Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Eucharist


by 1 Comment

Notes on the Didache (Part 3)

Read Part 1 here.

Read Part 2 here.

Hospitality is a central Christian virtue, but it is mixed with reason: “Welcome anyone coming in the name of the Lord. Receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, but then, test them and use your discretion.” Then the following instructions are given: (1) Assist a traveler as you are able, but do not let them stay longer than two or three days. (2) If the person stays longer, that person must use their craft to earn a living. (3) If it happens that a person has no trade, then the host must use their own common sense to determine what to do. (4) If the person complains with the arrangement, be suspect, this person is “Christ-Peddler” or “Christ-Monger” (χριστέμπρός, 12:1-5).

Prophets were addressed earlier, but the subject arises again in 13:1-7. This section seems to address local prophets, rather than itinerate prophets. There is a sense that these prophets should be supported–a “tithe” if you will. If there are no prophets to support, the same items–first fruits, first loaves of bread, first portions of wine–should be given to the poor.

“The Lord’s Day” consist of confessing sins to one another, breaking bread, giving thanks (εὐχαριστήσατε, 14:1). If a person is contentious being at odds with another “brother” in the church, that person cannot participate. It appears that this is a early argument for the Eucharist event being one that promotes unity or “communion” of the saints (14:2).

Bishops are to be appointed, seemingly by the community. In other words, a Bishop is chosen from within the local assembly, rather than by an outside governing hierarchy. The same is true of deacons. Qualifications include being “worthy of the Lord” (a echo of Colossians 1:10?), meek, unattached to money, truthful, and proven (15:1). Bishops are categorized alongside Teachers and Prophets (15:2). Contention in the community is to be addressed. People should be reproved, though not in anger. If the reproved doesn’t change, s/he is to be isolated until this attitude changes (15:3).

The document begins to end with a series of warnings/edifications: Do not let your lamps be quenched (witness?); do not let your loins be loosed (sexuality?); be prepared for the imminent return of Christ; gather together often. The eschatology of the author(s) is as follows: you can fall away if not perfected in life; there will be false prophets/teachers in the last days (ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις); sinfulness and lawlessness will increase; a world-deceiver will come as the Son of God (ὁ κοσμοπλανὴς ὡς υἱὸσ θεοῦ); there will be a time of trial for humanity; then the “signs of truth” appear (τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας): Sign 1: the heavens open. Sign 2: a trumpet sound. Sign 3: the resurrection of the dead. Then the appearance of the Lord with his saints. Then there will be judgment.

About these ads


by 2 Comments

Notes on the Didache (Part 2)

Read Part 1 here.

The Eucharist is central to worship in early Christianity. Over the last month or so I have read the writings of personalities like Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin Martyr. Each one of them speak of the Eucharist as something that is indispensable. The name “Eucharist” (εὐχαριστίας) means “Thanksgiving”, and the author(s) of the Didache use this word thematically says, “Now, concerning the Thanksgiving (εὐχαριστίας), thus give thanks (εὐχαριστήσατε).” Then God the Father is given thanks (Εὐχαριστοῦμεν) for the wine. Then for the bread God the Father is given thanks (Εὐχαριστοῦμέν).

The meaning of the elements are as follows. The wine is traditionally symbolic of the blood of Jesus. It is a reminder that Jesus is part of the same “holy vine” of King David in the Didache. The bread is traditionally symbolic of the broken body of Jesus. It is a reminder that “life and knowledge” (ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως) come through Jesus in the Didache. The prayer of thanksgiving is directed toward God the Father and Jesus is called “your servant”. The author(s) emphasize that glory belongs to God the Father because of the death of Jesus (9:1-3).

The author writes, “Even as the broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.” This language may echo the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, or something similar, and it contains exile language familiar in the prophets where the diaspora people of God wait for the day when God will collect them from around the world (9:4).

The final words on the Eucharist are important: one who has not been baptized is not to partake, because Jesus said the “the dogs” should not have the “holy things” (interestingly, the Gentile women to whom this was said retorted that dogs do receive crumbs from the table providing a touché moment leading Jesus to answer her request). This statement does not mention the authority of a Bishop like some of the others that I have read recently. It does critique those who would allow the non-baptized to participate (9:5).

The Didache provides instruction for the prayer following the reception of the Eucharist (“when you are filled, give thanks this way”, 10:1). It is a prayer of thanksgiving to God the Father (once again, notably God the Father receives all the direct addresses as concerns the Eucharist) because of the “name enshrined in our hearts” as well as knowledge, faith, and immortality received. God is given thanksgiving for his creation of all things, including food and drink, and now “spiritual” (πνευματικὴν) food and drink. The prayer emphasizes God’s worthiness. Then it transitions to a petition for God to remember his Church (ἐκκλησίας). Some words echo the Lord’s Prayer: “Deliver us from evil” and “For yours is the power and glory forever”. Some of the words are unique, like the petitions to make the Church perfect in love and a restated prayer to gather the Church from around the world.

The final eschatological statement, “Let grace come, and let this world pass away” has interesting eschatological implications. Does παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος mean that the author of the Didache foresaw a day when the time-space continumm would come to an end? What does it mean to ask Jesus to return (μαρὰν ἀθά) if the cosmos are destined for destruction? Or does the author have an eschatological vision more like that of the end of the Book of Revelation where the old cosmos gives way to a new emerging cosmos (explained in Romans 8 as Creation being set free) (10:1-6).

Itinerate teachers are discussed. The instructions given are as follows: First, one should receive a teacher. Second, if the teaching doesn’t fit the tradition received the teacher should be ignored. If the teaching does fit the tradition received then he should be received. Third, the criteria is “the precepts of the gospel concerning all Apostles and Prophets”. Fourth, the author says to accept all Apostles, which is a unique statement because most of the writers I have read from the early church discuss Bishops as if Bishops have replaced Apostles. Either this document is early enough to be speaking of Apostles who exist still, or it is written to portray itself as older than it is, or the author affirmed the continuation of the apostolic office (11:1-4).

Apostles can stay for a few days at a time, lest it appear that these Apostles are mooching from the community, proving the falsity of their Apostleship. This is quite contrary to Paul’s words to the Corinthians that he could receive pay for his work. This must be a situational response to a trend in the early church for people to drain the resources of local communities by pretending to be an Apostle. So the author(s) claim that if an Apostle asks for money, or if an Apostle stays for three days, then this person is not an Apostle at all! All the Apostle can receive is bread and lodging (11:4-6).

There is criteria for true and false Prophets as well. If a prophet speaks in the Spirit (λαλοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι) he shouldn’t be critiqued or judged. Whatever it means to “speak in the Spirit”, this isn’t a pure qualification for being a Prophet. Someone could “speak in the Spirit” and not be a Prophet. The Prophet must accompany his/her speech with “the ways of the Lord” (τοὺς τρόπους κυρίου). This is likely the Way of Life described earlier in the document. In other words, true prophets are the most upright morally. Finally, true prophets do not eat a meal “ordered in the Spirit” (), whatever this means?! False prophets are known by their actions. False prophets do not “practice what they preach”. False prophets may eat of this meal “ordered in the Spirit”. The true Prophet does what he does, doesn’t teach how he does it, and doesn’t act for money while false prophets are the opposite (11:7-12).

In my next post on the Didache I will post noted on the rest of the document.

Read the Didache in English or Greek.


by 3 Comments

Jesus was recognized in the breaking of the bread.

He Qi, Supper at Emmaus

In the Gospel of Luke 24.13-35 we are given a story wherein two downtrodden disciples make their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus after the crucifixion of Jesus. The Evangelist preserves the name of one: Cleopas. The other figure remains anonymous. Jesus had been crucified a few days ago. This event weighed heavily on the hearts and minds of these two disciples. As they would state later (v. 21), “…we were hoping that it was he who was going to redeem Israel.” Their Messiah had died seemingly proving that he was no Messiah at all.

The Evangelist had told a story earlier in his narrative (22.14-22) wherein Jesus and his disciples gathered for their final meal. I don’t know if he intended to depict these particular disciples as present at that meal, but he does emphasize that as Jesus established what we call “the Eucharist meal” one of his central actions was the breaking and giving of bread. He told them that this symbolized his body which would be “broken” as well.

As we move back to the “road to Emmaus” story we find that these two disciples are met by the risen Jesus. They do not recognize Jesus as he appears to them  incognito. In fact, the Evangelist says (v. 16), “…their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.” They were not given the ability to see or recognize the risen Jesus. Jesus engages them in a conversation and they rebuke him for being unaware of the recent events concerning himself. Ironic! In response Jesus rebukes them before proclaiming the necessity of all these events from Scripture (a dialogue that I would have liked to have heard).

As they reach their destination Jesus acts as if he will continue his journey. This seems to prompt them to invite him to dinner. Amazingly enough, it isn’t until Jesus has taken bread, blessed it, broken it, and handed it to them that they recognize who it is that sits with them. Jesus disappears.

There is something beautifully sacramental about this passage, both as a story that invites us to know the risen Lord and the imagery of the bread being connected to Jesus’ revealing. There is something very much like the Eucharist happening here. Jesus has proclaimed himself in the bread and he is recognized in that very element.

On this Holy Thursday we remember that Jesus gave us a meal and that in that meal we meet him, together. There is something precious about this. The meal being a place of invitation and fellowship. Jesus inviting us into that meal. In Johannine language he is that very meal. We meet, he is present, he feeds us the “Bread of Life.” We may not recognize his presence though he is there all the time, yet the meal invites us to regain our “eyes of faith” so we can see him.


by 16 Comments

I’m feasting on the Eucharist.

There is nothing as precious in worship as the Eucharist. I admit that I don’t have a full bodied understanding of this event, but I know that when I walk away from it I feel changed. When I was in Pentecostal circles we celebrated Eucharist (or “Communion” or “the Lord’s Supper”) on special events like New Year’s Eve. In retrospect, this seems gnostic. Eucharist reminds us that Christ has redeemed the material world in his death, burial, and resurrection. To participate in a physical rite is to honor that reality.

Currently, I am part of an assembly that does Eucharist once a month. I have been part of communities that do it weekly. I have been part of communities that do it a few times a year. After this breadth of experience I wish I could have it every week (though once a month is good)!

There are two things about Eucharist that seem (to me) to make it a perfect element to every Sunday. First, it causes every gathering to end with Christ at the center. For instance, this morning my pastor preached on Samson, but he ended with Christ. Something seems very, very right about this. There is nothing that makes a sermon as great as returning to our Lord and Messiah. Even if there are aspects of the text read or the exposition given that frustrate or concern the listener ending with Christ makes the main thing the main thing. The Eucharist following the sermon makes Christ physical.

Second, I think it brings the people of God into unity. We Christians can be fickle. We may be distracted by our distaste for the songs selected. We may be upset with a point made in the sermon. We may have someone in the room who said something harsh to us beforehand. When we come to Eucharist at the end of the gathering we are forced to embrace the death that brings us together. In Christ’s death all our sins of selfish religion are absolved. We are invited to leave as one in our Lord.

I know some do not like a sacrament that celebrates the breaking of a human body and the shedding of human blood. I do. Our world is violent. I have no qualm with atonement theories that emphasize death and sacrifice. I know why some do, but I don’t. I don’t struggle with the idea that I deserve death for my sinful deeds. Maybe some think they do more good than evil. I know that is not true of me. I have evil thoughts and do evil deeds daily. While I don’t know how Christ’s death satisfied the Father I affirm that it did and I come to the table in thankfulness for Christ, my sacrifice and my high priest.

Evil is violent. Death is violent. It makes all the sense in the world that Christ swallowed evil and death by being trampled upon in violence. Only in Christ conquering violence as he did can I find reason to abstain from using violence to obtain my own purposes. I can relax in the will of the Father because he gave his son to violence to conquer violence so that violence does not have the final word.


by 6 Comments

Saturdays in Second Temple Judaism: The meal at Qumran.

