-------------------
Yet another teacher who cannot bring himself to quote any Scripture, beyond a piece of a phrase here and there. Why this is so prevalent among those who fancy themselves as Correctors Of Doctrine is frankly beyond us.
In addition, the author will create a whole structure of what is and isn't permitted, based on suppositions and inferences. It's a confusing mess.
Yet another teacher who cannot bring himself to quote any Scripture, beyond a piece of a phrase here and there. Why this is so prevalent among those who fancy themselves as Correctors Of Doctrine is frankly beyond us.
In addition, the author will create a whole structure of what is and isn't permitted, based on suppositions and inferences. It's a confusing mess.
We thoroughly discuss communion here.
------------------
After my post on children taking communion (Kids’ Menu: Children & Communion) a number of other questions crossed my mind. Have you ever thought of these provocative variables in the form and substance of the Lord’s Supper:
This is why he said “Do this in remembrance of me” as he broke the bread. He clearly meant “Break bread.” Not, break a cookie, or cut up some pepperoni pizza slices. (Why not?
The author continues to gloss over obvious things. None of those other foods existed, so of course He didn't suggest them.
The question as to substance is, does it correlate with what Jesus intended? (Yes, what did Jesus intend? Why can't the author answer basic questions? Instead, he just asserts that Jesus was talking only about bread.)
On a practical note, we use grape juice and never wine because of the prevalence of alcohol abuse in our society. (Ok, now he adopts a new rule, grape juice so as not to offend.)
After my post on children taking communion (Kids’ Menu: Children & Communion) a number of other questions crossed my mind. Have you ever thought of these provocative variables in the form and substance of the Lord’s Supper:
- Should we not emulate the New Testament church’s practice of sharing an entire, sit-down meal?
- Must the bread be unleavened?
- Must the wine be alcoholic?
- Must the wine be red or can we use Champagne instead?
- Where does one draw the line? For example, can pizza and Coke count as communion? i.e. can the bread be sweetened, or have a topping? What about milk and cookies?
Makes the blood boil a bit, doesn’t it? (??? Why should it? These are legitimate questions that deserve considered biblical responses.)
You may have got stuck on the milk and cookies suggestion, and you would probably say: “Obviously not, don’t be silly.” And you’d be right to say that…but why? (Yes, why? Why is it so obvious? We would hope for a biblical explanation.)
Here are two principles by which we can make these decisions.
1. Jesus instituted a practice of breaking and sharing bread and wine, therefore the substance of the meal must correlate with his intention. (Why must it correlate? What is meant by "correlate?" How do the author's ideas represent Jesus' intention? On what basis would he claim this?
If the author is going to assert something, he needs to actually explain it with biblical references.)
Thus breaking bread is essential, as it represents the breaking of Christ’s body. (The author is able to express the truth, that the breaking of bread is symbolic of Christ's death. But we will discover that this symbolism can only apply to bread [Or pita. Or crackers.]. But he will never tell us why.)
Here are two principles by which we can make these decisions.
1. Jesus instituted a practice of breaking and sharing bread and wine, therefore the substance of the meal must correlate with his intention. (Why must it correlate? What is meant by "correlate?" How do the author's ideas represent Jesus' intention? On what basis would he claim this?
If the author is going to assert something, he needs to actually explain it with biblical references.)
Thus breaking bread is essential, as it represents the breaking of Christ’s body. (The author is able to express the truth, that the breaking of bread is symbolic of Christ's death. But we will discover that this symbolism can only apply to bread [Or pita. Or crackers.]. But he will never tell us why.)
The bread represents the body. It was the symbol Jesus selected, perhaps because he also called himself the Bread of Life (John 6:35). (And why did He call Himself the Bread of Life? It's answers like this that the author must provide in order to actually consider the issue.
What is Jesus explaining? We shall pick up the author's fumble and explain.
What is Jesus explaining? We shall pick up the author's fumble and explain.
- Jesus selected something that already had meaning to those He was speaking to. We should then consider how would His hearers understand it.
- He explained its meaning, which would again be understood by His hearers in their cultural context.
- He made application. That is, He connected the dots as to how it applied to the Kingdom and why it should be important to them. We then implement that application.
Jesus selected it specifically because everyone ate bread, and they ate bread practically daily. This speaks to how essential the Bread of Life is.
And, they placed great value on eating together. Sharing bread is sharing life and belonging. It communicates fellowship. People ate together to express community and family.
Thus, everyone needs the Bread of Life, that is, the basic, fundamental element to eternal life, a representation of Jesus' death, and a picture of God's family (Oikos) and holy fellowship. He is spiritual life, community, and belonging to every man who will repent and receive Him; He is the spiritual bread.
And, they placed great value on eating together. Sharing bread is sharing life and belonging. It communicates fellowship. People ate together to express community and family.
Thus, everyone needs the Bread of Life, that is, the basic, fundamental element to eternal life, a representation of Jesus' death, and a picture of God's family (Oikos) and holy fellowship. He is spiritual life, community, and belonging to every man who will repent and receive Him; He is the spiritual bread.
It isn't the bread. The bread doesn't matter, it's what it means.)
This is why he said “Do this in remembrance of me” as he broke the bread. He clearly meant “Break bread.” Not, break a cookie, or cut up some pepperoni pizza slices. (Why not?
The author continues to gloss over obvious things. None of those other foods existed, so of course He didn't suggest them.
But if they had existed, they probably would have been as basic as bread was. Today, He might have broken a hamburger. Why? Because ribs, chicken, and pizza are fundamental foods today.
Thus we can safely say that Jesus would probably not use caviar or tenderloin. It is the low, common nature of the elements that is important. When he broke bread, He was essentially saying, "This is the bottom line. I am the basic food everyone will partake of to get saved. I am the food to eat that you know nothing about." [Jn. 4:32]).
Thus we can safely say that Jesus would probably not use caviar or tenderloin. It is the low, common nature of the elements that is important. When he broke bread, He was essentially saying, "This is the bottom line. I am the basic food everyone will partake of to get saved. I am the food to eat that you know nothing about." [Jn. 4:32]).
The question as to substance is, does it correlate with what Jesus intended? (Yes, what did Jesus intend? Why can't the author answer basic questions? Instead, he just asserts that Jesus was talking only about bread.)
Wheat crackers, unleavened pita, or even your regular store-bought bread loaf all accurately manifest the image of Christ’s body being broken as bread. (Why? How does he know? On what basis is this true? Why are crackers ok but pizza [made of bread] is not?)
Likewise the contents of the cup is significant. (Why? The author just assumes the content is significant, but does not bother to justify the statement.)
Likewise the contents of the cup is significant. (Why? The author just assumes the content is significant, but does not bother to justify the statement.)
At the Last Supper, it was most certainly alcoholic wine, as there was no other kind available. Fermentation can only be delayed by refrigeration, which as invented later. (None of the texts describing the Last Supper mention wine. They only mention the cup. We note this only because of the author's penchant for splitting hairs and ignoring the obvious questions.)
The wine may have been highly diluted, but this is speculation, and thus not stipulated in Scripture as a requirement. After all, Paul had to rebuke the Corinthian gluttons for getting drunk on the communion wine (1 Cor 11:21).
But today’s non-alcoholic grape juice is still an accurate manifestation of the symbol. (Why? Upon what basis does the author assert this? Will he ever back up any of his claims?
And remember, he just told us, At the Last Supper, it was most certainly alcoholic wine, as there was no other kind available. So again, why is grape juice ok?)
The cup was intended to symbolize Christ’s blood being shed. (Waaaait. Now the author embraces the symbolism of the element, while before he said the substance of the meal must correlate with his intention. Before it had to be actual bread [or maybe wheat thins...], but for the wine, well, the symbolism is now the issue.
Why? We will find out later that some partakers are former alcoholics and want to abstain from alcohol. So he has to find a way to make exceptions to his former rigidity to accommodate his preferences.)
But today’s non-alcoholic grape juice is still an accurate manifestation of the symbol. (Why? Upon what basis does the author assert this? Will he ever back up any of his claims?
And remember, he just told us, At the Last Supper, it was most certainly alcoholic wine, as there was no other kind available. So again, why is grape juice ok?)
The cup was intended to symbolize Christ’s blood being shed. (Waaaait. Now the author embraces the symbolism of the element, while before he said the substance of the meal must correlate with his intention. Before it had to be actual bread [or maybe wheat thins...], but for the wine, well, the symbolism is now the issue.
Why? We will find out later that some partakers are former alcoholics and want to abstain from alcohol. So he has to find a way to make exceptions to his former rigidity to accommodate his preferences.)
Also, Jesus clearly said that he would not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until the kingdom comes (Luke 22:18). This pries open the category to include any fruit of the vine, (Waaait. Before, the author was calling us to a standard of Jesus' intent. Bread is bread, he said.
Again we remind the reader what the author told us: At the Last Supper, it was most certainly alcoholic wine, as there was no other kind available. There was no juice. Therefore, there is no generic "fruit of the vine." It just didn't exist, just like pizza didn't exist.
The author should therefore exclude juice for the exact same reasons he excludes pizza.)
The author should therefore exclude juice for the exact same reasons he excludes pizza.)
like grape juice, or even perhaps Champagne (calm down, it’s just wine made in a region of France called Champagne). Though the white color is usually a no-no for conservative types, (And he carves out yet another priviso...)
it must be noted that the color of the communion wine is never mentioned in Scripture, it is only assumed, and therefore should not be stipulated as an unwavering regulation in our churches. And yes, the bubbles are okay. Fermenting grape juice always produces bubbles, it’s just a matter of quantity, which again has not been limited by Scripture. (Notice the author keeps appealing to Scripture, unquoted, to defend his parsing of the elements of communion. Crackers are fine, but pizza is not. Grape juice is ok, but not coke. The color of the juice doesn't matter. Go ahead and use champagne. Bubbles are ok. Alcohol is acceptable, but so is non-alcoholic.
It's too bad he didn't make us a handy chart to keep track of all the rules and exceptions. We would not want to risk sinning by eating or drinking something the author has ruled out.
The author will continue with his rule-making below.)
The author will continue with his rule-making below.)
On a practical note, we use grape juice and never wine because of the prevalence of alcohol abuse in our society. (Ok, now he adopts a new rule, grape juice so as not to offend.)
Those who are repentant drunks find it unhelpful to be tempted back into their debauchery each time they are trying to remember the shed blood of their Lord at church. Our grape juice is not legalism, it’s courtesy. (Whoa, that's quite an ironic statement considering the plethora of rules and precepts the author has burdened us with.)
2. Jesus instituted the practice for us to remember his death, namely his broken body and shed blood, therefore the form of the practice must be an accurate reflection of his original intention.
So, it doesn’t matter if we recline or line-up or remain seated in our pews, as long as we all share. (Waaait. The form of the practice must reflect his original intention, but how various churches ritualize communion doesn't matter? And those rituals have all sorts of wiggle room, like remaining seated instead of lining up. Thus, Jesus' "original intention" has supposedly not been violated.
But coming up next we will discover that the author pew-pews the idea of communion being a real meal. So the ritual practice, however currently expressed, is just fine - but, it's ok to ignore the NT practice where they did an actual meal together.
If the reading thinks this is getting convoluted, welcome to the club.)
It does appear the Corinthian congregants each had a meal (1 Cor 11:21), ("Appear?" There's no doubt!
The object of the exercise (Nowhere does Scripture call communion an exercise.)
is to share a common piece of bread. (No, it's to share a meal together.)
Whether this is done as part of a sit-down meal (Waaait. We thought Paul rebuked this practice????)
(which I observed with believers in Israel), or by queuing at the table, or being served in the pew, it is the sharing that is symbolic. (I thought Jesus' intent was what was important? You know, when He actually sat down to eat a meal with His disciples? And how Paul describes communion as a meal, i.e., the Lord's Supper?
You remember, Jesus' intent is important.)
It was at a distinct moment in the meal that Jesus said “Do this” as he broke bread and “likewise” has he passed the cup (Luke 11:19-20). The “this” was referring to the moment of breaking and sharing, not to the whole meal. (Oh my. Is this what those present at that table would have thought? Is there a Scripture that says this? Is there any way the breaking of bread can be separated from a meal? No, no, and no.
