To be absolutely clear this covenant meal was what Paul called ekklesia and the prayer meetings, teaching times existed where the believers were present but cannot be defined as 'ekklesia,' the word we translate 'church' from. What we do is, because people come to 'church'... and the 'church' are the people, whenever the people gather for whatever purpose, it is church. This is not what was occurring in the first century.
In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is correcting the problem of some believers coming to the gathering early and eating without the others. Verse 33 states clearly that what Paul calls 'ekklesia' (Church) is when they meet to eat together. Paul has qualified what we are talking about in the preceding paragraph by reminding the Corinthians where the command to 'This do...' comes from. Jesus used the bread and wine as emblems of the New Covenant but it is not indicated that there were separated from the Passover and isolated as New Covenant emblems. The taking of the bread and wine as part of a meal is done in remembrance of Jesus and should be done until the Lord returns according to Paul.
Let's examine the idea that Jesus was only talking about bread and wine as isolated emblems meaning the practice of eating a cracker and sipping some wine is valid. This would mean that Paul in verse 33 'when you come together to eat, eat together' is a weird ritual that has no relevance. That Paul was correcting the practice of some eating in sub groups or gorging themselves before others arrived tells us that the very practice of eating together, and eating a meal, was of primary importance as what ekklesia does. God wanted his family to be one and do what families do!
Let's explore another logical conclusion about the Apostles that went on to start ekklesia (churches) in the first century. If Jesus intended the practice of church to be concentrating on the emblems alone the Apostles, having been there when Jesus said 'this do,' would have been clear about what Jesus meant. Such was the enormity of stopping the Passover short and instituting a new covenant I can't imagine any of the 11 sat around partaking would have left the room unclear about what was meant. No-one is recorded as clarifying what Jesus was saying. A Jewish mind would recognize the feast as the subject of 'this do.'
We must also take seriously that Paul had a one to one with Jesus about this very subject (11:23). The early churches did not take the bread and wine as isolated elements but rather celebrated them as part of a full meal. To do otherwise would have been disobeying what Jesus meant when he said 'This do...'
So if Jesus meant 'just use bread and wine' the Apostles disobeyed Jesus. However If he meant 'this do' as in 'eat together' the Apostles obeyed Jesus and Paul corrects the Corinthians because they were not eating a meal together. Having established beyond doubt that Jesus meant eat a meal together (including bread and wine) Paul tells them to do this until Jesus comes.
For many the idea that ekklesia (Church) is about a shared meal with brothers and sisters is challenging. Clearly though, Paul told us to eat the full meal that had a loaf and wine included, together, until the Lord comes to get us. here are other clues you can chase down should you want to explore the possibility that church was something other than the Early Church Fathers told you:
- "Keep the feast" Paul 1 Cor 5
- 'Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts' Acts 2:46a (To NOT DO 2:46b)
- They broke bread in their homes and ate together Acts 2:46b
- 'I will come and eat with you' Rev 3 Laodicean church
- 'This do in remembrance of me' (no questions asked) led to full meals in homes
Gary Ward
No comments:
Post a Comment