The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

Introduction to the Didache

The early Christian work known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles was widely recognized in the early church. It was known to Eusebius, the early historian, who felt it necessary to comment that it was not genuine (Church History 3.25). The Didache, as this work is often referred to today, was lost for centuries to Christians. It was recovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios and published in 1883 [1]. The Didache has provoked an enormous amount of scholarly interest, not only with reference to it the text but to its preservation of traditions from the first century on Christian faith and practice.

The document was not written by the apostles themselves. Rather it seems that the author(s) intention was to give a brief summary of Christian doctrine for new converts and to provide instruction in life. Quasten believes the Didache is the oldest source of ecclesiastical law which we posses [2]. The argument for the Didache being quite early is summarized well by J. B. Lightfoot. He offers four lines of evidence:

1) itinerant prophecy has not yet been totally supplanted by permanent localized ministry
2) the episcopacy is not yet on the horizon [3]
3) the Agape feast appears to be part of the Eucharist
4) the archaic simplicity of its practical suggestions is consistent with the infancy of the church [4]

Schaff believes the document can be dated as early as AD 70 but prefers 90 to 100 [5]. Mitchell has argued that the Didache reflects stages of growth or development. Stage One, chapters 1-6, are the earliest dating as early as AD 50 but no later than AD 70. Stage Two, chapters 7-15, the liturgical section dates from AD 80 to 100. Stage Three, chapter 16, does not receive a date as near as I can tell. The final form for the document, however, is no later that AD 100 [6]. The date proposed by Schaff over a hundred years ago seems to be a near consensus though some scholars, as we noted, argue for a slightly earlier date [7]. Thus apostolic in authorship or not the Didache is a witness to first century Christianity.

Along with the date, the make up of the community that produced the Didache has been of particular interest down through the years. What kind of church or congregation produced and used the Didache? What kind of theological ideas found a home in that congregation? If it is possible to answer these questions then that will help us toward establishing a context from which to understand such important texts as chapter 7 about baptism.

I tend to agree with those that see the Didache as preserving the witness of a congregation that has Jewish roots or perhaps a congregation though non-Jewish has not shunned its Jewish roots yet. To me even a casual reading of Didache 1-5 reveals a group consciousness that has strong Jewish grounding and connections with Judaism. This congregation adheres to the validity of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus - the Law has not been cast off (6.2) [8]. There is abundant evidence even in the New Testament itself of Jews embracing Jesus as the Messiah yet remained culturally Jewish.

The Structure of the Didache

Because the Didache is so ancient, and at the very least preserves first century ideas and practices, it is important to understand the document and its teaching. The document is divided into sixteen short chapters that seem to be divided between preparing a candidate for baptism (ch's 1-10) and then church order material (ch's 11-15)[9]. Chapters 1-6 are dominated by the figure of the "Two Ways." For instance we read,

"Two ways there are, one of Life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the Two Ways. Now the Way of Life is this: first, love the God who made you; secondly your neighbor as yourself" (1.1-2)

The description of the Way of Death begins the fifth chapter,

"But the Way of Death is this: first of all it is wicked and altogether accursed: murderers, adulteries, lustful desires, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magical arts, sorceries, robberies, false testimonies, hypocrisy, duplicity, fraud, pride, malice, surliness, covetousness, foul talk, jealousy, rashness, haughtiness, false pretension, the lack of the fear of God" (5.1)[10]

The Two Ways section of the Didache contains little explicit Christian teaching. By that we mean little on the person, work, mission of Jesus the Messiah. Rather it is material that is common moral teaching of both Judaism and Christianity. The Two Ways motif was common in the ancient world being used by Jews, Greeks and Jewish Christians [11]. The Epistle of Barnabas also constructs his understanding of discipleship as "the Way of Light" and the "Way of Darkness" (18.1). In the Didache the Two Ways becomes the basic way of confronting the candidate for baptism with a fundamental choice: which path will he or she follow, baptism is the Way of Life and refusing is the Way of Darkness.

In the "plot" of the Didache, after the candidate is instructed in the Two Ways he or she is presented with baptism as if to say "choose life" (cf. Deut 30.19). Within the pages of the Didache there are only two sacraments attested to, baptism and the Lord's Supper. As Schaff noted a century or so ago the document knows nothing of infant baptism. Indeed the Two Ways militates against it [12]. The "normal" mode of baptism was that of adult believers by immersion in water. However, the Didache did allow for effusion in emergency situations such as water simply not being available [13].

Christology and Baptism in the Didache

Christianity, in the Didache, is a moral and holy life rooted in the teaching of Jesus summed up in the law to love God and our neighbor. The picture is more that of Epistle of James than the book of Romans. Because of its emphasis on holiness and a lack of Christological reflection the Didache has been said to be theologically anemic. Schaff writes "compared with the New Testament, the Didache is very poor and meagre"[14]. Such a judgment seems unfair, however, when individual writings of the NT can be compared with our document itself. At any rate some feel the author does not develop or stress a doctrine of Christ like Paul's then the community did not stress faith IN Jesus. Hartman for example characterizes the community of the Didache as "believers who think of themselves first as Jews, and who perhaps did not yet believe IN Jesus" [15]. George Buchman uses the term "apostolic christology" to describe such a position,

"Jews, like Samaritans, both before and after the time of Christ, believed that Moses was an apostle who mediated between Israelites and their heavenly Father. According to the rabbis, a man's apostle or agent was like himself, not physically but legally. The apostle had the power of attorney and could act in behalf of the one who sent him just as authoritatively as the sender himself. With this understanding, the author of Hebrews called Jesus the high priest and apostle of God (Heb 3.1) ... Apostolic identity which belongs to the sphere of prophets and courts, adequately explains Jesus' identity with God in the NT, and it is quite likely that Jewish-Christians held the same belief. The belief in God as Father who had a human agent, and was manifest through the Holy Spirit, was characteristic of Jewish concepts in pre-Christian times" [16]

The christology of the Didache may be rooted in this perspective on the relationship between Jesus' activity and God's reign. These believers saw in Jesus a signal that God's reign was in fact arriving in both word and deed. In the struggle of Jesus with the evil powers, God fights them and makes the divine power known. Thus Jesus' act of preaching and healing, with the associated demand of repentance, announce the advent of the kingdom. The appropriate response is conversion or faith. That is recognition that in Jesus' ministry God exercised victory over evil. Jesus' way of bring sinners into the kingdom is to pronounce forgiveness. But this forgiveness is understood in eschatological categories: the past reign of Satan was taken away and the arrival of God's presence among his people takes its place [17]. The christology of the community of the Didache might be summarized as a community that sees itself as continuing the preaching ministry of Jesus [18].

But we must be careful of not reading too much in the lack of Christological reflection of the Didache. As Schaff noted silence neither implies opposition nor ignorance [19]. Even Buchanan's "apostolic christology" does not necessarily mean that Jesus was not believed to be more. It seems hard to imagine a mere apostle being put on equal footing with his Sender and being baptized into "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (5.1) and "those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord" (9.5). Jesus is called the "Son" and "Lord" several times throughout our text implying that this community saw Jesus as something more than just another Moses. In reflecting on the Eucharistic prayers one scholar writes insightfully that the Didache community could have a "demonstrably Christian prayer reenacting the ministry of Jesus ... without any explicit Christological references" [20].

Whatever the actual content of the christological beliefs of the Didache community it is what is omitted about baptism that draws the attention of most scholars. The Pauline doctrine of the sinners immersion into death and burial with Christ (Romans 6.1-11) is never mentioned, just as Didache 9-10 never links the Eucharist to the proclamation of Jesus death (1 Corinthians 11.26). Nothing is said about renouncing Satan and adhering to Christ (though this is surely implied in the teaching on the Two Ways). Nor are any of baptism's theological effects mentioned: forgiveness of sins, membership into one body, bestowal of the Spirit [21]. In short none of the "classic" themes from the New Testamant are explicit in Didache 7.

The Baptismal Liturgy of Didache

"As for baptism baptise this way. Having said all this before hand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. If you do not have running water, however, baptize in another kind of water; if you cannot do so in cold water, then do so in warm water. But if you have neither, pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the person baptizing and the person being baptized -- and others who are able -- fast; tell the one being bapitized to fast one or two days before" (Didache 7).

There can be little doubt, in the opinion of most contemporary scholars, that the material in chapters 1-6 is aimed at catechumens [22]. The Two Ways invite decision: the hearer must decided whether to become a disciple or not. The choice to become a disciple is exercised through baptism in the "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and seems to mean to an eschatological way of life. The Way of Life means to live as Jesus lived and the Way of Death means judgment and ultimate destruction [23].

In the liturgy of baptism the candidate is required to fast prior to immersion (7.4). It is stated that the baptizer must fast and suggested that the community join the fast. The catechumen seeks to be cleansed from past sins while the community gives support [24]. The "living water" which is the preferred location for baptism in the Didache 7.1 is a Hebraism for fresh, flowing water, from a spring. This seems to reflect traditional Jewish concerns for ritual purity (Lev 14.5ff; 14.50ff also envisions "living water" for ritual purification). The movement in 7.2-3 is from good water for baptism to less suitable water for baptism.

When insufficient water was available for immersion the community allowed pouring over the head three times in the name of the Triune God, apparently with little or no second thoughts. Schaff states that threefold aspersion on the head was the nearest substitute since the head is the chief part of man. "There can be no Baptism without baptizing the head; but there may be valid Baptism without baptizing the rest of the body" [25]. Here in the Didache, at the end of the first century, we have the oldest extent testimony for the validity of baptism by pouring. Schaff, always the ecumenist, states that Christians have a right to infer that at the end of the first century there was no rigid uniformity in regard to the mode of baptism though immersion was the norm. What Schaff does is infer that is this freedom (in exceptional cases) existed in the apostolic period as well. He says, "It cannot be supposed that the Twelve Apostles were less liberal than the writer of the Didache, who wrote as it were in their name" [26]. It remains true, however, that pouring was seen as less desirable than immersion.

The most critical part of the liturgy of baptism in the Didache must be the baptismal formula. Willy Rordorf has argued that the formula actually has three variants with the Didache

7.1c into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
7.3 into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit
9.5 in the name of the Lord

Rordorf believes that 9.5 preserves the most ancient of the formulas reflecting usage in such places as Acts 2.38. The formulas all point to the same reality however, and one should not makes razor sharp distinctions between them.

The formula that is given in 7.1 is is a nearly verbatim reproduction of Matthew 28.19. The wording is identical except the spelling of baptism. Schaff beleived that the author was quoting the Gospel of Matthew [28] and the evidence is, in my opinion, convincing. The question rather is does the formulae tell us anything about the Christology or trinitarian beliefs about the community of believers? Hartman has argued that "into the name (of Jesus, or of the Lord)" may have been "a definition, a phrase which mentioned the fundamental reference of Christian baptism which distinguished it from other rites," a formula which "delimited Christian baptism from that of John" [29]. The formula was not primarily negative however or lacking Christological content. Rather as soon as baptism was performed "into the name of Jesus," it must have been combined with a message, and this message not only continued Jesus own preaching ... but ... was also preached with 'reference to Jesus,' which implies some sort of Christology too" [30]. Though Mitchell rejects this reasoning arguing that such reasoning is not demanded by the Didache, however it fits quite well in my view even if it is not "demanded" [31]. With the added weight of the uses of "Son of God" (9.2-3; 10.1, 3) it seems likely that this body of believers invested baptism with Christological significance: Jesus is God's Son. This theme just did not find development in the Didache.

Baptism and Table Fellowship in the Didache

James D. G. Dunn has argued that Jewish practice regarding table fellowship with gentiles was not uniform during the first century [32]. He makes the case that there were ongoing debates between Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes with regard to the acceptable limits of table fellowship. Pharisaic influence put pressure on devout Jews to observe strict limits in the matter of who ate with whom, since the Pharisees believed that even outside the temple the laws governing ritual purity were obligatory. The Sadducees, on the other hand, held that the laws were not applicable beyond the temple precincts. The Essenes out did even the Pharisees. But for our purposes it is more important to note that the Pharisees believed in degrees of ritual purity in the practice of temple holiness. In practice one with a more strict view could not eat with one with a less strict discipline [33].

For early Jewish Christians from a Pharisaic persuasion would have been concerned about the acceptable limits of table fellowship. In large Diaspora communities like Antioch, Jews and Gentiles would have considerable social contact, especially those who were attracted to the Jewish faith as "God-fearers" [34]. As Dunn writes specifically in regard to table fellowship:

[T]here was a broad range of attachments to Judaism and Jewish ways wherever Diaspora settlements had made any impact on the surrounding community -- from occasional visits to the synagogue, to total commitment apart from circumcision, with such matters as the sabbath and dietary laws being observed in varying degrees in between. Pari passu there would be a broad range of social intercourse between faithful Jew and God-fearing Gentile, with strict Jews avoiding table fellowship as far as possible, and those less scrupulous in matters of tithing and purity willingly extending and accepting invitations to meals where such Gentiles would be present [35].

