Back a few weeks ago, I started an exploration of the Eastern Orthodox understanding of “sacrament.” Their approach is quite different from the Catholic/Protestant approach.
Let’s just, for fun, you know, see if we can find evidence of a sacramental meaning for the Lord’s Supper in the scripture. Maybe we overlooked it.
I think we should start in Matthew 18:
(Mat 18:19-20) “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”
Reflect on that one for a moment. Jesus is present with us when we gather in his name. He’s omnipresent, of course, and so we tend to trivialize this fact, I think — just as we tend to overlook the Spirit’s special presence with us. But Jesus indwells the assembly. He’s there!
And so I wrote a communion meditation to point out part of the sacramental significance of this fact. Click here. I mean it. Click on the link. It explains a little of what’s going on in the communion. I’ll admit to being influenced by N. T. Wright’s Simple Christianity. And I’m kind of proud of it because it’s such a different sort of writing for me.
The older I’ve gotten, the less serious I’ve found us to be about the presence of Jesus in the assembly. It means something. It means the place is especially holy, because someone especially holy is there. But it doesn’t mean we act all “holy.” Rather, we should act the way we act when a beloved brother comes to visit from a distant place. We celebrate!
Now, it’s just stupid to put on airs and act like someone other than ourselves. Jesus won’t be fooled! He sees our hearts. Dressing up or acting super righteous just won’t do. We’d may as well act naturally — be ourselves — because that’s how Jesus will see us anyway.
And we should feel honored. To be in the special presence of the Ruler of the universe is an honor. We are privileged to be with him. And we should be delighted to know he’s there with us.
Now, Paul took this concept seriously. Recall that he wrote,
(1 Cor 5:4-5) When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
Paul specifically references the presence of Jesus in the assembly because they are assembled “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” This presence gives the community authority to disfellowship a willful sinner. You see, it matters.
Now, I suppose Jesus is just as present whether we take communion or we don’t. So perhaps this passage speaks more to the sacramental character of the assembly. But, of course, you can’t entirely separate the two. After all, the Lord’s Supper can only be had among God’s gathered people. It’s not designed to be taken alone.
Additional sacramental language appears in John 6.
(John 6:27-29) Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Many have interpreted Jesus to be speaking of the Lord’s Supper, but the better interpretation is that the Lord’s Supper is speaking of the same things as Jesus is presenting here. After all, the Lord’s Supper had not yet been instituted. In fact, it isn’t even mentioned in John’s Gospel.
Now this “bread” is gained through a certain kind of “work,” believing in Jesus. Faith brings us this bread.
(John 6:32-35) Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
This bread that sustains the believer is Jesus himself. It’s not his teachings. It’s not his example. It’s the person of Jesus.
(John 6:47-51) “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
It’s hardly surprising that Jesus’ followers struggled with this teaching. What on earth could it mean to “eat” his “flesh” which he will give? He is plainly speaking of his literal, fleshly body, as this is what will be sacrificed. But we cannot accept the most literal interpretation — cannibalism. Plainly, Jesus has no such thing in mind.
Rather, the likely interpretation of “eats this bread” is to join Jesus in sacrificial living. Right? But you get the bread through faith in Jesus — so it’s sacrificial living coming from faith in Jesus.
(John 6:53-58) Jesus said to them, “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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
This is a play on words. The Law of Moses says that “life is in the blood.” But the Law also makes drinking blood a capital offense. But Jesus says his blood is different. Rather than costing you your life, it gives life.
This blood, like this flesh, is essential. Without it, you die. With it, you live forever.
Now, the Lord’s Supper plainly is symbolic (at least) of these same things. As we eat and drink, we are physically enacting the eating and drinking of which Jesus speaks. That means we are displaying our faith in Jesus — crucified for our sins, offered as the Passover lamb for our sins.
But it’s not merely intellectual assent to Jesus as Messiah that’s being displayed. We are demonstrating our willingness to participate in his sacrificed body and spilled blood. Indeed, as the church is the body of Christ, we are agreeing to unite ourselves, as his body, with his sacrifice — we are yielding to the requirement to live sacrificially, to take up our crosses daily.
But there’s more. The sacrifices of the Jews weren’t always left on the altar to be burned to ash. Sometimes the family shared in eating the sacrifice. They literally ate a meal with God at the temple. And the meal was the “sacrifice.”
