Expert: Dr. Ronald E. Shultz - 4/24/2010

Question
Hello Dr. Shultz,

I’ve recently visited a Southern Baptist Church. It was a wonderful experience and I will certainly worship there again. This was a morning service, and they were preparing to have Holy Communion that night.  So accordingly, I have some questions about the Baptist’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

The pastor said that communion is a symbolic act of obedience, and that we partake in it to memorialize the death of Christ and to anticipate His second coming. He went on to say that it provided no means of grace, and that partaking in it is a command that we follow because Jesus told us to.

I would be grateful if you could help me understand the Baptist viewpoint on communion a little clearer.

How are we to interpret Matthew 26:27-28? Christ said, “Drink from it, all of you.  This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (NIV). Would this verse not imply that Christ is saying that His Supper is indeed a means of grace?

Thank you in advance for your response. I have read many of your posts, and I greatly appreciate your contributions to this page.

Eric

Answer
Eric, I am glad you enjoyed your time with those folks.  I will do what I can to help you understand our position.  I am guessing you are coming from a Catholic background as they hold to the cup becoming the actual blood of Christ after the priest blesses it and the wafer is the literal body of Christ. Episcopalians may also hold this but I am not sure.  Lutherans hold to a special aura or mystical presence but not to a literal transformation of the elements.  Most all other Christian sects or groups hold to a memorial concept.

Christ also says that He is the door and the way but He does not hang on hinges (not even that kind of door in the culture He was in) nor is He literally a path of stone, dirt or concrete to walk upon.   Did He cut Himself and literally serve them a cup of blood in this passage?  The passage in Matthew/Mark/Luke is symbolic.  Eating meat of animals was totally against the Hebraic law for the life is in the blood.  Eating any human blood would have been considered immensely heinous so the Disciples, soon to be Apostles at that point, would have resisted and demanded an explanation just as Peter refused to eat the unclean animals offered to him in the vision from God that he receieved in Acts 10:10-13.

Indeed, in John 6:49-61 that is exactly what the people thought that He was first suggesting cannibalism and how in the world could His flesh and blood handle the need since He was only one body?  He did not immediately explain it to the Disciples for it was not time for it and now at the Last Supper He is explaining what that passage meant.  I am not sure they even got it then until the Church was actually birthed in Acts 2 and they received the Holy Spirit as an indwelling interpreter of the Word.

Luke, the Doctor, explains it also in Luke 22:17-20 when he says "this is the new testament or covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."   That shedding of blood sealed the new covenant just as sin was atoned or covered by the blood of bulls and goats and the death of their body on the altar His piercing and bleeding on the Cross paid for the sins of mankind. The cup and bread are symbolic of that.  There is no sacrament or saving grace in them.  Salvation is in Christ and Him alone because of His Cross.  

As my Hebrew friends like to point out this was the Passover and not the Day of Atonement, but what did the Passover represent?  It was the time that God's judgment was poured out on Egypt, which in typology often represents the World, and the way to avoid that judgment on the firstborn was to put the blood of a lamb on the doorposts.  The whole family was in the house but it was the firstborn that would have died.  When God saw the blood the death angel or angel of judgment passed over that house.  

If you read up on how that blood was applied it does show an interesting picture.  When you apply it to the doorposts and the the lintel or top beam you are going to have blood hit the threshold as well.  Thus you see a Cross, though they would not have at the time.  There is blood where the crown of thrones would be as well as where the nails would be for hands and feet.  The Passover was a memorial to be held and when did Jesus institute the new covenant? On the Passover when He would become the lamb that would set all believing/receiving souls free from the judgment of God.  

Whereas the Passover was required to be observed once a year Paul, through the Spirit, was told possibly in his three year one-on-one training with the risen Christ or at some other time that the Church was allowed to do it "as oft as ye do it" or whenever they choose to do it. Some have chosen to do it once a year like the Passover, some once a month, once a quarter and some like the Church of Christ do it weekly.  As long as you do it in the right attitude of heart and it not just a mindless act or ritual the frequency is not an issue.

Also, whereas the Passover remembered an act of salvation from man's slavery and God's judgment on the firstborn, which would not be repeated, the Lord's Supper is not only a memory of His work of salvation on the Cross and in the life of each born-again believer it also shows a salvation that once received is not needed to be done over and over and points to His return. Paul tells us in I Cor 11 that it is not only a remembrance of the past but a reminder to the world that He is coming again.  We "do shew forth the Lord's death till He come."  

While it is easy see the purpose of the Lord's Supper as a ordinance of obedience, memorial and testimony of His return from these verses the death knell of transubstantiation not so coincidently comes in the book of Hebrews.  Remember, blood was not on the dietary list for the Jews but there is also a more poignant reason why the elements cannot become the literal body and blood of Christ.

Hebrews 6:4-6 clearly states that concept of re-crucifying the Lord would be an open shame for it would mean that His sacrifice was not complete or perfect the fist time so He would have to suffer again for someone if they would/could lose their salvation.  This is a kick in the eye for the Arminians as well who hold you can lose and regain your salvation for the passage clearly states that cannot happen.  If ever lost, salvation cannot be regained.  Since it is all of grace based on Christ, He does not lose anyone.  Judas was never saved and he was the only one lost of the 12. Those that are Christ's are in Him and He does not practice self-mutilation by taking people out that He has put in.

Also very clearly, if indeed the priest would be able to transform the elements then Christ it is shedding His blood and His body is being broken again and again or in essence being re-crucified.  That cannot happen just as the blood did not have to be put on the doorposts but one time to save the firstborn so also does the blood of Christ only have to be applied to the sinners account but one time through faith because His one time sacrifice was all that was needed.  He will not be shamed.

He offered up once and sat down.  Hebrews 7:25-27 says He is done!  Hebrews 9:24-28 amens this and says that a continual sacrifice is not necessary for He was ONCE offered for sins.  The next step for Him is to return!  

So you see, to constantly shed His blood and break His body is not needed, not possible and indeed to say that you are doing so is putting Him to undue shame and is a great blasphemy against Him and His work.   It is based upon misinterpetation of a symbolism and bestows upon the act an power it does not have and suggests bestowal of something it cannot give.  It is a memorial, an ordinance of obedience, a reminder that He is coming back and that is all.  No mysticism of any kind is implied by Scripture.

I hope this has been of some help to you.  May God grant you great discernment as you seek Him through His Word!