Letham helps me to have a more cross-centered view of the Lord’s supper. It goes without saying that the Lord’s supper is a reminder of the cross. This has seemed clear to me from the passages in the Synoptic gospels. However, Letham showed me how another passage of scripture relates brings together the Lord’s Supper and the cross. In John 6, Jesus says that if anyone eats his flesh they will live forever, because he gives his flesh “for the life of the world (Jn. 6:51).” Letham surmises, “He is evidently referring to his death on the cross (11).” I agree with this; Jesus is making a reference to the atonement. I have tried to work out the symbolism here, and how it leads to the atonement.
1. Jesus’ flesh = bread which is to be eaten
2. Jesus gives his flesh “for the life of the world.” He does this on the cross.
3. We are nourished on his body in that we receive forgiveness of sins and righteousness by ingesting Christ’s broken body in the act of faith. Thus, Jesus’ death allows us to live.
Letham also pointed me to the cross in his discussion of Paul’s description of Jesus as “our Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7).” He remarks that when we think of this we should not think primarily about the Passover meal. Rather, we should have in mind the events of the next day where Christ is sacrificed on the cross, much as the lamb was slain to protect Israel ( pg. 4).
Letham also helped me relate the Lord’s Supper with union with Christ. He did this be helping me see the relationship between physical and spiritual food. In the Supper we are granted union and communion with Christ. Just as food becomes part of us, so Christ becomes part of us. Food gives us energy, which sustains us. Similarly, the Lord’s Supper is spiritual sustenance (pg. 14).
I have never before worked out this analogy, and, as a result, not realized that one of the purposes of the Lord’s Supper is to energize us. It nourishes us spiritually that we might be healthy and fit for service. If this is the case, we should be coming to the Lord’s Supper as hungry and tired people. We should ingest as we ingest the most savored meal. All of us have had the experience of missing a meal or two out of necessity. How we long for the next break from work so that we can enjoy a meal and be reenergized! By faith we should see the Lord’s Supper in the same way; it is the nourishment that eases spiritual fatigue. I am ashamed to admit that I often take the Lord’s Supper lethargically. I am almost eager for the whole ceremony to be over so I can get home. I had never realized how much Ineed the Supper.
Letham further informed me of the centrality of the Supper in church history. “Transubstantiation was the doctrine the reformers opposed,” and “abandonment of the mass was the single most decisive event marking the reformation in its various centers (pg. 21).” Furthermore, I understand for the first time how grievous is the error of transubstantiation. I now see the practical damage that is done when one holds to the position of transubstantiation. If we carry this belief to its logical ends the elements should be worshipped, and held high for all to adore. The minister should be very careful that not one drop touches the ground, and they should be preserved for the next observance, not discarded. I am struck, as many have been before, that all these things seem illogical. This demonstrates that allegiance to wrong belief will lead to illogical ends. Also, and this is even more disturbing, this view is “the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries (WCF 29.6).” I don’t think there is any way to deny that this is worshipping God in physical form, and thus a breach of the second commandment. Learning more about the centrality of the Supper in history has caused me to value the Supper’s more as theological bellwether.
I am also thankful to Letham for confirming my own position, the ‘Real Presence.” He states that, “This eating and drinking is not physical, but is nonetheless real and true. Christ does not come down to us in body and blood. Instead we are lifted up to him by the Holy Spirit (pg. 28).” This makes sense. Christ has permanently united himself to us in the incarnation, and so is with us while we eat and drink.
Letham also helped me better understand the relationship between word and sacraments. God has appointed ministers to administer the sacraments because “the word governs the sacraments and thus a minister of the word alone is authorized to preside...Without a minister declaring the word of institution there is no sacrament (pg. 41).” Letham later discusses how the word governs the sacraments. The word has a special status because it is the speech of God. Furthermore the ordained preacher speaks the word of God when he preaches (Eph. 2:17). Furthermore, the word creates the sacraments. Jesus instituted the sacraments with his word, recorded for us in the Bible. This is helpful for a couple of reasons. First of all, it gives a rational for why only teaching Elders administer the sacraments. They are ministers of the word, and this qualifies them to give the word of institution. This also explains why the words of institution are so important. Sacraments without the word are set adrift from the truth they embody. The connection between the ritual and word must be present or the sacrament “is reduced to bare ritual (pg. 50).” This has one other implication that I think is important. The Lord’s Supper is not to be practiced by individuals or families in the privacy of their homes. It is also not to be practiced at informal settings where a minister is not present: youth retreats, fellowships groups, etc. I once heard a radio preacher advise keeping a loaf of bread and bottle of wine handy so that we could always be ready to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. When I first heard this I was not uncomfortable with it, but I have grown more so. In this context the Lord’s Supper loses its sacredness because the word is not present.
I also appreciate Letham’s discussion of using real bread and wine. Letham argues, “No one has any right to change (the wine into grape juice concentrate), any more than in baptism they can replace water by orange juice.” If his analogy holds, that changing the wine would be like changing the water of Baptism, then any change can hardly be defended. I see some validity of his argument, but I don’t think his analogy does hold. To go from wine is not a change of substance, as going from water to orange juice. Wine is only grape juice fermented. It is conceivable that the wine used in the earliest observances was more or less fermented. The degree of fermentation was not prescribed, and perhaps it ought not be for us either. So, our rationale for using wine cannot be made by analogy to Baptism. I still think this argument can be made, and I am open to this. My reservation is that we may have alcoholics present at the supper. Even a taste of the real stuff might be injurious to their sobriety.
Letham’s argument concerning using a real loaf of bread is much more convincing. He points out that the early church clearly did this (1 Cor. 10:16-17). This is also supported by the idiomatic expression, ‘the breaking of bread (pg. 42).’ I would add to his argument that using a real loaf will help us identify with one another as a united body. In 1 Corinthian 10:17 Paul uses the ‘one loaf’ to reinforce the truth of the unity of the body.. Someone may argue that we get the same symbolism if a minister uses one loaf as an illustration during the words of institution. This is the practice at my home Church here in St. Louis. However, I don’t think we get the same thing when we use neatly divided pieces of bread made by a company who specializes in mass producing elements for religious ceremonies. It is too sterile. Letham critiques this practice on other grounds, just as convincing, “(I)t is redolent of post-Enlightenment individualism, where religion is conceived of as a private, individual matter between the individual and God. This is to change the sacrament, indeed to violate and pollute it (pg. 51).” If at all possible, I would like to use a real loaf of bread if I preside over the Lord’s Supper.
Last of all, Letham helped me have a more eschatological view of the Lord’s Supper. He argues that in the Supper we have foretaste of the fellowship we will one day have with Christ, a fellowship that will be unimpeded by sin. We are looking forward to the final meal, the marriage supper of the Lamb. Our fellowship with Christ in this world revolves around a meal. Apparently, our fellowship in the next world will be similar. I tried to think about what this must mean for my present life. One result is that I must be more eschatological. One of my professors once said, “The Christian life is hopelessly eschatological.” What is it I am to look forward to? A meal. For some reason I have a difficult time getting excited by a meal. Perhaps it is because the elements of a meal are not as rich in our day. A meal symbolizes closeness; we will have intimate fellowship with the Lamb. A meal also symbolizes celebration, and we will have great reason to rejoice on that day. A meal also symbolizes refreshment. In heaven we will be finally refreshed as we enter our rest. This is something to look forward to!
No comments:
Post a Comment