How are we to understand the Lord's Supper?

Ishmael LaBiosa: Welcome to the You Ask Podcast, where the goal is to answer common questions about Christianity. Let's listen in as Pastor Rusty answers today's question. Today's question is: how are we to understand the Lord's Supper? Well, the Lord's Supper has been actually one of the most debated ceremonies in the church. It's been a scribe with different meaning, it has employed different practices. And so today what I want to do is to give you a general review of some of the places of agreement, some places of disagreement, the kind of different conceptualizations of the Lord's Supper, and then certainly at the end and maybe along the way, I'll give you my opinion. Well, let me give you some areas where there is agreement about the Lord's Supper. Number one, that the Lord's Supper was established by Jesus on the week. Where Jesus was crucified, he meets with his disciples in the upper room, and he takes the elements off of the Passover celebration meal, and he institutes a new ceremonial meal, which we call communion or the Lord's Supper. We find this in Matthew 26, 26 through 28, or Mark 14, 24 through 22 through 24, or Luke 22, 19, or 2023. and 20, and then again in 1 Corinthians 11, 23 through 29. So everyone agrees that the Lord's Supper was established by Christ. Secondarily, they also agree that the Lord's Supper needs to be repeated. Now there is no it must be done weekly, it must be done monthly, it must be done quarterly. The Bible doesn't say, but it does say that it needs to be repeated. And different churches do it. Differently as far as the repetition of it. That the Lord's Supper, everyone agrees, is a form of proclamation, that it proclaims the Lord's death until he comes. We also agree across the board here that the Lord's Supper gives some type of spiritual benefit to the partaker. Now, the nature of that benefit is profoundly different. Some see it as a means of grace that contributes to one's salvation. Which I don't believe. And others on the other end, which I do believe, just say that it is part of one spiritual life and a very important spiritual discipline. And everyone also believes that the Lord's Supper is for Christians alone. It's not for non Christians, it's for those who have trusted in Jesus, and that it should promote not only remembrance of Christ's death, but should promote unity in the body of Christ, that it is not merely communion with God that is in view, which is uttermost, but also communion with one another. Actually, the first Corinthians 11 passage, which is so important regarding the Lord's Supper, is primarily talking about how the Corinthians actually were taking the Lord's Supper with a church of great disunity. And the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Had a lot to say about how they were poorly taking the Lord's Supper. Not because they weren't, first and foremost, remembering Christ's death, but they were taking the Lord's Supper without being right with one another. So that's another important piece. Now, where are the areas of disagreement? Well, the areas of disagreement are really coalescing around what is going on with ⁓ bread and the wine. And we'll talk about the major views. Some on one level say the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ. And on the other side, they say the bread and the body are mere memorials. They're representations. There's no physical change to the bread and the wine. Also, how is the Lord related to the Lord's Supper in the sense that? Is there some like higher level spiritual dimension that the believer is brought into contact with Christ, or is it just a reminder? Also, people disagree over who can administer. Some say only clergy can administer, others say any Christian can administer the Lord's Supper. And then there is some disagreement over what can be used. Obviously, let's talk about the bread first. Do you need to use unleavened bread? Almost certainly Jesus when he celebrated the Lord's Supper used unleavened bread because he was celebrating the Passover meal, and the bread that was available to Jesus at the Passover meal would be unleavened bread as talked about in the Book of Exodus. But is it okay to use leavened bread? I don't see a reason that it's not. Some people say giving little teeny pieces of bread to everybody doesn't quite communicate the oneness of the church. So maybe there ought to be one piece of bread that's distributed To communicate oneness and others say it doesn't matter. Certainly in Baptist life, since prohibition, to be honest, most Baptist churches don't use real wine. They use grape juice. And some say, well, does that matter? Do you need to use real wine? Or is it okay to use a substitute? So those are points of disagreement. Now let me give you what are the four major views of the Lord's Supper. The first view Is the Roman Catholic view. And I apologize for giving you big words. I don't like to give you big words unless, well, that's what you need. And there's a big word. Here it is: transubstantiation. And Roman Catholics will use that word because it says that the bread and the wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus. Okay, that's very important that Roman Catholics say that. That the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Jesus. You need to also check out my other podcast on baptism, where I talk about the Roman Catholic view of baptism. But this same concept is there. And here's the idea that sacramentalism, another big term, but here's the basic idea that to achieve the spiritual reality, one must be connected to the physical reality. And it is through the physical reality of the bread and the wine that is changed to the body and blood of Christ, that one is able to gain access to actually the sacrificial act of Jesus. And that is the Roman Catholic view. So I don't hold to that view. I don't hold to sacramentalism, but transubstantiation, the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ, that the physical act of taking The Lord's Supper puts one into actual connection with the body of Jesus, and thus it atones for your sins as you attend that ceremony. And honestly, that Roman Catholic view that has been so influential through church history, I often think that somewhere in the back of a lot of Baptist minds they have some inkling that that has been taught. And I think sometimes They don't actually they didn't actually put all the pieces together of what they believe. Roman Catholicism is is distinguished often against Protestantism, and the major Protestant was Martin Luther. ⁓ Luther again here, while he was really good on the doctrine of justification by faith, in the fact that he ⁓ said that a person is right before God by faith alone, which I agree with. Here on the Lord's Supper I disagree with Martin Luther. Because he he barely changed, in my opinion, the Roman Catholic view. Luther came up with this view called not transubstantiation, but consubstantiation. And he actually said that the bread and the wine, here's the word, contain the body and the blood of Jesus. So he doesn't say it becomes, he's like, this is still bread and it's still wine, but it contains the body and blood of Jesus. Luther also rejected that. And partaking of the Lord's Supper, that there was a sacrifice, he said, No, no, no. Jesus has performed a once-for-all sacrifice on the cross, but still says that in some sense the bread and the wine contained the body and blood of Jesus. A very modified Roman Catholic view with a stronger emphasis on faith in Jesus and his atoning sacrifice on the cross and the cross alone. Another major reformer was John Calvin. And Calvin disagreed with Luther on the Lord's Supper because Calvin said, Look, it's just bread and wine, okay? But the Lord's Supper brings a person into contact with Jesus in a new and different way, that Christ is spiritually present there in the elements. And Calvin said, Look, the whole idea that one eats Christ's body and drinks his blood is completely misguided. That's not what is in view. Now there's this very little known reformer. He actually lived in Switzerland. He pastored a church in Zurich, and his name was Hurich Zwingli. Most no one has heard of him, but actually Zwingli is the one who disagrees with Calvin and Luther on the Lord's Supper and basically says the Lord's Supper is just a memorial meal. So that's the typical Baptist position. And so we actually agree with a man by the name of Hurig Zwingli. Who was a pastor in Zurich, Switzerland. And he basically said, look, it's just bread, it's just wine, and it's just a memorial meal. ⁓ Christ is present and available all the time. He's not uniquely present in the Lord's Supper, but the Lord's Supper reminds us to remember Christ's death until he comes and to call us into fellowship with one another. So the questions that you need to answer. To have a coherent understanding of the Lord's Supper are the following. Number one, how is Christ present in the elements or is he? My answer would be Christ isn't present in the elements. It's just bread, it's just wine, it's a ceremonial meal. Clearly others disagree. What benefit is given to the one who partakes? That's another question. My answer would be: you remember the Lord's death until he comes, and it is a regular reminder to be in fellowship with God and other Christians. And actually to be out of fellowship with other Christians, First Corinthians seven, to be aware that you're out of fellowship and take the Lord's Supper is to eat the bread and to drink the cup and to take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. And so I think the benefit is a regular reminder. Who can administrate? I don't think the Bible is clear here. I I do think it's probably more beneficial for a pastor to administrate. But if you having a small group at your home and there is someone there of spiritual maturity. I'm not ruling it out that someone else outside of a pastor couldn't administrate. Who can receive? ⁓ Christians can receive. It is for Christians alone. What elements are to be used? I'm pretty but with with some perimeters, I'm I'm pretty flexible here. I mean I think it ought to be bread and I think it ought to be wine or grape juice. That's for sure. Here at Liberty Baptist we use bread and Grape juice and I think that's fine. I don't think you should get far afield from those. I think you ought to it ought to be bread and grape juice. It shouldn't be something else, like completely different, like sparkling water and, you know, cookies or something. I mean it it needs to be bread and wine. I think you can substitute grape juice for wine. I I think you could have leaven or unleavened bread. I don't think that matters. And then how often should it be observed? Well, here's the issue of observance. I think it ought to be regularly, that's for sure. But it it should be meaningful. So there's a school of thought who says we ought to do it like every Sunday. ⁓ I don't that's not bad. I think there's some evidence the early church did it every Sunday. The problem with an every Sunday Lord's Supper is is it really taken seriously every time it's done? And so there's a positive and a negative to that. If you're not doing it regularly enough, then people kind of forget about it. But if you do it You know, not all that often, maybe once a month or once a quarter or once every two months, and really make it special, then you it's maybe more something you could pay more attention to. So I think that's something that you need spiritual discernment on. Just understand this. There is a ton of disagreement on the Lord's Supper, and different people hold different views. And this is one of the areas the next time you take the Lord's Supper, you ought think very carefully about, you know, what do I believe is actually happening here? What does the Bible say? And how can I faithfully accomplish what Jesus wanted to be accomplished through this very important remembrance of his death. Thank you for listening to the You Ask Podcast. This is a ministry of Liberty Baptist Church. And we pray this podcast enables you to more faithfully live out. Your Christian life.