The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread….You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

-1 Corinthians 10:116-17,21-22, ESV

Recently, we have been discussing various aspects of covenant theology.  All of the covenants are corporate and multi-generational in nature.  When combined with the nature of responsibility and how that relates to generational responsibility, the concept of representation is key in the covenants.  And since Scripture refers to worthless people, the covenant people of God has always included the unregenerate.  All of that laid a foundation for covenant baptism, so it is only logical that the same foundation would have implications for communion as well.  This post will briefly examine what communion means in this context and how that impacts differing views.  Next time we will discuss the proper recipients, including the topic of children partaking of communion.

The Sacrament of Communion

Before discussing the sacrament of communion, we need to define the term “sacrament”.  In distancing themselves from erroneous doctrines surrounding the sacraments, many churches refuse to use the term and instead refer to baptism and communion as “ordinances”.  But many in the Reformed tradition prefer to call them sacraments.  Louis Berkhof defines it properly: “A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, in which by sensible signs the grace of God in Christ, and the benefits of the covenant of grace, are represented, sealed, and applied to believes, and these, in turn, give expression to their faith and allegiance to God”.[1]  In other words, a sacrament is a physical act that represents spiritual reality.  It consists of the underlying spiritual reality, the physical act that signifies it, and the union between the two by faith.[2]  It is not effective in and of itself, but God has chosen to use it as means to impart grace to us.  Only baptism and communion fit this description, so it is appropriate to call them sacraments.

Communion then is the sacrament in which we partake of the bread and wine (the elements) that represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given for us.  As God’s people come together on the Lord’s Day, He invites us to commune with Him at His Table, so communion is often referred to as the Lord’s Supper or the Lord’s Table.  Unlike baptism with is only applied once, this sign of the covenant is applied repeatedly.  As we eat the broken bread, we are reminded of Christ’s body that was broken and crushed under the full weight of God’s wrath for our sin.  As the most basic sustenance, the bread also reminds us of our reliance on Christ for everything.  As we drink the wine, the bite of the alcohol reminds us of the bitter cup of God’s judgment that Christ drank that we deserved.  But throughout Scripture wine also signifies gladness, so it reminds us of the infinitely joyous Wedding Feast that awaits us.  In this way we are also reminded of our participation in all of the benefits won by Christ’s death and of the blessings reserved for us in heaven.  The fact that He invites us to the Table also shows His incredible love for us.  And since we partake together on the Lord’s Day as part of corporate worship, communion signifies not only our union with Christ but also our union with one another—hence the term “communion”.[3]  Therefore, as often as we practice this sacrament, we proclaim the atoning death of Christ and look forward to His Second Coming.  This much we can all agree on, but beyond this there are various points of disagreement. 

Two Erroneous Views

As with baptism, there are two erroneous views of communion that must be addressed.  The first is the Catholic view of transubstantiation, saying the elements of bread and wine are actually transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus, so communion is actually seen as a repeat of the sacrifice of Jesus.  Under this view, the recipient of communion is actually consuming the real body and blood of Jesus.  In addition to the fact that there is no scriptural evidence of this, it is completely contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture about the once-for-all nature of Christ’s atoning work, especially in Hebrews.[4]  The Lutheran view of consubstantiation is slightly better, holding that the elements do not become the body and blood of Jesus but the body and blood of Jesus are mysteriously yet physically present “in, with, and under” the physical elements.  While this view does not include a repeat of Christ’s sacrifice, it does see the recipient as consuming the actual body and blood of Christ.[5]  The main problem is that both views contradict Scripture’s clear teaching about the present location of Jesus.  While in His divinity He is omnipresent, in His glorified humanity He occupies a finite location.  Scripture is clear that Jesus is currently in heaven reigning at the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110:1, Luke 22:69, Acts 1:9-11, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 1:3).  His flesh and blood are fully present there and therefore cannot be present with the elements here on earth.[6]  So both of these views are unbiblical.

Why then do these views exist?  Both are an attempt to satisfy one of Jesus’s more difficult teachings: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53).  If we take this literally, the only logical way in which we can obey it would be to view the body and blood of Christ as present in the elements of communion, but is that the correct interpretation?  This was part of Jesus calling Himself the “bread of life” the day after he fed the five thousand.  He begins by telling them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal” (John 6:26-27).  He then told them that the work of God is to believe in Him (John 6:28-29).  They then reference manna and ask that Jesus would likewise give them free food continually (John 6:30-34), just as the Samaritan woman had asked Jesus when He taught her about living water (John 4:13-15).  It is in response to this that Jesus said, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).  After Jesus clearly taught that salvation is by grace through faith by the power of God alone (John 6:36-40), they didn’t understand that he was speaking metaphorically. They grumbled against Him so He doubled down on His teaching that those the Father draws to Him will believe in Him and thereby have eternal life (John 6:41-48).  He continues:

Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

-John 6:49-58, ESV

Jesus was clearly speaking of Himself as spiritual rather than physical food and drink, claiming to be the spiritual reality to which manna pointed (see 1 Corinthians 10:3).  This is even more apparent when we compare this first “I AM” statement of Jesus to His last: the True Vine (John 15:1-11).  His clear meaning there was that we must abide in Him and be nourished by Him.  In context, it is clear that Jesus is saying the same thing in John 6—and to the Samaritan woman.  She responded in faith, but many of these Jews could not accept this teaching and left Him because of it.  John then notes that Jesus knew all who were His (John 6:64), so Jesus was being intentionally controversial to reveal their hearts by giving them no logical choice but to see the beautiful spiritual reality He was communicating or reject Him.  Their eyes had not been opened, so they had to reject Him.  Transubstantiation and consubstantiation fail to see the clear context of this passage.  It is not necessary for the elements to become or be mingled with the body and blood of Jesus.  Instead, the true power in communion is and has always been the spiritual reality underneath it.  Jesus was the true manna and water that sustained the Israelites in the wilderness, to which the physical manna and water pointed.  Communion likewise sustains us not by the physical ingestion of bread and wine but by the grace that God chooses to impart to us as we partake in faith.  So just like their views on baptism, the Catholic and Lutheran views on communion must be rejected.

Memorial or More?

Just like baptism then, there are some opposing yet still biblical views of communion.  A common view throughout Protestantism is that communion is a bare memorial of Christ.  This is the Zwinglian view and is held by most Baptist churches.[7]  As with the baptism of converts, we can all agree that communion is done in remembrance of Jesus because Scripture clearly teaches it (Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), so communion cannot be faithfully practiced if it is not in remembrance of Jesus.  But is that all communion represents?  For most Reformed churches, the answer is “no”.  If communion is a bare memorial, then it emphasizes our own act of remembrance and Christ’s past work rather than Christ Himself, His gift, and His present work.  Instead, “the body and blood of Christ, though absent and locally present only in heaven, communicate a life-giving influence to the believer when he is in the act of receiving the elements.  That influence, though real, is not physical but spiritual and mystical, is mediated by the Holy Spirit, and is conditioned on the act of faith by which the communicant symbolically receives the body and blood of Christ.”[8]  In this way, communion is a means of grace that amplifies the effectiveness of the Word and grows us in our relationship with Christ, providing spiritual nourishment and increased assurance of salvation.[9]  This is substantiated by a clear statement from Paul: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16).  The answer to this rhetorical question is: yes, partaking of the bread and wine in communion is a participation in the body and blood of Christ.  There is a present and active sense in which the spiritual realities signified by communion are experienced by us while we partake of communion, so we cannot consider communion to be a bare memorial. 

Practical Implications

All of this affects how we practice this sacrament—and has caused many different practices to develop. First, you may have noticed that I have been referring to wine rather than grape juice, so am I suggesting that only wine is appropriate for communion?  I would not go that far, but I would exhort my brethren who only use grape juice to examine their reasoning.  After all, grape juice didn’t exist until the Nineteenth Century, and was not adopted into widespread use in communion until the temperance movement of the early Twentieth Century.  It can be argued that wine better signifies the underlying truths of communion, but it can also be argued that failure to offer juice could be a stumbling block for those struggling with alcoholism.  Lacking any biblical command to use wine exclusively, it is appropriate to offer both wine and juice, but it is also appropriate to offer wine exclusively.  My current church recently transitioned to offering only wine due to its historic use throughout church history, its better representation of the truths of communion, the negligible risk of causing struggling alcoholics to stumble, and the desire that we would display unity through communion by all drinking the same fruit of the vine.

The logistics of communion also vary greatly.  In just the churches I have attended, I have seen numerous different practices.  The bread may be leavened, unleavened, or gluten-free, pre-cut or torn off by each person.  The elements may be passed out by deacons, or the people may come forward to receive them from the elders.  They may be taken individually or together, sequentially or with the bread dipped in the cup.  In my current church, we come forward and tear off part of a single loaf, which like the wine accentuates our unity.  All of these are acceptable practices that can be supported from Scripture, so there is no need to divide over them.  But all of these are practiced in the corporate gathering of the saints, in which all eligible saints can partake.  Therefore, it is inappropriate to partake of communion in any other setting—alone, in family worship, in youth group or small group, or even in a wedding in which only the bride and groom partake.  The danger with the bare memorial view of communion is that it cheapens the sacrament such that we could easily justify any of these scenarios.  We must maintain the appropriate reverence for the sacrament by keeping it in its rightful place as part of the Lord’s Day service.

The frequency of communion also varies greatly between churches.  Most churches I have attended practiced it monthly, while others partake more frequently.  During the Reformation, there was such a high view of communion that it was often practiced only annually after weeks of preparation and soul-searching, reminiscent of the Day of Atonement.  Since communion points to our reliance on God as sustenance, partaking more frequently is preferrable.  We need the Table and should hunger for it, which is why my current church practices communion weekly.

There are also differing views on who should come to the Table, which we will cover next time.  As with baptism, none of these differences should divide us.  After all, we show our unity when we come to the Table.  However we practice it, let it be according to Scripture and in honor of the Lord.  And let us come with joy, for He has not given us the bread and water of prison but the bread and wine of His royal Table!

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 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.” 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.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

-1 Corinthians 11:23-26, ESV

---

[1] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 644.

[2] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 644-645.

[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 990-991; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 679-681.

[4] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 991-994; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 681-682.

[5] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 994-995; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 682.

[6] Derek W. H. Thomas, “Covenant, Assurance, and the Sacraments” in Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, & John R. Muether (ed.), Covenant Theology, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2020: 585.

[7] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 682-683.

[8] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 683.

[9] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 684.