The Lord’s Supper
By Brent Rood | July 17, 2008
What is the Lord’s Supper?
INTRODUCTION
The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament. The word sacrament literally means “a visible word.” It is a physical act which represents a spiritual reality. Sacraments are experiential symbols representing the covenant relationship we have with God. The two sacraments that Seed Church performs as an act of obedience to Christ are baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26-29; 28:19).
What spiritual reality does the Lord’s Supper represent?
The visible act of the Lord’s Supper – eating bread and drinking wine – represents the spiritual presence of Jesus in a unique way among the Christian community partaking.
Why do you call it “Lord’s Supper”?
There are many different terms used to describe this sacrament, each which identifies certain aspects of it. The United Methodists call it Holy Communion, which emphasizes the relational fellowship the local church has with each other as we gather around Christ. Some use the term Eucharist from the Greek word which means “thanksgiving”. The Roman Catholics use the term Mass from the Latin word meaning, “sending forth” to describe the entire liturgical service surrounding the Lord’s Supper. This term emphasizes the closing of the worship service by sending forth the congregation with God’s blessing to live as God’s people in the world. Some churches call it an Ordinance; a command of God to be followed in obedience. Technically, there is truth in all of these definitions. There is an aspect of communion, of thanksgiving, and of sending forth, and it is something we were commanded to do. However, there are several reasons we feel it is best to call this sacrament the “Lord’s Supper”. First, it was a sacrament given during the last supper Jesus had with his disciples (Matt. 26:26-29). Second, the eating and drinking in the context of a meal is what identifies the sacrament. Third, the two elements of bread and wine are the primary symbols of the last supper of Jesus which carry over to us for our continued used (I Cor. 11:24-26).
What do the bread and wine represent?
Jesus says that the bread and wine represent his body and blood, sacrificed for us on the cross (Matt. 26:26). Jesus later calls himself heavenly bread and more graphically describes eating himself as heavenly food with a jarring and offensive statement.
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him (John 6:53-56).
Not only does Jesus say the bread and wine represent his flesh and blood, but it is the eating and drinking of his physical flesh that is necessary for one to have eternal life and to remain in him.
Why is Jesus’ flesh and blood so important to our spiritual lives?
Christ’s deity is important in that it made him worthy of being the Savior of mankind. He was the one and only immortal Son of God making his death applicable to all mankind. Being God made him able to come back to life, and live forever as a living sacrifice for all who seek him (Rom. 5:1-21; Eph. 5:2). However, we often put such an emphasis on the deity of Christ that we lose the real value in his humanity.
- Christ’s flesh and blood brought forgiveness for our sin.We are not redeemed by the deity of Christ but by his humanity. Christ displayed active obedience by being willing to become flesh and blood, and passive obedience by being willing to have that flesh and blood destroyed on the cross. We then are saved through this flesh and blood. We receive redemption through the blood of Jesus (Eph. 1:7). We are healed by the beating of his flesh (Isa. 53:5). We are justified before God by his blood (Rom. 5:9). By his flesh, Christ condemned our sin (Rom. 8:3).
- Christ’s flesh and blood brought the spiritual benefits of being Christians. Christ’s deity gives him eternal life, but it is only through his humanity that any of the benefits of his deity can be transferred to us. The theologian John Calvin calls this the Great Exchange.1 In order for spiritual power and immortality to be given to us, Jesus had to become one of us, then give himself up for us. In a very real sense, Christ’s flesh and blood which was destroyed, purified and brought back to life now acts as the sustainer of all eternal life given to God’s children. Christ’s very human broken body and spilled blood enable us to have a covenant with God (I Cor. 11:24-26). Christ’s humanity, not his deity, gives us eternal life. His flesh, not his spirit, gives us the right to be sons and daughters of God. Christ’s flesh and blood, not our own efforts, sustain and seal us in the kingdom.
- Christ’s flesh and blood sustains our salvation and maintains our forgiveness.Christ in flesh and blood stands in heaven and daily offers sacrifices for our sins (Heb. 7:23-28). Even our present forgiveness and acceptance by God is made possible by Christ’s flesh and blood. If Christ had not risen again in flesh and blood and continued to stand as our mediator, we would still be condemned in our sin (I Cor. 15:17; I Tim. 2:5; Heb. 12:24). Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is acknowledging our need for Christ’s flesh and blood not only for our eternal salvation, but also for the sealing of our justification, and for our growth and sanctification.
How is Christ’s flesh and blood present in the Lord’s Supper?
We believe that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper carries with it a real presence of Christ’s Spirit when applied through personal faith. When we eat the bread and drink the wine, believing Jesus’ promise to give of Himself in a very real way, Christ is present with us.
“We don’t need elaborate metaphysical theories with long Latin names to get the point. Jesus – the real Jesus, the living Jesus, the Jesus who dwells in heaven and rules over earth as well, the Jesus who has brought God’s future into the present – wants not just to influence us, but to rescue us; not just to inform us, but to heal us; not just to give us something to think about, but to feed us, and to feed us with himself. That’s what the meal is all about.”2
This is sometimes referred to as the “Spiritual Presence” view. Christ’s resurrected flesh and blood are in heaven and have changed into a supernatural form; a form which is able to walk through walls and disappear as seen in his post-resurrection appearances. We receive the benefits of his flesh and blood, his real presence, when we partake of the Lord’s Supper. Christ does not become for us a separate flesh and blood at each place we meet, nor is his flesh and blood ubiquitous (existing everywhere at once), as Martin Luther believed.3 It is by the Holy Spirit who has no stasis, no special limitations, that Christ is present with us. John Calvin calls the Lord’s Supper a “spiritual banquet wherein Christ attests himself to be the life-giving bread, upon which our souls feed unto true and blessed immortality.”4 In the Old Testament we see a picture of this when God told the people to buy food and wine with the yearly tithe offering, and eat in his presence (Deut. 14:23-26). Today, not only do we taste physical food and drink, but it is a visible word – a time of nourishment to our spiritual souls. However, this connection to Christ through his Spirit cannot happen apart from our faith. There is nothing inherently supernatural or beneficial in the bread or wine.
What views of Christ’s flesh and blood does Seed Church believe to be incorrect?
This has been a major topic of disagreement among the various Christian denominations for years. First, we will look at the two extremes by which some have viewed the presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. One view is that the Lord’s flesh and blood is fully present during the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This view with its variations is often called Transubstantiation and is held by the Roman Catholic Church. Seed Church rejects this as a biblically supported view. Scripture is clear that when Jesus rose again after his death he went to heaven in physical form and is now present at the right hand of his Father (Matt. 26:64; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; I Pet. 3:22). Christ’s makeup is of one complete body which now dwells in heaven. Jesus was clear that the eating of his flesh and blood is a spiritual act, not a literal physical act (John 6:63). Another view is that the Lord’s flesh and blood is hardly present during the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This view, called the ordinance or commemoration view sets up the Lord’s Supper as more of a memorial to his death, but Christ himself is not present in any special way during the sacrament. Seed Church also rejects this view because it doesn’t deal with the claims of Christ that his body and blood are being eaten in some way (John 6:48-55), nor does it deal with the negative repercussion of sickness and death for those who abuse the sacrament (I Cor. 11:30). As Paul said, abusing the sacrament is literally “sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (I Cor. 11:27). God tells us many things to think about, but none carry with them the penalty of death. This sacrament is more than just cognitive musings on the death of Christ, or simply thinking about Jesus who himself is not present in any real way. (See appendix for detailed breakdown)
Should the Lord’s Supper be open to anyone?
No. The Lord’s Supper should only be taken by those who are true followers of Jesus Christ – those who call themselves Christians and believe in the gospel. The Lord’s Supper is not to be taken by those who do not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is not to be taken by those who in full understanding of the scriptural mandate refuse to be baptized into Jesus’ name as they are in willful rebellion. Nor should it be taken by those who are flippant or living in public sin because they become guilty of defiling the Lord’s flesh and blood (I Cor. 11:27).
How important is it that I regularly participate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?
We believe it is very important. Those who are believers in good standing should regularly participate in the sacrament for several reasons.
- The Lord’s Supper is an act of thanksgiving. The early Christians “broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people” (Acts 2:46-47a). In taking the Lord’s Supper, we express our gratitude for God’s amazing acts throughout history on our behalf from creation, to the New Covenant, to our redemption and sanctification.
- The Lord’s Supper is a way to experience unity with our spiritual brothers and sisters. As we take the elements together, we are reminded that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one church body (Eph. 4:4-6; I Cor. 10:17). We are reminded that Christ’s ultimate desire for his people is that they are united. What better way to express this unity but to eat the Lord’s Supper together in Jesus’ presence (John 17:17-22)?
- The Lord’s Supper is a means of spiritual growth. Jesus said to take of the Lord’s Supper “in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25). It is often our forgetfulness which causes us so many sin problems, and turns us from God. The Lord’s Supper is a visual sermon of what Jesus did for us and what he continues to do for us. It is the gospel acted out each week, and if applied through faith brings us the spiritual benefit of a renewed devotion to Christ.
- The Lord’s Supper is a reminder of hope. It is a call for us to look to the future when Christ will one day return for us. Christ, in speaking about himself during his final meal said, “I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom”(Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). Participating in the Lord’s Supper brings with it great anticipation. When we eat and drink, we are sharing in the eternal life given to us by Christ which will result in heaven after we die (John 6:47-58; Rev. 3:20). We are also anticipating the heavenly banquet celebrating God’s victory over sin, evil and death (Matt. 22:1-14; Rev. 19:9; 21:1-7).
“But it isn’t only the past that comes forward into the present. If the bread- breaking is one of the key moments when the thin partition between heaven and earth becomes transparent, it is also one of the key moments when God’s future comes rushing to the present. Like the children of Israel still in the wilderness, tasting food which the spies had brought back from their secret trip to the Promised Land, in the bread-breaking we are tasting God’s new creation – the new creation whose prototype and origin is Jesus himself.”5
The Lord’s Supper is the regular reminder of the hope that Jesus has promised us (Rom. 8:20-25).
Is the Lord’s Supper a means of salvation?
No. The Lord’s Supper does not have power for salvation that resides in the elements, nor is there some power conveyed by the person or persons giving the elements. The elements are signs of something that is to be already present in the believer, the salvation given to them by faith in Jesus.6
Why does Seed church take the Lord’s Supper every week?
We believe the Lord’s Supper should be taken every week for two reasons. First, it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the local church. The church is a gathering of people around the “name of Jesus” (Matt. 18:20). It isn’t a gathering of people around anything else, because then church would be no different from a club, a concert or any other social venue. The early church regularly gathered around the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42-47). What clearer picture of Jesus in our midst than the bread and wine representing his true spiritual presence among us? Second, the Lord’s Supper is a great way to act out the gospel each week to non-Christian visitors and to non-Christian children who are learning about Christ. As people observe the fellowship of the church body unifying around Jesus’ spiritual presence, they are seeing the gospel in action. We have found that some people are brought to Christ partly through the observance and discussions of the Lord’s Supper.
Why do you have the elements on a table up front?
Some churches pass around the elements. Other churches have elders or leaders distribute the elements. We do not see a problem with any of these methods and are willing to change our method if necessary. We place the elements on a table because it is the most efficient way with space and resources to distribute them.
Appendix A – Two Extreme Views of the Lord’s Supper
Transubstantiation: “Completely Present”
Transubstantiation is the belief that Christ’s flesh and blood is so present in the sacramental elements that the elements actually turn into his literal flesh and blood. This view is held by the Roman Catholic Church. They teach that when a human mediator called a priest gives the words “take eat, this is my body” there is a mystical yet literal transformation of the substance of the bread making it the very body of Jesus. The conclusion of this belief is that since Christ’s flesh is literally being eaten, his flesh is a physical sacrifice – not a spiritual sacrifice such as a song or a prayer, but a re-crucifixion as it were.7 Instead of being justified in God’s eyes at conversion, one must use the sacraments to continually become right with God. This comes from a flawed defining of justification (being made right with God) as a process instead of an event at conversion.8
How did this view come about?
Believe it or not transubstantiation as irrational as it may sound was not theologically-driven, but science-driven. It was actually an attempt to make rational on the physical level what could only be rational on a spiritual level. During the first 700 years of the early church as theology was being developed, transubstantiation was not taught. None of the early church fathers articulated any form of transubstantiation, including St. Augustine who many Roman Catholics like to claim as their own. It wasn’t until the 10th century scientific awakening of the Middle Ages that the idea of this doctrine began to germinate. Speculative theology (speculating about everything no one but theological nerds care about) became the bleeding edge and drove this idea. Thomas Aquinas debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and many other random and at times pointless debates.9 Transubstantiation was adopted into church doctrine in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 which reads, “The very body of Christ was truly held in the priest’s hand, broken and chewed by the teeth of the faithful.”10
What are the problems with this view?
There are actually dozens, but let me just give you a few.
- It is based on a complete literal interpretation of Christ’s words “This is my body, this is my blood.” Christ often spoke metaphorically. He called himself the Vine, yet we don’t think he was literally a green leafy thing growing from the ground. He called himself the Door, yet we don’t see him as being made of wood with a handle. He called himself the Way, yet we don’t see him as an asphalt road with cars driving over it.
- Jesus himself said his words were spiritual. When Jesus said you must eat his flesh and blood to have eternal life, and the people were offended, he ended by saying, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63). Jesus was in essence saying, “Not only were the words I spoke spiritually based, but if my body literally turned to flesh it would only help you physically. You would get some needed nutrition, but not needed spiritual food.”
- Scripture is clear that Christ offered himself only once for sins. After Christ died, he went to heaven never again to sacrifice himself for us (Heb. 7:27; 9:28; 10:10-14). The sacrifice Christ made was adequate to atone for the sins of the world, and nothing more is necessary for us to receive forgiveness (I John 2:2; 4:10).
- The scientific logic which created this view in the first place is empirical, and defeats the very theory. A – Christ is in heaven. Christ’s body is singular and his flesh and blood literally connected as a living being. Scripture says that body literally ascended into heaven and dwells there. There is a spatial aspect of Christ, a singular location where he dwells. How can his physical body existing in another spatial realm intact and operating be at the same time chewed and swallowed by humans? And B – Christ is not in our stomachs. If Christ’s body becomes literal flesh then all we need to do is open up a Roman Catholic’s stomach and there find a piece or two of Christ. This view that we literally eat Christ’s flesh and blood is inadequate both on a theological and rational level.
Commemoration: “Hardly Present”
Commemoration is the belief that Christ’s flesh and blood is hardly present in the sacramental elements, and that the Lord’s Supper is simply a way for one to remember the work of Jesus. This view was developed out of revulsion for the Roman Catholic view by a Swiss Reformer named Zwingli. The point of the sacrament is more of a commemoration or a remembrance. To this view’s credit, Jesus does say in Luke 22 that when you eat, you “eat in remembrance of me”, and this is the view held by the majority of American Protestants today.
What are the problems with this view?
This view makes the Lord’s Supper more of a memorial service – remembering someone who died in the past. We put up a photograph of this person with flowers around it. We say some words about him, think of all he meant to us, then go home.
- This view destroys the potency of the language of Christ. Jesus says in John 6:55, “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” There is a real spiritual food being given, a real participation with Christ. In Luke 22:20 he says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” The wine being drunk is more than just a remembrance but a real-time recommitment, a present participation in what one affirms.
- This view explains away the negative consequences for those who abuse the sacrament. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul talks about how people come to the Lord’s Supper in a flippant manner. Back then it was often a full meal, and people were jumping in line first and eating up all the food, so some went hungry. Some were getting drunk. Paul tells them in verse 27, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” We aren’t said to be guilty of offending God, but literally profaning, or polluting the body of Jesus Christ. It is another way of saying you did not hurt Jesus implicitly when you hurt someone else, but rather directly, as if you slapped Jesus in the face. Paul goes on to say,
“Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”
There is some debate as to what “unworthily” means, but in essence it is not taking the meal seriously. It doesn’t mean that if you have sinned this week you shouldn’t come. It is talking about those who walk up and throw the little crackers in their mouths while thinking about the busyness of their week. Or those who come to the Supper as two-faced hypocrites who pretend to follow Jesus, but are unrepentant of sin. It includes those who take the Supper while knowing they are not truly part of the body. Both sickness and death are the possible results. There are many things in life we are flippant about, many sins we commit which aren’t threatened by sickness and death. So a view that Christ is not present or barely present in the Lord’s Supper is not scripturally accurate.
Footnotes
1 - John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill, 20 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960) 1362.
2 - N.T. Wright, Simply Christian (New York: Harper Press, 2006) 154.
3 - Louis Berhkof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 1932) 644-58.
4 - Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion” 1360.
5 - Wright, Simply Christian 154.
6 - John Murray, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1977), vol. 2 of Collected Writings of John Murray 376.
7 - Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994) 991.
8 - “The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with the ‘true and real Sacrifice of the Mass’, there can be and are in Christendom figurative and unreal sacrifices of various kinds, such as prayers of praise and thanksgiving, alms, mortification, obedience, and works of penance.” Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass.
9 - Much of his angel discussions came from his large work Summa Theologica. There was more depth to the question that it seems at face value as it dealt with a spirit’s connection to matter. However, it still shows the extremes to which rational arguments can go even bordering on the ridiculous in order to fully explain what cannot be fully understood.
10 - Berhkof, Systematic Theology 644-58.
Topics: Beliefs | Comments Off
This post has been viewed 366 times.