Sassetta's Institution of the Eucharist

This week fellow blogger and friend JohnDave Medina came to my home and we were discussing various aspect of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice (since he is a recent re-convert). One area of discussion was the Eucharist. I mentioned a fascinating element of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection found in The Community Rule (which is the result of several scroll and fragments if I am correct) where there is something known as “the Meal of the Congregation” (Geza Vermes) or “the Pure Meal” (Wise, Abegg, and Cook). I thought it soundly a lot like Eucharist in some ways, so I thought I’d list those here.

In VI.25 one can be banned from the meal for lying about money. In VI.27 it can be for usurping authority. In VII. 15 it can be for gossiping about a companion/friend. In VII.19-20 it can be for deviating from the secret teaching of the community. And here we also find the “Drink of the Congregation”. In VIII.20-25 a more specific Council is mentioned and here people can receive punishment that prevents them from this meal.

I don’t think this is merely the daily meal because it seems like suspensions can last for as long as a year. That would be a death sentence. So it must have more significance.

Does anyone know much about the meal at Qumran? If so, what do you think makes it significant? Is there any chance that it could be similar in any way to the Christian sacrament of Eucharist/Communion?


by 5 Comments

Holy (Maundy) Thursday from the Perspective of a Rookie Anglican

This Holy Week is the first that my wife and I have spent in an Anglican church. The experience of being apart of a liturgical church has been a great blessing so far. I thought that it would be interesting to take the next three days to describe the experiences of my first Easter Triduum in an Anglican church. Of course, my perspectives are certainly coming from someone who is experiencing it all for the first time. So keep in mind that I may not really know what I am talking about.

Today is Maundy Thursday which is the day that the church commemorates the Last Supper of Christ as described in the Gospels. Maundy Thursday is the start of the Easter Triduum, and is naturally a service where the Holy Eucharist is celebrated. I am going to take the rest of this post to describe the actual Maundy Thursday service that I attended at my church, St Matthew’s in Portland, Oregon.

The entire service is geared towards commemorating the Last Supper and that really comes through in both the musical choices and the scripture lessons. Our processional hymn was “Now, my tongue, the mystery telling” which is commonly attributed to Thomas Aquinas and sings of Christ keeping the passover and what we received from that last passover.

Our scripture lessons were Exodus 12:1-14, Psalms 116; 1-2, 12-19 (this was chanted), 1 Corinthains 11:23-26, and Matthew 26:17-30. All of these scripture passages helped to move us toward the celebration of the Eucharist.

I really enjoyed the sermon, which was taken from 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Our priest, David Humphrey spoke about the situation at the church in Corinth. Corinth was a church where people were using the Lords Supper to highlight the differences between themselves. This runs counter to the ultimate unity that the Eucharist is supposed to confirm. He described the Eucharist as the ultimate leveling field in that we all come together and share what we have in common, and that commonality is our need for Christ. Our use of a common cup is to portray this unity better. Another interesting point in this sermon was that Christ shared the passover supper while his betrayal was underway. Through this he showed his ultimate love and forgiveness. The idea of sharing a sacred meal with someone who is planning your death is hard to imagine. We really have such a gracious savior!

Later the alter was prepared for the administration of the Communion sacrament. After we all had received we said this prayer:

“Heavenly Father, we thank you that in this sacrament we have been given the memorial of the passion of your Son Jesus Christ: Grant us so to reverence the sacred mysteries of his body and blood, that we may know within ourselves and show forth in our lives the fruits of his redemption, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen”

We then sang the Hymn: “Go to Dark Gethsemane” as preparation was being made for the stripping of the altar. It was sobering to watch the pure white Alter cloth and other liturgical vestments being stripped away. After all of the cloth was removed from the alter and the cross, both were covered over with a deep black cloth. This is to signify the dark and terrible time that is to come for our Lord.

While the congregation silently left the building I could not help but think about the sorrow and pain our Lord must have been going through on that night long ago. We certainly do not deserve the gift that he gave us through his suffering.

Our Maundy Thursday service has left me hanging. The story is not yet over and it is stopped at a very intense part. I know what is coming next but I still cannot help but be somber about it. At least I know that it ends well.