St. Paul speaks of the "cup of blessing which we bless." [1 Cor 10:16] Note that an inanimate object, a "cup of blessing," is blessed. This was the biblical argument against the Puritans by the Anglicans for the Scriptural allowance of blessing things as well as people. The blessed cup of blessing in some way was therefore set apart for use by God to apply His grace. In this sense, the sacrament becomes a means of grace. God is not trapped in a material object, but He clearly associates His presence with it such that it is a blessing used by Him to convey grace.
in Gregg Strawbridge (ed.), The Case for Covenant Communion (Monroe LA, Athanasius Press, 2006), footnote 5, p72
Even if you want to say that Paul is using a figure of speech, you'd have to conclude that talk of blessing a cup is a legitimate manner of speaking.
Posts
10 comments:
Presumably it's metonymy. Which then helps us discern what might be analogously OK. I, too, am nervous of blessing inanimate objects!
As is DP. Remember his comment on grace at mealtimes? Don't ask God to "bless this food", ask him to bless us as we eat it!
We talk about "drinking a cup" too; that doesn't mean we actually drink the physical object. :-) Later in the same verse (1 Cor 10:16) the cup is called "a participation". Would this line of argument mean that phrase would refer to the physical object too?
It seems to me that "the cup of blessing" is talking about the shared experience of drinking - it's that which is a participation in the body of Christ, as we all do it. And therefore it's saying that we bless the experience, not the object.
Thanks, folks.
So, James, I guess you'd be happy with "bless this house" for "bless this household / home / family"? Blessing a plough for blessing the whole activity of growing / agriculture etc.?
Gerv, could you expand a bit on "we bless the experience"?
OK, so perhaps I need to think more carefully about what it actually means to "bless" something. I was using a working definition of something like "having benign feelings towards", but thinking about it for a moment, that's clearly inadequate. Anyone want to offer a better one?
Gerv,
I'm not sure I have anything brilliant to offer. I guess in the context of the Lord's Supper the blessing of the cup probably relates to what is actually done and said in the service which would recall Jesus' own taking, blessing / giving thanks ?
Presumably whether or not one thinks that strictly speaking one can bless an inanimate object, we would agree that one can consecrate / set apart as holy or special / dedicate such things? Examples might be a church building, a table, a cup. At a mundane level, I guess I may consecrate our best dinner service for special use etc.
Another interesting example might be what we do with wedding rings in the marriage service, praying that they may be a sign etc.
I happened to walk past a gravestone today which said "SACRED to the memory of...", so there's another example of a physical object being treated as sacred.
(There are lots of examples of sacred objects in the OT, of course).
Why do you feel more comfortable blessing activities/participations/experiences than objects? It seems that the underlying premise is that God only blesses abstract concepts and not concrete realities, no? That's unChristian, unBiblical, and just plain silly.
Blessing actually means to speak over, decree. Think of God Blessing Abraham. Isaac blessing Jacob. Jacob blessing his sons. We see in all instances, words of declaration. I've been thinking about this blessing of inanimate objects today. We see Jesus giving thanks and blessing the fish and loaves before feeding the 5,000. Why shouldn't we give thanks and bless what we've been given to steward? I'm looking into this more right now.
This can be creating idolatry. As people will begin to think something has holy importance when God is a jealous God and we should have no other God.
Post a Comment