Skip to main content
1 Cor 11, and Its Obvious Implications, Often Overlooked
I noticed the last time I celebrated the Lord's Supper that, in my best estimation, we had entirely missed the point. That is, if I had taken the pastor's words as representative of all of us, his words as a summary of what we were confessing by taking and eating, then (respectfully) we were quite far afield of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians. And that was quite alarming, given that he attempted to quote the text.
[As an aside, I am sidestepping the Catholic critiques of the Protestant eucharist for the moment, despite whatever sympathies I may have toward that view.]
Leaving aside the fact that, at the very least, the text here should be read or memorized and spoken liturgically at some point, apart from any interpretive comments, I was bothered first by this: "Each time we eat this bread and drink this cup, we remember the Lord's death until He comes." Following this was a fairly lengthy pronouncement that our faith in Christ has rendered us soteriologically bulletproof; that is, we are eternally secure, and this is what we are commemorating. Had I not covenanted beforehand with God that I would take this in faith to receive whatever He had for me, (and had the elements in my hand before this craziness was spoken) I would have refused it. It doesn't matter where I was; you don't need to know. It doesn't matter who spoke the words, either. I'd have asked him about it before I told you. The point is, the relevant word in v. 26 there is 'kataggellete' in the Greek, 2nd person plural, meaning 'you proclaim' or 'you are proclaiming.' In other words, in the very act of celebrating, we are preaching the gospel! It's not about our individual salvations, though that's nothing to sneeze at. We are assembled to look back at Christ's death for us, but also forward. Why do I say that? It's right in verse 26 at the end, "until He comes." Therefore, aside from preaching the cross to ourselves and whomever else, it's a meal suffused with eschatological hope. Add in the seemingly crazy words from John 6:51-60, and it's about receiving grace(s) from Christ (and Christ Himself, in some sense) to make it to the end. Not that we have already received it, as Scripture says, but we press on, fed by Christ! Where was that?
I can say for a certainty that Paul did not care about Reformed atonement theology (or anyone else's, for that matter) when he wrote 1 Corinthians 11. And I'm sure that thinking about whatever assurance or confidence we receive from the death of Christ while taking the bread and the cup would really make him mad. He'd want us thinking about Christ, not the finer points of systematics at such a crucial time.
Have you ever wondered why Paul puts these words of institution right there in 1 Corinthians? And in that chapter, why does he think reminding them of this will address their sins against each other? The only thing I can figure is that Christ is actually there when you eat and drink. You wouldn't or shouldn't do wickedness right in front of Christ. [You do it all the time.--ed.] I know. I should remember, God sees everything. But the point is, sin can't abide here, because Christ is here, offering His gift of ultimate Love. (Again, here today, but once for all...hold on, I'm perplexed!) I'm just wondering why we spend time explaining why other Christians are celebrating wrongly, and exalting our theology, when we should be simply receiving Him and letting Him preach to those who've yet to receive Him. [That still sounds oddly Catholic.--ed.] Well, sue me.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

My Thoughts On The Harrison Butker Commencement Speech

Update: I read the whole thing. I’m sorry, but what a weirdo. I thought you [Tom Darrow, of Denver, CO] made a trenchant case for why lockdowns are bad, and I definitely appreciated it. But a graduation speech is *not* the place for that. Secondly, this is an august event. It always is. I would never address the President of the United States in this manner. Never. Even the previous president, though he deserves it, if anyone does. Thirdly, the affirmations of Catholic identity should be more general. He has no authority to propound with specificity on all matters of great consequence. It has all the hallmarks of a culture war broadside, and again, a layman shouldn’t speak like this. The respect and reverence due the clergy is *always due,* even if they are weak, and outright wrong. We just don’t brush them aside like corrupt Mafia dons, to make a point. Fourthly, I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that the TLM is how God demands to be worshipped. The Church doesn’t teach that. ...