Customer Reviews

Secrets of Communion: Never Taught to the Gentile Church

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

have been in the ministry for over thirty years, my entire life and work are rooted in a strong belief in Jesus Christ. I have studied the Word of God daily, but I am wise enough to know that God is always revealing to His people, His truths.With that knowledge, I am always open to listen and discern revelation given to a fellow brother or sister in the Lord. His Word is living and as such His revelations come forth as we seek them. I wanted to hear what this brother had to say.

I was please to find in this work a new revelation on Communion. Our author, a man who has given his life to the Savior, has opened my eyes to this revelation. He sought and he found the hidden treasures that most of us have overlooked in this gift that the Lord has left for us. Through his studies and his seeking of knowledge from the Lord, he shows us the depth behind Communion. As he Compared Communion to the Ancient Jewish Wedding, I read in awe as the pages lit up with meaning and understanding that truly entered my spirit and awakened a fresh desire to run, not walk to the Communion table.

I am one who takes Communion often. I love to share the unity it brings to me with my Lord. I am delighted to now have more meaning behind this wonderful gift. This is a great book, chock full of revelation, but more than that it is laced with the heart felt cry from a true follower of our Savior to the reader, to partake of an overflowing blessing of love. When reading a book such as this, sometimes you have to look not just at the content but the heart and soul behind the words. If his words help you to become more intimate with the Savior, he has done well. That is what living a life for Jesus is all about. Fellowship and love with our Savior. Very well done and one I give my highest recommendation.

Wonderful book, Eli. I definitely received further revelation on
'Communion' by reading your book. Even though I'm protestant, I believe
in transubstantiation. God bless.

This book, Secrets of Communion: Never Taught to the Gentile Church, was given to me to read due to my desire to deepen my faith as a follower of Jesus. I will be honest and admit I was abit skeptical about reading something new on the subject about Communion. I am by no means an expert and my experience and knowledge simply comes from the various faiths I have worshipped with from youth to my persent adult life. Whether the author was trying to present this work as a product of much research or his own development of faith may not be clear or necessary to know. Anyone interested in this subject can find much to read. What I must ask myself was why was this book written? Obviously he could have supplied more references, but is it necessary? As I began to read, Secrets of Communion, it became clear that Communion is so much more than just a way to remember what Jesus did for us at Calvary. I began to appreciate that this is part of a beautiful wedding ceremony, The Jewish Wedding Ceremony. Then to think that this is but an example of when the Groom comes for his spotless Bride. I had never undertood what Christ had meant when he said, "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in My Father's kingdom (NKJV)." As I began to read the book I was being provoked to ask myself, "Why can I not practice the act of Communion as it was done in the first century?" I began this quite privately but have now began to practice taking part in Communion when I have guest over for dinner. It has become part of the blessing of the food and thanking God for his greatest gift which has brought us together.
If the author's desire was to provoke me to have communion more I would say that he was 100% successful.

Eli F. Pagan, Jr. Secrets of Communion Never Taught to the Gentile Church (Self-published, Copywrited 2010, Eli Pagan)

The author of this book solicited this review, and I hope this does not color my opinions in any way.

The most difficult decision regarding the value of the book is whether to treat it as a work of scholarship or as a personal testament of faith. The author presents it as the former, but in truth, it is far more like the latter, and stands up far better as a personal statement of faith.

The author includes several trappings of scholarship, including some notes, all but two of which refer to pages on the Internet. None of the references are to any recognized Biblical scholars, either Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or secular. There are also several references to word study sources in both Hebrew and Greek, but the author never tells us which of the many word study dictionaries his citations have come. They may have come from the Hebrew Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament by G. Johannes Botterweck et. al. and the Greek Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Kittel et. al., or they may have come from some third rate work derived from these great authorities. Another concern is that since the book is self-published, no copy editor from a religious publishing house such as Eerdmans, Baker, IVP, Hendrickson, or WJK were ever given an opportunity to critique the book. The last major issue of scholarship is that while the book addresses the practices of communion by virtually all Christians, starting with the very first gentiles converted by St. Paul, there is not one reference to any document describing communion by either a Protestant or Catholic source.
The absence of scholarly sources in this book is troubling because the author is arguing that Christians have gotten the reason for communion wrong for the last 2000 years, if, for no other reason than there were no Gentiles present in the upper room during Jesus' first celebration of the Eucharist. Mr. Pagan bases this sweeping claim on an Internet article on the Jewish wedding by Rev. Barbara Di Gilio, who makes a career out of preaching and writing about Christianity to Jews.

This conclusion would certainly have been a surprise to Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, who seemed to have far more important things to discuss at the Marburg Colloquy of 1529 dealing with the meaning of communion. Based on Rev. Di Gilio's work, Mr. Pagan has claimed that everyone has missed the point that the Last Supper was a performance of the Jewish wedding ceremony. Now there are ample scriptural references which compare the relation of the church with Jesus as one of a marriage, and Mr. Pagan makes full use of these. But that doesn't mean that was what the Eucharist was all about. Above all else, it was a Passover meal, which has a Jewish celebratory significance all its own. And, if one went back to the Old Testament, one may wish to make a similar case that bread and wine was part of a Jewish treaty agreement ceremony, as we find at Joshua 9:1--27, where a treaty with the Gibeonites is sealed with bread and wine, or part of an ordination ceremony for Aaron as we find at Exodus 29:1--9.

One thing I find truly amazing is that when Mr. Pagan criticizes a Protestant (he does not say which Protestant) communion service for being only a symbol of Jesus' presence, he praises the Catholic Mass, totally overlooking the fact that the Catholics withhold the wine from the laity, an element which is far, far more obviously a part of the first Eucharist than any reference to marriage.

Since Mr. Pagan did not bother to make a reasonable study of Protestant Eucharistic doctrine, he totally overlooked the fact that the Lutheran doctrine of communion fits exactly what he wishes to have us believe about the bread and the wine. As it says in the Smalcald Articles 6:1 `We maintain that the bread and the wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ and that they are not only offered to and received by upright Christians but also by evil ones.' The Book of Concord also states that `...in the treatment of the Lord's Supper Christians must be directed to no other basis and foundation than this one, namely, to the Words of Institution of Christ's testament.' (Preface para. 18). For the most basic of Lutheran statements, there is Luther's Small Catechism on the Sacrament of the Altar: `It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.'

If we are to find anything in Mr. Pagan's writing, it is his dedication to receiving this sacrament often, and by accepting it `at full value', and not as a `representation'. And, I would contend that this is exactly how Lutherans and several other Protestant denominations present the Eucharist. I would agree that many churches do not offer the Eucharist as often as both the scripture, Catholic, and Protestant tradition would have us do it. My only arguments with him on that point is that he should simply use the Eucharistic language of his denomination of choice, based on the language of the Bible. I have often thought that celebrating the sacrament could and should be done as part of a family meal, especially if one reads the liturgy in institution, speaking of a `feast'. The one argument Mr. Pagan is sure to get is that the Eucharist can only be properly offered by a member of the ordained clergy.

Mr. Pagan's book is a thought-provoking reflection of his own ideas, but it should in no way be construed as a worthy comment on Christian communion. For that, check you denomination's articles of faith, Luther's Catechisms, or Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.