“This do in remembrance of Me.”

Approximately two thousand years ago, twelve men and their beloved Leader, the Lord Jesus Christ, sat around a table in an upper room. Little did those twelve followers realize how often that particular occasion would be alluded to in the history that was yet to be written. For on that occasion their Leader initiated an observance that was destined to outlive the ages!

For nearly two thousand years, with unbroken continuity, that sacred ordinance has been observed by those from “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” who have “washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” They have not forgotten those parting words of their peerless Master: “This do in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24).

But it is sadly true that man’s observance of a divinely prescribed ordinance can degenerate into hollow formalism. It can become merely a way of salving a guilty conscience. Its original meaning can be lost beneath an accumulation of misconceived traditions.

When subjected to human abuse, even that which God has prescribed becomes obnoxious to Him. To an apostate Israel, God said, “I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies” (Amos 5:21).

Sadly, many misconceptions and abuses have become associated with the widely practiced observance of Communion. For example, in certain places of worship, this observance is a vital part of the so-called Mass. Here the priest supposedly performs a miracle. Bread and wine are said to be changed (transubstantiated) into the actual body and blood of Christ. During the Mass, the bread (wafer), which supposedly has become the actual flesh of Christ, is given to the communicant. The wine, however, normally is not shared with the communicant. This has been viewed as a safeguard against spilling the precious blood of Christ.

Furthermore, those of this religious tradition claim that the atoning sacrifice of Christ is reenacted on their church altars in every Mass, though “in an unbloody manner.” By this means the priest supposedly offers to God a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. The Mass thus becomes an actual extension and part of the sacrifice on Calvary. The removal of sin and the conveyance of grace are held forth as the principal function of holy Communion. Where these assumptions are held, the necessity for a very frequent partaking of holy Communion becomes understandable. For, after baptism, it supposedly is the major channel through which the forgiving grace of God reaches man.

Those of numerous other religious traditions likewise hold to various shades of this sacramental idea. To them, speaking generally, holy Communion is likewise not a symbol but a sacrament. However, in their modified view, the grace of God is mediated to the communicant, not in the substance of the bread and wine, but along with it (consubstantiation). It is not claimed that the elements become in substance the body and blood of Christ, but His actual presence is said to be around, above, and below the elements as they are received. Consequently, there supposedly is no way one can receive the Communion emblems without also taking Christ.

How does all this correspond with the original intention of Jesus? What actually occurred in that upper room? What meanings did our Lord attach to this ordinance? The divinely inspired apostle Paul has left on record this beautiful, simple account:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (1 Corinthians 11:23–26).

If the assumptions of those who practice the Mass are correct, one of two things must have occurred on that memorable occasion. Jesus either took actual flesh and blood from His body and handed it to the disciples, or He performed a miracle similar to the miracle at Cana when He turned one substance into another. In either case, there would have been surprise and astonishment among the disciples. But their response reflects none of this whatever!

Having been with Him for three years, they had become accustomed to their Master’s way of speaking. Often He employed figures of speech, making one thing stand for another. For them, it was easy to grasp what Jesus was really saying, namely, “This bread and the content of this cup represent my body and blood” just as they understood Him when He said, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.”

Perhaps you are one of the many who have been taught that the Mass is a renewal of the sacrifice made by Christ on Calvary’s cross. Has it ever occurred to you that this is really a denial of the finality and eternal efficacy, or effectiveness, of Christ’s atoning sacrifice? Read the Book of Hebrews, and note its emphasis on the completeness and finality of Christ’s atoning work. Here are several key passages:

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:24–26). By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (Hebrews 10:10, 12).

The work of Calvary is sufficient to atone, in a provisional way, for every sin of mankind. There need be no further sacrifice. But there is abundant need for us forgetful and take-it-for-granted mortals to think upon the once-for-all sacrifice that was offered for us. That is why Jesus instituted the Communion ordinance, namely, that as often as we eat of the bread and drink of the cup, we, through the medium of both word and symbol, might have our memory refreshed concerning the means of our redemption and the source of our life, in anticipation of His coming.

In Communion we not only memorialize our Saviour’s work but also symbolize spiritual truth. The bread of Communion, broken in the hands of men and shared among men, is to remind us of Christ’s body being broken in the hands of men so that he could redemptively share Himself with man. Partaking of the material emblems signifies that Christ enters spiritually into His people and that the communicant is spiritually feeding upon Christ. The oneness of believers is likewise reflected in the one common loaf and the one common drink. “We being many are one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17).

And so, holy Communion is a symbol conveying these and other facets of spiritual truth but possessing no saving merit in itself.

The error of sacramentalism is that it thinks to receive blessings through the sheer observance of religious ceremonies. Why is it that many attend only the Communion services of their church? Does not this reflect a misplaced faith? These adherents have had their faith moved from the source of divine grace to the channels whereby it supposedly is received. God’s grace is not received through the cup and bread served at Communion. Our faith should not rest on holy Communion but on the Lord Jesus Christ. Does it not appear as though some have been led to believe that living in sin during the week can be atoned for by Communion on Sunday?

Sacramentalism distorts the original purpose of Jesus. It makes holy Communion a periodic means of receiving forgiveness and grace. Instead, it ought to be a witness to the possession of new life and victory over sin made possible by a constant union with the Saviour through faith. To participate in holy Communion does not of itself insure one’s standing with God, nor is there any magiclike conveyance of divine grace. The elements have no redeeming power in themselves.

Furthermore, this distortion, which magnifies the need for frequent recourse to this supposed means of grace, also minimizes the Biblical emphasis on preparedness and fitness to commune. It is significant that our Lord instituted Communion when He was alone with His chosen few. He did not institute it with, nor in the presence of, the multitudes.

The privilege of sharing in holy Communion was intended for neither the unconverted, the hypocrite, nor the backslider. This is widely acknowledged. But in many circles very little is done to guard the Communion table, and still less to determine the fitness and spiritual oneness of those who regularly participate.

Many religious bodies once had ways of screening out unsanctified would-be communicants. In the Reformed tradition, this was called “fencing the table.” Vouchers of fitness to receive Communion were issued in England as early as 1534, and in France by 1561. The Scottish Presbyterian Church employed the practice for years. In America, close Communion was once a widely held policy being practiced by so large a body as the Southern Baptists. Today, however, it has been largely abandoned.

The boasting, broadminded tolerance of our day has no sympathy for any such restrictive measures. It must be admitted, however, that the Bible does speak to the point of who is eligible to commune and how that experience should be approached.

God’s Word calls for honest soul-searching prior to Communion. “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28). Friend, how does your life line up with the straightedge of God’s Word? How are you relating to your fellow church members? In 1 Corinthians 11:18 and following, Paul criticizes the Corinthians and virtually tells them that they cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper worthily because of divisions and factions among them. He reproved them for their utter disregard for one another in the way they observe the Supper.

It is possible, however, for one to think he is eligible for Communion when actually he is not. This may include some who make a loud profession and seemingly have a glowing testimony about their own wonderful works but are in reality strangers to Christ and will be disowned by Him in the Day of Judgment (Matthew 7:21–23).

It should be evident, therefore, that acceptability at the Lord’s table should not rest solely on the individual’s own judgment of himself; this is often faulty or biased. First Corinthians 5 makes it obvious that a church body has both the prerogative and the obligation of discipline members who fail to properly judge themselves. That incestuous person was to be expelled! All further “table fellowship” with him was to be suspended (verse 11). Christians differ as to precisely what this should mean in actual practice. There is, however, wide agreement that, at the least, this command “not to eat” with such an one is applicable to the Communion table. And this restriction extends to “any man that is called a brother [if he] be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner.” The stated reason for the discipline is so that the feast (holy Communion, the New Testament counterpart of the Old Testament Passover feast) can be kept without the leaven of sin within the body.

Chapters 5 and 11 of 1 Corinthians belong together because they are both addressed to the same church body. In chapter 5, the church as a whole is told to “judge them that are within” and to “purge out . . . the old leaven” lest the whole body be leavened with the sin. In chapter 11, the individual is told to “examine himself” prior to Communion lest he “eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.” This second command would relate more especially to one’s inner condition, that which cannot be known by others. The former commands (chapter 5) make the church responsible to deal with known transgressions.

God has thus provided both a check and a double check to guard the Communion table. On the other hand, open Communion removes virtually all restraint except a man’s own conscience. It may even sear the conscience by suggesting that he will be eating and drinking salvation to himself.

Where there is unrestricted access to the Lord’s table, it becomes almost impossible for churches to maintain Biblical standards among their members. When such looseness exists, a church member who, on Biblical grounds, is expelled from one congregation can still go to some other congregation where he is not known and, without repentance or amendment of life, receive Communion there. Here is another illustration: Mr. Smith is put under church censure for unwillingness to be reconciled with another brother. His insistence on perpetuating the quarrel earns for him the status of having been restricted from Communion. Now suppose a visitor came into that congregation who is guilty of the same misconduct, but in response to a general call to the Lord’s table, brazenly participates. This man, not a member, was granted the privilege that was denied to the member, even though their deeds were identical. It strains all good judgment to suppose that the local erring brother could be brought to repentance by such church management. Open Communion works havoc with church discipline and Biblical standards.

“But we commune with the Lord, not with man” is a commonly heard objection. If that is the whole truth, then why have a public service at all? No, Communion is more than a purely personal affair. It is an experience of the church body. One of the truths emerging from 1 Corinthians 5 is that God judges us as a body for whatever is a part of us.

Sharing in a Communion service is a serious and sacred experience. It is reserved for those who are separated unto God, for “ye cannot [with divine approval] be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils” (1 Corinthians 10:21). Participation in Communion is a symbolical way of saying, “Christ lives in me; and I am one in faith and practice with these my brothers and sisters in Christ; together, we have committed ourselves to the way of the cross.”

“Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” Although no one is worthy of the grace of God, there evidently is a worthy manner in which to receive the Communion emblems. The spiritually reckless Corinthians, however, were in danger of communing “unworthily” and thus becoming “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

Hopefully you, my friend, through the reading of this tract have been led to examine your own attitude and practice with reference to holy Communion. Does the practice of your church measure up to the Word? Have you personally been communing worthily? A casual, careless attitude bears bitter fruit. “For this cause [that is, partaking of Communion unworthily] many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep” (1 Corinthians 11:30). How many are in this way provoking God and bringing down punishment upon themselves! The next verse holds out the cure for this deplorable abuse. “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged” (1 Corinthians 11:31). May God help us so to “judge ourselves” that our participation in Communion might always be an inspiring and Christ-exalting experience.

—Merle Ruth

Мова

English

Автор

Merle Ruth

Видавець

Rod and Staff Publishers Inc.

Теми

Церква

Доктрина