Laying on of Hands…
Since my review of the chapter “Laying on of Hands” in Watchman Nee’s book Assembling Together generated some interest, and since admittedly I know little about this practice in the New Testament, I thought I would examine the passages where we see this. There will be very little analysis in this post. First, before we make any decisions about laying on of hands, we should look at the activity in Scripture:
And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:5-6)
Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:14-20)
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” (Acts 9:10-12 ESV)
So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened. For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus. (Acts 9:17-19 ESV)
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:1-4 ESV)
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. (Acts 19:1-6 ESV)
It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery. And Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him. (Acts 28:9 ESV)
Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. (1 Timothy 4:14 ESV)
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure. (1 Timothy 5:22 ESV)
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, or God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. (1 Timothy 1:6-7 ESV)
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2 ESV)
These are all the passages that I could find in Scripture that deal with the laying on of hands. There are a couple of other passages, but they seem to use the phrase “laying on of hands” in a different way: i.e. to lay hold of someone in order to arrest them.
There are several interesting things about this list from Scripture. First, “laying on of hands” is only mentioned in three books: Acts, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews. This certainly does not mean that the topic is unimportant; but, it is an interesting observation to me. Second, everything that seems to be “caused” by the laying on of hands is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture without mention of the laying on of hands. This makes it difficult for me to say that something “always” happens through the laying on of hands, or that something “never” happens without the laying on of hands.
So, what do we see associated with the laying on of hands, at least on occasion?
1. Setting apart for service.
2. Receiving the Holy Spirit.
3. Healing.
4. Spiritual gifts.
Also, I do not see a command to “lay hands on” people, such that we see with making disciples, or baptism or sharing the Lord’s Supper or many other activities.
What would you add about “laying on of hands” from these passages of Scripture?
Assembling Together 7 and 8 – Praise and The Breaking of Bread
The seventh and eighth chapters of Watchman Nee’s book Assembling Together (chapters 20 and 21 of the Basic Lessons series) are called “Praise” and “The Breaking of Bread” respectively. I’ve decided to review these two chapters together.
Praise
I agree with almost everything that Nee says in this chapter. He says that praise is sacrifice [114] and the way to victory [115]. He also examines the benefit of praise in the midst of spiritual warfare [119]. I really appreciate this paragraph:
Concerning the matter of glorifying God, I have a thought to share. Today we see in a mirror darkly; though we see a little, yet we cannot understand the full meaning for it has been distorted. We feel great pain for the things we have suffered, not recognizing the difference between inward hurt and circumstantial difficulty. Since we do not understand, we find it hard to praise. I believe the abundance of praise in heaven is due to our perfect knowledge there. The more perfect the knowledge, the greater the praise. One day when we all come to the presence of the Lord, everything will be crystal clear. What is a puzzle to us now will be solved then. On that day we shall be able to see His hand in every step of the discipline of the Holy Spirit. Had the Holy Spirit’s discipline been lacking, to what depths would we have fallen! If He had not restrained our steps, where would we have been? If we realize this, we will bow our heads in praise saying, “Lord, You are never wrong.” [128]
Nee recommends learning to praise God during good times, so that we will praise him during the difficult times. This is great advice that also works for prayer, thanksgiving, and even spending time with other believers.
He makes a few dogmatic statements that seem to apply his conviction to everyone. For example, he says:
As soon as one becomes a Christian, he ought to learn to praise God daily. I will give him a rule: he must praise God at least seven times a day. [115]
I’m not sure that this is given as a “rule” in Scripture, although it would certainly be a worthy endeavor. Let’s continue to offer the sacrifice of praise to our worthy God!
The Breaking of Bread
Similarly, I agree with much of what Nee says about breaking bread. For example, he says that the word “supper” denotes “a family meal” [133] (as opposed to an individual meal) and excludes the thought of work [134]. He also suggests that the Lord’s Supper is a time to remember the Lord and to proclaim his death – both biblical concepts. Importantly, Nee says that when the supper causes us to “remember the Lord”, it dispels division among brothers and sisters in Christ:
Remembering the Lord has another spiritual value: it makes strife and contention and division impossible among God’s children. When you are reminded of how you have been saved by grace and you find another person with you who is likewise reminded, you are both one before the Lord. When you contemplate how the Lord Jesus forgave the myriad of your sins and you see another brother coming to the supper who has also been bought and redeemed by the precious blood, how can you bring in anything to separate you from him? How can you divide God’s children? For the past nearly two thousand years, many controversies among God’s children have been settled at the Lord’s supper. Many unforgiven things, even things unforgivable, and many lifelong hatreds have disappeared at the Lord’s table, for it is impossible not to forgive when, in remembering the Lord, you are reminded of how you have been saved and forgiven. [136]
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see people brought back to unity over the table? Perhaps we do not see this as often because we are not truly “remembering the Lord”. Unfortunately, we often see people disagree over the supper more than we see people united over the supper.
Nee also recognizes that the supper symbolizes both our communion with the Lord and our unity with one another. Based on this two-way communion Nee makes the following statement:
How, then, do we receive people to the table of the Lord? Remember, we are not the hosts; we are at best but ushers. This is the Lord’s supper, the Lord’s table, not ours. We have no authority whatsoever over the Lord’s table. We are priveleged to eat the bread the drink the cup, but we cannot withhold it from others. We cannot forbid any of the blood-redeemed ones from coming to the Lord’s table. We have no authority to refuse anyone. We cannot refuse those whom the Lord has received, nor can we reject those who belong to the Lord. We can only refuse those whom the Lord refuses or those who do not belong to Him. The Lord only refuses those who do not belong to Him or those who yet remain in sin. Since their communion with the Lord is already interrupted, we, too, do not have fellowship with them. But let us take not that we are the Lord’s and have no authority to exercise other than that which the Lord exercises. [144]
I know that this is a touchy subject. I’ve heard many arguments why certain believers should be refused a place at the Lord’s table. Nee says that only reason to refuse someone is because they are not children of God. I have not seen a scriptural defense for refusing anyone else. (By the way, I believe that when the church separates from someone through the process of discipline, the church is stating that the person is not living as a child of God and is depriving himself and the church from priveleges and benefits of the family of God.)
How can we partake of the Lord’s supper in a worthy manner when we refuse to partake with others whom we recognizes as brothers and sisters in Christ?
Review of Watchman Nee’s Assembling Together Series:
1: Chapter 1 – Joining the Church
2: Chapter 2 – Laying on of Hands
3: Chapter 3 – Assembling Together
4: Chapter 4 – Various Meetings
5: Chapters 5 & 6 – The Lord’s Day and Hymn Singing
6: Chapters 7 & 8 – Praise and The Breaking of Bread
Assembling Together 4 – Various Meetings
The fourth chapter of Watchman Nee’s book Assembling Together (chapter 17 of the Basic Lessons series) is called “Various Meetings”. I believe that this is the chapter that David Rogers wanted me to read in response to his comment in my post called “Messy Meetings“. In this chapter, Nee describes the different types of church meetings that he finds in Scripture.
Before I begin reviewing this chapter, I want to quote Nee from the previous chapter. I think this statement helps explain my view of these various meeting types:
Another principle which governs a gathering is the edifying or building up of God’s people. According to 1 Corinthians 14, this is a purpose found in all gatherings – that others, not ourselves, may be edified. [40]
I agree with Nee wholeheartedly at this point. Regardless of the “reason” for our meeting together, the purpose remains the same: “Whenever you come together… let all things be done for edification.” (1 Cor. 14:26) I also believe that the principles of edification which Paul spells out in the following verses of 1 Corinthians 14 apply to any type of meeting of the church. Perhaps, if we find ourselves in a situation where we feel we cannot carry out these principles, we should change our situation or our understanding of the situation instead of ignoring the principles.
Now, on to Nee’s chapter called “Various Meetings”. Nee finds at least 5 different types of meetings in the New Testament:
1. Gospel Meetings
2. Breaking of Bread Meetings
3. Prayer Meetings
4. Exercise of Gifts (or Fellowship) Meetings
5. Ministry (or Preaching) Meetings
He believes that the “gospel meeting” is the most important type of meeting [43], that the “breaking of bread meeting” is the second most important type of meeting [51], and that the “ministry meeting” is the least important type of meeting [65]. Interestingly enough, I believe he would classify the way most churches meet today as a “ministry meeting”, where believers come together specifically to listen to an “apostle, teacher, or prophet”. Similarly, Nee says, “The popularity of listening to sermons is a reflection on the weakened condition of the church.” [44] Before you stone Nee (or me for quoting him here), think about the number of times in Scripture that we are exhorted to sit and listen. Then, think about the number of times in Scripture that we are exhorted to speak and serve. Perhaps Nee is onto something here.
