Tuesday 23 December 2014

The experts speak...

In a recent article I was describing my 'weird' Theology.  The fact that it concerned Ecclesiology not Theology I let go.  However I did state that the experts (me not being one) generally agree what the practices of first century Church were.  To recap, Jesus had told the disciples to 'this do' when they met together to remember Jesus.  The Apostles went on to do just that... they met in homes and had food and drink when they met to remember Jesus.  The Paul shows us in Chapter 11 that this was to be the practice 'until the Lord comes.'

This is not just my opinion.

That a gathering of believers would not 'this do' is because they are doing church according to history, not scripture, and the solution is to transition back to Jesus' command.  Here are the experts reading the same scripture and reaching the same conclusions.  If you don't know who they are Wiki them:

Donald Guthrie:  'A Lion Handbook the History of Christianity'

"In the early days the Lords Supper took place in the course of a communal meal.  All brought what food they could and it was shared together."

John Drane: 'The New Lion Encyclopaedia"

"Jesus instituted this common meal at Passover time at the Last Supper shared with his disciples before his death.  The Last Supper looks back to the death of Jesus and forward to the Second Coming.  Throughout the New Testament period the Lord's Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians.  It was only much later that the Lords Supper was moved to a special building and Christian prayers and praises that came from the Synagogue service were added to become a grand ceremony."

Drane : "Introducing the New Testament"

The early church observed the Lord's Supper as an exclusive community meal."

Canon Leon Morris:  "Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Tyndale) IVP

(1 Cor 11)... "reveals that at Corinth the Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us but an actual meal, moreover it seems clear it is a meal where each of the participant brought food."


I Howard Marshall:  "New Testament Theology"

"The Lords Supper was observed by his disciples at first as a community meal Sunday by Sunday"

Four experts, 5 quotes.   There's much more.   It is difficult to find anyone of the stature of these giants who reads the New Testament and doesn't agree with them.  If you are gathering and not partaking in a full meal it is because you accepted the church practice you were born into as 'legit.' For 15 years, much to the anger of my contemporaries, I am delivering the Reformation of Church Practice.  It is my conviction that the Lord is saying, 'Give me back my Church' to leaders who are in a place to return to authentic New Testament church practice and thus allow Jesus to be the Head.

I reject the idea that any other way of gathering is 'error.'  You can't be in error if you don't know what is out of place.  However, if you receive this information and do not research the possibility that it is correct you condemn it before investigating.  The reason a person would not pursue a possibility that they need to change something based on even a hint that God may be telling them something is bigger problem than the way they meet together. It means they are unable to be taught.  It is not me who is ultimately able to correct that.

So in conclusion, ekklesia, according to the New Testament was home based, centred around food and drink with open and equal sharing (1 Cor 14:26).  Jesus said 'do this,' the Apostles did it, Paul corrected a Church who were doing it and the experts confirm it.  What are you going to do about 'it?'

"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup,(we have found to be a full meal) you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."   Paul the Apostle (emphasis and clarification mine)

resources for further reading:  Beresford Job  "Biblical Church,"
                                                 Frank Viola "Pagan Christianity?"
                                               

Monday 22 December 2014

A response to my 'weird' 'Theology'

A couple of months ago a prominent Minister and former Youth Leader colleague publicly called my Theology 'weird.'  Since reading this in a thread on Facebook I set about my usual practice of not caring whatsoever.  However, I've had a nagging prompt to set the record straight about why I don't do the done thing and try to ... ahem.... plant a church.'  In this account for my walk with the Lord and 'what He is doing' the accusation that my Theology is 'weird' will be brutally assaulted by the facts.

Fifteen years ago I was called out from denominational Christianity to pursue the Lord's leading.  It became clear that I was being sent to research and practice 'Biblical' church.  I have researched and explored the idea that the ekklesia gathering in the first century was supposed to be maintained and not changed from how they met.  Here is the rationale:

At the Last Supper Jesus told the disciples to 'do this' (when they meet to remember him).  So the Lord anticipates a few things in this statement.

  • Firstly He anticipates a distinct gathering specifically to remember him.  
  • Secondly He anticipates that when people gather to remember him, they will do what He and the disciples were doing at the Last Supper, eating and drinking in a family environment.  
We cannot separate the fact that Jesus used broken unleavened bread and wine as representing His broken body and His blood.   How do we know that Jesus meant 'this do' was meeting in a family home around food with Christ central and not just referring to the bread and wine?  After all, if he did mean 'do this' as 'breaking bread and sipping wine,' you can meet any old way as long as the bread and wine were present as many churches practice today.

God uses 'feasts'
There are three main reasons why we know Jesus meant 'this do' to be a full meal in a family environment and not just the symbols.  Firstly this was Passover which included the feast of unleavened bread.  The Lord had stopped the Passover and told the disciples that he will not drink of the final cup which was the fourth of four cups.  He said that he will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom comes which is begun with the marriage feast of the Lamb and his Bride, the church.  Passover was a feast anticipating Messiah (after they arrived in the Promised Land) but now, having served it's purpose it was set aside for the New Covenant.  Because God seems to use feasts, Passover, The marriage feast in the coming Kingdom, it stands to reason that Jesus would tell believers to eat a feast when they meet to remember Him.  There is no doubt that a loaf and wine is present at the meal but it stands to reason that 'do this' means 'do what you are doing here.'

The Apostles and the Early Church practice
It is not enough to say that Jesus meant 'eat a meal' just because God designated feasts for the Old Covenant and the coming Kingdom.  What we have to do is examine what those who were there did, having heard Jesus say 'this do...'  The most prominent scholars all agree that the first century Church met exclusively in homes around a feast with bread and wine included.  There were no presenters or presidents in this gathering and it was the practice in persecution and when the church wasn't under persecution.  They did it on purpose! Don't forget this was the occasion when believers meet specifically to remember Jesus.  They prayed together and evangelised in other places but that was not specifically meeting to remember Jesus.  So those who heard Jesus say 'this do...' actually went on to do that which they were doing in that room around food with Jesus central to the discussion.  They categorically did not separate the bread and wine and gathered any old way.  All well and good but is there evidence where we can see that meeting to remember Jesus involved a meal and that was 'church' and nothing else is?

Paul in 1 Corinthians 11
To recap, Jesus has said 'this do...' (specifically when believers meet together to remember Him).  Then the Apostles go on to 'do this....' when starting churches.  Now we come across Paul who underlines what the love feast is while correcting the church.  Some believers had been gorging on the food and getting drunk before others arrived.  This cannot happen unless there is enough food and drink to do so.  Ipso facto this was the full meal Jesus commanded believers to do when they meet together.  Here is a very simple breakdown of what 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is saying:

11:17-22 The problem.  Note the amount of food or drink needed to abuse the Lord's supper
11:22 This is the Church of God according to Paul so we are observing 'church.'
11:23-26 Paul was told by Jesus to pass on these instructions.  See 1 Cor 12 Study 'paradosis' (Gk)
11:26  This is the instruction to keep doing church this way until the Lord comes
11:23-32 Don't mess with the Lord's Supper!
1:33-34 When you gather to eat (to remember Jesus) This IS church

So Jesus commanded it, The Apostles who were there did it and Paul was told by Jesus to pass on this practice!  As I was relaying 15 years ago the Lord had me pursue this form of meeting together.  With this calling came a crash course in why people meet in community buildings with sips of wine and corners of bread.  History has distorted the practices we see in the Bible and that is a far more involved discussion that this document.  Suffice to say that the practices Paul described were superseded by man's idea of gathering.


Did Jesus model rejection of Man's truths?

What we have is the drive to go ahead and do the 'done thing' for church versus the commitment to carry out biblical directives.  So that this becomes crystal clear to everyone, let us observe Jesus wage all out war on the 'done thing.'  In Jesus time the scribes (soferim) had developed 'fence laws.'  These were designed to stop someone before they broke the 613 Laws of Moses.  Later, at the time of Jesus the Teachers of the Law had done something that caught Jesus' full attention.  They had taken the Law of Moses and the fence laws and made them authoritative, from God.  So the Teachers of the Law taught that the thousands of fence laws were LAW and were building another set of laws so you didn't break the original fence laws of the soferim.  This is what Jesus referred to as 'The Tradition of the Elders (Matt 15).'

Jesus was actively opposing the Teachers of the Law and we see this demonstrated when Jesus healed a blind man on the Sabbath.  The tradition of the elders said this was wrong to heal on the Sabbath but also if you inject wine into the eyes or use spit with mud it is worthy of death!  Now this still appears in the Mishna.  Jesus made mud with spit and placed it on the blind man's eyes.... on the Sabbath!  THEN he told the man to wash the mud off in the Pool of Siloam at Tabernacles.  The Pool fed the ceremonial waters in the Temple... they would have had muddy water flow into their ceremony!  Jesus purposely, actively and constantly broke the Traditions of the Elders - Man's laws - and it made them furious.

What did you do?

As I relay this account of my actions and practices I can only say that I've followed Jesus in not doing the things Man says but rather, purposefully, actively and constantly done what God says in his word.  Is that weird or is it weird to do things what man has done whilst saying 'I'm following Jesus?'  We all have to stand before the Lord and give an account of what we did.  I can only account for me, my calibration to God's design as revealed in the New Testament.

That people will stand before Jesus and tell Him they spent their life involved with a church practice derived from Man is probably the weirdest thing I can think of right now.