Willi Rodorf, among others, sees some significance to the fact that it is precisely these concerns about ritual purity with respect to foods (6.3) that surface immediately before the Didache's description of baptism. The significance is heightened because 6.3-7.1 are thought to be a literary unit [36]. In effect what the Didache would be outlining is the minimum conditions and limits of acceptable table fellowship between these Jewish disciples and Gentiles disciples. Mitchell argues that both 6.2 ("the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect, but if you cannot, do what you can") and 6.3 ("bear what you can, but be on guard against food offered to idols") shows the influence of the Pharisaic belief in degrees of ritual purity. The implication for community of the Didache would be that torah observant Jewish Christians should associate only with God-fearing Gentile converts who are willing to maintain at least a minimum of the ritual law. As Mitchell notes this obliterates Paul's egalitarian emphasis that all barriers have been removed by baptism [37]. Not only is the Table fenced but the baptismal pool as well.

Conclusion

Baptism int he Didache is a rite of eschatological import though not devoid of Christological meaning. The theology of being immersed with Christ in death is not explicit. Baptism brings one into the community of faith where God's holy Presence is enjoyed. The community is, seemingly, committed to minimum levels of ritual purity which focuses upon the Table and Baptism. Some scholars argue that the Didache is actually trying to take a middle road between extremes as they were perceived at the time: Refusing to follow the libertine Paul and also the hardliners who have gone back to the synagogue.

NOTES:

[1] Philip Schaff, The Oldest Church Manuel Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 9-10.

[2] Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, MCMLXII), 30.

[3] Clayton N. Jefford, "Presbyters in the Community of the Didache," Studia Patristica (1987), p. 126. Jefford's points out that the Didache is a "witness to a ministry in transition" from prophecy to local elders that would later develop into the monarchical bishop.

[4] J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 121-122.

[5] Schaff, The Oldest Church Manuel, 119-122.

[6] Nathan Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," in The Didache in Context: Essays on its Text, History, and Transmission, ed. Clayton N. Jefford (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 227-230.

[7] Robert A. Kraft, "Didache," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2: 197.

[8] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," p. 232.

[9] Quasten, Patrology, 30

[10] Aelred Cody, "The Didache: An English Translation, " The Didache in Context, ed. Clayton N. Jefford, pp. 3-14.

[11] Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 59-63 for an extended discussion of the adoption of the Two Ways by our author.

[12] Schaff, Church Manual, 22. See also Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 201-206.

[13] Schaff, 31-32, Quasten, Patrology, 31, statest "This is the sole reference from the first or second centuries regarding baptism by effusion."

[14] Schaff, Church Manual, 22.

[15] L. Hartman, "Baptism 'Into the Name of Jesus' and Early Christology," Studia theologica 28 (1974), 44.

[16] G. W. Buchanan, "Worship, Feasts and Ceremonies in the Early Jewish-Christian Church," New Testament Studies 26 (1979-80), 280-281.

[17] Hartman, "Baptism," 34.

[18] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 233.

[19] Schaff, Church Manual, 23.

[20] J. W. Riggs, "From Gracious Table to Sacramental Elements: The Tradition History of Didache 9-10," Second Century 4 (1984), 95.

[21] Willy Rodorf, "Baptism According to the Didache," in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan A. Draper (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 212-222.

[22] Niederwimmer, Didache: A Commentary, 88.

[23] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 251.

[24] Niederwimmer, Didache: A Commentary, 127.

[25] Schaff, Church Manual, 33.

[26] ibid., 34.

[28] Schaff, Church Manual, 184. There are good reasons to believe the author and community knew the Gospel of Matthew. The Lord's Prayer in ch. 8 is virtually the same as in Matthew 6.9-13 and the logion in 9.5 is verbatim Matthew 7.6. However in each of these cases Niederwimmer consistently has an allergy to allowing the Didache to have knowledge of the canonical Gospel, Didache: A Commentary, pp. 127-127; 135-137; 153.

[29] L. Hartman, "Into the Name of Jesus," New Testament Studies 20 (1974), 440.

[30] Hartman, "Baptism 'Into the Name of Jesus and Early Christology," 36.

[31] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 253.

[32] James D. G. Dunn, "The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11-18)," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 18 (1983), 12-25.

[33] ibid., 17.

[34] ibid., 21f.

[35] ibid., 23.

[36] Rordorf, "Baptism according to the Didache," 215f.

[37] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 239-240.

Read More

The Bread on the Table: An Ancient Controversy that Changed the Supper

Introduction to a Sad Affair

At about 8 am on Saturday, July 16, A.D. 1054, the church of Santa Sophia was preparing for worship. The congregation was gathering, the priests, the deacons were assembled in the choir. Then three strangers, Latins or Papal legates, entered the building. Passing through the nave, they made their way to the altar. They spoke a few Latin words to the congregation. Turning in silence they placed upon the altar a document and proceeded to the doors. Pausing before exiting they cried in a loud voice, “Videat Deus et judicet!”

What caused this calamitous event? Historians have wrestled with this for centuries. Constantinople and Rome had had less than rosy relationships for quite sometime yet existed in an acknowledged state of unity. Some have pointed to the massive cultural gap that existed between the magnificent intellectual center of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and Rome which had become a cultural backwater. Some point to controversies over iconoclasm and the filoque being added to the Creed by the Latins. There was severe political tension at the time as well. All of these things entered into the mix of the time. But the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back was something modern scholars find embarrassing at best. It was the issue of bread, not any bread but the bread on the Lord’s Table. What kind of bread was to be used in the Lord’s Supper . . . leavened or unleavened.[1]

In 1054, and for sometime after, the controversy focused on the use of bread, or more specifically the use of azymes (unleavened bread).[2] In the twelfth century John IV, Patriarch of Antioch, said,

“The chief and primary cause of the division between them and us is the matter of azymes . . . the matter of azymes involves in summary form the whole question of true piety; if it is not cured, the disease of the church cannot be cured”[3]

Briefly, the trouble began in 1050 when some Greek churches in southern Italy (under Byzantine control at this time) were condemned at the reforming Council of Siponto. In retaliation Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, ordered Latin churches closed in the imperial capital. Thereafter Leo, Archbishop of Bulgaria, wrote a letter to John of Trani to be passed on to Pope Leo, containing a stinging refutation of the azymes introduced by the Roman Church. Cardinal Humbert was drafted by the Pope to respond to Leo and finally sent to Constantinople with the sad results of 1054.

