THE LORD’S SUPPER
2004-2005
LESSON ELEVEN
The arguments [of the adversaries] from passages dealing with the departure of Christ from this world.
1. Christ, after instituting the Supper, says that He is leaving the world (Jn 16:16-20,28)
2. And that He will no longer be in the world (Jn 17:11-13)
3. These statements must not be understood of His divine nature, which fills all things, but of His assumed human nature.
4. Therefore, (they argue) Christ Himself declares that the words of institution must not be understood as they sound regarding His substantial presence in the Supper.
5. Also, Mt 26:11, spoken after the Ascension.
B. Our reply:
1. Arguments have great appearance of force, since:
a. Scripture is not of private interpretation.
b. And rule is that dubious and more obscure passages are to be explained by means of the surer and clearer ones.
2. But, must remember 1Ti 6:20.
a. When some seeming opposition (antinomia) is raised.
b. We do not immediately abandon passages in which article taught by proper and natural meaning of the words where dogma has its proper setting.
3. In first place:
a. When He said “Take, eat…”, He had not yet left the world.
b. Jn 13:33, after the institution of the Supper.
c. It is certain they had Him with them at time of first Lord’s Supper.
d. Therefore Mt. 26:11 had not yet been fulfilled.
e. Manifest that argument can not be applied to that first Lord’s Supper.
f. Absurd to imagine that there is now a different meaning for His words, as far as its substance is concerned, than there was for the first observance of it.
g. Same offering made then and now.
4. In second place:
a. What it means to “leave the world” (Jn 13:1) must be learned from Scripture.
b. “World”.
(1) Jn 1:10 – popular sense of system of celestial and terrestrial bodies (also Jn 17:24).
(2) Jn 3:16,17 – designates the people who are on earth.
(3) Jn 15:19 – involves the depravity of human nature (also 1Jn 5:19)
(4) 1Co 7:31 – refers to the state and common condition of this world, or the infirmities and troubles (also Jn 12:25).
c. Jn 16:28 shows what it means when He says that He is leaving the world.
(1) First part: So we can learn to recognize divine power in Christ; i.e. He is also true God.
(2) He went out from Father and came into this world.
(a) Not in sense of having left the Father (Jn 8:14-18)
(b) Or as though the Father who fills all was not in this world.
(3) But He humbled Himself.
(a) Did not exercise His divine majesty and power.
(b) Found in the condition of man, burdened with our weakness, except for sin.
(c) He was put under the Law for us.
(4) Second part: The departure of Christ from this world is our righteousness.
(a) By His perfect obedience and suffering and death, He has opened the way of life to the Father.
(b) After His work, He no longer remained in state of humiliation.
(c) He is exalted to highest degree (Dn 7:13,14; Mt. 28:18).
(5) Jn 13:3 given succinct explanation.
5. A denial of Christ’s presence seems to be implied in:
a. Jn 16:28.
b. Jn 17:11.
c. Mt 26:11.
d. Jn 7:33.
e. Jn 17:12.
6. But, just as God is without contradiction said:
a. to be absent in one way and present in another way at same time;
b. likewise at same time to be present and to be going away;
c. to be coming and to be present;
d. so, it can be rightly said of Christ according to His human nature that He no longer sojourns among us as before His ascension and as in glory He will return.
7. It in no way hinders Him,
a. from being present with us in the Supper according to His human nature.
b. but in a different, supernatural, and heavenly manner.
8. These passages must not be understood in a simple way of the total absence of the substance of His humanity, but only of one mode of presence or absence out of many.
9. Compare the comfort offered by adversaries argument compared to Scripture.
II. Chapter XII D.
The arguments [of the adversaries] from the doctrine of the spiritual eating, John 6.
A. They sometimes argue:
1. We can get all the benefits by spiritually eating of the absent and far distant body of Christ.
2. We can employ better tools than our mouths, i.e. the mind, intelligence, spirit and faith.
B. Answer is easy and clear.
1. He does not give us the liberty of figuring out for ourselves how and through what means He can approach us.
2. Or which means is better, more feasible, etc.
3. In the very institution of the Supper, He prescribed and defined the mode and rationale.
a. He prescribed the external reception by oral eating and drinking.
b. He commands it be done in memory of His body and blood.
c. Therefore, He prescribes the double eating of His body.
C. They contend that there is no need for this twofold eating.
1. We concur in the concept of spiritual eating.
2. But, if because of the spiritual eating we are unwilling to remove what is less important in the Supper, the elements, how can we reject the natural meaning of His testament regarding the substantial presence and reception of His body and blood?
D. Christ, the eternal Wisdom God, has been made Wisdom for us by God.
1. 1Co 1:22-25.
2. From Him we learn what is useful and necessary for our salvation, in the midst of our infirmities.
3. Their argument is that of an ungrateful guest!
E. Sometimes, they argue that the promise of the Gospel is not received with our hands, etc. but only by faith.
1. There is only one means by which we lay hold on Christ and His benefits, by faith.
2. Therefore, they say He neither can nor ought to institute another mode for the reception of His body and blood than the spiritual mode, which takes place by faith alone.
3. But, how is that argument to be proved?
F. Our answer is that we have His Word concerning the twofold eating, both the spiritual and the sacramental.
1. Both can stand.
2. In such a way that the one supports the other.
3. There is no need to try to get one to cancel the other out.
4. Holy Spirit: compares:
a. The promise of the Spirit is received by faith,
b. And the Spirit dwells in the bodies of the faithful (1Co 6:19)
5. So also Christ
a. Received in the Word by faith.
b. And dwells among believers (Jn 14:23; 1Co 6:16)
G. Some try to use Jn 6 to repudiate His words.
1. But sermon in Jn 6 preceded night He was betrayed by more than one year; Supper not yet instituted.
2. But they say that both deal with the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, whenever they were spoken.
3. But if Supper to be understood in same way as Jn 6, then there was no need for the bread and wine.
4. They agree re: the bread and wine, but try to re-interpret the body and blood.
a. A real twisting of His last will and testament.
b. The eating of Jn 6 is and ought to be an eating by all people in all places at all times.
c. But, the Supper:
(1) 1Co 11:26: “As often as you eat it.”
(2) 1Co 11:20: “When you gather together.”
d. Jn 6 does not need visible elements; Supper does.
5. The spiritual eating of Jn 6 is confirmed and sealed by the eating instituted in the supper.
6. Look closely at Jn 6 and context.
a. Jn 6:24,25.
b. Jn 6: 26,27.
c. Jn 6:28-33.
d. Jn 6: 34-41.
e. Jn 6: 49-59
f. Jn 6: 60-69
7. “eating” of Jn 6 clearly metaphorical.
Copyright © 2005 CrossTies Counseling
Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
