Peter Leithart in Against Christianity points out that “Christianity” tends to be an ideology, and that Jesus did not come to set up an ideology but to found a kingdom: Christen-Dom.
Christendom is a total way of life, including thinking. But as a way, it is a walk, a path. “In Him we live and move and have our being.” The way to learn this path is through ritual. Ritual is essential to Biblical religion, but unimportant to ideology.
I recently read a remark to the effect that Old Covenant worship was ritualistic, while New Covenant worship is a celebration response to the resurrection. This was just an offhand remark, so I cannot pretend to know all that was intended it by the person who wrote it. It seemed to mean, however, that (within bounds) New Covenant worship is not patterned by the Bible. Rather, worship is a response to an idea, and if not spontaneous is at least free of any prescribed order.
Now, there is a long tradition of this, I think. Jesus instituted a ritual and prescribed it for the Church, and that ritual is obeyed by virtually no churches. It is clear that the churches have felt that they can do the Lord’s Supper any way they want. This, I submit, is the triumph of ideology. Consider: Jesus clearly commanded us to sit when we eat with Him. This is seen in every feeding of the 5000 and 4000 in the gospels. Jesus instituted the meal sitting. He prayed while sitting. Physical posture was important to Jesus, but is it not important to the gnosticized churches. An ideology about the meaning of the Supper pushes churches into having people stand around, or kneel in humility. Being seated with Jesus in the heavenlies as His queen is not the message in these churches.
Consider: Jesus used bread. How many churches use bread? Precious few. If your spouse asks you to drop by the store and bring home some bread, do you bring home crackers? Wafers? Cubes of pie crust (which seems to be the latest thing in some Reformed circles)? We pray “give us this day our daily bread,” and then we are forced to eat anything but common daily bread. This is a ritual heresy, for it communicates that the Son of God was not incarnated as an ordinary human being (daily bread) but as some kind of weird non-human wafer or cracker.
Consider: Jesus instituted wine. How many churches use wine?
Consider: If you have one cup, you have to drink as the cup is passed. Similarly, the bread was passed hand to hand and the disciples ate as soon as they broke off a piece. How many churches respect this? Precious few. A new ritual has been added of having everyone wait and then the pastor says something he’s made up and everyone eats and drinks together. Instead of each of us drinking and offering to die for the person next to us, we all drink in abstraction.
Consider: Jesus clearly ate the bread first, since He broke off His piece first. And it’s clear that the conception of the Cup is that Jesus drank of it first. Just so, in the prescribed ritual, the minister eats and drinks martyrdom for his congregation and sets the example. How many churches do this? Incredibly, it is now the custom for the minister to be served last of all!!
Consider: The elements are passed hand to hand, though the minister begins the ritual and speaks the words. How many churches do this? Denying the priesthood of all believers, the ideologists insist that each person be served individually by the minister. Plus is just feels holier and more meaningful. Understand: It is ideology that produces this perverted rite. It is an ideology so powerful that the churches are simply blind to the fact that they reject Jesus’ example and disobey Him.
Consider: Jesus instituted two rites, with two prayers. Only after everyone has eaten the bread is a new prayer said for the wine and the second rite begun. How many churches obey Jesus in this? Precious few.
So, we have seen that “Christianity” is alive and well. Obedience is rejected in favor of ideology. The most clear ritual pattern we have in the New Covenant is almost universally perverted to conform to one or another theological ideology. Let us be clear: Jesus did not say “Understand this” but “Do this.” It is the doing that is important. The Christianity churches, however, substitute ideology for obedience. Many refuse communion to people who do not have the right ideology about the Supper. And as we have shown, their various ideologies and notions create false rituals in disobedience to what Jesus instituted.
Christendom religion, however, leads in the opposite direction. Since the psalms were given to us in parallel lines, that is how we should sing them. Metrical paraphrases are NOT psalms, but hymns based on the IDEAS in the psalms. If we want to follow Jesus, walking with and after Him and not just thinking about Him, we’ll need to sing the psalms in lines.
Rituals are miniature temporal encapsulations of the walk, the way, the movement, the following of life. They train us in how to move and have our being. Indeed, rituals are microchronic recapitulations of the founding events of a world. That is what the rituals in Leviticus are, and that is what the move from bread to wine in the Supper is. The Christendom Christian rejoices in the patterns of worship seen in the whole Bible, especially in Revelation, because he wants a new and revised way of life, a new walk.
Far from wanting to be free from Biblical ritual patterns, the dominion Christian seeks to learn as much about the dance steps of the way and walk as possible, so as to keep in step with the Spirit’s music.
What about foot washing prior to the table?
John 13:14 “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.”
Does this ritual have a place in the Lord’s service?
The Covingtons of Sand Mountain Alabama do have an answer for Remy’s foot washing concern albeit unorthodox. And you get snakes thrown in to boot!
It seems to me that because footwashing is not part of what Paul says he received and is passing on in 1 Corinthians, it is not part of the rite. A theological reason may be that the soil is no longer curse-prosecuting (“cursed is the soil with reference to you”) and so the Old Covenant need to wash feet is no longer with us. In Christ, we are located in New Glorified Soil, not in Old Adamic Soil. Since washing feet has something to do with removing the judgment for sin, it seems to me that it links with the confession and absolution before the Supper, and possibly with self-examination and mutual concern for righteousness.
We can also see mutual humility and service enjoined here. I notice that we are to wash one another’s feet, not have the pastor wash each of our feet. This goes with passing the elements of communion hand to hand. Jesus gives us bread and wine, and we are to share it one with another. Some liturgical churches do footwashing on Maundy Thursday, and guess what? it’s the pastor/bishop who washes the feet! That is NOT what Jesus said to do.
Other questions can be raised about the details I took up in my essay. Common cup? For some churches that is important, though in a church of any size the cup has to be refilled more than once. And indeed, I’ve been in Episcopal churches where there is more than one “common cup” being used in communion, which pretty much defeats the idea! If you have more than one “common cup,” you may as well have individual cups.
The details of the ritual, I think, need to be seen affirmed elsewhere in Scripture. For instance, Jesus always COMMANDS people to sit down when He feeds them. That pretty much thoroughly reinforces what we see going on when the Supper was instituted. Paul makes a big deal out of the One Loaf, but never says anything equivalent about One Cup. Oddly, the churches that insist on “common cup” also use bits of wafer bread, reversing Paul’s own emphasis. Passing hand to hand is reinforced by all the “one-anothering” teachings in the Bible. Etc.
I’ve spent more time on the details in *From Bread to Wine.* Here I wanted to make the point that Christendom religion is ritual-friendly, unlike ideological Christianity.
But, this is the place to debate all aspects of this. That’s why we set up this blog.
The disciples were in the upper room, the firmament, with Jesus. If you’re going to stand on the crystal sea, you’ll get your feet wet.
I completely agree with Jim on this.
And I do believe that the way we do the sacraments in Church affects the blessings that we receive and determins the growth of the Church.
I agree with your premise and long for Christendom to be revived.
On the point of waiting and eating together, I believe that comes from 1 Cor. 11:33- “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. ”
Also, I have always found it odd that Jesus told us to “Take and eat” yet often one is told to go and “receive” the body as the priest or pastor places a wafer on the tongue.
Yes, 1 Cor. 11:33 is pointed to, but of course that command means to wait until everyone has arrived at the meeting. Clearly, one cannot drink at the same time from one cup.
Another ritual mistake is that Jesus spoke the words “This is My body” AS He gave the bread to the disciples. “He broke it and gave it to them saying….” That is the rite He instituted. But notice how many churches give thanks as a kind of consecration, and then put the elements back on the table, and sing Agnus Dei or something else, and then begin to distribute. This ritual mistake invites people to wonder what has happened to the bread and wine. Is Jesus hiding in them now? Should we bow down to them now? But if the rite were done as Jesus commanded (“Do THIS!”) there would be no such interval of time, and the question would never have arisen.
Jim, with regard to your last comment, how would you structure the various movements of the Lord’s Supper?
In the congregation I pastor, I have a short intro to the supper, usually making some link with something in the text or sermon, and then I read the “words of institution,” but when I come to “gave thanks,” I actually give thanks/bless (“Blessed are you, Almighty God, Maker of heaven and earth…”). Then I read the rest, breaking when the word “break” appears, and distribute. But that means that I’m not saying “This is [Christ’s] body” as I give the bread to the people. Should I be?
Could you perhaps outline how you see this part of the ritual taking place? Should we even bother reading the “words of institution”? And could you, perhaps in another blog entry, elaborate on your view of “breaking” as “taking a piece” (as opposed to “tearing in half”)?
Thanks!
Here’s what I do:
1. Grab the bread. No introductory comments at all. Ever. Just do it.
2. Say, “On the night in which he was betrayed our Lord took bread and gave thanks.”
3. I give thanks [pray].
4. Say, “Then he broke it and gave it to his disciples saying, ‘Take and eat, this is my body given for you.'”
4-1/2. I break the bread while I am saying #4.
5. The elders/deacons come forward to distribute the bread.
6. Sing a Psalm during distribution.
7. Distribution finished. I hold up the chunk of bread that I will be eating and say, “Take and eat the body of Christ given for you.”
8. Everybody eats. We do eat the bread together. Don’t need to, I know. But we do.
9. I take hold of the cup, hold it up, and say, “In the same way after they ate, Jesus took the cup and gave thanks.”
10. I give thanks with an emphasis on the covenant memorial aspect of the wine rite.
11. After I finish giving thanks I say, “He gave it to his disciples and said, this cup is the new covenant in my blood shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. Take and drink from it all of you!”
