Communion:
"Sacrament of Continual Renewal"

The communion, being the only repeatable sacrament, assumes the burden of being God's main vehicle for making real the incarnation and atonement of Jesus Christ to his people. In puritan theology the "means of grace" were described as the "outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption." They were generally enumerated as the Word, the sacraments and prayer. Especially in the latter two we have divinely-given ordinances which, in a sense, bridge the historical gap of two millennia in the one case, and transcend the bounds of our finitude in the other. They allow us to identify with the historic Christ and commune with God in a way that is supernatural and transcends our space-time limitations. 

Generally speaking, the American evangelical church has allowed the supernatural aspects of the communion to be forgotten to such an extent that the average Christian scarcely knows what it is all about. The communion, nevertheless, is God's precious gift to every believer and an essential element in his spiritual well being.

Many of our ideas about the communion are conditioned by the medieval concept of the sacrament called the "Mass". Already, during the patristic period, men were beginning to describe the communion as the "immolation of the body of the Lord." This was later enunciated in the doctrine of the renewal of Christ's sacrifice each time the mass was celebrated. At the same time, the table upon which the communion was celebrated was beginning its rise from an obscure household table in the New Testament period to an elegant object of religious admiration which dominated the whole church building symbolically and visually. This grand conclusion of its rise to fame during the century following the Council of Trent may be seen in Bernini's magnificent bronze canopy over the alter in St. Peter's basilica in the Vatican. The treasure once contained in earthen vessels had by this time become well nigh lost amid the splendor of religious pageantry and vessels which were breathtaking in their opulence. 

In the meantime the explanation of what happened to the bread and wine at the moment of consecration went from the patristic belief in the local presence of the Lord to the fully enunciated doctrine of transubstantiation in the scholastic period. St. Thomas Aquinas, leaning on the Aristotelian distinction between accidents and essence of an object, affirmed that the accidents (the qualities of feeling, taste and smell) of the bread and wine remained bread and wine but that the essence of the elements changed at the moment of consecration into the actual body and blood of the Lord. This gave doctrinal legitimacy to the already established practice of the worship of the consecrated elements, which can be considered as nothing else than sophisticated idolatry to those Christians who reject Thomas' unique theology. The custom of genuflecting toward the altar and tipping the hat while passing a church which might contain consecrated elements is a vestige of this theology. 

The reformation brought about the demolition of the medieval building, or at least, parts of it. Among the reformers, Luther, steeped in medieval theology and reverence for sacred objects, departed the least from the time-honored view. His view has often been dubbed "consubstantiation" in contrast to the transubstantiation mentioned above. The Latin prefix con carries the meaning "with". This is to indicate that Luther believed that the real body of Christ became locally identified 'with the bread though the bread did not cease to become bread. His favorite illustration of the sense in which Christ was in the communion was that of the heat permeating the iron in a blacksmith's forge. It is hard to see that this view is very much different from Aquinas view, properly understood. For Luther, the presence of Christ in the communion is absolute and by no means depends on the faith of the communicant. His view is therefore on the medieval side of the theological watershed. 

The radical reformation was the left wing of the reformation. That category includes a wide range of people who were neither papists nor "reformed" nor Lutherans. As we have seen, these radical reformers were often called anabaptists because their common denominator was an insistence on rebaptizing any who had been baptized as an infant or had been baptized in the papal church. The communion theology held by most of these radical reformers is the one which most American evangelicals have come to four hundred years later. It is the view most radically opposed to the medieval view, that the communion is a mere memorial and, in effect, and undramatic presentation of a passion play to remind Christians of what Christ has done for them. Generally among the lineal descendants of the anabaptists the communion is infrequently celebrated. 

There is a middle view, generally associated with Calvin but by no means restricted to him. He is credited with the view, as he is with so many other theological doctrines, merely because he wrote most eloquently about it. It is a consistently reformed view and probably would have gained ground in Lutheran circles were it not for the dominance of Luther over the whole movement and his use of his peculiar communion theology to draw the line against the troublesome anabaptist movement. 

This is a truly reformed view because of the reformed principle of the primacy of faith and not externals in religion. The view insists that the Lord is present in the communion in a real sense, albeit a spiritual sense. The communicant, if he has faith, perceives Christ in the communion and feeds on him who is "the bread of life." As in the case of baptism, the efficacy of the communion depends not on the ceremony used or the words of consecration but on the faith of the communicant. 

One might wonder why, if one were to reject the medieval view, he would pick a mediating view which might seem to pose many of the same problems. At this point the controversy is thrown back to the New Testament and the question arises as to why the medieval view was so widely held for so many years. The New Testament Christians observed the communion repeatedly and used words to describe it which might even, on the surface, support the medieval view. For example, Paul says in I Corinthians 11 that in an age of supernatural miracles of judgment, there were Christians who died and some who were sick because they irreverently ate of the communion not "discerning the Lord's body" (I Corinthians 11: 29 f). This would be hard to explain if the communion were a mere memorial. We do not read of people being struck down by God because they were irreverent in their prayers and singing of hymns. There seems to be a unique, holy significance to the communion. It seems to be far more important than a mere memorial. 

In addition, if the communion is merely a memorial, a setting forth of certain essential truths about the Lord and his mission, it does not do a very effective job of this. The elements are so simple and the liturgy is so unspecified that one might view the whole ceremony and think that it does not do so much to depict the atonement of the Lord as, say, pictures, films and hymnody do. However, if the real significance of the communion is not merely a depiction of events but a depiction of events in symbols that can be personally appropriated and which enable the worshipper to spiritually partake of their great spiritual counterparts, the reason for the ostensibly simple elements becomes clear.

The elements of the sacrament of communion are bread and wine. It is curious that there have been more arguments over the exact form of the bread and the fruit of the vine than there ever were over how the communion was to be served. 

One would suppose that the minimum requirements would be that the bread should look like bread and the wine be red or purple, since it signifies blood. 

From very early days there has been a debate over whether the bread must be unleavened. The bread in the original communion was unleavened. We know this because it was instituted at the feast of Passover where only unleavened bread was allowed. The question arises, however, if this use of unleavened bread was incidental. There is no support in the rest of the New Testament for the idea that the early Christians always used unleavened bread. Rather, the strong supposition is that because the communion represents Jesus the bread of life, it should be in the form that bread usually takes in whatever culture it is being served. The custom of serving a wafer pressed out of bread obscures the fact that it is indeed bread. Sliced, enriched, white bread cut up into little cubes and served on silver platters rather discourages the notion that one is eating bread, also. An appropriately sized loaf passed from 'worshipper to worshipper for each to break off a piece and eat, is both practical and has the advantage of more nearly reproducing the original custom. It also encourages the communicant to realize that he is eating bread.

There can be no doubt that the apostolic church used wine in its communion. To use wine, therefore, is technically correct. However, in a culture where many Christians have formed a strong conviction against the use of alcoholic beverages, the use of wine seems inadvisable. If the use of a particular form of the element so calls attention to itself that at the moment of communion, the thought uppermost in the mind of the communicant is alcohol, then what is technically correct becomes practically incorrect. Just as the containers of communion elements should not call attention to themselves lest they obscure the holy things which they represent in the sacrament, so the elements should not call attention to themselves. 

In the same way, the issue of a common cup or individual cups should be dealt with. There is no doubt that a common cup reenacts the original situation and beautifully symbolizes Christian fellowship. Yet, if it creates an undue consciousness about germs in the mind of a communicant, then what is technically right becomes practically wrong. 

It was inevitable that churches would begin to have beautiful and costly vessels for the communion elements. They do little more than call attention to themselves, however, and obscure the holy contents which they contain. Even an ugly vessel might call attention to itself in a similar fashion. One of the most lovely and simple receptacles I have ever found for communion bread is a common household basket used originally in an African household as a table dish.

Christ gave his church two elements in the communion with the explanation that the bread represented his body and the wine represented his blood and also the "new covenant" in his blood. It is frequently understood, that the two elements represent much the same thing1. I would suggest that a single meaning for both elements is redundant and that we should look for a distinctive meaning behind each. In fact, careful consideration shows that each element represents a distinct area of the truths about Christ which the New Testament considers essential. 

The bread represents the Lord's body. The use of "body" is not the same word as "flesh" in the New Testament as if to suggest that it was an element symbolizing his physical body. As often as not, in the New Testament, this general word for body represents the whole person. In the bread we see the whole person of Jesus represented as the God-man who came from heaven, spoke to us about God and claims our loyalty. It proclaims his essential deity. 

The New Testament puts uncommon stress on the true humanity as well as the true deity of Jesus Christ. (Notice, for example, John 20: 31; Hebrews 1: 1-2, 3; I John 1: 1-4.) He lived his earthly life of perfect obedience for us; he taught his disciples, and us through them, while inhabiting that body. The bread represents his whole prophetic and kingly office. By this is meant the aspects of Jesus' life in which he taught and commanded men and called men to the path of discipleship. It represents the historical Jesus as distinct from the sin-bearing mission of his life. 

The inaccurate Greek text behind the King James Version of I Corinthians 1: 24 would support this equation but there is no doubt that the words, "which is broken for you" after "this is my body" are to be omitted from the text. 

The other element in the communion is the fruit of the vine. It clearly represents the Savior's blood. The blood of Jesus is a concept which appears frequently on the pages of the New Testament. Such terminology is strange, if not actually repugnant to modern, nonagricultural people not well versed in the Biblical religion. 

It is important to notice that the idea of blood in the Bible is a metaphor which is used to describe the essence of life. A simple concordance study will show that the phrase, "the shedding of blood" means the taking or giving of life. It does not refer to bleeding but to dying. In the Old Testament sacrificial system, special attention was given to the blood of the sacrifices because it represented symbolically the essence of that animal's life. It was variously poured out, sprinkled on the altar or brought into the holy of holies before the presence of the Lord. 

So too, Christ's blood shed symbolizes in Biblical metaphor, his life given in atonement for sin. There is nothing to suggest that the physical substance, the blood, being drained from the Lord's body had saving efficacy. "Jesus shedding his blood" means precisely the same thing that "Jesus giving his life in atonement for sin" means. Any reference we make to Jesus, "saving his people," "redeeming us from sin," "dying for us," "giving himself in sacrifice," or "bearing our sins in his body on the tree," we are confessing the blood of Jesus Christ, even though we do not use the word. 

Therefore, the wine in the communion speaks of the shed blood, that is, the priestly, redemptive work of the Savior. As the bread represents that great body of truth about Jesus' person, his teachings, his fitness to be a savior, his lordship, so the cup represents the other great body of truth, his great saviorhood. The idea of Christ's righteousness, which is imputed to our account when we believe, is really symbolized in the bread, for it is Christ's perfect righteousness that is imputed. Yet it is closely connected to the thing symbolized in the wine, since justification is intimately connected to the imputation of our sins to Jesus. 

It can be seen, then, that the communion is a vehicle for the whole historical content of the Gospel message. The whole content of the four Gospels is laid out in symbolic form on the communion table of Christ's church. It is a sign of the things that God has done for his people. This meaning the communion has, even apart from anyone partaking of the elements.

It is, furthermore, important to see the communion dynamically. It is not just a symbol of historical fact but it is something performed by God and by the believer. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood," said the Lord. (I Corinthians 11: 25) Evangelists frequently give invitations to a public rededication of Christians to the Lord. The communion is God's instrument for rededication which has stood from the very first. Each time it is served it is a clarion call to every Christian present to offer himself once again to the Lord. 

The communion is a unique institution. God spoke in history by means of the Scriptures and in a much more indefinite way, he illumines our minds by the Holy Spirit so we may understand the Scriptures. But the communion is God speaking to us dynamically about our personal salvation and his acceptance of us. In it he seals to us personally those truths which are generally portrayed in the Scriptures, and they become ours. 

God does not speak in the communion in a way which is scientifically verifiable. "We walk by faith and not by sight." He could have provided us with a sacrament where there was an obvious physical change in the elements at the moment of consecration, but he did not. God's signs are usually modest and discernible only with the eye of faith. Even in the events of the incarnation, an age of great signs and miracles, the heavenly testimony to the Lord was capable of rejection and was received only by faith. 

The communion is like a diploma or a legal document. There is a seal on the document which certifies that it is official but it is still capable of fraud or misuse. One might have stolen the seal or forged the name which appears on the sealed document or diploma. Yet it still remains an official seal and guarantees the document, granting that it has not been tampered with and is used in an authorized way. 

God seals to us what he does for us in the communion. In each serving of the communion bread, God tells the communicant who is obediently following the Savior, "I still give you Jesus the God-man from heaven for the spiritual nourishment of your life. I still provide him as your righteousness so that you are hidden in Christ and I see none of your sinfulness and all of his perfection. I still provide his surrogate, the Holy Spirit for the comfort, growth and guidance of your life." 

When the discerning Christian receives the cup he may hear the Lord say, "I still reckon Christ as your savior and you as my child. As your divine parent I forgive you of all the sins you have recently committed. You shall never, never perish because the blood of God's Son cleanses you from all sin. 

The communion only becomes such a message from God insofar as we receive it by faith. The fact that most people who partake of the communion don't get the message, is obvious. The Biblical idea of the reception by faith of the message implies both conviction that it is true and obedience to the divine command. Only those who believe in the Savior and in the truth that God speaks in the sacrament are able to receive the message. If you fulfill the condition of coming to the Lord and seeking his face, you need have no fear that you are the one he speaks to. The message is for you. Your name is written on the document, so to speak. 

The recent wave of interest in mysticism and a preoccupation with the miraculous, shows how needed this supernatural aspect of the communion is. Christians who are seeking for reality in miracles, glossalalia and "inner voices" are quite usually those who have little considered that God is speaking to them in the communion. Leaders who are trying to create a feeling of God in worship and evangelistic services have often not considered his presence in the sacraments. Christians in an age dominated by science and religion which does not seem real, cry out: "Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth!" The very fabric of revealed religion makes the matter of God's speaking in the communion on exactly the same principle as he speaks in the evangelical call: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Historically, then, the communion is a sign of what Christ has done. The Son of God has come from heaven, has tabernacled among us and has redeemed his people. Dynamically it is a seal in which God seals these general historical truths to the individual Christian. Jesus has died for him. In addition to this, the communion is a sacramental act on the part of the communicant. The ordinance becomes a God-inspired drama in which the believer acts out his deepest feelings about Christ. 

In this we see that the communion is purposefully a participatory ordinance. Indeed, it does "proclaim the Lord's death till he comes," (I Corinthians 11: 26) even to those who do not partake of the elements. But to the faithful communicant, it is a renewal of his covenant with God in which he solemnly, before witnesses, certifies his intentions toward God. 

In the eating itself is an acted-out confession of faith. The communicant signifies that he is absolutely dependent on the "bread which came down out of heaven," of which, "if a man eats...he shall live forever." (John 6: 51) By this the communicant testifies to the assembled church that he still accepts Jesus as his savior and lord. 

The act of eating is a Biblical and intentionally symbolic way of making something a part of one's inmost being. In a vision Ezekiel was commanded to eat a scroll (Ezekiel 3: 1-3) symbolizing that he was to make God's message a part of his being. Not infrequently in the Bible the metaphor of eating is symbolic of faith in the Lord. "0 taste and see that the Lord is good," (Psalm 34: 8) is a concept that appears regularly on the pages of the Old and New Testaments, implying that believing is to the spirit what eating is to the body. The act of eating bread takes the bread and makes it a part of the whole chemistry of the body of the communicant. It is a profound pageant showing that the individual wishes to appropriate Christ for his spirit even as he has appropriated food for his body. 

In the eating of the bread of the communion the individual signifies his acceptance of the unique deity of the Lord and of his qualification to be God's sinbearer. He renews his initial commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ both with regard to his commandments and day by day taking up of the cross to follow him. The communicant affirms the age old creed: "Jesus Christ is Lord." 

In the drinking of the cup the communicant reaffirms the saviorhood of Jesus. He still takes Jesus as the only remedy for his sins and only basis upon which God accepts him. He disavows all thought of having any inherent ability to please God. He affirms the grace of God and is humbly and profoundly thankful. 

It is because of this solemn covenanting which takes place in the communion, that it is such a crime for unbelievers to partake of the communion or for believers to partake of the communion "without discerning the body." (I Corinthians 11: 29) The former perjure themselves before God. The latter carelessly take an oath before God and men, and are guilty of gross irreverence and false witness. A careful consideration of the nature of communion would prevent the widespread practice of using the ordinance as a virtual prop to give dignity to weddings, breakfasts, and impromptu gatherings in much the same way people use candles to loan "atmosphere" to a dinner party or religious service.