Word of Salvation – March 2025
Eat His Body, Drink His Blood?!?
Sermon by Rev. John Westendorp on W.C.F. ch.29 & John 6:55
Reading: John 6:48-59; 1Corinthians 11:17-34
Westminster Confession of Faith – ch.29:1-,2,3,5
Singing: BoW.034 Tell His praise in song and story
– BoW.211 I love You Lord
– BoW.222 According to Your gracious word
– BoW.117 From all who live beneath the skies
Theme: Doing justice to the real spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
Introd: Can we imagine during this sermon that next Sunday you will again be celebrating the Lord’s Supper…?
That will help us focus a little more personally on this next chapter of the W.C.F.
I should begin by saying that this another matter about which Christians are sadly divided.
Last time we were in the WCF we saw that this was true of Baptism.
And it’s also true of the Lord’s Supper.
Broadly speaking there are three different views of this sacrament.
And I’m just a little curious as to which of those three views you would tend to lean towards.
Would you tend to say that when you eat the bread and drink the wine you’re really feeding on Christ?
What I mean is: Are you actually eating the real body of Christ and drinking His blood.
I’ve known people in our churches who are inclined to believe that.
Some stay away from Lord’s Supper because of it: They are not worthy of that.
Or maybe you’re inclined to disagree and say, “No! This just something we do to remember Jesus.”
That’s a very common view: Jesus isn’t present in bread and wine in any shape or form.
Those elements that we use in Lord’s Supper are just reminders and nothing more.
So next Sunday evening we’ll basically be holding a memorial meal.
Or maybe you don’t feel comfortable with either of those views.
You don’t accept that the bread and wine really are the body and blood of Christ.
But you don’t like to think of it as a merely a reminder of what Jesus for us on the cross either.
So there’s really got to be some sort of position in between those two views.
OTOH you may wonder whether it really matters which of those three views you hold to.
Is it really such a big deal? Well, yes, it is! For two reasons.
First of all because we want to think Biblically about things… also about the Lord’s Supper.
And so Scripture ought to guide our thinking and our attitude to this sacrament.
But secondly, it’s important because ideas always have consequences.
So there will be a practical outworking of each of those three attitudes.
A] THE SACRAMENT OF HIS BODY AND BLOOD.
- Let’s take the first attitude: that you somehow really do eat the physical body of Christ in this sacrament.
The W.C.F. points out (in section VI) that this is seeing too much in the Lord’s Supper.
Does this view have any Biblical basis?
At first glance it would seem that it does.
Jesus used some very strong language when He instituted this sacrament.
He didn’t say: this bread represents my body. No! He said: this is my body.
In John 6 we also have some very strong language. For example in vs.54.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.
And the reaction of the Jews is to ask: How can this man give us his flesh to eat.
At the time of the Reformation the churches were very divided on this subject.
And their big dilemma was doing justice to this strong language of the Bible.
Some wanted to water it down so that Jesus really just meant: this represents my body.
Others insisted that we must take the strong language of Jesus seriously.
The problem is of course that Jesus often used strong language.
He also said on one occasion, “I am the door” and “I am the vine”.
But I’ve never met anyone who insists on taking that language literally.
So there has to be a way in which we take the strong language of Jesus seriously…
and yet without forcing it into a crudely literal interpretation.
I mentioned earlier that ideas have consequences.
Well, this view of the sacrament has had an interesting outworking over time.
In a Roman Catholic Church the bread is now worshipped.
Worshippers entering a RC church will face the front of the church and kneel.
They are showing reverence to a consecrated piece of bread (wafer) on the altar.
It has meant that for centuries worshippers were not to touch the consecrated bread.
Jesus’ body was seen as too holy for that so the priest popped it into your open mouth.
Nor did you receive the wine… His blood was too holy to give to ordinary people.
These were issues that the Reformers had to deal with in the 1500s.
They basically said to Rome: you are seeing too much in the Lord’s Supper.
And they wanted to halt some of the abuses that had come in as a result.
A problem for the Reformers was that Martin Luther was not prepared to break with this teaching.
Although he certainly wanted to halt the abuses.
But he taught that in some special way Christ was still bodily present in the sacrament.
- What then about the second attitude – that sees the Lord’s Supper as merely a memorial meal?
Here the WCF would want to say that we can also see too little in the Lord’s Supper.
Does this view have a Biblical basis? Absolutely.
We read from 1Cor.11:24 where Paul reminds the believers that Jesus had said:
‘Do this in remembrance of me.’
So there you have it. It’s all about pausing to remember.
And the bread and the wine are just aids… something to help us remember.
There’s nothing special about the bread and nothing special about the wine.
Nothing happens to those elements… they just remain mere bread and wine.
So basically the Lord’s Supper is a memorial meal… like a US thanksgiving dinner.
And it’s certainly meaningful because it’s about Jesus.
But at the end of the day we’re just remembering what He did for us.
Again… if ideas have consequences then this view too has practical implications.
Many of today’s evangelical churches hold to this view of the Lord’s Supper.
And from our Reformed perspective if has so often resulted in superficiality.
I have seen the Lord’s Supper at times celebrated with deliberate casualness.
Even – on one occasion it was joked about.
No warnings are given about being an unworthy partaker.
No preparation seems necessary… we just come along and do it.
And anyone who wants to can join in… after all it’s just a remembrance.
At the time of the Reformation this view was held by a Protestant man called Zwingli.
He reacted against Rome and against Luther.
And He basically read Jesus as saying: This represents my body… my blood.
- So where do we go if we want a proper Biblical appreciation for this sacrament?
The W.C.F disagrees with Rome and with Luther… but it also disagrees with Zwingli.
From a Reformed perspective we want to do justice to all Biblical data.
We want to say that both of those texts are true.
– Jesus did say that we are to do this in remembrance of Him.
– But Jesus also said that we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
So it is a memorial feast but it is also more than that.
Something actually happens as we eat the bread and drink the wine.
The W.C.F. calls the Lord’s Supper a sacrament.
In sacraments there is a close link between the sign and what is signified by the sign.
The bread points us to Christ’s body… but not just as a memorial.
Rather as a means of feeding on Christ by faith.
The wine points us to Christ’s blood… but not just as a remembrance.
Rather: as a means of being nourished by our Saviour.
Think of it this way: As in Baptism there is a close link between the ritual and the reality.
But we must also distinguish between the ritual and the reality and not confuse them.
The ritual is us sitting around the table and eating some bread and drinking some wine.
The reality to which the ritual point is us feeding on Jesus Christ by faith.
All of this led John Calvin to take a mid-way position between Luther and Zwingli.
He disagreed with Luther about any physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
But he also disagreed with Zwingli about it being merely a memorial.
Calvin insisted on Christ’s real presence in the sacrament.
But he argued that Christ is present spiritually… to the eye of faith.
So next Sunday Jesus will come to you in a very special way in the Lord’s Supper.
Calvin said:
The bread and the wine are the means God uses to bring us the presence of Christ.
Again if ideas have consequences then this view too will have implications.
In our Reformed Churches the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is treated as sacred.
We make sure we don’t treat it casually and carelessly.
It’s not just a memorial… it is much more… it is a real feeding on Christ by faith.
And so we prepare for that. And we warn people not to eat and drink unworthily.
On the other hand we don’t interpret the sacrament in a crudely literal way either.
So we don’t exalt the sacrament to a position were it becomes idolatrous for us.
None of us will actually bow down to that little piece of bread.
And we are not going to be scandalised if a mouse gets into the Lord’s Supper bread.
B] FIVE REASONS FOR THE LORD’S SUPPER.
The W.C.F. reflects Calvin’s view and helps us get a good balanced view of the Lord’s Supper.
It gives us a fairly complete picture by giving us five reasons for the Lord’s Supper.
These five reason enrich our understanding of the sacrament and guard against misunderstanding.
- First of all – says the W.C.F. – the sacrament is for the continual remembrance of Christ’s death.
Zwingli was not wrong about that.
And our evangelical brothers and sisters are right in seeing Lord’s Supper as a memorial.
Their problem is that often they see no more than that.
We cannot escape the fact that Jesus said: Do this in remembrance of me.
We human beings are forgetful… and we need constant reminding.
So Jesus stoops to our weakness and gives us this reminder.
And how appropriate the Lord’s Supper is as a reminder.
The elements we use in this sacrament are most fitting as a memorial.
The broken bread points us to Christ’s bruised and battered body.
The poured out wine points us to our Lord’s shed blood.
These are wonderful reminders of what it took to bring about our salvation.
In Scripture Jesus says that we are to do this remembering until He returns.
In the W.C.F. it says that it is for the perpetual remembrance of Him.
So next Sunday the Lord will again call us to pause and remember.
And as we remember we will again value the wonderful work of salvation that Jesus achieved for us.
- Secondly, the WCF takes a view that this sacrament is a sign and seal of the covenant.
We saw that this was true of Baptism as well… the sacraments are covenant sacraments.
That’s one of the wonderful truths that we teach and emphasise in this church.
God has entered into a partnership with His people.
The Creator made us to live in a kind of contractual relationship with Him.
In the O.T. the people of Israel had a covenant meal of remembrance as well.
It was the Passover in which they celebrated their liberation from Egypt.
They would kill a lamb and smear the blood on the doorposts.
Today we don’t do that anymore… we have bread and wine to remember Jesus.
The great sacrifice of the Lamb of God has taken place.
And so the Supper now seals our covenant relationship with God.
This wonderful truth that He is our God and we are His people.
And every Lord’s Supper reassures us of that covenant relationship.
In a sense the bread and wine ratify the gospel promise… they are a visible gospel.
What the gospel tells us in words this sacrament makes clear to our senses.
Next Sunday God will again show you that He has brought you into covenant relationship with Himself.
Jesus made this aspect of the sacrament very clear in the institution of the sacrament.
He said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”.
That’s very meaningful.
In fact did you know that body and blood played a vital part in covenant making?
In the ancient world a covenant was made by cutting up animal carcases.
And the covenant partners would walk together between the halves of the animal.
Through that ritual they were saying: May I become like these animals if I break this covenant.
Well for us… God has (as it were) done that through the body and blood of Christ.
And every Lord’s Supper confirms and renews that covenant with us.
- In the third place the W.C.F. implies that the Lord’s Supper therefore marks us as being different.
You go through this ritual on a regular basis…
Your unbelieving neighbours do not.
Next Sunday you will pause and remember…
Your non-Christian workmates will not.
So next Sunday will be a tangible reminder that you are different.
In a sense the sacraments are a badge of your Christian profession.
They are a mark of our allegiance to Jesus.
They set you apart as citizens of the Kingdom of heaven.
That’s a wonderful thing for us to do. We are different.
It’s not that we are better… so often we’re not.
In fact there may be unbelievers who live more exemplary lives than we do.
But the point is that we are different.
We are the people who belong to Christ Jesus.
And every Lord’s Supper is a reminder of our difference and a celebration of it.
- Fourthly the W.C.F. uses the language of communion.
It speaks of being nourished by Him and it uses the language of engagement… of involvement.
The Lord’s Supper is a communion… a sharing. The Greek word is koinonia.
In some mysterious way we are joined to Jesus in a special way by faith.
That is a truth that taught over and over in Scripture.
We see it taught by Jesus in John 6:56.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in Him.
Faith joins us to Jesus… and it does that in a special way in the Lord’s Supper.
That makes our Reformed view of the Lord’s Supper very meaningful.
We believe that our Lord’s Supper celebration next Sunday will be more than a memorial.
It will be a real participation in Christ… in His suffering and death.
We speak of that as our mystical union with the Saviour.
So we have a very high view of this sacrament.
As you eat the bread you really do share in the body of Christ.
As you drink the wine you really do share in the blood of Christ.
Physically? Of course not..! The bread is still just bread… and the wine still just wine.
And yet… Jesus is spiritually present in the bread and in the wine.
So much so that in your eating and drinking you are actually feeding on Jesus Christ.
- Finally the W.C.F. also speaks of our relationship as believers around the Lord’s Table.
Again that’s the language of communion… but now not communion with Jesus but amongst ourselves.
Communion… or to break the word up: our common union with one another.
That follows very logically from the previous point: our fellowship with Christ.
If I am in communion with Jesus and you are in communion with Jesus…
then what kind of relationship do we have together?
Surely we are then one in Christ Jesus our Lord…
united in the Saviour to whom we are joined by faith.
So every Lord’s Supper celebration is evidence of our oneness in Christ.
After all Scripture says that He is the Head and we are the body.
And the members of a body are all united by what happens in the head.
Think of how appropriate the elements of the Lord Supper are in this regard.
There is one loaf of bread from which we all eat.
There is the one wine from which we all drink – pity we’ve spoiled that with separate cups.
One body, one loaf, one cup – all highlight the idea of ‘communion’.
That’s why the Lord’s Supper was never intended for private use.
Sure – we include the housebound and those in institutions.
But we usually do even that linking it with our communal celebrations.
May Lord’s Supper next Sunday again enrich you life as you celebrate it for what it really is.
Amen.