The following essay will be a Biblically-based analysis on two major Christian rituals: baptism and communion. I am not supposing that there are no other useful rituals in the Christian faith out there; on the other hand, these are the only two explicitly handed on to other believers from the Bible. In addition, this post discusses the two rituals in a broader sense. It analyzes proper attitudes that one should have towards baptism and communion. As such, for any other obscure Christian ritual, I would argue that these same attitudes apply.
I think it altogether wise and in accordance with Scripture to consider baptism and communion to be "in the same boat", so to speak, with circumcision. I think this for several reasons:
1) They are both physical representations of a Thing, Occurrence, etc. I say representation strictly. A representation of a Thing cannot itself be that Thing which it represents, else it would cease to be merely a representation. Circumcision represents the promise God gave to Abraham. Now, is circumcision itself the promise of God? Of course not! The promise is the promise, and the rite of circumcision was given to Abraham and all those who received the promise as a reminder of that promise. Romans 4:10, "But how did this happen? Was he (Abraham) counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised!"
Baptism is a physical representation of Jesus's burial and resurrection. Just as Jesus was buried and resurrected in accordance with the will of his Father, so too, during baptism are we "buried" in water and lifted up out of that water by the will of our spiritual father on earth, that is, the pastor (do not be intimidated by my referring to a pastor as your father; it is only to keep up with the analogy. Feel free to insert "leader" or "teacher" depending on your perspective on the matter). Now, is baptism itself the burial and resurrection of Christ? Of course not! It it were, the world's sins would have been forgiven the moment Jesus was physically baptized by John. The Bible is quite clear that it was not Jesus's baptism but His actual death and resurrection that did this.
Even if the Bible were not explicit, logically, which act would we assume took away the sins of the entire world? The act where a man is dipped in a bit of murky water or the act where he is cruelly murdered and risen from the dead? Certainly the second! But, of course, there is not need to make logical conclusions of our own. It is explicitly stated to us.
My point is this: there is baptism and there is the death and resurrection of Christ. And the death and resurrection of Christ is more significant.
Communion is a physical representation of the body and blood of Christ broken and spilled out that we may be filled. It is not itself the body that was broken or the blood that was shed; that happened at Calvary.
As I understand, there is some opposition to this, mainly the idea of transubstantiation. For those who do not know what that is, it is best not to bother with the following paragraph at all. For those who do know what it is, the following paragraph may prove useful. For those who know and believe that it is true, I should mention that this matter is not really that important to me. If we disagree on something as comparably trivial as ritual, then does it really matter all that much? I am only here to state the facts and what can be discerned from the facts as I know them.
Anyway, on to the point. I think that the idea transubstantiation fails to draw a "line of literal-ness"; that is, a line at which point things stop being literal and start being figurative. Indeed, Jesus did say, "Take and eat; this is my body (Mat 26:26b)," and, "This is my blood of the covenant (Mat 26:28a)." If we are to take that as literally as possible, then we are to assume that the bread literally became his body and the wine literally became his blood.
So I see why one might decide that transubstantiation is a "thing", so to speak. But is that what happened? I think that it is altogether appropriate to get some context on the matter. "Never read a Bible verse!" my Theology teacher once said. Context is excruciatingly important when dealing with the Bible. What is the context of this verse in this chapter? And what of the chapter with the book? And what of the book with the entire Bible? A single thread may make one assume that the entire rug is red while the big picture is actually predominantly blue.
So let's get some context here. Here's is Matthew 26:28 in its entirety, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Now, were the sins of the world forgiven the moment that Jesus blessed the wine? Don't be foolish! The sins of the world were forgiven when Jesus died and rose from the dead. So the wine could not have been Jesus's blood, because Jesus's blood is poured out for the sins of the world. As it is, the world's sins were not forgiven the moment the cup was blessed. Therefore, the wine could not have been his blood.
By extension, I think it altogether prudent to assume that the bread did not become his body, either, even though Jesus never says this is my body broken "for the forgiveness of sins," as he said about his blood. However, he did say about the bread, "Do this in remembrance of me," which ought to send up the red flag that this is all figurative; a physical representation of an outer Thing, Occurrence, etc. that was yet to come.
Now, though it clearly did not happen for the disciples, are we to suppose that transubstantiation can happen now that Jesus's body has already been broken and his blood already shed? I think not. If Christ saw fit to perform the ritual the way he performed it, why do we, mere mortals, think it fitting to do it our own way? Or are you forgetting what is written in Revelation 22:18-19, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Though perhaps referenced out of context, the principle ought to stand. We ought not add or take away from the core truths of the Gospel, and it is my opinion that transubstantiation comes dangerously close to doing just that.
My point is this: there is communion and there is the Crucifixion. And the crucifixion is more significant.
Anyway, my next point...
2) They are both, baptism and communion, physical illustrations of ongoing spiritual Conditions. Being only illustrations, they are not the spiritual Conditions themselves. Consider circumcision. Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. Now, was Abraham counted righteous before or after he was circumcised? Certainly it was before! Therefore, circumcision is not itself the righteousness that comes by faith. It is merely an illustration of that Condition. (Romans 4:10)
There is an easy way to test this. Ask yourself this, who is circumcised? Is it the man who is not physically circumcised yet obeys Jewish law, or is it the man who is physically circumcised yet disobeys Jewish law? Surely the first man is circumcised spiritually; which counts for much more than being circumcised physically and not spiritually. Romans 2:25, "The Jewish ceremony of circumcision has value only if you obey God's law. But if you don't obey God's law, you are no better off than an uncircumcised Gentile." Note this: there is spiritual circumcision and there is physical circumcision.
Now use this test against our other rituals. Who would you say is baptized? The one whose faith is in Jesus Christ yet who has not been physically baptized, or the one who has been physically baptized yet has no faith in Jesus Christ? Surely the first is baptized in spirit and the second only in the flesh!
Do not suppose that I have just pulled the idea of "spiritual baptism" out of a hat to conform with my argument. Luke 4:16, "John answered their questions by saying, 'I baptize you with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am - so much greater that I'm not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." He, that is, Jesus Christ, baptizes us. Now, in physical baptism, is it Christ in the flesh who baptizes us? That's ludicrous! The pastor baptizes us physically.
Should we suppose that Christ baptizes us in spirit only when we are baptized physically? Of course not! Consider this, is it not perfectly possible for one to be baptized physically and not spiritually? Cannot someone wait patiently as some old fool dips him in water, not caring two-pence for the implications of what he is doing? Physical obedience does not automatically imply spiritual obedience. So just as physical obedience results in physical baptism, so too does spiritual obedience result in spiritual baptism. So obedience to Christ baptizes the spirit and grants one with the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Now, one might contest me, saying, "This is wrong. It is faith that grants us with the Holy Spirit, not obedience!" To the one who says that, I would remind you that I am not even saying anything contesting that long held, and I believe to be true, idea. Did not Jesus tell us to put our faith in him? So would not having faith in him be obeying him? So it is by faith that we receive the Spirit, and by continued obedience that we grow stronger and deeper and more in tune with the Spirit. We are first baptized in the Spirit when we take the first step of obedience to Christ, which is placing our faith in him. From there, the cleansing of our spirit in ongoing baptism results from the ongoing obedience of our spirit.
My point is this: there is physical baptism and there is spiritual baptism. And spiritual baptism is better.
Who would you say communes with God? The one who prays continually without having taken physical communion, or the one who takes physical communion yet never prays? Surely the first communes with God, and the other not at all! As it is written in John 4:21, "Jesus declared, 'Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.'"
Surely this applies to us all! Or are all the churches outside Jerusalem vain and incapable of worship? Certainly not! I have seen many churches; I am convinced that all of them contain many that worship the LORD. And how can they worship if they are unable outside of Jerusalem? So communing and spending intimate time with God do not depend on the placement or method (so long as these factors do not default the fact that it is still genuine worship).
My point is this: physical communion is not the same as spiritual communion. And spiritual communion is better.
Doubtless that I could go on, but it is likely unnecessary. I am writing a blog post, after all, not a book. Anyway, surely you see how circumcision and baptism and communion share a bond? I have put them under the same roof for good reason. There is some writing in Romans that explains circumcision rather well, and it is my opinion that baptism and communion should be treated with the same attitude.
Romans 2:25-29, "Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward or physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."
And so this sums up my word on baptism and communion. Each of them are useless unless they are first done spiritually. If they are, then of course they have value! Like Paul said of circumcision, "Circumcision has value if you observe the law." The physical, circumcision, has value if and only if the spiritual condition, observing the law, is met. Like I said, anyone can eat a bit of bread, drink a bit of wine, or dip themselves in water without meaning what people think they ought to mean. But if they do mean what the Bible says they ought to mean, then it is meaningful indeed.
Baptism is useless unless the partaker is spiritually baptized.
Communion is useless unless the partaker spiritually communes with God.
I am convinced that on the day of judgement, it will not be counted against anyone as to whether or not they have been physically baptized or they have taken physical communion. However, they quite probably will be judged for rejecting said rituals.
Do not suppose that I have taken a sudden turn into cultish legalism. The previous statement is perfectly logical for good reasons. Suppose you are a Christian. Suppose you are spiritually baptized and you spiritually commune with God. If you are such a person, what reason have you not to be baptized or take communion? If you know that doing such a thing is good, and if the opportunity is presented to you and you resist, does this not reveal a flaw of character?
Why would one do this: refrain from practicing in a ritual that they know is good? Two fundamental reasons are that they are either afraid or arrogant. As for fear, God never excused anyone from doing good on account that he was afraid. And arrogance in of itself is sin in the first place, let alone what it makes one do. No one is judged for being unable to partake in good ritual. However, they can be judged for refusing to partake in it. All I'm saying is this: when you know of this good thing, you ought to try and do it.
So while this post seems to minimize the importance of ritual, its importance is not defaulted entirely, or even weakened by very much at all.
Consider an example. Often, when people raise their arm to the heavens while they worship, they say that they feel closer to God. I can relate to this from experience. Indeed, I can honestly say that I felt closer to God when I did this. Was this because I was literally, physically closer to God? Don't be silly! If God were physically anywhere, it probably wouldn't be anywhere in this universe. And if it was, what are the chances that it was right above me? Pretty much none.
But the idea that He was up there. The idea that he is above me, watching over me. The idea that reaching my arm up made me closer to God. And my willingness to look half out of my mind to do a simple gesture. That is what moved my spirit closer to his. You see what I am saying?
This is the attitude you should have towards these rituals: respect their significance, but do not forget their subordination to the spiritual.
No comments:
Post a Comment