Mass and the Unwashed Masses

Peter J. Scaer posted this on Facebook earlier today, 11/21/2023, and it is too good not to share.

Mass and the Unwashed Masses

Is the church's liturgy only for a few, for the educated, the cultured, and well read? Hardly. Though the liturgy, by its very nature and mystery invites education, catechesis, and teaching. In fact, the liturgy is great for little children who can't yet read, and for those who never learned. The liturgy is wonderful for those who eyesight has dimmed, whose capacity isn't what it used to be. The liturgical rhythm enters into the soul's deepest places, embeds itself within the mind and heart.

Why is it that the average Roman Catholic in the pew does not believe in the real presence? It's not because of what the church says, but by the casual way in which the supper is offered and distributed. The same I'm sure goes for us in the LCMS. Say that Christ's offers his true body and blood, but then, if the ministers are dressed as if they were sales people, if they treat the elements like fast food, if bodily reverence is nowhere to be found, people will get the message. It must not be all that special.

The American Evangelical world of course has no clue in such matters. If baptism is just a commitment ceremony, and if the supper is a reenactment, then a certain seriousness may be called for, but there's no reason for solemnity. For much of the Big Box church world, there is nothing approximating the Temple. (No wonder, they hope it's rebuilt.) Could we imagine the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies in street clothes, big smile on his face after an inspirational life lesson, music from the praise band? But we do have something holier still. If we believed in the priesthood of all believers, truly believed it, then we would encourage the awe and reverence appropriate to God's dwelling among us, Christ's giving of flesh and blood, a font from which springs forth life and forgiveness.

The church service has never been about, should never be about, defining a class of people as high class, but should be conducted in a way that is appropriate to the proceedings. Standing up for the gospel is an act of reverence, as when grandma enters the room. Kneelers offer an opportunity for bodily posture that matches spiritual reality. The judge, robed in black, approaches the bench, and the courtroom is hushed into silence. A pin dropped is noise too loud for the ceremony of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

The church service is all about sacred space, the Lord of all speaking and working among us. The church is our home, but Christ is the head of that home, and being in the Father's house means something. Little Children rightly feel comfortable there, for it is their home, they are the baptized, and the Lord's arms are wide open in embrace, and his hand is given for them in blessing. But we should never grow so casual as to be disdainful, so that we might lose awe, and forget where we are. Indeed, it is said that Ronald Reagan never entered the Oval Office without jacket and tie. May seem a bit much. But it was his way of reminding himself of the sacred duty with which he had been entrusted. And so also the sacred liturgy does well to be in harmony with the sacred things that we confess are taking place.

Eat Me, Drink Me

There seemed to be no use in waiting by the little door, so she went back to the table, half hoping she might find another key on it, or at any rate a book of rules for shutting people up like telescopes: this time she found a little bottle on it, (‘which certainly was not here before,’ said Alice,) and round the neck of the bottle was a paper label, with the words ‘DRINK ME’ beautifully printed on it in large letters.

It was all very well to say ‘Drink me,’ but the wise little Alice was not going to do that in a hurry.… However, this bottle was not marked ‘poison,’ so Alice ventured to taste it, and finding it very nice, (it had, in fact, a sort of mixed flavor of cherry-tart, custard, pineapple, roast turkey, toffee, and hot buttered toast,) she very soon finished it off.…

Soon her eye fell on a little glass box that was lying under the table: she opened it, and found in it a very small cake, on which the words ‘EAT ME’ were beautifully marked in currants. ‘Well, I’ll eat it,’ said Alice, ‘and if it makes me grow larger, I can reach the key; and if it makes me grow smaller, I can creep under the door; so either way I'll get into the garden, and I don't care which happens!’…

So she set to work, and very soon finished off the cake.

---

If you are familiar with the above from Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, then you know Alice’s dilemma of being not quite the appropriate size for a doorway. A change is needed, and the only appropriate catalyst is something to consume, which she takes willingly because of the delicious taste. Alas, for poor Alice, matters go awry and her state after drinking and eating is worse than before. A similar end comes to Edmund Pevensie immediately after eating Turkish Delight in C. S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, though while Alice partook out of need, Edmund did so from selfishness and became enslaved. We can see from these literary examples, and also from common sense, that what we feed on has a direct influence on our outcome: healthy eating leads to soundness; unhealthy eating leads to corruption.

Where do we go for healthy eating? What is proper to consume? Probably one of the best things to take in is wisdom, of which the following provided the catalyst for this post:

Come to me, you who desire me,
And take your fill of my fruits.
For the remembrance of me is sweeter than honey,
And my inheritance is sweeter than the honeycomb.
Those who eat me will hunger for more,
And those who drink me will thirst for more.
He who obeys me will not be put to shame,
And those who work with me will not sin.

Sirach 24:19–22

Wisdom calls out and promises that not only will it be pleasing but will continually build desire to feed at that table ever more. Wisdom literature and the prophets also uses this same motif of the call to dine:

Proverbs 9:1–5	Isaiah 55:1
Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out her seven pillars; She has slaughtered her meat, She has mixed her wine, She has also furnished her table. She has sent out her maidens, She cries out from the highest places of the city, “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” As for him who lacks understanding, she says to him, “Come, eat of my bread And drink of the wine I have mixed.”	Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk Without money and without price.

With the invitation to eat and drink made, we return to the question of source. Where do we find wisdom that we may take that in? The initial offer tells us from where we should never partake. The serpent, in tempting the woman, described the effect of eating as being like God, able to know or distinguish good and evil (Ge 3:5), which the woman correctly understood as “desirable to make one wise” (Ge 3:6); however, this was not the way God had intended wisdom to be learned. By eating from the wrong source, they chose poorly. Better would have been to abide in the Divine presence and commune with Him.

God continued to reach out to His creation, offering times of communion with Himself. One of these came on Mount Sinai after the people of Israel had come out of Egypt.

Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank. (Ex 24:9–11)

Here we find the beginning of a recurring theme found within the Mosaic Covenant: God communes with His people and they with each other. On an individual level, this can be seen in the Peace Offering wherein God, priest, and offerer share together in the sacrifice. The individual was welcome into fellowship with God because of the peace between them. On a corporate level, as part of their calendar, Israel was required to come together for three yearly feasts: Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits (or Harvest), and Tabernacles (or Ingathering) (Ex 23:14–16; Le 23:4–14, 33–43). These feasts brought the people of God together in systematic fashion to instill in them the need for fellowship beyond the family or tribal unit. All the elect are equally welcome participants as one family.

As important as the times of communion would become, there needed to be an established basis for that communion. Not long after being baptized with Moses in the Red Sea crossing (Ex 14:26–31; cf. 1 Cor 10:1–2), the people became hungry and thirsty being forced to rely on God’s daily provision of manna (Ex 16:14–16) and water (Ex 17:1–7). This reliance would serve as a picture of needed daily spiritual intake from Him enabled by regularly teaching future generations the Lord’s commands (De 6:1–9). It would be this regular feeding on and drinking in the good Word of God that would feed their souls and provide wisdom and nourishment characteristic of a holy people. Not that this endeavor would bring the follower into a right or better relation with his Lord, but because he has believed what has been graciously promised, so the commands are not bitter, but because they are “more to be desired than gold” and “sweeter than honey and the honeycomb” (Ps 19:10).

Feasting continues as a theme in the New Testament but takes an interesting turn when, in a reference to the manna, Jesus taught that He was the bread of life, which would sate the desire man needed if one believed (John 6:33, 35, 48). Indeed, He seemed to ramp up the challenge of those listening to pronounce the seemingly impossible:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”… Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, 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 eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats 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 he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.” (John 6:51–57)

The net effect of this revelation was that all but the twelve turned away from following Him, yet this was, and continues to be, the very thing needed by all. As the true bread of life having come down, Jesus delivers to us what we need for true life—a spiritual eating and drinking through His Word. This would later be made most graphically as Jesus, on the night before He was crucified, took bread and wine and said this is My body, this is My blood. All that He taught and accomplished on earth was coming to its expected conclusion. In a most vivid fashion, He emphatically proclaims that He, in His fullness, is with the bread and cup coming to us as we partake and are built up in Him. Paul later elaborates on this when he teaches:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.  (1 Co 10:16–17)

As the visible elements are in communion with the body and blood, we have unity when we partake of the same, since Jesus Himself is being received.

Unlike Alice, who needed something to eat or drink to make herself appropriate for the topsy-turvy, nonsense Wonderland, we live in a nonsense world but look for a city whose builder and maker is God. We need the true food and true drink satisfying our spiritual hunger and thirst, and that brings “a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14). It is this eating and drinking that the Christian turns to and continues in to grow in Christ.

Nothing Is Certain But Death and Taxes—and Christ

While thinking on recent events affecting our church family, I was reminded of a saying my mother used in her efforts to keep me grounded in reality: Nothing is certain but death and taxes.  While both are true, both are unnatural.  Why is that so?  They are both results of sin:

Death comes because we each inherited a fatal condition.  Sin came into the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and as a result all have died because all sin (Rom 5:12).
Taxes are paid because we sin daily, and human governments have been set up to maintain a just society.  Without that control, there is chaos.

What was not originally part of creation's design is now unavoidable.  In fact our condition is so deplorable that we desire what leads to death until presented with what brings life.  As an example, when the Hebrews were at the Jordan shortly before crossing into the Promised Land, Moses placed before them a decision they needed to make:

See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil (Deut 30:15).
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse (Deut 30:19).

For the people to live in the land and be blessed, only one requirement was placed on them:

Obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules (Deut 30:16).

That’s it.  Just obey the Lord.  All the benefits for following a few rules.  On the other hand, not doing everything the Lord required meant death and destruction (Deut 30:17-18).  Psalm 119:1-8 helps show this all-or-nothing requirement:

Blessed are those whose way is blameless,
      who walk in the law of the Lord!
Blessed are those who keep his testimonies,
      who seek him with their whole heart,
who also do no wrong,
      but walk in his ways!

These are wonderful words to our ears, but notice the next verse.

You have commanded your precepts
      to be kept diligently.

Concentration and effort are needed to fulfill this requirement.  The psalmist goes on to share his great desire:

Oh that my ways may be steadfast
      in keeping your statutes!
Then I shall not be put to shame,
      having my eyes fixed on all your commandments.
I will praise you with an upright heart,
      when I learn your righteous rules.
I will keep your statutes;
      do not utterly forsake me!

The last phrase is the most striking.  In spite of best intentions, reality strikes home.  We cannot do any of it satisfactorily.  We still sin.  That was the reason God gave blood sacrifices—to atone for those sins and transgressions.  That is the reason that Christ died.  His was the last sacrifice that fulfilled all that is required to present us holy and blameless before Him.  He took God’s wrath meant for our sin, so that it no longer rests on us who believe.

In taking the bread and cup, we participate in the body and blood of Christ.  And there is comfort—comfort that our Lord Jesus bore all the punishment for sin.  There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1).

Are You the One Who Is to Come?

Two weeks ago, I posted some thoughts on advent that were preparatory material for yesterday’s communion devotional.  Below is what I shared.

“Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?”

In Matthew 11, John the Baptizer from prison sent disciples to Jesus asking this question.  What response did they receive?  Watch and listen.

Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.  And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.

What had been prophesied by Isaiah concerning Messiah was coming to pass before them: his advent was in full swing.  Yes, Jesus is the one to come.

Why did he add that last comment: “blessed is the one who is not offended by me”?  First, John's disciples needed to loosen their bond with the Baptizer in order to follow Christ. Earlier, in a moment of misplaced zeal prior to John's imprisonment, those disciples had taken offense at Jesus because everybody was following after the new Rabbi, to which John replied, “Good.  He must increase, and I must decrease.”  Those who hear the promise need to grasp hold of the reality.

The second reason for the comment?  An advent still remains.  Jesus is coming in power and glory.  Those who have believed the gospel, he will welcome into eternal glory—the bridegroom coming for his bride.  Theirs is eternal blessing.  Those who are offended, who do not believe, are sent to eternal punishment and eternal destruction.

In between the first and second advent is another advent, a different kind of advent.  What do I mean?  He comes as we gather together.  How so?  From beginning to end of scripture, you will find God coming to be with his people whenever they are gathered unto him.  We see this played out in the tabernacle, the temple, and looking to the New Jerusalem.  He is here now.  Where we see this especially is in the tangible elements Jesus gave to his disciples on the night he was betrayed:

He took the bread, gave thanks, broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you.”
Then after supper, he took the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

God remembered our sinful state.  The Son came willingly, paid the debt for all—every sin of every person, and left this continual remembrance that we receive.  In the eating and drinking, Messiah comes to you.

Dealing with an Inferiority Complex

I have met—and continue to meet—Christians who feel that they cannot partake of the Lord's Supper because of some weakness in their lives.  They place their inadequacy at the fore and condemn themselves as unworthy.  What these dear saints do not realize is that their desire for perfection will never come to pass, because they are looking to themselves.  The attention should be upon God who has made us worthy in Christ.

For Christians who are of weak faith, diffident, troubled, and heartily terrified because of the greatness and number of their sins, and think that in their great impurity they are not worthy of this precious treasure and the benefits of Christ, and who feel and lament their weakness of faith, and from their hearts desire that they may serve God with stronger, more joyful faith and pure obedience, they are the truly worthy guests for whom this highly venerable Sacrament has been especially instituted and appointed.  For Christ says:

• Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matt. 11:28).
• Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick (Matt. 9:12).
• God's power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor 12:9).
• The One who is weak in faith, welcome him … for God has welcomed him (Romans 14:1, 3).
• For whoever believes in the Son of God, be it with a strong or with a weak faith, has eternal life (John 3:15f).

Worthiness does not depend upon greatness or smallness, weakness or strength of faith, but upon the merit of Christ, which the distressed father of little faith (Mark 9:24) enjoyed as well as Abraham, Paul, and others who have a joyful and strong faith.

Formula of Concord, VII.69-71

Keeping the Lord's Supper Should Be Our Delight

And we have, in the first place, the clear text in the very words of Christ: "Do this in remembrance of Me."  These are bidding and commanding words by which all who would be Christians are enjoined to partake of this Sacrament.  Therefore, whoever would be a disciple of Christ, with whom He here speaks, must also consider and observe this, not from compulsion, as being forced by men, but in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to please Him.

. . .

In the second place, there is besides this command also a promise, as we heard above, which ought most strongly to incite and encourage us.  For here stand the kind and precious words: "This is My body, given for you.  This is My blood, shed for you, for the remission of sins."  These words, I have said, are not preached to wood and stone, but to me and you; else He might just as well be silent and not institute a Sacrament.  Therefore consider, and put yourself into this you, that He may not speak to you in vain.

For here He offers to us the entire treasure which He has brought for us from heaven, and to which He invites us also in other places with the greatest kindness, as when He says in Matthew 11:28: "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."  Now it is surely a sin and a shame that He so cordially and faithfully summons and exhorts us to our highest and greatest good, and we act so distantly with regard to it, and permit so long a time to pass [without partaking] that we grow quite cold and hardened, so that we have no inclination or love for it.  We must never regard the Sacrament as something injurious from which we had better flee, but as a pure, wholesome, comforting remedy imparting salvation and comfort, which will cure you and give you life both in soul and body. For where the soul has recovered, the body also is relieved.  Why, then, is it that we act as if it were a poison, the eating of which would bring death?

Martin Luther, Large Catechism: Sacrament of the Altar, 45, 64-68

Luther on Examining Ourselves for Communion

My thanks to Scott Diekmann at Stand Firm for this content.  What he posted from Martin Luther (as found in Logia, Vol I, No, 1) was too good not to share.

To examine one’s self means to consider well in what condition we are.  If we find that our hearts are hardened, that we are not willing to refrain from sin, and that we do not fear its presence, then we may well conclude that we should not go to the Sacrament; for we are then no Christians.  The best thing we could do, under such circumstances, would be to put a stop to such wickedness, to repent, to trust faithfully in the promises and mercy of God, and to unite again with Christians in the participation of the Holy Sacrament.  If, however, we are unwilling to do this, we ought not to approach the Lord’s Table; for we would surely eat and drink damnation there.  Let us carefully meditate upon what eternity has in store for us, if we thus fall under the judgment of God.  If we are mindful of this, we will not be slow to repent, to put aside anger and other kinds of wickedness, and to make our peace with God in His Holy Supper.  Again, if our hearts are contrite, if we confess our sins before God and are heartily sorry on account of them, if we believe that God in mercy, for Christ’s sake, will pardon us, then we are well prepared and can confidently say to the Savior: “O Lord, we are poor sinners, and therefore come to Your table to receive consolation.”  If we approach the Sacrament in such a spirit, we shall be truly ready and receive the richest blessings.  In behalf of such contrite and sorrowing souls the Lord’s Table was prepared, so that they might find there consolation and joy.

Eucharistic Theology in Ignatius of Antioch

While recently reading Ignatius concerning the Trinity (parts one, two, and three), I noticed sentences and phrases that referred in some measure to the Eucharist.  Below are a few thoughts concerning Ignatius' view, and how he interweaves this theme through a few of his epistles.

Unity – Ignatius was concerned for the unity of believers, so it comes as no surprise that he relates that breaking bread is a sign of unity (Ephesians, 20; Philadelphians 4) and pure doctrine (Trallians, 6-7).  Those not partaking are deprived of that unity with the church as subjects of discipline (Ephesians, 5).  Heretics apparently refused orthodox practice and abstained from the Eucharist (Smyrnaeans, 7) which all believers were instructed to do by Jesus and Paul.  The presence of a separate Eucharist was considered schismatic as a probably sign of heresy (Philadelphians, 2-3).  As a result the believers were encouraged to keep one that was properly sanctioned and administered (Philadelphians, 4; Smyrnaeans, 8).

Means of Grace – Ignatius relates a function in the Eucharistic beyond a memorial meal.  This is evidenced by a definite connection between the body and blood of Christ to the bread and cup in the following:

•	For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup into the unity of His blood (Philadelphians, 4)
•	[Heretics] confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. (Smyrnaeans, 7)

In addition he bestows the union of bread with Christ's body as “the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil” (Ephesians, 20) giving clear testimony to a salvific effect.

Final Hope – Lastly, Ignatius' desire is to put away the symbols and passing of this world to “come to the Father” and partake of Christ as “the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and . . . the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life” (Romans, 7).

I am not completely certain what to make of this for two reasons.  First, Ignatius was a colorful writer using ornate word pictures to communicate many of his thoughts.  This is especially seen in his use of musical themes for explaining his thoughts on church unity.  It may be that he used the same rhetorical device in associating a real presence and salvific work to the bread and cup though the language seems to be clear enough.  Second, while a real presence of Christ in the elements is possible (per Chemnitz' The Two Natures in Christ), I still question the actuality based on my understanding of the biblical evidence.

Sola Scriptura must be the governing norm, but epistles written in so close proximity both in time and distance deserve due weight.  That said, I need to revisit this and come to a more firm conclusion.

Discerning Christ's Body

In his first epistle to Corinth, the apostle Paul wanted to correct abuses of the local church gathering.  The agape meal culminating with the Lord's Supper particularly needed intervention because their attitude was leading to discipline from the Lord to the point of death (1 Cor 11:30).  Why this strong reaction by God with direct consequence on the church? Factions mentioned in chapter one were being manifest in the gathering through their lack of community: some were gluttonous and drunk, while others suffered want.  Because of this, Paul explains that there is something more happening that they had not considered:

1 Corinthians 11: 27-29

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The apostle stated quite strongly that unworthy participation in the bread and cup will have serious repercussions.  But against what in particular is this warning directed?  I ask because two paths of thought have been presented as the most likely intention depending on how "discerning the body" is understood.

Resurrection body – The most widely taught interpretation of the above text is that we as believers meeting together are to comprehend and appreciate with due reverence what is being handled in remembrance of Christ.  For this to be most effective, the Lord's imminent presence would need to somehow surround the bread and cup.  To gain the same level of effectiveness, those who take a symbolic view of the elements need to perform self-evaluation and somehow ascertain my level of spirituality against a self-defined standard.  This leaves the believer with a hopeless conclusion: sin still remains, so I am not worthy to partake until I m more sanctified.

Church body – This minority view looks at the passage and says that the body life of the local church is in view.  The church in Corinth (or any church) is a manifestation of the body of Christ with him as the head (Eph 1:22-23).  Each believer needs to understand this truth in order to cure the ills so prevalently manifest when gathered together.  When a believer willfully ignores the proper understanding of how the local assembly should function, he places himself in danger.  This approach focuses more on the corporate aspect of the body, and the consequences of our interactions with relation to worship.  However, the weakness is not fully resolving the interaction of elements with Christ's body and blood in the intervening verses.

Which View Is Correct?
Thinking on this topic and examining what is before me, I cannot help but wonder if the correct answer is C. All of the above.  As Paul lays out the problem and solution, both corporate and personal responsibility are in view—both need repentance and reorientation.  Christ has paid the price of sin.  There is no need to burden ourselves with its guilt, neither should there be an inclination to wallow in it.  Rather live as an appreciative, free people being recipients of an abundant grace.

In addition, the bread and cup are symbols of remembrance.  This does not mean just bringing something to mind but joining again the disparate aspects of who Christ is and what he has done for us on the cross

to gain a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession who would proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Taking the bread and cup in an unworthy manner, whether individually or corporately, profanes what Christ has done for us.  These things he has given to his own that they might receive what he promised.  An unwitting trampling might be excused—our heavenly Father is abundantly merciful.  A knowing disregard will not receive like treatment but rather a just discipline, as he has demonstrated.  Let us then behave as we ought in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Antioch - Canon 2

All who enter the church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some disorder, from the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out of the Church, until, after they shall have made confession, and having brought forth the fruits of penance, and made earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained forgiveness; and it is unlawful to communicate with excommunicated persons, or to assemble in private houses and pray with those who do not pray in the Church; or to receive in one Church those who do not assemble with another Church.  And, if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.

This canon dealt with those who would go to participate in the assembly of the church but leave for no reason before the Lord's Supper was shared.  While some today might consider this much ado about nothing, the early church considered the Lord's Supper to be paramount for the assembly of God's people.  Remembering the Lord was a unique privilege given only to an elect company (i.e. believers).  To disregard this was tantamount to holding Christ in contempt (Heb 6:4-6).  With this in mind, we can understand the severe action taken to depose leaders and cast any who held or taught this out of fellowship.

Should the Lord's Supper have that same status today?  Absolutely.  This has been trivialized in almost every part of Protestantism.  What once was a grand and necessary part of communal life became an afterthought.  Part of the downgrade would stem from the theological shift from sacramental to memorial.  Another factor would be rote without reason.  No longer being a means of grace with actual or perceived active work of God through the elements nor emblems used to reflect on the greatest of sacrifices for the most undeserving, the trend is to consider a work once completed but relegating God to a passive position: he is an observer rather than a participant.  The thought process in the local church, though not affirmed publicly, becomes one of performing a periodic duty to complete the task list for that Sunday morning.

The problem is not the act of remembrance, which we are commanded to do (1 Cor 11:23-26).  Rather the issue is falling short in who and what we remember.  At this point the reader may be thinking, "But we remember that Jesus died on the cross for our sins."  That is true enough, but if one stops there, the grandeur of the gospel is missed.  First, consider the person of Christ.  The one agonizing prior to and while on the cross is the Lord of glory, sovereign and creator over all things, who willingly set aside that glory for a time in order to be made like his brethren.  After rising victorious over death and the grave because our justification, he ascended where he is seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, having received a name above every name.  This same one will return in righteousness and judgment upon the earth.  Second, consider the work.  In his incarnation, God took on himself humanity that he might walk among his own to call to repentance, disciple those who would later go out, and willing suffer and die in our stead.  He took captivity captive, gave gifts to men, and now is before the throne ever living to make intercession for us.

How is the situation remedied, then?  The secret is in meditating on the person and work of Christ and the fullness of grace and mercy bestowed on those who confess him.  King David often took time to meditate on God's revelation of himself through his word and nature.  How much more we have the fullness of that revelation in the Lord Jesus being manifest to us and the Holy Spirit abiding and teaching if we simply had ears to hear.  The trick is not so much getting into a spiritual state of mind to think on the Savior but thinking on what is revealed of the Savior and his work in you for your sin and his glory.  The spiritual state of mind will surely follow.

The Relation of Baptism to the Lord's Supper

Is there a relationship between baptism and the Lord's Supper? I so, what should it be?

For the past 32 years, I have been an active participant or member of local churches that practice open communion. In other words, any person who made a conscious decision to believe the gospel of Christ was allowed to join in remembering the Lord through the bread and cup. Baptism is not required as potentially barring free participation. The reasoning is understandable: someone may have believed but the baptism has not yet been scheduled. In the past few years, I have come to question this practice.

Early Church Practice
The early church had some very definite expectations concerning this.

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. —Justin Martyr, Chapter LXVI

You must not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord's name. For in reference to this the Lord said, "Do not give what is sacred to dogs." —Didache 9

These two quotations exemplify the attitude of the early church toward the ordinances. The Lord's Supper was "a community meal and celebration for members of Christ's body, the church, a community that, from the perspective of the church fathers, one enters through the waters of baptism" (Hall, 74). While the symbolism and rites surrounding the ordinances became more ornate and infused with mysticism as time wore on, the seriousness of the representations were intact and carefully guarded.

New Testament Practice
Though the church fathers were greatly concerned with the apostolic tradition, they eventually went too far. What is the example as demonstrated in the book of Acts?

There is no waiting period between belief and baptism. If a person believes, the biblical example is to baptize immediately. The book of Acts gives several conversion accounts: eunuch (8:36-38), Cornelius and household (10:44-48), Lydia (16:14-15), jailer and family (16:32-33). This is in conflict with the contemporary practice of scheduling a time when several can be done at once. I recognize the economics and the problem of venue, but how has the church come to the place of allowing pragmatism to rule over divinely-inspired instruction of practice?

There are no instances in Scripture of a believer not being baptized. In every case mentioned above, all that followed Christ were baptized. This was the practice of the infant church. The outward confession of faith evidenced by the waters did not have to be witnessed by a large group but was definitely used as an act and declaration of repentance and faith practiced in the Jewish community (r.e. John the baptizer) and understood by the Gentiles within cultural proximity. (See my previous post for thoughts concerning this.) This symbolism of washing your past away is understood today. The picture is rather clear.

Now What?
How is it, then, that I have met adult believers today who have never been baptized? One man in particular said he believed on Christ and just decided to put it off for awhile. If one analyzed his life, the reason became clear. There was no good work as an outgrowth of faith. I must conclude the confession was bogus. I am not so heartless as to dismiss someone who is physically unable to go through a baptism by immersion. Other measures can be taken.

The modern church needs to be teaching the full import of the ordinances to their members and practicing them to the degree that they were given in God's Word.


Hall, Christopher A. Worshiping with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009.

Things That Make You Go "Hmmmm"

This piece is taken from LOGIA, Volume XVII, Number 4, pg 62-65.  It is interesting because I know of an argument made in a different denomination that also posited an argument for using wine at the Lord's Supper. ________________________________________________________________________________

"The Mandated Element of Wine" was presented to the Lutheran Church of Canada East District Pastors' Conference on 13 November 2007 by the Rev. Dr. Thomas M. Winger. It was received with nearly unanimous consent. The footnotes from the original paper have been moved into the text parenthetically.

The use of grape juice in the Lord's Supper at a congregation of our district has recently caused scandal, and threatens our fellowship in the place where it is most intimately expressed. The pastors' conference is surely the appropriate place to discuss, inform, strengthen one another in our common practice. For our historic common practice is the exclusive use of natural bread and natural wine, as the following anecdote from Luther's Table Talk illustrates:

When somebody inquired whether, when a sick person wished to have the sacrament but could not tolerate wine on account of nausea, something else should be given in place of the wine, the doctor [Martin Luther] replied, "This question has often been put to me and I have always given this answer: One should not use anything else than wine. If a person cannot tolerate wine, omit it [the sacrament] altogether in order that no innovation may be made or introduced." (Winter of 1542–1543, AE 54:438)

This story explodes our modern myopia that presumes we are the first to have such pastoral concerns. But it begs the basic question of precisely why this is our common practice. What is the biblical and historical basis for our church's is an exposition of the historical, scriptural, and confessional data and logic that support it.

The Lord instituted his Supper during the last celebration of the Passover with his disciples. Though higher critics have disputed this setting, it is the clear teaching of the Synoptic Gospels (Joachim Jeremias has decisively proven that the Synoptics are to be trusted on this point. See The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pp. 15–88.) The Passover meal is the historical context in which to investigate the Sacrament's institution. Unfortunately for our investigation, the Old Testament knows nothing of a cup of wine in the Passover. Exodus 12 speaks only of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, and a lamb or goat. For an explanation of the cups, we need to turn to rabbinic sources.

The Mishna, compiled in the second century A.D. on the basis of long-standing oral tradition, teaches: "Even the poorest in Israel must not eat unless he sits down to table, and they must not give them less than four cups of wine to drink, even if it is from the [Paupers'] Dish" (Moed, Pesahim, 10:1). Throughout the discussion the content of the cups is consistently called "wine" (י י ן; yayin). It is sometimes referred to as "mixed," that is, diluted with water. The third cup, known as the "cup of blessing," is thought to be the cup our Lord blessed. It is called the "cup of blessing" because of the action of the pater familias at that point: "After they have mixed for him the third cup he says the Benediction over his meal" (10:7).

Tosefta Moed, a later commentary on the Mishna, elaborates that the cups must contain "a volume of a quarter-log, whether this is straight or mixed, whether this is new or old. R. Judah says, 'But this is one condition that it has the taste and appearance of wine'" (10:1). Lacking a scientific framework, this is the closest they can come to saying that, though it may be old or new wine, good or bad, mixed or straight, it must be real wine, and this fact must be obvious to all participants. (A log is usually defined as about 300 ml. Thus a quarter log is about 75 ml.) Jeremias, 67–68, addresses the question of whether each participant at the Passover had his own cup, or whether one cup was shared around the table. Later rabbinic literature (the Talmud) could be interpreted as describing the former [individual cups], in which case each person drank seventy-five milliliters per cup. But Jeremias argues that earlier Jewish practice was to share one common cup, in which case 75 ml would barely suffice for a sip each. More likely the cup was filled up and shared. In any case, the New Testament account is unequivocal that at the institution of the Lord's Supper Jesus gave one common cup to be shared by all (Mt 26:27; Mk 14:23; Lk 22:17, 20; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:25–27).

The Tosefta goes on to explain the meaning of wine as an element of the Passover:

For the wine is what causes the blessing of the day to be said. . . . A. It is a religious duty for a man to bring joy to his children and dependents on the festival. B. And how does he give them joy? C. With wine, since it says, . . .wine to gladden the heart of man (Ps. 104:15). (10:3–4)

The emphasis on joy demonstrates that the key feature of wine is its alcoholic content, its ability to inebriate, which is further emphasized by the requirement of taking no less than four cups of wine. What of the weak, who could not handle this? Rabbi Judah says, "[One gives to] women what is suitable for them, and to children what is suitable to them" (Tosefta Moed 10:4). He offers no further explanation of what this means, but since he has previously referred to the possibility of diluting the wine with water, this would seem to be what he has in mind.

Joachim Jeremias points out that "In everyday life water was drunk. The daily breakfast consisted of 'bread with salt, and a tankard of water', and even at the main meal bread and water were the chief ingredients" (Jeremias, 51). Jesus' words to the woman at the well (Jn 4) confirm that water was the basic staple of life. Wine thus served a different function. Aside from the Last Supper, only twice is it reported that Jesus drank wine: in Matthew 11:19 (in which Jesus' festive meals with tax collectors and sinners are reported), and in John 2 (in which Jesus provides copious amounts of high quality wine for the wedding at Cana). Jeremias assumes rightly that Jesus would have drunk wine at the festive meals to which he was invited, but otherwise would have drunk water in the customary fashion. But the Last Supper was different. Here, as we have seen, it was the duty of every participant to drink wine: four cups, according to the Mishna. There can be no doubt that Jesus and his disciples observed this rule in their final observance of the Passover. The content of the cup Jesus blessed and distributed was wine.

It may also be possible that the use of wine carried medicinal connotations, as it was normally applied together with oil to effect cleansing and healing (Lk 10:34). Certainly the gift of wine was prophesied (for example, Jer 31:12; Hos 2:22; Joel 2:19, 24; 3:18; Amos 9:13) as a feature of the Messianic age to which the Passover pointed, whose fulfillment began with Christ's gift at Cana and continues in the Lord's Supper.

What kind of wine Christ used cannot be determined with precision. Jeremias makes the assumption that it must have been red wine because he holds to a symbolic view of the Lord's Supper. If it represents blood, it must have been red wine, he concludes (Jeremias, 53). We Lutherans have no sympathy for this view. In fact, as Jeremias demonstrates from the Talmud, white, red, and "black" wine were readily available. Some later rabbinic sources lay down the rule that only red wine may be used at the Passover, but it is uncertain whether this held for the early first century. Thus, there can be no requirement that a particular color of wine be used for the Lord's Supper. (Indeed, prior to modern times, Lutheran practice was almost universally to use white wine: first, because that was what was normally available in Germany; second, because it functioned confessionally against a symbolic view of the sacrament.)

We have established that Jesus most certainly used wine in instituting the Lord's Supper. What should we make of the fact that he speaks of the cup containing "the fruit of the vine"? Some have asserted that Jesus thereby permits us to use grape juice, but this conclusion is illegitimate. First, Jesus does not use the normal word for "fruit," καρπός, which might be used of something like grapes. (The common Greek words for the grape or a bunch of grapes are σταφυλή, and βότρυς.) Instead he uses the noun γένημα, from the verb γίνομαι, which might better be translated "product." Thus, we should translate "product of the vine," which more naturally refers to something like wine that is "produced." Second, Jesus did not invent this phrase, but quotes a standard, rabbinic technical term used in blessing the wine in the Passover cup. Thus, any Jew would recognize "product of the vine" as a liturgical phrase referring to wine. Third, it is a basic linguistic and logical error to conclude that, because Jesus referred to the contents of the cup as "product of the vine," he was permitting us to use any "product of the vine." By this logic we would be as justified in using pumpkin juice as grape juice, for it, too, is "product of the vine." By this logic, when our Lord on the cross said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son" (Jn 19:26), he was permitting each and every "woman" to take John as her son. No, he was referring to one particular woman, Mary. So also at the Last Supper Jesus did not say, "You may take anything that is 'product of the vine' and use it in the repetition of this meal." No, he took a cup of wine, referred to it by an established technical term as "product of the vine," and mandated that we do what he did.

The Formula of Concord is therefore on solid historical and theological ground when it concludes:

For since Christ gave this command at table and during supper, there can be no doubt that he was speaking of true, natural bread and natural wine as well as of oral eating and drinking, (von rechtem, natürlichen Brot und von natürlichen Wein [FC SD 7:48]).

The second edition of the Apology [as printed in Kolb-Wengert, p. 226], rejects the false teaching of the Encratites, who "abstained from wine even during the Lord's Supper" [Ap XV:21]. One must ask even today whether objections to wine stem from a false spirituality that rejects the goodness of God's created gifts. Such words, which are binding on Lutheran pastors, exclude all substitutions. Neither grape juice, nor so-called de-alcoholized wine satisfy these criteria. For though the latter was surely wine once, with the alcohol removed it is wine no longer. (Use of de-alcoholized wine is akin to ordaining a transsexual [a "woman" who used to be a man,] and believing that Christ's mandate has been satisfied.) Some have argued that de-alcoholized wine is chemically identical to natural wine, albeit with a lower amount of alcohol, usually 0.5 percent. (See, for example, "Is 'Non-Alcoholic Wine' Really Wine?" Concordia Journal [Jan. 1991]:4–6, which cautiously approves the use of this product, though it provides no scriptural, confessional, or historical data to support this opinion. This is, however, a contradiction in terms, for the essential meaning of the word "wine" [י י ן in Hebrew; οἶνος in Greek] is fermentation and the presence of alcohol. [In Greek there is a different word for unfermented grape juice or "must" out of which wine is made: τρύξ (see BDAG/3e (2000), p. 701).] That fermentation is the key component of meaning is clear from the fact that fermented beverages made from fruits other than grapes can still be called wine, such as peach or dandelion wine, though they are not included in Christ's mandate to use what he used, and so may not be used in the Lord's Supper. Neither is grape juice or de-alcoholized grape wine included in his mandate, since they are not natural wine.) If we do what the Lord did, if we use what he used, the Formula of Concord concludes, we will have no doubt. The substitution of different elements introduces considerable doubt that we have the gifts the Lord intends to give us. And faith is the very opposite of doubt. Faith clings only to that which is sure and certain.

Ultimately, then, we are left with a theological and hermeneutical question that takes us beyond these questions of history. The Lord's Supper is called the "Lord's" because he instituted it and gave it to us for our good. He instructed us to carry it out in his church according to his mandate. His mandate is that we do it as he did it, that men who represent him in the Holy Office of the Ministry should take bread and wine, consecrating them with the words he gave us, and giving them to repentant and believing Christians to eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. Because it is the Lord's Supper, not man's supper, we may not change it to conform to our desires, weaknesses, or unfaith (1 Cor 11:20). For it is indeed unfaith to believe that our Lord would give us something that would harm us. We confess with Luther in the Large Catechism:

We must never regard the sacrament as a harmful thing from which we should flee, but as a pure, wholesome, soothing medicine which aids and quickens us in both soul and body. For where the soul is healed, the body has benefited also. Why, then, do we act as if the sacrament were a poison which would kill us if we ate of it? (LC V: 68).

If such fears lead us to alter what Christ has given, we risk losing entirely his benefits:

For we must believe and be sure of this, . . . that the Sacrament does not belong to us but to Christ, . . . Therefore we cannot make anything else out of it but must act according to His command and hold it. However, if we alter or "improve" on it, then it becomes a nothing and Christ is no longer present, nor is His order (Luther, Concerning the Private Mass and the Ordination of Priests [1533], WA 38:240.24; AE 38:200).

On the other hand, where faith clings to the word of Christ and the sacrament is kept as one undivided whole as he mandated it, it is filled with rich blessings:

See, then, what a beautiful, great, marvelous thing this is, how everything meshes together in one sacramental reality. The words are the first thing, for without the words the cup and the bread would be nothing. Further, without bread and cup, the body and blood of Christ would not be there. Without the body and blood of Christ, the new testament would not be there. Without the new testament, forgiveness of sins would not be there. Without forgiveness of sins, life and salvation would not be there. Thus the words first connect the bread and cup to the sacrament; bread and cup embrace the body and blood of Christ; body and blood of Christ embrace the new testament; the new testament embraces the forgiveness of sins; forgiveness of sins embraces eternal life and salvation. See, all this the words of the Supper offer and give us, and we embrace it by faith. Ought not the devil, then, hate such a Supper and rouse fanatics against it?" (Luther, Confession Concerning Christ's Supper [1528], AE 37:338).