Nee spends most of the chapter describing how these meetings should look. While I apprecaite the time and effort that Nee spends in putting this together, I also recognize that some of these exhortations are not found in Scripture: i.e. “if you bring in one person, sit next to him; if two people sit in the middle” [47], “help the unbelievers to find the hymns” [48], and “pray for one specific matter” [58].
I have three concerns with this chapter. The first concerns the “gospel meeting”. Again, before you pick up stones, I believe the gospel is of utmost importance, and that every believer is responsible for speaking (preaching) the gospel to those around him or her. However, I do not see any meetings of the church in Scripture in which the central focus is to present the gospel to unbelievers. In fact, the only time in Scripture that unbelievers are mentioned in the context of the gathering of the church, the unbeliever is not convicted by the preaching of the gospel, but by the presence of the Lord which is demonstrated by the prophecy of all the people. (1 Corinthians 14:24-25)
I do agree that the early church took seriously their responsibility to preach (proclaim) the gospel – the good news of Jesus Christ. However, I do not see where that happened during a meeting of the church. Instead, I see believers going to unbelievers to proclaim the gospel.
I also agree with this statement that Nee makes about preaching the gospel, even though I disagree with the context in which he says this preaching should take place:
As soon as people come to believe in the Lord, they should immediately start to help in the preaching of the gospel. Do not allow them to develop the habit of listening to sermons; instead, help them to cultivate the habit of serving by preaching the gospel. [45]
My second concern revolves around how Nee sees distinct meeting types in Scripture. Unfortunately, this is the entire premise of this chapter. Thus, Nee says that the church met for at least five different types of meetings. This quote shows that Nee sees these at different meetings, not different activities within the same meeting:
From what I personally can see, there are five different types of meetings in the Bible. They are gospel meetings, breaking of bread meetings, prayer meetings, exercise of gifts or fellowship meetings, and ministry or preaching meetings. We can find examples of all these in the Bible. Thus we know that at the time of the apostles in the New Testament days, there were at least these five different types of meetings. The church today also needs to have all these various meetings if it is to be strong before God. [43]
The problem is that in Scripture we also see where the distinctions between these “various meetings” are blurred. So, as Nee says, the church met to pray for Peter in Acts 12:5,12. However, the church is praying and serving (Nee’s “exercise of gifts meeting”) in Acts 13. Similarly, Nee separates the “breaking of bread meeting” from other types of meetings based on 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. But, that ignores 1 Corinthians 14, which is in the same context, and refers to Nee’s “exercise of gifts meeting”. Acts 20 shows us that the church in Troas met to both break bread and to listen to Paul (Nee’s “ministry meeting”).
From these passages, and others, it appears that the church met for various activities, sometimes carried out at the same meeting. It seems odd to suggest that these meetings need to occur at different times with different rules of engagement.
I have already mentioned my third concern, but I’ll add it here anyway. When discussing the “prayer meeting”, Nee suggests that prayer produced Pentecost:
The power of the specific prayer in Acts 1 and 2 produced Pentecost. As the cross was the work accomplished by the Son of God, so Pentecost was the work accomplished through the prayer of God’s children. [59]
I think this is giving too much credit to those praying, and not enough to the plan, purpose, and power of God. In fact, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 seems to indicate that the Spirit came because of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Once again, I found the last paragraph encouraging, especially since Nee has already stated the goal of any meeting is edification:
The above are the five different types of meetings which we find in the Bible. I believe Christianity has in its very nature the need to assemble. If we know how to meet, then the next generation will become stronger. May we gird ourselves that we may arrive at the goal which God has set for us. May God be gracious to us.
I’ll review the next two chapters together. They are called “The Lord’s Day” and “Hymn Singing”.
Review of Watchman Nee’s Assembling Together Series:
1: Chapter 1 – Joining the Church
2: Chapter 2 – Laying on of Hands
3: Chapter 3 – Assembling Together
4: Chapter 4 – Various Meetings
5: Chapters 5 & 6 – The Lord’s Day and Hymn Singing
6: Chapters 7 & 8 – Praise and The Breaking of Bread
Assembling Together 2 – Laying on of Hands
The second chapter of Watchman Nee’s book Assembling Together (chapter 15 of the Basic Lessons series) is called “Laying on of Hands”. This was perhaps one of the most perplexing chapters in the book. Now, I realize that many tradtions associate the laying on of hands very closely with baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. However, I know very little about this except for a few readings from some of the patristic fathers. I’ll try to explain Nee’s premise as fairly as possible. Then, I’ll explain why I think he missed something in his exegesis.
First, Nee associated the laying on of hands with the coming of the Holy Spirit. He uses Psalm 133 as a type or metaphor: the anointing of Aaron typifies the believer’s reception of the Spirit:
Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity! It is like the precious oil on the head, running down on the beard, on the beard of Aaron, running down on the collar of his robes! It is like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the mountains of Zion! For there the LORD has commanded the blessing, life forevermore. (Psalm 133:1-3 ESV)
Since only Aaron’s head is anointed, the Spirit can only come through the Head of the church, that is, Jesus Christ. Just as the oil runs from Aaron’s head, to his beard, to his robes, etc. the Holy Spirit comes from Jesus, through the apostles, then to the church. Here are a few quotes in which Nee explains his position:
The Holy Spirit is given to the Head, not to the body. But as the head receives the oil, the whole body is anointed. [23]
It is, therefore, clear that people enjoy the anointing oil today not because of their personal condition before God but because of their standing in the body. If we stand in our place beneath the Head, the oil will most assuredly come down upon us. [24]
The apostles represent the Head, Christ, as well as the body of Christ. When one receives the laying on of hands, he bows his head and worships, for hereafter he will never again raise his own head but will submit himself under authority. His own head is no longer head; instead he is under authority. The apostles represent the body. As they lay hands on the believers, it is as if they are saying that we all have fellowship with one another for we are one. [25]
The laying on of hands in the first aspect [identification] joins a person to the body and in the second aspect [impartation] communicates what the Head has for the member. [26]
The rule is: the Holy Spirit descends on those who have been delivered from the world and identified with Christ in death and resurrection through baptism; they then see how they must live in the body and be subject to the authority of the Head. Let me emphatically say that the anointing oil is more than a mere outward manifestation; it is an inward reality. [29]
Nee says that the only exception to believers receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands is found in Acts 10 when Cornelius and his household are converted. He says that the Spirit came without the laying on of hands because Peter would not have baptized and laid hands on Gentiles, fearing what the Jewish believers would think about him. Therefore, God sent the Holy Spirit apart from baptism and the laying on of hands.
There are a few reasons that I have problems with this. First, Psalm 133 does not appear to talk about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Specifically, verse 1 tells us that unity is like the anointing of oil… It seems a stretch to use this Psalm as a model for how God plans to send the Holy Spirit.
Second, there are instances of laying on of hands in Scripture that have nothing to do with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Acts 13 describes one example. We have already been told that both Paul and Barnabas have received the Holy Spirit. Yet, the church in Antioch lays hands on them. Apparently, the Antioch believers did not think that laying on of hands signified the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Third, there are other passages besides Acts 10 where people receive the Holy Spirit without the laying on of hands being specified. Specifically, both the original 120 disciples and the following 3000 receive the Holy Spirit, but the laying on of hands is not mentioned. Similarly, in the general descriptions of the activities of the church in Acts 2:42-47, there is no mention of the laying on of hands, despite the fact that Peter seems to deliver his sermon in Acts 2:14-40 specifically for the purpose of describing the coming and reception of the Holy Spirit. While this may be considered an argument from silence (i.e. just because the laying on of hands is not mentioned, it does not mean that it did not happen), similarly the doctrine that the Holy Spirit comes through the laying on of hands is a doctrine from silence: the cause/effect relationship is not specifically described in Scripture.
I have laid hands on people. People have laid hands on me. I do not have a problem with this practice. I believe that this practice signifies communion, fellowship, partnership, participation, etc. In other words, when we send with the laying on of hands, we are signifying our partnership with the ones going. When we pray with the laying on of hands, we are signifying are agreement and our fellowship with the one for whom we pray.
However, I am less clear about laying on of hands than many of the other activities of believers within Scripture. For one thing, I do not think we are given a clear reason for laying on of hands in Scripture. However, since Scripture does not tell us that the Holy Spirit comes through the laying on of hands, I am hesitant to accept that.
Again, however, I greatly appreciate Nee’s final paragraph of this chapter:
New believers need to be shown that they cannot live independently but they must be members of one another and learn to be subject to the authority of the Head. They ought not to be rebellious, but should rather walk together with all the children of God. Thus they will manifest the fact of anointing both in their lives and in their works. [32]
The next chapter is called “Assembling Together”.
Review of Watchman Nee’s Assembling Together Series:
1: Chapter 1 – Joining the Church
2: Chapter 2 – Laying on of Hands
3: Chapter 3 – Assembling Together
4: Chapter 4 – Various Meetings
5: Chapters 5 & 6 – The Lord’s Day and Hymn Singing
6: Chapters 7 & 8 – Praise and The Breaking of Bread
The Lord’s Supper as a Meal?
For the last two thousand years, believers have discussed the proper understanding of the elements (the bread and cup) of the Lord’s Supper. Some believe that the bread and cup become the literal, physical body and blood of Jesus Christ. Others believe that Jesus is spiritually present in the elements. Others believe there is no presence in the bread and cup, and that the Lord’s Supper is a remembrance.
All of these understandings of the Lord’s Supper revolve around the meaning of “is” when Jesus said, “This is my body… This is my blood.” (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:24-25) Regardless of how we understand the bread and the cup, what about the meal itself? “The meal?” you ask. Yes, the meal. When the Lord’s Supper is mentioned in Scripture, it is mentioned in the context of a meal.
Consider these passages from the Gospels:
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29 ESV)
And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” (Mark 14:22-25 ESV)
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. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (Luke 22:19-22 ESV)
Even the Gospel of John mentions the meal, though the elements are not mentioned (unless we count the bread that is given to Judas):
Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. (John 13:1-4 ESV)
What about in other parts of Scripture? How is the Lord’s Supper modeled among Christians in the New Testament after the resurrection and ascension? This is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians:
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. (1 Corinthians 11:20-26 ESV)
Notice that the Corinthians were partaking of the Lord’s Supper as part of a meal. (This is the only use of the phrase “Lord’s Supper” in Scripture.) Paul does not condemn the meal. Instead, he condemns the Corinthians for not showing concern for others during the meal. From the repetition of “eat” and “drink” throughout this passage, the meal seems to be an integral part of the Lord’s Supper. (By the way, the word for “meal” in 1 Cor. 11:21 is the same word translated “supper” – as in the Lord’s Supper – in verse 20 and in John 13:2&4 and John 21:20.)
Similarly, Jude uses the plural word for “love” to specify the “love feasts” of the recipients of his letter (this is the only use of the phrase “Love Feast” in Scripture):
But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion. These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever. (Jude 1:10-13 ESV)
I realize that this is not a very happy passage to consider the Lord’s Supper, but again we see the Lord’s Supper associated with more than the elements. Here Jude warns his readers not to let blasphemers “feast with you” during “your love feasts”.
There are a few more passage that we should consider. In the three Gospel accounts of the Lord’s Supper, the authors use a certain formula that includes “taking”, “blessing”, and “breaking” the bread. These formulae are found in other passages that may or may not indicate that the people are partaking of the Lord’s Supper:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-27 ESV)
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, “Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.” And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. (Acts 20:7-11 ESV)
As day was about to dawn, Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, “Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food. It will give you strength, for not a hair is to perish from the head of any of you.” And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat. Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves. (Acts 27:33-36 ESV)
The last passage (Acts 27) is most interesting. It includes all three of the formulaic expressions found in the Gospels. However, it is occuring on a ship, in a storm, with unbelievers. Perhaps this does not indicate a Lord’s Supper, but it does demonstrate how “breaking bread” can be used to indicate more than simply eating bread. Similarly, the passage in Acts 2 shows that “breaking bread” includes “food”, not just bread. There are other passages that use this formula, such as the feeding of the 4,000 and the feeding of the 5,000, in which the people are not partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
There is one more passage that is associated with the Lord’s Supper. This one is also from 1 Corinthians:
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. (1 Corinthians 10:16-21 ESV)
In this passage, the elements of the Lord’s Supper are used to demonstrate our fellowship with Christ. As such, we cannot fellowship with both Christ and demons. (This is the only use of the phrase “Lord’s Table” in Scripture.) Although only bread and cup are mentioned in this passage, Paul mentions the fuller meal in less than a chapter (see above 1 Cor 11:20-26). Also, the word “table” can be used to indicate a meal, not a physical table (see Acts 16:34 where the Greek word “table” is translated “food” or “meal”).
