|
Rethinking The Lord's
Supper
by Eric Svendsen Perhaps one
of the most misunderstood areas of ecclesiology has to do with the significance
of the Lord's Supper. Since the Reformation, much has been written about the
presence of Christ in the so-called "elements," whether there is a real presence
or a symbolic presence. This has been a popular debate among Roman Catholics,
Calvinists, Lutherans and Zwinglians to name a few. Unfortunately, because of
this preoccupation with the "presence of Christ" debate, many other aspects of
the Lord's Supper have been either downplayed or ignored altogether by these
same groups. The problem is compounded by the prevailing mentality that supposes
we have found all truth that is truth and that there's nothing left to consider
or reconsider. Indeed, many of the things that will be brought up in this
article are common knowledge to many Christians (and especially scholars), but,
for one reason or another, have not been given the weight due them. We would
like to address four such aspects of the Lord's Supper: they are (1) its
centrality; (2) its frequency; (3) its focus; and (4) its form. None of these
is, in our opinion, expendable or otherwise less important than any other
aspect.
The Centrality of the Lord's Supper
Seemingly one of the most pressing tenets in the constitution or
ecclesiological-doctrinal statement of any given evangelical institution (church
or seminary) is the centrality of preaching. This tenet is often stated as
though its inclusion or exclusion is the measure by which an institution is
judged to be biblical or non-biblical. But just what is meant by the
"centrality" of preaching? If by this phrase one means that the church is to be
actively involved in proclaiming the gospel, then we couldn't agree more. If, on
the other hand, one means by this phrase that preaching is to be the central
focus of the church meeting (as I suspect is the case), then we disagree. There
is no evidence in the NT that the church came together to be preached to;
nothing to suggest anything like our modern emphasis on "preaching." The
evidence to the contrary will be dealt with in future articles; in any case, it
cannot be taken up now.
What then is the central focus of the meeting? Surprisingly the NT has much to
say about this. On one level the focus is to participate in mutual edification
(Heb 10:25; 1 Cor 14:26). Yet even here the focus is a secondary one. The texts
cited do not explicitly give this as the purpose for the assembly (though I
believe it is an important objective), but rather merely state that this must
take place during the assembly. The central focus of the meeting is accompanied
by a purpose clause in the NT. In Acts 20:7 Luke says, "On the first day of the
week, when we were gathered together to break bread . . . ." The thing that
distinguishes this purpose for gathering together from any other purpose is the
presence of the telic infinitive "to break bread," which really means "in order
to break bread." Hence, the expressed purpose for coming together as a church in
the NT is to celebrate the Lord's Supper. One might object that Luke is merely
recording what happened in this instance and that narrative cannot be used to
determine what is normative for the church. Besides, one passage does not a
doctrine make; there must be other texts of Scripture to support this if it is
in fact to be viewed as normative. In response to the first objection, neither
then have we any ground for meeting on the first day of the week, since this is
the only Scripture in the NT that explicitly says this is what the early church
did. Moreover, the view that narrative in the NT is written solely to record
historical events and cannot therefore be used to determine normative church
practice is naive and is rejected by all NT scholarship. Granted, Luke did
record historical events; but he did not record all historical events. Instead,
he selectively recorded those events which would best instruct the early
churches.
In response to the second objection; very well then, Paul says the same thing in
1 Cor 11. First Corinthians 11 is often overlooked in discussions pertaining to
the central focus of the church meeting. Yet this passage twice states the
purpose of coming together as a church. That Paul is concerned with the church
meeting is clear from v. 18; "first of all, when you come together as a church I
hear there are divisions among you." He repeats this in v. 20; "Therefore, when
you come together in the same place [i.e., as a church], it is not to eat the
Lord's Supper." One might think it strange that someone arguing for the
centrality of the Lord's Supper would want to mention this verse at all. After
all, how can one contend that the Lord's Supper is central to the church meeting
when Paul so clearly says "when you come together it is not to eat the Lord's
Supper"? This is no problem, however, since Paul explains what he means in the
next verse ("for each one takes his own supper," v. 21). Paul is not telling the
Corinthians not to eat the Lord's Supper when they gather together. Quite the
contrary--he's telling them that that's what should be taking place at their
meetings, but because of their disunity it can no longer be viewed as the Lord's
Supper; instead, it has become their own supper (v. 21). The direct implication
of Paul's statement is that when the church comes together it should be "to eat
the Lord's Supper" (again, the telic infinitive is used, "in order to eat").
Paul makes this even more clear in v. 33; "so then, brothers, when you come
together to eat, wait for one another." That this is not merely an occasional
observance of the Lord's Supper celebrated every so often is clear from his
previous statement in v. 18; "when you come together as a church." This leads us
to our next point.
The Frequency of the Lord's Supper
One other direct implication of Paul's statements is that the Lord's Supper is
to be celebrated whenever the church "comes together" (vv. 18, 20). It seems
clear that Paul has in mind the weekly gathering on the Lord's Day. This means
then that Paul expects the Lord's Supper to be celebrated every week, as an
integral part of the Lord's Day meeting. This same conclusion may be inferred
from the text of Acts 20:7 as well; "On the first day of the week, when we came
together to break bread." In many churches today the Lord's Supper is celebrated
monthly or quarterly. The rationale for this is standard: Won't the Lord's
Supper become common and lose its meaning if we celebrate it weekly? But this
standard is rarely applied to other practices of the church. Why not apply it,
say, to prayer, or sermons, or collections, or the singing of hymns? Why not
meet together as a church once per quarter? Moreover, this kind of reasoning
betrays a misunderstanding of the full theological significance of the Supper.
Yes, the Supper reminds us of our benefits obtained by Christ's death, but is
that all it does? We think not. There are other foci of the Supper that are
typically ignored, and it is to these that we will turn next time.
In our last issue we dealt with the centrality of the Lord's
Supper as well as its impact on the intended frequency of the Supper. In this
issue we want to look at the intended focus of the Supper.
In Luke 22:14-20 Jesus instituted what would later be known as the Lord's
Supper. The focus of the Supper has traditionally been derived from v. 19 where
Jesus says, "do this in remembrance of me." This phrase has invariably been
interpreted to mean that the Supper is to be a time during which we are to focus
on the death of Christ; a conscious "reliving" of what Christ had to suffer in
order to redeem us. This dictates that the Supper, by necessity, be a time of
solemn reflection. The focus then is historical; a "looking back," as it were,
to the horrors of the cross. Again, this is the traditional understanding of
Jesus' words.
The question is, Does this interpretation fit well with all that we know about
the Supper? Indeed, does it fit even the context of Lk 22:14-20? If the focus of
the Supper is indeed a "looking back" to the death of Christ, then there is no
question that the general mood surrounding the Supper should be one of solemn
reflection. There are, however, problems with this understanding. In Acts 2:46
Luke (the same person who recorded Jesus' words of institution) recounts the
practice of the early churches; that they "broke bread in their homes and ate
together with glad and sincere hearts." That this is a reference to the Lord's
Supper is evident from Luke's use of the phrase "break bread" elsewhere (e.g.
Acts 2:42, 20:7). The interesting thing about this is that Luke here describes
the general mood of the early church as they partook of the Lord's Supper. It
was not with solemn reflection, but rather with "gladness" that they ate the
Supper. The Greek word used here is translated elsewhere as "jubilation" or
"exultation." It means rather "ecstatic joy." This is hardly the word one would
expect Luke to use to describe Christians who were reflecting on the horrors of
the death of their Lord! Moreover, the context of Lk 22:14-20 hardly favors an
interpretation which views the Lord's Supper as a focusing on the past. On the
contrary, the whole tenor of this passage is eschatological; a focusing on the
future. Notice the first thing Jesus says as he institutes the Supper: "I have
eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I
will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God" (vv.
15-16). He says essentially the same thing in vv. 17-18: "Take this [cup] and
divide it among you. For I tell you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the
vine until the kingdom of God comes." What does Jesus mean by these words? On
the very surface, "until" makes it seem obvious that Jesus intends to partake of
a meal again someday. It may be assumed that Jesus has in mind the Messianic
wedding banquet already mentioned in Lk 14:16-24 (see also Mt 22:1-14). Jesus
mentions this meal again immediately after his words of institution. To those
who are his Jesus says, "I grant you that you may eat and drink at my table in
my kingdom" (22:30).
Moreover, this future meal is not at all severed from the meal of the Lord's
Supper: Jesus describes this meal as a "fulfillment" of the meal he is
instituting as the Lord's Supper. In other words, the Messianic banquet is the
fulfillment of the Lord's Supper. This means, conversely, that the Lord's Supper
is a prefigure of the Messianic banquet. So then, far from the Lord's Supper
being a "looking back" to the death of Christ, it is actually a "looking
forward," an anticipation and foretaste of the Messianic banquet. In fact, the
same terminology is used for both the Lord's Supper and the banquet: they are
both called the "Supper" [Gr., deipnon] (1 Cor 11:20; Rev 19:9), and they are
both called the Lord's "Table" [Gr., trapeza] (1 Cor 10:21; Lk 22:30). This
understanding of the Supper has further ramifications that will be taken up when
we discuss the form of the Lord's Supper (after all, only a banquet can
prefigure a banquet!).
But then what did Jesus mean when he said "do this in remembrance of me"? NT
scholar Joachim Jeremias in his work, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London,
1966), offers an interesting (and to my mind, convincing) explanation. Jesus'
words must be viewed in their Passover setting. It was (and is) the belief of
the Jews that the Passover itself was not only a "looking back" at what God had
done for Israel, but also a looking forward to future deliverance by the
Messiah. A common saying during the Passover was, "On this night they were
saved, and on this night they will be saved" (M. J. Harris, "Baptism and the
Lord's Supper," In God's Community [ed. by D. J. Ellis, 1978], 27). Jeremias'
thesis centers on the word anamnesis ("remembrance"). He argues that this word
is not to be seen as our remembrance of Christ (as it is traditionally
understood); rather it is to be understood as God's remembrance of Christ. The
wording in the Greek is rather vague--literally "do this toward (or into) my
remembrance." The question becomes, Who is to remember who? The Greek allows
three options: (1) our remembering Christ (the traditional view); (2) God
remembering the Messiah (Jeremias' view); or (3) Christ remembering us (which, I
will argue, is preferable over the other two). But just what does it mean that
God "remembers" the Messiah or that Christ remembers us? This is where the
Passover background becomes crucial. So focused was the Passover on the final
deliverance of Israel from all her enemies that during every Passover meal a
prayer was recited by the participants petitioning God to remember to send the
Messiah (Jeremias, 252). This prayer can be found in any Passover Haggadah
today. Since the Last Supper was in all likelihood a Passover, it seems certain
that Jesus' words were meant as a play on this customary petition to God. All
their lives the disciples had learned that the Passover was an opportunity to
petition God to send the Messiah--and now here he was, eating the Passover with
them! Jesus is in effect saying, "You have been petitioning God to send the
Messiah? Very well, here I am. Now I am going away, but I will be back once
again to eat this meal with you in my kingdom. In the meantime, continue to eat
this meal as a reminder to me that this meal is yet unfulfilled, and as a
further petition to God to send the Messiah again."
But why would God or Christ need to be "reminded" of anything? Is there any
chance God will forget what he has promised? On the surface this seems to be a
reasonable criticism. Upon closer examination, however, this criticism loses
substance. Of course God does not forget anything. Yet it does not follow that
God cannot be "reminded" about certain things. After all, David prayed more than
once that God would "remember" him or his righteous deeds (Ps 25:6-7; 89:50;
106:4; etc.). David was no maverick in this regard; his was a long standing
tradition (cp. Moses, Deut 9:27; Nehemiah, 13:14, 22, 29, 31). Was it because
God forgets that Jesus urged us to pray persistently to God: "And will not God
bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will
he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and
quickly" (Lk 18:7-8)? There is no conflict between God's omniscience and our
reminding him of certain things. The Lord's Supper then is an appeal to Christ
(a "reminder," as it were) to return and bring the meal to its fulfillment--i.e.
the Messianic banquet in the kingdom.
But what of the obvious connection of this "remembrance" to Christ's death in 1
Cor 11:26: "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death until he comes"? Isn't this the smoking gun that puts to death
Jeremias' thesis? It must first be remembered that Paul and Luke (as traveling
companions) had the same understanding of the Lord's Supper. Moreover, there are
many indications given by Paul in this very passage that his theology of the
Lord's Supper is no different than what we have argued is Luke's theology. It
makes little since to adopt the traditional view (i.e. that we are to remember
Christ's death), for then to whom are we proclaiming Christ's death? To
ourselves? To unbelievers? The former makes little sense since there is no need
to remind a Christian that Christ died. Besides, in what way would we then be
"proclaiming" his death (this word demands a verbal proclamation). The latter is
unlikely because in the early church the meetings were made up almost
exclusively of believers.
Paul's words make much more sense if we view this proclamation as a petition to
God. Paul is explaining in v. 26 just what this "remembrance" is that he
referred to in vv. 24-25; it is a proclamation of Christ's death; that is to
say, whenever we partake of the Lord's Supper we are "proclaiming" to Christ
(reminding him) that he has initiated the New Covenant by means of his death,
and that we now want him to bring it to its consummation by coming again. This
is in fact the force of the phrase "until he comes" in v. 26. The Greek phrase
used here [achris hou] always denotes a goal ("until the goal is reached that he
comes"). Hence, the purpose of celebrating the Lord's Supper is to sound a plea
for the second coming. In the words of Jeremias: "As often as the death of the
Lord is proclaimed at the Lord's Supper, and the maranatha rises upwards, God is
reminded of the unfulfilled climax of the work of salvation 'until (the goal is
reached, that) he comes.'," (253). Each time the church comes together for the
Lord's Supper, Christ is reminded that he is still "not eating" and "not
drinking" (Lk 22:16-18), and that the heavenly banquet which the Lord's Supper
prefigures has not yet been "fulfilled in the kingdom."
To summarize our findings: (1) the Lord's Supper is future oriented, not past
oriented; (2) the Lord's Supper is intended to prefigure the feast that we will
enjoy with the Lord himself at the Messianic banquet; (3) until the Messianic
banquet comes we are to celebrate it in absentia, via the Lord's Supper, as a
petition to God to remember to send the Messiah. We petition him by proclaiming
to him that Christ's death has initiated the New Covenant and that we long for
him to bring it to its consummation; (4) every time the Lord's Supper is
celebrated it "reminds" Christ that the Messianic banquet remains in its
"prefigure" form (i.e. as the Lord's Supper), that he is still "not eating" and
"not drinking" with his church, and that the "fulfillment" of the Supper has not
yet come.
My contention is this: if the Lord's Supper is the key to arousing God to send
the Messiah--if it is the key that prompts Christ to yearn for the
consummation--then we as a church have been lax indeed in our practice of the
Supper. Our token recognition of the Lord's Supper once per quarter or once per
month must then appear as a meaningless ritual to God. How will our
lackadaisical approach toward the Lord's Supper ever prompt God to bring about
the consummation? At what point are we as a church with one voice proclaiming "maranatha!"
(Aramaic for "come, our Lord!") to God? This attitude was the rule in the early
church when they celebrated the Lord's Supper. That's why it could be said of
them, "they partook of their meals in jubilation and sincerity of heart." Shall
we, with the early church, "speed his coming" (2 Pt 3:12) by issuing this plea
to God every Lord's Day through the partaking of the Lord's Supper as a
prefigure of the Messianic banquet? Or will we continue to view the Lord's
Supper merely as a memorial to Christ's death which has relevance only for the
past?
For more articles related
to the subject of "Doing Church", click HERE
|
