Max A Forsythe
Christ covenant reformed (PCA)
4787 Palmer Road S.W. - Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3315

Copyright 2004

The Presence
For the Lord’s Day the 30th of March 2003

1 Corinthians 10: 16-17

“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.”

Introduction: Living as we do now in what we may describe as a twilight era, it is most difficult to imagine and comprehend the full noon light of the Son of God present in the person of Jesus Christ. After all, two thousand years have now already passed and the experiential aspects of contemporary religion are sublimely different from that known by the first generation of Christians who were privileged to see and hear the Incarnate Divine speak, preach and heal before the very eyes of the disciples and believers.

Nevertheless, because of the active work of the Third Person of the Trinity – The Holy Spirit: we are all most privileged by “the power at work within us” to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior indeed! We all know as well that His eternal Kingdom “is not of this world” and yet – we remain dual citizens in the midst of the world and the world to come!

The question that often plagues our moments of doubt and fear – is a real personal quandary: “Where does this pleasant earthly life end and that which is eternal begin?” And this we must learn and realize without the help of any Hollywood special effects. To this quandary we can bring only the jaded imperfection of a fallen personality wherein the old and new persona struggle more or less according to our spiritual maturity and intensity of interest in the things of the Lord. There are also the apparent differences between the assorted and various children of God, some being more spiritually sensitive, while others are stronger intellectually. Some struggle manfully with one particular sin while others sense their frailty in a variety of countless temptations from outside of the kingdom to maintain a more politically correct attitude towards the spiritual realm.

We are indeed fortunate that many aspects of the more primitive pagan superstitions have been left behind by most; however the flip side is the absolute rejection of anything and everything spiritual which is the primary directive of the world view imposed through the popular media, education and professions.

I am reminded of the young Samuel, who in his sleep heard the voice of the Almighty and went to the priest thinking the call was perfectly natural. Twice and thrice the voice is heard and finally Samuel heard the divine voice and went on to obey His commands. Samuel of course like every human was imperfect and his own sons destroyed the family name and reputation. Too often – we presume that such should be our own experience in these last days after the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But we must learn as The Westminster Confession allows: “it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.”

This is what it all comes down to: the New Covenant Church must be composed of people of the Book: precisely The Holy Scriptures, which in all their clarity and conciseness informs our belief, our lives and our prayers, as The Shorter Catechism outlines our obligations. To that end, let us wade into a proper biblical study of “The Presence” or how the Lord of all the earth is with us in the regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Development: Historically, there are four main views concerning the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Let us outline those to refresh our memory.

The first view is the one that concerns me the most in our day and that is The Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper is that of a spiritual memorial meal to be remembered as often as bread and wine were consumed. Charles Hodge observes: “It was the tendency of the Zwinglian element of the Reformed Church, to make less of the supernatural aspect of the sacraments than their associates did.” Zwingli himself taught that “The Lord’s Supper is nothing else than the food of the soul, and Christ instituted the ordinance as a memorial of Himself.”

Further in Zwingli’s Expositio Christianeae Fidei: “he says “The natural substantial body of Christ in which He suffered, and in which He is now seated in heave at the right hand of God, is not in the Lord’s Supper eaten corporeally, or as to its essence, but spiritually only … Spiritually to eat Christ’s body is nothing else than with the spirit and mind to rely on the goodness and mercy of God through Christ. … Sacramentally to eat his body, is, the sacrament being added, with the mind and spirit to feed upon Him.”

Now that sounds all well and good to the majority of the unthinking churches today; however “While Calvin denied the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, in the sense in which that presence was asserted by the Romanists and Lutherans, yet he affirmed that they were dynamically present. … He held, therefore, that there was something not only supernatural, but truly miraculous, in this divine ordinance.”

Hint: this will be the substance of the fourth view in which we have our theological roots. But before, we explore the biblical foundations of this view – we need to get a good sense of what the Lord’s Supper is not. To that end let us review both the Catholic and Lutheran views in the matter before us today.

The second view of the sacrament is that espoused by Luther. Charles Hodge notes that had Luther been “willing to adopt a mode of stating the doctrine which both parties could receive without a violation of conscience” there would have been no organizational schism between the Reformed and Lutheran Churches. Luther, he tells us took “the words of Christ, ‘This is my body,’ which he insisted must be understood literally.”

Today, we call this view “consubstantiation;” which simply described in the Oxford American Dictionary means: “a Lutheran doctrine that the body and blood of Christ exist together with bread and wine in the Eucharist.”

Luther’s sixth point in this discussion reads: “that the body and blood of Christ are received not only spiritually by faith, but also by the mouth … in a supernatural and celestial way, as sacramentally united with the bread and wine.” To further complicate our study, once again we must go further into the third Catholic view to understand what Luther would not allow!

The third view of the sacrament is that taught by the Roman Catholic Church. Their view is called “transubstantiation;” which again simply put, is “the doctrine that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are converted by consecration into the body and blood of Christ, though their appearance remains the same.” (OAD)

Charles Hodge describes their thinking: “Romanists regard the Eucharist under two distinct aspects as a sacrament and as a sacrifice. The latter in their system is by far the more important.” To the Catholics “the external signs are bread and wine, which retain their form after consecration and after the change in their substance thereby affected.” Further, they believe and teach that “Christ is present in this ordinance, not spiritually as taught by the Reformed, nor by the real presence of his body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine, but by the bread and wine being by the almighty power of God changed into his body and blood.”

This is why the laity normally, are not allowed to take the cup and accidentally spills the very blood of Christ on the floor. Many of you may remember when we first used the new trays for bread and wine? Having not seen the tray, top and stand apart before coming to the table – I lifted the wrong lip and spilled much of the bread on the table and floor. You were all polite and any gasps were hardly audible and as I explained at the time – I was glad that we were not Catholics and therefore we could proceed to pass the unsoiled remainder and continue with the Lord’s Supper. This doctrine of theirs always requires a very special handling of the consecrated elements and a special protection of those not consumed.

Before we go to the fourth view espoused by Calvin let us review the various studied opinions just outlined.

1. Zwingli’s view of a spiritual presence only in a memorial meal.
2. Luther’s consubstantiation where a presence is alongside, in – through and under the elements.
3. Roman view of transubstantiation whereby the presence is truly body and blood, retaining only the form and taste of the bread and wine.

The Fourth view taught by Calvin is that of a “dynamic presence”, to use the description of Charles Hodge. Here is his reasoning: “The sun is in the heavens, but his light and heat are present on earth. So the body of Christ is in heaven, but from that glorified body there radiates an influence, other than the influence of the Spirit (although through his agency), of which believers in the Lord’s Supper are the recipients. In this way they receive the body and blood of Christ, or, their substance, or life-giving power.”

Application: Let us return to our text from Paul’s first letter to the Church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 10: 16-17) to see how this teaching works out biblically: “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.”

Our text is taken from The English Standard Version, which uses the same verb as the New International Version in translation: “participation.” Listen to the translated verb in The New American Standard Bible: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.”

Now, what is really interesting is when we go to the Greek text and see the real verb behind “participation” and “sharing”! The verb being translated is “koinonia” which Marshall’s Interlinear Parallel New Testament identifies as “communion.” So let us read the essential phrases in this manner: “The cup … is it not a communion in the blood of Christ? The bread … is it not a communion in the body of Christ?”

If the natural ability of sunlight is able to warm your body and generate the multitude of foods that fortify it, why is it not reasonable within the context of these verses to understand that the greater light of the Son of God can do the same and more in a way that we do not completely anticipate and fully comprehend?

A contemporary Reformed Theologian by the name of Keith Mathison notes in his work (Given for You) that “Calvin’s discussion of sacramental signs is found throughout his works, and he teaches the same thing in every place – that the signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated.” A page further along in this discussion he points out that “Calvin’s view of the relationship between the signs and the things signified” is important “because for Calvin the bread and wine of the Supper are signs representing something present, not signs representing something absent.”

Before we close, Charles Hodge would encourage us to consider a portion of The Scots Confession of 1560 which is in accord with the thinking and teaching of Calvin himself. “We confess that believers in the right use of the Lord’s Supper thus eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus Christ, and we firmly believe that He dwells in them, and they in Him, nay, that they thus become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones. For as the eternal Deity gives life and immortality to the flesh of Christ, so also his flesh and blood, when eaten and drunk by us, confer on us the same prerogatives.”

This is really and truly why the word “communion” is so interchangeable with the phrase “The Lord’s Supper!” The first word of course tells us of the relationship and the second identifies the ongoing means of that relationship for the believer.

He is here, He is present and how may you know that? Very simply – if in the context of communion within the body of Christ – the Church: you are growing in grace and knowledge; then you are truly feeding on the very body and blood of Christ Himself. And therefore the sacramental meal which we eat in His presence is food and drink indeed. "Bon Appetit" as Calvin’s French language might say it today: May you be given the spiritual appetite for the meal that is laid out before you today and all ways. Amen.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PREACHING RESOURCES

Battles, Ford Lewis. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology.
Mathison, Keith A. Given For You.
Williamson & Vos. The Westminster Larger Catechism.
The Westminster Confession & Catechisms.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Permission granted to redistribute unedited versions with this notice.
http://www.tulip.org/Com/Com01.htm