I don’t know if you read the article “He Didn’t Choose The Lamb that I mentioned the other day. The author made one of those simple observations that end up having great impact.
Basically he discussed why Jesus didn’t use the Passover lamb for the Lord’s Supper, why he chose instead the bread. Jesus had been called “the lamb of God” by John the Baptist. Paul would later refer to him as our Passover lamb. Wouldn’t it have made more sense if he had taken a piece of lamb and said, “This is my body…”?
But he chose the bread. The lamb was a symbol of the sacrifice. The bread was a symbol of liberation, a remembrance of the Exodus.
The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice. As John Mark Hicks eloquently says in his book Come To The Table, it’s not the altar of the Lord; it’s the table of the Lord. We gather not to offer again the blood of the Lamb but to celebrate the results of that offered blood. We remember his death; we do not reenact it.
Because he didn’t choose the lamb.
Nicely put! I appreciated the comments on the bread as liberation (and I would add on-going sustenance and provision) and on the alter/table distinction.
The bread makes it possible to repeat the observance in most any culture and economic situation. If he had chosen the lamb, many people would not be able to participate weekly, because they cannot afford any meat on a regular basis, much less lamb.
Now it is only a problem for those with gluten – celiac issues.