Everything said here has been said before, and better than I can say it. But for the sake of our varied readership, I thought it might be nice to offer a different perspective on the sacraments, specifically the Lord's Supper and how it relates to the Intercession of Christ and the intercessory prayers of the saints.
Brief bibliography: There are two authors that made some important points on this subject: Max Thurian, a French Huguenot, and Hugh Martin, a Scottish Presbyterian. Also, I had a mentor of sorts who has an unpublished book that looks to make a huge impact in this area. I've received almost all my understanding in this area from him. Thurian is out there, but he's Reformed and he's an adventuresome thinker. I appreciated his thoughts on anamnesis (memorial).
And now, to it: At the Supper, Christ says, "Do this as my memorial (anamnesis)," which, at first blush, makes us think of Zwingli and other memorialists. But that's not the direction Thurian takes it. This issue is not Christ's presence (or absence, if you're a "memorialist") in the Supper, but rather, in what 'direction' does the Supper point?
A Biblical memorial functions as a powerful, visual prayer to God. It has a Godward direction. When we talk about the sacraments, the whole conversation is in the context of their manward direction/emphasis and what benefit man derives from them. But if we consider the Godward direction of Biblical memorials, the ground of the conversation shifts from that of "what does this do for us?" to "what does this do to God?"
At first, this seems awkward, even questionable, unless we consider other Godward acts, like prayer. What does prayer do to God? Regardless of the answer, if we think it does anything at all (contra C.S. Lewis), then it still has a Godward direction, i.e., God actually hears our prayers. We're not just praying to ourselves. And that's the issue with the sacrament. It's a New Covenant memorial. It's a sign, but it's not merely a sign to us. It's a sign to God! It is a memorializing of Christ's cross right in God's face.
That being the case, we simply cannot imagine the effect this memorial has on God. He is moved by it to action. Consider Psalm 2:8. There, the risen Christ, haven accomplished the Intercession of Atonement, is told to ask of God for the nations as His inheritance. Thus, Christ's intercession for the nations is based upon His meritorious death, i.e., the death which qualifies Him to ask God for the entire world - including every elect yet to hear the gospel. When we "declare Christ's death" at the Lord's supper, we are participating in the very intercession of Christ that we see here in Psalm 2. We are participating in the power of the cross to conquer the world for Jesus. We are memorializing that very death to which Christ Himself points when He asks God for the world as His inheritance.
Think for a moment about the Old covenant sign of the rainbow. Read that section and see the direction that sign takes. Although we see rainbows and they remind us of God's promise to Noah, the Scripture says that the rainbow functions to remind God (not us) of His promise (Gen 9.14,15) . I believe all the covenant signs function this way (at least).
But why would God need reminding, since He's omniscient and that includes a perfect memory? That's a philosophical issue. It's the same issue as prayer. It doesn't really matter how we explain what is actually happening. The point is its Godward direction.
Consider also Exodus 28. In v9, two onyx stones had the names of the 12 trives of Israel engraven upon them and placed upon the priest's shoulders. They served to "bear their names before Jehovah... for a memorial" (v12). And v29, these names of the tribes of Israel are upon Aaron's heart as he goes before the Lord into the holy place. And they serve as a memorial before God.
Translate that to the New Testament: Christ is our high priest. He goes into the holy place before God. The memorial He bears is His scars. Among other things, metaphorically speaking, these scars are our own names written upon His hands. He holds his scars before God - visible reminders that He chose to keep which memorialize His atonement - and He asks God for that for which He died. Thus, His atonement IS intercession and His intercession IS the cross/atonement (Hugh Martin's point).
I believe the Supper has this same memorial function. By it, we join in Christ's own intercession by memorializing His atonement before God. "Do this as My memorial" and "proclaim Christ's death till He comes" (I Cor 11:26, Paul on the Supper). To Whom do we proclaim Christ's death by the Supper? To God. We proclaim Christ's death to God.
Yes, we pray intercessory prayers. Yes, I think Christ prays verbal prayers on our behalf. Certainly His Spirit prays on our behalf in an extra-memorial fashion (Rom 8:26). Yes, the Supper as a sacrament is a "means of grace." But it's only a means of grace because it's a memorial to God of Christ's death. And, like I said, this shifts the ground of the conversation over the nature of the Supper. We get to keep what's Reformed and we get to add some other good stuff, too. And we even attain some common ground on which we can talk with Zwinglian and Baptist memorialists (who still haven't considered the Godward direction of the memorial, as if all that mattered were our individual, rationalistic reflections on Christ's death - what matters is what GOD thinks about Christ's death!)
So, there's the short of it. Happy to hear any thoughts or offer any clarification.
2 comments: