Eat and Drink

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."  [27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,  [28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.  Matthew 26:26-28 (ESV) 

…to the end that the one should be eaten, and that all should drink of the other..

What Christ Jesus did, and commanded to be done, is evident by the evangelists, and by Saint Paul. Scots Confession, Ch. 22

Is the modern practice of “intinction” or dipping bread into the cup, as some argue an ancient practice of the church that does not undermine the Reformed theology of the “Lord’s Supper”?   Is this just a matter of indifference, since the confession does not spell out for us the manner of distribution?   Is concern over this issue just theological nitpicking over matters best left to the discretions of ministers and sessions?

In the Reformed theology of the sacraments there has been a clear distinction between what has been understood as essential to them and things indifferent.  It may surprise many in our ranks today to find among the Calvinists’ confessions and catechisms a remarkable uniformity in how both baptism and the Lord’s Supper were to be taught and performed.   There was a certain simplicity conveyed in the use of sacramental ministry of the Church, which did not add to elaborate elements of the symbols of the sacraments so as to impede or obscure the truth they represent and the grace that they convey.   Sacraments are mysteries that reveal the Gospel.  Our Reformed Churches throughout the German, Dutch, French and English extractions would wholeheartedly agree with the view of Richard Greenham, “the more ceremonies, the less truth.”    However, our Reformed family today is often found in a haze of various sacramental views and practices, so that this uniformity of practice is lost.   This is a cause of great concern, for the Reformers understood “the right use of the sacraments” to be one of the sure signs of a true Church of Jesus Christ.   Like the truth of the Gospel, the sacraments belong to the person and authority of our Lord and Savior.  The validity and the ministration of the sacraments are directly related to the meditorial office of Jesus Christ and not to a minister, or individual church.   The efficacy of the sacraments does not rely upon the minister who performs them but, as our confession states, “but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution.”  It is the Spirit at work in connection with the words and actions that Jesus commanded his church to use which make it the means by which he promises to seal his grace upon his own body, the Church.  

When the Westminster Assembly was charged to reform the theology, the worship and the government of the Church in the three kingdoms of Britain, they were instructed to base their reformation only upon “the word of God, and the practice of the best of Reformed churches.” (The Solemn League and Covenant) 

What this meant in terms of developing a liturgical guide for England, was not merely to reinvent the wheel based on their own cultural needs, but to conform their practice to the long standing Reformed use across the Continent and the ancient practice of the Catholic Church from early times. The Reformers like Luther, Calvin and Bucer understood the fundamental connection between the faith of the Gospel and the worship of the Church.  

Words and Actions

Our confession states that there are two elements to every sacrament, the outward sign and the inward grace (Ch. 27:2).  This is what defines the term of what we mean by sacramental signs, of which baptism and the Lord’s Supper were instituted by Christ for His Church.   Secondly, the efficacy of a sacrament is tied to the “Spirit and the words of Institution”.   That is to indicate that while the inward work of the Holy Spirit makes the sacrament to be a real means of grace, that work is tied to the very commandment of Jesus Christ. A.A. Hodge describes it vividly as, “The Spirit is the executive of God.  He takes of the things of Christ and shows them unto us.” (pg. 334, The W.C. Commentary)  The Reformers understood that it is upon the testimony of Scripture that the Lord’s Supper was a meal in its most fundamental character.  It was not a sacrifice of Christ, nor is it a mere memorial of a bare sign, but a real means of participating in Christ and all his benefits.   As Luke reminds us in his account of the meal, the Lord’s Supper grew out of the Passover, where the bread and the wine of Israel’s deliverance were given new meaning and significance (Luke 22:17-20). 

Therefore the meal in which Jesus shared with his disciples was a matter of essential significance for the church’s continual sacramental practice.    Indeed, the biggest debate at the Westminster Assembly over the Lord’s Supper was concerning the use of a real table, and whether it required all to sit at the table or remain in their pews.   The Directory of Worship has language that points to a compromise between the two practices,  where those who receive the elements can do so “at or around the table”, in other words sitting at the table as was the Scottish practice or at the pews.   This does not mean that distribution in any form is a matter of indifference, but that the idea of a table meal should be retained in any particular context of distributing the elements.  

Why are the words of the institution required?   They are required to be said, by “a lawfully ordained minister,” because the minister does not act for himself, but is by Christ’s command following the order and the actions of Christ in the right use of the sacrament.   As the Scots confessed, “the holy action” of this sacrament was to be done only with the sanction of Christ and nothing done without his “word and warrante.” (Thompson, pg. 292).  We do not make up our own words, nor do we introduce new actions, or innovations that would diminish the simplicity of the “eating and drinking” of the bread and wine.   There are four clear commands that Jesus gives us in the outward elements in the institution (harmonizing the Gospels and Paul):  “Take bread, give thanks, break it and eat”.  For the cup, the command is to “take the cup, give thanks, give it and drink it.”  Both the elements (real bread and real wine) and the actions are considered by our Confession to be essential to the sacrament.   It represents to us a real communion with Christ, so that the shared meal is a true eating and drinking of Christ and his benefits by faith.   The use of intinction, where the cup seen, but not drunk removes this basic symbol of the meal and robs the church of truly drinking of the benefits of their redemption (an issue that the Reformers and our confession always makes clear as a gross violation of Christ’s sacrament).   It furthermore removes the cup from the table and brings it before people who come to a minster or elder to receive the elements, ironically putting an emphasis on an individualist participation rather than a communal participation of the meal. 

The Larger Catechism clearly expresses the Confession’s singular emphasis of the shared meal of the Lord’s Table given in two separate actions.  To feed upon Christ, by the Holy Spirit is to be nourished through the physical act of eating and drinking.  

Q. 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?
A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.

We should then follow Christ’s command with a joyful obedience and with thirsty souls drink from the cup he offers.  Intinction then should not be used simply because it is not consistent with Christ’s example and our Reformed Confessional heritage.