Of Baptismal Regeneration, Paedocommunion, and Intinction.

Last night, while reading "Children at the Lord's Table: Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion" by Cornelis P. Venema, a connection between three issues aligned for me for the first time. Venema's book lays out a case against allowing children to partake of the Supper before they have professed faith. Within the PCA [Presbyterian Church in America], three controversies have been raising their head lately, all from the same group of people: agitating for intinction (dipping the bread in the wine to partake, rather than separate actions), paedocommunion (allowing children from birth up to partake of the Supper before making a credible profession of faith), and a variation of baptismal regeneration (saying all baptized children are regenerate/believers by virtue of their baptism). These three items are all foreign to historical Reformed and Biblical Theology, so I wondered why do "Federal Vision" types seem to hold all three?

Venema traces the emergance of the idea of "baptismal regeneration" in the late 300s, and then observed about the emergance of the practice of infant communion this:

"[In ancient eastern churches] the baptized member is immediately given the body and blood of Christ by 'intinction' (dipping of the bread into the wine). Unlike the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern church teaches that the mystery of the Eucharist must be communicated in both elements, is administered by intinction, and is given to infants upon their baptism and chrismation." [pg 19]

It then all made sense. If one believes a baby is always regenerated by baptism, they then are undoubtably a believer. If they are a believer, they take the Lord's Supper, and if they take the Lord's Supper and cannot yet drink from the cup, you need to dip it for them.

Thus is one example of how one error in theology (baptismal regeneration) can distort many other areas, and this without mentioning how it distorts the idea of union with Christ and justification, which then become benefits bestowed without faith - an idea at enmity to the gospel. The more you know, the more clear it is that "Federal Vision" is another system entirely and not merely a variation of Reformed Theology. It is a hop skip and a jump away from Rome, and has no place in evangelical churches, let alone Reformed Churches.

Pictures of the Supper: The Marriage Feast

The final picture of the Supper is the substance of the anticipation of the Supper: The Marriage Feast of the Lamb

The Lord's Supper occurs in light of eschatological expectation. We have seen the principle of fellowship meal over bread and wine with Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis 14. We have seen the institution of the Passover meal, that looked back to redemption from Egypt and grew to look forward to the coming of Messiah and final sacrifice. In both Passover and the Exodus 24:11 covenant meal we have seen the principle of a celebratory meal in light of sacrifice. Since the Supper happens in light of this eschatological expectation, we naturally ask if it is the full realization of eschatological expectation or if the Lord's Supper also looks forward to another reality.

The first example we might cite that the Supper is looking forward to a future time is Paul's instructions on the celebration of the Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:26. There, Paul states that “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. ” The final clause “until he comes” indicates the Supper is an instituted ritual that will continue until such time as Christ returns. They question arises, why would the celebration of the Lord's Supper cease at that time?

Jesus hints at a future aspect to the Supper at the institution of the Supper. In the Luke account, eschatological references are made when Jesus tells the disciples that “I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 22:16) Similarly, Jesus reflects on the cup that “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” (Luke 22:18) This selection indicates that there will be a continuation of eating and drinking in the eschaton. Since Paul has indicated that feast is not equivalent to the Lord's Supper, we must inquire as to what is that meal.

Of significance to note in our study is the treatment of another meal in the Scriptures. Isaiah 25:6-8 gives some relief to the oracles of judgment against Israel by foretelling the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. Full restoration is pictured as a feast on a mountain with rich food and aged wine. This is the time of comfort, where the Lord “will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth.” (Isaiah 25:8) The same themes are repeated in Isaiah 65:13-17, where new creation is also added to the picture of the wedding feast.

The first coming, and so the Lord's Supper, must be seen as corresponding to the promise of Isaiah 25 and 65. The promise of the Supper was a communion with Christ's blood and body. (1 Cor 10:16) In commenting on this passage, John Calvin suggests that “from the physical things set forth in the Sacrament we are led by a sort of analogy to spiritual things.” Scripture describes the purpose of both bread and wine in Psalm 104:15, where it is written God gives “bread to strengthen man's heart” and “ wine to gladden the heart of man.” Scripture seems to understand that this can, to some degree be experienced in the Lord's Supper, with the first fruits of comfort and new creation. The first coming inaugurated the blessings promised in the imagery of Isaiah 25 and 65. John 2 describes the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus turns the water into wine when the wine had run out. This was a "sign" because the Old Testament promised an age of abundant wine, and Jesus was beginning to fulfill that promised age.

Although there is already an aspect of the eschatological hope of the Passover and covenant meal in the Lord's Supper, that hope is not yet fully realized. Isaiah 25 functions within a broader deliverance section that includes chapter 26, where the resurrection of the dead is promised. (Isaiah 26:19) Although Jesus is the first fruits of that, final fulfillment awaits the resurrection of believers. If Isaiah 26:19 awaits Jesus' second coming for fulfillment, it is not a stretch to say Isaiah 25:6-8 also has not been realized in fulfillment. Although God in Christ is present at the Lord's Supper when we celebrate it, it is not in such a way that there are no more tears and a new incorruptible creation as Isaiah 25 and 65 promise, respectively. This promise of comfort comes in the context of the previous chapter where commentator Alec Motyer notes the reference to the elders in Isaiah 24:23 looks back to Exodus 24:11.* Isaiah 25 connects Exodus 24 with this eschatological hope as well. Since Exodus 24 also looked forward to the Lord's Supper, we must say that since the promises of Isaiah 25 have not been realized, and the Lord's Supper too still looks forward to this eschatological feast.

The unrealized aspect of the eschatological hope in the Lord's Supper and the marriage feast of the lamb is confirmed by the re-occurrence of the imagery of the marriage feast in Revelation 19:6-10. This passage in Revelation has obvious parallels to Isaiah 25:6-8 and Isaiah 65:13-17. Since Isaiah 25:6-8 pictures the feast as the place of God “wiping away tears” and Isaiah 65:13-17 pictures the feast as the place of new creation, we see the bridal picture of Revelation 21:1-6 also reflects this wedding feast. The Wedding Feast in Isaiah 25:6-8, 65:13-17 and Revelation 19:6-10, 21:1-6 all are pictures of this one feast, the culmination of the eschatological hopes of the end of suffering, new creation, and the unencumbered reign of Christ, where sin no longer not only has no rights, but no influence over the creation and the believer.