The only place where bread can be broken is in a meal. "Breaking bread" means "eating together." If at a meal the bread is not broken, it will not be eaten. Sitting down at a table and breaking bread and eating it in remembrance of Him is a part of the procession of a meal! It isn't possible for it to be any other way.)
Which, incidentally, is also why foot-washing is not one of the ordinances (as some take it to be). It was done as a precursor to the meal, but not part of the “this” we are instructed to perform; neither does foot-washing aid in the remembrance of the death of Christ through symbolism. (We are beginning to think that the author has no idea what the Bible says, yet he presents himself a teacher and a truth teller, a corrector of those who are in error.
It is becoming to be clear that the author is either confused or deceived.)
Some insist that there is only one cup and that it should be passed around. But the command was to “Take this [cup] and divide it among yourselves,” (Luke 22:17). (And the command in Matthew is
That said, we shall not parse the Scriptures to our advantage, as is the author's wont. We will simply note that it does no violence to Scripture or Jesus' intent if we sit down and eat and drink as a Body, and during the proceedings we take a moment, just as Jesus did, to explain communion. Then when we partake, regardless of what food or drink it is, we have partaken of communion.)
There is no stipulation on how to divide it. At our church, for example, we divide the grape juice into single portion shot-glass-type cups that are distributed. I have also divided the wine among 300 Russian believers the other way: a single cup complete with floaties and lipstick marks.
As long as the form is an accurate representation of the Lord’s intention, it counts. (Woe to the church that violates the author's arcane rules. It doesn't count!
Imagine your particular brand of communion not counting. That's what the author is getting at, isn't it? If you do it wrong, it won't count. If you eat pizza and drink coke, it won't count.
But it you do it a certain way, it "counts." That is, God is sitting up in heaven and watching your communion, deciding if it "counts." Don't slip up and use corn flakes and milk. None of that "counts."
Astonishing.)
The Lord’s Supper is one of the most precious events on our calendars. (It's an event on his calendar? Doesn't Paul say, do this, whenever you drink it, [whenever you sit down and eat a meal together] in remembrance of me?
Does the author really schedule each meal on his calendar?)
It should be experienced with reverence, purity, and joy. The elements employed should reflect this attitude. (Why?)
So no Oreos and chocolate milk. (Why?)
At the same time, there has been given to us tremendous liberty to accommodate various cultural norms and denominational quirks. (Liberty the author does not grant to us. And apparently these quirks cannot include Oreos and chocolate milk.)
Let’s keep the main thing the main thing, and not spend too much effort straining out the gnats or other floaties in the communion juice. (But... but... that's the whole purpose of this article! Non-biblical rules, summary denials, and complex rationalizations, presented to us as biblical fact in order to enforce the author's traditional way of doing communion.
What was the purpose of all this, you may ask? Was it to give us an accurate picture of the NT practice? No. Was it to get at the meaning of communion and why it is important? Nope. Or maybe it was to foster an understanding of church practice according to biblical principles? You wish.
It's simple. He wants to justify the existence of this lifeless, ritualistic, errant sacrament as it is currently practiced. Nothing more, nothing less.)
2. Jesus instituted the practice for us to remember his death, namely his broken body and shed blood, therefore the form of the practice must be an accurate reflection of his original intention.
So, it doesn’t matter if we recline or line-up or remain seated in our pews, as long as we all share. (Waaait. The form of the practice must reflect his original intention, but how various churches ritualize communion doesn't matter? And those rituals have all sorts of wiggle room, like remaining seated instead of lining up. Thus, Jesus' "original intention" has supposedly not been violated.
But coming up next we will discover that the author pew-pews the idea of communion being a real meal. So the ritual practice, however currently expressed, is just fine - but, it's ok to ignore the NT practice where they did an actual meal together.
If the reading thinks this is getting convoluted, welcome to the club.)
It does appear the Corinthian congregants each had a meal (1 Cor 11:21), ("Appear?" There's no doubt!
1Co. 11:20-21 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
1Co. 11:33-34 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.but Paul rebukes this practice. (Whaaaaat? Where does Paul rebuke this? This is an egregious statement, not referenced. Indeed, it's not true!)
The object of the exercise (Nowhere does Scripture call communion an exercise.)
is to share a common piece of bread. (No, it's to share a meal together.)
Whether this is done as part of a sit-down meal (Waaait. We thought Paul rebuked this practice????)
(which I observed with believers in Israel), or by queuing at the table, or being served in the pew, it is the sharing that is symbolic. (I thought Jesus' intent was what was important? You know, when He actually sat down to eat a meal with His disciples? And how Paul describes communion as a meal, i.e., the Lord's Supper?
You remember, Jesus' intent is important.)
It was at a distinct moment in the meal that Jesus said “Do this” as he broke bread and “likewise” has he passed the cup (Luke 11:19-20). The “this” was referring to the moment of breaking and sharing, not to the whole meal. (Oh my. Is this what those present at that table would have thought? Is there a Scripture that says this? Is there any way the breaking of bread can be separated from a meal? No, no, and no.
The only place where bread can be broken is in a meal. "Breaking bread" means "eating together." If at a meal the bread is not broken, it will not be eaten. Sitting down at a table and breaking bread and eating it in remembrance of Him is a part of the procession of a meal! It isn't possible for it to be any other way.)
Which, incidentally, is also why foot-washing is not one of the ordinances (as some take it to be). It was done as a precursor to the meal, but not part of the “this” we are instructed to perform; neither does foot-washing aid in the remembrance of the death of Christ through symbolism. (We are beginning to think that the author has no idea what the Bible says, yet he presents himself a teacher and a truth teller, a corrector of those who are in error.
It is becoming to be clear that the author is either confused or deceived.)
Some insist that there is only one cup and that it should be passed around. But the command was to “Take this [cup] and divide it among yourselves,” (Luke 22:17). (And the command in Matthew is
Mt. 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you."Mark says,
Mk. 14:23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.Because the author's sole intent is to justify why his church does communion the way it does, he now cherry picks Scriptures in apparent support. But the whole counsel of Scripture is that they divided the wine by passing the cup and drinking from it.
That said, we shall not parse the Scriptures to our advantage, as is the author's wont. We will simply note that it does no violence to Scripture or Jesus' intent if we sit down and eat and drink as a Body, and during the proceedings we take a moment, just as Jesus did, to explain communion. Then when we partake, regardless of what food or drink it is, we have partaken of communion.)
There is no stipulation on how to divide it. At our church, for example, we divide the grape juice into single portion shot-glass-type cups that are distributed. I have also divided the wine among 300 Russian believers the other way: a single cup complete with floaties and lipstick marks.
As long as the form is an accurate representation of the Lord’s intention, it counts. (Woe to the church that violates the author's arcane rules. It doesn't count!
Imagine your particular brand of communion not counting. That's what the author is getting at, isn't it? If you do it wrong, it won't count. If you eat pizza and drink coke, it won't count.
But it you do it a certain way, it "counts." That is, God is sitting up in heaven and watching your communion, deciding if it "counts." Don't slip up and use corn flakes and milk. None of that "counts."
Astonishing.)
The Lord’s Supper is one of the most precious events on our calendars. (It's an event on his calendar? Doesn't Paul say, do this, whenever you drink it, [whenever you sit down and eat a meal together] in remembrance of me?
Does the author really schedule each meal on his calendar?)
It should be experienced with reverence, purity, and joy. The elements employed should reflect this attitude. (Why?)
So no Oreos and chocolate milk. (Why?)
At the same time, there has been given to us tremendous liberty to accommodate various cultural norms and denominational quirks. (Liberty the author does not grant to us. And apparently these quirks cannot include Oreos and chocolate milk.)
Let’s keep the main thing the main thing, and not spend too much effort straining out the gnats or other floaties in the communion juice. (But... but... that's the whole purpose of this article! Non-biblical rules, summary denials, and complex rationalizations, presented to us as biblical fact in order to enforce the author's traditional way of doing communion.
What was the purpose of all this, you may ask? Was it to give us an accurate picture of the NT practice? No. Was it to get at the meaning of communion and why it is important? Nope. Or maybe it was to foster an understanding of church practice according to biblical principles? You wish.
It's simple. He wants to justify the existence of this lifeless, ritualistic, errant sacrament as it is currently practiced. Nothing more, nothing less.)
No comments:
Post a Comment