THIS IS MY
BODY…THIS IS MY BLOOD
Text: Matthew 26:14-30 I. THE CELEBRATION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER HAS
BEEN ONE OF THE MOST DEBATED AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES FOR THE LAST 1,300
YEARS.
A. The most unifying of things can be made into the most divisive. 1. Should we use unleavened or leavened bread? The East has used leavened bread for almost 1,400 years and the Western Church has used unleavened bread. 2. Should we use grape juice or wine? This has been a debate in some Protestant churches since 1869 when Dr. Thomas Welch introduced Welch’s grape juice to replace wine in communion. His son Charles promoted grape juice at the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago saying unfermented grape juice was born “out of a passion to serve God by helping his church to give its communion (as) ‘the fruit of the vine' instead of the ‘cup of devils.’” 3. Should we sit at a table? Should we use a single cup or common cups? “The use of [individual Communion cups] came about later in the history of the group. The medical profession in the 1860s came to understand, through the “germ theory,” the origin of disease. Rochester, New York theologians wondered about the implications of this theory for the administration of the ordinance. They designed individual glass cups to be used to avoid “the maladies which are spread by mouth such as cancer, tuberculosis, influenza, and whooping cough,” when the common cup was passed….The first use of individual glass cups occurred at the North Baptist Church in Rochester, New York, in 1854.” (Christian History: The Baptists, 1985) 4. It is over the question of who may be admitted to the Lord’s Table that led to Jonathan Edwards’ dismissal from his pastorate in Northampton, Massachusetts. B. Fallen human beings also have an amazing capacity to make the most simple of matters the most complex. 1. One thing that we learn from church history is that when you try to explain mysteries, you end up in heresy. 2. Theories that try to explain the mystery of the Lord’s Supper have often led to unwarranted worship at worst and divisiveness at best. There is an irony in this because Christ is not PRESENT in unwarranted worship and divisiveness.
3. Luther wrote on his table the Latin words of Matthew 26:26, “hoc est corpus meum,” which is Latin for This is My body.
Critical Encounter: Luther argues with reformer Ulrich
Zwingli, at Marburg Colloquy in 1530. A German prince had assembled reformers
and entertained them royally, in hope they could reach doctrinal agreement
and present a united front against Rome. But negotiations broke down over the
Lord’s Supper; Luther has written in chalk, “Hoc est corpus meum!” (Latin for Christ’s words, “This is my
body!”).[1] 4. 14 of 15 areas of doctrine were agreed upon; the Lord’s Supper was the exception.
In this room of Marburg Castle, the reformers agreed on fourteen of
fifteen points but their strong differences on the Lord’s Supper shaped
future Christian history (Christian History: Ulrich Zwingli, 1984). D. Explanations of the Lord’s Supper have led to unwarranted worship. 1. Since the 13th century, Roman Catholicism has explained the mystery of the Lord’s Supper with the term “transubstantiation.” 2. This explanation was one of the reasons that led Roman Catholicism to declare in the 16th century that worship/adoration/latria was to be given to the bread and wine.
Download The Book of Ratramn: On the Body and Blood of the Lord [2] This document can be read with Adobe Reader, which is available at no cost.
II. CHRIST
IS PRESENT IN THE LORD’S SUPPER (1
Corinthians 10:16-17)
“For, whenever this matter is discussed, when I have tried to say all, I feel that I have as yet said little in proportion to its worth. And although my mind can think beyond what my tongue can utter, yet even my mind is conquered and overwhelmed by the greatness of the thing. Therefore, nothing remains but to break forth in wonder at this mystery, which plainly neither the mind is able to conceive nor the tongue to express” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.17.7). III. THE LORD’S SUPPER IS A MEMORIAL (Matthew 26:19-20)
A. Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper was in the context of the Passover celebration. 1. The Jewish Passover was a memorial (Exodus 12:14; 13:3; Deuteronomy 16:3). 2. When Jews observed the Old Covenant Passover, they explained the meaning of what they were doing. It was a type of catechism (Exodus 12:26; 13:8,14-15; cf. Ex.10:2; Psalm 78:6). 3. When Jesus takes bread and says, “This is My body,” He is doing this in the tradition of the Passover celebration. Jesus is catechizing His disciples (Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25). B. Remembrance has always been a key theme in Israel's life and worship of God. 1. The reason Israel was redeemed from Egypt is because God heard the groaning of the sons of Israel and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 2:24; 6:5). 2. Remembering is a key theme of Sabbath keeping (Deuteronomy 5:15). QUESTIONS FOR
SABBATH DISCUSSION & MEDITATION Take what you have learned this morning and make it into a prayer that
the Lord’s Supper would be a means of unifying the body of Christ rather than
dividing it. How has the celebration of the Lord’s Supper been debated in the
church for the last 1,300 years? Explain how the bread is the body of Jesus. Careful! What often happens when we try to explain what God has left
unexplained? Explanations of the Lord’s Supper have been at best ______________
and at worst, they have lead to unwarranted __________________. Is Jesus present in the Lord’s Supper? Explain what is meant when we say that the Lord’s Supper is a
“memorial.” EXTRA NOTES & QUOTES: Vatican II said: 3. There can accordingly be no doubt “that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any the less because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be eaten.”[3] “That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.” (Acts 3:21, 1 Cor. 11:24–26, Luke 24:6,39) (Westminster Confession of Faith 29:6). Question 80 of the
Heidelberg Catechism What difference is there between the Lord’s supper
and the popish mass? The Lord’s supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us. But the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry. “In the history of the Christian church a number of different terms have been associated with the Last Supper. Some of these, such as the “breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11); the “eucharist” (Mt 26:27; Mk 14:23; Lk 22:17, 19; 1 Cor 11:24); the “table of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:21); “communion” (1 Cor 10:16); and the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor 11:20) stem from the NT. Others, such as the “mass” (from the Latin ending of the Roman rite—Ite, missa est—“Go, you are dismissed”) and the “Last Supper,” do not” (Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels). |
