I think we miss something of Jesus’ intent, though, when we narrow the sacrament to the elements we use. Is “this” the individual eating of a piece of bread and drinking a sip of wine? For much of Christian history, we’ve argued over what happens to the bread and wine and in what sense are they the body and blood of Jesus. What is it that we are to keep on doing as Jesus’ anamnesis? The answer to this question gets to the heart of the nature of the sacrament. So “keep on doing this as my remembrance” points forward, to the disciple’s repeated observance of Jesus’ command. (More on “remembrance” in a future post.) They had no need to remember a meal they were currently experiencing. The disciples in the upper room couldn’t remember Jesus’ crucifixion – his gift of body and blood – because it hadn’t happened yet. Remembrance only makes sense in the context of the disciples’ future. The word for “remembrance” is “ ananamnesis“. The event was to be repeated indefinitely. Whatever Jesus was doing in the upper room, he didn’t intend it to be a one-time event. The verb “do” is a present imperative: keep on doing. Without it, the Last Supper might be an interesting episode in the life of Jesus, but not necessarily the church’s sacrament. Luke and Paul agree on the Eucharistic formula, “Do this in remembrance of me.” It is this formula that establishes Holy Communion as perpetual observance in the church. This is my body … for you do this in remembrance of me.”
0 kommentar(er)