By the way, if you are keeping score, here are the phrases used to describe the Lord’s Supper and their number of occurrencnes in Scripture: “Lord’s Supper” – 1; “Lord’s Table” – 1; “Agape or Love Feast” – 1; “Eucharist or Thanksgiving Feast” – 5; “Breaking Bread” – 8.
So, what can we learn from this? Does Scripture command us to take the Lord’s Supper as a full meal? No. Is there something special about the bread and cup? There seems to be in the Gospel accounts and in 1 Cor. 10-11. But we should also remember that at times Scripture uses “bread” to represent more than just bread; so even there the elements of bread and cup could indicate a full meal. Did the Christians in the New Testament take the Lord’s Supper as a meal? It seems that they did. Could we be missing something if we limit the Lord’s Supper to only the bread and the cup? I guess we’ll all have to answer that one for ourselves. What do you think?
The Lord’s Supper (one example)…
We officially gather with the church on Sunday mornings from 10:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. On most Sundays, people will hang around after the meeting until we are forced to lock the doors (We rent a meeting space, and our lease states that we have to leave the building at 12:30 p.m.). From there, some people return home, while others continue fellowshiping with one another over lunch – either at a home or a local restaurant. We meet again on Sunday evenings for prayer. Again, after the offical meeting Sunday evening, some people return home, while others gather in various homes and restaurants.
However, once a month (usually, this is not set in stone), we have a Lord’s Supper. We actually call it a Lord’s Supper/Fellowship. There is no set agenda for our Lord’s Supper/Fellowship, but I thought I would describe a “normal” meeting.
After we leave our Sunday morning meeting, we meet back together between 1:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. in order to give people time to go home and pick up their food. We will meet back together either at someone’s house (or backyard), a local community center, a park, or other location. As people arrive, they begin setting up tables and chairs and possibly tents, if we are meeting outside. Also, the fellowship begins. One of the more difficult things to do is to gather people around the table, because there are so many conversations going on. While we plan to start at 1:30 p.m., we try to wait until everyone arrives before we actually start. If we know someone is planning to come, we will wait for them – we have waited up to an hour before.
Once everyone arrives, we partake in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. This is accompanied by Scripture reading, prayer, songs… it always differs depending on who is serving the Lord’s Supper. We partake of the bread and the cup together. Then, we continue with a full meal. (We have never had the Lord’s Supper with only the bread and cup.)
After everyone has finished eating, we begin a time of sharing and prayer. Again, what happens during this time changes from month to month. Usually, it includes singing, Scripture reading, prayer, testimonies, words of thanksgiving, etc. What happens during this time depends upon what God is doing in our group at that time. After this, we continue fellowshiping with games, conversations, etc. This usually lasts until 6:00 p.m. or later. (Our last Lord’s Supper/Fellowship ended at 8:00 p.m.) However, even this isn’t the end of fellowship for some. Sometimes people leave our Lord’s Supper/Fellowships only to meet again at someone’s home.
From the beginning to the end, people are continually coming and going. There is no set schedule. Everyone knows they are welcome to come and go as their schedules and families require. We also invite “visitors” to join us. We’ve always thought that our Lord’s Supper/Fellowships were the best way to get to know us.
Is this the only way to partake of the Lord’s Supper? No. Certainly not. But there are certain aspects that are always included in scriptural accounts of the Lord’s Supper: bread, cup, meal, fellowship. We have tried to include each of these as we celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
We are always willing to learn from others. How do you partake in the Lord’s Supper with the church?
When the Lord’s Supper divides…
jps at Idle musings of a bookseller alerts us to the following quote by Andrew Murray:
Think of the church at large. What divisions! Think of the different bodies. Take the question of holiness, take the question of the cleansing blood, take the question of the baptism of the Spirit – what differences are caused among dear believers by such questions! That there are differences of opinion does not trouble me. We do not have the same constitution and temperament and mind. But how often hate, bitterness, contempt, separation, unlovingness are caused by the holiest truths of God’s Word! Our doctrines, our creeds, have been more important than love. We often think we are valiant for the truth and we forget God’s command to speak the truth in love. And it was so in the time of the Reformation between the Lutheran and Calvinistic churches. What bitterness there was than in regard to the Holy Supper, which was meant to be the bond of union among all believers! And so, down the ages, the very dearest truths of God have become mountains that have separated us.—Andrew Murray in Absolute Surrender
Have you thought about this? The Lord’s Supper was meant to unite us… bring us into communion/fellowship with one another and with God. Instead, that which was meant to unite, we use to divide. Something is terribly wrong here…
One Bread…
This is one of the most interesting passages dealing with the Lord’s Supper:
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation (fellowship) in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation (fellowship) 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. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17 ESV)
What is the significance of the “one bread”?
Mutual Edification and Activities…
(Part 5 in a series on the implications of mutual edification as the purpose of the gathering of the church): I have argued previously that the purpose for the gathering of the church in the New Testament is mutual edification (1 Cor 14:26)—each believer building up other believers and being built up himself or herself (see here, here, and here). If most churches understand their purpose in gathering to be something other than edification (i.e. worship or evangelism), then this change in understanding will have significant implications for the contemporary church. These implications fall into both philosophical as well as practical categories.
This series will examine several of the implications of mutual edification for the gathering of the church.
Fifth, and finally, believers should remember that while certain activities may aid in the edification of the church, the activities themselves do not please God. Even eating the Lord’s Supper, which Jesus commanded the church to partake in order to remember his sacrificial death, does not please God if the believers eat and drink in a way that does not build up others (1 Cor. 11:20-21).
There are many activities that believers performed during the gathering of the church in the New Testament, including teaching, reading, praying, sharing (partnership), debating, disciplining, prophesying, speaking in tongues (with interpretation), and breaking bread. However, incorporating certain activities in the meeting does not necessarily mean that the church is edifying itself. Activities do not produce a successful gathering of the church; mutual edification does.
Modern pragmatism teaches that churches should imitate the activities of other groups of believers who are “successful.†Scripture teaches that churches must work to ensure that the body of Christ is built up during their meetings.
If the purpose of the gathering of the church is mutual edificatio – and I believe it is – then there are certainly other implications. If you think of other implications, tell us about them in the comments.
Implications of Mutual Edification Series:
1. Mutual Edification and Individualism
2. Mutual Edification and Leadership
3. Mutual Edification and Excellence
4. Mutual Edification and Reverence
5. Mutual Edification and Activities
The Lord’s Supper…
Since I posted my tongue-in-cheek look at what I learned about the Lord’s Supper while growing up “in church”, I thought I would post what I now believe about the Lord’s Supper. However, someone stole my thunder. Tim Cowen recently posted the following in the comment section (12/11/2006 10:34 am) of another blog. I think he explains the Lord’s Supper (LS) as well as I have heard it explained. What do you think?
Furthermore, the LS was not JUST given for the use of a local gathering. In the case of the LS, we see even a sadder misuse of this beautiful symbol of our oneness/ covenant with Christ and each other (I know it means so much more, please allow brevity here) To make the LS symbolize the doctrinal conformity of a group to the exclusion of others that ARE in the body of Christ, because of denominational and doctrinal walls, is in my opinion a concept that is totally foreign to the spirit of Scripture. Again, we have taken authority away from Christ, for it is His ordinance, and has not been given to a denomination or even a local church to be used to foster and propagate their particular denominational distinctives. The LS does not symbolize our covenant as “Baptists†but our covenant with Christ, the head of the Body. If a person is deemed to be truly regenerated by the Spirit and by the Spirit baptized into the Body of Christ, it would be a sin against the Body to refuse to break bread with him, because of doctrinal differences or denominational affiliations, (it is
valid to exclude individuals based on matters of discipline and gross theological error of the highest order). The LS clearly was not given to symbolize our unity as SB, or our unity as a local assembly, but to symbolize our covenant with Christ through His Blood. To make it an ordinance of a denomination is in effect rending that part of the Body away from the rest of the Body. Denominations may be a necessary reality, but when any denomination attempts to act as if the ordinances are theirs to the exclusion of the rest of the Body, they are in grave error. We should take the Lord’s Supper with all Blood bought children of God, even if they don’t see eye to eye with us on every issue.The Test: If they are in the Body of Christ, we better break bread with them!