 |
| Photo courtesy of www.thegreatexchangz.com |
If you've been following my blog recently, you are probably aware that I've been delving head long into the theology of the Eucharist (or as some refer to it, the Lord's Supper or Communion). Catholics and Protestants alike celebrate this meal as a church family; however, the meaning behind it and the frequency with which it is done varies markedly.
Quiet simply, the main divide regarding the Eucharist (from a lay person's theological standpoint, mind you) is whether or not one believes it is the "true presence" of Christ. The Catholic church states that the Eucharist contains the "blood, body, soul and divinity" of Christ. Some Protestants (i.e. Episcopalians, Lutherans) also believe in the true presence but understand this in such a way to deny Christ's bodily presence or that His real presence in the bread and wine is limited to the time of celebration (consubstantiation). Many Protestants believe that Christ is with the meal in Spirit (Reformed/Presbyterians), some consider it to be just a memorialization of the Last Supper (Baptists), while others are not so sure about it all and just label it a "Holy Mystery" (Methodists--and I can say that as a born and raised Methodist!). As you can see, it is quiet a spectrum!
When considering the Eucharist in years past, I would always consider the passages of Scripture which state the phrase "do this in remembrance of me." We see these words emanate from Christ in the Gospel of Luke (22:19) and again when Paul writes to the church in Corinth to discuss the way in which this early church ought to celebrate this meal together (1 Corinthians 11:24-25). And when I would read these passages, I would hang my interpretive hat on one key word:
Remembrance
And in my English-speaking, 21st century mind I would always equate that to....
Remember.
To commemorate.
To symbolize.
To memorialize.
Therefore, I reasoned, the Eucharist is simply a memorialization of the Last Supper with the Twelve, to be done in commemoration of Christ's sacrifice on the cross that first Good Friday.
End of story.
But as I have been exploring the Euchrist of late and analyzing what I believe and why, I have been challenged by some Old Testament scriptures that I have studied in the past, especially the book of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy literally means "second law" or "repetition of the law" and it is a book written by Moses in sort of a "farewell address" format to the Israelites as they stand on the cusp of entering the Promise Land. In it, Moses discusses the redemptive history of this people and reminds them about God's covenant, His law, how to worship, and how to possess the land.
An overarching theme of Deuteronomy is remember. A quick online search tells me that the word "remember" is used sixteen times in this OT book alone. But this command does not simply entail an intellectual recalling...it is more of an obeying (not just believing). A doing. A possessing. Case in point, the 4th Commandment--Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. It does not imply a mere intellectual exercise. It means to go to church, consecrate that day to the Lord, rest, reorder and reprioritize your day (and by extension, your week...which by extension, is your life!). Clearly, remember is a loaded word.
And I am suddenly challenged in a fresh way as it pertains to the Euchrarist and Christ's and Paul's exortation of us believers in the New Covenant to remember.
To NOT just believe and intellectually recall.
But to obey.
To possess.
To take in.
To change.
Perhaps Christ intends for us to do a little bit more as we partake of the Eucharist meal in our churches. Maybe it is a renewal of His covenant with us. Maybe it is a taking in and possessing of Him in a new way. Maybe...it is to interact with His True Presence.
So, even by using sola scriptura I am challenged in my perception of the Eucharist! Can you imagine if I begin seeing validity to the Church's stance on this in the early centuries? The best I can see in my online and library researching is that while there are some reports of the true presence being refuted in the early church, the overwhelming majority of sources usually trace this issue back to the Protestant Reformation (most specifically, Zwingli who was a fierce proponent of it being merely symbolic--meanwhile Calvin's "mystical" view is quiet complex. I find it interesting that Luther did not deny the Eucharist theology of the true presence).
How about you, dear friend? Have you looked into how far back the beliefs you hold to be Truth (with a capital "T") go in Christian history? I certainly do not have all the answers, but I praise the Lord that you and I serve the One who does! Let us humbly submit ourselves to His leading and guiding on this issue so we can know the Truth and participate with Him in all His fullness!
No comments