One Bread, One Body

by admin on September 28, 2013 Add the first comment.

Music During Communion
!ne "re#d, !ne "ody $ohn Mich#e% &#%bot
Congreg#tion #nd Choir
!ne bre#d, one body, one 'ord of #%%,
!ne cup of b%essing (hich (e b%ess.
And (e, though m#ny, throughout the e#rth,
)e #re one body in this one 'ord.
Choir !n%y
*enti%e or $e(, ser+#nt or free,
(om#n or m#n, no more.
Congreg#tion #nd Choir
!ne bre#d, one body, one 'ord of #%%,
!ne cup of b%essing (hich (e b%ess.
And (e, though m#ny, throughout the e#rth,
)e #re one body in this one 'ord.
Choir !n%y
M#ny the gifts, m#ny the (or,s,
one in the 'ord of #%%.
Congreg#tion #nd Choir
!ne bre#d, one body, one 'ord of #%%,
!ne cup of b%essing (hich (e b%ess.
And (e, though m#ny, throughout the e#rth,
)e #re one body in this one 'ord.
Choir !n%y
*r#in for the fie%ds, sc#ttered #nd gro(n,
g#thered to one, for #%%.
Congreg#tion #nd Choir
!ne bre#d, one body, one 'ord of #%%,
!ne cup of b%essing (hich (e b%ess.
And (e, though m#ny, throughout the e#rth,
)e #re one body in this one 'ord.
-)e do theo%ogy for you . . . so you don.t hurt yourse%f-
Friday, May 06, 2005
The Significance of The Cup/One Bread
*etting b#c, to our series on the 'ord.s &#b%e
The Essential "Oneness" of the Bread and the Cup
&uc,ed #(#y in 1 Corinthi#ns 10 is #n oft/neg%ected te#ching #bout the 'ord.s Supper.
0#u% s#ys this
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of
Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because
there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf (1
Cor 1!1"#1$%&
1ou.%% not %i,e%y he#r this p#ss#ge re#d during the obser+#nce of the 'ord.s Supper in #ny
church you m#y #ttend. 1et it ne+erthe%ess re+e#%s #n integr#% p#rt of 0#u%.s -'ord.s
Supper- theo%ogy. &he phr#se to pot'rion t's eulogias 23the cup of b%essing45 %i,e%y
comes from # 0#sso+er b#c,ground 2the -cup of b%essing- (#s one of the cups obser+ed
during the 0#sso+er5. &he presence of the first/person p%ur#% in both eulogoumen 23(e
b%ess45 #nd kl(men 23(e bre#,45 m#,es it %i,e%y th#t 0#u% does not intend to %imit this
pr#ctice (ith the cup #nd bre#d to Corinth #%one, but r#ther suggests # common practice
of the church.
"ut 6ust (h#t is the point th#t 0#u% m#,es #bout the bre#d7 0#u% goes beyond the mere
f#ct th#t the bre#d is # -p#rticip#tion in the body of Christ- 2+. 185 by sho(ing its
signific#nce for unity. &here is one 2heis5 3%o#f of bre#d4 in the 'ord9s Supper 2+. 1:;
(hen used (ith # numer#%, artos #%(#ys me#ns 3%o#f of bre#d45. &his 3one %o#f of bre#d,4
#ccording to 0#u%, someho( creates unity (ithin the body 3because there is one %o#f of
bre#d, (e (ho #re m#ny #re one body.4 As if to #nticip#te th#t someone might do(np%#y
the force of hoti 23bec#use45, 0#u% #dds, 3for 2gar5 (e #%% p#rt#,e of the one %o#f of
bre#d.4 &here c#n be no mist#,ing 0#u%9s me#ning here, #nd it is doubtfu% th#t the
gr#mm#r c#n be t#,en #ny other (#y. <or 0#u%, there is theo%ogic#% signific#nce in the
singularity of the %o#f of bre#d. =t is import#nt to 0#u% th#t there is #n e)pression of unity
in the body, not mere%y # static concept of unity; this is #ccomp%ished by #%% p#rt#,ing of
3one %o#f of bre#d.4
"ut the notion th#t the combin#tion of sing%e %o#f #nd sing%e cup symboli*es the unity of
be%ie+ers, (hi%e true in itse%f, does not go >uite f#r enough. 0#u% does not s#y (e p#rt#,e
of one %o#f of bre#d because we are one body; on the contr#ry, he st#tes (e #re one body
because we partake of one loaf of bread. &he force of hoti #nd gar together m#,es it c%e#r
th#t 0#u% sees the singu%#rity of the %o#f #s # cause of this unity, not mere%y its symbo%.
