As we learn from Tertullian, our word sacrament comes from sacramentum, a term that was used to describe the oath of enlistment that a soldier would take. This is a covenant meal, and covenants are God-given bonds and obligations. These bonds are not burdensome—His yoke is easy and His burden is light—but His bonds are in fact bonds. We are engaged to His service.
When we come to this meal, we are engaging to be faithful. We have already confessed those sins and occasions where we were not faithful, and we come here in order grow in our commitments to Him. We gather here in order to cinch the knots tighter.
We do this self-consciously, knowing what we do. The battles we are fighting are difficult, and we need sustenance. What happens here is that we renew our commitment to be faithful and at the same time, for those who come to it honestly, we are given grace to be faithful. We obligate ourselves to be strong, and we are given strength.
The Lord is present in the person of His Spirit, and one of His offices is to quicken those who are lagging. The Servant in Isaiah says, “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, That I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary” (Is. 50:4). Are you weary? This word is for you. The bread is for you. The wine is yours.
This is not something that could arise from a mere ritual. The Lord is present here with us. He shows us the way, and He equips us to go on that way. The Lord is present, and Scripture tells us what that presence means. “Thou wilt shew me the path of life: In thy presence is fulness of joy; At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Psalm 16:11).
The Lord gives us joy, and the Lord in His kindness instructs us on what to do with it.
So come, and welcome, to Jesus Christ.
Hmmm. I don’t think Jesus gave the disciples bread and wine because they were weary. Communion doesn’t feed us. Communion turns us into food, lambs for slaughter. We don’t have fellowship with anybody by eating with them. We eat with them because we already have fellowship with them. The Lord’s table is a lot like Arthur’s round table in that respect, or the table on Sinai in Ex 24. Also, I really feel that talking about “Covenant” meals and “Covenant” obligations in Old Testament terms is not only legalistic, it depersonalizes Jesus, who Himself is the New Covenant. There is… Read more »
Mike,
You are much smarter than I am, but I think you are presenting a false dichotomy. Covenant is a description of Jesus – His person and His work. You started out with a similar statement, but later decided to split these two up, making them rivals. And is that Old Covenant really “rotten”? or is it incredibly valuable to us – so we can understand the New?
Hi J – sure it’s valuable. Nothing wrong with the obligations of the Law, except their powerlessness to bring life. Same goes for “New Covenant obligations” – which is why they are non-existent. I’m not knocking Covenant theology. I’m pointing out that reviving something that is dead is not the way to understand that which is alive.
Mike,
I think maybe I see it…
You look at the old covenant as the hull/husk of a seed that dies so that the plant may grow, and then is discarded.
I see the Old as a foundation on which the New is built, and which is invaluable its stability and purpose. The old and new are dependent on each other.
Would you reject the New Covenant obligation to “repent and believe”?
Are you sure you are not too heavily influenced by a nascent dispensationalism?
The only “obligation” for all those under the New Covenant (which is everyone alive) is to repent and believe. The Old Covenant “letter” was a blueprint. The New Covenant is a Person, so referring to Him as “the Covenant” is not only misguided and misleading but also impolite. The Covenant which Pastor Wilson keeps referring to doesn’t exist. It’s well-meaning but simply boils down to legislating the work of the Spirit, or setting a boundary around a membership based on tribal ties. Jesus tore all that down.