The Holy Supper: Corporate and Covenantal, Not Private or Personal

Last week we stopped having a musical interlude during communion and began singing Psalm 117 while the eucharistic bread is being distributed and reading Scripture during the distribution of the cup. A few members shared with me over the last few days they found this distracting or that they preferred having an interlude played so they could privately repent, pray, and meditate before partaking. This kind of feedback is understandable and was expected. The elders will continue to listen as we seek to arrange worship in a way that is not only biblical but also conducive to the edification of our congregation. But in the meantime, I wanted to offer some perspective on why we think this kind of change is appropriate.

The modern, American church has been trained to think of the Lord’s Supper as a private moment between me and Jesus with two hundred of my friends sitting quietly in the same room. But that is not how the Supper is to be celebrated. It is not private or personal, though each of us are to be personally engaged in partaking. It is corporate and covenantal. Look at the institution of the Supper in Matthew (26:26-30), Mark (14:22-26), and Luke (22:14-20). Did Jesus instruct his disciples to bow their heads and privately meditate before partaking? No, he blessed and broke the bread, gave it to them, and told them to eat it. Then he did the same with the cup. The Supper is celebrated by action, not reflection. That does not mean we are not to reflect. “Do this in remembrance of me,” the Lord said. But the evangelical church has placed emphasis on remember, while the Bible emphasizes do this. How do we remember? By doing this, i.e. eating the bread and drinking the cup. Not only that, but when Jesus speaks of remembrance in relation to the Supper, he is not talking about reminding ourselves. The Supper is a covenant memorial. It is an objective sign and seal of the covenant, and the remembrance involved is bringing the work of Christ and the promises of the gospel before God (cf. Gen. 9:13-17).

We spend a lot of time preparing for communion at ROPC, as much or more than any church I know. We begin with a preparatory email with spiritual reflection on Saturday evening. We share the order of liturgy so that songs and passages of Scripture can be reviewed in advance. We follow a covenant renewal form of worship in which we confess our sins, hear the gospel, and are assured of God’s pardon. We praise God with joy and thankfulness, reflect on God’s Word as we are taught, sing a prayer of preparation, confess our faith, lift up our hearts, and then get a second (or third?) homily before receiving the bread and wine. I’m genuinely curious, how much more preparation do we need to be ready to partake? We have been praying, singing, and sitting before the Lord for more than an hour by the time we come to the Table, usually an hour and a half. What does a four minute interlude do that hours of prior preparation did not?

We have been conditioned to celebrate the Supper like pietists and gnostics, making the celebration private and spiritual, rather than corporate and physical. But look at the text, all of the relevant texts, in both Old and New Testaments. What is the Supper? How does the Spirit teach us to receive and celebrate the signs and meal of the covenant?

We began singing Psalm 117 because it is part of the Great Hallel, the section of the Psalter sung by the Jews at the conclusion of Passover, the section Jesus and his disciples sang as they concluded the last Passover and the first Supper of the new Messianic kingdom (Matt. 26:30). It is a prayer, calling the nations to come and worship the risen King of glory. It is our plea to God that he would gather the nations to the Table, so that all of God’s chosen might celebrate the glory of his grace together. We are not singing instead of praying. We are praying as we sing.

Two other points to note quickly. First, we replaced the interlude with singing because the Bible commands singing not playing. We have no objection to musical instruments. They are an aid to worship and beautiful by design! But their place in the worship service is as an aid to what is commanded, the singing of the saints, not as background noise or aesthetic performance. Second, you should feel free to abstain from singing Psalm 117 or tune out the reading if you need to do so. If you have a burden of sin or anxiety upon your heart, bow your head and take it before the Lord. We deliberately create a period of silence at the beginning and end of the distribution for this purpose, but if you need more time, please take it. No one should feel rushed or obligated by singing the psalm. If you need to privately pray and meditate, then do so. But my hope is that over time, more of us will discover that we are praying and meditating… as we sing and hear God’s Word. –JME

When Theological Formulation Conflicts with Biblical Phrasing

I am persuaded, convinced, and happy to vigorously debate and defend the idea that Christ died for the sins of those whom God chose to save before the foundation of the world and that he died to atone for their sins alone. This means that Jesus’ death was not merely potential atonement but was actual and effectual. It accomplishes what it intends. This also means that none of those for whom Christ died could ever be lost. Their sins have already been paid for. They were purchased by the blood of Christ. Grace is greater than sin, and no one has the power to overcome, thwart, or undo what Christ has accomplished on their behalf. Therefore, all those for whom Christ died upon Calvary, all those whose sins he carried in his own body on the tree (1Pet. 2:24), will certainly, necessarily, inevitably, and everlastingly be saved.

Some who deny the above proposition will cite 1 Corinthians 8:11 as evidence that one for whom Christ died can be lost. Those who defend the proposition may think it necessary to rebut, but the best response is to affirm: “Yes, one for whom Christ died can be lost, but because of God’s grace and the promises made to all who trust in Christ, we know he never will be.” Charles Hodge rightly notes in commenting on the passage:

“God’s purposes embrace the means as well as the end. If the means fail, the end will fail. He secures the end by securing the means. It is just as certain that those for whom Christ died shall be saved, as that the elect shall be saved. Yet in both cases the event is spoken of as conditional. There is not only a possibility, but an absolute certainty of their perishing if they fall away. But this is precisely what God has promised to prevent. This passage, therefore, is perfectly consistent with those numerous passages which teach that Christ’s death secures the salvation of all those who were given to him in the covenant of redemption. There is, however, a sense in which it is scriptural to say that Christ died for all men. This is very different from saying that he died equally for all men, or that his death had no other reference to those who are saved than it had to those who are lost. To die for one is to die for his benefit. As Christ’s death has benefited the whole world, prolonged the probation of men, secured for them innumerable blessings, provided a righteousness sufficient and suitable for all, it may be said that he died for all…. All this is perfectly consistent with the great scriptural truth that Christ came into the world to save his people, that his death renders certain the salvation of all those whom the Father hath given him, and therefore that he died not only for them but in their place, and on the condition that they should never die.” –Charles Hodge, First Corinthians, s.v. 8:11

Sometimes the formulation of our theology will conflict with the phrasing of Scripture. We (rightly) affirm that man is justified “by faith alone,” but the Bible says plainly that man is justified “by works and not by faith alone” (Jas. 2:24). We insist that baptism does not save anyone, but the Bible teaches clearly that “baptism now saves you” (1Pet. 3:21). We confess that no one who has been sanctified “by the blood of the covenant” can ever be lost, but the Bible explicitly affirms the contrary (Heb. 10:26-31). So what are we to do when our theological forms conflict with (or even contradict) scriptural phrasing?

First, we should examine our doctrine carefully to ensure that what we believe and affirm is true and consistent with the word of God. I am satisfied the Reformed confessions and catechisms faithfully represent the doctrines of Scripture, but this must not merely be taken for granted. I am happy to affirm the Westminster Standards, but I also believe that some of those who do so (and others who self-identify as Reformed) believe and teach things contrary to the Bible. The fact that Reformed theology is true does not mean that everything Reformed people believe is true. If we find that what we believe is contrary to what the Bible says, we should repent and correct the error.

Second, we should recognize and carefully distinguish between how the Bible uses specific terms and expresses certain ideas and how similar words or themes are dealt with in our doctrinal standards and summaries. I am happy to use the term regeneration to describe God’s effectually calling a person, giving them a new heart, and enabling them to respond to Christ in faith. But that is not how that term is used in the Bible (cf. Matt. 19:28; Tit. 3:5). The concept is scriptural, but the specific wording is traditional. The confessions and catechism use stipulated, technical definitions of theological terms which are far more specific and constrained than the Bible’s own language. This does not mean the doctrines expressed by these words are untrue. It does mean that we must distinguish how we use words like regeneration, justification, sanctification, and salvation in our doctrinal confession and how the Bible uses those same words.

Third, we should be willing to say what the Bible says while being careful to mean what the Bible means. It would be facile to deal with the entire question of justification by saying, “A man is justified by works and not by faith only.” But to say this is not the whole truth does not alter the fact that it is true. The Bible says so, and we should be willing to say it as well. Some Christian traditions may misuse Bible passages in a superficial way, but that does not proscribe their proper use and affirming the specific language of Scripture in the context of doctrinal orthodoxy. We can (and should) be comfortable saying whatever Scripture says, including:

Acts 22:16: And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. 

John 6:53: Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 

John 3:36: The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (NASB) 

1Tim. 2:11-15: Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

If our doctrinal conclusions ever make us unwilling to say what the Bible plainly says, then we ought to repent. Specific, technical terminology in theological debate can be a good and godly thing, helpful in defining and defending biblical orthodoxy. But when such terminology is used to oppose or override the actual language of Scripture, it is no longer good or godly but an idol that ought to be torn down. There are heretics who reject all theological terminology to make room for their errors, and there are heretics who use theological terminology to make room for their own. May the pride and false doctrines of both burn in Hell together but the erring ones be saved. –JME