There are two import things we have to remember about this meal, and if we do, we will better understanding the place of this memorial in the history of the church.
The first thing is that this is the Lord’s Supper, not our own. The meal belongs to Him. He instituted it, and He sits at the head of the Table. He is the one who said the first blessing over it, a blessing that still remains, and He is the one who offers His own body and blood as the ground of our covenant partaking. This is the Lord’s Supper. He is the principal actor in it. This is not something we do in order to offer to Him; rather this is something He invites us into. This is not the Christian supper. This is the Lord’s Supper.
Secondly, this meal, wielded by Him, is a sanctifying grace. We understand this when it comes to our individual lives—we know that we are strengthened and encouraged by it. But this meal is also an instrument of His for sanctifying the church through history.
What this means is that we do not have the authority to assign meanings to the Supper that the Scriptures do not teach. When we have done so—and Christian history is replete with churches doing so—one of the principal methods God has for removing those errors about the Supper is found in the Supper itself. The Supper has been used by God to sanctify the church corporately, and one of the things that has need that cleansing is Eucharistic theology.
The two great errors that faithful partaking will sanctify over time are the errors of rationalism on the one hand and superstition on the other. Rationalism treats the elements of the Supper as propositions in 3-D. We enact this Supper as an audio-visual aid to help us think certain thoughts—and if we were to think those thoughts without the bread and wine, that would be just as good. Such minimalization of the Supper is one of the things the Supper itself will remove from us.
Superstition wants to control the spiritual forces out there, tying them down to one spot so that we might better manipulate them. Priestcraft tends to want to reduce the mysteries of Christ so that they can fit on the god-shelf in their sacerdotal warehouse, and the mysteries are then shared with the people piecemeal.
But we are here to observe the Lord’s Supper. Our demeanor should be as Mary’s was in her reply to the angel. Be it unto me according to thy word (Luke 1:38).
So come, and welcome, to Jesus Christ.
Rom 12:2 -” reasonable service” is the exact balance between the Jewish unity/rote/liturgical/law worship, and the pagan non-rational/diversity/chaos that was Rome. Those parameters are still with us.
I don’t see the term “reasonable service” in that passage.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012&version=ESV
Please elaborate.
Check different translations, Timothy.
Sorry, Timothy, I meant the 2nd half of verse 1 (old age hazard)…
Valerie is correct: check the KJV and others. The rarely used word ‘reasonable’ is also rendered ‘spiritual’ in Peter (I think), and it talks about a type of formal religious worship, where Paul blows away both the ends of the spectrum to give us a look at true worship. This is offering our complete body as a sacrifice that is not dead! Truly revolutionary thinking in it’s time!
ah! KJV thanks.
I would add Pastorcraft to those who withhold the cup of blessing from the children of promise, raised in faith.
The Supper does not give anything more than the Word believed does. Thoughts of commitment and belief are not rationalistic–they are prompted by the Spirit, and involve a God who transcends our understanding. Nevertheless, God speaks to us in his word a propositional promise, “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” Belief benefits from this even before we are baptized and eat the Supper. However, the sacraments enact believing and committing to the Word. There is benefit to ourselves and to the world when we are publicly acclaimed as belonging to the Lord. So, in the… Read more »