12. The elders/deacons come forward and receive the wine from me to distribute.
13. I immediately grab the chalice, hold it up, and say, “The peace of Christ be with all of you.” I drink from the cup. Then I tell everyone to pass the peace of Christ to your neighbor as you pass the cup. Sometimes I remind them to talk and enjoy one another after they have received, passed, and drunk the cup.
14. After everyone has been served I say, “The body and blood of our Lord strengthen and preserve you steadfast in the true faith unto life everlasting. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The congregation says, “Amen!”
15. We all stand and sing the Nunc Dimittis.
For what it’s worth.
All I would add, besides NOT eating altogether, is (a) pray sitting down at & behind the table; (b) have your distributors sitting around the table with you; (c) eat your piece of bread and pass the loaf around the table, and then have them get up and pass to the congregation. Similarly, use a chalice for yourself and the distributors seated around the table with you, and then have them get up and distribute trays to the congregation. A common cup contains enough for 6-8 distributors, and starts the ritual the way Jesus actually did it.
Oh, I see I did not answer all John’s questions. Frankly, I don’t see any reason to read the “words of institution.” You don’t read aloud the recipe for frying an egg out of The Joy of Cooking every time you fry an egg. I probably would make a few comments linking back to the sermon, and then pick up the bread, give thanks, break off my piece, and pass it on to the elder next to me saying “the body of Christ, given for you.”
The words of institution almost become an incantation. Will the Supper work if you don’t say those words first? (Plus, at least in “two-office” churches around here, half the time a different elder “gets” to preside at the Table, and the garbled versions of the half-memorized words of institution that they issue forth are quite remarkable.)
As for breaking off a piece instead of tearing it in half, I’m not sure about the Greek. A loaf of bread has surface integrity, and when you break off the first piece for yourself, you have broken the loaf. It seems much more reasonable to me that this is what Jesus did: Pulled off His own piece and then started the bread around the table. I’d be happy to be corrected if the Greek actually means “rip in half.”
I’ve noticed that a lack of clarity about the rite (in our circles) often prompts the president of the assembly to quote (portions of) the words of institution three times. First they quote them before passing out the bread, which everyone is supposed to hold. Then some sort of cue to eat has to be given, and that cue ends up being words of institution again. Ditto after the cups have been passed out. The repetition comes off as clumsy rather than purposeful.
John you say: “I actually give thanks/bless”
Jeff you say: “I give thanks [pray].”
If we are talking about ritual and ritual actions then are giving thanks, praying and blessing all the the same ritual action? In other words, are they synonymous or do they carry a distinct purpose, action, etc?
Thanks.
Curate wrote (under Biblical Horizons Conference): Cranmer put the table in the body of the church so that everyone could stand around the table for the Supper. The idea was to remove the distance that had been placed between the table and priest, and the people.
No-one sat in those days because there were no chairs in the churches. That came later.
I read somewhere that Calvin made the people come to him to receive the elements because there some evil-livers who were insisting that they would eat no matter what, and despite their lack of repentance. I am not sure it was meant to be a permanent measure.
Jordan comments: On Calvin, yes, that’s my understanding also. The rationale I’ve been given for elders/pastor handing elements to each person is precisely for this disciplinary reason, so that an excommunicated person can’t get it. Since Jesus allowed Judas to eat, this argument makes no sense to me. It’s God’s Table, and He deals with those who eat wrongly.
How much of the Passover ritual can we assume to be part of the Lord’s directives? Prayers, breaking bread, etc.
What Passover ritual? There is no explicit ritual outlined in the Bible. And the way it was done in the Mosaic covenant (familial/tribal) changed with the Davidic covenant (priestly/national) and the shift to Temple worship.
Ron, I second Jeff’s point, which is that the business of reading the Supper in terms of a Passover ritual means making extra-Biblical Jewish customs the rule by which to read the Bible. It does not matter how Passover was done in Jesus’ day, because the Bible says nothing about it. What Jesus is doing is fulfilling the Word of God, not Jewish customs.
Since the Word of God commanded the Passover in the OT, and the ritual varied over time, yet the essential aspects were kept, can this be applied to the Lord’s Supper?
Of course I begin to fall in to ideology when I try to find essentials!
I’ll reread The Lord’s Service before commenting again.
Jesus instituted his Supper with the intention that when we partake we do so to remember his death and to show it forth. The gospel narrative is not providing us with a blue print of posture etc, after all he instituted it following a meal, in an upper room, with 12 men, and not on Sunday. None of these are essential elements to the Supper, yes bread should be used, yes so should wine, but the posture etc is irrelevant.
To kneel for the body and blood of Jesus is “a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers” (Black Rubric).
James, the minister’s warning speech in the BCP Communion uses precisely the example of Judas into whom the Devil entered when he took the bread form the Lord as a warning against unworthy eating.
Judas was not at that point an excommunicated person was he?
#20. Point taken. At the same time, Jesus knew what he was going to do. And I think we have to say that this was not some kind of miraculous divine knowledge, but Jesus’ assessment of the situation as perfect wise man.
My belief is that excommunicated people have no business in the worship service at all. If you’re going to block them, have deacons stand at the door for this purpose. The whole service is Eucharist. On the other hand, if some wicked person is determined to eat, then that’s his problem, not mine as officiant.
#19 writes: To kneel for the body and blood of Jesus is “a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers” (Black Rubric).
Precisely. An ideology about the supper has wrecked Jesus’ commands about it. Every time Jesus fed anyone He ordered them to sit. Every time. And the theology is that we are seated with Him in the heavenlies. In union with Him we are not priests who stand but priests who sit (Hebrews).
Your point about the location and timing and the persons involved is significant. Which things are adiaphora and which are not is something the rest of the Bible confirms. Read the six narratives about the feedings and ask why the Spirit records that Jesus ordered people to sit down each time. And ask why Jesus felt it necessary to COMMAND them to sit. If we care about learning ritual and walk from Jesus and from the Bible (the point of my essay), then the question of posture is pretty much crystal clear. Kneeling is not humble. It is rebellious.
Sure, if you’re meeting in the woods in the GULAG and you have to stand around and use water and rice cakes, then that’s what you do. Given a choice, though, we ought to be as sensitive as possible to what the Bible says. Nobody ever eats kneeling in the Bible.
we ought to be as sensitive as possible to what the Bible says
Indeed we should, we should note the context of the Gospel narrative. Why did Jesus bid them to sit? Because they were about to eat a meal and one generally sits to eat a meal. St. Paul changed that practice in 1 Cor. 11. Jesus didn’t command them to sit as a law for all future generations, the Church has never seen it in such a way. You are trying to get your ‘theology’ to say too much. We are indeed seated with him in the heavenlies but that is as true when I am walking down the street as when we gather to worship. Further, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Nobody ever eats kneeling in the Bible
Even if this were true, it really proves nothing except what it says on the surface.
I’m not sure the text so clear that each disciple ate his bit of bread as soon as he was served. Waiting to eat together and to drink together might also be seen as simple good manners, the way a family might wait ’til the casserole dish makes it all the way around the table before junior digs in. Also, Paul’s scolding of the Corinthians included a rebuke for not waiting for one another, so I’m inclined to think that waiting is not at all an abstraction, but a very tangible way of behaving graciously toward one another.
Again, the text does not seem so clear that Jesus ate first, or even took a piece for Himself first. If He did, was He talking with His mouth full when He gave the instructions to the disciples? The minister’s waiting ’til last is an act of service. He’s like a mom who makes sure her kids have gotten enough before she takes her serving, though good manners prescribe that her first bite is the cue for everyone else to begin eating. The last shall be first.
On the other hand, I do think the common cup is to be preferred, but as long as I am a member of First Church of People Who Get the Willies About Other People’s Saliva, I’ll cheerfully practice a thimbleful of martyrdom on that point!
We kneel when we confess our sins and humble ourselves before God because of them. But then God raises us up in glory in Christ. I’m not opposed to some sort of kneeling after the absolution (in the congregation I pastor, we kneel during the benediction, on one knee only, like troops about to go to war).
But at the Table, we do not kneel as humble suppliants, let alone as slaves. Rather, we are seated as friends. We are enthroned with the king. We are feasting with Jesus as “co-recliners” (to use a term Mark’s Gospel likes to use). It is not that he sits and we kneel, still less that he stands and we kneel, but rather that we recline/sit/adopt-normal-meal-posture together with Him.
Well said, John!
#22. But Richard, when you write “because they were at a meal,” that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Are you saying that the Lord’s SUPPER is not a meal? Surely it is the marriage supper of the Lamb, or if you prefer, the first form thereof. It’s the very meal character, the feast character, that is pretty much obliterated when people kneel and food is put in their mouths.
And, I’m not persuaded that Paul “changed” things. He only says that if they are going to abuse the Agape, they should eat at home. From what I know, the Church often had the Supper in connection with the Agape for the first couple of centuries.
#23. I don’t see what “broke the bread” can mean if not that Jesus pulled off a piece for Himself first. He could have given the command to take and eat before putting His piece in His mouth. As for the Cup, the whole theology is that we, like Peter, are to drink the Cup that Jesus drank from first. If that is not shown in the ritual, the ritual is very strange. The minister, as Christ’s representative, sets the example. That’s always been the rule in the Church until the 20th century.
As for “good manners,” our notions today about such things may not be those of the ancient world. After saying grace, usually the food is passed around the table, and people start eating as they get some of it. I’m not aware of a manner-rule that says we pass the peas, potatoes, meat, rolls, and salad and all wait until everyone has gotten his or hers before having a bite from what’s already on our plate. (For dessert, of course, we wait for the hostess to pick up her utensil before we do.)
I have twice eaten with Afghan Christians, with all kinds of food put on the floor on a cloth. The hostess made a plate and gave it to me first, as the guest pastor. I was expected to begin eating immediately, and so was everyone else when handed his/her plate.
And again, the scolding of the Corinthians did not have anything to do with eating all at once. They were scolded for chowing down on the Agape food before everyone had arrived at the meeting.
It’s the very meal character, the feast character, that is pretty much obliterated when people kneel and food is put in their mouths.
The sacrament though is not a common meal, we are eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
To revere God is, in both the OT and NT symbolised by kneeling, bowing and prostration. Kneeling is an expression of humility, of a sense of our needs, of supplication for mercy, and of adoration of and dependence upon God. Hence when we come to the Table where we have acknowledged our complete dependence upon him and having prayed:
“We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.”
We come before him, acknowledging that the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive the Sacrament, for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us. We have a sweet communion with him, a mystical presence. During this, to kneel is symbolic of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ we are granted by means of the sacrament. This kneeling is an expression of our humility before God, it expresses a deep sense of our needs, adoration of and dependence upon God.
If you want to sit, fine; I shall continue to kneel.
“Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”
The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.”
God bless!
I just stumbled onto your blog. How come I didn’t know about this before? What a heartening discovery!
Part of the appeal of kneeling for Communion is that humbling ourselves before the Lord feels good, appropriate, maybe even overdue. At my church (LCMS) we kneel both for the Confession of Sin and to receive Communion. Kneeling for the latter accords perfectly with my desire to fall at Jesus’s feet and stay there. But as you have shown, He lifts us up despite our unworthiness.
In order for my church to change the practice of kneeling for Communion, the ideological issues you mentioned would have to be addressed: Acknowledge the Supper as a real “feast of victory” (as one of our own canticles reminds us weekly) rather than a penitential act. Then we must address the issue of postures in worship.
I notice that the psalms frequently call on us to bow down before the Lord. If we actually put this command into practice, the perceived need to kneel at the altar would probably become less acute. While in Africa, I noticed that while singing the Ethiopian Lutherans, the Mekane Yesu, would make a bow every time they mentioned the name of Jesus. A kind of corporate choreography. Perhaps we can learn from them.
Getting back to an earlier minor point, Jesus gave Judas the sop, but are we sure He gave him The Supper? Luke’s account makes it seem as if He did–and we need to consider why Luke left this impression–but depending on how one harmonizes the Bible accounts, one can argue pretty convincingly that Judas left before The Supper. (I forget the details, but our good brothers at Still Waters Revival Books persuaded me on this point.)
I have heard of a group of Plymouth Brethren who will eat The Supper only upstairs in a rented facility.
It is difficult to harmonize the accounts of the supper, but as always I reckon it follows the feasts/creation week, which might help piece it all together:
Sabbath – Jesus reclines with the disciples in the “firmament” upper room
Passover – He reveals that one of them is unclean and the disciples mourn
Firstfruits – Jesus warns Judas (from Sinai), then breaks bread and shares the wine
Pentecost – the disciples dispute about who will be the greatest. Jesus tells them they will be sifted, but rule as kings
Trumpets – Jesus tells them they will now needs swords and moneybags (there’s the offertory at step 5 again)
Atonement – Jesus washes their feet and sends Judas to destruction as the second goat. But not before He gives what is holy to a dog who will return to attack (looks like Judas ate the supper), prefiguring Judah’s immediate national future
Booths – Jesus leads them to the Mount of Olives
I think once it is realized that ritual is unavoidable, then it becomes a matter of which ritual is biblical and which is not. I find this to be particularly important not only with the Lord’s Supper, but also with the ritual of baptism vs. getting-on-your-knees-and-praying-the-sinners-prayer ritual. The question is which one is biblical.
I will affirm Jim’s statement that the evangelical view is Marcionism reborn. Growing up Fundamental, we were under the tom-foolery that our worship was not constrained by rules and regulations. NT worship is non- liturgical (in a BH sense). Yes, it is “ordered” but those orders are not legislative.
To read BH and be directed to the Levitical rituals for a covenantal worship is mind blowing to say the least. And it is easier orated than done. Even in Meyers’ book he seems to presume (in a nice way, Jeff) without really justifying his moves. Now, I may have missed his argument for a manditory NT worship constructed by the Levitical orders, so you may rebut here.
My question for BH is where do we get this hermeneutic of orders? How can we surmise that since Jesus commanded people to sit and receive and eat that his actions are binding on the rite? Even the dividing up of the eucahrist into 2 parts. I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT, “Huh! Jesus is doing two entirely separate things here….” Mebbe I haven’t b/c like much of X-dom we are slaves to tradition and that taints my exegesis (the same is true for Gen 1.29. Neve have I even thought to understand the ToTKoGE to be included in trees given for food and so the prohibition is evanescent).
Again, as I have read and listened to JbJ on this (and I truly have found my self challenged and appreciating much) I hear more ad hoc assertions that I do exegesis. (Go easy on me….)
What about passing around a “common bottle” of wine, as opposed to a common cup? Every seat could have a cup in front of it to be used during communion, and the elders/deacons or other “distributors” (can any member be a “distributor”?) sitting with the pastor, after drinking from a “common cup”, can then take the bottle and distribute to a seated congregation?
Each person can still “one another” each other when passing along the bottle, and even pour wine into their neighbor’s cup for them.
I say this only because I do get a little squeamish about drinking out of a common cup. I’m not sure this is so much ideology as culture, or “how my momma raised me!” Anyway, my struggle is the common cup. Our church does communion every week with a common wine cup, or individual grapefruit thimbles (a-w m-a-n, I believe I need to drink wine, but I want to go for the thimble!). Any help? Thanks, and great post, Jim!
when I said “grapefruit thimbles”, I meant grape juice thimbles! Sorry. Also watching the Olympics as I type this!
#31. I don’t think anyone argues for “mandatory” following of this order. It is not possible to do these things in all times and places, so God does not mandate it. He does teach it, though. The “Levitical sequence” is the sequence in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2, in all the covenant making ceremonies, in the rite of the Supper itself, in the book of Revelation, and of course in the Levitical sequences.
God Takes Us. Call.
God Breaks and Restructures Us. Confession.
God Calls Us a New Name in Word & Commands Us. Word.
God Feeds Us. Communion.
We Depart after singing a hymn. Commission.
That’s the Supper, and that’s the Liturgy.
Where is this written? In Jordan, *God’s Rite for Life* (now included in *From Bread to Wine* and in Jordan *Theses on Worship.*
I think what look like ad hoc assertions look that way because you are reading a circle of people who have been used to this for 20 years.
Again, if you are looking for commands, mandates, rules, you won’t find them. If you are looking for revelations of God’s patterns and ways, and how to follow those ways as best you can, you’ll find plenty of Biblical data. See also Jordan, *An Introduction to the Seven-Fold Covenant Model.*
The “waiting for one another” that Paul talks about is not “waiting for everyone to arrive.” At the beginning of his instructions, he points out that he is addressing what happens at the meeting when the whole church is gathered (“coming together,” 11:20), and accuses each one of “taking first in the eating” (v. 21), the result of this being that one is hungry and another is drunk, with the implication that these two states are found at the very same table.
Also, none of the accounts actually say that Jesus ate the bread–indeed, in terms of the symbolism, he would not have, since he did not need to receive his own sacrifice. And he certainly did not drink at least one of the cups (see Luke 22:17-18–and the very fact that this account gives us two cups makes asserting a set biblical order of the cup and the bread challenging). The cup is specifically said to be the blood of the sacrifice, which Jesus did not drink. He, rather, drank the cup of judgment: for him to drink a different cup in the very same act would be serious ritual confusion.
My overall point is this: your principle that we need to be more mindful of what our rituals say is absolutely correct–and I’ve had the debate with someone in my own church who insists that the characteristic of the New Covenant is it’s emphasis on the word instead of on ritual–but the texts do not permit us to say that churches are being disobedient because the pastor eats last (since the texts never tell us even that Jesus ate the bread, and the symbolism in fact argues against it), or because each person waits to eat his portion until all are served (this applies to the cup as well, since in Luke 22:17 Jesus commands them to “divide” the cup among themselves–the same term, strikingly enough, used for what the soldiers did to Jesus’ garments before they cast lots, Mk. 15:24 & Luke 23:34). So, while we can discuss the principles of how the Supper is observed, bringing in the entire biblical story to inform that, we should not accuse churches of disobedience based upon one perspective of the details of the text.
Dear Mr Smith,
I tried to be a bit careful in reserving the charge of “disobedience” for only certain things. “Failure to follow the example” would be my more general “charge.” To the extent that I was not clear (and in a brief blog, I’m sure I was not sufficiently so), please excuse it. Your general point is certainly valid: Given that there are debatable aspects of what the Scriptures enjoin, we should not be quick to accuse others of disobedience. I’m really accusing the churches of carelessness.
You raise interesting points. It seems to me, however, that Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, & Luke 22:18 & 16 indicate that Jesus drank of the cup He shared, and ate of the bread also. Otherwise, I don’t see that His statements make much sense. Why vow not to do it again if He had not just done it? More generally, it is quite clear that Jesus drinks of a CUP that He says that Peter will later drink from also. Hence, it makes perfect sense for Him to drink first as He institutes the Supper. And since the Cup is the outpouring of His blood, and His own death, then there is no reason to think He did not eat of the bread also. Jesus’ sacrifice is not only something unique FOR us, but is also something that we participate in by extending it for the life of the world. That’s why the epistles call on us to be living sacrifices, to be poured out as libations, etc.
