On another blog I have been dealing with the Lord's Supper and its meaning within the Anglican Church. I'm fully aware that not all Anglicans understand the Supper alike but I fully embrace Article XXVIII of the Articles of Religion (1562) Of The Lord's Supper which rules out transubstantiation, 'reserving' of the sacrament, lifting it up, carrying it about, or worshipping it.
The Article says clearly among other things that: 'The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean [sic] whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.'
This last sentence is one of the planks of John Calvin's view of the Supper (as opposed to Rome and to Luther) for it is affirming that the bread and wine do not act upon us because of their inherent sacredness (or divinity as in Catholicism). They convey grace only in the presence of faith in Christ.
This point about faith comes out in the liturgy when the priest says,
Interesting, the Anglican liturgy surrounding the Supper makes a connection between John 6 and Jesus' teaching on 'I am the Bread of Life'.
These bold words echo John 6.51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and so should not be strange to us. However, some might believe that these words clearly mean that in Anglican circles all worshippers are committed to an actual eating of Christ's flesh and a drinking of his blood in contradiction to The Articles of the Religion.
So what does it mean to eat the flesh and drink the blood (Jn 6.53) of Jesus Christ: these are Christ's own words which were controversial when he spoke them to the point that many of his disciples walked with Him no longer (Jn 6.66).
Jesus offended their sensibilities. First, he claims that he was the 'living Bread from heaven' which brings eternal life (Jn 6.54, 58) and states that He was superior to the manna given by Moses which led to death (Jn 6.49, 58). So to 'feed on Christ' is to live according to the eternal life Jesus offers (6.57). Note that he also says that this bread 'came down from heaven' (my italics) which indicates Jesus' divine origin (Jn 6.50), which adds to the offence he provokes.
Second, these disciples debate among themselves about how Jesus could give them his flesh to eat. They call it a 'hard saying' and can't understand it (Jn 6.60).
Jesus discerns their offence and answers it first by saying, what would they say if they were to see him ascend where he was before (i.e., back to heaven)? (Jn 6.62). As we know, Jesus did ascend to the Father's right hand after the Resurrection (and we mark it with Ascension Day).
Second, with regard to the 'flesh and blood' Jesus says 'the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life' (John 6.63). I take Christ to mean that he was not giving his actual flesh and blood for that would be a 'fleshly' understanding of his words, a cannibalistic interpretation and action. It reminds us, does it not, of Jesus' meeting with the Samaritan woman in John 4. She wants the water that will make it unnecessary for her to have to come and draw water every day. But Jesus is talking about 'spiritual' water that he is going to give her (Jn 4.14) just as he had spoken to Nicodemus about 'spiritual' birth in the preceding chapter (Jn 3.5).
Hence, his words in John 3, 4 and 6 require spiritual (=of the spirit) discernment (1Cor2.11-14) not a literal or 'fleshly, carnal' reading.
Furthermore, the OT contains some help with the references to blood. 'Blood' is used more than once to denote 'violent death' or 'death' (e.g., Gen 4.10; 9.6; 2Sam 3.28; Ps 30.9) or life given up to death (e.g., Lev 17.11; see also Heb 9:22, 'shedding of blood'). 'Flesh' is also used figuratively in Psalm 27.2 where David's enemies are not going to actually eat his flesh as such but are going to profit from his death when they kill him.
Even the idea of drinking of blood is even used figuratively in 1 Chron. 11.19 by David when he protests that he will not drink the water that his men have risked their lives to get for him because that would be like 'drinking their blood'. This interesting reference suggests the theme of the preciousness of the lives of his soldiers in David's eyes.
One writer puts it succinctly, 'When He refers to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He is talking about enjoying the benefits which come from His death (italics in original). Perhaps this could be extended to include the enjoyment of 'the benefits which come from his life and death'. The 'blood' of Jesus is his 'life' given up for us in his death on the cross for the salvation of the world (e.g., Acts 20.28; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:20; 1Pet1.18-19).
The eating and drinking is done in faith, by faith (Jn 6.35, 47, 69).
The Article says clearly among other things that: 'The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean [sic] whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.'
This last sentence is one of the planks of John Calvin's view of the Supper (as opposed to Rome and to Luther) for it is affirming that the bread and wine do not act upon us because of their inherent sacredness (or divinity as in Catholicism). They convey grace only in the presence of faith in Christ.
This point about faith comes out in the liturgy when the priest says,
and feed on him
in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
Interesting, the Anglican liturgy surrounding the Supper makes a connection between John 6 and Jesus' teaching on 'I am the Bread of Life'.
Grant us therefore, gracious Lord,
so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ,
and to drink his blood,
that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. (Jn 6. 56)
AMEN.
These bold words echo John 6.51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and so should not be strange to us. However, some might believe that these words clearly mean that in Anglican circles all worshippers are committed to an actual eating of Christ's flesh and a drinking of his blood in contradiction to The Articles of the Religion.
So what does it mean to eat the flesh and drink the blood (Jn 6.53) of Jesus Christ: these are Christ's own words which were controversial when he spoke them to the point that many of his disciples walked with Him no longer (Jn 6.66).
Jesus offended their sensibilities. First, he claims that he was the 'living Bread from heaven' which brings eternal life (Jn 6.54, 58) and states that He was superior to the manna given by Moses which led to death (Jn 6.49, 58). So to 'feed on Christ' is to live according to the eternal life Jesus offers (6.57). Note that he also says that this bread 'came down from heaven' (my italics) which indicates Jesus' divine origin (Jn 6.50), which adds to the offence he provokes.
Second, these disciples debate among themselves about how Jesus could give them his flesh to eat. They call it a 'hard saying' and can't understand it (Jn 6.60).
Jesus discerns their offence and answers it first by saying, what would they say if they were to see him ascend where he was before (i.e., back to heaven)? (Jn 6.62). As we know, Jesus did ascend to the Father's right hand after the Resurrection (and we mark it with Ascension Day).
Second, with regard to the 'flesh and blood' Jesus says 'the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life' (John 6.63). I take Christ to mean that he was not giving his actual flesh and blood for that would be a 'fleshly' understanding of his words, a cannibalistic interpretation and action. It reminds us, does it not, of Jesus' meeting with the Samaritan woman in John 4. She wants the water that will make it unnecessary for her to have to come and draw water every day. But Jesus is talking about 'spiritual' water that he is going to give her (Jn 4.14) just as he had spoken to Nicodemus about 'spiritual' birth in the preceding chapter (Jn 3.5).
Hence, his words in John 3, 4 and 6 require spiritual (=of the spirit) discernment (1Cor2.11-14) not a literal or 'fleshly, carnal' reading.
Furthermore, the OT contains some help with the references to blood. 'Blood' is used more than once to denote 'violent death' or 'death' (e.g., Gen 4.10; 9.6; 2Sam 3.28; Ps 30.9) or life given up to death (e.g., Lev 17.11; see also Heb 9:22, 'shedding of blood'). 'Flesh' is also used figuratively in Psalm 27.2 where David's enemies are not going to actually eat his flesh as such but are going to profit from his death when they kill him.
Even the idea of drinking of blood is even used figuratively in 1 Chron. 11.19 by David when he protests that he will not drink the water that his men have risked their lives to get for him because that would be like 'drinking their blood'. This interesting reference suggests the theme of the preciousness of the lives of his soldiers in David's eyes.
One writer puts it succinctly, 'When He refers to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He is talking about enjoying the benefits which come from His death (italics in original). Perhaps this could be extended to include the enjoyment of 'the benefits which come from his life and death'. The 'blood' of Jesus is his 'life' given up for us in his death on the cross for the salvation of the world (e.g., Acts 20.28; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:20; 1Pet1.18-19).
The eating and drinking is done in faith, by faith (Jn 6.35, 47, 69).
Comments