&his +ie( is he%d by the +#st m#6ority of ?e( &est#ment scho%#rs (ho comment on this
p#ss#ge, inc%uding )#in(right, @obertson, 0%ummer, <ee, "#rrett, *rosheide #nd Morris.
&he s#me m#y be s#id #bout the cup. A%though 0#u% does not specific#%%y #ssign #
numeric +#%ue to the cup, the presence of the #rtic%e 2to pot'rion5 #nd the p#r#%%e% (ith the
%o#f suggests th#t 2#s (ith the bre#d5 there is on%y one cup. +oterion 23cup45 is #%most
cert#in%y intended to st#nd for both the cup itse%f #nd the contents (ithin 2+iA., the (ine5.
)hen e#ch %oc#% #ssemb%y g#thers together to p#rt#,e of the bre#d #nd the cup, the
members #re m#de one body by +irtue of their common p#rticip#tion in the %o#f of bre#d
#nd cup.
)hether this oneness is met#physic#% or mere%y represent#ti+e c#nnot e#si%y be
determined, #%though 0#u%9s insistence in +. 20 23= do not (#nt you to be p#rticip#nts in
demons45 f#+ors # met#physic#% oneness. =n either c#se, this oneness must be seen #s #n
essenti#% >u#%ity of the 'ord9s Supper. =ts cause 2i.e., the singu%#rity of the %o#f #nd cup5
must therefore #%so be of #n essenti#% >u#%ity.
Implications for the Form of the Lords Supper
As (e h#+e #%re#dy seen, the e%ements of the 'ord9s Supper 2+iA., the bre#d #nd (ine5
#re, #t %e#st for 0#u%, in the form of # sing%e %o#f of bre#d #nd # sing%e cup of (ine. )e
h#+e #%so seen th#t 0#u% #tt#ches theo%ogic#% signific#nce to this form of the e%ements #nd
th#t the form itse%f someho( c#uses unity to occur (ithin the %oc#% body of be%ie+ers #s
e#ch member p#rt#,es of the e%ements. = #m inc%ined to concede th#t 0#u% is spe#,ing
here in #%most sacramental %#ngu#ge//#nd th#t.s not #n e#sy concession coming from #
"#ptistB "ut = c#n.t get #round the f#ct th#t the p%#in re#ding of the teCt insists on the
singularity of the bre#d #nd cup #s # cause of unity in the body of Christ. My use of
-s#cr#ment#%- in this c#se represents # dep#rture from the norm#% use. "y -s#cr#ment#%- =
do not me#n to imp%y th#t the 'ord.s Supper is # me#ns of etern#% %ife, nor e+en # me#ns
of gr#ce per se. =n this c#se, it.s simp%y # me#ns of met#physic#% unity in the body of
Christ.
"ut (h#t if this form is not fo%%o(ed7 )h#t #re the imp%ic#tions (hen the singu%#rity
depicted by the one %o#f #nd one cup is #bsent7 D+en if 0#u% intends for the singu%#rity of
the bre#d #nd cup mere%y to portray oneness in the body, then the #bsence of th#t
singu%#rity necess#ri%y imp%ies the #bsence of # +isib%e proof of oneness. "ut, in f#ct,
much more is #t st#,e th#n mere portr#y#%. Since, #s 0#u% #rgues, the singu%#rity of the
bre#d #nd cup causes unity in the body, then the absence of this singu%#rity m#y #%so
imp%y the #bsence of bodi%y unity in the 'ord9s Supper. =f there #re other c#uses of bodi%y
unity th#t c#n rep%#ce this c#use, 0#u% does not mention them. !f course this m#y simp%y
be one +enue for bodi%y unity out of m#ny.
!n the other h#nd, (hi%e it is true th#t other f#ctors contribute to the unity of the body
2%o+e, forgi+eness, be#ring (ith one #nother, etc.5 it m#y (e%% be th#t the ,ind of oneness
0#u% h#s in mind in this p#ss#ge is of # different sort #%together. &he 3t#b%e of the 'ord4
2+. 215, the koinonia, the bre#d #nd cup, #nd the #ct of p#rticip#tion #%% (or, together to
produce this oneness in # uni>ue (#y. 0erh#ps, then, it is more #ccur#te to spe#, in
specific terms of 3'ord9s &#b%e4 unity r#ther th#n bodi%y unity in gener#%. =f this is the
c#se, it seems no other +enue cou%d e#si%y rep%#ce the +enue of the singu%#rity of bre#d
#nd cup.
=. Eo(#rd M#rsh#%%, (hi%e seeing +#%ue in m#int#ining the symbo% of one %o#f #nd one
cup, #%%o(s modific#tions of this form (here the form m#y be impr#ctic#%. <or %#rger
settings, he suggests simu%t#neous p#rticip#tion 2M#rsh#%%, ,ast -upper and ,ord.s
-upper, 1F85. Eo(e+er, it is not #%together c%e#r ho( simu%t#neous p#rticip#tion (ou%d
#de>u#te%y con+ey the symbo% of unity (hich p#rticip#tion in one %o#f #nd one cup
pictures. After #%%, 0#u% st#tes th#t the reason #%% of the p#rticip#nts of e#ch %oc#% #ssemb%y
#re one body is bec#use they #%% p#rt#,e of one %o#f #nd cup. "re#d th#t is presented in #
pre/bro,en form 2e.g., the bro,en cr#c,ers th#t ser+e #s the 3bre#d4 in the +#st m#6ority
of denomin#tions tod#y5 does not//indeed, cannot//symbo%iAe unity; in f#ct, its
-bro,eness- inste#d symbo%iAes di+ision. &he s#me ho%ds true of the 3(ine4 th#t is pre/
poured into indi+idu#% cups.
0#u%9s (ords seem to dem#nd singu%#rity of the bre#d #nd cup before the form c#n
#ccur#te%y portray or cause unity. =t is not enough simp%y to present the -e%ements- of the
bre#d #nd cup; these e%ements must #%so be c#p#b%e of eCpressing their intended
theo%ogic#% function. Any other form, (hi%e perh#ps more pr#ctic#%, does not gi+e due
di%igence to the theo%ogic#% signific#nce 0#u% #tt#ches to the oneness/#spect of the bre#d
#nd cup. &o the eCtent th#t 0#u%9s concept of oneness in the 'ord9s Supper is not
portr#yed +i# the proper form, to th#t eCtent the form is impo+erished in terms of its
#bi%ity to c#use 2or e+en to symbo%iAe5 the unity th#t 0#u% sees #s so essenti#% to the
'ord9s Supper.
G!@!
=GA), EDSHS, A?D &=?A0A1 ?* "HEA1, "=?AS"ASA?, E=?A&=.& =?=A'A1.
"HEA1 ?A *A?A0 A?* SA AM=.1 GA'!!" A& 0A*SASA'!?* )A'A?*
EA?**A?.
"AS"ASA? A?* "HEA1 ?AM=?* EA?D!*; ?A)A.1 MA&H'AD SA 0A*/
AA'A1 M!.
"HEA1 ?A 'AA? ?A?* 'H"!S SA MH?D!?* SA 0A*/="=* A1 GA0!S.
2G!@!5
MA@A0A&=? SA GA0)A MA*=?* &=?A0A1, GA*A'AGA? SA ?A'H'HM"A1,
GA&A@H?*A? SA ?AAA0= A& GA?'H?*A? ?* "A1A? M!?* SA)=. 2G!@!5