As for 1 Corinthians 11, I’m sorry but I cannot see your point of view at all. Paul contrasts what is going on with eating and drinking at home. That is, he’s commenting on an Agape. This just has nothing to do with eating and drinking simultaneously. Do you know of any commentator who takes it that way?
Finally, it’s true that Luke gives more details and uses different words. As someone convinced that Matthew is first, almost immediately after Pentecost, and that Matthew gives the original prescriptions for the churches to use, I don’t think Luke theological variations apply to the rite itself. (See on this blog, March 20, 2008.)
Anyway, thank you for your posting, and for reminding us all to be more careful.
The command to sit. What a wonderful observation:
Mar 6:39 Then he commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass.
Mar 8:6 And he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd.
Mat 15:35 And directing the crowd to sit down on the ground,
Mat 14:19 Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.
Luk 9:14 For there were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, “Have them sit down in groups of about fifty each.”
Luk 9:15 And they did so, and had them all sit down.
Joh 6:10 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, about five thousand in number.
Joh 6:11 Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. So also the fish, as much as they wanted.
Forgive me for sounding like a simpleton here but, in terms of covenant renewal and communion, would it be right in saying that covenant renewal doesn’t happen if communion has not taken place?
I wonder. Would EVs be as reticent to celebrate the eucharist were they to have a “memorial” view? I would think people would be more desirous to celebrate the supper if they thought it was not they who needed reminded. When the supper is a memorial done by me for me I might be less interested in doing it very often. But were I to understand that I am reminding God not to destroy me for my iniquities I might be more eager to memorialise his Son. Yes, I think so.
#39. Amen.
#38. Well, yes. And in fact, they broke bread from house to house, but only had bread+wine when they “came together” (1 Cor.). The bread rite is a memorial, but the wine rite is both memorial AND covenant renewal. If you don’t have wine, you’re not experiencing covenant renewal. The Enemy knows this, and has taken the wine away from God’s people for much of church history (in Rome for over a thousand years, and in grape-juice America for 200 years).
What most churches have is a “Sunday Morning Parachurch” meeting. No covenant renewal. Not even any psalmody.
But I do think God is gracious to His helpless people stuck in these sh*tty churches. I do think He renews covenant with them. As for the leaders of these groups, I’m not so savvy about what God thinks of them.
You know, I have sympathy for the underdog in discussions like this and I wonder if it wouldn’t be productive to have someone take the side of evangelical churches by taking the time to tango with Dr. Jordan and his view.
I’m not sure at all that the situation is as bad as Dr. Jordan describes though I’m willing to continue to hear him out. It seems a stretch to me to say that “what most churches have is a “Sunday Morning Parachurch” meeting” especially when, as Jordan rightly notes, there are precious few rules and regulations when it comes to the New Testament on exactly how and what it is we ought to be doing on Sunday morning regarding worship.
I have offered before the idea that covenant renewal is not strictly speaking a form of worship a la Jeffrey Meyers and his pattern as outlined in his book but that *every* worship setting is a matter of covenant renewal because when ‘two or three are gathered in My Name, there I am also’ has at least as many implications we can gather from the text as Dr. Jordan can pull out of the simple words of Jesus at the Last Supper.
Problematic for me is the idea that the patterns and points of view assumed in Jordan’s presentation are part and parcel of how the ceremony of a communion service should be performed. But, there is always a great deal of assumptions presented behind the actual presentation of the matter and rarely any real demonstration as to the veracity of what is being put forward. I realize we are referred to articles, books, and other printed works where things are hopefully made clear or at least given in more detail but what I have read of these things in general seem to be just a further collection of the same modus operandi. At some point, someone somewhere has to provide more definitive demonstration of what is being put forward because it does not seem to me that the proof is in the pudding – ie. that all or nearly all evangelical churches are demonstrably engaging in Gnosticism or other early forms of Christian heresy merely because they do not value a direct form of psalmody that is as culturally and intellectually foreign to most people today as reading from Akkadian glyphs or because the ceremony and ritual used in their celebration of the Supper does not immediately echo the First Century implementation of the Last Supper.
And, it’s not that I don’t value Jordan’s contribution to these and other subjects. I certainly think his view is worth consideration but I also wonder about whether or not we are too flippant in rejecting many evangelical practices when there is little if any opposing voice to vet out his criticisms – at least from the parts of the Church that receive his heaviest critique.
Thanks James for the reply, I completely agree with you.
Kevin, have you read… http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-42-doing-the-lords-supper/ …I think this does itself justice. I found it helpful, hope it will do the same for you.
#41. I’d say that when 2-3 are gathered and Jesus is by the Spirit with them, there is a kind of Memorial. You could do the bread rite then. But the Covenant is in the Cup, and covenant renewal is only when the full Supper is performed.
I’d also say that before the ’60s Invasion, non-sacramental Sunday worship was at least formal and serious. Now, however, these churches are just like Rotary Club meetings, with the same kind of “how ya doin?” greetings, applause, and night club music. Or worse. In fact, modern evangelical worship is PATTERNED on parachurch meetings.
I like the shock effect of saying non-sacramental and non-psalmodic meetings are Sunday Morning Parachurch. That is, IMO, in fact what they are, and it is time we said it and demanded change. After 300 years of decline, it should be clear that ignoring the issue is not having any effect.
Dr. Jordan,
As I said prior, every meeting with God is a matter of covenant renewal – His presence demands no less.
It seems here that your treatment of one set of Scriptures is different than another – you seem ready to pull multiple implications from a Supper text but not so many from one like Matthew 18:20. Besides, nowhere does Scripture say that the Covenant is in the Cup or that covenant renewal only takes place when the full Supper is performed. The Bible tells us that the cup is the Covenant and by that we know it doesn’t mean that there is some overly literal association there but that the cup symbolizes the New Covenant and presents us with it sacramentally.
But the same is done for us when Scripture is read (Nehemiah 8), when psalms and hymns are sung (Colossians 3:15-17), when prayers are given (1 Kings 8:23 ff.). And, in truth, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is really an extension of the Word in the first place. It cannot exist without it and it exists as a sacrament by explaining it. So, while I am among the first to stress the importance of the sacrament of communion in worship, essentially it is the presentation of the Word that is at root what makes it so special. It is the giving of the Law, in other words, that presents us with the promises which we are to believe in. We truly eat not by consuming mere bread and wine but by believing in the Person and promises of God. This remembrance is not simply a retelling but a putting forth of the promises of God and our participatory effort in that regard is simply to have faith and once again to trust in Him as we continue to do so in other worship contexts, namely Word, song, deed, and prayer.
As such, churches that practice communion infrequently are not necessarily doing “Sunday Morning Parachurch” especially when we consider that whatever their practices are, the Spirit of our Lord is present among them and God continues to speak in Word, song, and through prayer. I must confess that I grow increasingly discomforted by the word “parachurch” among those who would emphasize what has been termed a higher church view among the Reformed – as if one group who has weekly communion and psalm-singing is doing real church while other communions who prefer a simpler synagogue-like model without weekly communion are somehow suspect and equivalent to a parachurch organization along the lines of the Billy Graham’s evangelistic association.
We must remember our Christian beginnings in a discussion like this especially if we are going to pattern our usage of the Supper after its practice as outlined in the New Testament.
At Pentecost and just after, Christians met in their homes daily worshipping God and quite outside the normal covenant means provided through the synagogue and the temple. Doubtless, sometimes this involved the Supper – other times, likely it didn’t. In either case, there was no consistory or session involved in providing oversight to the activities of early Christians save the Apostles and it can hardly be said that twelve men were able to micro-manage the laypeople in the same way the Lord’s Supper is practiced and fenced by today’s Reformed elders.
In fact, likely for many years, it is clear that Christians as a whole met in their homes and attended temple and synagogue services until the time of transition between Old and New Covenant was decidedly complete near to the destruction of Jerusalem. What this points us to is that “parachurch” worship as it has been described to us here is not necessarily out of order nor is it something the Church shouldn’t be up to if and when the circumstances call for it (and, in my view, the circumstances of today’s American church likely do call for it but that is perhaps a post for another time). Later, the Church adopted and copied the synagogue service as time went on and many evangelical services today (as well as the Reformed traditions) echo that tradition in their weekly services however badly you or others may feel they have been performed.
I’m always up for shock value but I’m also up for the truth of the matter.
It is a clear overstatement to say that “non-sacramental and non-psalmodic meetings” are of necessity Sunday Morning Parachurch. Not every evangelical church in America has the disease to which you refer. Just last week, I was privileged to attend a Southern Baptist Sunday service that was reflective of the solemnity and seriousness of any Reformed effort toward the same. It differed from a standard Reformed service, though, in that there was obvious joy and rejoicing present in spades as well as a friendliness that just can’t be outdone. They practiced communion that Sunday as well as prayed, read from the Word, sang hymns and choruses both – fully orchestrated and with a choir – something you would never see in today’s micro-Reformed world. I daresay that the service was more like your ideals regarding music than any PCA, CREC, or other micro-Reformed church I’ve ever been to with the exception perhaps of style.
It is easy, of course, to be like Elijah and continue to think that we are all alone in terms of being faithful to God’s covenant – but I would submit to you that there are still many more than seven thousand among us that have not bowed their knees to Baal and many of them are still in the evangelical communions you continue to criticize so heavily. Where that criticism is legitimate by all means let it fly. But casting such a wide net to catch just the few fish you are after doesn’t seem like the right strategy to me.
I’m dying to learn how to chant the psalms and unfortunately I’m too musically challenged to learn how from Jim’s essay on BH. Would any of you fine folks happen to have a recording of psalm chanting that you could upload to the internet?
