|
WEEKLY
Volume 1 Number 49
6 May 2007
Dear Brethren in Christ,
Thank God for His grace and
mercy enabling me to fulfil all righteousness so that I could be
ordained tonight at the FEBC Graduation Service to be held at Calvary
Pandan B-P Church. Thank you for your kind encouragement and prayers.
Thank God also for the
Daily Vacation Bible College with the theme, “What Is
Bible-Presbyterianism?” Rev Dr Timothy Tow and Rev Koa Keng Woo told us
about “Our BP Roots,” Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo spoke on “BPism and Church
Growth” as well as about “Israel, Church & End-Times,” Rev Dr SH Tow
spoke on “The Bible of BPism,” Rev Dr Quek Suan Yew spoke on “VPP of the
Bible” and “Church Government & Discipline,” Rev Dr Prabhudas Koshy
spoke on “Calvinism,
TULIP” and “Covenant
Theology & Paedobaptism,” and Rev Tan Kian Sing spoke on “Biblical
Separation.” I do hope some day we may have time to study these
important topics together.
As we shall have the Lord’s
Supper once a month, I have asked Dr Khoo to send me his article on the
Lord’s Supper.
May the Lord be with you
and take care of you till we meet again.
In His grace,
HN
***************
The Lord’s Supper
By Rev Dr Jeffrey
Khoo
INTRODUCTION
The Lord’s Supper is called
the Lord’s Supper because it was instituted by the Lord Himself just
before His death. The Lord’s Supper like Water Baptism is an outward
sign of an inward grace. It is the external visible display of an
internal invisible reality of
our salvation. For example,
when we go through the waters of baptism, we are publicly declaring what
has already happened in our heart, namely, the washing away of our sins,
our new life in Christ, and our hope in the future resurrection.
Note that Water Baptism and
the Lord’s Supper do not save. They are just outward symbols of an
inward reality. Just like the wedding ring. A ring does not make a
person married; the vow to each other did.
Let us consider the meaning
and significance of the Lord’s Supper. According to the Westminster
Shorter Catechism, “The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving
and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his
death showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal
and carnal, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all
his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.”
The institution of the Lord’s
Supper is recorded for us in all three synoptic gospels in Matthew
26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, and Luke 22:19-20. Paul discussed the Lord’s
Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. When we partake of the Lord’s Supper,
we remember the Lord’s atoning work on the cross, and when we partake of
it by faith, we receive spiritual help and blessing to live the
Christian life.
Now, there are four different
views on what the Lord’s Supper means. Let us look at them one by one.
(1) ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW
The Roman Catholic view of the
Lord’s Supper is called “transubstantiation.”
Transubstantiation teaches
that the bread and the cup literally become the body and the blood of
Christ. When the priest utters the words of Christ, “This is my body”
and “This is my blood,” the bread and the wine magically turn into the
actual body and blood of Christ. Partaking of the bread and the cup
actually means eating the real flesh and drinking the real blood of
Christ. Sometimes they put the bread or the wafer into a monstrance to
be worshipped. The wafer becomes God. This is idolatry. The Roman
Catholic Church also teaches that each time the Eucharist is observed,
Christ is crucified all over again. This goes against Hebrews 7:27 which
tells us that Christ’s sacrifice was but once and for all, and not
repeatable.
When Jesus said in John 6:53
that we ought to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He did not mean a
literal eating of His actual flesh and literal drinking of His actual
blood. He was not advocating cannibalism. The context clearly indicates
that His words ought to be understood spiritually. Jesus was speaking
about spiritual eating and drinking. The body and blood point to
Christ’s work on the cross. Believe in Christ, and when He lives in you,
you will be saved.
The Roman Catholic view is
thus heretical and idolatrous.
(2) THE LUTHERAN VIEW
The Lutheran view of the
Lord’s Supper came from Martin Luther. Luther was a very devout Roman
Catholic scholar and monk before he became a Christian. He said, “I was
indeed a pious monk, and followed the rules of my order more strictly
than I can express. If ever a monk could obtain heaven by his monkish
works, I should certainly have been entitled to it.”
Although Luther is to be
commended for his reformation of the church insofar as the doctrine of
salvation is concerned, we regret to note that he did not reject totally
the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation. It must be noted that
Luther did not agree with the Roman Catholic view that the bread and cup
literally and magically became the flesh and blood of Christ. He
believed that the bread was still bread, and the wine was still wine.
Nevertheless, he conceded that the physical body and blood of Christ
were somehow present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.
Luther’s view is called
“consubstantiation.” Luther used an iron bar heated with fire to
illustrate his point. The iron after it is heated remains iron, but now
there is the element of heat, and the heat is in the iron itself, is
with the iron, and is around the iron.
Again Luther, like the Roman
Catholics, failed to understand that Jesus’ words concerning eating His
flesh and drinking His blood are to be taken figuratively or
spiritually. Christ is not physically present “in, with, and under” the
bread and the wine.
(3) THE ZWINGLIAN VIEW
Ulrich Zwingli was a Swiss
Reformer who taught that the Lord’s Supper was simply a commemoration of
the Lord’s work on the cross. In 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus said, “this
do in remembrance of me.” Zwingli was correct to say that the bread and
the cup did not contain but merely represented the body and blood of
Christ.
Although Zwingli was correct
to say that the bread and cup merely represented the body and blood of
Christ, there was one shortcoming to his view: he failed to see the
spiritual presence of Christ in the elements.
(4) THE CALVINISTIC VIEW
Calvin agreed with Zwingli
that the elements represented the body and blood of Christ. Calvin used
the words “symbols,” “signs,” and “images,” to explain the meaning of
the bread and the cup. Calvin also taught that the Lord’s Supper was a
commemoration of Christ and His work on the cross.
Calvin rightly taught that the
partaking of the Lord’s Supper had an additional significance. It was a
spiritual exercise. The whole ceremony was sacred. All participants must
observe it with great reverence and fear.
As Bible-Presbyterians, we
keep the Lord’s Supper once a month. Has it become a routine for us? Do
we observe it as something we have to do as a matter of course, or do we
partake of it each time with a worshipful attitude searching our hearts,
confessing our sins, and renewing our commitment to Christ? The
Corinthian Christian did not regard properly the body and the blood of
Christ, and the Lord struck them with illness, and some even died (1 Cor
11:27-30).
But if we come before the
Lord’s table humbly, sincerely, reverently, and partake of the bread and
the cup by faith, we will receive a special blessing from heaven. Such
gracious benefits from God Calvin said cannot be explained, but
experienced. So the Lord’s Supper is not just a commemoration; it is
also a spiritual exercise.
CONCLUSION
There are four views on the
meaning and significance of the Lord’s Supper: (1) Roman Catholic
(transubstantiation), (2) Lutheran (consubstantiation), (3) Zwinglian
(commemoration), and (4) Calvinistic (spiritual). The first two views
are erroneous. The third view is true but incomplete. Calvin’s view is
the biblical view in all its fulness.
Top
/ Back
|
