The Lord’s Supper & the Unity of God’s People

I’m doing some work on the unity of God’s people in Paul’s letters while also preparing a discussion on the significance of the Lord’s Supper for this Sunday.

9780800626839_p0_v1_s6001

While reading this morning in N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God, this section jumped out at me.

The Lord’s Supper should be a moment of symbolic unity; and this requires, as does the delicate situation of chapters 8-10, that the Messiah’s people ‘wait for one another’ (11.33). Though the normal meaning of ekdechomai is simply temporal (‘waiting’ for something to happen or for someone to arrive) the sense here seems to be slightly more than that: waiting, perhaps, in the sense of having regard for one another, not just that ‘everyone has now arrived, so we can start the meal’, but that everyone should be aware of everyone else, with their social and cultural particularity, their needs, their vulnerabilities. We should not miss the significance of this within the tightly hierarchical world of a first-century Roman city, where everybody knew that the rich and powerful would always eat first and everybody else would wait, deferentially, for them (p. 395).

I’ve heard 1 Corinthians 11 read in churches for decades. Most commonly, we read only vv. 23-26, though sometimes the reading extends to v. 29 and once in a while to v. 32.

I must say that I hardly ever hear vv. 17-22 read, and almost all readings miss out the main command of the passage, found in v. 33 – “wait for one another.” I think we neglect to read the entire passage because it doesn’t make sense to our individualized conceptions of being Christian. It’s so mundane, so unremarkable.

Paul conceives of a corporate reality, however, involving individuals-in-community. His fundamental concern is for the unity of God’s people. After all, if God’s people are unified, then God is truly seen to be the one true Creator God who rules over all and has the power to unite all in Christ.


22 responses to “The Lord’s Supper & the Unity of God’s People

  • Greg Johnston

    As far as I can tell from reading the NT in fulfillment of the OT, there are two qualities that God seeks from his new covenant people: The practice of “table-turning” agape-justice and the practice of unity.

    Almost everyone would agree, but I’m not sure what this unity should look like. I have very strong suspecions that it would look different from what it is now. So apart from “waiting on” one another for a meal that most churches don’t eat, what’s the first step to achieving a more functional and more visable unity? Concrete steps towards obedience and good works.

    • timgombis

      Sadly, Greg, most churches in America orient themselves by values of convenience and don’t want to ask more of “attendees” than that they enjoy a “service” (performance) and then leave. Perhaps taking up again some of the early church practices like eating a regular meal together would instantiate some possibilities for actual Christian behavior and catalyze the production of even more! Just imagine the possibilities of what might happen if we spent more time together!!

      • gjohnston2244

        The church I attend is a bit like those you describe, although it goes for the participatory style of “performance.” I was just wondering whether you’d thought about the nuts and bolts question of what obedience to God’s will for unity might look like. I have. It seems to me that gestures such as common meals would be almost as insignificant today as something like foot-washing. Table fellowship was a dynamic statement in the first century, but I’m afraid it would not have much meaning or impact in my community. I have been thinking about practices that might be more dynamically analogous (rather than strictly imitative) and wondered if you’d given it any thought.

        Certain segments of 1st-century society could not eat together. In the church, they did. The very fact of table fellowship was a powerful statement of “neither Jew nor Greek, free nor slave, etc.” (Hence Paul’s outrage at Peter’s “hypocrisy” in Gal 2). What analogous practice (if any) might make the same statement today?

      • timgombis

        In our church in inner-city Springfield, we used to host an evening meal after our service on Saturday nights and invited the neighborhood to join us. It took a lot of effort each week to pull it off and binder us all together and forged wonderful relationships with people in that beaten down community. It had many of those counter-cultural dynamics of people who shouldn’t be eating together, eating together. And it generated loads of other dynamics that made us rub shoulders with each other and others that created and fostered genuine community. I wouldn’t give up on meals so easily! But that’s not to say that many other ideas couldn’t be generated.

  • Andrew T.

    Paul conceives of a corporate reality.

    Your argument does a good job establishing this – but what does it mean? What was the corporate reality?

    Was it a metaphorical kingdom or an actual kingdom? Did it have a metaphorical king, or an actual king?

    From the way the conclusion was stated, it seems the emphasis is on ‘corporate’, but shouldn’t the emphasis be on ‘reality’, or at least the questions that beg answering – be about ‘reality’?

    The insight that the Lord’s supper in [1 Cor 11] doesn’t end at vs. 29 seems as profound as this post makes it seem, but including the vs. past 29 speaks more about the reality of the kingdom than the corporate nature of the kingdom, since Paul was an Israelite and not a Greek.

    Observing the corporate nature of the Kingdom surprises many of us, but we have the unfortunate disadvantage of being this side of philosophical Greek democratic influence historical, and the notions of individual personhood it brings with it.

    Israelite Benjaminites were not so disadvantaged. Everything was corporate to a Hebrew scholar, including personhood [Gen 2:24][1 Cor 6;16]. There was no whiff of the ‘democratic individualism’ that so blinds us today.

    So it isn’t likely Paul was trying to establish what would have been to him a presupposition. Rather it is likely given this presupposition, Paul was trying to paint a picture of how this corporate entity should function.

    It begs the question, if Paul saw a corporate entity functioning, is he speaking about something found in history, or merely something metaphorical?

    • gjohnston2244

      I’m not following your double negative in your last post, but I think I agree with what I think you are saying in your first set of comments. I agree that the corporate nature of the people of God was a presupposition of Paul. But it doesn’t seem to be one that is appreciated in the Corinthian church, hence a lot of clickish and individual superstar behavior, 11:22-23 seems to capture the failure of some to grasp that the common meal was to be a corporate model of a bigger picture (made more explicit in Ephesians 2-4). But there is a definite presupposition on Paul’s part that people of God are to be understood corporately. Otherwise, even his argument in Ephesians wouldn’t work.

      As for the “kingdom of God” being metaphorical or actual, I would suggest it is metaphorical. But that doesn’t mean the metaphor doesn’t denote an actual, “this world” reality. I’m not sure how the distinction is relevant to vv.29ff. Either a metaphorical kingdom or a literal one could be all about the personal spirituality of individuals. In contrast, a metaphorical kingdom or a literal one could be about corporate behavior. Or they could be about both individual behavior and corporate life. The issue (it seems to me) is not whether the “kingdom” language is metaphorical but whether the people of the kingdom are intended only to be a model corporate people or a bunch of model individuals. In other words, whether metaphorical or literal, how is the rule of God in Christ manifested?

      • gjohnston2244

        I butchered the end of my post. Please endure another effort:

        The issue (it seems to me) is not whether the “kingdom” language is intended to be metaphorical, but whether the people of the kingdom are intended to be a model corporate reality or merely a bunch of model individuals without regard to the corporate picture.

      • Andrew T.

        Yes, it turns out I was correct in the first place, and incorrect in the second place (trying to correct myself). You’re correct – the double negative was doubly negative (and so unnecessary and confusing). I apologize.

        With respect to your observations about [11:22-23] seeming to capture the failure of some to grasp that the common meal was to be a corporate model of a bigger picture – I agree – except to add that we already have a sense of what this bigger picture is from context.

        Back in [I Cor 9] Paul is speaking about lawlessness and how he himself has set aside his own personal freedom, becoming all things to all people. It doesn’t appear to be related to his argument about supper in [I Cor 11] but it is. Read [1 Cor 10:1-5].

        All passed through the sea with Moses, all were baptised into Moses in cloud and sea, all received the Law yet some were overthrown in the wilderness. To the audience he was preaching the Law represented, in some sense, the defining attribute of ‘citizenship’, yet Paul is showing this not to be the case.

        Skipping forward to the discussion about inclusion (or exclusion) at the group meal, Paul’s point is that there’s more to the meal than mere ceremony and participation, but a God imposed expectation that participation implies a covenant relationship, and right conduct [see ([1 Cor 11:27-29]).

        It comes down to the principle that the blessing found in the Abrahamic promise was one of faith – so faith was the inheritance of Abraham, passed along to his branch. Accordingly, by faith could the descendants of Abraham be recognized [Gal 3:7] Know then that those of faith are the sons of Abraham’s.

        Applying the same principle then, those who come to the table rightly (meaning refusing to judge the participation of others, and in a right-relationship with God themselves) are exhibiting true attributes of citizenship in this kingdom (so that they may not be judged by the world [1 Cor 11:32-34] but recognized appropriately).

      • gjohnston2244

        Nice job, Andrew. No dispute from me.

      • Andrew T.

        I also agree that The the “kingdom” language does help discern the corporate model, whether the people of the kingdom are intended to be a model corporate reality or merely a bunch of model individuals without regard to the corporate picture however it goes beyond that in tell us how to recognize the people of the kingdom at all!

        I don’t favour seeing Paul’s language anywhere as metaphorical. Jesus spoke in parables for the sake of dividing those of his flock from those not of his flock, but he always spoke of an actualized thing, never of a metaphorical thing. So too, in Paul’s words there isn’t a stitch of evidence he intended metaphor, so the default should be to take his words at face value.

        The benefit of this is that it shifts our thinking from modern philosophical Greek individualism towards a renew, reformed, Israel (sons of Abraham) with David’s son as it’s actual king. The debate then becomes not “is this about individual or corporate relationship”, but instead how do we discern citizens of the common wealth of Israel in good standing with their citizenship?

      • gjohnston2244

        ANDREW WROTE:
        “…however it goes beyond that in tell us how to recognize the people of the kingdom at all!”
        ——————————-
        I agree.

        ANDREW WROTE:
        “I don’t favour seeing Paul’s language anywhere as metaphorical. Jesus … always spoke of an actualized thing, never of a metaphorical thing. So too, in Paul’s words there isn’t a stitch of evidence he intended metaphor,”
        ——————————
        From this, our disagreement seems to be over a matter of definition rather than substance. I’m not sure what you mean by “metaphor.” I tried to make it clear that I do not believe that a metaphorical “kingdom” excludes “an actualized thing.” In the Old Testament, YHWH as “king” is a metaphor for YHWH as Lord, as sovereign Creator, and especially as Israel’s covenant God. Just because the language is figurative doesn’t mean the reality isn’t “actual.” YHWH as “king” is a metaphor much like YHWH as “shepherd” or YHWH as “husband.” They all paint a pictures of YHWH’s relationship to his creation or his people. Similarly, associated terms, such as YHWH’s “throne” or “scepter” (e.g, PS 45:6) are also metaphors. To recognize metaphorical language is not to deny ACTUALITY. It simply denies LITERALITY.

        As to evidence that Paul uses “kingdom” metaphorically, I submit Romans 13, where he urges paying taxes to Caesar. The “No King but YHWH” movement took YHWH’s kingship a bit more literally, as in the instance of the revolt of Judas the Galilean, which was all about paying taxes to Caesar under direct Roman rule. For Paul, YHWH’s (or the Messiah’s) kingdom is not so literal as to preclude honoring Caesar as king or paying taxes to him. YHWH’s kingdom (although actual and real) does not unseat Caesar or Herod. That means it is “metaphorical” by definition, or at least the way I am using “metaphorical.”

        Finally, I would submit Isaiah 45:20-23 as an illustrative exampe. The declaration, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear alligiance” is Kingdom of God language. But the context makes it clear that it is metaphor for monotheism. The explicit goal is for the nations to “turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other” (45:22, cf 45:21). Monotheism. YHWH as sovereign God.

        Or so it seems to me.

  • Andrew T.

    should have read:
    So it isn’t likely Paul WASN’T trying to establish what would have been to him a presupposition.

  • Andrew T.

    I wan’t aware there was controversy between us, gjohnston2244. Nevertheless you articulate your position clearly and make a strong case. Even if we’re not in complete agree – I enjoy your perspective.

    Look at YHWH as “king”. That could be figurative – sure, but what did YHWH do? YHWH moved beyond metaphor when he established a (non-figurative) throne in David [2 Sam 7:13,16], and a (non-figurative) kingdom to be ruled by that throne [2 Sam 7:12-13,16]. David certainly didn’t see YHWH’s promise as figurative, he says about the throne in response “‘Who am I, O Lord Elohim, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far? And yet this was a small thing in your eyes, O Lord Elohim. You have spoken also of your servant’s house for a great while to come, and this is instruction for mankind, O Lord Elohim!” [2 Sam 7:18-19]. About the Kingdom he says “And you established for yourself your people Israel to be your people forever. And you, O YHWH, became their Elohim.

    That YHWH would mask His glory, humbling Himself by adorning weak and sinful flesh to claim a throne he established in David, and a people he established in Jacob [Luke 1:68], is a far cry from a spiritualized and figurative ‘church’. If the throne and kingdom were merely figurative, why would God through all of the trouble of establishing a throne and a kingdom confined to history, one he could actually come to claim [Luke 1:32,69; 2:34][Matt 2:6; 15:24].

    How then can ‘throne’ and ‘sceptre’ be figurative if they have been established, and do in fact exist?

