Witherington on the Supper
I have been enjoying Ben Witherington’s Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper. I’m reading through slowly, primarily because I’m reading so many other books for school. Reading this book has prompted some of my previous posts, including “A Common Table” and “Meeting and Eating“.
Chapter 3 is called “The Table of the Entitled and the Table of the Lord”. In this chapter, Witherington discusses 1 Corinthians 10-11 and the implications on the Lord’s Supper. His conclusion is very interesting. He suggests that based on 1 Corinthians 10-11, 1) the Lord’s Supper was taken in homes, 2) any Christian meal should be distinguished “the usually socially stratifying customs of a pagan meal”, and 3) the Lord’s Supper was not just a reenactment of the Passover meal.
Then, he says the following:
One of the most important conclusions one can draw from a close reading of 1 Corinthians 10-11 is that Paul does not assume that the Lord’s Supper is a purely symbolic meal. He believes there is a spiritual transaction going on in this meal just as there was in the meal at the pagan temple. The right sort of spiritual communion between Christ and his people can be contrasted with the wrong sort of spiritual communion between demons and their worshipers. In short, Paul was no Zwinglian, but as it turns out, even Zwingli was not an advocate of a purely symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. (pg 62)
As of Chapter 3, Witherington has not explained what type of spiritual transaction he believes takes place during the Lord’s Supper. I’m looking forward to reading his views on this.
For those who may be uncomfortable with the language of a “spiritual transaction” taking place during the Lord’s Supper, John Hammett says something similar in his book, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches:
Yet for all their [Baptism and Lord’s Supper] importance, there seems to be a lack of interest in, and even a sense of embarrassment by, these corporate acts of commitment among Baptists. To some degree, this may be due to the fact that Baptists have regarded these acts as symbolic and thus intrinsically less important than the realities they symbolize… There is, thus, considerable need to rethink the Baptist views of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and considerable room for improvement in Baptists’ celebration of them… In a sense, the debate over the nature of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper is unfortunate, for it often detracts from a proper appreciation of what is offered to us at the Lord’s Table. As many have noted, Baptists have been so concerned to deny Christ’s physical presence that they have often in effect seemed to teach a doctrine of real absence. (pg 257-281)
While Hammett prefers the language of “renewal” instead of “spiritual transaction” when it comes to the Supper, he still believes that something beyond the “symbolic” occurs during the Lord’s Supper.
What do you think? Is there some type of “spiritual transaction” or “renewal” that takes places during the Lord’s Supper? If so, what do you think takes place? If not, why not?
Two Posts: Lord’s Supper & Difficulties
I’ve published two blogs posts that may interest my readers:
First, at our family blog “The Knox Clan“, I’ve posted some pictures from our latest Lord’s Supper. I described generally what happens during our Lord’s Supper in a post called “The Lord’s Supper (one example)“.
Second, over at “Life in the Journey“, I’ve published a post called “Walking through difficulty… together“. In this post, I recognize how God has recently used several people in my life to help me through difficult situations.
I hope you enjoy these two blog posts.
A Common Table
When Jesus invites us to dine with him, he invites us to a common table – that is, there is no hierarchy among those who dine at the Lord’s table. This was a difficult lesson for Jesus’ earliest followers, and I think it is a difficult lesson for us as well.
Most of us are familiar with the passages in the Gospels that deal with leadership and servanthood among followers of Christ, but as we begin this discussion, it would be good to remember Jesus’ words:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28 ESV; see also Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:24-26)
Similarly, in other conversations with his followers, Jesus told them not to seek or accept places of honor. For example, he warned them against seeking places of honor in the manner of Jewish teachers:
And in his teaching he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.” (Mark 12:38-40 ESV; see also Matthew 23:2-7; Luke 20:46-47)
This idea of seeking the places of honor at feasts leads us into another area of warning and instruction from Jesus. This instruction deals specifically with sharing meals:
Now he told a parable to those who were invited, when he noticed how they chose the places of honor, saying to them, “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:7-14 ESV)
Jesus’ lessons here are clear: When we are invited to a meal, we should humble ourselves and not act like the guest of honor – someone who is entitled to a banquet. When we serve a meal or host a feast, we are to invite those who cannot repay us. Jesus is teaching us about common meals – that is, a meal where all those invited are treated equally – a meal that no one deserves, yet all those invited are accepted. In Luke 7:36-47, Jesus even admonishes the host of a meal for setting himself above the level of his guests.
There is a common theme that runs through all of these passages: When God calls his children to his feast, he calls them as those who are undeserving, but who he invites in spite of their condition. Similarly, when God’s children are called by him to dine at his table, they are to respond in humility and servanthood, recognizing that they are accepted at the table of their Lord on account of his grace only.
Certainly, this has application for the Lord’s Supper. As we gather to remember and celebrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we gather around a common table with no hierarchy. Everyone who gathers around the table is a servant of the Master and of one another. No one is worthy. No one is deserving. No one has earned a place at the table.
But, the application of these passages reaches far beyond the scope of the Lord’s Supper. As we interact with one another and with the world around us, Jesus calls us to remember our common place in his kingdom and around his table – called to be servants, not kings; called to serve, not rule; called to support, not be seen; called to give, not receive; called to yield, not demand.
Around this common table – in common service to our Master – there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, neither black nor white nor yellow nor red nor brown, neither educated nor uneducated, neither clergy nor laity, neither rich nor poor… for we are all one in Christ.
We have been called to a common table. There is a seat at the head for the master of the feast. Then there are places on the floor for those who serve. There are no seats around the table for those who feel they deserve to be there. What place will you take?
The Lord’s Supper – Another Example (Guest Blogger)
Previously, I have described how we partake of the Lord’s Supper (see “The Lord’s Supper (one example)“). Recently, I’ve had the pleasure of exchanging emails with Dustin, a brother from nearby Greensboro, NC. He is one of the elders of Shepherd’s Fellowship of Greensboro, and blogs at “Grace in the Triad“. I asked Dustin to describe how they partake of the Lord’s Supper. I thought this might be encouraging to some of my readers. The following is his description:
———————————————————————
Here is a basic rundown of the “mechanics” of how we do the Supper:
1. After we finish our church meeting, the ladies are busy prepping the “pot-providence” 🙂 dishes and table while the guys are helping break down sound equipment and moving tables where they need to be for the meal. One family rotates each week on a schedule to determine who is responsible to bring the elements for the supper (the bread and grape juice). We sit out the whole loaf and a huge pitcher of grape juice at the end of the table with the rest of the food. Folks are also able to use the bathroom, etc., at this time. This is about 15 minutes.
2. We all stand in a circle, hold hands, and pray before eating the meal. This can be quite fun with 65-70 people! I (or whoever is leading) then prays a prayer of Thanksgiving for the food with a sense of joy and gladness because we are prefiguring the marriage supper of the Lamb – a time of intense, face-to-face fellowship with Jesus in heaven that will happen in the future (Acts 2:46; Rev. 19:6-9).
3. Folks get their food in a buffet fashion, and since we use a whole loaf, the believers can go through and simply take a piece of the loaf and put it on their plate when they pass through. They also pour out some juice at the end of the buffet line into their own cups. We also allow children and unbelievers to have some of the juice and bread if they want (the bread tastes good cause’ it’s homemade), but we warn the parents not to teach their children to partake of it as an ordinance [which would basically be akin to infant baptism], but that its o.k. to eat it as part of the fellowship meal if they want.
4. Once people are eating, fellowshipping, etc. we get their attention for a moment and I or another elder (or any capable believer) “fences the table” by reading and briefly but accurately explaining or reminding folks of the warning found in 1 Cor. 11:27-34. We basically explain to the hearers how the rich Christians despised the poor in the church at Corinth by eating most of the food before the poor got there (thus treating them like 2nd class Christians), and they were also getting drunk off of the communion wine. We exhort sinning Christians in our midst (esp. those who have sinned against a fellow believer and treated them contemptuously) to avoid partaking so that they can further focus on their need to reconcile with their brother and sister and with God whom they’ve sinned against. This has served to cause people to reconcile beforehand so that they can partake of the elements with a good conscience (which is exactly what we want!) We also focus on reminding the unbelievers in our midst to watch the Christians partake of this part of the meal because it is not only a remembrance of Christ’s death but also a pre-figuring of that sweet time in heaven at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19) and it is a reminder of their need to be washed clean of their sins by the shed blood of Jesus.
NAU 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
5. Next, whoever is leading (a) Reads 1 Cor. 11:23-24, (b) believers then joyfully partake of the bread, and then (c) the leader leads in a brief prayer of thanksgiving for God’s love demonstrated through breaking Christ’s body for the Church.
NAU 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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.”
6. When it looks like most folks are finished eating their meal, the leader reads 1 Cor. 11:25-26 and we all partake of the cup together:
NAU 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
7. We then have a brief closing prayer of thanksgiving to God for the atonement of Christ and we remember with joyful anticipation His second coming.
All of this may sound a little cumbersome, but it’s not bad at all. We have thoroughly enjoyed doing it this way and I can say that it has had a truly “sacramental” effect on our church body in accordance with 1 Cor. 10 ( i.e., the Holy Spirit building unity and koinonia through the shared Supper). After doing it this way, I’d *never* go back to crackers and a thimble-full of grape juice. I’m just too spoiled now! 🙂
———————————————————————
I appreciate Dustin for sharing this with me and allowing me to share it with my readers. I pray that this is beneficial to our brothers and sisters who read it. If you have any questions for Dustin, or if you would like to comment on this description of the Lord’s Supper, please feel free to use the comments here.
Separating over loaves…
David Rogers at “Love Each Stone” has written a thought-provoking post called “The Illustration of the Hypothetical ‘Common Loaf Denomination’“. David briefly explains the standard baptistic understanding of baptism. Baptists, as one example, often separate from other believers who understand baptism differntly. David then explains that someone could use the same reason and logic to come to a conclusion that using one loaf of bread is the only proper method of partaking of the Lord’s Supper. He then asks (hypothetically) if we should form a separate denomination for those who choose to be biblical and use one loaf. This leads to his powerful conclusion:
What is the solution to this dilemma? Should those of us who are convinced of the biblical truth concerning “common loaf” celebration of the Lord’s Supper separate from those who still insist on celebrating the Lord’s Supper with individual wafers or their equivalent? Should we form our own denomination that ensures that the missionaries we send out will only teach the churches they plant to practice “common loaf” communion? Or, should we take it to the extreme of refusing to even cooperate on the mission field with those in other groups who are mistaken in their interpretation of this “clear biblical truth”?
I hope, by now, the absurdity of what I am suggesting is obvious. Even though I am totally convinced of the accuracy of my biblical interpretation regarding “common loaf communion,” it would be “nit-picking” for me to separate with other authentic disciples of the Lord Jesus, who are sincerely doing their best to submit to his commands in their own life, over something as secondary as this. Much more important than our differences on this point is our essential unity as joint members of the Body of Christ, who have been given a joint task to fulfill, and should work hand in hand, as brothers and sisters in Christ, to obey together the commands of Christ, to the degree each one of us is able to understand them.
For the most part, we pick and choose which “doctrines” to use as litmus tests in order to fellowship with or separate from other believers. But, do we get this idea from Scripture? Does Scripture tell us to separate from other brothers and sisters who do not practice baptism the same way we do? Does Scripture tell us to separate from other brother and sisters who understand gifts of the Spirit differently than we do?
So, according to Scripture, when are we allowed to separate from other brothers and sisters? Does it bother you that Scripture speaks negatively about division?
(By the way, it looks like Ben Witherington has published (is publishing?) a little book about the Lord’s Supper that may be interesting.)
Another serving of the Lord’s Supper
I’ve discussed the Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist, the Lord’s Table) previously (see the posts “The Lord’s Supper as a Meal“,”The Lord’s Supper (One Example)“, “When the Lord’s Supper divides“, “One Bread“, “The Lord’s Supper“, and just for fun “What did I learn in church about the Lord’s Supper?“). A comment and a post have caused me to think about this subject again.
Recently, Jeff posted a comment on an old post of mine called “The Lord’s Supper as a Meal“. He said:
What Jesus and His disciples were observing in that guest room appears to be the Passover. The slaughtered lamb used to observe the Passover was a symbol of Christ, the Lamb of God. They, like us, were spared by the blood of the lamb…
The Jews were to do this [Passover] in remembrance: Exodus 12:14 – Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it {as} a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it {as} a permanent ordinance.
The disciples were to do this in remembrance: Luke 22:19 – And when He had taken {some} bread {and} 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.”
So my questions are: Was Jesus telling His disciples to continue the Passover after He was gone? Wouldn’t this be considered old wine? It doesn’t fit the character of Jesus to fulfill all rituals and then immediately set up another one. But He was telling them to do something in remembrance of Him. Could it be that Jesus knew humans needed to do two things to survive?(other than breathe) Eat and drink. The two things we must do often…
So could the, “do this in remembrance of meâ€, be referring to every time we personally eat or drink anything? Basically remembering Him every day often till we die. We know the members of the body got together frequently to fellowship and eat. Did they practice a ritual or for that matter set aside a specific meal to remember the sacrifice Jesus made? Where does 1 Corinthians 11 fit? Is Paul even talking about a literal bread and cup?
The question of the relative importance of the elements (bread and cup) to the entire meal is an important question, but one that will probably not be answered. There are several times in Scripture where the elements are mentioned, but this mention is always in the concept of an entire meal. Were the elements separate from the meal, or representative of the entire meal?
We may never answer this question. However, Jeff brings out something else that we should consider carefully. Eating a meal was at least part of the Lord’s Supper. And, eating a meal is a natural, everyday occurrence in the life of every person. Remembering Jesus’ body and blood should affect every meal that we eat, and thus, should affect our natural, everyday life.
Similarly, Jim from “BaldJim” (he named his blog, I didn’t) talked about the Lord’s Supper in a post called “This is the Body of Christ“. I’m going to quote his short post in its entirety here:
A few weeks ago, when our church took communion, I was struck with wonder by the fact that we, God’s people, are the Body of Christ.
Typically when taking communion people close their eyes and put their heads down, meditating on the love and sacrifice of Jesus, searching their hearts for sin that needs to be purged. While I do meditate on and rejoice in the great love of Christ displayed in His sacrifice, I also spend some time looking around at others in the congregation. I want to rejoice with them. I want us to share in the joy we have.
As I looked around at others in the congregation I got a glimpse of the strange beauty of the Body of Christ, the Church. All of us weak in faith, broken, hurting. Each of us having our own faults and failures and sins. It doesn’t look like what you might expect to be called the Body of Christ… which is what makes it so wonderful.
Broken but bought by Christ’s blood. Sinners saved by His grace. Failures who have been set free. Unclean souls who have been covered by and clothed in Christ’s righteousness. This is the Body of Christ.
Take notice of this the next time you join others for the Lord’s Supper.
Have you looked around recently and gotten a “glimpse of the strange beauty of the Body of Christ, the Church”? The Lord’s Supper is the perfect time for taking others into account. In fact, it is during the Lord’s Supper more than at any other time that the Body of Christ should display its unity and its consideration of others.
Remember, when Paul wrote the the church in Corinth, he admonished them about the way they treated one another during the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34). They were eating and drinking – apparently eating and drinking the elements as well – buy they were not truly taking the Lord’s Supper because they were not treating one another properly. They were not considering others as more important. They were not sharing with others who were in need.
An interesting note – at least to me – is that Paul does not mention their Christology in this passage. Paul had nothing to chastise them about in what they said about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. He doesn’t bring up their baptism or their church membership. He never mentions whether or not they had attended their catechism classes. But, the way they treating other believers revealed that they did not understand Christ and his completed work on our behalf.
Perhaps this is why Jesus said, “So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24 ESV) Apparently, the type of gift, the reason for the gift, etc. were less important to Jesus than the relationship between brothers.
This was Paul’s emphasis as well. We cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper – either the elements or the meal – if our relationship with our brother or sister is broken. Sure, we can eat, but if we cannot eat in unity with our brothers, then it is not the Lord’s Supper that we are eating.
Pliny, Trajan, and the Christians
About fifty years after Paul was executed in Rome and perhaps only 20 years after John penned the Revelation, Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny) was appointed governor of the Roman province of Bithynia. During his travels through the region, Pliny often wrote letters to the Emperor Trajan. Many of these letters and the emperor’s responses have survived to the present day.
In one letter and response, Pliny and Trajan discuss the problem of Christians who were gathering in illegal “political associations”. (Note: The “persecution” listed below did not occur because the Christians worshiped Christ. In fact, other groups who associated together illegally were also arrested, tortured, and killed.) If you have never read this correspondence between Pliny and Trajan concerning Christians, please take the time to read this now. This gives us a unique view into the lives of the followers of Christ through the eyes of the Roman authorities:
Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
Trajan to Pliny the Younger
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
I think it is interesting to read these early accounts of the church. We can get a glimpse of how the early believers met together. We can also see that it had been reported that those who are “really Christians” will never reject their beliefs in Christ.
This is what Pliny had determined about the meetings of those early believers (Remember: this was his purpose – he wanted to determine if these were “illegal associations”):
[T]hey were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food.
It seems that these Bithynian believers are very interested in the divinity of Christ, the life (ethics) of those who follow Christ, and sharing life together especially through sharing a meal.
Baptism in the Gospels and Acts
Everyone knows that there are some things that each gospel writer included in his respective account of the life of Jesus. For example, each author records the passion narratives. Similarly, each of the Gospel writers and the book of Acts records some form of the “Great Commission” (assuming Mark 16:15-16 is original, or at least canonical). But, this week, I learned something new. Now, probably everyone else already knows this, but I did not.
I want to study “baptism” in the New Testament. But, before I could get past the four Gospels and Acts, I had already learned something. Did you know that each of the four Gospels and Acts includes a passage where something similar to this is said concerning John the Baptist and Jesus: “John baptizes you with water, but Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit”? Here are the passages:
I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (Matthew 3:11 ESV)
I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (Mark 1:8 ESV)
John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” (Luke 3:16 ESV)
John answered them, “I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'” (John 1:26-33 ESV)
…for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. (Acts 1:5 ESV)
I’m not ready to comment further on these passages, or the implications concerning this repetition in each of the four Gospels and Acts. However, I do believe it is very interesting and perhaps significant to our understanding of baptism in the New Testament.
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.
Adolf Schlatter on the church…
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.