This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Louis Berkhof’s little book, Summary of Christian Doctrine. On today’s episode, we continue our discussion of chapter XXVII, “The Lord’s Supper.” We talk about a variety of different matters, including where the body of Christ is currently and where Jesus is during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Louis Berkhof’s little book, Summary of Christian Doctrine. On today’s episode, we begin to discuss chapter XXVII, “The Lord’s Supper.” We consider the Lord’s institution of the Supper, the background of the Passover meal, as well as what is meant by the Lord’s Supper being a sign and seal.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

In this episode, Camden Bucey and Jim Cassidy dive into a variety of topics answering questions submitted by listeners and viewers of the program. Topics covered range from theological discussions, such as the role of Jesus’ intercession for the elect and non-elect within the visible church​​, to historical and exegetical considerations, like the understanding of the Old Covenant as the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace​​.

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:05:12 What We’re Reading
• 00:14:42 Merit and the Covenant of Works
• 00:20:38 Jesus’ Intercession
• 00:29:38 Street Preaching and the Local Church
• 00:37:12 Old Testament Saints and the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit
• 00:47:20 Is the Old Covenant the Same as the Mosaic Covenant?
• 00:50:12 Flags in the Worship Service
• 00:58:13 Grape Juice in the Lord’s Supper
• 01:13:08 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy

Sean Morris joins us to speak about the pastoral theology of John Knox. Known as the thunderous voice of the Scottish Reformation, Knox is a towering figure whose impact still reverberates within the walls of churches around the globe. This episode focuses on Knox’s profound commitment to conforming worship to Scripture, a principle that shaped not only the religious landscape of his own time but also the worship practices of numerous Protestant traditions today.

Knox’s time in Geneva led to a transformative moment in the history of the Scottish Reformation. He didn’t just carry back Calvin’s teachings to Scotland, he translated them into a national scale, bringing about the establishment of a new Protestant and Reformed Church of Scotland. Today, Knox is known as the “Father of Presbyterianism,” a title acknowledging his impact despite the strong influences he drew from Calvin.

However, this journey was not without its obstacles and disappointments, notably with the Scottish First Book of Discipline. Mr. Morris elaborates on several of Knox’s frustrations, particularly with the position of superintendents, and the eventual triumphs and compromises he had to navigate while reforming the Scottish Church.

We also consider Knox’s experience with the “worship wars” in Frankfurt, and how his commitment to the regulative principle of worship evolved. At its core, this principle is an application of sola scriptura to worship, seeking only to require in worship that which is commanded in Scripture. Knox’s conviction here, despite the challenges, deeply influenced the trajectory of Presbyterianism.

Mr. Morris sheds light on Knox’s pastoral theology, opening our eyes to the complexities of historical and current worship practices. Tune in as we navigate this exciting journey into the past, appreciating the influences that continue to shape the contemporary Christian landscape.

Sean Morris is Associate Minister of Covenant PCA in Oak Ridge, TN and
Academic Dean of BRITE (Blue Ridge Institute for Theological Education) in Roanoke, VA.

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:03:07 PCA General Assembly Highlights
• 00:12:57 John Knox and Presbyterianism
• 00:21:26 Exclusive Psalmody and Psalm Tunes
• 00:25:06 John Knox’s Biography and Church Context
• 00:32:19 Knox and Calvin
• 00:36:40 Toward a Regulative Principle of Worship
• 00:46:25 Knox and the Lord’s Supper
• 00:52:26 The Pastoral Work of the Session
• 00:59:24 Suggested Reading
• 01:05:21 Presbygirl Paparazzi
• 01:10:15 Conclusion

Suggested Reading

• Jane Dawson, John Knox
• Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology
• Knox Film Documentary
• Donald MacLeod, Therefore the Truth I Speak: Scottish Theology 1500–1700
• The Works of John Knox, Banner of Truth
• The First Book of Discipline
• The Second Book of Discipline

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, Sean Morris

Danny Olinger and Camden Bucey discuss Graham Greene’s novel, The Power and the Glory, which raises many questions about the nature of faith, ordination, and the sacraments through the lens of Roman Catholic theology. Greene said, “The aim of the book was to oppose the power of the sacraments and the indestructibility of the Church on the one hand with, on the other, the merely temporal power of an essentially Communist state” (Godman, 88). John Updike called this novel, “Graham Greene’s masterpiece.”

Danny Olinger is General Secretary for the Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Links

• Christ the Center episode 644, Catholic Theology and the Novels of Graham Greene
• Christ the Center episode 560 with Lawrence Feingold, The Beatific Vision and the Eucharist in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Danny Olinger

In this episode, we continue our discussion of Justin Martyr’s account of ancient Christian worship, focusing this time on the Lord’s Supper (eucharist) and Lord’s Day worship.

Justin Martyr wrote an early account of ancient Christian worship. It was written by a believer for an unbeliever. He does not assume that his intended reader—the Emperor Antoninus Pius (138–161)—knows anything about Christian worship. Second, while Pliny describes the worship practices of the Christians in Pontus, Justin describes the liturgical customs of the church in Rome. Justin lived and worshiped in Rome, but he didn’t convert in Rome. He most likely converted to Christianity in Ephesus around 130 A.D. So he was familiar with the liturgical customs of both Western and Eastern Christians. Third, Justin’s account is descriptive not prescriptive. It’s not a church order (e.g. Didache, Apostolic Tradition). It is simply a description of what Christians were already doing not what Justin thought they ought to do.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jeff Waddington

In his first apology (ca. 150–155 A.D.), Justin Martyr wrote an early account of ancient Christian worship, describing ancient practices regarding the sacraments and Lord’s Day worship. It was written to an unbeliever, and therefore Justin does not assume that his intended reader—the Emperor Antoninus Pius (138–161)—knows anything about Christian worship. Moreover, while Pliny describes the worship practices of the Christians in Pontus, Justin describes the liturgical customs of the church in Rome. Justin lived and worshiped in Rome, but he didn’t convert in Rome. He most likely converted to Christianity in Ephesus around 130 A.D. So he was familiar with the liturgical customs of both Western and Eastern Christians. It is also important to understand that Justin’s account is descriptive not prescriptive. It is not a church order (e.g. Didache, Apostolic Tradition). It is simply a description of what Christians were already doing not what Justin thought they ought to do.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jeff Waddington

Dr. Lawrence Feingold brings us a Catholic’s perspective on Thomas Aquinas and the important connection between his doctrines of the Eucharist and the Beatific Vision. Dr. Feingold is Associate Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis. He is the author of The Eucharist: Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion and The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas and His Interpreters. Dr. Feingold expresses the deep congruence between Thomas’s metaphysic and doctrines of the Beatific Vision and Eucharist. Rather than treating different loci of his theology and philosophy as disparate elements, it is much better and more appropriate to embrace Thomas as a monumental thinker developing an organic whole. While we have deep differences with the Roman Catholic tradition, we found this conversation to be utterly stimulating and instructive. Our understanding of Thomas and Catholicism was sharpened, and we trust listeners and viewers will benefit from careful consideration of Dr. Feingold’s teaching.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Lawrence Feingold

We have compiled a list of suggested reading to help those coming to the 2018 Theology Conference. We realize people like have neither the time nor financial budget to work through each of these titles in advance of the conference. Nonetheless, even a first-level reading of a few of these resources will help attendees make the most out of the conference. One of the things we love most about our events is the personal interaction. Working through the issues together is what makes the Reformed Forum community so special. Study and contemplate the deep mysteries of the God-man relationship and the future consummation. In October, let’s take the discussion to the next level.

Primary Sources

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
• Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics
  • CD I/2, section 14.
  • CD II/1, section 31.3
  • CD I/1, section 6
  • CD III/1, section 41.2
  • CD III/1, section 45.1
• Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, Preface to the Second Edition
• Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Theology Proper
• Logos Resources
  • Barth’s Church Dogmatics: https://www.logos.com/product/5758/barths-church-dogmatics.
  • Vos: https://www.logos.com/product/48797/reformed-dogmatics
  • Van Til: https://www.logos.com/product/3994/the-works-of-cornelius-van-til

General Reading on the Beatific Vision

• Hans Boersma, Seeing God: The Beatific Vision in Christian Tradition

Thomas Aquinas

• Daria Spezzano, The Glory of God’s Grace: Deification According to St. Thomas Aquinas
• Dominic Legge, The Trinitarian Christology of St. Thomas Aquinas
• Lawrence Feingold, The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas and His Interpreters
• Levering and Dauphinais, eds., Rediscovering Aquinas and the Sacraments

Karl Barth

• Keith L. Johnson, Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis
• McCormack and White, eds., Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth: An Unofficial Catholic-Protestant Dialogue
• James J. Cassidy, God’s Time For Us: Barth on the Reconciliation of Eternity and Time in Jesus Christ

Catholicism and Protestantism

• Cornelius Van Til, The Confession of 1967
• Cornelius Van Til, The New Synthesis Theology of the Netherlands
• Cornelius Van Til, The Great Debate Today
• John W. O’Malley, What Happened at Vatican II?
• William M. Shea, The Lion and the Lamb: Evangelicals and Catholics in America

* Check back for updates.

Genesis 18 provides a prototypical picture of the feast the believers have with their King in the heavenly places. It does so in the context of Sarah demonstrating an imperfect faith in a perfect Savior.

Participants: Adam York, Jim Cassidy, Mark A. Winder

The first paragraph of chapter twenty-nine in the Westminster Confession of Faith sets forth the institution of Lord’s Supper and the uses and ends for which it is designed:

Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.

In this episode, we discuss the five purposes of the Lord’s Supper detailed in the confession:

1. Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper as a commemorative ordinance for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death.
2. The Lord’s Supper is a confirmatory sign (cf. Rom. 4:11) for the purpose of sealing all the benefits procured by Christ’s death unto true believers.
3. Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper for the spiritual nourishment and growth of believers in him.
4. Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper for believers for their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him.
5. Finally, Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper to be a bond and pledge of believers’ communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jim Cassidy

On the night before his crucifixion, Jesus shared a meal with his disciples. Since this was the last in a series of meals he shared with them during his ministry, it’s known as the last supper. The disciples were discouraged when Christ said he would not eat with them again until the kingdom comes (Luke 22:18). The thought of their intimate fellowship with him coming to an abrupt end filled them with sadness. At the time, they failed to realize that even though Christ was about to depart from this world and return to his Father, they were not going to be completely cut off from fellowship with him. To the contrary, it was better for them that Christ should depart because, after his departure, he would send the Holy Spirit to abide with them forever (John 16:7). Christ assured them that through the Holy Spirit, they would continue to enjoy the most intimate kind of fellowship with him. In the person of the Spirit, Christ himself would come to them and commune with them. That’s why, before he ascended into heaven, he said to them, “Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). Christ not only promised to give the disciples the Holy Spirit, he also instituted a sacred meal through which they could continue to enjoy table fellowship with him, even after his departure. This meal, which is known as the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), was given to the church as a perpetual, sacred ordinance of public worship. Christ commanded his church to “do this”; that is, “eat this bread and drink the cup” as a regular part of public worship “until he returns” (1 Cor. 11:24–26). Hence, on the night in which he was betrayed, Jesus not only shared a meal with his disciples (the last supper), he instituted a meal (the Lord’s Supper) as a sacrament through which he would continue to have table fellowship and communion with the saints by his Spirit.

Cornelis P. Venema joins us to speak about his book By His Spirit and Word: How Christ Builds His Church (Reformed Fellowship, Inc.). Venema engages in an extended exposition on the doctrine of the church and its ministry as described in the historic confessions and catechisms of the Reformation churches. These confessions emphasize the church’s indispensability to the salvation of believers, for the triune God’s redemptive mission is principally effected through the ministry of the church. Dr. Venema is President and Professor of Doctrinal Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Cornelis Venema

The Lord’s Supper is a profound mystery, and yet it’s so simple that anyone who has taken a bite of food and a gulp of water can understand it. Some may be skeptical of this claim since this doctrine has caused some of the sharpest debates and divisions throughout church history. But, with Calvin, we should recognize that these difficulties are not inherent to the doctrine itself, but result from the influence of the church’s archenemy. In Calvin’s words,

Satan, to deprive the church of this inestimable treasure [that is, the Lord’s Supper], has long since spread clouds, and afterward, to obscure this light, has raised quarrels and conflicts to estrange the minds of simple folk from a taste for this sacred food… (IV.xvii.1).

For this reason, it becomes necessary for Calvin to spend another 80+ pages resolving “those difficulties with which Satan has tried to ensnare the world” and for us to join him in foiling the demonic traps in our own day. But as we go about this noble endeavor, we must never lose sight of the simple teaching of this profound mystery. In fact, our goal in resolving these difficulties should be to return to its simplicity. Winston Churchill once remarked, “A vocabulary of truth and simplicity will be of service throughout your life.” This wisdom holds true as we consider the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, which services the nourishment of our spiritual life in Christ.

Calvin’s Simple Explanation

Calvin opens his discussion of the Lord’s Supper in his Institutes with a simple overview of its chief design:

God has received us, once for all, into his family, to hold us not only as servants but as sons. Thereafter, to fulfill the duties of a most excellent Father concerned for his offspring, he undertakes also to nourish us throughout the course of our life. And not content with this alone, he has willed, by giving his pledge, to assure us of this continuing liberality. To this end, therefore, he has, through the hand of his only-begotten Son, given to his church another sacrament, that is, a spiritual banquet, wherein Christ attests himself to be the life-giving bread, upon which our souls feed unto true and blessed immortality (IV.xvii.1).

The Simple Aim of the Lord’s Supper

The simplicity in which Calvin desired the Lord’s Supper to be understood and taught is reflected in article 35 of the Belgic Confession. In fact, as P. Y. De Jong notes, the confession is “an admirable and appropriate summary” of Calvin’s treatise.[1] It begins with an echo of Calvin as it states the aim of the sacrament:

to nourish and support those whom [Christ] has already regenerated and incorporated into his family, which is his church.

The sacrament does not create faith and, therefore, is not a converting or adopting ordinance. Rather, it nourishes the already existing faith of the children of God and produces growth in grace (see Westminster Larger Catechism Q/A 168). It is the family of God sitting down for a nourishing meal. As my pastor said yesterday (in a sermon that inspired this post), our Father doesn’t neglect his children as to leave us anemic in faith; on the contrary, he willingly and readily supplies us with all that we need for a full and satisfied life in Christ.[2]

A Simple Sign and the Twofold Life of the Believer

The confession next employs a helpful figure of speech to explain the simplicity of the Lord’s Supper:

[2] The sermon is entitled “Really United to Jesus” and it is on Romans 6:5-11 in connection with Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 29. You can find the sermon here. [3] De Jong, The Church’s Witness to the World, 380.

Paul’s aim in 1 Cor. 11:17–34 is to correct an error in the church at Corinth. In vv. 17–22, he states the error, and in vv. 23–34, he provides the solution. To rightly interpret the verses that state Paul’s solution to the error, one needs to know exactly what the error is that he’s addressing. Paul describes the error as eating and drinking the Lord’s Supper in “an unworthy manner” (v. 27). So the error had to do with their manner of observing the Lord’s Supper. The solution to this error is briefly stated in v. 28, “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” To understand what Paul means by self-examination, one needs to interpret this statement in light of the error in the church that Paul is seeking to correct. How exactly were the Corinthians eating and drinking the Lord’s Supper in “an unworthy manner”? They were observing the Lord’s Supper in a way that created divisions or factions among them (v. 18). As a result, the church was divided into two groups: one group which had plenty of food to eat and drink (the haves), and the other group which had nothing to eat and drink (the have nots). The haves were selfishly feeding themselves until they were completely full, while the have nots were left with empty stomachs. “One goes hungry, another gets drunk” (v. 21). The haves were sinning against the church. They were treating their brothers and sisters in the Lord with contempt. So Paul sternly rebukes them, “Do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (v. 22). By their selfish behavior, the haves were depriving their brothers and sisters not only of ordinary food that would nourish their bodies (note: the Lord’s Supper was an actual meal at that time) but of the sacred food that would nourish their souls. By selfishly feeding themselves and leaving nothing of this sacred meal for others, they were cutting them off from the blessed communion in the body and blood of Christ that they would have received by participating in the meal (10:16). Their division of the church into factions and deprival of one group of saints of these spiritual benefits was an outrageous sin against the church, against the sacrament, and against Jesus Christ himself, who died for all the saints and who gives his body and blood through the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper as spiritual nourishment for the soul of every believer. Thus, the haves were sinning against the spiritual realities signified by the bread and wine, namely, the body and blood of Christ. By eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, they were “guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27). Consequently, they were being disciplined by God with infirmities, illnesses and even death (v. 30). It is important to note that those who were punished by God in this way were genuine believers. Their punishment was not eternal condemnation. To the contrary, they were being disciplined by their heavenly Father, so that they would not be condemned along with the world. The divine punishments that they incurred were temporal judgments not eternal (v. 32). If the error at Corinth was that they were observing the Lord’s Supper in a manner that created divisions among the church, and the solution to that error was self-examination, then what exactly does self-examination mean? It must mean that they should examine themselves with respect to the particular problem that Paul has articulated. Paul instructs them to examine themselves with respect to the divisions in the church created by their manner of observing the sacrament. Paul is saying to them, “Examine yourself with respect to these divisions. Are you guilty of selfishly feeding yourself and leaving your brothers and sisters with nothing to eat? If so, then repent. Seek God’s forgiveness, and seek their forgiveness. And don’t do it again. Don’t participate in the Lord’s Supper in that unworthy manner.” If the problem that Paul is correcting is division, then the solution to the problem is don’t create these divisions when you eat the Lord’s Supper. Instead of feeding yourself to satisfaction and leaving nothing left for your brothers and sisters, wait for them and make sure they also have food to eat. That’s essentially what Paul says in v. 33, “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.” But what if someone is starving and he can’t wait for the other Christians to arrive? Well, he should eat something at home before coming to church. “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together, it will not be for judgment” (v. 34). In context, therefore, self-examination means to examine your conduct with respect to the unity of the church and with respect to the other members of the body of Christ. If your conduct is such that you have eaten more than enough to satisfy your hunger and have left others with nothing to eat or drink, then you have partaken in an unworthy manner.

The connection between historia salutis and ordo salutis, that is, between salvation as it has been accomplished in redemptive history and salvation as it is applied in the life experience of the believer, has been a fruitful field cultivated with tremendous richness over the past century of Reformed scholarship as Systematic Theology has been fertilized with the work of Biblical Theology. Herman Bavinck, with his characteristic eloquence, has brought this connection between the objective work of redemptive history and its application to bear on the necessity of the limitation, or better put, the definiteness of Christ’s atonement.

All the benefits of the covenant of grace are linked (Rom. 8:28-34) and find their ground in the death of Christ (Rom. 5:8-11). Atonement in Christ carries with it salvation and blessedness. For Christ is the head and believers are his body, a body that receives its growth from him (Eph. 4:16; Col. 2:19). He is the cornerstone, and we are the building (Eph. 2:20-21). He is the firstborn, and we are his brothers (Rom. 8:29). Believers, accordingly, have objectively died, been crucified, buried, raised, and seated in the heavens with and in him. That is, the church is not an accidental and arbitrary aggregate of individuals that can just as easily be smaller or larger, but forms with him an organic whole that is included in him as the second Adam, just as the whole of humankind arises from the first Adam. The application of salvation must therefore extend just as far as its acquisition. The application is comprehended in it and is its necessary development. … If Jesus is truly the Savior he must also really save his people, not potentially but really and in fact, completely and eternally. And this, actually, constitutes the core difference between the proponents and opponents of particular atonement.[1]

This line of thinking can be extended to help explicate how the definite work of Christ in historia salutis bears upon an aspect of its application to his elect in the means of grace of the Lord’s Table. We can do this specifically to help us unfold the distinctive Reformed insistence on how the believer experiences communion with the body and blood of Christ there. As we come to the Lord’s Table by faith we really and truly commune in his body and blood, but not because we physically ingest the substance of Christ’s flesh there, nor because his physical presence somehow comes down from whence it has ascended. Rather, we do so because we are united to him by the Spirit and in that union we own Him as our head who acts on our behalf in redemptive history. We truly commune in his body and blood because as he yielded up his body and blood he did this for us particularly by name as those written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, as those whom the Lamb had determined to purchase specifically through his body and blood by which we have been represented in the historia salutis and unto which we have been united in the ordo salutis. We commune with Christ’s body and blood at the Lord’s Table because the lifeblood he spilled and the skin and muscle he rent were given with a deliberate exactitude that foreknew the face of each and every person for which it made atonement. We truly commune in his body and blood because the Spirit whom the Lamb has sent, he has sent precisely to each he has purchased with his body and blood in order to call them irresistibly and give to them irrevocably the boundless efficacy of his sacrifice for them. The Spirit sent to the Church is the Spirit of Christ as the representative Head of his elect Body. And thus the Spirit ensures that as we approach the table which Christ has set, there we find that our Host has laid out places for us which are adorned with our own namecards. We come there as those written on a guest list which he has drafted by his body and blood. We come there and hear Jesus say, “This is my body which is given for you” and “This is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you” (Lk. 22:19-20) and know that he does not speak those pronouns to an undifferentiated mass of potential believers, but to the definite number of his elect. And so there we really and truly commune with his body and blood as their gracious potency nourishes us by faith again and again until all the ransomed church of God is gathered up to where the physical body of Christ is in fact presently located. While the Table is an act of covenantal remembrance in which we appropriate by faith the abiding significance of Christ’s sacrifice into the contemporary, it is also much more than a sheer act of memory. It is an act of union and communion in the body and blood that was offered up once and for all. For this communion in Christ’s body and blood we do not need a transformation of substance or a transportation of Christ’s body down from heaven. For this communion we only need the Spirit and the faith which he gifts to us. For this communion we only need the relationship Scripture has shown us to exist between the coextensive nature of the acquisition of salvation and its application. The link between the Lord’s Supper and the physical body and blood of Christ is not one forged by substance at a physical location at the table, but by the Spirit wrought union of the believer with Christ in what has been done for him in redemptive history. In that faith-union when the believer receives the bread and wine which Christ hands to him particularly, he really and truly receives the body and blood which Christ offered up for him particularly in the historia salutis and continues to plead for him particularly at the right hand of God as the Spirit applies it to him particularly in his vital union with Christ in his experience of the ordo salutis. [1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, (ed. John Bolt; trans. John Vriend; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003-08.),3:466-467.

Reformed theologians have regularly underscored the relationship between Word and sacraments. The sacraments are appended to the Word for the purpose of confirming or sealing it. The sacraments do not exist independently of the Word. It’s the Word that throws life into the sacraments. Moreover, there is no grace that is unique to the sacraments. The same grace that is received through the Word is also received through the sacraments. So Word and sacraments belong together as “two sides of the same divinely instituted instrumentality,” as Geerhardus Vos put it. Even though Vos did not produce a lengthy treatise on the sacraments, he occasionally addressed the subject in his writings. In a sermon entitled “The Gracious Provision,” Vos has the following to say about the relationship between Word and sacrament.

The word and the sacrament as means of grace belong together: they are two sides of the same divinely instituted instrumentality. While addressing themselves to different organs of perception, they are intended to bear the identical message of the grace of God—to interpret and mutually enforce one another…. Let us therefore be careful to key our preaching to such a note that when we stand as ministrants behind the table of our Lord to distribute the bread of life, our congregation shall feel that what we are doing then is only the sum and culmination of what we have been doing every Sabbath from the pulpit.

If you’ve ever studied the letters of Paul, you know how difficult they are to understand. Christians in the New Testament era and apparently even the apostle Peter found Paul’s letters “hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). Perhaps, the most difficult letter of Paul is 1 Corinthians. I’ve been preaching through the letter for several months, and nearly every text is a challenge. Lately, I’ve spent a lot of time studying what Paul says about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. 10 and 11.

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. — 1 Cor. 10:16–17. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. — 1 Cor. 11:23–29.

These passages are rather difficult to interpret, partly because Paul’s use of the word “body” is ambiguous. He uses the word to refer to (1) the historical body of Christ that was sacrificed for our sins, (2) the sacramental sign of that body in the eucharistic bread, and (3) the ecclesiological body of Christ, namely, the church. There seems to be a deliberate play on words when Paul abruptly shifts from using “body” in one sense to using it in another sense. For example, in 1 Cor. 10:16, “body” refers to the historical body of Jesus; in 10:17, it refers to the church. And the link between these two uses of the word “body” is the eucharistic bread (i.e. the sacramental body). This play on words continues in 1 Cor. 11, and it creates some uncertainty (apparently by design) with regard to the meaning of the word “body.” Before eating the eucharistic bread, we must discern the “body,” says Paul, but what is the referent of the word “body” here? Is it the historical body of Christ given in the sacramental sign or is it his ecclesiological body, the church? The context of the passage suggests that Paul has both ideas in view. One Reformed scholar has offered the following helpful summary of Paul’s use of the word “body” in 1 Cor. 10 and 11.

Dealing with the problem of food sacrificed to idols, Paul compares the idol feasts and the Lord’s Supper. If idols were real, eating sacrifices offered to an idol would result in κοινωνία [communion or participation] with these idols (10:19–20). Similarly, eating the bread and drinking the cup at the Lord’s Table is (somehow) a participation with Christ; more specifically, it is a κοινωνία [participation] in the blood and the body of Christ (10:16). In addition Paul relates the one bread with the ecclesiological community as one body (10:17). Some exegetes have suggested an identification of the sacramental body of Christ and the ecclesiological body of Christ, implying that the church is literally the body of the resurrected Christ. I see no reasons to do so. The bread as κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ [participation in the body of Christ] is primarily combined with the cup of thanksgiving as κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ [participation in the blood of Christ]. Consequently, Paul refers in 10:16 to the body as the historical body of Christ, given in the death for us. However, in 10:17 ‘body’ denotes the communion of the church. Note that Paul does not say that the church is the body of Christ, he only emphasizes their unity as ἓν σῶμα [one body]. Nevertheless, it is still remarkable that Paul, playing around with words, uses both the sacramental and the communal concept of body. At least he suggests a relationship between communion with Christ and his (historical) body and the communion of the church as one body. The corporate communion of the believers, participating in Christ, is connected with a moment of (Eucharistic) union with Christ. This suggests the importance of a concept of union to refer to this moment. The ecclesiological use of the body-metaphor however says more about the corporate nature of the church than about union with Christ, although this corporate nature results from union with Christ. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul returns to the theme of the Lord’s Supper. It is used in an unworthy manner: some remain hungry while others get drunk. The Corinthians did not eat together and despised the church of God. The problem is clear: a malfunctioning community. Within this context referring to the Lord’s Supper, Paul emphasizes that we should διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα [discern the body] (11:29). In 11:23–28, Paul refers to eating the bread and drinking the cup. As a consequence, it is reasonable that διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα [discerning the body] refers to the bread in the preceding verses as sacramental body of Christ. However, the logic of the entire passage 11:17–34 necessitates that διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα [discerning the body] refers also to the ecclesiological body. It is undeniable here that Paul again plays with words and uses διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα [discerning the body] deliberately in an ambiguous way, hence relating the historical or sacramental body of Christ with the ecclesiological body. He sticks these two concepts of the body of Christ together on purpose. Laying this semantic relation by deliberate wordplay, he makes clear that those having communion with Christ by eating his body form together at the same time the body of Christ. Again we find a moment of union with Christ. Now the corporate union of the church and the union with Christ are related more explicitly.

In his “Summary of Doctrine Concerning the Ministry of the Word and the Sacraments,” Calvin articulates the idea of union and communion with Christ through the means of grace.

The end of the whole Gospel ministry is that God … communicate Christ to us who are disunited by sin and hence ruined, that we may from him enjoy eternal life; that in a word all heavenly treasures be so applied to us that they be no less ours than Christ’s himself. We believe this communication to be mystical, and incomprehensible to human reason, and Spiritual, since it is effected by the Holy Spirit [by whom] he joins us to Christ our Head, not in an imaginary way, but most powerfully and truly, so that we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, and from his vivifying flesh he transfuses eternal life into us. To effect this union, the Holy Spirit uses a double instrument, the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. When we say that the Holy Spirit uses an external minister as instrument, we mean this: both in the preaching of the Word and in the use of the sacraments, there are two ministers, who have distinct offices. The external minister administers the vocal word, and the sacred signs which are external, earthly and fallible. But the internal minister, who is the Holy Spirit, freely works internally, while by his secret virtue he effects in the hearts of whomsoever he will their union with Christ through one faith. This union is a thing internal, heavenly and indestructible. In the preaching of the Word, the external minister holds forth the vocal word, and it is received by the ears. The internal minister, the Holy Spirit, truly communicates the thing proclaimed through the Word, that is Christ…. so that it is not necessary that Christ or for that matter his Word be received through the organs of the body, but the Holy Spirit effects this union by his secret virtue, by creating faith in us, by which he makes us living members of Christ, true God and true man.[1]

[1] Jean Calvin, Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 170-77.

Three or four times a year, according to the will of the authorities, two tables are set up in the church, each covered with a tablecloth, and a lot of hosts are set on the left, and three or four cups or glasses on the right, with lots of pots full of either white or red wine below the table. And after the sermon the preacher comes down from the pulpit and goes to the end of the table on the side where the hosts are, and with his head uncovered and standing places a piece in each person’s hand, saying ‘Remember that Jesus Christ died for you’. Each person eats his piece while walking to the other end of the table, where he takes something to drink from one of the Lords, or another person deputized for this task, without saying anything, while sergeants with their head uncovered pour the wine and provide additional hosts if they run out. Throughout all of this, somebody else reads from the pulpit in the vernacular with his head uncovered the gospel of Saint John, from the beginning of the thirteenth chapter, until everyone has taken their piece, both men and women, each one at their different table.[1]

[1] Description taken from Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed.

COMMUNION IN CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD

1 Cor. 10:16,17:—“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? Seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.” There are few injunctions as to methods of interpretation more necessary or more fruitful than the simple one, Interpret historically. That is to say, read your text in the light of the historical circumstances in which it was written, and not according to the surroundings in which, after say two thousand years, you may find yourself. And there is no better illustration of the importance of this injunction than the interpretations which have been put on the passages in the New Testament which speak of the Lord’s Supper. Little will be hazarded in saying that each expositor brings his own point of view to the interpretation of these passages, and seems incapable of putting himself in the point of sight of the New Testament writers themselves. He who reads the several comments of the chief commentators, for instance, on our present passage, quickly feels himself in atmospheres of very varied compositions, which have nothing in common except their absolute dissimilarity to that which Paul’s own passage breathes. If we are ever to understand what the Lord’s Supper was intended by the founder of Christianity to be, we must manage somehow to escape from the commentators back to Paul and Paul’s Master. Here then is a specially pressing necessity for interpreting according to the historical circumstances. The allusion to the Lord’s Supper in our present passage, it will be noted, is purely incidental. The Apostle is reasoning with the Corinthians on a totally different matter; on a question of casuistry which affected their every-day life. Immersed in a heathen society, intertwined with every act of the life of which was some heathen ordinance, the early Christian was exposed at every step to the danger of participating in idolatrous worship. One of the places at which he was thus menaced with what we may call constructive apostacy was in the very provision for meeting his need of daily food. The victims offered in sacrifice to heathen divinities provided the common meat-supply of the community. If one were invited to a social meal with a friend, it was to an idol’s feast that he was bidden. If he even bought meat in the markets, it was a portion of the idol sacrifice alone that he could purchase. How, in such circumstances, was he to avoid idolatry? The Apostle devotes a number of paragraphs in the first Epistle to the Corinthians to solving this pressing question. The wisdom and moderation with which he deals with it are striking. His fundamental proposition is that an idol is nothing in the world, and meats offered to idols are nothing after all but meats, good or bad as the case may be, and are to be used simply as such, on the principle that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. But, side by side with this, he lays a second proposition, that any involvement in idol worship is idolatry and must be shunned by all who would be servants of the One True God and His Son. Whether any special act of partaking of meats offered to idols involves sharing an idol worship or not, will depend mainly on the subjective state of the participant; and his freedom with respect to it is conditioned only by his debt of love to his fellow Christians, who may or may not be as enlightened as he is. The Corinthians appear to have been a heady set and the Apostle evidently feels it to be the more pressing need to restrain them from hasty and unguarded use of their new-found freedom. He does not urge them to treat the idols as nothing. He urges them to avoid entanglement with idolatrous acts. And our passage is a part of his argument to secure their avoidance of such idolatrous acts. The argument here turns on a matter of fact which would be entirely lucid to the readers for whom it was first intended, but can be fathomed by us only by placing ourselves in their historical position. Its whole force depends on the readers’ ready understanding of the nature and significance of a sacrificial feast. This was essentially the same under all sacrificial systems. The eating of the victim offered whether by the Israelite in obedience to the Divine ordinances of the Old Covenant, or by the heathen in Corinth, meant essentially the same thing to the participant. Therefore the Apostle begins the passage by appealing to the intelligence of his former heathen readers and submitting the matter to their natural judgment. He asks them themselves to judge whether it is consistent to partake in the sacrificial feasts of both heathen and Christian. This is the gist of the whole passage. Participation in a sacrificial feast bore such a meaning, stood in such a relation to the act of sacrifice itself, that it was obvious to the meanest intelligence that no one could properly partake both of the victims offered to idols and of that One Victim offered at Calvary to God. To feel this as the Corinthians were expected to feel it, we must put ourselves in their historical position. They were heathen, lived in a sacrificial system, and knew by nature what participation in the victim offered in sacrifice meant. We may put ourselves most readily in their place by attending to what Paul says here of the Jewish sacrificial feasts, which he adduces as altogether parallel, so far, with the significance of the same act on heathen ground. “Consider Israel after the flesh,” he says, “are not those that eat the sacrifices, communicants in the altar?” Here it is all in a nut-shell. All those who partake of the victim offered in sacrifice were by that act made sharers in the act of sacrifice itself. They—this body of participants—were technically the offerers of the sacrifice, to whose benefit it inured, and whose responsible act it was. Whether a Greek, sharing in the victim offered to Artemis or Aphrodite, or a Jew sharing in the victim offered to Jehovah, or a Christian sharing in that One Victim who offered Himself up without spot to God, the principle was the same; he who partook of the victim shared in the altar—in the sacrificial act, in its religious import and in its benefits. Is it not capable of being left to any man’s judgment in these premises, whether one who shared in the One Offering of Christ to God could innocently take part in the offerings which had been dedicated to Artemis? The point of interest for us to-day in all this turns on the implication of this argument as to the nature of the Lord’s Supper in the view of Paul and of his readers in the infant Christian community at Corinth. Clearly to Paul and the Corinthians, the Lord’s Supper was just a sacrificial feast. As such—as the Christians’ sacrificial feast—it is put in comparison here with the sacrificial feasts of the Jews and the heathen. The whole pith of the argument is that it is a sacrificial feast. And if we wish to know what the Lord’s Supper is, here is our proper starting point. It is the sacrificial feast of Christians, and bears the same relation to the sacrifice of Christ that the heathen sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices and that the Jewish sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices. It is a sacrificial feast, offering the victim, in symbols of bread and wine, to our participation, and signifying that all those who partake of the victim in these symbols, are sharers in the altar, are of those for whom the sacrifice was offered and to whose benefit it inures. Are we then to ask, what is the nature of the Lord’s Supper? A Babel of voices may rise about us. One will say, It is the badge of a Christian man’s profession. Another, It is the bloodless sacrifice continuously offered up by the vested priest to God in behalf of the sins of men. History says, briefly and pointedly, it is the Christian passover. And, so saying, it will carry us back to that upper room where we shall see Jesus and His disciples gathered about the passover meal, the typical sacrificial feast. There lay the lamb before Him; the lamb which represented Himself who was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And there was the company of those for whom this particular lamb was offered and who now, by partaking of its flesh, were to claim their part in the sacrifice. And there stood the Antitype, who had for centuries been represented year after year by lambs like this. And He is now about to offer Himself up in fulfilment of the type, for the sins of the world! No longer will it be possible to eat this typical sacrifice; typical sacrifices were now to cease, in their fulfilment in the Antitype. And so our Lord, in the presence of the last typical lamb, passes it by and taking a loaf, when He had given thanks, broke it and said, This—I hope the emphasis will not be missed that falls on this word, this—no longer the lamb but this loaf—is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. And in like manner also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in my blood; this do in remembrance of me; for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death, until He come. How simple, how significant, the whole is, when once it is approached from the historical point of view. The Lord’s Supper is the continuation of the passover feast. The symbol only being changed, it is the passover feast. And the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine mean precisely what partaking of the lamb did then. It is communion in the altar. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; and we eat the passover whenever we eat this bread and drink this wine in remembrance of Him. In our communing thus in the body and the blood of Christ we partake of the altar, and are made beneficiaries of the sacrifice He wrought out upon it. The primary lesson of our text to-day is, then, that in partaking of the Lord’s Supper we claim a share in the sacrifice which Christ wrought out on Calvary for the sins of men. This is the fundamental meaning of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrificial feast. The bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper represent the body and blood of Christ; but they represent that body and blood not absolutely but as a sacrifice—as broken and outpoured for us. We are not to puzzle our minds and hearts by asking how His blood and body become ours; how they, having become ours, benefit us; and the like. We are to recognize from the beginning that they were broken and outpoured in sacrifice for us, and that we share in them only that, by the law of sacrificial feast, we may partake of the benefits obtained by the sacrifice. It is as a sacrifice and only so that we enter into this union. A second lesson of our text to-day is, that in the Lord’s Supper we take our place in the body of Christ’s redeemed ones and exhibit the oneness of His people. The text lays special stress on this. The appeal of the Apostle is that by partaking of these symbols Christians mark themselves on the one hand off from the Jews and heathen, as a body apart, having their own altar and sacrifice, and, on the other hand, bind themselves together in internal unity, for “by all having a share out of the one loaf, we who are many are one body because there is (only) one loaf.” The whole Christian world is a passover company gathered around the paschal lamb, and by their participation in it exhibiting their essential unity. When we bless the cup of blessing, it is a communion in the blood of Christ; when we break the loaf, it is a communion in the body of Christ; and because it is one loaf, however many we are, we are one body, as all sharing from one loaf. The Apostle very strongly emphasizes this idea of communion here; and it is accordingly no accident that we have so largely come to call the Lord’s Supper the “Communion.” It is the symbol of the oneness of Christians. Another lesson which our text to-day brings us is that the root of our communion with one another as Christians lies in our common relation to our Lord. We are “many,” says the Apostle; that is what we are in ourselves. But we “all”—all of this “many”—are “one”—one body, because there is but one loaf and we all share from that one loaf. Christ is one and we come into relations of communion with one another only through our common relation to Him. The root of Christian union is, therefore, the uniqueness, the solity of Christ. There is but one salvation; but one Christian life; because there is but one Saviour and one source of life; and all those who share it must needs stand side by side to imbibe it from the one fountain.[2] Endnotes [1] Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010). [2] B. B. Warfield, Faith and Life (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990).

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

In Calvin’s commentary on this text, the Reformer makes the following observations about the signs and realities of the sacraments.

When [Paul] says that the fathers ate the same spiritual meat, he shows, first, what is the virtue and efficacy of the Sacraments, and, secondly, he declares, that the ancient Sacraments of the Law had the same virtue as ours have at this day. For, if the manna was spiritual food, it follows, that it is not bare emblems that are presented to us in the Sacraments, but that the thing represented is at the same time truly imparted, for God is not a deceiver to feed us with empty fancies. A sign, it is true, is a sign, and retains its essence, but, as Papists act a ridiculous part, who dream of transformations, (I know not of what sort,) so it is not for us to separate between the reality and the emblem which God has conjoined. Papists confound the reality and the sign: profane men, as, for example, Suenckfeldius, and the like, separate the signs from the realities. Let us maintain a middle course, or, in other words, let us observe the connection appointed by the Lord, but still keep them distinct, that we may not mistakenly transfer to the one what belongs to the other.

So Roman Catholics err by confounding the reality and the sign. Anabaptists err by separating them. Calvin argues that sign and reality must be kept distinct, but they must not be severed. The sacraments are signs, but they are not empty or bare signs, nor are they signs of something absent but of something present, given, and received. Ultimately, the reality signified by the signs is Jesus Christ himself and all the benefits of redemption which are found in him.

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, “Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation” (Isaiah 25:6–9).

This lavish feast of rich food and well-aged wine is the ultimate, consummative last supper. It is a joyful feast and celebration of the salvation of the one for whom we have waited. Rejoice and be glad, for his salvation has come! Death itself will be destroyed. And God will wipe away every tear from our eyes. There will be no more mourning or crying or pain, for the former things will pass away. And God will make all things new. It’s impossible to imagine how joyful it will be on that day when we share this feast with our risen Lord in the kingdom of God. The joy that we will experience on that day will be even greater than the joy that the two disciples experienced on Easter Sunday when they shared a meal with the risen Christ. Luke tells us that when the two disciples were returning to Emmaus from Jerusalem where they had just observed the Passover, that their hearts were filled with sadness. They had just witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus, and all their hopes in the restoration of the kingdom were shattered. Jesus appeared to them, but they didn’t recognize that it was the Lord. When they arrived at Emmaus—about the time that Jesus finished showing them from the scriptures that it was necessary for Christ to suffer and enter his glory—the three men sat down to share a meal. It was in the breaking of the bread that Jesus made himself known to them. And they realized that they were breaking bread with the risen Christ. Their table fellowship with Jesus completely transformed their sadness into unspeakable joy. Although Jesus was in their home, at their table, as their guest, he assumed the role of the host of the meal and served them as if they were his guests at his table eating his supper. That’s when the two men realized that they were having no ordinary meal with an ordinary stranger. But they were eating with the risen and reigning Christ. They experienced a true foretaste of the final banquet at the consummation of the kingdom. Having inaugurated his kingdom by his death and resurrection, Jesus was once again sharing a meal with his disciples, and thus, he was proleptically anticipating the great feast at the end of the age. The relationship between this post-resurrection meal that Jesus shared with these disciples and the great feast at the end of the age is not merely that between symbol and reality but that between commencement and fulfillment. It is true that we must await the return of Christ to celebrate the messianic banquet in its consummative form, but even now, we already have the privilege of proleptically participating in the messianic banquet by sharing a meal with the risen Christ. This is what happens every time we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a joyful meal that we celebrate with the risen Christ. It is, in fact, the messianic banquet in its inaugural stage. When Christ returns, we will celebrate this glorious feast in its consummative form. But through the means of grace, we already have union and communion and table fellowship with the risen Christ in his inaugurated kingdom. Luke 24 has as much to do with the Lord’s Supper as Luke 22. The first supper Jesus shared with his disciples after his resurrection has as much to do with the sacrament as the last supper he shared with them before his death. So to fully appreciate the significance of the Lord’s Supper, one needs to see it in light of both meals. They are like the two lenses in 3D glasses. Both lenses are needed to perceive depth. If we only look through one lens, we are likely going to end up with a truncated view of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is not merely a memorial of Christ’s death. It is a celebration of his resurrection. And when we eat the eucharist, we are breaking bread with the living and reigning Christ who is present in our midst.

Here is briefly declared in a summary, according to the Holy Scriptures, what opinion we Christians have of the Lord’s Supper, called the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ.

Although this statement is only seven paragraphs in length, it is, nevertheless, brimming with rich theological insights on the doctrine of the sacrament. One of the striking features of this treatise on the Lord’s Supper is that Jesus Christ is the subject of every sentence. Knox does not look at the Lord’s Supper as a work of man but as a work of Jesus Christ. Christ “lifts us up unto heavenly and invisible things.” Christ “confirms and seals up to us his promise.” Christ “represents … and makes plain to our senses, his heavenly gifts.” Christ “gives unto us himself.” Christ “gathers us unto one visible body.” Christ “calls us to remembrance of his Death and Passion.” James McEwen observed

In this little document, in a remarkable and striking way, the whole action of the Sacrament is referred to Christ. There is nothing at all about what “we” do, or what the Church does. The Sacrament is not looked on as a ministerial act, or a Churchly ordinance. It is, first and last, something that Christ does for us.[1]

Here is Knox’s summary of what he considered to be the biblical doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

A Summary, According to the Holy Scriptures,
of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper

Here is briefly declared in a summary, according to the holy scriptures, what opinion we Christians have of the Lord’s Supper, called the sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ. First, we confess that it is a holy action, ordained of God, in the which the Lord Jesus, by earthly and visible things set before us, lifts us up unto heavenly and invisible things. And that when he had prepared his spiritual banquet, he witnessed that he himself was the lively bread wherewith our souls are fed unto everlasting life. And therefore, in setting forth bread and wine to eat and drink, he confirms and seals up to us his promise and communion (that is, that we shall be partakers with him in his kingdom); and he represents unto us, and makes plain to our senses, his heavenly gifts; and also gives unto us himself, to be received with faith, and not with mouth, nor yet by transfusion of substance; but so, through the virtue [power] of the Holy Ghost, that we, being fed with his flesh, and refreshed with his blood, may be renewed both unto true godliness and to immortality. And also [we confess] that herewith the Lord Jesus gathered us unto one visible body, so that we are members one of another, and make altogether one body, whereof Jesus Christ is the only Head; and, finally, that by the same sacrament, the Lord calls us to remembrance of his death and passion, to stir up our hearts to praise his most holy name. Furthermore, we acknowledge that this sacrament ought to be come unto reverently, considering there is exhibited and given a testimony of the wonderful society and knitting together of the Lord Jesus and of the receivers; and also, that there is included and contained in this sacrament, [a testimony] that he will preserve his kirk. For herein we are commanded to show the Lord’s death until he come (1 Cor. 11:26). Also we believe that it is a confession, wherein we show what kind of doctrine we profess; and what congregation we join ourselves unto; and likewise, that it is a bond of mutual love amongst us. And, finally, we believe that all the comers unto this holy Supper must bring with them their conversion unto the Lord, by unfeigned repentance in faith; and in this sacrament receive the seals and confirmation of their faith; and yet must in nowise think that for this work’s sake their sins are forgiven. And as concerning these words, Hoc est corpus meum, “This is my body” (1 Cor. 11:24; Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19), on which the Papists depend so much, saying that we must needs believe that the bread and wine are transubstantiated unto Christ’s body and blood: we acknowledge that it is no article of our faith which can save us, nor which we are bound to believe upon pain of eternal damnation. For if we should believe that his very natural body, both flesh and blood, were naturally in the bread and wine, that should not save us, seeing many believe that, and yet receive it to their damnation. For it is not his presence in the bread that can save us, but his presence in our hearts, through faith in his blood, which has washed out our sins, and pacified his Father’s wrath towards us. And again, if we do not believe his bodily presence in the bread and wine, that shall not damn us, but the absence out of our hearts through unbelief. Now, if they would here object, that though it be truth, that the absence out of the bread could not damn us, yet are we bound to believe it because of God’s word, saying, “This is my body” (1 Cor. 11:24); which who believes not, as much as in him lies, makes God a liar; and, therefore of an obstinate mind not to believe his word, may be our damnation: To this we answer, that we believe God’s word, and confess that it is true, but not so to be understood as the Papists grossly affirm. For in the sacrament we receive Jesus Christ spiritually, as did the fathers of the Old Testament, according to St. Paul’s saying (1 Cor. 10:3-4). And if men would well weigh, how that Christ, ordaining his holy sacrament of his body and blood, spoke these words sacramentally, doubtless they would never so grossly and foolishly understand them, contrary to all the scriptures, and to the exposition of St. Augustine, St. Jerome, Fulgentius, Vigilius, Origen, and many other godly writers.

[1] James S. McEwen, The Faith of John Knox (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961) 56.

[O]n the day that is called Sunday all who live in the cities or in rural areas gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read for as long as time allows. Then after the lector concludes, the president verbally instructs and exhorts us to imitate all these excellent things. Then all stand up together and offer prayers…. [W]hen we have concluded our prayer, bread is brought forward together with the wine and water. And the presider in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability. The people give their consent, saying “Amen”; there is a distribution, and all share in the Eucharist. To those who are absent a portion is brought by the deacons. And those who are well-to-do and willing give as they choose, as each one so desires. The collection is then deposited with the presider who uses it on behalf of orphans, widows, those who are needy due to sickness or any other cause, prisoners, strangers who are traveling; in short, he assists all who are in need.[1]

According to Justin, a typical service of worship in Rome in the middle of the second century would have included the following elements in this order:

1. Reading of scripture – Old and New Testaments
2. Preaching – an exposition of the text(s) read
3. Prayers
4. Eucharist
5. Collection

Though this account of a typical worship service is only a brief summary, it is clear that the same four elements of worship mentioned in Acts 2:42 were included.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (Acts 2:42, ESV).

The apostles’ teaching, of course, refers to the ministry of the Word—the reading and preaching of holy scripture. The word translated fellowship in this verse refers to the sharing of material goods. In other words, it refers to charitable or diaconal giving, and the distribution of material goods to those in need. Justin said that such material goods were collected and

deposited with the presider who uses it on behalf of orphans, widows, those who are needy due to sickness or any other cause, prisoners, strangers who are traveling; in short, he assists all who are in need.

The other two elements are “the breaking of bread” (which is the eucharist, the sacred meal of the church) and prayer. Thus, from Justin’s account of the worship in Rome, we see that a typical service of worship in the generation that followed the apostolic age consisted of (1) the ministry of the Word, (2) prayer, (3) the eucharist and (4) alms. Endnotes [1] Johnson, Worship in the Early Church, 1:68–69; cf. Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961) 3–9.

Almost overnight, scholars in Europe, England, and America expressed their complete astonishment that such an ancient and important work had finally surfaced. When the first English translation prepared by Hitchcock and Brown was released on 20 March 1884 in New York bookstores, five thousand copies were sold on the first day.[2]

If the Reformers are correct in assuming that the fountain stream of liturgical tradition is purest at its head, then the Didache may very well preserve the purest example of the celebration of the eucharist in patristic literature. Hughes Oliphant Old does not exaggerate its value when he refers to it as “the most important document we have concerning the celebration of Communion in the earliest days of church history.”[3] The Didache represents the springtime of the liturgy and portrays a “picture of Christian worship in its simplest and purest form.”[4] As Jonathan Draper observes,

The Didache presents evidence of the utmost significance for the study of the origins of Christian liturgy and worship, since it offers the earliest picture of baptism (7–8) and eucharist (9–10) in the early Church. It differs strikingly from traditional pictures and later practice, offering a markedly Jewish emphasis. Moreover, since liturgical practice was likely to be long established in the community before it was written down and collected in the Didache, it offers witness to a practice pre-dating the text by some time.[5]

The rediscovery of the Didache provides a critical resource for doing precisely what the sixteenth-century Reformers aspired to do, namely, “reform the church’s worship in light of the Biblical witness and the practice of the ancient church.”[6] What we find in the Didache is a discretionary liturgy much like the liturgies produced in the Reformation era by Martin Bucer, John Calvin, and John Knox. A discretionary liturgy does not prescribe the reading of set forms but provides sample forms that could, in fact, be recited verbatim, yet it also allows the minister a large measure of freedom to frame his own prayers, provided that those prayers are in keeping with the liturgy.[7] That is, a minister could either use the prayer forms or pray “in like effect, as the Spirit of God shall move his heart.”[8] Freedom in public prayer continued for the first few centuries of the church but was later restricted to prevent unorthodox bishops from using heretical expressions.

In the earliest days it is clear that the bishop was free to compose the eucharistic prayer for himself. … Hippolytus provides a specimen prayer, but adds that a bishop need not use it, provided that his own prayer is orthodox. By the end of the fourth century, unorthodox prayers were becoming a problem in North Africa, leading to the imposition of controls; and finally in 535 the emperor Justinian insists that no one should be consecrated bishop until he can repeat the prayer by heart, which implies the existence of an accepted text for him to learn.[9]

This accounts for why we have so few liturgical texts prior to the fourth century. Christians “generally do not seem to have written down their prayers but preferred oral transmission and improvisation.”[10] The prayer forms in Didache 9–10 provide the structure, framework and basic content for the eucharistic prayers of the community, but they were not regarded as fixed formulas that had to be recited at each celebration of the eucharist. Below is my translation of the eucharistic prayers in Didache 9–10. The theology expressed in these prayers is very rich and full of redemptive-historical connections, especially between King David and Jesus Christ. ^9:1Now concerning the eucharist, give thanks in this manner: ²First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of your servant David, which you have revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be the glory forever. Amen ³And concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge, which you have revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be the glory forever. Amen ⁴As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills and, having been gathered together, became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. Amen (⁵But let no one eat or drink from your eucharist, except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, for concerning this, the Lord has likewise said, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs.”) ^10:1Now after being filled, give thanks in this manner: ²We give thanks to you, holy Father, for your holy name, which you have caused to dwell in our hearts and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you be the glory forever. Amen ³You, almighty Master, created all things for your name’s sake. To all people, you have given both food and drink to enjoy, in order that they might give you thanks. But to us, you have freely given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your servant Jesus. ⁴Above all, we give you thanks because you are mighty. To you be the glory forever. Amen ⁵Remember your church, O Lord, to deliver her from all evil and to perfect her in your love and to gather her together as the holy one from the four winds into your kingdom which you have prepared for her. For yours is the power and the glory forever. Amen ⁶May grace come, and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the son of David! If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not, let him repent. Come, Lord! Amen. (⁷But allow the prophets to give thanks as long as they wish.) Endnotes [1] Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003) xii. [2] Ibid. [3] Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship: Reformed According to Scripture, Revised and Expanded Edition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002) 121. [4] R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992) 3. [5] Jonathan A. Draper, “The Apostolic Fathers: The Didache,” in The Expository Times, vol. 117, no. 5 (London: SAGE Publications, 2006): 177–81, 180. The majority of modern Didache scholars date the composition of the document to the first century, ca. 50–90 A. D. [6] J. Dudley Weaver Jr, Presbyterian Worship: A Guide for Clergy (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press 2002) 28. [7] See Duncan Forrester and Douglas Murray, eds., Studies in the History of Worship in Scotland (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996) 40. [8] This is from Knox’s liturgy; see The Genevan Book of Order (Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1993) online at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/GBO_ch04.htm. [9] Jasper and Cuming, 5. [10] Ibid.; cf. Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson, The Eucharistic Liturgies (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2012) 36.

We ought not only to praise God for every thing that appears favourable to the interests of religion, and to pray earnestly for a general revival, but also to use means that are proper in order to it; and one proper means must be allowed to be, a due administration of Christ’s ordinances: one instance of which is that, which you and Mr. Randal have been striving for; viz. a restoring the primitive practice of frequent communicating. I should much wonder … how such arguments and persuasions, as Mr. Randal uses, could be withstood; but however they may be resisted for the present, yet I hope those who have begun will continue to plead the cause of Christ’s institutions; and whatever opposition is made, I should think it would be best for them to plead nothing at all short of Christ’s institutions, viz. the administration of the Lord’s supper every Lord’s day:—it must come to that at last; and why should Christ’s ministers and people, by resting in a partial reformation, lay a foundation for a new struggle, an uncomfortable labour and conflict, in some future generation, in order to a full restoration of the primitive practice.

Edwards finds the case for weekly Communion convincing and calls for the full reformation of the church, which, among other things, includes the “full restoration of the primitive practice” of weekly Communion. Edwards also said,

They were wont to have the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the primitive church very often, by all accounts of ecclesiastical history. And it seems by the account of holy Scripture that they were at first wont to celebrate this ordinance daily, as Acts 2:46, “and they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and in breaking bread from house to house”; afterwards weekly, every sabbath day, Acts 20:7, “and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.”[1]

In this episode of East of Eden, three Reformed scholars explain why Edwards was in favor of weekly Communion, despite the controversy at Northampton regarding the Lord’s Supper. I have reservations regarding Edwards’ interpretation of self-examination in 1 Corinthians 11, and I disagree with his understanding of the nature of the punishment of the unworthy communicant. But I agree with him regarding the apostolic practice of weekly Communion. I want to commend this episode to my readers. Endnotes 1. Jonathan Edwards, “Self-Examination and the Lord’s Supper,” in M. Valeri & H. S. Stout, eds., Sermons and Discourses, 1730–1733, vol. 17 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1999) 264.

La Forme des prières et chantz ecclésiastiques avec la manière d’administrer les sacremens … selon la coustume de l’église ancienne.

Calvin and his colleagues frequently claimed patristic support for their liturgical ideas, and we have every reason, says Hughes Oliphant Old, to take them seriously. They deliberately developed their approach to worship by returning, first and foremost, to the scriptures but also to the fathers of the church, whom they regarded as fallible, though generally reliable, interpreters of scripture. As Calvin understood it, to worship in continuity with the “the primitive and purer church” was to align oneself with the apostolic tradition. This, of course, was his motivation for reforming the liturgy “according to the custom of the ancient church.” [This excerpt was taken from The Eucharist in the Didache by Glen Clary.]

East of Eden considers the Theology and experiential application of Jonathan Edwards’s sermon “Self-Examination and the Lord’s Supper” from 1 Corinthians 11:28–29 and delivered first March 21, 1731.

Participants: David Filson, Jeff Waddington, Nick Batzig

Rev. Clary is the Associate Pastor of Providence OPC, Austin (Pflugerville), Texas. Glen holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Southwestern Christian University, Bethany, Oklahoma, and a Master of Divinity degree from Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is currently a doctoral candidate at Erskine Theological Seminary, studying Reformed worship under Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old at the Institute for Reformed Worship.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jim Cassidy

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy