[Table of Contents]
[Previous] [Next]		 William Robinson
Essays on Christian Unity (1924)

 

H

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER--A VIEW
BASED ON THE NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES.1

VARIOUS views have been held on this subject, from those involving the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation to the Zwinglian2 view, which regarded the Lord's Supper as a pure memorial, and nothing more. Calvin's view was "higher" than the doctrine of Zwingli, and Calvin's view prevailed at the Reformation in the Presbyterian Churches and in the Church of England. There is no doubt that among the Independents, and [274] Baptists, too, this view of Calvin's prevailed for a time. With the rise of Methodism, so obviously influenced by Arminianism, the Zwinglian view came to be more or less the prevailing one in English Nonconformity, and it is not, therefore, surprising that the Lord's Supper came to be regarded as of very minor importance.

      There are those who regard ordinances as stumbling-blocks placed by God to trap us. Is it possible that God would create salvation for us, and definitely give us a way of salvation, alien to our very nature,--one which would find no response in our spiritual life as God has created it? It would be hard to believe in such a God. Besides, the New Testament contains not an atom of justification for such a view. The ordinances are in a real sense sacraments--that is, channels of grace. Even the Sabbath was such for the Jews, as our Lord taught. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. It was not something God had made in order to have the pleasure of binding man and giving him a stumbling-block, but it was made for his benefit. The legalistic Pharisees, however, regarded it as a stumbling-block, and in no sense as a gracious provision on the part of God.

      So there are those who regard the Lord's Supper in a legalistic way. It is something to attend to--a mere ritual. By attending so many times in the year we have a sure passport to heaven. It is not a rich provision of grace, but something to be got through and done, just because it is commanded. This is exactly the position of the Pharisees condemned by our Lord--sheer legalism or [275] ritualism. Certainly the early Church never met in this spirit, and when we do, it is conducive to a very "low" view of the Lord's Supper. We do not attend to our breakfast in this spirit--we know that our breakfast is suited to our physical needs; and so the Lord's Supper is surely suited to our spiritual needs.

      The difficulty of building up a doctrine of the Lord's Supper is the one fact that the New Testament contains so very few references to the Communion. This, of course, does not support the argument that it played a minor part, but, on the contrary, that it was taken for granted. The fact, however, should be recognised, and should keep us from too much dogmatism where evidence is scanty.

      As I have pointed out, the Lord's Supper, like Baptism, to some seems valueless, and to others it is a mere memorial ordinance--the eating of bread and the drinking of wine, and nothing more. But I believe the Holy Scriptures teach that it is symbolic of many Divine truths, and that it serves more holy purposes. These I will briefly review.

(1) THE LORD'S SUPPER IS A MEMORIAL.

      This do in remembrance of Me. This do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of Me.3 We are called [276] to offer a memorial of that on which our salvation depends, and we do this in the presence of God, and at the same time our own memories go back to the great experience of our own regeneration.

(2) THE LORD'S SUPPER IS A PROCLAMATION.

      "For as oft as yet eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come."4 Thus we not only offer a memorial before God, but we also proclaim to the world the most solemn fact of our holy religion better than it could be proclaimed by the most eloquent preacher. It is the Gospel in drama.

(3) THE LORD'S SUPPER IS A COVENANT.

      It is a covenant between God and His Church, and between ourselves and God--just as the Passover was to the Jews. Theirs reminded them of deliverance from Egypt--ours of deliverance from sin. God has made this covenant with us through the Blood of Jesus, and thus we have our side to the covenant. We ratified it in Baptism. This ordinance of Communion is perpetually linked to Baptism. Jesus said of the wine, "This is My Blood of the New Covenant."5 The perpetual keeping of this Feast is to us the solemn renewal of our covenant oath with God in His presence and in the presence of that which symbolises the Blood of the Covenant.

(4) THE LORD'S SUPPER IS A COMMUNION.

      "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? The bread which [277] we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ?"6 It is here, then, that we have a Real Presence of Christ and have communion with His Body and Blood and with one another. In no other service is He present in the same way. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, and is present with us during His absence. In this sense Christ is always present with His followers. But here in the holy symbols we share or have communion with His Body and His Blood. The bread is still bread and the wine is not changed to blood physically, but we must remember what they symbolise, and the Real Presence must be in them to those who receive worthily. As we receive we commune with Him who definitely said: "Verily, I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God."7 Thus He communes with us and we with Him and the whole universal Church. Thus the unity of His Body, the Church, centres round this feast: "For we being many are one bread and one body."8

(5) THE LORD'S SUPPER IS A FEAST.

      Our natural bodies cannot live without food--neither can our spiritual bodies. The Holy Communion, then, comes as the highest form of spiritual food, because it conveys to us the Body and Blood of our Lord. That it is a feast is indicated by the very name "Supper" or "Meal." But that it is not a meal to feed the body is clearly indicated by St. Paul: "What! have ye not houses to eat and drink in?"9 It must, therefore, be a spiritual [278] meal, and this seems to be its highest purpose. There is no question of being absent when it is thus regarded, especially for those who have experienced the great spiritual satisfaction which it brings. What, then, is the food we receive for our spiritual nature? Surely not bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of Jesus, who said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread which I shall give him is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."10

      "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life, for My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me, and I in him."11

      Many have sought to probe the mystery of how? but it is useless. It is a mystery, and all we can surely say is that it is not physical, as Jesus Himself said, and as He said also of Baptism.12 There is no greater mystery here than in Baptism, and certainly no greater than in the Incarnation, where the same principle is at work--the impregnating of the physical with the Divine.

Word made flesh, His word life-giving,
    Gives His flesh our meat to be.
Bids us drink His blood, believing
    Through His death we life shall see.
Blessed they who thus receiving
    Are from death and sin set free. [279]
Low in adoration bending,
    We our Lord and God revere,
Faith to sight her aid is lending,
    Though unseen the Lord is near.
Ancient types and shadows ending,
    Christ, our Paschal Lamb, is here.


      1 I have here confined myself to an exposition of the New Testament passages, because there are many who think the New Testament lends itself to the view that the Eucharist is a mere memorial. Although there are comparatively few references to the Eucharist in the New Testament, it is easy to see that the writers know nothing of this "low" view. It may be objected that the exposition is a resort to the methods of textual theology, but such an exposition was necessary because of what I have said above, and is justified on the grounds that the subsequent history of the Sacrament confirms the view arrived at. I have not touched on the question of "sacrifice," but would refer the reader to the excellent work of Mr. Guy: Sacrifice in Holy Communion. [274]
      2 I am not here concerned with the question as to whether Zwingli was responsible for the view associated with his name. [274]
      3 This memorial aspect is often made the chief one and sometimes the only one. But it should be remembered that the words are only found in one Gospel (Luke xxii. 19). St. Paul was the first to use them in 1 Cor. xi. 24 and 25. The two earlier Gospels do not give the words. On the other hand, all four records give the more important words, "This is my body," "This cup is my blood." We can definitely say that the memorial words were not considered by Matthew and Mark as of major importance, nor can they be taken as definite words of institution, but rather as a direction from our Lord as to the new signification of this feast as contrasted with the Passover. [276]
      4 1 Cor. xi. 26. [277]
      5 Matt. xxvi. 28. [277]
      6 1 Cor. x. 16. [278]
      7 Mark xiv. 25. [278]
      8 1 Cor. x. 17. [278]
      9 1 Cor. xi. 22. [278]
      10 John vi. 51. [279]
      11 John vi. 53-56. [279]
      12 John iii. 5 and 6. [279]

 

[EOCU 274-280]

[Table of Contents]
[Previous] [Next]		 William Robinson
Essays on Christian Unity (1924)
Send Addenda, Corrigenda, and Sententiae to the editor