*This is an essay I wrote last fall. I don't pretend to be any sort of scholar or authority at all on Biblical matters; this was not a result of any length of arduous study. It is merely a frank understanding of some passages that I have read dozens of times without really understanding, and a straightforward look at a concept I had for so long taken for granted.
Imagine a friend asked you to come along to a memorial
service for a relative of hers. You would go, right? Of course; you desire to
support her in her time of grief.
So
you go, and once there, you discover that this particular relative has actually
been dead and buried for some time. The “memorial service” turns out to be a
detailed, ritualistic reenactment of the last twenty-four hours of the
relative’s life, complete with the last meal she ate, the death, and the burial.
Your friend’s grandfather stands and recites the last words of the deceased.
Would
that not be bizarre? Let us imagine a second scene.
This
time, it’s your own grandmother who has died. This venerated matriarch was
regarded in your family as the anchor, the one who taught all your relatives
everything they knew about life. At the funeral service, you all gather around
her coffin and confess every wrong you’ve ever done her. Once confessional is
over, the service ends and everyone goes about their business.
Still
crazy, right?
Yet
so many Christians treat Communion—the “memorial service” for Jesus Christ—in
just these ways.
Some
are like the family in that first scene. Communion is a spiritual ritual, a
disciplinary tradition complete with the recitation of the original Biblical
account. The congregation goes through the motions, passing the plate and
taking their specially-designed “Communion cups” of watered-down grape juice
and the small corner of kosher matzo, and waiting for the Pastor to give the
“okay” before you drink or eat… but that’s all it is; a synchronized ritual.
Others
try to pack the “ritual” with significance, and so treat Communion time as
“confession” time, listing out every sin they’ve ever done. They rehearse the
crucifixion scene in their minds, desperately trying to convince themselves
that they did the act of nailing Jesus to the Cross, that the broken bread and
the blood-red juice are more like evidence at a trial than tokens of
remembrance. The Last Supper is a somber affair, very much like a “last rites”
as opposed to a party feast. They feel that this is the right way to take
Communion, because Communion represents a very serious time in Jesus’ life.
I
am not saying that either of these are “bad” or “sinful”, per se—but perhaps
they are both a bit unbalanced, slightly skewed off-kilter. I do not pretend to
offer the “right” way of taking Communion based on years of research and study
and a thorough exegesis. What I intend to offer, if you’ve never thought about
it before, is some context and a bit of perspective, Amen?
First,
let’s place the First Communion in it’s context. What exactly was the Last
Supper? It certainly was not like the “last supper” of today, served to
criminals on death row, where they are going to die soon, but at least they can
die marginally happy with a belly full of whatever food they want.
For those who don’t know, that
night every Jew in Jerusalem (including Jesus Himself) was observing the
Passover Seder. For those who remember somewhere in the Gospel of Matthew
something about the Passover before the Crucifixion account, but are not sure
where the whole “supper” thing comes in, there is in fact a meal that takes place in the midst of the
symbolism and the ritual and the recitations and the guzzling goblets of grape
juice. It’s not something Christians decided to stick in there to “redeem” the
tradition from Judaism just because Jesus happened to be having a regular meal
with His disciples while everyone else in the city followed a prescribed reenactment.
In the Seder (which Jesus and His
disciples observed), there are traditionally four cups of wine (or juice)
poured at specific times. Two cups come before the meal. Immediately following
the meal is the traditional breaking and eating of the afikommen, a specially-named “loaf” of unleavened bread,
followed directly by the Third Cup. Incidentally, the Cups all have names and
special significance, too: The Cup of Sanctification, The Cup of Deliverance,
The Cup of Redemption, and the Cup of Praise.
With
that in mind, let’s look back at the account of the Last Supper, according to
Mark 14:22-24:
“And
as they were eating…”—This is the
traditional Seder meal, remember?
“He took bread, and when he had
blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.”—This is the afikommen, still within the Seder tradition.
“And he took the cup…”—What Cup? The Cup of Redemption.
“…and when he had given thanks,
he gave to them: and they all drank of it.”—
Still the traditional
Jewish Seder happening.
“And he said unto them, This is my
blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many.”
........OH!!
The light goes on. Jesus had
already poured out the Cups of Sanctification and Deliverance, remember? Why
did He wait until the Third Cup? A cup of drink is a cup of drink, is it not?
As it says in the Seder, “on other
nights”, a cup of juice is certainly a cup of juice, a means of refreshment and
hydration. But you see, during the Seder, the cup of juice or wine is more than
“just a cup.” They have names with special significance attached. So you see.
Jesus had very good reasons for waiting until after the meal—waiting till that
Third Cup, the Cup of Redemption—to try once more to get His disciples to
understand what was about to happen. Because in His Blood, we have Redemption;
not just Sanctification, nor simply Deliverance—we have Redemption.
Now do you understand? Communion is
not just a reenactment or a ritual. It’s a realization. When you drink the
juice at Communion, you are partaking in that Cup of Redemption, acknowledging
that Jesus brings Redemption by His Blood, which He shed for that very purpose
on the Cross.
So if Communion is more than a
ritual, does that mean that considering it a time of arduous confession is
right? Not entirely; confession is valid and worthwhile, and should happen
during Communion, if it never happens anywhere else, lest we “eat and drink
unworthily,” as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians—but permit me to contend that it
ought not be our whole focus during that time!
Let us consider again that First
Communion: did Judas Iscariot feel any remorse or feel the need to confess all
of the sin in his heart? No; but look at the consequence he suffered because he
ate and drank, and then betrayed the One he had Communed with.
Did the disciples use that time to
confess all their sins? The Bible doesn’t say so; yet they were Communing in
their hearts with Jesus, and so were not “unworthy” of the Lord’s Table. They
did not “eat and drink damnation”; they ate and drank Redemption. Was it a sober
moment? Was any man there considering the cross and the devastation? No; in
fact, they had no idea that Jesus was about to die. After all, it was only the
Passover.
So what is Communion if not confession time? Confess, yes, but
be mindful of why you are
confessing! It’s not just to kill time, and it’s not to make you cry or because
you feel awkward about sitting and waiting while everyone else is praying. The
opportunity to confess is if the Holy Spirit brings to mind something that is disrupting
the unity between yourself and God, or
yourself and another believer. Communion is not about sin, it’s about Redemption. It’s not about killing Christ over again; it’s about
the fact that He now lives, and
the same Power that gave Him life has
also redeemed us to live as well.
Here I will offer a third view of
Communion that takes the two views I expressed in the beginning and combines
their valid points with the perspective and the context I have just described.
Communion is an act that I participate in that involves confessing
my sin to God or the one I have sinned
against as a demonstration of my COMMitment
to the UNION between myself and God,
and the unity between myself and fellow Christians.
Very often a wedding ceremony will
include the couple’s first Communion together. Why? Is it because of tradition,
like walking down the aisle or exchanging vows? No. Is it necessary for the
couple to confess their sins to one another right there in the middle of the
ceremony? No.
In taking that communion, the
couple is demonstrating their commitment to each other and to God in a much deeper way than repeating their vows.
Jesus demonstrated his commitment
to the restoration of the unity that sin had disrupted when He established
Communion with His disciples. When we take Communion at church, we are
affirming that same pledge for unification, demonstrating that same commitment
that nothing should come between us as believers, or between God and ourselves.
More than a pious custom; more than
personal confession; Communion is a public, corporate COMMitment to UNION.
No comments:
Post a Comment