Metropolitan John Zizioulas
The Divine Eucharist is а sacrifice. The patristic tradition in both East and West lays great stress on this aspect of the Eucharist. So, for instance: Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis 23:8, 9), Gregory the Theologian (Orations 2:95 and 4:52), Cyril of Alexandria (On the Mystical Supper 5) and John Chrysostom (On the Epistle to the Hebrews 17:3),[1] as well as the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil the Great which are celebrated in the Orthodox Church, call the Eucharist a sacrifice which is “unbloody,” “reasonable,” etc. This sacrifice is none other than the death on the Cross of Christ, whose Body and Blood are offered “for many” (Mark 14:24, Matt. 26:28); in other words, they have the effect of deliverance from sins, which are “forgiven” thanks to this sacrifice and the “communion” of the “many” in it, which is the fount of “eternal life.”
This sacrificial character of the Divine Eucharist is indisputable both in biblical consciousness and theology, and in that of the Fathers and the Liturgy, The point that we often tend to overlook or underestimate is the connection and relationship between this sacrificial character of the Eucharist and the coming of the Kingdom of God, the “last times.” The Eucharist is indisputably the very sacrifice of the Lord upon the Cross. But what is the relationship of this sacrifice with the coming of the Kingdom? This question is of vital importance for theology, and also for the way in which we as believers experience this great mystery of the Church.
All the indications from the story of the Last Supper, handed down to us by the Gospels and the Apostle Paul, testify that with the words “this is My Body” and “this is My Blood” Christ was referring to Himself as the Paschal Lamb (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7ff., “for Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed for us”). This identification of Christ with the paschal lamb was so widespread in the early Church that it was repeated without elucidation, not only by the Apostle Paul but also by other texts from the apostolic age, such as 1 Peter (1:19), Revelation (5:6, 12 and 12:11), St. John’s Gospel (1:29, 36), et al. So it is not by chance that in the language of the Church’s liturgy, the portion of the eucharistic bread which is changed into the Body of Christ at the Divine Eucharist came to be called the Lamb.
The sacrifice of the paschal lamb has its roots in the exodus of Israel from Egypt, as described in the Book of Exodus (12:6). In the case of the Last Supper, however, it is clear that we have not merely a remembrance and repetition of the sacrifice of the Lamb in Exodus, such as took place at every celebration of the Jewish Passover, but the sacrifice of the perfect, eschatological paschal Lamb. This is borne out by many elements in the story of the Last Supper in the Gospels, as also by the liturgical practice of the early Church. Let us refer to some of these as examples.
We have already underlined, at the beginning of this study, the fact that the Lord clearly links the Last Supper with the Kingdom of God, according to the account given us by the Gospels. What we must note here is the connection of the sacrifice to which Christ refers there with the New Covenant. It has already been observed by biblical scholars that the term “Covenant” should be regarded as equivalent to the term “Kingdom of heaven.”[2] The sacrifice of Christ as the Paschal Lamb is the fulfillment of the eschatological purpose of the sacrifice both of the original paschal Lamb in Exodus, and of all the subsequent sacrifices performed by the Jews in imitation of the sacrifice of that lamb. So when Christ says at the Last Supper, and the Church repeats in the course of the Eucharist, that “this is My Blood, the Blood of the New Covenant,” our thoughts are directed toward the coming and establishment of the Kingdom of God, and not simply toward an event which took place in the past. The sacrifice of the Lord upon the Cross cannot be isolated from its eschatological significance. Remission of sins is itself linked in the New Testament with the coming of the Kingdom (Matt. 6:12; Luke 11:4; John 30:23, etc.), and this surely applies especially to the remission of sins which stems from the sacrifice of Christ as Paschal Lamb.
Things are still clearer in the book of Revelation, which without a doubt contains elements or fragments of ancient eucharistic liturgy.[3] In this book the description of Christ as the Lamb occurs repeatedly, and, without any doubt, in connection with the paschal lamb of Exodus 12:6. The eschatological significance that Revelation gives to the Lamb comes across clearly from the following remarks, which are of profound significance:
(a) The “lamb that was slain” has the authority to open the book with seven seals, the contents and meaning of which are revealed only at the end of history.
(b) The sacrifice of the Lamb does not concern only the people of Israel, but people “from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (5:9). The universal character of this salvation suggests the end of history and the dawning of the “day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 5:2, etc.). It is characteristic that the Apostle Paul, who awaits the Second Coming of Christ imminently, regards as its “first fruits” the return of the gentiles and their grafting into the trunk of Israel (2 Thess. 2:13).
Thus the fact that the blood of the Lamb is shed “for all” refers us to the “Servant” of God in the book of Isaiah (chapters 52 and 53) who “bore the sin of many and was given up for their sins” (53:12, LXX), but who also in the last times will bring together the scattered Israel and will be “a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (49:6), because “many nations will wonder at Him . . . for they that have been told of Him shall see, and they that have not heard shall understand” (52:15, LXX).
(c) In particular, we should note the connection in the Book of Revelation between the Lamb that was slain and the “new song,” the “alleluia” which is repeated three times by a great multitude and by the whole of creation (“like the sound of many waters”) in the context of the marriage of the Lamb and the worship of Him (19:1-8).
The fact that this “alleluia” is an eschatological hymn is made clear by the reason given for it in the text itself, “For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns” (19:6): in other words, the Kingdom of God has been established. This is also why, despite the fact that the lamb has been slain, the prevailing tone is one of joy: “let us rejoice and be glad” (19:7), recalling the “in gladness” of Acts (2:46) in connection with the celebration of the Eucharist by the first Christians.
These observations take on even greater interest if this hymn is connected with the Last Supper itself. The Gospels note (Matt. 26:30, Mark 14:26) that immediately after the supper and the words of Christ, which connect it with the Kingdom, “when [Christ and the Disciples] had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” As expert scholars indicate, this refers to the hallel which followed the Jewish paschal meal, in other words the singing of Psalms 114-118 (113-117) antiphonally, with one of the group reading the text aloud while the others (cf. the “multitude” or the “people” in Revelation) would respond with “alleluia” after the middle of each verse. Already in Christ’s time these psalms had an eschatological-messianic meaning for the Jews. But does not the same apply to us Orthodox, who preserve faithfully the liturgical tradition of the ancient Church, which carries on the worship of the first Church? The verses which end Psalm 118 (117)—“This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it”—are clearly eschatological in Orthodox worship, since “this day” for us is the day of the Resurrection. The final verses of that psalm (“Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord . . . the Lord is God and has appeared unto us,” etc.) have the same eschatological character.
Conclusion: the Last Supper and the Lamb slain for our salvation cannot be understood without reference to the “last day,” the “day of the Lord,” the Parousia and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. In the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Eucharist is not simply “the performance of the dread sacrifice” but “the gift of immortality and a pledge of life without end.”[4]
This conclusion is reinforced and confirmed by another observation; the ancient Church never celebrated its Mystical Supper, the Divine Eucharist, on the same day as the Lord’s death, but after it. It is known from history that Christians in Asia Minor in the second century celebrated Easter on the fourteenth of Nissan, the same day as the Jewish Passover. It is significant, however, that they did not celebrate the Eucharist except at dawn the next day, in other words after the Jews’ paschal meal, during which the Christians fasted. The fact that even today the Orthodox Church, following the ancient tradition, waits for the Jewish Passover to pass and only then celebrates its own Passover (Easter) is not simply due, as is often held, to an anti-Jewish stance on its part; apart from anything else, it is due to the fact that the Passover of the Church, which is associated with joy and gladness, cannot precede the moment in time at which, historically, the Last Supper took place and the Crucifixion followed. That time is a time of fasting, while Easter is a time of festivity.
Have we ever seriously thought why the Church dissociated not only its Passover, but also its Eucharist, from fasting, and linked it with the radiance of the Resurrection? It is significant, as we noted earlier, that celebration of the Eucharist on fast days was forbidden by the Church. (The exception of the Exaltation of the Cross and the commemoration of the Forerunner does not negate the rule.) This has been confined, of course, to the period of Great Lent,[5] but the sense remains: the Eucharist is an eschatological event and cannot be other than festive, joyful and radiant. Its sacrificial character is transformed into the joy of the Resurrection, which means eschatological joy. In Christ there is no such thing as sacrifice without deliverance. And deliverance does not just mean remission of personal sins, in accordance with the Western spirit, Latin and Protestant, but the ultimate transfiguration of the world, the overcoming of corruption and death. This is what we celebrate when we perform the Eucharist: a sacrifice on the Cross which takes its meaning from the Resurrection, as the first realization in history of the Kingdom which is to come.
[1] Chrysostom insists particularly on this aspect of the Eucharist, which he connects with the Last Supper and the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and also with heavenly worship and the Kingdom. See On Hebrews 11:2,3and 14:1-2; On the Priesthood 3:4, and elsewhere. As to Latin Fathers, see for instance Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy 1:248; On Faith 4:124, and elsewhere), and Augustine (Confessions 9:32; Enchiridion 110; On Psalms 21 and 33; City of God 10:20, etc.).
[2] See J. Behm, “Diatheke,” in G. Kittel, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. 2 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1935).
[3] See P. Prigent, Apocalypse et Liturgie (Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1964). On the influence of this book on the Orthodox Liturgy, see P. Bratsiotis, “L’Apocalypse de saint Jean dans le culte de l’Église greque orthodoxe.” Revue d’Histoire et Philosophie religieuses 42 (1962): pp. 116-121.
[4] PG 77:1028.
[5] According to the testimony of the historians Socrates (Church History 5:22) and Sozomen (Church History 7:19), in the early Church, at least in Alexandria, the Eucharist was not celebrated on any fast day throughout the year, and not just during Lent.
No comments:
Post a Comment