Communion
Meaning (a)
Part 4 of 8
The ritual of the Lord’s Supper was initiated by Jesus himself. The event is recorded four times in the New Testament: in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and in 1 Corinthians 11. Quoting from the 1 Corinthians passage: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Matthew and Mark make it clear that the Lord’s Supper takes place in the context of the celebration of Passover. It is a puzzle that this context has been effectively abandoned (not denied, but deemphasized) by the Church today. It is no coincidence that Christ introduced Communion in the context of Israel celebrating its delivery out of Egyptian slavery. The Exodus has been viewed throughout Christian history as a prophetic type of the greater delivery to come, i.e., the emancipation of believers from the bondage (enslavement) of sin and from the power of death.
The delivery out of Egypt was initiated by God and completed solely by him. There was no uprising by the Hebrews, no rebellion, no shedding of blood in battle. However, even though God did all the heavy lifting, the Hebrews were called to specific participation in the liberation event, as described here:
Each household was to select a year-old male lamb, without defect.
On the first month of the year, the fourteenth day, the lambs were to be slaughtered at twilight.
Blood from the lambs was to be spread on the lintels and doorposts of the houses in which the Israelites lived.
The lambs were to be roasted over a fire and eaten that same night, along with bitter herbs and unleavened bread.
The Israelites were to eat with their cloaks tucked into their belts, sandals on their feet, and staffs in hand.
They were to eat in haste.
They were not to go outside until morning.
This liberation activity later became the annual celebration known as Passover (and is celebrated by observant Jews to this day). In one sense, the Hebrews were doing nothing—just holing up in their houses while God was busy outside. But in another sense, they were participants along with God. First of all, their participation was a public statement of faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If God was not outside, acting on their behalf, the routines they performed were pointless, if not bizarre. But, additionally, the Passover rituals were filled with meaning.
God demonstrated his anger against the defiant Egyptians (the most powerful political entity of the time. Egypt, then, represented the power and tendencies of humans living in opposition or apathy toward God.) He sent his angel of death to strike the firstborn son of each and every family in the land. Those who trusted in him were enabled to deflect the terrible judgment via a spotless substitutional lamb. The blood on the doorposts and lintels served as a sign to the angel that the house was occupied by the Faithful. Such households were spared; he passed over them. The eating of the lamb provided a second means of recognizing its sacrifice: while the blood “hid” them, its flesh provided sustenance.
Bitter herbs suggested the anguish and sorrow that took place in Egypt—a reminder of the horrors of living as slaves. The unleavened bread was symbolic of purity, i.e., the bread was untainted with leaven, even as the Hebrews were to be untainted by Egyptian culture. The cloak tucking, sandals, staffs, and hasty eating were all references to the hasty departure from Egypt. To dress in this way demonstrated preparedness, and an act of faith in the delivery that God was about to provide. When the order came, there would be no time for delay. (We read later how Pharaoh had second thoughts about letting the Hebrews go. Consequently, he set out with a powerful army that trapped them at the Red Sea. Any Hebrews who failed to leave immediately with the exodus group would have been swept up by the pursuit, either to be killed or returned to slavery.
The connections between Passover and Communion are many. The actions taken by the Church in the Lord’s Supper are participatory and representational, the two aspects making them “sacramental”.
When Jesus was sacrificed on the cross he was referred to as the Lamb of God. Consider the following Passover metaphor/reference from the Apostle Paul: For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us keep the festival not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. – 1 Corinthians 5.7,8. The delivery provided through Christ’s sacrifice is recognized as the greater reality foreshadowed by the Passover and delivery of Israel out of Egypt. The first delivery was very real, very much a liberation, both physical and spiritual. The second, greater, delivery was from the powers of Satan, the powers of earthly governments and ideologies, the bondage of sin, and the doom of death.
When Jesus broke the bread, ate, and shared it with the disciples, they had already shared together in the recollection of God’s mighty deliverance. The Communion Jesus initiated was presented within the context of this profound event in Jewish history. When God delivered the Hebrews out of Egypt he fed them for 40 years in the desert with manna. Jesus had demonstrated this same ability through two earlier miracles, multiplying the fish and the loaves to feed great crowds. He had also metaphorically identified himself as the “bread of life” to his disciples. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. – John 6.48-51
Comparing this passage with the Communion passages presents an additional problem for a literal interpretation. Here Jesus says that eating the bread that is his flesh would result in everlasting life. Taken literally, one would have to conclude that taking part in the Communion ritual is a means of salvation. The Church, virtually universally, rejects such an interpretation. To the contrary, the Church is united in recognizing that Communion is reserved for those who already have a genuine faith in Jesus Christ as Creator and Savior. But if the interpretation is not literal, it is figurative, suggesting that “eating Christ” means something different, say, recognizing that Christ is the sustenance of all life, both in the present and for eternity.
Consider this as well: Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” – Matthew 4.4 To “feed on Christ” is to appropriate his teaching and to live by it. When Jesus commanded the disciples to eat the bread there is no indication in the text that they were puzzled. We ought to wonder why. The apostles seem to collectively play the part of set-up man for Jesus throughout the Gospels. If there is a dumb question to be asked, if there is a way to misinterpret Jesus, they always seem to step forward to play the part. Peter, in particular, tends to take on this role. He’s like that one kid in class who doesn’t have enough sense to stay quiet. He asks the question. The teacher stops, stunned, gives a blank look, sighs, and then, recovering, provides the answer. Everyone else in the room looks around, realizing the dumb kid just saved them from doing the wrong assignment, too.
Why didn’t the disciples have a dumb question here? Because they were hearing Jesus in the context of the Passover, as well as remembering Jesus’ miracles and statements about bread. Earlier, as recorded in John chapter 6, many of the followers of Jesus had left him when he proclaimed himself to be the bread of life. Perhaps some of these dissenters missed his meaning and took him literally. But the Apostles did not leave him. Jesus, frustrated with the negative reaction of the many turned to them and asked whether they would abandon him too. Peter responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Peter grasped the importance of Christ’s words. Eating the bread of Heaven is about understanding the truth of heaven and digesting it.
The charge given by Jesus calls for a response: eat. The eating, itself, represents recognition of Jesus as the one capable of granting everlasting life. “He is the Lord; he is my lord.” Whatever life is meant to be, whatever my life is to be, it shall be lived according to the direction of this Lord. To “eat” Christ is to unite with him, to make him the core of your identity, to appropriate his perspectives, and to weigh all your actions by how Jesus will react to them personally.
But Christ also called on his disciples to drink of the cup, as he puts it, “in remembrance of me”. Clearly the cup refers to the spilling of his blood, as Paul notes in his letter to the Corinthians. But while the focal point of drinking the cup is Christ’s sacrifice, it is not possible to understand this sacrifice without also considering Christ with a wider lens. His sacrifice is qualitatively different from that of an ordinary human who lays down his life for his friends. The difference stems from the purity of his life, which makes him an acceptable substitute for the death sentence, which God pronounced against all humans. Jesus becomes the first human to overcome death; he provides the means for other humans to overcome death, as well.
It is worth noting the figurative usage of “cup” in the Bible. “Cup” represents the condition of life. Lord, you have assigned me my portion and my cup; you have made my lot secure. – Psalm 16.5. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. – Psalm 23.5. Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane just before he was arrested: Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. – Luke 22.42. To drink of the cup of Christ’s blood is to bind yourself to the course of his life.
The key motivation for all of Jesus’ behavior is his identity with his Heavenly Father. He will let nothing hinder his relationship with the Father. (Consider his violent reaction against Peter when Peter insisted Jesus should not be crucified.) Drinking Christ’s cup is to remember that he lived his life as a servant of God and of man, healing people of their afflictions and teaching the truth, in order that he might lead them out of their bondage to sin and death. It is to remember that he willingly laid down his life for the undeserving—there was no one who deserved the sacrifice he gave, nor did he deserve to receive the rejection, torture, and brutal death he was handed. It is to remember, as well, that this same Jesus rose triumphantly over death and was made Lord over all of creation.
To drink the cup along with Christ is to proclaim identity with him and it is to proclaim a commitment to live and die for him, whether that commitment results in martyrdom or a long life of holy service. To identify with Christ is to be at enmity with the world, because the world holds to various contrary perspectives. Out of the enmity there will be sorrow and blood. It also means that those who have been forgiven by Christ must take on this characteristic: living as forgivers. When we drink the cup we say we embrace everything that comes with being like Christ, joy or sorrow, obedient unto death.
When Jesus told the disciples to drink the wine, he explained that it represented the “the new covenant in my blood.” Christ’s reference to a covenant would have called up the history of God making covenants with the people of Israel. These covenants were agreements initiated by God in which He agreed to be their God, their lord, their protector, while Israel would agree to serve him according to His laws (or I think, more helpfully, according to his benevolent guidance). In ancient covenantal ceremonies, as took place between God and Abraham, several animals would be cut in half and the parties would walk between the split animals, making clear the solemn importance of the agreement. The walk-through would essentially mean, “May this same thing happen to me if I fail to keep my side of the agreement.”
When Jesus says the cup is his blood of the new covenant, his point is that he is initiating the agreement along with all its requirements. And yet, there is a profound difference between this new covenant and all the covenants that preceded it. He knew we would fail to uphold our end of the agreement and he wanted us to understand that he was accepting the repercussions for all our failures. The covenant made with Moses was a great, effectual covenant! But the new covenant, sealed in Christ’s blood is profoundly, infinitely greater!
Additionally, it should not be overlooked that the ceremony is not taken in isolation. It is a confession or a profession undertaken in assembly, that is, it is taken by the Church together. When Israel experienced the Passover, and then through the years as it continued to celebrate Passover, the event did not take place under one roof. Nonetheless, it was an action taken corporately. All of Israel celebrated Passover at the same time. The profession, then, is not only spoken to God and spoken to honor God, but it is spoken to all those assembled and, more fundamentally, to the holy catholic church. (With this in mind, Christians may want to think carefully about excluding other Christians from their Communion ceremonies. Rather, as other Christian assemblies are celebrating Communion, it ought to be seen as a sign of shared identity.) It is a mutual commitment; it is a pact. We love and serve this God together; we are responsible to one another; we are responsible for one another.
So Communion is a profoundly meaningful ritual that is intended to convey that meaning through the ritual. The ritual itself is important because it is (or ought to be) highly referential to the meanings it represents. The ritual should draw the Church into meaning, so that all who participate will be reminded of the incomparable work of Christ, and of the radical implications of that work for every Christian, both individually and corporately. When the ceremony fails to do this, because it imagines itself to be something different, it squanders a key activity of the Church.
(end of part 4 of an 8-part series)
Recent Comments