We wanted to share with you up front a comment that has been posted by a writer out of Alberta Canada.
Ken said...
I got into something of a dust-up with some non-denominational types over the issue of the Old Covenant and the Church's teaching that the Old Covenant between God and the Jewish people is fixed and irrevocable, and that the Jewish people who live in that covenant offer up a response to God as well.Essentially, it's a teaching that the salvation Christ brings extends also to the Jews, the first to hear the Word of God, by means of the Old Covenant and the law of Moses. I'm sure the good Reader can see why such an idea would trigger a good dust-up with those who take a rather simpler view of the Christian faith.Now, the Reader can relax a bit: I'm not going to go into a lengthy explanation of the Catholic position today. But I wanted to remark on something I tripped over on my stroll through the blogs this morning, which I think is relevant.At the end of a post that begins with a discussion of the tripartite division of the Temple, and how this relates to Mount Sinai, Michael Barber notes that there is a certain parallelism in the words Moses uses in bestowing the Old Covenant on the people, and the words that Christ uses in giving the New Covenant in His blood:Key to all of this is the covenant ratification ceremony of Exodus 24--a passage Jesus' likely alludes to at the Last Supper:Mark 14:23: "And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. [24] And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (cf. Matt 26:28).Exod 24:8: "And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words." [Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on this verse reads, "This is the blood of the covenant"].Much could be said here [wait for my dissertation!], but suffice it to say, if Jesus is linking the Eucharist with Exodus 24 the implications are huge.If the Sinai experience was a Temple experience in which God's presence came to be with His people, how much more real is God's presence with His people in the Eucharistic celebration?The short answer would be: very real, perhaps even terrifyingly real. I previously discussed the institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and His revelation in the breaking of the bread, from a purely Scriptural point of view, and would suggest to the Reader that it is beyond doubt that Christ does literally become present in the bread and wine in the Mass. It's still a bold declaration of faith to say so, but Scripture supports the conjecture.Some Catholics probably also understand the Eucharist as a re-participation in the New Covenant that Christ instituted at His Last Supper. But perhaps there is a deeper significance, one that relates the New Covenant back to the old, and thus makes the Eucharist a re-participation in that older promise between God and man as well.
June 24, 2008 1:55 PM
Four tips for bidding for loans
5 years ago
3 comments:
In taking Christ's blood, we make it our own
In reading through an excellent tome by James Stuart Bell, which is comprised of excerpts from the various books that were found in the personal library of one Clive Staples Lewis -- yes, of Narnia fame. From the Library of C. S. Lewis is an amazing book full of all kinds of spiritual reflections, principally from Christian thinkers, theologians, and authors who shaped and guided Lewis along his journey into, and then through, the Christian faith.
This morning, on the bus to work, I came across this passage, an excerpt from a writing by C. F. D. Moule, an Anglican priest and theologian who passed away last year at the age of 98.
"In Rev 7:14 there is mention of those who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. This, of course, is applicable to all Christians as such: we all owe our cleansing to that blood. But if, as is sometimes held, this passage refers specially to martyrs, then I suggest -- though this is only a guess -- that it is possible that we are confronted with a striking example of the way in which Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice might be, in certain circumstances, spoken of as repeated in each act of human obedience joined with his.
The martyr's own blood, shed in faithfulness to the Lord, turns out to be the blood of the Lamb. When their blood flowed, behold it was the blood of the Lamb. Their sacrifice was united with his -- not as though theirs were independently redemptive or added anything to his, but in the sense that, being united, believer and Lord are, in that sense, one: his blood is their blood, their blood his. The blood whith is the sacrament of obedience is the Lord's blood: the wine which is the sacrament of obedience is, in that sense, the Lord's blood."
Now, Moule was (again), an Anglican, and so did not entirely share the Catholic view of the bread and wine. And yet, I think he grasped that there was more to them than just a symbolic remembrance of the Last Supper as well, and I think this moved him to postulate a reason as to how it might be possible that in partaking of the bread and wine, we might still be able to eat and drink the bread and wine whilst discerning in them the body of Jesus (c.f. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29).
In reading his conclusion, or rather his conjecture, I got the sense that he was correct about the link between the blood of the martyrs and the blood of Christ, but initially I couldn't quite wrap my head around what that link might be. However, when Moule notes, of martyrs, that "[Christ's] blood is their blood, their blood his," and then goes on to note that "in that sense" the wine from the altar is the blood of the Lord, I think he's on to something...and that he doesn't quite go far enough.
It is probably impossible to fully convey, in writing, the magnitude and meaning of what we receive in the Eucharistic meal; in the breaking of the bread and pouring of the wine, we remember Christ, and in the consecration of same we participate -- both again and anew -- in the one true sacrifice that Christ made for the salvation of all. In receiving Christ, we are thus not merely remembering Him, but committing ourselves to Him, uniting ourselves with Him, and in some sense even becoming as He was.
In essence, then, what Moule notes above about the blood of martyrs must happen in the Eucharist -- in taking the wine which now is blood, we surrender our own blood, and our blood becomes Christ's blood (and His ours).
Which should mean, if we are honest about our beliefs, that in receiving Christ, we boldly declare that we are fully ready -- even willing -- to perish as He did, not for our own glory, but for the glory of God and for our love of others (c.f. John 15:13)
In essence then, our participation in the Eucharist -- in the feast of the body and blood of the Lord -- becomes a preparation for martyrdom. In receiving that most blessed meal, we pledge that we stand ready -- prepared, as it were, in heart, mind, and soul -- to offer up everything, even our life, for the glory of God. And perhaps we should thus reflect that if we are not able -- in heart, mind, and soul -- to confess our willingness to put the Lord even before our own life, we should perhaps abstain from reception of the most blessed of the Sacraments.
And when we do receive the most blessed sacrament, perhaps we should reflect on the fact that at times, the Christian call includes the call to martyrdom. Perhaps we should make it a part of our prayers, that day and whenever the moment comes upon us, to ask the Lord for the strength and courage we may one day need to face, boldly, those who would do us harm for our confession unto Christ.
I find it very very odd that Christians, would support the catholic view here, by reposting it. Will much respect to our catholic friends, they completely misunderstand communion, and take a hyperliteral view, that isn't hermneutically supported.
I believe Jesus was pointing the cup as being symbolic of his blood that was poured out (which is the position Zwingli took during the Reformation). I also believe the Temple and other OT rites were types and shadows that were completed in Christ (types and shadows that pointed to Christ). For intance, the fact that the Paschal lamb was shed and the blood put on the lentil of the door and on the doorposts during the original passover (which symbolically formed a cross) was just one type and shadow of the Messiah's sacrifice to come.
I'm not going to argue with my Catholic brothers about transubstantiation. Theologians have been arguing about this for years. I think the more important issue is whether or not we are being incarnational like Christ to a lost and dying world. As I mentioned to Lisa this afternoon, John 1:14 in the Message version says that "the Word became flesh and blood and moved into the neighborhood." If we really want to be the hands and feet of Jesus, we need to be following his example of being incarnational.
Post a Comment