BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 79
November, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
(The following is a supplement to my book, God’s War Against Humanism, a study of the book of Judges, available from Biblical Horizons for $20.00 – a photocopy of the original book, which is now out of print).
The turning point in the book of Judges is 8:22-28. Here Gideon rejects the call to kingship, but proceeds to set up an icon, which draws him and the people into spiritual harlotry. To this point, the judges have been faithful men, and Israel has faithfully followed them as representatives of King Yahweh. At this point, however, a judge falls into sin, and leads Israel into the sin of seeking another king.
Gideon himself subtly seeks to set up a dynasty for himself, naming one of his sons Abimelech, which means "My Father is King," and taking many wives. We are told that he had 70 sons (8:30-31). This sets up a literary and historical structure that governs the next six judges and their behavior, to wit:
A. Gideon, seeks dynasty, 70 sons.
B. Tola, does not seek dynasty, no sons mentioned.
C. Jair, seeks dynasty, 30 sons.
D. Jephthah, seeks dynasty through daughter, but is thwarted.
C’. Ibzan, seeks dynasty, 30 sons.
B’. Elon, does not seek dynasty, no sons mentioned.
A’. Abdon, seeks dynasty, 70 sons.
Thus, both the historical and numerical information sets up a chiasm with Jephthah at the center. Jephthah hoped to establish a dynasty through his daughter, but God took her to be His own daughter, and she served out her days at His house, not at the house of Jephthah.
This seven-fold sequence is countered by the story of Samson (chapters 13-16), whose seven braids of hair represent the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit in his life. Samson has no dynastic aspirations, and instead follows the Spirit’s guidance. The Spirit connects him to King Yahweh. For 20 years Samson provides good judgments for southern Israel, until he falls into sin at the ends of his life.
Samson’s defeats of the Philistines, in life and in death, prove that Israel does not need a "king like all the nations" (1 Samuel 8). One Spirit-filled man is quite enough.
The last two sections of Judges fill out the theme in two ways. Because Israel did not submit to Yahweh’s kingship, "there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes." Contrary to the stupid opinions of most modern commentators, this does not mean that Israel needed a strong central government and a human king. Quite the opposite. What Israel needed was to acknowledge King Yahweh.
Why was Israel failing? Because, as both the last two sections of Judges make clear, the Levites were failing in their task of making King Yahweh’s rule present to the people.
An additional note to this discussion: The book of Judges as a whole is structured chiastically, something I missed a decade ago when I wrote my commentary. The turning point is the sin of Gideon.
The Structure of the Book of Judges
A. Israel’s failure to hold land against the Canaanites. Progressive compromise, leading to judgment. 1:1–2:5.
B. Israel’s idolatry, the cycle of judges, and war as God’s chastisement. 2:6–3:6.
C. Northern Gentiles (Mesopotamia), and Othniel. 3:7-11.
D. Lot: Moab, and Ehud. 3:12-13.
E. Minor judge: Shamgar. 3:31.
F. Canaanites opposed. Women crush the serpent’s head. Deborah & Barak. 4-5.
G. Gideon’s faithfulness. 6:1–8:26.
YAHWEH’S KINGSHIP REJECTED
G’. Gideon’s fall. 8:27-32.
F’. Canaanites embraced. Woman crushes the serpent’s head. "King Abimelech." 8:33–9:57.
E’. Minor judges. 10:1-5.
C’. Southern Gentiles (Philistia: Egypt), and Samson. 13-16.
B’. Israel’s idolatry. 17-18.
A’. Israel’s faithfulness in destroying "Canaanites." Faithfulness, leading to blessing and resurrection. 19-21.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 79
November, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
The Book of Kings is structured chiastically, or concentrically. To see this clearly, we start in the middle and work our way outward.
2 Kings 3–7 record the central events of the ministry of Elisha. Elisha makes his first appearance in 1 Kings 19:19-21, when Elijah invests him with the prophetic mantle, and the first two chapters of 2 Kings record the process by which Elisha succeeded Elijah as the leader of the sons of the prophets. Still, it seems legitimate to start with 2 Kings 3–7 as a distinct block of material. 2 Kings 3:1 introduces the reign of Jehoram, son of Ahab, thereafter he is not named; instead, he is identified as the "king of Israel" (e.g., 3:13; 5:7; 6:9; etc.). Beginning with 8:16, Jehoram is named once again and the book returns to its standard form of organizing the material according to the reigns of the kings. In chapters 3–7, moreover, the focus is not on the politics of the period, but on the ministry of Elisha.
