I just posted a new article on my column at my church's website, but I wanted to post it here as well, because I think that the thoughts are relevant to all churches everywhere. And it might start a good conversation. =)
WHAT ARE WE DOING IN CHURCH?
I wrote in a previous article that many Christians go faithfully to church every Sunday but really have no idea what they are doing there. They think that somehow that is all that is required of them: to sit in a pew for an hour, listen to a sermon, and call it time spent. They consider it just another obligation, much like going to a VFW post meeting. Now obviously this is wrong. However, I think that those who think of church as a social club are probably closer to the truth than they realize. As Jesus said, "You are very near to the Kingdom of God." Why? Because one of the primary reasons for going to church in the first place is for fellowship. The Scriptures say, "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing," which sounds like it could have been written in the 21st century as well as the first! Why should we be meeting together? The writer goes on, " let us encourage one another." We go to church to be with others who believe as we do, to "encourage one another and build each other up" (1 Thessalonians 5:11).
Some people attend church because it has a dynamic preacher. When that preacher leaves, they do too. People, that's not Christianity; that's a personality cult. Other people leave churches, saying, "This church isn't meeting my needs I'm going where my needs can be met." Folks, Christianity isn't about "my" anything! Remember those verses in Romans that tell us to die to ourselves? When you go to church, do you see others who are hurting? Folks, guess what? It is THEIR needs we should be concerned about, not our own! Remember Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane? What did he say? "Lord, meet my needs?" NO! He prayed, "Lord, NOT MY WILL, but Thine be done!" In my church, over the door of the sanctuary, there is a sign. Coming in through the door it reads, "Enter to Worship," and going out it says, "Exit to Serve." I would suggest that we should rather "Enter to Serve," that it is the hurting people in that building we should be looking after first.
If you are in a hurting church, I would submit to you that it may even be a SIN to leave! (I'm not saying that it always is, only that it may be.) In 1st Corinthians chapter 11, Paul speaks of the Lords Supper, and makes this ominous warning: "Whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body drinks judgment unto himself." And what is the body of Christ? It is the church! It is your brothers and sisters sitting next to you in the pews on Sunday, and going home to the hurts they never have taken care of because you are too busy worried about "the church" meeting YOUR needs. WE are the church, not that building. This is a frightening warning: every time we partake of the Lord's Supper, and yet we do not recognize that the hurting person next to us is a part of Christ's body and in need of our care, we are damning ourselves! Paul said that people get sick and even DIE from this oversight. Perhaps we should take the Lord's Supper, as well as our own commitment, a little more seriously?
Paul writes we are to "carry each other's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). And what is that law? Is it not, "Love one another" (John 13:34)? Benjamin Franklin once told the factious rebels that were our Founding Fathers, "We must all hang together, or we will most certainly all hang separately." This is even more true in the Christian walk, for of a truth, "it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!" And just as a part of the body, cut off from the life-sustaining support of the body and lain on a table, will soon die, so too will our spiritual lives wither and die without the life-sustaining support of the body of Christ, the Church!
"But the people in church are such hypocrites!" Well, welcome to real life! The world is full of hypocrites and sinners! The people in the church are just admitted sinners, and the church is their support group. We don't stop going to the grocery store because it is full of hypocrites, do we? It is in coming together that we learn to "bearing with one another in love" (Ephesians 4:2). The Bible calls the church "the family of believers" (Gal 6:10), and church is the family reunion. So what if you don't like brother what's-his-name or sister so-and-so? Are there not members of your own family you would rather not associate with? But to keep peace in the family, do you not learn to tolerate them when you come together as a family? So it is with the family of God! Paul writes we are to learn to "accept one another (Romans 15:7) and "bear with one another." And how do we learn to do this? By coming to the family reunions!
"Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing." Our family needs us, and we need our family. As the song goes, "I'm so glad I'm a part of the family of God." In recognizing this, we can truly say with David, "I was glad when they said to me, 'let us go to the house of the Lord."
-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000
Answers
John,
I sure enough do agree that we need to love and care for one another
more!! My SS lesson last week was that one of the great evangelism
methods that we have is to love and care for each other SO much that
those outside will want what we have... that being Christ in us!!
I do have to point out my disagreement with your use of the
word 'body' in 1 Cor. 11. As you know, Danny and I had a pretty long
discussion concerning that passage in another thread. I am not
convinced that the body referred to is anything more than Christ's
body sacrificed for us. That is what we are to remember... that is
what Christ indicated when he established it. So... to say that
"every time we partake of the Lord's Supper, and yet we do not
recognize that the hurting person next to us is a part of Christ's
body and in need of our care, we are damning ourselves!" is to me
a stretch.
We definitely DO need to love and care for our Brothers & Sisters...
all of the time.
Thanks!
-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000
I appreciate what you're saying, John, and copied and pasted it to
another forum. Someone there pointed out the same thing Robin did
(but he also agreed with the main message) and it immediately came to
my mind that there are two different Greek words translated 'body'.
There is the 'church' ~ 'ekklesia' ~ the 'body of Christ' and then
there is 'soma', which is the word used in I Corinthians 11, meaning
Christ's body in this context. Our English word 'somatic' comes from
this Greek word.
Respectfully,
-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000
Robin. I wondered when I first heard that teaching as well a while
back. But as I began to study, I began to see that it was very true.
I believe when Paul talks about not discerning the body of the Lord,
he is also talking about the saints. In I Corinthians, believers are
bread and we are the body of Christ. This is a thread running
throughout the letter.
I think the following verse demonstrate the point:
1 Corinthians 10:16-17
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of
the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all
partakers of that one bread.
See. We are bread. In the next chapter, Paul expands on communion.
there were divisions among the saints (divisions in the body when
they met to eat the supper. Paul rebuked them for it. The saints
that came early ate up the food and drank the wine. The poor were
apparently coming later and not having enough to eat. There may have
been a divsion between the rich and poor.
This was wrong. The saints should have discerned the body of Christ
better and eaten in unity. Peter may have been guilty of something
similar when not eating with the Gentiles.
The Corinthians were not discerning one another as the body of
Christ, and then were not eating the actual bread with the proper
respect. They were supposed to remember the Lord, but they weren't
regarding his body. How? by eating in an unworthy manner? In what
way? Divisions, not regarding the poor. Possibly gluttony along
with drunkeness.
Let's look at the bread and body thread running through the epistle.
Chapter 5- Christians are bread in it's uncooked state. Chapter 10.
We are one body and one bread because we partake of that one bread.
Then, in chapter 11, Paul talks about the Corinthians not regarding
the body of the Lord when they ate the supper. Then, in chapter 12,
just a few words later, he says that we are the body of Christ!
-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000
John,
I really agree with a lot of points you made in your message. You
mentioned leaving church because of not liking the preacher. Many
people make the decsion of what church to go to based on who one man
in the church is. I think if we look at the way the early churches
were to be set up according to the Bible, and consider this matter,
we can see how wrong we are to have our focus on the preacher man
instead of the Man Christ Jesus.
Today, one man fills the pulpit and preaches in many churches. This
is a
Protestant tradition, which evolved out of Roman Catholic tradition.
In much of
Protestantism, the central focus of the meting becomes hearing one
man preach a
sermon. In Roman Catholicism, the center focus of the meeting was
Holy
Communion.
If we consider the information the Bible gives us about how to
conduct church meetings, we can see a drastic difference from the way
things are done in most churches today. Early Christians came
together 'to break bread.' Look at this: "Acts 20:7 And upon the
first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break
bread,.."
Why did they come together? To break bread.
In Acts 2, we read about the Holy Spirit falling on the disciples,
Peter
preaching, and 300 repenting. What did these early converts do?
"Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine
and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
Fellowship and breaking bread were right up there with the apostles
teaching and prayer. Wow! I understand what you were saying about
the 'social club' thing.
Back to the issue of 'breaking bread' notice that this was one of the
4 basic
things the very early church did. Just think about the early church.
If you
were the apostles, what would you have to draw from so that you could
know what to do in church? Of course, you would have been to the
temple and the synagogue. But you would also have had the teaching
and experience of being with Jesus.
What did Jesus do? He did a lot of teaching. He taught in the open
air, but He also got right down where people were and ate with them
and talked to them. He was accused by others for eating with
sinner's, but he also spent time with His disciples. He built
relationships with them.
And if you were going to know how to do the Lord's Supper in the
ekllesia
(assembly/church), what would you have to draw from.
Well, the apostles had never been in a roman Catholic church. They
had not seen a solemn meal with tiny communion wafers being put on
people's tongues by a RCC priest. They had never been to a
Protestant church that had communion practices that evolved out of
RCC practices. They would remember the night that Jesus Himself
instituted the practice. Jesus sat down with the disciples and ate a
REAL MEAL with them. they reclined at a table. They had a
conversation. They ate. They talked. They fellowshipped.
Jesus often taught at the table, in a real life atmosphere. In this
type of
atmosphere, people could ask questions (uninterrupted speachers were
not the only way of teaching back then.)
So it should not be a surprise to find that when we carefully read
the Communion passages in the Bible, we see that the early church
came together and had a REAL MEAL. Jude makes mentions of 'love
feasts.' I get the impression from what I've read that it is
generally accepted that the early Christians gatehred together and
ate a meal together.
We can see this situation by reading I Corinthians closely. the
Corinthians
were going too far. Some were going ahead and eating up all the food
and
getting drunk before the others (possibly the poor) had arrived.
Their attempt at the Lord's Supper wasn't even truly the Lord's
Supper because of their behavior. The precedent Paul gives for the
Lord's Supper is I Corinthians 11 was an actual real mean that Jesus
ate with His disciples.
We can also see that the New Testament does not tell us that there is
to be just one man at the front in every meeting always giving an
interrupted sermon. Even Paul, when he came to the breaking of bread
meeting and taught all night held a discussion. Look up the word for
'teach' in Acts 20:7.
In fact, in I Corinthians 14, the chapter that tells us commands of
God for how to have church meetings, we see that in the early church,
the various members brought psalms, doctrines, tongues,
interpretations, and revelations. Everything was to be done unto
edifying. In the positive hypothetical example of a church meeting
Paul describes, all prohesy, and an unbeliever or unlearned person
comes in and falls on his face and testifies that God is in them of a
truth. Paul writes 'for ye may all prophecy one by one.' These were
instructions for the church meeting! Paul even gave instructions for
how a prophet could be interrupted by another speaker!
Just think about that. An interactive meeting where more than one
member of the body could share. I Corinthians 14 doesn't make
'eldership' a speaking gift per se. Some think a meeting must be
channeled through the elders. the elders were to be 'apt to
teach.' They were to be examples to the flock. They taught, and the
less mature brothers in the flock were to follow their example.
Since the early church had a strong sense of community a lot of
'eldering' had to do with taking care of the community. Elders, as
leaders, may have spoken a lot in meetings, but teachers and others
with speaking gifts would ahve spoken as well.
So let's think about our current situation where in so many churches
one man speaks. The 'pastoral system' where one man speaks on Sunday
is quite popular. That man may get another title other than 'pastor'
but the one man sermon is considered to be the purpose of the meeting
by a lot of people. What a shock it is to see that the Bible doesn't
teach us to have a one man sermon! Paul gives instructions for a
meeting with many little 'sermons.' There is no instruction for
everyone to sit and listen to one man talk!
When we consider that the apostles apointed elders- plural- rather
than one man, This should make us take notice. If many were
prophesying and teaching, and there were a plurality of eldership,
how could the church be identified with only one man. Some people
don't go to a church because they don't like one man there, the
preacher. But in many cases, in early churches, we might imagine
that someone visting a meeting would see the focus of the meeting,
not as the one man at the front preaching, but the Man Christ Jesus.
If an unbeliever comes to a church, and the secrets of his heart are
made
manifest by the anointed speech of preacher Bill, we could imagine he
might
think that God is with preacher Bill. But if 'all prophesy,' as in
Paul's
scenario, and the secrets of his heart is made manifest, the man says
'God is in you of a truth.' You plural. Not just preacher Bill. He
might not know who the leader is, except for the fact that God is
leading.
I read an email from a retired Greek professor in which he expressed
his belief that 'speaking to yoruselves in psalm, hymsn, andspiritual
songs' refered to congregational singing. I came across a quote from
Tertullian's Apology, that says that after the supper, water was
brought for the hands. Then each one would be brought forward to sing
a song from the scriptures or from their heart to the Lord. Keep in
mind that I Corinthians 14:26 mentions 'psalm' as something someone
might share in a meeting. Perhaps it were the practice to have
mutual fellowship after a meeting.
Let us just imagine what an early church meeting might have looked
like,
hypothetically. A group of saints gather in one of the homes of the
believers. Continually we read about churches in homes int he
scriptures. Centuries later in Armenia and a little later under
Constantine church buildings were constructed. Early saints met in
homes.
The saints gather in a home of one of the believers on Saturday
night, the
first day of the week according to Jewish reckoning. Perhaps they
bring their bread. Having read I Corinthians, these saints are
careful not to begin eating the supper until the poor slaves have a
chance to finish up their work, slip out, and attend. Gradually, the
saints that will attend filter in. As theearly arrivals come in,
they greet one another with a holy kiss. They talk with one
another. A couple of saints in the corner are praying together for
the salvation of a loved one. A few other on the stairs are having a
discussion about doctrine. One of them is a new convert and has a
lot of questions. After everyone has arrived, the saints gather
around the table, reclining on their elbows and laying on the floor.
Water is brought around. The servants in this household are
Christians. An
elder asks the servants to be seated, and takes a bowl and a pitcher
of water around, and begins to pour water over saints hands. There
are many saints, so his wife rises to help him. A deacon is bringing
food in from the kitchen along with the husband and wife who host the
meeting. They set out bread, dip for the bread, some fruit and
vegetables, and bring in wine as well.
When the elder is finished washing the saints hands, he sits down.
He asks if anyone would like to pray for the food. Another elder
makes a speech before praying. His speech is about theimportance of
the bread, that it is a
rememberance of the body of Christ. He describes the crucifixion,
and explains about the wine as well. He offers a prayer for both.
Others offer up prayers of thanksgiving in turn. Eventually, the
prayer stops. The saints pass around the bread, breaking it. They
eat the food. Saints chat about different things. There are
different conversations going on.
A young woman talks with an older woman about the problems of being a
new wife. The new convert asks other saints if it is wrong to go to
the shows in the amphitheater. Eventually, another brother, a
prophet, addresses the group and shares a short message with the
group. They discuss the issue. Then they wash their hands, and
exchange the holy kiss. The table is removed from the room, and the
saints find new places to sit.
The prophet who spoke earlier stands. He speaks for a while. Another
brother stands, and the prophet falls silent, allowing the other to
speak. the second brother continues the same message, with a little
different style. After this, a deacon says, 'amen' tothe message. A
few saints share about how the word applies to them, and encourage
the siants to heed the message. There is silence for a while as
people consider the prophecy.
And elderly saint stands and sings a beautiful song none of them had
ever heard before. In fact, the elderly saint had never heard it
before either. It was a type of spiritual song. A teenager stands
and sings an Old Testament Psalm.
A brother with the gift of teaching stands and unrolls a Torah
scroll. The story he reads is the very story the OT Psalm the other
brother had sung about. He reads a passage from Numbers, applying
the passage to the lives of the saints. Others listen, and share
insights. Toward the end of the meeting, there is another outbreak
of prophecy. A few of the saints excuse themselves, and others send
them away in peace. The meeting turns into small groups of saints
talking. A few of the groups are praying for individuals. One of the
elders is talking with the new convert, and answering his questions.
Late at night, some of the younger men are still sitting around
chatting with the hosts and two of the elders. The other saints have
gone home.
What a great meeting. They had the Lord's Supper. They had
fellowship. They learned from the scriptures. They were edified.
Is it no wonder modern meetings so often lack fellowship? Is it no
wonder that people decide to go to another church just because they
don't like the preacher? If we were to return to a more primative New
Testament model, under the leadership of the Spirit, we might just
see more fellowship and love in our meetings.
Reading the new Testament, it is easy to get the impression that the
believers actually knew one another. They did not just recognize the
back of oneanother's necks (from sitting in the pew behind another
believer.) The way they met was different. Eating a dinner
together is a lot better atmosphere for getting to know others than a
modern formal church service. New Testament meetings are better for
learning, sharing, and growing in gifts than traditional ones. Let's
get back to the body life described in the Bible.
Remember the four things the eearly Jersualem church continued in:
the apostles teaching fellowship, fellowship, breaking of bread, and
prayer. Fellowship was important.
Notice the imporant place fellowship has according to John:
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we
have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his
Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Wow, if we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another.
Christians are members of the body of Christ. Just think about
that. We are parts of His body. Some people think that the ONLY
thing that is important is a _personal_ relationship with Jesus
Christ. But the Bible does not teach this. Other members of the
Lord's church are members of the body of Christ. They are in
Christ. We need each other. If we walk in the light, we will have
fellowship with one another. we are one body. We are one bread.
Jesus told us what he two most important commandments were. We must
love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. And we must love our
neighbor as ourself.
Let us think about what the church is supposed to be like. Let us
also think what God wants for individual human beings, and for
nations.
The church is supposed to be like a loving family. By our love,
Jesus said, the world will know that we are His disciples. We are to
love one another and care for one another. If a new believer came to
a local church in the first century that was walking in the light, he
would have a new family. He would have brothers and sisters willing
to lay down their lives for him. He would have someone to bear his
burdens. He would belong. He would be loved.
What doesGod want people to do? Man fell. Originally God made man
good. But now man is in sin. God wants men (and women) to repent
and be justified by faith in Christ Jesus. He wants us to love Him.
He wants us to love others.
Why did so many unbelievers become Christians in the early days.
Pagans spoke evil of Christians. Christians, at times, could be
tortured and killed for their faith. A pagan might watch
Christiansdie for their faith. He might talk to a Christian and hear
the Gospel. He might go to a Christian meeting accompanied by a
Christian, and observe the meeting. He might see hteir love and see
how they were the disciples of Jesus- and eventually believe and
repent.
One of the reasons some young people join street gangs is because
they want to belong to a group. They want to know what it is like to
have friends that will be loyal to them. Many young people involved
in gangs in the US do not have good family lives.
The desire to belong to a group of people that loves you is a natural
desire that humans have. Loving and being loved is something humans
seek. God wants to restore human beings to the way we should be. He
wants us to love one another. To do that properly, people must
repent and become a part of the church.
Because of these things, i am interested in house churches. Many
early Christians met in homes. Christians, of course, can meet in
many kinds of buildings. Meeting in homes does have advantages. One
is that the atmosphere is something we associate with meeting with
friends and family- an atmosphere which might be better for New
Testament style meetings than a traditional building with pews and a
pulpit. Another reason is that church growth involves finding
another home to meet in instead of spending money on a big building
used only a few hours a week. Here in this part of the world, funds
are scarcer and church buildings have a tendency to be seen as a
threat and get burned down.
Another reason I am excited in house churches is that there are many
house churches that are getting back to Biblical principles. They
meet and have a meal together, sharing the bread and cup. They
practice mutual ministry, and seek to fellowship with one another,
and appreciate the presence of Christ in one another and in their
midst as they gather.
Meeting in a home or even having 'open meetings' doesn't guarantee
that there will be this kind of love and community, but it sure can
help.
-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000
Link: While I disagree with your house church crusade (although to
your credit you say that it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to
meet in buildings, and I think that churches ought to have small
groups meeting in homes, so we have some common ground) and the Lord's
Supper as a meal (I still fail to see what the big deal is), it is
nice to see that there are some things on which we agree. :)
Forum: Does anyone mind if I post my articles in the forum as I write
them? They seem to be such good convo starters and I feel they should
have a wider readership than they do (alas, that online newsletter
canned me for being a "campbellite" and "fundamentalist").
Who knows, I may be a Standard Press staff writer some day LOL! (Yea,
right.)
Does this bring back any memories? When I was a boy, about 30 years
ago or so when Cincinatti was still just a Bible seminary, our pastor
and youth pastor were both graduates of CBS. The youth pastor told me
that they had a little song they used to sing, to the tune of "On
Christ the Solid Rock I Stand"; it went something like this: "My faith
is based on nothing less / Than CBS and Standard Press ..."
-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000
John,
Your writings are good.... I don't know what the 'inside' scoop is on
Standard or College Press, but I have known some 'ordinary' people
who have gotten writings published. You never know... if you don't
try.
-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000
Link,
Could those present with Christ when he instituted the partaking of
the loaf and cup have known that they should examine themselves
concerning the 'body' of like believers? I don't think so... they
could, however, have understood that they should do it in remembrance
of Christ... for that is what he said. I feel that Christ
implemented it fully.... he didn't leave anything out (like saying
when you partake "recognize that the hurting person next to [you]
is a part of [my] body and in need of [your] care"...or you are
damning yourselves!)
Now, of course, we are to care for our Brothers & Sisters in Christ.
When we partake and reflect upon Christ's body sacrificed for our
sins and realize that we are now looked upon as his brother or sister
and realize that those sitting next to us are not only our brothers
and sisters, but Christ's, then we will love them dearly and want to
help them. So, the 'body' of believers is intimately linked to
the 'body' of Christ (as the verses you quote point out).... but to
indicate that the main emphasis of communion is on the body of
believers takes away from our personal and intimate thanksgiving that
Christ sacrificed his body & blood for us.
-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000
Robin,
I don't know that I would say that that was the 'main emphasis' but
even if it were a secondary emphasis, the Corinthians behavior was
enough for Paul to warn them about the Lord's judgement.
Why would Paul warn the Corinthians about partaking of the Lord's body
in an unworthy manner? What were the Corinthians doing? They had
divisions among them. They were not waiting for others to arrive.
Some were eating up all the food and not leaving enough for the
others, possibly the food. Apparently, there was a problem with
drunkeness. They were nto supposed to eat the meal because they were
hungry. Theyw ere supposed to remember the body and blood of the
Lord.
Do you sidagree that the picture we see in I Corinthians and in the
other scriptures that mention commuion, is of saints actually eating a
meal together?
-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000
Whew! Connie's message had me worried for a bit. I have myself, in
Communion meditations, occasionally suggested that one possible
meaning (or perhaps a "part" of the intended meaning) for "discerning
the body" in I Cor. 11:29 might be to have proper concern for the
other Christians one is with, treating them as fellow members of "the
body of Christ", i.e. the church.
I knew Connie was wrong about one thing. EKKLESIA does not, in
itself, mean "body". It comes from a root meaning "called out" and is
probably more accurately rendered in English as "congregation",
"assembly", or "convocation". But could there be some other word for
"body" that I was forgetting, so that when I Cor. 11 speaks of the
bread representing the "body" of Christ, and when chapter 12 speaks of
the church being the "body" of Christ, they are different words?
On Sunday I finally had time to check. In I Cor. 11:24 ("this is my
body, which is for you"); 11:29 ("not recognising the body"); 12:12
("the body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts" -- only a
few short paragraphs later, BTW); and 12:27 ("now you are the body of
Christ, and each one of you is a part of it"), the same word, SOMA, is
used in all these cases.
Robin Cornell raises the question, if I'm understanding him correctly,
of whether or not the disciples present in the upper room when Christ
instituted the Lord's Supper would have understood "body" in this
sense of the church. I think they probably wouldn't have, but Christ
himself, when he instituted the Lord's Supper, would have known what
was to come, and might have had this in HIS mind. Later, Paul, as
inspired interpreter of the events and teachings as he "received
[them] from the Lord", gave further explanation of the meaning of the
Supper.
Even though Paul doesn't spell it out in detail ("Now children, when I
talk about 'recognising the body of Christ' in the Communion, I am
referring to you remembering that you are all part of the 'body of
Christ' ..."), when we put it all together it appears as though Paul
intends us to connect the two somehow. He starts by condemning them
for the way they are celebrating the Supper in a selfish way, not
looking out for others in the way they should, and with divisions
among themselves; he tells them what the Lord has told him about how
the Supper was instituted and what it means; he then tells them that
if they do it without "recognising the body of Christ" they will be
condemned; then he goes on in succeeding paragraphs (and remember that
the chapter divisions are artificial and not in the original) to speak
about how the church, as the "body of Christ" here on earth, is made
up of many members with different kinds of abilities. And once again,
there is a focus on how they have not been treating each other with
proper consideration.
Paul seems to have enjoyed puns. I think I'm right in saying that
this is not the only place where something is ambiguous and where more
than one meaning is not only possible but appears to have been
intended! Certainly we are to remember Christ's physical body which
suffered for us on the cross. But if we have divisions among us (the
body of Christ on earth) when we celebrate this Supper, are we
bringing honour or dishonour to His name?
-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000
Hello, Benjamin,
I repost from above, in order to comment:
I appreciate what you're saying, John, and copied and pasted it to
another forum. Someone there pointed out the same thing Robin did
(but he also agreed with the main message) and it immediately came to
my mind that there are two different Greek words translated 'body'.
There is the 'church' ~ 'ekklesia' ~ the 'body of Christ' and then
there is 'soma', which is the word used in I Corinthians 11, meaning
Christ's body in this context. Our English word 'somatic' comes from
this Greek word.
Respectfully,
-- Connie (hive@gte.net), August 11, 2000.
In specific detail:
there are two different Greek words translated 'body'. There is
the 'church' ~ 'ekklesia' ~ the 'body of Christ'
-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000
From your post:
I knew Connie was wrong about one thing. EKKLESIA does not, in
itself, mean "body". It comes from a root meaning "called out" and is
probably more accurately rendered in English
as "congregation", "assembly", or "convocation". But could there be
some other word for "body" that I was forgetting, so that when I Cor.
11 speaks of the bread representing the "body" of Christ, and when
chapter 12 speaks of the church being the "body" of Christ, they are
different words?
Benjamin, I have always said that 'ekklesia' means 'assembly', which
is translated 'church' in our translations, is it not? And 'body of
Christ' in these contexts means the called-out ones, as you say. The
people. Since the words for the buildings Christians met in (other
than homes) were 'temple' and 'synagogue', when the word
translated 'church' is used, it means the people, doesn't it?
I don't quite understand what you mean with this post, (perhaps
because I've been awake since 6:30 A.M. yesterday (Monday) and have
had too much coffee and conversation today to sleep. ~ Been gone on
an all-day outing with two sons and their families 'up North' (3
hours' driving each way). It's now 3:50 A.M. Tuesday.
Sorry to not understand exactly what you're getting at, since you
seem to agree on the 'soma' part.
I wanted to get this off now because I know it is 3:50 P.M. in Hong
Kong and you might not get to answer it until Wednesday your time, if
I send it later this morning after I've slept.
Respectfully,
-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000
Connie,
I'm off schedule myself, having gotten up at 5:20 this morning (H.K.
time) to take my daughter Megan to the airport to go back to the U.S.
for the fall semester. By the time I got back home I was falling
asleep so took a short nap then and another after lunch. That leaves
me doing things now in the late afternoon that I usually do in the
morning or early afternoon. Anyway ....
It's possible I misunderstood either the meaning or the intent of your
earlier posting. If so, I apologise if I offended you by what I
said or how I said it.
In his article, John had used the admonition about "discerning the
body" or "recognising the body" in I Cor. 11:29 to refer to how we
treat each other as fellow Christians within the "body of Christ", the
church. Someone else had said that taking this particular verse to
refer to the church was inappropriate -- that it could not mean the
church in this passage, but ONLY the physical body of Christ --
(and/or the communion bread, as in transubstantiation?).
You SEEMED to be agreeing with this second person -- that the "body"
could not mean the church in this verse, and SEEMED to be saying that
the reason why it could not mean the church was because a different
word was used. You said, "it immediately came to my mind that there
are two different Greek words translated 'body'. There is the
'church' ~ 'ekklesia' ~ the 'body of Christ' and then
there is 'soma', which is the word used in I Corinthians 11,
meaning Christ's body in this context."
Now, even though the church, the EKKLESIA, is CALLED, the "body" of
Christ (in Greek an English both), the word EKKLESIA is NEVER
"translated 'body'". (Nor is it ever "translated" "bride", even
though the church is also called the "bride of Christ".) In EVERY*
case where the church is called a "body", it is not the word EKKLESIA
that is used, but the word SOMA. Therefore the SAME word is used in I
Cor. 11:29 ("without recognising the body") as in the verses in I Cor.
12 where it is quite clearly the church that is being called a body.
Given that his overall topic in chapter 11 is not just the Lord's
Supper itself, but the inappropriateness of celebrating the Lord's
Supper in the way that they had been doing -- selfishly and without
"waiting for" each other -- I think it quite likely that at least a
part of his meaning in 11:29 had to do with our attitude toward the
other members of the church rather than only the physical body of the
Lord.
(*I did find ONE passage where some English translations use "body"
and the word "SOMA" is not there. In the NIV, Eph. 4:25 says, "...
for we are all members of one body." In the Greek, it simply says,
"... for we are all members of one another.")
By the way, another passage that is very relevant is I Cor. 10:16-17
-- "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a
participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we
break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one
loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one
loaf.
-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000
Hi, Benjamin,
You didn't offend me, but I can imagine that there are times when
you'd LIKE to. ;-) ;-)
First of all, I agreed with John's post COMPLETELY and uncritically
(but then, I like John a lot).
Then after posting to another forum and after Robin Cornell's post (I
think he's CC/CoC is he not?), HE said that he considered the use to
mean our fellow believers 'was [is] a stretch]' The other poster at
the other forum stated something similar. So when I reflected
(perhaps too quickly) that in the context of John's stated verse ~ I
Corinthians 11 ~ 'soma' is the Greek word used, so that in that
context both Robin and the other person were correct.
In the one you refer to (Ephesians 4:25) the word used is 'mele' is
it not? ~ in other words 'members'. (Probably one of the places where
some have gotten that term to designate congregants of their
churches).
Earlier in Ephesians (verse 4, I think) the word 'somatos' and 'soma'
are used. (Hey! ~ that year of Greek is FINALLY of some use. Even
though I didn't get much further than 'alpha, beta, gamma, delta' and
some vocabulary words, now I can sound out the words I find in the
Interlinear NIV, Parallel lNTGE).
In another passage (I've forgotten the one) we are stated to
be 'members, one of another'. Something about we are not all the
same parts of the one body ~ in the 'gifts' passages, if I'm not
mistaken.
It seems as though every poster on this thread agrees that we have
TREMENDOUS responsibilities to our fellow believers. We are
instructed to love them as we love Christ.
But actually, we have similar responsibilites to the whole world ~ if
we have done these things to the least of thes our brethren, we have
done them to Him. And not just to our brethren only. We are to love
our enemies, and do good to those who hate us. If we love only our
brethren, do not even the tax-collectors do that?
That commands me to love people whom I would not ordinarily love, and
do good for and pray for those who despitefully use me. (I will
admit that is difficult at times ~ but I WANT God's grace to be
operative in me.)
Hope you've gotten some rest from your 'off-schedule'. I have.
In Him,
-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000
Link,
You said, "They were nto supposed to eat the meal because they
were hungry. They were supposed to remember the body and blood of the
Lord." I agree completely. I think that was the problem... they
were just eating an ordinary meal (having an unorganized Potluck) and
not remembering Christ's sacrifice. Paul says, "When you come
together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat.... Why? Because
they were making it an ordinary meal..."Don't you have homes to
eat and drink in?"
You then ask, "Do you sidagree that the picture we see in I
Corinthians and in the other scriptures that mention commuion, is of
saints actually eating a meal together?" I am not sure how this
relates to what we are to 'remember' during communion... except what
I pointed out above: we are not to be distracted from remembering
Christ (ie., by eating to get full). You yourself said, "They
were nto supposed to eat the meal because they were hungry."...
well, if they weren't supposed to eat because they were hungry...
then why have a meal? ....Rather, just focus on the meaning of the
emblems....
Paul says, "If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that
when you meet together it may not result in judgment." (1 Cor.
11:34a) Now, if I am hungry and have a complete meal at home and
then gather with my church family to remember the Lord through the
partaking of the loaf & cup, I don't beleive it would be expected or
prudent that I sit down to Steak & Potatoes, etc. first -- :-)
Well, I have to go eat... I'm getting hungry!! :-)
Thanks!
-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000
Connie,
You said, "...and after Robin Cornell's post (I think he's CC/CoC
is he not?)". ...... I'm a Christian. :-)
I do usually associate and worship with others who hold in common the
beleif that baptism is essential for salvation... among
other 'conservative' beliefs. I would hope that CC/CoC would convey
that... but I'm afraid it doesn't always.
I was not offended in the least by your comment/question... but would
like to know what relevance you saw in adding it to your remarks?
Thanks!
-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000
Robin,
You wrote,
>>I agree
completely. I think that was the problem... they were just eating
an ordinary meal
(having an unorganized Potluck) and not remembering Christ's
sacrifice.<
Paul did say that it was not the Lord's supper they ate, and then goes
on to give the reasons, divisions among them, etc.
If they were sinning by just coming together to eat, and not
remembering Christ's sacrifice during the meal, wouldn't that make any
church pot luck dinner sinful? Why the warning about not discerning
the body of the Lord if they were just having pot-luck and not
attempting to have communion.
I get the idea from the passage that the Corinthians thought they were
celebrating the Lord's supper, but that they were doing it wrongly,
with divisions and lack of consideration toward other members of the
body.
> well, if they weren't
supposed to eat because they were hungry... then why have a meal?
....Rather, just
focus on the meaning of the emblems....<
Because that was the tradition that Jesus left them with. I'm not
trying to be legalistic saying there has to be meat and potatoes,
though I don't see a problem with having something else at the meal.
I read part of a book last night which said that the earliest church
writings, the Didache, and some other work, show that Communion was a
meal. Later, around 150 AD, the book said that Communion was
separated from the meal. Since the meal became a social event, it
faded away.
Why have a meal? Paul writes about 'the Lord's table.' Just think
about that word picture. Paul associated the Lord's supper with a
table- just as a meal was associated with the table. There is a
certain type of comradary that comes from spending time with other
brothers and sisters, eating with them, etc. This is a lot different
atmopsphere from the modern RCC atmosphere in many communion services
today. And there is little focus on body life in many such meetings.
There is the element of reverence without the Passover feast aspect
as well.
Notice that Paul does not rebuke the Corinthians for having a meal.
He rebukes them for having it wrongly. It was not good that one man
should be hungry, and another drunken. It was not good that he poor
who had nothing should be despised. Maybe htey were coming late when
all the food was gone. Paul's comment about the hungry eating at home
was in the context of rebuking those excesses at the meal.
-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000
Robin,
You wrote,
>>I agree
completely. I think that was the problem... they were just eating
an ordinary meal
(having an unorganized Potluck) and not remembering Christ's
sacrifice.<
Paul did say that it was not the Lord's supper they ate, and then goes
on to give the reasons, divisions among them, etc.
If they were sinning by just coming together to eat, and not
remembering Christ's sacrifice during the meal, wouldn't that make any
church pot luck dinner sinful? Why the warning about not discerning
the body of the Lord if they were just having pot-luck and not
attempting to have communion.
I get the idea from the passage that the Corinthians thought they were
celebrating the Lord's supper, but that they were doing it wrongly,
with divisions and lack of consideration toward other members of the
body.
> well, if they weren't
supposed to eat because they were hungry... then why have a meal?
....Rather, just
focus on the meaning of the emblems....<
Because that was the tradition that Jesus left them with. I'm not
trying to be legalistic saying there has to be meat and potatoes,
though I don't see a problem with having something else at the meal.
I read part of a book last night which said that the earliest church
writings, the Didache, and some other work, show that Communion was a
meal. Later, around 150 AD, the book said that Communion was
separated from the meal. Since the meal became a social event, it
faded away.
Why have a meal? Paul writes about 'the Lord's table.' Just think
about that word picture. Paul associated the Lord's supper with a
table- just as a meal was associated with the table. There is a
certain type of comradary that comes from spending time with other
brothers and sisters, eating with them, etc. This is a lot different
atmopsphere from the modern RCC atmosphere in many communion services
today. And there is little focus on body life in many such meetings.
There is the element of reverence without the Passover feast aspect
as well.
Notice that Paul does not rebuke the Corinthians for having a meal.
He rebukes them for having it wrongly. It was not good that one man
should be hungry, and another drunken. It was not good that he poor
who had nothing should be despised. Maybe they were coming late when
all the food was gone. Paul's comment about the hungry eating at home
was in the context of rebuking those excesses at the meal.
-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000
Robin,
I re-post from above:
Connie,
You said, "...and after Robin Cornell's post (I think he's CC/CoC is
he not?)". ...... I'm a Christian. :-)
I'm sorry if I offended you with my statement. I, also, like only to
be called a 'Christian' so I can understand your question.
Connie
-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
the people that have hurt-my-wife & i, the most-are so-called
brothers & sisters.WHERES the bible love-now-a-days???
-- Anonymous, August 21, 2000
Who knows, I may be a Standard Press staff writer some day LOL!
Update: The Christian Standard has expressed an interest in possibly
publishing some of my articles. =)
-- Anonymous, August 21, 2000
Moderation questions? read the FAQ