The Greeks were adamant about the innovation of the Romans. They believed the Latins had left the apostolic faith, they accused them of Judaizing, and of Apollinarianism. It is amazing the amount of literature the ancients produced on this subject (runs into the hundreds of tracts against each other). The Latins for their part felt the sting of Greek accusations quite strongly. In the century and a half after 1054 several highly influential theologians felt it necessary to address the Greek charges. Here is a short list:

1) Anselm, De azymo et fermentato (PL 158: 541-548)
2) Amalifitan (an anonymous treatise)
3) Bruno of Segni, De sacrificio azymo (PL 165: 1085-1090)
4) Cardinal Humbert, Responsio sive condradicto contra Nicetam (PL 143: 983-1000)
5) Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio libri sex (PL 217: 854-858)
6) Alexander of Hales, Summa Theologica IV q. 32
7) Bonaventure, In Sententiis 4. dist. 11, 2.2.1
8) Thomas Aquinas, In Sententiis 4 dist. 11, 2

Whence Comes this Strange Question?

Most of us will be amazed at the charges of the Greeks. If you are like me, it never occurred to me to even question the use of unleavened bread. I have heard all of my life that, even if we somehow weasel out of the alcohol of Jesus’ wine, we must have unleavened bread!

My interest in this subject was aroused through a passing historical comment in the book, The Crux of the Matter. I was literally taken back by this statement by the authors of that book,

“[F]rom the ninth century, the common bread, leavened bread, was replaced by unleavened bread. Using regular table bread had been the practice of the churches for centuries of Christian worship from very early days. Church officials introduced unleavened bread apparently because it would be considered special, set apart, holy. (Church leaders in the East accused the Western church of introducing Jewish practices, of becoming Judaizers because of this innovation; their descendents, the Eastern Orthodox, use leavened bread to this day.).” [4]

Was this accurate? How could this be? I had never heard of it and I had a Master’s degree in Church History! Did the early church, in fact, use common ordinary bread for the Table?

For some unknown, psychological reason, a need was created within me to know . . . There is no doubt that the Greeks use leavened bread in communion. There is no doubt that Rome’s use of unleavened bread was the item that broke fellowship between Eastern and Western Christians in 1054. But is it true that the early church likewise used common, ordinary . . . leavened bread?

Framing the Question

In the history of this debate there have been basically three ways of going at it: 1) etymology and chronology; 2) theological symbolism especially of the Incarnation; 3) the inherited liturgical practice of the church.

A) Etymology and Chronology

The Greeks, whose native tongue is Greek, insisted (and still do) that the common word for “bread” in Bible (artos) always referred to ordinary bread. They insisted (and still do) that artos was plain bread unless it was modified by the word azuma.

Scholars, naturally, are divided on this subject. Most admit that the typical meaning of artos is plain common bread though that it can, on occasion, refer to unleavened bread. Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains states artos “is a relatively small and generally round loaf of bread . . . like a ‘rolls’ or ‘buns’).[5] The Anchor Bible Dictionary, on the other hand, states that artos can apply to unleavened bread but the only example it produces is that which is contested by the Greeks in the institution of the Supper in the Synoptic Gospels.[6]

Undisputed use of artos is Luke 14.1 where artos simply refers to “food” or to “eat” (cf. Mt. 4.4 and Mk 3.20). The use of artos in Mt 14.17, 19 the feeding of the 5000 is clearly ordinary bread. A chapter later in the feeding of the 4000 we see our term again rendered “loaves” and is ordinary food (Mt 15.36). Paul, when on a ship in a storm, took artos and blessed it . . . this is clearly ordinary bread (Acts 27.35). The Lord instructed us to pray for our daily artos (Mt. 6.11/Lk 11.11) again clearly plain bread. Examples in the LXX include Leviticus 23.17; 2 Samuel 13.8; and Ezekiel 4.12 (among many more).

In the LXX (the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) the Greek argument carries the day. artos alone is never used of unleavened bread. In the case of the Shewbread, for example, it is called artos proqesews. The Latins produced the evidence of Leviticus 7.12 as an example of artos used of “unleavened.” In this passage artous ek semidalews occurs against the Hebrew halecem mazot. (See 7.13 as well.)

This will sound familiar and will probably come up in questions later today too. The Latins appealed to the institution of the Supper itself. Since Jesus was celebrating the Passover he must have used unleavened bread . . . the writers would expect the readers to know that when they encounter the term artos. You will recall that the ABD likewise appeals to this episode . . . but this is almost like circular reasoning. The Synoptics do indeed associate the Supper with the Passover (cf. Mt. 27.62; Mk. 14.12-16 and Lk 22.7-15).

The Greeks, however, did not concede the point. On the basis of John’s Gospel (13.1, 29; 18.28; 19.31) they argue that Jesus did not observe the Jewish Passover but celebrated with his disciples the day before. Hear the words of Peter the Patriarch of Antioch (a contemporary of Cerularius) on this matter:

“But so that I might forsake all other defense, I am able now to prove in Christ – if you are good enough to listen – that when the Lord ate with his disciples on Holy Thursday, the matzo-observance was not yet in effect. For it was the high day of Preparation, which fell on the fourteenth of the month and the Hebrews were just about to celebrate Pesach.” (Letter to Dominic of Grado).[7]

We see more of the Greek contrast of the Jewish Passover and the Christian Eucharist (as he understood it). Peter continues,

For their part, matzos (azuma) were prescribed for the Hebrews in remembrance of the hasty flight from Egypt so that, remembering the wonders that God did among them, they would abide by his commandments and never forget his deeds. But the perfectly leavened (artos) – which through the ritual is made over into the remembrance of His dispensation in the flesh. ‘For, whenever you eat of this loaf and drink this cup,’ he says ‘you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes [1 Cor. 11.26]. . .

Now notice, most holy brother-in-Spirit, that in all these places a loaf (artos) and not matzo, is proclaimed to be the body of the Lord, because it is complete and full (artion). But matzo is dead and lifeless and everyway incomplete. But when the leaven is introduced to the wheaten dough, it becomes, as it were, life and substance in it. Now tell me, how is it not out of place for those who believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to receive something incomplete and dead and lifeless as his living and life giving flesh.” (PG 120:764)

The seventeenth century Orthodox scholar and theologian, Eusratios Argenti, published a comprehensive Treatise against Unleavened Bread. He comments extensively on the Synoptic-John issue. He appeals to the Fathers (a sound Orthodox move) and the event of the crucifixion of Jesus,

“The holy Fathers are agreed in teaching that Christ was sacrificed on the Cross on the actual day and hour when the Passover of the Law was sacrificed, so that according to the holy Fathers Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper before the beginning of the period of unleavened bread.” [8]

There is much more but this gives a sense of the flavor of the discussion . . . the Greeks insist that artos means ordinary bread. They also insist that the institution was not on the Jewish Passover. They may be mostly correct on one and mostly wrong on the other. (We do recognize there is at least a conflict between John and the Synoptics on the chronology of the last days of Jesus life. I believe that John is making a theological point rather than an historical point).[9]

B. The Inherited Liturgical Tradition of the Church

I will pass on the Christological symbolism appealed to in this debate for the sake of time (both Latins and Greeks make use of it . . . as do we). However, we did hear some of it from Peter of Antioch above. But what about the history of the church’s worship, this is very relevant to our question? The Greeks claimed (and continue to do so) that they have preserved the true practice of the church and the Romans were innovators (recent ones at that).

How did the early church understand these texts? Or how did the early church practice these texts? Here is the claim of Argenti,

“None of the holy Fathers, eastern or western, ever said, or wrote or imagined anything about unleavened bread, nor did any of them use it in the Holy Eucharist; but on the contrary, most of them speak of common ordinary bread. But if the Papists object, let them produce their evidence and be justified.”[10]

So we must spelunk the tradition. The first text that describes the Bread of the Table outside the NT is the Didache, a work dating around 100-110 A.D. In chapter 10 of this early writing we read, “Then regarding the broken bread . . . As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one . . .” Woolley comments on this passage, “Here St. Paul’s reference to the ‘one loaf’ is at once recalled to mind, and there would seem to be very little doubt that the writer is thinking of the communicants all receiving from one loaf. If this is so, the bread used was probably . . . a leavened loaf.” [11]

Justin (second century) is the next major writer and devotes significant material to the Supper. In the First Apology ch. 65 we read:

“There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread (artos) and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them gives praise and glory to the Father . . . and offers thanks at considerable length . . .

Justin continues in chapter 66:

“And this food is called among us Eucaristia, . . . not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made . . . flesh and blood . . . so we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word . . .”

Justin begins by talking of ordinary food that is blessed and is regarded as no longer ordinary (he cites the words of institution). He carefully says that after consecration the bread is no longer koinos artos. This exact phrase is also used by Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nyssa. Hear Irenaeus,

“For as bread from the earth when it receives the invocation of God is no longer common bread (artos) but the eucharist, consisting of two things – one earthly and one heavenly – so also our bodies when they partake of the eucharist are no longer corruptible but have the hope of the resurrection to eternity” (Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)

Woolley makes this observation about the Fathers, “The attitude of the fathers to the usages of the Jews, and the contemptuous language in which they refer to the use of unleavened bread among the Jews, makes it difficult to believe that the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist was known to the writers in question.”[12] This anti-Jewish (indeed anti-Semitic) attitude is shown in the Eleventh Canon the Council of Trullo (A.D. 680)

“Let none of those enrolled in priestly orders, or a layman, eat the matzos of the Jews, or be associated with them . . . if anyone should seek to do this let him be deposed, if a cleric, excommunicated, if a layman.”

That sounds clear enough. There are many, many, many more examples gathered by Woolley.

Scholars point to Alcuin as the first undisputed reference to unleavened bread on the Table. Alcuin, was an eighth century scholar and theologian in the service of Charlemagne. In 844 Paschasius Radbertus wrote in support of the new doctrine.[13] Bede (7th-8th century), the Ecclesiastical historian for the English tells us that in the time Mellitus, Bishop of London that “panis nitidus” or “white bread” used on the Table. After the death of Saberct, king of Essex, his three heathen sons came to demand of Mellitus that he should give them the “white bread” he gave their father . . . they did not wish to under go baptism but just eat “good refreshing bread.”[14]

The issue of what kind of bread to use on the Table reverberates even through the English Reformation. The Second Prayer Book of King Edward (1552) says,

“And to take away the supersticion whiche any person hathe, or myghte haue In the bread and wyne, it shall suffyse that the bread bee suche as is usuall to bee Eaten at the Table with other meates, but the best and purest wheate bread Conueniently maye be gotten” (Fourth Rubric after the Commentary).

One of the surprises, to me, during this journey was that at least through the 19th century the Anglican church used leavened bread during the communion.[15]

The Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Syrian Jacobite Church, Nestorians all continue to use leavened bread in the Eucharist.

Concluding Remarks

It is the consensus of historical scholarship that the Christian church (East or West) did not ordinarily use unleavened bread in communion until the 9th century A.D. The only exceptions to this are the Ebionites and the Armenian Church who introduced unleavened bread in the 7th century. The Greeks were right. The received liturgical tradition was in the form of common leavened bread.

The question remains, Why the change? John Erickson argues that the introduction unleavened bread to the Table parallels the rise of views of the Supper as something as other than “ordinary,” something beyond the ordinary experience of worshippers. The unleavened bread fit the mystery the mass. It was sacred and different so the bread was to be different. About this time the chalice would begun to be with held from the laity and the host was beginning to be seen in near idolatrous terms.

The debate regarding "bread on the table" has been lost to the dustbins of history ... and even there primarily to footnotes ... unless you delve into specialized materials. Yet this debate altered the way ordinary Christians experienced the Table every week. For a thousand years the western church for the most part used plain ordinary bread in communion. I would argue that the Greeks are correct that in the NT (in Corinth) the first century church used ordinary artos as well. One truth has emerged from my study ... even when we think we are simply reading the New Testament we are often imposing meanings that simply are not there rather what is there is our tradition that we do not realize is a tradition.

NOTES:

[1] Characterization based on Richard Mayne, “East and West in 1054,” Cambridge Historical Journal 11 (1954), 133.

[2] John H. Erickson, “Leavened and Unleavened: Some Theological Implications of the Schism of 1054,” St.Vladimer’s Theological Quarterly 14 (1970), 156.

[3] Quoted in Jarsolov Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christianity (600-1700) (University of Chicago, 1974), 177.

[4] Jeff Childers, Douglas Foster, Jack Reese, The Crux of the Matter (ACU Press, 2000), 38.

