The Narrow Path Ministries

Is there anything that would prevent any group of true believers from partaking in the Lord's Supper?

Should there be an ordained elder or minister present? I attend a house church where we don't have an "ordained" elder or anything and have been told that it is bad news to partake of the "sacraments" without out a minister present. (this fellow is Presbyterian).

God bless,

Hi, Derek,

One's answer to this may vary depending upon one's tradition. But insofar as the biblical text is concerned, there appears to be no explicit requirement for an elder or an ordained member of the clergy to be involved.

The further question is whether the Lord's Supper as celebrated is an accurate reflection of Jesus' original intent. Would Jesus, who embraced and affirmed the Torah, have instituted a ritual that involved symbolic cannibalism and blood-drinking? The latter image, at least, is in strong contrast to the paradigms of the Hebrew bible, where both Jews and Gentiles were forbidden to consume blood. (Compare also Acts 15, which correlates with early evidence from Eusebius to indicate that the blood taboo persisted well into the early church.)

Careful analysis of the New Testament texts and of early Christian and Second Temple literature supports the possibility that something else may have been intended by Jesus.

Shalom,
Emmet

The further question is whether the Lord's Supper as celebrated is an accurate reflection of Jesus' original intent. Would Jesus, who embraced and affirmed the Torah, have instituted a ritual that involved symbolic cannibalism and blood-drinking? The latter image, at least, is in strong contrast to the paradigms of the Hebrew bible, where both Jews and Gentiles were forbidden to consume blood. (Compare also Acts 15, which correlates with early evidence from Eusebius to indicate that the blood taboo persisted well into the early church.)

Hi Emmet, Happy new year and high holy days. I don't think it's meant to portray symbolic cannabalism. Jesus said later in John 6 "for the flesh profits nothing" therefore whatever the union is meant to be it certainly can't be with the flesh because right after Jesus said it profits nothing. So i think he is talking about spiritually abiding in him and the Lord's supper is a symbol of this.

Hi, Steve,

Thanks for your response and for your holyday greeting . May you have a truly blessed holy season.

I don't think it's meant to portray symbolic cannabalism.

I appreciate your point. Let me emphasize that the imagery of the ritual (as commonly understood) is cannibalistic, and even though the point of the ritual may not be so offensive, this does not eliminate the fact that the imagery is curious. At the risk of being crass - modern Christians would not pantomime group sex as part of a ritual celebration of the church as being one body, even though sexual congress is spoken of as forming one flesh, and even though it would (after all) only be a ritual practice. Similarly, it would be curious for Jesus to select ritual enactment of cannibalism and of blood-drinking (which was a grievous act in Second temple Judaism) as his means for celebrating a concept. What is remarkable is that there is another, plausible explanation for the affair, which does not in fact involve the elements as representing the body or blood of Jesus.

Shalom,
Emmet

P.S.: I don't recall Jesus writing the letter to the Romans .

Ok, so assuming that the historic Christian understanding is correct....

Is there anything that would prevent any group of true believers from partaking in the Lord's Supper?

Should there be an ordained elder or minister present? I attend a house church where we don't have an "ordained" elder or anything and have been told that it is bad news to partake of the "sacraments" without out a minister present. (this fellow is Presbyterian).

God bless,

ok emmett, i'm curious. let us have it!

TK

Derek-- i lead a bible study in our church and i wanted at some point for us to take the lord's supper together as a class. there are no elders or pastors in the class. i asked my pastor what he thought and he didnt have a problem with it. in fact he said it was a great idea.

TK

Derek,

I'm sure the same folks will insist that only an ordained person such as an elder or pastor should baptize but a careful reading of the account in Acts of Peter at the house of Cornelius reveals that Peter ordered those who accompanied him to baptize and Luke describes them only as "some disciples". Sounds like the same old "protect my turf" routine regarding communion.

Hello, gentlemen,

Thank you for your postings.

Derek - Please forgive me for trolling off-topic here. As regards your question, my comment on the biblical text stands regardless of how one construes the imagery.

TK - Thank you for asking! I was pretty transparent in fishing here. But it probably is appropriate for me to engage this off of Derek's thread. I'll try to post a participant's essay on the topic soonish.

Thank you both for your indulgence.

Shalom,
Emmet

Derek - Please forgive me for trolling off-topic here. As regards your question, my comment on the biblical text stands regardless of how one construes the imagery.

No problem. Thanks for the comment!

God bless,
Derek