The Eucharist: Getting the cart before the horse?

Jesus said to them,

"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53).”

Then on the night that He was betrayed, scripture says,

When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you (Luke 22:14-20).

Centuries have passed since this great event, and the efficacy still remains. So, when people ask me what Communion is, I simply point to what the Bible has to say on the subject. Without equivocation, the Bible says in summary,

This is my body given (present participle) for you; do this in remembrance of me; and in the same manner he took the cup, saying, this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is (not was—rather, is) poured out for you. (Luke 22:14-20)

This act alone convinces me that His sacrifice is an on-going sacrifice. It did not stop at Calvary, nor was it exhausted there, either. This is not to say that Christ is crucified each time we partake in the Lord’s Supper; it is, however, to say that it is as efficacious now as it was then. Why the “is” then? Why not, say it shall be my body? And, in looking back, why not say it was His body? Paul doesn’t, that’s for sure. He writes:

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).

Now, in reply to all of these “whys?” asked above, the answer is that in actual fact, Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth (Revelation 13:8). The event, therefore, was never an afterthought—simply, just a remembrance of things pasts, but rather a forethought, first and foremost, with ongoing consequences.

To deny that it is an ongoing efficacious sacrifice, is to fail to understand the history of salvation. Moses depended on it, as did all the Old Testament saints, including the New Testament ones and beyond. Truly, when He said, “This is my body,” He spoke in language that only eternity understands in its fulness. Therefore, I need not fuss and fume over the nature of the bread or wine—or the epiclesis for when it starts, for in any case that act was once and for all permanent and everlasting, arching the very span of time.

This, incidentally is Orthodox doctrine. For the Orthodox (but not the Roman Catholic), the epiclesis during the eucharistic celebration is at the very moment the word “remembrance” is mention in the liturgy—that is, as if the very nature of the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Christ is already available as an eternal sacrifice born in the heart of God, the Father, at the very beginning of time itself. So, it is at that very moment that the efficacy of that sacrifice is appropriated.

In other words, the Eucharist—as an ongoing “remembrance” is built into the very fabric of creation that awaits the day when He shall be fully revealed in and through us (Romans 8:19)—thus, we are in a constant state and process of redemption in the sustained efficacy of that sacrifice, as is the whole creation (Romans 8:22).

The only sacrifice that covers all sin in that sense is found in Jesus Christ who went to the cross, where he shed his blood that our sins might be blotted out (Matthew 26:28; John 3:16; Acts 3:18-19; Revelation 7:14); and it is by that efficacious sacrifice that we are redeemed.

Another way of looking at it is that the sacrifice is eternal by nature, born in the heart of God, and appropriated in continuity with time. The sacrifice is thus retroactive, present, and progressive, and therefore appropriated for time and eternity (Revelation 7:14; Romans 8:22).

Now, if you have been following me carefully in this discussion, it explains (at least for me) how Christ was able to lift the bread (the host) and the chalice (the wine) and pronounce, “This is my body, this is my blood,” without contradicting what obviously had not in history taken place. He was to die later that day; that is, be sacrificed.

Thus, it is not heresy to say that communion is a bloodless sacrifice, in the sense that it is a commemorative act that points to one that was, both retroactive and progressively so; in other words, it is efficacious throughout all time.

JimR_/-