Alan Dunn
Chapter 30: Of the Lord’s Supper (Part 1)
Introduction
Chapter 30 is an elaboration of the ordinance confessed in chapter 28: the Lord’s Supper. We confess that Jesus has determined that both the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are to be observed as church ordinances. They are to be administered in a Biblical and orderly fashion by those shepherds who have been recognized by the church. These are church ordinances: not ordinances of the State nor of the Family. These two ordinances are to be continually observed by the church until the end of the age.
Much of what was confessed in chapter 28 will be reiterated and enlarged upon in this chapter. It is the Lord Jesus Christ who originated and instituted the Supper in the night in which He was betrayed. (He) took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. (1 Cor 11:23-26).
A Survey of Biblical History
To eat and drink in the presence of God is, in fact, an ancient form of worship. Many see early echoes of the Supper in the table fellowship that Abraham enjoyed with Melchizedek (Gn 14:18-20). Indeed, in ancient cultures, hospitality and table fellowship was significant and highly valued. When Abraham gave hospitality to the visiting angels in Gn 18, he discovered that he was given the privilege of eating and drinking with God!
We can see the importance of eating and drinking what God has provided when we consider how the Lord sustained the Old Covenant nation with manna in the wilderness and water from the rock – both of which we later learn, typify the provision of Christ Himself (Jn 6:31-35; 1 Cor 10:4). An intriguing event is recorded in Ex 24:9-11 when Moses and the seventy elders dine in the presence of God. God reveals that He is eager to enjoy table fellowship with His people. Indeed, the entire Old Covenant sacrificial system not only provided atonement by the shedding of blood for the remission of sins, it was the backbone of a form of worship that consisted in eating and drinking in the presence of God. Israel’s worship revolved around national feasts as well as weekly and daily sacrifices. Those sacrifices were then eaten by the priests and worshippers as an act of devotion to the Lord.
The most relevant Old Covenant Feast pertaining to the Lord’s Supper is the Passover. The Passover commemorated the defining redemptive event of the Old Covenant: the Exodus from Egypt. Every succeeding generation observed the Passover as a way of redefining themselves in terms of the Exodus. To eat the Passover was in effect to make the Exodus contemporary and present; to say, “I too am a delivered slave, brought out of Egypt by the strong hand of the Lord.” That Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper while observing the Passover signifies that the Supper is to function in the New Covenant community as the Passover did in the Old Covenant community: the Supper commemorates our defining redemptive event, that is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
John the Baptist had introduced Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29). Paul informs us that Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed (1 Cor 5:7). As the blood of the Passover Lamb was shed and covered the believing Israelite from the angel of death (Ex 12), so too the blood of our sacrificed Passover Lamb has been shed for the remission of sins for all who believe in Him and in the efficacy of His sacrificial death on Calvary. We commemorate our New Covenant Passover deliverance as the church when we observe the Lord’s Supper. Jesus tied these two commemorative meals together when He instituted the Supper while observing the last Passover with His disciples. (More will be said regarding Jesus’ words of institution later in this article.) Jesus followed the traditional manner of observation of the Passover, but altered it at significant points. Interestingly, He refused to drink the cup of wine drank at the end of the Passover. Instead Jesus pointed to the coming eschatological banquet in the Kingdom at which He will again drink of the fruit of the vine and will then conclude this sacred meal with His redeemed. In a sense, the Lord’s Supper is a continuation of the very meal that Jesus ate with His disciples on the eve of His crucifixion. But it is also a different meal because Jesus redefined the unleavened bread in terms of His own flesh and the wine in terms of His own blood. He specified that the cup was symbolic of the shedding of His blood by which He instituted the promised New Covenant (cf. Jer 31:31-34). The Lord’s Supper was embedded within the Passover and consisted of a simple meal of remembrance: the bread and the cup. These simple elements form the sacred New Covenant meal which we eat in the presence of God.
Table fellowship was a prominent part of Jesus’ earthly ministry. His first miracle was performed at a wedding feast (Jn 2); He often ate with sinners (cf. Lk 5:30); the final evening before His death was spent with His disciples around a common table. Jesus often taught that the Kingdom was like a banquet (cf. Mt 8:10,11). After His resurrection, He revealed Himself as the Lord who still desires to enjoy table fellowship with His disciples. The two disciples en route to Emmaus finally recognized Jesus when He reclined at table with them (Lk 24:30,31). He verified His bodily resurrection by eating with the disciples (Lk 24:41-43) and met them on the shores of the Sea of Galilee to eat breakfast with them (Jn 21:9-14). God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. (Acts 10:40,41) The risen Lord still desires to eat and drink with His disciples!
How can the risen and ascended Lord continue to eat and drink with His disciples? He does so in the person of the Holy Spirit who communicates the very presence of Jesus to His disciples during this time prior to His second coming. After Jesus baptized His disciples with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, they devoted themselves to four things: the apostle’s teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer (Acts 2:42). In these early days, the breaking of bread likely involved common meals (Acts 2:46; 6:1,2) but also involved what is known as “the love feast” mentioned in Jude 1:12 and 2 Pt 2:13. The Lord’s Supper was likely embedded in the midst of the “love feast” which was enjoyed by the gathered church.
Eating and drinking together in the presence of God was a much more prominent aspect of the early church’s worship than it is in many churches today. As Protestants and heirs of the Reformation, we rightly put emphasis upon the ministry of the Word and place the pulpit at the center of our gatherings. But we may be liable to an imbalance that neglects the rightful place of the Lord’s Supper. Were we to ask our people for the rationale for gathering as a church, many no doubt, would answer that we gather to hear the Word preached. Interestingly, the Spirit makes the Supper the stated purpose for the church to gather. In 1 Cor 11:17-20, Paul addresses himself to the gathering of the church for the purpose of worship. He rebukes the Corinthians for not gathering to eat the Lord’s supper. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper (v20), which is to say that when you gather together, it should be to eat the Lord’s Supper. This purpose for the gathering of the church is seen again in v33: So then my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. Notice, the occasion for coming together as the church is to eat the Supper. When Paul addresses Corinthian worship in chapters 11-14, he first deals with the Supper, then the exercise of spiritual gifts as a unified body, then the necessity of love, and finally the public ministry of the Word (tongues and prophecy). It is significant that the Supper is the first thing on Paul’s agenda and is the stated purpose for which the church gathers. Then once gathered to eat, they are to exercise their respective spiritual gifts in an orderly fashion – especially those gifts by which the Word is ministered.
That the church is to gather in order to eat the Supper is stated more explicitly in Acts 20:7 And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. (Note, however, that in Acts 14:27, the church gathered to hear reports of the missionary labors of Paul & Barnabas.) It is evident that the preaching of the Word occupied the bulk of the time spent with the disciples in Troas, but the stated purpose for the gathering was to break bread. It is a challenge to attempt to reconstruct the sequence of events described in Acts 20:7-12. It could be that the church gathered for the “love feast” and afterwards Paul preached well into the night. After Eutychus is resuscitated, Luke mentions that they broke bread (v11) and ate. These words could refer to the Lord’s Supper and then to more table fellowship which served as an early breakfast prior to Paul’s departure the next morning. At just what point the Supper was eaten is hard to say, but the references to the breaking of bread certainly involved the observance of the central meal of the New Covenant community.
It is significant that Luke informs us that the church gathered on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). As the church emerged from within the cocoon of Judaism and the synagogue as the New Covenant community defined in terms of Christ’s resurrection, so too the first day of the week Lord’s Day emerged as the appointed day for the gathering of the church. That is the day for assembly in Corinth (1 Cor 16:1) and is the day called the Lord’s Day in Rev 1:10. That the first day of the week is rightly imbued with the morality of the fourth commandment and can be legitimately called “the Christian Sabbath” is discussed in chapter 22 of our Confession. What we should see here is that the observance of this Day is connected to the observance of the Lord’s Supper. The grammar of Scripture is intriguing at this point. There are only two places where the possessive “the Lord’s” is used: in Rev 1:10 the Lord’s Day, and in 1 Cor 11:20 the Lord’s Supper. It is evident that the Lord assumes personal ownership of these two manifestations of New Covenant resurrection life: His Day and His covenant meal. The impression given in Scripture is that His meal is to be eaten on His Day and that by His church which has gathered to eat and drink in His presence.
Another interesting grammatical note concerns the word supper. The Greek term is a commonly used term for common meals. But we often see our Lord take common things and transform them into special means of grace. This common word supper is used of that last Passover eaten by Jesus with His disciples on the eve of His crucifixion during which He instituted the Lord’s Supper (cf. Jn 13:2). It is the word John uses to describe the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9). John uses the verbal form of this term in Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me. Jesus is eager to enter His church to dine, or sup with His disciples. What meal would it be that He would eat with His gathered disciples, if not the Lord’s Supper?
That the Supper is a meal eaten in the presence of the Lord is seen again in Paul’s attempts to correct the Corinthian abuse of the Supper. 1 Cor chapters 8-10 concern matters of Christian liberty, specifically the liberty of the Christian to eat meats that have been in some way previously associated with idol worship. Evidently, some in the church at Corinth argued, not only for the right to eat such meats obtained in the local markets, but also for the right to go to the pagan temples and eat the pagan’s sacrificial meals and thus participate in pagan worship. These libertines were even going so far as to encourage other Christians who had scruples about eating such meat to join with them and thus display their freedom in Christ. Paul has to instruct the church in matters of liberty of conscience and although he agrees that we are free to eat meats, he draws the line and prohibits the Corinthians from thinking that they can sit at the table of the Lord and at the table of pagan deities. His reasoning for this prohibition has to do with the fact that eating sacrificial meals, of which the Lord’s Supper is, has always been done as a form of worship in which the worshipper seeks to fellowship with the deity who is believed to be present at the meal. In 1 Cor 10:14-22 Paul reminds the Corinthians that when we eat the Lord’s Supper we fellowship with Christ Himself, with His very body and blood. We also enjoy spiritual unity among ourselves as one body. This was how things worked in the Old Covenant sacrificial system, and it is how things work even in the pagan temples. Their sacrificial meals are eaten in the presence of their imagined deity. True, there is only one Lord and God (1 Cor 8:4-6) and therefore the things offered to idols are offered to false gods. But those false gods, although not truly divine, are yet real. The idols are, in fact, demons and to eat in the pagan temple is to become a sharer, to have spiritual fellowship, with demons. Paul says this is something we are not allowed to do lest we provoke the Lord to jealously by violating the second commandment. Paul is here likely correcting an early manifestation of sacramentalism. It could very well be that the Corinthians thought that as long as they ate the Lord’s Supper they were protected from idols and could therefore continue to eat with their pagan friends in the temples unharmed. Eating sacrificial meals in pagan temples will not bring harm to the Christian from the idol, but from our jealous Lord who desires our covenant fidelity which we affirm when we eat and drink His Supper. The point to see here is that the Supper is a form of worship in which the worshipper experiences real communion with the living and present Lord.
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16) How do we share in the blood and body of Christ at the table? Jesus’ teaching in Jn 6 gives us the best answer to this question. When Jesus taught this “Discourse on the Bread of Life”, He was not teaching His disciples about the Lord’s Supper per se, but about the operations of true saving faith. He had yet to institute the Lord’s supper at the time of this teaching. Note however, that those He taught were en route to Jerusalem to observe the Passover (Jn 6:4). His teachings would have been heard by those anticipating the Passover. When John’s gospel was written at the end of the first century, the church was already well established in it’s practice of gathering to eat the Lord’s Supper. When the church, already practicing the Lord’s Supper, read this discourse, they could not help but think of the Supper and understood that the Lord’s Supper taught them about what it means to believe in Jesus. It is not the mere participation in the ritual of the Supper itself that saves, but faith in Jesus who saves. In Jn 6:40 the hope of the resurrection is given to those who behold the Son and believe in Him. In v54 that same hope of the resurrection is given to those who eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood, which is to say that eating His flesh and drinking His blood are depictions of true faith. The Supper, when rightly understood, instructs us to put our faith in Jesus and to live by faith in Jesus – a faith that lives by feeding upon Jesus Himself, a feeding of faith symbolically enacted in the Lord’s Supper.
The issue of the presence of Christ at the Supper has been discussed and debated throughout the history of the church. When we ask how it is that Christ fulfills His promise to be present with two or three that gather in His name (Mt 18:20) and to be with His church to the end of the age (Mt 28:20), we rightly point to the presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jesus teaches us of His Spirit in Jn 13-16. The Spirit communicates Jesus Himself to us during this time that He is absent from us, exalted upon the throne of God. By the person and ministry of the Spirit, we experience Jesus gathering with us and dwelling in us. We reject the doctrine of transubstantiation which idolatrously teaches that the elements of the Supper actually become the very body and blood of Jesus and thus He is present in the Supper. We also reject the doctrine of consubstantiation which localizes the presence of Christ on or with the elements of the Supper. We understand Jesus to be with us in the person of the Spirit; to be dwelling midst the lampstands (Rev 1:20); to be with us in our gathering, filling us with Himself by His Spirit. The presence of Christ in His church is true and wonderful and worthy of deep reflection and a more expansive experience.
But, how is it that we eat His flesh and drink His blood (Jn 6:54,55) and share in His blood and His body (1 Cor 10:16)? Is it not the will of Jesus that we be focused upon Him, His body & blood, the incarnate God, as we eat and drink at his Supper? If our understanding of the presence of Christ has only the ministry of the Spirit within us in view, then we are liable to become overly subjective and individualized in our observance of the Supper (a liability to which I fear many evangelicals have succumbed). Rather than only considering that the Spirit communicates Christ to us, in our earthly gathering, we would do well to expand our understanding of the work of the Spirit to see that He also communicates us to Christ. He effects our communion with Christ, with His body and blood. He bridges the gap of space between us and our exalted heavenly Lord as well as the gap of time between us and His eternally sufficient sacrifice and joins our faith directly to Christ Himself so that we, by faith, do in fact, feed upon Him as we eat and drink the tokens of His flesh and blood. Consider that our worship is not contained within the confines of our subjective spirit, nor within the four walls of our meeting place. Our worship is conducted before the exalted Lord Himself! Our prayers rise up before Christ Himself, generated, impelled and mediated by the Spirit, ordered by His Word. We have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and to myriads of angels to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:22-24) We are in Christ and already seated with Him in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6). Our worship is conducted on the basis of His sacrifice which is full and final and perfect in its sufficiency for us even now, even forever. When we are taught by the Spirit from the Word of God to put our eyes of faith upon Jesus as He now is, what do we see? And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. (Rev 5:6) We see the triumphant Lamb of God, standing in victory, reigning in grace. But look at this Lamb. He looks as if slain. He appears as a sacrificial lamb. What does a worshiper whose worship has been guided by Scripture, do with a sacrificed lamb? He eats it! He eats that Lamb in the presence of God! When we come to the Supper, we come to Christ Himself by the living power of the Spirit, and with a faith informed by Scripture, we eat His flesh and drink His blood! We commune with the living Christ Himself.
The incarnate Son of God has assumed our very flesh and blood (Heb 2:14), that body which was prepared for Him which He offered on the cross to atone for our sins (Heb 10:1-14). That same body was resurrected as the first-fruits of the final harvest, the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age (1 Cor 15:22-28). The resurrection will not only effect the transformation of our bodies, but of the entire cosmos (Rom 8:19-23; Col 1:15-20; Phil 3:21). In His body, Jesus has already entered into the age to come, the resurrection. He Himself is already the physical substance of our hope for resurrection life. When we come to the Supper and engage in this table of remembrance by faith, we are sharers of His body and blood; we have communion with the living and exalted Lord; we are nourished with that which is true food and true drink: Christ Jesus Himself. We, having been nourished by the faith ingestion of Christ, are then to incarnate in our bodies that very life of the age to come. We are to make real in our physical being and doing the reality of the resurrection, the life of the Spirit, true union with Christ. We are to live by faith, in loving obedience to Jesus with the vibrant and intensifying hope of His imminent return.
An Historical Survey
I am indebted to Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, by Keith Mathison, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, 2002, for this survey.
Few, if any, of the doctrines and practices of the church have escaped controversy and debate over the course of church history. The Lord’s Supper has been and continues to be one of the most disputed practices of the church. Our Confession is an historical document which needs to be viewed in the context of the historical debates on the Lord’s Supper. Many of the terms and phrases employed in the Confession are directly lifted out of historical debates and serve to align the Confession with the specific interpretation and practice of the Table that came into prominence during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries. Although our treatment of this history must be cursory, we would do well to at least acknowledge some essential aspects of the debates that took place leading up to the writing of our Confession. We would also benefit from some observations concerning the prevailing perspectives on the Supper during the time since our Confession was written.
From the early days of the church, the language of sacrifice was employed to understand the Supper. The “Apostolic Fathers” (Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus & The Didache) taught that the Lord’s supper fulfilled Mal 1:10,11 “Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord of hosts, “nor will I accept an offering from you. For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts. The Lord’s Supper was said to be the pure offering received by God from all the nations. The Supper was viewed as a sacrifice which the church offered to God. This was unfortunate. Rather than understanding that the church receives the Supper as given by God to us (This is My body which is given for you), the church thought of the Supper as a sacrifice given to God by the church. Some even thought of the Supper as a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
After a time of persecution, Christianity became the “official” religion of the Roman Empire. The fourth & fifth centuries was a time of theological debate when councils met to hammer out the doctrines of Christology and the Trinity. The “Eucharist”, named for the Greek word meaning “thanksgiving”, was not prominent in the discussions of this time. But the Roman church continued to speak of the Supper in terms of a sacrifice made by the church to God and they manufactured a priesthood whose job it was to offer that sacrifice. The Supper became a mysterious rite performed by the clergy and kept at a distance from the people.
As the Middle Ages approached, a discussion was had in the ninth century between two monks: Radbertus who argued that the elements of the Supper actually changed into the body and blood of Christ, and Ratramnus who argued that the elements only symbolized the body and blood of Christ. The view of Radbertus gained ascendency along with the power of the Roman Church which manipulated the people and kept them in the darkness of idolatry. “Transubstantiation” was the term that described Radbertus’ teaching that the elements were transformed by the priest into the very body and blood of Jesus. The term “transubstantiation” was first used by Rolando Bandinelli who became Pope Alexander III, in 1140. This idolatrous view of the supper was ratified into Church polity at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.
With the Renaissance came the rediscovery of the ancient Greeks. The writings of Aristotle (384-322 BC), a student of Plato, powerfully influenced the thinking of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas applied Aristotle’s concepts of “accidents” (the outward empirical traits of a thing) and “substance” (the inner essence or true identity of a thing) to the Supper. Aquinas thought that the outward traits of the bread and wine would remain the same while their essence, or substance could be changed into the actual body of Christ. This change was thought to be miraculously accomplished when the priest ritualistically consecrated the bread and wine. It was a change that was not visible nor could it be verified empirically, but was miraculously performed by the priest and was to be acknowledged by the faithful.
The Reformation is known for its far reaching controversies, but the most debated issue was the Lord’s Supper. In Germany, Martin Luther wrote The Babylonian Captivity (1520) and criticized the Roman Catholic Mass. On the question of the presence of Christ and the Supper, Luther believed that the elements did somehow house Christ’s presence, although he rejected the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. Luther’s view is known as consubstantiation: that Christ is present on, under, together, with the elements (seen in the prefix “con”). In Switzerland, Ulrich Zwingli argued that the Supper was essentially a commemoration of the death of Christ and the elements are commemorative symbols which represent the past act of Christ’s death. Whereas Luther located the significance of the Supper in the elements, Zwingli focused upon the subjective acting of the Christian’s faith. John Calvin of France proposed a mediating view. He espoused a “sacramental” view of the elements. He saw the elements as Spirit-empowered signs which actually signify the real body and blood of Jesus and are instruments used by the Spirit to effect real communion with Christ Himself. He was careful to emphasize that the effectiveness of the Supper was not inherent in the elements, but that the Supper was effective for spiritual nourishment only to those who participate by faith. In this he, and the other Reformers, stood against the Roman Catholic doctrine of ex opere operato (by outward acts): that the Supper was effectual in itself regardless of the internal act of faith by the participant. The Supper, to Calvin, was a Biblically prescribed objective “means of grace” which, as part of Biblically regulated worship, would be subjectively effectual in the hearts of those who believe in Christ by the objective power of the Spirit. Calvin did not envision the Supper being observed apart from the ministry of the Word. In corporate worship, the Supper and the Word would fortify faith and stimulate corporate love and holiness.
The Reformers stood against the inclination to view the Supper as a sacrifice offered by the church to God. They rightly began to understand that the Supper is a meal comprised of what had already been sacrificed and was then eaten in the presence of God as an act of worship and a declaration of being identified with the benefits given by that sacrifice. One of those benefits was the life of love which Christ has effected in His people, so that the Supper not only is an occasion of communion with Christ, but also stimulates communion with one another in the body of Christ.
In the mid-sixteenth century, The Council of Trent ratified the doctrine of Transubstantiation as the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant churches, however, followed the direction of the Reformers who called the people to obey the Scripture. The Reformed perspective on the Supper was expressed in the Confessions and Creeds written in the 1500’s such as The First Confession of Basel (1534); The First Helvetic Confession (1536); The Colloquy of Worms (1557); The Gallican Confession (1559); The Scots Confession 1560); The Colloquy of Poissy (1561); The Belgic Confession (1561); Heidelberg Catechism (1563); and The Second Helvetic Confession (1564). These doctrinal statements rejected the teachings of the Roman Church. The writers of these statements were also familiar with the discussion among the Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists on the Supper. Most of the Confessions of this time aligned with the perspectives and employed the terminology of Calvin.
In the 1600’s and 1700’s the discussion continued as to whether the Supper should be viewed more as an objective means of grace or as a subjective experience of faith. In this discussion it was commonly agreed that Christ is present at the Supper, but how, where? Was He objectively present somehow in the elements, or subjectively present somehow in the believer? The English Puritans who wrote The Westminster Confession (1647) and The London Baptist Confession of 1689, aligned with the Calvinistic view of the Supper, but can be faulted for not being more explicit as to the role that the Spirit plays in effecting true communion with Christ. On the European Continent, the Reformed Churches began to embrace a more Zwinglian emphasis on the subjective experience of faith and saw the Supper more as a memorial of the past work of Christ performed in commemoration of Him who is now absent from us. The Supper became an issue of controversy for Johnathan Edwards (1703-1758) in America. He was removed from his church in Northhampton Massachusetts for prohibiting unconverted young people in his congregation from taking the Supper. This was an emotion-laden issue because these young people had all been baptized (sprinkled) as infants and admitted into the “covenant community” of the church. How could they be admitted into the congregation by baptism and then prohibited from the Supper? The “Halfway Covenant” was suggested as a solution whereby the baptized child was halfway into the covenant community and then, once profession of faith was verified, he was admitted to the Supper and brought all the way into the covenant community. Consequently, the Supper was associated with the subjective experience of faith and seen as a validation of conversion. More and more, the dominant view of the Supper was that it was the occasion for a believer to express his faith to God, whereas in the sixteenth century, the Supper was seen more as God expressing grace to the believer. There was in this, a subtle shift back to the mindset of the early centuries when the church saw the Supper as something given by the church to God, rather than a means of grace given to the church from God.
In the 19th century, the views of the American churches on the Supper veered away from the Confessional Calvinism of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Reformed theologians like Charles and Alexander Hodge of Princeton Seminary, New Jersey, emphasized the role of mental recollection as the essence of participation in the Supper. The American cultural climate of the day was that of democratic individualism, coupled with the emergence of scientific discovery and empiricism. Religious truth was being gradually marginalized into the realm of the private sphere of personal values and mystical experience. The revivalism of men like Charles Finney facilitated the removal of church authority as the principles of democracy were applied to church structures. The prevalent rationalism of the day influenced the church’s view of the Supper. Reformed theologians expressly denounced what they saw as an unattractive mysticism in Calvin. Although John Nevin (1803-1886) who taught at the German Reformed Seminary in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania argued for a return to a Confessional and Calvinistic view of the Supper, the more popular and influential Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary refuted Nevin and advanced the view that the Supper was essentially a memorial meal. Hodge taught that the spiritual essence of the Supper was contained within the subjective recollections of the participant as he “remembered” Christ’s death by recalling the cross and the doctrines of the atonement. The once burning question of the presence of Christ at the Supper receded as the Supper was observed with the assumption that Christ was absent.
A focus on the Supper has not characterized the Evangelicalism of the 20th century. As one who was theologically educated during the last half of the 20th century, I can testify that little focus was placed upon the Supper both in my church and seminary experience. The popular Systematic Theology textbooks gave little attention to the ordinance and the voices which endorsed Confessional Calvinism were few, Louis Berkof (1873-1957) being one of them. The recent A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (1998) by the Presbyterian Robert Reymond of Knox Theological Seminary endorses the Confessional understanding of the Supper.
The Evangelical mindset, for the most part, approaches the Supper with an emphasis on one’s private experience of faith which is fortified as one recalls the work of Christ on the cross. There is no doubt that we are to engage our hearts in faith as we sit at the Supper, but we would do well to recognize that the Supper is itself an objective means of grace by which we are brought to participate in true spiritual fellowship with Christ and with one another as the church. Without denying the rightful place of the exercise of personal faith at the Supper, we would benefit from considering how it is that the Spirit effects communion both with Christ and with one another at the Supper. If we are imbalanced today, we are imbalanced in our emphasis on individual subjectivity which can obstruct our view of Christ and hinder our fellowship with one another. A recovery of a full-orbed Biblical Lord’s Supper would be a welcomed corrective to this pervasive imbalance.
Having now surveyed some of the Biblical and historical witness, we are ready to consider what our own Confession says about this most marvelous provision of God’s grace to us: the Lord’s Supper. In the next article, we will consider The London Baptist Confession, chapter 30 “Of the Lord’s Supper”.
Chapter 30: Of the Lord’s Supper (Part 2)
Introduction
The writers of our Confession entered the discussion and debates of their day which were raging over the Lord’s Supper. Our Baptist forefathers aligned themselves with the perspectives formed during the Protestant Reformation and expressed their understanding of the Supper so as to refute the mistaken and dangerous teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore the Confession gives expression to Biblical truth along with a strong rejection of Roman Catholic teaching and practice. This dual focus is characteristic of Confessional Creeds which attempt to express what the church believes as well as to distinguish that faith from what the church rejects. Thus the Confession helps the godly pastor to hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict (Tit 1:9).
The Institution and Purposes of the Lord’s Supper
PARAGRAPH 1: The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night wherein He was betrayed, to be observed in His churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in Him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to Him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other.
The Lord Jesus is the Originator of the Supper. He instituted it. The Supper is given to us from the hand of our Lord Himself and His authority stands behind the injunction: do this in remembrance of Me. The Supper is not observed on the basis of church edict or popular consensus. The Supper is to be observed because the Lord instituted it and commanded us to observe it. It was instituted by Him the same night wherein He was betrayed. These words anchor this ordinance to the historical Jesus and posit historical continuity between the Supper and the Passover, the setting for the institution of the Supper. The wording of the Confession follows 1 Cor 11:23 that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread. On the eve of Jesus’ death, He gives this charge: Do this in remembrance of Me.
The Supper is to be observed in His churches. The Confession envisions local churches gathered and engaged in the Supper. The Supper is a church ordinance to be observed by the church. The church is responsible to implement the command of Christ and to regulate the observance of the Supper: to explain why the Supper is observed, how it is to be observed, who is to observe it and how often it is to be observed. The Supper is to characterize the worship of the church unto the end of the world. This “means of grace” is designed to nourish the faith of the body of Christ until Christ Himself bodily returns. As the church, we are not to neglect the Supper nor to assume the prerogative to replace the Supper with other man-made ordinances. The Church is to sustain her fellowship with Christ at the Table until the Second Coming of Christ.
The first purpose for the Super is for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. The Supper is a commemoration. The Supper points to the historical sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on the cross which is commemorated in the Table. “Remembering” to us usually means calling to mind a past event. We remember childhood experiences or historical facts with our minds and we acknowledge that they actually happened in the past. The Biblical idea of “remembering” is far richer and involves, not only an acknowledgment of the historical validity of the event, but includes an affirmation of one’s personal present participation in that event so as to view oneself in terms of that event. By “remembering”, one enters into the ongoing, present significance of that past event. The Supper gives us tokens, symbols of Christ and reminds us of our union with Him. The Supper is more like a wedding ring than a tombstone. Both are reminders of a loved one, but the wedding ring reminds us of the present relationship we have with our spouse, whereas the tombstone reminds us of a past relationship with a now absent loved one. When I am away from my wife, I look at my wedding ring and remember her and experience our love and the hope of being reunited with her. So too, at the Table, I take the tokens of Jesus’ body and blood, the symbols of our covenant relationship, and I experience His love revealed in the cross and presently communicated from His throne by the Spirit, and my hope is stimulated as I eagerly await His return.
When the Passover was established, the Israelites were told to memorialize the event in the Passover meal and thus to bring each succeeding generation to ritually participate in that redemption and to then define themselves in terms of that redemption (Ex 12:14). Everett Ferguson (The Church of Christ, Eerdmans, 1996, p.252) states: “Each Jew who celebrated the Passover became himself a participant in the Exodus event. The Mishnah said: ‘In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself from Egypt’ (Pesahim 10.5). The deliverance from bondage became his own experience. Thus, instead of simply calling the past to mind, the past was brought into the present and its benefits made operative.” As the Passover was the defining redemptive event for the Old Covenant people of God, so too the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the defining redemptive event of the New Covenant people of God. By truly “remembering”, we are continually aligned with the central redemptive act in which the true and living God revealed Himself as our Savior. “Remembering” sustains us in our ongoing obedience to the first commandment. It is interesting to see how the Lord warns Israel against “forgetting” in Ps 106:7,13, 21 because “forgetting” is a step toward idolatry. It is astonishing how we who call ourselves “Evangelicals” can so easily forget the “evangel” itself. Sadly, the gospel itself can get buried and forgotten beneath our pursuits of other biblical studies, church programs and distractions with the things of this passing age. Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel (2 Tim 2:8). The Lord’s Table is an occasion for us to remember Jesus and His gospel.
By remembering our historical redemption in the death and resurrection of Jesus, we shew forth the sacrifice of Himself in His death. The Supper is a proclamation. We demonstrate and declare that the death of Jesus was the full and final sacrifice of Himself. We define His death as a sacrifice. He did not die the death of a martyr, but He died as the Lamb of God, as our Passover, as the completion of the Old Covenant ceremonial system. At the Supper, we declare and define the death of Jesus as the one supreme sacrifice by which the wrath of our holy and just God is propitiated and by which our sins are atoned. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Heb 10:10-14). At the Supper, we shew forth this final perfect sacrifice.
The second purpose concerns the nourishment of the faith of the believers who observe the Supper. It is a confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof. The Supper is a confirmation, a testimony of Christ given through the church which confirms the faith of believers and encourages them to receive and live in all the benefits of the redemptive work of Christ accomplished on their behalf. At the Table I am right to recall all that Christ has obtained for me: justification, adoption, the gift of the Holy Spirit who presently works to sanctify me, all the means of grace by which communion with Christ and His people is sustained, and the hope of all that is promised and yet to be fulfilled at the resurrection and in the world to come.
Thirdly, believers are thus given a “means of grace” designed for their spiritual nourishment, and growth in Him. At the Supper, faith feeds upon Christ Himself and Christ nourishes His flock. More is said about this “spiritual feeding” in paragraph 7. Such a feeding presupposes the living presence of Christ with us at the Supper so that the realities of which Jesus taught in John 6 are actually experienced as we exercise vital faith in Christ while observing the Supper with Christ. Colin Brown, (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol 2, p.535) states: “John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper; rather, the Lord’s Supper is about what is described in John 6.” Thus the Supper promotes growth in Him – in Christ Himself. The church thus grows as a living temple, as a living body, and believers grow as branches vitally joined to Jesus the vine. The Supper serves to stimulate our union with Christ which is the very essence of our salvation. 1 Cor 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
The fourth purpose of the Supper is to stimulate their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to Him. The faith that is nourished is a living faith, evidenced by the fruit of evangelical obedience to God’s Law. The supper invigorates the believer. The Christian rises from the Table energized and eager to do something for Christ: to obey Him more vigorously in every stewardship and assigned sphere of responsibility. The well nourished believer seeks to obey God in his private walk as a disciple, in his family, his church, his labors, and his engagement with others in the world. As we learn to live in Christ, we yearn to live for Christ.
The final purpose stated in the first paragraph underscores the covenantal character of the Supper. It is to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other. The Supper is a covenant meal. Those who eat and drink do so in covenant relationship with Christ and with the body of Christ, the church. The covenant meal pulls us out of ourselves and connects us to the honor of Christ and the good of the church. As I eat the supper, I am not only alone with Christ, but I am a member of the community of Christ. I will not grow as a Christian nor in communion with Christ apart from being vitally joined with my fellow believers in the local church. 1 Cor 10:17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. The faith which is nourished by the Supper is not only my personal faith, but the corporate faith of the church. I am individually strengthened so that I can stimulate growth in the body of Christ, the church. 1 Cor 11:28,29 But let a man examine himself & so let him eat of the bread & drink of the cup. For he who eats & drinks, eats & drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly.
A Clarification on the Nature of the Lord’s Supper
PARAGRAPH 2: In the ordinance Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or the dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of Himself by Himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
This paragraph is a refutation of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The Confession denies that Christ is re-sacrificed by the Church nor is there any remission of sin extended by the Supper to those who are dead, that is in so-called “purgatory”. To define the supper as being effectual in itself (ex opere operato – by outward acts) regardless of the internal faith of the participant is to destroy the sole sufficiency and efficacy of the one final sacrifice of Christ of Himself on the cross. The Confession employs strong language to refute this heretical doctrine: it is most abominable.
By stating that the Supper is only a memorial of that one offering up of Himself upon the cross once for all, the writers would recall all that was confessed in the first paragraph regarding the meaning and purpose of the Supper. The word only is used to deny the Roman Catholic teaching of the Mass.
This paragraph stands against the tendency throughout the history of the church to view the Supper as an offering of the church given to God, rather than as a communication of grace given to the church by Christ. Yet a qualification is made at this point to acknowledge that as a Biblically prescribed form of New Covenant worship, the Supper falls under the category of “spiritual worship” and is a spiritual oblation – that is, a thank offering (hence “Eucharist”) by which the church expresses thanks to God for our union with Jesus Christ. Heb 13:15 Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. Provided that we understand that the Supper is not a sacrifice in the sense of repeating or continuing Christ’s death which is once-for-all, we can then think of the Supper as a spiritual oblation in which our thanks and praise is likened to an Old Covenant thank or peace offering which was offered to express praise and fellowship with the Lord alongside of the guilt or sin offerings which alone made atonement for sin. As we remember the Lord’s death until He comes, we give God sacrifices of praise and thanks as expressions of enjoying fellowship with Him.
The Celebration of the Lord’s Supper
PARAGRAPH 3: The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.
PARAGRAPH 4: The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.
Paragraph 3 describes the observation of the Supper in keeping with what was stated in Chapter 28, paragraph 2. But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner (1 Cor 14:40). It is proper that those who are recognized as leaders in the church should lead the church in the observance of the Supper. By prayer, the minister sets the elements of bread and wine apart for use in this sacred Supper. Both those elements are then to be consumed by both the pastors and the people. This final statement is yet another refutation of the Roman Catholic practice of distributing only the bread to the congregation.
Paragraph 4 explicitly refutes that Roman Catholic practice of denying the cup to the congregation. Romanism is again targeted as the Confession refutes the various aspects of the Mass during which worship is directed to the elements as though, by transubstantiation, there actually were Christ Himself. The pageantry and sensuality of Roman Catholic worship is likewise denounced as being inherently unbiblical and, in fact, disobedient to the institution of Christ. It may be helpful to mention what Roman Catholicism teaches about transubstantiation and the Mass.
Roman Catholics would respond to the charge that they are denying the wine to the people with the teaching of “concomitance”: that both the bread and cup contain both the body and the blood of Christ so that withholding the cup does not deprive people of blood. The climax of the Mass is the “priestly consecration” by which the priestly prayer effects the actual change of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Jesus. Since the elements are now Christ’s body and blood, the Supper is defined as an actual sacrifice which is propitiatory and effectual for forgiveness of sins ex opere operato. Consequently, whenever the Mass is observed, Christ is said to be re-sacrificed or the sacrifice of Christ is continued. In the Roman system, the work of Christ is not really complete but needs the sacramental works of the Roman priesthood to enable Christ to accomplish His work of atonement. The elements, once consecrated, are, in fact, to be worshipped as Christ Himself would be worshipped. It is not hard to see why the Reformers were filled with righteous indignation at the Rome’s most abominable practice called the Mass. “Mass” is a term derived from the Latin missio which is a legal term used in courts to dismiss people. The Roman Catholic ritual was performed at a distance from the people who had little participation in the ritual. But they learned that the ritual ended with the Latin words Ite missio est (“You are dismissed”) and the performance came to be known as the “Mass”. “Mass” has been used since the fourth century.
The Elements of the Lord’s Supper
PARAGRAPH 5: The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
PARAGRAPH 6: That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
Paragraph 5 addresses the nature of the relationship that the consecrated elements have with Christ Himself. The relationship is so intimate that the elements, although they ever remain in substance and nature truly and only bread and wine, that they can be called by the names of the things they represent. The bread, although in substance and nature bread, can be called the body of Christ. And the wine, although in substance and nature wine, can be called the blood of Christ. To call the elements the things which they represent is to use the terms figuratively, or metaphorically. By calling the elements the body and blood of Christ, the church does not change the elements into the body and blood of Christ. The relationship of the elements to Christ in the believer’s observance of the Supper is such (a) relation to Him crucified, as that truly. In other words, there is a true, real, spiritual relationship between the elements and the crucified Lord. How we define “truly” depends on how comfortable we are with the genuine mystery which is transpiring in the Supper.
We reject the idolatrous “mystery” taught by transubstantiation and consubstantiation that identifies the elements as the actual body and blood of Christ. Our Confession states that after the consecration of the elements in the Supper, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. On the other hand, to view the elements as mere symbols of Jesus’ body and blood without recognizing some relationship between the elements and the person of Jesus is also inadequate. As symbols employed in this Christ-instituted ordinance observed by true believers who are spiritually joined to Christ and gathered in His presence, what then is their relation to Him crucified? The Confession answers: such relation to Him crucified, as that truly. There is a true, real, actual relation of the elements to Christ. Without envisioning any change to the elements themselves, they mysteriously serve to effect, by the Spirit, genuine spiritual union with Christ in those who are already savingly joined by faith to Christ. In other words, the elements of the Supper are an effectual means of grace to those who receive them by faith, to those who are truly united to Christ and His body, the church. At the Supper, we are brought to have genuine, spiritual fellowship with the exalted Lamb of God and, by faith, we feed upon Him. 1 Cor 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? In the context of 1 Cor 10, Paul would have us understand that the elements in the Supper have a relation to Christ which is analogous to the relation that the Old Covenant sacrificial meal had to the sacrifice from which the meal was derived. By eating of that sacrifice, the worshipper entered into the benefits of that sacrifice and participated in the covenantal worship given to the Lord.
Paragraph 6 again indicts Roman Catholicism’s doctrine of transubstantiation as being a flagrant violation of Scripture and of common sense. It asserts that Rome’s practice of the Mass also violates the very purpose of Christ for the Supper and instead promotes manifold superstitions, yea, gross idolatries.
Participation in the Lord’s Supper
PARAGRAPH 7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
PARAGRAPH 8. All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s Table, and cannot, without great sin against Him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
The final two paragraphs address a worthy and unworthy participation in the Supper. Since the Supper is a church ordinance, a worthy receiver would be a Christian who is in good standing as a member of the local church. Our local church practices a “Restricted Table”. The question of who is and who is not a worthy receiver needs to be answered so as to direct the consciences and conduct of those assembled at a Lord’s Table service. We make a “policy statement” available to help people determine whether or not they should partake in the Supper. This statement given to our visitors. It reads: Welcome, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We are grateful to God for the pleasure of having you visit and worship with us. It is our desire to worship our God in spirit and truth with reverent joy. We hope this brief explanation of our policy for participation in the Lord’s Supper will be of help to you.
Many Evangelical Churches practice an “Open Table” policy. The Table is open to all true Christians who are present. Such churches ask that those who come to the Table be self-consciously converted and living with a good conscience before the Lord. Admission to the Table is determined by the individual believer, a practice endorsed by 1 Cor 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
Other Evangelical Churches practice a “Closed Table ” policy. The Table is closed to any who are not members of that particular local church. Such churches admit only those who are members of their local church. This practice is endorsed by 1 Cor 11:29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. This policy rightly interprets the term body as referring to the church as the body of Christ
We practice a “Restricted Table” policy. The Table is “open” to true believers who are not members of our local assembly, but “closed” to any who are not members of any local church. The Table is not completely “open” nor completely “closed”, but “restricted”. This policy makes individual salvation and local church membership requisites for admission to the Table.
Our policy recognizes the legitimate place of the individual and calls each one of us to personal responsibility and self-examination before Christ. If you are an unbeliever, we urge you to repent and come to Christ by faith. If you are a true believer who is yet to be baptized, we would urge you to identify with Christ in the waters of baptism. If you are a baptized believer who is yet to join a local church, then we would urge you to find a local body of Christ to which you can commit yourself and in which you can lovingly serve. If you are a member in good standing (that is, not under church discipline) in a Biblically ordered local church, then we invite you to partake with us in this act of corporate worship.
Our policy also recognizes the legitimate place of the church and acknowledges that the observance of the Table is the corporate responsibility of the redeemed community. At the Supper, we engage with Christ individually and privately, but we do so as members of Christ’s body, the church. Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Cor 10:16,17) The Supper is a corporate ordinance which demonstrates our union, not only with Christ, but also with one another. Christians are not meant to live isolated lives, but as members one of another. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it (1 Cor 12:27). Paul’s directive to the church in Corinth, which was observing the Supper in a fragmented, divided manner, is to eat the Supper together as a church. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another (1 Cor 11:33). He assumes that the Corinthians knew who were, and who were not, members of their church. Once assembled, they were to eat the Supper together as a church.
A “Restricted Table” policy not only views the Supper as an ordinance for our local church, but it also acknowledges the church universal. We believe that the Supper is to be observed by the “local church”, but we recognize the “universal church” and the spiritual unity that we share with all true churches, which together are the collective body of Christ on the earth. The Supper is an opportunity to affirm our unity with brethren who are visiting us from other churches.
Our practice serves to encourage disciples to live under the government of Christ which is expressed in His church. The Biblical pattern given in the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20) of discipleship, baptism, and church membership is thus promoted (cf. Acts 2:41,42). To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (Eph 3:21)
We hope that this brief explanation has helped you to order your conscience in approaching the Table. If you have any further questions, one of our pastors would be happy to speak with you at your convenience.
Having defined who is a worthy receiver, Paragraph 7 considers what transpires at the Table inwardly by faith for those who rightly participate in the Supper. Once again we are confronted with genuine mystery, with spiritual reality: really and indeed. As mentioned earlier, some think the Confession would be enhanced were there specific mention of the work of the Holy Spirit as the One who substantiates what it is that transpires at the Supper. The Confession asserts that there is a real spiritual reception of and feeding by faith upon Christ crucified. The Holy Spirit brings the believing participant in the Supper into real and actual union with Christ crucified; with that sacrifice offered on our behalf at Calvary, with that Lamb standing, as if slain (Rev 5:6) who is now enthroned in glory. This engagement with Christ is not localized in the elements. Our communion with Christ is not carnally or corporally, not physical, chemical, biological – but spiritually actualized by the Holy Spirit. The body and blood of Christ being spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance. The focus of the Supper is the very body and blood of Christ Himself who is made present to faith every bit as much as the elements are present to our outward senses. As we eat and drink at the Supper, the Spirit, in ways known only to Him, effects real communion with Jesus Himself! He enables us, by faith, to actually obey and experience Jn 6:53-56 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
The worthy receiver also really and indeed receives all the benefits of His death. I submit to you that this means more than that we merely recall the doctrines of justification and adoption, for example, while observing the Supper. But at the Table, in the presence of Christ and by the ministry of the Spirit, we experience the benefits, enjoy the benefits, of Christ’s death. At the Table, we do not only understand that we are forgiven, we experience the forgiveness of Christ. We do not only understand that we are adopted sons, we experience the love of the Father as sons. Hence the reality of mystery – a reality which is better experienced than explained. John Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.7, states: “Although my mind can think beyond what my tongue can utter, yet even my mind is conquered and overwhelmed by the greatness of the thing. Therefore, nothing remains but to break forth in wonder at the mystery, which plainly neither the mind is able to conceive nor the tongue to express.”
If there is a “transubstantiation” of some kind occurring at the Supper, it occurs as the believer is transformed into conformity to Christ. The preached Word instructs the believer so that he can understand the doctrine of adoption, for example. At the Table, he then experiences being loved as a son. He then leaves public worship informed and fortified to now live as a son of God. The change that occurs at the Table is not in the bread and the wine, but in the believer.
This chapter ends on a note of warning in an effort to prohibit all ignorant and ungodly persons from participating in the Supper. People who are yet outside of Christ are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, and so they are unworthy of the Lord’s Table. Since they are not united by faith to Christ, they cannot partake of these holy mysteries, nor experience communion with Him with whom they are not savingly united. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons (1 Cor 10:21). As the Corinthian Christians could not partake in the table worship of demons, so too, the unconverted cannot partake of the Table of Christ. If such unworthy people partake of the Supper, they sin against Him, that is Christ. They violate Him, thinking that they might somehow obtain the benefits of His salvation without being saved by Him, without actually knowing Him by true faith and repentance, without being His disciple. When such unbelieving and unworthy ones do eat of the Supper, they incur the guilt of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27). Certainly these are frightening words which ought to make us zealous to protect the Table from careless abuse. We do not want to see Christ sinned against at His own Table, nor do we want to see the ignorant and ungodly brought under judgment. What is it to be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord? Could it mean to incur the same guilt as those who actually crucified Christ? Could it be a violation of the third commandment which prohibits the taking of the name of the Lord in vain and has attached to it the threat for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain (Ex 20:7)? In 1 Cor 11:28-32, Paul cites events in Corinth that evidenced God’s discipline on believers and His judgment on unbelievers, for their abuse of the Supper. Jesus disciplines His church for disobedience at the Table and removes those who should not be admitted to the Table. The Supper cannot be taken lightly because Jesus does not take the Supper lightly. Is our view of the Table as serious as Jesus’? The Confession says that these unworthy ones ought not to be admitted thereunto. In other words, the church, and especially the pastors, has the responsibility of safeguarding the Table and establishing policy whereby the Table will be observed.
The witness of Scripture throughout the Old and New Testaments demonstrate that eating and drinking in the presence of God is an essential aspect of Biblical worship. Our Lord’s command to Do this in remembrance of Me was obeyed by the early church as they gathered to eat the Supper and to exercise their spiritual gifts as a body in His presence, vitally united to Him. The Supper is a means of grace that not only brings us into spiritual union with the Christ of the cross, but also with the Christ of the throne, as our worship is accepted in the heavenly temple where we, by the Spirit, have fellowship with the Lamb of God who is exalted in resurrected glory.
The witness of church history informs us that we are living in a time when we could benefit from revisiting our understanding of and practice of the Lord’s Supper. Could it be that the Spirit would be pleased to make the Supper a more valued aspect of our worship and a vital component of a much longed for revival?
The witness of our Confession is that the Supper is a vital means of grace by which the people of God are strengthened in their union with Christ and by which Christ Himself is worshipped as the living Lord of His church. Many of us today are inclined to give the Table a more prominent place in the regular course of our public worship. May Jesus give us more of His Spirit who alone can make this means of grace effectual in us for our sanctification and maturation. May we frequent the Lord’s Supper and there commune with Jesus and proclaim His death until He comes (1 Cor 11:26). AMEN.
All rights reserved.