Chapter 2: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

IN THIS CHAPTER, you will discover:

· The nature and significance of baptism.

· Reasons for different modes of baptism.

· How Christians understand the Lord’s Supper.

· Scriptural ways to administer and partake of the Eucharist.


AS A RESULT, you will be able to:

· Experience baptism on a deeper level.

· Understand differing denominational views on baptism.

· Comprehend the origins of Communion practices.

· Receive the Eucharist with greater faith.

Reading: Renewal Theology 3, pp. 221-25.

Key Scripture: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20).

Key Words: Proselyte, Sign, Seal, Baptismal Regeneration.

The sacraments of the church are visible signs or symbolic actions through which God’s invisible grace is manifested. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, marriage, ordination, penance, the Lord’s Supper, and extreme unction (anointing the sick or dying). Protestants grant the status of sacraments only to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but often include the other five ordinances as liturgical practices. (Some denominations such as the Church of God also view foot washing as a sacrament.) Eastern Orthodoxy, the third great division of Christendom, also speaks of seven sacraments, but does not consider each of equal importance. They refer to the sacraments as “mysteries” and emphasize the unseen reality of God at work not only in the water, bread, and wine of baptism and the Eucharist, but also throughout creation as a whole. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, the church itself — as the body of Christ — is the greatest mystery (Eph. 5:32) and therefore the most fundamental sacrament.

Most Christians would agree that the two most important ordinances or sacraments are those established by Christ Himself: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is the visible beginning of the Christian life; the Lord’s Supper continues and nourishes that life. In this lesson and the next we will consider the nature, significance, and practice of baptism.

The Nature of Baptism

The Greek word baptisma implies immersion or submersion. Proselyte baptism was already a part of the Jewish religious world in Jesus’ day. Proselytes, or converts to Judaism, were circumcised if male. Then — adult or child, male or female — they were baptized in the presence of witnesses before making a sacrificial offering. Their Gentile “impurities” were considered to be removed by this act, and they rose from the waters of baptism pure as newborn children.

The Christian understanding of the significance of baptism is multifaceted. Beginning with John, who preached a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3; cf. Acts 19:4; 22:16), baptism has been associated with cleansing from sin. We may note that in proselyte baptism the penitent washes himself or herself. Christian baptism, however, is always received from another. This symbolizes that God has done for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Only the pardon made available through Christ’s vicarious sacrifice cancels our debt of sin (Gal. 3:10-14).

Baptism is also related in the New Testament to the experience (not just the idea) of regeneration. The “washing of rebirth and renewal” spoken of by Paul (Titus 3:5) parallels both Jesus’ discussion of the new birth in John 3 and the testimony of Hebrews about “having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience” (Heb. 10:22). Scriptural use of the term baptisma sometimes suggests not just being immersed, but being overwhelmed or engulfed by a new reality. There is an unmistakable symbolical parallel between water baptism and the quintessential initiation experience of the New Testament — the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The new birth is a transition into newness of life and freedom from the bonds of sin and death. Thus Paul compared baptism with Christ’s burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12). He also described the new estate into which one passes at salvation as being “clothed with” or incorporated into Christ (Gal. 3:27). Though we are all God’s children in that He is our Creator, baptism makes us children of God by adoption as well. “Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father’ ” (Gal. 4:6).

Finally, baptism is a public declaration of commitment to Christ and of solidarity with His church. Humans have always devised rituals to mark important rites of passage in life — marriage and funeral ceremonies being perhaps the two most common examples. In marriage we proclaim our unity with our spouse to the world, and, by doing so, make that commitment more resolute. In baptism we publicly acknowledge to the world that we belong to Christ and thus are wed closer to Him in faith (Luke 12:8).

The Significance of Baptism

Throughout church history different interpretations of the significance of baptism have arisen. This is to be expected: theology is, by its very nature, a continuing attempt to rethink the truths of the faith; it is “faith in search of understanding.” According to Dr. Williams, three key statements can be made about the significance of baptism:

1. Baptism is a sign that points to the reality it represents. As we have seen, baptism is symbolic of many dimensions of the new birth and life in the Spirit.