Great post btw.
Well, I don’t agree. The covenant was renewed at certain Peace Offering meals (“sacrifices”) under the Law. There were plenty of other occasions for worship, but covenant renewal is a specific sacramental event. Synagogue meetings on sabbath days were not covenant renewals, though one might see them as celebrations of the covenant.
I’m all in favor of parachurch. Let a brazillion levitical orders bloom. The Church has always had them, and must always have them. But neither the SPCK nor Stewardesses for Christ nor the Gideons have any business doing the sacraments when they meet, or at least not the Cup rite.
The Lord’s Day is the Day of the Lord, the time of Assembly, the time of Covenant Renewal, and the time of the Feast. This period of time, whether 30 or 250 minutes, and whenever held at the appointment of the elders, is the Lord’s Day, and it is not the same kind of meeting as a home Bible study. And it is not properly performed without the meal.
Without the meal, the meeting held by Churches on Sunday morning is not the Lord’s Day and is not a covenant renewal. The people are poorer for it. The kingdom is weaker for it. God blesses it, of course, because God blesses parachurch meetings.
I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree here.
I am fine to disagree here, but I would appreciate some demonstration of your point of view rather than another restatement or a recommendation to read something that does the same.
Where does the Bible tell us that covenant renewal is limited to “a specific sacramental event” or that the covenant is renewed only in the midst of sacramental worship? There certainly isn’t any direct statement in that regard in the Bible but maybe I’ve missed something. Surely something that important would be astoundingly clear in the pages of Holy Writ.
Also, I missed where you dealt with the passages I’ve already included above in regards to places where covenant renewal took or takes place without the sacramental worship you are endorsing.
Okay. The covenant is made and renewed by blood. No blood, no covenant renewal. Hence, the Cup.
I’m out of town for a few days, so for now I’ll have to stop. You guys can keep going, of course.
Hmmmm…
I guess at this point I must ask (and perhaps Pastor Meyers, if you are reading you might feel free to take Dr. Jordan’s place here), what exactly is covenant renewal then?
Also, and particularly relevant at least in my view, what does it mean to feed on the Blood of Christ? How and when does that happen? In the sacramental meal only?
Thank you for your reply, Dr. Jordan. I think we are perhaps in more agreement than opposition—
But it still makes very little sense for Christ to have eaten the bread (I will concede the cup). He says expressly that the bread is his body, broken for the church. But he is not part of the church, his body is not broken for himself, he does not require being given the bread of life…Everything about the symbolism of the bread indicates to me that Christ would not have eaten it.
I also cannot dismiss Luke’s order of the meal quite so casually, because I do not accept your ordering of the gospels (see my comment on that thread), nor am I bound to do so. So, here again, there is some liberty. If I am not required to hold that Matthew’s version is the standard for the church, then I am entitled to consider Luke’s version in proposing an order for the supper without any blame.
I don’t want to drag out a discussion of 1 Cor. 11. My point would be that the entire discussion is set in context by vv.17-18 & 20, and it appears to me Paul is talking about how they act once they have gathered together. This is, interestingly, part of the argument for considering the meal a constituting part of the meeting: gathering “as a church” is parallel with gathering “to eat.”
That said, I would suggest to Mr. Johnson that part of the problem with Evangelical–and even Reformed–churches is the reduction of the Supper to the Word. The eschatological imagery is not of a sermon, but of a meal, and this should not be taken lightly. I suppose my complaint would be that the churches don’t seem to think about it very much, and when they do, they seem to answer in ways uninformed by much Biblical reflection: “well, we’ve always done it this way” or “if we make it frequent, it won’t be special,” or “what really matters is communing by faith.” And that latter view, taken to a logical conclusion, winds up with Quakerism, where the externals are entirely dispensable. So, my frustration is with a lack of reflection in the churches I have been part of…
In Neh. 8, it is clear that there was sacrifice and meal: vv. 10-13. The point, indeed, is that this is what indicates that fellowship between YHWH and his people has been restored, after the sorrow and confession at the end of v. 9. The word, in that case, left them in mourning, but it was the meal that confirmed their acceptance by God.
Col. 3 does not in any way indicate that the NC is presented to us sacramentally in the singing of the church. Indeed, it doesn’t appear that Col. 3 is specifically about any gatherings of the ekklesia as such, but rather about general conduct of Christian life. So, while I would not say that God only meets with us in the assembly, he does meet with us uniquely there as the covenant people. God calling Samuel in the night was not covenant renewal, nor was Hannah’s prayer in the temple, although God was present with them, to be sure. Jeff Meyers and Dave Hegeman went a number of rounds on this some time ago…
In 1 Kings 8, sacrifices both begin the covenant renewal (v. 5) and conclude it (vv. 62-63), and a meal confirms it, as elswhere (v. 65, cf. v. 2).
So, I would suggest, the passages you cite, when taken in context, indicate that the sacrifice and meal do accompany the covenant renewal. Col. 3 doesn’t apply, since it is talking about the daily walk.
Does that mean that when there is no meal, there is no worship and the Spirit is not there? I don’t think we can say that, but the fact that the Spirit is sovereign and can work even through faulty means does not excuse the church for a neglect of the meal that was given.
#44
KdJ,
May I add my 2$?
Mt 18.20- this follows the discourse on disciplinary reconciliation and follows the pattern of “witnessing” as in trials. I don’t believe (as I did in my years as a modern Ev) it has to do with corporate worship.
Your second paragraph is confusing to me. You said, “The same is done for us…” What is? Covenant renewal (CR)? Where is that in Neh. or Col. ? Kings, I suppose, is more to the point but if I take what you said in the quote as is, I would have to disagree strongly that worship lene is CR just as worship forte. I grew up in the thick of typical evangelical worship (and was raised to be anti liturgical) and so have an appropriate experience with which to make the same criticisms as JbJ.
Joshua writes:
The action of God’s people and, I would argue, the “renewal” is found in the people’s ringing endorsement and “Amen” of the reading of God’s Word—their continuation and faith in the participation of the promises of God made to them, fulfilled through them, and continued in them. Besides, it is clear that the people “worshiped” the Lord (v. 6). Yet, truly, according to Dr. Jordan’s standard this would be nothing more than a parachurch event because no sacrifices were offered and blood was not spilled on behalf of the covenant.
The meal and celebration that followed is hardly analogous to the Supper or the requirement that Dr. Jordan has laid down – ie. blood being spilled for covenant renewal. At the very least, one has to provide some sort of substantiation that we ought to see the feasting here as anything more than what churches do today in providing potlucks and other meals for celebration at certain times in the life of the church (though I grant this was a particularly unprecedented occasion that was later memorialized). It’s not like this was the Passsover or sacrifices proper as outlined in the Law.
Joshua continues:
Unlike the Supper passages, Colossians actually does contain words about renewal and while you may be correct that the context of Colossians 3 is larger than what we are to do in Sunday worship, there is nothing that keeps us from excluding it when we speak of singing in worship and what that means. In other words, there is nothing that indicates that we must limit application of the passage to the “daily walk”. Where, anyway, is there any biblical justification for separating the Christian life into “daily walk” and special activities like worship? Your limiting of the context of the passage is unwarranted here. More would need to be demonstrated on your part to say otherwise.
But, central to my point earlier, Colossians 3:10 speaks of us being renewed and echoes 2 Corinthians 4:16 which says that we are being renewed day by day. I doubt the Apostle Paul would have left Sunday out of “day by day”. I realize such passages do not accord exactly with what Dr. Jordan has indicated is the basis for covenant renewal—the presence of blood—but I wonder how far this has been thought through.
For one thing, any interaction we have with God comes through Jesus Christ and by the application of His blood. So, any contact we have with God is a matter of covenant renewal because the intercessory work of Christ is always there and always working. How can this not be true in any Christian worship?
The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper represents this communion and reality, it doesn’t create it or maintain it beyond all the other ways the grace of God is carried with us in our lives to keep us in Him.
John 6 tells us that the eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of our Lord is what gives us eternal life—but this eating and drinking is the Christian life both individually and corporately among God’s people. Of course, we see it especially as I have argued in the assembly and worship of God’s people and also through the sacraments, but the text does not allow us to limit the nature of this feeding.
The eating and drinking of John 6 can be expressed and His Body and Blood actually consumed, of course, in the Supper but in truth we eat and drink of Christ’s Body and Blood whenever we have faith in Him and His promises. This is why Jesus can say on the one hand that eating and drinking His Body and Blood is how we come to eternal life but that we shall never thirst or hunger again. So, literally, every divine encounter with God and through His people in their corporate assembly is a renewal of the covenant and it is happening continually. It always involves Christ’s Blood and the sacrament frankly is representative of that reality and not the other way around.
Proof for this is found, of course, in the Book of Hebrews. Do you think it is only when we have the Lord’s Supper that we ascend to His throne room? Is there anyone here on this site that will defend the idea that Hebrews 4:16 is only really true when we come together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Are we further going to argue that the latter half of Hebrews 12 is only a description of the communion service?
The contrast in Hebrews between a people who came to Mount Sinai and then eventually left and our own state ought to make this obvious – we have come and remain at Mount Zion where God is continually present, the assembly is constantly worshipping Him, and our Lord and Savior is providing His sprinkled blood that is utterly better than that of Abel. This is our status before God and it is the kingdom we are receiving (Hebrews 12:28, see the present participle and its connection to echo in the verse) and being renewed in every day.
All this means that God’s sanctifying grace is constantly renewing us and the covenant itself is renewed whenever our Lord through His Spirit moves us and continues to grant us grace and access to His kingdom which shall never be moved. This is the definition of sanctification or renewal.
I don’t doubt that the Lord’s Supper is a special instance of this and that it does indeed represent covenant renewal in a special way and is a legitimate federal rite for us to celebrate. But, celebration of the rite is not the reality in and of itself. The reality is represented by the rite and the only thing that makes the sacrament special is that it is both rite and reality at the same time because God’s grace is active in our participation of the same.
Correspondingly, the corporate assembly of God’s people in our churches on Sunday morning also both represents the reality of the matter and is the reality of the matter. So, in some sense, worship is sacramental whether the Supper is a part of that worship or not. But, you will notice I hope that there is no sacrifice or meal in Hebrews 12—yet not speaking of covenant renewal when expositing this passage seems utterly ridiculous. The reason there is no sacrifice is because it has already occurred in Christ and at His expense and the blood itself is now applied to us and remains effectual in speaking better than the blood of Abel.
BlackTan writes:
Yes, I’m aware of the immediate context but a close look at the proof-texts of the Westminster Confession will illustrate that immediate context is not always directly relevant to the application of a passage of Scripture.
Besides, if our Lord is there to witness any disciplinary issue by two or three witnesses, how is it he wouldn’t be there in a corporate assembly for worship? There are a number of ways to demonstrate this from the Scriptures, but since God is within us – when we are together He is with us together in a special way and wouldn’t that be all the more true if we are together for the express purpose of worshiping Him as God’s people in a local church?
So, I’m not sure how your objection to my use of the passage carries any ground here.
I was just trying to address your use of Matt 18. While it is true the WFC gymnastically tries to prove their point many times with certain texts (too numerous to enumerate) you and (they) might better serve your point to do what you just did following your “Besides…” and argue tota scriptura.
Joshua wrote:
I’m not sure I reduced the Supper to the Word—whatever that means—or that other churches are doing the same merely because they don’t celebrate the Supper every time they meet on Sunday morning.
I know I’m on very firm Reformed ground in seeing the Supper in terms of the Word as I described above (see comment #44) and charging the Reformers with not properly reflecting on the sacrament as it pertains to this and other issues would be treading on quite the dangerous ground. There’s no reason to separate the eschatological import of the Supper from the fact that it puts forth the content of the gospel (the work and person of Christ) in its presentation. Why can’t this be a matter of “both/and”?
Of course, it goes deeper than that and this is where the Reformed understanding of the Supper is key. What is eaten in the sacrament is eaten by faith – so that whatever is presented to us in the Supper is a matter of faith. We know, too, that faith ‘comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ’ (Romans 10:17). So, when we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord by faith in the sacrament, we are doing so as a result of what is put forward to us in the ceremony in terms of God’s Word being presented to us yet again.
Your charge that understanding the Supper in this way results in dispensing with the externals and winds up with Quakerism is just something that you’d have to demonstrate because I don’t think there’s any need to paint with such a wide brush nor do I think it even roughly resembles the truth. Are we really going to charge the entire evangelical world with Quakerism merely because they don’t celebrate the sacrament weekly, see it in light of how the Word works through the sacrament, or because they don’t make the same eschatological connections we might make here on this website? I don’t remember one mention of a “divine light” in my discussion of this matter yet it’s strange how a charge concerning Quakerism comes up so quickly merely because I mentioned the long-standing tradition of the Reformers in seeing the sacrament in light of its relationship to God’s Word.
So, making the charge of Quakerism on this issue seems like an unreasonable tact to me and not really cognizant of how our brothers on other sides of these aisles in America understand and think about the Supper. I think perhaps that sometimes we let our conclusions on these things run rampant—logically necessary as we think they may be—and say extraordinarily negative things about other Christians and their views that we can neither support nor demonstrate to be true—but the punch of the statement hits hard anyway because it makes sense to us. I mean, if I’m wrong here by all means demonstrate the veracity of your previous statement—but please don’t forget to deal with evidence I’ve already provided to the contrary here and in comment #44.
But to return to the sacrament, surely we can agree together that viewing the sacrament as part and parcel of God’s Word to us does not necessitate us viewing the rite without all its other important aspects as well.
If you connect rituals with imagery, then you will see that rituals (imagery) create reality.
Ok, if we look at this a different way, what creates community? Is it not a feast? Is it not a gathering around a fire? How is the Church connected? Is it not through the Holy Spirit? How is this pictured in a Church? Is it not in the Lord’s Supper?
Any succinct suggestions for how I might convincingly plead for more frequent Holy Communion in our LCMS church? Currently we celebrate the Lord’s Supper twice monthly, or thrice if there are five Sundays in a month.
#56. Can’t really offer anything, not knowing how your pastor and board think. I can say that when I was growing up, monthly communion (which we had) was regarded as radical, and some of the older families would leave two sundays out of three during the communion hymn, because they believed so strongly in the “true Lutheran tradition” of quarterly communion. So, I imagine eventually you’ll get to weekly.
Rev. Jordan,
the impression I get from our congregation is that it is just plain too lazy to put up with more frequent Communion, even if the new pastor leans slightly in the direction of greater frequency. I’m always looking for ways of nudging him in that direction. In any case, your reply is encouraging and more liberating than you may think. And judging from the article and comments above, there is plenty of misery to go around. Thank you!
“An He shall come with glory, Whose Reign and Rule shall have NO END.”
… often “vasileia” is translated = “kingdom”. However, vasileia means ruling power/reign/rule.
I highly recommend reading:
FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE
Part 1 — AN INTERPLAY BETWEEN THEOLOGY AND SOCIETY
Part 2 — EMPIRICAL THEOLOGY VERSUS SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY
Part 3 — THE FILIOQUE
SOURCE: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm
Well, I had really hoped for more interaction on the comments I’ve made above (#48, 52, 53, 54), particularly regarding what covenant renewal means and whether or not it is seen only in the Supper.
Any chance Dr. Jordan, Pastor Meyers or others might be interested in engaging further here? I believe this topic strikes hard at what being Reformed really means and whether or not the view put forward by Dr. Jordan is in fact as Reformed as many are led to believe.
I would be interested in seeing a definition of Covenant renewal as well. What would that coincide with in marriage for instance ? Is intercourse covenant renewal ?
If the fruit of the garden was a sacrifice unto death, then we fell by eating. The blood of the passover lamb on the doorpost seems to me like a protection. It is a seal on the threshold. The family ate the lamb that died for their protection. Their teeth tore the flesh of the creature that would die for their salvation. Just as the teeth tore the flesh of the fruit in the Garden, our teeth tear the flesh of the fruit of the tree of the cross. We eat symbolically the true passover lamb as bread. Not so much in renewal, but remembrance. The rather vampyric aspect of drinking the blood of Christ I think represents the new life in Christ under his allegiance in opposition to the allegiance to the Adamic nature. Drinking blood was forbidden under the Old Covenant. Now we are commanded to drink only one mystical blood through a symbolic meal of bread and wine. Wine is rich and pungent and intoxicating. Fermentation speaks of transformation through death and decay. All food and drink passes through the lips. We ate our curse the same way we now eat our benediction. We kiss the wounds of Christ at the holy eucharist. There is some correlation between intimacy and eating food, check out the imagery of Song Of Solomon. We seal our lips with the covenant promise, because the lips are the organ of confession.
I think I disagree that the covenant is only in the cup though. I think it is set up as a summary. We pierce the flesh with our teeth to allow the blood to flow and be drunk. The New Covenant in his blood was poured out for us by the tearing teeth of spear, and nails, and whips, and scourges, and thorns.
[…] At root in terms of what I felt was important about what we were discussing was whether or not “covenant renewal” takes place only in the Lord’s Supper and weekly celebration of the same during worship as Dr. Jordan has argued or whether evangelical “non-sacramental” worship qualifies as covenant renewal and the legitimate worship of the church. I have argued that any and all sanctification–and especially the public gathering of God’s people with or without a celebration of the Supper is still and always has been covenant renewal. I paste a few of my comments here to illustrate some of what has been said already. I look forward to hearing more especially from folks who advocate Dr. Jordan’s view (or Dr. Jordan himself) and I’ll start by first quoting Dr. Jordan […]
Are we ready to claim absolutely that Greek “artos” is the same sort of white, airy, crusty bread that we buy at the local French or Italian bakery? The Lord’s Supper is in the context of the Feast of “Azumos”, Unleavened Bread (Heb. “matzah”).
The bread without leaven, Jesus’ “body”, used in the ritual instituted in the Upper Room, was more of a cracker than a baguette, and matzah from the kosher aisle at the supermarket is most accurate, if we want to be biblical.
[…] really appreciated Jim Jordan’s post on the BH blog about The Lord’s Supper. His point is that our churches are in the grip of ideology, so that rather than obeying what Jesus […]
Kevin,
I’ll try to give you the sort of interaction you desire. I should point out that I haven’t visited this site in a couple weeks, so my lack of response to your critiques is simply through absence.
I. Nehemiah 8.
A. I would argue that this is, if not a parachurch event, certainly what the Reformed would call an irregular service, in terms of the OT, given the lack of a temple (they are meeting at the West Gate) and sacrifices. So, while real worship can take place here (just as real worship could take place at an Intervarsity meeting), it is not complete, the way temple worship or Lord’s Day worship is.
B. The renewal is not completed by the “Amen,” since at that point Ezra has done nothing but opened the book of the Law and blessed God (vv. 6-7). He hasn’t read anything yet (vv. 1-3 are a summary of the entire event, which is then described in step-by-step detail beginning in v. 4). You wouldn’t say that just opening the Word, saying “Blessed be the Lord,” and having the congregation say “Amen” would constitute a true worship service, would you?
C. You have already admitted that this meal is different from ordinary church potlucks in saying that it was memorialized (which means it was some sort of significant event), so your request for substantiation is moot. Nevertheless, I would say the meal in this circumstance IS the gospel. Notice what the reading of the Law has done to the people: it has caused them to mourn, presumably in repentance (v. 9). So, the gospel is proclaimed to them by sending them to rejoice in a meal.
D. Notice that this is but one day of a solemn 8-day festival: the events of the first day are not isolated, but part of a larger covenant renewal event that is defined as “keeping the feast” “according to the ordinance”(v. 18). Now, what ordinance would that be? Well, that of Lev. 23 (where the “holy convocations,” including the Sabbath, are defined as “feasts,” Lev. 23:2), where an assembly is commanded on the first day of the seventh month (cf. Neh. 8:2). And the ordinance for that seventh-month Sabbath includes an offering by fire (Lev. 23:25). Furthermore, the returned exiles collapse a second major seventh-month feast into this one–the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 14), which normally began on the 15th day of the month. What are the ordinances for that feast? To make an offering for seven days, and have an assembly with sacrifice on the eighth day (Lev. 23:36 & Neh. 8:18). So, Nehemiah 8 does not present a full covenant renewal event consisting only of reading the Word and a congregational response: the covenant renewal event is according to the OT sacrificial system, including feasting and sacrifice. So, your example of Neh. as a covenant renewal without sacrifice is incorrect.
II. Colossians 3
A. You say “Colossians actually does contain words about renewal…” but this is the classic word-concept fallacy. What we are talking about in this discussion is not just the general term “renewal,” but the specific concept of “covenant renewal,” which is not the same thing. “Covenant renewal” is a specific event, not a gradual process, that is necessarily corporate, since the covenant is made between God and the ekklesia, with attendant forms and rituals, on a settled day that is treated differently from the other days of work. While the two are not unrelated (indeed, the Reformed tradition finds that personal renewal takes place to a large extent through the covenant assemblies, usually described as “diligent attendence to the means of grace”–viz., the preaching of the Word, the sacraments, and prayer), they are also not identical, so to say that Col. 3 uses the term renewal doesn’t mean it addresses the issue. Rather, it is clearly talking about personal renewal, which is an progressive work, not a discrete event. You make this same equivocation later, saying: “the covenant itself is renewed whenever our Lord through His Spirit moves us and continues to grant us grace and access to His kingdom which shall never be moved. This is the definition of sanctification or renewal.” The covenant is an objective, formal relationship administered corporately through solemn signs and seals. This is the BH blog after all, so most folks are in agreement on this particular definition of the covenant.
B. I’m not limiting what is described in Col. 3 to the daily walk, as distinct from the Lord’s Day assembly. Certainly, what happens in the daily walk happens–even more so–in the service of worship. My point is again that we are talking about what in particular consititues the distinctive Sunday worship service. Covenant renewal is corporate and formal, a unique and privileged event, although certainly not the only way to get to God (we’re not sacerdotalists here!).
C. That brings me to this statement: “Where, anyway, is there any biblical justification for separating the Christian life into “daily walk” and special activities like worship?” Well, the fourth commandment might have something to do with this. You appear to be assuming the following sort of principle: “There is no difference at all between the daily life and Sunday worship.” If this is followed absolutely, then there is no purpose to a special event like, say, assembling for worship. And yet, we are commanded to do this (Heb. 10:25). Why? Just because God wants us to hang out together? It boils down to this: certainly, all our lives are to be worship of God, but that does not mean that there is nothing unique and privileged about the Lord’s Day convocation. We don’t take the Lord’s Supper all by ourselves any old day we want, do we? When I read aloud the Scripture and explain it to my family or to others gathered in my home, is that “the same as” the pastor’s sermon on Sunday? The Reformed tradition would say no. So, throughout the week we encourage one another, we put one another first, we pray for one another, we are diligent to listen to the Word, we commune with God, we are renewed by the Spirit, but Sunday is the day on which we do that as the assembled covenant people of God, under the authority of the ministers of the church, in a unique way. As I said, Dave Hegeman and Jeff Meyers have gone several rounds on this, and I don’t want to rehash the “Is Sunday special or not” debate here. Jeff might have a link to that exchange, and he certainly deals with it in his book “The Lord’s Service.”
III. The Word and the Supper.
A. You say “The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper…doesn’t create [communion] or maintain it beyond all the other ways the grace of God is carried with us in our lives to keep us in Him.” So is the Supper redundant? Does it not really add anything to our communion with God? God has given us a variety of “means of grace,” but that doesn’t mean they are interchangable or redundant: each has a specific role that the other do not fill. For example, prayer is not the same as hearing or reading the Word (in fact, hearing and reading the Word are not the same–it is the preached word that is uniquely the Word of God, according to Calvin, for example). Each of the various means of grace has its own important place to fill in our communion with God that the others cannot do in the same way. Think of it as a triangle, with the Word, the Supper, and prayer as the corners. If you pull on one of those, then you extend communion with God, but only in one direction. Each needs to be pulled equally, i.e., emphasized equally, in order to maintain the balance. So, the Supper does maintain a certain aspect of communion, does expand communion in a certain direction, that the other means of grace do not. But, if you pull too far on only one or two points of a triangle, it will eventually lose its distinctive shape entirely.
B. You wonder what I mean by saying that you reduce the Supper to the Word. Here’s what I mean: “the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is really an extension of the Word in the first place.” Or “essentially it is the presentation of the Word that is at root what makes it so special.” Or “We truly eat not by consuming mere bread and wine but by believing in the Person and promises of God.” Or “The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper…doesn’t create [communion] or maintain it beyond all the other ways the grace of God is carried with us in our lives to keep us in Him.” The direction of all of these is, as far as I can tell, to make the Lord’s Supper redundant, since feeding by faith is accomplished by hearing the Word without the Supper. The Supper has no reality on its own, but is simply an “extension” of the Word. The distinctive elements of the Supper–bread, wine, people eating, etc.–don’t really make the Supper what it is, but rather the Word, and the interior and fundamentally individual act of faith.
C. This is what I mean by Quakerism: “The eating of His body and the drinking of His blood cannot be an outward act. They truly partake of them who habitually rest upon the sufferings and death of their Lord as their only hope, and to whom the indwelling Spirit gives to drink of the fullness that is in Christ. It is this inward and spiritual partaking that is the true supper of the Lord…The presence of Christ with His church is not designed to be by symbol or representation, but in the real communication of His own Spirit…In an especial manner, when assembled for congregational worship, are believers invited to the festival of the Savior’s peace, and in a united act of faith and love, unfettered by any outward rite or ceremonial, to partake together of the body that was broken and of the blood that was shed for them…” That is the part of the Richmond Declaration on the Lord’s Supper. Please explain how the principles that you have laid out (see, e.g., the summar in III.B) do not lead to the same practice as the Quakers, viz., exclusively spiritual partaking. On your principle, we could do that AND LOSE NOTHING. The actual ceremony, the actual physical elements Christ established? Totally redundant. It adds nothing, so we lose nothing by eliminating it.
In summary, I have answered your texts from #44:
-Neh. 8 is a full feast, according to the ordinances, which must have included sacrifices. So, it is not an example of the covenant being renewed by just the Word.
-1 Kings 8 (which, I noticed, you dropped in your rejoinder), clearly states that there were sacrifices as well, not just prayer.
-Col. 3 is talking about progressive sanctification, not about what consitutes an assembly of the body of Christ. While those are not exclusive, they are distinct, and the fact that Colossians uses the word “renewal” does not mean it is talking about the objective reality of the covenant.
I have also substantiated my point about Quakerism: the principle they offer as a basis for doing away with the physical Supper entirely is, as far as I can tell, exactly the same as yours–and that shared by many evangelical churches.
A few of extra points:
-if you notice my conclusion to comment 50, I’m not willing to agree with Jordan that a Supper-less service is “parachurch.”
-I did not charge the entire evangelical and Reformed world with Quakerism. What I said is that one of the main answers to “why not weekly?” is a principle that “taken to a logical conclusion, winds up in Quakerism.” That is, evangelicals and even Reformed use the same principle that, as I have demonstrated in III.C above, is the same one that Quakers use to elminate the physical elements entirely. So, if the principle is the same, why is the practice different? Why do we keep the Supper? Why don’t we act like the Quakers, since we agree with them in principle? As a logic teacher, I could lay out the syllogistic form of this if you like, so don’t lecture me on how I let my “conclusions run rampant” or how I only “THINK” (your emphasis) my conclusion is logically necessary. Now you need to demonstrate why starting with the same premise about the nature of true eating does not lead to the same conclusion, or else demonstrate that your premise is not the same as the Quakers.
-I also was not accusing the ReformerS of “not properly reflecting on the sacrament.” I was talking about the contemporary Reformed church, in which I have been for the past ten years, in various parts of the country and in various denominations. Note the conclusion to the last post, which you even quote: “a lack of reflection in the churches I have been part of…” My own denomination, the OPC, has people in it who think that the confessional view of baptism is baptismal regeneration, so our current state of understanding in Reformed churches is in no way to be confused with the reflection of the 16th and 17th centuries.
I can’t promise that I will look at this blog very frequently. I would be happy to continue the conversation, however. You could reach me at jsmith at veritasschool.net.
The combative tone of this article is a bit disheartening. And why have the lines been drawn where they are? For example, why not write something this:
***
Jesus instituted a ritual and prescribed it for the Church, and that ritual is obeyed by virtually no churches. It is clear that the churches have felt that they can do the Lord’s Supper any way they want. This, I submit, is the triumph of ideology. Consider the following heresies of pride over Christianity.
Consider: The Lord’s Supper was instituted at Passover, at a time when the Jews ate nothing with leaven in it. Clearly, Jesus chose unleavened bread to be the symbol of his body. Unleavened bread, not a crusty multigrain for munching. Not a nice, homemade loaf of artisan bread straight from the oven. Flatbread. Unleavened. Period.
Consider: Christ first shared a physical meal (a seder!) with his disciples before instituting the sacrament. A meal, not a 45-minute cerebral meditation. Not a guitar-led concert of repetitive songs. Food and drink: the stuff of life. When was the last time your church actually had a meal before the Eucharist? Or do they more commonly “feast” on the endless words of a sermon disconnected from bodily experience? Not that solid teaching from the Word is misguided; but it is clearly NOT what Christ instituted. The early church recognized this (look at Paul’s instructions to the church in Corinth); we would do well to do the same.
Consider: Christ and his disciples would have assumed the posture of their day: reclined around a table. Not sitting in pews; not kneeling on a cushioned rail; not standing around a table; not leaning forward with their eyes closed. Ritual heresies would have you believe this is something elevated above friends sharing fellowship and food around a table (one NOT standing 4 feet off the ground, mind you!). How much we could benefit by submitting our bodies and assuming the posture Jesus chose when giving his disciples His body!
Consider: Many churches now have a disturbing practice of using Eucharistic meditations to preach the gospel or expound further on the sermon just delivered. Jesus was not one to shy away from teaching, but notice that this was not his purpose in giving his disciples his body and blood. They didn’t sing while receiving Eucharist; Christ didn’t pray a dozen prayers of consecration, thanksgiving, or even expounding upon what was happening. When will we learn to be content with what our Master has given us (“Do THIS in memory. . .”) and not add on our own elaborations to make things clear? Let’s let the Holy Spirit consecrate these moments.
Consider: Jesus taught that the bread and wine WERE HIS BODY AND BLOOD. How many churches, for lack of faith, substitute their own thoughts on the meaning of the Eucharist. It is “spiritually” Christ’s body and blood. It is “just” a memorial. A cursory glance at the history of theological belief on this, including Scripture’s clear mandate, show the heresy in reducing the bread and wine to be anything less. “This IS my body; this IS my blood.”
‘Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.’
***
And so on. I do not posit these paragraphs as a substitute or addition, nor do I write them as the content of my own beliefs. But the content of Mr. Jordan’s post above appear to me to cherry pick what he likes about the ritual of the Eucharist, using historical data as his justification, while ignoring CLEAR evidence for *other* rituals. (His condemnation of the use of unleavened bread is particularly egregious, in my humble opinion.)
What is needed in this matter is a little more charity, especially since, on Mr. Jordan’s own principles, he himself could be seen as advocating “ritual heresy.” Otherwise, to use a vulgar phrase, we’ll end up with a ritual pissing contest.
Daniel: One can’t say everything there is to say about the Lord’s Supper in one blog post. That isn’t “cherry picking,” it’s simply narrowing the topic. (As a matter of fact, Jim does address some of things you mentioned in other essays. In this one, for example, he more or less agrees with you regarding posture during the Lord’s Supper.)
The point of the essay is to point out how an unbiblical emphasis on ideology divorced from ritual affects the way many churches do the Supper. That isn’t being combative, it’s simply taking a position. (Yes, the “ritual heresy” line was strong. His point was not that churches that go the cracker route are actually heretical, but that they are teaching something about Jesus that isn’t true, even if that isn’t their intent. Regarding the leavened vs. unleavened bread question…Jeff Meyers wrote a recent blog post about that topic you might be interested in checking out.)
Angiebee,
Thanks for your response.
Let me see if I can make my point a little clearer by being more obviously absurd and less imitative. “Consider: Jesus and his disciples in sharing the Lord’s Supper were wearing cloaks. Not jeans, not pinstripe suits, certainly not shirts and ties. . .” etc.
Understand that I’m not objecting because Mr. Jordan hasn’t gone far enough; I’m objecting the methodology that he employs. (Reclining at a table. Really?)
This becomes especially important because it seems to me that the literalist reading Mr. Jordan takes with respect this sacrament actually implies that what’s going on is that the bread and wine are transubstantiated (or, if we prefer to ditch the more technical Roman vocabulary, we can use terms that the Eastern churches would for the mystical supper).
I’ve followed your link to the argument *for* using leaven but I’m not entirely sure that it holds. Did Jesus use unleavened bread that would have looked more like flatbread or crackers, or did he use a fresh loaf like the one pictured in the blog? If the former, should it matter? If not, why not? Although I can appreciate the argument made that the symbolism *could* be seen as better fulfilled with ‘new’ leaven, yet under Mr. Jordan’s reading the point is moot if Christ himself didn’t bless it by his own use.
I personally find extensive discussion of posture and literal recreation of the event including meals, reclining, etc. somewhat absurd in this context. But perhaps I am alone in this. :)
Daniel,
No one is arguing for leavened bread. The argument is for normal yeasty bread. The Lord’s Supper is NOT simply the extension of Passover. It’s a new meal for a new world that fulfills ALL of the covenant meals of the old world. The leaven of the old word is past; we now eat and drink with Jesus in the new creation. No leavened bread. Normal, tasty bread.
Daniel,
I agree with the Puritans. We pray for “daily bread” in the liturgy, and “daily bread” is what we should be given. Unleavened bread, like manna, is “bread of angels.” Well, we now have an incarnate human loaf. To use anything other than ordinary daily bread is to communicate that Jesus does NOT exist in ordinary human flesh but in something other than sinless Adamic human flesh. Ordinary bread in the Western world is in a loaf form. In other parts of the world it might be flat bread. In Hawaii it might be poi.
The Lord’s Supper cannot be a repetition of the Last Supper because we now feed on the glorified flesh of Jesus Christ, united to Him by the Spirit newly proceeding from His humanity after Pentecost.
You say you object to my methodology. I don’t think you’ve quite understood my methodology. I’m not interested in imitating what Jesus did at the Last Supper, whether that meal was a Passover Seder or not (and there is plenty of argument on both sides here). I’m interested in what the whole Bible says about how the meal should be done. Jesus repeatedly ordered us to “sit.” Whether we sit on the ground, sit crosslegged, sit leaning on one arm, sit in a chair, sit in a beanbag — does not matter. What matters is sitting in contrast to standing or kneeling.
Or again: It is illegitimate to combine the two rites into one, and not separate them. Not just because Jesus did two rites, and Paul says to do two rites, but also because EVERY time flesh and blood, and bread and wine, are employed ritually, they are ALWAYS separated. The whole Bible gives us this. I’ve written a book on what that means, but that is not my point here. My point is to obey the Bible, and the first thing is to be sensitive to what the Bible says.
“Ortho-dox” means “right worship.” Ignoring the Bible and engaging in “will worship” (doing what seems and feels right to me) is, perforce, “liturgical heresy.”
“Consider: Jesus instituted two rites, with two prayers. Only after everyone has eaten the bread is a new prayer said for the wine and the second rite begun. How many churches obey Jesus in this? Precious few.”
Just a thought on eating the bread with the wine. It is perhaps like eating the flesh with the blood. It is the priest seizing the throne before time.
God always divides, fills and reunites. As the sacrifice, Christ’s body was divided from His blood. We are filled, and His body and blood are reunited in us. As we partake, we, Greater Eve, fulfill His resurrection as His body – his flesh and blood put back together.
The corollary of which is…
As hypocritical accusers of the Gentiles (Romans 2:1-3), the Jewish rulers imaged the “Emmanuel” they truly worshipped—the Accuser instead of the Advocate. Like Adam, they failed to guard the garden. Satan entered the open “east gate” to devour their house of cedars like fire. As their prince, he too would eat bread. Herod Agrippa I was filled with scavenging maggots like misused manna or abandoned grapes (Exodus 16:20; Deuteronomy 28:39; Acts 12:23). As anti-Christ, Herod the sabbath-breaker was the bread of death and a cup of curses. For “eating the flesh with the blood” like a Gentile king, he was likewise eaten.
I had another thought. (Probably nothing new, but not having yet read every word Mr Jordan has written, I may be thinking his thoughts after him, or after he thinks God’s thoughts after Him!)
The reason the bread and wine are still divided is only because the world is not yet complete.
In the two trees, Life and Wisdom, bread and wine, priest and king, Jachin and Boaz, flesh and blood, Land and Sea, earth and heaven, the Lord presented Adam with a divided world.
The only way it could be united was through obedience. If he obeyed the Father’s will, he would eat the bread, then drink the wine, and the divided world would be united first in his own body.
By obedience, Adam became a Tree of Life (Table), then a Tree of Wisdom (Lampstand) uniting earth with heaven. Dominion begins with bread and wine.
Jesus united Jachin and Boaz in His body, and became a white stone lifted up. We are given the elements separately, and after our own obedience and exaltation, we too are white stones, public displays of unseen obedience.
Seems to me that if you want to be consistent, you would have to insist on an intervening meal between the bread ritual and the wine ritual, at least according to Paul and Luke (Mark and Matthew reflect a different tradition here).
Paul does not say that such an intervening meal is what he received. He does say that two prayers are what he received. That’s how I would take it. Thanks for your comment.
[…] a (somewhat polemical, slanted towards the American scene, but nevertheless relevant over here) blog post on the subject, emphasizing the need to reform our evangelical traditions, and submit to what the […]