Sermon Series on the Lord’s Supper
Topic 1: What is the Lord’s Supper?
August 5, 2001
There is a popular movie from the 1980’s - called “the gods must be crazy.” In this movie, a plane is shown at the beginning flying over a country of uncivilized people. While this plane is flying, a man finishes his bottle of Coke and throws it out of his window. The next scene shows a typical african man, working in his crude animal skins. While he is living his own life, suddenly a coke bottle comes flying out of the “sky” - from the “gods” - and into this man’s life. But what is it? He doesn’t know! He shows it to his friends - and there the story goes. Everyone tries to figure out WHAT the coke bottle is and how it should be used.
That is how many people look at the Lord’s Supper. Our God told us to take this meal - but we don’t really know what it is or what it is for. And so the arguments go on as to what the Lord’s Supper is - is it Transubstantiation, Representation, the Real Presence, or something else?
How do you approach it? Some treat it like the military’s approach to gays in the military - “don’t ask, don’t tell.” “You believe what you want to believe about it.” They are afraid to even bring it up or preach on it because it causes a lot of rifts and differences.
Others talk about it, but they try to minimalize the differences in teachings. They say, “yes, we differ on our beliefs on the Lord’s Supper - but it’s not that big of a deal. They compare it to arguing over what kind of jewels were placed in the breastplate of a high priest. As the popular song in the Lion King sings, they say, “hacuna matata” - it doesn’t matter. “It’s not worth arguing over - it’s just important that you do it.”
Common reason - every day experience - shows that when you go to a meal at someone’s house or at a restaurant - you prepare for it. You examine the restaurant BEFORE you eat there even. If there were mice running on the floor, workers sneezing on the food, and flies flying all over the place, you would think twice about going in and EATING their food. When you look at the menu - you don’t just say, “bring me whatever you want to eat.” You examine the menu - and you see what each plate has to offer BEFORE you order it. You don’t just eat there because someone told you to.
Would not the same approach be appropriate for the Supper which our Lord invites us to? Shouldn’t we KNOW what it is, before we eat it? Consider what could happen if you don’t KNOW what is going on. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul - by inspiration of the Holy Spirit - warns - anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. If you don’t recognize - understand - what is happening in the Lord’s Supper - you could end up eating judgment on yourself! Instead of helping your faith - it could hurt you! It would be foolish then, for us to treat the Lord’s Supper like any other meal! In fact, that was the whole problem with the Corinthians. They were coming together - eating and drinking - some were eating too much. Some were drinking too much and getting drunk. While others weren’t getting anything. They were eating it like any other meal! And Paul basically yelled at them for it. It was not appropriate!
Does not faith itself demand some sort of knowledge - some Word of assurance to rest on? Romans 10:17 says, “faith comes from hearing the message.” How can we have faith in the Lord’s Supper if we don’t talk about it? How can we find comfort from something that we know nothing about and are afraid to speak about? Is it important to talk about what the Lord’s Supper is? Paul asks - how can they believe if they have not yet heard? You bet!
So maybe it is a good time to review what communion is about - so we can appreciate what it is - and appreciate the practice of the Lord’s Supper that we have.
What is the Lord’s Supper?
Even those who deny that Jesus was the Messiah will always acknowledge that Jesus was at least a Rabbi. Even if they are heathens, the most blind unbeliever can even see that Jesus knew how to teach. This was evident throughout Jesus’ ministry when time and again the people declared,
Mark 1:27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority!”
Luke 4:31 He went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the Sabbath began to teach the people. 32 They were amazed at his teaching, because his message had authority.
When Jesus taught his disciples - there was one thing he always made sure of - that they UNDERSTOOD what he was saying. Take for instance Matthew 16,
“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Jesus immediately made sure that they understood what he was talking about. Time and again Jesus would explain his parables to his disciples. Then, after he was ready to ascend into heaven, Jesus told the disciples, “what is whispered in your ears - proclaim from the rooftops!” He wanted them to explain his Word to His people. Jesus was a master teacher.
Would it be plausible then, that this Master Teacher would leave us a teaching and practice- that would be vague and open to individual interpretation? Would it be likely that this Teacher - in his last will for his disciples of all times - would speak in rhymes and riddles that would take a theologian with a great mind to figure out? Ask the lawyers of today - when it comes to writing a will - it has to be very specific and very plain. There cannot be ambiguities. If there are, it means that the lawyer who drew up the last will wasn’t clear enough. And if there are any ambiguities or questions as to the will of the testator - the rule of law demands that the most basic sense be understood. If this rule were not applied - there would be chaos. Therefore, simple logic and experience would tell us that we had best take Jesus last words very seriously. It would be best to take them at face value.
The Holy Spirit felt that this was such an important doctrine for us to have - that he included it FOUR TIMES in the Scriptures - in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians. Matthew and Mark are repeated word for word, and Luke and 1 Corinthians are very similar to each other as well. So we will look at each pair of them together. Matthew 26 says:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
This was on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread. They had joined together in an upper room in Jerusalem - to celebrate the Passover - on the night that Jesus was betrayed. Jesus took the bread - unleavened - because it was the feast of unleavened bread, broke it - and told the disciples - “take and eat, this is my body.” Then he took the cup and said, “drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant.” The exact same words are used in Mark.
Right here, if you take these words at face value - we could get a very basic understanding as to what is in the Lord’s Supper. Unleavened bread - fruit of the vine - which is wine, the body of the Lord, and the blood of the Lord. Now, if Jesus did not want this to be the basic understanding, what would he have done? Clarified it - right? But what happens? Luke, which is written much later, says the same thing. And years later - Jesus personally visited Paul - and instructed him one on one. What does Paul say that Jesus taught him?
I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, 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.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Elsewhere Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
Instead of saying, “no - don’t go with the basic meaning,” Jesus made it clear - in every reference to the Lord’s Supper - that there were four elements present. Bread, wine, body and blood. What kind of a teacher would he be, who, if trying to teach us something, would speak symbolically in everything he said? Why - you couldn’t understand a word he was saying if he never explained.
So why are there so many different doctrines on the Lord’s Supper? The Catholics teach that the bread and the wine are completely annihilated. There is nothing left but body and blood after the blessing of the priest. And for this reason they will genuflect when entering a church - basically worshiping the body and blood that they believe to be up on the altar.
The Baptists teach that there is only bread and wine. That the bread only “represents” the body. I don’t have enough time to explain all of the arguments that they use to reason away the word “is.” They say, “Jesus often spoke in parables.” He compared himself to a vine and branches. Or they argue, “Jesus body is finite - it’s in heaven - how could it be at hundreds of places at once?” “Your teaching makes Christians a bunch of cannibals who chew on Christ like a hamburger.”
How do we know who’s right? When Jesus was confronted with some Sadducees who didn’t believe in the resurrection because of their REASON - and used marriage to try and prove it - what did Jesus do? Went back to the text in Deuteronomy that talked about marriage. He cleared up the issue with the base text. Hebrews 4 says, the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. We need to go back to the Word - and not just any Word - but the specific words that directly address the institution of the Lord’s Supper. The difference with the Catholics is addressed by Paul’s letter to Corinth. What did Paul say in 1 Corinthians 11? Whenever you eat this - “bread”. If you eat it, it still must be present in the Lord’s Supper. What did Jesus say, “this represents my body,” or “this IS my body?” What did Jesus say the bread is? A participation - a communion in the body of Christ. The Word is plain. The problem isn’t with the Word of God. It’s with the eyes of man.
The story is told of Abraham - the father of faith. Did you know that Abraham wasn’t always such a great patriarch in the faith. When God told Abraham that he was going to have a son in his old age - how did Abraham react? Genesis 15 says, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.” But how did God respond? 4 Then the word of the LORD came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir.” God was saying, “No, Abraham, listen to me. This son will come from YOUR body. Later on, Sarah also believed that this was impossible - because she was too old - 90 years old. So she said to Abraham in Genesis 16:2, Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her.” We all know what happened from that debacle with Ishmael. Now we’ve got a whole nation of Muslims to fight with over that one. But God wasn’t done yet. He again appeared to Abraham in Genesis 17 and reiterated the promise. How did Abraham respond? Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”
19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. Not only did God do this one more time - but TWO more times. God personally appeared to Abraham to reassure him that he was being LITERAL - he and Sarah would ACTUALLY have a son! Finally, after he had one - when God told Abraham to KILL Isaac - how then did the father of faith respond? He took God LITERALLY.
What’s my point? Unless God says otherwise, we NEED to take him at his word. If God says that his body is present in the Lord’s Supper - who are we to say that it is not? If God says that his blood in the Lord’s Supper, who are we to reason it away - when in EVERY instance that he talks about the Lord’s Supper - he gives us no explanations otherwise. Why couldn’t this occur? Time and again in Scriptures God existed in a special way in physical manifestations. When he appeared before the Israelites - he did so in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Was it a literal pillar of fire? Yes. Was God within that pillar in a special way? Yes. When the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove - was a dove present? Yes. Was the Holy Spirit within that dove? Yes.
Again, we need to look at the passages that DIRECTLY address the Lord’s Supper. Just because Christ said, “you will not always have Me with you,” it didn’t mean that Jesus would be locked up in heaven. For after his resurrection, Jesus said, “these are the words I spoke to you WHILE I WAS STILL WITH you.” He was referring to a specific mode of existence in which he wouldn’t be with them. Now Jesus was still physically with them - but in a different way. Regardless of what Jesus said about his walking and talking with them, Jesus still said, “this is my body.” Jesus doesn’t leave it in our hands to debate over what our definition of “is” is. If Jesus were speaking in parables - he would have later explained himself. No such explanation is ever given. Therefore, we must take him literally.
When you preach on a doctrine - you run the risk of people feeling detached from the subject. “Doctrine is dry,” many say. But you need to remember that DOCTRINE DICTATES PRACTICE. If you approach the topic of today’s service with “who cares,” consider what is happening in today’s church because of the teachings on the Lord’s Supper. Most churches in the world will allow anyone and everyone to show up and eat the Lord’s Supper with them - Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, etc. That is a known fact. In the town that I came from, the Methodist church allowed their youths to give Doritos and Pepsi for their “Lord’s Supper.” At a Missouri Synod convention, they were passing out the Lord’s Supper - and they were passing the bread around for people to eat while they were seated. The time came for the bread to go up to the balcony. Instead of walking up the stairs, the man tossed the loaf up to the balcony for the other man to catch. As one elderly man told me, “they hand it out like they were eating lunch.”
Recognize the danger they are in. Paul says, anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. This is not a toy to play with. This is a spiritual medicine that can either help you or hurt you. Instead of being minimalized, it should be talked about much more often.
Maybe we are falling into the same temptation as the world. There used to be a time within our church body that we were required to announce personally to the pastor prior to communion. The week before communion - a member of the family was required to visit with the pastor and announce his attention to take the Lord’s Supper. Now, how often is it - that we come to church and say, “oh, there’s communion today.” The reverence for what is taking place is becoming less and less.
Not only is this so. It seems that in a general sense we are apologetic over the fact that we do not have open communion - where anyone and everyone can come up to take the Lord’s Supper. If we truly believe that closed communion is God pleasing, why do we apologize about it? Why should we be embarrassed over it?
When you take the Lord’s Supper today, remember what a great and humble experience this is! You will not only be tasting wine and eating bread, but the Lord’s true body and blood will be entering your body! As Isaiah cried out, you may say, ““Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips!” But what did God do for Isaiah? One of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.” None of us are worthy to taste the holy blood of our Lord or taste his body. None of us. But it’s that very body that we taste that has atoned our lips. It’s that very blood that washes our sins away. Amen.
Luther said that before the judgment seat of God he would bring this defense: “Lord Jesus Christ, a controversy has arisen and an argument has come up regarding the words of Your last will and testament. Some are contending that these words must be understood differently from the meaning indicated by their natural sense. But because among these people there is no agreement as to what kind of figure it is or into what category it must be placed, they cannot with consistency demonstrate one sure interpretation of the words. Thus I have not been able, nor have I wanted to, commit my faith in this serious controversy to these uncertain, varied, and differing waves of interpretations and opinions. But on the contrary, I have seen that if Your words are taken as they stand in their simple, proper, and natural sense, then we can have one constant and certain understanding. If you had willed that the words should be understood in a way other than in their literal sense, You would undoubtedly have given a clear and open declaration of this fact, just as You have done in those passages in which we may exercise our imaginations without any peril, as is not the case in the words of Your last will and testament.” (LW 37:105)
