Moroni 4

Moroni 4:1

1 The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it—

Redaction: Moroni breaks with his formula for the presentation of the liturgy. We still have the introduction, but we are missing the concluding recapitulation.

[their elders and priests]: In the Book of Mormon usage, the term “elders” in this instance would seem to be related to the quorum of the twelve. Moroni specifically equates the two in chapter 3:

Moroni 3:1

1 The manner which the disciples, who were called the elders of the church, ordained priests and teachers—

It would be very unusual for Moroni to make the identification of the twelve and “elders” in one chapter, and then shift his meaning in the very next chapter. The modern designation of Elder is a more modern division in the priesthood. It has textual relationship to Elders in the Bible (such as in Acts 15:2-6). However, the New Testament usage also includes the more generic “elders of the people,” which is a title of respect, but not specific church authority (see, for instance, Matthew 21:23).

In the administration of the sacrament, we are told that there were two types of officiators. Both the disciples/elders and the priests could administer the sacrament. The absence of the teacher as an administrator suggests that there was a division in function that would be as implied by their titles. The function of the teacher was to teach. The function of a priest was to administer the rites of the church.

The sacrament was instituted by Christ himself during his visit to the Nephites in Bountiful:

3 Nephi 18:6-7

6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.

7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

This instance of eating bread was followed by a public ritual of drinking that was similarly given ritual significance. Similarly, Moroni’s sacramental prayers represent two separate ritual acts that are to be performed consecutively. The model for these sacramental prayers is the original instance performed by the Savior himself. However, it is important to note that what Moroni is telling us is the shape of the eventual liturgical performance, and that it differs slightly from the recorded form of the original example. When the Savior instituted this remembrance it was in the context of a public distribution of food. At the time of the distribution it was certainly seen as a meal-event, not a sacramental event. That is, when Jesus breaks bread and gives it to the people, they do not learn of the ritual significance until after they have eaten. In the liturgical form, the prayer precedes the distribution of the bread.

In the Old World this distinction between meal and eucharist is at times difficult to sort out. The earliest Christians celebrated the meal as well as the symbolic meal of the sacrament. Scholars have had a difficult time extracting the ritual symbolic meal from the rest of the context of the full meal. Indeed, if the early Christians were attempting to follow the form of the meal in the upper room where Christ introduced the sacrament to his apostles, one might expect a bread-blessing at the beginning, and a cup-blessing at the end of the central communal meal. Regardless of the order, it would appear that the combination ritual/communal sacrament-meal later became shortened to the sacramental rite alone:

“It would therefore not necessarily have appeared unusual if first-century Jewish-Christian communal meals had involved blessings being said over wine and bread at the same time, at the very beginning of the meal. And while we have no evidence for Christian meals where the cup blessing came at the end, we do have at least some evidence of a Christian practice where the cup blessing seems to have come at the beginning, along with the blessing over the bread, as we have already seen. And that pattern is very close to the one that we find in Justin Martyr in the second century (and also the later tradition), where bread and cup are brought together to the one presiding, who then gives thanks over them, although the meal has now apparently disappeared. It is true that this displays a bread-cup sequence rather than a cup-bread one, but that there might have been a difference in their order in different communities should not surprise us, especially as similar variations in the order of blessings and disputes between different schools as to which one was correct characterize a great deal of the later rabbinic literature. What both sequences have in common is that the two blessings/thanksgivings take place in close proximity to one another at the beginning of a meal, and this '' would have continued unchanged even when the meal was no longer included.” (Paul F. Bradshaw. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 71-2).

[they administered it according to the commandments of Christ]: This is a direct reference to the Lord’s commandment that the people perform this act as a memory of him (see 3 Nephi 18:6-7, cited above).

[wherefore we know the manner to be true]: In spite of the variation from the model that Mormon records for the 3 Nephi event, Moroni declares that this form is “true.” This method of celebrating the sacrament was traditional, and therefore true to tradition. No doubt there was a tradition that these words were dictated by Christ. They certainly could have been. Moroni would have believed them to have come from Christ through the lineage of the office of the disciples/elders.

Moroni 4:2

2 And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ, saying:

“Some readers of the Book of Mormon have wondered about Moroni's statement that the elder or priest administering to the sacrament "did kneel down with the church." (Moroni 4:2.) Some have assumed the meaning that everyone in the congregation knelt down. Although this interpretation is possible, at least one other possibility exists. The statement may mean that the elder or priest did kneel down "in the presence of the members of the church." (See also D&C 20:76.)” (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 332.)

Regardless of how we interpret the body of those who knelt, it is certain that someone was kneeling, and that it was, at a minimum, the administrator. Along with the liturgical language, Moroni is describing liturgical actions. Similar to the use of the hands to symbolically transmit spiritual authority (for the Gift of the Holy Ghost or the ordination to the priesthood) the kneeling is a form that represents the proper way to accomplish the rite of the sacrament.

Why kneeling? Ultimately, we do not know. However, we do know that in the Book of Mormon the physical expression of falling to the ground was an indication of a reaction to a spiritual experience. The people of Benjamin fall to the ground (Mosiah 4:1), Alma the Younger falls to the earth (Mosiah 27:18), and the king of the Lamanites falls to the earth (Alma 22:18). While those occasions indicated an overwhelming spirituality by prostration, it would seem that the connection of the body and the earth held a connotation of sacred movement or relationship. The kneeling would invoke those same cultural sentiments, as well as humility. This pre-Messianic-visit form may have been transformed into the kneeling posture that was used several times during that occasion. Kneeling is specifically requested of the Nephites during the Savior’s appearance in Bountiful:

3 Nephi 17:13-15

13 And it came to pass that when they had all been brought, and Jesus stood in the midst, he commanded the multitude that they should kneel down upon the ground.

14 And it came to pass that when they had knelt upon the ground, Jesus groaned within himself, and said: Father, I am troubled because of the wickedness of the people of the house of Israel.

15 And when he had said these words, he himself also knelt upon the earth; and behold he prayed unto the Father, and the things which he prayed cannot be written, and the multitude did bear record who heard him.

3 Nephi 19:6

6 And the twelve did teach the multitude; and behold, they did cause that the multitude should kneel down upon the face of the earth, and should pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus.

3 Nephi 19:16

16 And it came to pass that he spake unto the multitude, and commanded them that they should kneel down again upon the earth, and also that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth.

In each of these occasion there is a prayer of a multitude. Since in each of these occasions there is a mass kneeling, it would not be surprising if the congregation did kneel as well as the officiator in the ordinance of the sacrament.

Moroni 4:3

3 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

[O God, the Eternal Father]: As in any other public prayer, the proper address is to God the Father. In keeping with the post-visit understanding of the distinction between the Father and Christ, there is an address to the Father, and the statement of authority through Jesus Christ.

[we ask thee]: The presentation of the sacrament is essentially a petition. There are two elements of the petition. The first concerns the physical symbols, and the second has to do with those who participate in the sacrament.

[in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ]: The authority of the petition comes through Jesus Christ. All of our ability to approach God comes through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, without which we could not be cleansed of sin, and therefore could never approach God, even in the distant presence of prayer. In this formula, the Father designation of God is clearly separated from the Son designation of Christ. Where earlier in the Book of Mormon we had Jesus as Father, after the appearance of the Savior we have him only as the son (with a single exception).

[to bless and sanctify this bread]: The first action of the sacramental petition is to alter the symbol. This is not the physical change of the bread into the body of Christ. That remains a symbol. It is, however, the sacralization of the bread. This is no longer lunch, it is sacred substance that has meaning above and beyond the physical need for food. The physical substance remains the same, but the meaning has changed.

[to the souls of all those who partake of it]: The transformation of meaning also effects the effect of eating. Where eating food is for the benefit of the body, eating the sacramental bread is for the benefit of the soul. We eat not for physical nourishment, but spiritual nourishment.

[that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son]: This language echoes the description of the sacramental description given by the Savior in 3 Nephi 18:7: “And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you.”

There are two elements in the sacrament, each with its own prayer and liturgical event. The bread is the solid, and the wine/water the liquid. In the Old World, the Savior connected this aspect of the sacrament with the miracle of manna in the wilderness:

John 6:48-58

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

The connection is not made explicitly in the Book of Mormon, but there is every reason to believe that the institution of the sacrament in the New World would be bolstered by the same symbolical meanings as it was in the Old World, since the references were shared by the two communities. The mental image we are to have when we partake of the sacrament is not of an earthly meal, but of nourishment from heaven that will provide us with heavenly life as opposed to the temporal life of ordinary food.

[and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son]: This language was also foreshadowed in the 3 Nephi presentation of the sacrament: “And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me” (3 Nephi 18:7).

The acceptance of the sacrament is not simply the acceptance of a gift. It is a covenantal relationship between the partaker and God. The covenant is that one will take upon themselves the “name of thy Son.” The taking of the name is serious business in the ancient world. This is more than simply calling ourselves Christians. The name implies all that the name represents. This is not a covenant of identification, but a covenant of action.

[and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them]: Here are the actions implied by the name-covenant. The remembrance is not simply memory, but the active understanding that we are to be governed by the attributes he embodies. The evidence of the proper remembrance is that the commandments are followed.

[that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.]: This final blessing is the same as that promised by the Savior when he introduced the sacrament in his visit to Bountiful: “And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.” (3 Nephi 18:7.)

Covenants consist of a dual promise and blessing. Here is the blessing of the covenants made to remember and keep the commandments.

Historical: It should be noted that there is no essential relationship between the prayer-form of the Nephite sacramental blessings and the forms of the sacramental prayers as they are known from the Old World. The developing evidence of the sacramental prayers and performances indicates that there is probably no single traceable original New Testament form. Rather, there were probably multiple different forms in different locations (Paul F. Bradshaw. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 118-9). It appears that the best explanation for the commonalities among the diversity was a trait of early Jewish prayer-forms:

Footnote: John W. Welch has argued that there is a relationship between covenant language that may be traced from King Benjamin’s speech to the sacramental covenant language used when the Savior appeared to the Nephites, and finally in the sacramental prayers listed in Moroni. The sacramental covenants and language from the appearance of the Savior and the prayers as recorded by Moroni are certainly related, but the evidence Welch gives of the relationship between Benjamin’s language the sacramental language becomes too tenuous to accept. For instance, he suggests that there is a relationship to cup-language, even though the context in Benjamin is the cup of the wrath of God, and in the sacramental prayers to the cup holding the sacramental wine. Such a correlation leans far too heavily on the superficial similarity of the cup, and ignores the cup of the wrath of God as a typical phrase unto itself. The argument that one transformed into the other is similar quite weak. (John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992], 287.)

Textual: This is the end of a chapter in the 1830 edition.