2. But baptism is more than just a sign; it is a seal. As circumcision was a visible seal or token ratifying the old covenant, baptism is a tangible ratification of the new covenant of grace.

3. The observation that baptism is more than a sign — that it more than merely “re-presents” God’s grace to the believer — leads us to consider baptism as a means of grace.

By saying that baptism “ratifies” God’s covenant of grace, we imply that baptism somehow participates in the divine reality to which it points. But how? When examining the other great sacrament — the Lord’s Supper — the question arises: In just what sense does the bread and wine of Communion become the body of Christ? In considering the sacrament of baptism the question is: Does baptism have some intrinsic potency to effect salvation? Or is baptism simply a token, a ritual marker, signifying the event of salvation?

In reality, neither perspective expresses the true nature and power of Christian baptism. The first view — that baptism automatically imparts sanctifying grace and confers salvation — is known as sacramentalism, or baptismal regeneration. In the Middle Ages Roman Catholic theology tended to envision baptism as the antidote or remedy to the taint of original sin infecting humanity. The Reformers protested, arguing that an automatic or magical understanding of sacramental efficacy obscured God’s freedom. They insisted that faith in the gospel was necessary for salvation — and faith alone. In Luther’s words: “Where the gospel is, there is baptism and all else that a Christian man needs.” It seems clear in Scripture that salvation is neither automatically conferred by baptism (Acts 8:13, 21) nor is baptism absolutely necessary for salvation (Luke 23:43).

On the other hand, Scripture contains many commands to baptize believers and often links the act of baptism to the reception of salvation. Thus we must not overlook the fact that baptism often serves as a channel through which saving grace is communicated to the spirits of believers. We are both spiritual and finite, material, psychological beings; and God has chosen to communicate with us in part through the tangible substances, words, and acts of the sacraments. Through willingness to undergo baptism we enter into covenant with Christ. Through going beneath the waters of baptism we taste the death-to-self at the heart of repentance. And in rising from the waters of baptism we apprehend something of the rebirth into new life that occurs when we are incorporated into Christ. The sacrament of baptism should be understood, then, as one of the avenues of engagement through which God’s sanctifying grace reaches us.

Key Concepts:

1. The ordinance of baptism was declared by Jesus as a part of the Great . [221]

2. True or False. Triune baptism and baptism in the name of Jesus are equally valid. [222]

3. There is a close connection between baptism, forgiveness of sins, and . [223]

4. Baptism is closely related to burial with Christ into death and with Him to life. [223]

5. True or False. Baptism is a public declaration that we henceforth belong to Christ. [223]

6. Baptism is a visible sign of God’s sacred and invisible . [224]

7. Baptism is a sign and a seal of faith, much like the Old Testament practice of _________________. [224]

8. True or False. Baptism is only a sign of God’s grace already achieved. [224]

9. The act of baptism may be the , or means, by which the grace of regeneration is applied and received. [224-25]

10. The view that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation is called baptismal ________________________. [225]

Further Study: Read “Baptism,” pp. 123-25; “Circumcision,” pp. 220-21; “Proselyte,” p. 829; and “Regeneration,” pp. 851-52 in the NIDB. Also read RT3, pp. 159-74.

Life Application: How would you describe your own baptism? Did you experience baptism as both a sign and a seal? Did it help you in publicly professing your faith? Explore the reminiscences of family and friends about their baptism.

Reading: Renewal Theology 3, pp. 225-41.

Key Scripture: “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11-12).

Key Words: Paedobaptism, Ex Opere Operato, Vicarious Faith, Covenantal Theology, Anabaptists.

In this lesson we focus on specific differences in the way baptism has been interpreted and practiced by Christians. Our aim will be to evaluate these dissimilarities in the light of Scripture and of the historical practice of the church.

