Introduction
We could have titled last week’s sermon, “Christians Behaving Badly.” It was bad enough that the Corinth “saints” were treating one another badly, but, as if to add insult to injury, they were doing so at the Lord’s Table. At the very meal which signified unity in Christ, they were displaying the very real divisions among them.
Paul, to wake them up to their offense reminds them of what the Lord’s Supper is about.
Text
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you…
As Paul delivers again the words which institute the Lord’s Supper, he notes that what he is passing on carries the direct authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think he means that he received the instruction in one of his visions by which the Lord communicated with him. However he received the instruction, it comes from the Lord and is to be received by the church as the Lord’s very words.
…that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed…
This phrase serves a couple of purposes. One is to keep before us that historicity of the sacrament and of our religion. Our faith is based on historical events. The Lord’s Supper originated from the Passover meal that Jesus celebrated with his disciples. Secondly, he reminds us of the context for the first supper. Jesus spoke these words and administered these elements on the eve of his crucifixion, his sacrifice for his disciples and all disciples to come. He spoke these words of love in the midst of betrayal, conspiracy, and desertion. See how history enriches faith. The Supper comes to us out of troubled times, and so it is all the more fitting to observe it in the midst of our troubles.
… took bread, 24 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.”
The first element given is bread to represent Christ’s body which he offered as a sacrifice for his people. Some ministers have focused on the word “broke” when administering the sacrament. The King James and the New King James Bible have the word “broken” in the quote: “This is my body which is broken for you.” Thus we are to think of Christ’s body broken when we see the loaf of bread broken in two.
The Scriptures, however, teach that Christ’s body was not broken. In the gospel of John, we read:
So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced” (John 19:32-37).
Why, then, does the KJB have “broken”? The translators at that time relied on manuscripts that included the word. Since that time, other manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more reliable, so that no translation done since the turn of the last century includes the word other than the NKJB which tries to remain faithful to the KJ.
Having said this, breaking the bread is significant, for it indicates that Jesus had his disciples eat from the one loaf of bread. Remember Paul’s words in 10:17: Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. The focus, then, is not the brokenness of Jesus’ body, but that his body is given for us all: “This is my body which is for you.”
All the presentations of the Lord’s Supper include the reference to Jesus giving thanks or saying the blessing. It seems important to note that he did so and thus important that we do so as well. Despite the evil context surrounding the supper, what was being celebrated was the victory of righteousness. At all times we are to give thanks to God for what he provides – the food on the table and especially the salvation of our Lord. Just as the Last Supper was a not of bemoaning the hour to come, so the Lord’s Supper is not to be a time of focusing on our own troubles. It is a time for giving thanks to God.
We will come back to the statement, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Let us move on to the next element. 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Let’s consider the phrase, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. The gospels of Matthew and Mark say the same thing in a different word order: “this is my blood of the covenant.” This same language was used by Moses when establishing the old covenant made at Mt. Sinai.
Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD. 6 And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exodus 24:3-8).
The writer of Hebrews describes this very scene in chapter 9, where he makes the point that Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant, just as Moses mediated the old covenant.
I want to make clear – Jesus shed his blood to provide forgiveness of sin. Matthew records Jesus’ words as, “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (26:28). Each of us, individually, find our personal salvation through the blood of Jesus. But we are also to understand Jesus’ work in the context of the covenant between God and his corporate people. Just as the Jews belonged to the covenant of Moses, so Christians – both Jew and Gentile – belong to the covenant of Christ. And his covenant is a greater covenant than that of Moses. His will never be replaced. His blood is of far greater value than the blood of oxen, sheep, and goats. But most of all, his covenant rests upon his perfect work alone. It is a covenant that he fulfills, and is not a covenant in which he merely acts as an agent but we have to do the work of fulfillment. Upon the work of Christ alone do we rest.
Thus, when Christ says, “This is the new covenant in my blood,” he is saying that the cup is the token sign that he has established the new and better covenant on behalf of his people. He has established the covenant by his precious blood.
Again, we have the refrain, “Do this in remembrance of me.” This is clearly an important exhortation. Paul is reminding the Corinthians not to lose sight of the purpose of the Supper. They have remembered the tradition but have forgotten (at least practically) the meaning behind it.
One reason may be the very method in which they observed the sacrament. It was part of a meal. It is very possible that the distribution of the bread and the cup did not happen in succession as it does today. It may be that during the meal the bread was distributed, and then after supper they received the cup. We can’t be certain, but what is certain that the Lord’s Supper significance was getting lost. It had become a tradition without meaning.
“Remember,” Paul says. “Remember what it is about. You are to be receiving the bread and the cup as though receiving the body and blood of your Lord. Remember what he has done for you.”
Remember that Jesus gave his body on the cross for us. He gave of himself for us, for our benefit. He has shed his blood to mediate a new covenant for the forgiveness of our sins. We belong to our Lord.
He then adds his own words of application: 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
They are to understand that their participation in this rite is a proclamation, a testimony by them of the Lord’s saving work on the cross. Again, it is not a statement that Jesus died, but that he died victoriously; for he is alive and will return in glory. Until he comes, they will continue to proclaim what he has done.
Lessons
Let us consider now, how we are to observe the Lord’s Supper and what we are to take away from it. This sacrament, which is to express unity in Christ, has divided his Church over the centuries. My purpose is not to debate with other traditions, but to examine our tradition.
One question is discerning what is essential to proper observance. If the early church observed the sacrament as part of a meal, should we be doing so? If they ate from one loaf of bread, should we? Some Christians believe that the bread should be unleavened since that would have been the type of bread Jesus used for the Last Supper as part of the Passover meal. Should we drink from one cup? Should we drink wine, considering that is what Jesus and his disciples drank? What about partaking of the elements? Should we wait and partake together or when we receive the elements? Should we go up to receive or where we are seated? Should we sit around a table?
Understand that one reason there are so many traditions is that there is no instruction as to what must be done, and that is probably intentional. Here is an instance in which churches, within limits, may vary in their practice. No church today observes, on a regular basis, the sacrament as part of a religious meal. It is, however, properly celebrated in the context of worship, as was intended with the meal. As to the one loaf, we preserve the symbolism of union by the minister holding up a loaf and breaking it before the congregation. We could use unleavened bread, but there is no instruction to do so. There is no inherent symbolism in the bread being unleavened. More to the point is that Jesus refers to himself as the “bread of life,” the manna from heaven upon which we are to feed (cf. John 6:26ff).
Should we drink from one cup? Again, the symbolism is preserved by the minister holding up the cup before the people. Should we drink wine? That would have been the drink of Jesus and the early church. Indeed, that had been the common practice until the last two hundred years, and still remains the common practice in most of the churches outside the U.S. Even so, it is significant that the word “cup” and not “wine” is the term used in all accounts of the Lord’s Supper, though it would seem more obvious to use the word “wine” as the metaphor for Jesus’ blood. Drinking the “fruit of the vine” serves the purpose needed. This issue falls under the principle of not placing a stumbling block before the weaker Christian brother. In this case, he may stumble not only over conscience, but if an alcoholic, what is meant to give him strength, instead makes him weak. I am satisfied drinking grape juice to preserve the conscience and welfare of my brother.
As eating and drinking together, churches differ in practice. We do them together to strengthen the message of being united in Christ, which the sacrament is intended to teach. We do not come forward for similar reason. Rather we sit together and pass the elements to one another.
What is essential, then, in practice is to partake of the bread and the cup. Practice is important, but even more important is understanding the meaning of what we do, of what is happening in the sacrament. We are to remember Jesus. We are not to remember him like we remember someone in a memorial service, as one who has left us. We are to remember him as one who is present, as one who in the Supper is speaking to us, offering to us himself.
The other name for the Lord’s Supper is Communion. It is called so because in it, we have communion with our Lord. The bread is not the physical body of Christ, nor is the juice or wine his physical blood. Nevertheless, Christ is very much present with us in the sacrament, the very word which means mystery. Mystery, indeed, is here. Christ intends to feed us, to nourish us spiritually as bread and drink nourish the body. Calvin eloquently expresses his own heartfelt belief in this matter:
Now, should anyone ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink of my soul; I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive (Institutes, Ch. 17, par.
Isn't that a beautiful, moving testimony to what Calvin finds in the sacrament? Calvin taught that one must receive the sacrament by faith; there is no power of itself by which it redeems or sanctifies the person receiving regardless of that person's faith. And yet, there is something very real happening that cannot be explained merely the faith we generate. Listen to Calvin again:
There are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh – viz. that we are quickened by the true partaking of him, which he designated by the terms eating and drinking, lest anyone should suppose that the life which we obtain from him is obtained by simple knowledge. For as it is not the sight but the eating of bread that gives nourishment of the body, so the soul must partake of Christ truly and thoroughly, that by his energy it may grow up into spiritual life. (Institutes, Ch. 17, par. 5).
At the sacrament, even the scholar is moved to confess that knowledge is not enough to know the Savior. Even the theologian must testify that there is mystery beyond contemplation. What matters is to be known by our Lord, to be fed by him. And so at the Table he feeds his people. It does not matter if you can distinguish between transubstantiation and consubstantiation; it does not matter if you sit or walk to the front, if you drink fermented or unfermented juice. What matters is that you by faith in your heart the body and blood of your Lord; that you receive it as receiving from his own hands; that you receive it as blessing and nourishment to feed your souls, to build your faith.
What matters is to find in it again and again the gospel of our Lord. Here is his body given for you by grace; here is his blood shed for you by grace. Here is the new covenant in his blood that he has made on your behalf. And each time you partake, remember; remember and take heart what his death accomplished for you. Take heart that the covenant cannot be broken because your Lord has sealed it with his own blood. Take heart that you will not be cast out, for you are members of the Lord's body given for you. Remember.
Or if you have yet to call upon Christ to save you by his blood, then let this sacrament stir you to call out to him that you may indeed partake of him; that you may know the life that he gives, that he sustains. For Christ is true meat, true drink for all who would receive him. The banquet of eternal life is before you. Come, sit and eat.
