Rhetorical Commands
"Take, eat" is rhetorical command. Thus it is no more a command despite its form than a rhetorical questions is a question. A rhetorical question is in the form of a question but is actually a statement, a declartion. It knows the answer and is not asking for an answer. A rhetorical command is not truly a command or an invitation. It is a statement in the form of a command and assumes obedience the way a rhetorical questions assumes the righ answer. Thus it does not mean "Take and eat" does not mean: "Do this now!" even though it sounds that way. It actually means "Here it is." It is in the form of a command but only for effect, not for meaning.
Jesus knew rhetoric? That's like saying St. Paul used sarcasm.
I'm still struggling with the use of imperative voice with the Verba. I recall a discussion I had recently where the Lutheran pastor would not "allow" his altar garb to say "do this in rememberance of me." Was he scared of the words of insitution? Did he fear they might make the Gospel into a Law? Did he not want to burden guilty consciences with an imperative? Was he trying to avoid being Arminian? Did he fear that the congregation might chose to NOT do this in rememberance by offering the choice? Don't the words place a demand on the faithful?
Pr. Petersen thinks otherwise. The imperative is more a statement of fact that a command. This rhetorical device is simply stating fact. By the Spirit, the faithful receive and do. Those who deny the Spirit, deny this simple statement of fact. Is it still part of the Law? Or do the Verba contain both? Earlier Pr. had this to say:
Law and Gospel in the Verba
So what of "Take, eat." It is Law. It is what God wants and expects us to do. "Remember the Sabbath Day" is also Law. God wants and expects us to rest in Him and receive what He gives. The next part of the Verba is Gospel. It asks nothing of us. It is who God is for us. It is pure declaration. "This is My Body given for you." The next part is Law: "Do this in remembrance of Me." Thus when we recieve the Lord's Body we fulfill His will. We do what He wants. It is a good work. We have obeyed His command. Of course we don't do this perfectly. Everything we do on this side of glory is tainted with sin, with mixed motives. We might receive it inattentively or with some doubt in our hearts. But that is forgiven, becuase it is His Body that is given for us. He joins us to Himself in this meal. He gives us rest. He reconnects us to the Father. He forgives us in this.
I'm still not convinced I understand how we can interpret the imperative voice as Gospel. Perhaps in another post, Pr. can explain:
A Word that Cuts Both Ways?
I agree that we can't classify every single word of Scripture as either Law or Gospel. There is some necessary "reader response." But I am interested in exploring these ideas. I don't think they are trivial exercises. The question about "Take, eat" is the hardest. That is why I took it up. I think these questions are essential even if they cannot be fully answered.
What about the idea that the Gospel becomes the Law when/if it is rejected? The invitation to believe is really just a polite command. If it is rejected it condemns. Then it is surely Law. But is it possible that the invitation is performative? That it is a Word that creates something? I don't know. I don't think so. But I understand that argument.
A more pure example: "I forgive you." That word, in context, has the power to do what it says. But if it is rejected it condemns. The Gospel becomes Law.
I'd like to get my head around this better... What do you folks think? Can God's imperative voice be Gospel or is this a confusion of Law and Gospel?
