- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/15)
- Next Post »The Basics Conference
The Marriage Sacrament
- 03/15/10
- 14
We don’t fully understand the Lord’s Supper. Yes, there is a lot we do know and understand about it; we know that it is a means of grace by which we are drawn closer together as a body of believers and, more importantly, drawn closer to the Savior whose death is signified in it. We know that the breaking of bread symbolizes the breaking of Christ’s body and the pouring of the wine symbolizes his blood being poured out for us; we know that through the act Christ symbolizes his love for us and the blessings he pours out upon us. And we know that our partaking of the Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of our dependence upon Christ, admitting as we take and eat that we need his blood and righteousness. It is clearly far more than the sum of its parts.
And yet what we don’t understand so well is how Christ nourishes us through Lord’s Supper. When Christ instituted it he said,
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Christ says that just as eating ordinary food nourishes and strengthens our body, so feeding upon Christ, in a figurative sense, will feed our souls. In this act we both symbolize our dependence upon this food and we experience that nourishment. Though we do not quite know how this happens, we know that we receive spiritual strength through it. And certainly just about any Christian can testify to the joy and strength and spiritual refreshment he has received through the Lord’s Supper. We cannot quantify it and yet neither can we (or would we want to) deny it.
Ultimately, though, we celebrate Lord’s Supper out of obedience to the Word of God more than we do out of a firm and exhaustive understanding of exactly what it does in us or through us. Though we do not fully understand it, we do it. Christ does not tell us exactly how it works and all that it accomplishes in us, but still he commands us to participate in it and to do so regularly, as part of the life of the church. And so we obey in grateful obedience.
Last year I spent a fair bit of time thinking and writing about sex, mostly in the context of the Sexual Detox booklet I was writing at the time. As I did so, I found myself beginning to think of sex within marriage as an interesting kind of parallel with Lord’s Supper. Now, before you accuse me of blasphemy, know that I am not equating the two; rather, I am simply drawing out some similarities between them. What I mean to say is, I think it can be helpful to understand sex as a kind of “marriage sacrament.”
We don’t fully understand sex. Yes, there is a lot we do know and understand about it; we know that it is a means of grace within a marriage by which a husband and wife are drawn closer together in a uniquely powerful way. We know that sex is more than mere biology, that in the sexual act there is more than just body parts. Instead, sex is an act that involves the body, the soul, the mind, the emotions. It is far more than the sum of its parts.
Yet what we don’t understand so well is how and to what extent the sexual union between a husband and wife draws them together. We know that a healthy marriage and a healthy sex life are nearly impossible to separate (which is to say that it is difficult to imagine a healthy marriage in which there is an entirely dysfunctional sex life). And so, like the Lord’s Supper, we are often left pursuing sex not because we entirely understand what it is and what it does, but because God commands a husband and wife to have sex and to do so regularly. We trust that he knows the details that remain hidden to us and trust that we ought to be committed to this special act. And so we are to participate in it regularly and joyfully and as means of obedience to him.
Now God has graciously given sexual desire as a means of compelling or encouraging a husband and wife to have sex. And yet any couple can testify that desire rises and wanes, that there are times when sex seems like more work than it is worth or when life just interferes and we find that it has been weeks, months. Here we need to trust that God will reward our obedience in carving out the time and even working deliberately to find the interest. Just as we would be incomplete Christians in an incomplete church if we neglected the Lord’s Supper, letting it get pushed aside by other concerns, in the same way a marriage will be incomplete if a husband and wife neglect this gift of God. We may not understand sex as fully as we would like, we may not really know what it does and how it does it, but we do know that God requires it of us and that he does so for our good. And that ought to be enough. We do not need to understand it in order to receive its benefits.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 


Releasing on April 1, The Next
Comments (14)
As a Catholic, long-time reader of your words, Tim, I had to smile at this:
“What I mean to say is, I think it can be helpful to understand sex as a kind of “marriage sacrament.”
This is from Pope Benedict XVI a couple of years ago: “People… find in the Eucharist a powerful allusion to their own family, their own marriage; and they are encouraged to live their lives from the point of view of faith, seeking in divine grace the strength to succeed.”
Pope John Paul II’s, ‘Theology of the Body” went deeper into the connections your splashing around here. For a free download or CD of a fantastic talk titled “Marriage and the Eucharist”, go here:
http://www.catholicity.com/cds/west.html
Know that you’re barking up a tree where many Saints in the past have lived.
Thanks for your musings!
That’s a really interesting parallel. I don’t think I would have ever thought about the Lord’s supper in those terms. Interestingly enough, there are other parallels that connect the idea of the Lord’s supper with the idea of sex that just popped into mind. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul says that “He who sins sexually sins against his own body.” And also in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul talks about how some of them had eaten the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner, and as a direct result, many of them have gotten weak and sick, and some had even died. So it seems that there’s another parallel there in that when we sin in either of those departments, we’re sinning against our own bodies and causing actual physical harm.
…the breaking of the bread symbolizes the breaking of Christ’s body…the pouring of the wine symbolizes the pouring out of his blood for us…through the act Christ symbolizes his love for us…
Here we have the primary reason why I left Calvinism for Lutheranism, and I can’t help but quote Flannery O’Connor’s classic line about this very subject.
“If it’s just a symbol, to hell with it.”
The quote you give is from John 6:53. A little surprising that you would say that Christ was instituting the Lord’s Supper when He said that. It is doubtful whether Jesus was even referring to the Lord’s Supper when He said that, although there are some similarities. In any case, He was certainly not instituting it. That would come about a year later.
I like this post. Marriage is parallel in many ways to baptism as well. Baptism is the mark of enterance into the covenant and the vow of faithfulness to that covenant, and the Lord’s Supper is the mark of covenant renewal/continuing in God’s covenant. The marriage vows and the ring are the mark of enterance into and promise of faithfulness of the covenant, and sex is the covenant renewal and continued faithfulness to that covenant. Only baptized Christians should partake of the Lord’s supper for the same reason only married couple should not consumate their marriage until they have entered into covenant with each other.
Interesting post, I like it. However:
…the breaking of the bread symbolizes the breaking of Christ’s body…
I hear this a lot. But breaking of Christ’s body? John 19:36, “not one of his bones will be broken”…. I believe that through Lord’s Supper we eat from one loaf, signifying our oneness “being one body” in Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17)
Maarten
Actually Tim is correct about “…the breaking of the bread symbolizes the breaking of Christ’s body…”Read, 1 Cor. 11:24 “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me.”This in no way is taking away from what you said about, no bones being broken in the Lord’s body.What is often forgotten when Christ instituted this memorial (1 Cor. 11:24) is that Christ’s body had not yet been given, nor had His blood been shed. “This is my body, which is broken for you;” meant “this is symbolic of my body, which is broken for you.”I don’t really want to get into a dispute with either Roman Catholics or Lutherans concerning this passage, because I think it might high jack the blog; but I believe what I said above shows that 1 Cor. 11:24 disproves both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.
I found the site and tried to download it. The link broke several times but I will keep on trying.Thanks for the info. God Bless You.
Tim,Regarding the Lord’s Supper, over the last 30 years I have swung the pendulum from growing up Catholic (transubstantiation) to Independent Bible Church (mere memorial) on this issue. I am now settling into a happy middle position, which it seems like you have described in your post (correct me if I am wrong). I too believe that there is in the participation of the Lord’s Supper a type of sustaining grace imparted to us - a mystery, but nonetheless real. However, here is my source of irritation with many evangelical churches including the one that I am a member of. If what you have said about the Lord’s Supper is true, namely that it is not a mere symbol/memorial, then how can we justify only a quarterly or even monthly observance? If we indeed receive grace and nourishment by partaking then pray tell how we can’t seem to make time for it each Lord’s Day?
Maarten
I failed to mention the passage you mentioned.(1 Cor 10:16-17)This passage, talks about all believers participating in the blessing that comes through the blood and body of our Lord Jesus Christ.We are all saved in the same way and the Lord’s table is a memorial to that fact.In effect the cup and the bread speak of the fellowship with Christ, of participating in His ministry for us.
Tom,
Thanks for the verse 1Cor 11:24, but it is not as obvious as your quote. For instance, the ESV translates the verse as:
and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Many Dutch translations give the same nuance…. I am not a Greek scholar, but apparently not all translations agree on the what is being broken.
@Chuck - Some Protestant churches do it every week.
Maarten
Let us look at the context of the ESV that you quoted.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for [1] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” ESV
I will only deal with the portions that are in question.First I notice the words (verse 23) “took bread,” which is immediately followed in verse 24 by the words “and when he had given thanks, he broke it,”
It should be clear that Christ broke the bread, which symbolizes Christ’s body.In the next part of the verse we read: “This is my body which is for [1] you.”Regardless of whether or not the words “broken for you” or just “for you” are correct. I see no indication that this changes the meaning, after all it has already been established that the subject is the broken bread and this part of the verse shows who the beneficiaries are. Christ literally says that the broken bread is His body. Which of course I believe I showed adequately in my last post, that Christ is speaking symbolically that the bread is His body.
Personally, I can’t understand why you don’t think it is obvious.
Several of the baptist churches in my town (including mine — and we are indeed baptist!) participate in the Lord’s supper every week as a matter of principle. I agree that monthly or, especially, quarterly observation of the Lord’s supper — where it’s conceivable that many of the members of that local body might never be able to take communion — is puzzling.
The last church I attended, I was a member for nine months and never had an *opportunity* to take communion. Not ok.