Broken For You?

 A friend recently raised a question about why, on serving communion, it is said on sharing the bread, “This is my body broken for you.” Is that a correct expression? Is it even something to be concerned about?

Ostensibly, this is what our Lord Jesus Christ said on the last Passover he shared with his disciples before his crucifixion. But is it? Where would one find the answer to that? Understandably, one could check the Gospels that provide a record of the event - as remembered by the time they wrote it down, don’t forget. But even there, at the most, perhaps two - Matthew and John - were present. When it comes to John though, Bible scholars have proposed three possible authors? The Apostle, another disciple named John (whether in fact or to provide authority for his writing, a not uncommon practice at the time), and an apparent John the Elder of Ephesus (The Apostle John was himself believed to have spent time in Ephesus). Of course, many Bible scholars will argue that none of the Gospels were written by those whose names are attached but that’s another discussion. There is some question as to whether (John) Mark was present but Luke certainly was not. 

All such discussions aside, what do the Gospels say? A quick look reveals this:

Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Mark 14: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." 

Luke 22: And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 

Then, surprise, John, who, if the Apostle or another disciple named John was present (as per authorship discussions mentioned above)’ does not even record this so-called institution of the Lord’s Supper. Might we at this point ask why? We know it was written much later than the other Gospels. Perhaps he thought, given  that the Church had been carrying on the practice of sharing The Lord’s Supper for years already, that it was no longer necessary to bring this up. Instead, he records an event not found in the other gospels, namely, what some regard as the institution of the practice of footwashing. Why would he do this and the other gospel writers not? I am not suggesting an answer to the second part of this question at present. However, although we digress somewhat here, there is a possible answer as to why he would have recorded the footwashing incident. 

If this Gospel was written in Ephesus by either the Apostle or the Elder, some believe, knowing from the writings what was developing in the region at the time, and adding to this clues from the contents of the gospel itself, that it was written, at least in part, to combat Gnosticism. Practitioners of Gnosticism, it might be fair to say, given that part of the teaching was about esoteric, knowledge and practice open only to a select few, were prone to pride. Another element of this thinking was that Jesus was, but only at some level (not fully God), divine, and that physical things were less important (reflecting long-held Greek philosophy), negative, if not downright evil. Perhaps John, whoever he was, thought that he needed to bring forward footwashing to help reestablish human contact, touch, that Jesus did practice such with his followers, (there is no other reference in the gospels to Jesus to touching his followers, although there are many of him touching those to whom he ministered) but even more importantly, to remind Jesus’ followers of his teachings on servanthood and humility.  

We still have not answered the question, where does "broken for you" come in then? Bible students will quickly point out that it comes from the writings of the Apostle Paul. Now, he was not one of the original disciples, and would not have been present at the time Jesus celebrated this last Passover. Therefore, one would expect that whatever he wrote was based on what he heard from people who were present during Jesus' life. However, we find that on the one occasion where he does go into some length talking about The Lords Supper, he states that what he is passing on, is what he "received from the Lord” (see below). This sounds like he received it directly. The only explanation for that would be that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or some unrecorded, direct revelation to Paul, was responsible for his writing in this way. This is what he then wrote:

Corinthians 12: For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me." 

Or is that what he wrote? Neither the new international version, or the new revised standard version translations include that phrase, "broken for you." Instead, one can find footnotes, saying that “some ancient manuscripts add this phrase.” Evidently, the consensus of those who carried out these translations were that older manuscripts did not have the phrase, and we generally regard older writings as more valid. 

So, where does the phrase come from? The phrase has been familiarized through the Authorized (King James) Version translation. However, that work was accomplished in 1611, at which time those working on the project did not have many of the manuscripts we now have. It would appear that, based on the manuscripts modern scholars have access to, that the majority do not have that phrase, or, I expect, it would still be in our Bibles.

So, in the end, we are probably raising, in some ways, an unimportant question.  Particularly if we except that supposedly more authoritative manuscripts did not have this phrase. Why other manuscripts do, is not something I have a proposed answer for either.

However, there is one other important point that could be relevant here. The Gospel according to John, and it is the only one that does so, records that Jesus' legs were not broken on the occasion, whereas those of the two men crucified on either side of him were. This was to hasten their death, as Passover was coming and the Jews would not allow bodies to hang on the cross during that time. Crucified persons could hang on the cross for long periods of time otherwise. It is immediately after recording that Jesus bones were not broken, but that his side was pierced, that the writer of John's Gospel states that "these things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, "none of his bones shall be broken.” This can be traced back to Exodus 12:46, where, on the institution of the Passover, it is recorded that "the Lord said to Moses… You shall not break any of (the lamb's) bones." This particular detail of the password instructions is reiterated in Numbers 9:12 "they shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statutes for the Passover, they shall keep it." However, the passage that is perhaps most often quoted in relation to this whole issue is Psalm 34:19–20 "many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord rescues them all. He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.”

Jesus was regarded as a perfect Passover lamb, whose sacrificial death totally accomplished what all previous sacrifices were unable to do. I stress perfect, because even reading those Old Testament instructions for Passover indicate that the lamb was to be without blemish and intact. Therefore, it follows that Jesus body, if anything, should be more perfect and whole. Of course, we do have the nails that pierced his body and the sword that pierced his side, but these were more measures that separated, skin, and other tissue, more than break anything, particularly bones, which is what the Passover instructions explicitly prohibit.

Including this in his story, the writer of John could be trying to emphasize how Jesus was a completely adequate and perfect sacrifice. Yet, it took a body to be sacrificed, which give the physical body high value. Again, such thinking would counter that of the Gnostics who sometimes gave the body little value.

In conclusion, given that modern translations no longer use the phrase "broken for you" and that, according to scripture, the Passover lamb's bones were not to be broken, perhaps it is time that we abandon the phrase "broken for you” when we serve communion. Is "given" not enough?

The Family of God in A Time of Isolation

The expression, ‘our world changed… forever(?)’ is something of a cliché. It is often spoken in times such as we are going through at the beginning of the 2020s with this global viral pandemic. The very fact that I began this sentence with ‘in times such as we are going through’ admits we are not the first to go through such. A number have already compared our circumstances with a previous similar time - the viral pandemic that affected the world 102 years ago, known variously as ‘swine flu’ or ‘the Spanish flu,’ even though there was nothing uniquely Spanish about it. Some have said it began in a military camp in Kansa, in the USA, and was brought to Europe and the rest of the world when these young men went to join the war effort against the Nazis. 

I have titled the beginning of this piece ‘The family of God.’ To use that expression for all who believe in God is much more inclusive than to say ‘The Church in a time of isolation.’ The latter also carries different connotations than ‘family.’ So, how is being a believer in God, in my case, a Christian, different now.

Let’s bring it down to the generally recognized smallest unit of this great family – the local congregation, or small ‘c’ church. Congregational gathering is not possible if we want to be responsible citizens and do our part to try and limit the spread of this deadly virus. We cannot even meet socially. However, we are blessed to have means of communication that can help keep us bound together that our ancestors never had when they suffered from similar plagues. The telephone we have had for some time. Now, we are not even bound to a wall outlet. We can use our cellphones anywhere. And, we have the internet. This allows for a great deal of creativity in how we attempt to stay connected.

Let me get to the point and share my own experience at this time. Have I learned anything from it? Has it made me feel different about any aspect of our faith life as a congregation? 

I listened to our pastor give us a message on-line, as opposed to in a service of worship in our church building. He also took the effort to prepare some comforting devotionals for us to listen to in this time of crisis, with the hope that for those whose sleep is disturbed by such, the message he sought to convey could help them get that needed rest with the assurance that his is still there for us, but more importantly, as we really do know, but need reminding of, is that the loving Lord who unites us by his Spirit has not left us. It was reassuring to hear the strong voice of our pastor speak to us in this way. Truly a shepherd speaking to his flock.

Our Worship Pastor and others have shared devotional thoughts and reflections as well. Thus, we ‘hear’ from one another, even though not in person. We are reminded that we are all still here, even if (mostly) esconced in our own homes. This was especially helped by an initiative where members of our congregation – individuals and families – joined in a video montage from over 30 homes where they all smiled and waved greetings to all those viewing. To my embarrassment, when I decided to join this, I was too late, but or dear Worship Pastor plunked my mug shot from my video into the next edition of the email newsletter as a photo.

Today, being Good Friday, we had a first total worship service led on-line. Knowing others are watching and listening around our metropolitan area, and possibly beyond, does help us feel united still. The service included communion. Even there, knowing the symbolic nature of it, the meaning is not lost. We know others are sharing the bread and cup, even if not exactly at the same time clockwise, but the same time in the service, whenever it is watched, if people do the communion as suggested. We will have different types of bread. I had a piece of paska – a traditional ‘Easter’ bread from my ancestors. We might even have different types of drink. When the former pastor of our church led his current congregation in communion already on a previous Sunday, he acknowledged he and his wife were drinking pear juice. Indeed, as my wife and I discussed, does it have to be grape juice or wine? Did God send his Son to Israel because they had grapes there, the wine of which could be used by Jesus when he instituted the Lord’s Supper? Of course not.  If Jesus had come to earth in Germany, the cup might have been a stein containing beer. In Russia, it might have been a glass of vodka. Here in North America, it could be apple juice. Am I being sacrilegious? I don’t think so. 

But that is not the point. The objective of this short essay was to discuss our times and how we are keeping connected. Our Creator has blessed his people, made in his image, with some of his creative spirit, and we are all being blessed by our use of this. May our God continue to give us hope and comfort through such means as we make our way through this pandemic time.

The Lord’s Supper

As with many of my ‘blog’ entries, what follows is to be seen more as introducing a topic and its parts. I do this to try and initiate or further discussion on the given subject. My blogs are not college term papers or heavily researched papers such as a doctoral thesis. In many cases, they are written ‘off the top of my head,’ as we say. Therefore, they are open to challenge and correction. Indeed, I welcome such exchange. We can all learn from one another. None of us have ‘all the answers.’ None of us should so forget the virtue of humility so as to be accused of, as one recent writer has put it, ‘the sin of certainty.’

I.              BIBLICAL BACKGROUND

Matthew: 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” 26:27 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 26:28 for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 26:29 I tell you, from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Mark: 14:22 While they were eating, he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it. This is my body.” 14:23 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 14:24 He said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many. 14:25 I tell you the truth, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Luke: 22:14 Now when the hour came, Jesus took his place at the table and the apostles joined him. 22:15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 22:16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 22:17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves. 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 22:19 Then he took bread, and after giving 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.” 22:20 And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

I Corinthians 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread.

I Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, 11:24 and after he had given thanks he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 11:25 In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 11:26 For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

II.           ORIGINS AND MEANING

Ever since Jesus initiated a new ritual with his disciples at their last Passover meal before his death on a Roman cross, his followers have continued to repeat what was done there. It would appear that Jesus' followers and the Apostolic Church took their cue in this regard from Jesus' statement that he would not "drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God (Matthew 26:29)." Jesus comment here indicated to his disciples that he would share a cup like this with them in the future. Did this lead them to repeat this practice in the belief that at some point in the future Jesus would again bodily join them to share the cup?

Was Jesus referring to his physically sharing this cup with them on earth after his resurrection? We know that Jesus spoke often of the nearness of The Kingdom of God or my Father's Kingdom. Do we understand that when, as we believe, Jesus defeated the powers of evil with his death and resurrection, the Kingdom of God was then inaugurated or established in the future sense in which Jesus was referring to it prior to his death? Or was he still referring to that future day of his Second Coming that we as Christians still await? Or, and perhaps both could be true, was he describing our commemoration of his death, as The Apostle Paul refers to it, in which he is present and celebrating with us by virtue of our being indwelt by The Holy Spirit?

The passage in I Corinthians was probably written more than 25 years after Jesus' ascension. However, it certainly tells us that, whatever occurred at the time of this upper room meal and subsequently, and whatever their understanding, Jesus' first followers did indeed regularly repeat the practice that Jesus initiated at his last Passover meal on earth.

