Eucharist Part 2: Remembrance of a Richer Sort

My experience tells me that this is the dominating notion amongst evangelicals concerning what the Eucharist is really all about: remembering Christ’s death.  This focus can likely be traced back to the words of Christ Himself at the Last Supper, though we must consult with Paul and then Luke to learn of it.  Mentioned once by Luke (Luke 22:19) and twice by Paul (1 Cor. 11:24-25) is the well known phrase, “Do this in remembrance of me.”  If my memory serves me correctly, this was carved into the large wooden communion table at the front of the Baptist church that I grew up attending.  But what, I now ask, are we supposed to “do” and further still, what effect are we to expect this remembering to have?

Though some have suggested reciting the Last Supper account (as Paul does in 1 Cor. 11:23-26) is the thing we are to “do,” it seems much more probable that Jesus was simply instructing them to “do” the meal.  For us today it is simply the bread and wine, but it could be easily argued that Jesus’ instruction was to observe the full meal (note the often overlooked “after supper” remark in 1 Cor. 11:25), but reinterpreted to focus on the imagery of His body and blood.  Either way, for now we are concerned to note that Paul and Luke both seem to be presenting an extremely early Eucharist tradition of remembering the death of the Lord, specifically His body and His blood.

But now I ask, what is the meaning of remembrance?  Our modern conception is usually that of a simple mental recollection of a past event or piece of information.  This, I would argue, is the usual explanation of most evangelical and charismatic Christians of the act of remembrance in the Eucharist.  Through the act of bread and wine we mentally recall the death of Christ.  Notice that this approach suggests that whatever is recalled (i.e. the cross) stays very much in the past.  But does the word “remembrance” let us get away with such a tidy past/present distinction?

The Jewish understanding of remembrance, however, seems to have been richer than a simple mental exercise.  According to McCormick, it could better be described as a “bringing up into the present the effects of something done in the past.”[1]  This conception could be seen in God’s hearing of the Israelites’ groaning in Egypt and remembering of His covenant with Abraham (Exodus 2:24).  As the LORD says in Exodus 6:5, “…I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold as slaves, and I have remembered my covenant.”  YHWH’s remembering was not limited to a mental exercise, but brought the effects of the Abrahamic Covenant into the present through actions of deliverance.  In other words, to be biblically remembered by the LORD is for Him act on your behalf.  Similarly, for God’s people to biblically remember His commands is for them to actually do them in the present.  Could this richer form of remembrance have any bearing on our celebration of the Eucharist?

I believe yes.  In some of the earliest post-canonical Eucharists (Justin Martyr, 66; Apostolic Tradition 4:11-13), it is already clear that there was believed to be some present benefit from participation.  I must be clear that these documents (and certainly the New Testament) do not suggest the idea that salvation is to be found in observing the Eucharist (as was later developed within Catholicism), but they do suggest that there is spiritual blessing to be received.  This would seem to fit well with the above mentioned understanding of remembrance.  Could it not be that as we remember the Lord’s death in this way, we are positioned to receive a fresh blessing of the benefits of salvation (though the salvation itself has been accomplished once, for all in the event of the cross)?  As we recall the past event of the cross, it does not stay in the past, but its effects, through the Holy Spirit, are applied in a fresh way to our present condition.  This is not to imply that we are insufficiently saved or that Christ’s sacrifice is somehow incomplete.  It is simply to say that we may receive ongoing grace through remembrance of the cross in the Eucharist.

In concluding this section, let me point out that this richer form of remembering Christ’s death attaches a unique importance to the Eucharist.  Its observance is not only a command of the Lord, but also presents actual spiritual blessing that is not meant to be substituted for another means.  In reaction to the Catholic belief that salvation is to be found in the sacraments (Eucharist included), evangelicals, I believe, have swung too far in the other direction to the stance that there is no sacramental quality at all in the Eucharist (many use the designation “ordinance” rather than “sacrament”).  This minimalistic view, according to some, has contributed, in part, to the marginalization of the Eucharist in modern evangelical/charismatic worship.  For instance, it could be reasoned that spiritual blessing could be received through extended congregational singing or "ministry time" just as easily as participation in the Eucharist.  My contention is that, though spiritual blessing may be found in many expressions of worship and obedience, the Eucharist has and should have a unique place in the life and worship of the church.

---

[1] Quoted in Biddy, Wesley Scott, "Re-envisioning the Pentecostal Understanding of the Eucharist." Pneuma, (2006) 234.