Matey Yanakiev’s position paper, On An Oftener Lord’s Supper, is a thoughtful, well-written appeal to keep The Lord’s Supper (TLS) more often than annually.
Matey focuses on 1st Corinthians 11, making several interesting, relevant and edifying observations. However, at the very outset, rather than demonstrating what TLS actually is, he evidently errs in presuming (as most do today) that TLS is a distinctly new meal instituted by Christ, and not Passover itself.
Decoupling TLS from Passover is evidently a particularly difficult thing to demonstrate from scripture. Instead, Matey focuses on the question of frequency and evidently misses the larger picture.
In studying Matey’s article, I identify four relevant claims, ordered in what I find to be their relative importance. Let’s address these points in order.
- Since Paul is speaking about regular gatherings of the saints, the context shows he does not consider TLS an annual event, but something much more frequent.
- Since Paul is addressing topics of immediate concern, and since he references being in a time period before Pentecost (1Co 16:8), he must have written this letter after Passover; so Paul’s concern with how the Corinthians are keeping TLS proves (from claim 1) that TLS was observed more often than annually.
- Limiting TLS to the timing of Passover overlooks Yeshua’s fulfillment of the other Old Testament sacrifices.
- It isn’t even possible to keep Passover correctly outside Jerusalem, so Paul isn’t encouraging the saints to do so, therefore he is not limiting TLS to the timing of Passover.
On the 1st claim, which I find to be the most interesting and compelling, I agree the context relates to regular gatherings of the saints, not merely to an annual event: the Corinthian saints assembled together at least weekly, evidently with a divisive mindset whenever they did meet, and this was of urgent concern to Paul. (1Co 1:10) Paul begins his discussion of TLS in this context by addressing the inappropriate, harmful divisiveness in their frequent assemblies (1Co 11:18), yet as he introduces TLS he immediately shifts his language to focus on a type of centralized assembly: “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” (20)
The phrase “into one place” is needlessly redundant with “come together” unless Paul is referencing a particularly important gathering that is more centralized in comparison with typical gatherings, and it is in this centralized setting where they will evidently partake of TLS. It is certainly plausible (due to logistical challenges related to Corinth’s geographical size and the proximity of surrounding villages, the relative poverty of most saints in that day, the limitation of a sabbath day’s journey impacting any Jews in the congregation, and the imposition of a 6 or 7-day work week for most of them) that the Corinthians met more frequently in smaller, local settings, perhaps in homes, and then came together from all across the city and surrounding villages less frequently on important occasions.
Paul recognizes participation in TLS while continuing in such flagrant division and disdain (22) is the root cause of much sickness and untimely death in their spiritual community (29-30), so he may be warning them to repent of such behavior in their local gatherings (33) in preparation for the next celebration of TLS, evidently in this centralized gathering of the Corinthian saints. Celebrating Passover together annually would certainly provide a reasonable motivation for such a centralized event and explain Paul’s focus on Passover as TLS without ignoring the meeting frequency evident in the context.
So, there is a reasonable way to understand Paul’s teaching on TLS in the context of frequent assemblies and still allow for Paul’s focus on an imminent annual event. This is a nice segue into Matey’s 2nd claim, which is easily dismissed. There is zero reason to presume (from 1Co 16:8) a pre-Pentecost letter must necessarily be wirten after Passover, between Passover and Pentecost; we may just as easily presume Paul wrote prior to Passover, such that they received his letter before further harming themselves in observing Passover unworthily again. (1Co 11:29-30) Further, the pre-Passover timing appears reasonable since Paul evidently has Passover on his mind and exhorts the saints to focus on purity as they prepare to observe it (1Co 5:7-8), aligning nicely with Passover as a pending event rather than a recently completed one.
To Matey’s 3rd point, of course Yeshua is much more than just our Passover, but exactly how limiting TLS to the Passover season neglects His remaining prophetic significance is a bit of a mystery — unless Matey has also accepted Christian dogma that the biblical feasts have all been obsoleted by Yeshua’s atonement such that we are left with nothing to celebrate Him in except TLS, so Matey is trying to pack everything else into TLS. This perspective is perhaps understandable, given common Christian misunderstanding, but it is ultimately and fundamentally flawed, per Christ’s explicit instruction in the Sermon on the Mount. (Mt 5:17-19)
Lastly, Matey contends that when Paul exhorts the saints to “keep the feast”, Paul necessarily means “in the full sense”, so Matey concludes this cannot be a reference to Passover since this feast can only be commemorated and not kept in the strictly Mosaic sense outside of Jerusalem. And this “full sense” is, according to Matey, “precisely because it is not the traditional Mosaic Passover proper, but the Passover with a new once-for-all sacrifice.” This is evidently a hopeful bit of circular reasoning, if one can call it reasoning at all. The phrase “keep the feast” can reasonably be understood as an invitation to celebrate Passover, as the Jews of the Diaspora in that day evidently did, with everything except a sacrificial lamb.
Further, Matey claims that understanding the symbolism of Christ’s atoning body and blood in a Passover context is “at odds with the spiritual interpretation Paul applies to every element of the Passover in 1 Cor 5:7–9.” At best, this appears to be a final bit of hand-waving; whatever symbolism Matey thinks he finds in TLS that is inconsistent with any element of Passover is evidently a basic misunderstanding on his part.
In summary, Matey has, in my view, taken a reasonably decent stab (for the most part) at an impossible task. I respect him for attempting this, given the limitations of his apparent theological presuppositions.
In order to even begin to address this topic correctly, before tackling the timing of TLS, one must rigorously show from scripture that Yeshua intended to institute TLS as a new meal, independent of Passover, and that His intent was not to explain the symbolism inherent in Passover itself. (Jn 6:53) Without taking this first step, one has no context to even begin to frame a timing claim for TLS.
The fact that Yeshua revealed the symbolism of His body and blood in the context of explicit, specific, particular elements of a Passover meal, without ever even hinting at the idea of starting a new meal or tradition independent of Passover, is where we must begin; we must state the obvious, deal with honestly with the facts, and proceed from here.
The task is certainly daunting; I have been unable to find anyone who has reasonably demonstrated from scripture how TLS could ever have arisen naturally in the Apostolic era as a new, separate tradition apart from Passover.
However, it can be shown rather easily that TLS, in its current form, emerged in the post-apostolic era as Christians were desperately trying to decouple themselves from Judaism, and ultimately from Torah itself, to avoid a debilitating tax imposed by Rome on anyone who looked and acted Jewish. Reinterpreting Paul in ways that were foreign to Paul himself, and to all of Yeshua’s Apostles, was how they did so. All that is distinctly Christian appeared ex nihilo during this immensely stressful season, and evidently for this reason.
Further, as soon as we try to decouple TLS from Passover, we are left to figure out how to sanctify particular pieces of bread and cups of wine as symbolic of Yeshua’s body and blood … elements which, once properly sanctified, can kill the participant who engages unworthily. This is no small step, and we have absolutely no instruction at all from Yeshua on how to do this, so we are left to our own devices, to make it up as we go. This is not how God works; He has never worked this way.
If Yeshua had indeed intended to define an entirely new meal in TLS, to avoid confusion He would certainly have done so in a vacuum, without any connection to a biblical feast, and He would have stated clearly and explicitly how and when to observe it. This is how He has given us all the biblical feasts, so it stands to reason He would have been as clear with us about TLS. He was not. Therefore, we may confidently conclude that Yeshua did not intend to start a unique New Testament meal in TLS, but rather to help us all more faithfully and intelligently celebrate an eternal one: Passover.
articles ♦ discussion ♦ blog
An additional text is relevant here, which is not explicitly addressed in Matey’s article: “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.” (1 Co 11:33) Why would Paul speak like this, as if it applies to any time they eat together, if he is thinking about Passover?
The answer is likely in the fact that the Corinthians were in the habit of disrespecting one another whenever they ate together, which would naturally been whenever they assembled, locally or centralized. This selfish behavior naturally carried over into Passover (TLS) and therefore caused health and life-threatening judgments. Avoiding such catastrophes at Passover (TLS) necessitated repentance in general and practicing better behavior all the time, in their localized, more frequent meetings, hence a general instruction to repent of their selfishness every time they met and ate together, not just at Passover.
If anyone feels I have misrepresented any of Matey’s claims or position, or that I have failed to articulate any of them in their strongest possible form, please do let me know. I would appreciate it very much.