[5] Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains (UBS, 1988), 50

[6] Stephen A. Reed, “Bread,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1: 779

[7] Quoted in Mahlon H. Smith, And Taking Bread . . . Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054 (Theologie Historique), 34

[8] Quoted in Timothy Ware, Eusratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxford, 1964): 117.

[9] This issue has generated mountains of ink: for a good introduction to the subject see especially Robert H. Stein, “Last Supper,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP, 1992): 444-450

[10] Ware, Eusratios Argenti, 119.

[11] Reginald Maxwell Woolley, The Bread of the Eucharist (A.R. Mowbray, 1913), 6.

[12] Woolley, Bread of the Eucharist, p. 10

[13] Ibid, p. 19; See also Erickson, “Leavened and Unleavened,” pp. 158-159.

[14] Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford), 79. See also Woolley’s commentary on the Latin of this passage in Bede, Bread of the Eucharist, pp. 15-16.

[15] Woolley, Bread of the Eucharist, pp. 42-43.


Here are some readily accessible (most anyway) sources for those who are "curious."

“Alcuin,” Catholic Encyclopedia (online).

“Azymites,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, p. 389.

W. B. Bartlett, An Ungodly War: The Sack of Constantinople & the Fourth Crusade (Sutton 2000).

Christopher M. Bellitto, The General Councils: A History of the Twenty-One Church Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II (Paulist Press, 2002).

Louis Brehier, “Attempts at Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches,” Cambridge Medieveal History, vol 4: The Eastern Empire, Ed. J.R. Tanner, C. W. Previte-Orton, Z.N. Brooke, pp. 594-626.

__________., “The Greek Church: Its Relations with the West up to 1054,” Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4: The Eastern Empire, pp. 246-273.

John T. Creath, “Alter-Bread,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, p. 142.

P. Drew, “Eucharist,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 4, pp. 195-199.

John H. Erickson, “Azymes,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 2. Ed. Joseph R. Strayer (Scribner, 1983), pp. 31-32.

__________., “Leavened and Unleavened: Some Theological Implications of the Schism
of 1054,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 14 (1970): 155-176.

__________., “Schisms, Eastern-Western Church,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 2, pp. 44-47.

Everett Ferguson, “Bread,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition. vol. 1, (Garland, 1999) pp. 191-192.

George Galavarius, Bread and the Liturgy (University of Wisconsin, 1970).

J. Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1961).

E. J. Gratsch, “Bread, Liturgical Use of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2, pp.


Richard Mayne, “East and West in 1054,” The Cambridge Historical Journal 11(1954): 133-148.

Mark Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Baker 1997).

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) (University of Chicago, 1978).

__________., The Christian Tradition, A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (University of Chicago, 1974).

J. Pohle, “The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament,” Catholic Encyclopedia (online www.newadvent.org/acthen/05584a.htm).

Steven Reed, “Bread,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), pp. 777-780.

Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries (Oxford, 1955).

Mahlon H. Smith, And Taking Bread . . . Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054 (Theologie Historique #47, 1978)

R. W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (Penguin, 1970).

Paul Tschackert, “Ferrara-Florence, Council of,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 4, p. 303.

Timothy Ware, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxford, 1964).

Reginald Maxwell Wooley, The Bread of the Eucharist (A. R. Mowbray, 1913).

Read More

Grace THROUGH Communion ... Mediation on Dining with the Savior

As I reflected on the awesome privilege of gathering with the brothers and sisters at PaLO VErde around the family table today some things came to my mind. What rich, what incredible grace we experience through communion. Let me share a few things I have thought about today. This is not a complete theology (many dimensions not touched on) of the Supper but just some things that came to mind after Mike led our thoughts today. So here are a few of my "grace through communion" thoughts ... after the fact.

OPENING

Is it not strange, even bizarre, at first glance, that Christianity which promises us life, should present for our contemplation the emblems of death and sorrow? The primary reason for our gathering on the Lord's Day is to celebrate and remember the tragic scene of Christ Crucified. In the first Christian century, and especially in our own of the 21st, it is stranger still that death should become a subject of commemoration.

Death! The very consummation of human fears! That death should become a source of voluntary reflection, even a source of happiness and hope; is this not a "contradiction" in terms?? Stranger still, we have met together today to celebrate the death, not of an enemy, but of the very best friend we could ever have. Two of the most significant events that any Christian will ever participate, her baptism and taking the Lord's Supper, are both reenactments, rituals if you will, of the Passion of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. In baptism we die with Christ to start our Christian journey and we take the Supper to renew our gracious covenant with him every resurrection day. Both proclaim our transformation by his sacrifice and blood that was shed on the Cross of Golgotha. Both proclaim the fathomless depth of God's grace.

ROOTS OF THE SUPPER

I have titled this blog, "Grace THROUGH Communion," because every time we gather together and celebrate the Eucharist we are renewed in spirit by his wonderful loving Spirit and grace. To understand more of what I speak we must back up and talk about the justification of sinners by our Holy Father. We will do this by exploring a few key concepts in Romans 3. We will briefly at the SOURCE of our justification; the GROUND of our justification; the MEANS of our justification; and the EFFECTS of our justification.

The Source of our justification is stated by the apostle Paul in no uncertain terms: we are justified by grace! "[We] are justified freely by his grace . . ." (Rom. 3.24). According to Paul we are justified wholly and totally by God through his unmerited favor. There can be no debate here. God alone gets the glory for our salvation (justification). Paul declares that no one is righteous, not even good church folks (3.21). This knocks the props out from under any efforts at self-justification. It is a sheer impossibility (3.10). Only God can justify us according to Paul in Romans 8.33; and he does it "freely" (= dorean, "free gift," or "gratis"), not because of any works of our own, but because of his decision to be gracious.

We have looked at the Source of our justification but what of the Ground of our justification. How can God be just while justifying the sinner? The answer that Paul gives to these questions is we are justified BY Christ's blood. "Since we have now been justified by his blood . . ." (Rom. 5.9) Justification is not a synonym for amnesty. No, justification is an act of justice, of gracious justice. There was and is still a penalty to be paid for our sin. Jesus paid that penalty and continues to pay that penalty with his meritorious blood -- not any human deed on our part. There could not be any justification without the atoning death of Jesus the Christ.

The Means of our justification is through faith (Rom. 3.28; Gal 2.16; Phil 3.9). Grace and faith are linked together and cannot be separated. Faith's sole purpose is to receive what grace freely provides. We are not, therefore, justified "because" of our faith in the sense that faith has merit. We are justified "because of" God's grace and "because of" Christ's blood, that is where the ONLY merit is. Faith is, however, the Means of our justification. Our faith has its focus in the Crucified One who died in our place, only then is it of value. Here the words of Paul, "God presented him [Jesus Christ] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood" (Rom. 3.25).

