What do you think?
Rate this book
Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord's Supper
Making a Meal of It explores the background and implication of the Lord's Supper. Delving into its historical and Scriptural origins, Witherington argues that the Lord's Supper is a sacramental celebration of the community of God, designed to incorporate people of varying backgrounds. Excavating the diverse ways in which Scripture and early Christian tradition speak about the Lord's Supper, Witherington advocates that the meal is primarily about who the people of God are and how they should thus live together.
160 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2007
10 people are currently reading
114 people want to read
About the author
Ben Witherington III
130 books151 followersBen Witherington III (PhD, University of Durham) is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, and is on the doctoral faculty at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. He is the author or coauthor of more than thirty books, including The Jesus Quest, The Paul Quest, and The New York Times bestseller The Brother of Jesus. He has appeared on the History Channel, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
October 11, 2013
"Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper", is a concise and intriguing explanation of that sacrament. Ben Witherington III, an erudite New Testament scholar, insists that we must look to the Bible in order to understand the Lord’s Supper, keeping in mind how its earliest participants, Jewish followers of Jesus, would have regarded it. In particular, he explores the relationship between the Passover and the Last Supper. The main Biblical texts Witherington uses in his analysis are 1 Corinthians 11 (where Paul warns against partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner) and the Gospel of John (where Witherington spends a long time making a case that not John, but Lazarus, was the real author of this work; Witherington’s case here is interesting, but a bit too distracting from the actual topic of the Lord’s Supper).
According to Witherington, the Lord’s Supper was originally served alongside a main meal. This was done in large part in order to display Christian hospitality and to build fellowship among the believers. Witherington states that the Lord’s Supper was originally seen as ordinary food that was partaken of in private homes during “agape (love) feasts.” However, as centuries progressed, asceticism began to permeate through the early church, culminating in 692 AD when the Council of Trullian banned love feasts for life. Therefore, the Lord’s Supper that had been practiced in private homes, with the “pater familias” serving as the household priest, was forced to be held only in church, paving the way for the sacrament to be controlled by the clergy. Witherington boldly claims that the Lord’s Supper was not originally required to be administered by clergy. He points out that the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), arguably our most important early church document outside of the New Testament itself, does not state that only the ordained were to serve the Lord’s Supper. The only condition the Didache mandates for the Lord’s Supper is that those who partake of it must be baptized. Changes in the church’s thinking on the Lord’s Supper can be attributed to Gentile Christians increasingly attaining leadership roles and bringing in Greek philosophical thinking with them in order to explain and defend the Gospel. As Witherington writes, “When one gets to Clement or Hippolytus, we are clearly a long way from what we find in Paul and the Gospels, where the influence of the Passover is still strongly present and the meal is seen as a family meal, taken in the home, a memorial meal to remember Jesus’ death until his return.”
Witherington identifies several factors that led to a consolidation of the Lord’s Supper into the hands of the priesthood, stating, “When exactly did this all change, and what were the social and theological factors that led to the change? The answer seems to be in the second century and: (1) because of the consolidation of ecclesial power in the hands of monarchial bishops and others; (2) in response to the rise of heretical movements such as the Gnostics; (3) in regard to the social context of the Lord’s Supper, namely, the agape, or thanksgiving, meal, due to the rise to prominence of asceticism in the church; and (4) because the increasingly Gentile majority in the church was to change how second-century Christian thinkers would reflect on the meal. Thus, issues of power and purity and even ethnicity were to change the views of the Lord’s Supper and the way it would be practiced.”
While most of the historical analysis in this book is focused on alterations to the meaning and nature of the Lord’s Supper by the medieval church, Witherington does spend some time discussing how the Protestants interpreted the sacrament, spending most of the time on Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and John Wesley.
Witherington closes by offering his own suggestions for a faithful recovery of the Lord’s Supper. He rebukes those Christian denominations who make the sacrament a somber affair, a memorial meal only. He also chastises the practice of individualizing the sacrament’s elements (personal cups of wine/juice, personal wafers), asserting that the “unity of the one loaf” that Paul advocates for would be best testified to if the bread served in communion remained unbroken until it was partaken of. However, while Witherington declares that we should celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a sign of Christ’s victorious resurrection, we should also be serious when we take it so that we can “discern the body” with a clear mind. As for what actually happens at the Lord’s Supper between Jesus and the believer, Witherington writes, “the real spiritual presence of Christ meets us at and in the Meal if we receive him by faith.” He also stresses that Christians should acknowledge that the Lord’s Supper is a corporate, not an individual act, a sacrament that builds up unity among believers.
I would highly recommend this slim book to anyone interested in understanding the Lord’s Supper better.
According to Witherington, the Lord’s Supper was originally served alongside a main meal. This was done in large part in order to display Christian hospitality and to build fellowship among the believers. Witherington states that the Lord’s Supper was originally seen as ordinary food that was partaken of in private homes during “agape (love) feasts.” However, as centuries progressed, asceticism began to permeate through the early church, culminating in 692 AD when the Council of Trullian banned love feasts for life. Therefore, the Lord’s Supper that had been practiced in private homes, with the “pater familias” serving as the household priest, was forced to be held only in church, paving the way for the sacrament to be controlled by the clergy. Witherington boldly claims that the Lord’s Supper was not originally required to be administered by clergy. He points out that the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), arguably our most important early church document outside of the New Testament itself, does not state that only the ordained were to serve the Lord’s Supper. The only condition the Didache mandates for the Lord’s Supper is that those who partake of it must be baptized. Changes in the church’s thinking on the Lord’s Supper can be attributed to Gentile Christians increasingly attaining leadership roles and bringing in Greek philosophical thinking with them in order to explain and defend the Gospel. As Witherington writes, “When one gets to Clement or Hippolytus, we are clearly a long way from what we find in Paul and the Gospels, where the influence of the Passover is still strongly present and the meal is seen as a family meal, taken in the home, a memorial meal to remember Jesus’ death until his return.”
Witherington identifies several factors that led to a consolidation of the Lord’s Supper into the hands of the priesthood, stating, “When exactly did this all change, and what were the social and theological factors that led to the change? The answer seems to be in the second century and: (1) because of the consolidation of ecclesial power in the hands of monarchial bishops and others; (2) in response to the rise of heretical movements such as the Gnostics; (3) in regard to the social context of the Lord’s Supper, namely, the agape, or thanksgiving, meal, due to the rise to prominence of asceticism in the church; and (4) because the increasingly Gentile majority in the church was to change how second-century Christian thinkers would reflect on the meal. Thus, issues of power and purity and even ethnicity were to change the views of the Lord’s Supper and the way it would be practiced.”
While most of the historical analysis in this book is focused on alterations to the meaning and nature of the Lord’s Supper by the medieval church, Witherington does spend some time discussing how the Protestants interpreted the sacrament, spending most of the time on Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and John Wesley.
Witherington closes by offering his own suggestions for a faithful recovery of the Lord’s Supper. He rebukes those Christian denominations who make the sacrament a somber affair, a memorial meal only. He also chastises the practice of individualizing the sacrament’s elements (personal cups of wine/juice, personal wafers), asserting that the “unity of the one loaf” that Paul advocates for would be best testified to if the bread served in communion remained unbroken until it was partaken of. However, while Witherington declares that we should celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a sign of Christ’s victorious resurrection, we should also be serious when we take it so that we can “discern the body” with a clear mind. As for what actually happens at the Lord’s Supper between Jesus and the believer, Witherington writes, “the real spiritual presence of Christ meets us at and in the Meal if we receive him by faith.” He also stresses that Christians should acknowledge that the Lord’s Supper is a corporate, not an individual act, a sacrament that builds up unity among believers.
I would highly recommend this slim book to anyone interested in understanding the Lord’s Supper better.
August 23, 2011
I enjoyed this book thoroughly. I'm typically a fan of BW's commentaries, and even where I might disagree with conclusions, his perspective adds great insight. Here BW traces the meal from its origins in the passover and gospel accounts, through the NT practice, down through 2,000 years of (abbreviated) church history. Three main strengths to this book...
1) He places the meal in question firmly in it's first-century context. How helpful it is to know what the meal was then in order to know what it should be now.
2) BW's familiarity with the gospels as a premiere historical Jesus scholar aids greatly in his analysis of the gospel passages which provide the basis for the meal. Little is assumed and so much is learned.
3) With all his scholarly weight behind him, BW make few if any direct applications. He points out instances where the church has erred, from transubstantiation to serving Kool-Aid and animal crackers. But the main strength in this book is that it suggests a topic of conversation and provides the necessary information for the conversation to proceed.
This book is a great start to a conversation worth having with your church leadership. BW has set the table; sit down with your brothers and sisters and eat!
1) He places the meal in question firmly in it's first-century context. How helpful it is to know what the meal was then in order to know what it should be now.
2) BW's familiarity with the gospels as a premiere historical Jesus scholar aids greatly in his analysis of the gospel passages which provide the basis for the meal. Little is assumed and so much is learned.
3) With all his scholarly weight behind him, BW make few if any direct applications. He points out instances where the church has erred, from transubstantiation to serving Kool-Aid and animal crackers. But the main strength in this book is that it suggests a topic of conversation and provides the necessary information for the conversation to proceed.
This book is a great start to a conversation worth having with your church leadership. BW has set the table; sit down with your brothers and sisters and eat!
February 4, 2024
Such an excellent treatment of the Lord’s Supper! Witherington makes a compelling case for celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal (agape/love feast) and has me wondering what it might look like for the church to reclaim that practice. Highly recommend!
July 28, 2009
Good to read in conjunction with N.T. Wright's book, "The Meal Jesus Gave Us."
Read
July 19, 2020I am not a full-time theology student or church leader, but a housewife who desires to better understand the Lord’s supper and how it is to be understood in the context of a covenant community. (I am not of the same theological tradition as the author, but am familiar with his name from my undergrad days at Asbury College. I simply read this book because I knew his name and it was available at my local public library!)
My particular question has been around why we admit infants as members of the covenant community at baptism but then do not administer to them the sacrament of communion as members. I am seeking to understand upon what basis an extra requirement (profession of faith) is put upon a covenant member before being eligible to receive this sign of covenant membership. I understand that this book is not addressing those questions, but still this book was not what I expected. I don’t feel like it delivered on the subtitle of “rethinking the theology of the Lord’s Supper.” However, it was very interesting to read more about the historical context of fellowship meals. There is an entire chapter on the Greco-Roman symposiums and feasts of associations. And there is a chapter about the Passover and Jewish feasts. There is another almost inexplicable chapter arguing for the identity of the Beloved Disciple as Lazarus. I think this was necessary because it formed the argument for why the writer of the Fourth Gospel would have combined narratives of two suppers into one. But for such a modestly sized book, that chapter did surprise me. And there is a chapter about the Lord’s Supper in early church history.
I don’t think this would make many Protestants rethink the theology of the supper, but it will offer some interesting historical data.
My particular question has been around why we admit infants as members of the covenant community at baptism but then do not administer to them the sacrament of communion as members. I am seeking to understand upon what basis an extra requirement (profession of faith) is put upon a covenant member before being eligible to receive this sign of covenant membership. I understand that this book is not addressing those questions, but still this book was not what I expected. I don’t feel like it delivered on the subtitle of “rethinking the theology of the Lord’s Supper.” However, it was very interesting to read more about the historical context of fellowship meals. There is an entire chapter on the Greco-Roman symposiums and feasts of associations. And there is a chapter about the Passover and Jewish feasts. There is another almost inexplicable chapter arguing for the identity of the Beloved Disciple as Lazarus. I think this was necessary because it formed the argument for why the writer of the Fourth Gospel would have combined narratives of two suppers into one. But for such a modestly sized book, that chapter did surprise me. And there is a chapter about the Lord’s Supper in early church history.
I don’t think this would make many Protestants rethink the theology of the supper, but it will offer some interesting historical data.
March 2, 2024
In this book, Ben Witherington delves into the scriptural and historical origins of the Lord's Supper. Witherington looks into the Jewish roots as well as the Roman customs that fit into the meal. Witherington also has a couple of chapters on the church fathers, and a section on some medieval views and the people that influenced the Reformation. Like his book on Baptism, he slowly builds up the data and then waits till the last chapter to synthesize the data in a cohesive manner.
One of my favorite sections of the book was on the church fathers' view on the Eucharist. For too many times we read many modern debates into the Fathers while ignoring their own context. This is where I feel like he shined. It turns out that the Church Fathers did not seem to have any mention of anything like Transubstation until the fourth century. The reason for the more literalist interpretations later on is from the influence of Plato. These chapters were incredibly enlightening.
As far as the book is, I greatly enjoyed and it definitely helped fill in some of the gaps around the context of the Lord's Supper. The book did not make me rethink the Lord's Supper but has made me think of some ways I use my terms. The strong points of the book are that it had great sources, brought tons of background data, gave an interesting diatribe on the author of John (although I am probably not in agreement), and built to its climax quite nicely. The weak point, I believe, is that he could have probably been more clear in some places, but this was not a big problem.
One of my favorite sections of the book was on the church fathers' view on the Eucharist. For too many times we read many modern debates into the Fathers while ignoring their own context. This is where I feel like he shined. It turns out that the Church Fathers did not seem to have any mention of anything like Transubstation until the fourth century. The reason for the more literalist interpretations later on is from the influence of Plato. These chapters were incredibly enlightening.
As far as the book is, I greatly enjoyed and it definitely helped fill in some of the gaps around the context of the Lord's Supper. The book did not make me rethink the Lord's Supper but has made me think of some ways I use my terms. The strong points of the book are that it had great sources, brought tons of background data, gave an interesting diatribe on the author of John (although I am probably not in agreement), and built to its climax quite nicely. The weak point, I believe, is that he could have probably been more clear in some places, but this was not a big problem.
January 26, 2024
Witherington writes a succinct biblical and historical survey of the Lord's Supper. It begins with some Old Testament backgrounds, then goes over the relevant New Testament passages, with a far bit of emphasis on 1 Corinthians, then looks at the practice in the second century, noting how the supper gets increasingly ritualized, morphing into the Catholic view of transubstantiation.
The book weirdly treats the book of John at length, devoting a significant chunk to who the author of John actually was, which was highly tangential. Meanwhile, other Old Testament backgrounds (like the eschatological feast in Isaiah), the miraculous feedings and meals with outcasts of Jesus (which are stylized in ways that echo the Lord's Supper), or even explaining further what some people see as John's anti-sacramentalism are not treated. I think these were significant gaps in the book.
The best parts of the book is really his clarifications around the connection between the passover and the supper, his analysis of 1 Corinthains, and the historical work he does to show how the early post-Apostolic writers do not seem to hold to a proto-transubstantiation view, while still holding to the mysterious presence of Jesus in the act.
The book weirdly treats the book of John at length, devoting a significant chunk to who the author of John actually was, which was highly tangential. Meanwhile, other Old Testament backgrounds (like the eschatological feast in Isaiah), the miraculous feedings and meals with outcasts of Jesus (which are stylized in ways that echo the Lord's Supper), or even explaining further what some people see as John's anti-sacramentalism are not treated. I think these were significant gaps in the book.
The best parts of the book is really his clarifications around the connection between the passover and the supper, his analysis of 1 Corinthains, and the historical work he does to show how the early post-Apostolic writers do not seem to hold to a proto-transubstantiation view, while still holding to the mysterious presence of Jesus in the act.
April 13, 2020
An excellent overview of a theology of the Lord's Supper. Extensive, if sometimes a bit technical, survey of the biblical evidence. Less thorough but still good survey of the early church theologians and the Reformers. Witherington concludes with a chapter that synthesizes his findings into the skeleton of a sacramental theology. A very good introduction from a biblical perspective.
March 3, 2024
Content was great, but much more academic than I was anticipating.
April 2, 2008
Ben Witherington -- good scholar on the NT. Methodist protestant. I enjoyed reading this book more than his book about Scripture, The Living Word of God because it seemed to ramble less.
I've been struggling with the issue of what the eucharist really means for a while. I feel that the Protestant Evangelical explanations and forms that I have experienced have been too lackadaisical and not serious enough about being faithful to Scripture. It just never sat well with me that Jesus talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6 was really something unrelated to communion. Or, when Jesus said, "This is my body, this is my blood", that it was just a symbol. It was quite an early belief in the first couple centuries of the Church that the bread and wine at the gathering of believers was somehow an encounter with the actual risen Christ.
Ben Witherington does a great job showing the scriptural exegesis of these passages, but I wonder if he was a little to cursory in his exploration of early Christian belief. He talks about there being a real diversity in opinion between Tertullian, Ignatius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Origen, but he doesn't convince me that they aren't talking about the same belief, just different angles.
Another problem I had with this book was that Witherington doesn't really cover the diversity of current Christian opinions about the Lord's Supper. I would have liked him to cover the differences between a Catholic and Lutheran view, and even Anglican opinions in addition to various Protestant opinions. While he did do a good job showing that the three major reformers -- Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all held to the idea that communion was more than just a symbol, he basically lumps together Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints, which are significantly different. I'm also getting tired of Protestants make sweeping judgments about the pristine "pre-Constantinian" church and the corrupt "post-Constantinian church" A historian like Witherington should know better than that. There were plenty of critics post-Constantine of ecclesial excess and laxity within their respective generations. Witherington also fails to note that all of our major creeds were post-Constantine.
Witherington excels in showing us a picture of the fellowship meal of the early church that the eucharist grew out of, and he reminds us that the primary issue with Paul in I Corinthians is unity among believers of every background, rich or poor. He also has some really helpful and compelling suggestions about how Protestants can restore dignity, reverence, and mystery back to communion.
However, like his other book on the Bible, Witherington doesn't really interact with many other contemporary scholarly viewpoints. I think he's a bit too simplistic with differing opinions.
Anyway, this book was still helpful, and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in what the Lord's Supper means. Just don't read it in isolation as the final word.....
I've been struggling with the issue of what the eucharist really means for a while. I feel that the Protestant Evangelical explanations and forms that I have experienced have been too lackadaisical and not serious enough about being faithful to Scripture. It just never sat well with me that Jesus talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6 was really something unrelated to communion. Or, when Jesus said, "This is my body, this is my blood", that it was just a symbol. It was quite an early belief in the first couple centuries of the Church that the bread and wine at the gathering of believers was somehow an encounter with the actual risen Christ.
Ben Witherington does a great job showing the scriptural exegesis of these passages, but I wonder if he was a little to cursory in his exploration of early Christian belief. He talks about there being a real diversity in opinion between Tertullian, Ignatius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Origen, but he doesn't convince me that they aren't talking about the same belief, just different angles.
Another problem I had with this book was that Witherington doesn't really cover the diversity of current Christian opinions about the Lord's Supper. I would have liked him to cover the differences between a Catholic and Lutheran view, and even Anglican opinions in addition to various Protestant opinions. While he did do a good job showing that the three major reformers -- Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all held to the idea that communion was more than just a symbol, he basically lumps together Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints, which are significantly different. I'm also getting tired of Protestants make sweeping judgments about the pristine "pre-Constantinian" church and the corrupt "post-Constantinian church" A historian like Witherington should know better than that. There were plenty of critics post-Constantine of ecclesial excess and laxity within their respective generations. Witherington also fails to note that all of our major creeds were post-Constantine.
Witherington excels in showing us a picture of the fellowship meal of the early church that the eucharist grew out of, and he reminds us that the primary issue with Paul in I Corinthians is unity among believers of every background, rich or poor. He also has some really helpful and compelling suggestions about how Protestants can restore dignity, reverence, and mystery back to communion.
However, like his other book on the Bible, Witherington doesn't really interact with many other contemporary scholarly viewpoints. I think he's a bit too simplistic with differing opinions.
Anyway, this book was still helpful, and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in what the Lord's Supper means. Just don't read it in isolation as the final word.....
April 4, 2015
I appreciate the fact that the tone of this book is not "This is right and that's wrong." Rather, it's written as a scholarly discussion that brings to light general principles about the Lord's supper as it was celebrated in the early church. In the end, his focus is where it should be - squarely on Jesus Christ.
It's fairly academic, so be prepared for a "theology class" feeling in much of it. At the same time, I like the way Witherington writes - very down to earth and much like I would expect a friend to try to explain something to me over a grande hot chocolate at Starbucks.
"Someday the currently invisible Host will show up, and we will see him face to face. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished. In the meantime, we must learn to be better dinner guests, waiting on one another, communing together with one eye on heaven and one on each other. We need to relearn how to make a meal of it rather than a mess of it, as we so often do."
It's fairly academic, so be prepared for a "theology class" feeling in much of it. At the same time, I like the way Witherington writes - very down to earth and much like I would expect a friend to try to explain something to me over a grande hot chocolate at Starbucks.
"Someday the currently invisible Host will show up, and we will see him face to face. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished. In the meantime, we must learn to be better dinner guests, waiting on one another, communing together with one eye on heaven and one on each other. We need to relearn how to make a meal of it rather than a mess of it, as we so often do."
December 12, 2020
Though it is a fairly short volume, you come away feeling like the topic has been dealt with thoroughly. The relevant biblical texts are analyzed and a wealth of information is presented about Jewish Passover practice, Roman Symposiums, and evolving church polity, all of which impacted the way the Lord's Supper was understood and practiced over the centuries. It was all rather intriguing to me and the book lived up to its promise in the title: it gets one rethinking theology about the Lord's Supper. I did not come away with a radically different perspective, but with a greater appreciation for what God intends for us in the sharing of the bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus.
July 19, 2013
This slim volume challenges the mind and prods the heart. I may not agree with all of Witherington's conclusions on his exegesis of pertinent texts (e.g. Lazarus being the Beloved Disciple or 1 Cor 11:29 referring to the church instead of Christ), but his engaging writing and careful reasoning drew me into what he said and forced me to debate, disagree, or concur. He did not address the question of frequency, but I liked his emphasis on community. His closing poem is good. It should be put to music.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews