PAUL
"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®
Paul wrote his first Letter to the Corinthians roughly around 50 CE. It contains the earliest record of Jesus' instituting Holy Communion, The Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, etc.. What is interesting in Paul's recalling of this event is that Paul was not present on the night Jesus instituted Holy Communion, according to the Synoptic Gospels. An overlooked fact is that he makes no claim that he heard about this incident from one of Jesus' disciples or any of the other apostles. He claims he received this information as a direct revelation from Jesus.
This letter also makes it clear that the members of the church in Corinth were more Greek than Jewish. The issues that Paul addresses in his letter; such as, eating meat offered to idols, how women dress, and men having intimate relations with other men are more likely issues Paul had with Greek culture than he would have had with the Jewish population living in Corinth.
There is also a sense of Paul trying to backpedal on what he taught the Corinthians regarding Holy Communion. Obviously something went wrong in what he taught, which is the reason Paul is writing about it. In the verses that follows, Paul heard of an incident or incidents in which participating in Holy Communion resulted in people becoming weak, sick, or dying. Paul's reason that the people became sick and died was due to their not "discerning" Jesus' body and blood before partaking Holy Communion and thus took it unworthily. The implication is that they treated Holy Communion as some sort of Bacchanalian event rather than the somber eating of a small unleavened wafer and a sip of wine that is common in today's practice of Holy Communion in most mainline churches.
Much has been made of Paul's "unworthiness" issue with regard to Holy Communion. Did people really die because they took it unworthily? Who then is considered worthy enough to take it? If one does not know if one is worthy, should they avoid it? The point I am trying to make with these question is that all of sudden we have a Christian rite that doesn't sound very Jesus-like.
In Brian Muraresku's fascinating book, "The Immortality Key -The Secret History of The Religion With No Name," he hypothesizes that what caused the members of the Corinthian church to become sick and die was simply that the wine they drank was laced with a hallucinogenic mix which proved fatal for some. His book explains that the practice of mixing wine with herbs and other substances were common at the time.
Mixing hallucinogenic substances with wine was a practice that may have been adapted from the mystery religions of the ancient Greeks and Roman, such as, the Eleusinian or Dionysian mystery religions in which participant would be offered such hallucinogenic mixes to experience visions. In the case of the Eleusinian mysteries, participants reportedly would emerge from such an experience having no fear of death.
Isn't that exactly what Holy Communion also offers its partakers today without the hallucinogenic laced wine? So why not, at that time, mix hallucinogenics to give one an immediate taste of immortality associated with eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus Christ? It is an intriguing hypothesis.
The fear of taking Holy Communion unworthily and offering it to someone who was unworthy led to the rite of confession in many churches. Growing up in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, I can recall that on a Friday night preceding a Sunday in which Holy Communion was offered, this who were planning on taking Holy Communion were required to "sign up" to take Holy Communion. This allowed the pastor to examine one's worthiness. If a pastor knew of a conflict between members or some transgression that merited repentance, he could deny offering a member the sacrament.
Of course, Roman Catholics have been practicing confession for centuries. The ironical point of taking Holy Communion is that worthiness is contingent on confessing one's unworthiness; as in, admitting that one is a miserable sinner, totally unworthy of God's grace.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
The Gospel of John does not contain the story of Jesus instituting Holy Communion in the way Paul describes it. Whereas the authors of the Synoptic Gospels seemed to have copied Paul's sacramental revelation almost verbatim, the Gospel of John does not. As mentioned in other posts, the Gospel of John is a theological work written in Jesus' voice. The entire gospel is sacramental in nature, carrying the reader on a mystical journey from rebirth through Baptism (born again by water and spirit in John 3) to eternal communion with God in Christ.
The Gospel of John doesn't directly talk about sharing a Passover meal in which Jesus talks about bread and wine being consecrated to represent his body and blood. It does, however, talk about a meal he is having with his disciple around the time of Passover in which he has his famous diner discourse with his disciples that extend from John 13 through John 17. The elements of bread and wine are treated separately in the Gospel of John.
Jesus, being the Bread of Life, is found in John 6 and his reference the fruit of the vine (grapes) is in John 16. In the following selected verses from the Gospel of John, one can piece together the concept of Holy Communion in John's mystical portrayal which has shaped how Holy Communion is largely understood today.
Jesus said..., “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. . . .He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? ...From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." - John 6:53-56, 59-61 & 66 NIV
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." - John 16: 5-7 NIV
As I have mentioned in other posts Jesus being Jewish and knowing the repulsion at eating something that wasn't kosher; much less a reference to eating human flesh or drinking human blood, would not have likely used bread and wine as a symbol of his "real" body and blood that people must eat and drink in order to have eternal life. The Gospel of John provides proof of this repulsion in the reaction some of Jesus' disciples had when he says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."
Indeed this was a hard teaching that a practicing Jew would not have accepted. The authors of John knew that devout Jews would not accept such a teaching, even if it was intended to be symbolic. It was one of many lines drawn in the Gospel of John that Jews could not cross, but that a Christian was expected to.
As we see in Paul's admonition against taking Holy Communion unworthily, the Gospel of John takes a harsher approach. If a branch of the vine does not produce fruit, it will be thrown away and burned. This is teaching that is indeed hard to hear. To attach such threatening language to something that is intended to create community is coercive and threatening.
It can be argued and it is likely that a community which discriminates against, denigrates, and condemns those in their community who are deemed unproductive will create an ecclesial class structure of those considered worthy and those not. Is not the teaching of Jesus, that all are worthy of God's love?
HOLY COMMUNION
Holy Communion has always been about differentiating between those who were true believers in Jesus Christ and those who were not, (i.e. practicing Jews and anyone consider an "unbeliever"). Holy Communion is the most controlled substance within Christianity. Holy Communion has historically been treated as an in-house sacrament that is usually distributed to baptized and confirmed members of a congregation. In liturgical churches, the elements of bread and wine can only be consecrated by and ordained priest, pastor, or minister. It can be offered daily, weekly, twice a month, once a month or once a year. Strict control of this sacrament makes a mockery of the Christian teaching that Jesus died for all.
Some progressive congregations practice what is known open communion in which everyone is welcome to partake, but most have conditional requirements to be met in order to avoid unworthy participation. Sacramental rites, as a whole, are designed to discriminate between those committed to a church's teachings or the oddly stated "apostolic teachings" and those who are not. Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation are all designed to say who is included and who is excluded from the Kingdom of God.
COMMUNION AS A RITE TO AFFIRM THE HUMAN COMMUNITY
For the Human Family
O God, you made us in your own image and redeemed us through Jesus your Son: Look with compassion on the whole human family; take away the arrogance and hatred which infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us; unite us in bonds of love; and work through our struggle and confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth; that, in your good time, all nations and races may serve you in harmony around your heavenly throne; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
From "The Book of Common Prayer," 1979, The Church Hymnal Corporation, New York, New York.
The positive side of the sacraments is if we can bring them down to earth, if they validate community, and promote unconditional love in the form of compassionate care for all of creation. This is the task that Jesus' teachings point to and appoints us to carry out.
Grace is not merely a free gift of God given to humankind, but is an ability that all humans are capable of; to give freely of who we are, not as sacrifice but as an act of unconditional love in all things and for all things. Communion is holy only when such love appears so other than the world we have created and live in. The reality is we create the type of world we live in and we have the ability to make it better, to make it a home for all living things, to fulfill the mandate to love as we are loved by God.
Above all, we need to stop beating each other and ourselves up over real and perceived sins. We must forgive as Jesus taught us to do. When we encounter failure in such endeavors, we should learn from it, not languish in it. True religion is ultimately about making our world a better world, not condemning it. Whatever happens after this life one must commend to God, whatever happens in this life, God has commended to us. That was and is the point of what Jesus taught.
Norm
No comments:
Post a Comment