I. IS REMEMBRANCE ALL THERE IS TO THE LORD'S SUPPER?
"The only purpose that the Bible clearly indicates to us as a reason for communion is as a remembrance. AH other reasons are purely man-made." So goes one of the
common views of the Lord's Supper. Is this what the Bible tells us? Let's see:
1. The most damning evidence against such a view of the Lord's Supper lies in the accounts of Jesus' institution of the Supper as recorded in the gospels of Matthew &
Mark. (Matthew 26:26-29 & Mark 14:22-25)
When Matthew and Mark record Jesus' institution of the Supper, neither includes Jesus' statement, "Do this in remembrance of Me." Of course that doesn't mean that
Jesus didn't speak these words. These words about remembrance are found in Luke 22:14-20 (as well as in I Corin¬thians 11:23-25). But the absence of the statement in
Matthew & Mark is impossible to explain if remembrance is the sole reason for communion. One would expect that, if remembrance were the "only purpose" for the Supper,
that the purpose statement is the last thing that would have been omitted.
2. If remembrance is the main significance of the Supper, the absence of this statement from these two gospels is all the more difficult to understand in the light of the fact
that, for a number of years (some scholars would say for as many as 20 years), these were the only two gospels in circulation and available for the churches around the
Roman empire to learn from. For up to 20 years, they were the only source of the churches' understanding of the Lord's Supper, and they make no mention at all of Jesus'
words about remembrance.
(Traditionally, the Gospel of Matthew was viewed as the earliest gospel. Biblical scholarship of this century, including most conservative scholars, largely view Mark as the
earliest gospel. Whatever the case may be, all would agree that these two gospels are the earliest, written sometime between 50 and 70 a.d., while Luke was not written
until after 70 a.d. while John's gospel, which is not directly relevant to our subject since it does not record the institution of the Supper, was probably written sometime after
90 a.d. It is true that Paul, in I Corinthians 11, included the remembrance statement in his record of the Supper, and that this letter was written in the early 50's. However,
this was written for a single congregation, and it was not until very late in the 1st Century, at the very earliest, that such letters began to be shared with other congregations.)
3. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to square I Corinthians 10:16 with the "sole purpose" of remembrance, or with the claim that we receive nothing in the Supper. I believe
that one can do so only if one comes to this verse with the pre-existent bias that remembrance is the "sole purpose," and with a willingness to ignore the plain grammar of
the two sentences: "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body
of Christ?" (More on this verse later.)
II. IS THE LORD'S SUPPER ONLY A SYMBOL?
"Jesus was speaking 'figuratively' in the Lord's Supper..." Those who insist that remembrance is the "only purpose" of the Supper usually make this assertion also. Let's see
if this is an adequate understanding of the Supper.
1. Despite the fact that Jesus' conversation in the upper room with His disciples has a great deal of symbolic language, it must still be asserted that it would be highly
improbable for Him to use figurative or vague language when it came to the instituting of a new ordinance to be observed forever by His Church, especially when not
accompanied, at least somewhere in Scripture, by a straightforward explanation of His words.
2. Since His Supper is, in fact, the fulfillment of the Passover supper, one would not expect the Old Testament shadow to be replaced by another shadow (symbol replacing
symbol). One would expect the symbolic Passover Supper to be replaced by some kind of Reality.
3. Furthermore, if symbol were the heart of the Supper, one must wonder why Jesus chose the bread rather than the lamb. The lamb would have been a far more striking
symbol, representing the suffering and death of the Lamb of God far better than the bread.
4. If it is all symbolic, why not be consistent and take the word "eat" symbolically? There are many instances where "eat" is used figuratively. Why not "eat" the Supper
mentally? The Quakers and Salvation Army insist on this, and reject the literal eating of the Supper. (They also reject the literal water of baptism.) One must at least admire
their consistency here with symbolism.
5. Jesus' statement, "This is My body" is sui generis, i.e., in a class by itself. There is nothing comparable to it in the sayings of Jesus. Jesus makes a number of statements
where He is the subject, i.e., *l am..." but nowhere does He say that something is He except in the statement, "This is My body." One must take all the greater care in
imposing a metaphorical interpretation upon this sui generis statement (see the hermeneutical principle below, #6). Recognizing metaphor in Jesus' "I am..." statements (e.
g., "I am the vine") in no way justifies finding metaphor in His statement, "This is My body," i.e., so that it means, "This represents My body."
"I am the door" is not a statement that parallels "This is My body," since in one case this" (the bread) is the subject of the sentence and in the other case T (Jesus) is the
subject. But even here the word "am" (like "is" in the communion statement, a form of the verb "to be") does not mean "represent." T is literal; "am" is literal (Jesus does not
"represent" or "symbolize" a door); and it could be argued that even "door" is literal, since 1) one of the dictionary definitions of "door" is "means of approach," and Jesus is
literally that, and 2) Jesus is not saying that He is like a door, but that He is the door (the definite article is there in the Greek).
(IS THE LORD'S SUPPER ONLY A SYMBOL? Page 2)
Where symbolism is involved in sentences that read: "am/is", the symbolism is not found in the verb, but in either the subject or the predicate.
1) Example of the subject being the symbol: This (pointing to a picture) is my father." The figure of speech is not in the word "is" but in the word "this." That is, the person
portrayed by this picture literally is my father.
2) Example of the predicate being the symbol: When Jesus says, "I am the vine," the subject is literally Jesus, and "am" is also literal, since Jesus is literally what the vine
represents.
3) However, in the statement "This is my body," neither the subject nor the predicate are symbolic: "this" literally refers to the bread in His hand; "body" is also literal here
(though in some contexts the word can be used symbolically, e.g., for the Church) because here He further defines which body He is referring to: the one "which is given for
you." Grammatically speaking, there is no room for symbolism in that entire statement.
6. One of the most basic hermeneutical rules for interpretation of Scripture, universally accepted by conservative Bible scholars, is: the plain, natural and literal meaning of a
passage must be maintained as long as a) there is no clear indication that the words are meant figuratively (as. for instance, in the parables of Jesus), and b) the literal
sense does not contradict a clear Bible doctrine. While there are certainly metaphors used in Scripture, the burden of proof in all cases lies with those who want to read a
given biblical statement as metaphor. It must be remembered, metaphor has been used to twist and destroy the Scriptures by both cults (Christian Science treats the entire
Bible as metaphor) and by liberalism (which *de-mythologizes" the Bible wherever it seems "primitive" to the "modem" mind, and which has turned the entire Apostles'
Creed into symbolic statements).