Indeed, The Gospel According to Luke, which might have been written by the time Paul wrote to the Corinthians, is the only one of the three Gospels which records the event that includes the instruction to "do this in remembrance of me." For what it is worth, it is interesting that Luke not only reverses the order of the sharing of the bread and wine; he places the cup first, whereas Matthew and Mark place it after the bread. He also includes a description of Jesus sharing the cup with a comment at the end of the meal. It is also curious that The Gospel According to John, which we understand to have been written last, does not record this at all, even though he gives much more space than any of the other three Gospels to what occurred at that time. Perhaps he did not feel he needed to include it because it was already an established practice by that time. He is the only one, on the other hand, who describes the foot washing that Jesus also instituted at the time. Perhaps he focused on this because this was not being carried on, just as it is not carried on within most church circles on a regular or widespread basis to this day.

In any case, Paul, who follows the order of Matthew and Mark, reinforces the practice of celebrating The Lord's Supper, also adding the Lucan comment that we "do this in remembrance of me."

We know, already from Paul's account in the Corinthians passage partly quoted above, that in the Apostolic and Early Church, the celebration of The Lord's Supper (so-called because the practice was initiated by our Lord) appears to have taken place at the end of a communal meal of the believers, perhaps hosted by a homeowner family, or what we would nowadays call a potluck. Perhaps this practice is what led to the ritual nowadays often being referred to as Communion. We are sharing the bread and cup in communion with one another and with our Lord, who is present with us in spirit. It is also referred to by many as The Eucharist, from the Greek eucharistia, meaning ‘thanksgiving,’ suggesting this was also seen as an act of thanksgiving. For some, this would be beg the question of giving thanks for what? The comments of Jesus as recorded in Luke and referred to in Corinthians refer to it as something to be done in commemoration or remembrance of Jesus' death, which we have taken to believe also means remembering what it stood for. However, the recorded remarks of Jesus do not explicitly invoke the idea of thanksgiving. However, we as believers today, can certainly see that, among other meanings, this commemoration can be an act of Thanksgiving to our Lord for what he did in the events that transpired after his first institution of the ritual. I referred here, of course, to his reversing the consequences of sin for those who believe in what we understand was accomplished on the cross.

Eventually, since this was one of two disciplines Jesus himself took part in or initiated (the other being baptism), in this case, communion has become referred to as a sacrament, referring to the sacred or holy nature of the practice. The cup and the bread has come to be referred to as the 'elements' of communion. Of course, we know that the Catholic and other similar branches of the church have other practices such as even marriage that they consider a sacrament, but Protestant churches have generally only accepted baptism and communion as sacramental.

III.         THE PROPER PRACTICE

Moving on then from the beginnings of this practice, its meanings and its names, we need to speak about how it is practiced. As far as I know, The Church, in all of its branches and denominations, follows the order of bread and then the cup. There is another other issue of meaning that we need to refer to here. Somewhere along the line between the New Testament and the widespread acceptance of Christianity in Europe, the main body of the church - which we have come to call the Roman Catholic Church, as its base is in Rome and it regards itself as universal or 'catholic' -  came to believe that when the bread and cup where sacredly blessed in this ritual, they actually became the body and blood of Jesus Christ. We know that this led in the early days to the detractors of Christianity accusing Christians of practicing cannibalism. The reformer Martin Luther, and the subsequent branch of the church that bears his name, backed away somewhat from that understanding. Protestant and Anabaptist branches of the church have generally totally only understood the bread and wine as being symbolic of Jesus body and blood.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the practice is generally for the communicant, as the person taking part in communion is called, to approach the priest who dips away for in the wine and places it on the tongue of the participant for the person to consume. This has been the standard practice for centuries. This is referred to as intinction.

The practice in most Protestant churches for many years has been to serve communion to the participants in the pews. In some cases, this has taken the form of pieces of bread being passed around for the members to take and then eat together, followed by the passing of the cup for members to take turns drinking from. In a number of churches, the latter practice has for some time been replaced by passing out 'the cup' in small glasses, for each member to take one and drink from. Nowadays, in some cases, especially in large gatherings, such as where communion is celebrated at denominational assemblies, disposable cups are used.

In some Protestant churches, the partakers approach servers who hold a plate of bread and cup respectively, and take from each in turn. In other cases, the bread is taken and dipped bite -sized pieces. the cup before it is eaten.

IV.         WHO RECEIVES THE ELEMENTS

For most of the history of the church, only those who were known to be baptized believers could take part in communion. Indeed, it was not long after the beginning of The Church that taking part in communion began to be held in such regard, that those who wanted to be Christians were not even baptized, let alone allowed to take part in communion, for as long as one-three years after initiating a closely mentored period of being a catechumen eight. Then, the Catholic church adopted the practice of infant baptism, which has been followed by many of the so-called mainline or more hierarchical churches, and anyone who had been baptized in this way was eligible to share the bread and cup. In many Protestant denominations, this privilege has been further limited to baptized believers who are members of a particular congregation. In more recent times, in modern efforts to be more inclusive and welcoming, the ability to take part has been widened to anyone who professes to be a believer, even if they have not yet been baptized. This also includes visitors from other congregations present in a given church at the time on communion is being served, which has not always been the case in all churches, which sometimes limited service only to its own members.

V.           WHO SERVES

In the Catholic and other mainline or high church denominations such as the Church of England/Anglican Church/Episcopalian Church, Presbyterian Church, In Lutheran Church, the communion is served by the priest. In most Protestant churches, it is served by the pastor or minister and/or elders. In our own recent Canadian Mennonite tradition, it was often served by an itinerant bishop. Now, at least in our Anabaptist churches who attempt to live out the equality of all believers, which we often referred to as the' priesthood of all believers', service has been opened up to believers. In most cases, this probably refers to baptized believers who are church members. In other cases, it would the privilege of any baptized believer. Some would even allow anyone who is known to be a believer to serve.

VI.         WHAT IS SERVED

For centuries, what was served was bread and wine. There was no question about it. However, some time ago already, following perhaps The Apostle Paul's admonition about respecting the weaker brother, wine has been replaced by grape juice in many churches. This was extensively to remove all risk of temptation from believers who had problems with alcohol.

More recently, but already in the 20th century, questions of following what might have been believed to be the practice among the first Christians, who were Jews and celebrating the Passover with unleavened bread, have led some churches to use unleavened bread. In the older churches, such as the Catholic, the 'bread' is served as and unleavened wafer. In many cases, the bread is served already baked or cut into bite-sized pieces. In some cases, a loaf of bread is broken and passed with pieces being torn from it by the communicants to eat. Then, questions of gluten intolerance and allergy began to arise and the 'bread' was made available as either a form of bread as traditionally, but along with offerings of non-wheat' bread', such as rice crackers. Some churches, in an effort to make everything equal for everyone, including our own congregation, have no consider the question of whether simply to serve gluten-free bread to everyone.

VII.      WHEN IS IT DONE

This component of the practice, like many other aspects already discussed, has come to have wide variation. Again, the Catholic church and its eastern equivalents serve communion at every mass, which, in many congregations amounts to a daily practice. Some mainline churches might also include communion as part of every weekly or Sunday service. Others schedule it in a variety of other intervals. Some may have a regular Sunday worship service schedule of communion and in addition celebrate communion on special occasions such as a Good Friday service or in conjunction with baptism. As we can see from the passages quoted at the beginning of this piece of writing, there was no schedule given by our Lord or accepted by the Early Church.

VIII.    WHERE IT IS DONE

We know from Scripture that communion was first shared in home and that was the setting for many years thereafter. Indeed, to begin with there were no such things as Christian church buildings or temples within which worship took place where communion could have been served. However, once church buildings became an accepted part of the Christian scene, so to speak, it eventually became the practice that only in these consecrated spaces could communion be served. However, with the Reformation, particularly among our Anabaptist forebears, in their efforts to renew the spirit and practice of the Early Church, Communion was again served in more informal settings such as homes. A loaf of bread and a cup of wine shared by everyone again became practice.

Indeed, now, at least in Protestant settings, and some less formal Catholic and high church gatherings, communion is served in a variety of locales and in a variety of ways. What is important is what the sacrament represents and the spirit in which it is shared and by whom.