THE LORD’S SUPPER
2004-2005
LESSON ONE
A. The Lord’s Supper (De coena Domini)
by: Martin Chemnitz (originally in 1569)
translated by: J.A.O. Preus
© 1979 CPH
B. Translation based on the Jena edition of 1590, the 2nd edition of the work.
C. Focus
1. The words of institution of the Supper.
2. In the form of a last will and testament.
1. The greatest reverence.
2. Piety.
3. In fear of the Lord.
E. But these words are brought into controversy.
1. 1Co 11:17-32.
2. cf Law: Mt 5:18.
3. How much more His last will!
The words of the Lord’s Supper are not to be treated in a light or frivolous way, but with great reverence and respect and in the fear of the Lord, because they are the words of the last will and testament of the Son of God.
A. Diversity of opinions primarily from:
1. Ideas devised out of the minds of men.
2. Ideas presumed from irrelevant passages of Scripture.
B. Some try to say issue not really important.
C. First and foremost, we must
1. Set forth and impress on our hearts and minds by constant consideration the true, clear, and compelling reasons in regards to the words of the Supper.
2. They are the words of His last will and testament.
3. These words are not a game.
1. Not in category where can be ignored, variously explained, or incorrectly understood without bearing on faith or salvation.
2. He instituted it on night He was betrayed, with most serious words and actions.
3. They concern the most important matter of all.
4. His will that this be the giving of a new and special dogma that should remain to the end of time.
E. In second place, when last will has been executed, law requires us to observe the words with special care.
1. Has not permitted His heirs to believe as they desire.
2. Has willed that we believe what He has spoken.
F. In third place, Paul adds extremely severe threat of punishment and guilt if anyone judges or treats these mysteries in ways other than Christ has willed and determined in His words.
1. 1Co 11:29.
2. Paul speaks:
a. not of discerning the human nature in Christ per se.
b. but of fact that what we eat in the Supper the Son calls His body.
c. Paul speaks by revelation of the Son: 1Co 11:23.
G. Contested words:
1. Hoc (touto): “this”.
2. Est (estin): “is”.
3. Corpus (soma): “body”.
4. Quod: “which”
5. Traditur et effunditur: “given and shed”.
6. Some perverted the entire statement: e.g. only a spiritual food.
7. Some say the Holy Spirit is in error: e.g. in grammar.
The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper has its true and proper foundation in the words of institution, where the reverent mind ought to search and seek what we ought to believe concerning this mystery.
A. All dogmas have foundation in passages where clearly treated and explained.
B. So also, true meaning of the doctrines should be sought and developed accurately on basis of these passages.
C. Lord’s Supper has its own:
1. particular foundation, and
2. basis in the words of institution.
D. Is the root of the controversy.
E. Is some passages, the dogmas
1. are not clearly set forth, but are either
a. repeated briefly
b. only touched on in passing.
2. set forth under cover of obscure words or in figures of speech
3. or, dealt with and explained in their own proper setting.
F. Must remember, the dogma of Lord’s Supper did not exist before its institution on night He was betrayed.
1. Given with a definite form of institution.
2. Given with definite words in His actual last will.
3. Repeated to Paul after ascension for the Gentiles.
The true question at issue in the controversy concerning the presence, distribution, and reception of the body and blood of the Lord in the Supper.
A. Hard to keep an understanding of the real issues under dispute.
B. Question does not have to do with
1. Transubstantiation.
2. An absolute and unchanging presence in the elements outside of their use.
3. The reservation, carrying about, offering or adoration of the elements.
4. The “local enclosing” of the body of Christ in the bread.
5. A crass commingling of His body with the elements.
6. A Capernaitic chewing, swallowing and guzzling of His body and blood.
7. Nor, the spiritual indwelling of Christ in us through His Word, through faith and the Spirit.
1. What is present in the Supper, distributed and received orally?
2. For what purpose and use did He distribute these elements for their reception and what is the spiritual benefit of those things distributed and received?
3. Points must not be confused.
D. Entire argument is really on the first point.
1. Are we to take His words as they read?
2. In the true and simple understanding of them which the natural, sure and common understanding of Scripture reflects and demonstrates?
E. Some teach:
1. It was only a reminder or “theatrical reenactment” or a symbol.
2. Only the divine nature of Christ is present and communicated.
3. Some refer the same idea to the Spirit as being the same Spirit present in the flesh of Christ and in believers.
4. A reference not to the substance itself but to the merit and benefits of His body.
5. A reference to the righteousness and fellowship we possess in His blood shed for us.
1. They remove the actual substance of His body and blood as far distant.
2. They still will use language of “substantial presence”.
3. They leave only signs and symbols.
Copyright © 2004 CrossTies Counseling
Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
