Here's another excerpt from my paper on the church. This time I am writing about the establishment and function of the Lord's Supper:
The Lord’s Supper is robust with theological truth. The Biblical text suggests that the Lord’s Supper was originally Jesus’ reinterpretation of the Passover meal.[1] The passover meal included reading the story of YHWH's deliverance at the Re(e)d Sea, drinking several cups, and eating small portions of a meal that were theologically interpreted. Jesus is now applying the redemption of God, embodied in the Passover event, to Himself. Indeed, the words of institution ("this is My body") reflect the truth that Jesus has become our Passover lamb. The theologically significant preposition uJpeVr ("for") is used here to indicate substitutionary atonement.[2] Additionally, as believers partake in the meal, they are also sharing in the future reality of the Kingdom of God. Jesus reminds his followers that He will not partake of it again until the coming of His Kingdom (Lk. 22:16-18). As Paul also says, when believers do this, they “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes (I Cor. 11:26).” The Lord’s Supper was a means for the disciples to remember the gospel which has already come and eschatologically (future) oriented nature of the church which has not yet fully arrived. So then, this meal is deeply theological in nature, but it is also relational.
The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the unity of Christians during the Lord’s Supper is as important as the theological truths it embodies. At Corinth factions and selfishness were evidenced in the lack of order, drunkenness, gluttony, and the complete disregard of the upper class for those who had nothing (11:17-22). This lack of unity meant that believers were drinking judgment to themselves which even resulted in death for some of them (29-30). Believers should instead repent of their relational sin against their brothers and sisters so that they do not “drink the cup in an unworthy manner” (27). This suggests that thirty seconds of silence for individuals to look for sin in their own hearts prior to eating a cracker is a misuse of this passage, for it is the neglect and abuse of other people in the church that Paul has in mind here. The result of this repentance should be valuing others and each person taking care of their own needs at home rather than at the expense of the body of Christ (33-34). This passage is a beautiful picture of the relational nature of God’s people in the New Testament.
The question of the frequency of the meal is difficult. It is clear from the above discussion that the meal is to be repeated, but the Passover meal was only eaten once a year. However, we have seen that it has become a regular occurrence for all the believers at Corinth (I Cor. 11:33) and probably to the early Jerusalem church (Acts 2:42) and within other settings (Jude 1:12). It seems fair to say based on these texts that the Passover meal has developed within early Christianity into a regular meal eaten together which includes aspects of the bread and wine. Paul has certainly applied the words of institution to a semi-regular community meal at Corinth. The later church fathers were instrumental in separating out the bread and the cup from the rest of the meal, completed by the time of Tertullian.[3] However, it seems that this separation does not have biblical warrant. Therefore, it is perhaps best to understand it as a relational meal with theological significance that should have frequent occurrence among groups of believers. The wine and bread should be given prominence at some point during the meal to orient everything around the gospel.
The love feast is a relational and theological act that the body of Christ should be doing, and the idea that it must be administered by some kind of clergy cannot be found anywhere in Scripture. The idea of celebrating Jesus with Christian people we love sounds like a wonderful thing, but in many Christian traditions the organic nature of the Lord's Supper is yet one more thing contained within an institution so it can be controlled and regulated. The result is that it is anything but relational and celebratory. The reason this is probably so misunderstood is that we have blindly accepted the Roman Catholic institutionalism that the Reformers retained in their practice. Drinking grape juice and eating a cracker once a month can be good cause for reflection, but to teach that this is the intent of Jesus and the apostles in the above passages is absolutely misleading.
0 comments:
Post a Comment