15 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Great stuff, Matt. I haven’t done a systematic analysis, but I have the feeling that after rebaptisms were ended, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was refashioned a bit to emphasize its character a renewing of baptismal covenants. This isn’t a bad thing, but this important aspect of the ritual, which you highlight – the recognition that the participants are the people of Christ or his body – has been overshadowed. |
Interesting thoughts, Matt. I like your interpretation, and wish I would have read it before I went to church today. |
J., I’ve suspected that as well. That is certainly one way that I’ve explained rebaptisms to ordinary folks that have never heard of it, that it’s like what we do with the sacrament. Can’t wait to see some evidence for a transition though. Matt, thanks. Great stuff. |
I think it is wonderful to think of the sacrament, in part, as a communal meal, with Christ, but also with each other. It is nice to look around the chapel and see who all is at the feast, and be glad to be with them. A BOOK of Verses underneath the Bough, Omar Khayyam |
I like the post Matt, especially your Pauline interpretation- very insightful. I don’t follow some of the logical connections you make, some I feel are stretching in order to make your point, but I feel like the overall concepts ring with some truth. I studied the doctrine and ordinance of the sacrament for a good period of time on my mission for the simple reason that I always have alarms go off when I hear someone state that the sacrament is a renewal of the baptismal ordinance, and I feel that the best insight into ordinances and doctrinal basis for ordinances comes from Paul. I think that baptism and sacrament are similar in some small ways, but belong in separate boxes altogether. What is sacrament then? What does it teach and what end does it serve? You mention a fellowship aspect- being one with Christ. Does the sacrament imply a willingness to commit ourselves to emulating his life or, in other words the sacrificing of one’s own life (in a similar thread as baptism symbolically kills the carnal self)? I think so. I don’t think it has much to do with remission of sins, as baptism primarily does. The passing of this grace one to another is supported by the famous Mosiah 18 verses about bearing one another’s burden, etc., as well as the community focus. I think this also is a root of what we know as the united order, where ALL things are common. This makes for an interesting approach to the sacrament. How do you prepare? Do you prepare for a sort of communal ritual, looking to each other in the congregation for some sort of feedback or inspiration? Or can you only really focus on the sacrament table with the symbols of Christ’s sacrifice laid out on an altar of sorts, covered in linen as his body was in the tomb? Is the focus the symbols being taken, blessed, broken, and given; or rather the ones doing the taking, blessing, breaking, and giving? I think Christ is represented in both, as you have pointed out. It is important to remember the power of the ordinance as well as the symbol of it. |
Hey, thanks, folks. I certainly agree that the Lord’s Supper (I dislike calling it the ‘sacrament;’ there are several ‘sacraments.’ More here) being merely a ‘renewal’ of the baptismal covenants is an odd and somewhat limiting interpretation – particularly because after a post on FPR a few months ago I’m not so sure baptism is a covenant. N – Thanks; and I hope there was as stretch. That means I’m doing something somewhat original. Your interpretation – of emulation of Christ’s life – is actually Kathleen Flake’s as well, in the article I cited. I like that interpretation, but I also suspect I’m a bit too mystical in my theology for a simple ethical/moralistic interpretation. This is, I think, why Paul appeals to me. Preparation is an interesting question. Over the past few weeks, I’ve been opening up the Bible to the various meal narratives (in preparation, partly, for this talk) and comparing the various Last Supper accounts. A textual method, I suppose – searching for meaning-making. |
I don’t think I got a chance to comment on that thread at FPR. However, I think that their arguments (which I believe I have heard elsewhere) are somewhat ahistoric. Mormons used the word covenant with baptism back to Joseph Smith and the re-baptism prayer frequently included the words “for the renewal of your covenants” added. |
There’s a poem I love by Clint Larsen, I believe (although maybe not, now that I think about it. I’m at work and don’t have my anthology with me)–”Take, Eat.” It actually uses some hunting language to figure the sacrament (“Like a deer he comes to me”), and definitely includes the idea of being nourished on Christ’s body. Hmm… On a somewhat different note, a mission friend once suggested that the white cloth covering the emblems of the sacrament was a type of shroud, and that there was a lot of death imagery in the sacramanet as well. By the way, Matt, can we still be friends even though I like to call it the sacrament? |
While I like “Lord’s Supper”, until the Church changes the name of the meeting we attend in order to partake (on non-Fast Sundays) … it will be called the sacrament for a very long time… |
As ancient covenant ritual frequently included a sacrifice, it follows that associated covenant meals were very much a common feature to reconcile participants and formally complete contracts and firm up agreements. Some examples can be found in Gen. 26:30, 31:54, Ex. 24:11. What is important here in connection with the Sacrament, is that ancient Israel’s formal covenant renewal also featured a Covenant Meal: Lev. 23:39, 41. I find Kathleen Flake’s fellowship connection entirely consistent with the reconciliation aspect of covenant renewal. Especially, given the history of covenant feasts anciently. If we consider the priesthood bearers to be acting as proxy for God, then the Sacrament truly can become an intimate, reconciliatory fellowship with the Savior. |
Steven – thanks for stopping by; I think you point to some interesting parallels with the Feast of Tabernacles, which was tied to the giving of the Law (though I think to call it simply a covenant meal is to limit its meanings). I’d note, however, that the Jewish meal the Lord’s Supper is most directly connected to is of course Passover, which is tied to deliverance from Egypt; there’s a strong case to be made that the Last Supper (particularly as Luke describes it) followed Passover rites of thanksgiving to God rather than covenant renewal. All of these things, though, are of course connected. Naomi – Yes. :) J – As you say, the FPR thread was a theological discussion rather than a historic one. Different methodologies, I think. |
The primary purpose for the Passover meal was to celebrate the redemption and deliverance of God’s people from Egypt, as you point out. There does not appear to be a covenant element or covenant renewal aspect. I personally see many elements common to covenant ritual and covenant renewal, as well as ancient covenant meals, in our modern-day Sacrament service. I don’t know that there is evidence for a covenant connection in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by the earliest Christians. But something remarkable must have happened at the original Lord’s Supper meal, something so impressionable, that the early Christians were moved to regularly celebrate the event. There is nothing unusual about the form or order of the Supper that would distinguish it from any typical Jewish meal of the time, where the meal commenced with the head of the household taking a piece of bread and saying a prayer of thanks, after which the bread would be broken and distributed to all present. Similarly, at the end of the meal the host would take the ‘cup of blessing’, a simple cup of wine, and give thanks to God, after which all would drink. Where Jesus departs from tradition is that instead of giving a standard prayer, he said “this is my body/blood.” If we put this into a Passover context, Jesus’ departure from what was expected is even more striking. There is a Passover tradition, one that was in place even at the time of the original Lord’s Supper, where, as part of the seder meal, the head of the house was expected to recite the great events of redemption and explain the meaning and symbolism behind the elements of the Passover meal. Indeed, the participants would not begin eating until the father gave the haggadah where he would explain to the family and guests why they were being served unleavened bread and what was the meaning behind the bitter herbs, etc. What was so remarkable, if the Last Supper was a traditional Seder, was that at the moment everyone expected to hear the familiar haggadah, instead were told, “this is my body, which is broken for you.” A new deliverance. A new Redemption. |
Thank you, Matt. I’ve been trying to focus on the Savior throughout the meeting and to appreciate the Sacrament more. This was helpful. |
Matt, I read in Mark the other night: “18 And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? This brought to mind your reference to Christ as the Bread and Water of life. While Christ is present, the disciples “feast”, in effect. When he is away, there is a fast- I haven’t thought through how the fast relates to the Lord’s supper in terms of your analysis, but these verses were timely and interesting to me. |
Good catch, N. For another iteration that may blow your mind, read Luke 24:13-30 – the Emmaus story, and pay close attention to what Christ does at the table. I didn’t address eschatological nature of the Lord’s Supper in this post, but it’s quite clearly there – Christ says he will not drink again until we are all reunited in the kingdom of God. |