in water”, then we should consider other possible meanings for the Greek verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ) in these contexts.
Again, I still believe that John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Philip, and others in the New Testament practiced water baptism by immersion. I still believe that baptism in water is an important method of testifying to the work of Christ in a person’s life. However, my belief in water baptism does not mean that every instance of the verb βαπτίζω (baptizÅ) means “immerse in water”.
——————————————————————–
Baptism Series
1. Baptism in the LXX
2. Baptism in Philo
3. Baptism in Josephus
4. Water Baptism in the New Testament
5. Other Baptism in the New Testament
6. Ambiguous Baptism in the New Testament