The outline of 2 Kings 3–7 has a concentric structure:
I. War with Moab, 3:1-27
J. Elisha provides for indebted widow, 4:1-7
K. Elisha raises Shunammite’s son, 4:8-37
L. Elisha heals the poison stew, 4:38-41
L1. Elisha feeds 100 men, 4:42-44
K1. Elisha heals Naaman the leper, 5:1-27
J1. Elisha recovers a borrowed axe head, 6:1-7
I1. War with Syria, 6:8–7:20
Both I and I1 deal with wars between Israel and a neighboring nation. In both cases, Elisha is prominently involved in Israel’s deliverance.
In J and J1 the emphasis is on redemption from debt and potential slavery. The prophet’s widow cannot pay her husband’s creditors, and fears that she will be forced to sell her sons into slavery; Elisha multiplies oil to redeem her. In J1 one of the sons of the prophets loses a borrowed axe-head. Given the value of such items in ancient Israel, he thus faced a considerable debt; Elisha makes the axe-head float to redeem him.
In K and K1, Gehazi plays a prominent, and largely negative role. He fails to heal the Shunammite’s son, and covets the riches of Naaman. Both passages have to do with birth and rebirth: The Shunammite literally gives birth and her son is reborn, while Naaman is "born again" from his deathly leprosy. This is underlined in 2 Kings 5:14, which tells us that after washing in the Jordan, Naaman’s flesh "was restored like the flesh of a little child."
At the center of the chiasm are two food miracles, the first a healing of poisonous food, the second the multiplication of healthy food.
Having established that 2 Kings 3–7 is chiastically arranged, we can look at the material on either side of this section to see if it also is arranged concentrically. We find that such is indeed the case:
E. Jehoshaphat and Ahab, 1 Ki. 22:1-50.
F. Reign of Ahaziah, 1 Ki. 22:51–2 Ki. 1:1.
G. Prophet curses sick king, 2 Ki. 1:2-18.
H. Exodus of Elisha, 2 Ki. 2.
H1. Exodus of Shunammite, 2 Ki. 8:1-8.
G1. Prophet "saves" sick king, 2 Ki. 8:9-15.
F1. Reign of Jehoram, 2 Ki. 8:16-24.
E1. Ahaziah and Joram, 2 Ki. 8:25-29.
Considering the E sections, in both sections the King of Judah (Jehoshaphat; Ahaziah) goes with the King of Israel (Ahab; Joram) to fight Syria. In both sections, the King of Israel is defeated and wounded (Ahab shortly dies; Joram goes home to recover, and is killed by Jehu).
Considering the F sections, we find in F that Ahaziah of Israel did evil, followed in the ways of Jezebel, and that Moab rebelled against him. In F1, Jehoram of Judah did evil, followed in the ways of Jezebel’s daughter, and that Edom rebelled against him.
Considering the G section, in both cases a sick king (Ahaziah of Israel; Ben-Hadad of Syria) sends to a prophet asking if he will be healed. Interestingly, Ahaziah sends to the false god Baal-Zebub, while Ben-Hadad sends to Elisha! In both cases, the king dies. God tells Ben-Hadah that he will recover, but since he in fact dies, this seems to imply salvation for his soul. Ahaziah (G) is condemned to death for seeking Baal-Zebub, while Ben-Hadah is promised life because he sought the Lord.
Finally, in the H section we have two exoduses out of the land and returns to the land.
It may be stretching it a bit, but there appear to be more concentric circles even beyond what we have set out already:
A. Destruction of Baals (1 Ki. 17-18).
B. Queen Jezebel kills prophets, threatens Elijah; Elisha called (1 Ki. 19).
C. Ahab has Ben-Hadad ride with him, after battle (1 Ki. 20).
D. Naboth’s vineyard (1 Ki. 21)
D1. Vengeance for Naboth’s vineyard (2
Ki. 9)
C1. Jehu has Jonadab ride with him, during battle (2 Ki. 10).
B1. Queen Athaliah kills princes, threatens Joash; Joash becomes king (2 Ki. 11:1-12).
A1. Destruction of Baals (2 Ki. 11:12-20).
Concerning the A sections, in both cases a contest between God and Baal takes place, in A at an altar, and in A1 in the Temple near the Altar. In both cases, God is victorious and the prophets and priests of Baal are destroyed. In A, the contest with Baal actually begins in 1 Kings 17, when Baal, the storm god, is prevented from bringing rain to Israel for three years.
Concerning the B sections, in both cases a wicked queen kills those who threaten her. In B they are God’s prophets, while in B1 they are God’s royal house. In both cases, the wicked queen threatens God’s agent (Elijah; Jehoash), who is protected by another agent of God (an angel; the high priest). In both cases, God’s agent is installed at the end of the story (Elisha; Jehoash).
Concerning the C sections, in both cases we have a battle scene, during which the king of Israel invites someone to his chariot. In C, wicked King Ahab, after defeating Ben-Hadad, invites that Syrian king to his chariot, and is condemned for it. In C1, the temporarily righteous King Jehu, after destroying Ahab’s house, invites the righteous Jonadab to his chariot.
Finally, concerning the D sections, both cases have to do centrally with Naboth’s vineyard. In D, Ahab steals Naboth’s vineyard, and his doom is pronounced. It is said that the dogs will eat Jezebel (1 Ki. 21:23). In D1, this doom is carried out, specifically for Naboth’s vineyard (2 Ki. 9:10, 25-26, 36).
We can now put it all together (see next page):
One thing that emerges from the structure of this narrative is this: Despite all the attention given to various wars and reigns, what is central and what is outermost is liturgical and sacramental. The A, D, and L sections all have to do with God’s altar-worship and His provision of food for His people, against the false worship (and starvation) offered by Baal.
Finally, it can be noted that this entire section is the center of the entire book of Kings, which is structured generally as follows:
a. United monarchy; Temple built (1 Ki.1-11)
b. Northern Kingdom begins (1 Ki.12–16:14)
g. The House of Omri (1 Ki.16:15-34)
d. Elijah and Elisha (1 Ki.17–2 Ki.11)
g1.The House of Jehu (2 Ki.12:1–15:12)
b1.Northern Kingdom ends (2 Ki.15:13–17:41)
a1.United monarchy; Temple razed (2 Ki.18-25)
The focus on the Temple at the beginning and end of Kings provides a liturgical-sacramental focus for the events of the book as a whole, which come to a point in section L.
1 Kings 17 – 2 Kings 11
A. Destruction of Baals (1 Ki. 17-18).
B. Queen Jezebel kills prophets, threatens Elijah; Elisha called (1 Ki. 19).
C. Ahab has Ben-Hadad ride with him, after battle (1 Ki. 20).
D. Naboth’s vineyard (1 Ki. 21)
E. Jehoshaphat and Ahab, 1 Ki. 22:1-50.
F. The reign of Ahaziah, 1 Ki. 22:51–2 Ki. 1:1.
G. Sick king condemned by prophet, 2 Ki. 1:2-18.
H. Exodus and Return of Elisha, 2 Ki. 2.
I. War with Moab, 3:1-27
J. Elisha provides for indebted widow, 4:1-7
K. Elisha raises the Shunammite’s son, 4:8-37
L. Elisha heals the poison stew, 4:38-41
L1. Elisha feeds 100 men, 4:42-44
K1. Elisha heals Naaman the leper, 5:1-27
J1. Elisha recovers a borrowed axe head, 6:1-7
I1. War with Syria, 6:8–7:20
H1. Exodus and Return of Shunammite, 2 Ki. 8:1-8.
G1. Sick king "saved" by prophet, 2 Ki. 8:9-15.
F1. The reign of Jehoram, 2 Ki. 8:16-24.
E1. Ahaziah and Joram, 2 Ki. 8:25-29.
D1. Vengeance for Naboth’s vineyard (2 Ki. 9, esp. vv.25-26)
C1. Jehu has Jonadab ride with him, during battle (2 Ki. 10).
B1. Queen Athaliah kills princes, threatens Joash; Joash becomes king (2 Ki. 11:1-12).
A1. Destruction of Baals (2 Ki. 11:12-20).
Biblical Chronology Vol. 7, No. 11
November, 1995
Copyright James B. Jordan 1995
The contents of this article will be published in a commentary. If you wish to be notified when the commentary becomes available, please click the link below and send a blank e-mail to the webmaster. Thank you.
webmaster@biblicalhorizons.com
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 42
Copyright (c) 1995 Biblical Horizons
November, 1995
From time to time I am asked how I think the Lord’s Supper should be done. This essay is my response to that question.
To start with, we should agree that the Lord’s Supper is the only ritual we are obligated to do in the New Covenant on a routine basis. Thus, we should be as careful in its observance as Israel was in the observance of the sacrifices. Yahweh would not have been pleased if a worshipper had simply killed an ox and tossed it onto the altar, ignoring all the rules set out in Leviticus 1-7. It would have shown contempt for Yahweh to have done this. In the same way, we should not show contempt for Jesus by doing the ritual in any way other than what He prescribed.
What follows here is Rite Reasons No. 1. Since many readers have subscribed to these letters long after this one was sent out, I believe it will be good to reprint it at this point. After this reprinted essay I continue the discussion by taking up other questions concerning the performance of the rite of the Lord’s Supper.
“Do This!”
(The essay that follows concerns a rather touchy subject: how the Lord’s Supper is to be done. I am not writing to insult or offend, but to challenge. To that end I have not “held back” but have “gone ahead” and said what I think needs to be said � for your consideration.)
There is only one ritual commanded in the New Testament for routine use in the Church: the ritual of the Lord’s Supper. I believe that Satan does not want the Church to do the rite of the Lord’s Supper, and has expended tremendous energy to prevent our doing it the way Jesus said to do it.
It is interesting to consider all the rites and ceremonies of the Old Covenant, all the details, all the variations, all the specific and complicated things that had to be kept in mind � and contrast this with the extraordinary simplicity of what our Lord commanded us to do. He told us to come over to His house on Sunday and bring along some bread and wine, and have dinner with Him. He prescribed an extremely simple ritual of thanksgiving to go along with this dinner.
But do the churches do these things? Let’s see. First of all, Jesus said to bring wine. How many churches use wine today? The American evangelicals have decided to give wine over to the devil, instead of claiming it for Christ. As a result, they use grape juice. Jesus, however, used (alcoholic) wine. He turned water into wine as the first manifestation of His Kingdom. He ate and drank with publicans and sinners, and was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard � which shows what He was drinking (Matt. 11:19). He prescribed just this kind of liquid for His meal.
But do we do what He said? Usually not. And this is nothing new. For centuries the Western Catholic Church (“Roman” Catholicism) rejected the cup altogether. It has only been since the Second Vatican Council that Catholics have been able to drink wine in communion.
Well, what about bread? Suppose my wife phoned me at work and said, “Jim, would you go by the store and get some bread on your way home?” Now, let’s say I bought some saltines instead. My guess is that she would be unhappy. She would say, “Jim, that’s not bread; those are saltines. Don’t you know the difference between bread and saltines?” Or suppose I brought some pressed-out wafers home?
I think we know what bread is. I do. Don’t you? Bread is bread. If we believe in using unleavened bread, it should still be unleavened bread and not crackers or wafers.
Amazing, isn’t it? Jesus asks us to do two simple things, and century after century the Church comes up with weird substitutes. Why is this? Why can’t we just do what Jesus said to do? As I reflect upon this, it seems to me that the reason has to be that there is real grace in the Lord’s Supper, and that Satan fears that grace. Thus, Satan has persuaded people not to do what Jesus said to do.
We can go on with this. Protestants, especially Reformed Protestants, are very concerned to do in worship only what the Bible teaches. Now, let me lay down a challenge for you. Search the Scriptures and see if you can find anywhere in the New Testament where we are commanded to sing psalms in worship. Don’t run to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, because these verses are speaking of using the psalms in daily life. Try and find any command to use the psalms in worship. You won’t find one. Now, I believe in using the psalms pervasively in worship, but I think we have to use some analogous reasoning on the basis of fundamental Kingdom principles in order to demonstrate that the psalms are to be used.
Let me use another illustration. Can you find anywhere in the New Testament a command to have a sermon in worship? Try and find one. Now again, I believe that we should have a sermon in worship, but again there is no explicit command about it.
Now consider 1 Corinthians 11. Paul says that when the Church comes together she is to have the Lord’s Supper. This is plain as day. While we don’t have any explicit command to have a sermon, we do have an explicit command to have the Lord’s Supper. Paul expects the Lord’s Supper to be held when the Church gathers � every week. Do we do it?
Shall I go on? Where does the New Testament say that our children, if baptized, are to be excluded? Nowhere. Jesus rebuked the disciples for excluding children from Him. The Church did allow children at the Table for a thousand years, but the laity began to exclude children once the doctrine of transsubstantiation came into the Church. They were afraid children would drop a crumb of bread or spill a drop of wine, and so the children were excluded � and adults excluded themselves from the wine, and crumb-free pressed wafers were substituted for bread.
What posture were Jesus and the disciples in when they ate? Were they kneeling or standing? No, they were reclining in the normal, relaxed eating position of the day. Is there any indication anywhere in Scripture that God wants us to assume an unrelaxed and unnatural eating posture for the Lord’s Supper? No. In fact, Anglican theologian Gregory Dix agrees that kneeling for communion has no foundation, and that the Puritans were right to argue for sitting. (See the discussion in Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy [Seabury Press, 1945], p. 13.) If there are no chairs, the natural alternative is standing, which the early church used � they stood for the whole service.
So, the Bible indicates weekly communion, and we don’t do it. The Bible indicates that baptized children are welcome, and we don’t do it. The Bible says to eat in a normal way, and we don’t do it. The Bible says to use bread, and we don’t do it. The Bible says to use wine, and we don’t do it. Churches that do some things right, do other things wrong.
Wrong Rites
To this point, however, we’ve only talked about the elements and persons involved at the Table. Now we need to discuss the rite itself.
What did Jesus do? He took bread into His hand. He gave thanks for it. He broke it and passed it out. As He passed it out He said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” After they had eaten the bread, Jesus took a cup of wine into His hand. He gave thanks for it � notice: a second prayer. Then He passed it to them, and in the act of passing said, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which is shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.”
This is how Matthew 26:26-28 records it. Mark 14:22-25 records the Last Supper the same way, as does Luke 21:19-20. Luke is very explicit that it was only after they had eaten the bread that Jesus took the cup and gave thanks for it.
Now the really weird thing is that very early in the history of the Church the rite that Jesus prescribed was condensed. The minister would take both bread and wine and give thanks for them simultaneously. Then the bread and wine would be served, sometimes together. (See the discussion in Dix, chapter 4.)
Is this legitimate? I believe it is not, and that it represents a sad corruption of what Jesus said to do. The proof is found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. First Paul says, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you.” Notice Paul’s stress on tradition here. The branches of the Church that insist on using only one prayer and on serving bread and wine together like to point to tradition to back up their practice. They say, with Dix, that from the earliest times it was done this way. But notice that Paul’s statement confronts this head-on. Paul says that the rite was received from Jesus and is being passed on to them by him. In other words, there is a right way to do this rite, and Paul is telling them what it is.
Paul says that Jesus took bread and gave thanks. He does not say to “set apart the elements from common use.” He does not say to “invoke the Holy Spirit upon the elements.” He knows nothing of any “consecration of the elements.” There is no act of consecration of bread and wine. This means that there is no change in the status of the bread and wine. Just as God gives us life when we eat dead meat and vegetables � food that will rot if we don’t eat it � so He gives us New Kingdom Life when we eat bread and wine in the liturgy. By refusing to consecrate the bread and wine, we affirm that the grace of the sacrament comes from the Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life.
Some would point to 1 Timothy 4:5, which says that food is set apart by the Word of God and by prayer. All right, but this is speaking of ordinary daily food. Asking the blessing before we eat at church is no different from asking the blessing before we eat at home. There is no other “setting apart” involved.
What Paul says Jesus did, and we should do, is simply give thanks. “Lord, we thank You for this bread, and we ask Your blessing. Amen.” That’s the bottom line. I believe we can expand on it, but we must not depart from that fundamental idea.
Paul says Jesus broke the bread and called it His body. He gave it to them and they ate it. Notice that there is no time-gap between the prayer, the re-naming, and the distribution. If we take the bread and give thanks, and then put it back on the table and do other things for ten minutes or so, it raises the question: What is the status of this bread? We’ve already answered this by seeing that there is no change in the bread. It is only in the act of eating the bread that we receive Christ. This is called receptionism and it is the Biblical and Reformed view. All the same, by doing the rite the right way, and passing out the bread immediately after giving thanks, we prevent the rise of superstition.
Then Paul says, “In the same way the cup also, after supper.” More literally, “after eating.” In other words, Paul makes it plain that it was only when they were finished eating the bread that Jesus took the cup and gave thanks for it. Luke 22:14-20 indicates that at the beginning of the Last Supper Jesus gave thanks for the wine of the meal, and then He gave thanks for the bread of the meal, calling it His body. After the meal was over, He took another cup of wine, gave thanks for it, and called it His blood. This says to me that if we have the Lord’s Supper in connection with an Agape (“Love Feast,” covered-dish meal) at the church, the sacramental bread should be eaten during the meal, and the sacramental wine after it. I hope to write more on this in a later essay. [On this see Rite Reasons No. 2.] My point here is that these are clearly two separate actions.
Paul is passing down the tradition. He makes it plain that there are to be two prayers, not one. [“In the same way the cup also . . . .”] He makes it plain that eating the bread and drinking the wine are two separate acts. He makes it plain that we are not to condense the rite, but we are to follow what our Lord did. The bread is to be eaten, and the residue returned to the Table or even taken out, before the minister picks up the cup.
Clearly the tradition of the Church errs at this point. If the rite is done properly, it is impossible to dip a wafer into the cup. (This is called “intinction.”) It is impossible to spoon out a bit of bread and dip it into wine and put it into the mouth of the recipient � as some Eastern churches do. Moreover, it is impossible to have “tables” or small groups of people come forward and get bread and wine, while others wait their turn.
No, the Bible is clear: Everyone in the room is to be served bread, and when this is finished, then everyone is to be served wine.
Why don’t we do this? Why are there so many departures from the simple rite prescribed by Jesus and given by tradition through Paul? I believe, again, that Satan just does not want the Church to do it the right way.
Now, what does Satan fear? He fears the death of Christ.
“Show This!”
The rite of the Lord’s Supper does not show forth the life or the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It shows forth His death “until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). Since the Lord’s Supper is a covenant memorial, it is primarily God that we are showing Christ’s death to. The Lord’s Supper is not an evangelistic event; we are not showing anything to unbelievers. Nor is it first and foremost a means to remind ourselves. No, primarily it is a way of “pleading the promises” to the Father. As God said to Noah concerning the rainbow, “I will see it, and I will remember.” It’s nice when we see the rainbow too, but the main thing is that God sees it.
The action of the Lord’s Supper is to remind God of Jesus’ death. Jesus is not re-sacrificed in the action of the Lord’s Supper, nor is the action of His once-for-all sacrifice somehow “extended through time” in the Supper. Rather, the action of the Lord’s Supper (“do this”) dramatizes His sacrifice before the all-seeing eyes of the Father.
In all the sacrifices, the body of the animal was to be cut up, and all the blood drained off. The rituals of Leviticus are most specific: The blood was never offered with the flesh. The blood was sprinkled on or before the various altars, or daubed on the horns of the altars, or poured out at the base. In a separate action, the flesh was burned on the altar. In ordinary slaughter, too, the people were required to pour out the blood, and not leave it mixed with the flesh (Dt. 12:24).
The killing of the animal always involved some degree of separation, of “breaking the bread.” In the sacrifices of Leviticus this involved cutting it into pieces (Lev. 1:6-9). More graphically, the dream-sacrifice offered by Abram in Genesis 15 involved actually splitting the animals in half. Birds were beheaded (Lev. 1:15).
It is fairly obvious that Jesus’ breaking of the loaf images the breaking of the sacrifice into two or more pieces. It is also obvious that partaking of the bread and wine, the body and blood, in two separate actions is absolutely essential to the rite of the Lord’s Supper.
The Lord’s Supper presents Christ’s death to the Father. When we eat of it, it communicates His death to us. Thus, it enables us to die more and more to sin and live more and more on the other side of death. Satan fears an army of already-dead Christians, who are learning week by week to die. People who are already dead cannot be stopped.
The Bible tells us that Jesus, “for the joy set before Him endured the cross” (Heb. 12:2). Thus, the Lord’s Supper is a joyous, not a morbid event. The Church Fathers actually forbade any kneeling or fasting on Sunday, to preserve the day as one of joy (Canon 20 of the Council of Nicaea; Canon 90 of the Quinisext Council). (I believe kneeling is permissible for the confession of sins, but for the rest of worship we should stand or sit.) What we rejoice in, however, is the death of Christ, given to us, that enables us to live as martyrs and to suffer for His name. Satan does not want Christians who are able and willing to suffer, and who count it a privilege to do so.
Revising the Anaphora
The anaphora is the prayer of thanksgiving before the Lord’s Supper. The basic history of the development, and various aberrations, of this prayer is given in Louis Bouyer, Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer (English translation: Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968). It is interesting that Catholic Bouyer praises the Calvinists and Puritans for being the first to rediscover the true ancient traditions in the area of the anaphora (pp. 419ff.).
As we have seen, however, the tradition is to have one prayer of thanksgiving before the Lord’s Supper, and not to have two separate prayers. One of the finest of these prayers is the one composed by Luther Reed, based on ancient and Reformed sources, and found in the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal of the Lutheran Church in America. I have no objection to using this prayer or some other like it, but not as the thanksgiving before the meal. Rather, it should be considered as part of the general thanksgiving preliminaries to the Lord’s Supper, along with the Preface, Sanctus, and so forth.
Because of this, the officiant should not take the bread and wine into his hands, or break the bread, during this prayer. This should be done later, during the communion itself.
After the prayers preliminary to the communion are finished, traditionally with the singing of the Agnus Dei, the congregation should sit down to eat. Then the minister should pick up one of the loaves of bread, or in a small church the one loaf, and simply give thanks for it as at a meal. Then he should break it and begin the distribution.
After the congregation has finished eating the bread, the minister should pick up a tray of little cups, or take a representative chalice, and again give thanks for it as for a meal. Then he should begin the distribution of it.
The prayers should be short and simple. I suggest something like this:
Father of mercies, thank You for the gift of this bread, which we confess provides us with the body of Your Son Jesus Christ. We ask You to enable us to eat of it in faith, and to be made more fully members of His heavenly body, through Christ our Lord.
Father of mercies, thank You for the gift of this wine, which we confess provides us with the blood of Your Son our Savior. We ask You to enable us to drink of it in faith, and to be conformed more and more to the image of His death, through Christ our Lord.
Obviously, these can be varied from week to week.
In a large church, I suggest that the elders already be standing next to small tables in various places in the room and balcony. When the minister takes his loaf and offers the prayer, the elders should take theirs in hand also. After the prayer, the elders can say Amen; or if a set prayer is used, the elders can say it aloud with the minister. When the minister breaks the bread, they should break theirs. Similarly with the wine.
Having broken the bread, the minister should address the congregation with the words Paul places into tradition for us to receive � not slavishly, but in an appropriate way: “This is Christ’s body, given for you. Do this [or, Eat this] as a memorial of Him.” Similarly, “This cup is the new covenant in Christ’s blood. Do this [or, Drink this] as a memorial of Him.”
Conclusion
I am not a revolutionary, and I don’t believe Christians should cause a ruckus in their churches over the issues I am discussing in this newsletter. Also, I don’t believe God is sitting up in heaven ticking off every error we make in our churches and keeping score against us. I believe He often counts the will for the deed.
At the same time, God has told us what to do in the Lord’s Supper, which is the only routine ritual we have, and surely He will be pleased when we start doing it His way.
That the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace. We have seen that the Bible is completely clear about how to do the rite of the Lord’s Supper, and that it is simple. For some reason, the Church continually departs from this simple rite. There has to be some reason for this. I believe it is because Satan fears it. And if Satan fears it, that is all the more reason to start doing it the right way.
Thus far, we have been quoting from Rite Reasons No. 1. Now to some specific matters.
1. Should the “words of institution” be read? Not necessarily. If you know how to fry an egg, why do you need to open the cookbook and read the recipe out loud each time you do it? The Lord’s Supper is a response to the sermon, not to the “words of institution.” I’m afraid that reading the “words of institution” each and every time has the unintended effect of turning them almost into a magical formula of consecration. People assume that the Lord’s Supper won’t “work” if we don’t read these words first.
2. Should the table be “fenced”? No. Where in the Bible do you see all these threats and warnings piled up in front of the Lord’s Supper? Paul admonishes the Corinthians to take care of their sins before coming to the table, but there is nothing here to justify the rule that the table must be “fenced” every time the Supper is served. Actually, the Confession of Sins at the beginning of the service “fences” the table � the Day of Atonement’s afflicting of souls preceding the Feast of Tabernacles � and there is no need for any further warning. If the congregation is terribly divided and full of sin, you need something more than a “fencing of the table.” You need a long sermon and the kind of inter-personal dealings discussed in 1 Corinthians.
3. Is it proper to have only one prayer? No, for the reasons I have presented above. We should be scrupulous to follow the commands and examples of Jesus and Paul in this regard.
4. Is it proper to have groups of people come forward for the bread and wine? No. Everyone must be served the bread, and then there must be a second prayer, and everyone must be served the wine.
5. Is it proper to kneel for communion? No. There is no Biblical example or principle to justify it. Moreover, the Supper is a meal, not something else.
6. What about serving “cafeteria style,” as some churches do? Well, does everyone have to come forward twice? If you serve them the bread and wine together, you’ve violated the Biblical rule.
7. Should wafers be used? Only if wafers (like tortillas) are part of the normal diet of the people.
8. Should grape juice be used? Well, it is abundantly clear that the Biblical juice was wine and alcoholic. How dare we change it? The Spirit is perfectly able to change people’s consciences in this matter. Why not trust Him to do so?
9. What about lands that don’t produce grapes and wine? Well, use some other alcoholic beverage then. The Bible speaks of both wine and beer being offered to God (Numbers 28:7). Alcohol was created by God and designed by Him to communicate a sense of rest and well-being. It is a sensible sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is not true of non-alcoholic drinks. Whatever the local “wine” is, that is what should be used. Similarly, whatever the local bread is, that is what should be used. It does not have to be wheat.
10. Should leavened or unleavened bread be used? Both were used in the sacrificial system. Unleavened bread means you have cut off the old growth of the previous week and are beginning anew in Christ. Leavened bread means that you are in continuity with the One Pentecostal Loaf that began on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. If it were up to me, I would alternate between them, and explain the significance of each.
11. What about crumbs and leftovers? Anything not consumed is just bread and wine. There is no rite of consecration, and so nothing happens to the bread and wine. The miracle happens in the mouth, as we eat the bread and drink the wine. If we worry about crumbs or treat the leftovers as special, we commit a form of idolatry, assuming that Jesus has somehow gotten into this stuff. Nonsense.
12. Question: Well, I don’t think Jesus has “gotten into the stuff," but should not the leftovers be treated with respect? Answer: What does this mean? The leftovers are just bread and wine, nothing more. They were not “used” in the sacrament in any sense at all. They are nothing, as far as the Lord’s Supper is concerned. If crumbs are trampled into the rug, so what? If children want to eat the leftover bread, so what? Don’t start down the road that winds up in idolatry.
13. What about communion with bread only? Joachim Jeremias in his Eucharistic Words of Jesus suggests that when Jesus said, “Do this, as often as you do it,” in connection with the wine, He was indicating that communion could properly be observed without the wine. After all, wine is expensive, and in some seasons of the Church, it would be hard to come by. But you always have bread; after all, if you don’t have bread, you are going to starve to death.
This argument makes some sense to me, I must confess. Clearly, for the fullness of communion, and for the regular and ordinary observance of communion, both bread and wine are necessary. In an emergency, however, communion can be observed without the wine.
In such an emergency, it is clear that the Church is very weak. She is in a priestly mode, but not enjoying her kingly mode. Bread is the sign of priesthood, and wine of kingship. Thus, observing with bread alone would be appropriate in such a dire emergency.
But what are we to say when the Church has the power to serve wine, but refuses to do so? I believe that clearly Satan has been at work. The Roman Church does not serve wine, and neither do the American evangelicals. Both serve communion with bread only, for it is highly questionable whether grape juice even counts at all. When we are able to use wine, and then refuse to do so, I believe we are risking the displeasure of God. If we fear God, let us use wine.
14. Should fathers serve children, and husbands serve wives? No. Don’t do this. In worship, we are all one family. The minister represents Christ the husband, and the elders God the father. We are all wives and children. Do not confuse the natural family with the Church family. Each of us stands before God alone on the day of judgment, and each of us is fed by Christ Himself in the Supper.
15. How about serving in pews? I don’t really like it. Pews separate people, with the result that we each partake alone. Communion is “us together” with Christ. I’d rather eat and drink sitting at tables. If tables are not present, I’d rather get up and gather at the table, and pass the bread among ourselves there; and then pass the wine among ourselves. At the same time, pews do enable us to sit, a more relaxed and restful position. But we don’t get the feeling of sharing and we don’t get to look at one another.
16. How important is the common cup? Not important at all. Nowhere does the Bible speak of it or make any theological reference to it. Contrary to mythology, disease can and does occasionally spread through the common cup (and through intincture). Moreover, it detracts from the communion if you are drinking after someone else’s snot-nosed kid. Individual cups are fine. (On disease, see Anne LaGrange Loving, “A Controlled Study on Intinction: A safer alternative method for receiving Holy Communion,” in Journal of Environmental Health 58 [July/August, 1995]:24-27.)
If you like the symbolism of the common cup, realizing that it does not have an explicit Biblical foundation, then get a cup with a pouring lip on it and use it to pour the wine into individual glasses. This would extend the length of the Lord’s Supper, but the congregation might sing a hymn while this is being done.
17. How about a common loaf? Well, the Bible does ascribe importance to a common loaf (1 Cor. 10:16-17; notice that nothing is said here about the importance of a common cup). Of course, if a church is large, there might be more than one loaf.
18. What about germs and the common loaf? Well, first of all, I suggest that the minister wash his hands and dry them before breaking the loaf. This is an ancient custom. The minister can have a wet cloth in a bowl, and wash his hands with it, dry them, and then pick up the bread. I think that this action helps remind the congregation that they are coming to a meal, and that the minister is serving them the food.
Similarly, for hygienic reasons alone I think it is good for mothers and fathers to break off the pieces of bread for their small children.
Beyond this, simply train your congregation not to dig into the bread with the tips of their fingers, but to break off a piece with thumb and the side of the finger. Ordinarily, the only part of the loaf that you hand will touch is the part you take away with you.
19. Should we have the Lord’s Supper every week? Of course. God renews His covenant with us weekly, and the Supper is the seal of the covenant renewal.
20. Should we have an optional service with communion every week, and another with it monthly? No, because this divides the congregation. Better to persuade them all, and have it every week for all. If the Supper is the renewal of the New Covenant, what does it say if half the congregation is having the covenant renewed, and the other half is not?
