69 Sermon Illustrations on Lord S Supper

PART 1: PAUL’S TEACHING REGARDING THE REAL PRESENCE AND WORTHY RECEPTION

Briefly stated, closed communion1 means that the sacrament must not be given to the impenitent, the unforgiving, the heterodox2, and those who are unable to examine themselves, such as infants, the unconscious, and those improperly instructed. Since Holy Communion is a means of grace to be received by faith after proper self-examination, and, subordinately, a testimony to the unity of faith and confession, giving the sacrament to the above mentioned persons would violate the purpose of t he sacrament. Additionally, since unworthy recipients receive the body and blood of Christ to their judgment, it is an act of Christian love, and of responsible stewardship of the mysteries of God, to deny the sacrament to those not able to make proper use of it (1 Cor. 4:1).

This practice of closed communion has been the universal practice of the church3 from the days of the apostles through the Reformation4 up to the time when unionism reared its head. In the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, closed communion was the universal practice until around world war two. Since that time the practice has been gradually disintegrating, and in some parts of the synod, has nearly fallen into disuse. In recent years there has been a growing movement to restore or reintroduce the practice of closed communion to its rightful place. This movement has not proceeded without some considerable opposition throughout the synod, and there is at present a good deal of division among us regarding this question. This division will not be overcome by ignoring the issue and hoping it will go away. It can only be overcome by talking about closed communion in the light of the Word of God and our Lutheran Confessions, and by a willingness to submit to God’s truth regardless of the consequences.

It is my purpose here to contribute to this discussion by examining 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and drawing out its implications for faithful stewardship of the sacrament of the altar. I hope to show that closed communion is the biblical practice, and that it is necessitated by Paul’s discussion of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament and the implications of this teaching for unworthy and worthy reception, self examination, and discerning the Lord’s body. I also hope to demonstrate that closed communion is further necessitated by the secondary purpose of the sacrament as a testimony to the unity of faith and confession in the light of Paul’s words about the sacrament being a proclamation and a remembrance.

THE CORINTHIAN SITUATION

The congregation at Corinth was deeply troubled. A careful reading of 1 and 2 Corinthians reveals a congregation riddled with problems that needed correcting. There were divisions and arguments; carnal strife and a party spirit. Many members were overly impressed with the human wisdom of the philosophers. There was a sizable group who held an arrogant attitude toward Paul and his apostleship. Gross sexual immorality was tolerated , and there w as confusion about marriage and divorce. Christians were dragging Christians into court before the unbelieving world and bringing disrepute upon the church. The worship of the congregation had given way to charismatic excesses, and there were people claiming that there is no resurrection from the dead. While the Corinthian congregation was still a Christian congregation, it was a sick congregation in need of healing. Through Paul, the Lord applied His Word to the various situations in the congregation in order to bring about repentance and faith, and to restore the congregation to spiritual and doctrinal health.

In the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses a most serious situation: many in the congregation had begun to view the Lord’s Supper as a common meal or feast. Not discerning the Lord’s body in the sacrament, they were eating and drinking serious judgment upon themselves. This misuse of the sacrament produced the further result of increasing the schisms and heresies already present.

1 Corinthians 11:17-22

Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you

come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first

of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are

divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must

also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be

recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one

place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21 For in eating,

each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry

and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat

and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame

those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise

you in this? I do not praise you.

In introducing the subject matter of proper us e of the Lord’s Supper, Paul makes the statement that the Corinthians “come together not for the better but for the worse”. Their abuse of the sacrament was serious and had dire negative consequences.

1 Corinthians 11:30

For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

1 Corinthians 11:34

But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, LEST YOU COME

TOGETHER FOR JUDGMENT. And the rest I will set in order when I

come.

Great harm was being wrought by their coming together at the Lord’s table; the abuses of the sacrament were temporally and spiritually detrimental to the Corinthians.

Paul goes on to mention divisions and factions, the former referring to cliques or splits among the members, and the latter, being more grave, are divisions which tear a congregation asunder. The cliques or splits in the congregation threaten to develop into divisions or heresies if certain evil beginnings run their course without being eradicated.5 The idea of coming together as a church is antithetical to splits and divisions. These splits and heresies are repugnant to Paul. Fellowship at the altar presupposes doctrinal unity. Altar fellowship is church fellowship. Schisms and heresies are a scandal to that unity. As we survey 1 Corinthians, we get a feeling for just what these divisions were, and they included questions of doctrine, morality, worship, etc.

The Corinthians had made it impossible to eat the Lord’s Supper when they came together. Lenski points out that ouketi with the infinitive means ‘it is impossible’. The schisms and heresies (divisions and factions) are given further expression in the actual conduct of those gathered. The Lord’s Supper was originally celebrated within the context of a meal called the ‘Agape’. The various members brought food as they were able, and the congregation ate this solemn meal together, at the conclusion of which, the sacrament was celebrated with bread and wine reserved for that purpose. The Corinthian Agape had degenerated to a mere common meal during which the schisms and factions present in the church found expression. Some went ahead and ate before others leaving none for the poor, others became drunk on the wine served.6 What an awful situation! How could this happen? How could Christians allow the celebration of the sacrament to degenerate to such a point?

The answer to this question is not to be found simply in the presence of divisions and cliques in the congregation. It goes deeper. The Agape, or, Love Feast degenerated when the Corinthians failed to discern t he body of the Lord in the sacrament and began to look upon the sacrament as ordinary food, or a common meal. The central purpose of the sacramental meal, forgiveness, life and salvation, proclaimed, offered and given in the Supper; and the subordinate purpose of the Eucharist as a bond and testimony to the unity of faith and doctrine of those gathered at the Lord’s table, were lost when the Real Presence was lost.7

LUTHER: “St Paul reproves the Corinthians not for their unworthy remembrance of the suffering of Christ, as a child can easily read and prove. He describes in express words what the sin of the Corinthians was [1 Cor. 11:20ff.]: they did not wait for one another, but whoever came early ate early, so that those who came later found nothing and were humiliated, and thus THEY MADE A MERE FEAST OUT OF THE SUPPER AS IF IT WERE NOTHING BUT AN ORDINARY MEAL. This is what he says: ‘when you meet together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. For each one goes ahead with his own meal.’ Do you hear this? They did not celebrate the Supper of the Lord but AN INDULGENCE OF THEIR BELLY. While others were late in coming, they went ahead, allowed the Lord’s Supper t o be neglected, and ate their meal, just as Paul says afterward, ‘When you come together to eat, wait for one another, lest you come together to be condemned’ [11:33]. YOU SEE THEN THAT THE SIN CONSISTED IN THE EATING.”8

LENSKI: “In other words, the Agape ceased to be an Agape and degenerated into just ordinary eating, each clique eating by itself. This virtual abolition of the Agape made the celebration of the Holy Supper itself an impossibility. For at this time the two were still one celebration, the Agape leading up to the sacrament.”9

Yes, the Corinthians were divided by cliques and splits, and yes, these divisions found unfortunate expression in their conduct towards one another at the Lord’s Table. But the root problem is that they did not believe, or had forgotten, that the true body and blood of Christ are in the sacrament, and, not discerning the Lord’s body, they were eating and drinking judgment upon themselves. This is a faith problem and Paul addresses it as such. Notice, as we move on to our next section, that Paul does not address the Corinthian problem by exhorting them to unity or brotherliness. He does not issue a call to greater sanctification.10 He seeks to rectify what is lacking in their faith by teaching the Real Presence and its implications for worthy and unworthy reception of the sacrament. The Supper is a means of grace to be received by penitent faith in what is there offered and given. Subordinately, it is a remembrance, a proclamation of the death of Christ, a bond and testimony of the unity of faith and doctrine shared by those gathered at the altar.

PAUL ADDRESSES THE CORINTHIAN SITUATION

Agreeing with Luther that “the sin consisted in the eating”, I now hope to demonstrate how St. Paul dealt with the problem. Addressing the Corinthian situation as a faith problem, he teaches them again what they should have known and believed: The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you:

that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed

took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and

said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do

this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took

the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new testament in

My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of

Me.”

The phrase, “I received...that which I also delivered to you” is strikingly similar to 15:3, “I delivered to you first of all that which I also received”. In both passages Paul is transmitting doctrinal content of the highest import; and in both contexts is correcting error that has serious negative consequences. What Jesus had given Paul, he had already delivered to the Corinthians. They had already been taught proper doctrine concerning Holy Communion and it’s proper administration. It seems, however, that they were in need of a refresher course, to say the least. We might be amazed that the Corinthians had fallen into error regarding the real presence and the purpose of the sacrament, except that we’ve seen it again and again in the history of the Lutheran Church, whether in the form of the Melancthonian Variata, Pietism, Rationalism, the Union Churches, or even modern ecumenism. So Paul reminds them, with nothing less than the words of our Lord, that the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are the true body and blood of Christ. These words of the Lord also remind us that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a remembrance of Him. And this remembrance, this celebration of the saving death of Christ, is done precisely in the oral reception of the body and blood given and shed for us. “Let them keep the sacrament according to these words, and all will be well” (Lenski p. 463).

It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into detail regarding what the verba teach regarding the Real Presence. For our purposes I wish merely to state what is necessary in order to follow St. Paul’s argument. In the sacrament Christ gives us His own true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins and all other blessings, victory over sin and hell and strength for new life in Him. “As Christians partake of this sacrament together, they make a solemn public confession of Christ and of unity in the truth of His gospel.”11 Having presented the Dominical words, St. Paul now goes on to bring out their implications for worthy and unworthy reception.

1 Corinthians 11:26-32

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you

proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. 27 Therefore whoever

eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy

manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But

let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and

drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy

manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the

Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among

you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we

would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened

by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

In V. 26 Paul brings out what Jesus said about the Supper being a remembrance. When we commune, we proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. The Lord’s Supper is pure Gospel, based entirely on Christ’s sacrificial death and divine institution. Note how often Paul focuses us on ‘eating this bread’ and ‘drinking t his cup’, connecting what he says about worthy and unworthy reception to the words of institution and the bread which is the body of Christ, and the wine which is the blood of Christ.

Paul now goes on to say whoever communes unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27). Note, we sin, not against our brethren, not against symbols of Christ’s body and blood, but against the very body and blood of the Lord received orally in the sacrament. Worthiness or unworthiness is a matter of faith, not of works. Therefore our Catechism teaches, “Fasting and bodily preparations are certainly fine outward training. But that person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: ‘given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins’. But anyone who does not believe these words or doubts them is unworthy and unprepared, for the words ‘for you’ require all hearts to believe.” The Corinthians failure was a failure of faith. They did not believe the words of our Lord, and therefore they sinned in that they communed without “discerning the Lord’s body”, that is, without believing in the real presence.

LUTHER: “Now the nature and manner of the words compel the conclusion that he who eats unworthily is guilty in regard to what he eats... For the text mightily compels that the sin occurs in the eating and the drinking...and yet it says that the sin is committed against the body and blood of the Lord.”12

Note, in vss. 23-25 Paul lays out the verba which make plain the doctrine of the Real Presence. Then He says that unworthy communicants sin in the eating and drinking, against the body and blood of Christ. This passage teaches clearly that the unworthy and the wicked do receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, and that in receiving it unworthily, they sin against that body and blood.

Because of the very real danger of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord it is necessary for a would-be communicant to examine, or test, himself as to his fitness for the sacrament. This involves contrition and faith, i.e., repentance. By faith here, I mean faith in Christ and in His words in the Sacrament. Those who are unable to examine themselves, are not to be given the Lord’s Supper. Who are they? Infants, those who are unconscious, and those who have not been properly instructed in the faith and in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Such persons are denied the sacrament (until they are properly able to receive it) out of Christian love and concern for their spiritual welfare.

Now we come to V. 29, where Paul amplifies what he said in V. 27 so as to drive home his point about the nee d to examine one’s s elf and commune worthily.

1 Corinthians 11:29

For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks

judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s b ody.

Notice that Paul says that the unworthy communicant “eats and drinks judgment to himself”. He does this because he eats and drinks “not discerning the Lord’s body”.13 There has been much discussion in our circles lately about the meaning of this phrase. It has been posited that “discerning the Lord’s body” refers not the body of Christ in the sacrament, but to the mystical body of Christ, i.e., the church. This interpretation, however, violates the context of our pericope in several ways.

V. 27 speaks of the unworthy eater sinning against the body and blood of the Lord, the same body and blood that are referred t o in the verba, and not the mystical body. Further, all of the ‘body’ language in our context (11:17-34) refers to the body of Christ in the sacrament. While in another context, Paul uses ‘body’ language to describe the church (12:12ff.), he does not do so in our text. Rather, in our context he uses ‘ecclesia’ and related “called, gathered assembly language” to talk about the church. It would be jarring indeed, if Paul, in a context so grammatically unified as this passage is, were to suddenly use the word ‘body’ in a way entirely different than he’s used it several times in the five preceding verses when he is trying to make the same point.

No, the context will really only allow “discerning the Lord’s body” to mean the body of Christ in the sacrament. Hence, to discern the Lord’s body here, means to believe in the Real Presence, and to fail to discern the Lord’s body means to not believe in the Real Presence.

LUTHER: “The text proves irrefutably that ‘eating unworthily’ and ‘not discerning the body of Christ’ are the same thing, as we understand from the word just as it reads literal ly, that the Corinthians ate the bread with the misconception and misunderstanding that it was ordinary bread, and discerned no difference between this bread and other bread. This is certainly what is meant by ‘unworthily eating the body of Christ’. This is why Paul admonishes them to examine themselves and perceive who they are and how they regard this bread. If they do not regard it as the body of Christ, or treat it as if it were not the body of Christ, then they do not discern the body of Christ; and this offense will not go unpunished.”14

So Luther, and so the united voice of orthodox Lutheranism across the centuries. It is rather interesting to note that in addition to Lutheran dogmaticians and commentators, I consulted three commentaries by “Reformed” scholars to see how non-Lutherans would approach our passage. F.W. Grosheide, Leon Morris, and Matthew Henry were all in agreement that ‘discerning the Lord’s body’ refers to the sacramental body and not the mystical body. What makes this especially interesting is that none of these commentators teaches the Real Presence, and yet they realize that this passage is referring to how we view the sacrament. Only Morris, in passing, mentions the mystical body interpretation, which he dismisses as violating the context of the passage.15 So we cannot sidestep the biblical fact that knowingly allowing someone who does not believe in the Real Presence to commune at our altars is to facilitate them in eating and drinking judgment upon themselves.

What shape does this judgment take? In the Corinthian congregation the Lord imposed such temporal punishments upon unworthy communicants as physical illness, weakness, and death. I say temporal punishments because Paul uses the word “sleep” for death in V. 30, which is his usual way of referring to the death of a believer, and because he refers to these judgments as the chastening of the Lord in contrast to “condemnation with the world “.

Before we move on to the second part of this paper, let me summarize what I have tried to demonstrate thus far. The sacrament of the altar has two purposes: it is a mean s of grace through which we receive forgiveness, life, and salvation, and it is a testimony to the unity of faith of those gathered together at the altar. Faith in Christ and His words in the sacrament are what constitutes worthy reception. Unworthy recipients receive judgment, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Communion fellowship presupposes unity of faith and doctrine. Therefore, proper stewardship of the mysteries of God requires that in our churches the sacrament be given only to those who have received proper instruction and have given an account of their faith. In the second part of this paper I would like to discuss some of the current issues related to proper sacramental stewardship.

PART 2: OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS REGARDING OUR CURRENT SITUATION

Is it true? Is it Biblical? Is it Lutheran?

There are many questions and attitudes about closed communion being voiced today. Some say it turns people off; it is a hindrance to growth. Some say that it is a relic from the past that is out of step in a church environment steeped in ‘ambiguous denominationalism’. Some say it creates strife in the church. Others say that it is difficult to do in practice. Before we consider these questions, there is another question that must be considered first, apart from these other concerns, and that is, is closed communion biblical, is it true, is it Lutheran? Is it true that unworthy communicants receive the body and blood of Christ to their judgment? Is it true that communion fellowship is church fellowship, and that to admit one to the altar who is of a different faith than those gathered at the altar is a violation of the purpose of the sacrament as a bond and testimony to the unity of faith? If the practice of closed communion is biblical, and I believe that it is, then whatever difficulties it presents to us as we carry out the mission of the church are difficulties that the Lord wants us to deal with. And whatever offense is given by a faithful and loving application of this practice is unavoidable and is ultimately God’s concern, in much the same way as the preaching of the cross is “an offense to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks” (1 Cor. 1:23). We must decide on the basis of Scripture, with the help of our Lutheran Confessions and the writings of our Orthodox fathers, and not on the basis of ‘Theology by Anecdote’, or ‘Theology by Horror Story’ so popular these days.

LOVE AND CLOSED COMMUNION.

It is sometimes assumed that the real motivation behind the practice of closed communion is a desire to exclude people; an expression of religious arrogance. Of all the Pastors I know who implement this practice in the congregations they serve, not one of them is motivated by any such attitude of unchristian pride. In fact, the opposite is true; it is a singularly humbling experience. As stewards of the mysteries (1 Cor. 4:1), love of God and His Word, and love of neighbor, is the proper motivation for closed communion. Loving our neighbor, we seek to keep him or her from incurring God’s judgment by unworthy reception of the sacrament. Loving God and His Word we ask that our neighbor receive proper instruction and give account of their faith so that we may kneel in unity of faith and confession at the Lord’s altar, and not seek to express a unity that is not really there. There are some who cannot see closed communion as a loving practice, to whom the question must be asked whether we are operating with a definition and conception of love that flows from God’s Word or one that flows from popular culture. Luther: “Faith must be the master of love... Love ceases when it spoils the Word of God.”16

ORTHODOXY, HETERODOXY AND AMBIGUOUS DENOMINATIONALISM.

Missouri Synod Lutherans believe that there is a true visible church of Christ on earth, and that the Evangelical Lutheran Church, where the gospel is purely preached and the sacraments are rightly administered, is that true visible church.17 Churches which depart from the pure teaching of the Word of God in word or in practice, are heterodox and not orthodox. All Christians have a responsibility to avoid heterodox churches and unite with orthodox churches. Church fellowship and hence, communion fellowship, is impossible between orthodox and heterodox churches.18 In our stewardship of the mysteries, this must be taken into account.

However, we live at a time when many church people have no particular loyalty to the doctrinal positions of the denominations to which their congregations belong. In fact many have no particular loyalty to a denomination. We live at a time when many choose their church on purely private, individualistic grounds. Often we Missouri Synod people are told that this situation is inevitable, and that we had better adjust our practices to face denominational ambiguity as a reality.

It would be folly to think that the reasons for this declining denominational loyalty could be summed up in a sentence or two. Certainly there are numerous reasons for this situation. But whatever the many reasons may be, they are only symptoms of the real disease.

“The real disease is declining loyalty to a God greater than ourselves. Put differently, the majority of Americans are not out to find a “user friendly” church; rather, if they are “church-shopping” at all, they go in search of a church which proclaims a God who will not demand too much of them. They certainly want a God who will keep his hands off at least a few of the patches which make up the quilts of their lives. They desire churches which might boast spotless nurseries and a myriad of “need-meeting” programs, but in the long run the thing that will most likely keep them coming back is the potential of these churches to serve as havens for selective unbelief.”19

To such an attitude we ought not accommodate ourselves. Rather we should continue to stand forth as a beacon against such ‘individualism’, and hold people responsible, as God does, for the public profession of faith that they made when they became a member of a particular church body. Whatever a persons personal opinions may be, when they, publicly professing their faith, became members of a particular church, they declared themselves to be in unity with that church’s confession, as a solemn public act which God and the congregation are called upon to witness.

Therefore we ought to make our decisions regarding who may commune, based not on the personal opinions of a visitor who claims to believe what we believe, but on the basis of the public confession that that person made before God and men when they joined the congregation to which they belong. If they wish to be Lutheran they may do so by making a profession of faith and becoming a member of our congregation, and then they will be able rightly to commune with us. In this way we safeguard prospective members and our own people against the continual slide into unbelief that is evident in these last days, and we encourage responsible, conscientious adherence to the truth which God takes so seriously.

OUR PARTICULAR LUTHERAN SORROW.

It is sad enough that there are sharp divisions between Christians due to doctrinal error. We Lutherans live in a double sorrow, because being a doctrinal, confessional church, we are particularly pained by the serious divisions among Lutherans. This is a tragedy, but it is a reality. There are, at last official count, 18 separate Lutheran denominations in this country. Three of these bodies are ethnic in makeup, four are Pietist, one large body is liberal, six are confessional, and three are anybody’s guess. While most of these bodies are very tiny, when considered as a whole, three distinct groups emerge: Confessional Lutherans, Liberal Lutherans, and Pietistical Lutherans.

Confessional Lutherans, as typified by the LCMS, confess an infallible, inerrant Bible, and adopt a “quia” subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. The pietists, as typified by the Lutheran Brethren, would be very reserved about confessional subscription beyond the Augustana and the Catechism. Liberal Lutherans, as typified by the ELCA, have a ‘low’ view of Scripture, and a tentative subscription to the Lutheran Confessions.

As the recent release of the ELCA Sexuality Study, and plans for full communion with the Episcopalians and other “Reformed” bodies by the end of this decade, indicate, The ELCA and its predecessor bodies have been increasingly moving away from historic Lutheranism and embracing generic liberal Protestantism to such an extent that even LCMS members who were formerly naive about the doctrinal situation in ELCA are now realizing that there is little hope for fellowship in that direction. It is becoming more and more difficult to avoid the conclusion that ELCA is a heterodox body and that we are fully justified in declining to have altar and pulpit fellowship with them. Our communion practices should reflect this realization. We do no one any good by camouflaging the errors of their church with a show of fellowship that doesn’t in truth exist.

MAXIMUM SACRAMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND MINIMUM OFFENSE.

Closed communion is always going to offend some people no matter how lovingly it is applied or how carefully it is explained. There is little we can do about that. However, we may want to begin to rethink our communion practices in order to be faithful stewards and at the same time minimizing possible offense. It is instructive here to look to the church’s past and see how things were handled by our predecessors. In the early church, all catechumens and all visitors were escorted out after the sermon and before the communion began, so that only members were even present at the communion service. In addition, letters of commendation were given to traveling Christians by their Pastors or Bishops so that they would be accepted in congregations along their journey. There is some indication also that in the early church some congregations met for worship early in the morning, then went about their daily tasks, gathering again in the evening for the Agape and Holy Communion. In the Lutheran Church from the times of the Reformation until around the second world war the common practice was some form of “pre-registration” which gave the Pastor an opportunity to speak with people in the interest of their spiritual welfare, and avoided the unfortunate situation of trying to practice faithful communion stewardship in the five minutes before a service begins. In the congregation where the writer grew up, a hymn was sung after the General Prayer, and those not communing were given an opportunity to leave before the Communion began. It is increasingly common for congregations to put a ‘communion statement’ in the bulletin to help visitors understand our practice. If this is enacted an effort should be made to avoid the Scylla of a hard nosed, arrogant statement, and the Charybdis of an obtuse statement that leaves the visitor wondering. As we hammer out this practice of closed communion together, and begin to come to agreement under the Word, we will also have t o talk about the bes t ways to clearly, yet winsomely communicate our position, and also how to adopt universal practices from congregation to congregation so that our churches do not step on one anothers’ toes regarding communion practices.

THE LAW, THE GOSPEL, AND CLOSED COMMUNION.

It has been said by some, that closed communion is a violation of the proper distinction between law and gospel in that it makes a law out of the gospel, i.e., the administration of the Lord’s Supper. I disagree. The Gospel and Baptism were given to create faith (and also to strengthen already present faith). Holy Communion, however, was given to strengthen a faith that is already there. Proper preaching of the Gospel does not presuppose faith, but proper administration of Holy Communion, and proper reception of Holy Communion, do presuppose faith. The Eucharist is not used to create faith, or to create unity; it strengthens an already present faith, and expresses an already present unity among those communing together. Furthermore, unworthy use of the sacrament is warned against in rather strong language (1 Cor. 11:27-30). Therefore when we decline to commune one who does not believe the real presence, we properly apply the law to that person, who comes without proper faith, and for reasons other than those for which the sacrament is given. Secondly, when we decline to commune one who is not united with us in faith and doctrine, we are recognizing what Scripture is very clear about: doctrinal error is a sin, and like all sin, is to be repented of and forsaken by the grace of God. Until that happens, there can be no expression of a unity that really doesn’t exist.

In each of these cases, every effort is made to clearly articulate the Scriptural teaching regarding the purpose of the Sacrament and why we do what we do. Many times this results in fruitful discussion that leads to good things for all concerned. Sometimes not. However, even in witnessing, preaching, and counseling, the proper application of Law and Gospel doesn’t always meet with happy reactions. And that brings me to my final comment:

CLOSED COMMUNION AND CROSS BEARING.

If closed communion is the true and biblical way to practice stewardship of the mysteries (and again, I believe that it is), the n we must practice it lovingly and conscientiously. If in properly administering the means of grace, offense is given or taken, we must be willing to take our lumps. Such is part of the ‘scandal’ of the cross. We live in an age of theological relativism and social egalitarianism. Most of the churches in our land that go under the heading of ‘mainline’, have capitulated, to one degree or another, to this spirit. Nothing annoys and angers the spirit of this age more than when persons or churches represent themselves as being ‘right’ or ‘orthodox’, unless they do it unnoticeably, off in a corner somewhere. The minute our claim to orthodoxy becomes noticeable, the world heaps scorn upon us. The practice of closed communion is one of those places where orthodox Lutheranism flies in the face of theological relativism and social egalitarianism. We should not be surprised, nor should we flinch, when we are reviled and even persecuted. Rather, rejoicing that “great is your reward in heaven”, we happily take up our crosses and follow Christ, who for our sakes took up His cross.

================

Endnotes

1. Although the term ‘close communion’ has been used for a good many years in Missouri Synod circles, Dr. Norman Nagel has demonstrated rather conclusively that ‘closed communion’ is the proper term. See: Concordia Journal, Jan. 1991, p. 27.

2. i.e., those who are members of, and/or regular communicants at, churches whose confession of faith is different from ours.

3. ...with a few modifications. For example, the Eastern Orthodox churches commune infants.

4. See, Elert, Werner, EUCHARIST AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP IN THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966.

5. Lenski, R.C.H., INTERPRETATION OF 1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1937, pp. 456-457.

6. As a side note, this reference to drunkenness points out just what is meant by the fruit of the vine, or wine, in the light of fundamentalist and pietistical protestations to the contrary. To use any substitute for the biblical elements raises, or can raise, doubts in the recipient as to whether what is offered is what Christ instituted. Such doubt makes faithful reception impossible.

7. It’s only a short step from ‘commemorative meal’ to ‘pot-luck supper’ and beyond!?

8. Luther, Martin, CONFESSION CONCERNING CHRIST’S SUPPER, LW, vol. 37, pp. 342-343.

9. Lenski, R.C.H., INTERPRETATION OF 1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS, p. 459.

10. I do not mean to imply that the Corinthians’ sanctification did not need addressing, or that it is improper to preach sanctification. It is through the Gospel, however, that the Spirit creates faith, and such faith bears fruit in good works. Real sanctification is Gospel motivated and Spirit empowered.

11. LUTHER’S SMALL CATECHISM WITH EXPLANATION. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1991, pp. 234-235.

12. Quoted in Lenski, p. 479.

13. I have followed the Byzantine text here because I believe it to be the superior reading. Although the Nestle/UBS text follows the Alexandrian texts, the level o f certainty noted in the apparatus of UB S 3, {C}, strengthens the case for the Majority Text reading. However the context shows clearly how “body” is to be interpreted even if one chooses the reading followed by the critical texts.

14. LW, vol. 37, p. 347.

15. Grosheide, F.W., COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Grand Rapids: W. M. B. Eerdmans, 1953. Henry, Matthew, COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991. Morris, Leon, THE FIRST E PISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

16. Luther, Martin, Erlangen edition, vol. 39, pp. 121-122, quoted from an unpublished translation by Pr. Joel Baseley.

17. Walther, C.F.W. THE TRUE VISIBLE CHURCH AND THE FORM OF A CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961.

18. Walther, “Communion Fellowship,” Essays for the Church, Vol. 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992.

19. Shurb, Ken, “Declining Denominational Loyalty,” Logia, vol. 2, No. 4, p. 46.

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

The latest snack fad in Quebec, Canada: bags of communion wafers. “My son can eat a whole bag while he's watching TV,” said one man. “He's had more of them outside of church than he ever did inside one.”

Not everyone likes the trend, of course. “They're not distinguishing between the body of Christ and something you nibble on at home,” complained a former Catholic missionary. “We don't respect anything. Nothing is sacred.” But sales are still growing. “They melt in your mouth, and they're not fattening,” said one woman. “I'm Catholic. This reminds us of mass.”

________

Toronto Globe and Mail

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

Sermon for Communion. John 6:48-58

=====================

SPIRITUAL CANNIBALISM

=====================

I. Transferred life.

II. Fast food, versus real food.

A. Materialistic outlook. 6:26

B. Jesus points to a more substantial food - his own body. 6:60

III. Applications to communion.

A. Many churches teach that this passages focuses on communion.

B. Transubstantiationism. Roman Catholic

C. Consubstantiationism. Lutheran

D. Spiritual presence/memorial meal. Presbyterian/Baptist

IV. Salvation is what is really in view.

A. No salvation apart from closest relationship with Jesus.

B. A very graphic way of saying that people must accept Christ.

V. Feeding on Jesus.

A. Faith must be personal. 6:58

B. Faith is not a hobby, but full-time devotion. 6:57

C. Those who eat Jesus "remain" in him. 6:56

The Lord's Supper is a spiritual celebration of a family meal, the renewal of an anniversary, and the memories of an old family album.

The Lord’s Supper should be a time of joy and acceptance of forgiveness. Protestants tend to be too gloomy about it. One critical part of Communion should be the announcement of forgiveness following our confession of sins. Confession is the first step in establishing a new beginning in our fellowship with God. The Lord’s Supper is serious business and the original one was rather gloomy, but we now have the Resurrection to take into account.

Communion should end on a note of joy, not gloom. We can announce forgiveness not on the basis of our own authority, but the authority of the Bible. Nehemiah 8:1-12 is particularly instructive. When the people cried at the reading of the Law, knowing they had failed God, Ezra told them it was a holy day and crying wasn’t appropriate. Feasting and partying are in order.

Christ did not die to make us sad, but to heal us and forgive us.

A father sat in the morning worship service of the local church with his wife and three-year-old son. His wife took communion as it was passed down the pew while her husband, who was not a Christian, let the emblems pass without partaking. As the trays were passed to the end of the pew, the three-year-old yelled out at the top of his voice, "My dad didn't get any of the refreshments!"

The very next Sunday the father made a personal commitment to the Lord and was baptized, bearing out the statement in Isaiah 11:6, "...a little child shall lead them."

________

Lanis E. Kineman from Chicken Soup for the Christian Family Soul, Copyright 2000 by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen

I enjoy eating -- too much, I guess.

I enjoy stopping by the supermarket on a Saturday afternoon, just in time for samples in white pleated cups or on a tray bristling with colored toothpicks, displayed in all their finery by an aproned hostess at the end of a grocery aisle.

“They're on sale today. Wouldn't they taste good for dinner?” she suggests, hoping I'll put some in my cart. Yes, the tasty sample does make me hungry for a feast tonight.

Sometimes, though, I get samples from a feast that's already over. My wife comes home with leftovers from a women's club potluck lunch. “It was really good,” she says. “I thought you'd like some.” I do! I do! And for a moment as I snack, I can almost imagine the full meal as it must have been, dish after dish, spread out buffet-style.

Sunday morning during the Lord's Supper, as I partake of the bread and drink from the cup, I think about this as a small portion from the Feast. I savor the aftertaste of the bread on my tongue and the sweetness of the grapes on my lips, and I imagine.

I imagine partaking of the Passover feast, the Last Supper, along with the disciples. While I wasn't there to be served personally, it's like they saved some for me so I could have a taste and feel a part of the great fellowship of Jesus' Table that now circles the world.

Or are the bread and cup a foretaste of a feast to come -- our fellowship at Christ's Table in heaven? The Bible speaks of drinking the cup with Jesus in the Kingdom of God; of sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; of participating in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The tiny portion I taste on Sunday morning whets my appetite and reminds me of my personal invitation to this Feast.

It's not much to eat, I suppose -- a wafer, a fragment of bread and a sip, just a sip. But it's enough to recall who I am. To realize how privileged I am to belong to the band of Jesus' followers who are asked to eat of His body and drink of His blood. How privileged I am to know that my name appears on the guest list for the Great Feast to come.

“As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup,” the Apostle tells us, “you proclaim the death of Jesus until he comes.” Yes, it's a pretty tiny portion of the Feast, but it's enough for now. Quite enough.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #5246

WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE?

Roger McCown

If you've ever sneaked into the kitchen to pinch a bit of turkey an hour before Thanksgiving dinner was served, you know something about the joy of anticipation. If you've ever run your finger around the back edge of an iced chocolate cake, you understand something of what you're about to read.

Have you ever wondered what it will be like to find yourself gathered to the Messianic Banquet Table of the Lord when this world is over and glory has laid its claim on you? Jesus has ordered the life of his church in such a way as to give us a preview of that glorious time. Knowing how we love to anticipate wonderful things, he has made it possible for us to begin to enjoy now some of the things that will occupy us for an eternity when time has served its purpose.

When we come to the Table of the Lord, we anticipate that heavenly feast. When we take up the bread which is the body of our Lord and the cup which is His blood of the New Covenant, we are as near to heaven as we can be without actually being there. It is Jesus who meets us at His table, welcoming us through anticipation into the glories of the world to come. By this Table, and what it represents, the Way has been opened before us. May we come to the Table with this thought in mind.

--THE BRENTWOOD OAKS NOTES, Austin, TX

Thomas G. Pettepiece

tells a lovely story about the bread and the wine in his

book, VISIONS OF A WORLD HUNGRY. He tells of being in prison with some

10,000 other political prisoners. It was Easter Sunday and a score of

Christians wanted to take communion, but there was neither bread nor wine

available. He

relates: "We have no bread, nor water to use instead of wine...

.but we will act as though we had... I held out my empty hand to the first

person on my right, and placed it over his open hand, and the same with the

others. `Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you; do this in

remembrance of me.' Afterward, all of us raised our hands to our mouths, receiving

the body of Christ in silence. `Take, drink, this is the blood of Christ which

was shed to seal the new covenant of God with men. Let us give thanks, sure

that Christ is here with us, strengthening us'... .We gave thanks to God, and

finally stood up and embraced each other." Thomas G. Pettepiece, VISION OF A

WORLD HUNGRY, (Nashville: Upper Room, 1979).

Not long ago I got to

visit with Bishop Ed Tullis, formerly our South Carolina Conference Bishop. He told a fascinating story about his recent

mission in Russia. Actually he was in Estonia and was "allowed" to preach to a

large gathering. As he preached in English, his message was simultaneously translated into Estonian, Russian, Finnish and German. He told of a

Ukranian man who had traveled BY FOOT over 1800 miles to attend that worship

service. In the Ukraine religious gatherings were prohibited. This man's father

had started a secret "house church" years before. He had come to Estonia

to be ordained. Bishop Tullis and the Estonian Methodist officials met with

the Commissar of Religious Affairs, who is an atheist but with oversight

of church activity in Russia. The Estonian Methodist Conference made the

Ukranian Mission part of its Conference thereby making it alright to ordain

this man. The Commissar approved. After his ordination Bishop Tullis asked the

man what was the first thing he was going to do at home. With joyful tears

spilling from his eyes, he replied, "We will celebrate Communion. We haven't

been able to experience Communion for over 30 years!" I imagine his 1800 mile

trek home was shortened by his joyful song. Ernie Nivens, Pastor Tranquil United Methodist Church, Tranquil, SC.

In 1869 a Methodist dentist, Dr. Thomas Welch, objected to his church's use of fermented wine in the communion service at his church in Vineland, New Jersey, where he was the communion steward. Experimenting at night in his kitchen he came up with a nonalcoholic grape beverage, which he named “Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine”. He approached church officials to persuade them to substitute his beverage for the traditional wine. The elders regarded his suggestion as being an unacceptable innovation.

A son, Charles, who was also a dentist, changed the name to Welch's Grape Juice. He set up a production facility in a barn behind the family home. Response was so overwhelming that he gave up dentistry and devoted full time to making and distributing grape juice.

==============================

http://www.inareaumc.org/2004/july-august-04/thomas_and_charles_welch_and_the.htm

"Changing wine into grape juice" by Daniel Benedict

Most United Methodists are aware that one of our practices is the use of unfermented juice of the grape for Holy Communion. While some other Protestant bodies share this practice, the possibility of the practice goes back to the late 19th century and a Methodist dentist named Thomas Bramwell Welch.

Apparently Welch had scruples about the use of wine and had heard of Louis Pasteur's process of pasteurization of milk. Welch was successful in applying the process to grape juice, and he began to use it in his church, where he was a Communion steward.

His son, Charles Welch, was an enterprising Methodist layman (a dentist, like his father) from southern New Jersey. He marketed the pasteurized grape juice to temperance-minded evangelical Protestants as authentic biblical “wine.” As word spread and as the temperance movement grew among evangelical Protestant churches, Welch left dentistry and produced Welch's Grape Juice commercially.

The impact of the temperance movement and the availability of the “unfermented juice of the grape” can be traced in The United Methodist Book of Discipline and actions of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Church of the United Brethren.

*

1. On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,

The emblem of suffering and shame;

And I love that old cross where the dearest and best

For a world of lost sinners was slain.

Chorus

So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross,

Till my trophies at last I lay down;

I will cling to the old rugged cross,

And exchange it some day for a crown.

2. O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,

Has a wondrous attraction for me;

For the dear Lamb of God left His glory above

To bear it to dark Calvary.

3. In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,

A wondrous beauty I see,

For ‘twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,

To pardon and sanctify me.

4. To that old rugged cross I will ever be true,

Its shame and reproach gladly bear;

Then He’ll call me some day to my home far away,

Where His glory forever I’ll share.

*

Faith honors God, and God honors faith! If we abide in His will and trust Him implicitly, the Lord will reward our confidence. An incident from the lives of Robert and Mary Moffat underscores this truth in an interesting way. For 10 years these two missionaries faithfully pursued their endeavors in Bechuanaland without one ray of encouragement brightening their way. Not a single person was converted to Christ. Finally the directors of their mission board began to question the wisdom of continuing the work. The very thought of leaving their post, however, brought grief to the devoted couple who felt sure that eventually they would see the fruits of their labors. They stayed on, and for two more years the forces of darkness reigned. Then a friend in England wrote to Mrs. Moffat that she wanted to send her a gift, and asked for a suggestion. In her reply she requested nothing for herself, although she could have used many things. Rather she pleaded, "Send us a communion set; I'm sure we will need one soon." God honored her faith, for the Holy Spirit began to work in hearts, and a short time later six people accepted the Savior. Soon a small group had united to form a church for fellowship and to study the Bible. The communion set from England was delayed en route; but on the very day before the Lord's Supper was to be observed, the gift arrived. Truly, faith had been rewarded!

See: Titus 3:8; Hebrews 6:10; Mark 11:24

Come to this sacred table, not because you must,

but because you may; Come to testify not that you are righteous,

but that you sincerely love our Jesus Christ, and desire to be

his true disciple; Come not because you are strong,

but because you are weak; Come not because you have any claim on

heaven's rewards.

but because in your frailty and sin you stand in constant need

of heaven's mercy and help; Come not to express an opinion,

but to seek a Presence and pray for a Spirit. - Copied

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

| My Source:

| THE INFORMER, Vol 52, #18, 2/21/99

| Shelbyville Road church of Christ

| Indianapolis, IN

|------------------------------

| Author: Ben Vick

------------------------------

SHOULD THE LORD'S SUPPER BE

OFFERED SUNDAY NIGHT?

by Ben Vick

Brother G.C. Brewer believed that the Lord's supper, if it is offered Sunday morning, should not be offered Sunday night. He wrote...

I can speak for myself only. I do not desire to

force anyone to conform to my idea about

this Sunday night communion, but neither

do I want brethren to force me to do that

which is abhorrent to my soul. I will not

participate in any such a secondhand, leftover,

side-line makeshift service. If I cannot be

present at the regular, appointed hour and

join the saints in remembering my Lord, then

my failure to be there is no sin. I am excused

If I could be there, but stay away for my own

benefit, convenience, or pleasure, then I have

made the Lord second choice and his service

subordinate to my business or pleasure, and

therefore any pretense at obedience would be

hypocritical mockery. Please excuse me.

--CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH, p. 320

As great and as knowledgeable as brother Brewer was, and though disagreeing with him may put me in a bad light, I do not concur with this view. Brewer did not bind his view on others, though he expressed his judgment strongly. But I have been told that some brethren years ago in the city of Indianapolis were so strongly opposed to the Lord's supper's being offered on Sunday night that they would go into the meetinghouse on Sunday afternoon and throw out the emblems. Such is crankiness gone to seed!

The Lord commands Christians to partake of his supper. When he instituted it, he said, "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25). The early disciples broke bread regularly (Acts 2:42). They met on the first day of the week to partake of the communion. Luke records, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight" (Acts 20:7).

The day on which Christians are to eat of the Lord's table is bound; i.e., it is to be on the first day of the week. But the time of day to observe the communion of his body and blood is not bound. No man has the right to bind where God has loosed nor to loose where God has bound (Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 22:18-19). The time of observance is left to the good judgment of each congregation and, in particular, to the elders. They should consider when would be the most appropriate time for the congregation to observe the Lord's supper.

Why is it appropriate to offer the Lord's supper on Sunday night? There may be some in the congregation whose work prevents them from assembling on Sunday morning. They are unable to be present in order to worship the Lord. Are they duty-bound to partake of the Lord's supper? Yes. The Lord said, "This do..." Now, if they desire to obey the Lord's command, should we stand in their way by not offering the supper on Sunday night? Absolutely not!

If the offering of the Lord's supper again on Sunday night is in the realm of judgment, why should the church put a stumbling block before a brother by preventing his partaking of the communion? Paul wrote, "Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way" (Romans 14:13). If one feels as did Brewer about the Sunday evening supper, let him refrain from eating. The church does not put a stumbling block before him because he would not eat anyway.

On the first weekend of the new year we had quite a snowstorm which prevented many saints from assembling on Sunday morning. But Sunday afternoon a good number were able to dig their way out and make it to services Sunday night. According to the view of some, those who were unable to be there for the morning worship, would have been exempt from taking the Lord's supper Sunday evening. I am not of that number. Why should anyone look at the Lord's supper on Sunday night as "leftovers" but view other acts of worship on Sunday night in a different light? The Lord's supper is not "leftovers" to those who were unable to partake Sunday morning.

There is the tendency on the part of some members of the church to look upon Sunday evening worship as not being as important as the Sunday morning worship. This is seen in the fact that some do not even bother to return on Sunday night. It is depicted by the manner of dress by both brothers and sisters in Christ. Coats and ties, skirts and dresses are seen on Sunday morning, but it is shirt sleeves and tie-less, T-shirts, and blue jeans on Sunday night. By the actions of some, Sunday evening worship is just a dress down, makeshift affair.

The law of Moses required that Israel was to keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. But if a man touched a dead body or had been on a journey, he was allowed to observe the Passover on the fourteenth day of the second month (Numbers 9:1-14). If a man, however, who was clean or had not been on a journey, had failed to keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, he was to be cut off from the people. The Lord's supper is not parallel in all respects to the Passover of the Old Testament, but it seems reasonable that the allowance for some to have observed the Passover in the second month would be somewhat parallel to a Christian's partaking of the Lord's supper on Sunday evening, because he was unable to be present for the morning worship.

Keep in mind that the abuse of a scriptural practice does not make the practice wrong. The fact that some stay up late partying Saturday night and sleep in on Sunday morning does not justify the offering of the supper on Sunday evening. The fact that some prefer to travel on Sunday morning rather than to assemble with the saints does not justify offering the supper on Sunday night. The fact that some may go fishing, golfing, camping, etc., and do not get back until Sunday night does not justify offering the Lord's supper on Sunday night. But the abuse of a principle or practice does not make the principle or practice wrong. The abuse is wrong.

If we are going to gear our worship to help the faithful, then, we should not put a stumbling block in their way of being able to observe the Lord's supper as he has commanded.

1. I hear the Savior say,

“Thy strength indeed is small;

Child of weakness, watch and pray,

Find in Me thine all in all.”

Chorus

Jesus paid it all,

All to Him I owe;

Sin had left a crimson stain;

He washed it white as snow.

2. Lord, now indeed I find

Thy power, and Thine alone,

Can change the leper’s spots,

And melt the heart of stone.

3. For nothing good have I

Whereby Thy grace to claim,

I’ll wash my garment white

In the blood of Calvary’s Lamb.

4. And when before the throne

I stand in Him complete,

“Jesus died my soul to save,”

My lips shall still repeat.

[alternative to last two lines:

I’ll lay my trophies down,

All down at Jesus’ feet.]

*

The Baptist Faith and Message speaks of baptism and the Lord's Supper as ordinances. As we consider Article 7 on the Lord's Supper, we do well to begin by asking what is an ordinance? Why do Christians celebrate and perform these -- and only these -- two ceremonies?

An ordinance is an act:

1. commanded by the Lord Jesus in the Gospels and given by him for

his followers to practice (Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26;

Luke 22:7-23);

2. passed on as a tradition by Jesus' authorized agents, the apostles,

in the letters to the churches (1 Corinthians 10:14-22; 11:17-34);

and

3. practiced by the early church in the history of the church recorded

in Acts (2:42,46; 20:7,11).

Thus only baptism and the Lord's Supper can be considered ordinances of the Christian church.

Ordinances are symbolic acts that set forth primary facts of the Christian faith and are obligatory for all who believe in Jesus Christ. Baptism dramatically pictures our entering into covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ by faith, and the Lord's Supper portrays our continuing in this relationship.

Various designations have been used for the Lord's Supper by different churches due to the fact that the act is referred to in a variety of ways in the New Testament. These designations include:

1. breaking of bread (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor 10:16);

2. communion (1 Cor 10:16);

3. Eucharist (from the Greek word for giving thanks, cf. Matt 26:27;

Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17, 19; 1 Cor 11:24);

4. the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:20); and

5. the Lord's table (1 Cor 10:20).

The accounts in the Gospels show that the Christian ceremony of the Lord's Supper has its roots in the Jewish Passover festival. This festival was a ceremony observed by the Jewish people to remind them of the Exodus -- that awesome event when the Lord rescued them from 400 years of degradation and slavery in Egypt.

Through great miracles and displays of power, Yahweh brought them out of Egypt, rescued them from the cruel oppression of Pharaoh and brought them into a beautiful land they could call their own. Although by definition the Exodus was a non-repeatable event, its significance was preserved for future generations of Israelites by the institution of the ceremony of the Feast of Passover (Exodus 12:24-27), celebrated every year at the Spring Equinox.

Just before Jesus was betrayed and handed over to the rulers to be crucified, he celebrated this "freedom meal" with his 12 disciples. As he did so, he turned the symbolism of the meal in a new direction.

He used the Passover festival to act out in symbolic drama the meaning of his coming death at the hands of the Jewish and Roman rulers. The unleavened bread and the wine were no longer symbols of deliverance from slavery in Egypt, but pictured him as the Passover Lamb sacrificed so that his people might be delivered from slavery to sin and death. As the leader of a new exodus, he instituted a new ceremony to commemorate it.

The explanation given by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (11:17-34) helps us to understand the meaning of the Lord's Supper. His explanation of the Lord's Supper reveals six major themes.

1. SAVING SACRIFICE (This is my body):

On the night Jesus was arrested and betrayed by one of his close followers to the Jewish and Roman authorities, he broke bread. And as he was doing so, he said, "This is my body which is being given for you."

In the Jewish Passover feast, bread was eaten that was made without yeast. It had been made in haste because they were leaving Egypt in a hurry. In addition, a lamb was slaughtered to avert the angel of death.

The symbolism is now turned in a different direction. The bread represents the death of Jesus for his people. The Apostle Peter says, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God" (1 Pet 3:18). God was justly outraged by our moral rebellion against him. We were under the sentence of death.

Christ died in our place. He was the Passover Lamb who was sacrificed to avert the messenger of death so that we might have life. This is the tradition handed down by Paul in the words, "This is my body which is for you."

2. COVENANT (This is my blood):

God had made a covenant with his people at Mount Sinai when he brought them out of Egypt. A relationship of love, loyalty and trust had been established. He would be their God, and they would be his people.

This covenant relationship, initiated by sacrifice, had been broken by the people. They had not been faithful to the agreement; they had not followed God's standards for the relationship.

The death of Jesus initiates a new covenant by a better sacrifice -- one that does not need to be repeated. The New Covenant is a better agreement because now not only God, but also his people will be able to keep the agreement.

The cup represents the fact that Jesus died to pay the penalty due unto us for our sins and that through trust in him and in his death for us, we are forgiven and completely pardoned. It speaks of a covenant relationship with God in which he says, "I will be your God, and you shall be my people."

3. COMMEMORATION (Do this in remembrance of me):

Some Christians believe that when the minister or priest pronounces the words, "This is my body" and "This is my blood," the bread actually becomes the literal body of Christ, and the wine actually becomes the literal blood of Christ. This teaching, known as transubstantiation, is a misunderstanding of the text for four reasons:

a. The words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are to be understood figuratively. When King David says, "The Lord is my Shepherd," he is using a figure of speech, a metaphor. He does not mean that he is literally an animal or a sheep and that the Lord is a sheepherder. He means that his relationship to the Lord is like that between a sheep and the shepherd. If Jesus had meant that the wine becomes his blood, why didn't he use the word "become"? This is exactly what we have in John 2 when Jesus and his mother were at the wedding in Cana, and the text says that the water became wine.

b. Second, the Lord's Supper has its origins in the Jewish Passover. This feast was a memorial -- a reminder of the Exodus by the use of symbols.

c. Third, the festivals in the pagan religions at this time were also symbolic. It would have required a clear explanation if the Lord's Supper was to be taken literally.

d. Fourth, Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." He said this carefully. He said it twice. We eat bread and drink wine as a reminder, not as the literal or real thing.

This clearly disproves erroneous thinking. The Lord's Supper is not a new offering of Christ's sacrifice. It is a remembering of the one sacrifice for sin, done once for all.

Furthermore, there is no idea presented that by a physical participation of the bread and the wine a person receives saving grace from God. We receive saving grace by faith, by putting our trust in Jesus Christ. John wrote his gospel that we might believe, and that by believing we might have life (John 20:31).

4. PARTICIPATION (Community):

Paul says that the Lord's Supper is teaching given by Christ and handed on to you (v. 23 plural). The commands "to eat" and "to drink" are in the plural (v. 26). So, this instruction is given to a community, a community of believers, those who are the followers of Jesus.

The covenant binding us to God through the death of Jesus creates a community. By participating in the communal meal, we are bound not only to the Lord Jesus, but also to one another. We have fellowship with Christ in a deep and mysterious way (1 Cor 10:14-21).

5. EXPECTATION (Future hope):

Paul commands the Corinthians to continue this ceremony until the Lord Jesus comes. The celebration is one of hope -- certain hope. Jesus Christ will return to this earth bodily and physically.

When he returns, he will judge the earth. He will reward the righteous and punish the wicked. Wrongs will be set right. We will no longer need this reminder then.

6. PROCLAMATION (Evangelism):

Finally, Paul says that by performing this ceremony, we proclaim the death of the Lord Jesus. The Lord's Supper dramatizes in symbolic fashion the central facts of the Christian faith and announces these facts to all who observe. In a very simple way, those who do not belong to Jesus can see and understand through these simple actions that the Lord Jesus gave his life for us.

Since the Lord's Supper is an expression of continuing in the faith, it follows logically that only baptized believers should participate. By eating the bread and drinking the cup, we are identifying with Jesus Christ as Lord. We are saying that when he died, he died for my sins. When he poured out his blood, it was the sacrificial death that initiated a new covenant -- a new relationship between us and the Creator God.

We must recognize or distinguish the body of the Lord. By participating in this celebration, we enjoy deep fellowship with the Lord Jesus. Paul says that just as those who participate in pagan religious festivals are actually participating with demonic spirits, so those who belong to Jesus and who participate are actually involved in deep spiritual participation with Jesus Christ.

We must examine and judge ourselves. The ceremony is a way of saying, "I am continuing in my relationship with Jesus Christ." If our behavior is contrary to our confession, we are lying.

If we don't examine our lives, acknowledge our sins and turn from them, we will be disciplined by the Lord. But, we should not abstain from the Supper. We must examine ourselves and then participate (v. 28).

_____________________________

Full text of Article 7b: Lord's Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

_________________

Gentry is an associate professor of Old Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

*

1. Jesus, Thou Joy of loving hearts,

Thou Fount of life, Thou light of men,

From the best bliss that earth imparts,

We turn unfilled to Thee again.

2. Thy truth unchanged hath ever stood,

Thou savest those that on Thee call;

To them that seek Thee, Thou art good,

To them that find Thee, all in all.

3. We taste Thee, O thou living Bread,

And long to feast upon Thee still;

We drink of Thee, the Fountainhead,

And thirst our souls from Thee to fill.

4. Our restless spirit yearns for Thee,

Where’er our changeful lot is cast:

Glad when Thy gracious smile we see,

Blest when our faith can hold Thee fast.

5. O Jesus, ever with us stay,

Make all our moments calm and bright;

Chase the dark night of sin away,

Shed o’er the world Thy holy light.

[Tune “Quebec”]

*

1. ”Till He come!” Oh, let the words

Linger on the trembling chords;

Let the “little while” between

In their golden light be seen:

Let us think how heaven and home

Lie beyond that “Till He come!”

2. When the weary ones we love

Enter on their rest above –

Seems the earth so poor and vast? –

All our life-joy overcast?

Hush! be every murmur dumb:

It is only “Till He come!”

3. Clouds and conflicts round us press;

Would we have one sorrow less?

All the sharpness of the cross,

All that tells the world is loss –

Death, and darkness, and the tomb –

Only whisper “Till He come!”

4. See the feast of love is spread,

Drink the wine and break the bread –

Sweet memorials – till the Lord

Call us round His heavenly board;

Some from earth, from glory some,

Severed only “Till He come!”

{Tune “Wells,” also “Toplady,” "St. John," "Tichfield," or "Bread of Heaven"}

*

Absalom … reared up for himself a pillar … for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance. — 2 Samuel 18:18.

This do in remembrance of me. — 1 Corinthians 11:24.

All that this “splendid man” left behind him, by which those who follow him might remember him, was a heap of stones, a pillar — “Absalom’s place.” It is scarcely worth while to live if this is all we can leave behind us. There is Another who reared no heap of stones, who built no great cathedral, who fashioned for Himself no material memorial whatsoever. But ere He left them He gathered His disciples about Him to a feast, and broke the bread, and gave it to them, and bade them drink of the cup saying, “This do in remembrance of Me.”

Sweet the feast of love divine,

broken bread and outpoured wine,

Sweet memorials till the Lord

call us round His heavenly board;

Some from earth, from glory some,

severed only till He come. — Bickersteth

Luke 22:1-38 — The Passion Week (5): Final Days « Leader information shown in this fashion »

« A. In these studies I use the chronology in A. T Robertson’s “A Harmony of the Gospels,” except when it seems unnecessarily convoluted. »

B. Jesus Draws Nigh to Death; Luke 22:1–2 (NKJV; parallels, Matthew 26:1–5, Mark 14:1–2; Tuesday evening): 1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover. 2 And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people.

1. Matthew 26:2 (NKJV) adds to the account of this time that Jesus said: “You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”

2. strictly speaking, the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover were distinct, but the term “Passover” was used indiscriminately for both. « This, along with the use of both the Jewish and Roman day systems, and how Matthew 12:40 “three days and three nights” should be understood, has led to various opinions as to the day of the crucifixion: Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. I am using the traditional view to help keep the days straight. »

3. Jesus would partake of the Passover Thursday evening. In an all night session the religious rulers sought His sentence so that they could eat it without being defiled before dawn (John 18:28).

4. how do the rulers’ actions prove Jesus words spoken earlier that day, in Matthew 23:5? « — they were more concerned with what the people saw than with what God saw »

C. At this point the other gospels (Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:2–8; Tuesday evening?) record Jesus going to eat at the house of Simon the leper, in Bethany. At this supper we find that Martha was serving, Lazarus was present(John), then Mary the sister of Martha anointed Christ’s head (Matthew and Mark) and His feet (John) drying these with her hair. « Some make these two different events but there seem to be too many points in common for that. Note that Matthew and Mark never identify this Bethany family; perhaps because when they wrote, Lazarus’ life was still threatened. » There was complaint within the disciples about this “waste”

1. who does John 12:4–5 identify as the source of this complaint? « — Judas Iscariot, the betrayer »

2. what was his motivation (John 12:6)? « — he stole from their purse »

3. what did Jesus say of Mary’s act (Matt. 26:12–13, Mark 14:8–9)?

a. it was done … « it was preparatory to His burial »

b. it would be … « a memorial where the gospel was preached »

D. Judas Bargains to Betray, Luke 22:3–6 (NKJV; parallels Matthew 26:14–16, Mark 14:10–11; Tuesday night?): 3 Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. 4 So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them. 5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. 6 So he promised and sought opportunity to betray Him to them in the absence of the multitude.

1. Matthew 26:15 (NKJV) records the dialogue: “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?” And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver.

2. Who moved Judas to betray Jesus? « — Satan »

3. Does this relieve Judas of responsibility? Why or why not? « — No »

a. Matthew 27:3–5 « — Judas recognized his own sin »

b. Luke 22:22 « — Jesus pronounced Judas’ sentence »

c. Acts 5:1–6 « — Ananias and Sapphira were not so excused »

d. 1 Peter 5:8–9 « — believers have overcome Satan’s tempting »

4. there has been all sort of speculation as the Judas’ reasons, none of it profitable; certainly there are three factors disclosed:

a. Judas’ love of money and that he stole from the purse

b. at Mary’s anointing, Jesus reprimanded him for his criticism

c. Satan’s invasion of a willing subject

E. Preparation for Passover Meal, Luke 22:7–13 (NKJV; parallels Matthew 26:17–19, Mark 14:12–16; Thursday afternoon): 7 Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. 8 And He sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.” 9 So they said to Him, “Where do You want us to prepare?” 10 And He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; « {an unusual marked circumstance} » follow him into the house which he enters. 11 Then you shall say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 12 Then he will show you a large, furnished upper room; there make ready.” 13 So they went and found it just as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover.

1. Passover: Exodus 12:1-20, Number 28:16-25, Deuteronomy 16:1-8

2. this settles that Jesus kept the Passover (which some deny)

3. Deut 16:5; what was Jerusalem like? « — filled with pilgrims »

4. Why such secrecy? « — a traitor was present but not yet the time »

F. Luke is not in chronological order as are Matthew and Mark which we shall follow in this section; John further completes the narrative.

G. The Upper Room Entered, Luke 22:14–16 (NKJV; parallels Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17, John 13:1–20): 14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

1. 1 Corinthians 5:7; why such fervent desire? « — to be with His own whom He redeemed before going out to gain their redemption »

2. what event does the passage in John 13 tell us took place? « — the washing of the disciples feet and the dialogue with Peter. »

H. Judas, the Betrayer, Singled Out, Luke 22:21–23 (NKJV; parallels in Matthew 26:21–25, Mark 14:18–21, John 13:21–30) 21 “But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!” 23 Then they began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would do this thing.

1. read John 13:22–30; what happened right after these words as they began questioning? « — the “sop” was given to Judas, and he at Christ’s words went out into the night »

I. Lord’s Memorial Supper Instituted, Luke 22:17–20 (NKJV; parallel Matthew 26:26–30, Mark 14:22–26, 1 Corinthians 11:23–26): 17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”

1. read Matthew 26:28–30

a. why was Jesus blood shed? « — for remission of sins »

b. when would Jesus drink it again? « — in His Father’s kingdom »

c. Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 wrap up the account of the Lord’s Supper but then the Author provides further details of the scene in the Upper Room before the history continues

J. The Kingdom Dispute, Luke 22:24–30 (NKJV; no parallel but renews their discussion in Matthew 18:1–5, Mark 9:33–37, Luke 9:46–48; Jesus had just spoke of the Kingdom): 24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves. 28 But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. 29 And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

1. where was the disciples’ focus at this Memorial Service? « — their position and honour, rather than on the Honoured Guest »

2. what difference does Jesus expect in believers? « — not concerned with titles, but with humility and service »

3. why should this be so?

a. verse 27 « — the example of Jesus Christ Himself »

b. verse 28–30 « — there is a reward, an honour awaiting them »

K. Disciples Warned Against Desertion, Luke 22:31–38 (NKJV; parallels Matthew 26:31–38, Mark 14:27–31, John 13:31–38): 31 And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren. 33 But he said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.” 34 Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.” 35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” 36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors « {classed among criminals NAS} » .’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” 38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

1. what does this tell us about Satan (compare Job)? « — that he had sought to tempt Peter to do as we wished with him »

2. what does it teach us about Christ in such a situation? « — that He entreats (pleads) as an advocate for His followers »

3. what was going to change with Christ’s execution? « — no longer would they be able to depend on people’s hospitality »

4. do they understand Jesus? « — no, they think in terms of fighting »

L. About this time, Jesus speaks the words found in John 14, the disciples then head out to the Mount of Olives, with Jesus speaking the words found in John 15 to 17 on the way and when arriving there.

A powerful story emerged from the bombing raids of World War II where thousands of children were orphaned and left to starve. After experiencing the fright of abandonment, many of these children were rescued and sent to refugee camps where they received food and shelter. Yet even in the presence of good care, they had experienced so much loss that many of them could not sleep at night. They were terrified they would awake to find themselves once again homeless and hungry. Nothing the adults did seemed to reassure them, until someone thought to send a child to bed with a loaf of bread. Holding onto bread, the children were able to sleep. If they woke up frightened in the night, the bread seemed to remind them, “I ate today, and I will eat again tomorrow.”(1)

I love this story and the image it sets boldly in my mind. But I first heard it as a young woman in the throes of an eating disorder, and I just could not relate. For a growing number of lives around the world, the thought of bread is far from a source of comfort. Eating disorders are a rapidly escalating epidemic no longer thought to be solely an American phenomenon. According to one psychologist, “[R]eports have emerged of an increased incidence of eating disorders in the Middle East, Africa, India, and various countries in southern Asia, including Hong Kong, China, Singapore, and South Korea.”(2) For many individuals, the thought in the night that they will face food again in the morning is terrifying.

There was a time long after recovery in a clinical sense of the word, when fear of food was still what centered me. I realized this in my aggrieved reaction to a seminary professor's pronouncement. “Heaven is a feast,” he said in class, “and God is the one preparing it.” Later he added a similarly troubling thought, “The image of the banquet is central to our communing with God.” His words were hurtful, largely because I knew they were right. The table is intricately connected with the faith we profess in remembrance of Christ. The call of God is resounding: “Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find” (Matthew 22:9).

However we approach the rich imagery of biblical language, the images of table, banquet, and feast are clearly intended to bring something powerful to mind. As the psalmist writes, “The poor will eat and be satisfied... All the rich of the earth will feast and worship!” (Psalm 22:26,29). But in my understanding of God's house and envisioning of heaven, food was exactly what I had been trying to avoid. To COMMUNE over food with people, much less at the table of God, was something that expended everything within me. The table was a symbol of stress and discipline, a daily battle from which I wanted to be released -- not invited. Yet how often God invites us to face the one thing we cannot, the very thing that brings us to surrender. God prepares a table in the presence of our enemies, and at times the enemy is us.

Though I had convinced myself that food would one day be a problem fully behind me -- even if this meant waiting for eternity -- God seemed to be shouting an invitation to the table TODAY. My presence was requested at the banquet; I was invited to the feast. It was an invitation that startled and confused me. It drove away the hope to which I cleaved on bad days and woke up with each morning: GOD DOESN'T CARE ABOUT FOOD; HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT MY BATTLE WITH IT. BUT ONE DAY IT WILL BE NO MORE. This lie He graciously purged from my altar. Slowly, cautiously, my eyes were opened to life and the Last Supper, to healing and his Word.

On the night Jesus was betrayed, he took bread and broke it and gave it to those he loved. Holding onto him, like children with bread, we are given peace in uncertainty, mercy in brokenness, something solid when all is lost. In his severe mercy, we are invited to the table: COME, TAKE AND EAT.

________

Jill Carattini is senior associate writer at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

________

1. Dennis Linn, SLEEPING WITH BREAD (New York: Paulist, 1995), 1.

2. Richard Gordon, EATING DISORDERS: ANATOMY OF A SOCIAL EPIDEMIC (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 80.

________

Copyright © 2006 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

On the long walk up the steep hill of the historic castle in Marburg, Germany, nostalgia throbbed through every vein. If only the stones could speak and resonate with the voices that held forth within those confines -- what rapture that would provide! Within the rooms of that castle a memorable meeting was held in October of 1529 at which a handful of men, principally Luther and Zwingli, were present. What occasioned that auspicious gathering, and why were the emotions so intense as the moods swung from castigating outbursts to heartfelt apologies?

The question before them was one of consolidating their theological convictions and of presenting a unified platform on what they believed and why they believed it. We read in the summation of those proceedings that of the fifteen points under debate they agreed on fourteen but with great anguish disagreed on the fifteenth. The issue that strongly divided them was the meaning of Jesus’s words “This is my body,” and the significant implications of those words upon the elements of the Lord’s Supper. To Luther it appeared to be as clear as the day -- “This is my body” could only be literal. “Jesus said, ‘This is my body,’” he kept thundering forth. He was not arguing for transubstantiation, although Zwingli saw it as a capitulation to that. To Zwingli the words were only symbolic of Christ’s spiritual presence.

One has only to read the points and counterpoints made between the two and the spirit is stirred by the passion of the reformers. The contest of two different convictions, and the harshness of the words spoken in the heat of argument prompted tears and regret in each as they parted with the hope that the sharp edges of their verbal outbursts would be blunted and gentler words would prevail. Unfortunately, subsequent history unfolds a reality different to their hopes.

Today we marvel at such diatribe between people committed to Christ. But let us not lose sight of something so close to the eye that we may lose focus. For both Zwingli and Luther the fundamental question was unmistakable: WHAT DID JESUS MEAN? That was of supreme importance. To be absolutely sure of the answer to that question on the Lord’s Supper we may have to await the Real Presence when eternity is ushered in. But I strongly suspect that both Zwingli and Luther will be applauded for their unswerving commitment to determine God’s intent in his Word.

With the twists and turns of history, Marburg has a more sobering warning to us than a debate in a castle by a handful of reformers. The prestigious University of Marburg was founded just two years before that colloquy. In more recent times it has been the spawning ground for schools of thought that have brought havoc into theological institutions. In this university the famed existentialist Martin Heidegger taught. His impact was also felt by the notable neoorthodox theologian Rudolf Bultmann.

Bultmann’s legacy to Christianity is his self-arrogated task to “demythologize” the New Testament; that is, to strip it of what he considered its contemporaneously false assumptions and beliefs which modern learning has clearly debunked, and to find in its place that which is personally meaningful. He drew a line between the alleged facts of history and history as we need to apply it. Thus, to Bultmann the resurrection was not a fact but a faith event, fused with meaning and embraced with passion whether or not it is true. This philosophically impoverished approach could not have been more ironically evidenced than on that Easter weekend I spent in Marburg. For seventy-two hours the stores were closed and the streets were barren. Two of the most precious days to Christendom were being commemorated in a culture where the truth of those days has been lost.

After decades of ministry, one of the deepest concerns I have lies in this twin-headed dilemma -- how we approach the Scriptures and how we apply them. So much of our faith today is muddied by spiritual jargon. Time and again we hear, “God spoke to me” -- a mind-boggling statement, to be sure, not only to the skeptic but to many a serious student of the Word. Could such a claim not just as equally be the spiritual clothing of ambition with the verbiage of inspiration? I have seen some of the most incredible behavior justified with the words “God spoke to me.” How does one argue with that? The only way is to turn to the Scriptures and to verify whether the truth deduced is in keeping with the truth of Scripture, not just personally wrested but objectively revealed to all humanity. Further, if the life and conduct of the one to whom God is “constantly speaking” belies a disjunction between practice in day-to-day living and a precept that is harnessed to justify specific behavior, that one too has amputated the organ of fact from the feeling of faith.

From the beginning of time the most difficult question confronting humanity was in the words of the tempter, “Did God really say...?” In a tragic sort of way we have either jettisoned that revealed authority or else given lip service to it, breathing our own inspiration into self-chosen paths. May I suggest the latter is more dangerous, for while the former denies the existence of God, the latter in the name of God, plays God. This may be the most important lesson to learn from the stones of Marburg. To Luther and Zwingli it was important to know what God meant when God said what He did, not what they might like it to mean. Their disagreement was based on the importance of truth. For Bultmann and Heidegger their personal worlds overrode the spoken Word, denuding it from being God-breathed and rendering it effectually just another book to be literally “manhandled” at the mercy of personal inspiration. I have little doubt that to many professing Christians the choice between the two schools of thought is clear: Bultmann and Heidegger were wrong. But the terrifying reality may be that in life and conduct we may be closer to where they were.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #20881]

Thirty-odd years ago in Paraguay, a priest had escaped from the prison where he had been confined by the military junta for preaching the unvarnished gospel, something dangerous today in many places. He escaped two days after Easter, and told of the celebration of Easter inside that prison.

The prisoners, most of whom were priests, nuns, doctors, and lawyers had been forbidden to worship, but while the non-believers kept the guards busy, the Christians huddled together. The prisoner-priest began the ad hoc liturgy:

This meal in which we are a part, reminds us of the prison, the

torture, the death, and the final victory and resurrection of

Jesus Christ. He asked us to remember him by repeating this

action in the spirit of fellowship. The bread which we do not

have today, but which is present in the spirit of Jesus Christ,

is the body which he gave for humanity. The fact that we have

none represents the lack of bread and the hunger of so many

millions. When Christ distributed bread among his disciples, and

when he fed the people, he revealed the will of God that we

should all have bread. The wine which we do not have today is

his blood present in the light of our faith. Christ poured it

out for us to move us toward freedom in the long march for

justice. God made all persons of one blood: The blood of Christ

represents our dream of a unified humanity, of a just society

without difference of race or class.

This communion means that our dead are alive, that they have

given their bodies and blood, making Christ’s sacrifice their

own. I believe in the resurrection of the dead and feel their

presence among us.

The communion is not only a communion between us here, but a

communion with all our brothers and sisters in the church or

outside, not only those who are alive, but those who have already

died. Still more, it is a communion with those who will come

after us and who will be faithful to Jesus Christ.

The priest then held out his empty hands to each person, placing his hand over theirs as they together proclaimed, “Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me. Take, drink, this is the blood of Christ which was shed to seal the new covenant of God with humanity. Let us give thanks, sure that Christ is here with us, strengthening us.” Then they raised their hands to their mouths and received the body and blood of Christ and, after sharing the kiss of peace, they returned to their life in prison with new hope.

Throughout the history of Christianity, we have been torn between two orientations. Which will prevail, the contemplative or the active? Piety or politics? Mystic enlightenment or social responsibility? The easy way out would be to choose one or the other. For us though it must be both, for each is insufficient without the other. As James put it, “. . . if the experience of God does not lead to action it is itself a lifeless thing.” That may explain why the commandment reads, “You are to love God with all your heart, soul and mind and you are to love your neighbor as yourself.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #24126]

When summer comes and city corners are full again of kids with bikes and basketballs, my mind returns to a particular playground. For several summers I worked at a church with an outdoor recreation ministry, whose intent was to serve the neighborhood, meeting the kids and building relationships. We played games, read stories, jumped rope, and organized basketball tournaments. One year a volunteer came and helped the kids make pottery, so we commissioned them to create some new communion plates and chalices for the church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

Many of these kids had never taken communion before; many had never heard of the Lord’s Supper or been told the story of Jesus and his disciples in the upper room. So with muddied hands we told the story, and together that summer several sets of communion plates and cups were fashioned by kids eager to see them in use. I have never seen more colorful, misshapen objects grace the altar of a church. Nor have I ever seen so many wide-eyed children come to life at the communion table. The elders held the lopsided plates and cups, inviting the church community to come and remember the one who shapes us. The children had a physical reminder of their place at the table, and the rest of us were reminded again that we are children being nourished by the king.

The table is a place, like the foot of the cross, where we are welcome -- rather, summoned -- to come forward as we are: the poor to a benevolent giver, the sick to a physician, the sinful to the author of righteousness, and children to the Father of life. He has given us this sign and seal specifically with us in mind. When Jesus gave us the command to take the bread and the cup in remembrance of him, he gave us a sign of his presence that is both visible and physical. Forth century preacher John Chrysostom suggests this is because we ourselves are physical, as is the body of Christ himself: “Were we incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and incorporeal form. Now because our souls are implanted in bodies, he delivers spiritual things under things visible.” We are given a sign to hold, a memory of Christ that nourishes both body and soul. In the act of remembering, we are given the assurance of a real and present Christ: “Lo, I am with you always even unto the ends of the earth” (Matthew 28:20).

Coming to the table like the disciples centuries before us, we consume a meal that sustains us like any other. And yet, it is at his table that we ingest the death and life of Christ; we participate in his suffering on the Cross, his humiliation and burial, his resurrection and new life. This visible sign is far from one-dimensional. Like the children who first witnessed the Lord’s Supper from bright plates painted at their own hands, it is personal. It is so much more than a meal.

Christ has called us to the table to commune with a great cloud of witnesses. He calls us to locate our salvation in the presence of a great community and in the midst of a remarkable story. We are called to see ourselves within the history of a covenant people and the vast community of believers. We are children sustained by a mighty Father, a provident parent aware of our vast need and more than able to fulfill it. We are ushered by his grace into communion and community, into the life and death of Christ, the journey of faith, the pilgrimage of believers, and the story of salvation. We are invited to a great and intimate table:

On the night Jesus was betrayed, he took bread and broke it and gave it to those he loved -- COME, TAKE AND EAT, THIS IS MY BODY BROKEN FOR YOU...

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.