Calvin on the Lord’s Supper

Article: Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper by Keith Mathison – original source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/calvins-doctrine-lords-supper

John Calvin is widely considered to be one of the greatest theologians of the Reformation era. Many associate his name with doctrines such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination, but fewer are aware that he wrote extensively on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The topic occupied many of his sermons, tracts, and theological treatises throughout his career. Calvin’s emphasis was not unusual. Among the many doctrines debated during the Reformation, the Lord’s Supper was discussed more than any other.

By the time Calvin became a prominent voice in the late 1530s, the Reformers had been debating the Lord’s Supper with Roman Catholics and with each other for years. In order to understand Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, it is necessary to understand the views he opposed. Throughout the later Middle Ages and up until the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass was the received view in the Western church. Two aspects of the Roman Catholic doctrine require comment: Rome’s view of the Eucharistic presence and Rome’s view of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

According to Rome, Christ’s presence in the sacrament is to be explained in terms of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine of transubstantiation asserts that when the priest says the words of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The accidens (that is, the incidental properties) of the bread and wine remain the same. Rome also teaches that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice; in fact, the same sacrifice Christ offered on the cross. The Eucharistic sacrifice is offered for the sins of the living and the dead.

The Reformers were united in their rejection of both aspects of Rome’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. They rejected transubstantiation, and they rejected the idea that the Lord’s Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice. In his book The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Martin Luther attacked both of these doctrines. Also opposed to Rome’s doctrine was the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. However, although Luther and Zwingli agreed in their rejection of Rome’s doctrine, they were not able to come to agreement on the true nature of the Lord’s Supper.

Zwingli argued that Christ’s words “This is my body” should be read, “This signifies my body.” He claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic memorial, an initiatory ceremony in which the believer pledges that he is a Christian and proclaims that he has been reconciled to God through Christ’s shed blood. Martin Luther adamantly rejected Zwingli’s doctrine, insisting that Christ’s words “This is my body” must be taken in their plain, literal sense.

Martin Luther argued that although Rome’s explanation of Christ’s true presence in the Lord’s Supper was wrong, the fact of Christ’s true presence was correct. He offered a different explanation for the presence of Christ. In order to understand his view, however, a brief explanation of some rather obscure theological terminology is required. Medieval scholastic theologians had distinguished various modes of presence, or ways of being present. They used the term local presence to describe the way in which physical, finite things are present in a circumscribed place. Spiritual presence described the way in which spiritual beings (such as angels, souls, or God) are present. Because this term was somewhat vague, other terms were used in order to be more specific. Illocal presence, for example, described the way in which finite spiritual beings (for example, human souls or angels) are present, while repletive presence described the way in which an infinite spiritual being (God) is present.

Zwingli argued that the only mode of presence proper to the human body of Christ was “local presence.” Therefore, according to Zwingli, Christ’s body is locally present in heaven and nowhere else until the Second Advent. Luther rejected Zwingli’s view, claiming that other modes of presence were proper to Christ’s human body — specifically the illocal mode of presence. Because Christ’s body can be present in an illocal manner, according to Luther, it can be present in the bread of the Lord’s Supper. In his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528), Luther argues that there is a “sacramental union” between the substance of Christ’s body and the bread resulting in a new and unique substance that Luther refers to as fleischbrot (“flesh-bread”). Thus, according to Luther, Christ’s human body is present in the Lord’s Supper supernaturally in a real and illocal manner.

Calvin’s first significant contribution to the subject appeared in the 1536 edition of his Institutes, by which time the battle lines had already been drawn. He continued to progressively clarify and explain his doctrine of the Supper over the next two decades. Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper was very much influenced by Luther, but others were just as instrumental in shaping his approach to the subject. Among those whose influence is discernible are Augustine, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli.

Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.

All of this raises a question. How does Calvin understand the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper? According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, Zwingli). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify (for example, Rome). Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

This, of course, raises a second question regarding the mode by which believers partake of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli had argued that to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ was simply a synonym for believing in Christ. Calvin begged to differ. He argued that the eating of the body of Christ is not equivalent to faith; instead, it is the result of faith. Calvin often used the term “spiritual eating” to describe the mode by which believers partake, but he is careful to define what he means. He asserts repeatedly that “spiritual eating” does not mean that believers partake only of Christ’s spirit. “Spiritual eating” means, according to Calvin, that by faith believers partake of the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit who pours the life of Christ into them.

Calvin also rejected the idea that we partake of the body and blood of Christ with the mouth. Not only Rome, but Luther and his followers, asserted the doctrine of oral manducation (that is, oral eating). According to the Lutherans, the body of Christ is orally eaten, but it is a supernatural or hyperphysical eating rather than a natural or physical eating. Both believers and unbelievers receive the body of Christ according to the Lutherans, although unbelievers receive it to their own judgment. Calvin denied that unbelievers receive the body of Christ at all. According to Calvin, the body and blood of Christ are objectively offered to all, but only received by believers.

According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is also “a bond of love” intended to produce mutual love among believers. It is to inspire thanksgiving and gratitude. Because it is at the very heart of Christian worship, Calvin argued that it should be observed whenever the Word is preached, or “at least once a week.” It should be shorn of all superstition and observed in its biblical simplicity. Calvin considered the Lord’s Supper to be a divine gift given by Christ himself to His people to nourish and strengthen their faith. As such, it is not to be neglected, but rather celebrated often and with joy.

Weekly Communion

Article “Observing the Lord’s Supper Weekly Makes It Routine—And That’s a Good Thing” by Scott Aniol.

Scott Aniol, PhD, is Executive Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of G3 Ministries. He lectures around the world in churches, conferences, colleges, and seminaries, and he has authored several books.

Original source: https://g3min.org/observing-the-lords-supper-weekly-makes-it-routine-and-thats-a-good-thing/

I’ve long been an advocate for weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is the God-ordained picture of the climax of our worship of God the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, by faith—Communion with God.1 One thing I’ve noticed since I’ve been a part of churches that celebrated the Supper more frequently, and now weekly, is that observing the Lord’s Supper weekly makes it routine.

This reality is often raised as an objection to weekly Lord’s Supper observance. If we celebrate weekly, the objection goes, then it will become routine; it won’t be as special as when we celebrate monthly or quarterly.

Well, yes, weekly observance does make the Supper seem routine. I’ve come to expect it every week. The same passage of Scripture is read every week. Some of the same words are spoken every week. I hold the same cup and bread in my hands every week. We sing the same Doxology after eating every week. The Lord’s Supper has become routine.

And that’s a good thing.

Routines Reveal Our Priorities

When we establish routines for ourselves, our families, or our churches, we reveal what is important to us. They become routine because we have prioritized them so that they become so regular we simply don’t have to decide to do them anymore—they become a regular part of our lives.

Brushing your teeth every day is clear evidence that clean teeth is a priority to you. You don’t even have to think about it anymore—you wake up groggy, stumble into the bathroom, and grab your toothbrush. It’s habit. The fact that brushing your teeth has become a routine does not mean you don’t think clean teeth is important, rather the opposite.

The same is true for weekly celebration of the Lord’s Table—it reveals how important we believe the Table to be. Our children notice when we do something regularly. Without even telling them, they can see that it’s something important. A visitor who has attended a couple of times will recognize that this observance is something we prioritize.

And perhaps most importantly, routine celebration of the Table ingrains the importance of what we are doing on our own hearts. This fact leads to the next two reasons routine celebration of the Table is a good thing.

We Miss Routines When They Are Absent

When we establish something as a routine, we miss it when we don’t do it. We may hardly think consciously about the routine as we do it regularly, but if it’s gone, the absence is striking.

Dinner in your home is routine; no one in your family wonders if you’re going to eat dinner. When I ask my wife, “What’s for dinner tonight,” she doesn’t reply, “You’re assuming we’re having dinner?” No, it’s routine. But try skipping dinner one evening. Everyone would notice.

This was one of the biggest reasons I objected to trying to observe the Table “virtually” (an impossibility) during Covid lockdowns. It’s why I even objected to even trying to replicate a Sunday morning service through the internet at all. If we are unable to meet in person, we should feel the weight of that. If we can’t meet as we normally do for whatever reason, we should miss it. If we’re out sick or even traveling on vacation, we notice when we’re unable to do what has become routine to us.

This is a great benefit of routines. If celebrating the Lord’s Supper becomes routine, we come to expect it, and in some ways we don’t even think about it anymore. But if I were to walk into the sanctuary one week and the Table is not set, I would wonder why. It may take me a moment—something is different; something is missing, but I would feel its absence. If I’m away on a trip and unable to eat with my family, I miss it.

This is also the important connection between the Lord’s Supper and church discipline. When a church member is living in unrepentant sin, they are not barred from coming to church services. We want them there under the preached Word, experiencing the convicting work of the Holy Spirit through the regular means of grace he has prescribed for the church.

But an unrepentant church member is barred from the Table. We warn them not to eat in an unworthy manner. Don’t partake. And that is a means of grace for them, too. If your church only celebrates the Table quarterly or monthly, barring an unrepentant member from the Table wouldn’t seem like that big a deal. They might not even attend the day the Table is scheduled. But if you celebrate every week, then they will feel the weight of missing the privilege of eating with their church family at Christ’s Table, and that will be a means to bring them back to Christ.

Routines Form Us

When we really want to learn to do something, whether it be playing a musical instrument or excelling at a sport, we practice. Developing a good golf swing or learning to play the piano requires rehearsing the necessary skills over and over again. Skill development requires doing; it requires the cultivation of habits that become second nature.

The same is true for cultivating a life of communion with God that impacts every aspect of how we live—it takes practice. Holiness, according to Hebrews 12:14, is something a Christian must “strive for.” Paul told Timothy to train himself for godliness (1 Tim 4:7).

This is one of the most powerful, God-ordained purposes of the routines we develop in corporate worship—they form godliness within us. They are means of grace by which the Spirit of God progressively works his Word into our souls so that Communion with God, love for God, and living a life that is pleasing to him becomes, well, routine. We don’t have to think about it anymore. This is why Christians have traditionally called the elements of our worship, including the Lord’s Supper, “ordinary means of grace“—these are the primary means we should expect the Holy Spirit to ordinarily work his grace into our lives. That’s why they are ordinary; that’s why they are routine. Charles Spurgeon’s catechism reads,

The outward and ordinary means whereby the Holy Spirit communicates to us the benefits of Christ’s redemption are the Word, by which souls are begotten to spiritual life; baptism, the Lord’s Supper, prayer, and meditation, all by which believers are further edified in their most holy faith.

The routine, disciplined use of Word-prescribed means of grace, like the Lord’s Supper, progressively forms us into the image of Christ. They are the means by which we “work our [our] salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12–13). When we routinely celebrate the Lord’s Supper, communion with God through Christ becomes habit, and that forms us to live in light of that reality.

When faced with temptation, we resist, because pleasing God has become our habit. When we sin and break fellowship with God, we’re struck with an emptiness because communion with God has become routine. We miss it, and that compels us to repent and return to Christ.

Celebrating the Lord’s Table weekly reminds us every week what Christ did on our behalf to restore broken fellowship between God and his people, and we are progressively formed by that reminder. Eating and drinking gives us a God-appointed tactile experience of Christ’s broken body and shed blood for us, and that sanctifies us. This sanctification is not mindless, it is not an ex opera operato (“from the work worked”) sort of magical infusion of grace. We must indeed “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb 10:22). But it is Word-ordained routines that God uses as ordinary means of grace to form us into his image “from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18).

Celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly will indeed become routine. But that is a good thing, because it is one of the most significant means by which we engrain the importance of the cross upon our hearts, keep us committed to fellowship with the body of Christ, and pursue Christlikeness in every aspect of our lives.


Read Josh Buice’s article on the matter for some more good reasons.

Questions About The Lord’s Supper

original source: https://www.crossway.org/articles/4-questions-about-the-lords-supper/

Aubrey M. Sequeira (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as the senior pastor of Evangelical Community Church of Abu Dhabi. He has served in ministry in India, North America, and now the Middle East. He is the author of the 9marks book Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Important?.

Q: What does the Lord’s Supper mean? How can I ensure that my participation in the Lord’s Supper is meaningful?

A: The Lord’s Supper is a beautiful act of worship ordained by the Lord Jesus for the spiritual good of his people. We miss out on its blessings, however, if we thoughtlessly “go through the motions” without understanding, or worse, while misunderstanding what’s taking place. The Lord’s Supper is the new covenant meal ordained by Jesus to be celebrated by the local church. At the Lord’s Supper, believers partake of bread and wine, symbolizing Jesus’s body and blood. Through their participation in this meal, believers together remember our Lord’s sacrificial death, enjoy communion with Christ and with one another, are strengthened and nourished by Christ’s sustaining grace, and proclaim Jesus’s death until he returns (Matt. 26:26–29Mark 14:22–25Luke 22:14–201 Cor. 11:23–26). Believers are exhorted to careful self-examination before participation (1 Cor. 11:27–32).

To participate meaningfully, think of “looking” in five directions as we come to the Lord’s Supper:

  • We look backward: we remember Christ’s body and blood given for us at the cross; we remember that his death has brought us forgiveness of sins and eternal life
  • We look outward: we celebrate the family bond we share with brothers and sisters in Christ in the local church
  • We look upward: we realize that we’re lifted up to be seated with our heavenly host, Jesus, to whom we bring our hungry hearts for nourishment with the grace of the new covenant
  • We look inward: we examine our hearts to ensure that we’re walking in faith and repentance, and living with love for our brothers and sisters in Christ
  • We look forward: we wait in hope for the glorious day when we will celebrate the fulfillment of all God’s promises at his heavenly banquet1

Q: Who can take the Lord’s Supper?

A: Since the Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal of the church, it has clear boundaries for who can participate. The Lord’s Supper is a meal for baptized believers who are members in good standing of a local church. First, the Lord’s Supper is for Christian believers: those who have repented of their sins and trusted in Jesus for eternal life. Non-Christians cannot participate in this meal because they haven’t trusted in Jesus’s death for their forgiveness. They can’t commune with Jesus and his family because they haven’t trusted in Jesus as their Savior, and they’re not a part of his family. They can’t remember Jesus’s death because they haven’t trusted its significance for their lives.

Second, the Lord’s Supper is for those who have been baptized. Not only should someone have trusted in Christ, they should have publicly identified with him and his family. Baptism is how someone makes this public identification. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both signs of the new covenant. Baptism is the initial sign of the covenant, and the Lord’s Supper is its ongoing sign. Baptism is where one receives the family name, which is necessary before one sits down at the family table in the Lord’s Supper.

Third, the Lord’s Supper is for members in “good standing” of a local church. Membership in a local church is not optional for the Christian life; it’s essential. The local church is the context in which we live out our commitment to Jesus and his people. Belonging to a local church is basic obedience for disciples of Jesus. So, before sitting at the family dinner table, you should make sure you’ve committed yourself to be a part of the family—a commitment that’s made through membership. To be in “good standing” means that one is not under the discipline of the church and therefore still recognized as a part of the body of Christ (Matt. 18:15–201 Cor. 5:1–11).

Q: Why must we be at a church gathering to take the Lord’s Supper? Why can’t I take the Lord’s Supper at home or somewhere else?

A: Underlying this question are certain assumptions about the role of the church in the Christian life. Many evangelical Christians mistakenly think that the Christian life is something that’s just “between me and Jesus”—a private relationship with God with no one else involved. People view the church as having nothing or little to do with their faith. The church is viewed as something optional that may aid one’s faith, but is not essential to one’s faith. With this kind of mindset, the Lord’s Supper becomes like a private dinner date with Jesus.

Biblically, however, a person’s faith in Christ is inseparable from one’s participation in the family of Christ. The local church is the context where the Christian life is lived out. Jesus didn’t just die to save individuals, he died to save a people in order to make them his family (Eph. 2:19–20Heb. 2:11–13).

When we understand that the church is a family, we more clearly perceive the biblical emphasis on the Lord’s Supper as a family meal, to be celebrated by the church as Jesus’s family. That’s why the Lord’s Supper must only be taken when a church is gathered together in Jesus’s name.

In his corrective instructions on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul repeatedly underscores the gathering of the church as the context in which the Lord’s Supper must be taken:

  • when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (1 Cor. 11:17b).
  • when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you” (1 Cor. 11:18b).
  • When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (1 Cor. 11:20–22).
  • “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:33–34).

You’ll notice that throughout this passage Paul makes it clear that the Lord’s Supper was to be shared together when “assembled as a church.” Paul differentiates between eating in your own home and the special meal “when you come together.” Just like a family shares a special family meal in the context of the family being together, the Lord’s Supper is reserved for when the church family is together. It’s the church’s meal.

Our day is marked by widespread confusion concerning whether a dispersed group of individuals connecting online actually constitutes a “church gathering.” The increased difficulty of embodied fellowship over the past two years of the global pandemic and the alluring convenience of Zoom has duped Christians into feeling more “connected,” while in fact we are growing apart. The fellowship we share becomes an illusion as we relate to one another as disembodied talking heads on a screen. The development of the “metaverse” only further exacerbates this mirage, as the safety of virtual (un)reality provides an easy excuse from the command to offer our bodies as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1–2). The Bible, however, refreshingly reminds us that we are embodied persons who need one another’s physical presence for our spiritual good—and a pandemic doesn’t change that. The Lord’s Supper is a time for the church to come together and to strengthen our bonds of faith as we enjoy communion with Jesus and with one another.

Q: Why should I not participate in the Lord’s Supper in a Roman Catholic Mass?

A: Bible-believing Christians who hold in faith to the biblical gospel of Christ ought not to participate in the Mass, particularly in the Eucharist at a Roman Catholic church. This is because the Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper denies that Jesus’s one-time sacrificial offering on the cross was sufficient to take away our sins. Instead, they believe Christ’s sacrifice must be continually perpetuated in the Lord’s Supper: “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”2

The Roman Catholic Church erroneously teaches that the bread and wine, when consecrated in the Mass, miraculously transforms into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, now offered on the altar. They assert that this repeated presentation of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist actually ensures our redemption. Furthermore, they believe this saving work of the Eucharist takes place ex opere operato, i.e., by mere participation in the ritual, apart from faith in the worshipers. This teaching denies the heart of the gospel and is the reason why gospel-affirming Christians should refrain from participation in the Eucharist at Roman Catholic Mass. By participating in the Eucharist at Catholic Mass, we would be giving our approval to a false understanding of the gospel. This is why many Protestant Reformers were willing to be martyred rather than take the Mass and affirm the Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper.

Notes:

  1. Aubrey M. Sequeira, ​​Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Important? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 48.
  2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1367.

Understanding The Lord’s Supper

Article: “The Lord’s Supper” — Confessional and Biblical Concerns by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger

(source: https://www.christreformed.org/lecture-5a/)

I. Introduction

A. We now move from a discussion of the sacrament of baptism to the Lord’s Supper. Before we begin to look at this subject in some detail, it is important to note the contentious nature of the subject. It is always ironic, indeed tragic, to note that the very sacrament that Christ gave to his church to both nourish us and unite us, has instead largely served to divide us. Human sinfulness is seen in such division perhaps, more than in anything else. So much of the contemporary Evangelical discussion about unity–which is based upon superficial experience and a depreciation of doctrine, especially that of the Lord’s Supper–has only cheapened the true biblical conception of what it means for Christ’s people to be one, as well as obscuring how it is human sinfulness that prevents justified sinners from joining one another at Christ’s table. This sad condition is aptly described by Donald Bridge and David Phypers–Baptist and Church of England Ministers–in their book, Communion: The Meal That Unites? Christians “all make rather special use of bread and wine. The use of it is bewilderingly different, but they all use it [note: the authors are British and have probably not encountered American Evangelicals who insist upon the use of grape juice in the supper!]….Christians have not only done different things with the bread and the wine, but have done terrible things to each other because of it. Men and women have been imprisoned, whipped, pilloried, tortured, and burned alive because of differing opinions about what really happens when Christians eat bread and drink wine and remember their Lord….Powerful kings have been toppled from their thrones and humble men have been driven into exile because of their views about the Lord’s Supper. Even today, when Christians are more conscious of their common faith than they have been for centuries, differences in Eucharistic faith and practice continue to divide them. Many refuse to recognize the validity of others’ celebrations. Some still withhold communion from those not in their own particular tradition” [Bridge and Phypers, Communion: The Meal That Unites?, 10]. Thus it is particularly galling that so many of today’s Evangelicals–who do not think the sacraments to be a central part of Christian faith and practice and who know virtually nothing of the debate about the nature of the Supper throughout Christian history–simply trivialize the whole subject by acting as though all of the debate over the Sacrament is all no big deal. Though it is difficult for us to comprehend perhaps, this subject was as critical to the Reformers as was the debate over the Solas.

B. Why is this subject so difficult? As Bridge and Phypers put it, all Christians “trace their practice back to the fact that the evening before his death Jesus shared a final meal with his disciples. During the meal he said of the bread, `This is my body,’ and of the wine, `This is my blood.’ He commanded his followers, as often as they ate and drank thereafter, to remember him. As a result, the `breaking of bread’, sharing in `communion’, celebration of the `eucharist’, partaking of `the Lord’s Supper’ and observance of `mass’ have distinguished Christian communities ever since. They have quarreled so deeply about its meaning because they so unitedly insist on its great importance [except American Evangelicals, of course!!!]. At first sight Christ’s actions and command seem so simple and straightforward that disagreement over their meaning and observance would appear to be impossible or merely perverse. But closer examination reveals that every action and every phrase is alive with meaning and vibrant with implication” [Bridge and Phypers, Communion: The Meal That Unites?, 10]. As we will see, when we get to our discussion of the biblical data, this is certainly the case. There are indeed difficult exegetical questions that arise here.

II. A Brief Review of Terms Used by the Reformed:

A. According to the Reformed, there are three components parts of a sacrament:

1. An outward or visible sign: According to the Scriptures, sacraments contain an outward or visible element. That is, sacraments are based upon material objects: water in baptism, bread and wine in the Supper. But a sacrament not only includes the material element prescribed in Scripture, but this also extends to the rite itself as commanded by Scripture. As we have seen, this language is used in connection with the Covenant made with Noah (Genesis 9:12-13), the covenant made with Abraham (Genesis 17:11); and as confirmed by Paul (Romans 4:11).

2. An inward grace or thing signified and sealed: “Signs and seals presuppose something that is signified and sealed” [Berkhof ST, 617], and thus while the signs remain signs, they nevertheless are means of grace through the work of the Holy Spirit. What, then, are these very real inward graces that are signed and sealed in the sacraments?

a. The promises of the covenant of grace, including the promise of God to be God to his people and to consecrate them unto himself and all those spiritual blessings which associated with it (Gen. 9:12-13Genesis 17:1-14Romans 4:11-13)

b. The forgiveness of sins and participation in the life that is in Christ (Matthew 3:11Matthew 26:28Mark 1:4-51 Corinthians 10:2-316-17Romans 2:28-296:3-4Galatians 3:27Titus 3:4-71 Peter 3:21)

3. The Sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified: This is where most of the confusion about sacraments takes place.

a. According to Romanism, the sacramental union is strictly physical. As Ursinus puts it in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism: “The Papists imagine that the sign which are used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper are changed into the things signified. But a change is no union” [Ursinus, Commentary, 377 ff.] This means that the error of Romanism is to see the grace given in the sacrament as something done in us, by virtue of the change of the sign into the thing signified. This also explains the use of Aristotelean categories of substans and accidens, to explain the lack of any union between the sign and thing signified.

b. According to Lutherans, the sacramental union is local, “as if the sign and the thing signified were present in the same space, so both believers and unbelievers receive the full sacrament when they receive the sign.” [Berkhof, ST, 618]

c. According to most American Evangelicals (who are strongly influenced by Pietism and Anabaptism and radical Zwinglianism), there is no sacramental union at all. The signs remain mere signs or symbols and do not communicate grace. They are given to us merely to commemorate the work of Christ through the use of the symbols.

d. According to the Reformed, the sacramental union is a spiritual bond, effected by God the Holy Spirit, and received by faith, so that by receiving the sign (bread, water, wine), the thing signified is also received (the promises of the covenant, the forgiveness of sins and participation in the resurrection life of Christ). “Where the sacrament is received in faith, the grace of God accompanies it. According to this view the external sign becomes a means employed by the Holy Spirit in the communication of divine grace” [Berkhof, ST, 618]. According to Eugene Osterhaven“sacraments are not `bare signs’ but are described as real means of grace with which the Holy Spirit nourishes believers. Signs and seals of God’s promise of salvation they are made effective by God’s Spirit who quickens and nourishes those within the covenant community who are united to Jesus Christ” [Osterhaven, “Sacraments,” ERF 333]. Michael Horton reminds us “while the Holy Spirit does not work apart from means (Word and sacrament), he nevertheless works when and where he will through them and is never tied to them. Never can the sacraments be the property of the priest or even of the laity, a magical `tool’ to command God.” According to John 3:8, “the wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.” This leads Michael to conclude, “The Holy Spirit is free to use the Word and sacraments to save, but he is also free to with-hold his gift of faith from whomever he pleases.”

This sacramental union enables us to state that “the close connection between the sign and the thing signified explains the use of what is generally called `sacramental language,’ in which the sign is put for the thing signified or vice-versa” [Berkhof, ST, 618]. This is found in texts such as Genesis 17:11Acts 22:161 Corinthians 5:71 Corinthians 10:1-4. It is also clearly in view when our Lord calls the bread his body and the wine in the cup, his blood, the blood of the new covenant (cf. Matthew 26:26-28). Those who deny that there is more in view than a mere sign, are forced to insert the words “this symbolizes” my body.

According to Calvin, “As for our sacraments, the more fully Christ has been revealed to men, the more clearly do the sacraments present him to us from the time when he was truly revealed by the Father as he had been promised. For baptism attests to us that we have been cleansed and washed; the Eucharistic Supper, that we have been redeemed. In water, washing is represented, in blood, satisfaction. These two are found in Christ `. . . who,’ as John says, `came in water and in blood’ [1 John 5:6]; that is, to wash and to redeem” [Calvin, Institutes, IV.xiv.22].

III. The Sacramental Union According to the Reformed Confessions

Before we work our way through the Biblical data and focus upon the Lord’s Supper, it is important to summarize and review the Reformed conception of the sacraments in general as summarized by our confessions. This will not only give us a sense of how the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is formulated, but also recaps our previous discussion of baptism.

A. The Reformed [Calvinist–not Zwinglian] conception of the sacramental union between the “sign” and “the thing signified” is perhaps best summarized in Article 33 of the Belgic Confession:

We believe that our good God, mindful of our crudeness and weakness, has ordained sacraments for us to seal his promises in us, to pledge his good will and grace toward us, and also to nourish and sustain our faith. He has added these to the Word of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by his Word and what he does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us. For they are visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible, by means of which God works in us through the power of the Holy Spirit. So they are not empty and hollow signs to fool and deceive us, for their truth is Jesus Christ, without whom they would be nothing.

B. The Heidelberg Catechism: LORD’S DAY 25

65 Q. It is by faith alone that we share in Christ and all his blessings: where then does that faith come from?

A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts (John 3:5; 1 Corinthians 2:10-14; Ephesians 2:8)

by the preaching of the holy gospel, (Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:23-25)

and confirms it

through our use of the holy sacraments.(Matthew 28:19-20; 1 Corinthians 10:16)

66 Q. What are sacraments?

A. Sacraments are holy signs and seals for us to see.

They were instituted by God so that

by our use of them

he might make us understand more clearly

the promise of the gospel,

and might put his seal on that promise. (Genesis 17:11; Deuteronomy 30:6; Romans 4:11)

And this is God’s gospel promise:

to forgive our sins and give us eternal life

by grace alone

because of Christ’s one sacrifice

finished on the cross. (Matthew 26:27-28; Acts 2:38; Hebrews 10:10)

67 Q. Are both the word and the sacraments then intended to focus our faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?

A. Right!

In the gospel the Holy Spirit teaches us

and through the holy sacraments he assures us

that our entire salvation

rests on Christ’s one sacrifice for us on the cross. (Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 3:27)

68 Q. How many sacraments did Christ institute in the New Testament?

A. Two: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. (Matthew 28:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

C. The Second Helvetic Confession

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), was produced by Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) at Zurich, and was quickly adopted by the Swiss Reformed Churches. According to Edward A. Dowey, the Second Helvetic Confession “was the most comprehensive and influential of early Reformed Confessions” [Edward A. Dowey, “Bullinger, Heinrich,” in Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, 44]. Philip Schaff calls it “the last and the best of the Zwinglian family” [Philip Schaff, Creeds, I.390].

Chapter 19 – Of the Sacraments of the Church of Christ

The Sacraments [Are] Added to the Word and What They Are. From the beginning, God added to the preaching of his Word in his Church sacraments or sacramental signs. For thus does all Holy Scripture clearly testify. Sacraments are mystical symbols, or holy rites, or sacred actions, instituted by God himself, consisting of his Word, of signs and of things signified, whereby in the Church he keeps in mind and from time to time recalls the great benefits he has shown to men; whereby also he seals his promises, and outwardly represents, and, as it were, offers unto our sight those things which inwardly he performs for us, and so strengthens and increases our faith through the working of God’s Spirit in our hearts. Lastly, he thereby distinguishes us from all other people and religions, and consecrates and binds us wholly to himself, and signifies what he requires of us.

Some Are Sacraments of the Old, Others of the New, Testaments. Some sacraments are of the old, others of the new, people. The sacraments of the ancient people were circumcision, and the Paschal Lamb, which was offered up; for that reason it is referred to the sacrifices which were practiced from the beginning of the world.

The Number of Sacraments of the New People. The sacraments of the new people are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. There are some who count seven sacraments of the new people. Of these we acknowledge that repentance, the ordination of ministers (not indeed the papal but apostolic ordination), and matrimony are profitable ordinances of God, but not sacraments. Confirmation and extreme unction are human inventions which the Church can dispense with without any loss, and indeed, we do not have them in our churches. For they contain some things of which we can by no means approve. Above all we detest all the trafficking in which the Papists engage in dispensing the sacraments.

The Author of the Sacraments. The author of all sacraments is not any man, but God alone. Men cannot institute sacraments. For they pertain to the worship of God, and it is not for man to appoint and prescribe a worship of God, but to accept and preserve the one he has received from God. Besides, the symbols have God’s promises annexed to them, which require faith. Now faith rests only upon the Word of God; and the Word of God is like papers or letters, and the sacraments are like seals which only God appends to the letters.

Christ Still Works in Sacraments. And as God is the author of the sacraments, so he continually works in the Church in which they are rightly carried out; so that the faithful, when they receive them from the ministers, know that God works in his own ordinance, and therefore they receive them as from the hand of God; and the minister’s faults (even if they be very great) cannot affect them, since they acknowledge the integrity of the sacraments to depend upon the institution of the Lord.

The Author and the Ministers of the Sacraments To Be Distinguished. Hence in the administration of the sacraments they also clearly distinguish between the Lord himself and the ministers of the Lord, confessing that the substance of the sacraments is given them by the Lord, and the outward signs by the ministers of the Lord.

The Substance or Chief Thing in the Sacraments. But the principle thing which God promises in all sacraments and to which all the godly in all ages direct their attention (some call it the substance and matter of the sacraments) is Christ the Savior–that only sacrifice, and the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world; that rock, also, from which all our fathers drank, by whom all the elect are circumcised without hands through the Holy Spirit, and are washed from all their sins, and are nourished with the very body and blood of Christ unto eternal life.

The Similarity and Difference in the Sacraments of Old and New Peoples. Now, in respect of that which is the principal thing and the matter itself in the sacraments, the sacraments of both peoples are equal. For Christ, the only Mediator and Savior of the faithful, is the chief thing and very substance of the sacraments in both; for the one God is the author of them both. They were given to both peoples as signs and seals of the grace and promises of God, which should call to mind and renew the memory of God’s great benefits, and should distinguish the faithful from all the religions in the world; lastly, which should be received spiritually by faith, and should bind the receivers to the Church, and admonish them of their duty. In these and similar respects, I say, the sacraments of both people are not dissimilar, although in the outward signs they are different. And, indeed, with respect to the signs we make a great difference. For ours are more firm and lasting, inasmuch as they will never be changed to the end of the world. Moreover, ours testify that both the substance and the promise have been fulfilled or perfected in Christ; the former signified what was to be fulfilled. Ours are also more simple and less laborious, less sumptuous and involved with ceremonies. Moreover, they belong to a more numerous people, one that is dispersed throughout the whole earth. And since they are more excellent, and by the Holy Spirit kindle greater faith, a greater abundance of the Spirit also ensues.

Our Sacraments Succeed the Old Which Are Abrogated. But now since Christ the true Messiah is exhibited unto us, and the abundance of grace is poured forth upon the people of The New Testament, the sacraments of the old people are surely abrogated and have ceased; and in their stead the symbols of the New Testament are placed–Baptism in the place of circumcision, the Lord’s Supper in place of the Paschal Lamb and sacrifices.

In What the Sacraments Consist. And as formerly the sacraments consisted of the word, the sign, and the thing signified; so even now they are composed, as it were, of the same parts. For the Word of God makes them sacraments, which before they were not.

The Consecration of the Sacraments. For they are consecrated by the Word, and shown to be sanctified by him who instituted them. To sanctify or consecrate anything to God is to dedicate it to holy uses; that is, to take it from the common and ordinary use, and to appoint it to a holy use. For the signs in the sacraments are drawn from common use, things external and visible. For in baptism the sign is the element of water, and that visible washing which is done by the minister; but the thing signified is regeneration and the cleansing from sins. Likewise, in the Lord’s Supper, the outward sign is bread and wine, taken from things commonly used for meat and drink; but the thing signified is the body of Christ which was given, and his blood which was shed for us, or the communion of the body and blood of the Lord. Wherefore, the water, bread, and wine, according to their nature and apart from the divine institution and sacred use, are only that which they are called and we experience. But when the Word of God is added to them, together with invocation of the divine name, and the renewing of their first institution and sanctification, then these signs are consecrated, and shown to be sanctified by Christ. For Christ’s first institution and consecration of the sacraments remains always effectual in the Church of God, so that those who do not celebrate the sacraments in any other way than the Lord himself instituted from the beginning still today enjoy that first and all-surpassing consecration. And hence in the celebration of the sacraments the very words of Christ are repeated.

Signs Take Name of Things Signified. And as we learn out of the Word of God that these signs were instituted for another purpose than the usual use, therefore we teach that they now, in their holy use, take upon them the names of things signified, and are no longer called mere water, bread or wine, but also regeneration or the washing of water, and the body and blood of the Lord or symbols and sacraments of the Lord’s body and blood. Not that the symbols are changed into the things signified, or cease to be what they are in their own nature. For otherwise they would not be sacraments. If they were only the thing signified, they would not be signs.

The Sacramental Union. Therefore the signs acquire the names of things because they are mystical signs of sacred things, and because the signs and the things signified are sacramentally joined together; joined together, I say, or united by a mystical signification, and by the purpose or will of him who instituted the sacraments. For the water, bread, and wine are not common, but holy signs. And he that instituted water in baptism did not institute it with the will and intention that the faithful should only be sprinkled by the water of baptism; and he who commanded the bread to be eaten and the wine to be drunk in the supper did not want the faithful to receive only bread and wine without any mystery as they eat bread in their homes; but that they should spiritually partake of the things signified, and by faith be truly cleansed from their sins, and partake of Christ.

The Sects. And, therefore, we do not at all approve of those who attribute the sanctification of the sacraments to I know not what properties and formula or to the power of words pronounced by one who is consecrated and who has the intention of consecrating, and to other accidental things which neither Christ or the apostles delivered to us by word or example. Neither do we approve of the doctrine of those who speak of the sacraments just as common signs, not sanctified and effectual. Nor do we approve of those who despise the visible aspect of the sacraments because of the invisible, and so believe the signs to be superfluous because they think they already enjoy the thing themselves, as the Messalians are said to have held.

The Thing Signified Is Neither Included in or Bound to the Sacraments. We do not approve of the doctrine of those who teach that grace and the things signified are so bound to and included in the signs that whoever participate outwardly in the signs, no matter what sort of persons they be, also inwardly participate in the grace and things signified.

However, as we do not estimate the value of the sacraments by the worthiness or unworthiness of the ministers, so we do not estimate it by the condition of those who receive them. For we know that the value of the sacraments depends upon faith and upon the truthfulness and pure goodness of God. For as the Word of God remains the true Word of God, in which, when it is preached, not only bare words are repeated, but at the same time the things signified or announced in words are offered by God, even if the ungodly and unbelievers hear and understand the words yet do not enjoy the things signified, because they do not receive them by true faith; so the sacraments, which by the Word consist of signs and the things signified, remain true and inviolate sacraments, signifying not only sacred things, but, by God offering, the things signified, even if unbelievers do not receive the things offered. This is not the fault of God who gives and offers them, but the fault of men who receive them without faith and illegitimately; but whose unbelief does not invalidate the faithfulness of God (Rom. 3:3 f.).

The Purpose for Which Sacraments Were Instituted. Since the purpose for which sacraments were instituted was also explained in passing when right at the beginning of our exposition it was shown what sacraments are, there is no need to be tedious by repeating what once has been said. Logically, therefore, we now speak severally of the sacraments of the new people.

D. The Westminster Confession:

Chapter XXVII: Of the Sacraments

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.

II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

V. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.

IV. The New Testament Data Regarding the Last Supper

At this point in these lectures we now turn to an analysis of the Biblical data regarding the Lord’s Supper. We will consider a number of biblical aspects of the background to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. In this regard, I will be closely following the fine article by Ronald S. Wallace, “The Lord’s Supper,” which is found in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised edition, edited by Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1986) III.164 ff.

A. The Lord’s Supper as a Fellowship Meal–A Meal with Sinners

1. The historical background here to the idea of “table fellowship” is indeed fascinating and sheds great light on the true significance of our Lord’s table fellowship with sinners and the institution of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. When we consider the supper as a “fellowship meal,” we will also encounter a close connection between a fellowship meal and the ratification of covenant oaths, a theme we will take up throughout this discussion and as, we have seen, underlies the whole discussion of sacraments. As we work our way though this material, it is important to begin with the cultural and biblical background to the idea of “table fellowship.” As one writer notes, “it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of table fellowship for the cultures of the Mediterranean basin in the first century of our era. Mealtimes were far more than occasions for individuals to consume nourishment. Being welcomed at a table for the purpose of eating food with another person had become a ceremony richly symbolic of friendship, intimacy and unity. Thus betrayal or unfaithfulness toward anyone with whom one had shared the table was viewed as particularly reprehensible. On the other hand, when persons were estranged, a meal invitation opened the way to reconciliation” [S. S. Bartchy, “Table Fellowship,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992, 796]. Thus to join one at table around a meal, meant far more in the world of the Bible than it does to those of us in the west. This fact helps explain, for example, why Luke would mention meals in nearly one-fifth of the verses in his Gospel and Acts [cf. Markus Barth, Rediscovering the Lord’s Supper, John Knox Press, 1988, 71]. It also helps to explain the significance of God in human flesh instituting a sacrament based upon the “breaking of bread.”

2. Moving next to the Old Testament background the critical text here is Exodus 24, where Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up on God’s holy mountain, “saw God, and they ate and drank.” This, of course, is the great feast of ratification offered to the representatives of Israel by the great king of Israel at the occasion of the ratification of the Siniatic covenant. Both themes of covenant ratification as well as “table fellowship” are present. As Kline puts it, “surely a solemn affirmation of consecration to God made in the presence of God to his mediator-representative [Moses, foreshadowing Christ] and in response to divine demand, sanctioned by divine threats against the rebellious, is tantamount to an oath. Moreover Israel’s drinking in the persons of her representatives on the mount of God (Exodus 24:11) was a recognized symbolic method by which people swore treaties….This aspect of the covenant-making at the Mosaic exodus is clearly present in the communion of the disciples with Jesus at the last supper, and again when the chosen witnesses eat and drank with their risen Lord (Acts 10:41) during the forty days before the ascension (Acts 1:3; cf. Exodus 24:18)” [Meredith Kline, Structure of Biblical Authority, Eerdmans, 1981, 116-117; 186]. Thus when God summons the leaders of Israel to his mountain the ratify the covenant just sworn, the people enjoy a fellowship meal with YHWH Adonai, marking the occasion sealing the oath as God did not raise his hand against these sinners, now made clean through the sprinkling of blood. This text factors greatly in the last supper and the words of institution given by our Lord. Both covenant and table fellowship are clearly in view.

3. When we look at the idea of table fellowship in the New Testament we quickly see the dramatic contrast between Jesus’ notion of table fellowship and that of the Pharisees. According to Scott Bartchy, “The Pharisees regarded their tables at home as surrogates for the Lord’s altar in the Temple in Jerusalem and therefore strove to maintain in their households and among their eating companions the state of ritual purity required of priests in Temple service. The food had to be properly tithed, prepared and served but in itself did not symbolize any event (Passover was an exception). Pharisees prescribed no special prayers or unusual foods for their meals. But they did insist on eating only with companions who had `undefiled hands’ (Mk. 7:2-4), that is, with persons in a state of ritual purity (cf. Ex. 30:19-21). The Pharisees longed for a time when all of Israel would live in such a state of holiness. They believed that Israel’s identity and blessed future depended upon it. This is the context in which Jesus’ practice of a radically open table fellowship is remembered in the NT….The Synoptic Gospels are consistent in specifically presenting Jesus in sharp contrast to Pharisaic practice…who in God’s name welcomed at table an astonishing variety of both reputable and disreputable persons….Jesus practiced a radically inclusive table fellowship as a central strategy in his announcement and redefinition of the in-braking rule of God (i.e. the Kingdom of God)” [S. S. Bartchy, “Table Fellowship,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992, 797]. The fact that Jesus regularly ate with those who the Pharisees considered “unclean”–that is, “tax collectors” and “sinners,” was one of the greatest sources of indignation from the Pharisees against our Lord. There are a number of places where this is clearly evident in the gospels:

Matthew 9:10-13: While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Matthew 9:14: Then John’s disciples came and asked him, “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

Matthew 11:19: For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”‘ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.” Cf. Luke 7:33 ff.

Matthew 21:28 ff: “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'” ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

Luke 5:27: After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him, and Levi got up, left everything and followed him. Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Cf. Mark 2:15 ff

Luke 15:1 ff: Now the tax collectors and “sinners” were all gathering around to hear him. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” Then Jesus told them this parable: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

4. Ronald Wallace begins his essay on the Lord’s Supper by reminding us of the fundamental fact that the Lord’s Supper is indeed grounded upon the idea that the supper is itself a fellowship meal with Jesus. This point will have profound ramifications for our theology of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. As Wallace points out “throughout its history the Church has kept at the center of its life and worship not only the preaching of the Word of God but also the celebration of the Lord’s Supper or eucharist. In this rite the Church follows the example and command given by Jesus Himself during His last supper with his disciples. It acts in His name and seeks His presence, believing that in the celebration Christ renews His fellowship with His people, strengthens their faith and hope, communicates to them the power of His death and resurrection, and thus enables them to present themselves afresh, within the membership of His body, as a living sacrifice devoted thus by Him more wholly to His service.” This emphasis is seen in Christ’s church from its very origins. Notes Wallace, “immediately after Pentecost the Church `devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to breaking of bread and prayers’ (Acts 2:42). A glad realization of the presence of the risen Jesus in their midst seems to have marked `breaking of bread’ at a common meal” [Wallace, “Lord’s Supper,” 164]. This is a very important point. The apostolic church never venerates Christ’s tomb, since not only did Jesus bodily rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, but there is also every indication that Christians believed that the Risen Lord was present in their very midst through Word and sacrament, and that they too, like the tax collectors and prostitutes mentioned in the New Testament, enjoyed table fellowship with the same Lord Jesus who ate with repentant sinners in the “breaking of bread.”

5. There are other reasons why the notion that the Lord’s Supper should be seen as a fellowship meal with the Risen Lord. “The custom of placing the eucharist at the heart of the worship and fellowship of the Church may have been inspired not only by the disciples’ memory of the Last Supper with Jesus but also with the memory of their fellowship meals with Him during both His days on earth and the forty days of His risen appearances. They now realized that He had made the eating and drinking with them a pledge that He, the Messiah, would renew, perfect, and make eternal such table fellowship in the fulness and glory of His kingdom, and with the belief they celebrated their eucharistic meals, awaiting His final return. Despite the memories of all their meals with Jesus before and after His resurrection, they recognized that His words and actions at the Last Supper had a deep significance of their own” [Wallace, “Lord’s Supper,” 164]. In this idea of the Lord’s Supper as a meal of table fellowship with our Risen Savior, we see not only covenantal and sacramental themes but also eschatological overtones as well. The early Christians had not only eaten with Jesus, but they anticipated eating with him again in a great fellowship meal yet to come in the resurrection (cf. Revelation 19:6-9).

6. Thus as we consider the New Testament teaching about the Lord’s Supper, the notion of table fellowship is near the center of the Bible’s teaching. As we consider what this means for us, we need to remember that the Pharisees called Jesus a “glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 11:16-19; cf. Luke 7:31-35). They would not have fellowship with sinners, unlike our Lord [cf. Paul’s comments about Christians eating with non-Christians in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13]. As Scott Bartchy puts it, “apparently, one goal of Jesus’ strategy of inclusive table fellowship was presenting himself and his followers as a living parable of how a renewed Israel could indeed live together from God’s abundance. He presented the rule of God, using images of food, drink and home as a roving banquet hall by which God sought Israelites to be guests and then hosts. At this table they were offered reconciliation with God, a true home, and a spiritual and material abundance, as the basis for offering all of these god things to each other, to others yet to come and even to enemies. A saying of Jesus . . . linked the practice of inclusive table fellowship with the final consummation: `Many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven,’ (Mt. 8:11; Lk 13:29; see Is 25:6-8)” [Bartchy, “Table Fellowship,” 799-800]. Thus we when celebrate the Lord’s Supper, let us not forget that we as sinners, are enjoying table fellowship with the Risen Lord, who offers us nothing less than himself, through bread and wine.

B. The New Testament Accounts of the Lord’s Supper

1. The Last Supper and the Lord’s Supper:

a. The New Testament accounts of the Last Supper and the practice of the Lord’s Supper subsequently, presents us with some serious difficulties since there seem to be two closely-related, though differently nuanced versions of the institution/practice of the sacrament in the New Testament, which at first glance might appear to contradict one another. It is important to deal with this problem before going on to work through the theology of the Supper. According to R. S. Wallace, “the NT contains four accounts of what Jesus did and said at the last Supper: Mt. 26:26-30Mk. 14:22-25Lk. 22:14-201 Cor. 11:23-26. The common features of Luke’s and Paul’s accounts suggest a tradition distinct from that of Mark and Matthew. Both Luke and Paul introduce the words `This do in remembrance of me’ as spoken by Jesus. Luke places this utterance at the end of the bread-saying, Paul in connection with the giving of both bread and wine. Matthew and Mark denote the cup as `my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many,’ whereas Luke and Paul use `the new covenant in my blood’ and omit `for many.’ Paul alone has `for you’ after the bread-saying; only Luke has `for you’ after the cup-saying. Both Paul and Luke consistently use Gk. eucharistesas for `having given thanks,’ but Matthew and Mark change this term to eulogesas when referring to thanksgiving for the bread” [Wallace, “The Lord’s Supper,” 164]. This, of course, raises the question as to whether or not these discrepancies constitute contradictions in the Biblical accounts. It is best to get this potential problem out of the way before preceding.

b. This matter can be clarified by simply recalling to mind some basic New Testament chronology. Though our Lord instituted the sacrament around the year 30 [the Last Supper], Paul’s account of the practice of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 is actually the first one written, as 1 Corinthians is dated in the early 50’s, about 25 years after our Lord’s Ascension. In 1 Corinthians, Paul is describing the actual practice of the church in Corinth in celebrating of the Lord’s Supper. The accounts of the Last Supper Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, were written some ten years later than Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in early to mid-sixties. Matthew and Mark are describing the Last Supper, which is the historical institution of the Lord’s Supper, while Paul is describing the church’s practice some twenty-five years after our Lord first uttered these words and commanded the church to celebrate this sacrament. Most scholars argue that Luke, who was a companion of Paul [which would explain the similarities between Luke and Paul], utilized the gospels previously written by Mark and perhaps even Matthew [see Luke 1:1-4] in the composition of his own gospel. Luke’s account also tends to follow Paul at many critical points.

c. The reconciliation of these accounts is further complicated by the fact that John’s account in his Gospel seems to have a different chronology–when he states that the Jews had not yet celebrated the Passover when Jesus instituted the sacrament, which would seem to be in conflict with the other accounts [see John 18:28; 19:14, 31]. This apparent discrepancy may be the result of something as simple as the use of different calendars by the Sadducees and Pharisees. [See Leon Morris’ very helpful discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the various explanations offered to explain this his fine commentary, The Gospel According to John, NICNT, Eerdmans, 1984, 774-786].

d. A couple of comments are certainly in order here: First, as we will see, many of these seeming contradictions can be easily reconciled or explained. [See, for example, the fine book on this by I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, Eerdmans, 1980, which does an excellent job dealing with all of these accounts]; Second, discrepancies in the accounts are exactly what we should expect of the historical record. A number of critically-minded scholars of the New Testament argue that the Gospel accounts are not historical, but instead reflect the later liturgical patterns of the early church read back into the lips of Jesus. But if these were liturgical patterns read back into the New Testament documents, there would be no such discrepancies, since liturgical patterns are by definition, standardized!

e. Ronald Wallace is also quite helpful in summarizing this matter. He reminds us that “some important MSS omit Lk. 22:19b-20 and alter the order of other verses, but there are good grounds for accepting the longer and more complicated account as arising from the genuine traditions that were worth preserving [some copyists omitted certain phrases assuming that they had been added–see Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 173-177]. Luke’s longer account, if accepted, may be regarded as including an extra cup not mentioned by the other traditions, or as collating two accounts each valuable for helping the Church understand the meaning of the Supper. The accounts all agree that the Supper took place on the night when Jesus was betrayed, that He took bread, and, when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, `This is my body.’ They agree that He also gave some significance to the cup. Matthew Mark and Luke preserve a pledge of Jesus to abstain from drinking the fruit of the vine until the kingdom comes (Mt. 26:29Mk. 14:25Lk. 22:16). In Matthew and Mark, Jesus makes this pledge after the actions with the bread and wine; in Luke it introduces the whole action. Paul’s account omits this saying, but contains the rubric `as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes'” [Wallace, “Lord’s Supper,” 164]. This clearly reflects the fact that the pattern before the actual writing of the gospels some thirty or more years after our Lord’s Ascension was that oral tradition was passed down from our Lord to his disciples, and which was clearly adapted and modified in local liturgical situations, such as we find in the church in Corinth. According to Wallace, “it is worthwhile to attempt to establish the most primitive facts and to show how variations could have arisen within the keen intensity of the life of the early Christian community. Even if some of these variations may seem mutually exclusive when regarded as historical accounts of the original meal [here I think Wallace is way too quick to concede that these accounts are contradictory], readers can thankfully accept each account as helping them to interpret and more fully understand the rite” [Wallace, “Lord’s Supper, 164].

f. I. Howard Marshall reminds us that several things also need to be considered here as we attempt to rectify the discrepancies. First, “Each of the three versions [Mark, Luke, Paul] can in theory preserve different features of the hypothetical original account, so that reconstruction of this basic account could contain features drawn from all three surviving versions.” This means that all three accounts are correct reflecting omissions in some accounts, not contradictions. Second, “from a literary point of view the Pauline account is the oldest form which we have, and therefore there is a certain presumption that it is the closest to the original form. On the other hand, however, it is also the form which has been influenced by liturgical considerations more than the other, and hence, it is quite possible that, although the accounts in the Gospels were committed to writing at a later date, they may be better witnesses to the original wording of the account.” Thus it is possible that although Paul wrote first, his version represents the most significant modification of the oral tradition. Third, “a factor which is often brought into the discussion is a number of Semitic features in each of the accounts. It can be assumed with certainty that the sayings of Jesus at the Last Supper were in Aramaic or Hebrew, and it is highly probable that the first account of the meal was given in one of these languages rather than in Greek. Consequently, our Greek versions of the account are translations, and one may look for features which suggest a literal translation from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek. In the process of transmission such telltale signs of translation would be smoothed away and a better Greek style would result” [I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 38-39]. This last point is important to consider. Our Lord spoke Hebrew or Aramaic at the time of the Last Supper. The accounts we have reflect a Greek translation of the oral tradition, as well as a thirty-year gap from the event and the composition of the gospel. As Marshall points out the diversity of the accounts argues for their historicity, and the slight differences between the Last Supper of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the Lord’s Supper of Paul give us a look at how the church put the oral tradition to writing and adapted it in a liturgical context. But once put to writing, in both the synoptic Gospels and the Epistle to the Corinthians, we now regard these accounts as infallible and inerrant records of the institution of the supper [The Last Supper] and the practice of the supper [The Lord’s Supper], and can draw on the richness of all the accounts. And let us not overlook the obvious–these variations are very minor and are easily explained when looking at the possible ways in which they were composed.

2. The Last Supper as a Celebration of the Passover.

Here we need to deal with the question of what kind of a meal were our Lord and the disciples celebrating during the Last Supper? Recent critical scholarship simply sees the conflicts between John and the synoptic gospels as contradictory, and that what happened in the Upper Room was a simple kiddush meal, which was later transformed into a Passover meal by the early church looking back at the historical Jesus through the eyes of faith. This position does not take the synoptics seriously as history and downplays the historical connections to the Passover. I. Howard Marshall does a good job of pointing out why this is an important issue for us.

a. “In all three of the synoptic Gospels we are told that the Last Supper of Jesus was a Passover meal. The meal which the disciples were sent to prepare is clearly stated to be the Passover (Mark 14:12-16Luke 22:7-13), and Jesus then acted as host at this meal with his disciples. Consequently, at first sight there would seem to be nothing that requires extended discussion….Unfortunately, things are seldom as simple as they seem, and there are a number of objections to the view which we have just stated. The principle objection is that if we turn to the Gospel of John we shall find evidence that the Jews had not yet celebrated the Passover at the time when Jesus had already concluded his meal and was on trial before Pilate (John 18:28). In fact John states that the day of the crucifixion was the Day of Preparation of the Passover (John 19:24); i.e. this is often taken to mean that after Jesus died in the afternoon the setting of the sun marked the beginning of the feast day which commenced with the celebration of the Passover meal; in line with this chronology John 13:1 would suggest that the meal held by Jesus took place `before the feast of the Passover’. In short, it appears that John follows a different chronology from that in the Synoptic Gospels” [Marshall, Last Supper, 57]. This fact has raised a number of important interpretive questions. Was the Last Supper a kiddush meal or a celebration of the Passover? How do we explain the chronological difficulties between the synoptics and John?

b. According to Wallace, “From the precise dating of events in the Fourth Gospel, the question arises whether the supper recorded in the Synoptic Gospels can properly be regarded as a Passover feast. Jn 18:2819:1431 indicate that Jesus died on the afternoon before the Passover lambs were slain in the temple. This sequence has given rise to the theory that the `Last Supper’ was a kiddush, a simple meal of preparation either for a Sabbath or for a festival at which, after religious discussion, a cup of wine mixed with water was blessed and drunk and a benediction pronounced over the bread. This theory makes it easy to explain certain otherwise awkward details; why no account of the Last Supper mentions a paschal lamb, why ordinary bread, and why only one cup of wine was used. The theory also accounts for how Jesus could be arrested after the Passover feast had begun, how a linen cloth could then be purchased for his burial, and how Simon of Cyrene could be found coming from work in the fields on what was apparently a holiday” [Wallace, “Lord’s Supper” 164]. But though this theory is now widely adopted and eases some of the chronological problems, it creates a number of others, namely downplaying the fact that our Lord’s actions only make sense in the light of the Passover and fulfillment of Old Testament expectations!

c. According to Wallace, “The chronology of Mark, however (cf. 14:11216 f), apparently confirmed by Mt 26:17Lk. 22:15, indicates that the Last Supper took place at the regular time of the feast in the city and therefore took the form of a Passover. Other details in the Synoptics characterize the Supper as a Passover: it was a lengthy and well-prepared meal: it took place at night; the disciples reclined at the table (Mk 14:18) and drank wine; the whole meal closed with an act of praise (v. 26). This identification with the Passover allows for deeper and richer possibilities of interpretation. In an effort to harmonize John’s account with the Synoptics, scholars have suggested that the Sadducees and Pharisees disputed that year over the timing of the feast and as a result fixed two different dates. A calendar found in the Qumran community places the Passover. Possibly Jesus Himself deliberately celebrated Passover early with his disciples” [Wallace, “The Lord’s Supper,” 164-165]. [As I mentioned, both Leon Morris in The Gospel According to John, NICNT, Eerdmans, 1984, 774-786; and I Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, Eerdmans, 1980, do a great job summarizing the evidence. Both conclude that the Sadducees and the Pharisees were using different calendars, and once that is acknowledged these two events can be easily reconciled].

d. As Wallace puts it, “although certain obscurities must remain owing to the variation in the accounts, Jesus apparently interrupted the usual Passover feast at certain points with decisive words and actions. He seems to have broken and shared the bread immediately before the consumption of the lamb: His action either corresponded to the usual breaking of bread or to the explanation by the head of the family of the deep significance of the meal in response to the traditional questions by the youngest member present about the meaning of the rite. Jesus’ offering of the cup, apparently after the lamb was eaten, was connected with the blessing on the third of four cups (1 Corinthians 11:25Luke 22:20). His vow of abstinence and words expressing expectation and hope of fulfillment of what was symbolized may have preceded (as in Mk. 14:24 f.), the group’s partaking of the fourth cup” [Wallace, “Lord’s Supper,” 164].

e. Marshall [Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, pp. 59 ff] sets out the following reasons to consider this as a Passover meal, and not merely a kiddush meal. Thus it is useful to summarize most of Marshall’s evidence for this, since doing so gives us a sense of what happened at a Passover meal.

1). The Synoptic Gospels specifically date the meal on the Passover. Mark 14:12 tells us that the disciples made their preparations for the meal “on the first day of Unleavened Bread,” when they sacrificed the Passover lamb.

2). The meal was held in Jerusalem. The force of this observation lies in the fact that at this time Jesus and his disciples were staying outside of Jerusalem at Bethany, and returning there each night. But the Passover lamb could be eaten only in Jerusalem itself.

3). The meal was held in the evening (Mark 14:17; John 13:30; 1 Cor. 11:23). The normal mealtimes for the Jews were in the morning and the afternoon.

4). Jesus usually ate with large numbers of his disciples and hearers. On this occasion, however, he is specifically said to have gathered with the Twelve, a number which corresponds with the requirement that the Passover should be celebrated in groups of at least ten persons.

5). The guests are specifically said to have reclined at the meal (Mark 14:18; John 13:22, 28). To recline was the mark of freedom and was therefore customary at the Passover. Otherwise sitting was the normal posture for meals.

6). Both Mark and Luke place the eating of bread by Jesus and the disciples in the middle of the meal and not at the beginning.

7). The drinking of wine was not customary at ordinary meals, but was normal at festal meals and required at the Passover. Wine was also drunk at the ceremony of sanctifying the Passover. Hence the use of wine by Jesus is consistent with a Passover meal.

8). Mark tells us that the meal ended with singing….There seems to be no evidence for a similar occurrence at the end of any other kind of Jewish meal.

9). After the meal, Jesus stayed close to Jerusalem and did not return to Bethany, since the night of the Passover had to be spent in Jerusalem or its immediate neighborhood.

This, then, makes a compelling case to understand the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke to be describing a Passover, which all of the rich symbolism and Biblical theology that goes with it. It also means that John’s account is reckoned by a different chronology [calendar], which placed the events one day later.

Weekly Communion

Uriesou Brito, Senior Pastor at Providence Church (CREC) in Pensacola, FL writes:

Evangelicals like myself rooted in the Reformation came very late to the beauty of weekly communion. I was a sophomore in college before I realized that the vast stream of the Protestant tradition celebrated communion weekly. For most of my life, I assumed the table was reserved for special occasions like Easter or Christmas. In fact, I attended a Brethren congregation that did communion once a year. But as I broadened my theological interests, I understood the Supper’s function in the liturgy and in the theology of the church and it became unbearable to contemplate the absence of it during a worship service.Historically, our Reformed forefathers—including Luther and Calvin—desired communion to be weekly. In fact, the early centuries of the Church and the majority of Protestant Churches in the 16th century practiced weekly communion. It was only in the 19th century, and in particular, during the Prohibitionist movement, that weekly communion became mostly obsolete. Therefore, the infrequent practice of communion is rather new in the church. Now, this does not mean it’s wrong, but it should raise questions.

The Didache, one of the earliest records of the church after the Bible says the following: “On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.”

The Church believed that in celebrating the sacraments weekly we become a purer people. This is not because there is something magical in the bread and wine, but because God uses these means to communicate his presence and strength to us. Additionally, the Early Church believed that the Lord’s Supper made us a more thankful people. We don’t often associate communion with thankfulness, but the very term “Eucharist” is not some invention of men. It is the word Paul uses to refer to the Lord’s Supper. The word means “thanksgiving.” The Lord’s Supper is a Thanksgiving meal; a Eucharistic meal.

The Bible makes a clear case that every time the people of God gathered for worship, the Lord’s Supper was a regular part of that gathering. Acts 2:42 says: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”

There is a definite article before bread, making the text read “the breaking of the bread” (τοῦ ἄρτου). This is not a generic reference to a household meal, but it is in reference to a particular kind of bread, the eucharistic bread used at the Lord’s Table. Acts 20:7 says: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and the prayers.”

Again, when the Early Church met, they always had the Lord’s Supper. In a time when persecution was rampant, the people needed to be comforted by and give thanks to God as they ate together with God’s people in worship. I had mentioned earlier that the Early Church up to the first thousand years and later the Reformation, firmly believed in weekly communion. But there came a time when the Church abandoned this practice. In fact, as Keith Mathison observes in his book “Given For You,” infrequent communion practice became the practice of the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century and continued until the Reformation period. In those days, members could only partake of the sacraments once a year. It was against this background that “such men as John Calvin and Martin Bucer called for a return to the Apostolic Christian practice of weekly communion.”

We might say that part of the motive of the Reformation was to undo the Church’s practice of infrequent communion and return to the Early Church practice of weekly communion. Calvin writes in response to the common practices of the day: “The Lord’s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually.” Note Calvin’s use of the phrase “at least,” implying that there were other special occasions when the Supper was crucial in the formation of Church life besides the ordinariness of its practice on Sundays.

As Professor Michael Horton once observed, “Your view of the nature of the Lord’s Supper will determine the importance of it in the worship service.” It should come as no surprise then, that those who view the Lord’s Supper primarily as a matter of subjective mental recollection would see no need to celebrate it frequently. But when we begin to view the Lord’s Supper as a meal of joy and a means of grace to sustain and nourish us, then we quickly begin to expect each Lord’s Day to conclude with a meal just as our day ends with Supper. The Lord’s Supper is not a religious add-on to the regular worship service, it is an integral meal prepared for those who are called to minister to the world. The meal is a preparation for our tasks during the week.

Defining Sin

An article by Dr. R. C. Sproul entitled “Sin is Cosmic Treason.” original source: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/sin-cosmic-treason/

“The sinfulness of sin” sounds like a vacuous redundancy that adds no information to the subject under discussion. However, the necessity of speaking of the sinfulness of sin has been thrust upon us by a culture and even a church that has diminished the significance of sin itself. Sin is communicated in our day in terms of making mistakes or of making poor choices. When I take an examination or a spelling test,if I make a mistake, I miss a particular word. It is one thing to make a mistake. It is another to look at my neighbor’s paper and copy his answers in order to make a good grade. In this case, my mistake has risen to the level of a moral transgression. Though sin may be involved in making mistakes as a result of slothfulness in preparation, nevertheless, the act of cheating takes the exercise to a more serious level. Calling sin “making poor choices” is true, but it is also a euphemism that can discount the severity of the action. The decision to sin is indeed a poor one, but once again, it is more than a mistake. It is an act of moral transgression.

In my book The Truth of the Cross I spend an entire chapter discussing this notion of the sinfulness of sin. I begin that chapter by using the anecdote of my utter incredulity when I received a recent edition of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Though I was happy to receive this free issue, I was puzzled as to why anyone would send it to me. As I leafed through the pages of quotations that included statements from Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others, to my complete astonishment I came upon a quotation from me. That I was quoted in such a learned collection definitely surprised me. I was puzzled by what I could have said that merited inclusion in such an anthology, and the answer was found in a simple statement attributed to me: “Sin is cosmic treason.” What I meant by that statement was that even the slightest sin that a creature commits against his Creator does violence to the Creator’s holiness, His glory, and His righteousness. Every sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is an act of rebellion against the sovereign God who reigns and rules over us and as such is an act of treason against the cosmic King.

Cosmic treason is one way to characterize the notion of sin, but when we look at the ways in which the Scriptures describe sin, we see three that stand out in importance. First, sin is a debt; second, it is an expression of enmity; third, it is depicted as a crime. In the first instance, we who are sinners are described by Scripture as debtors who cannot pay their debts. In this sense, we are talking not about financial indebtedness but a moral indebtedness. God has the sovereign right to impose obligations upon His creatures. When we fail to keep these obligations, we are debtors to our Lord. This debt represents a failure to keep a moral obligation.

The second way in which sin is described biblically is as an expression of enmity. In this regard, sin is not restricted merely to an external action that transgresses a divine law. Rather, it represents an internal motive, a motive that is driven by an inherent hostility toward the God of the universe. It is rarely discussed in the church or in the world that the biblical description of human fallenness includes an indictment that we are by nature enemies of God. In our enmity toward Him, we do not want to have Him even in our thinking, and this attitude is one of hostility toward the very fact that God commands us to obey His will. It is because of this concept of enmity that the New Testament so often describes our redemption in terms of reconciliation. One of the necessary conditions for reconciliation is that there must be some previous enmity between at least two parties. This enmity is what is presupposed by the redeeming work of our Mediator, Jesus Christ, who overcomes this dimension of enmity.

The third way in which the Bible speaks of sin is in terms of transgression of law. The Westminster Shorter Catechism answers the fourteenth question, “What is sin?” by the response, “Sin is any want of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God.” Here we see sin described both in terms of passive and active disobedience. We speak of sins of commission and sins of omission. When we fail to do what God requires, we see this lack of conformity to His will. But not only are we guilty of failing to do what God requires, we also actively do what God prohibits. Thus, sin is a transgression against the law of God.

When people violate the laws of men in a serious way, we speak of their actions not merely as misdemeanors but, in the final analysis, as crimes. In the same regard, our actions of rebellion and transgression of the law of God are not seen by Him as mere misdemeanors; rather, they are felonious. They are criminal in their impact. If we take the reality of sin seriously in our lives, we see that we commit crimes against a holy God and against His kingdom. Our crimes are not virtues; they are vices, and any transgression of a holy God is vicious by definition. It is not until we understand who God is that we gain any real understanding of the seriousness of our sin. Because we live in the midst of sinful people where the standards of human behavior are set by the patterns of the culture around us, we are not moved by the seriousness of our transgressions. We are indeed at ease in Zion. But when God’s character is made clear to us and we are able to measure our actions not in relative terms with respect to other humans but in absolute terms with respect to God, His character, and His law, then we begin to be awakened to the egregious character of our rebellion.

Not until we take God seriously will we ever take sin seriously. But if we acknowledge the righteous character of God, then we, like the saints of old, will cover our mouths with our hands and repent in dust and ashes before Him.

Rightly Ministering the Means of Grace

Article: More Than a Shibboleth by Nick Batzig – Original source: https://gospelreformation.net/more-than-a-shibboleth/

It has become increasingly common for many pastors in Reformed churches to speak of the importance of an “ordinary means of grace” ministry. Many ministers find it deeply reassuring when they meet other ministers who professes a commitment to the ordinary means of grace. After all, many (perhaps most?) local churches in North America are committed to what we might call, “the extraordinary means of human innovation” ministry. However, is it sufficient to profess adherence to an ordinary means of grace ministry? I would suggest that it is not. While professing a commitment to the God-ordained means of grace is right and good, it is altogether possible for pastors to neglect vital biblical nuances concerning the administration of the ordinary means. It is obligatory for us to be committed to a right administration of the ordinary means of grace, and not simply that we are committed to them. By neglecting to emphasize the right administration of the means of grace, we may allow error to fly under the radar of what becomes a mere Shibboleth.

When addressing the subject of how the ordinary means should be carried out, we do not wish to focus on the forms by which the elements of worship are carried out (e.g., kneeling when praying or stretching out hands when receiving the benediction). Nor do we have the length or structure of a sermon in view. Rather, it refers to the content, context, and connection of the word, sacraments, and prayer.

It is equally possible for ministers to affirm an ordinary means of grace commitment to the sacraments while not carrying them out in accord with Scripture. One can speak of the importance of prayer while being redundant, flippant, or overly ritualistic in public prayer. How we minister the ordinary means of grace is every bit as important as confessing our commitment to them in the context of public worship.

The Word of God

In every church that acknowledges the importance of an ordinary means of grace ministry, there will be ministers who preach and teach the Scriptures. However, it is altogether possible for ministers to affirm the ordinary means of grace with regard to the ministry of the Word of God while misrepresenting the central message of Scripture. All Scripture points to the Person, work, and reward of Christ. The apostle Paul confessed that he determined not to know anything among the churches except Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Whatever subject the apostle Paul addressed, he related it to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

We can inadvertently deny the “gracious” nature of the ordinary means if we fail to proclaim and exalt the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross in our preaching and teaching. It is possible to emphasize the ethical teaching of Jesus in our preaching and teaching, in such a way as to give our hearers the sense that they can do what they are called to do apart from the saving work of Christ. Geerhardus Vos raised this warning over a century ago, when he wrote,

“It is possible, Sabbath after Sabbath and year after year, to preach things of which none can say that they are untrue and none can deny that in their proper place and time they may be important, and yet to forego telling people plainly and to forego giving them the distinct impression that they need forgiveness and salvation from sin through the cross of Christ…. This does not mean that every sermon which we preach must necessarily be what is technically called an evangelistic sermon. There may be frequent occasions when to do that would be out of place and when a discourse on some ethical or apologetic or social topic is distinctly called for. But whatever topic you preach on and whatever text you choose, there ought not to be in your whole repertoire a single sermon in which from beginning to end you do not convey to your hearers the impression that what you want to impart to them, you do not think it possible to impart to them in any other way than as a correlate and consequence of the eternal salvation of their souls through the blood of Christ, because in your own conviction that alone is the remedy which you can honestly offer to a sinful world.”[1]

The right preaching and teaching of God’s Word will keep things in proper biblical perspective. We will employ the requisite exegetical, systematic theology and biblical-theological aspects into our exposition of whatever text we preach. A truly biblical ordinary means of grace ministry will emphasize the right preaching of the Word and not simply that supposed expositions of the Word are preached. The apostle Paul charged Timothy with the following admonition: “devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching . . . . Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress” (1 Tim. 4:15). And, in his second letter to Timothy, Paul wrote, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

The Sacraments

Just as someone can profess an ordinary means of grace ministry while preaching a deficient message, a minister can misrepresent the sacraments in the worship service. This can occur by investing the sacraments with more or less significance than Scripture gives them.

It may be safe to conclude that most churches have improper views of the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace. On the one hand, many churches have too low a view of the Supper. This is demonstrable from the infrequency with which a church partakes, the casualness with which it is observed, and the lack of teaching about it as a means of grace for those who partake of it by faith. In such churches, the practice of fencing the table is frequently neglected. A right administration of the Supper involves a biblical explanation of its meaning, a call for believers to engage in self-examination, and a reminder of the promises and warnings attached to it (1 Cor. 11:17–34). On the other hand, there are churches that place too high a view on the sacrament. I have heard ministers speak of the Supper as the most important element in the worship service. Perhaps driven by overreaction to a downplaying of the importance of the Supper, certain ministers begin to treat the Supper as if it is more important than the ministry of the Word of God. In fact, as a means of grace, the Supper is dependent on the Word—and not vice versa. Vos explained this when he wrote,

“The Word is the beginning, middle, and end. If necessary, we can think of Word as a means of grace without sacrament, but it is impossible to think of sacrament as a means of grace without Word. The sacraments depend on Scripture, and the truth of Scripture speaks in and through them.”[1]

A proper view of the Supper as a means of grace will manifest itself in the centrality of a biblical exposition about its meaning and the right way to approach it. It will highlight the fact that there is real spiritual benefit to partaking of it by faith; and, it will result in a seriousness with which the warnings annexed to it are taught.

Prayer

Prayer is also a means of grace, and, as such, should have a central place in our worship services. Many Christians are unaccustomed to a pastoral prayer in worship. Too many Evangelical churches relegated prayer to a discussion about the role it ought to play in a believer’s personal life. However, in worship services, the briefest, most casual, and hurried prayers are offered. Samuel Miller, the second professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote a book titled, Thoughts on Public Prayer, in order to address the way in which ministers should approach prayer as a means of grace in the context of public worship. Among the numerous practical advice he offered, Miller stated, “Avoid too much rapidity and vehemence.” Miller explained that “words ‘few,’ ‘well considered’ and ‘well ordered,’ are the inspired characteristics of a good prayer.” He went on to note that when men pray too quickly or with too much excitment, it becomes a distraction to those he is trying to lead. Whatever else we may conclude about prayer as a means of grace in worship, of this much we can be sure—it ought to be evident that we are seeking to call the divine blessing down from our Father in heaven. To do anything less is to send a message that we can lay hold of the blessing of the means of grace in our own strength.

In all that we do in ministering the means of grace, we must remember that we are to be seeking the Christ of the means of grace and not the mere external administration of the means of grace. Richard Sibbes put this so well when he wrote,

“If a man trust God in the use of the means, his care will be to keep God his friend by repentance and daily exercises of religion, by making conscience of his duty. But if he trust the means and not God, he will be careless and weak in good duties, dull and slow.”[2]

The heart of Pharisaism was to trust in rituals—even God-ordained, biblical rituals—rather than in the God of the ritual. In one sense, the Pharisees were committed to the ordinary means of the Word of God; however, they perverted the teaching of the Word by denying the Christ of the Word. They were committed to fasting, praying, and giving; however, they did those things with self-righteous hearts and motives. They strictly observed the Passover while rejecting the One who was the true Passover Lamb. May we not fall into a ritualistic, Christless, and imbalanced approaches to the means of grace in our churches. How we minister the means of grace in the context of public worship is more important than simply professing to be “an ordinary means of grace church.” May the ordinary means of grace be more than a Shibboleth to us.

[1] An excerpt from Vos’ sermon “The Gracious Provision,” in Grace and Glory.

[2] Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 2 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet And Co.; W. Robertson, 1862), 283.

Counterfeit Communion

Article by Jeffrey Johnson (source – https://founders.org/2020/04/07/counterfeit-communion/)

Some Christians believe the sacraments function like magic wands that automatically bring about (ex opere operato) the things that they signify. For these Christians, salvation is bestowed and maintained by the sacraments. Others practically believe that the sacraments are meaningless rituals. If these Christians happen to miss the church’s yearly business meeting and the Lord’s Supper that follows, no problem. They will hopefully be at the next year’s business meeting to receive the Lord’s Supper.

Not Ex Opere Operato

Moses and Paul made it clear that circumcision of the Old Covenant did not bring about that which it signified by the act performed (ex opere operato). Moses made a distinction between those who were only circumcised in the flesh and those circumcised in the heart by the Spirit (see Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16, 30:6). The prophet Jeremiah likewise made this distinction (see Jer. 4:4). The apostle Paul explained it this way: “A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise does not come from men, but from God.” (Rom. 2:28-29).

Circumcision represented inward purification and union with God’s holy people. But, just because someone was circumcised in the flesh did not mean they were circumcised in their hearts. Just because the physical children of Abraham received the outward rite does not mean they enjoyed the inward reality. Physical circumcision did not produce spiritual circumcision. Heart circumcision only takes place by the operation of the Holy Spirit: “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3). In the same way, being baptized and observing the Lord’s Supper do not automatically bestow saving grace on unbelievers. Many professing Christians will find out on the Day of Judgment that they never were a part of God’s people even though they regularly partook of the ordinances of the church (Matt. 7:23).

Moreover, the power of salvation is the gospel (Rom. 1:16). It is the Word of God that is sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12). It is the Word of God that brings conviction, regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23) and sanctification (John 17:17; 2 Thess. 2:13). Without the truth of God’s Word, there is no salvation. Without the truth, there is no saving grace. Yet, no one believes that the truth automatically saves everyone who hears it (2 Cor. 4:3). The word of God is only effectual unto salvation when the Holy Spirit chooses to use it to illuminate one’s mind and heart (John 1:12). For flesh and blood cannot open anyone’s eyes to the truth (Matt. 16:17). It doesn’t take a good salesman, but the Holy Spirit to impart saving faith. And if the Bible (which is the power of God unto salvation) does not impart saving faith automatically, why would we expect the sacraments to do so?

Not Merely a Sign

This doesn’t mean, however, that the Spirit doesn’t utilize means. The Spirit operates in, by, and through the Word of God. The Spirit never functions independently of the Word of God. The Spirit inspired the written Word of God, and the Spirit illuminates the written Word of God. For faith does not come through osmosis but through hearing of the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Because no aspect of the Christian life operates without faith, no aspect of the Christian life operates without the spiritual illumination of the Word of God.

And since the Spirit does not directly communicate the written Word to His people, earthy (earthly?) means are needed to communicate the Word of God. The invisible Spirit has chosen to use visible means as instruments to carry out His work. The Spirit used holy men to pen the Word; and the Spirit continues to use ambassadors to preach the Word. He has chosen earthen and broken vessels to reveal the glory of God (2 Cor. 4:7). Rather than directly coming to people through some ineffable and mystical experience, the Spirit has chosen to use the foolishness of preaching to save and sanctify His people (1 Cor. 1:21).

Yet preaching is not the only means that God uses to communicate the Word of God. According to the Spirit-inspired Scripture, there are five ordinary means of grace that God has given to the church to transmit the truth of Scripture: (1.) preaching/teaching, (2.) congregational singing, (3.) public reading of the Word, (4.)  spiritual fellowship, and (5.) the sacraments. These five ordinary things function as channels of grace because they are God’s prescribed method of communicating the written Word of God to people. We preach the Word; we sing the Word; we read the Word; we fellowship around the Word; and, we see the Word in the ordinances. These are the means of grace because they are the prescribed method God has given the church to proclaim His Word.

Because no aspect of the Christian life operates without faith, no aspect of the Christian life operates without the spiritual illumination of the Word of God.

With this in mind, the sacraments, as physical signs of spiritual realities, are more than empty signs. They are means of grace that communicate divine truth. Though they don’t function ex opere operato, they are part of God’s ordained method in which faith and grace come. By seeing truth illustrated in the ordinances, the saints are inwardly encouraged and strengthen by divine grace. And though they don’t operate ex opere operato, they are designed to physically carryout the spiritually realities which they signify. For instance, though water baptism does not save, water baptism does function as one’s official profession of faith. And though the Lord’s Supper does not (in-and-of-itself) create fellowship with Christ and the saints, there is real spiritual fellowship with Christ and the saints when the church observes the Lord’s Supper together. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t just represent communion, it displays and facilitates communion. In this way, the sacraments are not empty or bare signs.

The Efficacy of the Sacraments Is Tied to Their Meaning  

The sacraments, unlike the other ordinary means of graces, uniquely function as visible illustrations. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words, but only if the meaning of the picture is understood by those who see it. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are pointless if their significance and meaning are unclear. Without truth, symbols are meaningless and empty. Yet, when symbolscommunicate truth, they become effective. In the same way, when the symbols/elements of the sacraments are understood, they became effective means of divine communication and grace. Consequently, the truths signified in the sacraments are paramount to their efficacy. Because there is no grace without truth, the sacraments are only as effective as they properly illustrate the truth.

A Physical Sign that Communicates More Than Just Spiritual Realities

It is easy to see how the sacraments communicate spiritual realities. The Lord’s supper, for instance, communicates the Lord’s death, the Lord’s return, and the saint’s collective communion with Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 11:17-26). These are spiritual blessings are only received and enjoyed by faith. For this reason, the signs are not the same thing as that which are signified by the signs.

Yet, spiritual realities were never meant to be divorced from physical realities. For instance, Christ physically died. Christ will physically return. We will physically eat food and have face-to-face communion with Christ in heaven at the great wedding supper (what a day that will be!). One day, our physical bodies will be resurrected and glorified; and one day the earth will be made new (2 Pet. 3:13). Then, when the heavens and the earth are made one, the physical and spiritual realities will be perfectly united (Eph. 1:10).

And because the resurrected Christ has redeemed both our souls and our bodies, the ordinances of the church are designed to speak of both physical and spiritual realities obtained by Christ. These physical signs (baptism and the Lord’s supper), along with their physical elements (water, wine, and bread), signify that our salvation is more than just something spiritual. The sacraments (with their physical elements) communicate not only our spiritual inheritance (such as regeneration and spiritual fellowship), they communicate our physical inheritance (such as the future resurrection of our bodies and our local fellowship with the saints). Thus, we don’t need to overly emphasize the spiritual realities of the Lord’s Supper to the point that we overshadow the physical realities of the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper speaks of our present (physical and spiritual) blessings and our future (physical and spiritual) blessings (the already, but not yet) that we have inherited in death of Jesus Christ.

The Lord’s Supper Represents Spiritual and Physical Communion

Consequently, the Lord’s supper, in particular, represents both our spiritual communion in Christ Jesus and our physical communion with the local church. It is hard for me to grasp Martin Luther’s insistence that the bread of the Lord’s super is the physical body of Jesus Christ (hoc est corpus meum). Not only does that cause the humanity and the material body of Christ to take on divine attributes (which is wrong), it implies that physical union with Christ is the cause of our spiritual union with Christ (which is also wrong). We are not united to the invisible Christ through joining a local church. We are not united to the invisible Christ by eating and drinking the physical body and blood of Jesus. It is not through flesh and blood that we enter into the kingdom of God. Rather, it is by faith alone that we are united to Christ. This union with Christ, moreover, is spiritual and invisible. Therefore, it’s not necessary that the elements of the Lord’s Supper be the actual blood and body of Christ. We don’t have to see or touch or taste the physical body of Christ to have spiritual union Christ in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6).

Yet, our spiritual union with Christ in heaven does produce a physical union with the body of Christ on earth. In that, our spiritual union with Christ is not separated from our physical union with the church. The evidence of being united to Christ is our eager desire to be united to a local church through water baptism (Acts. 2:41-42). This is why, local churches are the visible manifestation on earth of the invisible and universal church in heaven.

The Lord’s supper represents both our spiritual communion in Christ Jesus and our physical communion with the local church.

And thus, the ordinances of the church that depict spiritual truth rightly include physical and tangible elements that can be discerned with the empirical senses. These physical elements (water, bread, and wine) symbolize not only the physical and visible nature of the eternal state of glory, but also the physical and visible nature of the local church. The local church is not a mystical gathering. Its fellowship is not merely spiritual. The local church gathers together in a physical location and has personal and face-to-face communion together. A common meal eaten together by the church signifies not only the church’s spiritual communion with Christ, it signifies its physical communion with one another.

The Lord’s Supper Is Meaningless Outside the Gathered Assembly

Because the Lord’s Supper is a physical sign that includes physical elements (bread and wine) that represents spiritual and physical realities, it matters how the ordinances are physically observed by the church. That is, the church is not free to change the meaning of the Lord’s supper. The church is not free to say the bread and wine represents something else than the body and blood of Christ. The church is not free to do away with the bread and wine. And the church is not free to observe the Lord’s Supper outside of their assembled gatherings—and this for three reasons:

  1. The Lord’s Supper Was Given to the Church to Carry Out in Their Gathered Assemblies

The Lord’s Supper is not a personal or private ordinance. It doesn’t signify a Christian’s personal communion with God. Communion ceases to have meaning when it’s done in isolation. Christians partaking of the ordinance by themselves (or a family partaking of communion at home) is a gross misrepresentation of its meaning. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t just symbolize Christ’s death and anticipates His return, it symbolizes the church’s communion together in Christ. It was for this reason that Paul instructed the church of Corinth to wait until the whole assembly is gathered together before they observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). Eating the Lord’s Supper as a common meal together as a church body was Paul’s instruction. Paul explains the importance of observing the Lord’s Supper as a common meal: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17). The importance of the Lord’s Supper being a common meal is the symbolism behind it. Just as the bread represents Christ’s body and the wine represents Christ’s blood, the common meal (one bread and one cup) represents the oneness and mutual fellowship of the body of Christ. Individuals and families partaking of the Lord’s Supper at home, therefore, are misrepresenting the meaning of the Lord’s supper.

  1. Unassembled Partaking of the Lord’s Supper Is Not Discerning the Lord’s Body

The Lord’s Supper is holy. It is a serious thing to mishandle it. Many of the Corinthians had fallen ill and died because of their misuse of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:29-30). Why were their actions worthy of death? They simply observed the Lord’s Supper without discerning the Lord’s body? That is, they were partaking of the Lord’s Supper in small groups while being unconcerned with the rest of the assembly. They were fragmenting the assembly by gathering into small clusters. They were eating and drinking while other church members were doing without (1 Cor. 11:18-22). They failed to see that the Lord’s Supper was a common meal for everyone in the church. The Lord’s Supper is designed to symbolize and facilitate communion among the saints. Yet, the Corinthians were misrepresenting its significance by eating private meals in fragmented groups. And this was worthy of death because it turned the Lord’s Supper into a lie.

If we want to eat a meal together as a family or to invite a few Christians over for dinner that’s fine. But don’t call such a dinner the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:22). Paul says we have homes to enjoy dinner parties, but the Lord’s Supper is reserved for “when we come together as a church” (1 Cor. 1:18). “So then,” as Paul says, “my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:33-34). We are to wait until the whole church is assembled before partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In other words, we are to discern the Lord’s body. By discerning the Lord’s body, we are to examine ourselves. We are to not only make sure our hearts are right with God; we are to make sure our hearts are right with the saints. If a husband can’t pray without being right with his wife (1 Pet. 3:7), and if believers can’t worship God without being in good standing his neighbor (Matt. 5:24), then individual church members cannot worship and properly partake of the Lord’s Supper without being in good fellowship with the saints. And like the Corinthians, if we partake of the Lord’s Supper without being in good standing with Christ and His church, we turn the truth of the ordinance into a falsehood. And when the church partakes of the Lord’s Supper as a unified body it demonstrates its collective unity in Christ Jesus.

In short, discerning the Lord’s body means that we are not free to partake of the Lord’s Supper outside of physical fellowship and communion of our local church. The church breaking into smaller groups and partaking of the Lord’s supper, or families taking the Lord’s Supper at home, is a misrepresentation of the meaning of the Lord’s supper.

  1. Without the Gathered Assembly, the Lord’s Supper Becomes a Meaningless Sign

Again, the sacraments represent both spiritual and physical realities. The Lord’s supper, for instance, doesn’t just signify the physical feast that God’s people will one day enjoy together with Christ in heaven, it also signifies (and facilities) the present communion that church members already enjoy with one another in Christ Jesus. And if this is a vital part of the significance, purpose, and efficacy of the Lord’s supper, then the church is not free to alter its meaning and purpose by observing it outside of its gather assemblies. Lies, for instance, are never (directly) used by the Spirit to bestow faith and grace. Lies and error are the instruments of Satan. If the Lord’s Supper is going to function as a means of grace, its symbolism must be demonstrated by the manner its carried out. The truths that the Lord’s Supper is designed to display must be communicated in both the elements and mode of its administration. What does the body represent? What does the wine represent? What does the one bread and one cup represent? It is only when we know the answers to these questions will the Lord’s Supper be an effectual means of grace. And if we add additional elements to the Lord’s Supper other than bread and wine, then we are adding to the Word of God. And if we alter how we observed the Lord’s supper, we are altering its meaning. And, consequently, if we alter its meaning, we are undermining its efficacy. For example, as a Baptist, I don’t see how sprinkling infants properly signifies a believer’s death and resurrection in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:3-4). How does sprinkling communicate being buried (immersed) into Christ? And likewise, I don’t see how the Lord’s Supper can properly signify the church’s spiritual and physical communion together if it is observed outside of the assembly of the saints. In short, once we alter the elements or mode of the Lord’s supper, we are altering its meaning and efficacy.

When the church partakes of the Lord’s Supper as a unified body it demonstrates its collective unity in Christ Jesus.

Conclusion

The Lord’s Supper is not designed to be a virtual meal that assimilates actual communion and fellowship with the body of Christ. Fellowship and communion with the saints requires the local church assembling together. Anything less than a common meal partaken together in the spiritual presence of Christ and the physical presence of the saints is not the real thing. Being away from our gathered assemblies and away from Lord’s Supper should be difficult. During this time, we should grow in our appreciation of our gathered worship services and long to observe the Lord’s Supper with the assembled church. Let’s not seek to minimize our exile from one another by creating a cheap and meaningless and ineffectual substitute.