Holy Communion the Heart of Worship

Holy Communion the Heart of Worship

by | Jan 28, 2023 | Just Sayin'

How do we bring Jesus back to church? When was the last time you walked out of church excited about having felt his presence? Instead, isn’t it often more about whether or not you “enjoyed” the sermon? Does the morning worship service leave you talking about less about Jesus than you do the preacher? The underlying question, of course is why do you go to church? Do you come to be entertained or do you come to truly worship? Do you sense something missing? Could it be Jesus? If so, how do we make him the heart of worship? A proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper may be the best place to begin answering that question.

Several years ago we attended a church service that scheduled the Lord’s Supper at the conclusion of the service. The denomination considers the Lord’s Supper to be a symbol, (and an apparently insignificant one at that). The elements, bread and juice, were strategically placed around the worship center. When the time came, the pastor invited us to collect them, gather in small groups and celebrate together in any way we wished. As visitors, my wife and I felt left out of what might have been an opportunity for communal worship. So, after waiting for an invitation to join a group that never materialized, the two of us prayed, chewed, swallowed and left. I still consider it the worst Holy Communion experience so far. But there have been others almost as bad. And one of the was officiated by me.

In the interest of transparency, before thinking it through, I once authorized the use of pre-packaged Communion elements for use in our chapel. The congregation I pastor is comprised of a significant percentage of folks over 75 years old. It was a disaster. About half of the folks broke the wafer into dust while trying to open the package. Several others spilled the juice on themselves or their neighbor as they worked to remove the top seal on the cup. We only used them that one time. After that, we removed the wafer and opened the juice before taking them into the chapel. Lately I have been reconsidering the Lord’s Supper.

In my faith community, Communion is typically celebrated with the reading of 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 (NIV).

[23] For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, [24] 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.” [25] In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26] For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. [27] So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. [29] For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

When I was growing up in the church, the Lord’s Supper was a solemn occasion. It was normally conducted during the Sunday night service when most, if not all, of those in attendance were members. The thing that sticks out in my mind was the reading of verses 28 and 29 before the elements were distributed. The pastor stressed being right with God and others before partaking. We were reminded that the failure to do so was dangerous. After a time of silent introspection and prayer, the proper atmosphere had been achieved and the pastor would begin reading from verse 23. 

Recently, in our chapel as well as a church we visited, the Communion experience has felt a little like eating broccoli—just get it over with quickly. Or worse, the feeling it was tacked on to meet some sort of quota before going home. I can’t believe that was our Lord’s intent. So, I decided to take another look at what we call the Lord’s Supper, but this time from the Synoptic Gospels, starting with Mark, believed to be the earliest account of the three and proceeding through the others.

 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”(Mark 14:22-25 | ESV)

18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22:18-20 | ESV)

 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29 | ESV)

 All three read nearly identically and all were delivered with reference to God’s kingdom. Jesus held the bread and cup in his hand. His blood was still coursing through his veins and arteries. The bread and wine were still very much bread and wine. So, what was he saying? He was saying there is a spiritual linkage between him (his body and blood) and the bread and wine. It is Spirit, not DNA—a connection similar to his ministry and God’s kingdom. His Spirit would be present in Communion as his Spirit would propel the kingdom’s advance.

For 1500 years the Lord’s Supper was the centerpiece of the worship service. It all changed when the pulpit replaced the Lord’s table. But even the one who made that change continued to observe the Lord’s supper with simplicity and reverence. My friend Reed and I both go into greater detail elsewhere. My goal here is simply to suggest we reconsider how we participate in the Lord’s Supper.

Jesus intended a spiritual correlation between his flesh and blood and the bread and wine. 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63 | ESV) And these are the words he spoke:

 53 . . .“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 you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. (John 6:53-56 | ESV) 

 We should be in such a condition spiritually to experience his presence as we partake. That means we must be prayed up and come expecting the miraculous. No, we will not find him in the elements themselves, but he is fully present in the sacrament as he is within all true believers. The apostle Paul reminds us in Philippians 2:9-11 (ESV):

9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

If even the unrepentant and unbelieving will one day bow at the very mention of his name, shouldn’t we take his presence in the Lord’s supper much more seriously? In the age of COVID, I suppose, prepackaged elements are ok, but what we do with them and how we do it needs to change. If we begin welcoming Jesus into our worship services again, through properly observing the Lord’s Supper, perhaps we’ll have no question about why we show up on Sunday morning. I know I’m making some changes.

The Eucharist

The Eucharist

by | Jan 27, 2023 | What Does the Bible Say About?

What does the Bible have to say about the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, or the Eucharist? I asked my friend, Reed Merino, author of Blueprint For A Revolution: Building Upon ALL Of The New Testament, to share his thoughts on the topic. If you have read what I have written in Church Words, you know that I am still unsure of, exactly, how I would define exactly what happens when observing Holy Communion. But I do know this, the casual way many churches do it today detracts from the solemnity and self-examination it deserves.

For me, the way some churches are doing it would be like telling a new believer the next time they bathe, to slide under the water uttering the words “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” after which they would automatically become a member of the local congregation. Although I do not believe there is a salvific component attached to either the Lord’s Supper or baptism, I know they should embody the heart of worshipful surrender for all believers.

THE LORD’S SUPPER, THE EUCHARIST, OR HOLY COMMUNION 

In my book, Blueprint For A Revolution: Building Upon ALL Of The New Testament, I spend thirty pages exegeting – interpreting – all of the Biblical passages pertaining to the Holy Communion. Alas, space limitations upon an online essay require that you will have to look up the text for much of the New Testament references in this essay. This essay is sort of a truncated “Reader’s Digest” version of that much more comprehensive coverage in the Blueprint, and cannot even cover all of the aspects of the Eucharist that are actually quite relevant to understanding that wonderful mystery of God.

So, in this essay, I will deal with what the God-inspired passages teach us about what He intends to make available in the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/Holy Communion (whatever you choose to name it). I also will deal with how that sacred eating and drinking fits into the larger picture of the unique kind of relationship that Jesus is offering to His true disciples.

Every issue that I deal with in my Blueprint is grounded on several principles that are exceedingly easy to understand:

  • Jesus, the One “by whom,” “for whom,” and “through whom” we, our bodies, and the entire creation were first designed within His brilliant mind and then engineered into being – that same Jesus also invented the ability for us to communicate with words. This assures us that when He became one of us, He was the best communicator that has ever lived on planet Earth. And, like even excellent human communicators, He knew how to pick the best words that could transfer what was in His mind into the minds of His surrendered disciples (assuming the willingness to not resist those words, of course).
  • And, also like any excellent human communicators, He (and the apostolic writers He inspired) knew the nature of the audience He was addressing. And the vast majority of those to whom all His teachings and inspired literature were addressed were carpenters, farmers, fishermen and the like. Most of the Epistles, for example, are addressed “to the “saints at …” And, unlike poets, diplomats, and politicians, simple people assume that what you MEAN is precisely what your chosen WORDS mean. His words can mean more than what is said, but they will never mean less than what they say. Perhaps the most important reason the churches are not walking in the truth, obedience and anointing that we see described in the New Testament is because we no longer read and respond to the New Testament that way.

 Instead, we feel free to impose additional ideas not actually expressed by what was actually written down, and feel free to take away meaning from what was actually written down. And so, as just one example, some churches feel free to deny that immersion in water has anything significant to do with our salvation, even though God’s delegated representative Peter, said that what he means by baptism does form part of what God means by salvation (1 Peter 3:21).

Just how is it that language so exceedingly clear and easy for fishermen and farmers to understand, cannot mean what it seems to be saying? The Christians closest to the time of Jesus had no trouble believing and teaching what those words seem to be saying; why do you think so many of us do? My Blueprint describes dozens of such examples that seem clear within the inspired apostolic writings, and which were understood that way by the earliest churches. This essay is about just one of those issues:

 JESUS INSTITUTES THE LORD’S SUPPER

Matthew 26:26. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the  remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.’”

Why do you think Jesus – history’s most excellent communicator – chose to use that word “is” when He said, “this is my body.” Why do you think He did not use a term such as “is like my body”? You know, or should know, that he did frequently use the term “is like,” especially when describing the Kingdom of God – precisely twenty times in the NKJV, to be exact: (“The kingdom of God is like …”; read Matthew 13, for many such examples). So, He did know how to say “is like” or “is similar to,” but He did not.

It is very important for you to think about why Jesus chose the word “is” rather than “is like.” Most Protestants are firmlydetermined to treat that word “is” as if Jesus actually meant “is like.” And some even insist upon understanding it to [supposedly] “really mean” “reminds us of.” But you yourself do not use the word that way: if I hold up a ten-dollar bill to you and say, “this is a ten-dollar bill,” you do not understand me to be saying, “this is like a ten-dollar bill,” do you? Or, when Jesus said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Do you merely believe He was saying something like “To see me is sort of like seeing the Father”? And when Jesus said, “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) I do not imagine that you think that he meant “is like being born again,” do you? Do you think that what He simply meant by “is born again” was “is similar to being born once again,” or “sort of like being born again”? 

So, if you take those words to mean what they seem to be saying, then by what authority did the Reformers Zwingly, Calvin, your denomination, or you presume to reinterpret Jesus’s words into something they do not seem to be saying? Furthermore, from my own personal experience, I can virtually guarantee that if you or your churches feel free to reinterpret this teaching that way, you are doing the same to numerous other teachings of Jesus and His holy apostles! Satan makes sure that there is a “domino effect” available to use, in order to distort his Enemy’s wonderful revelation and gifts.

If you are willing to be like those simple fishermen, farmers and brethren of the earliest post-apostolic churches, and just accept what Jesus said and in the way He chose to say it, what is the next thing for you to do?

I suggest that the next logical thing to ask is something like, “OK, if He really meant that this bread and wine, after the Thanksgiving is given over it, really “is” His body and blood, then in what way “is” it connected to His human nature? (Of course, in His divine nature, He did not possess any “body and blood” that could be eaten).

Most of us Protestants are the inheritors of five centuries of emotional recoiling at the “required for salvation” doctrine of “transubstantiation” imposed by the medieval church under Rome (although Orthodoxy teaches essentially the identical doctrine). That term means that the bread and wine quit being bread and wine (“substantially,” if you care to play with words), and are replaced by the reality of the body and blood that suffered and died on the cross. The image that quite naturally and immediately pops into the modern Protestant mind when thinking about that doctrine, is “CANNIBALISM!” Actually, that is rather unfair, but we have to leave that segway for another time.

Paul actually gives us the answer to that question, about ‘what way “is” it connected to His human nature?’ He does it by using the term “communion”:

“16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16)

 Did you notice that in the passage just quoted that Paul continues to call that consecrated bread, “bread”?

The grammar requires Paul to be saying that it is the bread that is in communion with His body (as also with the wine).  It is the bread that has communion with His body. Did you catch that? It is actually critical to the understanding of what he is saying.

In addition to “communion,” some translations have “sharing” or “participation” to translate that Greek term Paul used, which was “koinonia” in Greek. The picture behind both the Greek and the several English equivalents is one of various things (or people) being yoked together. Each individual remains what it was, but because of that yoking together, wherever one is there you will find the other one. If you have “communion” with one another, you all remain what you were – you do not “merge” into a single person. Do you get the idea?

 So, the bread and the wine do NOT have to quit being bread and wine in order to “be” He body and blood. Here is another example of what Paul was saying: Jesus existed before He took a human body (and blood) upon Himself, right? Now, suppose you went up to Jesus at that wedding in Cana (John 2), pointed to His body and asked Him, “What is that?” He might have replied, “This is my body.”

When He became a man and took upon Himself that human “body,” did His divinity require that it quit being a human body? Of course not: he got tired, hungry, and thirsty when walking all day (John 4:5), and when they pierced His side, He bled (John 19:34). Divinity and humanity are in “communion,” but His body did not have to quit being a normal human body, right. That human body became His body simply because He chose to yoke Himself to that body; it did not quit being a normal human body in order to become the “body of Christ,” did it!

 That is what Jesus and Paul are teaching us in the Lord’s Supper (a.k.a., “Eucharist” or “Holy Communion”). The bread “is” or “becomes” His body simply because He has decided to yoke Himself to it. And the yoking does not have to cause it to quit being physically what it had been before. Can you see how this way of looking at it is both being surrendered to what Jesus and Paul were clearly saying, without having to adopt some mysterious “quit being bread” theological “mumbo jumbo” like “transubstantiation” so easily lends itself to?

 But before you, as a Protestant, start jumping up and down victoriously shouting, “See, we were right all along!”, consider this: the error of the Romans and the Orthodox was made in an attempt to teach how the bread and wine could be called and treated as His body and blood. Apart from Luther and the Anglicans, the entire Protestant world has denied the reality of what Jesus and Paul taught. If I personally had to be in one camp or the other, I would pick the Catholic error any day of the week. Anti-sacramental Protestantism has destroyed the reality of the wonderful and mysterious gift that Jesus is offering in His Holy Communion, and destroys the piety that responds to such a gift!

Jesus promised that “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (John 18:20). But because most of Protestantism has become so fixated against God ministering to us through things like water, touching, or bread and wine it always assumes that His presence in their gathering is not a literal presence, the same kind of presence of Jesus that cause doubting Thomas to cry out, “My Lord and my God!” or caused John to fall at His feet as if dead! (Revelation 1:17).

Because the risen and glorified Jesus yokes Himself to that special bread and wine you can and must say “This is Your body; this is your blood; You are here in our midst!” His presence is that same kind of presence that Thomas and John responded to, but seen through the eyes of obedient faith with regard to the Holy Communion. Once the Lord opened my young Protestant eyes my worship began to undergo that same supernatural transformation that His true teaching starts in motion!

THE GOSPEL PASSAGES DESCRIBE WHAT IS BEING GIVEN, BUT WHY IS IT BEING GIVEN? OR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE EUCHARIST SERVE IN THE MIND OF JESUS?

 When you meditate carefully upon the following passage, and receive the words as if they really mean what they are saying you get a glimpse of one of the answers to that question.

 1 Corinthians 10: “17

For we, [though] many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.  18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?”

This passage is a part of Paul’s teaching about the Eucharist that has been quoted earlier. In the first verse (17), he is literally saying that it is because we are eating from the one loaf of bread that we are one body. That seems to be not only an amazingly bold claim, but one that can rather easily open Paul up to a charge of “sacramental magic”: something like, “do this and unity is assured!” But He surely is saying something much deeper than that, no? After all, in the very next chapter he chews some of them out royally for perverting the Lord’s Supper (11:20-22). Eating the bread and wine certainly was not creating that unity in Christ or them!

But Paul is teaching us that if you are walking in that broken and contrite heart and a humble faith and you are joined to the body and blood of Jesus in the way described above, then the Holy Spirit will be drawing you toward the fulfillment of that wonderful and supernatural unity for which Jesus prayed: “20 “I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe in me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, just as You, Father, are in me and I in You; that in Us they also may be one, so that the world may believe that You sent me. 22 In fact, the glory that You gave to me I have given to them, so that they may be one just as We are one.”

The kind of relationship that Jesus has made both possible and necessary for us is not the kind that two friends can have, or even the kind that a godly husband and wife can have. The relationship He is talking about is one of union, as described in the passage immediately above: to be both individually and collectively one with the Father, Son and Spirit in the way that they are one with each other! “… that they may be one just as We are one.” His Eucharist is designed to be a part of creating that wonderful and intimate kind of becoming one. How can you not find that something to yearn for? Through that Eucharistic eating, just as your body becomes one with the bread, so is the deeper “you” becoming one with God

Consequently, if you are in Paul’s kind of relationship with Jesus and if you are participating in his kind of Lord’s Supper, the Spirit of God will be drawing you into the kind of unity which Jesus prayed: that is God’s promise! Do you believe Paul?

Moving on to verse 18: “Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” If you eat from the sacrifice being made on the altar, you are partaking in what is going on at the altar. In other words, you take part in the sacrifice being offered to God by eating what is being offered to God! You become part of what is being offered to God, and accepted by Him. Can you see that? And since Paul is indicating that this Old Covenant action was a parallel to what the Christians are doing in the Eucharist, he is teaching us that we also take part in the holy sacrifice of Jesus by eating the Eucharistic bread and wine. You don’t just think piously about His dying on your behalf; you actually participate in that holy offering of His, by eating His bread-yoked-to-body and His wine-yoked-to-blood.