Mode of Administration. Different Christian denominations conduct baptism in a variety of ways. Some practice full immersion, others pouring or sprinkling. How did this variety evolve? The Didache, or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, a first-century work found in The Apostolic Fathers, suggests that variations in baptismal practice were initially responses to practical problems. Immersion in cold, running water is set forth as the ideal for baptism; but if circumstances prohibited this, pouring water on the head was considered an acceptable alternative.

Scripture itself seems to point to full immersion as the form of baptism used by Jesus’ disciples. Certainly John the Baptist’s practice, Jesus’ baptism, and Philip’s baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch were baptisms of this type. This view of baptism may be supported linguistically by examining the most common usages of the verb baptizo in the New Testament. In addition, the symbolism associated with baptism (such as burial and resurrection) supports the interpretation of baptism as immersion.

It may be argued that, in keeping with New Testament norms, it is desirable to reinstate full immersion as the standard mode of baptism practiced in the church. Still, baptism by pouring or sprinkling must be considered valid. In discussing the meaning of circumcision Paul argued, “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart” (Rom. 2:28-29). Much the same is true of baptism. It is faith, not form, that is of primary importance.

Subjects Suitable for Baptism. Most New Testament texts suggest clearly that baptism was a rite of initiation bestowed on converts — those who newly confessed their faith in Jesus Christ. There is, however, evidence that infant baptism (paedobaptism) was performed in the church at least from the third century onward. During the Reformation the question of the validity of infant baptism was hotly debated. Three main points of view emerged:

First, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches continued to baptize infants, regarding such baptism as effective ex opere operato (“by the work performed”). The act of baptism “cleansed away by regeneration” the infection of original sin “contracted by generation” (see RT3, p. 235 fn. 66).

Second, Reformation theologians like Luther and Calvin countered ex opere operato theories on baptism with the objection: nullem sacramentum sine fide (“where there is no faith, there is no sacrament”). While believing that baptism was more than an outward symbol of salvation, they disagreed with the Roman Catholic idea of sacramental grace, arguing that it was alien to the biblical teaching of justification by faith. They insisted that baptism is a sacrament of faith and penitence, and that an infant is capable of neither.

But though the Reformers took a stand against automatic baptismal regeneration, they did not discontinue the practice of infant baptism. Rather, they replaced the theory of ex opere operato with that of fides vicaria — vicarious faith. According to Luther, the infant is “changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith, through the prayer of the church that presents it for baptism and believes” (RT3, p. 234 fn. 63). According to Calvin, the children of believers are sanctified by their Christian parents and the seed of salvation is implanted in their hearts when they are grafted into the Christian community through baptism (RT3, p. 234 fn. 62).

This understanding of vicarious faith or common faith was rooted in what came to be called covenantal theology. Reformed theologians called attention to the social nature of the Old Testament covenant, into which children were initiated at circumcision. They speculated that the old and new covenants were similarly collective and inclusive, noting, for example, Paul’s claim that the unbelieving husband, wife, or child is “sanctified” by the believing spouse (1 Cor. 7:14). Infant baptism was thus regarded as both an act of faith on the part of the Christian community and a sharing of common grace with the child. The grace imparted in baptism would be strengthened and brought to term throughout the child’s life. In the rite of confirmation the mature believer later made a public affirmation of their commitment to Christ.

Third, other, more revolutionary Protestant groups called for more radical reform. Labeled Anabaptists or “rebaptizers” by their enemies, they refused to baptize their children. Adults underwent “believer’s baptism,” claiming that the baptism they had received as infants was scripturally unsound. During the Reformation four to five thousand Anabaptists were executed by water, fire, and the sword for their adherence to believer’s baptism.

In discussing the topic of infant baptism, Dr. Williams questions the idea that the vicarious faith of the godparents, parents, or congregation is a suitable substitute for the active faith — the hearing and believing (Acts 18:8) — required of New Testament converts. If baptism is a seal of repentance and the “pledge of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21), it presupposes a type of decision-making of which an infant is incapable. That the family baptisms recorded in Acts included children is also questionable. He concludes that infant baptism, as justified by covenantal theology, amounts to a “Judaizing of Christian baptism” (RT3, p. 232 fn. 53). Dr. Williams suggests that infant dedication, not infant baptism, best reflects the spirit of Jesus’ invitation, “Let the little children come to me” (Luke 18:16).

Who Should Administer Baptism? The Great Commission mandate to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them....” (Matt. 28:19) is addressed to every Christian. As demonstrated in the New Testament, no special ordination or title is required for a Christian to be permitted to administer baptism to a person who requests it. Nor does the validity of baptism depend on the moral character of the administrator. If true faith is present on the part of the person seeking baptism and if the baptism is performed with water in the name of the Trinity (or of Jesus Christ), all the requirements of true Christian baptism have been met.

Considering its solemn nature, it is important that correctness, order, and reverence are maintained in the administration of baptism. For that reason we commonly trust the supervision of the rite of baptism to trained ministers. Ultimately, however, it is the presence of the Holy Spirit at work in the faith of the believer that finally authenticates baptism spiritually.

The Question of Rebaptism. There really is no such thing as rebaptism from a scriptural perspective. True baptism, like Christ’s work of redemption (Heb. 10:10), is a once-for-all event. If a person has received baptism as an infant and has had a conscious conversion experience later in life, he or she may desire to submit to baptism anew. Dr. Williams proposes three ways this predicament may be negotiated without violating the once-for-all nature of baptism.

First, like the Anabaptists, we may view believer’s baptism as the initial, valid baptism, rather than as a “second” baptism. Second, the believer may be baptized and personally reaffirm the baptismal vows taken for them by their parents or godparents as infants. This baptism should be understood as a baptismal renewal rather than as a new or second baptism. Finally, the rite of confirmation can serve as a baptismal reaffirmation. In the early church confirmation immediately followed water baptism and was a ceremony in which the convert was confirmed, or strengthened, by the actual or symbolic reception of the Holy Spirit. It can thus be viewed as a completion or fulfillment of earlier baptism.

Key Concepts:

1. The word “baptism” is a transliteration of baptisma, meaning . [225]

2. True or False. One compelling reason for viewing immersion as the normal mode of baptism is the symbolism involved. [226]

3. It is possible that the practice of immersion is related to the Jewish rite of baptism. [227]

4. True or False. The first-century Didache permitted pouring and sprinkling in situations where there was insufficient water for immersion. [228]

5. True or False. In New Testament references to Christian baptism it is apparent that believers are those who undergo baptism. [229]

6. Biblical texts in which Jesus blesses children best support the practice of infant (baptism, dedication). [233]

7. It is only at the beginning of the (second, third) century that the first historical statement appears regarding infant baptism. [236]

8. True or False. The validity of baptism does not depend on the worth or dignity of the person who administers the rite. [238-39]

9. True or False. The New Testament gives examples of persons who were baptized more than once. [239]

10. At the time of the Reformation those who supported only believer’s baptism and rejected infant baptism were called . [240 fn. 95]

Further Study: Review the scriptures under “Baptism,” NIVTSB Topical Index, p. 18. Also read RT3, pp. 174-96.

Life Application: Learn your denomination’s position on baptism so that you may understand it more deeply. If you would like to resubmit yourself to baptism, review the options discussed above and talk about them with your pastor.

Reading: Renewal Theology 3, pp. 241-54.

Key Scripture: “When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight” (Luke 24:30-31).

Key Words: Transubstantiation, Realism, Consubstantiation, Excommunication.

The Lord’s Supper — or the Eucharist — is the central element in the drama of Christian worship. With the exception of the Quakers and the Salvation Army, every orthodox Christian denomination celebrates the Lord’s Supper as a solemn and important part of their liturgies. The Eucharist is the second great sacrament, or mystery, instituted by Jesus. Through it Christ becomes present, and God and humanity meet in the life of the church.

Like baptism, the Lord’s Supper has many sacramental dimensions. Reflecting this reality, Scripture refers to the Lord’s Supper in different ways. Very early in the life of the church Christians began to celebrate Sunday as the new Sabbath, meeting together on the first day of the week for “the breaking of bread.” This phrase recalls the Last Supper, at which Jesus broke the Passover loaf and said, “Take and eat; this is my body” (Matt. 26:26). The young church initially celebrated a fellowship meal or agape feast during which the Eucharist was enacted. By the end of the second century the Lord’s Supper become a separate, symbolical rite.

Paul referred to the Lord’s Supper as a Christian Passover celebration (1 Cor. 5:7). By saying, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:24), Jesus identified Himself with the Passover lamb whose blood ransomed Israel from the power of death (Ex. 12:1-30; cf. John 1:29).

The Lord’s Supper is also called “Holy Communion.” The Greek word koinonia — translated “communion” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 in the King James Version — is rendered “participation” in the New International Version. Communion is not merely a token remembrance, but, like baptism, is a vital channel through which we are united with and nourished by the Lord’s life and Spirit.

Paul called the Lord’s Supper “the Lord’s table” to separate it from idolatrous religious celebrations common in his day (1 Cor. 10:21). The term “Eucharist” expresses much about the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. It is derived from the Greek verb eucharisteo, which means “give thanks.” Shortly before His death, Jesus took bread and a cup and blessed His disciples (Mark 14:22-23; Luke 22:17, 19), offering a prayer of thanksgiving to God in the manner appropriate for a Jew at Passover. Christians have continued to think of the Lord’s Supper in terms of thanksgiving, for it commemorates the occasion on which Christ gave His body and poured out His blood as a sacrifice for our redemption. As Jews celebrate their liberation from Egypt in the Passover observance, Christians give thanks in the Eucharist for the gift of God in Christ through which we are liberated from the power of sin and death.

Eucharistic Theology

“This is my body . . . this is my blood.” More disputes have arisen and more Christian blood has been spilled by Christians over the meaning of these words than any others in Scripture. Even today the major rift within Christendom — that between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism — is most visible in disagreements regarding the Lord’s Supper, which prevent us from sharing the Eucharist.

Let us trace briefly the historical roots of the debate. Jesus’ words in John 6:26-66 comprise the heart of the controversy, specifically verses 53-56: “I tell you the truth, 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 real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” How Christians interpreted this “hard saying” of Jesus would determine their view of the Eucharist in subsequent centuries.

To counter the Arian and other heresies of the fourth century (see RT1, p. 316 fn. 57), great stress was placed on the divinity of Christ in the Eucharist — so much that the sacramental elements themselves received worship. During the Medieval period Aristotelian philosophy was used by the great Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas to formulate a theory explaining the nature of the transformation of the Eucharistic elements. This theory — one of four primary views held historically by the church about the Lord’s Supper — is called transubstantiation.

To simplify a theory with much technical philosophical terminology: transubstantiation is a form of realism. It holds that at the instant the priest consecrates the Eucharistic elements, God performs a miracle and transmutes the essential “substance” of the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ. However, the “accidents” — the outward forms of bread and wine — are not altered. By the end of the Middle Ages this view became Roman Catholic dogma.

During the Reformation, Protestant theologians rejected the theory of transubstantiation. The Anabaptist Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) taught that the Lord’s Supper was essentially a memorial service (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:2, 25) and nothing more. Both Luther and Calvin feared that this position failed to do full justice to the supernatural mystery of the Eucharist. Luther proposed a theory that became known as consubstantiation. He denied that the substance of the Eucharistic bread and wine were physically changed, but affirmed that the body and blood of Christ were truly present in a supernatural way “in, with, and under” the physical elements of the Lord’s Supper. Thus, though Lutheran and Catholic Eucharistic theology differ, both attested to the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.

Calvin’s view (adopted by Reformed and Wesleyan churches) is seen as a mediating position between the Catholic and Zwinglian views. According to the Westminster Confession (XXIX.vii), “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death . . .” The believer, by faith, truly consumes the body and blood of Christ, but in a “heavenly and spiritual manner,” not physically. Reformed theologians point out that Jesus ended His Eucharistic discourse in John 6 with the statement: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (v. 63). With these explanatory words, Jesus was pointing to a spiritual interpretation of His teaching, rather than to a literal one.

It is noteworthy that ecumenical dialogue about the nature of the Eucharist is underway today. Roman Catholic theologians have distanced themselves from the Medieval philosophical intricacies of the theory of transubstantiation. And evangelical and Reformed theologians have embraced a greater appreciation of the richness and mystery in their sacramental theology.

In summation, we can say from a general Christian perspective that the dual purpose of the Lord’s Supper is remembrance and communion. In celebrating the Lord’s Supper we recall the Lord’s death, the inauguration of the new covenant, and the divine forgiveness made possible through Christ’s sacrifice. As with the sacrament of baptism, the Lord’s Supper is more than an external ritual. It is a sign, seal, and means of receiving and appropriating supernatural grace. Through the Eucharist we participate in and appropriate the sustaining power of God’s reality. Christ truly communes with the individual and with the church. And in coming to the Lord’s Table together we are brought into harmony with each other. The forgiveness and reconciliation we receive from God is shared horizontally with our fellow believers.

The Bible warns us that hatred, jealousy, and flagrant sin are incompatible with the attitude of heart that receives spiritual things from God (1 Cor. 11:23-29; cf. Matt. 5:23-24). Moral indifference harms not only the individual, but the entire body of Christ. Divisiveness, heresy, and willful immorality are grounds for exclusion from the Lord’s Table, or excommunication — the final, most drastic step in church discipline.

In examining the meaning of the Lord’s Supper we should not allow ourselves to be waylaid by the intricacies of Eucharistic theology. Christendom as a whole is increasingly open to tolerating a diversity of theologically honest attempts to understand the nature of the Eucharist. Besides, as C. S. Lewis observed: “The command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand” (“Letters to Malcolm” in The Joyful Christian, p. 82). Our main focus should be upon coming to the Lord’s Table with unsoiled consciences and open hands, so that we may more deeply feed on Him in our hearts through faith with thanksgiving.

Key Concepts:

1. The Lord’s Supper — with Christ as the Paschal lamb — is the Christian . [243]

2. Eucharist, from eucharisteo, means “give .” [244]

3. The Lord’s Supper is a , vividly calling Christ’s death to mind and showing it forth. [244-45]

4. The Lord’s Supper is also a continuing reminder of the new established through Christ’s death, bringing divine forgiveness. [245]

5. Jesus’ words about eating “the flesh of the Son of man” and drinking “His blood” must be understood (literally, spiritually). [248]

6. True or False. Christ’s presence is spiritually communicated to us at the Eucharist. [249]

7. The belief that the bread and wine are turned literally into the substance of the body and blood of Christ is (consubstantiation, transubstantiation). [249 fn. 131]

8. “Men bear away from the Sacrament no more than they gather with the vessel of .” [250 fn. 133]

9. True or False. The Lord’s Supper should bring about both communion with Christ and union with one another. [251]

10. True or False. Only believers should be allowed to participate in Communion. [251]

11. True or False. Lack of love can evacuate a Communion service of all validity and significance. [252]

12. The book of Revelation depicts the climactic Lord’s Supper as a supper. [254]

Further Study: Read “VI. The Marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6-10),” IBC, p. 1623; “Feasts; II. The Passover, or the Feast of Unleavened Bread,” p. 350 and “Maranatha,” p. 621 in the NIDB; review the scriptures under “Lord’s Supper,” NIVTSB Topical Index, p. 103. Also read RT3, pp. 196-207.

Life Application: If your denomination does not recognize Christ as spiritually present in the Eucharist — or if you have failed to appreciate this dimension of Communion — consider carefully the material in this lesson. This understanding can add a new dimension to your faith and make the Lord’s Supper a more enriching worship experience.

Reading: Renewal Theology 3, pp. 254-63.

Key Scripture: “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Cor. 10:17).

Key Words: Hallel, Epiclesis, Concomitance.

In this lesson we will consider how the Lord’s Supper should be administered. The Eucharist is celebrated in diverse ways throughout Christendom. Our main focus will not be on the differences between traditions, but upon certain fundamental guidelines that Dr. Williams feels are clearly scriptural.

Administrator. In the most vital sense it is Christ Himself who is the host and distributor of the Lord’s Supper. Biblically, any believer may administer the sacrament in His name. In the interest of order, ordained ministers generally oversee and distribute the Lord’s Supper in Protestant churches.

In Roman Catholic churches only a priest is authorized to consecrate the Eucharistic elements. According to Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, “celebration of the Eucharist signifies the fullness of profession of faith” (p. 557) and the mystery of the church is tightly bound to the correct understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist. Those not baptized as Roman Catholics are forbidden from Communion. Exceptions may be made according to the priest’s discretion (see also RT3, p. 255 fn. 146).

Time and Place. In the church’s early days the Lord’s Supper was held at the conclusion of the agape meal and was thus celebrated often — perhaps daily. As it became separated from the collective feast, and the liturgy of the church became a more formal affair, Communion tended to occur on Sunday, the new Christian Sabbath. Churches today vary widely in the frequency with which they celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Some practice it several times a week, others once a month or less. There are no boundaries fixed in Scripture prescribing where or how often Communion should be shared. Dr. Williams advises frequent observance of the Lord’s Supper as a source of purification and empowerment. However, we must avoid “privatizing” the Lord’s Supper. Communion, even in a house church setting, should retain its character as an expression of collective worship.

Participants. All believers in Christ should be invited to participate in the Eucharist. Since it is the Lord’s Table, we have no right to exclude others who confess a biblical faith in Christ. There are, however, three classes of people that Scripture bars from the Lord’s Table.

The first is unbelievers. Through faith and baptism we are supernaturally incorporated into Christ and the church. Such koinonia is the foundation upon which the koinonia of the Eucharist is based. A nonbeliever who partakes of the body and blood of the Lord caricatures true koinonia. This counterfeit makes a mockery of the holy mysteries and should be avoided.

As with the sacrament of baptism, Dr. Williams argues that children who have made no personal profession of faith should not be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Until they reach that level of spiritual accountability, they are unable to perform the self-examination necessary to insure that Communion will be the solemn, uplifting observance it should be (1 Cor. 11:28).

Finally, believers who are enmeshed in flagrant sin and are unrepentant should be excluded from the Lord’s Table. The reasons for this form of censure are twofold. First, it is the church’s responsibility to demonstrate that holiness is truly important and that Christ is indeed Lord of the church (1 Cor. 5:1-13). Second, such discipline is essentially an act of love intended to bring the sinner to repentance and restored fellowship (2 Cor. 2:5-7).

Self-examination. Paul warned in his first letter to the Corinthians: “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [i.e., died]” (11:27-30).

These are sober words. They remind us both that the Eucharist is a mystery in which God’s holy presence is manifested and that sin is a serious matter in God’s sight. Note, however, that we are not told that we must come to the Lord’s table sinless, but that we must come in a worthy manner — that is, in full acknowledgment of our sins and in heartfelt repentance. For “if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment” (v. 31). This attitude is beautifully expressed in John Chrysostom’s tenth-century Eucharistic liturgy, in which he prayed: “Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. . . . as the thief I confess to You: Lord remember me in Your kingdom” (The Divine Liturgy Of Saint John Chrysostom, p. 30). Like the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43), we should forthrightly confess our sins, trusting God to purify, forgive, and redeem us.

Words of Preparation. The Lord’s Supper is a worship event, and so those participating should have both a spirit of worship and an attentive mindfulness concerning the meaning of the liturgical act they are about to undertake. We may foster such worshipful awareness by singing hymns, reading Scripture, hearing a sermon, or, at the very least, reflecting on the scriptural passages recounting the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

Prayers of Blessing and Thanksgiving. These should follow the words of preparation. When Jesus broke the Passover bread, He probably prayed, “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth from the earth.” He and the disciples then likely sang one of the Hallel, or praise psalms (Psalms 113-18).

When Jesus drank the third ceremonial cup — the cup of thanksgiving — He presumably repeated the prayer: “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who created the fruit of the vine” (compare with the eucharistic prayer from the Didache, RT3, p. 260). The third cup commemorated Elijah, the herald of the Messiah to come. It was at this point in the Passover ceremony that Jesus probably informed His disciples that a new covenant was about to be initiated through the spilling of His blood.

In early Christian liturgies the epiclesis (see RT3, p. 260 fn. 171) was a prayer asking the Holy Spirit to sanctify the elements of Communion and set them apart. A similar type of prayer is still appropriate.

The Bread and the Cup. Following the precedents set by Eucharistic language in Scripture, Dr. Williams recommends that a single large loaf of bread (1 Cor. 10:17) and a single large cup (11:25) be used to celebrate Communion. If feasible, a table or tables may be used. In Roman Catholic churches the laity sometimes receives only the bread, following the theory of Concomitance (RT3, p. 262 fn. 182). However, Dr. Williams affirms that both the bread and the cup should be received by all. Then the remaining elements should be reverently disposed of.

Offering of Praise. Before Jesus and His disciples went out to the Mount of Olives, they probably sang the great Hallel — Psalm 136. The refrain, “His love endures forever” — repeated twenty-six times there, rings true set against the litany of fulfilled promises celebrated in the psalm. How much more joyous should our praise be since we have seen the fulfillment of the coming of the promised messiah? We should be aware that the koinonia of praise experienced in our celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not only an earthly echo of heavenly exaltation but also an anticipation of that final, glorious celebratory supper — the marriage banquet of the Lamb.

Key Concepts:

1. True or False. Christ Himself is the chief administrator and host in the Lord’s Supper. [255]

2. True or False. Any believer may rightfully administer the Lord’s Supper. [255]

3. Many Protestant churches assign the administration of Communion to ordained ministers for the sake of . [255 fn. 147]

4. The Lord’s Supper is the culmination of the church’s of God. [256]

5. True or False. All believers should be invited to receive the Lord’s Supper regardless of their denominational preference. [256]

6. True or False. Children who have not made a profession of faith should still partake of the Lord’s Supper. [257]

7. True or False. Unrepentant believers should be invited to the Lord’s Table. [257]

8. Paul taught that -examination should precede the partaking of Holy Communion. [258]

9. The breaking of the communion bread represents the of Christ. [261 fn. 176]

10. The Lord’s Supper may appropriately close with the offering of to God. [263]

Further Study: Read “Lord’s Supper,” NIDB, pp. 600-601; “ii. The Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34),” IBC, pp. 1372-73; review the scriptures under “Discipline; D. Types of discipline; 4. Church discipline,” NIVTSB Topical Index, p. 42. Also read RT3, pp. 207-20.

Life Application: Read Dr. Williams’ suggestions concerning methods of pre-Communion self-examination (RT3, p. 258-59 fn. 161). If your denomination has some type of penitential liturgy, try using it. If not, meditate on the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. Spend time communing with God or perhaps fasting before Communion. Speak to your pastor about a Saturday “Pre-Communion Service.”