PREACHING THE LORD'S MEALJohn Mark Hicks

ICS Annual Sermon SeminarMay 24-27, 1999

Introduction: "Sacrament"?

Fundamentally, Jesus Christ is the one "sacrament" of God. He is the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:4-6). We access the Father through Jesus Christ by the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). Sacramental theology, then, must be Christological. Sacramentally, God has given Christ to us through his gifts of baptism and the Lord's supper

"Sacrament" Sign Thing Signified Relation

Baptism Water Death and Resurrection ???Lord's Supper Bread and Wine The Body and Blood of Jesus ???

The term "sacrament" originally referred to an oath or pledge which Roman soldiers took in devotion to the gods, but came to develop the meaning in the Latin (Roman Catholic) church of a "mystery" or a scared thing devoted to God. The Latin term was first used by Tertullian (d.220), but Origen (d. 254) used the Greek term "mystery" to characterize baptism and the Lord's supper. More magisterial (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican) churches have retained the term "sacrament," but free church traditions (Mennonite, Baptist) generally use the term "ordinances" (commandments).

I use the term "sacrament" in the sense of a ritual gospel event which concretely re-presents God's work in Christ. "Sacraments" embody the gospel--the Christ Event. They visualize it for us. They have an objective character (the sign) which is linked to the spiritual reality (the thing signified, the gospel). The water and elements of the supper (unlike candles or incense) have a "sacramental" quality to them by virtue of their relation to the gospel. They objectively signify the gospel. But what is the exact relationship between the sign and thing signified?

"Sacramentalists" Instrumentalists SymbolistsBaptism Baptismal

RegenerationMeans of Grace Sign of Thing

ReceivedLord's Supper

Real Presence Spiritual Presence Signs as Symbols

Theology Divine Causation Divine Mediation Human Response

Scripture affirms an instrumentalist understanding of this relationship. Paul uses the instrumental dia (through) to reflect his baptismal understanding (Rom. 6:4; Titus 3:5). Baptism is the concrete means by which one enters into a saving relationship with Christ through faith in the gospel (in contrast, for example, to

prayer). Baptism, as an expression of faith, is instrumental by virtue of the instrumental character of faith itself (Eph. 2:8; Col. 2:12) and the objective promise God has attached to this covenant ritual of baptism (Acts 2:38). We are saved by grace through faith by means of God's gracious working in baptism.

The Lord's supper is instrumental because the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine is the communion of the believer with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). This communion is through faith. The Lord's supper, like baptism, depends upon the instrumentality of faith. The blessings of baptism and the supper are not objectively "there" as if contained in the water and the bread, but are spiritual realities present through the objective acts of baptism and supper on the ground of God's promises and through faith in his work.I. The Covenant Meal in Israel.

LORD'S SUPPER AS COVENANT MEAL--The Old Testament Background--

Covenant Meal in the Clan (Gen. 31:45-55).Call upon God as a witness between the parties of the covenant.Swears an oath of loyalty to the covenant.Sacrifices an animal before God.Eats a meal to celebrate and seal the covenant.

Covenant Meal at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:1-11).God enters into covenant with Israel (Ex. 19).The terms of the covenant are explained (Ex. 20-23).

The ten commandments are given (Ex. 20).The "book of the covenant" is given (Ex. 21-23).

The covenant is ratified (Ex. 24).The sacrifices are offered (Ex. 24:1-7).The blood is sprinkled (Ex. 24:8).The leaders eat a meal in the presence of God (Ex. 24:9-11).

Covenant Meal in the Sacrificial System (Lev. 3; 7:11-38).Herd or Flock Animal Sacrificed (Lev. 3):

Worshipper brings the animal and kills it himself.Priests sprinkle the blood on the altar.The fat of the animal is burned on the altar as God's food (7:30).

The Meal (Lev. 7; eaten the same day, Lev. 22:29-30):Includes cakes of bread made without yeast (7:12-13).One cake of bread is for the priest (7:14).The worshipper eats the meat of the sacrifice (7:15-16).The breast and right thigh are eaten by the priest (7:34).The meal included a drink as well (see Ps. 116:13-17).

Types of Fellowship or Peace Offerings (Lev. 7):Thanksgiving (7:11-15).Vow (7:16; cf. 22:18-23)

This Fellowship Meal is found at key redemptive-history events throughout the history of Israel (1 Sam. 11:15; 2 Sam. 6:17; 1 Kings 8:63-64; 2 Chr. 29:31; 30:22; 31:2; 33:16 ; cf. Jer.

2

17:26).This Fellowship Meal is found in the worship of Israel as reflected in the Psalms (Ps.

50:14,23;56:12; 107:22; 116:17).

Covenant Meal in the Church: The Lord's Supper.The Lord's supper is the New Covenant Meal (Luke 22:14-22).It is a Fellowship with Christ's Sacrifice (1 Cor. 10:16-22).It is the Fellowship of the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

Covenant Meal in the EschatonOld Testament Expectation of this Meal (Is. 25:6-9).Jesus' Expectation of this Meal (Matt. 8:10-12; Luke 13:28-30).It is the Marriage Feast of the Lamb and his Bride (Rev. 19:7-9).A. The Covenant Meal in Redemptive History.

1. Fulfilled in the Clan.

a. Genesis 31:22-55 provides an example of a covenant meal within a family clan. After God intervened, Laban offered to make a covenant with Jacob (v. 44). The covenant would be witness between Jacob and Laban of their peaceful relationship.

b. God would not only be a witness to the covenant, but a participant in blessing the parties involved as well as a judge between them (31:49-50,53). Both Laban and Jacob swore an oath, and a sacrifice was offered to enact the covenant which was followed by a meal to celebrate and confirm it.

c. The meal was a symbol of peace and mutual acceptance within the clan. It celebrated and sealed the peace which now existed between Laban and Jacob (cf. Gen. 26:28-31 for another example).

2. Fulfilled at Sinai.

a. The exodus was an act of God's grace by which he redeemed Israel from Egyptian bondage. Exodus 15 declares this redemptive act in song, and it is on this ground that Israel is invited into covenant with God.

b. Exodus 19-24 tells the story of how the nation of Israel entered into a covenant with God. God announces his intention to establish a covenantal relationship with Israel, and the people accept (19:3-8). The covenant is summarized in the Decalogue (20:1-17) and then explained more fully in the "book of the covenant" (chs. 21-23). Finally, the covenant is ratified through bloody sacrifices and a meal (ch. 24).

c. The covenant is ratified through burnt offerings and fellowship offerings (24:5). After the "book of the covenant" is read to the

3

people, they profess their willingness to follow it, and Moses then sprinkles the "blood of the covenant" on the people (24:7-8). Through blood, God establishes covenant with his people (cf. Heb. 9:20-22). It is in the wake of this event that the leaders of Israel went up and "saw the God of Israel" (24:10). God does not reject nor consume them with his holiness, but rather accepts them into his presence on the ground of his gracious covenant of blood. On the mount, the leaders of Israel, in the presence of God, eat and drink. Exodus 24:11: "they saw God, and they ate and drank."

d. The significance of this statement is important. The God of Israel is a Holy God who cannot be approached by sinful human beings (cf. Ex. 33:20). But God establishes communion with his people through covenantal sacrifice. This communion is expressed by not only "seeing" God, but also sharing fellowship with him through a covenant meal. God becomes the God of his people through covenant, and this covenant is celebrated through a meal.

e. In Israel, "eating and drinking" within a sacrificial context, is eating and drinking "in the presence of God." God is present among his people as witness, judge and participant (cf. Ex. 18:12; Dt. 12:7,18; 14:23,26; 15:20; 27:7).

3. Fulfilled in Sacrificial System.

a. What is the importance of Old Testament sacrifices?

(1) Sacrifices were gifts offered to God which functioned to remove sin and sanctify a place/person for the presence of God. Sacrifices represented a life offered to God (Psalm 40; Hosea 6:6). They are the means by which the worshipper draws near to God and enters into communion with God's holy presence.

(2) The three major festival sacrifices are: sin offering, burnt offering and fellowship offering. Leviticus 9 provides the paradigmatic meaning of these sacrifices as they are offered when the priesthood of Aaron is inaugurated. The sin offering is the atonement offering; it expiates or removes sin (9:8-11). The burnt offering represents the consecration or dedication of the worshipper to God (9:12-14). The fellowship offering is an expression of the peace/fellowship or reconciliation that exists between God and the worshipper (9:18-21). In consequence of the three sacrifices, the glory of the Lord appeared to the people (9:22-24).

b. Leviticus 3:1-17; 4:10,26,31,35; and 7:11-38 describe the various types of "fellowship" offerings. This term is variously translated "fellowship," or "peace," or "well-being" (from the Hebrew term shalom, meaning wholeness or peace). It establishes fellowship

4

through its expiatory significance (3:1-5 with 17:11) and exhibits fellowship (peace) between God and the worshipper through a covenant meal.

c. Of the four major sacrifices (burnt offering, sin, guilt and peace), this is the only offering where the worshipper eats part of the sacrifice himself. The sacrificial offering becomes a meal in which bread and drink are also present (cf. 7:12-15; Ps. 116:13-17). The meal celebrates the relationship between the participants in the meal, and everyone shares in this meal--the Lord (3:3-4), the priest (7:28), and the worshipper. It is a meal where God, the priest and the worshipper share shalom through the meal. It exhibits the harmony, peace and well-being of that relationship. The covenant is renewed through eating the sacrificial animal (cf. Ps. 50:5,14). The Passover itself may be regarded as a type of this sacrifice (Dt. 16:1-4).

d. The offering may have three different motivations, but they ultimately coalesce in the joy of a celebrative meal in the presence of God (Dt. 12:6-7; 27:7). It may be occasioned by a vow (Lev. 7:16; cf. Prov. 7:14), a freewill expression of happiness (Lev. 7:16), or a moment of thanksgiving (Lev. 7:12-15).

e. The thanksgiving offering is particularly prominent in the Psalms (cf. 50:14,23; 56:13; 107:22; 116:17-19). The sacrifice provides meat for the covenant meal, and the meal is the means by which fellowship is shared. The meal celebrates covenantal communion. Indeed, the fellowship offering was offered at key redemptive-historical events, such as covenant renewal at Mt. Ebal (Dt. 27:1-8; Jos. 8:30-35), coronations (1 Sam. 11:15; 2 Kgs. 11:14), the movement of the Ark to David's tent (1 Chr. 16:), the dedication of the altar (2 Sam. 24:25; 1 Chr. 21:25-22:1), the dedication of Solomon's temple (2 Chr. 5:12-13; 1 Kgs 8:63), covenant renewal under Asa (2 Chr. 15:8-15), purification of Hezekiah's temple (2 Chr. 29:27-31), Hezekiah's Passover (2 Chr. 30:22-27), dedication of Mannaseh's altar (2 Chr. 33:16) and the consecration of the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:35-43). Given the redemptive-historical and communal character of this meal, its significance for the covenant between God and Israel cannot be overestimated.

f. The Old Testament does not explicitly identify many meals as "fellowship offerings" but this is what they probably are. For example, the offering of Hanna is no doubt a thanksgiving offering for the birth of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:24-25).

4. Fulfilled in the Church: The New Covenant Community.

a. This is Luke's emphasis in his depiction of the institution of the Lord's supper in Luke 22. We will look at this more closely in session II.

5

b. This is also Paul's understanding in light of his parallel with Old Testament sacrifices in 1 Corinthians 10. We will look at this more closely in session III.

5. Fulfilled in the Eschaton.

a. Isaiah 25:6-9 anticipates a day when God will wipe away every tear through swallowing up the disgrace of his people (NT applications of this text are 1 Cor. 15:54; Rev. 7:17; 21:4). That disgrace is the burial shroud which covers all people--it is death. On the day when God destroys death, he will celebrate with his people in an eschatological banquet with rich food and the best wine.

b. It will be a day of celebration when God has conquered all his enemies, and the last enemy is death. God can then offer the eschatological messianic banquet, and all of his people from all nations will sit down with each other to enjoy fellowship with their God and with each other (cf. Matt. 8:10-12; Luke 13:27-29). It will be a covenantal meal in which God will fully dwell with his people (Rev. 21:3).

B. The Theological Meaning of the Covenant Meal in Christological Perspective.

1. Covenantal Memory. When we remember Christ in the Lord's supper, we remember the covenant God has made with his people. The spiritual reality of this covenant is actualized for us through our remembering. Just as Israel remembered that they had been brought out of Egypt (Deuteronomy 16:1), so we remember we have been brought out of sin. It moves from a past memory to a present experience of the reality of God's grace. The bread and wine actualize the reality of salvation for us in the worship experience. There is a genuine experience of salvation when we eat and drink by faith. To remember God's work in Christ is to experience the reality of our covenantal fellowship with God. The spiritual reality of God's salvation is present through our remembering in the covenant meal. The Lord's supper, then, is a moment of grace when we receive it by faith through our memory of God's work for us. It is a proclamation of God's work. It is a re-presentation. We remember and bring into the present what God has done in the past.

2. Covenantal Renewal. When we eat and drink we renew our covenant with God. We pledge ourselves to keep the covenant. Just as Israel voiced its willingness to obey the covenant (Exodus 19-24), so we ratify the covenant in our life when we eat and drink. It is a moment of rededication and recommitment. In the context of the worship experience, we voice our commitment to live worthy of the gospel (cf. Phil. 1:27). We vow to take up our cross, call upon Jesus as Lord and follow him into the world as an obedient servant. The supper is the ritual moment when we renew the covenant vow we made in our

6

baptism.

3. Covenantal Presence. God has always promised to live among his people and to be their God (cf. Gen. 17:7-8; Lev. 26:11-12; Jer. 11:4; 24:7). God is present among his people in the covenant meal--it is an eating and drinking in the presence of the covenant Lord (Ex. 18:12; Dt. 12:7,18; 14:23-26; 15:20; 27:7; 1 Chr. 29:22). The presence of God in the meal, in the tabernacle, in the temple is a covenantal presence. This presence is found in the church through the indwelling Spirit by whom we are the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16), and by whom the Living Lord is present through faith (Eph. 3:16,17). The church is the habitation of God through the Spirit (Eph. 2:22). In the covenant meal, the body and blood of Christ are present through the Spirit who lifts us up to feed on Christ and share the spiritual reality rooted in Christ. As we worship in the Spirit (Phil. 3:3), Christ is present through the covenant meal. Christ is present, not "in" the bread or wine, but he is present "at the table".

4. Covenantal Fellowship. The covenant meal symbolizes and mediates the fellowship between God and his covenant people. It is an objective moment of assurance, fellowship and peace. It testifies to the reconciliation which God has enacted and the peace which exists between God and the redeemed, and between the redeemed. It is a moment of joy, communion and thanksgiving. The people of God celebrate their reconciliation by God's work; they rejoice in the redemptive work of God for them. The covenant meal is a Eucharist, a thanksgiving, which assures the worshipper of God's love and redemptive work. As surely as one eats and drinks through faith, so also one certainly participates in God's salvation and in the community of God. The Lord's supper is not something to be avoided in times of doubt and uncertainty; it is a gracious gift to be received by faith where doubt and uncertainty can be eradicated by the testimony of God's covenant in the meal. It is a testament of his love. It is a moment of communal fellowship between God and his community. It is a moment of communion with the risen Lord at whose table we eat and drink. It is God's sensible (empirical) pledge of his covenant loyalty.

5. Covenantal Promise. The new covenant meal is one of hope and expectation. We live in the light of God's revelation of the end of history--he showed us what the end of history is through the resurrection of Jesus. The Lord's supper, then, is a celebration of God's victory over death through Jesus. It is not a funeral, but a celebratory affirmation of hope in a tragic, fallen world. Through the covenant meal we proclaim our faith in God's eschatological promises, and we anticipate the messianic banquet in God's eschatological kingdom. As we eat and drink now, we eat and drink in the hope of eating and drinking with Jesus in the fullness of his kingdom.

C. Homiletic Suggestions.

7

1. General Ideas.

a. Genesis 31: The Covenant Meal.

The meal is a celebration of an oath made by two parties where God is a witness. It is a moment or reconciliation between offended brothers/sisters. They share a meal that unites and celebrates the peace of reconciliation, and this is done in the presence of God. Covenant meals are three-party meals: God and two other parties. Application: The Lord's supper as a covenant meal involves reconciliation and communion with the family of God as well as God himself. We cannot eat divisively, but we can only eat as a united and reconciled people in the presence of God. Thus, the Lord's supper is not only a communion and renewal with God, but is also a communion and renewal of relationship with God's family (cf. Matthew 5:23-24).

b. Exodus 24: Eating With God.

God is holy. His mountain is holy. Whoever touches the mountain will die. Exodus 24 is a blood ritual whereby the people of God were sanctified by the blood of the covenant and where they committed themselves to the covenant. Once sanctified, they entered God's presence and ate with him. Eating with God is communing with him. It is a witness to reconciliation. We have been sanctified by the blood of the covenant, and so even now we eat with God in the Lord's supper (Matthew 26:29).

c. Leviticus 7: A Shalom Meal.

Shalom (peace, fellowship) offerings were given to God out of thanksgiving or for the sake of a vow. In either event, it involved a meal that reflected and was the experience of peace between God, the worshipper and the priests. The meal is a moment of peace within the community and between God and the worshipper. We, too, have a thanksgiving meal that we eat as a community. We eat together and God in Jesus Christ eats with us as we experience the peace of relationships around the Lord's supper. It is the experience of fellowship or communion (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).

d. 2 Chronicles 29-30: Celebrating God's Redemption.

Fellowship offerings were a time of "eating" and "rejoicing in the presence of the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 27:7). Hezekiah called his people to that kind of celebration. The people celebrated the cleansing of the temple with fellowship offerings (2 Chronicles 29:31), and the people rejoiced in God's renewed presence. Hezekiah called his people to celebrate the passover, and the joy of their celebration

8

lasted for two weeks with fellowship offerings (2 Chronicles 30:22-27). Eating in God's presence is time of thanksgiving and rejoicing. It is a celebration. What is the Lord's supper to you? Is it simply solemnity or even sadness, or is it a moment of thankful celebration? Is not the Lord's supper a celebration of what God has done, a moment of rejoicing at the table with the Lord? We rejoice in the grace of God at his table. Is that not the kind of joy that would have surrounded the table when Paul broke bread with the newly raised Eutyches in Acts 20:7-1l?

e. Isaiah 25: Celebrating Victory over Death.

Isaiah envisions a celebratory meal--a banquet of aged wine and fatty foods. It celebrates the time when death is swallowed up and God has wiped away all tears. The New Testament applies this language eshcatologially so that what is envisioned there is the great messianic banquet in the kingdom of God. The eternal banquet where God's people celebrate the victory over death. The Lord's supper is where we anticipate that meal. We eat together in the hope of the resurrection and in the memory of Christ's resurrection. We eat with the living Lord and through the meal we celebrate his victory over death. He is the living host of the table, and his living presence engenders our hope (Luke 22:28-30).

f. Redemptive-Historical Theme: Eating in God's Presence.

This is a topical sermon that traces the biblical-theological theme of eating with God through redemptive history. It traces the covenant meal from Exodus 24, through the sacrificial system, to the Lord's supper, to the eschatological meal. It is a way of letting the church think about the past, present and future in terms of the Lord's supper. It would draw together the themes of commitment, joy and hope as those qualities contextualize the meals throughout biblical history. The outline would be something like the chart on page 2 of these notes.

g. Psalm 116: Thanksgiving.

This is a prayer of thanksgiving to God for his deliverance from death. The individual prayed during his near fatal illness and God saved him because death is so costly to God (v. 15). How do we thank God for his acts of redemption and deliverance? How do we thank God for his answers to prayer? We lift up the cup of thanksgiving and fulfill our vows in the presence of God's people (vv. 13-14; 17-18). The Lord's meal is our time of corporate thanksgiving. It is a thanksgiving for what God has done. We give thanks for the bread and the cup. It is the cup of blessing because we bless (praise) God through drinking it (1 Corinthians 10:16). Our meal time is a moment where we can thank God for his answers to prayer in the presence of God's people.

9

2. Sample Homily.

a. Honoring God (Psalm 50).

(1) Psalm 50: The Text.

Psalm 50A Psalm of Asaph.

The Ephiphany of God (1-6)The mighty one, Yahweh God, speaks

and summons the earth from the rising of the sun to its setting. Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty,

God shines forth. Our God comes and does not keep silence,

before him is a devouring fire, and a mighty tempest all around him.

He calls to the heavens above and to the earth, that he may judge his people:

“Gather to me my faithful ones, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice!”

The heavens declare his righteousness, for God himself is judge. Selah.

10

Address to the Worshippers (7-15)“Hear, O my people, and I will speak,

O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God. Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you;

your burnt offerings are continually before me. I will not accept a bull from your house, or goats from your folds.

For every wild animal of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the air, and all that moves in the field is mine.

“If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and all that is in it is mine.

Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving,

and pay your vows to the Most High. Call on me in the day of trouble;

I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.”

Address to the Wicked (16-23)But to the wicked God says:

“What right have you to recite my statutes, or take my covenant on your lips?

For you hate discipline,and you cast my words behind you.

You make friends with a thief when you see one, and you keep company with adulterers.

You give your mouth free rein for evil,and your tongue frames deceit.

You sit and speak against your kin; you slander your own mother's child.

These things you have done and I have been silent; you thought that I was one just like yourself. But now I rebuke you,

and lay the charge before you. Mark this, then, you who forget God,

or I will tear you apart, and there will be no one to deliver.

Those who bring thanksgiving as their sacrifice honor me; to those who go the right way I will show the salvation of God.”

(2) Exegetical Notes.

The text is easily divided into three segments. There is (1) the divine epiphany; (2) address to the worshippers; and (3) address to the wicked. God comes in judgment to those who worship him flippantly (as is the case in #2) and those who worship him without ethical commitment (as is the case in #3). God seeks those who honor him, who give thanks to him and keep their covenantal vows. This is a covenant renewal liturgy that has a prophetic message for the cultic worshippers. The text calls us to remember, give thanks and renewal our vows before God.

11

(3) Theological Perspectives.

God comes to us in the context of worship. He initiates communion and we respond. This means we must understand the spirituality of God. God seeks communion (not things, as if he values the animals sacrificed in some way that is unrelated to holy communion with his people), so he yearns for hearts responding in gratitude and commitment rather than those seeking to make a liturgical payment. Consequently, God seeks a covenantal relationship with his people that involves commitment. This text calls for covenant renewal, for recommitment to a relationship with the holy God.

(4) Application.

We come to this worship assembly for many reasons: (1) to fellowship with each other; (2) to remember our covenant with God; (3) to commune with our God, etc. This morning I call us to renew our covenant with God. It seems we relegate renewal to formal times of repentance when individuals come down to the front of the auditorium to ask for prayers. This morning I call us all to renew our relationship with God and recommit to his covenant. We have a weekly covenant renewal ritual in the Lord's supper. This is our moment of communion with God where we remember, offer thanks for and recommit to our relationship with God. We cannot come to this moment flippantly or in double-mindedness. We come to meet God in this supper. We come to honor him in this meal and renew our covenant with him.

b. Worship Suggestion: Covenant Renewal.

COVENANT RENEWAL THROUGH WORSHIP

1. Call to Worship: Divine Epiphany Text (Psalm 29).2. Hymns: Reflect Entrance into the Divine Presence.3. God Comes to Judge: Exposition of Psalm 50:1-6.

Point: God's presence is not always gracious.4. Prayer of Submission: We will Listen to God.5. Hymns: Reflect a Submissive Spirit.6. Prophetic Oracle: Exposition of Psalm 51:7-23.

Point: Call to examine one's life before God.7. Prayer of Confession: We admit our unworthiness.8. Hymns: Reflect our Approach to God in Covenant.9. Christological Application: Our Covenant Meal.

Point: God renews fellowship with us in the meal.10. Lord's Supper as Covenant Renewal.11. Hymn: Reflects Assurance or Commitment.

12

12. Prayer of Thanksgiving.13. Hymn: The Doxology

13

II. Breaking Bread in Luke-Acts

A. Exegetical Notes.

1. Meals in Luke-Acts.

a. "In approximately one-fifth of the sentences in Luke's Gospel and in Acts, meals play a conspicuous role."1

b. Luke has several important "meal" scenes in his gospel where Jesus eats with sinner and Pharisees alike (cf. Luke 7:36-50; 11:37-54; 14:1-24) as well as the last supper with his disciples (Luke 22:14-38).

c. Several themes are exhibited in these meal scenes, but two are particularly important for our purposes.2

(1) Table service is a symbol for community service. Table etiquette demanded that at formal dinners there should be servants to serve. Feet were washed by servants, the table was served by servants, the tables were cleared by the servants, etc. In Luke this service is shared by the community as a whole for the community as a whole. The disciples are fellow-servants, and Jesus himself is a servant at the table (Luke 22:25-27). The servants are served at the table of the Lord by Jesus himself in the eschatological banquet (Luke 12:35-37).

(2) Table fellowship is a symbol of community fellowship. The table designates a special relationship between those who sit at the same table. Jesus eats with sinners and tax collectors (Luke 5:27-32; 7:34; 15:2). He goes to the house of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-9). The table is for the oppressed, handicapped and disenfranchised (Luke 7:22; 14:12-14). A banquet is thrown for the returning prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). Will the elder brother join in the celebration meal? Will the Pharisees have table fellowship with tax collectors in the kingdom of God?

d. Luke also emphasizes the theme of the messianic banquet in the kingdom of God. It is anticipated in the feeding of the 5000 (Luke 9:10-17), described as an eschatological event where people from all over the world will join Abraham at the banquet (Luke 13:28-30), regarded as a blessed event (Luke 14:15-24) and promised at the last supper (Luke 22:28-30).

2. The Passover Context of the Last Supper (Luke 22:1-30).1Markus Barth, Rediscovering the Lord's Supper: Communion with Israel, with Christ and Among the Guests (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 71.2Dennis E. Smith, "Table Fellowship as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke," Journal of Biblical Literature 106.4 (1987), 613-38.

14

a. Luke's Context.

(1) According to Luke 22, the new covenant meal was instituted during the last Passover supper shared with his disciples. Luke directly links the old covenant Passover with the new covenant meal. Jesus ate this Passover with the anticipation that he would eat it (the Passover) again with the disciples in the kingdom of God. The Passover supper would find its "fulfillment in the kingdom of God" (22:16) where they would eat and drink at Jesus' table in his kingdom (22:30).

(2) Luke places this new covenant meal on the trajectory of redemptive history where the goal is the eschatological community of God in the heavenly kingdom. Jesus will eat and drink with the disciples again when the kingdom comes (22:18). The fullness of kingdom is the reign of God in the eschaton (cf. parable in Luke 19:11-27). However, Luke also believes that in the person of Jesus, who exorcises demons, the kingdom is already present (11:20), and that Pentecost was the inauguration of restored Israel when Jesus' ascent to the throne of David was proclaimed (Acts 1:6; 2:29-35 with Luke 1:30-33).

(3) Thus, the fulfillment in Luke 22 has a dual import: it is fulfillment in the new covenant meal of the inaugurated kingdom (the church) as well as the eschatological banquet. When the church eats this meal, it eats the new covenant Passover (or thanksgiving [eucharistic] meal) and it does so with the expectation of eschatological victory. It eats in the light of the resurrected Lord who has conquered death and will remove the disgrace of his people in the new heaven and the new earth. The supper is a meal shared with the risen Lord (as Luke 24 illustrates through the breaking of bread). It is a meal eaten in the presence of Christ who as the risen Lord sits as the host of the meal. We eat the meal "with" Christ (Matt. 26:29).

(4) This eschatological victory is won on the ground of the blood of the new covenant and the sacrificial offering of the body of Christ. The expiatory work of the body and blood of Jesus removes sin and enables the establishment of a covenant meal. Luke's language reflects the influence of both Exodus 24 (covenant in blood) and Jeremiah 31 (new covenant). This language, in connection with the Passover context, establishes the covenantal character of this meal. There is a strong continuity with the old covenant meals, but there is also a redemptive-historical fulfillment of the old in the new covenant. The type has been fulfilled and taken to a new level, but that fulfillment in the Lord's supper anticipates an eschatological fulfillment when the kingdom of God fully arrives.

15

b. The Passover Meal.3

3The below summary material is taken from I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord's Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 179. For more details and a correlation with the Lord's Supper, see Norman Theiss, "The Passover Feast of the New Covenant," Interpretation 48 (Jan 1994), 17-31. The classic discussion is Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 15-88.

16

The Passover Meal at the Time of Jesus

Afternoon: The Slaughter of the Lamb.

Evening: The Passover Meal

1. Preliminary Course:Blessing of festival day (Kiddush) spoken over First Cup of

WineDish of green herbs, bitter herbs and fruit sauceServing of meal and mixing of second cup of wine

2. Passover LiturgyThe Passover narrative (haggadah)Singing of Psalm 113 (the little hallel)Second cup of wine

3. Main MealGrace spoken over breadMeal of roasted lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbsGrace spoken over third cup of wine (cup of blessing)

4. ConclusionSinging of Psalms 114-118 (the great hallel)Grace spoken over Fourth cup of wine

Night: Watching and Remembrance

The Haggadah Narrative from the Mishnah

"The son asks his father (and if the son has not enough understanding his father instructs [how to ask]), 'Why is this night different from other nights? For on other nights we eat seasoned food once, but this night twice; on other nights we eat leavened or unleavened bread, but this night all is unleavened; on other nights we eat flesh roast, stewed, or cooked, but this night all is roast.' And according to the understanding of the son his father instructs him. He begins with the disgrace and ends with the glory; and he expounds from "A wandering Aramean was my father... [Dt. 26:5-11] until he finishes the whole section.

Rabban Gamaliel used to say: Whosoever has not said [the verses concerning] these three things at Passover has not fulfilled his obligation. And these are they: Passover, unleavened bread and bitter herbs: 'Passover'--because God passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt; 'unleavened bread'--because our fathers were redeemed from Egypt; 'bitter herbs'--because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt. In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt, for it is written, 'And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying, It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt.' Therefore are we bound to give thanks, to praise, to glorify, to honor, to exalt, to extol, and to bless him who wrought all these

17

wonders for our fathers and for us. He brought us out from bondage to freedom, from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning to a Festival-day, and from darkness to great light, and from servitude to redemption; so let us say before him the 'Hallelujah'."

c. Paschal Features in the Last Supper.

(1) The Order of the Meal in the Synoptics.

The Passover The Last Supper

First/Second Cup of Wine

Luke 22:17--cup

Breaking of the Bread Luke 22:19--breadPassover Meal Luke 22:20--after

supperThird/Fourth Cup of

WineLuke 22:20--cup

Singing Matt. 26:30--singingPrayer Luke 22:40--prayer

(2) Points of Contact: Passover Meal and the Last Supper.

(a) Mark 14:12 dates the meal on the day of the Passover (14th of Nisan).

(b) The meal was held in Jerusalem instead of returning to Bethany. The Passover lamb could only be eaten within the city of Jerusalem.

(c) The meal was held in the evening instead of normal morning and afternoon meals.

(d) The Passover must be eaten with no less than ten persons.

(e) Guests reclined at the Passover (and other festive meals), whereas they usually sat at tables for normal meals.

(f) The eating of the bread was in the middle of the meal whereas in a normal meal it was at the beginning and throughout.

(g) The drinking of wine was not customary at ordinary meals, but was normal at festal meals and required at the Passover (some say red wine was required).

(h) Judas left during the meal and the disciples thought he was going to buy something for the feast or give something to the poor (John 13:29), which was customary at Passover.

18

(i) Mark and Matthew record that they left the upper room after singing.

(j) The night after the meal had to be spent in Jerusalem, and Jesus with his disciples went to Gethsemane in the Kidron valley just outside the walls of Jerusalem.

(k) Jesus gave a haggadah for the meal following the practice of the Passover.

19

3. The Institution of the New Covenant Meal (Luke 22:14-30).

A Synoptic Comparison

Matthew 26:26-29 Mark 14:22-25 Luke 22:15-20

And he said to them, "I have earnestly desire to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them and said, "Take; this is my body."

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

20

A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign (to confer by executing a covenant) to you, as my Father assigned (conferred by executing a covenant) to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on the thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Bold=agreement in Greek language between Mt & Mk. Underline =Lk & Mk. Italics=agreement between all three. Paul's version (1 Cor. 11:24-25) follows Luke's language with some additions.

a. The Words of Institution.

(1) The words of institution emphasize that this covenant meal is focused on remembering the work of God in Christ. Just like the Passover, the new covenant meal is a memorial of God's work in redemptive history. While the Passover remembered the Exodus, the new covenant meal remembers the gospel events, the death and resurrection of Jesus.

(2) As a gospel meal, it actualizes the work of God for the community. The saving work of God is not simply a past memory, but a present reality through the covenant meal. It actualizes the reality of

21

God's salvation for us now, just as the annual Passover reactualized the Exodus for Israel throughout its history (cf. Dt. 16:1-8).

(3) We must distinguish between the altar and the table. The altar is the cross of Christ, but the table is the Lord's supper. The two should not be confused, but neither should they be disconnected. At the table we remember the altar and share in the altar, but the table should not be identified with the altar.

22

b. Notes on Luke 22 and the Passover Supper.

(1) The Passover Background.

(a) The Meal: reliving the memory of God's redemption (Ex. 12; Deut. 16:1-4).

(b) The Constituent Parts: eating the lamb, family recital of history,

"breaking of bread blessing," four cups of wine, eating bread and herbs, and singing (usually Ps. 113-118).

(c) The Passover is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God (Luke 22:15-16).

(2) The Covenantal/Sacrificial Language of the Text.

(a) "blood of the covenant" = Exodus 24:8 (Heb. 9:20; cf. Zech. 9:11).

(b) "new covenant" = Jeremiah 31:31 (cf. Heb. 8:7-13).

(c) "given for you" = the gift of sacrifice (as in Lev. 7; cf. Heb. 5:2; 9:9; 10:10).

(d) "poured out" = Lev. 4:7ff; 8:16; 9:9; Isaiah 53:12 (cf. Heb. 9:22)

(e) "forgiveness of sins" = Heb. 9:22 (about Ex. 24:1-11; cf. Heb. 10:18).

(3) The "Words of Institution": What do they mean?

(a) "This is my body": symbolic, literal, or spiritual identity?(b) "This is my blood": symbolic, literal or spiritual identity?

(4) The Kingdom Language:

(a) The Language:

Drink it new when the Kingdom comes.Drink it with you again when the Kingdom comes.Drink it at the Lord's table as judges over Israel.

(b) When?

Kingdom = Church?Kingdom = Eschatological, Messianic Banquet (Mt. 8:10-12).

c. The Lucan Application (Luke 22:24-30; cf. Mt. 20:20-28; Mk. 10:35-45).

23

4. Breaking Bread in Luke-Acts.

a. The Lucan Texts.

(1) To understand what Luke intends by "breaking bread" we must read the text as original readers in the context of an existing church community, and we must read the text intratextually. That is, we must read the text as a unit and from within its own frame of reference.

(2) Luke gives us the clues to understand "breaking of bread". The dominant, and overriding clue, is the institution of the Lord's supper itself. There the liturgical pattern is established which reflects the liturgical language current in the church: (1) he took bread; (2) he blessed it; (3) he broke it; and (4) he gave it. "Breaking bread" has religious, even Christological, significance for Luke. When Luke refers to a meal, he uses the standard Hebraic phrase "eat bread" (as in Gen. 3:19; 31:54; Ex. 2:20; Lev. 22:11; 26:5; 2 Sam. 12:21; 1 Kgs. 13:15; 21:5; Jer. 41:1; 52:33). "Break bread" is used only once in the LXX (Jer. 16:7). Luke uses "eat bread" for a meal (7:33; 14:1,15), but "break bread" has a religious significance for him which is rooted in who Jesus is and his presence. "Breaking bread" never refers to a meal in Jewish literature, but only to the initial blessing of a meal (cf. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 119-20).

BREAKING BREAD IN LUKE-ACTS

Anticipatory TextLuke 9:16: And taking (labw»n)the five loaves (a‡rtouß)and two fish, he

looked up to heaven, and blessed (eujlo/ghsen) and broke (kate÷klasen) them, and gave (e˙di÷dou) them to the disciples to set before the crowd.

Thematic TextLuke 22:19: Then he took bread (labw»n a‡rton), gave thanks (eujcaristh/saß)

and broke (e¶klasen) it, and gave (e¶dwken) it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

The Resurrected Lord RevealedLuke 24:30: When he was at the table with them, he took bread (labw»n to\n

a‡rton), gave thanks (eujlo/ghsen) and broke (kla¿saß) it, and began to give (e˙pedi÷dou) it to them...(24:35) Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread (thØv kla¿sei touv a‡rtou).

Exemplar TextsActs 2:42: They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship,

to the breaking of bread (thØv kla¿sei touv a‡rtou) and to prayers.

24

Acts 2:46: Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread (klw◊nte÷ß te kat∆ oi•kon a‡rton) in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.

Acts 20:7: On the first day of the week we came together to break bread (kla¿sai a‡rton). Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept talking until midnight...(20:11) Then he went upstairs again and broke bread (kla¿saß to\n a‡rton) and ate. After talking until daylight, he left.

Acts 27:35: After he said this, he took some bread (labw»n a‡rton) and gave thanks (eujcari÷sthsen) to God before them all. Then he broke (kla¿saß) it and began to eat.

b. Luke 9:16

(1) This text anticipates the institution of the Lord's supper. The language is the same as Luke 22:19.

(2) Luke has heightened the messianic character of this meal by placing this text prior to the confession of Jesus as the Christ (9:20) so that the hospitality (9:11), preaching, healing and feeding of his people are signs by which Peter recognizes his messianic character. The text has messianic banquet overtones and offers a context for interpreting the Lord's supper.

(3) When the original Christian community read Luke 9:16, it certainly reminded them of their consistent practice of the Lord's supper. They remembered God's provision for them in Christ and the presence of Christ as the host of their supper.

c. Luke 22.

(1) Luke understands this "breaking of bread" to be the fulfillment of the Passover (Luke 22:14-15), and he understands that the disciples sit at the "table" of the Lord. Indeed, the Lord is both victim and host of this table by which he bequeaths the kingdom to his disciples, just as the Father had bequeathed it to him.

(2) Together, then, in the Kingdom, the disciples and Jesus anticipate eating and drinking anew this meal. Luke tells us that they will "break bread" again as community: Lord as host and disciples as those who sit around his table.

d. Luke 24:30,35.

(1) In the post-resurrection experience of Luke 24 this is exactly what happens. The risen Lord appears to two disciples, and after instruction in the Word, Jesus performs the liturgical pattern: took bread, blessed, broke and gave. He sits as host when he is the guest.

25

(2) The disciples sit at "table" with Jesus, the resurrected Lord, and they experience his presence in the light of the breaking of bread. Jesus is revealed to them in that moment. It is a moment when God's presence in Jesus is experienced and made known.

e. Acts 2:42, 46.

(1) When Luke records that the early church continued in the teaching of the apostles, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers, he must want us to understand breaking of bread in the light of his Gospel. "Breaking bread" becomes technical shorthand for the supper instituted in Luke 22 and experienced in Luke 24. When the reader sees "breaking bread" in Acts 2:42, the mind naturally returns to the prominence of the two bread-breaking moments in Luke 22 and 24. The early church, as a community, celebrated the presence of Christ through breaking of bread. [Paul described the "breaking of bread" as a communion with the body of Christ, 1 Cor. 10:16.]

(2) I see no reason to distinguish between the breaking of bread in Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:46--they refer to a meal in the context of which the liturgical pattern was displayed [breaking bread], the Lord was remembered, and his presence celebrated. The structural connectedness of Acts 2:41-47 means that 2:42 and 2:46 refer to the same kind of "breaking bread." Whatever this "breaking bread" is ought to be interpreted against the background of Luke 22 and 24 so that those texts inform our understanding of Acts 2.

26

Past Activity -- What formed the Community (2:41)

Those who welcomed the word (men--"on the one hand") were baptized and (kai« ) on that day 3000 souls were added.

Continuous Activity -- What the Community Did (2:42-47)

(1) And (de--"on the other hand") they were devoting themselves (a) to "the" teaching of the apostles

and (kai)(b) to "the" fellowship (thØv koinwni÷aˆ),

(c) or (i) to "the" breaking of bread, and (kai)(d) or (ii) to "the" prayers.

(2) And (de) everyone was constantly filled with awe (fear)(3) And (de) God was working many wonders and signs through the

apostles.(4) And (de) all the believers were together (e˙pi« to\ aujto),

and (kai« ) they were holding all things in common (koina)and (kai« ) they were selling their possessions and goods,and (kai« ) were giving to everyone who had need.

and (te ) they were meeting together in the temple daily,and (te ) breaking bread in their homes,

they were eating food with glad and sincere hearts,praising God and (kai« ) having favor with all the people.

(5) And (de) the Lord daily was adding the saved to them (e˙pi« to\ aujto).

(3) Acts 2:41-47 is a paradigmatic picture of the new covenant community. It models the Christian community and provides a reference point for the development of Christian life and practice throughout the whole of the book of Acts.

(3) This raises the question whether the first disciples "broke bread" daily as Acts 2:46 may indicate. The question is whether "daily" modifies both the temple meetings and the home meetings, or only modifies the temple meetings. Note the varying translations below (a=my interlinear, b=NIV, c=NRSV).

Two Coordinate Clauses:1. kaq∆ hJme÷ran te proskarterouvnteß oJmoqumado\n e˙n twˆ◊

i˚erwˆ◊,a. According to the day [and] meeting together in the temple

area,b. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple

courts.

27

c. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple,

2. klw◊nte÷ß te kat∆ oi•kon a‡rton, a. breaking [but also] according to the house bread,b. They broke bread in their homesc. they broke bread at home

28

Main Verb:metela¿mbanon trofhvß e˙n aÓgallia¿sei kai« aÓfelo/thti kardi÷aß a. they were receiving food with glad and simple heartsb. and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,c. and ate their food with glad and generous hearts,

Modifying Participles:ai˙nouvnteß to\n qeo\n kai« e¶conteß ca¿rin pro\ß o¢lon to\n lao/n.a. praising God and having grace with all the people.b. praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.c. praising God and having the goodwill of all the people.

f. Acts 20:7-11.

(1) Luke 24 should also inform our reading of Acts 20. The context of this pericope is Paul's journey back to Jerusalem with a collection of money for the poor saints there. The purpose of this pericope is to tell the story about the raising of Eutychus from the dead in the context of a first day of the week assembly. The purpose of the Christian meeting was to break bread. Paul's sermon was an addendum or special circumstance. While sabbath after sabbath Paul had been in the synagogues speaking to Jews, when he encounters a Christian group, they are meeting on the first day of the week.

(2) It is uncertain whether this was reckoned by Jewish timing (sunset to sunset, so that Acts 20 = Saturday evening) or by Roman reckoning (sunrise to sunrise, so that Acts 20 = Sunday evening). Either way, they met on the first day of the week rather than on the sabbath.

(3) They came together to break bread, and they did (they did not eat twice). When they broke bread, they also ate a meal or they broke bread in the context of a meal. The parallels between Acts 20 and Luke 24 indicate that Luke wants us to read Acts 20 in the light of Luke 24, and then also in the light of Luke 22.

Topic Luke 24 Acts 20

Gathering of Disciples 24:33 20:7Breaking of Bread 24:30,35 20:7,11Eating Together 24:42-43 20:11

First Day of the Week 24:1,13 20:7Teaching the Word (logoß) 24:44 20:7

Conversation (omilew) 24:14-15 20:11A Rising from the Dead 24:5,46 20:10,12

Fear 24:37-38 20:11The Living One (zwta) 24:5 20:12

29

(4) In the intratextual reading of Luke," breaking bread" signifies the presence of Jesus among his gathered people. Luke 9 and Acts 27 reflect this theme as well though one anticipates the Lord's supper and the other would be read by Luke's original readers in the context of the encouragement and assurance the supper brings.

(5) In this light, "the first day of the week" is no mere incidental reference. Indeed, it reminds of the resurrection of Jesus. It strongly suggests that early Christians chose the first day of the week for their worship day because it had theological significance.

Excursus: Why Every First Day Of The Week?

Historical Reasons: Answers What the Christians Did.

1. Christians met regularly every first day of the week. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.2. We know that a primary purpose of their gatherings was to break bread (eat

the Lord's supper). Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20,33.3. Consequently, it is reasonable to believe, that is, there are good historical

reasons for believing, that Christians met every first day of the week in order to eat the Lord's supper.

4. We know from early Christian history that during the second century Christians ate the Lord's supper every first day of the week (Didache; Justin Martyr).

Theological Reasons: Answers Why the Christians Did it.

1. The first day of the week is the day on which Jesus rose from the dead. The first day of the week is rooted in the saving act of God in the gospel. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1. The day has redemptive-historical significance.

2. The church began on the first day of the week. Pentecost was the 50th day after the Passover (Lev. 23:15-21, 33-36). It was a celebration of the harvest and called for rest on the "first" and "eighth" days which would both be first days of the week. Jesus as the "first fruit" (1 Cor. 15:20-23) was raised seven weeks before Pentecost just as the first fruits of the harvest were offered to God before the rest of the harvest was gathered and celebrated at Pentecost (Lev. 23:9-14).

3. The term kuriakon ("belonging to the Lord") only occurs twice in the New Testament: Lord's supper (1 Cor. 11:20) and Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10). This may reflect the intimate connection between the two.

4. On the first day of the week, Jesus first appeared to his disciples, broke bread with them and ate in their presence while showing himself to be alive (Luke 24:13,30,33,46), and one week later did the same thing (John 20:19,26).

5. It is significant in Acts that Paul goes Sabbath after Sabbath into the synagogues to speak to Jews, but when he encounters a Christian group, they are meeting on the first day of the week.

The Basic Historical/Theological Question: Why did Jewish Christians shift from

30

worshipping on the Sabbath in the synagogues to worshipping in their homes on the first day of the week? Why did they change the day of worship? Just as the sabbath had a theological significance for Israel (it was a day of remembrance for God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt, Deut. 5:12-15), so the first day of the week has a theological significance for the church. It is the day of remembrance, the day of our deliverance, because it is the day on which God raised Jesus from the dead and created his new community, the church. The same reason the church gathers every first day of the week is the same reason it should eat the Lord's supper every first day of the week. It is a day of worship and a day of celebration because of what God has done in the gospel, and the gospel is proclaimed in the Lord's supper. If the Lord's supper is a celebration of the resurrection, why omit the very ordinance God has given us to celebrate it when we gather on the first day of the week to celebrate the resurrection? If gathering every first day of the week to celebrate our redemption through the gospel is appropriate, why is not the use of God's gift to us in the sacrament of the Lord's supper equally appropriate?

31

g. Acts 27:35.

(1) This is the most difficult text for construing "breaking bread" as meaning a religious or Christological meal. I do not believe one can be certain about this meaning here. But it is likely, given the language used, that the first Christian readers would have used the Lord's supper as a frame of reference for understanding this meal on the ship.

(2) There are contextual considerations for thinking that this is at least an allusion to the Christian supper, if not an actual instance of celebrating it.

(a) Nothing is ordinary about this meal, especially in the light of Luke's portrayal of Paul on this journey (cf. the appearance of the angel) as Reicke argues.

(b) The eucharistic language is striking as it connects with other Lucan texts (v.35, and v.34 connects with 2:46 in the term metalambanw). Barrett (p. 60): "It seems unthinkable that Luke should have forgotten that he had written at significant points in his gospel the words that he uses here, and very improbable that the words were not used, and were not known by him to be used, by the church of which he was a member at its regular meeting for supper." Cf. Reicke.

(c) It fits Luke's emphasis on Jew-Gentile table fellowship as the symbol of community (see Esler).

(d) The language surrounding the text is filled with soteriological imagery (not a soul will be lost, v.22; "do not be afraid," v.24; God's graciousness, v.24; faith in God, v.25; salvation, v.31; brought safely through [diaswqhnai], v.44/28:1; everyone was encouraged, v.36).

(e) The parallel structures of Luke and Acts: trials, imprisonment, climatic events, etc. give this meal a parallel with the Last Supper in Luke 22 (Goulder; also C. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts [Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974]).

(f) The text is the most eucharistic of any other text in Acts. Only here does eucaristew (give thanks) and lambanw (to take the bread) occur in Acts (Barrett).

(g) This position is represented in the scholarly literature, demonstrating that it is not wholly novel or necessarily forced.4

4C. K. Barrett, "Paul Shipwrecked," in Scripture: Meaning and Method, ed. Barry P. Thompson (North Yorkshire: Hull University Press, 1987), 51-64; J. Dupont, "The Meal at Emmaus," in The Eucharist in the New Testament, ed. J. Delorme, P. Benoit, and M. E. Boismard and trans. by E. M. Stewart (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1965), 105-21; Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (London: Epworth Press, 1971), 130-31; Philip Francis Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); M. D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: S.P.C.K., 1964); R. D. Richardson, "The Place of Luke in the

32

(3) Paul used the meal as a means of encouragement and assurance. Eating represented hope: all would be saved, and so all ate. Is this not the hope of the Lord's supper as well?

h. Summary.

(1) "Breaking bread" in Luke-Acts, then, is a covenant meal where the Lord is present as host and we sit together as a community of his disciples in the hope of the resurrection. We anticipate the eschatological kingdom in which all disciples will share. We will all sit at the Lord's table in the kingdom.

(2) "Breaking bread," then, was not a solemn funeral but a celebration of the new community in which God has revealed the eschaton (resurrection) on the basis of the expiatory sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.

B. Homiletic Suggestions.

1. General Suggestions.

a. Luke 14: Eating in the Kingdom of God.

"Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God!" Who do you invite to dinner? Friends, family--people who can reciprocate? Whom do you invite to the feast in the kingdom? Who will sit at the Messianic banquet? The meal is a celebration and the invitees are the marginalized of society. Who does our church invite to the meal? Do we look for those who are "like us"? or for those who have the monetary means to support the church? Where is our evangelism focused? our ministry focused? Who sits at the meal with us? With whom would we want sit at table with?

b. Luke 22: The Passover Fulfilled.

This can be your Passover sermon in the context of the Lord's supper, whether you start in the OT or in the NT. The goal is to theologically link the two and bring it to bear on the theological meaning of the supper. Linking Deuteronomy 16:1-8 with Luke 22 would be one way of doing this. Talk about the meaning of "coveantal memory" in the

Eucharistic Tradition," Studia Evangelica, TU 73 (Berlin: Akadamie-Verlag, 1959), 671-72; P. H. Menoud, "Les Actes des Apôtres et l'Eucharistie," Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 33 (1953), 21-36; Bo Reicke, "Die Mahlzeit mit Paulus auf den Wellen des Mittelmeers, Acta 27:33-38," Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1948), 401-10; and P. W. ???, 'And So We Came to Rome': The Political Perspective of St. Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). The eary third century author Tertullian apparently interpreted it in this manner when he used the Latin technical phrase eucharistiam fecit ("celebrate the eucharist") in On Prayer, 24. Other supporters include the commentaries by Belser, Blass, Olshausen, Ewald and Schneider.

33

context of the Passover and how the supper fulfills this motif in the church. We cognitively reflect on, participate in and receive the benefits of God's redemptive act in Christ as we share a meal together.

c. Luke 22: The Words of Institution.

"This is my body" and "This is my blood" are controversial words in the history of the church. What is the exact meaning of "is"? What is the function of this meal and what is the function of the elements? I think this should be more of an "atonement" sermon since this is the meaning at which Jesus is pointing. He is the atonement (body and blood=sacrifical language). The meal is the celebration and remembrance of that great act of atonement. It is remembers as we participate in its benefits and it celebrates as we eat and drink with the living host at the table. The Living Christ eats and drinks with us because he has atoned for us and God has raised him from the dead.

d. Luke 22: Unity in the Church.

The Lord institutes a memorial meal and a fight breaks out. Luke places the dispute among the disciples about who is the greatest in the context of the Last Supper. The supper is a time for mutual servanthood. Even the host who sits at the head of the table serves those who sit at the table. Here we learn something about the character of God's leaders--servants. Table-time is a time for mutuality and service. More than that, at the table we learn something about the character of God. He is the servant-God. Jesus serves the table. This was no momentary service during his incarnational humiliation, but it is the character of God who himself will serve us at the Messianic banquet in the eschaton (cf. Luke 12:37-38).

e. Luke 24: Recognizing Jesus in the Meal.

I would approach this text narratively since it is a narrative--it is a story about the disciples on the road to Emmaus. It is a first day of the week story. They had given up hope. They did not believe the women. Jesus was a good man who did not turn out to be who they though he was. But someone prompts them to begin to rethink the meaning of suffering and glory. Was the Christ supposed to suffer? Is this what the prophets taught? Their teach taught in such a way that their hearts burned within them and they sensed that the Scripture had been opened to them with new meaning. It must have been perplexing until meal time. In the breaking of the bread they recognized Jesus. They experienced Jesus in the breaking of the bread. The suffering Jesus was recognized in his glory in the breaking of the bread. As we break bread, we "remember" the suffering and death of Jesus, but it also where we experience the

34

transforming character of his subsequent glory. The suffering had meaning, and the glory has come. We eat together remembering the suffering but celebrating the glory. Jesus breaks bread with us today. We listen to his word and we eat with him today--as we do every first day of the week.

f. Acts 2:42: The Four Means of Grace.

The church was committed to four "activities" that characterized the church. James A. Harding called these "four means of grace" that ought to shape a church community. (1) They followed apostolic teaching--instruction and guidance was part of the communal life. (2) They share community together--shared possessions and life. (3) They broke bread together--ate together "sacramentally" in the presence of the Lord. (4) They prayed together--a community devoted to prayer. While community is grounded in Jesus Christ and our shared experience of baptism, the community stays together through its shared life of teaching, giving, eating and praying.

g. Acts 2:42-47: Real Community.

What does community look like? Our postmodern world seeks community; we yearn for relationships. We want to belong to something. (1) This community was God-oriented. It was filled with praise and awe before God? Where is the awe in our community? Are we more "wowed" by technique? Do we sense the presence of God in our communities? (2) This community was committed to each other. They shared their possessions, worshipped together and ate together. The supper was an important part of building and renewing that communal life. (3) This community was reaching out to outsiders.

h. Acts 27: Eating with Confidence.

Can we eat during a storm? What kind of confidence does it take to eat with peace and security during a storm? Paul invited his shipmates to share a meal in the midst of the storm and the meal was a symbol of the hope that they would live through the storm. They ate confidently. They believed the promise. How do we "break bread"? Do we eat with hope and confidence? Do we recognize the presence of God's peace among us in the meal? As storms rage around us in our ministries and lives, can we come together as God's people and eat with confidence, trusting in God's promise of hope in Jesus Christ?

2. Sample Homily: On the First Day of the Week (Acts 20:7-11)

a. Exegesis.

I don't think we should get bogged down into thinking about whether

35

this is Sunday PM or Saturday PM. The participants in the action believe it is the "first day of the week" and that day is significant for them. In a narrative that so often mentions the "sabbath" as a day of meeting, it is highly significant that "first day of the week" appears here. Is this an "incidental" reference by Luke? See my exegetical material above on this text. I don't think so. It is, rather, an intentional connection with Luke 24--it is a resurrection motif.

b. Theology.

The theology here is resurrection. The disciples met on the "first day of the week to break bread" and when they did so they experienced a resurrection on that day. Just as the theology of Luke 24 is recognizing the living Jesus in the breaking of the bread, so in Acts 20 the living Jesus is recognized in the breaking of the bread. But in this story the resurrection is itself experienced in the history of one individual's life. Eutyches is the presence of resurrected hope in the community as they eat together. He becomes a symbol of Jesus' own living presence. "Breaking bread" that night must have been particularly celebratory as they ate with the raised Eutyches through whom they experienced the presence of the living hope that the resurrection of Jesus embodies.

c. Application.

We eat in hope every Sunday. Every Sunday is resurrection Sunday. The Lord's supper is not only our meal with each other, it is our meal with Jesus. He sits at the table with us as the living host. When we meet with Jesus on Sunday, we eat with him. This sustains our hope and his mysterious presence empowers our life. This is why we eat every Sunday because every Sunday we want to experience the hope that is connected with the "first day of the week."

d. Narrative Outline.

(1) Paul is traveling back to Jerusalem, carrying the contribution for the saints there.

(2) As he travels, he stops to worship with saints along the way. This is different from his initial journeys through these regions. Previously, as the text of Acts records, Paul would go to the synagogues sabbath after sabbath.

(3) But at Troas, it is not a sabbath that emerges as the day of meeting. It is the first day of the week. Paul is going to meet with saints. He is going to break bread with them, but first he speaks.

(4) And Paul apparently speaks a long time--so long that Eutyches falls out the window and dies. A death at a church service! What an oxymoron--should there not be life at a church meeting?

(5) Paul raises him from the dead. What joy there must have been, and then the disciples go and eat together through the breaking of bread.

36

(6) This meal was different from previous ones. They had a real live resurrected person in their midst. There must have been tremendous excitement and joy that evening.

(7)And this is the point--the supper is a time for hope, joy and celebration because we do eat with the resurrected one every Sunday. The presence of the living Christ is among us.

(8) The supper is not a funeral, but a celebratory meal that engenders hope as we eat in the presence of the resurrected one. If Eutyches were eating with us this morning, we would sense the excitement. Why is there no excitement in our hearts about this meal today when Jesus himself will eat with us this morning?

III. Body Life in 1 Corinthians

A. Exegetical/Theological Notes.

1. The Communion of the New Covenant Meal (1 Corinthians 10).

a. The wider context of chapter 10 is chapters 8-10. The subject is Christian freedom in relation to eating meats offered to idols. Paul offers several scenarios where Christians should give up their rights for the sake of others. In 10:1-22, however, he addresses the arrogant who are puffed up with knowledge.

b. In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul uses the covenantal character of the Lord's supper to counter the problem of arrogant idolatry among the Corinthians. The "spiritual" of Corinth thought themselves inviolate because of their participation in the spiritual reality of Christ. Paul reminds them of the history of Israel which fell even though they themselves had eaten and drunk from the same spiritual resource--Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Fellowship with Christ in eating and drinking does not entail a guarantee of relationship regardless of lifestyle (1 Cor. 10:6-10). Whoever arrogantly thinks he stands is in danger of falling (1 Cor. 10:12).

c. Communion with Christ, participation in the spiritual reality of God, involves covenantal responsibility. Whoever eats the sacrifice participates or communes in the altar (1 Cor. 10:18). To eat the sacrifice is a matter of covenantal commitment. One cannot eat from the table of the Lord (cf. Mal. 1:12) and from the table of demons (idolatry). To do both would provoke the covenant Lord to jealousy for his covenant people (1 Cor. 10:21-22). To eat from the Lord's table means to be committed to the Lord's covenant. To drink the Lord's cup is to renew our covenant with God through Christ. Just as the fellowship offering appeared again and again at key redemptive-historical moments as covenant renewal, so every Lord's day is a covenant renewal for the covenant people through the Lord's supper.

37

d. The communion of the altar in the new covenant meal is a communion with the body and blood of Christ as well as the communion of the many members as one body (10:16). The covenant meal means to share in the blessings of God's work in Christ, and the meal means that we come before him as the one covenant people of God. Our communion is a participation in the one spiritual reality which was created by the offering of the body and blood of Christ. As the body of Christ, we share that reality with each other--there is only one body. Though there are many members, there is one body of fellowship which is focused on Christ's work rather than the ministry of its diverse members (cf. 1 Cor. 1:13; 3:5,21-23). The covenant meal is a communal meal where the people of God are united to each other by their covenant with the one God.

e. The connection between idolatry and jealousy is a strong Old Testament theme (Psalm 78:58; Deuteronomy 4:24; 32:21; Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Joshua 24:19). The dual commitment with which idolaters partake of the Lord's supper draws the anger of God and it points to the seriousness with which the supper must be taken. It parallels the language of "sickness and death" in chapter 11.

2. The Unity of the New Covenant Meal (1 Corinthians 11).

a. The problem Paul encounters in 1 Cor. 11:17-22 is division (v. 18, scismata) and factions (v. 19, aJireseiß). They are not waiting for the whole church to assemble, but they are proceeding with the "supper" before everyone arrives (cf. vv. 21,33). They had gathered to eat the "Lord's supper" but they instead ate their own "supper" because they were hungry and thirsty (vv. 20-21,34). This reflected a socio-economic problem in the church since those who have homes would not wait on those who have nothing (v. 22). According to Paul, this violates the tradition which he received from the Lord and had handed on to the Corinthians (v. 23).

b. The problem is occasioned by the breakdown of unity in the context of a meal. Paul describes this supper with various terms: supper (11:20); communion (10:16); Lord's table (10:21); breaking bread (10:16). The church in Corinth ate a deipnon (supper, 11:20,21,25). This was the regular evening meal in the Greco-Roman world. The two major courses of the banquet were the "supper" proper which was followed by the sumposion (symposium) which was a drinking party.5 In a religious context this would have included a chant to a god(s) as, for example, in Plato's Symposium 176A. These "suppers" paralleled the Greek practice of eranoß which was like a Greek "potluck" dinner. It could take place in homes or at sacrificial meals in Greek temples.6 It is fundamentally identification. Paul did not

5Dennis E. Smith and Hal E. Taussig, Many Tables: The Eucharist in the New Testament and Liturgy Today (Philadelphia: Trinity International Press, 1990), 25.

38

forbid the meal, but regulated it in the light of abuses. Paul wanted them to come together "to eat" (11:33; see the use of fagein in 11:20-22,27-28). They ought to come together as an ekklhsia (11:18) which unites as the body of Christ (11:29).

c. Greco-Roman meals were occasions of social stratification, drunkenness and disorderliness. They were also at the center of most social institutions or social occasions (e.g., funerary banquets, sacrificial banquets, philosophical society meetings, trade guild meetings, religious society meetings). Plutarch's Table Talk (ca. 100 C.E.) is an example of the extensive discussion of table etiquette in the ancient world. Richard Oster offers this summary of the problems generally associated with Greco-Roman meals (adapted from Leaven 6.1 [Winter 1998], 16-17):

(1) In practice, ancient meals were very hierarchical in arrangement. The high degree of social and economic stratification (rich/poor; free/slaves) that prevailed in the Graeco-Roman world was imported into arrangements for dinner. Accordingly, the best seats, the best food, the best wine, the best company and the best entertainment were reserved for the affluent, the noble born, the free, and the prestigious. Several pagan philosophers and rhetoricians complain about this practice of bringing social stratification into the meal experience. These writers argue that mealtime and the meal experiences should be communal meals that are not destroyed by societal concerns for "rich and poor" or "free and slave."

(2) Ancient mealtimes were often characterized by disruptive speech and argumentative cliques. We have testimony both in the literary and epigraphical record from antiquity that religious guilds and fraternal organizations had to adopt "Rules of Order" to keep a sense of orderliness, especially at their symposia or evening meals. [As one Latin inscription from Pompeii stated it, 'Be sociable and put aside, if you can, annoying quarrels. If you can't, go back to your own home."--from Oster, 1 Corinthians (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), 277.]

(3) Drunkenness was a regular problem at these Graeco-Roman meals and banquets. Both the quantity and the quality of wine served was so important to ancient men and women

6Aristophanes, Acharnenses, 1085-1149; Xenophon, Memorabilia, 3.14.1; Aelius Aristides, Sarapis, 54.20-28; Lucian, Lexiphanes, 6,9,13; Peter Lampe, "Das korinthische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellinistische-roemischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11,17-34), Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1991), 192-203 and his English summary, "The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on the Cross," Interpretation 48 (Jan 1994), 37-41.

39

that there was often an attendant in charge of this (cf. John 2:8-10). Graeco-Roman authors whose values included moderation in drinking criticized their peers who regularly became intoxicated at these meals.

d. The tradition that Paul cites is that the bread was broken in remembrance of Jesus before the supper and, after the supper (v. 25), the cup was drunk. The seriousness of the occasion is the connection this meal has with the Lord's death (v. 26); it was the night of his betrayal (v. 24). The language is essentially the same as Luke's account. This is the tradition that Paul applies as a norm or standard for the practice of the Lord's supper in Corinth.

(1) Here the norm is the "Lord's supper". It is his table, not ours. Therefore, we are to treat each other as fellow-servants, as fellow-members of the body. Just as the gospel is for all, so the supper is for all who share faith in the gospel. The meal ought to proclaim the gospel, but their actions had undermined the gospel itself. It did not reflect the values of Christ.

(2) Consequently, one must not eat or drink in an "unworthy manner," which refers to the divisive context in which it was being eaten at Corinth (v. 27). Christians must "discern the body" when eating. Does this mean the body of Christ in the bread? I think not since it is likely Paul would have said "body and blood" as in v. 27 if this were his meaning. Rather, it concerns the problem at Corinth--the unity of the church (Christ's body). Paul had earlier made the same shift from "body" (=flesh of Christ) to "body" (=church) in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. It think he does the same thing here. But this is a difficult text. Because the body has experienced schism and factions, many within the church are weak and ill (v. 30). The body must examine itself about the manner in which the supper is conducted (v. 28).

(3) Here form and function must reflect appropriate theological meaning. Form should serve the function of the supper. The Corinthian form undermined the theological meaning of the supper. The church, then, needs to give attention to the form as well as the elements, order and meaning of the supper.

e. Paul believes they should continue to eat the supper, but wait for everyone so that no one will go hungry. In the context of this communal meal where food is shared, the communion of the body and blood of the Lord through the bread and wine will result in a communion with each other through the oneness of the body. Paul gives them three instructions.

(1) Instruction 1: wait till everyone arrives before you eat the supper. (2) Instruction 2: if you are hungry, eat something at home before

you assemble so you can wait for everyone to arrive.

40

(3) Instruction 3: Paul will settle everything else when he arrives.

f. The Agape Feast or communal meal apparently existed in conjunction with the elements of the Lord's supper till the early second century (cf. Didache). There is evidence that Christians divided the meal from the elements of the Lord's supper due to prohibitions like Pliny's in his letter to Trajan (forbidding meals for political purposes in 111-113 C.E.) or due to excesses. In time the Agape meal in the late second/early third centuries (Tertullian; Clement of Alexandria) was primarily for the poor and on Sunday evenings. In time the church prohibited Agape meals because of widespread abuses (the Trullen Council of 692).

B. Homiletical Suggestions.

1. General Suggestions.

a. 1 Corinthians 10:16: What the Meaning of "Is" Is.

What is the reality of the supper? Some think in terms of metaphysics and want to identify the supper with the physical substance of Christ. Others think in terms of horizontal fellowship and identify the supper with the fellowship of family members. The church has been divided over the meaning of "is". Yet, the "is" points to a reality that cannot be defined or delimited. It points us to a mystery, a spiritual reality that invades our eating bread and drinking wine. It is a communion, fellowship with God in Jesus Christ. Our eating and drinking is a mysterious moment of communion between God and his people in the context of which we experience the joy, hope and benefits of the work of God in Christ. This moment cannot be reduced to few fixed phrases: "upward, forward, inward..." At the heart of those perspectives is our communion with the reality

41

of God in Christ. Probe it, reflect on it, seek it, but never think you have explained it. There is a foretaste of "glory divine" in the breaking of bread.

b. 1 Corinthians 11:17-22, 33-34: Whose Supper is this Anyway?

The symbol of unity has often been used to divide. It has often become an exclusionary tool rather than an inclusive one. Social and economic distinctions that are part of the culture invade the communion of Jesus Christ so that the family of God is partitioned just like the culture in which it exists. When has culture divided the church of God? In Corinth, the social/economic distinctions undermined the supper. The form in which the supper was experienced undermined is function. Culture should not invade our experience of the supper. E.G.: While one family would permit African-Americans to worship with them, they vowed that they would never invite them to their home. Their supper and the Lord's supper did not have any common ground here. This is the Lord's supper. He invites to the table, and whoever is at table with Jesus, we must accept despite our cultural backgrounds. If we will sit at the Lord's table with them, we should also sit at another table with them. Fellowship at the Lord's table should shape fellowship in other relations. The Lord's table is not an exception but the epitome of our fellowship. Jesus Christ is the focus point for unity and the experience of the supper. We must not permit culture to undermine the function he intends for his supper.

c. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26: When Tradition Should Shape Worship.

The Corinthian situation was apparently quite confusing. It had split the body. The family was fragmented and hurt. The supper had become an occasion of division. Worship was divisive rather than unifying. Paul's answer to this situation is to return to "the tradition." He goes to the source--to the acts of Jesus Christ who is our pattern. (1) The historic supper of Jesus is the model for our supper. (2) The theological interpretation of that supper is the meaning of our supper. (3) This supper belongs to the Lord and he sits at the table as host--it is the Lord's supper. Paul's points them back to the foundational act and meaning of the supper to shape their present practice of this supper. Our task is the same. We look to the Last Supper and the new covenant meaning of this supper for guidance in our practice and understanding of the supper today.

d. 1 Corinthians 11:27-34: Recognizing the Body.

Form and function are intimately related. The form in which we experience the supper will shape its function in the life of the church. The Corinthian form of the supper segmented the church into factions and different socio-economic groups. Form reshaped the meaning of the supper at Corinth. Instead of unity, there were factions. The

42

body of Christ was divided. Consequently, Paul calls for a discerning/recognizing of the body as we eat together. We wait on each other so that we can share this experience together as one body. Application: does our form for the supper today enhance or undermine the function of the supper? We do not generally divided into socio-economic groups in our assemblies, but we do often focus on individualistic concerns. Does the symbolism and ritual of our present worship times express individualism or community? Does our form of the supper undermine or detract from the communal function of the supper?

2. Homily: Covenant Commitment or Arrogant Participation (1 Corinthians 10:14-22)

a. Exegesis.

See the notes above in the lecture material. The basic problem is arrogance (spiritual cockiness). Since idols are nothing, can we eat at their sacrificial feasts with impunity? Paul answers no. One cannot serve two masters; one cannot sit at two tables.

b. Theology.

Theologically, the issue is divine jealousy and covenantal loyalty. God is jealous for his people and he expects loyalty from them. The Lord's supper is a moment of covenant loyalty. It is a covenant meal in which there is a mutually binding oath of faithfulness to the covenant. This is an exclusive relationship. Consequently, God becomes jealous when we enter into relationships that entail another loyalty.

c. Application.

We cannot bind ourselves to God in covenant on Sunday and then live as we please Monday through Saturday. This covenant oath should shape our ethical life. We cannot eat the supper on Sunday and go to the strip club on Monday. We cannot eat the supper on Sunday and make a living through deceit and ethical compromise. We cannot bind ourselves to God on Sunday in covenant and then on Monday live under the dominion of mammon. We cannot serve two masters.

d. Homily.

(1) Narrative beginning: Red Sea, manna, fall in the wilderness. God has a people, but God seeks a holy people who reflect his values and are loyalty to him. Consequently, "sacraments" are no guarantee, but there is a constant call to loyalty, just as God is loyal (faithful).

(2) Corinthian narrative: some Corthinian believers thought that they could participate in idolatrous sacrifices and meals. Their life was

43

ethically divided, or their "spiritual" attitudes blinded them to the disloyalty of certain acts.

(3) Idolatry and Jealously: God is jealous for loyalty just as he is loyal to his people. Idolatry is disloyalty. Double-mindedness is the human attempt to placate God but at the same time autonomously seek our own desires/wants. We want to have our cake and eat it too.

(4) The text calls us to a serious ethical life in the context of the Lord's supper. Ethics and worship go together; neither can be separated from the other. Our communion with God grounds our ethics and our ethics reflects our communion with God. The Lord's supper is a time that ought to mirror that relationship.

(5) The Lord's supper is our covenant renewal where we pledge our loyalty to God, and it is God's faithfulness where we are assured of God's loyalty to us.

(6) The Lord's supper is no sacramental guarantee, but it is the assurance of God's faithfulness to those who approach the meal with a faith-commitment.

CONCLUSION: The Theological Meaning of the Supper.

A. Lord's Supper in the Context of Sanctification.

1. The symbolism is directly linked with the gospel event. The objective event of the supper re-presents the gospel of Christ. It is not just a sign, but a means. It is a participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is a means of concrete spiritual communion with Christ. There is a true spiritual communion and relation with Christ that is experienced in the context of this objective event. There is power in the supper: through faith there is forgiveness, power for living and assurance in the present. The redemptive-historical event is linked to our own personal history. We are assured of our link to Christ, our link to his historical act on our behalf, through eating and drinking with him.

2. Worship is a sanctifying experience--it is an entrance into the holy presence of God which renews us, sanctifies and sends us out for service. It is a moment of transformation and empowerment. The Lord's supper, along with the Word, as the central focus of the worship of early Christians testifies to this meaning. It is where we meet God--where we "see" him and commune with the risen Christ. The risen Christ is our host as we commune with him in the supper. We eat and drink in God's presence, and the moment is a holy one because God, the holy one, is present among his people for this meal.

3. Worship on the Lord's day, in celebration of the resurrection of Jesus, is a community event. It is a holy time/space for the community. At the center of that holy time/space is the proclamation of the gospel in word and deed--through preaching and eating/drinking.

44

B. A Theological Understanding of the Lord's Supper.

1. The Gracious Character of the Lord's Supper.

a. The supper is a moment through which God graciously communes with his people; it is a moment of holy presence among his people. This is both a sign and a means by which the transcendent God dwells among his people as Covenant Lord who sits as host at his covenant meal.

b. The gracious character of the moment is God's invitation to sit at his table and enjoy his fellowship. It is not just a memory of a past gracious act, but it is the present experience of God's grace through Jesus Christ. When the supper is human-centered and human-focused--when it is conceived merely on a horizontal level--then it has lost its fundament root.

c. The supper, like baptism, is first and foremost God's act. He invites us to his table where he hosts our communal fellowship. We only have horizontal fellowship because God has vertically established fellowship with him and we have fellowship with each other because our fellowship is in him.

d. This is the nature of our remembrance in the supper. It is where the gracious redemptive work of God is reactualized in our lives through ritual. We re-participate, remember and renew our experience of God's redemptive work in Jesus Christ.

2. The Ecclesiological Nature of the Lord's Supper.

a. It is the public confession/proclamation of the church. It is our witness to the world that we believe in the good news of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

b. It is the public confession/repentance of the church. It is a confession of our sinfulness. It is our public recognition that we need the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ and that we are unworthy to receive the grace that God is willing to give.

c. It is the public symbol and expression of the unity of the church. The one body eats the one bread and drinks the one cup. We are united in the name of Jesus Christ as God's unique mediator between us and him. When we sit at the table with each other, we demonstrate God's love for the diversity of humanity who now sit at the same table. The rich and the poor, the Jew and the Gentile, the slave and the free, males and females, sit at the table together in the presence of God. Diverse humanity is now united in a concrete moment of table fellowship.

d. It is the public renewal of the covenant (Passover background). We

45

rededicate and reaffirm our discipleship in this covenant meal. We invoke a covenant curse upon ourselves so that should we ever forsake the covenant, we eat and drink damnation upon ourselves.

e. It is an identification with the people of God over against the world. The fundamental environment of the covenant meal is communal. It is taken in community as a community. It should not reflect factions and schisms in the body, but should unite the body. As a communal event it is the symbol of the body's unity itself. Individualistic interpretations of the Lord's supper as some kind of private moment between God and an individual obscures the essential communal character of the event. While the Lord's supper is both a vertical (communion God) and horizontal event (communion with each other), in the NT its context, like its OT antecedents, it is fundamentally communal.

3. The Ethical Nature of the Lord's Supper.

a. Because the supper involves covenant renewal and an expression of covenant commitment, it expresses an understanding of covenantal obligations. Just as the covenant meal meant a dedication and commitment to the Lord, so does the Lord's supper. Paul makes this explicit application in 1 Cor. 10. Idolatry will evoke the Lord's jealousy, so one should not eat at the table of demons and at the table of the Lord. To eat the Lord's table is to commit oneself to his cause, his fellowship and his Lordship. And, one cannot have two masters or two Lords. The Lord's supper, then, reflects our ethical commitment to serve the Lord.

b. The supper ought to overcome social polarization within a congregation. Paul describes several in Corinth, such as strong and weak, rich and poor, Jew and Gentile, male and female. Different groups threaten the divide the church, and some are socially motivated (rich/poor) and others are functions of elitism (knowledgeable vs. unlearned). The supper calls the church to transcend such distinctions in unite in one moment of communion at the table of Christ. The supper ought to reflect the ethical commitments of the community rather than an occasion for the social and economic differences to divide the community. The manner in which the supper is conducted ought to reflect the values and ethics of Jesus Christ. Our table fellowship must be patterned after his. Consequently, who do we invite to the table and with whom do we choose to eat? See Luke 14:15-24. Indeed, we invite the oppressed, the poor, the handicapped to sit at the table in order to show "God's kindness" to them (cf. the example of David's relationship to Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel 9:1).

4. The Eschatological Nature of the Lord's Supper.

a. We participate in the supper looking toward the hope of the new

46

heaven and the new earth. We proclaim Christ in the light of his coming, as we anticipate it.

b. It is a realized eschatology which anticipates the full messianic banquet in the eschaton. We eat with the Lord at his table where he sits as the living host as we anticipate the eschatological messianic banquet where we will see the face of God.

47

Selected BibliographyThe Lord's Supper

Balasuriya, Tissa. The Eucharist and Human Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1978.

Ballie, D. M. The Theology of the Sacraments. London: Faber and Faber, 1957.

Barclay, A. The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Glasgow: Jackson, Wylie & Co., 1927.

Barclay, William. The Lord's Supper. London: SCM Press, 1967.

Barth, Markus. Rediscovering the Lord's Supper: Communion with Israel, with Christ and Among the Guests. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988.

Benoit, P., et. al., eds. The Breaking of Bread, Concilium 40. New York: Paulist, 1969.

Berquist, Jon L. Ancient Wine, New Wineskins: The Lord's Supper in Old Testament Perspective. St. Louis: Chalice, 1991.

Best, Thomas F. and Dagmar Heller, eds. Eucharistic Worship in Ecumenical Contexts: the Lima Litugy--and Beyond. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1998.

Bishop, Jonathan. Some Bodies: The Eucaharist and Its Implications. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1992.

Brilioth, Y. Eucharistic Faith and Practice Evangelical and Catholic. London: SPCK, 1930.

Cairns, David. In Remembrance of Me. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1967.

Chilton, Bruce. A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Clark, N. An Approach to a Study of the Sacraments. London: SCM Press, 1958.

Crockett, William R. The Eucharist: Symbol of Transformation. New York: Pueblo Pub. Co., 1989.

Cullmann, O. and F. J. Leenhardt, eds. Essays on the Lord's Supper. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1958.

Darragh, Neil. When Christians Gather: Issues in the Celebration of Eucharist. New York: Paulist Press, 1996.

Davies, Horton. Bread of Life & Cup of Joy: Newer Ecumenical Perspectives on the Eucharist. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Deiss, Lucien. It's the Lord's Supper: The Eucharist of Christians. New York: Paulist Press, 1976.

Delorme, J. The Eucharist in the New Testament. Baltimore: Helicon, 1964.

Dix, Dom Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre Press, 1945.

48

Emminghaus, Johannes H. and Theodor Maas-Ewerd. The Eucharist: Essence, Form and Celebration. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997.

Feely-Harnik, Gillian. The Lord's Table: the Meaning of Food in Early Judaism and Christianity. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1994.

Gresham, Charles R. and Tom Lawson, eds. The Lord's Supper: Historical Writings on its Meaning to the Body of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Hellwig, Monika. The Eucharist and the Hunger of the World. New York: Paulist Press, 1976.

Heron, A. I. C. Table and Tradition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.

Higgins, A. J. B. The Lord's Supper in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1952.

Jasper, R. C. D. and G. J. Cumming, eds. Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. New York: Scribner's, 1966.

Kilpatrick, G. D. The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Kilmartin, Edward J. The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Kodell, Jerome. The Eucharist in the New Testament. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988.

Kreider, Eleanor. Given For You: A Fresh Look at Communion. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998.

Lash, Nicholas. His Presence in the World: A Study in Eucharistic Worship and Theology. London: Sheed and Ward, 1968.

LaVerdiere, Eugene. The Eucharist in the New Testament and in the Early Church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.

LaVerdiere, Eugene. The Breaking of Bread: the Development of the Eucharist according to the Acts of the Apostles. Chicago, IL: Liturgy Training Publications, 1998.

Leon-Dufour, Xavier. Sharing the Eucharistic Bread: The Witness of the New Testament. New York: Paulist, 1987.

Lewis, Warren. The Lord's Supper. Austin: Sweet, 1966.

Lietzmann, H. Mass and Lord's Supper. Leiden: Brill, 1964.

McCormick, Scott, Jr. The Lord's Supper: A Biblical Intepretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.

McElvaney, William K. Eating and Drinking at the Welcome Table: The Holy Supper for

49

All People. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1998.

McGowan, Andrew Brian. Ascetic Eucharists: Food and Drink in Early Christian Ritual Meals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

McGowan, Michael. The Bread of Life: the Eucharist. New York: Alba House, 1998.

Meyer, Ben F., ed. One Loaf, One Cup: Ecumenical Studies of 1 Cor 11 and Other Eucharistic Texts. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1993.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Last Supper and Lord's Supper. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Marxsen, Willi. The Lord's Supper as a Christological Problem. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.

Moloney, Francis J. A Broken Body for a Broken People: The Eucharist in the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Moloney, Raymond. Eucharist (Problems in Theology). Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1995.

Paris, Andrew. What the Bible Says About the Lord's Supper. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co., 1986.

Perry, John Michael. Exploring the Evolution of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1994.

Powers, Joseph M. Eucharistic Theology. New York: Herder and Herder, 1967.

Rahner, K. The Church and the Sacraments. Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1963.

Reumann, John. The Supper of the Lord: The New Testament, Ecumenical Dialogues, and Faith and Order on Eucharist. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Sasse, H. This is My Body. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1959.

Schillebeeckx, E. Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963.

Schmemann, Alexander. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1988.

Schweizer, E. The Lord's Supper accordcing to the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.

Shurden, Walter B., ed. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publications, 1999.

Smith, Dennis E. and Hal E. Taussey. Many Tables: The Eucharist in the New Testament and Liturgy Today. Philadelphia: Trinity International, 1990.

Stoffer, Dale R., ed. The Lord's Supper: Believer's Church Perspectives. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1997.

50

Stone, D. The History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist. London: Longmans, 1909.

Thurian, Max and Geoffrey Wainwright, eds. Baptism and Eucharist: Ecumenical Convergence in Celebration. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

VanderWilt, Jeffrey Thomas. A Church Without Borders: the Eucharist and the Church in Ecumenical Perspective. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Wainwright, Geoffrey. Eucharist and Eschatology. London: Epworth Press, 1971

Wallis, C. L., ed. The Table of the Lord: A Communion Encyclopedia. New York: Harper, 1958.

Watkins, Keith. The Feast of Joy: The Lord's Supper in Free Churches. St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1977.

White, James F. Sacraments as God's Self-Giving. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983.

Willimon, William H. Sunday Dinner: The Lord's Supper and the Christian Life. Nashville, TN: The Upper Room, 1981.

Yarnold, G. D. The Bread Which We Break. London: Oxford University Press, 1960.

51