Can you see what you are missing as a Protestant, and what they were enjoying as apostolic Christians? All we Protestants need to do is repair our damaged faith that is derived from our damaged apostolic doctrine, and we can know for ourselves what Paul was talking about!

Starting at verse 19, Paul uses the pagan sacrifices to say the same thing that he said about the Old Covenant sacrifices. When the pagans ate from their sacrifice to their demon gods, the same thing was happening for them – unfortunately! They were actually yoking themselves to their “god,” being drawn ever more deeply into the presence and union with one of Satan’s underlings!

But by using those pagan sacrifices as another parallel to God’s Eucharist, Paul was telling them what the true creator God was setting in motion for them – all being done through the Eucharist, in which the Son of God had yoked Himself to that eatable bread and wine. You see, you are more than an invisible creature – the human defined as “you” is a trinitarian creature: spirit and soul and body (as per Hebrews 4:12). ALL of you takes part in the benefits of the death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus, not just your “invisible” part. That ought to excite you and bring great joy and thankfulness to you. Does it? Or are you getting hung up about past doctrinal errors that had cheated you so badly?

BUT HOW CAN WE BE “EATING AND DRINKING” CHRIST?

One last important problem may remain for you as a Protestant. How can all of this union with Jesus through bread and wine be accomplished when He is no longer physically here? That problem is sort of an inverse version of the problem that I and many or most Protestants seem to have had over that first Lord’s Supper: Jesus is reclining with them at a table, in His physical body. When He said, “This is my body,” it seems impossible to be literally true, because He was already there in His physical body! How could He be in two places at the same time – in His human body and in the bread?

The answer is given to us in 1 Corinthians 15:35-45

“But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” 36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, … 42 So also isthe resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam BECAME a life-giving spirit.”

In His resurrection and then ascension into glory all the glands, bones, and tissues that had constituted His physical body were no longer “natural” (i.e., physical), and we can have no idea whatsoever what that means until it happens to us. Like Jesus, we will be raised into a spiritual body – whatever that means (do you know?).

But a body that has become “spiritual” no longer had the properties and the limitations of a body that is physical. If both the “spiritual” Father and the “spiritual” Holy Spirit can be everywhere at the same time, then I have no problem accepting joyfully that the “life-giving spirit,” Jesus in glory, can do the same as He promised in John 18:20 (see above); and He can yoke Himself to whatever He chooses to, in order to create union with you. Amen?

This essay is not about quibbling over inconsequential doctrinal fine points. Accepting what Jesus and Paul actually said creates a deeper personal experience with your God, and that is very, very consequential! This essay describes the kind of union that He wants you to experience with Him. Is it what you want to experience with Him?

Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, Eucharist

Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, Eucharist

by | Jan 25, 2023 | Church Words

The Lord’s supper is a continued reminder of God’s covenant with the Church. On the night of his betrayal, Jesus instituted the only sacrament attributed to him. It is called the Lord’s Supper, Lord’s Table, Holy Communion, or the Eucharist. All three Synoptic Gospels record this significant event (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:19-2), along with the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23-29) who corrected its abuse in the Corinthian church.

The synoptics speak of it in reference to Jesus’s return and God’s earthly Kingdom, while Paul told his audience to use it to “proclaim the Lord’s death until he returns.” In many Protestant churches, the celebration of Jesus’s death, burial, resurrection, and return is often treated as an afterthought—something to be checked off once a month, or so. Yet Francis Chan went so far as to call it the “New Testament holy of holies.”

Although it has been open to dispute over the intervening centuries, most scholars believe the words Jesus used would have been most appropriate during the Passover meal. It was common practice to set aside a cup for the Messiah, should he come during the celebration of Israel’s salvation. And we should consider the symbolism common to the Passover and the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

Just as God redeemed his enslaved people from Egyptian captivity, he was preparing to do so again—this time through Jesus. Like the slain lamb whose blood was placed on the doorposts to save the Israelites, Jesus’s blood covers the sins of those he has redeemed. He is the true Passover lamb, (1 Corinthians 5:7) the “Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world,” (John 1:29) sparing those who trust in him sin’s penalty.

We would do well to remember the words salvation, redemption, and holy of holies all first appear in the Bible in connection with the Exodus. On that first observance God required no bones be broken and the entire paschal lamb to be consumed during the meal. With the words “do this in remembrance of me” Jesus linked himself to the Passover lamb as the true savior of all humankind, not just Israel.

He called himself a sacrifice. “It is by the Holy Spirit alone, that the bread and wine, as they are partaken by faith, convey the realities they represent, and that the Supper gives us participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, and the kingdom of God..”[1] Jesus’s presence in the elements is a function of faith, not magic or ritual.

In John 6, Jesus, after feeding 5,000 men plus women and children, proclaimed himself “the bread of life” (v 48) and went on to assert, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (V.51) Naturally, this caused no little concern. Not only did he say that he came from heaven, but that they were expected to eat his flesh and drink his blood if they were to have eternal life. (vv.53-57)

Cannibalism was forbidden by Jewish law. His suggestion freaked his listeners out. John records that, From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (V.66) His words have been interpreted in several ways giving rise to three primary views of the sacrament. On one end of the spectrum are those who believe the elements to be the actual body and blood of Jesus, while at the other end they are considered a representation of his body and blood as a memorialization of his death, burial resurrection and promised return.

 The writings of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339) and Athanasius (c. 293-373) contained in the Didache described the proper way of celebrating the Eucharist for the early church. It was an integral part of worship. That changed when Ulrich Zwingli replaced the Lord’s Table with his pulpit. Here are the three prevailing views on the Eucharist.

 Transubstantiation. Paschasius Radbertus (785-860), is credited with the doctrine of transubstantiation; “namely, that in the supper the substance in the elements of bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents—i.e. the appearance, taste, touch, and smell—remain the same.”[2] The church accepted the doctrine in 1059 and it was officially adopted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.[3]

The practice has evolved into concomitance and consecration. In concomitance, both the body and blood are in both elements, allowing the wine to be withheld from the laity who are given only the host (bread). Consecration requires the work of a priest to initiate the transformation of the elements into Christ’s body and blood. This is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church and is normally open only to Catholics in a state of grace, those free of any grave or mortal sin.

Consubstantiation. Consubstantiation began with the Protestant Reformation to explain why there was no physical change in the bread and wine, although Christ’s body and blood were very much present alongside, according to Martin Luther, “with, in, and under.” The body and blood coexist with the bread and wine. Consubstantiation is commonly—though erroneously—associated with the teachings Luther and Philipp Melanchthon although some Lutherans still use that term for the sacrament.

 Symbolic. (Zwingli and Calvin) Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss Reformer and contemporary of Luther, disagreed with Luther’s notion of “real presence.” Rather he believed Jesus was present in the sacrament spiritually, but not physically and the sacrament was an act of remembrance, not salvation.

Christ is received in a spiritual sense by the eating and drinking of the bread and wine. It is communication with Jesus as a means of grace. The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. (John 6:63 | NIV) The Colloquy of Marbug in 1529 brought the matter to a head. But no agreement on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was achieved, leading to a clear divide between those who followed Luther and those who followed Zwingli.

John Calvin agreed more with Martin Luther about Jesus’s presence in the sacrament, but not in the elements themselves. He considered Holy Communion a “spiritual banquet” at which Jesus is present, spiritually—just not in the bread and wine. He disagreed with Zwingli by maintaining that the Lord’s Supper is more than a symbolic ritual.

Yet, he was at a loss as to exactly how it happens. “They are greatly mistaken in imagining that there is no presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper, unless it be placed in the bread. . . Now, should anyone ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it.[4]

There is no way to know which view is correct. But we can be certain of one thing, our participation proclaims our belief in what Jesus did, is doing and will do. And we should do so reverently and only after examining ourselves.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 | NIV)

[1] R.S. Wallace, “Lord’s Supper,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) p.704.

[2] M.E. Osterhaven, “Lord’s Supper, Views of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) p.705.

[3] Ibid.

[4] John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Orlando, FL: Signalman Publishing, 2009) Kindle Edition, Locations 25613-25620

Grace, God’s

Grace, God’s

by | Jan 20, 2023 | Church Words

The bedrock of Christianity is the grace of God. Without grace there would not have been an incarnation and without Jesus, there would be no Christian faith. In Hebrew the word for grace is channun and in Greek, charis, they mean favor, blessing and kindness. It has been described as “God’s unmerited favor.” Grace is God choosing to bless us rather than punish us for our sinful rebellion. It has been said that grace is getting what we don’t deserve and not getting what we do.

Being gracious is a part of God’s self-described character. He is gracious in all his dealings with humankind. We see that early in Scripture in God’s encounter with Moses. The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness . . . (Exodus 34:6 | ESV) His saving grace is connected to his love and mercy along with his justice, righteousness and holiness.

God punishes sin because he is just. Let’s look at the verse following the one quoted above, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:7 | ESV) Fortunately, we are now only held accountable for our own sins, not those of our ancestors.

He punishes those who do not repent of their sins, but that is not what he prefers. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9 | NIV) Repentance leads to salvation by grace through the faith God provides. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— (Ephesians 2:8 | NIV) We cannot even come to Jesus in faith unless God gives us the faith necessary. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, (John 6:44a | NIV)

Grace is divided into two types, common and special. Common grace, as the word implies, is common to all humankind. It includes the good things in our lives, including our human conscience.  “The conscience is the focus within each person, as a being formed in the image of God, not only of self-respect and respect for others, but of respect for God.”[1]

Special grace is God’s saving grace. It justifies and sanctifies those who trust in Jesus for their eternal salvation. Unlike common grace, which is universally given, special grace is bestowed only on those whom God elects to eternal life through faith in his Son, our Savior Jesus Christ.”[2] It is special grace that transforms us into the likeness of Jesus.

There are four kinds of special grace. Prevenient grace is God making the first move to reconcile sinners to himself. It is best described by the apostle John. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:10 | NIV) Efficacious grace accomplishes God’s purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30 | NIV) Sufficient grace sanctifies and eternally saves the believer.

Irresistible grace cannot be ignored. One of the best examples of this is what happened to the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. Calvinists believe that the “elect” cannot resist God’s saving grace. Arminians maintain people can exercise free will and reject God’s saving grace. An example of this would be the rich young ruler. (Matthew 19:16-22 and Mark 10:17-22) Those who reject the gospel will pay an eternal price for their rejection.

[1] P.E. Hughes, “Grace,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), p. 520.

[2] Ibid.

Trinity

Trinity

by | Jan 17, 2023 | Church Words

No one, this side of heaven can fully explain the concept of trinity. In Christian doctrine, trinity refers to three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit united in what is called “the godhead.” The Father is God. The Son is God. And the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, rather than three gods, there is only one God (Galatians 3:20 and James 2:19) who exists in three simultaneous, distinct, persons fulfilling their individual responsibilities. Trinitarian doctrine is accepted by most Christians as a matter of faith, yet the word does not appear in Scripture.

The two passages that come closest to describing the concept of trinity are 2 Corinthians 13:14 (NIV) May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. The second one would be Jude 20-21 (NIV) But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Although they are co-equal, there is a hierarchy: Father, Son, then Holy Spirit.

In 325, at the Council of Nicaea, it was decided that the Son is of the same substance, homoousios, as the Father, but the Holy Spirit was not addressed in detail. We know the Father is God and has eternally existed, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son. “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” (John 15:26 | NIV, see also Galatians 4:6 and Philippians 1:19)

The Spirit was with God at creation. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2 | NIV) And Jesus was with God from the beginning.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2 & 14 | NIV)

All three persons play a role in our salvation. The Father made a way of reconciliation by sending the Son to be an atoning sacrifice for our sin. We receive and respond to the gospel through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. Finally, we are saved by grace through faith in the Son and are sanctified through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Click to see a drawing depicting a close approximation of the trinity.

Pin It on Pinterest