In Come to the Table, Hicks describes the fellowship (or peace) meal prescribed in Leviticus. In these offerings the meal is shared by the Lord (Lev 3:3-4), the priest (Lev 7:28), and the worshiper. The meal involved meat, bread, and drink. The fat of the sacrificed animal was offered to the Lord by burning. The breast and thigh was given to the priest, as an offering to God. The worshiper brought the rest home to share with his family and friends.
Thus, Jesus is describing himself as the sacrificed animal. He is to be shared with family and friends — and eating and drinking him gives life. The Lord’s Supper therefore must carry the same significance.
We eat it in the very presence of Jesus — who is present in our assemblies. Think of him as both sacrifice, priest, and Lord. We share a meal with the Lord, where the Lord provides the main course. We drink and share bread with him. It’s much as it was when Jesus instituted the meal with his disciples. He’s still among us, still filling the cup, still passing the bread.
Now, I have to agree with the Orthodox on this one. If a literal, analytical meaning was enough, God would have given us a literal, analytical event. We’d have had a sermon or maybe a lesson book with blanks to fill in. But, instead, we’ve been given a meal — a meal we eat with Jesus. If we reduce it to formulas and checklists, we destroy the mystery, and mystery is part of it, I think.
More precisely, it’s mystical. It’s not merely teaching and proclaiming and remembering. It’s all that — and more. And the mysticality is part of the mystery, of the depth and treasure we’ve been given. And I like the fact that we can teach 52 good lessons on the communion — we can do 52 communion meditations — and not exhaust the meaning.
Is it a sacrament? Do we somehow or other receive a measure of God’s grace through the crackers and grape juice? Yes. It’s a gift.
If we treat the Lord’s Supper as an ordinance — obedience to a command — we destroy much of its beauty and meaning. Rather, we must see it as a gift.
(Luke 22:19) And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
“This” — this bread — is a gift from God. Jesus literal body is “given for you.” But so is the bread. And if we receive it as a gift from God rather than as a duty and a burden, it changes. A lot.
It becomes a celebration. Jesus is here with us. And we eat this meal with him, in his honor. In celebration of what he did for us and does for us. Thank you, Jesus!
Jay, I had always taken the verses in Matthew 18:19-20 to be along the lines that you had mentioned in your post. Though, after a considerable amount of study, I think that context on those verses makes it seem to me now, a stretch to apply this verse to the assembly. If you take the verses preceding it and look at the main point – it is in the church (brother vs. brother) discipline. The two or three gathered together are there to talk about the discipline of the offending brother – Jesus says that he is there with them to agree with their decision.
Now, does that mean that he isn't present when 2 or 3 are gathered, not, but it would seem to me that after my study, I don't think that I can use those verses as a proof text for anything other than discipline right now.
Just wanted to drop those new insights I had gotten (while studying at preacher school)
Jon
But when is this discipline supposed to occur, Jon?
Jesus and Paul make very clear that we are to do everything possible to resolve issues privately, brother to brother.
But if we cannot, and it is a sin issue that cannot be ignored, then discipline must occur. Where/when is this discipline to occur?
I believe both Jesus and Paul teach that assembly discipline must take place within the context of the assembly itself, not in some private hidden council like Jesus before the Sanhedrin.
These discipline passages are not talking about something separate from the assembly – what is true about the discipline passages specifically is also true about the assembly generally.
It always seemed odd to me that this went from a Passover feast where people sat around a table and talked to a solemn sterile institutional ritual. Even when Jesus gave us a new Passover; the “Lord’s supper” he was sitting around a table with his friends not in pews facing one direction in complete silence. The presence of the Lord is about community and a table with Jesus in the midst. So I had always thought that one way we might feel the presence of the Lord during this time is to talk amongst ourselves (while we taking the emblems) about where we need Jesus in our life and what good things he has and is doing for us. I also believe strongly the teaching from Jesus about making an attempt to make things right with your brother before offering your gift to God. There are many days that people sit in the same assembly and take the emblems while anger, anger, rage, apathy and resentment burn in their heart toward their brother or sister sitting a few rows away. How can we ask for a blessing from God the presence of Jesus in the assembly when we have not even made an attempt to have community with our brothers and sisters? So I would also see another way that Jesus would have more presence in the assembly during the Lord’s Supper would be to have an open time of reconciliation between brothers. So the idea more talking, less silence, more Jesus.
Jon,
I agree that the context is discipline. But that doesn't limit the presence of Jesus to assemblies gathered for the purpose of discipline.
Jesus says,
V 20 says the assembly has authority because Jesus is present. And he says he's present because "two or three come together in my name."
D. A. Carson's commentary in the Expositor's Commentary series has an interesting note. He notes that Derrett argues that the "two or three" are judges appointed by the disputants. However, Carson says, "My chief hesitation come from the fact that Jesus has just told the complainant to "tell it to the church," not to judges appointed by the disputants.
He further notes 1 Cor 5, where Paul commands that the entire church meet on the issue —
Notice that as in Matt 18, Paul says when Jesus is present, exercise discipline, not when you exercise discipline, Jesus will be present. Of course, both are true, but the point being made is that there is something special about the assembly.
Moreover, the promise of Jesus' presence is actually broader than the assembly. Consider —
Now, Jesus is not specifically referring to the assembly, but the thought is much the same. Jesus has left his church with his continuing presence, and so it's not difficult to see that presence having particular "power" (1 Cor 5:4) in the assembly.
Nick,
You're correct that both Matt 18 and 1 Cor 5 speak of the member being disfellowshipped by the church. A similar thought is in 1 Tim 5:20 –
(1 Tim 5:20) Those [elders] who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
This was simple enough when churches met in homes and had memberships of 30 or so (the capacity of a large First Century Roman dwelling). In a church of 500, it's difficult to lovingly handle in such a large group. However, the congregation is being asked to shun a beloved brother. Therefore, they have to be involved in the decision.
I think the practical answer is that the elders serve as a committee of the whole, acting to try to bring reconciliation and avoid the necessity of public discipline. However, when they see discipline as inevitable, they take the question to the congregation for decision.
Thus, they recommend that the brother or sister be disfellowshipped, but they don't command it. It's the church's decision.
It's surely much more effective if the church as a whole has made the decision.
PS — There are serious doctrinal and legal issues to be considered in church discipline which I've addressed elsewhere.
Joe,
I think you're exactly right. Here are a couple of older posts — both communion meditations — with similar thoughts:
/2007/03/08/adding-fried-ch…
/2007/03/08/why-we-assemble…
I agree that Jesus is present in the assembly, I still take those verses to apply to church discipline.
A question earlier was when and how:
The purpose of Church Discipline: The Biblical reasons for disfellowship adequately justify such radical procedure "surgery" on the body.
1. To preserve the church as the "body of Christ" and to give it a defense mechanism to protect itself from contamination (Matt 18:8-9)
2. To protect the "little ones" i.e. babes in Christ (Matt 18:6, 14)
3. To preserve the church's image before the world (Matt. 18:7)
4. So the guilty may be "saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:5)
Others are mentioned as well, but that is just a few.
The Procedure of Church Discipline
In Matt 18, after explaining the importance of protecting the body from an "offending hand, foot or eye", Jesus proceeds to establish the three steps designed to save those members. He outlined three "hearings", all with the redemptive purposes designed to "gain the brother" back to God and the church. If he resists the three interventions, then he must be considered as "a publican and a sinner."
A. The first "hearing" with minimum of publicity, the offended goes to the offender seeking his restoration (Matt 18:15). If he "hears" the plea, the matter is closed there (Lk 17:3). If he rejects the opportunity, the the offended must proceed to the "second hearing." There is no disfellowship at this level of intervention.
B. The second "hearing" occurs when the offended must "take with him one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established" (Matt 18:16). This follows the pattern established in the Law of Moses (Deut 19:15). If this increased publicity does not produce repentance, then the group report the matter to the church for the third and final "hearing". There is no disfellowship even at this stage. Expulsion cannot be determined by committee.
C. The third "hearing" is given when the whole church goes to the man to entreat him to repent. If he rejects the petition of the whole church, then he is expelled from the fellowship.
Christ then explains that "what God has already bound in heaven" concerning the offender, the church must now "bind on earth." Thus the church becomes God's vehicle of communication to the impenitent brother. The Lord further affirmed that he is not alien to such church disciplinary action. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt 18:20). This promise relates directly to church discipline (in the context it is written) and not to the worship (in the context it is written). When a man loses his fellowship with the Head, he must then lose it with the body, otherwise the body sends him the wrong message.
For the practice of church discipline, see 1 Cor 5.
Now, I say all that to say that I believe that the concept of the verse does have broader application, but taken from context it does not necessarily need to. Though, I don't believe that we have traditionally done church discipline the way we are told to, though considering some of the things that some in the church think are binding – it scares me to think of what would happen if they got the hankering to do it.
Also, please note Jay's other sections relating to church discipline when he notes the possible legal ramifications of not doing it right, or properly from a legal standpoint.
Sorry this is so long.
thanks,
Jon