Synoptic Gospels - The Lord's Supper

actually start off by reading our confession on the subject of the

Supper. Then we'll look at the various accounts of it and possibly take some time to think through some related issues.

I think, starting off, I should note that if you come from a non -Reformed tradition, and if you especially come from some of the backgrounds that I had, the

Lord's Supper sort of is a strange, uncomfortable addition that doesn't really fit real well with your...

Well, let's put it this way. I think for many folks today who come from sort of the broad evangelical background, subjects such as ecclesiology, a term that I'm not overly fond of, but it has its place in the study sacramentology, liturgy we normally associate only with Roman Catholicism and robes and smells and bells and candles and so on and so forth.

But the reality is everybody has a liturgy. It may be barren. It may be extremely simple.

It may be purposely simple. There's a difference between having a simple liturgy because you just don't think about it by tradition and having a simple liturgy because you are convinced that that is biblical and best and focused upon biblical standards.

Vast difference between those two perspectives. But especially when it comes to the

Lord's Supper, I grew up in churches that generally would have the

Lord's Supper once a quarter. We, of course, will have the

Lord's Supper this evening, so I guess it actually fits rather well to possibly do some thinking about this morning since we happen to be in the section of the synoptics where you have that establishment, though, of course, we don't have the parallel passage in 1

Corinthians. It would be good to throw in. It's not part of the Gospels. That's why it's not there. And at least in a lot of the

Baptist churches I grew up in, it just seemed so very out of place. It was sort of hurried through, and there just wasn't much discussion of it.

There just wasn't much discussion of it. You did it because, well, yeah, it's in the Bible those few times it's there, but we really didn't give a whole lot of thought to it.

And part of that was, of course, due to the fact that we can never forget the role the

Reformation played in the formation of our own understanding of things and the fact that there was a major overemphasis and error that was being corrected at that time.

And even to this day, I think the knowledgeable Roman Catholic will confess that the central aspect of Roman Catholic liturgy and worship is the

Eucharistic sacrifice. And most of that theology, pretty much all of that theology, had already developed at the time of the

Reformation. You already had the concept of transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, the concept of forgiveness of sins coming through, this re -presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ.

It was a non -bloody sacrifice, etc., etc. And that remains the theology of Roman Catholicism to this day, how relevant it might be in the average life of Roman Catholic depends on the

Roman Catholic, as we are seeing even in the Synod taking place in Rome right now, the interesting things going on there, which we can't get into this morning.

But that was there, and therefore there was a broad spectrum of reaction against that coming out of the

Reformation. Certainly, the Reformers themselves did not do away with the

Supper. There was obviously one of the major divisions between what would become the

Reformed branch versus the Lutheran branch, which in and of itself is an odd development of language over history, had to do, of course, with the nature of the

Supper. There are still interesting divisions amongst Lutherans on this subject, some embracing and others rejecting the terminology of consubstantiation, the development of the concept of the ubiquity of the body of Christ within Luther's theology, that there is not a changing of the substance, but because Christ's physical body is ubiquitous and is everywhere present, then

Christ was present in, around, and under consubstantiation, the elements of the

Supper, and hence the Marburg Colloquy and the encounter between Zwingli and Luther, where they get to that 15th point, or was it 14th point,

I forget which one it was, and there's Luther banging on the table, Hoc es corpus meum,

Hoc es corpus meum, this is my body. And they cannot come to agreement, though they've come to agreement on everything else on that one subject, they can't come to agreement, and so there remains a division even to this day on that particular point.

But amongst those individuals, you continue to have a very strong emphasis upon the

Lord's Supper, and you have the fascinating incident of Calvin in Geneva standing before the

Lord's table in front of armed men to enforce the discipline of the church in precluding certain people from partaking of the

Lord's Supper, risking his own life in the process of so doing.

And yet, today, in most churches, there is not even a concern as to who partakes of the

Supper, there's not a warning given. We, of course, ask certain questions of those who would wish to partake, basic simple questions, the confession of faith in Christ, baptism, and are you under discipline of a sister church, just simply so we can honor the

Supper and honor the discipline of our fellow churches. But to be honest with you, for the vast majority of people, to be cut off from the table would mean nothing to them.

Even within the church, they would not see the participation in the

Supper as a relevantly meaningful thing so as to find any weight in being cut off from the table and being denied access to the table as a sign of the disruption of their fellowship with the body and with the church and the discipline that they might be under from the eldership of the church for unrepentant of sin or whatever else the situation might be.

In most places, given the church hopping mentality, you can simply bop on down the road to the next church and you'll be welcomed in to partake of the

Lord's table without any questions being asked. Of course, these days it might be difficult to find a church simply because it would be so rare that they're having the

Lord's table anyways. But the fact that in church history past, exclusion from the table was considered a very serious thing and today it would not even cross the mind as an overly relevant thing might make us think a little bit about what has happened in regards to our view of this particular incident.

We see in the text that Jesus establishes this ordinance for his church just prior to his death.

It is what happens immediately before his prophecy of his betrayal by Judas.

He had evidently supernaturally arranged for this supper to take place and for the conversations to take place and the establishment of the supper all to come together in a very, very, very meaningful context for the apostles.

It should therefore be a very meaningful context for us as well. Church history certainly tells us that this has been something that Christians have participated in and viewed as a central and important aspect of their worship from the very beginning.

And so obviously the confession of faith that is ours spends a fair amount of time on the subject.

And so I wanted to read. There's actually eight paragraphs in our section on the

Lord's Supper. Well, chapter 28, and if we had the hymnals from the other room in here, then what, did you grab one?

Oh, he carries one. Oh, okay then. Anyway, chapter 28 actually begins it.

And then chapter 30, chapter 28 is entitled, Baptism in the Lord's Supper, and it says,

Baptism in the Lord's Supper are ordinances which have been explicitly and sovereignly instituted by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver who has appointed that they are to be continued in his church for the end of the world.

These holy ordinances would be administered by those alone who are qualified and called to do so according to the commission of Christ.

And so that's just a two -paragraph introduction. Then it breaks it out into chapter 29, which is only four sections long on baptism, and yet the

Lord's Supper is eight, and the paragraphs are all longer. So the confession actually spends about three to four times the amount of space on the

Lord's Supper than it does on baptism. And this is the Reformed Baptist Confession.

So think about that one for just a second, and you'll get somewhat of the idea there.

In the – no.

No, that's one of the problems is, yeah, there's – the Westminster is there, but the section on the

Lord's Supper, there are some important, I think, differences. I'm not going to get into the differences.

If you want to look at it, that's fine. But some of the differences will strike you, I think, especially because we do view – it would seem to me that – and I wasn't planning on going into all this.

Might as well. If you're looking for the streams that feed into us here, and I would certainly give way to Brother Jim Renahan and Brother Waldron and Brother Vassalos and some of our other fine

Reformed Baptist scholars these days for a – in fact, I believe – and I have to write to Rich and see if he has an electronic version so I can listen to it while writing.

But I believe that Brother Vassalos just put out a book on the Lord's Supper. Have you read it?

Yeah, but I've seen it, and I need to – he normally says that stuff, but I'm going to have to remind him to send it to me.

So I would not put myself as an expert here, but it just seems to me that as we look at the sources that come into the 1689

Confession, that really when you look at Zwingli and Luther, in the middle you have

Calvin. And Calvin is certainly not over with Luther in any type of mystical transubstantiation – well, of course,

Luther doesn't say transubstantiation – but any type of mystical corporeal presence requiring this odd doctrine of the ubiquity of the body of Christ and things like that that Luther came up with to substantiate his views.

He's not there. At the same time, I would say he's closer to Zwingli, but is unwilling to go to the point of saying that the

Supper is merely a commemoration of the death and sacrifice of Christ.

He wants to say that while there is no change in the elements or anything like that, that there is a special place to see that when

Christ's people obey Christ's command and corporately gather together and proclaim the

Lord's death in the Supper, that there is a special presence of Christ with his people when they together are confessing in the way he has commanded them to do so, his own sacrifice and death.

It's not that, well, the Holy Spirit is more present with you than less present at some other time or something along those lines, but that there is something that's especially pleasing when

Christ's people obey Christ's command and do what he himself commanded his apostles to do and follow in their footsteps, that there is a special spiritual blessing and presence of Christ with his people at that point in time.

That's what Calvin's looking at, and as far as I can tell, that's pretty much the stream that comes into the 1689.

Don't listen to me. Let's read it and see what you think. All right.

Chapter 30, The Lord's Supper was instituted by the Lord on the same night in which he was betrayed. It is to be observed in his churches to the world's end for a perpetual remembrance of him and to show forth the sacrifice of himself in his death.

It was instituted also to confirm saints in the belief that all the benefits stemming from Christ's sacrifice belong to them.

Furthermore, it is meant to promote their spiritual nourishment and growth in Christ and to strengthen the ties that bind them to all the duties they owe to him.

The Lord's Supper is also a bond and pledge of the fellowship which believers have with Christ and with one another.

Now, I just stop right there and say, on one level, you could say that every time we, in sincerity and truth, with prepared hearts and minds, engage in worship together, that the majority of this would be true of that.

However, notice that it is a perpetual remembrance of him and to show forth the sacrifice of himself in his death.

It's not a perpetual remembrance of sin. It's a perpetual remembrance of the sin bearer. That's one of the major differences between Romanism and Biblical Christianity at that point.

But there is a special focus in the Supper upon the sacrifice of Christ that would not necessarily be present in every service where, for example, the exhortation from Scripture might be upon other elements of God's truth, etc.,

etc. There is a consistency in the Supper that is very, very focusing.

It's to confirm the saints in the belief that all the benefits stemming from Christ's sacrifice belong to them.

That's extremely important. To recognize the personal aspect, certainly in the

Supper, one of the most wonderful things of the Supper is the recognition that you have personal union with Jesus Christ.

My name was written upon his hands, as the hymn says. But at the same time, you're not doing it alone. You're doing it within the body.

There's a beautiful harmony and balance that exists there because it is the act of the corporate body and yet it's also intensely personal.

They're both there. It's not unevenly balanced on one side or the other, which so often is what ends up happening.

Number two, in this ordinance, Christ is not offered up to his Father nor is any real sacrifice made in any sense of that term for remission of sins and living of the dead.

We all know why that's there. This remains just as relevant today as it was then because that remains the teachings of the

Roman communion to this day as they well knew at that time.

They knew better than, unfortunately, we tend to know today. The supper is only a memorial of the one offering up of Christ by himself upon the cross once for all.

Well, there's Zwingli. It is also, and here's where it's a little bit more than Zwingli.

It is also a spiritual offering up of all possible praise to God for the once for all work of Calvary.

Hence, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as it is called, is utterly abominable and injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, which is the sole propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

People wonder why Reformed Baptists are so nasty. Well, not nasty.

It's simply having a proper balance as to biblical truth. In this ordinance, number three, the

Lord Jesus has directed his ministers to pray and to bless the elements of bread and wine and in this way to set them apart from a common to a holy use.

They are to take and break the bread, then to take the cup and to give both to the communicants. They themselves at the same time participating in the communion.

Now, again, you might wonder, well, duh. Why would you say that they are to participate as well?

Well, if you know something about history, there was a difference in what the priest would do and what the people would do.

At the time of Reformation, for example, because of the incoming of the doctrine of transubstantiation hundreds of years earlier, they had stopped giving the cup, the laity.

They only gave them the bread. The reason being it was too easy to spill the cup and if that's

God, it led to all sorts of very practical problems as to how you clean God up when you get spilled.

Like if you spill God and a mouse runs out and licks God up, what do you do then with the mouse who's now eaten

God and things like that? So the wine was withheld. Some of you are laughing, but I'm serious.

It's exactly what was going on. There were all sorts of questions starting around 11 -1200 about what would happen if you dropped the, you know, well, even if,

I mean, there was discussions about what if you gave someone the host and immediately they threw up? Now what do you do? I mean, that's the problem with transubstantiation is you've got to take it all the way.

So there had been a difference in the communication, called communication, the communing, the partaking of the elements between the priest and the laity.

And this was saying there is no difference whatsoever. The ones officiating are participating on the same level as anybody else.

You may be up front leading the prayers and so on and so forth, but you're not participating in some higher way than anyone else.

So we don't have that clergy -laity type of distinction, and certainly any kind of a priesthood or anything like that.

The denial of the cup to the people, the worshiping of the elements, the lifting up of the elements, the caring of them about the purpose of adoration, the reserving of them for any pretended religious use are all contrary to the nature of the ordinance and to Christ's intention in appointing it.

One sentence ripping and shredding the vast superstition that had developed around the concepts within Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and a lot of liberal

Protestantism as well, which has gone away from all of these things. And it's completely true, are all contrary to the nature of the ordinance and to Christ's intention in appointing it.

We've got to recognize that's the case. The nature of the ordinance is the gathered fellowship of the people, not something three days later.

It's not so you can put it in a pix or a monstrance or a suborium or whatever, so someone could come in and bow down in front of it and genuflect and pray and all the rest of that kind of stuff, as if God is now more present there than he would be in some other context.

And Christ's intention in appointing the supper is not for some repetitive representation of his finished sacrifice.

So all of that stuff is a fundamental cutting away of the reality of what the

Lord's Supper was initially intended to be. The outward elements in the

Lord's Supper, bread and wine duly set apart for the use appointed by Christ, bear such relation to the

Lord crucified that in a true sense, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, namely the body and blood of Christ, even though in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before being set apart for their special use.

Again, context being, this is an apologetic sentence.

It is, let's see, one sentence, long, complicated, could have been broken into many smaller sentences, but it is one long, complicated sentence, which is in essence apologetically responding to the

Roman position in regards to, well, why is it called the body and blood of Christ, if it is not changed into the body and blood of Christ?

And you may recall just a few weeks ago, when we first started looking at this subject in 308, 309, 310, and so on and so forth, we were talking about the nature of the

Passover and the fact that every element on the table had a meaning.

The bitter herbs referring to the bitter suffering of the people of Israel and so on and so forth, and so they were all, they were in the context of symbols everywhere, and hence it would be natural in that context to understand this is my body and this is my blood.

In that context, rather than some other literal context that requires Aristotelian categories of accidents, presidents, and everything else, which none of the apostles would have had anyhow.

So, this is sort of an apologetic expressing and explaining biblical usage of terms like body and blood in regards to the close relationship that they bear in representing those things.

The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation, which maintains that in the supper, the substance of bread and wine is changed to the substance of Christ's body and blood, through consecration by a priest or in any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason.

Furthermore, it overthrows the nature of the ordinance and has been and is the cause of all kinds of superstitions and gross idolatries.

Again, won't make you real popular today in certain circles to repeat that, but I have defended that kind of statement in debate against Roman Catholics many times.

Number seven. Now, here's where I think we go beyond Zwingli in the

Confession. Those who, as worthy participants, outwardly eat and drink the visible bread and wine in this ordinance, at the same time receive and feed upon Christ crucified and receive all the benefits accruing from his death.

This they do really and indeed not as if feeding upon the actual flesh and blood of a person's body, but inwardly and by faith.

In the supper, the body and blood of Christ are present to the faith of believers, not in any actual physical way, but in a way of spiritual apprehension, just as the bread and wine themselves are present to their outward physical senses.

Now, I get the feeling that there are a lot of Reformed Baptists that sort of go, well, maybe, and just want to move on to another section, but it does seem that it's there and we need to think about what it is saying.

Evidently, the focus, as far as I am able to determine, is upon the reality of our union with Christ and the fact that in the supper there is a special focus upon not only our union with him, his substitution for us, not just in a general way, but in a very specific and personal way, but likewise the recognition that that work of Christ, which was accomplished singularly 2 ,000 years ago, continues to have benefits that accrue to his people to this day and that that was

Christ's intention. Now, theoretically and theologically, we understand that.

We already understand that our belief is that because of our union with Christ, his death becomes our death, his burial our burial, his resurrection our resurrection.

But it's one thing to say that in a general overarching sense.

It's another to confess that because this is another reason why the supper is done publicly.

We are publicly professing the Lord's death.

We are proclaiming, literally, is the terminology. When you do this, you proclaim the

Lord's death until he comes, is Paul's words in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. And so, in the body, we are commonly confessing our faith.

Each of you, and we all eat at the same time. We all drink at the same time.

So, there is a communal aspect to the supper that joins us together in our common faith.

And so, we're not doing it alone. We are doing it in community. But there is also the very intense personal recognition that the benefits of Christ are not just made available for some nameless, faceless group.

But especially in light of Reformed theology and a recognition of the Bible's teaching.

Considering the nature of election and predestination and the gracious act of God.

When you put all that together, then the beauty of the words of that hymn come home and find fruition.

My name was on his hands. It was a personal thing.

I feel really sorry for open theists who believe that when Christ died,

God didn't even know you would exist. That's about as impersonal as it can get. Or even for the

Arminian who says, well, he did know. And he did know you'd be saved someday. But he came to know that.

It was not part of his sovereign decree. It's just he looked down the corridor of time, saw what was going to happen, and yee -haw, look at all those people that get saved.

Go us. When you have a serious biblical perspective, then you see that the intention of the triune

Godhead in the death of Christ was focused upon the specific body of the elect redemptively.

It's not that there are not other benefits that accrue to the universe through the death of Christ, but the redemptive purpose, the redemptive benefits of the cross of Christ are specifically intended for a specific people.

And that your coming into existence and your union with Christ and your belief in him was a settled fact at the cross.

Given the uncertainty of our world and what's going on in our world today, that's certainly a tremendously comforting thought to realize that in reality, when we profess the death of Christ on our behalf, we're likewise professing

God's absolute and perfect sovereignty down to the ages. Because if I was united with Christ at that time, think of all the things that could have happened to all of my progenitors that would have precluded my coming into existence.

Not for God. That's not an issue for him. It really causes a problem,

I think, for a lot of very sub -biblical theologies. But anyway, and so what does it mean?

They do really and indeed, not as if feeding upon the actual flesh and blood of a person's body, but inwardly and by faith.

In the supper, the body and blood of Christ are present in the faith of believers, not in any actual physical way, but in a way of spiritual apprehension.

I think what the confession is saying is that Christ established the supper so that the centrality of his act of self -giving would be regularly presented before our minds.

It is meant to be an anchor point to keep us from wandering off into so many of the other areas that are so attractive to us.

So much of the heresy and false teaching of the church down through the ages has taken place when some particular concept has come to fore such that the central aspect of the gospel has been pushed into a lower place in the priority scale of the church.

Today, you want a glowing example of this? Two days ago, by order of a federal judge who will someday stand before God to answer for his or her actions based upon God's moral law, remind people of that, our state began profaning marriage.

Every one of our marriages, not in God's sight, but in the culture's sight, were demeaned when two men, neither of which is a husband and neither of which is a wife, were said to be married.

Well, they're not married because you don't have a husband, you don't have a wife. You can pretend and you can have lots of pictures taken and force people to bake cakes for you and everything else all you want.

It will never be a marriage. Can't be, never will be. I don't care what the law says. The law did not establish marriage,

God did. Thank you. When you look at that and you look at what is being done there, you have a perfect example of the world expressing its hatred toward God's truth, and yet we as believers stand firmly against that, recognizing that God has placed us in this time.

It's something we're going to have to deal with, but it does not change the reality of the gospel over time.

It does not change the reality of the message of our calling to be salt and light, and of the fact that there is no power in heaven and earth, physical, no principalities or powers.

That's what governmental authorities are. That can change the reality of Christ's lordship in this world.

That is a reality. And so we, in a sense of spiritual apprehension, have the body and blood of Christ presented to us by faith.

This is a special place, and as I was saying, the temptation is always to move the gospel from the center point.

And so what we see happening today, in light of this massive cultural rush to embrace sin and to not want to be seen as irrelevant and be left behind by history, if the gospel was still at the center of our thinking, let me put it this way, a church that has the gospel as the center of its thinking, this third way stuff that says, we don't condemn, we don't condone, baloney.

There is no third way. You can't talk about the death of Jesus Christ sacrificially for sin unless you can talk about sin.

You stop talking about sin, you can't talk about sacrifice, you can't talk about atonement, you can't talk about redemption. It is an overthrow of everything.

And so there is no third way. And so the only churches that are going to be adopting this third way are churches that do not have the gospel of Jesus Christ as the center.

And I would imagine that as a result, if you'll look, their doctrine of the supper is probably extremely sub -biblical.

It's just part and parcel of the thing. It will either be non -existent or they've gone the other direction and turned it into some type of mystical thing like Rome has.

It's amazing watching Episcopalians still coming in in procession and saying all the words and lighting all the candles and doing all the mumbo -jumbo.

They don't even believe in the deity of Christ anymore. They don't believe in substitutionary atonement.

They don't really believe in the Trinity. They'll still say in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and all the rest of that stuff. It's just words.

It's become mystical religion that has no connection to historical reality or biblical truth at all.

It's an amazing thing. Anyways, sorry, got off on a sermon there. I didn't even finish reading. Section 8, sorry. All persons who participate at the

Lord's table unworthily sin against the body and blood of the Lord, and their eating and drinking brings them under divine judgment.

It follows, therefore, that all ignorant and ungodly persons being unfit to enjoy fellowship with Christ are similarly unworthy to be communicants at the

Lord's table. And while they remain as they are, they cannot rightly be admitted to partake of Christ's holy ordinance for thereby great sin against Christ to be committed.

This is why we protect the table. It is not something you just simply say, hey, anybody come along.

There are churches that pretend the Lord's supper is an evangelistic thing. You know, let's just pop it out there.

And, you know, the gradualism, let's bring people in one little step at a time type thing. Very, very, very popular.

Has no biblical basis. You certainly read in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, there's a lot there that makes people very uncomfortable.

But that, again, is why we guard the table. We have warning. We ask that people talk to the elders prior to partaking, if you're not a member of the church, et cetera, et cetera.

And there you have that word of warning. So there's eight sections, much, much longer than what you have even on the subject of baptism, which you would think in a

Reformed Baptist confession wouldn't be the case. But it is there.

And it just seemed appropriate in light of where we are in the synoptic study and in the fact that we have the supper this evening to take some time and to consider this.

But it didn't get us very far in our synoptic study. Yes, sir. Really?

Yeah, the audience and participation is where the issue is.

But there were no substantial differences as far as very little.

A lot of folks would struggle with that. But that's interesting that it's there.

Yes, sir. But if it's not, but if you do, if that's what you have to say, but I don't think the power of my church might be limited to the faith.

I mean, it's not possible for the brethren outside. Well, yeah.

Well, I don't have any problem with the churches that offer both. There's two reasons.

First, I mean, in the American church, prohibition was one of the primary reasons for that.

But the reality is, in every congregation, you're going to have those who have struggled with alcoholism in the past, whose consciences are going to be greatly bothered by the participation in anything that involves alcohol at all.

And so I think, at the very least, in light of the fact that you have that taking place,

Jesus' terminology, as we'll see in the Gospels, is fruit of the vine. And so we are participating in the fruit of the vine.

It's the amount of alcohol that's present in it that differentiates between grape juice and wine. There are some that would say there's significantly more alcohol in wine today than there was then.

I don't know. I can't go back and stick a thing into what they drank and figure out how much alcohol was in it.

And I don't think the alcohol content is the issue. The issue is the representation.

I mean, what did Paul mean when he said to Timothy, don't drink just water, but drink some wine for your stomach's sake?

There wasn't much else to drink in that day in comparison to what we have today. So I think the connection should be in regards to the fruit of the vine, which is what we have.

And then there's another issue that's an honest issue of disagreement. I grew up with unleavened bread because that's what would have been in the supper.

But we use leavened bread. And there are some people who just throw a fit. I wouldn't care if we switched to unleavened bread.

But I think the issue is what the intention is in the representation. And unfortunately, we're now a couple minutes past, and that door is going to open, and we'll have to talk about it another time.

Sorry. Let's close the word of prayer. Father, we do thank you for this time to consider what you have given to us, this great gift of the supper.

And as we prepare for it this evening, may our hearts be made ready. May we once again be thrilled as we consider the great work that was done on our behalf.

Be with us now as we go into worship. Lift up our hearts and our minds to honor you in the proclamation of your truth.