Do this as often as you drink this cup...

[James Peter]

Ok, concerning the institution of the Eucharist...

Isn't the instruction (in 1 Cor 11) to 'do this as often as you drink it'? Doesn't that mean 'do this every time you drink it'?

So what, if any, is the difference between 'the cup of the lord' and any other cup? Obviously it isn't the specific chalice used and it seems to make little sense to understand the instructions to be 'Whenever you share the Eucharist share the Eucharist'...

Isn't the clear intent of Jesus that whenever we eat and drink we are to remember him rather than to institute a specific ritual or sacrament?

Thoughts, opinions?

I only ask as this just struck me (I was looking at the passages because I'm in the middle of reading Luther's Babylonian Captivity of the Church and wanted to remind myself of the verses he was speaking about) and seems to make a lot of sense.

I'm tempted to start including 'the eucharist' as a 'course' in meals (or at least in 'formal' ones). Only when all those present are christian of course, but I've always enjoyed sharing communion with a small group of friends... Of course I expect to my dear Orthodox and Catholic brothers such an activity would be wrong but what does everyone else think? Shouldn't we 'proclaim the Lord's death' as often as possible, not just a few times a month? And isn't the context of a meal the most natural place to do so?

[spiritmech]

Good question :popcorn:

[James Peter]

Good question :popcorn:

I guess either so good nobody has an answer or just nobody cares to think about why we do what we do...

:bump:

[spiritmech]

I don't think it's either/or. I think it's both/and. We both receive Christ's actual body and blood and we remember the sacrifice He made for us.
sm

[Xavier]

I guess either so good nobody has an answer or just nobody cares to think about why we do what we do...

:bump:

Well, I would tend to think that we do it because the people who came before us did it. Paul speaks about the Supper in 1 Corinthians (as mentioned). Church authorities reference constantly.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is:
I don't know, but the Church certainly thought so.

[Anoetos]

Ok, concerning the institution of the Eucharist...

Isn't the instruction (in 1 Cor 11) to 'do this as often as you drink it'? Doesn't that mean 'do this every time you drink it'?

It seems so.

So what, if any, is the difference between 'the cup of the lord' and any other cup? Obviously it isn't the specific chalice used and it seems to make little sense to understand the instructions to be 'Whenever you share the Eucharist share the Eucharist'...

I think he is referring to a specific sacramental act by the expression "The Cup of the Lord". This distinguishes it from any other cup.

Isn't the clear intent of Jesus that whenever we eat and drink we are to remember him rather than to institute a specific ritual or sacrament?

Yes, and no. Clearly it's good to remember Jesus when we eat. And it would even be good to tie that remembrance to the last supper and His delight in having a meal with His friends for whom He was about to die.

But isn't this the key? Should every meal specially recollect the crucifixion, death and resurrection? Okay, but doesn't that take it out of the gathered Church in it's larger corprate sense?

I think Paul was clearly talking about what had already developed as a specifically ecclesial act (ritual or sacrament or not) and I think he gives an implicit endorsement of that.

I'm tempted to start including 'the eucharist' as a 'course' in meals (or at least in 'formal' ones). Only when all those present are christian of course, but I've always enjoyed sharing communion with a small group of friends... Of course I expect to my dear Orthodox and Catholic brothers such an activity would be wrong but what does everyone else think? Shouldn't we 'proclaim the Lord's death' as often as possible, not just a few times a month? And isn't the context of a meal the most natural place to do so?

I think you have a point here, but what would that look like? A dinner party at some point during which the Eucharist is celebrated?

Why not?

But maybe what you want to know is should we do that and, conversely, is it wrong for the church to divorce the eucharist from the context of a meal among friends?

[Xavier]

[...] But maybe what you want to know is should we do that and, conversely, is it wrong for the church to divorce the eucharist from the context of a meal among friends?

How is the current Eucharist not a meal amoung friends? Isn't that part of the point? The coming together of the body of Christ to share in the body of Christ.

From my own semi-Emergent view, that's what the passing of the cup is all about (ignoring, perhaps, the praxis involved): The Communion between Believers. It is the most profound symbol that we can share with our fellows in the Christian Community. It's the rememberence of that which brings us together in spiritual and mystical union.

[Anoetos]

I thought JP's point was that he is coming to the conclusion that the Eucharist should be a course within the larger context of a meal (presumably the Agape-feast).

Sure, the Eucharist is a meal among friends, but, in most churches it is definitely not a course, or moment in the context of a larger, longer dinner party.

[Xavier]

I thought JP's point was that he is coming to the conclusion that the Eucharist should be a course within the larger context of a meal (presumably the Agape-feast).

Over and against the view that it is a sacrament if I'm reading the OP correctly.

Sure, the Eucharist is a meal among friends, but, in most churches it is definitely not a course, or moment in the context of a larger, longer dinner party.

I think that metaphorically it is. Worship is our celebration of that which God has done for us. You could think of it as an Agape-feast sans the food... :wink:

James, I would recommend N.T. Wright's book The Meal Jesus Gave Us (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0664226345/002-1500870-4392038?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance).

While written from a Protestant perspective, it does give light to some of the narrative overtones that we are talking about here.

[Anoetos]

Okay, so may be the question is:

"Shouldn't there be more food? Where's Mrs. Gillespie's cheesy potatoes?"

[Xavier]

Okay, so may be the question is:

"Shouldn't there be more food? Where's Mrs. Gillespie's cheesy potatoes?"

Well... We do have donuts and cookies every now and again... :wink:

[Chytraeus]

First of all, for asking such an excellent question, here are some pearls.

Ok, concerning the institution of the Eucharist...

Isn't the instruction (in 1 Cor 11) to 'do this as often as you drink it'? Doesn't that mean 'do this every time you drink it'?

So what, if any, is the difference between 'the cup of the lord' and any other cup? Obviously it isn't the specific chalice used and it seems to make little sense to understand the instructions to be 'Whenever you share the Eucharist share the Eucharist'...

As a Lutheran, we believe that what makes the difference is the words of Christ, "This cup is the new testament in my blood." Therefore, it is not the chalice, nor is it the type of wine, but the Word of God that makes the cup in the Eucharist a sacramental cup. Of course, the same with the bread. However, Christ instituted the Eucharist in the context of the Church, as the first believers were there with Him. Therefore, all thought the Word of God would not be any less effective, the Word should only be spoken over the cup within the context of the people of God gathering together to worship God. This was not given to just any gathering of people, but specifically for worship.

Isn't the clear intent of Jesus that whenever we eat and drink we are to remember him rather than to institute a specific ritual or sacrament?

If that had been His only intent He certainly would not have used such strong language about the cup being a cup of His blood, or the bread being His body, "which is given for you." Although we are certainly to remember the Lord every time we eat or drink, as an abundance of psalm texts could prove, this meal is special.

I only ask as this just struck me (I was looking at the passages because I'm in the middle of reading Luther's Babylonian Captivity of the Church and wanted to remind myself of the verses he was speaking about) and seems to make a lot of sense.

Excellent book. Of course, there was much that Luther had not yet learned about the Pope and the Church at the time he wrote that book, so if you think he was being soft on them at times, so did he, and later repented for having nievely thought so highly of them. :wink:

I'm tempted to start including 'the eucharist' as a 'course' in meals (or at least in 'formal' ones). Only when all those present are christian of course, but I've always enjoyed sharing communion with a small group of friends... Of course I expect to my dear Orthodox and Catholic brothers such an activity would be wrong but what does everyone else think? Shouldn't we 'proclaim the Lord's death' as often as possible, not just a few times a month? And isn't the context of a meal the most natural place to do so?

This is similar to a practice of the early church before the end of the first century. It seems to be the very cause for the harsh words of St. Paul in the 11th Chapter of his 1st letter to the Corinthians, part of which was quoted above. Although they did not celebrate the Eucharist every time Christians gathered together to eat a formal meal, they did have a fellowship meal every time they gathered together to worship. It was called an Agape Feast, and seems to have been a tradition started by the Apostles themselves. However, it quickly came to be abused. Everybody would bring some food for the feast (kind of like a church pot-luck dinner today). However, they were a little less refined than we are today, and the rich, who would bring a lot of food, would proceed to eat their own food, while they let some of the poor, who brought little go hungry. Also, it appears that some were even getting drunk during the feasts. Paul was astounded and ashamed that the Corinthian Christians had so little respect for the Eucharist that they would allow such behavior at the Agape Feast, so he seems to have all but ordered them to abandon the tradition. This is supported by the fact that extra-biblical documents show that the Agape Feast and the Eucharist were completely seperate by the end of the 1st century, and the Agape Feast was dropped altogether by the end of the 2nd.

However, this does not mean that it would be forbidden or even inappropriate to celebrate such a feast in connection with the Eucharist today, as long as it was done as part of a complete worship service which would need to include readings from God's Word and at least a short sermon or meditation upon that Word. Although it is not a law, as a Lutheran, I feel it is also very commendable to have a public confession of sins and an anounced absolution from the pastor as part of this feast/worship event. This goes back to the 20th chapter of the Gospel according to John, where Jesus told the disciples, "Peace be with you. Whoever's sins you forgive on earth, they are also forgiven in heaven, and whoever's sins you retain on earth, they are retained in heaven." Here Jesus was giving the entire Church the right to hear confession and anounce the forgiveness of God for the sins of all who were truly sorry for their sins. This is best done on a one on one basis, but from earliest times the church has practiced a general public confession of sins and an anouncement of the forgiveness of God as part of a Eucharistic worship service.

Luther later wrote many excellent works on the sacraments against both the Papistic (Roman Catholic) church and the Schwermerei (Anabaptists and Zwinglians) defending what he was absolutely convinced was the Biblical view of the sacraments against both the abuses of the Romans and the neglegence of the other Protestants. He learned to walk a very fine line, neither falling off to the left or the right, to defend the Word of God. An excellent summary of all these things is in a book by Herman Sasse called This is My Body. I believe it is published today by Concordia Publishing House, and if it isn't, I am positive that they still sell it on their web site. You also might be able to find it in a good theological library.

[James Peter]

Ok, a lot here for me to respond to and I have a party to be at in a couple of hours and only just got in so it will have to wait until either tomorrow or sunday. I think there are two seperate issues that I'm raising here (1) Did Jesus intend to institute a sacrament/ritual? (the related question being how did the early christian community understand the words they recorded) (2) If so what context for that 'ritual' is closest to Jesus' intent.

How are we going to look at answering that? I think that systematic analysis of the texts is the best starting point. As Paul's version is the oldest and has direct rather than indirect apostolic authority I sugges that we start by taking that phrase by phrase.

As far as book recommendations go thanks but I just picked up another half-dozen books to read this week and so I don't really have the time to read them. Feel free to summarise and use the relavent arguments from them (especially on social context) when we need them though - my contribution will principly be to translate, analyse and comment on the text...

[Anoetos]

According to this website (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/agape.htm) the love feast was celebrated separately from the Eucharist by the time of Tertullian (fl. ca. 200 AD).

I can check Kelly later.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]this meal is special.Whenever we see the word 'special' in a religious context we should be on our guard. There are no special days, special events, special holy substances in the course of the Christian life. They are all hocus pocus mirages, invented by the Enemy. What is true is always true, and special occasions, special buildings, special religious people are all sure signs of Satan at work. He wants us to have only a brief encounter with religion, and, because it is only brief, it is not an encounter with God, but with himself. The Christian has the mind of Christ; he is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and it is Satan's work to browbeat him and make him think that he needs some special food of a physical sort.

When Jesus said that he was the bread of life, he was saying that his example of total commitment to obedience to the will of the Father was to be the spiritual staple of our lives too, just as bread was very much the main food that most who lived in Judaea lived on; and wine, too, was very commonly drunk, and the sacrifice of Jesus is to be our spiritual lifeblood. The implications of the cross of Christ apply in every conscious decision that a Christian takes, and may well need to be applied to unconscious ones, too, especially for young Christians. We have no life in us unless we live in grateful obedience to the cross, and breaking of literal bread or taking 'eucharist' is of no use whatever in itself. Literal breaking of bread is of use if, and only if, it re-applies our minds to our behaviour, our every deed, word and thought- and it should not need to do that.

[infide]

This is really excellent, just wanted to say that first. I admire someone who isnt afraid to consider these things.

Ok, a lot here for me to respond to and I have a party to be at in a couple of hours and only just got in so it will have to wait until either tomorrow or sunday. I think there are two seperate issues that I'm raising here (1) Did Jesus intend to institute a sacrament/ritual? (the related question being how did the early christian community understand the words they recorded)

I think no/yes. No to a sacrament. The idea of a sacrament, is in my mind, "bondage to a sign" which Augustine talks about in On Christian Doctrine in, i think, Book III. He said that some things are meant to be signs for something else, and it is bondage to think that the sign really is the thing for which is stands. Freedom with regard to a sign is to have fully in mind that for which something signifies.

Yes to ritual, but I have doubts that Christ was "starting one". I think whats happenning is that Christ was redefining the ritual which was already taking place when He uttered the words.

"As often as you drink of it" in my mind, means, "whenever you celebrate this sedar". that is, whenever celebration of the passover is done, for the Christians it is not to be a rememberance of redemption from Egypt, but a rememberance of redemption from sin through Christ.

Thats why it is a "New Covenant" in His blood.

Of course, James, this had to change when the Church went international. I dont fault the Church for taking that part of the Sedar out of its context so that all could celebrate it together. The Gentiles wouldnt be celebrating the Sedar.

(2) If so what context for that 'ritual' is closest to Jesus' intent.

The Jewish Passover Sedar. The cup referred to as "this cup" was, i believe, what is called the "cup of redemption" which is the last cup. The bread, was called the "Aphikomen", which interestingly enough has particularly Christian symbolism in the Jewish Sedar. (some have even speculated that Messianic Jewish-Christians introduced such symbolism) At the beginning of the meal, there are three pieces of bread. The second of the three pieces is later on taken from among the three, broken, wrapped, and hidden (buried) for the end of the meal where the children find it (become like little children?) and it is broken further for all the family members. It is called the Aphikomen (thing to come, dessert). Many believe that it is with the cup of redemption and the aphikomen the Lord instituted the words of Communion.

How are we going to look at answering that? I think that systematic analysis of the texts is the best starting point. As Paul's version is the oldest and has direct rather than indirect apostolic authority I sugges that we start by taking that phrase by phrase.

In most cases, Paul is writing to Gentile Churches so the significance above would not be emphasized - because Pauls biggest goal was that being Jewish would not be significant to being Christian.

peace,
jd

[infide]

Alternately, I see it as possible that Jesus reordered some of the events in the Sedar, and afterward His followers did as well. Somehow, the Messianic version ended up being the one widely practiced.

That is something worth exploring.

peace,
jd

[Anoetos]

Nothing in J. N. D. Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines" regarding the question at hand.

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]
Somehow, the Messianic version ended up being the one widely practiced.

That is something worth exploring.So the Judaisers' version is what the worldly accepted?

[James Peter]

Sorry that I started this and haven't been able to really spend any time on it, I'm still not great healthwise and I have a couple of deadlines looming. I will get onto this eventually (I'm genuinely interested in this topic) but it may be a couple of weeks until I have time to pick through the texts line by line...

[A Cup of No]

:popcorn: This is great. No mud-slinging and thoughtful, provocative discussion. :teeth:

[infide]

So the Judaisers' version is what the worldly accepted?

No, I was saying that the Messianic version of the Sedar, is the one that ended up being practiced by ALL Jewish people, not just the Jewish Christians. Recall that not all Jewish Christians are "Judaizers".

peace,
jd

[Chytraeus]

Whenever we see the word 'special' in a religious context we should be on our guard. There are no special days, special events, special holy substances in the course of the Christian life.

Proof? No special days, granted, Paul said that we should allow no one to judge us about holy days. No special people, certainly, as we are now all kings and priests of God's kingdom. Apparantly "special" people in the church only have a specific role to play because it would be shear chaos if everyone tried to be a preacher or song leader. However, if Jesus Himself says something is special, only His enemy would say otherwise. Since three Gospel writers and Paul chose to specifically record this mean using nearly the exact same words, and John seems to be relating the entire Gospel account to Baptism and the Eucharist, it seems that this must be special. If you are going to declare common what God has called special, perhaps you need to rethink your position.

They are all hocus pocus mirages, invented by the Enemy. What is true is always true, and special occasions, special buildings, special religious people are all sure signs of Satan at work.

Yup, what is true is always true, and Christ said that the bread is His body and the cup is His blood, and as often as we celebrate it in remembrance of Him, that is always true.

He wants us to have only a brief encounter with religion, and, because it is only brief, it is not an encounter with God, but with himself. The Christian has the mind of Christ; he is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and it is Satan's work to browbeat him and make him think that he needs some special food of a physical sort.

The whole point of the Eucharistic meal is that it is an encounter with God Himself, but since you think that Jesus was just being metaphorical, and you refuse to take him at his Word on this point, you are just having an encounter with crakers and juice.

I used to wonder if Jesus came to the earth today if people would miss him just as badly as they did back then. People like you confirm that they would. He comes to us in some form that just doesn't look "holy" enough for you, and you claim that it is not Him, but the enemy coming. You are offended by His choice of means.

When Jesus said that he was the bread of life, he was saying that his example of total commitment to obedience to the will of the Father was to be the spiritual staple of our lives too, just as bread was very much the main food that most who lived in Judaea lived on; and wine, too, was very commonly drunk, and the sacrifice of Jesus is to be our spiritual lifeblood. The implications of the cross of Christ apply in every conscious decision that a Christian takes, and may well need to be applied to unconscious ones, too, especially for young Christians. We have no life in us unless we live in grateful obedience to the cross, and breaking of literal bread or taking 'eucharist' is of no use whatever in itself. Literal breaking of bread is of use if, and only if, it re-applies our minds to our behaviour, our every deed, word and thought- and it should not need to do that.

Pure speculation not the least bit based upon God's Word, so I don't even need to respond.

[James Peter]

Ok, as I'm feeling a little better now and I've just about got all this term's work handed in (just need to catch up on my Hebrew and translate 2&3 John this week) I think I may be able to finally get back to dealing with this.

So, watch this space (some more) as I need to remember where I was going with all this and respond to various comments...

[Chytraeus]

I think no/yes. No to a sacrament. The idea of a sacrament, is in my mind, "bondage to a sign" which Augustine talks about in On Christian Doctrine in, i think, Book III. He said that some things are meant to be signs for something else, and it is bondage to think that the sign really is the thing for which is stands. Freedom with regard to a sign is to have fully in mind that for which something signifies.

But, as you said, this is just what you think, and it is based not upon Scripture, but upon philosophy. It doesn't matter in the least bit what you think, if Jesus really meant what he said, "This is my body...this is my blood," then there is no "bondage to a sign" but only bondage to the Word of God. Since Augustine actually believed that the bread and the wine were the true body and blood of the incarnate Christ, it is highly inappropriate to quote him as proof that they are not. How do I know he believed this? Well, because he says so in his writtings, for one, and he was not excommunicated from the church for another, for there was a heritic who was excommunitcated for teaching that the Eucharist was not the body and blood of Christ during Augustine's time.

Yes to ritual, but I have doubts that Christ was "starting one". I think whats happenning is that Christ was redefining the ritual which was already taking place when He uttered the words.

"As often as you drink of it" in my mind, means, "whenever you celebrate this sedar". that is, whenever celebration of the passover is done, for the Christians it is not to be a rememberance of redemption from Egypt, but a rememberance of redemption from sin through Christ.

Thats why it is a "New Covenant" in His blood.

This all stems from the concept that Jesus just happened upon the scene of Judaism, a pefectly fine religion in its own right, and then began to altar parts of it to suit his new religion. However, true Judaism is the foundation of true Christianity, it is the original tree into which we were grafted, as Paul so aptly puts it.

Until Christ Jesus came, there were many things that had to be hidden under other forms. The passover celebration was but one of many jewish cerimonial meals that became encompased by the Eucharistic feast. The priests and celebrant sitting down to eat the thanksgiving offering is another. These are types of the perfect meal to come. Therefore, the Eucharistic feast is not an altered passover seder meal, it is the passover meal perfected.

There is much speculation about the meal that Jesus celebrated with his disciples based upon the seder meal that is celebrated by Orthodox Jews today. While the seder meal is indeed ancient, it has changed a lot over the generations. For one thing, it was intended to be a celebration that took place around the temple, for the lamb of the passover meal was to have been sacraficed at the Temple before they ate. That Temple is no longer standing, requiring some serious changes to the celebration. Over the generations more and more was added to the meal. The handfull of references concerning the passover as it was celebrated in Jesus' day lead us to believe that it was a much shorter meal back then.

However, how the meal changed over the years with tradition is beside the point. The Eucharist feast is the perfection of the Passover meal as it is described in the Old Testament, not the perfection of the the traditional seder meal that grew out of it. The Old Testament is not just a convenient historical context that Jesus used to start his new religion, it is His Book, and every line in it is inspired by Him and is about Him. If you are reading the Old Testament and not finding reference to the person and work of Christ everywhere, you are most definiately misinterpreting it.