Letter To Laodicea (part 66)

As has been said before, once we understand why the words in the letters to the churches in Revelation are being spoken, and once we come to grips with the problem to which they are directed, which can only happen as we are led by the Spirit of God to put ourselves in the shoes of the original hearers, it is then that we will be able to properly apply the words of Jesus in our churches and in our lives, and so better serve as ambassadors of the kingdom of heaven.  We can say the same thing about the communion dissertation that Paul included in this letter to the Corinthian church. 

Just as the letter to the churches in Revelation served a corrective purpose, so too did Paul’s letter to this church.  We cannot lose sight of this.  Why this is so often overlooked, and why Revelation is then treated as a writing that must be decoded as a mysterious prophetic oracle according to a subjective perusal of church and world history in order that we might somehow predict the future, is something of a mystery.  The Laodicean church had to receive and understand their letter in context and act accordingly, and so too did the Corinthian church.

If continue on from the words of warning that Paul has delivered, we are able to encounter some corrective language from Paul.  He writes, “So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you assemble it does not lead to judgment” (11:33-34a).  When we allow ourselves to jump right into the communion at the twenty-third verse, then the addition of these words from Paul don’t make a great deal of sense.  Along with that, if we fail to take common first century meal practice into consideration when we read these words, they are not going to make a lot of sense.  Finally, if we don’t bear in mind the vision of the messianic banquet and the personal example of Jesus at communion, that goes beyond the “Last Supper” and takes in the whole of the tradition of His meal practice that has the messianic banquet standing in its background and informs the understanding of the early church as to why they are even engaging in this practice in this way, then we are going to have difficulty making sense of what Paul is getting at it with these final corrective instructions; and we are, more than likely, going to approach and utilize the words of Paul incorrectly, missing out on the depth of the problem that is being addressed (much like the problem at the church in Laodicea is overlooked, having been sacrificed on the altar of willful ignorance, soothsaying, and preaching about the “end times”).

Obviously, Paul has more than what we generally think of as the communion in mind.  Most of us, for better or for worse, only experience the communion as a part of a church service.  Rarely, if ever, do we experience the communion as part of a meal, which was the common experience of the early church.  This, of course, kept the meal practice traditions of Jesus, while serving as a reminder that said practice was firmly ensconced within the Isaianic messianic banquet and its associated expectations and demands of the people of God.  Naturally, this more accurate duplication of the “Lord’s Supper,” as it took place within a world that had very certain and defined parameters and social constructs around its meals, while standing against those same constructs, would have created a dynamic that is all too unfamiliar for us. 

So yes, we tend to forget, or perhaps we never even truly realize that Jesus and His disciples did not simply go through a communion celebration in the way with which we are so familiar.  It must be reiterated that they were at a meal.  Paul even reminds us of this, writing “In the same way, He also took the cup after supper” (11:25a).  So we have a reminder that the basis for Christian communion sprung from an event that took place at a meal.  Not only that, but it becomes clear from Paul’s writing that the specific practice of communion in the early church was also taking place at a meal; but because the communion itself is so often referred to as the “Lord’s Supper,” the meal aspect (and therefore the messianic banquet aspect) is unfortunately screened from view.  This is a loss of understanding, with an extraordinary depth for conceptions concerning church practice and the kingdom of heaven that deserves to be recovered.