In this way, we see the Lord's Supper looks towards the Second Coming of Christ. Russell Moore described the eschatology of the Supper as “The meal Jesus feeds us then is a sign of an eschatological banquet, with the church acknowledging the 'already' and pining for the 'not yet.'” The not yet would be the consummation of the marriage. Figuratively, this would indicate the enjoyment of the full benefits of union with Christ. These benefits, then, will not be “through a mirror darkly” inhibited and encumbered by sin, but in a state of sinless enjoyment. The sustenance of bread would no longer be spiritual and in hope, but actual and perpetual. The joy of the wine would never decline, but ever increase. Since both of these point to their reality in the person of Christ, the reality of the blessings are apprehending, depending, and delighting in the person of Jesus Christ, the Lord God and Savior of His church in the marriage feast of the Lamb at the end of the age.

*[Alec Motyer. Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1999), 171.]

Pictures of the Supper: Covenant Meal - Exodus 24

Exodus Meals

The narrative of Exodus includes two prominent community meals. Exodus 18:12 records a meal of Jethro and the people of God. First an offering was offered, and then the community came together to eat “before God.” In Exodus 24:11, within the context of covenant renewal and after the sprinkling of the blood of atonement over the people, the Israelites share a meal. Here too, God is said to be present, for “they saw God.”

Neither of the meals recorded in Exodus are recorded as Passover observances. Even though they are not in the direct line from the Passover to the Lord's Supper, they have relevance and Eucharistic significance. They have similarities to the Passover in that a sacrifice or atonement precedes the meal. Commentator Peter Enns notes, “An element essential to both the Passover and the Lord's Supper, and one that is also prominent in Exodus 24, is the shedding of blood...the sprinkling of blood...is an integral element in a covenant celebration.”* The meal, then, is enjoyed in celebration of a reconciliation of the people and God through sacrifice. Both Exodus 18:12 and 24:11, also, record the meal as being in the presence of God. This apparently is enabled by the preceding sacrifice before the meal can be enjoyed.

The Exodus 24:11 meal also happens in the context of a covenant. In Exodus 24:11 covenant meal is the product of the Exodus redemption. The people had been redeemed by the blood of the lamb. Here, the people are sprinkled against with blood after the giving of the law in Exodus 20. Exodus 20 begins with the affirmation that “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exodus 20:2) The imperatives of the law were given in light of the indicative of redemption. In Exodus 24, the people are reminded of the covenant (Exodus 24:7) and reminded of their redemption by blood (Exodus 24:8). In light of covenant redemption, the people eat and drink.

Although the Exodus meals are not a direct celebration of Passover, they share a covenantal nature with Passover. When Christ takes the cup and declares it to be “the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20) although we typically think of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 34 with the language of new covenant, we also must think of Exodus 24 with the connection of blood and covenant. Passover, the Exodus 24:11 covenant meal, and the Lord's Supper, are all celebratory meals in light of the redeeming blood of the covenant. The Passover and covenant meal sacrifices required repetition, but the Lord's Supper happens in light of the “once for all” sacrifice of Christ. (Heb 10:10)


*[Peter Enns. Exodus: The NIV Application Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2000), 496. And no this is not a full endorcement of all things Enns. However, his Exodus commentary is very helpful]

Pictures of the Supper: Passover

The second major picture of the Lord's Supper is the Passover:

Passover

Exodus chapter 11 records the Tenth plague against the Egyptians. This plague was a destruction of the first-born of all those who did not put the blood of a lamb over the door of their house. This final plague convinced the Pharaoh to release the Israelites from Egypt in order for them to return to the land God had promised them.

In the original observance of passover, the passover lamb was killed and the blood smeared with a hyssop branch on the doorposts of the family's home. (Exodus 12:21-22) These instructions for the observance of the passover must have a future orientation, since the original Passover was one night and this instruction for observance is to be practiced over seven days. (Ex 12:15) The flesh of the lamb is eaten along with unleavened bread. (Ex 12:8) It appears that only later was wine added to this ritual. Eventually four communal cups were used and passed around for the family to drink. Eventually, a dispute arose over whether to have four or five cups. A compromise came that four cups were used, and a fifth was set for Elijah. This is sometimes thought to be a proxy for Moses or that Elijah is prophesized to come before the Messiah, adding an element of eschatological hope of a future redemption to the meal. Each Passover, the Jews were reminded that though they celebrated a past deliverance, they also looked forward to a greater future hope in the Messiah.

The Gospel writers all seem to present the Lord's Supper as happening during the time of Passover. Luke 22:8 records Jesus giving the instructions to his disciples to “prepare for us the passover that we may eat it.” Most commentators assume that if the four cup ritual was in use at the time of Jesus, that his words relating the Passover elements to himself come with the third cup, a thanksgiving to God for bringing forth the fruit of the vine.

Supper in the time of the Passover: The Hallel passages of the Psalter were typically sung in the passover season (pss 113-118). Hence, since these songs were in the minds of the Jews, Christ was greeted by these words (Ps. 118:25) when he entered Jerusalem. (Matt 21:9) Although we can not be certain as to the significance of this selection from a Passover psalm in the minds of the children, the author of the gospel of Matthew certainly expected the connection to be made with his Jewish audience that this was a song sung during the celebration of passover and it anticipates Christ.

Paul most clearly makes the connection, when in 1 Corinthians 5:7 he refers to Christ as “our passover, sacrificed for us.” Christ is anticipated in the lamb, for only after atonement would the celebratory section of the meal begin. In taking the elements of the meal, Christ also infuses meaning into these portions of the meal as well. Christ associates the bread with his body (Luke 22:19) and the wine with his blood. (Luke 22:20) Although we did not see the wine or bread as anticipating directly Christ's coming before Christ, after the institution of the Supper in the Gospels, we now do.

The Passover can be seen to anticipate Christ in two important ways. First, the lamb whose blood redeems the covenant family points to Christ's sacrifice. Second, the meal looks towards a celebratory event. The celebratory nature of the meal in light of reconciliation should be instructive. Jewish practice was not a solemn mournful meal, but a celebration of the reality of what comes after atonement, forgiveness and resurrection.

Pictures of the Supper: Abraham and Melchizedek

The Lord's Supper is not the only instance of a meal of significance. Throughout Scripture there are pictures of meals of fellowship, covenant renewal and worship. Here, I would merely like to display a few of those pictures as they inform how we look at the Lord's Supper in a Biblical Theological manner.

Picture 1: Abraham and Melchizedek




The first instance in recorded Scripture of a shared meal of bread and wine is Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18. Here, Abraham (then Abram) and the king of Sodom share a meal in celebration of a victory and Abraham gives a tenth of his wealth to Melchizedek. This precipitates a remembering of an oath,* perhaps a covenant oath, to God, and the praise of God for Abraham's provision.

Melchizedek is associated with Christ in the New Testament. The author of Hebrews, in chapter 7, cites this encounter (Heb 7:1-2; Gen 14:17-20), as a proof of the superiority of the order of Melchizedek, one whom Abraham paid tithes to as an inferior. Hebrew 7:22 then makes the connection to Christ, a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the guarantor of a better covenant. The parallels between Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7, as the relation between Abraham and Melchizedek in covenant, blessing and paying honor relate to Christ and the church. So also it would imply the communion enjoyed between Abraham and Melchizedek in the meal of wine and bread may also point forward to the communion enjoyed between Christ and the Church in the Supper of bread and wine.


[See Meredith Kline. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. (Eugene OR, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 312.)

What's first, the Baptismal or the Table?

A question that comes up in both credo- and paedo-baptist communities is "Should a person be baptized before taking Communion [the Eucharist]?" This might be represented visually above as: "Does one need to come to the baptismal fount before one comes to the Table?"

This question comes up in both Baptist and paedo-baptist communities when baptism is delayed, for age, Catechesis or a special season of baptism, such as Easter. It comes up in many Episcopal Churches with open communion, where everyone, even unbaptized people are welcomed to take the Eucharist. The situation in all places arises: If a person has faith and seems to understand what the significance of the Supper is, why have them wait or deny them the Supper merely because they are unbaptized?

Many times this is left in the realm of personal conscience, which one can see in places where the question is asked, usually the answer most preferred is "As long as you're doing this from your heart and you love Jesus, you're okay. "

Against such an answer, suggesting a rigid priority may seem "legalistic" or nit-picky. However, I believe there are good Biblical, Confessional, Catechetical and Historical reasons for only allowing baptized Christians to partake of the Eucharist.

Historical/Confessional

Historically, the earliest and consistently repeated answer of the Church throughout history has been to delay partaking the Eucharist until after Baptism. One of the earliest documents of the Church, outside the Bible, was the Didache which was a manual of sorts for accepting new converts into the Church. The instructions make very clear:

Didache 9:5: "Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized."

The reasoning may sound rather harsh: "for the Lord has also spoken concerning this: 'Do not give what is holy to dogs.'" (9:5) This merely points out that the Eucharist is considered the meal of the Church, and one was not considered a part of the Church, and so not a Christian, until Baptism. There are no instances in the first millenium of the Church where partaking of the Eucharist was allowed before being baptized.

This is way the major Reformation faiths always place teaching about Baptism before the Lord's Supper. Baptism is seen as initiatory rite, and the Supper as a rite of fellowship. Before one joins the community, one cannot have fellowship with that group. To have fellowship is to be a member, and baptism is the rite of membership for someone to be in that community.

Biblical

The Scriptures display a heavy weight towards Baptism necessarily coming before Communion. Firstly, Baptism precedes the Supper in notable places in Scripture's teaching and narrative. In Acts 2, Peter offers Baptism (2:38) before we have an account of the first Christians breaking bread (2:42). The Gospels record the Baptism of John before the Last Supper. Paul speaks of acknowledging Baptism (1 Cor 10:2) before the Supper (1 Cor 10:3 and following). This is logical, for we must be united to Christ (Rom 6:4) before we can participate in him (1 Cor 10:16).

But why? What's the big deal?

The Scripture's main way of explaining the sacraments is through the story of redemption of Israel. We are told of the baptism Israel experienced in the sea (1 Cor 10:2). We are also told of Israel eating manna in the wilderness, pointing to the Supper (John 6). It is simple observation to observe that Israel experienced baptism in the sea before eating the manna. Israel did not eat manna from God before the sea. And I think this is the most important point for how the sacraments teach us about the reality of the Christian life and salvation.

Catechetical

Israel did not need food from God before the sea, for their slave owners in Egypt gave Israel food. The episode of the baptism in the sea for Israel irrevocably severed the connection between Israel and their slave owners. After the baptism in the sea, although Israel often wanted to go back and were unthankful to their Redeemer God from Egypt, Israel no longer could take food from their former slave owners.

For us to insist on Baptism before the Supper requires a high sense of what Baptism is. Baptism in the early church often included a ritual of exorcism and a question to the person presented for Baptism, "Do you renounce Satan and all his works?" This is because Baptism was an important entry into the church and break from the world of Satan, just as crossing the sea was an important event for Israel as forming of a common people of the baptism and breaking from the world of Egypt.

This is why Baptism ought to proceed the Supper. Baptism should be an instrument of teaching entry into the covenant and community of faith (Acts 2:38-39) and the Supper should be an instrument of teaching the lasting need of continual sustaining by God (Psalm 104:14-15; John 6). To allow eating the Supper before Baptism teaches a dual loyalty and dual mastery the Scriptures do not. One cannot eat the manna from God while under the slavery of Egypt. One also cannot eat the food of Egypt after being redeemed by God. If baptism teaches the need of new birth, and the Supper the need of spiritual feeding, one must be born before one can eat. To allow the Supper before Baptism teaches that one can be enslaved to Satan and receive the saving benefits of God. In other words, it confuses the person who eats while unbaptized for it does not conform to Jesus who taught one must either be for or against him. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. " (Luke 16:13) One cannot be identified with Egypt and eat the manna of God. One cannot be slave to Satan, and receive the blessings of God. One must be identified as a slave to God in order to receive His benefits. One must be in covenant with God in order to receive the benefits of that covenant.

That is why I believe, like the picture above, one must go to the baptismal before one can go to the table. It is not a matter of legalism or nit-picking, but a matter of what Scripture teaches and what we teach with the catechetical tools that God gives to us with Baptism and the Supper. Do we teach a dual loyalty to two slave owners? Do we teach service, loyality and identification to Sin, Satan and what Egypt represents can continue at the same time as receiving taking what identification with God, Christ and His Righteousness gives us?

Or, do we teach that God fully redeems us from our former slave owner, though a Stockholm Syndrome may still exist, we identify and receive our sustenance from our Redeemer and new Master, Jesus Christ? The matter should not be too difficult, however, for if we determine that a person is ready for the sacrament of the Eucharist, then they are certainly ready for the sacrament of Baptism. Just let them be born before they eat, and let God be their slave master before they take food from Him.

More Calvin Quotes

[I'm working on a thesis, so no time for something original, so enjoy a quote from Calvin as quoted by John Wiliamson Nevin. Nevin quotes this in pg 116-118 of the Mystical Presence. If you know where to find this in Calvin's writings, please let me know]

On the mystical union with Christ and Communion: “We are quickened by a real participation of him, which he designates by the terms eating and drinking that no person might suppose the life which we receive from him to consist in simple knowledge.”

“I do not teach that Christ dwells in us simply by his Spirit, but that he so raises us to himself as to transfuse into us the vivific vigor of his flesh.”

Calvin on the Rapture

I speak not of a eschatological ejection of the elect from earth, but the weekly reality of worship. Compare the two main means of grace in corporate worship and Calvin's way of describing what occurs in each:


On the Lord's Supper: “there is no absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote. But, in order that we may be capable of this participation, we must rise heavenward.” [John Calvin on 1 Cor 10:16]

On the presence of Christ in preaching: “As if it were not in God's power somehow to come down to us, in order to be near us, yet without changing place or confining us to earthly means; but rather by these to bear us up as if in chariots to his heavenly glory, a glory that fills all things with its immeasurableness and even surpasses the heavens in height!” [John Calvin. Institutes 4.1.5]

Reformed View of the Eucharist

French Confession XXXVI. We confess that the Lord's Supper, which is the second sacrament, is a witness of the union which we have with Christ, inasmuch as he not only died and rose again for us once, but also feeds and nourishes us truly with his flesh and blood, so that we may be one in him, and that our life may be in common. Although he is in heaven until he comes to judge all the earth, still we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible power of his Spirit he feeds and strengthens us with the substance of his body and of his blood. We hold that this is done spiritually, not because we put imagination and fancy in the place of fact and truth, but because the greatness of this mystery exceeds the measure of our senses and the laws of nature. In short, because it is heavenly, it can only be apprehended by faith.

FC - XXXVII. We believe, as has been said, that in the Lord's Supper, as well in baptism, God gives us really and in fact that which he there sets forth to us; and that consequently with these signs is given the true possession and enjoyment of that which they present to us. And thus all who bring a pure faith, like a vessel, to the sacred table of Christ, receive truly that of which it is a sign; for the body and the blood of Jesus Christ give food and drink to the soul, no less than bread and wine nourish the body.

2nd Helvetic (Swiss) XXI - Spiritual Eating of the Lord. There is also a spiritual eating of Christ's body; not such that we think that thereby the food itself is to be changed into spirit, but whereby the body and blood of the Lord, while remaining in their own essence and property, are spiritually communicated to us, certainly not in a corporeal but in a spiritual way, by the Holy Spirit, who applies and bestows upon us these things which have been prepared for us by the sacrifice of the Lord's body and blood for us, namely, the remission of sins, deliverance, and eternal life; so that Christ lives in us and we live in him, and he causes us to receive him by true faith to this end that he may become for us such spiritual food and drink, that is, our life.

Heidelberg Question 76: What does it mean to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ?

Answer 76: It means not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and life eternal; but moreover, also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that, although He is in heaven and we on earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone, and live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are governed by one soul.

Belgic Confession Art 35 - We believe and confess that our Saviour Jesus Christ has instituted the sacrament of the holy supper to nourish and sustain those whom He has already regenerated and incorporated into His family, which is His Church...


It is beyond any doubt that Jesus Christ did not commend His sacraments to us in vain. Therefore He works in us all that He represents to us by these holy signs. We do not understand the manner in which this is done, just as we do not comprehend the hidden activity of the Spirit of God. Yet we do not go wrong when we say that what we eat and drink is the true, natural body and the true blood of Christ. However, the manner in which we eat it is not by mouth but in the spirit by faith. In that way Jesus Christ always remains seated at the right hand of God His Father in heaven; yet He does not cease to communicate Himself to us by faith. This banquet is a spiritual table at which Christ makes us partakers of Himself with all His benefits and gives us the grace to enjoy both Himself and the merit of His suffering and death. He nourishes, strengthens, and comforts our poor, desolate souls by the eating of His flesh, and refreshes and renews them by the drinking of His blood.

Although the sacrament is joined together with that which is signified, the latter is not always received by all. The wicked certainly takes the sacrament to his condemnation, but he does not receive the truth of the sacrament. Thus Judas and Simon the sorcerer both received the sacrament, but they did not receive Christ, who is signified by it. He is communicated exclusively to the believers.


Westminster 29.VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Herbert: Holy Communion

Not in rich furniture, or fine aray,
________ Nor in a wedge of gold,
________ Thou, who for me wast sold,
____ To me dost now thy self convey;
For so thou should’st without me still have been,
________ Leaving within me sinne:

But by the way of nourishment and strength
________ Thou creep’st into my breast;
________ Making thy way my rest,
____ And thy small quantities my length;
Which spread their forces into every part,
________ Meeting sinnes force and art.

Yet can these not get over to my soul,
________ Leaping the wall that parts
________ Our souls and fleshy hearts;
____ But as th’ outworks, they may controll
My rebel-flesh, and carrying thy name,
________ Affright both sinne and shame.

Only thy grace, which with these elements comes,
________ Knoweth the ready way,
________ And hath the privie key,
____ Op’ning the souls most subtile rooms;
While those to spirits refin’d, at doore attend
________ Dispatches from their friend.


Give me my captive soul, or take
________ My bodie also thither.
Another lift like this will make
________ Them both to be together.

Before that sinne turn’d flesh to stone,
________ And all our lump to leaven;
A fervent sigh might well have blown
________ Our innocent earth to heaven.

For sure when Adam did not know
________ To sinne, or sinne to smother;
He might to heav’n from Paradise go,
________ As from one room t’another.

Thou hast restor’d us to this ease
________ By this thy heav’nly bloud;
Which I can go to, when I please,
________ And leave th’earth to their food.

Luther on Thanksgiving

Well, this is Martin Luther on the Eucharist which comes from the Greek meaning "to give thanks." So technically, Martin Luther on the Eucharist is Martin Luther on thanksgiving. I've been studying Martin Luther on the Eucharist (for those who don't know that word, that's "The Lord's Supper" for my Presbyterian friends, "Communion" for my Baptist friends, and that weird snack other Christians have in their worship for my Watermark friends). Luther was careful not to speak of the Lord's Supper as transubstantiation, even though arguing over the mechanics of the Eucharist was not Luther's main concern. (nor is my thoughts on the mechanics exactly like Luther's, though close) Luther believed that a great many benefits come from this means of grace given to the church. Here I will share a few that he identifies:

Forgiveness
Luther's primary language about the Eucharist would not be the first concept most other Protestants would associate with the Supper. For Luther, the Eucharist contains with it the forgiveness of sins. Luther explains how he means this in two ways. Luther uses the concepts of pledge and sign.1 As a sign, it signifies the promise of forgiveness given to the believer. As a sure pledge, the Eucharist is assuring to the believer that they have the forgiveness of sins. This is not a resacrifice, but rather the Word coming to the believer to declare this forgiveness, like the word preached.2 When received by faith, the believer has fellowship with Christ.

Fellowship with God and Others
Luther places the “significance or effect of this sacrament is fellowship of all the saints.”3 From this fellowship, all other benefits flow. As Christ has, so His body has in fellowship with him in Christ's life.4 Obvious was the fact that the Eucharist was a fellowship with God through Christ. Luther takes the obvious and fleshes out the meaning of fellowship to also include a fellowship with all other saints. As the church is the body of Christ, and the Eucharist is the sacrament of the body, these two things should not be separated. Such a close relationship between the congregated church body and the sacrament led Luther to have reservations about private celebrations and even taking the Super to the sick apart from the worship service.5
Fellowship in the Eucharist is fellowship in the church. Luther brings out the opposite of the fellowship in the Eucharist being “excommunicare” or excommunication. The opposite is “to receive a sure sign of this fellowship and incorporation with Christ and all the saints.”6 To receive the sacrament then is assurance of union with Christ, because union with the Church is union with the body of Christ.

The fellowship offered in this union is not merely profit. Luther warned that “There are those, indeed, who would gladly share in the profits but not in the costs.”7 Christ experienced loss and suffering in his life. Now, the church suffers loss and pain and to have fellowship in the body is to have fellowship in suffering. Luther offers the illustration of a man injuring his foot. The whole body bends itself towards the foot and covers it, alleviates stress from it and cares for it for the pain is seen not only on the foot but even on the other end of the body on the face, and “once it is cared for all the other members are benefited.”8

In the Eucharist, Luther sees shared misery. “You must in turn share the misfortunes of fellowship.”9 In this fellowship, the Christian fills in the sufferings of Christ, who no longer suffers in heaven, but His body does on earth. For the continuing repeated suffering of the innocent, the Eucharist is taken repeatedly.10 The call for the partaker is to “help the poor, put up with sinners, care for the sorrowing, suffer with the suffering, intercede for others, defend the truth, and...risk life, property and honor for the betterment of the church.”11

Reminder of Need
The suffering of the body points to the need of grace. “Therefore, we need the strength, support and help of Christ and of his saints.”12 Luther goes so far as to say the Eucharist is not for those of no suffering, misfortune or anxiety, but for hungry, needy and anxious. For proof of the necessity of this condition, Luther goes to the instance of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Christ frightens the disciples with the trials that await Him. He also scares them by the announcement that He will be leaving them and one of their own will betray Him. “When they were thus full of sorrow and anxiety, disturbed by sorrow and the sin of betrayal, then they were worthy, and he gave them his holy body.”13

The Eucharist was instituted for the needy and hungry. The language of Luther echoes Christ's words to the Pharisees that Christ came to call sinners, not the righteous.14 The meaning is not that Christians ought to only come when they need it, but Christians always need the grace of the Eucharist and Christians ought to be made to feel their need of grace. The disciples had the same destiny before Christ spoke to them in the Supper as they did after the meal. The different was not their condition, but their awareness of their condition. “On your part, you ought to be impelled by your own need” to come to the Eucharist.15

If Christians are aware of their need, they will desire to take the Eucharist frequently. Luther speaks of the Eucharist so closely with the preached word that one should not think the Eucharist is some magical granter of grace to him. Rather, the Eucharist is another means of communicating the gospel of Christ to the believer. Proper understanding of the Eucharist is essential in the same way that preaching the gospel rightly is important. The believer should never tire of hearing the Gospel and so should never tire of taking the Eucharist. The problem is “we hardly know any more what purpose this sacrament serves or how it should be used...This is the fault of preachers who do not preach the gospel or the sacraments, but their humanly devised fables about the many works of satisfaction to be done and the ways to live aright.”16 When the preacher reminds the believer of their need for grace, rather than flattering them with pronouncements of their ability to fulfill all duties, then the believer will desire the preached word and the sacrament more frequently.

Strengthening and Gladdening
Because of the sufferings of the church and the sinfulness of humanity, the Eucharist is needed in a positive way (or as Luther puts it: profits). The responsibility to shared sufferings is assumed by the believer, but the believer is not sufficient to meet these demands. Luther takes two of the positive benefits of the bread and wine in the Eucharist from the Scripture's description of the purpose of bread and wine. In Psalm 104:15, the Psalmist writes that God gave “bread to strengthen man's heart” and “wine to make glad the heart of man.”

Luther takes as further proof of the strengthening of the Eucharist Acts 9:18-19, where Paul is given back his sight and then is “baptized and taking food was strengthened.” Luther takes this food as being the Eucharist.17 The strengthening of the Eucharist consists in the forgiveness offered in the Eucharist. Where our sins accuse and attack us, the Eucharist reminds the believer of the payment for sin in the life and death of Christ.

This strengthening results in joy. The wine in the Eucharist communicates the gladdening of the heart of the believer. “Let him go joyfully to the sacrament of the alter and lay down his woe in the midst of the community of saints and seek help from the entire company of the spiritual body.”18 In this sure sign of Christ's love for the person, “The heart cannot but rejoice and be strengthened.”19

Organic Union
The reality of the Eucharist resides in union with Christ. Although Luther begins by using the word fellowship for the relationship between Christ and the believer, it soon becomes apparent that Luther means more than friendly relationship. The union the believer has by faith is one that is more vital, real and organic than mere relationship. Although Reformation theologians assailed the mystics, the sacraments remain a mystical subject. Luther conceives of the union with Christ a believer enjoys illustrated in the Eucharist as “no more intimate, deep, and indivisible union than the union of the food with him who is fed. For the food enters into and is assimilated by his very nature, and becomes one substance with the person who is fed...thus in the sacrament we too become united with Christ, and are made one body with all the saints, so that Christ cares for us and acts on our behalf.”20 The Eucharist enables some understanding of union as we share in the benefits of Christ though vital union.

Desire and Hope
Christians, for Luther, should be seen frequently coming to the table. When one considers that greatness of the gift of the sacrament, given by Christ, what would restrain the believer from coming? Although Christ left the means of encounter with Him by the Word by way of the ear, so too did Christ leave a means of encounter with Him by way of the eyes and the hands. The desire of believers to come into the presence of their Savior should be evident. So obvious was this to Luther, that if one was known to be frequently absent from the table, they ought not to be considered a Christian.21 If Christ instituted the Supper to remember Him with “the very words, 'as often as you do it,' imply that we should do it often.”22 If one is truly a Christian, how often should they wish to remember their Savior? If rarely or never, are they truly a Christian?
Ultimately, the Eucharist is comforting. “We see now how necessary this sacrament is for those who must face death, or other dangers of body and soul, that they not be left in them alone but be strengthened in the fellowship of Christ and all saints.”23 When the need compels the believer to the table, the Eucharist comforts them. For the needy, it is “pure, wholesome, soothing medicine.”24

Luther ends one of his treatises on the Eucharist with this imagery: “Baptism leads us into a new life on earth; the bread guides us through death into eternal life. And the two are signified by the Red Sea and the Jordan, and by two lands, one beyond and one on this side of Jordan.”25 Luther here compares the former pre-Christian life to Egypt. In Egypt, God's people were under slavery. To free them from this, God led the Israelites through the Red Sea, paralleling (as Peter and Paul also pick up on) Christian baptism. After being freed from slavery (Egypt with the Jews, Sin and Death with Christians) now God's people are fed with bread (manna from heaven for the Jews, Eucharist for the Christians). The bread is a sign of God's care and sustaining in between lands, no longer in Egypt, but not yet in the Promised Land.
The Eucharist represents the continual, sustained nature of faith. Though every believer has a point of entry into the Christian life, they also have the time after to live within. The food for the journey is the Gospel of Christ pictured by body in bread and blood in wine. Therein is the sustaining and joy of the Christian. Therein is the suffering and comfort of fellowship for the Christian. Therein is the reminder of need and the promise of forgiveness. Because all these benefits are exhibited in the Eucharist, the benefit of hope is given to those who partake of the bread and wine. For Luther, the Eucharist is no mere rite, but the visible word of the Gospel.


References:

1 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 449
2 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 450.
3 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 50
4 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 452
5 Harry Boonstra. “Home Communion” Reformed Worship. Issue #13. retrieved at: http://www.reformedworship.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=44
6 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 51
7 Ibid., 57
8 Ibid., 52
9 Ibid., 54
10 Ibid., 55
11 Ibid., 57
12 Ibid., 55
13 Ibid., 56
14 Matthew 9:13
15 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 454
16 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 56-57
17 Ibid., 53
18 Ibid., 53
19 Ibid., 54
20 Ibid., 59
21 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 451
22 Ibid., 452
23 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 65
24 Martin Luther. “Luther's Larger Catechism.” Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1959), 454
25 Martin Luther. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 1519.” Luther's Works: Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 67

Calvin: The Divine Exchange

"Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament [of the Lord's Supper], as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that everything which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken from us than from him; on the other hand, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us, seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself as if they were his own.

This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness."

-John Calvin. Institutes. Bk 4, ch 17.2

Take to the World: The Result of Churchly Life

So does the ministry of word and sacrament promote an ingrown, self-focused tendency in the church? Does this view of Spiritual Life as Churchly Life ignore the world?

No, and this is why a worship service ends with the benediction. The benediction reminds the people that they have received blessing and grace from God by the Word and that should be taken back to the world.

Derek Webb has a great song called "Take to the World" that functions much like a Benediction. The first few lines communicate that well, asking that our "ears ring long with what you've heard" and that the "bread on your tongue, leave a trail of crumbs to lead the hungry back to the place that you are from."

Take to the World
by Derek Webb

go in peace, to love and to serve
let your ears ring long with what you’ve heard
and may the bread on your tongue
leave a trail of crumbs
to lead the hungry back to the place that you are from

(chorus)
and take to the world this love, hope and faith
take to the world this rare, relentless grace
and like the three in one
know you must become what you want to save
‘cause that’s still the way
He takes to the world

go, and go far
take light deep in the dark
believe what’s true
He uses all, even you

Calvin on "This is my body"

"Hence the bread is Christ’s body, because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time his own body; for Christ is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty representations. — (To think that he would feed us with shadows and empty representations.) Hence it is regarded by me as beyond all controversy, that the reality is here conjoined with the sign; or, in other words, that we do not less truly become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy, than we partake of the bread....


There now remains but one difficulty — how is it possible that his body, which is in heaven, is given to us here upon earth? Some imagine that Christ’s body is infinite, and is not confined to any one space, but fills heaven and earth, (Jeremiah 23:24) like his Divine essence. This fancy is too absurd to require refutation. The Schoolmen dispute with more refinement as to his glorious body. Their whole doctrine, however, reduces itself to this — that Christ is to be sought after in the bread, as if he were included in it. Hence it comes, that the minds of men behold the bread with wonderment, and adore it in place of Christ. Should any one ask them whether they adore the bread, or the appearance of it, they will confidently agree that they do not, but, in the mean time, when about to adore Christ, they turn to the bread. They turn, I say, not merely with their eyes, and their whole body, but even with the thoughts of the heart. Now what is this but unmixed idolatry? But that participation in the body of Christ, which, I affirm, is presented to us in the Supper, does not require a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor an infinite extension of his body, nor anything of that nature, for the Supper being a heavenly action, there is no absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote.

But, in order that we may be capable of this participation, we must rise heavenward. Here, therefore, faith must be our resource, when all the bodily senses have failed. When I speak of faith, I do not mean any sort of opinion, resting on human contrivances, as many, boasting of faith on all occasions, run grievously wild on this point. What then? You see bread — nothing more — but you learn that it is a symbol (A sign and evidence) of Christ’s body. Do not doubt that the Lord accomplishes what his words intimate — that the body, which thou dost not at all behold, is given to thee, as a spiritual repast. It seems incredible, that we should be nourished by Christ’s flesh, which is at so great a distance from us. Let us bear in mind, that it is a secret and wonderful work of the Holy Spirit, which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding...

These few things will satisfy those that are sound and modest. As for the curious, I would have them look somewhere else for the means of satisfying their appetite."

-John Calvin. Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:26

The Ordinary Means: The Word and the Supper

On the night before his death, Jesus held a final supper with his disciples.

Luke 22:19-20 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." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Two elements were used: Bread and Wine. The institution was short and poignant. But what did it mean? Why do we do we continue to do it? Mere ritualism? Because we have to (we are commanded to)?

To ask how this Sacrament accompanies the word in Christian worship, and thus Christian spirituality, Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 is very helpful. There are 3 important points Paul makes that we need to explore:

1)Word and Sacrament.

As we saw, the word and baptism are intricately associated, symbioticly linked, so that without the word, baptism is a mere wet action. In the Lord's Supper, we again given a similar description:

1Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

In baptism, we were "washed in water by the word." (Ephesians 5:26) Here, a similar concept emerges. In the Supper, Christ's death is "proclaimed." It doesn't take much of a word study before one sees the close relation between word and proclaim. The usual content of proclaiming in Scripture is the word.

The Lord's supper is a "visible word" as Augustine calls it. John in his first epistle declares the word as "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life." (1 John 1:1) The problem for believers now is that though we have the word in our ears, we lack the word present to our other senses. Christ walked with, could be seen and touched by the disciples. To engage more than our sense of hearing, God condescends to our infirmity and proclivity to doubt by declaring Christ, and him crucified, also to our tongues and to our fingers. The message of Christ appears visibly before us.

2)It is to be done in remembrance

“Do this in remembrance of me”

The meal is also a vehicle of memory. We may know the story, but remembrance is an important necessity after the fall. Throughout the Old Testament, the narrative pauses to instruct the reader to do something (a meal or ritual) to remember an instance of God's salvation, either the Passover or the parting of the Sea (either the Sea of reeds or Jordan) and to use it to declare the salvation of God. Jesus, exercising his station as Lord, does the same with the disciples. We are forgetful creatures, so we require repetition for memory.


3) It is a communion with Christ.

1Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation (κοινωνια) in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation (κοινωνια) in the body of Christ?

The word "κοινωνια" can be translated as "communion" or as in the ESV "participation." The word denotes a communication, a transaction or intercourse between two things. Paul here gives further interpretation to the words "This is my body/blood" spoken by Christ. Paul instructs us that these words cannot be construed as we may wish to construe them. Typically, these words are understood as "This represents my body" or "This signifies my blood." Yet a "κοινωνια" with the blood of Christ denotes much more than a symbol or sign.

Certainly, the bread signifies the body. The bread does not carry the atoms of Christ's physical body. Yet in the Lord's Supper, more happens between Christ and the faithful. With the bread and wine, the believer also communes/participates with the very flesh and blood of Christ.

Should this surprise and offend us? The disciples certainly were offended when Christ talked of it:

⁵²Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" ⁵³Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁵⁵For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. ⁵⁶Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." (John 6:52-56)

Jesus was very specific with his words. What he meant to communicate was more than mere belief:


⁶¹Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? ⁶²What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! ⁶³The Spirit gives life" (John 6:61-63)

We should not think that Jesus backs away from pointing to His flesh and blood which stood before them, but he does give more meaning to His words. The disciples are still offended after the explanation, but admitted they stayed not because he explained to their satisfaction that Jesus merely meant believing, but because they had no one else to go to (John 6:68-69). When Jesus explains that the Spirit gives life, He gives the agency of the communion between Jesus and His disciples. The Incarnation, Jesus as God taking on Humanity, has deeper layers of meaning and spiritual consequence than we typically think.

The flesh Jesus took on was the same as all men, a mortal flesh. Yet, in His taking on flesh, he displayed the compatibility of Immortality with flesh. Christ's life does not end, and the flesh he took on was raised and glorified. Such is the fate of the flesh we now sport. The source of vivification of that flesh is also the same, the life in the Person of Jesus, human and divine. That life Christ shares with us in union with Him. (Romans 5:15-17 ; 6:4 ; 8:11) The Spirit carries that life from Christ to the believer:

"If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." (Romans 8:11)

Paul holds out the life in the flesh and blood of Christ to believers in the Supper. Not that the believer chews Christ, but yet with the act of eating, truly feeds on Christ, and the life in His flesh and blood, nonetheless. In it, the believer is vitally participating in the flesh and blood of Christ, received by faith, by the agency of the Spirit.

This is why we continue to come to the Supper. We come to the Supper for a similar reason we come to hear the word preached and why we pray. In each of them, we commune with the same reality, Christ, yet in different ways. They do not replace one another, as if we can go to a sermon rather than pray, or go the the Supper rather than a sermon. They each are points of communion with God, yet in different manners. We do not merely "do the Supper" because we are commanded to, but because of what we receive in the Supper, namely Christ.

Are Roman Sacraments Valid?

The Roman Church is considered by Reformed and Lutheran Confessionalists to be a "false church." Exactly what it means to be a false church remains a little cloudy. Indeed, such a designation exists for Paul as a church that does not preach the gospel. But what else does that entail? Most Protestant Churches have still recognized the sacraments of the Roman church as valid sacraments. Why is this if Rome does not preach the gospel? Martin Luther offers an explanation:

"Although the city Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorra, nevertheless there remains Baptism, Sacraments, the Words of the Gospel, the Holy Scriptures, the Ministry of the Church, the name of Christ and the name of God . . . Therefore, the Roman Church is holy, because she has the holy name of God, the Gospel, the Baptism, etc. If these things exist among a people, the people is called holy. Thus also our city Wittenberg is a holy city, and we are truly holy because we are baptized, have received the Holy Communion and have been taught and called by God. We have the work of God among us, the Word and the Sacraments, and these make us holy."

- Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535, Luther's Works, trans. by Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963), vol. 26, pp.24-25.

Calvin on the Lord's Supper

"They are preposterous who allow this matter nothing more, than they have been able to reach with the measure of their understanding. When they deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the Holy Supper. “Define the mode” they say, “or you will not convince us.” But as for myself, I am filled with amazement at the greatness of the mystery. Nor am I ashamed, with Paul, to confess in admiration my own ignorance. For how much better is that, than to extenuate with my carnal sense what the apostle pronounces a high mystery!"

"Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

"It is evident from St. Luke in the Book of Acts that communion was much more frequently celebrated in the primitive church. Wherefore, we must acknowledge that it is a defect in us that we do not follow the example of the apostles." -John Calvin, letter to the magistrates of Berne

Why the Ordering of Worship is Important.

A congregation member once asked Martin Luther after a service why he had not moved on from the topic of the gospel in his preaching. "Every week you talk about the gospel, why can't we move to something else?" Luther replied, "Because every week you forget it."

What does the gospel focus of Luther have to do with the ordering of worship? It should have everything to do with it. I here wish to defend the idea of having multiple elements of worship, not as an attack on those who don't, but a positive goal for communicating the gospel. Every church has an ordering of worship or a liturgy, the question is what that liturgy is and communicates.

Here are the questions that I have concluded I must ask if I am involved in ordering worship:

1) What would we weekly want to remind our worshipers (and visitors) about the faith?

2) How can we communicate the gospel, even if there was no sermon?

3) How could we engage people with different disabilities (learning or physical) in the truth of the gospel?

4) What is prescribed by Scripture?

Here are some elements that make their way into our weekly liturgies (other than the sermon) at our church that I believe answers these questions and communicates the gospel:

Confession of sin: weekly reading through a confession of sin (perhaps even like this from the BOCP) reminds all worshipers they are in need of a savior from their sins. Visitors are made aware that Christians are also sinners. (1 John 1:9)

Declaration of Forgiveness: Also weekly, a reminder from Romans 5:1 or Romans 8:1 of their forgiven status in Christ. Visitors are weekly told the answer to the problem of sin is in Christ.

Confession of Faith: Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, or part of the Westminster or Heidelberg Catechism is read. Weekly reminder of what we believe about God, the person of Christ and the work of Christ. Visitors are weekly told, Jesus is not a person that is the object of some strangely sensual love music, but GOD. (Romans 10:9)

Reading of Scripture: Always followed by "The Word of the Lord, Thanks be to God." A weekly affirmation of the central role and authority of Scripture in the life of the church. (1 Tim 4:13, 2 Tim 3:16)

Eucharist/Communion - Christ said "Do this in remembrance of Me." And here we have the gospel in sound, taste, sight, smell and touch. If a member is missing one or more senses, the gospel is available to the other senses. Christ is the bread to sustain us, the wine to enjoy (as I have said earlier). The gospel for those who may not hear the sermon, or see the words of Scripture (1 Cor 11:26). Christ condescends to us here.

There are other elements in the service, but these are those elements which I find are central to communicating the gospel weekly. Any thoughts? Omissions? Good gospel practices from your church?

Celebrating Dependence: Calvin and Communion

From a Baptist background, the ministers always explained the "only" or “merely” aspect of the Lord’s Supper. “This is MERELY a symbol of the forgiveness of sins.” It was only described in the negative: Not Catholic. One begins to wonder if this tradition is so minor, so mere, why do we do it at all?

This “mere” idea comes from Zwingli and dominates the sacramental theology of Baptists and Presbyterians, Reformed and otherwise. Yet, Calvin’s mind in Soteriology is acknowledged as far superior. Why not entertain some of his thoughts on the Lord’s Supper?

Turns out Calvin’s Institutes find little “mere” or “minor” in the symbol of Christ‘s blood and body. Some selections:

“As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ.”

Calvin invites contemplation on the “similitude” of bread and wine to the “giving daily” of the benefits of Christ. I find Psalm 104:15 lists both and their function:

Bread:
“Bread to strengthen man's heart” (ESV)
I may surmise that Christ continually is to be our strength.

Wine:
“wine maketh glad the heart of man, making the face brighter than oil” (JPS)
Christ is to be the gladness of our heart, making our face beam more than oil.

While Christ’s sacrifice for sin was once for all, the Lord’s Supper reminds us of the continual nature in which Christ is the source of our strength and our joy. Our sustaining Providence and the source of our delight. Thus, while we may see baptism as our death and new life with Christ, done once, the Lord’s Supper is the continual coming to Christ for strength and joy. Calvin does not leave the symbolism to the past grace of Christ, but the present and future. We are continually given the benefits of Christ’s “wonderous exchange.” What does Calvin mean by this phrase? He tells us:

“the wonderous exchange…having become with us the Son of Man, He made us with Himself sons of God. By His own descent to the earth, He prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, He has bestowed on us His immortality. Having under-taken our weakness, He has made us strong in His strength. Having submitted to our poverty, He has transferred to us His riches. Having taken upon Himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, He has clothed us with His righteousness.”

In the Lord’s Supper, perhaps we ask the wrong question of “Does the bread and wine become Christ?” Perhaps we should ask “Does Christ become our bread and wine?” Our strength and delight.