NOTES OUT OF THE CATECHISM CLASSES Of Rev. J. Fraanje Using the Catechism Book

The Lord’s Supper

Lesson 38 Part I

Since we have nothing to review, we shall begin immediately with our lesson on the Lord’s Supper.

The first question follows through: Why do we then receive the Lord’s Supper often?

Answer: Because it is a sacrament of continual strengthening in faith.

In this lies the actual difference between Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.

Baptism, even as circumcision in the Old Testament, took place but once. But the Lord’s Supper, like Passover, must be observed often.

We shall speak briefly now about the institution of the Lord’s Supper in its superficial aspects.

What are the external signs in the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: Bread and wine.

Why should it be ordinary nutritious bread and not wafers?

Hellenbroek says: They do not fully signify the spiritual nourishment. Wafers are small round pieces of unleavened bread.

What does the bread signify in the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: The body of Christ - I. Cor. 11:24, “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.”

It is for that reason the bread in the administration of the Sacrament is broken, in order to show by a sign that Christ’s Body was broken for His own. In like manner, the wine represents Christ’s blood and must be poured out in the administration of the Sacrament to signify that Christ’s Blood was indeed poured out, too.

The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is, therefore, a clear, certain and sure sign and seal of Christ’s suffering and death for His people. The catechism refers to it this way: -- “That His body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and His blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes, the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me.”

At this point I must ask a question. I notice there are far more questions and answers on the Lord’s Supper than there is about baptism in the catechism. Would this indicate that the Lord’s Supper has much more value as a sacrament than baptism?

Answer : No, both have been instituted by God.

Concentrate on this so you will remember it. One is not lesser than the other, but both are institutions of Christ.

The question is now asked: Is not bread alone sufficient in the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: No, Christ says; Matt. 14 “Drink ye all of it.”

Does the word “all” mean all of the ministers, or all the lay believers too?

Answer: Yes, I Cor. 11:28, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup.” He speaks of “man” in the universal sense. It means “all believers” and not ministers only.

You would say, “What a strange question! Who would imagine it to be different than that?”

Oh, yes, there are thousands in our country who think other than that about it. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that only the priest may drink the wine and the laymen may not even touch the chalice, it being too holy.

Who knows what else they teach in connection with this matter of the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: That the bread being used in the administration of the sacrament actually changes into the body of Christ and the wine into His blood.

Correct, and who knows the word, so difficult to pronounce, which names this teaching?

Answer : Transubstantiation.

Now, who knows the literal meaning of this word?

No one knows? Then I shall tell you. The prefix “trans” means to cross over from one to another. Keep this in mind for a moment, the base word substance means the real or essential part of anything. The two connected together make it clear that the word transubstantiation means cross over from one substance into the other.

In this instance it is this: the one substance (namely the bread) changes into another substance, namely into the body of Christ. Likewise with the wine. The substance wine, changes into the substance blood. They call this “transubstantiation” and this is what Hellenbroek refers to in the question whether the bread and wine undergo a change.

But now he asks another kind of question:

“Is Christ present physically in the signs of this supper?”

He certainly must be alluding to another belief again.

Yes, he has in mind some other error.

What error is that?

Answer: The error of Luther.

You are all aware that the Lord had wanted to use Luther to expose the false beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and to initiate a reformation especially in Germany and throughout most of Europe.

It was lamentable, despite the exceptional grace and gifts that Luther as child and servant had received, he remained at error in a part of the Holy Communion.

And what was that; did he hold to the opinion of the Roman Catholics, that the bread changed into the body of the Lord and the wine changed into His blood? No, he held no longer to that position. He chose another word, believing no longer in transubstantiation, but consubstantiation.

Now, the prefix “con” denotes “with”. Consubstantiation means then, that there is an actual presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

Contrary to the Roman Catholic’s belief that the bread changed “over” to the true body, he believed that it was present with the bread.

The other prominent reformers, Calvin and Zwingli, were more orthodox in this respect than Luther was. Zwingli tried to come to an agreement with Luther on this point of doctrine once before a large gathering, but Luther remained firm in his error and always said, “The Lord Jesus said literally, ‘This is My body’. It is no other way than that Jesus Christ is physically present and with us at each Lord’s Supper through means of His every-where present, invisible though real body!”

Since Zwingli would not abandon the truth and Luther would not abandon his erroneous mixture, they, consequently, never came to an agreement on this point.

It is plain, however, that the Lord by the word, “This is My Body”, meant, “This signifies My Body and as certainly as I break this bread, so certainly My Body is broken for you.”

We reject, therefore, both doctrines, transubstantiation and consubstantiation, as conflicting against sound Truth.

Hellenbroek puts it down with simple words when he asks, “Is Christ’s bodily presence in the signs of the supper?”

Answer: No; His human nature is only in heaven.

Is not this bread and wine changed into His flesh and blood?

Answer: No, it remains bread and wine even after the consecration.

How then can Christ say, “This is My Body?”

Do other passages of Scripture speak in this manner?

Yes, often, as appears in I Cor. 10:4. “The Rock was Christ.” Now, no one would take this to mean that the rock was truly Christ Himself. Everyone understands Paul to mean here, “The rock signifies Christ.”

Can we then not eat and drink Christ Himself?

Answer: Not corporally, but spiritually; to take Him by faith, that is to eat Him spiritually; to become nourished and satisfied spiritually.

Can not Christ be present in the Lord’s Supper spiritually, then?

Yes, it certainly can, and His children must experience this often in the emanation or flowing out of His love and favor to their soul.

We have in this way heard about the various errors that exist regarding the Lord’s Supper. Now we shall discuss one more aspect of this matter.

(to be continued)

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen