Watts Communion Hymn

[Jesus invites his saints
To meet around his board;
Here pardoned rebels sit and hold
Communion with their Lord.

For food he gives his flesh,
He bids us drink his blood;
Amazing favor! matchless grace
Of our descending God!]

This holy bread and wine
Maintains our fainting breath,
By union with our living Lord,
And int'rest in his death.

Our heav'nly Father calls
Christ and his members one;
We the young children of his love,
And he the first-born Son.

We are but several parts
Of the same broken bread;
One body hath its several limbs,
But Jesus is the head.

Let all our powers be joined
His glorious name to raise;
Pleasure and love fill every mind,
And every voice be praise

(Isaac Watts, HT Dave Bish)

A meal

Listening to: Sufjan Stevens: The Age of Adz (HT Chris)

This is not a great interview with Sufjan Stevens, but I do love his freshness and creativity. At one point he really brings out the weirdness but also the wonder of our faith:

What’s the basis of Christianity? It’s really a meal, it’s communion right? It’s the Eucharist. That’s it, it’s the sharing a meal with your neighbours and what is that meal? It’s the body and blood of Christ. Basically God offering himself up to you as nutrition. Haha, that’s pretty weird. It’s pretty weird if you think about that, that’s the basis of your faith.

[...The cross is] a really morbid symbol you know. It is very grotesque when you start thinking about it. But it’s also beautiful you know, it’s the ultimate sacrifice. And I think it relates to the meal as well because it’s Christ giving up his blood and flesh as food and that then itself is the giving up of his body for eternal life, therefore salvation.

Another post on the sacraments

Listening to: Kris Drever: Black Water

[To a friend who asked "Are the sacraments means of grace or signs of grace?" By no means the last word on the subject.]

I think there are two good angles to approach this issue from.

Firstly, the conviction that the sacraments are not primarily something we do but primarily something done to us. More specifically it is not something we offer to God, but something that God offers to us. The direction is down more than it is up. I think that this reflects the language the Bible uses to speak about the sacraments. It also reflects that the Gospel is a Gospel of grace, apart from works. God always takes the initiative. This means that, for example, while baptism is a declaration of our faith to the world, it is more importantly a declaration of God that he promises life in Christ to all those who die with Christ - and particularly to that person being baptised.

Secondly, the comparison of the sacraments with less theologically charged topics, which share similar characteristics. Healing miracles, and the Bible are good examples and I think help to throw light on how we should understand the sacraments.

Coming from these two angles (all at once!) we can then see that the sacraments, in common with healing miracles and the Bible, are signs pointing away from themselves to grace, means by which that grace comes, and even the grace itself.

1. Sign of grace

The healing miracles of Jesus were described by John as signs because they pointed away from themselves. They pointed to Jesus, his authority, and the nature of that authority as life-giving. To neglect this is to make the mistake of the Jews in John 6:26 and love the gift to the neglect of the giver.

The Bible also points away from itself to the acts of God in history, and through them to God himself. To neglect this is to commit bibliolatry which evangelicals are occasionally criticised for.

Similarly, the sacraments point away from themselves. They point firstly to the Holy Spirit's work of new-birth (in Baptism) and nourishment (in the Lord's Supper), but they point through that to Christ's death and resurrection which is the source of both, and the eschaton when both will be consummated. If we neglect this then we think of the sacraments as having some magical power inherent to them, and barriers to real personal relationship with God. We also are in danger of forgetting that we live a life of hope, looking forward to Jesus' second coming.

2. Means of grace

The healing miracles were used by Jesus as means by which people were brought to faith. They were a channel through which God sent his Holy Spirit to bring people to living relationship with Jesus who was behind the miracle. If we neglect this aspect then we can think that they are just signs, and so are unnecessary or even distractions from the reality, or that they are the whole reality and there is nothing more, and we are just left with the physical healing and no spiritual relationship.

The Bible also brings us to faith and is a way in which God strengthens, rebukes and encourages his people. We believe that God speaks through his Word to bring us life (i.e. grace). Again, if we neglect this then the bible could be seen as of no significance to knowing God, or even a hindrance to personal relationship ('the dead letter').

The sacraments also are used by God to bring us life. They speak of Jesus Christ and the promise that he is to us. Therefore, if we believe the promise they speak (of life through death to self in baptism, or life through the death of Christ in the Lord's Supper - among other things) then we will be blessed by God, i.e. through them we will receive grace. If we neglect this, we will have no real understanding of why Jesus instituted these rituals and seek other means by which to be blessed by God (e.g. works).

3. The grace itself

The miracles were actually a gift of Jesus, not just a sign of another gift, or a means to receive it. They were a taste of the complete salvation we wait for in the New Creation, but they were still part of that same dish. If we neglect this we may think that the miracles were not instances where the Kingdom of God was breaking into our present reality, because the Kingdom of God is non-corporeal rather than gloriously physical.

A famine of the Word of God (Amos 8:11) is actually a famine of fellowship with God. God the Father may be speaking about himself in his Son by his Spirit in the Bible, but if he stops speaking to us about himself then we have ceased to have fellowship with him. Speaking to someone over the phone may not be a relationship with that person in all it's fullness, but the speaking is part of the relationship. If we neglect this we may be tempted to think that communication is not what a relationship with our Father is all about, and instead think that some kind of 'mystical union' where words are somehow unnecessary - but that is to loose the personal nature of our relationship.

Finally, and sacraments too are the grace they signify and are means towards. They are not the full enjoyment of the grace, but they are a taste. Jesus is really present in the Lord's Supper (as he is whenever Christian's gather and he is testified too), so we are actually in that life of fellowship with him that the Lord's Supper points us to in its fulfilment in the marriage supper of the Lamb in the New Creation. When received in faith it also really is the life-giving food of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. Similarly, when received in faith, baptism really does put to death our sinful old nature, and bring to birth new Christ-like life. It is only ever a taste, and the fullness will only be experienced when we fully die and are then raised again on the last day. But it is the same action breaking into our life now, by faith.

Key questions on the Lord's Supper

Listening to: Led Zeppelin III

Who is being offered in the Lord's Supper? (or what is being spoken?)

• Firstly, Christ and his death
• Secondly, in Christ, our resurrection: forgiveness of sins, New Creation, the Church, the Messianic banquet

Who is offering Christ? (or who is speaking these things?)

• Firstly, God. Christ offered himself at the first Lord's Supper. As the Word of God, he is offered/spoken by God himself.
• Secondly, in Christ and on his authority, the Christian performing the act.

What happens when Christ comes near? (or what happens when God speaks?)

• Firstly, to be in Christ's presence is to be blessed by God - it is heaven itself.
• However, if rejected because of unbelief then sin is increased and judgement occurs ("... that is why many of you are weak and ill", 1 Corinthians 11:30, cf. Forsyth).
• Either way, when God's word is spoken it will not return empty (Isaiah 55:11).

The German Mass and Order of Service, 1526

Glen has just posted on the differences between Luther and Cramner on the Lord's Supper. Pete Jackson asked what Luther's liturgy for Communion was. It ran something like this, although these were more guidelines than the equivalent of the BCP:

To begin the service we sing a hymn or a German Psalm...

Then follows the Kyrie eleison...

Thereupon the priest reads a collect...

Thereafter the Epistle...

After the Epistle a German hymn...

Then he reads the Gospel...

After the Gospel the whole congregation sings the Creed in German...

Then follows the sermon on the Gospel...

After the sermon shall follow a public paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer and admonition for those who want to partake of the sacrament...

• I admonish you first of all to lift up your hearts to God to pray with me the Lord's Prayer, as Christ our Lord has taught us and graciously promised to hear us...
• [A expanded Lord's prayer where each of the petitions is explored]
• Secondly I admonish you in Christ that you discern the Testament of Christ in true faith and, above all, take to heart the words wherein Christ imparts to us his body and his blood for the remission of our sins. That you remember and give thanks for his boundless love which he proved to us when he redeemed us from God's wrath, sin, death and hell by his own blood. And that in this faith you externally receive the bread and wine, i.e., his body and his blood, as the pledge and guarantee of this. In his name therefore, and according to the command that he gave, let us use and receive the Testament...

Thereupon the Office and Consecration [i.e. 1 Cor 11:23-25]...

administer the sacrament immediately after the consecration of the bread, before the cup is blessed...Meanwhile, the German Sanctus or the hymn "Let God Be Blest," or the hymn of John Huss, "Jesus Christ, Out god and Savior," could be sung. Then the cup be blessed and administered, while the remainder of these hymns are sung, or the German Agnus Dei....

The collect follows with the benediction.

(pp. 389ff, e.d. Theodore G. Tappert, Selected Writings of Martin Luther vol.3)

Got to love the two 'admonitions'!

I probably also ought to note that the Kyrie, the scripture texts, the Creed and the Office and Consecration are all sung. There is a lot of music.

More thoughts on the 'one body'

From an email to the friend I am thinking this through with (see my previous post for less developed thoughts).

On reflection I can think of several inter-related reasons why we are 'one body' in Paul's eyes.

We all share:

• 'one bread' (1 Corinthians 10:17)
• 'one baptism' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)
• 'one faith' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one hope' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one God and Father' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Lord' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Spirit' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)

So for Paul the ultimate cause of us being 'one body' is the Trinity (isn't great how Paul refers to all 3 persons in Ephesians 4:4-6?). The promise of the Trinity is communicated (not just mentally) to us by the sacraments, and we embrace the promise contained in the sacraments by faith. The sacraments are promises that we can share in the death of Christ (Romans 6; Ephesians 2:16) but then also share in the same Spirit (a Spirit of life, John 6:63, Romans 8) by which he was raised (Romans 8:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44; Mark 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

I like your observation that 'one body' has a corporal dimension. 'Body' for Paul is closely associated with 'flesh' and death. There is only one death which leads to life and that is Christ's death. His is the only cursed flesh where salvation can still be found. So he is also the 'body' which we need to find ourselves in. However for Paul 'body' is not as negative as 'flesh'/'death' and he is able to talk happily about our 'spiritual body' too (1 Corinthians 15:44).

However returning to our original discussion about where the term originated I think there are only two options:

1. The institution of the Lord's Supper.
2. The OT concept of marriage between God and Israel which Paul picks up and applies to Christ and the Church ('one flesh' is a small step away from 'one body', cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16).

It is interesting how it is difficult to imagine any closer union than either consuming something (food) or sexual union, and this is how the NT so often describes our relationship to Christ. We eat him, and we marry him! Incredible condescension to miserable sinners! He doesn't give gifts from on high, but comes down to us and gives us himself.

1 Corinthians 11:29

Paul writes:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

My pastor thinks that 'the body' we have to discern is the church. After all Paul's intention in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is to dissuade the church from having divisions, particularly between rich and poor. He wants them to realise that they are one body. It is also supported by the wider context, particularly 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul is going.

I think that it is more likely that 'the body' refers to Christ's presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper (the traditional interpretation). The immediate context is that of eating and drinking, and the previous reference to the 'body' is verse 27 is to the body as the bread. This is not in conflict with Paul's main intention in this passage either because it is just because of the one bread that we share that we divisions are inappropriate.

Paul does not just discuss the Lord's Supper as an example of where divisions in the Corinthian church are evident, but because it is also where he can demonstrate how inappropriate this is.

Note There are actually three possible interpretations of 'the body' that I can think of. They are all possible because they are all interrelated:

• The person of Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ present in the elements of the Lord's Supper
• The church in Christ

The body of Christ

A friend of mine at church today asked a very good question: where does Paul get the concept of the body of Christ from?

It is a very good question because 'the body' is a very 'weird' concept, and secondly, unlike most other concepts in the NT, it does not seem to originate in either the OT or the ancient Mediterranean world.

On reflection there is only one place that it can come from and that is the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. However, it is still quite a leap from the words 'this is my body' to the sophisticated and multi-layered concept that it is so important to Paul and which he assumes the churches he writes to will understand.

I don't know quite how Paul came to add so much colour to the concept but I think he indicates how he made the connection from the Lord's supper to the church in 1 Cor 10:16-17:

The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

For Paul, the reason we are one body is because we all share in one body, and the body in both instances is 'of Christ'. The Lord's Supper forms the community that we are part of.

Of course, it is not the Lord's Supper that is ultimately the cause. It is one of many interconnected causes in different dimensions. We are one body because we have 'one Lord' and 'one God and Father of all', because we share these we have 'one faith' and 'one hope', which are communicated to us by 'one baptism' and 'one bread' (Eph 4:4-6; 1 Cor 10:17; 1 Cor 12:13).

Modern evangelicals tend to be happy to talk about our shared Lord and shared faith which join us together, but are unhappy to talk about the shared sacraments. Ritual is often then shunned as either pointless or even harmful. Others are more than happy to talk about the sacraments but lose sight of the Lord that gave them to us and that there is more come. For them ritual can become all there is and Christ is lost sight of because, for example, the sacrifice is happening 'here and now' which is more important than the 'then'.

Reformers on the frequency of the Lord's Supper

Calvin

'No meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper and almsgiving' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.44).

'the Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46)

Luther

'As oft as ye do it, it is nevertheless implied that we should do it often; and it is added for the reason that He wishes to have the Sacrament free, not limited to special times, like the Passover of the Jews, which they were obliged to eat only once a year, and that just upon the fourteenth day of the first full moon in the evening, and which they must not vary a day. As if He would say by these words: I institute a Passover or Supper for you which you shall enjoy not only once a year, just upon this evening, but often, when and where you will, according to every one's opportunity and necessity, bound to no place or appointed time; although the Pope afterwards perverted it, and again made a Jewish feast of it.' (Luther, Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

'people should be told in sermons to receive Communion three or four times a year in order that, strengthened by the Word, them may afterward fall asleep' (p.305, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1539])

'we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the Sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament to them....if they believed that they possessed so much evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the Sacrament...they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the Sacrament' (Luther, Preface to the Small Catechism)

'the whole congregation should come together on Sundays, and mass and Vespers be sung, as has been customary. In both services there should be preaching for the whole congregation, in the morning on the Gospel for the day, in the evening on the Epistle...If anyone desires to receive the sacrament at thhis time, let it be administered at a time convenient to all concerned.

'The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important annd not the mass. But if any should desire the sacrament during the week, let mass be held as inclination and time dictate; for in this matter one cannot make hard and fast rules.' (p.377, 'Concerning the Order of Public Worship' in Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1520-1523, ed. Theodore G. Tappert)

Others

'For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved.' (Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 14.1)

'The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient' (Knox, Genevan Book of Order (1556))

In Zwingli's Zurich the 'communion service was to be held four times in the year, - at Easter, Whitsunday, autumn, and Christmas' (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation, The Reformation In Zurich. 1519-1526, § 20. The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper)

Questions to ask about your practice of the Lord's Supper

This is reflection on my previous post.

• Do we 'devote' ourselves to the Lord's supper (cf. Acts 2:42)? How often is it celebrated? How prominant is it in the service structure?
• Do we express the unity of the body in our practice of it? I am not suggesting that we all slavishly ensure that we use one loaf, one cup, or indeed that we eat round one table, but we should be doing all we can to express this. Perhaps all the congregation could eat/drink at once if one cup/loaf is not being used. Perhaps children should participate. Perhaps it should not be tacked on to the end of a service with an oportunity for people to leave in between.
• Do we look backwards at Christ's death? Is this reflected in the actions or just in the words?
• Do we look forward to Christ's second coming? It particularly struck me in reading the passages that all look forward to the coming consumation of the Kingdom of God. It is also interesting that in current discussion the realisation that the Lord's supper looks forward to the Messianic banquet, where as traditionally it has usually been seen to 'remember' what has already happened. We need to do both.
• Do we judge ourselves truly to avoid being judged? Is it something that we approach fearfully in the knowledge that it can bring death as well as life?
• Do we believe that there objective benefits obtained by participating?
• Do we believe that Christ is truly present in/with the bread and wine? I'm not getting into debates about bodily presence etc but all sides should be in agreement that Christ is present in some way. Do we really believe it though?

Notes on NT accounts of the Lord's Supper

Elements of the Lord's Supper according to the four biblical accounts of its institution (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26):

• In the context of a meal (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; 1 Cor 11:23; 33-34)
• Thanksgiving (Luke 22:17; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Blessing of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22)
• Identification of the wine as the (new) covenant (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the wine with Jesus' blood (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the bread with Jesus' body (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Breaking of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Done in rememberance of Jesus (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• Anticipation of the coming of the Kingdom of God or Jesus' second coming (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:15, 18; 1 Cor 11:26)
• Immediate context of betrayal (Matt 26:14-16, 21-25; Mark 14:10-11, 18-21; Luke 22:3-6, 21-23; 1 Cor 11:23)
• 'For forgiveness of sins' (Matt 26:28), 'for you' (Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor 11:24), 'for many' (Mark 14:24)
• Bread first (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22, 1 Cor 11:24), or wine first (Luke 22:17)
• One loaf eaten (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 10:17)
• One cup drunk from (Matt 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17)
• New passover (Matt 26:18; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:15)

Benefits:

• Forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28)
• Participation in Christ, particularly his body and blood, so particularly his death (1 Cor 10:16)
• Unites the church (1 Cor 10:17)
• Proclaims 'the Lord's death' (1 Cor 11:26)
• Jesus is remembered (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• We are covenanted with (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• We are fed (obviously physically but presumably spiritually as well)

Mealtime

OT sacrifices can often be thought of offerings of food for God to 'eat'. Graciously in the OT God allows the priests especially, but the rest of the people as well, to share in these meals.

In the NT we don't bring offerings of food to God, instead God presents us with food to eat. Food that is greater and also more expensive than the spotless lambs offered by Israel to their God.