Rev.
Olonan, in his New Year’s Eve sermon, spoke about the Hebrew word for
“covenant”, b’rîyth, whose root word bârâh means “to share
bread” (actually means “to eat” or “to distribute food”). This refers to the
ancient custom of Semitic tribes of sealing a covenant by breaking bread
together. It can be seen from Old Testament examples that most covenants (if
not all) involved the breaking or bread. Therefore, Rev. Olonan says, the
institution of the Lord’s Supper is connected with the making of a New Covenant
as prophesied by Jeremiah (31:31—34).
This
is not all, of course. The family observance of the Sabbath, wherein bread is
symbolically broken after the cup of blessing, is actually considered an
extension of the celebration of Passover, for the Jewish celebration of the
Sabbath is tied more with the version of the Fourth Commandment found in
Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 5:15 And thou shalt remember that thou
was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God brought thee out
thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD thy God
commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.
The
early Christians, who were originally predominantly Jewish, brought this
understanding of the Sabbath breaking of bread as an extension of the Passover
celebration into their observance of the Eucharist. Thus, the weekly to daily
celebration of the Eucharist (Acts 2:42, 46-47; 20:7, 11) was seen as an
extension of celebrating Christ as our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7).
Therefore,
the an understanding of the Jewish Passover as a covenant whose celebration was
not remembered once a year but at least every week on the Eve of the Sabbath
would explain why the early Christians even to at least to the 2nd
century CE would celebrate weekly Eucharist. Both the early 2nd
century Didache and Justin Martyr’s description of Christian worship
both confirm the New Testament practice of Constant Communion.
And
yet despite these historical and cultural facts, many still argue against the
weekly celebration of Holy Communion. They argue that Holy Communion is not at
all essential to true worship which, according to them, is purely “spiritual”
(which could either mean primarily “mental” or “emotional”). Some even told me
that Holy Communion cannot really be an important aspect of worship since “the
kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness,
peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17). So, I am told, worship is
more of allowing “the word of Christ” to “dwell in you richly in all wisdom;
teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Colossians 3:16). Thus, growing
in grace means, as one put it as, “frequenting the dwelling of sanctity”.
To
the assertion that the Eucharist brings Christ’s presence to the communicant,
some told me that “food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do
not eat, and no better if we do” (1 Corinthians 8:8), and so, they tell me,
Holy Communion does not bring us near to God, and one is no worse if one does
not partake of the Lord’s Supper, and nor are those who do partake of the
Eucharist any better than those who do not.
At
best, I was told, is that Holy Communion is just merely a ritual “symbolizing” our
love for Christ and our unity as the body of Christ. As the 18th
century Baptist writer John Gill wrote in his commentary to 1 Corinthians
10:17,
… as bread consists of many grains of corn which
have been ground and kneaded together, and make up one loaf; and as the members
of an human body are many, and make up one body; so believers, though they are
many, yet are one body, of which Christ is the head; one in union with him and
one another, and one in their communion together at the Lord's table; … The
application designed is this, that as believers, by partaking of the same
bread, appear to be the same body, and of the same mass and lump with one
another; so such as eat things sacrificed unto idols, appear to be of the same
mass and lump with Heathen idolaters: … that if it were customary among the
Israelites, to join together in one political or economical body, by the eating
of many loaves collected from this, and that, and the other man; we are much
more associated together into one body, by eating one and the same bread,
appointed us by our Saviour.
Thus,
the value of the Lord’s Supper is more as an “acted out illustration”, a
“visual aid”, so to speak, whose primary purpose is as a didactic tool to teach
the members of the Church how they are united into one body. So the
Lord’s Supper is not a means for achieving that unity in the Body of Christ,
but merely an illustration by simile of the ideal of the unity of the Body of
Christ. They reason then that, as with all good visual aids, overuse would be
detrimental to its didactic value, and will be more effective as an
illustration of Church unity if done occasionally. One even told me that he
believed that, just like the Jewish Passover, Holy Communion ought only to be
observed once a year so as to preserve the force of its “meaning”, that
is, as a symbol of Christ’s death.
Thus,
to have Holy Communion done more frequently than once a month would make its
observance ritualistic with its “meaning” blunted by repetitiousness, applying
that pat idiom, “familiarity breeds contempt.”
And
yet the language of 1 Corinthians 10:17 does not suggest that Holy Communion was
not regarded by S. Paul as a mere ritual designed for illustrative purposes but
as THE means for uniting believers together as the body of Christ. That is,
according to S. Paul, the very act of breaking bread together, and eating
together, was the means by which “we who are many are one body, for we all
partake of the one bread”. The Greek word for “for” used in the verse is gar,
which means “because”. The verse then literally says, “we who are many
are one body, BECAUSE we all partake of the one bread”.
In
other words, the Eucharist was regarded, not as an illustration of church
unity, but as the means—the tool—that brings about church unity. As John Wesley
observed in his commentary to the same verse:
FOR IT IS THIS COMMUNION WHICH MAKES US ALL ONE. We
being many are yet, as it were, but different parts of one and the same broken
bread, which we receive to unite us in one body.
And
not only the is relationship of believers as the body of Christ created by the
act of breaking bread together, for "we who are many are one body, for we
all partake of the one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17), it is also the
relationship of the believers with God that is established. For the passage in
1 Corinthians 10 speaks of Holy Communion in the same language as one would use
for marriage. For when S. Paul writes,
1Corinthians 10:21—22 “Ye cannot drink the cup of
the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table,
and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger
than he?”
That
the drinking of the cup of devils fills the Lord with jealousy shows that the
Eucharist was more than just a mere ritual but indicative of a mutual
relationship between the communicants and God himself, so that the participation
in any similar “ritual” in a pagan temple as akin to adultery. This also
mirrors the prophet Jeremiah’s words concerning the “new covenant”:
Jeremiah 31:31—32 “Behold, the days come, saith the
LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the
house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in
the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a husband over
them, saith the LORD.”
Ephesians 5:22—32 “Wives, submit yourselves unto
your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife,
even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their
own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also
loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse
it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a
glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it
should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their
own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his
own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For
we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause
shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and
they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning
Christ and the church.”
To
say that Holy Communion is just a mere ritual with at best subjective meanings and
is not necessary for having a relationship with God is like saying that
marriage is not really necessary for a couple to have a meaningful and intimate
relationship. Indeed, many who criticize the need for marriage believe that all
that is important is mutual love and commitment. Marriage, they say, is too
formal, too ritualistic, whereas simple cohabitation is “honestly informal”,
and therefore more desirable than all those bothersome vows.
Some,
while not rejecting the need for marriage, see it as a mere wedding, done only
once, and commemorated only annually. The wedding ritual is all that marriage
is, and there is no need (they say) for the bride and groom to make their
wedding vows weekly, and just over the top to have them made daily.
Or
is it?
In
a Jewish wedding, blessings are made over a cup of wine. Then the bride and the
groom share this cup of wine. Afterwards, throughout their married lives, the
husband will praise his wife every Sabbath Eve, starting with the words of
Proverbs 31:10f, and afterwards will pronounce the same blessing made at their
wedding over a cup of wine before he ritually breaks bread. In this sense, the
Jewish husband renews his betrothal to his wife every week.
Christ
betrothed himself to his Church when he on “the same night in which he was
betrayed took bread:”
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and
said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in
remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he
had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant/testament in my blood: this do
ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
“For
as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death
till he come,” for the actual wedding of the Lamb and the Church. Thus, the
Lord’s Supper is not merely a ritual, but a means for establishing an intimate
relationship with Christ.
And
the most important reason the Eucharist should not be regarded as a mere ritual
but as means for a more meaningful and deeper relationship with Jesus Christ is
because our Lord Jesus said that if we love him, we will obey his commandments
(John 14:15). This was said immediately after the Last Supper, so the command
to break bread and bless the cup in memory of him is included among the
commands we need to obey if we really love Christ.
And
so our obedience to the command to eat bread and drink from the cup in memory
of him is indicative of our loving relationship with Christ. One cannot have a
“loving and intimate relationship” with Christ without obeying his commandments,
especially his command to remember him through very specific means, the
breaking of bread and the blessing over the cup.
But
how often, and how frequent should this be done? The early believers, as early
as just after the Pentecost event, interpreted Christ’s command to break bread
and bless the cup in memory of him as a daily duty!
Acts 2:42, 46-47, “and they were continuing
steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles, and the fellowship, and the
breaking of the bread, and the prayers. … Daily also continuing with one accord
in the temple, breaking bread also at every house, they were partaking of food
in gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God, and having favour with all
the people, and the Lord was adding those being saved every day to the church.”
That
the New Testament church celebrated the Eucharist every day, as well as the
ancient connection of the Lord’s Prayer with Eucharistic celebrations shows
that the early believers took the words, “Give us this day our daily
bread,” LITERALLY, that is, the bread of heaven ought to be asked and
received daily.
Also,
that our Lord Jesus said that if we love him, we will obey his commandments
(John 14:15), and our obedience to the command to eat bread and drink from the
cup in memory of him is indicative of our loving and intimate relationship with
Christ is consistent with what his conclusion to his “Sermon on the Mount”:
Matthew 7:24—27 Therefore whosoever heareth these
sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built
his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the
winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon
a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And
the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
A
“loving and intimate” relationship with Christ cannot survive without obedience
to Christ’s commandments. Every one who hears Christ’s words, “Take and eat,
drink ye all of this, in remembrance of me” and does not do what Christ asks “and
doeth them not” shall fall, and great shall be the fall. How often, then is one
supposed to obey Christ? Once a month? How often do temptations rain upon a
believer, where they may flood one and be beaten by the winds of false
doctrine? How many fall because they do not walk in close communion with Christ
through the means he instituted?
Also,
those who hold that Holy Communion is just merely a ritual symbolizing our love
for Christ and our unity as the body of Christ say so because: a) “the kingdom
of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and
joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17), and, b) “food does not bring us near to
God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do” (1 Corinthians
8:8), have taken the verses concerned out of context. The context in each of
these passages is talking about the Jewish Kosher laws.
To
say that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking,” is on the
same level as saying “thou [God] desirest not sacrifice … thou delightest not
in burnt offering,” for surely it is true that “Hath the LORD as great delight
in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in hearkening to the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”
Yet we do therefore conclude that Christ’s sacrificial death was unnecessary?
God forbid!
To
say that “food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat,
and no better if we do,” is also on the same level as saying “it is not
possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” And yet do
we then conclude that the statement “without shedding of blood is no remission”
is untrue? Just because animal blood cannot cleanse us from sin does not mean
that Christ’s blood cannot. For “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us
from all sin” and that because Christ loved us he “washed us from our sins in
his own blood”. In the same way, ordinary kosher food may not bring us near to
God, yes, but eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood does bring us
near to God.
For
it was Jesus Christ himself who said,
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him
up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth
me, even he shall live by me.”
Yes
“the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and
drinking” kosher food (as many Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists
pretend it to be) but the eating of Christ’s spiritual flesh and drinking his
spiritual blood. Kosher “food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if
we do not eat” kosher, “and no better if we do” eat kosher; if we REALLY
believe in Christ’s words, eating his spiritual flesh and drinking his
spiritual blood really does bring us near God the Son, for whosoever eats Christ’s
flesh, and drinks his blood, dwells in Christ, and Christ in the one who does
so eat and drink Christ.
That
the Sacrament of Holy Communion ought not be put on the same level as ordinary
common food and drink was S. Paul’s entire point in 1 Corinthians 11.
In this very chapter we are told that by eating and
drinking unworthily is meant, taking the holy sacrament in such a rude and
disorderly way, that one was "hungry and another drunken." But what
is that to you? Is there any danger of your doing so, —of your
eating and drinking thus unworthily? However unworthy you are to
communicate, there is no fear of your communicating thus. Therefore, whatever
the punishment is, of doing it thus unworthily, it does not concern you.
You have no more reason from this text to disobey God, than if there was no
such text in the Bible.[1]
Whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily - That is, in an unworthy, irreverent manner;
without regarding either Him that appointed it, or the design of its
appointment. Shall be guilty of profaning that which represents the
body and blood of the Lord.[2]
For he that eateth and drinketh so unworthily as those Corinthians did, eateth and drinketh
judgment to himself - Temporal judgments of various kinds, 1Cor. 11:30. Not
distinguishing the sacred tokens of the Lord's body - From his
common food.[3]
Holy
Communion should not be regarded as a mere ritual involving common food but as
means for a more meaningful and deeper relationship with Jesus Christ and our
fellow believers through what Christ himself called his body and blood. The relationship
between believers as the body of Christ is created by the act of breaking bread
together, for "we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one
bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17). But most importantly, our Lord Jesus said
that if we love him, we will obey his commandments (John 14:15), and so our
obedience to the command to eat bread and drink from the cup in memory of him
is indicative of our loving relationship with Christ.
The
Rev. Olonan once wrote:
The church has already tried various methods in the
past but they failed. With Jesus’ method, he did not only give us the content, He
also gave us the principles that we have to use. Our readiness to obey the said
command is an indicator of the level of faith we have as Christian believers.
The UMC, from the local to conference level have tried various methods (dialogue, compromise, negotiation, concerts, revivals, etc.), but all these have
failed because these are not God’s method to unify the church. The method given
by Christ to heal the divisions, the means of that grace of unity, is the
Holy Communion, for when even enemies share one bread and partake one cup, they become united in
Christ.
And
yet, notwithstanding what is written here so far, people will still consider
Holy Communion as an optional add-on to worship. They will still consider the
notion that the Eucharist is necessary for eternal life as preposterous,
insisting on taking certain verses out of context, all the while ignoring Jesus
Christ’s very words—his statements regarding the eating his flesh and the
drinking of his blood (though not meant literally—Christ definitely was not
asking his followers to become cannibals!) as conveying eternal life to the
believer, as well as the fact that Christ commanded his disciples to eat bread
(that he called his body) and drink wine (which he called his blood) in memory
of him.
Is
it any wonder, then, why the many in the United
Methodist Church
in the Philippines
are so divided by politics, and why few members are loyal to either the UMC or
Christ himself? Why cherished vows made in marriage and ordination are so
easily broken? Covenant relationships made here in the Philippines are not taken
seriously, because many lack the grace that truly unites the Church.
Many
Filipinos have a nasty habit of making New Year resolutions, and then not
keeping them. In the same way, many Filipino Methodists—especially in the
Manila Episcopal Area—have no intention of keeping Resolution 8014. This
Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion of the
2004 General Conference, (which was readopted by the 2012 General Conference,
and is considered the official expression of the UMC regarding Holy Communion
until 2024.) which recommends the weekly observance of Holy Communion:
The complete pattern of Christian worship for the
Lord’s Day is Word and Table—the gospel is proclaimed in both Word and
sacrament. Word and Table are not in competition; rather they complement each
other so as to constitute a whole service of worship. Their separation diminishes
the fullness of life in the Spirit offered to us through faith in Jesus Christ.
Congregations of The United Methodist Church are
encouraged to move toward a richer sacramental life, including weekly
celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the services on the Lord’s Day, as
advocated by the general orders of Sunday worship in The United Methodist
Hymnal and The United Methodist Book of Worship.
The
question is asked: Why the necessity of using bread and wine? Can we not
remember Christ every day without the ritualistic Holy Communion? The thing is,
Christ asked that he be remembered through the breaking of bread and the
blessing of the cup: why the resistance to remembering Christ through the means
he told his followers he should be remembered? Furthermore, as Hoyt L. Hickman
would observe,
The word translated remembrance has a
meaning stronger than what we ordinarily mean by the word “remember.” We might
better use the word “recall” in the sense of “call back”—“Do this to call me
back.”[4]
The
point is not just about a purely mental or nostalgic remembrance of Christ, but
the kind of remembrance, the epiclesis, that truly invites Christ’s
actual and real presence, when Christ is just as present with us as with his
disciples long ago. And the means whereby Christ told us to invoke his actual
and real presence is through the blessing of the cup and the breaking of bread.
And then, the covenant becomes more than just a mere memory, but a present
reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment