Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Well, if you have your Bibles, please turn to Mark chapter 14 and We are going to we're going to be in verse 22. We're only going to look at Verses 22 to 25 tonight because we're actually going to look at several different passages.
But we're going to start in Mark since this is the study that we're in we're in a study of Mark's gospel.
But.
After we read this text, I want us to immediately begin to Examine some other portions of scripture and compare what we see there with what we see here. So in Mark's gospel chapter 14 beginning at verse 22, it says.
And as they were eating He took bread and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them and said take This is my body. And he took a cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it.
And he said to them. This is my blood of the Excuse me of the covenant Which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of.
God.
So as We all are quite aware. This is the institution of the Lord's Supper and This same event is recorded for us in Matthew's gospel and in Luke's gospel and the event is recorded in John's gospel. But not the institution of the table the event by that.
I mean the upper room discourse is found in John's gospel. Several chapters worth of John's gospel is Jesus is preaching in the upper room and we're familiar probably with John 14. Which you know many of us find great comfort in.
Where it says that I go to prepare a place for you and I'll come back and take you to myself. That's that's in the midst of this. But what we don't have in John's gospel is we don't have the this is my body.
This is my blood. Phrase it's it's interesting. It's it's it's interestingly missing where everything else seems to be there and so much more seems to be there and and and I Find it somewhat Interesting and myself as I was trying to ponder.
Well, you know, why would John leave out what seems to be the most important part of the meal? And I can't give you an exact answer because I don't have the mind of John. I can't tell you the certain reason as to why but I do know this.
We do have four accounts of what happened that night. We just don't have them in the four Gospels. The four accounts are in Matthew Mark Luke and 1st Corinthians. 1st Corinthians Actually is the first account of this event.
Because if you think of the writings of the New Testament. The Gospels come later than many of Paul's early epistles and among Paul's early epistles is 1st Corinthians. So when we read 1st Corinthians 11 and.
Paul's.
Account of Jesus's words. Good evening. When we read 1st Corinthians and Paul's account of The institution we're actually reading the first written account of what happened that night and so. Depending on how you order the Gospels, and I don't know if you remember me talking about this I've talked about it a few times in this study.
There are different ways men order the the writing of the Gospels. The traditional order says heart open. The traditional order has been Matthew.
Mark.
Luke.
And John.
Now that may not sound very difficult because that's literally how they're ordered in your Bible. However Modern scholarship has has thrown somewhat of a monkey wrench in that and argued that actually Mark is first and Matthew is Second most even Modern scholars would agree that Luke is third and John is last.
But we have here what we call the difference between Mark in priority or Matthew in priority and there's debate for both I still hold Basically to Matthew in priority I think it's possible that Matthew was written first, even though I do understand some of the arguments for Mark coming first.
Some of that though does go with a question of was there an additional source you ever heard of Q the Q source which was an something that Supposedly held some of the teachings of Christ which was drawn from by all three of the synoptic writers.
And that's why you see sometimes there's so much overlap between what they wrote to the point where the very exact same word orders used. And you say it seems like they're all drawing from the same thing and they call that the Q source.
I don't. I don't believe in Q because there's never been any evidence of it. There's never been any Archaeological evidence for an external written source. But what we do know is there was certainly a Verbal tradition there was the words of Christ were remembered and you remember what Jesus said to the Apostles when I go away the Spirit Will bring to your remembrance all that I have taught you right?
So there's a there is certainly a verbal tradition that is being Drawn from and so when I talk about the New Testament Matthew Mark and Luke and the reason why we see so much overlap and so.
Much.
Continuity between the three is because they are all Telling the same story and they are being led by the same Holy Spirit and there are part of the same community. Which is told the same stories for 20 years, right?
Jesus is lives and up to about the year 30 and then the first Gospels aren't written until the 50s. So we're looking at a 20 to 25 year difference between the writing of the Gospels. Or the living out of Christ's life and the writing of the Gospels somewhere between 20 to 25 years.
Even more I mean even into the 60s. I mean, there's some who put put them into the 60s and we put there you're at a 30 or longer time period. So when you look at first Corinthians say, okay. Well first Corinthians is before that.
First Corinthians is written by Paul before that so Paul's account again is based on.
The.
Inspiration of the Spirit obviously we know comes from the Holy Spirit of God. And he says in his account. I received this from the Lord. So if you turn in your Bibles, I want us to read Matthew's account.
I'm sorry. Paul's account of this and first Corinthians 1123 yes, sir. Yeah, so Paul tells us and again, this is the first written account of this event and he says 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 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. Now a couple things to consider from first Corinthians 11 23 to 27 or 20 23 26. We probably won't get into verses 27 tonight. Verse 27 goes into the danger of eating it on Unworthily and that's an important section.
I just I just don't know that we're gonna have time tonight to get into that because that's it. It's an entirely Important but additional subject. I want to deal more so with the Institutional words because there are some phrases here that are important in Paul's account.
First one is the contentious pass apart. And when I say contentious, I mean, this is the part everybody fights about. He says this.
Is.
My body. We see that there in verse 24 when he had given thanks he broke it and said this is my body. Right, and then in verse 25, he says this cup is the new covenant in my.
Blood.
Interesting doesn't say this cup is my blood. He says this cup is the new covenant in my blood. So the reason why I point that out is because if you talk to people who debate what is happening in the bread and the cup, what actually is the what is the Reality that's taking place.
Those who hold to a real presence view.
Will.
Almost always. Cite that part of the passage as their reasoning behind their position. When Jesus said this is my body. He wasn't lying. That's the argument and I agree. He wasn't lying. But that's the that.
And I've told this story before but Luther's Interaction with Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. I was. It's hard to say Marburg Colloquy which was his Opportunity to meet Zwingli and try to come to some consensus so that the Reformation could have unity.
Well.
They had 15 points of doctrine of which they debated and they agreed on 14 and The one that they did not agree on was the doctrine of the Lord's Table. Zwingli did not believe that Christ was physically present in the bread and the cup.
Luther very much believed that believed that Christ was was. Literally or physically whatever however you want to use the term. We're gonna talk in a minute. Sacramentally present because that's the term that that Lutherans use now.
But they believed in real presence. Zwingli did not and therefore there was a divide between those two and Luther according to His own writing thought very very little of Zwingli. His his Luther. I say Luther is my hero, but Luther had his major issues and some of the issues that he had were.
Those who he disagreed with his words against them were often Very vicious. He was he was not he was not a nice guy. He was a harsh man at times and and his words about Zwingli were were really harsh but the the point I want to draw out of this is.
When.
When we compare first Corinthians with Mark's gospel Mark says he took bread after blessing it. He broke it. He gave it to them and he said take this is my body and He took a cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them.
They all drank it and he said this is my blood of the Covenant. Okay, so the phrasing is slightly different but notice the part that is left out of Mark's gospel that we have in Paul's account here in first Corinthians and that is the phrase Do this in.
Remembrance.
Of me.
That phrase is not in Mark's account. Mark's account is just this is my body. And then he immediately goes to the cup, but in Paul's account, which again is the ancestor meaning it came before written wise includes.
Words of Christ and Paul says this came from Christ. That he said this is my body which is for you Do this in remembrance of me and therefore we need to at least consider the fact that Those that phrase needs to be taken into account when we ask the question.
What is this for? What is the reason? Why we do this and by the way, if you notice in verse 25 if you're still in first Corinthians 11 He says the same thing about the cup. This cup is the New Covenant in my blood Mark's gospel says This cup or excuse me.
This is my blood of the New Covenant or of the Covenant so so there is a phrase where it says this is this is my blood says that in Mark's gospel, but the The key is the phrase do this in remembrance is tied to both so the phrase remembrance in first Corinthians 11 ties that term to both the bread and The cup and Paul is very specific with his words.
Now how many of you have a red letter Bible? Okay, I happen to have a red letter on my computer edition here. I want to ask you this Mike since you raised your hand in verse 25 It says in the same way after he took the cup after supper saying this cup is the new covenant of my blood do this As often as you drink in remembrance of me that that's in red, right?
Does your Bible have verse 26 in red mine either and and so I do I do want to Mention that obviously this is not inspired. You know the Spirit inspired the text not the colors so the translators and the color.
The people who are choosing that are choosing to say that 26 is not the words of Christ but rather is Paul's commentary and I think there's reason for that because it switches the pronouns from the personal to the third person pronoun of He coming right?
So so so it it I think there's reason why 26 for as often as you Eat this bread second person eat this bread and drink the cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he third person comes, right? So so the because of the changing of the pronouns I think it's reasonable to say that the the people who are making it a red letter edition gets it, right?
But I but that doesn't mean that this isn't in keeping with what Jesus is saying. It's Paul's commentary on what Jesus said and again, what am I arguing for tonight? Eventually, I'm gonna argue for our position which is the position of the memorial view.
Which is I do believe is correct. And I think that we see in Paul's own commentary that the reason we do this is we're pointing back to something and we're pointing forward to something for As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup you proclaim the Lord's death.
That's what you're pointing back to until he comes that you're pointing forward to right? So so the the the items themselves Become less important than what they point to whereas in many sacerdotal systems such as Roman Catholicism the elements themselves become the central thing and And we focus on that rather than what they point back to and what they point forward to.
See see what I'm see the argument I'm making is is I think we get it backwards when we focus too much on what the bread and the cup are rather than what the bread in the cup point to and Paul's commentary is you're showing forth one thing and You're expecting Something else you're you're showing forth his death you're expecting his His return right and so as I said, I am a I'm one of those guys because I don't like certain phrases and if you ever want to see me get my fire lit and If you ever if you watch my debate with redeemed zoomer when we did the debate on Baptism he lit my fire a little bit.
I wasn't angry or anything, but he lit my fire because he says do you believe it's a bear memorial? And I said don't use the word bear. I Said because when you do that you're diminishing What I believe one is the is the accurate understanding and and two.
You're you're insinuating that my view is somehow lesser. Because I don't believe Christ is physically or even spiritually present in the elements, but rather that the elements point to something greater.
My view is not lesser. My view I think is better because it points to that which is greater. You see that's and and I say so don't call it bear memorialism or just a symbol. That's I don't like that I like when people say oh, this is just bread or just wine no, this is the bread and the wine that point to the greater thing and.
Every time God gives us a sign that sign is meant to point to something greater than itself. Therefore the thing doesn't become the focus what it points to becomes the focus say I'm preaching now I'm really I think it's worth preaching.
We should consider that right? I'm gonna in a minute. I'm going to talk about these other views and I do think that there is reason why we should give. We should give.
Grace.
For differences on this and I'm going to talk about why in a minute because I do think there are some reasons why certain men hold to certain views and I think we should be. You know outside of the reform or the Roman Catholic view, which I think is blasphemous.
I think we can give grace on the other views. But at the same time it's not often extended our way if we can give grace to the Lutherans and we can give grace to the reformed community for their views of Sacerdotal present or sacramental presence and spiritual presence.
I wish it was extended our way, but often it's not it's it's often. Our view is just this bear memorialism, which doesn't mean anything. No, it means everything and I think it's unfair. That it's misunderstood.
So y 'all with me so far am I overly Being too overly passionate. This is this matters to me because we do it every week for a reason. Because we think it matters and and and and I talked to I had I had an interview a couple weeks ago with some pastors they're from the IFB and One of the questions we talked about was communion because I interviewed these guys from different denominations and I asked them and I said What is your view of communion?
I said we probably have a similar view as far as memorial view and they did and I said well. How often do you do communion? Two of the guys said once a year. Which I know that's not common within IFB that I'm just saying that was then those two and the other guy said he didn't remember the last time they had done it and I and I was very surprised.
He said yeah, he said I just forget sometimes. And I was like Okay, I go back and watch the interview. I mean it's absolutely. I was just like wow. You know, I mean, it's one thing I know like brother Shane at Sovereign Grace Who's a good friend of mine and we all know brother Shane in their church.
They do it once a month. That's great. I think they have you know a good routine of doing it once a month and they have the way that they do it in Their method and I think everybody can have some differences.
But when you push it out to annually, I think that's way way different than what the Bible would seem to expect because the Bible doesn't tell us how often we do it but it does say as Often as you do it and an annual observance seems very infrequent.
At best. Yeah. All right. So let's now let's jump very quickly and let's just compare Matthew and Luke. We're just going to read them. Just to see where we see the differences in Matthew's gospel. Matthew 26 looking at verse 26.
And again, depending on where you put Matthew and Mark this would either be the second writing of this account or the third I put it as the second so this would be Paul's come first and then Matthew's account.
So Matthew would say now as they were eating Jesus took bread and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples and said take eat. This is my body and he took a cup and when he'd given thanks He gave it to them saying drink of it all of you for this is my blood of the Covenant.
Which is poured out for many for the trend for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink Again of this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new with you in the in my father's kingdom.
And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. All right, so very quickly I didn't mention this in Mark's gospel and I don't want to forget. There is also a prophecy in this because Jesus is prophesying that this is his last Passover.
Right, he's prophesying and saying this is the last time like I'm not going to drink of this again until the Kingdom comes because he's because he's not he's not going to have another Passover. He's not gonna have another meal.
This is the last supper so there's so we don't want to miss the prophetic element of His words because Matthew and Mark do pick up on that and give it to us. So did you?
He took bread he blessed and he broke took less broke. It's seen two or three times in amongst the gospels.
Yeah, I know there was. You'd ever considered that. Well, I thought you know, obviously I've read it many times and I have heard people make comments on there being a method to this. But I haven't I don't have a lot that I can say more than it is.
It is repeated that way and there seems to be a purpose behind that. Did you have thoughts on your thoughts? Yeah. Now I will say this though and I'm going to mention this next Thursday when we do our Passover meal.
I think this actually happened at certain times in the meal. So like for instance one thing you'll notice next week when we come in. One of the first things we do is we're going to have our hand. We're gonna wash our hands.
I think that's probably the part where Jesus washed their feet because there's a there's a like at the beginning of the meal. Everybody washed their hands and if you read John's account The very first thing Jesus did was wrap the towel around his waist get down and start washing feet.
So there's there are some ties to certain things. But there is no point where the bread is Done like this. Jesus doing this with the bread is something different. This isn't part of the Seder. This isn't part of the the supper this is something different so the the.
The language here may be specific to how Jesus did it as it being unique to what normally would have been done in the meal. That would be my thought. Oh, oh, I think there's some symbolism in that for sure.
I mean we we read in 1st Corinthians where Paul talks about us being one, you know part of one body, right. And it represents his body which is going to be broken so I think there's that. But I don't really have a lot to add to that.
I you yeah, I get you if you have a thought I yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, okay, no, that's okay. Yeah.
No.
That's a good thought and and I have seen and and even in our church there have been times in the past where we had A piece of matzah and we broke it. To point to the broken body of Christ. Yeah, and I think that I think that yeah, I think there's value in that and I I do sometimes.
I.
Do think sometimes that the matzah is the better way? But I want to get too much into our methodology here, but uh, maybe Andy has a thought or two.
Yeah, have you anybody ever. Have any of you ever done common cup communion where everybody drinks from the same cup.
Okay.
No, but that. But that isn't that that. That is one thing that some people do practice. Have you ever had communion by intinction? Do you know what that is where you dip? That we we have in the past like a long time ago done that.
Won't be too weird. But I. One lady went like knuckle-deep with hers and I was like, well, that's the last time we're gonna do that. You're supposed to just touch it and she all the way. But now I think some I think obviously.
Because it because we do believe it is a sign and it does point to the greater thing. I think the the breaking of it does have value and pointing to that and certainly I think that's the can be very useful.
Absolutely. Um, is there anything else in Matthew's gospel as we're looking at it here before we turn to Luke's gospel. Is there anything else that you took note of? From this that might be different than what we've looked at so far.
Yeah, that's only that that's that's here. That's not the way it's written in and mark.
And.
Again, the the in that same sentence we says drink of it all of you for this is my blood of the covenant. So so where Matthew and Mark are Similar here. They both say this is my blood of the covenant.
Where Paul says This cup is the new covenant in my blood and that's an interesting like like like like. All of them are relaying what Christ said but in a slightly different way, yes. Sure, yeah, and the cup did have a rep.
The cup had a representative representation of judgment, right? Yeah.
Absolutely.
Well, let's look let's look finally at Luke's gospel before we move on it's Luke Chapter 22. Is it 14 or 17? I had it at 17, but well in Luke 22. No, it's it's Luke chapter 22. Verse 17 is when it begins and he took a cup.
I mean it's before that verse 14 is when he said the hour came he reclined at table with his apostles. That's true. But but looking specifically at the institution of the supper. We see that in verse 17.
And he took a cup and when he had given thanks He said take this and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.
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 and then he goes on to say but behold the hand of him who betrays me is on the table and We can just stop there at verse 20.
Couple things one. There's an order change, right? The cup is instituted first here and then the bread and then but the cup is not drank until after the bread. So there's there's order consistency, but order change.
It's a it's a it's a backward situation. But also notice what is is here that isn't in Matthew and Mark the word remembrance. Remember how I pointed out that it's in 1st Corinthians, but it's not in Matthew and Mark.
Well here in Luke's gospel. We see the phrase This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. This is my body. It's given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.
Why?
And this is this gonna sound kind of weird why would Luke's gospel be so close to Paul's writing. Luke is a companion of Paul and we can we can we can. I mean obviously the spirits involved. Obviously, we're not discounting at all the inspiration of spirit or anything.
But we are taking a step back and saying okay You got Matthew and Mark and you have Luke and Luke as if you follow the train of thought that we've said Matthew is an apostle John is a possible but Luke and Mark aren't.
So Luke and Mark are writing under apostolic authority. Luke is writing from Paul. Mark is writing from Peter, right? And so we have Peter's gospel and Paul's gospel if you will through Luke and Mark.
So it's interesting that in Mark's account you have this word remembrance. I'm sorry in Paul's account 1st Corinthians You have this word remembrance and then in Luke's account of the same event you have this word remembrance.
But it's not in the others. I just find that to be Interesting and and worth at least pointing out Well, don't let him say that. But I do think there's continuity there continuity with the You know where the information is coming from one of the things Luke does tell us the very you know I did my when I did my dissertation It was on Luke's gospel and particularly the first the first four chapters of Luke's gospel because of the historic nature of it because There's so much we learn about Christ and his birth and John the Baptist and all these things that we learn in Luke's gospel but one of the things that we learn very early from Luke fact in the first three verses is This is an account based upon witnesses.
I have undertaken to Put together an orderly account of these things. Oh excellent Theophilus, right? Like this this isn't there's an intention here of drawing and Accurately giving this life of Christ.
I think Luke's gospel presents to us the most Orderly account of the life of Christ. In fact Luke's account gives us so much more than the other Gospels in the way of Jesus's parables like I've said before the Good Samaritan parable the the prodigal son all those The story of Lazarus and the rich man.
None of that's in the other Gospels That is all only in Luke's gospel. And so so much of what if we didn't have Luke we would be missing so much of Jesus's ministry. In fact, Mark is the Mark is the only one that only has like a Handful of passages that are unique to Mark, but there are entire sections that are unique to to Luke and so but yes Luke is Gives us this word remembrance.
All right.
So what I want to do now as we have about 10 minutes left and no time to do what I really want to do. But what I do want to do now is is for the last few minutes I want to I want to take a moment and I want to defend things I don't agree with.
Because I think if we are to be If we are to be good brothers and sisters in Christ, we ought to at least try to understand why people who differ with us believe what they believe and. So, you know like for instance, you know, I don't agree with infant baptism.
I truly don't I I've argued it Publicly. I've debated it publicly multiple times. I have a very strong belief in believers baptism, but I do think I understand.
Why.
Presbyterians particularly baptize their infants and being able to articulate. I remember I did my discussion. I had like six Presbyterian pastors on my show and I asked them is my understanding correct and I gave them my understanding they said yes.
That's right. Because I one time had a guy tell me he says well you'd believe it if you really understood. And I said it's very arrogant to think that I would believe what you believe just because I know what you know.
That's the height of arrogance to think that just because someone knows what you know, they're going to believe what you believe. I can know what you know and believe something different because you might be wrong.
And it's the height of arrogance to say if you knew what I know you believe what I believe. That's that's not how it works. But there are about there is value in understanding why people believe what they believe.
And so when we talk about The Lord's Supper in the in the divisions that have happened in the history of the church. They can be broken down into two specific divisions. The first is what we would call the real presence of Christ and We would say the non real presence.
All right. So the real presence of Christ has different categories within Roman Catholicism I would just say Roman Catholicism. They teach something called transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is I will argue is Blasphemous and I'll explain why in a moment, but that but that view is under the category of real presence.
Under the category of real presence. There is also The position held by the Lutheran Church the Lutheran Church do not hold the transubstantiation ism. Some people call what Lutherans believe Consubstantiation, but if you say that to a Lutheran Duck because they don't like that.
So I reached out to a friend of mine who's a Lutheran pastor and I said well What do you call? Consubstantiation isn't the word you want. So I want to know what you want and he said they believe in sacramental presence is what they call it.
So I'm not going to write that out. But I'll write the first word. So sacramental presence is what he said. They would call it. They believe Christ is present.
In.
The bread and in the cup. That he is literally Present and they have the phrase in over around in through the element, right? So he's literally there physically present. But it's different than transubstantiation.
We'll get to why in a moment. But they do believe in the presence of Christ there under the not Present physically you have the reformed view. Which is known as spiritual presence. Spiritual presence is held.
It's it's taught in the Westminster Confession. I believe it's also in the 1689 confession it's it's it's the typical view among Reformed whether they're Reformed Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist and This view says that Christ's body his corporeal body is not Omnipresent this was Calvin's argument his body is next to the father.
He's sitting on the throne next to the father and his body is still human even though it's glorified humanity. It's still human therefore his body cannot be all places at once therefore He cannot be physically present in the table.
But his divinity is not limited to his humanity and therefore his divinity can be all places at one time. And therefore he can be spiritually present in the bread in the cup. And again, I think that's Reasonable from a logical perspective.
I think it makes sense. And so that would be a Non-real in the sense of non-physical but still present and it's almost a split it's almost like you're you know, you kind of split in the difference there and then of course you have the The view known as the memorial view, which is the view that we hold.
And when I say we you may hold a different view on this but what we teach maybe is better when I say we this is what our church teaches and If you did hold a different view, I would want to chat with you not necessarily to condemn you.
But I'd want to know what what brings you to that conclusion. Because I do think this is important even though I think good men and godly men can disagree. Very important to consider one thing from a historical perspective having taught church history and been a part of Several different discussions on this subject I think it's within reason to say that the majority of church history has fallen on the left side.
So I think we should be honest about that. In the same way that if I had if this said infant baptism and believers baptism I would say the majority of church history has fallen on the left side as well.
Doesn't make it right but we have to be honest with history and say the majority of of history has Fallen on the left side real presence. But where that was corrupted is in the Roman view of transubstantiation because what happens in the Roman view of transubstantiation is they believe Christ's sacrifice is Represented on the altar.
They don't call it a communion table. They believe the communion table is an altar. In fact, I never forget I had a really there used to be a lady in the church Who used to make the cloths for our communion table and she called them altar cloths.
Pat knows who I'm talking about and she got real upset with me one time because she said something about the altar cloths and I said I Said what altar? She said they go on the altar. I said we don't have an altar.
It's right there. I said that's not an altar. I Said an altar is a place for sacrifices and we don't sacrifice here. Well, the communion is no it's not. This is again where we get to the distinction. Because in Roman Catholicism, they do believe that the bread in the cup is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ.
Therefore that's an altar. Therefore. The priest is a priest because he is performing the sacrifice. There is written within their documents that they that the priest reaches up pulls Christ down and offers him again for the sins of the people.
Yes, Barry. That's right, that's that's that's the that's the cardinal verse against it. And that's why I do think there's a blasphemous view because the whole point of Hebrews is it doesn't need to be repeated.
It doesn't need to be done over. It was done once for all time. And yet this idea that you need to come back and receive the mass this this is why In Roman Catholicism, the service does not center around the preaching.
Service centers around the mass because what are you coming for? You're coming to receive that sacrifice again and The cup becomes the the bread in the cup becomes the focus and then there was a time in history where you couldn't have the bread.
Where the laity couldn't have the bread they could only have the cup. And so or no couldn't have the cup. There was a point where they couldn't have. I think it couldn't have the cup. They could only have the bread and there was this whole Argument about whether they received one or any you have a thought.
Ex Roman Catholic zinger. He's right. All right. So with that I do take great issue and I've taught on this before I again times running out.
Just I would absolutely say that what Rome teaches on this is is very dangerous. He said what's the difference between Rome and and Lutheranism. Well There is a difference. There is a difference in in in several ways, but I have I have a quote here I want to bring up and this is about the the Lutheran view.
Luther was adamant in his position that there was a real presence of the Lord in the elements. Yet Luther did not teach or accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. So he saw a distinction and we we should be fair if he saw it and he recognized the distinction we should say, okay.
What what did he see the distinction as? He believed in a sacramental union of the elements of the body and the blood and this is a quote from RC Sproul. Martin Luther saw a frivolous use of the word miracle in Rome's understanding of Transubstantiation and said that it is not necessary to talk about the substance of one and the accidents of another.
When we are when we can just affirm the true corporeal presence of Christ in under and with the elements of the bread and the wine so with that being said Consubstantiation is not a term they like but that's the word con something means with.
So we're transubstantiation means change trans change to change the substance it's saying Christ is with it. Christ is with the bread and the cup and Where the let me let me say this I'll just say this.
Even though they don't like the word Constantiation constant sanitation is the idea that at the same time it is both bread and wine and body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation is the idea that it looks like bread and wine, but it's not it's actually the body and blood of Christ and both Rome and Luther were concerned with the physical body of Jesus Christ.
That it was his corporeal body and this is very important because it raises the question of the Omnipresence of Christ as we talked about with Luke with with Calvin's view, but the chief objection Was the idea of the mixing of the human nature and the divine nature of Christ?
They would say if you believe Christ is not physically present. Then you believe his natures can be divided. And that's an issue. So again, if you hold the Calvin's view that its spiritual presence and his body's not there you're saying somehow there can be a division between the human and the and the and the divine and therefore you're leading to a form of what would be called as ancient heresy of Nestorianism the divide of the human and the the divine and so there's this question there of that.
What I think and this is again just my opinion and it's worth what you pay for it. I guess I Think that it's all part of the problem of misunderstanding What Jesus was saying. Because when they focus on this is my body and that becomes the focus then the bread and the cup become the focus rather than what they point to.
But I get how they get there and here's two thoughts for again not defending them. But this is how they get there one and John 6. Jesus does say some pretty interesting things about eating his body and drinking his blood.
We all agree. You've read John 6. That's a pretty. It's what's a difficult passage. It says people left after he said it, right? I mean, it's it's that's a passage they'll point to and say he says right here.
You're gonna eat my body and drink my blood. So I get it okay as Baptists as memorial view holders we have to look at that and we have to interpret that. Right, and we have to interpret it fairly. Jesus did say it.
What did he mean? I believe it means to receive him by faith. But I have to explain that in the text and it's hard. That's a difficult one but the other part and this is the part that time won't allow but think about it in First Corinthians 11 Paul says people die.
For mishandling this thing right taking it in an unworthy manner and that has caused within the history of the church a big question and the question is Wow, how did this bring about their death? There must be something special in it.
Right, that's I'm not. I'm not agreeing. I'm just saying this is where they this is where they're getting their argument. They're getting they're going back to John 6. They're saying Jesus said you're gonna eat my body and drink of my blood and here it says if you eat it wrong.
You're gonna die.
So.
It's got to be more than just bread and wine so you see how they're coming to that conclusion and. And so I think I think it's I Think there's a reason why godly men have disagreed because I think it's a it's a difficult subject.
I think we're right. I wouldn't teach it if I didn't but I understand Why they come to the conclusions that they come to. And I want to add one final thought. I know we're out of time.
One of the arguments I heard in seminary That I don't think we should use is The argument that if you believe in real presence Then you're you're believing in some type of divine cannibalism. And I have heard that argument used against Roman Catholics and against Lutherans That if they believe in real presence that they are engaging in some form of divine cannibalism.
I Don't think that's fair to their to their position, even though you may come to the here's here's the way my professor said it. He said well if I eat Jesus that means one day I'm going to be excreting Jesus and You see what how that is?
Just patently offensive to anyone you're not going to ever. Yeah, you're not very winsome if you say it that way but also If somebody says well cannibalism is wrong technically, so it's human sacrifice.
But Jesus died on the cross for our sins. So there is a sense in which if you tried to make that argument they would come right back and say but wait a minute human sacrifice is wrong in the Old Testament, too, but Christ died on the cross for our sins.
Has not God been able to express himself in the ways he chooses? Yes, so we have to be Fair with those with whom we disagree. I think I've been honest about Rome. I think Rome is out to lunch. I think they're blasphemous.
But I can I can sit with my Lutheran brethren and say I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I think you're wrong. But I don't think that that means you're blaspheming Christ. I think you're wrong. But I that's my my position you may feel differently and again mileage may vary on this one.
But I think we have to be at least gracious enough to say. Many many people have been on this side. And even though we there there can be wrong. I think we have to be fair about it. Any thoughts on that think I'm out to lunch, then it's okay.
Something to consider. Right not to consider. All right, guys, Andy. Miami thoughts. Don't have enough. Yeah, it's a lot did a lot to consider. All right guys. Well, let's pray Father thank you for the opportunity to study.
Thank you for the opportunity to preach and to talk about your word. I do pray Lord that we would truly seek to know what your word has to say and Consider the the reality of of what it means when we come before the table.
And we do break that bread and we do eat it and we do it in remembrance of you Lord help us to understand that that view of memorial that view of remembrances is not lesser. But Lord, I think is accurate.
It points to the reality that this bread and this cup do point to a greater thing and that's why violating it. Would be such a sinful thing because of what it points to not because you're violating it, but you're violating what it points to and In such a way as we would not want to sin against Anything else that you've given us.
We certainly don't want to sin against that. So we pray God that you give us wisdom in this area and help us to learn and be good students in Christ's name.
Amen.