    With respect to [Romans 13], clearly our presuppositions flavour our hermeneutics. What I see in [Romans 13] is the collision between 2 actual early Kingdoms; one, the final of four beastly nations appointed to punish Israel and represent the seat of Babylon, ultimately to be destroyed by a God believing nation (figurative mountain), established by no humans hands, and two, a revived Kingdom of Israel, and Judah. recognizing their shepherd (or rock of stumbling), under a renewed throne reclaimed by David’s son. [Romans 13] is figurative only if one’s presuppositions are. (In [Romans 13] Paul is recognizing that Israel’s sifting is complete [Isa 30:28][Amos 9:9], and that the Beast nations time has come; accordingly although God’s elect are still subject to early power, they must start attending to the responsibilities of their covenant (meaning to become a light of the world, and mirrors of their Messiah).

    I appreciate your quoting of [Isa 45:20-23]. Look who is identified as the the source of the prophecy in [Isa 45:15] “Truly, you are an Elohim who hides yourself, O Elohim of Israel, the Saviour“. Look who the prophecy is addressed to in [Isa 45:17] “But Israel is saved by YHWH with everlasting salvation;“.

    If there is controversy here it is because people object to YHWH’s apparent particularism – but that only show they fail to understand the relationship betweem YHWH and His people (and so also the old and new Covenant [Heb 8:8]), and by extension, His people’s relationship to those wild branches who obtain salvation out of the world.

    • gjohnston2244

      ANDREW WROTE:
      YHWH moved beyond metaphor when he established a (non-figurative) throne in David [2 Sam 7:13,16], and a (non-figurative) kingdom to be ruled by that throne
      ———————————–
      Yes, a literal throne. And an eternal throne, according to the narrative, a throne ultimately to have universal dominion (Ps 2 and 72). It definitely was literal in the case of David’s throne and Solomon’s throne and along to Zedekiah. But was a literal, earthly throne always the intention? Because in additon to Ps 2 and 72, there is also 2 Kings 25 and Ps 89. The fall of the literal throne of David. Would the ultimate intended Son of David also sit on a literal, earthly throne complete with a literal crown and scepter?

      Whether it will be re-established as a literal, earthly throne is a New Testament issue. So far, only figurative. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, “enthronement” (narrative language) happened at the cross and/or resurrection (Mark 14:61-62 ; Eph 1:20-21). Please don’t misunderstand me. I do believe that an actual change of power occurred. I just don’t believe there is a literal throne somewhere in the sky with Jesus sitting on it. I read it as picture language. It’s narrative language.

      Whether there will be a literal throne in at some point in the future (either on the present real estate in Israel or a new heavens and new earth), I am doubtful. But I could be wrong. I’m not saying that Paul’s vision of “every knew bowing and tongue acknowledging” the sovereignty of Jesus is false or not real. I’m saying that it is narrative language and metaphorical. Jesus’ dominion and rightful authority will be acknowledged. Thrones, scepters and crowns are simply literary ways of expressing that. Or so it seems to me.

      ANDREW WROTE:
      I appreciate your quoting of [Isa 45:20-23]. Look who is identified as the the source of the prophecy in [Isa 45:15] “Truly, you are an Elohim who hides yourself, O Elohim of Israel, the Saviour“. Look who the prophecy is addressed to in [Isa 45:17] “But Israel is saved by YHWH with everlasting salvation;“.
      ————————————
      I’m not sure why you are pointing out the source of the prophecy. I was aware of the source, but don’t see how it impacts what I wrote about Isaiah 45:20-23. It still seems to me that the thrust of the text is monotheism but uses a “kingdom” metaphor. What am I missing?

      • Andrew T.

        But was a literal, earthly throne always the intention? – Great question.

        It definitely was literal in the case of David’s throne and Solomon’s throne and along to Zedekiah. Yes .. and .. once Zedekiah’s sons were killed David’s thrown fell to Zedekiah’s daughters [Jer 41:10] historically since daughters inherited where no son existed [Num 27:8][Num 36:8]) and so on, and so on.

        You’re exposing some presuppositions about David’s throne in history. Since the promise to the House of David was established in David with the promise “ I shall establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, “You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.”” Zedekiah’s daughters had every right to carry on this promise historically, and when Christ came (meaning YHWH entered history) He came to obtain what was His.

        I don’t see where David’s literal throne failed historically, even if I am ignorant to its history, but God’s promise is eternal, and I question – has God failed in this?

      • gjohnston2244

        Just a couple points. First regarding Zed’s daughters. Having heirs to the throne and having occupants to the throne are two different things. Ps 89 laments the fall of David’s throne as if the promise to David had been forgotten.

        I may very well have exposed my presuppositons as well as my ignorance. I suspect they’re there even though I can’t see them. What are my presuppositions? And are they groundless?

        David’s literal throne “failed” historically because there is no one occupying and ruling from it, and there hasn’t been since Zedekiah. Did God’s promise fail? Not if one allows that the throne occupied by “the one to whom it belongs” was never intended to be a literal throne. In other words, if those promises to David you cited were intended to be fulfilled in the non-literal enthronement of Jesus at cross and empty tomb, then the promises of God have not failed. They find their amen in Jesus. Again, it depends on whether the intention in those promises was always to be literal.

        Or at least that is my reading given my presuppositions.

  • gjohnston2244

    Andrew, thanks for the discussion. To clarify a point: When I said David’s throne had fallen with ” Zedekiah, you proposed his daughters as heirs. My point is that although he had daughteres who could have inherited the throne, that did not prevent the Psalter from lamenting that YHWH had “defiled” the crown of the Davidic king “in the dust” (Ps 89:39), “removed the scepter from his hand, and hurled his throne to the ground (89:44). As far as the Psalter is concerned, the throne of David has fallen, and he wonders whether it will ever rise again.

    I believe it rose again when Jesus of Nazareth rose again. This seems to be Paul’s interpretation in Romans 1:1-4 as well as Ephesians 1:20-21. In other words, Paul sees a real fulfillment of the promise to David albeit a figurative one. And I mean “figurative” in the sense that David’s literal throne in the geographical City of David doesn’t exist. At least not yet. Some people think it will be re-established there at some point in the future. But that is another discussion.

    I may be reading this wrong, but that reading seems to make sense to me.

  • Andrew

    You are quite welcome, and thank you too. Clearly the only way to advance thought is through discussion. However, if you weary of it, please say. My interest in these pathways will pursue as far they lead.

    I agree with you – the booth (or branch, or thicket) of David fell. It fell before Zedekiah; it fell with the Curse of Jehoiakim. (I assume you know that in Hebrew ‘branch’ (H7753) is the same as ‘booth’ (H7900) is the same as ‘tabernacle’ (H7754), all variants of the same root!? So the ‘tabernacle of the Lord’ is the same as His ‘hedge of protection’ is the same as His ‘branch’.)

    Never-the-less, even if David’s branch fell, YHWH still transplanted a tender twig (according to Eze) – he plucked off a delicate twig (Zedekiah’s daughters) transplanting to a high and lofty mountain [Eze 17:22-33]. So though David’s branch fell, it did not fall completely since God had hid his twig (ultimately to be reclaimed and re-nurtured). We know that this ‘fallen branch of David’ was hidden at the time of Christ since Herod’s throne was certainly not the ‘booth of David’ ([Amos 9:11]). Herod, as king of Judea, was not of David since Herod was an Idumean, meaning an Edomite. Goats had taken over the flock calling themselves sheep [Rev 2:9; 3:9] so Herod’s throne was not David’s throne.

    Nevertheless, this Holy mountain spoken of by Ezekiel was no less than the same Holy mountain [Eze 20:40] (or treasure) hidden in a field waiting to be found; this Holy mountain grew out of the stone (of stumbling) uncut by human hands (meaning sanctification which forms us in the image of the Messiah grows a rock into a mountain). This also means that the ‘booth that was fallen’ existed to be reclaimed and re-erected [Amos 9:11]; a ‘root’ from whence a branch could be re-grown [Jer 33:15].

    So, as far as the Psalter being concerned, David’s booth could have been fallen, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Moreover, the Psalter did not see the whole promise of God, so did not see the tender shoot replanted, or the treasure hid in the field.

    With respect to “David’s literal throne not existing“, I’m not so sure it doesn’t (whether or not we recognize it). Yes – it has disappeared into history, but God’s promise to David stands eternal. It is going to be shockingly revelatory when Christ return to claim His actual earthly Davidic throne (now hidden, but extant), along with the early authority it manifests (as mere shadow of authority ordained in heaven). He will start to rule and We’ll say to ourselves – ‘How did we not see that coming?’ ‘How did we miss its foundation?'”

    This since it isn’t to ‘thy Kingdom come‘ we go, but ‘thy Kingdom come‘ comes to us – meaning it is unhidden, unburied, uncovered [Matt 13:44] (In Hebrew ‘exile’ (H1540) means ‘to uncover’, in Greek Γαλατίας (Galah-tikos) – means to ‘exhibit the character of an exile’).

    Paul understood that David’s branch, which Christ reclaimed was not missing, but hidden. He spook of God’s mysteries ‘long sealed’ [Rom 16:25], and blindness being upon Israel [Rom 11:25].

    Of course, we could both be mistaken, but trusting the Holy Spirit is never a mistake, so to the Holy Spirit we must look.

    • gjohnston2244

      I am not familiar with many of the details of the messianic thread you are tracking, but to me it has prima facie plausibility. And I do not wish to quibble over distinctions between “not existing” and being “hidden.” “Hidden” is narrative language. “Not existing” is the language of literal historical description. We are speaking in different genres. There need not be a “controversy,” as you have phrased it. My only point is one of clarification. We need to be careful about conflating the narrative language of the Bible with the propositonal descriptive language of sytematic theology and history.

      As I conceded, it is possible that the Son of David will return in history to claim the literal throne of David complete with a literal scepter and crown in a literal Kingdom of God headquartered in geopolitical Jerusalem. But that throne, scepter and crown does not currently exist except in the narrative language of scripture. According to the biblical narrative, it currently exists in a heavenly throneroom at the right hand of the Ancient of Days, but then that is also the metaphorical language of scripture. I believe it to be true. But it has the ring of figurative language to me.

      Thanks again. I will give your branch, twig, mountain trail a closer look. Perhaps it has some connection to the shoot-from-the-stump-of-Jesse in Isaiah 11.

  • Andrew T.

    Just as Jesus’ language of parable described something true and objective, something now recognizable (because we have the benefit of His desciple’s exegesis), the narrative language we should not conflate with propositonal descriptive language of sytematic theology and history is no different. The point all along has been ‘Does this narrative point to mere metaphor (something spiritualized), or does it describe something in history but unrecognized (something actualized)?’

    Just as Jesus’ language of parable was designed to speak truth to His elect, being recognizable as their shepherds voice’, it was also designed to be not-plain to those who rejected Him. His choice of words was designed to expose which hearers were followers, and which were opponents. Remarkably, it did this whether or not the words were understood! Thankfully, prophetic language is entirely consistent, and explained.

    So the narrative language of old covenant prophets, which all pointed to the marriage covenant between bridegroom and bride, is also designed to be. However, as we see from Jesus desciples – they recognized their master’s voice whether or not they understood His words, thankfully.

    Thank you for your discussion, and great insight. It reminds me to be the the type of disciple not enamoured with mere parable, but to seek to understand the truth beneath.

  • joey

    I spoke this at the occasion of the Supper about a year ago.

    Before his death, the Lord Jesus prayed that we would all be one. More often than we’d like, I know, it doesn’t look or feel like we are one, but in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul says that the Supper of the Lord, that you are about to take, IS a supper of unity. He says that if there isn’t unity here then it isn’t the Supper we are eating. God, Paul says, through you, is fulfilling the prayer of our Lord resoundingly, “Yes!” There are no divisions here. We are all one. One Body. In fact, I am not me, the individual, standing up here talking; I am the Body talking. We are all one. All equal. We all eat and drink equally. NO DIVISIONS!
    What’s more, Acts 7, you are all, collectively, a Nation of Prophets. This is an act of prophecy. You prophecy that one day all of life will be characterized by what you do now: NO DIVISIONS!
    And the World hates what you do now. Make no mistake about it: This is a moment of extreme contention. This isn’t a benign, sweet, little ceremony. This is two kingdoms clashing with each other. Ever since the Powers hijacked God’s creation, the structure of the world has been characterized by divisions. Ever since Adam and Eve were pitted against each other: Division! Governments? Governments get their power from division. Take away division and governments as we know them go away. The media? The media thrives on division. It’s what sells commercials. Salesmarketers? Salesmarketers make use of and create division. It’s what sells their products. The World hates what you are about to do. You are a direct threat to their continued hijacking of God’s creation – not because you are nice people – you are a threat because you have the courage – and it is courage, because this is a battle – you have the courage to proclaim a hope for a post-resurrection life that will be characterized by WHAT – YOU – DO – NOW: NO DIVISIONS!
    He prayed for unity. And he gave us a Supper of UNITY. An act of defiance. An act of prophecy. An act of subversion: God, through you, tearing down the current structure of the World and putting in its place the structure he has had planned for his creation from the beginning: NO DIVISIONS!
    This is a Supper of unity. That means things and does things.

    I then prayed that God would make us all truly one, under one Name, as we all ate and drank from the one Body, the body of King Jesus.

    Not as well said as many others could say it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: