The Intention of The Bread & The Cup

Transcript

GR 1340
12-03-06
The Intention of the Bread and the Cup
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
Gil Rugh

We are studying Paul's letter to the Corinthians together, and I direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is discussing matters relating to what we call the Lord's Supper and amazingly, at least I find it so, earlier in the chapter Paul talked about the role of women and the role of men, and we'd think that would be the controversial and difficult area and he would have to rebuke them for their conduct. But in 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul began, now I praise you. He praises them for their conduct in the area he is about to discuss, that is the proper behavior of women and men in the area of praying and prophesying. And yet when you come to Paul's discussion about matters relating to the Lord's Supper or the communion service, he says I can't praise you for your conduct in this area. You are functioning improperly. In verse 17 of chapter 11 he says, in giving this instruction, the instruction he's about to enter into, I do not praise you. You get together as a church, not for the better, but for the worse. And then down at the end of verse 22 he says again, in this I will not praise you. So the church at Corinth has its inconsistencies. There are areas where it is functioning as it should, but there are significant areas that need attention, need change. And one of those areas is the area of the Lord's Supper.

As we noted, it was the custom in the early church to have a full meal, a dinner in the context of which then they would partake of the bread and the cup. And we call it Communion. And during this time there were abuses taking place, and the abuses were divisions. The church at Corinth had a problem with divisions. In the early part of the book Paul wrote about the division that occurred around personalities. I like this leader, I like this leader, I like this teacher, I prefer this teacher. And Paul had to remind people on other occasions, I didn't die for you. Only Christ died for you. We are united around Him, we are the followers of Jesus Christ and the divisions around personalities have no place.

Now at the Lord's Supper the divisions were occurring around social issues or economic issues. At this dinner everybody brought their own food and it wasn't a potluck because it wasn't food that you brought and then everybody shared it together. But everybody brought their own dinner and they ate their own dinner. The problem was in the church at Corinth there was a wide diversity. We like to have churches today, as we talked about, that are of the same economic group, the same social class. God's plan is that the unity of His church be because of our relationship to Him. So in the church at Corinth there were the very poor people and there were some that were rather well off. The problem was at this meal, those who were well off brought abundance of provision, but there were people in the church at Corinth who were so poor that they didn't have enough to eat. So they come to this meal which is supposed to be portraying their relationship to Christ and the oneness they have as His body, and the people with much were stuffing themselves and the people with little were going away hungry. And Paul rebukes them strongly in verse 22 with a question, do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? I mean; it's not all about eating. You have houses in which to eat, the church isn't there primarily for that. Nothing wrong with it, nothing wrong with eating, we'll share a meal together in this building. But the church is not about eating. And this particular meal which centers around the reminder of the body and blood of Christ and His sacrifice is to be a demonstration of the unity that we have and you've made it a sham. And in doing so you treat with contempt, you despise the church of God. The church is comprised of those who are believers in Jesus Christ, and when you shame fellow Christians, members of the body of Christ, you are treating with contempt the church.

Now what Paul is going to do in verses 23-26 is turn their attention to what is the heart of the issue in the meal they were observing. Whether you observe a full meal or not, is not the issue, but you have to observe the partaking of the elements because Christ requires it. If you partake of the bread and the cup in the context of having a meal together, it all has to be done properly. But you have to understand what is being represented in the bread and the cup. And if you eat your meal at home and just come together in the church for partaking of the bread and the cup, understand what it means. And so that is what Paul is going to do in verses 23-26.

This is to go on in the church, this observance, until the Lord comes, the end of verse 26 tells us. So two thousand years after Christ instituted this we still practice it as a church. And it's generally practiced by churches around the world. All four gospel writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—record events of that last night and the dinner Christ had with His disciples. John's gospel records many details but he does not talk about the breaking of bread and the sharing of the cup. But Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that event. We call Matthew, Mark and Luke, remember, the synoptic gospels. It's a compound word and the front, syn, means to have something together; and optic, we're familiar with that, we bring it into English and it means to see. It's seeing together, because Matthew, Mark and Luke and their recording of the life of Christ have much of the similar material and perspective. John's gospel is unique. Over 90% of the material in the gospel of John is not found in the other three gospels. But the synoptic gospels—Matthew, Mark and Luke—each record this Last Supper and the institution of the partaking of the bread and the cup as started by Christ and established by Him to be practiced until He returns.

Let me just say something about the names we use for this service since there are different names used. We talk about the Lord's Supper, we talk about Communion, some call it the Eucharist. Let me just say something about four names used for this service, and we sometimes use them interchangeably and you may wonder. The first one is the Lord's Supper. When I was a kid and we went to church, they said we're going to have the Lord's Supper, I thought it was a little disappointing. I didn't understand the significance of the elements. Lord's Supper, I don't know why you would call this supper, there's not much to it. And we do have a title and we assume everybody knows. The title is used in verse 20 of chapter 11, therefore when you meet together it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. I mean, he is rebuking them, what they are doing with this is a denial. It's not the Lord's Supper, it's a time to stuff your face. But here the title, the Lord's Supper, and we continue to use this expression even though we don't continue to have a full meal. So the expression came out of the fact it was a dinner, that word translated supper was used of the evening meal. They would have called it perhaps the Lord's dinner or supper, supper is our evening meal. But we don't have the full meal, but since it was in the context of that supper that Christ took the bread and the cup and instituted this ongoing action, we continue to use the Lord's Supper even though we are just referring to the elements that were established, and we say we'll be observing the Lord's Supper. It really means partaking of the elements and the service that He established at that supper. But that's where the title comes from and why we continue to use it.

Back up to chapter 10, remember in chapter 10 Paul referred in a different context to the Lord's Supper or the Communion service. And in verse 21 he called this the table of the Lord, 1 Corinthians 10:21. 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. And since this meal, this memorial was instituted in the context of the dinner eaten at the table, it became an expression, the Lord's Table because here is where we break the bread and share the cup. And we do that today. We say we're coming to the Lord's Table. That's an expression drawn from the scripture, we partake of the Lord's Table. And particularly what is the focal point for us and as Paul develops it, chapter 11, is the partaking of the bread and the cup.

In verse 16 there is a word, probably our most common term, Communion. We'll be having the Communion service tonight. We’ll be observing Communion. And in one Corinthian 10:16, is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ. Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? That word Communion comes from this word sharing. The Greek word is koinonia, popularized in English. Koinonia means to share in something, to have communion together, partake together. And so we have Communion, and we're told here that this is a sharing in the body of Christ, a sharing in the blood of Christ. We are becoming participants in the work that Christ accomplished on our behalf by sacrificing His body, shedding His blood. So the Communion service indicates that we are those who share in the finished work of Christ.

And a fourth expression is the Eucharist. And that not word is not used as much in Protestant circles because it is used by Roman Catholicism to refer to the mass, the elements in the mass. And some of the churches that view Communion as a sacrament still refer to it as the Eucharist. It's a good word. Look in 1 Corinthians 11:24. Paul reiterating what Jesus did on the night in which He was betrayed and this word is used also in Luke 22:19 in his record of this Last Supper and the institution of this memorial. Verse 24, and when He, referring to Christ, had given thanks. And the Greek word translated giving thanks is eucharista. You can see we've just carried over into English, the Eucharist, the time of giving thanks, because Christ instituted these elements as an ongoing memorial, He eucharista, He gave thanks, Eucharist. Again, we don't use it as much, probably because it has become associated with the Roman Catholic practice of the mass and transubstantiation which we'll say something about in a moment.

Okay, with that as a background let's look at verse 23. And you'll note verse 23 begins with a preposition, for. And it explains why this time is so important. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you. And Paul is declaring here that I didn't get my information on this subject from other human beings, I didn't get it from other apostles. Now that would have been a fine way to get it, and valid to have been taught it by Matthew or Luke, since Luke was a traveling companion of Paul and he had gathered material on that which would become the gospel of Luke. Paul had interaction with Peter and other apostles, so he could have been taught it, but he says I didn't receive it from other men. I received it from the Lord. This was given to him as direct revelation.

Turn over to Galatians. Paul is arguing here for the uniqueness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, a gospel that cannot and must not be corrupted by adding anything to it of human merit or human works. The Judaizers wanted to say you must believe in Christ plus be circumcised plus keep the law. A form of that today would be you must believe in Christ plus be baptized, you must believe in Christ plus do this. Paul pronounces anathema on anybody who would teach such. He says in verse 11, for I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Down in chapter 2 verse 2 he'll say he went up to Jerusalem by a revelation. In other words, as an apostle, called and ordained, appointed by God, God gave direct revelation to the Apostle Paul. And included in that revelation according to 1 Corinthians 11:23 was information regarding the institution of the observing of the bread and the cup in an ongoing way. And this is tied to the gospel, because that's what the gospel is. It's the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the suffering of Christ, His dying to pay the penalty for our sins. So Paul says I received this directly from God. Important matter. When Christ was on earth at that Last Supper, that last time together, He instituted it with His disciples. Then when Paul is selected by God to be an apostle, God directly communicates this to Him. He intended that we get it right.

And I took that which I received, back in 1 Corinthians 11:23, and I delivered it to you. Evidently during the time Paul spent in the church at Corinth, he taught them this material. You know Paul's ministry was all about preaching Jesus Christ. We're told this in 1 Corinthians 18 when Paul established the church at Corinth, then we're told he spent 18 months there, 1½ years, teaching them the Word of God. Preached the message of Christ. The responsibility, take what God has revealed and then pass it on. Now we two thousand years after the apostles take the truth, for example the truth revealed through Paul in 1 Corinthians, and we teach it. There is not new revelation coming, but we take the revelation God has given and pass it on. We're going to say something about Roman Catholicism and practice of Martin Luther, the great defender of justification by faith. Made his powerful statement that unless he was convinced by the Word of God, he could not change his mind. And that's an issue for us. There is one sole authority, and that authority is the revelation God has given, that is now what we have as our Bible.

Here is what was revealed to Paul. The Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed. The context is important. Here we are on the brink of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, hours before He'll be betrayed and crucified. He 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 He took the cup also after supper saying, this cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of Me. He gave thanks, He divided the bread and distributed it among His apostles, and said, this is My body which is for you. And now the battles begin. What did He mean? You know Paul doesn't go into this. There is no discussion, transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. I mean, the Corinthians are assumed understand this. Their problem was, you're not conducting yourself properly in the carrying out of this. The Reformers battled with the Roman Catholics over the meaning of this. And then the Reformers battled among themselves over what this means.

We don't have time to do an extensive study, but I do want to at least make you aware of the different views on what Christ meant, this is my body, this is my blood. The last few weeks I've been reading the Roman Catholic catechism. And lest word comes out, I'm not thinking of converting, I just was reading it for information. And to try to be as clear as I could on their Catholicism, I was reading the one published in 1994. It has the [imprimatur] of [Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,] who is the present Pope today, was a Cardinal then. And the [imprimatur] in the front, as you're aware the Roman Catholics, and the [Magisterium?] as well guarantees that these writings have been checked and there is no theological or doctrinal error in them as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned. I was reading Roman Catholic catechism. They keep footnoting the Council of Trent. And the Council of Trent held back in the 16th century, so I went to my library and pulled off a book that contains all the writings from the Council of Trent and got involved in reading that. You almost got a series of sermons on Roman Catholicism because that's what I've been doing. Very interesting.

Let me explain to you. The Roman Catholic view is that an actual change occurs in the elements, the bread and the cup. The bread actually becomes the literal body of Christ. There are no changes that we can sensually, with our senses, perceive, but it is actually, after the priest pronounces his blessing over it, it has undergone a change and is the literal body of Christ. And the cup, the juice or wine, has literally become His blood. Even though to our senses we cannot discern a change, there has been an actual literal change. And so they call it transubstantiation, a change of substance. That's the Roman Catholic view. It didn't become Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma until the 13th century. So it was many years after Christ, in 1215 the Fourth [Lateran] Council (I'm sure you wanted to have that down) expressly declared that transubstantiation was the official teaching of the church. And then when you get to the Council of Trent, and the Council of Trent is really where many of the Roman Catholic doctrines are fixed and set down clearly. Because we're in the context, Council of Trent met over a period of time, didn't happen just once that they met, regularly over the period from 1545-1563. And we're in the context of the Protestant Reformation. So Roman Catholicism is solidifying and clarifying their dogmas. And so now almost 500 years later, if you read a current Roman Catholic Catechism, many of the footnotes in it will come from the Council of Trent. And they have never denied any of their doctrines or dogmas that were established in the Council of Trent.

Let me read you what the Council of Trent said, and you'll see it's Roman Catholic dogma to this day, on the transformation, transubstantiation, where the bread and the cup actually become the literal body. What got me into this, I was reading the catechism, the Roman Catholic position is if you take the Bible literally, you have to believe that it's actually the body and actually the blood. Didn't Christ say, this is my body? Do you take the Bible literally? I mean, at Indian Hills we'd say we take the Bible literally. A Roman Catholic would say to you, well then it says this is my body. Do you believe it's my body? I mean, do you take the Bible literally? It says this is My blood. Don't you take that literally? And they take it literally.

Just reading elements out of the Council of Trent. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, here's the word they use, are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but they may say that it's only a sign or a figure, let him be anathema, cursed to hell. I mean, there is no option here. You either believe that these elements actually become the literal, complete [actual] body and blood of Christ, the whole Christ, the sole divinity of Christ. I mean, it couldn't be anymore real than if He were standing there in His present body. If you don't believe that, you are anathema. Furthermore, they believe that the sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory. It is a sacrifice for sin. This is why, no other reason. The Roman Catholics have seven sacraments. The sacraments are a part of God's plan in communicating His grace and you have to partake of these sacraments, particularly the initial three which include baptism, confirmation and the mass, in order to be saved. That's why for a Roman Catholic to be excluded from these things is a serious matter. Authority goes back to the Pope as you are aware. You read the catechism. It was clarified by the Council of Trent. The Pope has sole, complete authority. The bishops under the Pope can only function with the will of the Pope, he has sole authority to appoint the bishops and to remove bishops. The priests under the bishops function only with the authority of the bishops, who have their authority from the Pope. So you see it all comes back to that line, and it's when the priest who has received his ordination, which is one of the sacraments, he now has the authority that's come from the Pope down through the [official, hierarchal] channels. When he pronounces his blessing over these elements, they actually undergo a change. That's why when any of these elements are left over after the Eucharist, the mass, in the Roman Catholic Church, they're put in a little container over the altar. And you'll see people in a movie or something with the Roman Catholics, when they go by that they will genuflect where they bend their knees and bow down, because those elements are worthy of worship because they are the literal body and blood of Christ. That's why the Roman Catholic Church quit giving the cup. You know when they partake, if you've been there or seen it done, they come and partake of the mass, they come and kneel down and the priest puts the wafer on their tongue, which is the bread. But he is the only one who drinks the cup. Now that wasn't so in the early church, and they recognize that, but if this actually has become the body and blood of Christ, you can't just change it back to bread and juice or wine. So if they spill the cup, you've spilled the blood of Christ, you have to gather that all back up. You cannot waste a drop because every drop contains [the actual blood of] Christ. So passing the cup just has too much problem with spilling. So the priest himself drinks the cup. If they are correct, you can understand the logic of it. If I'm not careful we'll be having a sermon on the Roman Catholic view here.

Let me read you what the Council of Trent says about this being a propitiatory sacrifice. It means it's a sacrifice that satisfies the demands of a righteous and holy God for paying the penalty for sin. The mass does that, that they call the unbloody sacrifice. His death on the cross was the bloody sacrifice, the sacrifice of the mass is an unbloody sacrifice. It's a continuation of that one sacrifice being redone again and again. And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and emulated in an unbloody manner, the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the cross, the holy council, the Council of Trent here, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory. The unbloody sacrifice, the mass, the Eucharist is truly propitiatory. Remember the epistle of John says that He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. He is the One who satisfied the demands of God's righteousness and holiness in paying the penalty for sin. They're saying that the mass is truly propitiatory. For appeased by this sacrifice, the unbloody sacrifice of the mass, the Lord grants the grace and gifts of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. You see what they're saying now, that this sacrifice of Christ in the mass, the Eucharist, the body and blood, is accepted as payment for the worst of your sins. It's the same offering by the ministry of priests of the One who offered Himself then on the cross. The only different is the manner of the offering, the manner alone of offering being different. But there is no difference in what is accomplished and the result. This is a serious matter, a serious difference here between Protestants and Catholics.

The fruits of that bloody sacrifice are well understood. Wherefore the mass is rightly offered, not only for sins, punishment, satisfaction and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ, but not yet fully purified. There is some confusion today among those who claim to be Bible-believing Christians, evangelicals, and our relationship to Catholics. Reading again on a recent book that's been published, reading a note in a Journal a week or so ago, a leading evangelical spokesman is writing to the effect that the Reformation is over because we won because now Roman Catholics and Protestants don't have any differences. And you read the Roman Catholic catechism and you'll sometimes read things and you'll say, they believe like we do. We believe that salvation is by faith, Roman Catholics say, we believe in salvation by faith. We believe that salvation is by grace, we do, too. But what they do not believe is that your salvation is complete and full when you place your faith in Jesus Christ alone. I mean, salvation consists of a number of things and you must be partaking of the sacraments. I mean, you have to be baptized, you have to be confirmed, you have to partake of the mass. That's why it is so serious for a Roma Catholic; we see this in divorce. I read a book recently by a woman who had her marriage annulled, and you would know the family, it's the Kennedy family. One of the Kennedy family members, and a couple of them have done this, including one of our Senators now, he had his marriage annulled so he could marry someone else. Why do they care whether they get their marriage annulled? Why don't they just say, I got a divorce? That was my former wife, this is my present wife. Do you know why? Because unless the Roman Catholic Church gives its permission and declares that, that original marriage was never an authorized marriage, if you just divorce, you are no longer eligible to partake of the mass. You know what that means? Your sins can no longer be forgiven, and that means anathema, cursed to hell.

So the church has solidified its power and control over people. You bow before us or you go to hell. That's the way it is. Now of course we believe the only sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christ. But you understand the authority now for the ongoing offering of that sacrifice, for the continuing dealing with your sins can only come through the priest, who has his authority from the bishop, who has his authority from the Pope. And anyone who rejects that line of authority is no longer qualified. So the mass does become very important along with the other sacraments.

Now what about this issue. I had a number of other quotes. The Protestants are anathema. I can't understand why Protestants think they can get together with Catholics and it would be all right, because if you just read Roman Catholic doctrine, all Protestants are anathema. Now they refer to us as their separated brethren. And for those who would have intended to be baptized, in other words, partake of these sacraments as means of grace, then there may be provision. But in reality the anathema is on all those who do not follow through if the possibility is at all present.

If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory one, let him be anathema, cursed to hell. I mean, there is no middle ground here. And I do have to say I do appreciate the Roman Catholics, at least they have some doctrine. It's wrong. Protestants just believe whatever, whatever you believe, fine. That's why Roman Catholicism by and large will incorporate wherever you are. They are very adjustable. The form that Roman Catholicism takes in South America is not exactly the same as it takes in the United States of America. Because as long as you recognize the authority of the Pope and his representatives down to the priest and observe certain sacraments like baptism, communion, confirmation, etc., you can bring your other practices with you. And so you find Roman Catholicism —a mixture of various things wherever it is in the world.

What about the fact that they take the Bible literally. Have I just blown a lot of smoke here, well it still says this is My body, this is My blood. Are we going to take it literally, or aren't we? Yes and no. Yes, we're going to take it literally, but there is a difference between taking something literally and literalism. In other words you can interpret things literally, but you recognize there are figures of speech. You say, where did he come from? I don't know. He blew in. Well you don't mean that he literally blew in, the wind didn't blow him down the street and through the door. It's a figure of speech. We take it literally, it has a certain literal significance and perhaps with the speed he got here and his demeanor when he came in it looked like he had been blown in by the wind. But you know we understand a figure of speech.

Back up to 1 Corinthians 10. Here Paul is talking about what happened in the days of Moses in the wilderness experiences. And water was given to them from the rock. You remember Moses struck the rock, spoke to the rock, struck the rock and water came out of the rock. Well look in verse 4, they all drank the same spiritual drink for they were drinking from the spiritual rock which followed them, the rock was Christ. Now do you mean that, that rock literally underwent a transformation that it was no longer a rock even though it . . . the senses that, that rock was actually, literally Jesus Christ. We say, no, that's a figure of speech. That's why he says it was a spiritual drink. It was provided by Christ.

Come back to John 15. I don't want to belabor the obvious, but I think you need to be aware of this lest you be accused of not being literal in interpreting the Bible. The chapter begins, Jesus is speaking, and this is in the context of the last night of Jesus with His disciples. This began in John 13 and will continue through chapter 18, the betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane. John 15:1, I am the true vine, my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away. Every branch that bears fruit He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit. Look at verse 5, I am the vine, you are the branches. Now do you take the Bible literally? He doesn't say I am like a vine, He says I am the vine. Are you going to take it literally or figuratively? So you actually believe then on that occasion Jesus underwent a change in His substance that He became a grapevine? If that's not amazing enough, He said, you are the branches. So those disciples actually underwent a change and even though they felt like flesh and blood, they had really become branches on a grapevine. And then they had to bear fruit and then the Father prunes them. Does that mean you can expect maybe your hand or arm will be cut off because it looks like a hand and arm, but it's really become. . . . I mean, you say, nobody interprets that way. We'd say we interpret the Bible literally and part of interpreting literally, you recognize all kinds of figures of speech—similes, metaphors, and so on—that are common in every language and used to express. Earlier in John Jesus said, I am the door, I am the good shepherd. That's constantly going on. So all of a sudden now He says this is my body and people want to say, we have to take it literally. It actually undergoes a transformation and a change. These kinds of magical things are just not part of the Bible.

Now we end up trying, and this is a danger for all of us, including independent Protestants who may not be part of a particular denomination, but the trend is always to try to establish a physical thing to become the reality, when it's the Spirit that gives life. Just like those who worship the Father must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. People still think, well if I go to that building at that time, go through that procedure, I have worshiped. Peter says that's a misunderstanding. Worship takes place in the realm of the Spirit. Now it should occur when we come together as God's people, but the condition of your heart determines whether worship took place or not. And no one truly worships God who does not have Jesus Christ as his Savior because we have no access to God apart from Him. I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me. So there are certain parameters that are established.

Okay, come back to 1 Corinthians 11. That's transubstantiation. Paul doesn't talk about it at all here. In his language he assumes it will be clearly understood. Let me just say something about consubstantiation. There are some who hold that, Lutherans, Martin Luther held to this. He held to it rather loosely until he got into a battle with Zwingli and Luther was not one to give ground. So he became much more convinced of consubstantiation when Zwingli attacked him for the view. Consubstantiation means that Christ is present with the elements, but there is no change that occurs in the elements. You understand the Reformers come out of Roman Catholicism. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest, John Calvin, these men. And the fact that they had to grapple with some of these things. Luther's great contribution to the church was his stand on justification by faith alone. The church said one was saved by doing various works and so on. But he was in turmoil. He abandoned transubstantiation, but not completely, so maybe Christ is present with the elements. Some of this becomes difficult, and some arguments for it, not all of them, but some of them, you have to be careful you don't end up in pantheism. . . . Well, since Christ is omnipresent, He is present everywhere. So we can assume when we partake of the bread and the cup He will be present with us. . . . Pantheism. Christ is present everywhere but He is not part of everything. And when you have dinner tonight or have lunch this afternoon, you won't be partaking of Christ, even though He is omnipresent. It becomes a difficult concept, and in both it becomes part of what is called sacramentalism where there is viewed that some kind of grace is communicated through these actions. My understanding of the New Testament is that all that we have comes as a result of God's grace, that God's grace is not communicated through certain physical actions or activities. Certain physical actions are required and expected of those who have their faith in Him, such as baptism, but there is no grace communicated through baptism. That is an act of obedience as a testimony you belong to Him. And with the communion elements I understand that they are given as a memorial, as a reminder. That's what Paul will emphasize.

So let's move on here and see how that fits. He says at the end of 1 Corinthians 11:24, do this in remembrance of Me. That's an imperative. It’s given as a command. It's repeated after the cup down at the end of verse 25, in remembrance of Me. Do this in remembrance of Me. It is a reminder, a memorial, of the fact that it was Christ becoming a man and suffering and dying on the cross. Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:24, He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. Hebrews 10 talks about the fact that sacrifice and offering you have not desired, quoting from the Old Testament, but a body you have prepared for me. We're reminded that Jesus Christ took upon Himself humanity so that Hebrews 2 says, He could suffer and die to pay the penalty for the sins of humanity. Not the sins of angels, but the sins of human beings, flesh and blood. So the cup represents His blood. He died.

We read in verse 25, in the same way He took the cup also after supper saying, this cup is the New Covenant in my blood. What does it mean? This cup is the New Covenant. Does that literally now become a New Covenant? The New Covenant is unfolded in some detail. Jeremiah 31:31, Ezekiel 36:22 and other passages, but in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 you have somewhat of a full unfolding of what is called the New Covenant.
Turn over to Hebrews, for time we won't go back to the Old Testament passages. We have done that on occasion. But go to Hebrews 9. This cup is the New Covenant. What does it mean? If you take that literally, it is actually a New Covenant? No, the New Covenant is a document, if you will, it has provisions enumerated and unfolded, some of which will be the substance of chapter 8 which we'll read in a moment. But this cup is the foundation because it will be His death that provides for the New Covenant. He's contrasting the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in this section. Beginning in Hebrews 5 he's been showing how the priesthood of Christ is superior to the high priest under the order of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is the Mosaic Law, it's not the Abrahamic Covenant. The Old Covenant as the context makes clear and he refers to it, is the Mosaic Covenant. The New Covenant is what is established in Jesus Christ. The New Covenant comes under the provision of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is the foundational covenant, and the New Covenant is a provision within that framework.

Look in Hebrews 9:11, but when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is not of this creation. So the priests under the Mosaic Law entered a physical tabernacle that had been constructed with hands. Jesus Christ has entered into heaven. Verse 12, not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood He entered the holy place, note, once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. There is no continuing, ongoing sacrifice. It is a completed sacrifice. The blood of bulls and goats served as a cleansing in verse 13, under the Old Covenant. Verse 14, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. For this reason He is the mediator of a New Covenant. So we say this cup is the New Covenant in my blood, this is what he's talking about. What do you mean, this is the cup of the New Covenant in my blood? My death provides for the establishing and beginning of the New Covenant. Look how he explains it. For this reason He is the mediator of a New Covenant, so that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions, verse 16, for where a covenant is there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. Think of a covenant here as a will. I have a will with my wife so that if we die whatever we have is distributed. Our children will be our heirs. Now if our children, I go home after church and I find the kids are cleaning out the house. I say, why? Well, we're in your will. Wait a minute, put it all back. Why? The will is not in force yet. Why? I haven't died, it's still mine. But when I die it will become theirs. The will becomes operative when someone dies. Why do many of you have a will? So your kids will know what is theirs this afternoon? No, so that when you die it will go into effect. That's all he is saying here. This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission, the wages of sin is death. When the Son of God died on the cross, He paid in full the penalty for sin. Now the New Covenant comes into operation, the Old Covenant is no longer operative.

For a covenant is valid only when men are dead. It is never in force while the one who made it lives. Therefore, even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. And he talks about when Moses established the Mosaic Covenant beginning in Exodus 19, there were all kinds of animals sacrificed to mark the institution of that covenant with a death to mark it as beginning. And on down it goes. Down in verse 24, Christ appeared in heaven for us, that's the tabernacle where He is. Verse 25, nor was it that He would offer Himself often as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise He, Christ, would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world. There is no re-sacrifice going on of Christ. Now once, at the consummation of the ages, He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifices of Himself. That one sacrifice for all time took care of it.

Let's jump into chapter 10 verse 5, sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me, quoting from the Psalms, the body that Christ would have. Come down to verse 10, by this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. There is no repeated sacrifice. There is no repeated saving. You are sanctified once for all. Verse 11, under the Old Covenant every priest stands daily ministering an offering time after time the same sacrifices, and they can never take away sin. But by this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Verse 12, but He having offered one sacrifice for sin for all time, sat down. You remember the furniture of the tabernacle and then the temple? There were no seats provided for the priest because his work was never done in the tabernacle and temple. But Jesus Christ sat down. There is no more sacrificing going on. One sacrifice offered at one point in time for salvation. Verse 14, for by one offering He has perfected for all time those that are sanctified. Verse 18, for where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. This is a serious difference we have with Roman Catholics. Not on the attack of Roman Catholics, but we ought to understand we have significant differences on the matter of salvation. One sacrifice that did it. They're saying no, you partake of the mass and even you do mass for the dead to purify them from sins that they weren't completely purified from. The Bible knows no such situation. You are either completely cleansed and purified on the basis of the one sacrifice . . . , or you haven't been cleansed at all.

Come back to Hebrews 8:1, now the main point in what has been said is this, we have such a high priest, and note this, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens, the very sanctuary of God. He's seated there. Come down to verse 6, but now He has obtained a more excellent ministry by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, better promises. One of the key word in the book of Hebrews is the word “better.” Better than the angels, better than the Old Testament sacrifices, better than the Old Testament priests, He is the mediator of a better covenant, has better promises. Then he quotes from Jeremiah in verse 8, behold days are coming, says the Lord, I will effect a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Let me say something about the New Covenant. The New Covenant has its foundation in the death of Christ. It is the salvation provision. Look how the Old Covenant goes on. It's made with Israel and Judah, and what he'll do, he says in verse 10, for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws into their minds, I will write them on their hearts, I will be their God, they shall be my people. They shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen and everyone his brother saying, know the Lord, for all will know Me, from the least of them to the greatest. That's not going on today. We still teach the Word of God. We still share the gospel with people. In the coming kingdom when Israel is entered into the fullness of the salvation that Christ provided, you won't need to tell people, for Isaiah says, the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. You say, well has the church become Israel? The New Covenant has been instituted, we're saved on the basis of what Christ did in establishing the New Covenant, we must be the new Israel. Right? No, wrong, because the promises are to Israel, Israel and Judah. And you go back into Jeremiah, Ezekiel and other passages, you'll find that includes Israel possessing the land that God promised them. You can't just decide, well God threw out part of the promises of that covenant but not others. I mean, that covenant is established in the death of Christ, all its provisions must be carried out. If I die, you can't just decide this portion of the will I don't like, I don't want them to be included. I'll just tear out their part. I mean, the will established it, right? I leave my possessions to my grandkids, someone can't decide I don't want them to have it, I'll just write them out. You can't just write them out. Some people think you just write Israel out now, and we'll spiritualize them and make them spiritual Israel. You can't do that. The Abrahamic covenant makes provision for Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham, salvation, it also made provision for the non-Jewish descendants of Abraham and descendants by faith. In you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. . . .. So we have entered into the salvation provision of the New Covenant because we have the faith of Abraham, as Paul develops, for example, in writing to the Romans. But the New Covenant is not operating with all of its benefits yet. But in the kingdom that Christ will establish on earth, it will.

So this cup is the New Covenant. Our Bibles are divided into the New Covenant and the Old Covenant. Now that's a general statement because the Mosaic Covenant does not come into force until Exodus 19. Israel comes into existence in Genesis 12, but the Old Covenant doesn't start until Exodus 19. What about those before? Well we still call it the Old Testament or the Old Covenant, because most of the books of the Old Testament . . . is lived under the Mosaic Law. And there are . . . the Mosaic Covenant doesn't begin until Exodus 19. And the Old Covenant is in force until the death of Christ, so Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, our gospels, really are under the Mosaic Law. Some people get confused and read the gospel and say, well, it's in the New Testament. This must be what the church is to do all the time. That's the Old Covenant, folks. It took the death of Christ, remember, to establish the New Covenant. The New Covenant didn't come into force until Christ died and that ended the Old Covenant. But really it's in Acts 2 with the beginning of the church. The death of Christ, and you have a period of 50 days there, the Old Covenant is ended and the New Covenant has been established. Now the provision of that New Covenant was the giving of the Spirit, the transformation will take place on the Day of Pentecost, that transition. So Old Testament and New Testament. I'll say turn in your New Testament to the gospel of John. Well, that's because our Bibles are broken up, but the gospel of John is not under the New Covenant. The gospel of John is under the Old Covenant, because the New Covenant doesn't begin until Christ died. That's what we read in Hebrews.

All right come back to 1 Corinthians 11, and I'll just wrap this up. Verse 26, for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Two things are said to happen, you remember the Lord's death, and you proclaim the Lord's death. He doesn't say, you re sacrifice the Lord. You proclaim His death and you remember His death. Why? As we partake of those elements what are we saying? The Son of God became a man, took upon Himself a human body and in His own body on the cross He bore our sins, 1 Peter 2:24, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. The proclamation of the Lord's death until He comes. He doesn't say how often we have to do it. When I was a seminary student, I pastored a church, that church had a Christian background, Christian denomination. It had left that denomination many years before I came there, but we still practiced Communion every Sunday. But the Bible doesn't say you have to practice it every Sunday, it doesn't say you have to practice it every time the church gets together. But as often as you practice it, this is what is going on. And you are to continue to practice it, however often that may be, until Christ returns. So two thousand years later we are still observing the Communion service. Why? Because Christ says that we are to partake of these elements when we come together as a church body on occasion, we partake of these as a remembrance of Him, and to proclaim His death, both to believer and unbeliever.

We get sidetracked, churches debate and fight and divide over these things and there are important issues. We have to come to the foundational issue. The foundational issue is that God's provision for the salvation of a sinful being is the death of His Son on the cross. Doesn't matter Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Independent like Indian Hills. Doesn't matter. People can attend here faithfully all of their life and die and go to hell. People can be baptized here and die and go to hell. People can give money and die and go to hell. Why? Because salvation is not by works, but it's by faith in Christ alone. Now be careful. We read Galatians 1. If you believe in Christ plus circumcision, you can't be saved. You're anathema, cursed to hell in the biblical sense. If you believe it's faith in Christ plus being baptized, plus taking Communion, plus doing good works, you're not saved, you're under the curse, the curse of your sin, the punishment for your sin. That's true for everyone everywhere. Salvation doesn't occur by going through a ritual. We struggle with that. We always want to reduce it down. If my kids get baptized, then I'll be sure. If my kids get confirmed, then I'll be sure. If my kids get . . . Salvation comes only one way. Remember Romans 4 takes you all the way back to Abraham, before there was baptism, before there was Communion, before there was circumcision. Paul says there is the pattern, Abraham believed God, God credited it to him as righteousness. That's the only way of salvation. It can never be by faith plus baptism, by faith plus circumcision. Read Romans 4. It's only by faith in Christ. We have the Communion service, these elements to remind us it took the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God who became a man, so that you and I might be cleansed from our sin and experience the righteousness of God that is provided in the once-for-all sacrifice of the Son of God.

Let's pray together. Thank you, Lord, for your grace. Thank you for your provision for us. Thank you for the Savior who loved us and died for us. Lord, I pray for any who are here, whether they are visiting, thank you, Lord, for bringing them; whether they are a regular part of this local church. Lord, you know our hearts, you know us as we are. I pray that the truth of your Word will be clear to each one of us. If there are any who may be trusting anything else, anything more than Christ and Christ alone, I would ask that this by your grace might be a day of salvation for them. Lord, for those of us who by your mercy and grace and kindness have been saved through faith in your Son, may we never be confused, may we never misunderstand that there is only one Savior, and He provided the one sacrifice for all time. We praise you that your salvation is complete and full in Him and Him alone. We pray in His name, amen.