Is Eucharist no More than a Reminder?
On campus over the past week or so there has been a variety of conversations regarding the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist). The context of these discussions is a topic for a different paper. Nonetheless, in the space created by many dialogues regarding in what circumstances communion is and is not appropriate something became clear for me. It would seem for many that the concept involved in the Eucharist is simply a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice for us. This apparently is the sum total for regarding the purpose of the Lord’s Supper: that in taking the bread/wafer and the wine/juice we are involved in a process of remembering the Lord’s death for us that carries no greater meaning than the remembering in and of itself. In this view the necessity of ordained clergy administering this sacrament to the congregants is often written off as unnecessary or belittled by the derogatory use of the word “traditional.” This perspective while very freeing for the American individualist, is hardly befitting the seriousness and (dare I say) eternal significance of the task at hand when the Eucharist is served for the body of Christ. It is for this reason that I must protest in essay form. The biblical record regarding the Eucharist shows that it is and will continue to be far more than a simple reminder of Christ’s sacrifice for the body of believers.
The first mention of the Eucharist in the NT comes in the book of Matthew, and it is here that the crux of the issue lies. While giving the wine to his disciples (Mt 26:24) Jesus states that “This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many.” The phrase blood of the covenant is what carries significant meaning to this discussion beyond the idea of a simple reminder. In the context of ancient Israel the blood of the covenant implies the blood of the mosaic covenant. The mosaic covenant in Exodus 24 features prominently the use of the blood of sacrificial animals as the binding agent of God’s agreement with Israel; the signature on the document so to speak. Exodus 24:6-8 describes the process (emphasis added):
“Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.” Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Moses sprinkles half the blood against the altar, and the rest on the people of Israel after they have agreed to obey the LORD. Moses’ statement at the end is in my perspective an affirmation of the Israelites statement of obedience. God and the Israelites are in agreement. The covenant is then sealed with the blood of bulls marking this as fact. The theme of the covenant and the renewal of said covenant plays out through the rest of the Scripture. The Israelites fail to keep the covenant, they repent, and they fail to keep the covenant again. They (and we) fail to obey in a repetitive manner. Nonetheless, their failure does not negate God’s part of the covenant. God’s faithfulness is not lessened by the unfaithfulness of his people.
The ultimate sense of God’s faithfulness to the covenant He made with His people is in becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ and therein renewing and fulfilling the entirety of the covenant for all time. Christ fulfills all the necessary roles of the covenant. Jesus takes on the role of the sacrifice required; the blood of the covenant becomes His blood of the covenant. Jesus takes on the role of the priest in mediating the connection between God and man through the blood of the sacrifice (His blood). Jesus takes on the role of Israel by living a sinless life in perfect obedience to God. Finally, Jesus being at the same time the fullness of man and the fullness of the Living God affirms the henceforward eternally renewed holy covenant in the name of His Father in heaven by initiating in the Spirit the very act of renewal itself.
If this is the meaning carried by the implications of Lord’s Supper, then why is the Eucharist still not just a reminder of this immensely theologically complex and holy action of the Lord in His death and resurrection? It is not because of the nature of faith itself. We as Christians do not presume to live in separation from God, in fact a main point of the resurrection was to achieve exactly the opposite. We participate through Christ in the Spirit in the eternal community of the Triune God. As Christ’s death is our death, so is His life our life (Colossians 2:12). The same point can be made regarding the Eucharist.
In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 the apostle Paul writes, “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” According to Paul, we are truly the body of Christ. Our participation as such includes us is His death, His life, His resurrection and His renewal of the covenant that is initiated in the Eucharist.
When Christ renews and fulfills the holy covenant, we as the body of Christ are fully participatory in this action. There can be no separation. The church is the body of Christ. In this sense when we break bread and take of the cup in the Lord’s Supper we are participating actively in Christ’s continual and eternal renewal of the covenant and remembering therein the role played by our One Holy sacrifice, priest, faithful Israel, and eternal God in making all things new. However, as a result, the Eucharist will always be far more than a reminder.
