I Corinthians 11:23-26 shows the received tradition of the institution of the Supper of the Lord. In Jewish practice, the host of a meal gave thanks and broke bread as a way of opening the meal. 23 For I received (παρέλαβον) from the Lord and therefore not his Jewish tradition or another apostle, thereby heightening the importance of what he is about to say, what I also handed on (παρέδωκα) to you. Therefore, the believers in Corinth ought to listen attentively and reflect carefully on the implications of Paul’s remarks. The received tradition says that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed, same word for “delivered,” took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, a reminder that the Christian theology of prayer has retained the stress on thanksgiving as the starting point and motif of prayer for this reason,[1] he broke it. Although Paul could have offered much in the way of commentary, he chose to let the example of Jesus speak for itself. Remarkably, the Lord, who experienced betrayal this night, provided for others when he gave his disciples bread and offered thanksgiving. In fact, as symbols of the self-giving of Jesus in this moment, food and drink are particularly appropriate. Food and drink do not exist for themselves but for other living creatures. They surrender their own existence to enter the lives of others. Food and drink offer themselves so that others may live.[2] Jesus said, as if to underscore that this meal was for others, “This is and therefore no longer just what it was before.[3] Yet, the point is, for he could mean to symbolize, represent, is like, conveys, means the same as, is the same as, is identical with, and so on. This bread is my body that is for you, meaning “for” the recipients and present to them.[4] Do this, which could refer to the whole meal, in remembrance of me.” If the body and blood for us refer to the life of Jesus offered in his death, the decisive event in the Supper is not this recollection, but present participation in the fruit of this sacrifice. The offering of my body and blood has for you the effect that as you eat this bread, I give my life to you as yours, and that as you drink of this cup you may live with joy and now with sorrow, as innocent and not condemned. As I have given my life for you, it belongs to you. You may live and not die. You may rejoice and not mourn.[5] 25 In the same way, he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant and establishes a new people of God,[6] separating them from the rest of the Jewish people by their confession of Jesus,[7] in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, indicating this meal has already become a regular part of their communal life, in remembrance of me.” “Remembrance,” by which Paul connects with both bread and cup, links the Supper with the atoning death of Christ, not simply as recollection with the remote past, but a presentation and re-presentation of the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of Jesus and therefore the self-representing of Jesus Christ by the Spirit.[8] 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim, reminding us that the supper was always part of Christian proclamation,[9] the Lord’s death until he comes. That is, until all eyes see what believers already experience here and now with this eating and drinking.[10]
The Eucharist is the very heart of Christian worship because it is so rich and far-reaching in its significance. It evades thought and emotion. It relies on simple contact, humble and childlike receptiveness, and sense-quenching soul. It mixes the extremes of mystery and homeliness. It takes our common earthly experience of suffering, love abandonment, death, and makes them inexpressibly holy and fruitful. It takes the food of our natural life and transforms that into a channel of Divine Life.[11]
This tradition, stemming from the evening before the death of Jesus, forms the basis of the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper and therefore of Christian worship in general. In this sense, “institution” by Jesus himself is basic to the celebration. Yet, we can no longer reconstruct with certainty the historical nature and course of the last meal that Jesus took with his disciples before his arrest on passion. The problem, comparing this passage with Mark 14:22-24 and Matthew 26:26-28, is divergence in key details. The wording is different. One cannot even be certain it was a Passover meal. Yet, when we look at the meals of Jesus in the gospels, when we particularly note the miraculous feeding in Mark 8:1-10, and note his reference in parables to the banquet, we can see the importance of the eschatological fellowship of the reign of God. We have in these meals the central symbolical action of Jesus in which he focuses and depicts the message of the nearness of the reign of God and its salvation. Not least of all, Jesus gives symbolical expression to the forgiveness of sins that he links to the acceptance of his message and granted by it, since the table fellowship that Jesus practiced removes everything that separates from God. The primary issue in table fellowship as a depiction of the salvation of the rule of God is fellowship with God and the mutual fellowship of all who share in the meal.[12]
Paul reminded the Corinthian disciples that when they ate “this bread” and drank “the cup,” they were participating in a sacred meal whose significance transcended the ordinary meals of everyday life. For that reason, when they permitted their social status and cultural practices to encroach on the shared life of the community, they acted in ways that demanded careful attention. They profane the Lord’s Table (i.e., “eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner” [v. 27]); they were not “discerning the body” (v. 29); and they were failing to judge themselves, which opened them to the Lord’s judgment and discipline (v. 32).
First, it reminds us of the social nature of the church. It is always important for us to feed our spiritual lives at home, through private prayers, personal Bible reading, meditation on the call of God and so forth. That is eating at home. However, when it comes to the life of faith, we also need to dine out, in company with other Christians, for what we receive together, we cannot duplicate at home. The church is not solitary Christians in our own cubicles; it is a fellowship of followers of Jesus Christ. Communion, the common meal of the church, reminds us of the importance to our own spiritual experience of the community experience of faith. In that sense, what we do when we come to communion in church is “eat out.” We get spiritual sustenance in the company of others.
Second, it reminds us of the inclusive nature of the church. In one of the churches of which I was a pastor, a young couple started attending the church. Like here, we had communion on the first Sunday of the month. I gave the invitation similar as I do here. This is the table of the Lord. It is not a United Methodist table. If you seek to draw closer to the Lord, we simply invite you to come. In that church, we sometimes knelt at the altar, which was the case here. I noticed that in this case, the couple knelt there in tears. I wondered, of course. They told me afterward that it was the first time they had received communion as a family. You see, they came from a denomination in which you had to be a member of that denomination to receive communion. When they married, he went to her church, but some things made him uncomfortable about becoming a full member. They had never received communion together. Their testimony later was that experience decided for them where they needed be. They felt welcomed and included. John Wesley even called communion a “converting ordinance,” meaning that one may experience conversion while one is receiving communion. Holy Communion should be a time of inclusion. We freely offer to anyone who hungers. We do not partake because of how good we are. We partake because we need soul food.
[1] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 208.
[2] Mark Searle Liturgy Made Simple (Collegeville, Minn.; The Liturgical Press, 1981).
[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 295.
[4] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 418.
[5] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.2 [45.1] 214.
[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 433.
[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 465
[8] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 306.
[9] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 332.
[10] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.2 [45.1] 214.
[11] Evelyn Underhill.
[12] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 283-6.
No comments:
Post a Comment