C.S. Lewis is a favorite author of mine, both for his fiction and his serious writing. Among my favorite of his works, and one that doesn't get a lot of play, is "God in the Dock," a collection of essays that in many cases summarize in a few pages each, thoughts that elsewhere he spends a whole book on (available at Amazon, also on Google Books).
This is an excerpt from his essay entitled "Miracles" and has meant a lot to me since I first read it. Here Lewis is explaining and riffing off a teaching he found in Athenasius:
"There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal - is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see. Of that larger script part is already visible, part is still unsolved. In other words, some of the miracles do locally what God has already done universally: others do locally what He has not yet done, but will do. In that sense, and from our human point of view, some are reminders and others prophecies.
God creates the vine and teaches it to draw up water by its roots and, with the aid of the sun, to turn that water into a juice which will ferment and take on certain qualities. Thus every year, from Noah's time till ours, God turns water into wine. That, men fail to see. Either like the Pagans they refer the process to some finite spirit, Bacchus or Dionysus: or else, like the moderns, they attribute real and ultimate causality to the chemical and other material phenomena which are all that our senses can discover in it. But when Christ at Cana makes water into wine, the mask is off. The miracle has only half its effect if it only convinces us that Christ is God: it will have its full effect if whenever we see a vineyard or drink a glass of wine we remember that here works He who sat at the wedding party in Cana."
Now partly I appreciate this quote because I genuinely love a good glass of wine, particularly a good Shiraz, Zinfandel, or Cabernet. I confess I have yet to fully discipline my mind to remember Jesus as Lewis admonishes in the last sentence, though I do think of it more frequently than I might otherwise. But this passage resonated anew with me one day when I read Matthew's account of the Last Supper:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” (Matt. 26:26-29, ESV)
What struck me about this was Jesus saying this was the last glass of wine he would enjoy until the "wedding feast of the Lamb" (boy, talk about a dry spell!). He is not only (or at all?) instigating a sacrament here...he's telling his friends to remember him--and to look forward to his return--when they lift a glass. Sounds rather like a wake in some ways, to me.
So one thing I have done, ever since I discovered this connection, is that I have approached the celebration of communion differently. When I take the cup, I raise it, and either silently or in a whisper, offer the toast "Till He comes" before I drink. Some day, I'm going to encourage a group to do the same.
Till He comes. . .
I Believe
3 years ago
4 comments:
Hi, Dan--
When preaching awhile back on Mark's version of this scene, I was struck by its spareness. It made me wonder, as you have here, whether Jesus saw himself instituting a sacrament in any formal sense. There is something quite powerful about interpreting his words and actions as a simple call to remembrance. Of course, suggesting that the church might have developed a sacramental understanding of the event does not mean it was wrong to do so. Both interpretations can have value.
Another question I have regards the timing of the next drink--"that day...in my Father's kingdom." Might this day have already come? Perhaps Jesus is referring to his first post-resurrection meal with his student-followers. Maybe his resurrection inaugurated the kingdom that had come near with his incarnation.
Might this day have already come? Perhaps Jesus is referring to his first post-resurrection meal with his student-followers.
That's an interesting question, Josh, and I actually thought about it but chose not to say it before. It is possible and I certainly wouldn't argue one way or another, but to me the statement loses its poignancy, and maybe even its relevance, if it's "I'm not gonna have any more of this for a couple days..." even though we both know those days were seriously eventful.
Of course, suggesting that the church might have developed a sacramental understanding of the event does not mean it was wrong to do so.
True, but it does not mean it was RIGHT either. I tend to think (in good Anabaptist fashion, I suppose) that we have over-sacramentalized a great deal in the church. Sacraments and rituals and dogmas and theology all seem to me to have the effect of creating a "religion" out of what was first a "way." This is not (necessarily) to dismiss all ritual, but I think we've erred on the side of over-spiritualization to the detriment of our understanding of the character of Jesus--and perhaps of the character he intended for us as well.
I thought maybe the next drink would be with God the Father, after the ascension.
Eucharist should have the opposite effect of over-spiritualizing us. It's eating bread and drinking wine. It's physical and sometimes messy (at least the way my church does it). It's communal, or should be.
I suspect Jesus was instituting a practice rather than a sacrament, if that distinction means anything. To practice a social-taboo-breaking table open to all, eating and drinking both as a symbolic memory of Jesus' sacrifice and as food for the journey he's leading us on, is central for my understanding of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.
I suspect Jesus was instituting a practice rather than a sacrament, if that distinction means anything.
This distinction means everything, Travis. You are (I believe) absolutely correct here. Thanks for the comment!
Post a Comment