Another way of saying this: "Those parts of Scripture containing divine commands, promises, warnings and doctrines must be guarded with the utmost care from all
suggestions which, under the pretext of a figure, would deprive them of their real force"
(A Summary of the Christian Faith by Jacobs).
7. John 6 does not refer to the Lord's Supper, for good hermeneutical reasons: a) the Supper had not yet been instituted; b) it contains no references to bread and wine; c)
such an interpretation would force us to insist that one cannot be saved without receiving the Lord's Supper (v.53), a view supported nowhere else in Scripture.
III. I CORINTHIANS 10:16 & THE LORD'S SUPPER
"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"
1. Compare the metaphorical interpretation of the Supper with Paul's interpretation:
2. The context of this verse is, of course, verses 14-22, where we have three parallels:
The common idea that underlies the triple parallel is: in each of these meals there is a true communion with, or participation in, the thing sacrificed. Through the thing
sacrificed, the receiver is brought into fellowship with the being to whom it was sacrificed: the pagan with demons (w.20-21), the Hebrew with God as hidden in Old
Testament type (v.18), and the Christian with God unveiled and incarnate in Christ (v.16). Just as "the cup of demons" is the means whereby people become "participants
with demons," (v.20-21), so "the cup of the Lord" is the means whereby one has "participation in (communion with) the blood of Christ" (v.16). The entire passage is
intended by Paul to underscore something far more serious than the mere eating of "symbols." There is some kind of supernatural union going on in each case; that is the
only reason why there is great danger in drinking the cup of demons."
IV. THEOLOGY & THE LORD'S SUPPER
A. Theology as a Discipline
Theology is a discipline which, when faithful to the Scriptures as the inerrant Word of God, seeks to faith-fully think through the implications of biblical teachings, and to bring
those teachings together in a systematic way, so that one can see not only individual doctrines, but also see the interconnectedness of the^ whole (see B. below). Faithful
theology may also draw inferences or implications from those doctrines, though this is to be done with great care that it illuminates, and does not contradict, the body of truth
revealed in Scripture (see C. below).
B. The Real Presence and Its Inter-connection with the Incarnation & the Ascension
Good, biblical theology is a seamless garment. One would expect the Bible's teaching on the Lord's Supper to inter-connect with other teachings. The doctrine of the Real
Presence does, in fact, inter-connect with the major doctrines of the Incarnation and of the Person of the Ascended Christ.
Faith in God, from the truly biblical view, is faith in the Incarnate God, the eternal Word made flesh, God the Son "who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down from
heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man* (Nicene Creed).
"Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are (present tense) of the same family" - literally: 'are all of one" - or "are all of one stock" (NEB) or 'share a
common humanity' (Phillips) - Hebrews 2:11. He is still man.
"Since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared (perfect tense in the Greek, meaning He came to share and still shares) in their humanity..." - Hebrews 2:14. Jesus,
as a human, still has "flesh and blood.*
"Jesus Christ has come (perfect tense: it has happened and it continues to this day) in the flesh" -1 Jn.4:2.
"From now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God" - Luke 22:69. He is forever man,' reigning over the universe.
"This same Jesus...will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven" -Acts 1:11. He ascends as man and returns as man; He remains man in the interim.
The Incarnation is forever. Forever He is the God-man. Ever since the Incarnation, the divine nature of the Savior is united with the human nature in such a way that where
one is, the other is. To believe anything less is not to take the Incarnation, or the Scriptures, seriously. Just as our salvation depends upon the fact that the eternal Son of
God assumed our flesh and blood and really became man, so the Church lives in the certainty that He, the Incarnate One, is always with the Church both in His divinity and
in His humanity. Christ is present not only according to His divinity; His ascended human nature participates in His omnipresence. (Ephesians 4:10: "He who descended is
the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe." Compare Acts 1:11: "This same Jesus, who has been taken from you..." It is the
same Jesus who walked the earth as man who now fills "the whole universe" as man.)
(THEOLOGY & THE LORD'S SUPPER. Page 2)
It is only when one has a spatial conception of heaven, and when one assumes that Jesus' ascended, glorified body must be limited spatially as our bodies are, that one
has problems with the above Bible teaching. "The right hand of God is everywhere" (Luther).
Having asserted all of the above, what is the connection with the Lord's Supper? If the ascended Jesus, God and man, fills the universe, then why do we need the Supper as
a place to be in contact with His redeeming body and blood? The answer is that, though the whole Christ is always present with His people. He has specified a particular
place where direct communion ("union with") takes place between His people and the whole Christ. (Crude analogy: radio waves fill your room, are "omnipresent" - but can
only be received with the proper instrument, i.e., a radio.) Although He fills the universe. He is not available everywhere; He is available where He chooses to be. The Supper
is the climactic place of communion with the crucified and risen God-man (I Corinthians 10:16). As true man, the Presence made available to us in the Supper is more than
"spiritual* - if by "spiritual" we mean the common (but not biblical) idea that "spiritual" is the opposite of physical. (See Paul's reference to a "spiritual body" in I Corinthians
15:44, by which he does not mean that our resurrection bodies will be "non-physical bodies" - whatever that might mean! - but bodies in full harmony with, and in the total
service of, God. For Paul, the opposite of "spiritual" is not "physical" - that is Greek thought. For Paul, the opposite is flesh" - Greek sarx - which is properly translated by NIV
as "sinful nature.") We call His Presence in the Supper the "Sacramental Presence," i.e., the Real Presence of Jesus' glorified, resurrection body, in its state of exaltation,
inseparably joined with the Godhead, and by that Godhead rendered everywhere present.
In sum, our insistence on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament is an insistence on the reality of the Incarnation. "Whenever you can say, 'Here
is God,' you must also say, 'Christ, the Man, is here too' (Luther). The Church has had to unceasingly fight those who, like the Gnostics in New Testament times, deny that
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (I John 4:2-3 - whether that denial be deliberate or whether it be by implication of inter-connected but skewed teaching. That the Supper
is "spiritual* communion with Christ as God but not with Christ as man is an example of such skewed teaching that carries dangerous implications for the doctrines of the
Incarnation and of the Person of the Ascended Christ.
C. A Theological Inference: the Three Modes of Christ's Presence
As a good example of legitimate inferences that theologians may legitimately draw as they think through the theology of the Bible, one may refer to the helpful three modes"
of Christ's presence as expressed by Luther
1. First, the comprehensible, bodily mode, as He went about in the body on earth and vacated or occupied space according to His size.
2. Secondly, the incomprehensible mode of presence according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space out penetrates every creature, wherever He wills. This
mode He used when He rose from the closed sepulcher, and passed through the closed doors (of the upper room), and in the bread and the wine of the Holy Supper.
3. Thirdly, since He is one person with God: the divine, heavenly mode, according to which all creatures must be far more penetrable and present to Him than they are
according to the second mode. Where God is, there also must He be.
V. CHURCH HISTORY & THE LORD'S SUPPER
A. Church History As It Relates to Theology
Although the Scriptures are our only and final authority, the Holy Spirit did not at all cease teaching the church after the 1st Century, although what He has taught us has been
but the further unfolding of the Bible's teachings. (The doctrines of the Trinity, of the two natures of Christ, of the Atonement, et. al., were enunciated in their fullest and
classical forms, with all of their implications, only after centuries of study and debate and experience.) It would be arrogance to ignore 1,900 years of insights from our
brothers & sisters in the faith.
However, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, evangelical Christianity rejects history and tradition as a source of doctrine. But good evangelical theology does not reject
history or tradition out of hand, because it Is a priceless resource. Here one learns of the theological struggles of the Church over the centuries in establishing orthodox
teaching (so as not to repeat history's mistakes and so as not to reinvent the wheel). Here one might find corroboration for one's own theology or, on the other hand, may
hear a warning that heresy lurks in one's theology. One does not lightly discard a teaching held and tested by the Church for centuries - though of course one must do so if
the Scriptures clearly reveal it to be false teaching . And, on the other hand, one is encouraged by the discovery that one's understanding of Scripture has been held by
Christians in many lands and over many centuries, especially if the scope of that belief has been universal.
B. Church History as Corroboration of Our Bible-Based Teaching on the Lord's Supper
In reference to the Lord's Supper, the Lutheran stance on the Real Presence is fully in line with 16 centuries of ore-Reformation theology. As they studied Scripture, the
theologians of the Lutheran Reformation actually had less trouble with the Roman Catholic view of the Supper than they did with Ulrich Zwingli's views; at least the Roman
view affirmed the Real Presence. But they rejected the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation because it used human reasoning, based on Aristotelian philosophical
categories, in an attempt to "explain" the Real Presence. According to Roman Catholic teaching, the "substance" of the bread is changed ('trans-") into the "substance" of
Christ's body, even while the "accidents* - appearance, taste, etc. - of the bread remain. This teaching was a recent doctrine, formulated in the 13th Century (only 200 years
before Luther). But the ancient teaching of the Lord's Supper is simply an assertion of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood without rationalizing about it (see below).
The Lutheran reformers' rejection of the symbolic view of the Supper was on the same grounds as their rejection of Transubstantiation: both were attempts at rationalizing,
even though based on different types of reasoning. It should also be pointed out that we reject the word "Consubstantiation* ("con' = "with'; the idea that the 'substance' of
Christ's body & blood are together "with' the substance of the bread & wine) as a description of our understanding of the Supper, and for the same reason: it uses
Aristotelian reasoning in a vain attempt to explain the Bible's simple, straightforward, but unexplained words about the Supper.)
The interpretation of the biblical passages on the Supper found in our confessions of faith is sustained by the universal teaching of the Church from the very beginning, and
by the judgment of the church fathers, Greek and Latin. While this in itself does not establish the truth of the doctrine, it is a wonderful corroboration and confirmation of what
we believe & teach:
(CHURCH HISTORY & THE LORD'S SUPPER. Page 2)
Ignatius (ordained, according to tradition, by Peter); ca. 43-107 a.d.: "The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. There is one cup for the uniting of His blood."
Justin Martyr (100 - 165 a.d.): The food over which the Eucharistic prayer has been made is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus."
Irenaeus (discipled by Polycarp, disciple of John; died 202 a.d.): "When the mingled cup and the broken bread receive the words of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the
body & blood of Christ."
Ambrose (died 307 a.d.): "We, receiving of one bread and of one cup, are receivers and partakers of the body of the Lord."
Chrvsostom (died 407 a.d.): That very thing which is in this cup is that which flowed from His side, and of that we are partakers. Not only has He poured it out, but He has
imparted of it to us all."
John of Damascus (died 750 a.d.): "As the body is united with the Logos, so also we are united with Him by this bread."
Seen apart from an anti-"Catholic" bias, (the simplistic idea that everything from the 2nd Century up to the Reformation was "Roman Catholic" and hence suspect), these
quotations demonstrate the amazing unanimity with which the Real Presence has been taught through the entire history of the Church. If the teaching was wrong, then one
must simply be scandalized at the way this awful heresy and perversion crept into the Church so early, persisted so long, and spread so universally!
The earliest challenge to the Real Presence did not arise until the 11th Century, by a man named Berengar. No one joined him. The next challenge did not come for 400
years, by the Englishman, Wycliff, followed by Zwingli in the 16th Century. Please note: for a full millennium, the Church held a unanimous, unchallenged understanding of
the Lord's Supper! It was only after 1,500 years that the denial of the Real Presence became widespread (but even then, and to this day, held only by a minority of those who
call themselves Christians).
Dr. Edward Pusey, eminent scholar in the study of the early Church Fathers, summed it all up for us: From Syria and Palestine and Armenia, from Asia Minor and Greece,
from Thrace and Italy, from Gaul and Spain, from Africa Proper and Egypt and Arabia, and the Isles of the Sea, wherever any Apostle had taught, wherever any martyr had
sealed with his blood the testimony of Jesus, from the polished cities or the anchorites of the desert, one Eucharistic voice ascended: 'Righteous art Thou, O Lord, and all
Thy words are truth. Thou hast said, "This is My body, this is My blood." Hast Thou said, and shalt not Thou do it? As Thou hast said, so we believe.' "
With regard to the Lord's Supper, "if there is any risk of being mistaken - which she (the Lutheran church, db.), however, does not admit • she would rather run that risk by
taking her Master at His Word, than by changing His Word. In childlike confidence and trust, she would rather believe too much than too little. She would rather trust her dear
Master too far than not far enough. And therefore here she stands; she cannot do otherwise. May God help her! Amen." (The Way of Salvation by Gerberding).
Pastor Don Baron Honolulu, 1995
The Holy Scriptures in Greek and in English (NIV supplemented by many versions).
Christian Dogmatics, by F. Pieper
The Conservative Reformation, by C. P. Krauth
Here We Stand, by Hermann Sasse
The Structure of Lutheranism. by Werner Elert
A Summary of Christian Doctrine, by Edward W. A. Koehler
A Summary of the Christian Faith, by Henry Eyster Jacobs
This Is My Body, by Hermann Sasse
The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church, by G. H. Gerberding
Pastor Don Baron
Honolulu
ADDENDUM
Below is added an important article that was not touched on in this paper. DB
The quote is from Dr. Edward Bouverie Pusey, Oxford U. professor, considered the greatest of the English patristic scholars, who was actually reared in the
Calvinistic/Zwinglian view of the Supper. Quoted in C. P. Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology.
"I have now gone through every writer who in his extant works speaks of the Holy Eucharist, from the time when St. John the Evangelist was translated to his Lord, to the
dates of the Fourth General Council, A.D. 451, a period of three centuries and a half...I have adduced the Fathers, not as original authorities, but as witnesses to the
meaning of Holy Scriptures. I have alleged them on the...rule that what was taught 'everywhere, at all times, by all,' must have been taught to the whole Church by the
inspired Apostles themselves...A universal suppression of the truths which the Apostles taught and the unmarked substitution of falsehood, is a theory which contradicts
human reason, no less than it does our Lord's promise to His Church. There is no room here for any alleged corruption...However different the occasions may be upon
which the truth is spoken of, in whatever variety of ways it may be mentioned, the truth itself is one and the same - one uniform, simple, consentient truth; that what is
consecrated upon the altars for us to receive, what, under the outward elements, is there present for us to receive, is the body and blood of Christ; by receiving which the
faithful in the Lord's Supper do verily and indeed take and receive the body and blood of Christ; by presuming to approach which, the wicked...become guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord; i.e., become guilty of a guilt like theirs who laid hands on His divine person while yet in the flesh among us, or who shed His all-holy blood.
"Yes, along the whole course of time, throughout the whole circuit of the Christian world, from east to west, from north to south, there floated up to Christ our Lord one
harmony of praise. Unbroken as yet lived on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit from on high swept over the discordant strings of human tongues and thoughts, of
hearts and creeds, and blended all their varying notes into one holy unison of truth. From Syria and Palestine and Armenia, from Asia Minor and Greece, from Thrace and
Italy, from Gaul and Spain, from Africa Proper and Egypt and Arabia, and the Isles of the Sea, wherever any Apostle had taught, wherever any martyr had sealed with his
blood the testimony of Jesus, from the polished cities or the anchorites of the desert, one Eucharistic voice ascended: 'Righteous art Thou, O Lord, and all Thy words are
truth. Thou hast said, "This is My body, this is My blood." Hast Thou said, and shalt not Thou do it? As Thou hast said, so we believe.' "
RESOURCES USED:
Pastor Don Baron
Honolulu
"The only purpose that the Bible clearly indicates to us as a reason for communion is as a remembrance. AH other reasons are purely man-made." So goes one of the
common views of the Lord's Supper. Is this what the Bible tells us? Let's see:
1. The most damning evidence against such a view of the Lord's Supper lies in the accounts of Jesus' institution of the Supper as recorded in the gospels of Matthew &
Mark. (Matthew 26:26-29 & Mark 14:22-25)
When Matthew and Mark record Jesus' institution of the Supper, neither includes Jesus' statement, "Do this in remembrance of Me." Of course that doesn't mean that
Jesus didn't speak these words. These words about remembrance are found in Luke 22:14-20 (as well as in I Corin¬thians 11:23-25). But the absence of the statement in
Matthew & Mark is impossible to explain if remembrance is the sole reason for communion. One would expect that, if remembrance were the "only purpose" for the Supper,
that the purpose statement is the last thing that would have been omitted.
2. If remembrance is the main significance of the Supper, the absence of this statement from these two gospels is all the more difficult to understand in the light of the fact
that, for a number of years (some scholars would say for as many as 20 years), these were the only two gospels in circulation and available for the churches around the
Roman empire to learn from. For up to 20 years, they were the only source of the churches' understanding of the Lord's Supper, and they make no mention at all of Jesus'
words about remembrance.
(Traditionally, the Gospel of Matthew was viewed as the earliest gospel. Biblical scholarship of this century, including most conservative scholars, largely view Mark as the
earliest gospel. Whatever the case may be, all would agree that these two gospels are the earliest, written sometime between 50 and 70 a.d., while Luke was not written
until after 70 a.d. while John's gospel, which is not directly relevant to our subject since it does not record the institution of the Supper, was probably written sometime after
90 a.d. It is true that Paul, in I Corinthians 11, included the remembrance statement in his record of the Supper, and that this letter was written in the early 50's. However,
this was written for a single congregation, and it was not until very late in the 1st Century, at the very earliest, that such letters began to be shared with other congregations.)
3. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to square I Corinthians 10:16 with the "sole purpose" of remembrance, or with the claim that we receive nothing in the Supper. I believe
that one can do so only if one comes to this verse with the pre-existent bias that remembrance is the "sole purpose," and with a willingness to ignore the plain grammar of
the two sentences: "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body
of Christ?" (More on this verse later.)
II. IS THE LORD'S SUPPER ONLY A SYMBOL?
"Jesus was speaking 'figuratively' in the Lord's Supper..." Those who insist that remembrance is the "only purpose" of the Supper usually make this assertion also. Let's see
if this is an adequate understanding of the Supper.
1. Despite the fact that Jesus' conversation in the upper room with His disciples has a great deal of symbolic language, it must still be asserted that it would be highly
improbable for Him to use figurative or vague language when it came to the instituting of a new ordinance to be observed forever by His Church, especially when not
accompanied, at least somewhere in Scripture, by a straightforward explanation of His words.
2. Since His Supper is, in fact, the fulfillment of the Passover supper, one would not expect the Old Testament shadow to be replaced by another shadow (symbol replacing
symbol). One would expect the symbolic Passover Supper to be replaced by some kind of Reality.
3. Furthermore, if symbol were the heart of the Supper, one must wonder why Jesus chose the bread rather than the lamb. The lamb would have been a far more striking
symbol, representing the suffering and death of the Lamb of God far better than the bread.
4. If it is all symbolic, why not be consistent and take the word "eat" symbolically? There are many instances where "eat" is used figuratively. Why not "eat" the Supper
mentally? The Quakers and Salvation Army insist on this, and reject the literal eating of the Supper. (They also reject the literal water of baptism.) One must at least admire
their consistency here with symbolism.
5. Jesus' statement, "This is My body" is sui generis, i.e., in a class by itself. There is nothing comparable to it in the sayings of Jesus. Jesus makes a number of statements
where He is the subject, i.e., *l am..." but nowhere does He say that something is He except in the statement, "This is My body." One must take all the greater care in
imposing a metaphorical interpretation upon this sui generis statement (see the hermeneutical principle below, #6). Recognizing metaphor in Jesus' "I am..." statements (e.
g., "I am the vine") in no way justifies finding metaphor in His statement, "This is My body," i.e., so that it means, "This represents My body."
"I am the door" is not a statement that parallels "This is My body," since in one case this" (the bread) is the subject of the sentence and in the other case T (Jesus) is the
subject. But even here the word "am" (like "is" in the communion statement, a form of the verb "to be") does not mean "represent." T is literal; "am" is literal (Jesus does not
"represent" or "symbolize" a door); and it could be argued that even "door" is literal, since 1) one of the dictionary definitions of "door" is "means of approach," and Jesus is
literally that, and 2) Jesus is not saying that He is like a door, but that He is the door (the definite article is there in the Greek).
(IS THE LORD'S SUPPER ONLY A SYMBOL? Page 2)
Where symbolism is involved in sentences that read: "am/is", the symbolism is not found in the verb, but in either the subject or the predicate.
1) Example of the subject being the symbol: This (pointing to a picture) is my father." The figure of speech is not in the word "is" but in the word "this." That is, the person
portrayed by this picture literally is my father.
2) Example of the predicate being the symbol: When Jesus says, "I am the vine," the subject is literally Jesus, and "am" is also literal, since Jesus is literally what the vine
represents.
3) However, in the statement "This is my body," neither the subject nor the predicate are symbolic: "this" literally refers to the bread in His hand; "body" is also literal here
(though in some contexts the word can be used symbolically, e.g., for the Church) because here He further defines which body He is referring to: the one "which is given for
you." Grammatically speaking, there is no room for symbolism in that entire statement.
6. One of the most basic hermeneutical rules for interpretation of Scripture, universally accepted by conservative Bible scholars, is: the plain, natural and literal meaning of a
passage must be maintained as long as a) there is no clear indication that the words are meant figuratively (as. for instance, in the parables of Jesus), and b) the literal
sense does not contradict a clear Bible doctrine. While there are certainly metaphors used in Scripture, the burden of proof in all cases lies with those who want to read a
given biblical statement as metaphor. It must be remembered, metaphor has been used to twist and destroy the Scriptures by both cults (Christian Science treats the entire
Bible as metaphor) and by liberalism (which *de-mythologizes" the Bible wherever it seems "primitive" to the "modem" mind, and which has turned the entire Apostles'
Creed into symbolic statements).
Another way of saying this: "Those parts of Scripture containing divine commands, promises, warnings and doctrines must be guarded with the utmost care from all
suggestions which, under the pretext of a figure, would deprive them of their real force"
(A Summary of the Christian Faith by Jacobs).
7. John 6 does not refer to the Lord's Supper, for good hermeneutical reasons: a) the Supper had not yet been instituted; b) it contains no references to bread and wine; c)
such an interpretation would force us to insist that one cannot be saved without receiving the Lord's Supper (v.53), a view supported nowhere else in Scripture.
III. I CORINTHIANS 10:16 & THE LORD'S SUPPER
"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"
1. Compare the metaphorical interpretation of the Supper with Paul's interpretation:
- a. Metaphorical: "The bread is a symbol of the body of Christ"
b- Paul (I Cor.10:16): "The bread...is...a koinonia of the body of Christ" Notes:
- 1) The Greek word Koinonia = sharing of; participation in; communion with.
- 2) Communion (KJV; NKJV; Amplified; Jerusalem Bible; New Evangelical ^Translation): com = with; 'union with" the body of Christ.
- 3) Grammatically speaking, Paul's statement asserts that communing with the body of Christ is directly related to the bread; "the bread.../'s...a communion
with the body of Christ" (subject, copulative verb, predicate). It takes two things to make a communion; It would be absurd to speak of bread as a communion
with something in no way connected with it. The bread is a connection with, or a participation in, or a communion with Christ's body; so much so that whoever
partakes of the one must, in some manner, become a partaker of the other.
- 4) What word(s) in Paul's statement can, with good reason, be taken metaphorically?
- 5) Not koinonia (union with) the Spirit of Christ, but with His body.
- 6) Are we in the impossible position of having to take "the cup" literally, when Paul (and Jesus in His words of institution) is obviously speaking of the wine?
No. There is a form of speech, universally recognized, called synecdoche, an abbreviated speech in which the containing vessel is mentioned instead of its
content. There is a difference between being literal and natural in our interpretation, and being literalistic.
2. The context of this verse is, of course, verses 14-22, where we have three parallels:
- a. The sacrificial meal of the Jews (v. 18).
b. The sacrificial meal of the pagans (w.20-21).
c. The sacrificial meal of the Christians, or the Lord's Supper (v.16).
The common idea that underlies the triple parallel is: in each of these meals there is a true communion with, or participation in, the thing sacrificed. Through the thing
sacrificed, the receiver is brought into fellowship with the being to whom it was sacrificed: the pagan with demons (w.20-21), the Hebrew with God as hidden in Old
Testament type (v.18), and the Christian with God unveiled and incarnate in Christ (v.16). Just as "the cup of demons" is the means whereby people become "participants
with demons," (v.20-21), so "the cup of the Lord" is the means whereby one has "participation in (communion with) the blood of Christ" (v.16). The entire passage is
intended by Paul to underscore something far more serious than the mere eating of "symbols." There is some kind of supernatural union going on in each case; that is the
only reason why there is great danger in drinking the cup of demons."
IV. THEOLOGY & THE LORD'S SUPPER
A. Theology as a Discipline
Theology is a discipline which, when faithful to the Scriptures as the inerrant Word of God, seeks to faith-fully think through the implications of biblical teachings, and to bring
those teachings together in a systematic way, so that one can see not only individual doctrines, but also see the interconnectedness of the^ whole (see B. below). Faithful
theology may also draw inferences or implications from those doctrines, though this is to be done with great care that it illuminates, and does not contradict, the body of truth
revealed in Scripture (see C. below).
B. The Real Presence and Its Inter-connection with the Incarnation & the Ascension
Good, biblical theology is a seamless garment. One would expect the Bible's teaching on the Lord's Supper to inter-connect with other teachings. The doctrine of the Real
Presence does, in fact, inter-connect with the major doctrines of the Incarnation and of the Person of the Ascended Christ.
Faith in God, from the truly biblical view, is faith in the Incarnate God, the eternal Word made flesh, God the Son "who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down from
heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man* (Nicene Creed).
"Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are (present tense) of the same family" - literally: 'are all of one" - or "are all of one stock" (NEB) or 'share a
common humanity' (Phillips) - Hebrews 2:11. He is still man.
"Since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared (perfect tense in the Greek, meaning He came to share and still shares) in their humanity..." - Hebrews 2:14. Jesus,
as a human, still has "flesh and blood.*
"Jesus Christ has come (perfect tense: it has happened and it continues to this day) in the flesh" -1 Jn.4:2.
"From now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God" - Luke 22:69. He is forever man,' reigning over the universe.
"This same Jesus...will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven" -Acts 1:11. He ascends as man and returns as man; He remains man in the interim.
The Incarnation is forever. Forever He is the God-man. Ever since the Incarnation, the divine nature of the Savior is united with the human nature in such a way that where
one is, the other is. To believe anything less is not to take the Incarnation, or the Scriptures, seriously. Just as our salvation depends upon the fact that the eternal Son of
God assumed our flesh and blood and really became man, so the Church lives in the certainty that He, the Incarnate One, is always with the Church both in His divinity and
in His humanity. Christ is present not only according to His divinity; His ascended human nature participates in His omnipresence. (Ephesians 4:10: "He who descended is
the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe." Compare Acts 1:11: "This same Jesus, who has been taken from you..." It is the
same Jesus who walked the earth as man who now fills "the whole universe" as man.)
(THEOLOGY & THE LORD'S SUPPER. Page 2)
It is only when one has a spatial conception of heaven, and when one assumes that Jesus' ascended, glorified body must be limited spatially as our bodies are, that one
has problems with the above Bible teaching. "The right hand of God is everywhere" (Luther).
Having asserted all of the above, what is the connection with the Lord's Supper? If the ascended Jesus, God and man, fills the universe, then why do we need the Supper as
a place to be in contact with His redeeming body and blood? The answer is that, though the whole Christ is always present with His people. He has specified a particular
place where direct communion ("union with") takes place between His people and the whole Christ. (Crude analogy: radio waves fill your room, are "omnipresent" - but can
only be received with the proper instrument, i.e., a radio.) Although He fills the universe. He is not available everywhere; He is available where He chooses to be. The Supper
is the climactic place of communion with the crucified and risen God-man (I Corinthians 10:16). As true man, the Presence made available to us in the Supper is more than
"spiritual* - if by "spiritual" we mean the common (but not biblical) idea that "spiritual" is the opposite of physical. (See Paul's reference to a "spiritual body" in I Corinthians
15:44, by which he does not mean that our resurrection bodies will be "non-physical bodies" - whatever that might mean! - but bodies in full harmony with, and in the total
service of, God. For Paul, the opposite of "spiritual" is not "physical" - that is Greek thought. For Paul, the opposite is flesh" - Greek sarx - which is properly translated by NIV
as "sinful nature.") We call His Presence in the Supper the "Sacramental Presence," i.e., the Real Presence of Jesus' glorified, resurrection body, in its state of exaltation,
inseparably joined with the Godhead, and by that Godhead rendered everywhere present.
In sum, our insistence on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament is an insistence on the reality of the Incarnation. "Whenever you can say, 'Here
is God,' you must also say, 'Christ, the Man, is here too' (Luther). The Church has had to unceasingly fight those who, like the Gnostics in New Testament times, deny that
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (I John 4:2-3 - whether that denial be deliberate or whether it be by implication of inter-connected but skewed teaching. That the Supper
is "spiritual* communion with Christ as God but not with Christ as man is an example of such skewed teaching that carries dangerous implications for the doctrines of the
Incarnation and of the Person of the Ascended Christ.
C. A Theological Inference: the Three Modes of Christ's Presence
As a good example of legitimate inferences that theologians may legitimately draw as they think through the theology of the Bible, one may refer to the helpful three modes"
of Christ's presence as expressed by Luther
1. First, the comprehensible, bodily mode, as He went about in the body on earth and vacated or occupied space according to His size.
2. Secondly, the incomprehensible mode of presence according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space out penetrates every creature, wherever He wills. This
mode He used when He rose from the closed sepulcher, and passed through the closed doors (of the upper room), and in the bread and the wine of the Holy Supper.
3. Thirdly, since He is one person with God: the divine, heavenly mode, according to which all creatures must be far more penetrable and present to Him than they are
according to the second mode. Where God is, there also must He be.
V. CHURCH HISTORY & THE LORD'S SUPPER
A. Church History As It Relates to Theology
Although the Scriptures are our only and final authority, the Holy Spirit did not at all cease teaching the church after the 1st Century, although what He has taught us has been
but the further unfolding of the Bible's teachings. (The doctrines of the Trinity, of the two natures of Christ, of the Atonement, et. al., were enunciated in their fullest and
classical forms, with all of their implications, only after centuries of study and debate and experience.) It would be arrogance to ignore 1,900 years of insights from our
brothers & sisters in the faith.
However, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, evangelical Christianity rejects history and tradition as a source of doctrine. But good evangelical theology does not reject
history or tradition out of hand, because it Is a priceless resource. Here one learns of the theological struggles of the Church over the centuries in establishing orthodox
teaching (so as not to repeat history's mistakes and so as not to reinvent the wheel). Here one might find corroboration for one's own theology or, on the other hand, may
hear a warning that heresy lurks in one's theology. One does not lightly discard a teaching held and tested by the Church for centuries - though of course one must do so if
the Scriptures clearly reveal it to be false teaching . And, on the other hand, one is encouraged by the discovery that one's understanding of Scripture has been held by
Christians in many lands and over many centuries, especially if the scope of that belief has been universal.
B. Church History as Corroboration of Our Bible-Based Teaching on the Lord's Supper
In reference to the Lord's Supper, the Lutheran stance on the Real Presence is fully in line with 16 centuries of ore-Reformation theology. As they studied Scripture, the
theologians of the Lutheran Reformation actually had less trouble with the Roman Catholic view of the Supper than they did with Ulrich Zwingli's views; at least the Roman
view affirmed the Real Presence. But they rejected the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation because it used human reasoning, based on Aristotelian philosophical
categories, in an attempt to "explain" the Real Presence. According to Roman Catholic teaching, the "substance" of the bread is changed ('trans-") into the "substance" of
Christ's body, even while the "accidents* - appearance, taste, etc. - of the bread remain. This teaching was a recent doctrine, formulated in the 13th Century (only 200 years
before Luther). But the ancient teaching of the Lord's Supper is simply an assertion of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood without rationalizing about it (see below).
The Lutheran reformers' rejection of the symbolic view of the Supper was on the same grounds as their rejection of Transubstantiation: both were attempts at rationalizing,
even though based on different types of reasoning. It should also be pointed out that we reject the word "Consubstantiation* ("con' = "with'; the idea that the 'substance' of
Christ's body & blood are together "with' the substance of the bread & wine) as a description of our understanding of the Supper, and for the same reason: it uses
Aristotelian reasoning in a vain attempt to explain the Bible's simple, straightforward, but unexplained words about the Supper.)
The interpretation of the biblical passages on the Supper found in our confessions of faith is sustained by the universal teaching of the Church from the very beginning, and
by the judgment of the church fathers, Greek and Latin. While this in itself does not establish the truth of the doctrine, it is a wonderful corroboration and confirmation of what
we believe & teach:
(CHURCH HISTORY & THE LORD'S SUPPER. Page 2)
Ignatius (ordained, according to tradition, by Peter); ca. 43-107 a.d.: "The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. There is one cup for the uniting of His blood."
Justin Martyr (100 - 165 a.d.): The food over which the Eucharistic prayer has been made is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus."
Irenaeus (discipled by Polycarp, disciple of John; died 202 a.d.): "When the mingled cup and the broken bread receive the words of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the
body & blood of Christ."
Ambrose (died 307 a.d.): "We, receiving of one bread and of one cup, are receivers and partakers of the body of the Lord."
Chrvsostom (died 407 a.d.): That very thing which is in this cup is that which flowed from His side, and of that we are partakers. Not only has He poured it out, but He has
imparted of it to us all."
John of Damascus (died 750 a.d.): "As the body is united with the Logos, so also we are united with Him by this bread."
Seen apart from an anti-"Catholic" bias, (the simplistic idea that everything from the 2nd Century up to the Reformation was "Roman Catholic" and hence suspect), these
quotations demonstrate the amazing unanimity with which the Real Presence has been taught through the entire history of the Church. If the teaching was wrong, then one
must simply be scandalized at the way this awful heresy and perversion crept into the Church so early, persisted so long, and spread so universally!
The earliest challenge to the Real Presence did not arise until the 11th Century, by a man named Berengar. No one joined him. The next challenge did not come for 400
years, by the Englishman, Wycliff, followed by Zwingli in the 16th Century. Please note: for a full millennium, the Church held a unanimous, unchallenged understanding of
the Lord's Supper! It was only after 1,500 years that the denial of the Real Presence became widespread (but even then, and to this day, held only by a minority of those who
call themselves Christians).
Dr. Edward Pusey, eminent scholar in the study of the early Church Fathers, summed it all up for us: From Syria and Palestine and Armenia, from Asia Minor and Greece,
from Thrace and Italy, from Gaul and Spain, from Africa Proper and Egypt and Arabia, and the Isles of the Sea, wherever any Apostle had taught, wherever any martyr had
sealed with his blood the testimony of Jesus, from the polished cities or the anchorites of the desert, one Eucharistic voice ascended: 'Righteous art Thou, O Lord, and all
Thy words are truth. Thou hast said, "This is My body, this is My blood." Hast Thou said, and shalt not Thou do it? As Thou hast said, so we believe.' "
With regard to the Lord's Supper, "if there is any risk of being mistaken - which she (the Lutheran church, db.), however, does not admit • she would rather run that risk by
taking her Master at His Word, than by changing His Word. In childlike confidence and trust, she would rather believe too much than too little. She would rather trust her dear
Master too far than not far enough. And therefore here she stands; she cannot do otherwise. May God help her! Amen." (The Way of Salvation by Gerberding).
Pastor Don Baron Honolulu, 1995
The Holy Scriptures in Greek and in English (NIV supplemented by many versions).
Christian Dogmatics, by F. Pieper
The Conservative Reformation, by C. P. Krauth
Here We Stand, by Hermann Sasse
The Structure of Lutheranism. by Werner Elert
A Summary of Christian Doctrine, by Edward W. A. Koehler
A Summary of the Christian Faith, by Henry Eyster Jacobs
This Is My Body, by Hermann Sasse
The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church, by G. H. Gerberding
Pastor Don Baron
Honolulu
ADDENDUM
Below is added an important article that was not touched on in this paper. DB
The quote is from Dr. Edward Bouverie Pusey, Oxford U. professor, considered the greatest of the English patristic scholars, who was actually reared in the
Calvinistic/Zwinglian view of the Supper. Quoted in C. P. Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology.
"I have now gone through every writer who in his extant works speaks of the Holy Eucharist, from the time when St. John the Evangelist was translated to his Lord, to the
dates of the Fourth General Council, A.D. 451, a period of three centuries and a half...I have adduced the Fathers, not as original authorities, but as witnesses to the
meaning of Holy Scriptures. I have alleged them on the...rule that what was taught 'everywhere, at all times, by all,' must have been taught to the whole Church by the
inspired Apostles themselves...A universal suppression of the truths which the Apostles taught and the unmarked substitution of falsehood, is a theory which contradicts
human reason, no less than it does our Lord's promise to His Church. There is no room here for any alleged corruption...However different the occasions may be upon
which the truth is spoken of, in whatever variety of ways it may be mentioned, the truth itself is one and the same - one uniform, simple, consentient truth; that what is
consecrated upon the altars for us to receive, what, under the outward elements, is there present for us to receive, is the body and blood of Christ; by receiving which the
faithful in the Lord's Supper do verily and indeed take and receive the body and blood of Christ; by presuming to approach which, the wicked...become guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord; i.e., become guilty of a guilt like theirs who laid hands on His divine person while yet in the flesh among us, or who shed His all-holy blood.
"Yes, along the whole course of time, throughout the whole circuit of the Christian world, from east to west, from north to south, there floated up to Christ our Lord one
harmony of praise. Unbroken as yet lived on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit from on high swept over the discordant strings of human tongues and thoughts, of
hearts and creeds, and blended all their varying notes into one holy unison of truth. From Syria and Palestine and Armenia, from Asia Minor and Greece, from Thrace and
Italy, from Gaul and Spain, from Africa Proper and Egypt and Arabia, and the Isles of the Sea, wherever any Apostle had taught, wherever any martyr had sealed with his
blood the testimony of Jesus, from the polished cities or the anchorites of the desert, one Eucharistic voice ascended: 'Righteous art Thou, O Lord, and all Thy words are
truth. Thou hast said, "This is My body, this is My blood." Hast Thou said, and shalt not Thou do it? As Thou hast said, so we believe.' "
RESOURCES USED:
- The Holy Scriptures in Greek and in English (NIV supplemented by many versions).
- Christian Dogmatics, by F. Pieper
- The Conservative Reformation, by C. P. Krauth
- Here We Stand, by Hermann Sasse
- The Structure of Lutheranism. by Werner Elert
- A Summary of Christian Doctrine, by Edward W. A. Koehler
- A Summary of the Christian Faith, by Henry Eyster Jacobs
- This Is My Body, by Hermann Sasse
- The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church, by G. H. Gerberding
Pastor Don Baron
Honolulu
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Columns Section: 世紀網站專欄區 世纪网站专栏区: 007-017 柏大恩 專欄 柏大恩 专栏 Pastor Don Baron Column 作者：柏大恩 柏大恩 Pastor Don Baron |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Introduction
You kneel at the altar. You eat a piece of bread and drink a sip of wine as you hear the words, "This is the body of Christ..." and This is the blood of
Christ..." What is going on here?
There are two extremely opposite views of what happens in the Lord's Supper. One view makes you the one who acts. You remember. You recall
Jesus and His death for you. That is the single and sole purpose of the Supper. The blessings you experience in the Supper flow from your act of
remembering. There may be deep emotions; there may be profound change of life; there may be significant new commitments made. But, at bottom,
the effect of the Supper depends on your act of remembering. The bread and wine are but symbols to help you remember.
The other view makes God the one who acts. Something supernatural and awesome is going on here. Bread and wine are means for His Son to
touch your life afresh with the very body and blood that were given for you on the cross. Because the crucified and risen Jesus is there, forgiveness,
life and salvation are there too. In your weakest and most painful moments, when even remembering is hard. He is still there for you, in full strength.
It isn't so much that you commune with Him as much as He communes with you. It isn't that you're so successful in thinking of Him; it's the awesome
knowledge that He is thinking of you.
Our Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod rejects the first view. It doesn’t surprise us that many congregations that believe that way celebrate the
Lord's Supper only once a year or once a quarter. It's a good thing to do, even inspiring, but not really essential to the life and mission of the church.
We believe that this first view does not do justice to the Bible passages that talk about the Supper, nor to other interconnected Bible teaching. Read
on and see why.
You kneel at the altar. You eat a piece of bread and drink a sip of wine as you hear the words, "This is the body of Christ..." and This is the blood of
Christ..." What is going on here?
There are two extremely opposite views of what happens in the Lord's Supper. One view makes you the one who acts. You remember. You recall
Jesus and His death for you. That is the single and sole purpose of the Supper. The blessings you experience in the Supper flow from your act of
remembering. There may be deep emotions; there may be profound change of life; there may be significant new commitments made. But, at bottom,
the effect of the Supper depends on your act of remembering. The bread and wine are but symbols to help you remember.
The other view makes God the one who acts. Something supernatural and awesome is going on here. Bread and wine are means for His Son to
touch your life afresh with the very body and blood that were given for you on the cross. Because the crucified and risen Jesus is there, forgiveness,
life and salvation are there too. In your weakest and most painful moments, when even remembering is hard. He is still there for you, in full strength.
It isn't so much that you commune with Him as much as He communes with you. It isn't that you're so successful in thinking of Him; it's the awesome
knowledge that He is thinking of you.
Our Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod rejects the first view. It doesn’t surprise us that many congregations that believe that way celebrate the
Lord's Supper only once a year or once a quarter. It's a good thing to do, even inspiring, but not really essential to the life and mission of the church.
We believe that this first view does not do justice to the Bible passages that talk about the Supper, nor to other interconnected Bible teaching. Read
on and see why.
| This Is My Body Miracle or mere metaphor? + + + Good Shepherd Lutheran Church Honolulu written by Pastor Don Baron |