Now we can ask what are the Effects of our justification? The effects of justification is to bring us into a community of believers called the church of Jesus Christ. Justification puts us in a fellowship of "Cross-bearers" who devote themselves to do good works and the pursuit of holiness and the character of God (Eph. 2.10). This community helps each other, bears one anothers' burdens, gives each other hope.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE SUPPER?

You may be asking yourselves, "This is all good but what does this have to do with the Lord's Supper, Communion, or Eucharist?" It has everything to do with the Supper. Just as baptism is where justification by faith is actualized for us (Rom. 6; Tit. 3.3-8); it is in communion that all the benefits of Christ's death are renewed in me. In baptism I am crucified with Christ, I am buried with him in water, I am raised with him to a new life -- all through faith in God's power to raise him from the dead. Paul declares these truths in Colossians 2, "having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (v.12). In other words I "participate", or share in the gospel story through baptism. Now Paul says that is exactly what happens in communion as well. Listen carefully:

"I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup Thanksgiving [where we get "eucharist" from] for which we give thanks a PARTICIPATION in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a PARTICIPATION in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." (1 Cor. 10. 14-17)

In celebrating the death of our friend, Jesus, we become an actor in the divine drama of the Gospel in both baptism and communion. To become a Christian I must participate in the drama of baptism, and to constantly grow, to be healthy, and renew my "vows" (covenant) with him I "participate" in the Gospel story again. We do this each time we have communion -- fellowship with his blood, fellowship with his body. It points me back -- as the Passover did -- to where I came from and how I got here, that this is about God's work and not mine. Nothing could be more central than the Lord's Supper.

BENEFITS OF "PARTICIPATING" IN THE DRAMA OF THE SUPPER

In communion, in the Supper, in the "Thanksgiving" (Eucharist), I am reminded that I am truly accepted by God through his Son. One of Satan's most effective tools with Christians is to get them to doubt their salvation. But in the Supper we have a visible reminder that "Yes! I am in right standing with because of the atoning death of his Son." The Italian reformer, Don Benedetto, said "God did not give us a certificate but a sacrament that gives our soul the assurance of eternal salvation" (Juan de Valdes & Don Benedetto, The Benefit of Christ, pp. 145-146). This is one reason we celebrate the Lord's Supper each Lord's Day. Because the Enemy throws anxiety in our path. During the week we may be assaulted by his fiery darts, we begin to fear! In Communion with the Lord, and with our brothers and sisters, we are affirmed in our faith. We again hear by faith the Gospel story. We again are reminded of the power of God. We confess with Benedetto,

"I have deserved a thousand hells and eternal deaths because of the great sins I have committed. But when I reflect on this heavenly sacrament which I now receive, I am assured of the forgiveness of all my past misdoings and of my atonement with God" (The Benefit of Christ, pp. 146-147).

In the Lord's Supper the mysteries of Christianity are very deep indeed! Communion is a means of grace also because it is "spiritual food." Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."(John 6.53). Now we do not literally drink and eat Christ's flesh and blood. However we do "participate" in that body and blood in some mysterious way. Mysterious in the sense that I believe what the text says but I do not fully grasp. The same mystery surrounds baptism -- we do not literally get washed in the blood but somehow we "participate" in it. Now our point is more simple. If we are to thrive spiritually we need spiritual food. It is only by taking of that bread which came down from heaven, and which was given for the life of the world, that we can live eternally. How precious then, is the life this spiritual food imparts.

Look at the ironies we find in communion, the Lord's Supper. It is participating in death that we get what we need most, LIFE! Jesus in giving his life for us, gave us a life to live for God. Indeed, God's ways are not man's ways.

Let's notice one more thing about the cup. F. W. Krummacher in his devotional classic, The Suffering Saviour notes that the Lord did not select water but the fruit of the vine for the symbol of his shed blood. Christ is,

"the real vine, and we possess divine life only in so far as we, like the branches, grow through Him, and are pervaded by His influence. Besides, the cup reminds us of the wine press of torture and agony, in which the Son of God was to become our Saviour and Mediator, while the bread represents His body, offered for the deliverance and blessedness of His believing people" (p. 53).

Everything about the Supper reminds us that our God loves to give to his people and he loves to be with his people. What amazing grace we find with him.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Every time I take the Supper -- if I listen and discern -- I hear the message that says:

"'I LOVE THEE MORE ARDENTLY THAN THOU HAST LOVED THY SIN.' I know how I have loved my sin. I know how I have clung to it. I know how I have yearned after it. I know what illicit pleasure I have found in it. I know I have pursued it at any cost. And now, in the school of Calvary, My Master takes up this, my so strenuous and overwhelming passion for sin, and contrasts it disparagingly with his passion for me: `I HAVE LOVED THEE MORE THAN THOU HAS LOVED THY SIN.'" (quoted in
Jim McGuiggan's awesome book, The God of the Towel, p. 26).

When I participate in, share in, the gospel drama of the communion, it is THAT message that confronts us. It is haunting but it is compelling. It is gut wrenching but it is so life changing. It is for this that we gather together each Lord's Day and here the voice of the savior assures us of his infinite love when we have fellowship with him at his Table. In the breaking of the bread he is made known to us. In the Supper he renews his covenant with me and showers rich blessings of mercy upon us. He reminds us that I am saved and he
loves us more than we love our sin.

Grace through communion, that is what we find as we gather together on Sundays in the name of Christ. He took us sinners and allowed us to participate in baptism with him and he allows us to continue to have fellowship with him at the Table each week. If that is not grace, I fail to comprehend what it is. Thank him for all he has done for you. Thank him for all the sisters and brothers we have through him. Thank him for the unity we celebrate in the Supper of the Lamb for sinners slain.

Blessings,
Bobby Valentine
Ut omnes unum sint (John 17.21, Vulgate, 'that they may all be one')

Read More

Communion with God & His Family

Communion With God and His Family

There are several themes that come together in my understanding of Communion or the Lord’s Supper. I believe the Hebrew Bible and the “New Testament” are vitally connected in its teachings regarding this meal. Thus I believe that the “NT” teaching regarding the Supper is to be interpreted against the background of the shalom (i.e. peace/fellowship) offerings and the meals of Jesus in the Gospels.

This meal has a vertical dimension tying us to God our Redeemer. This meal has a horizontal aspect that connects us to God’s Family. This meal has a backward feature linking us to God’s act at Golgotha. This meal has a forward outlook that pulls us into the eschaton and the promise of life in the Presence of our Lord. The word “communion” or “fellowship,” in my view, best ties all these phases of the Supper together. We experience none of these blessings alone rather they are “shared” in concert with the redeemed community. The common “mood” for all those threads in Scripture is one of abundant Joy. The Supper is not just one of these things rather it is all of them and we cannot ignore any of them. These four threads in the biblical teaching on the LS I believe need to be "restored" to our fellowship.

The Vertical Dimension

The Table is a moment of profound communion (i.e. fellowship) with God. This is precisely Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 10.16. The Table is holy because God is “there.” We share (have fellowship) the Table with God. This view makes no sense, though, if we do not accept the relation of the Supper with shalom meals of the Hebrew Bible. Yet these meals are the very basis of Paul’s reasoning (cf. 1 Cor. 10.18ff).

The great examples of these meals, as in Exodus 24.1-11, Leviticus 9 and 2 Chronicles 30 reveal what Paul has in mind. Because Sin, the barrier between man and God, has been removed through a Sacrifice (atonement) there can now be uninhibited fellowship. God’s Presence is real and not a simple trick of the mind or semantics. God’s Presence is as real as in Exodus 3 when God appeared to Moses. This is what we long for as redeemed people.

Having fellowship with God was a moment of great joy and celebration. Moses tells us, “when the people saw it [God’s glory appearing], they shouted for joy and fell facedown” (Lev. 9.24). We see Jesus continually acting out this principle in his life in the Gospels.

The Horizontal Aspect

God’s Table has never been solely about a private moment with the Lord. Even the “vertical” dimension of the Table was never experienced alone. God’s people can and do go for prayer walks, sit in trees, drive in cars and experience profound moments of communion with the God of grace. But these are not the Table. God has never intended the Table to be like this. Tables are meant for families.

As God set it up one could not offer a sacrifice without a group to fellowship with. The shalom sacrifice was eaten. Leviticus 7.16 tells us that 800 pounds of meat had to be eaten in two days! No human could do this alone. Thus friends and family gathered for a sacrifice and folks ate together.

The Passover is a good example of what I mean. This is truly a family meal. Jews did not, indeed could not, take the Passover alone. Jesus and his disciples were a family and celebrated this meal together. The meal bound a group of misfits together through an experience of God’s grace. They talked, ate, relaxed all in the context of the Table.

It is the failure of this horizontal aspect of the table that Paul reprimands the Corinthians for. In 1 Cor 11 the Corinthian church were importing pagan stratification into the society of the redeemed. Peter Lampe (in Interpretation) goes into these issues and sheds a flood of light onto this text and its context. The Corinthians did not realize that an experience of the Crucified Lord alters how we view and experience one another. As Lampe writes,

“The Corinthians, forgetting care for others, were interested solely in the vertical communion with the risen Lord. Paul, however says that one can only have a close relationship with the risen Lord . . . Christians are led to care for others, proclaiming Christ’s death in their existence”

The Corinthians thought the Table was only about their individual time with God. Paul says they are mistaken. One can only be at the Table with God if he or she came with a brother or a sister. It is precisely here where one’s understanding of 1 Cor 11. 29 comes in. I believe the entire context of chapter 11 makes it extremely unlikely that Paul is chastising these brethren and sisters for not being devotional enough. The problem was how they were treating their brothers and sisters. The phrase “of the Lord” (rather than simply “body”) was almost certainly not a part of the original. The phrase is missing from p46 (P stands for “papyri” and 46 stands for its number) which is the earliest witness we have to Greek text of 1 Corinthians (dates to about 200). The phrase is missing from the most important uncial manuscripts (Siniaticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and a host of others). This evidence, which is weighty, makes it very unlikely that Paul wrote the phrase “of the Lord” in v. 29. The call to “recognize” the body refers to the Body of Christ that is assembled at the Table which makes perfect sense in light of the problem the Corinthians were having at the Table.

Thus at the Table we celebrate together the vertical dimension that has been established through the sacrifice of Jesus upon the altar. Communion is now available with our Father and our Brother in a way that has never been experienced before.

The Backward Feature

The Lord’s Table also looks back and recalls the great works of God culminating in the cross and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus tells us to remember him. I do not believe this means only recalling six hours one Friday. We remember Jesus. But when we remember Jesus we also remember God’s work in Jesus. It is God’s victory in and through Jesus.

When we gather at his Table we recall the gift that brought us here. This backward glance is not a moment of despondency. It is not a moment of self-deprecation. The cross was not a moment of defeat for Jesus rather it was a moment of glorification. We recall this as his crowning moment in life (as John’s Gospel thinks of it). When we remember not only the cross but all of Jesus ministry . . . then we remember the depth of God’s love for us (even me!). The cross is the revelation of love (John 3.16; 1 John 3.16). At the Table I remember that, like the woman caught in adultery and the thief, I am not condemned! When we look backward we see reason to celebrate the victory of God.

Once again we need to remember the connection with the Hebrew Bible. The word “memorial” does not imply somber, solitude, sad, dour or anything of the sort. The Passover was a “memorial” as well and it was never a sad occasion or a private moment of introspection. The Passover was a mighty celebration held in honor of the Lord. The word “memorial” is associated with “rejoicing” in Scripture. Moses helps us understand this term,

“Also at your times of rejoicing – your appointed feasts and New Moon festivals – you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial for you before your God. I am the LORD your God” (Num 10.10).

The Forward Outlook

By sitting at God’s Table we also look forward to the future. We truly experience the presence of the risen Christ at the Table but we also proclaim that his resurrection leads to a time when he will return. In the Supper we have a foretaste, a shadow if you will, of the gloriousness of what heaven will be like. At the Table all the saints of old are gathered in communion with us in anticipation of when we will literally sit at the great banquet in the eschaton. John gives us a glimpse of this “wedding supper of the Lamb” in Revelation 19.9.

There are many other things that tie the Table to the future as well but they are not at issue so I will leave them for the moment.

Summing Up:

I believe that God is always Present at his table. I believe the community of God is always present at the table. I believe that the Table is characterized by joy and gratitude. I do not believe the Table is an altar experience. I believe such a perspective is not rooted in Scripture but rather in doctrine that Christ is sacrificed again (medieval mass). The altar was and remains the cross. The cross allows us to sit at the Table with God ... a table rich and varied in what God intends it to be for his Family.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More