THE LORD’S SUPPER

2004-2005

LESSON TWELVE

I. Chapter XII E:

The arguments of the adversaries from certain statements of the ancients.

A. We have already examined clearest testimonies of ancient church.

B. Adversaries still keep piling up various and different, and even obscure and ambiguous, statements from the ancients, concerning:

1. In what way the bread is called a sign of the body of Christ.

2. In what way the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament or a mystery.

3. The confusion of spiritual and sacramental eating.

4. What Augustine calls the essence (res) of the Sacrament.

a. Sometimes, references the very body and blood of Christ.

b. Other times, references the benefit.

5. How the ancients spoke in regard to the bodily and local absence of Christ.

6. Negatively, the absence of Christ’s body in the Supper cannot be demonstrated clearly in the writings of the ancients.

II. Chapter XII F:

The arguments [of the adversaries] from the analogy and the similarity to the other sacraments.

A. Adversaries contend:

1. Because there is a certain similarity between the sacraments, words of Supper must be explained not in their proper and natural way, but in such a manner that analogy with other sacraments is preserved.

2. They use ill-defined and sweeping assertions.

B. The correct rule

1. There most certainly is some similarity or relationship between the sacraments.

2. Therefore, they share a common appellation, “sacraments”.

3. But, that does not mean that there is no difference between them.

4. Look to His Word for similarity and difference.

5. Similarity: They are made up of the Word and the external elements.

6. Likewise, they are:

a. seals of the promise of grace.

b. an exercise and confirmation of faith.

c. And, notes of external profession in the church.

7. But, similarity does not prevent each sacrament from possessing its own proper and peculiar material and form.

8. Similarity does not make a statement in regard to the material and form of any sacrament while disregarding its institution, purely on the basis of a similarity.

C. If they say that analogy requires words regarding sacrament be taken in a different sense than their literal meaning:

1. Reply is that this is not always true.

2. e.g. Baptism:

a. Mt 28:19.

b. Mk 16:16.

D. Nor is it true that it is a perpetual and universal analogy which applies to all sacraments and signs that they speak of and deal with things that are absent.

1. e.g. Baptism – the washing of regeneration by the Spirit.

a. Not because the Spirit is far distant.

b. Nor because, in His absence, regeneration is only signified.

c. Jn 3:5.

d. Tit 3:5.

2. The dove and flame of fire are symbols.

a. Mt 3:16.

b. Ac 2:1-4.

c. But the analogy between the sign and the thing signified is not that the substance of the Spirit is far removed and separated from these symbols.

E. Adversaries also contend that the Old Testament sacraments were different than New Testament as to their signs but were the same regarding the substance of a sacrament.

1. Augustine speaks this way extensively.

2. But in Old Testament sacraments, the body of Christ was not substantially present because at that time Christ had not yet become incarnate.

3. Therefore, they say His body and blood are not present in the Supper.

4. Do we abandon the words of institution for this?

5. Adversaries cite 1Co 10:3,4.

a. But Paul is clearly saying that the ancients among themselves had the same sacraments.

b. Ancient church fathers, except for Augustine, agreed.

c. Just as same sacraments were held in common by all in Old Testament, so also we in New Testament all have the same sacraments.

d. Paul speaking against false delusion that debauchery, etc. could not hurt them.

6. Without Christ, no promise of grace at all in the Old Testament.

a. Not a different Christ in Old Testament than in New Testament.

b. Jn 8:56.

c. Ancient also had the spiritual eating (Is 55:1,2,10,11).

d. Christ to come; Christ who has died and rose again.

e. Old Testament or New Testament sacraments: look to His Word.

III. Chapter XII G.

Various arguments [of the adversaries] which are gathered by the adversaries from various places and in various ways.

A. First argument: Christ says “This do in remembrance of Me”.

1. They say memory deals with things not present, which are past or absent.

2. It is not universally true that memory or a record of things simply and necessarily includes a denial of the presence of the thing to be remembered.

3. e.g. “Lord God, remember me” in prayer.

4. Consider First Supper; He was there.

5. Paul interprets “remembrance” in 1Co 11:26.

B. Second argument: on basis of 2Co 5:16 “we no longer know Christ according to the flesh” (see Gk.) or Jn 3:6.

1. They say that after work of redemption completed in His flesh, there is no efficacy or usefulness in His flesh for vivification.

2. Argument ignores the hypostatic union.

3. Applying Jn 3:6 to His flesh rather than the corruption of our flesh is blasphemous.

4. 2Co 5 speaks to either:

a. The carnal imagination concerning His reign.

b. Or, it is saying that many thought that there is nothing more excellent about Christ than they could imagine on the basis of the weakness of His flesh during time of His humiliation.

C. Third argument: Gal 4:9 and Col 2:4,8,18,20 (“Let no one deceive you according to the elements of the world.”)

1. They focus on the bread and wine.

2. But, Paul is speaking about Mosaic ceremonies.

D. Fourth argument: Christ has promised that He would send the Spirit as His representative.

1. They argue that therefore He is not present with His body and blood in the Supper, but only with His deity.

2. Jn 14:16.

3. Christ does not send His representative in order that He Himself may be entirely absent.

4. Jn 14:23.

5. So, the Spirit as the representative will not overturn what Christ has said: “This is My body.”

E. Fifth argument: Ac 7:48.

1. Therefore, they say, body of Christ not present.

2. But consider:

a. Deity not “contained” locally in temples made with hands.

b. Yet, He is present everywhere, and He dwells in the humble.

F. Sixth argument: Lk 17:23; Mk 13:21,22.

1. They say that false prophets would retain the natural meaning of the words of institution.

2. But, by that reasoning, we must not teach that Christ is in heaven either.

3. Nor could it be said that Christ dwells in the hearts of believers (Eph 3:17; Jn 14:23).

4. Meaning is clearly that He is warning them re: false Messiahs promising external deliverance from Rome.

5. cf Lk 17:20,21: His kingdom is spiritual, with the visible majesty of His kingdom to be revealed only on Last Day.

G. Seventh argument: Col 3:1,2.

1. Thus, they say He is to be sought only above the heaven of heavens.

2. But, Paul is contending against philosophy, human traditions and Levitical ceremonies, now abrogated by His death.

3. These things are “the elements of the world” (Col 2:20).

H. Eighth argument: Mt 15:11,17.

1. They apply this to His body in the Supper.

2. Have discussed physical eating of bread and wine and the sacramental eating of His body and blood.

I. Ninth argument: Only they eat His body for whom He was crucified.

1. But they say He was not crucified for the ungodly.

2. But, see Jn 1:29.

3. Also:

a. 1Jn 2:2.

b. 1Ti 2:6.

c. 2Co 5:14.

d. Jn 6:51.

4. Ungodly damned for no faith.

a. Jn 3:19.

b. Mk 16:16.

c. Ro 14:15.

J. Conclusion:

1. Nothing requires us to abandon the natural meaning of the words of institution.

2. Adversaries have even gloried in fact that Zwingli’s opinion received the approval of the emperor of Turkey!

3. 1Ti 5:21.