The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16)
It was a shock to me when I learned that first-century Christians held their weekly worship services around the dinner table and that the first “Lord’s Suppers” were real-live meals and not just tiny crackers and thimbles full of grape juice. How could anyone possibly have the Lord’s Supper and a church potluck at the same time? It just wasn’t natural.
For the first Christians, it made prefect sense to share meals together in which they remembered the many meals Jesus shared with his disciples, and especially the last supper on the night he was betrayed. The Corinthians, however, faltered in preserving the spiritual significance of their meals. Instead of a sharing in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16), their gatherings became occasions for drunkenness and class prejudice (11:20-21). Paul needed to remind them that eating the bread and drinking from the cup were not magic rituals. Sharing the church’s meal couldn’t protect them from God’s judgment any more than eating the Passover protected those Israelites who fell into idolatry in the wilderness.
Christ is present when his people gather in his name. We should remember that when we approach his table.
Do you think the Corinthian church considered the Lord’s Supper to be a magic ritual?
Thanks for the insight.
Anne: I think something like that was going on. The important thing was to “go through the motions,” and who cares if the poor are being neglected or the unity of the church is being threatened?
Dr. John: You’re quite welcome!
Hi there
& Welcome back. & I’m glad you had such a proud daddy moment, how cool is that.
On the “magic ritual” bit, I ask because I often see “magic” trotted out as a complaint against a sacramental view, but I have never seen an actual argument made; the assumption is once something is labeled “magic” that alone ought to be enough to make us sacramentalists back away, or something like that.
What you describe, “going through the motions” is rote, auto-pilot, possibly a dead ritualism. But magic? Hm. I wouldn’t consider people doing things by rote or habit to be magic … You have to believe that there’s the supernatural involved in order for something be magic. Paul’s complaint wasn’t that they were too far overboard in imagining a supernatural involvement; one complaint he made was that they weren’t far enough along those lines.
I’m curious, whenever you get caught up on sleep and all that, would you be interested in trading posts over that whole “sacraments are magic” bit? I’ve never understood Baptist anti-sacramentalism, or the view that sacraments are “magic”, or that they’re works-righteousness, or any of that. Let me know if you’re interested.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Thanks, Anne. I’ll be glad to trade posts on the “sacraments are magic” bit, but since I don’t agree with Baptist anti-sacramentalism, I’m not sure I’d be the best sparring partner
I used the word “magic” in my original post simply to suggest the idea of an ex opere operato benefit from participating in the Supper–no need for personal faith, etc., just show up and poof! Grace happens! That’s why Paul argued for the need for self-examination. Since the Supper is a conduit of authentic supernatural power (or however you’d like to phrase it), one must be careful to approach it rightly. Maybe not the best word choice on my part. My apologies if I’ve been unclear.
You know, I wasn’t necessarily looking for a “sparring partner” — with you, it tends to degenerate
in to actual conversation.
Maybe someday I’ll find someone who can explain the objection to me …
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF