Bible Study: Institutes of the Church - Communion

by The Righterzpen

Here is another study about communion. What is it? What does it mean? Why do we do it? This study is a bit longer than the one on Baptism and also contains a lot of explanation of things in the Old Testament and how they relate to the atonement. Again: questions, comments, etc. welcome - but I promise I won't die without them!

Institutions of the Church

---

Communion

Communion

Since there are many words that are used in connection to this church institution; I will not define them unless they come up in the text I am working with. Even then, I'm not necessarily defining a Greek word unless it's meaning may be tricky in the context of the passage. (For example "bread" and "wine" are pretty strait forward in the Greek) There are several things I will cover though in regards to communion. I've tried to order these things as they appear chronologically in the passages. Right before my conclusion, I have addressed atonement and what it means. If we are to be examining ourselves and our place at the table of Christ, it's helpful to understand (as well as we are all individually able) what He did.

Washing the Disciples' feet

Some people believe that John 13:21-30 is a record of the last supper, although I don't find that to be accurate. The language is very similar in all the passages in question, (Matt 26:17-29, Mark 14:12-25 & Luke 22:7-23) but it is clear in John that this is taking place "before the feast of Passover..." (John 13:1) Verse two states that it is a "supper" (meaning evening meal) and when they are done eating Jesus gets up from the table and we have the record of Him washing the disciples feet.

He rises from the supper and lays aside (lay prostrate - Strong's # 5087) His garments (that which is put on - Strong's # 2440) and girded (wrapped tightly around - Strong's # 1241) His body with a towel (linen cloth - Strong's # 3012). I looked this up in the Greek because it seemed like such and odd thing to be happening.

Everyone has just finished eating and here Jesus gets up, takes all of His clothes off (probably one layer at a time) and lays them face down on some surface (more than likely a table). This was a deliberate action with some order and intent involved. I would guess this took at least enough time to catch the disciples attention. They would actually be watching Jesus going through this process since typical attire for one person consisted of a head piece, cloak (coat), tunic, a long sleeveless undergarment that went to the knees (chammies) and sandals.

By the context of "garments" meaning "that which is put on" it is probably likely that Jesus was naked before he wrapped the linen cloth around His body. Than He washes their feet and (after Peter's protest) tells them that if He doesn't do this, they have no part with Him. (vs. 8) He also says "not all of you are clean"; Making reference to Judas, before He gets dressed again and sits down. After this, He tells them that He's set an example and that they should wash each others feet, for the servant is no greater than the Master.

Now, this brings up two interesting points to ponder. The first being Jesus removing His clothing to wash the disciples' feet. Clothing in the scripture is usually synonymous with righteousness. (Job 29:14, Isaiah 61:10) Jesus laid aside His righteousness and was "made to be sin for us...that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor 5:21) and also "unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood" (Revelation 1:5)

The other point is what Jesus says about "not all of you are clean", that He's "set for them an example", "the servant is not greater than his lord; neither is he that is sent greater then he who has sent him" and finally "I'm not speaking about all of you; l know who I have chosen:..." All this is made in reference to Judas who evidently thought himself to be greater than Jesus.

John 17:12; Jesus calls Judas the "son of perdition". In 2 Thess 2:3-7 the "son of perdition...opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God..." All these verses (from vs. l through the first part of 8) are written in a tense that indicates that these things happened in the past and are still in action today. From the point that Satan entered Judas (Wednesday night after supper - John 13:27) he (Satan and possibly Judas too) believed he controlled the destiny of God's plan. He had access to what the leaders of Israel wanted (Jesus) and in his arrogance, he believed that he could cause God to bow to his plan that he (Satan) would be the leader of God's people; therefore be God Himself. Obviously, it didn't work out that way and some of the evidence that this plan was unraveling from the start; I will address when I discuss Pontius Pilate and the binding of Satan.

Now our second clue that the foot washing is taking place the evening before, comes in verse 19 "For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag that Jesus had said to him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; ..." Reason would have it that if they'd just eaten the Passover, there would be no reason to go buy anything for a feast they'd just finished.

So, it becomes quite evident that this (and actually all that takes place up until chapter 18) happened Wednesday evening. Jesus probably spent the rest of Wednesday night explaining to the remaining eleven what was going to happen. This is what is recorded in the next several chapters (14 to 18) and also gives us some practical insight as to a few of the events that occurred Thursday night. One, being why the disciples all fell asleep in Gethsemane right after Passover; they'd already been up 24 hours. The other being Jesus's behavior in Gethsemane too. I will get into this later, along with the three days and three nights in the heart of the earth and evidence that Jesus was probably awake the whole 72 hours before He died.

Passover

Now, in regards to the foot washing and Passover; Passover was a ceremony that was to take place among all those who were in a house. Back in Exodus, the Hebrew people are given some pretty specific instructions as to how to eat the Passover.

Passover Instructions - Ex 12

a. people were to choose a lamb on the 10th day of the month.

- with out blemish

- male of sheep or goats from birth to 1 year

- kept until the 14th day

- the whole congregation shall kill their lambs in the evening

- strike the blood on the two side posts and overhead of the doorway

- roast the meat in a fire and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs through the evening.

- not to be boiled, soaked in water at any point, or eaten raw

- eat all of it and what is left is to be burned in the fire in the morning. eat it with loins girded, shoes on feet and staff in your hand

- eat it in haste for it is the Lord's Passover: where the angel of death does see blood on the posts he will "pass over" the house. do not leave the house until day break

b. at midnight the angel of death was to pass through the land.

Ex 11:4-10

Amid all these instructions they were told that if they did not have a household that was big enough for a lamb than they could share with their neighbors. All were to be present (men, women and children) and anyone who was in a specific house ate of the same meat. (Exodus 12:4) Matt 26:18 - Jesus gives one of the disciples the instructions that when they meet a certain man in the city they are to tell him "... I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples..."

Even though it is quite clear that Jesus and the disciples were in the guest room upstairs; (Mk 14:14, Lk 22:11) they probably would not be the only ones partaking of the Passover in that house. Other people in the building would have had access to that upper room too, since it seems likely the man who owned the house and his family were down stairs. Consequently, when we consider the plausibility of women and children entering and exiting this room, along with the stipulation to "eat it with loins girded, shoes on feet and staff in your hand"; it would not be appropriate for Jesus to be taking His clothes off during the Passover. (John 13:4)

One thing I have found a little confusing in connection to the instructions about Passover from Exodus; is the fact that they were told not to leave the house until day break. This was to be a ordinance to Israel and their sons forever. (Ex 12:24)

This raises a lot of questions when we look at the gospels and how it is very clear that Jesus and the disciples left the building once they were done eating. (Matt 26:30, Mk 14:26, Lk 22:39) Any of the first born who were in the house were protected by blood on the door posts and the angel of death would not kill them. Interestingly enough though, if you were not the first born and left the house you wouldn't die either. (Ex 12:12&13) When we consider the working of God's plan (and how all these things that happened in Exodus (although they are real historical events) were also a picture of what was to come - Col 2:17) than this makes sense. Jesus had to leave the house in order to come under judgment, or there would have been no salvation.

The Angel of Death:

Luke 22:43&44 talks about an angel coming to Jesus. The English translation says "...and angel from heaven strengthening him; and being in agony he prayed more earnestly and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground." This account raises some interesting questions, even if we are just looking at it in the English. If this angel is strengthening Jesus, why is He in more agony and sweating profusely?

The Greek sheds more light on this for it reads: "and There appeared to him an angel from heaven, prevailing (by show of force -Strong's # 1765) against him (or before him); and causing (him) to be more anxious (Strong's # 74) that he petitioned (Strong's # 4336) more fervently and his sweat was like great drops of blood falling to the ground." Now, taking this in the context of everything that is going on - Passover, leaving the house, and the fact that this probably occurred at midnight; leads me to believe that this angel that came upon Jesus was the angel of death.

This raises an interesting parallel between the gospels and Exodus. Jesus, being the first born of God is "killed" when the angel of death passes through the land because instead of being covered by the blood of the lamb - He is the lamb. Also to uphold the allegory from Exodus discussed earlier; Jesus was outside of the house.

Evidently Jesus was not yet physically dead; but, I do believe that if He did not have a divine nature He would have been. The reason I've come to this conclusion is that going back to those accounts of Gethsemane; we find that after the encounter with this angel, Jesus is no longer pleading for another way to be found. Prior to this He made a statement about His human soul being swallowed up unto complete death; and I think this is where that happened.

What of Jesus had that angel killed? The "carnal" nature of Jesus's human existence; His will, His desires, the mechanism that drove His emotions, His potential for disobedience. The first Adam wanted to be like God and not be corrupted by that knowledge. Now of course Jesus could intellectually and morally discern the difference between good and evil, but never experienced it's corruption as part of the make up of His own man. Because of the Divine dimension of His person, He was the "incorruptible seed" and I believe this death is what "killed" that yearning of the original Adam to "know" (intimately) both good and evil (in the flesh). In the instance where Adam forfeited his life to preserve his will, Jesus forfeited His will to ultimately, preserve His life.

God and the Angel of Death:

To complicate this matter all the more; a good friend of mine once told me that he believed that this angel (that came to Jesus) couldn't have been the angel of death because he believed that Jesus was the angel of death. He made the point that many of the "angels" in the Hebrew scriptures were indeed "theophanies" (manifestations of God) and in very many cases he is correct. The (three - trinity) "angels" that came to Lot were a manifestation of God; and also, so is Gabriel (which means "God man" in Hebrew) and Michael the arch-angel. (Michael means - "he who most assuredly is God" (Greek), and "arch-angel" or "chief messenger". The chief messenger of the gospel is Christ.)

So, of course I had to investigate this to see if the angel of death in Exodus is a representation of Christ. Exodus 12:12 does tell us that the angel of death actually is God. "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night and will smite the first born ... I will execute judgment: I am the Lord...and when I see the blood I will pass over you...'

Now, the question arises of how all this fits together? Is the angel of death Jesus and could this angel (that came to Jesus) be the angel of death? If so; how could Jesus pass judgment on Himself? It should seem obvious to us all that this angel could not be Jesus and Jesus be Jesus at the same time. We'd have two Jesus(s) there together and that just doesn't make any sense; so apparently this angel is not Jesus, but could this angel still be a representation of God? That possibility still exists, since in Matt 3:16, Mark 1:10 & John 1:32 we have more than one physical representation of God standing in the same place. We have the voice from heaven (the Father), Jesus in the flesh and the Holy Spirit represented by (and/or in the form of) a dove.

The first question we must tackle is about Jesus and judgment. Could Jesus (or did Jesus) pass judgment on anyone (including himself) without the consent of the Father. The answer of course is no. Jesus stated on many occasions that he did not do anything except it were given to him of the Father. (John 3:35, 5:26, 5:36, 6:39, 13:3) It is also stated that Jesus did not come to this world "to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved". John 3:17

Jesus laid aside his right to judge in order that redemption could be accomplished. If he had judged the leaders of Israel and cut off the nation before it had cut him off, than the whole redemption plan would have been thwarted. Jesus knew this and that's why he laid aside that right and restrained himself from telling the Pharisees to just "drop dead"!

This point is also made in John 5:22. This verse tells us all judgment has been "committed" unto the son - "because he is the son of man". This statement (having to do with the humanity of Jesus) ironically is key to this issue. When Jesus agreed to take on human form and be the payment for sin; he relinquished his right to pass judgment on this creation (destroy it) to accomplish the plan the three persons of the Godhead had agreed upon in eternity.

So now that we know Jesus did not "condemn" anyone (in and of his own human judgment); but could he still be the angel of death in Exodus? The only answer I can give to this question is that the angel of death is not the redeemer role. The angel of death is defiantly God - no argument there, but to say He (this angel) is "Jesus" I don't think is quite accurate either; simply because of the order of human history. All the events in the Hebrew scripture are pointing to redemption. After this redemption has been successfully accomplished, than we see Jesus as the judge, but up until that point; (although we still see God's judgment) redeemer is "Jesus's" (Jesus in the flesh) role. "for he shall save his people from their sin"

God's judgment on God:

Now how does Jesus (being God) and the angel of death (also God) fit into the context of what's going on in Luke and Exodus? Simple logic tells us that the only entity that could ever pass judgment on God (or rather the Godman) is God Himself. So in both Scriptural contexts (Exodus and Luke - since Passover was a symbol of what was to come ie. - pointing to Christ) this angel visiting Jesus (also being the angel of death) makes sense. We also see in Revelation 14:10&l1 that the "cup" (which Jesus had to drink all of- Matt 26:39) is the wrath of God. "drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation ... and the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever..." The contexts of these two passages are different, but the wrath of God is still the wrath of God and it's still eternal.

To solidify this truth of God pouring out His wrath on God (the Son):

HELL; (being defined here as the condition of being under the wrath of God)

1. ETERNAL- Mk 9:43, Rev 14:10&11, 20:10, Ps 9:5&6

2. JESUS WENT THERE - Acts 2:27-31, Ps 16:10

"lowest hell" - Ps 86:13

"lowest pit" - Ps 88:6&7&14&15

"pit" = wrath of God - Rev 20:10

"cup" = wrath of God - Ps 75:8, Rev 14:8&10&11

Jesus had - Matt 26:39

"counted as a transgressor" - Ps 88:4, Mk 15:28, Is 53:12

"wine press" = wrath of God & Jesus tread it alone - Is 53:3, Rev 19:15

"Low I come in the volume of the book it is written of me to do thy will, O God" Ps 40: 68, Heb 10:7

The whole ordeal of Jesus and hell and eternity has always raised one concern with me. If Jesus suffered the wrath of God and went to hell (which is eternal) how did he get out; or is he still there? We know by the resurrection; obviously that Jesus is not still in hell; so how did He get out? Part of that answer comes from what we know about hell it's-self. It is eternal and eternity is a state of existence that takes place out side of time.

All of us mortals know that we are not eternal because in order to be eternal you would never have a beginning or an end - and we all have a beginning (even our souls). That's part of the reason we'd never get out of hell. We are not eternal. So in order to survive an eternal hell, one must be eternal; thus the Divine nature of Jesus. Now, how does eternity out live eternal wrath? Easy, God's wrath is an attribute of His character and not the whole of who He is. Jesus conquered this wrath because He (as the whole) was so much bigger than this wrath (the part).

The condition of being under the wrath of God was nothing to be taken lightly, nor was it a pleasant sight to witness. The Scripture says the disciples fell asleep because "their eyes were heavy" (Matt 26:43) and they were "sleeping for sorrow." (Luke 22:45) There is certainly a spiritual dimension to this; a spiritual slumber of sorts if you will. Even so, in the realm of the human experience we can see that the disciples were also mentally and emotionally overwhelmed by Jesus's ordeal and His constant monologue about how His death was near. In one sense they did not really believe Jesus when He talked about dying; (Matt 16:23, Mark 8:33) but I don't think (from their human mind set) that was because they did not believe in Him.

Many of the more reserved congregations have issue with the emotionalism in some of today's churches, and not without good reason; yet I also think there is a problem if we find we have no human feelings for Him whom we call Lord. The disciples were troubled because they undoubtedly, (after living with Jesus for more than three years) had a very strong human emotional attachment to Him. They were genuinely concerned and probably even frightened by His obvious distress. They loved Him (emotionally as well as willing obedience) because He first loved them. (1 John 4:19)

The Binding of Satan:

Now, this might seem like an odd place to be making mention about the binding of Satan, but I believe it is linked to the appearance of the angel of death to Jesus. The angel of death, as described in the segment above is the personification of God in His wrath. Why is this "theophany" important and what does this have to do with the devil?

Our first significant passage comes from Revelation. Revelation 9:1 "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit." This is linked to Revelation 20:1-3 "And I saw an angel come down from heaven having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan and bound him a thousand years and cast him into the bottomless pit and shut him up, and set a seal upon him that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years be fulfilled..."

How are these two passages linked to the angel in Luke that comes to visit Jesus. One way we can know is if we look quickly at the passage in Revelation chapters 8 and 9 and how the sequence of things mentioned there match the events that occurred at the cross.

Revelation 8:6-9:21

The First Angel Sounds:

Hail and Fire mixed with blood cast to the earth;

a third of the trees (plural) are burned up and the green grass.

Matthew 3:10

John the Baptist tells the Pharisees and Sadducees:

"And now also is the ax laid to the root of the trees: therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire."

Matt 21:18-22, Mk 11:12-14

Jesus curses the fig tree:

"Let no fruit grow on you from now and forever. No man will eat fruit from you ever."

Fig Tree - In most of the Hebrew passages referring to fig trees and their fruit; Fig is almost always in the singular. The fig tree (Israel) has only bore one fig (Christ). And now Jesus is cursing this fig tree to show us that we are not to rely on national Israel for our redemption (i.e. following the law or ceremonies) since their contribution (Christ) has already been delivered.

"For the time of figs was not" (yet - is in italics so therefore is not in the original text) since the time of figs had already passed. The tree was in leaf; (Israel was a theocratic entity functioning as a sub-culture within the Roman Empire - yet did not have any real political power) but also had no fruit (did not recognize their messiah).

The passage says Jesus was looking for fruit because he was hungry. In the physical realm, he was looking to fill a human need; but I also think he was searching for "fruit" from his own Jewish followers to fill an internal hunger he had to see them have true faith. This is why I believe he makes all these statements to them "If you had faith...you would see..."

Green Grass - All the passages in the Hebrew scripture speak of the grass failing and the "green herb" is burned up. There is only one other passage that mentions "green grass". This is Mark 6:39 when Jesus feeds the multitude with 5 loaves and two fish. It says He commanded the disciples to tell the people to sit down on the green grass.

This also fits into the context of what's going on the day in which Jesus has cursed the fig tree. (Monday) It states that He goes into the temple and speaks to the people and the leaders of Israel. After He leaves them that Tuesday afternoon there is only one mention of a miracle in that "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" and that is when Jesus healed the servant who Peter had cut his ear off. What the significance of that is I'm not sure.

The Second Angel Sounds:

A great mountain is cast into the sea:

1/3rd of the sea turned to blood

1/3rd of the creatures in the sea who had life die

1/3rd of the ships are destroyed

Mk 11:20-26

The next day after seeing the cursed fig tree Jesus talks about moving a mountain:

"Have faith in God. For I say to you - whoever will say to this mountain 'you be removed and you be cast into the sea; and will not doubt in his heart, but will believe that what he says will happen, he will have what ever he says. Therefore I say to you, what ever it is you desire, when you pray, believe that you receive and you will have. And when you stand praying, forgive - if you have anything against anyone so your father which is in heaven my forgive your trespass, but if you do not forgive neither will your father in heaven forgive you."

These statements are similar to the ones made the previous day except they are elaborated upon (and more importantly) are conveyed in an affirmative form. "If you had faith..." is replace by "have faith." It is now a statement of what they will become in Christ, not what they (and all of us) are lacking.

The statement about moving a mountain and casting it into the sea is repeated in Rev 8:8. This is a mountain burning with fire and kills a third of the living things in the sea along with a third of the ships. The only other reference to a burning mountain in the scripture is Mt. Sinai.- Deut 4:11

Mt. Sinai is were the law was given and it fits into the sequence of things. Jesus having followed this law in all righteousness up until this point, so that the law would be "thrown down" in order for the atonement to occur. This does not mean the law is cast away, for all who are under it are judged by it; rather it is fulfilled for those in Christ by Jesus Himself.

In the passage in Revelation, this mountain kills 1/3 of all the living creatures in the sea. The sea is a picture of those under the condemnation of God and the law (in this case) would be what has caused the death of a third of these creatures. The interesting thing about this though, is that these 1/3 represent those who have become dead to the law so they can become alive to Christ. They are the Israel, Egypt and Assyria in Isaiah 19:24. These are the captives that Christ is about to descend to, in order to deliver.

In that light, those who are about to be redeemed are soon to be (yet already are) found in Christ. This means when they pray by the direction of the Holy Spirit, they will receive what is requested since the Spirit of God only moves in the will of God and they are seen of the Father with the perfect righteousness of Christ.

The Third Angel Sounds:

A great star falls from heaven; called "Wormwood"

Falls upon 1/3rd part of the waters they become wormwood

Many men die because the waters a bitter.

John 12:31 - Satan is cast out of heaven.

"Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the prince of this world be cast out.."

Revelation 12:7-17 - Also describes Satan being cast out of heaven.

First a woman bears a child who is "caught up" to God and to His throne. "Caught up" in this instance means to be seized by force. And "unto God and His throne" "to" is in italic (not in the original text) This child is "seized by God to be near to Him and the seat of His power." is what the literal translation comes out to be. I don't think this means the child (Jesus) was physically taken by God to heaven. He was simply driven to be close to the Father.

Notice what happens right after this. The woman flees into the wilderness for 1290 days. This is the three and ½ years from when John the Baptist first appeared on the scene until the Tuesday afternoon when Jesus leaves the temple and ceases teaching and preaching. This is exactly 1290 days. The point where Jesus is "seized by the Father to be near to Him and the seat of His power." co-insides with Mark 1:12 where immediately after being baptized Jesus is "driven" (forcibly) into the wilderness by the Spirit of God.

Verse 7 (Revelation 12) states there is a war in heaven in which Satan is cast out. This happens Tuesday after sundown which co-insides with the beginning of the "3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth". This is Jesus's descent into hell. (Hell being the state of being under the wrath of God - Jesus is enduring hell in body, soul, mind and spirit just as those who are condemned will experience it upon the final judgment.) Exactly three 24 hour periods later Jesus declares "It is Finished" on the cross just before He dies. Thus verse 10 "Now is come salvation..." The atonement has begun.

Satan is down on earth attempting to persecute the woman (believers) who bore Christ. All of Jesus's followers are "given two wings" in which they "fly into the wilderness" where they are protected by the earth from the face of the serpent for "a time, times and half a time" (the 3&1/2 days of the point Jesus leaves the temple (ceases preaching) until His death.) "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in they name: those that You gave me I have kept and none of them is lost; but the son of perdition that the scripture might be fulfilled." John 17:12

The Fourth Angel Sounds:

Part of the sun is smitten

1/3rd of the moon

1/3rd of the stars

They are "darkened" they show not 1/3rd (brightly) day and night.

John 13:30 - Judas goes out and it is "night". This word by implication means "dark night" or is sometimes translated "midnight". The implication is that it was dark in more than one way. There was a great spiritual darkness that probably revealed it's-self in a very real literal way.

The Fifth Angel Sounds:

A star falls from heaven to the earth; is given the key to the bottomless pit. He opens the bottomless pit and smoke of a great furnace arises so that the sun and the air are darkened by reason of the pit.

Luke 23:44 - From noon to about 3 p.m. the day of the crucifixion (Friday afternoon) there is darkness over all the earth.

Out of the smoke of the pit are also locusts which have power like scorpions and they are commanded not to hurt the plant or animal life on the earth, but only those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They are permitted to torment men for five months but not to kill them. In those days men will seek death and will not find it. They will desire to die but death will flee from them.

This begins at the point where the angel opens the bottomless pit. All those who are under the wrath of God are tormented by these locusts that sting like scorpions for five months. This obviously is a spiritual torment, although undoubtedly had a physical dimension to it. The veil of the temple was torn, there were earthquakes and shortly after the crucifixion of Christ came "wars and rumors of wars" upon the Jewish nation. Everything was out of sink for five months and none of the Jewish leaders where willing to admit why (although they knew very well it had to do with Jesus - this is connected to "blasphemy against the Spirit of God" which I will explain later.

Either way, the only spot this fits into historically is this angel that comes to Jesus. He is the only entity that descends from heaven during the time of the atonement. (Satan is cast out just before the atonement begins and Jesus ascends back to heaven upon death.) In the instants where the other angels sound, there are no "stars" or spiritual entities coming to earth; only plagues.

So the angel of death, which holds the key to the bottomless pit also has the ability to throw other entities which are under the wrath of God into this pit. Thus, this is where Satan is bound in Revelation 20. This pit that Satan is cast into evidently is only a holding place for when the final judgment comes. This is not the wrath of God. It only appears to be an assigned place where entities await their judgment.

Now Jesus on the other hand, has actually entered into the wrath of God. We see this in Revelation 19:15 (among other places) where Jesus "treads the wine press of the wrath of Almighty God." From the context it appears that He is the only one in this wine press. So upon over-coming the wrath of God it would make sense that Jesus would obtain the "keys to death and hell" from the personification of God the Father in His wrath (i.e.. Angel of Death).

The Jews, The Romans and God in the Flesh:

From Luke 22:3 and John 13:26 we know Satan entered Judas at least twice. We also know that Satan left Judas because Judas brought back the money to the temple and went out and hung himself. This occurred at dawn in which it also seems that Satan is bound into the pit.

This also fits with Exodus when Pharaoh's son died at dawn too. Pharaoh himself dies in the red sea after he chases Moses and the nation into the water. This parallelism plays out too in Revelation 20:3 when it says there was a sea placed over the Devil "that he should deceive the nations no more until the 1000(s) years be fulfilled." Notice it says "he should deceive the nations no more.." The leaders of Israel brought Jesus to Pilate just before dawn, but notice Pilate was not deceived by their scheme.

Pontius Pilate was known to be a very brutal person. (Historical records bear this out.) He had very little tolerance for people who made his job harder and he especially hated the Jews. (Although I don't think this hatred came into full force until after the crucifixion of Jesus.) Pilate was called back to Rome twice after 33 AD for his brutality and committed suicide in 37 (or 39) AD. Many historians have difficulty reconciling the gospel accounts with the historical record of the kind of person Pontius Pilate was; yet interestingly enough, the scripture actually answers this question for us.

Our answer come in Luke 21:25 "distress of nations with perplexity" Interestingly, this actually means that the nations are restrained and they are in a mental quandary over this. This could be in reference to a state of order being maintained by God the Father all over the world, but I think it more directly relates to the nation(s) of the Roman Empire being restrained. When Jesus endured the wrath of God, he underwent a just punishment for the sins of those he came to redeem. So the hearts of men would need to be restrained (from the workings of Satan - this is why Satan is bound) so that Jesus's ordeal would not be of a vindictive or sadistic nature.

In all the passages referring to the trial and the cross (at least from the Roman's perspective) we never read that Jesus had been burned, crushed, put in some torture contraption (like were popular in the middle ages) or in any way sexually assaulted. The Romans were the barbarians and this is what's so intriguing about what they did and what they didn't do to Jesus. If anyone had the opportunity and the reason to abuse Him beyond justice; it would have been the soldiers. They were the ones who executed the punishment (whipping and crucifixion) and if they were ever tempted to sodomize Jesus they would have had ample opportunity, since about half the time He spent in their presence, He didn't have any clothes on.

Another couple of intriguing details had to do with Roman laws and customs at the time. According to law if you whipped anyone with more than 39 stripes it was considered a death sentence (Deuteronomy 25:3 also does not permit more than 40 stripes) and if the man who performed the "chastisement" either killed a prisoner when he shouldn't have or failed to kill one he should have - he was to be executed. Also it was the Romans who gave Jesus vinegar and hyssop (which is a primitive sedative) just before He died. John 19:29&30 says that Jesus "received" (accepted/drank) this mixture.

Now obviously the soldiers did treat Jesus disrespectfully. They poked fun at Him and His kingdom and the Jewish culture in general; they spit at Him and hit Him over the head with a reed several times as well as slapped Him around. Yet even at that; Pilate interrupted them when he sent someone to retrieve Jesus. (John 19:4)

Compare this to the treatment Jesus received at the hands of the leaders of His own nation. The veracity in which they assaulted Jesus was far more personal in nature than what the Roman soldiers did. They were not poking fun at Him because He was some captive brought to them for execution. No, they really all out hated Jesus. They knew who He was; they knew He was the Messiah and they knew what that meant (the messiah was God) and that's why they were blaspheming the Spirit of God.

Matthew 27:18 tells us that Pilate could see that they brought Jesus to him on account of their own envy. They had their status and their place in the earthly society they lived in (the Jewish leaders were also citizens of Rome) Not only were they probably afraid of losing their power base; they were also jealous of Jesus because He was not encumbered by their interpretation of the Jewish religion.

He broke their rules, liked to eat, drank alcohol, was not condescending to women or children (He even let them touch Him), talked to gentiles, was seen around the unsavory people of society, talked about the big no no's of what's (even today) considered as 'righteous' by religious folks (money, sex and politics). He was a secure, mentally, emotionally and physically healthy person who was not encumbered by all the pitfalls those still in bondage to their sin are. To the religious Jew of that day; I'm sure Jesus seamed too Hellenistic, pleasure seeking or sensual to be considered holy. It makes me wonder how many of us would actually like Jesus if we ever met Him in the flesh?

The Last Supper:

Now, with the account in John taking place on Wednesday night; we have Matthew Mark and Luke left. These three accounts essentially say the same thing with the exception of a few details in Luke that vary from Matthew and Mark.

Matthew 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25 read: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying; Drink you all of it; (and they all drank of it - Mk 14:23) for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sin. But I say to you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Luke adds to this specific discourse - "..This is my body which is given for you: do this in remembrance of me." and "...testament in my blood which is shed for you. But, look the hand of him who betrays me is with mine on the table. Truly the Son of man goes as it is determined but woe to that man who betrays him..." (Luke 22:19-22)

The Blood and The Cup:

There are several things we can notice if we look carefully at what is said and what is going on. First of all, they are still eating the Passover when Jesus gives them the bread and wine. Incidentally, the bread they were eating was unleavened, (so therefor would have been more like Saltine crackers than bread); and the "cup" was in fact, real wine.

Wine at Passover:

Some would argue this not being wine with alcohol in it, but grape juice. During Passover you could not eat anything that contained yeast and grape juice that has not been pasteurized (Louis Pasteur - wine pasteurization 1864 AD) has yeast in it. Yeast is found in the soil and on the grapes themselves, so if you pulverize them into a juice; it will start to ferment even without the intervention of man.

Fully fermented wine on the other hand, (between 9& 16% alcohol) does not have yeast in it because the yeast has died due to it's production of the alcohol. The dead yeast settles to the bottom and the wine is siphoned off the top. Non-Marschovial wine (wine that has not been boiled) was used by Sabbath observant Jews, only in the presence of other Sabbath observant Jews, for religious holidays, offerings, weddings and barmitzvahs. So, yes they had "real" wine at Passover because it was a religious holiday.

Grapes were harvested in the fall and since Passover is in the spring (Israel and the United States have the same growing seasons since they are both in the northern hemisphere) grape juice would not have even been available at the Passover. So yes, what Jesus drank was real wine and he had no objections to consuming what is considered a "mind altering substance" since you are defiled by what comes out of the heart not by what goes into the body. (Matt 15:17&18, Mark 7:18)

Now, moving to what Jesus says about the cup it's-self. "this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Notice the blood is what is shed for the remission of sins, not the cup. "For without the shedding of blood there is no remission." (Hebrews 9:22) Also, it is shed for "many" not "all" (limited atonement will be discussed later). And it is of a testament for as to, "do this in remembrance of me" (1 Cor 11:25)

A last will and testament is a legal document that states what (of the deceased's estate) the heirs will receive. The will it's-self is not the inheritance. It is simply the document that states what is in the inheritance. If a person is to inherit his father's house upon the father's death; he has not received that inheritance until he has the deed to the house (with the name change on it) in his hand. And of course, that will is not enacted upon until the person who has written it has died. So what Jesus is holding before them (cup) is His last will and testament, not their inheritance. What was the inheritance to be? - the remission of sin! But of course, just like the will written on paper; this will could not be enacted upon until the testator (Jesus) died. (Hebrews 9:17&l 8)

This brings up another interesting point - Judas! He was present for this "reading of the will" and partook of the cup (Mark 14:23), yet never received the inheritance? Why? Because he hung himself on the morning just as the Passover feast had ended. (Matt 27: 5) So thus, he died before Jesus did. If a man survives one of his heirs, the inheritance gets divided up among those remaining and therefore the deceased heir's posterity would not receive any of the inheritance either. Judas's house, (his posterity - the leaders of Israel as well as the nation it's-self) was left to him (them) desolate. (Acts 1:20)

Now if we carry this analogy back to Exodus we see some pretty clear parallels. As mentioned before, Judas was called the "Son of perdition" (John 17:12) and he was the posterity of Satan inasmuch as he was the agent of betrayal. Notice Judas dies at dawn, on the same night that Pharaoh's son died in Exodus. (Exodus 12:30) Technically it was still the Passover. We know this because they brought Jesus to Pilate in the morning, (Matt 27:1, Mk 15:1, Lk 23:1) yet before dawn (John 18:28) and the Jews would not go into the judgment hall because they didn't want to defile themselves for the Passover. (John 18:28) They thought they could just hand Jesus to Pilate, be done with it and go home and eat their Passover. This fact tells us that the sun hadn't risen yet when they came to Pilate.

There has been much confusion about the phrase in this verse and in John 14:19. "And it was the preparation of the Passover and about the sixth hour; and he (Pilate) said to the Jews, Behold your King." Now this phrase "preparation of the Passover" have led some to claim that there were two Passover(s). A Judaic Passover and a Galilean Passover. There is nothing in the scripture (or historically) to support this idea that the nation would have had divided Passover(s).

Again, the answer to this question comes out of the Greek it's-self. This word "Preparation" here (Strong's #3904) is only used in 6 places. It's definition is found in Mark 15:42 "And now when the evening had come because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath." This particular word is always used in association with the Sabbath. The "Preparation" was the title the Jews gave to the day that fell before the Sabbath.

It's like our common term "Christmas Eve". We all know in our culture that Christmas eve is the day before Christmas. If I were to say I was going to Florida the week of Christmas (or Christmas eve) no-one would automatically assume I was traveling on Christmas day. No, we would all understand that the week Christmas falls in, is the week I am going to Florida. It was the same with this "Preparation of the Passover." This was the "preparation" day that fell within the Passover week.

Now Judas when he realized they'd taken Jesus to Pontius Pilate knew that meant the death sentence. So he brought the money back to the temple, threw it on the floor and went and hung himself. (Matt 27:3-5) As was mentioned earlier, this probably happened before dawn also. Being the son of perdition and the posterity of Satan as is given to us in the allegory of Pharaoh's son; it would make sense that Judas would die on the Passover too.

The Body and The Bread:

Lastly, concerning the elements themselves, I will now address what is said about the bread. Jesus tells the disciples to "take it and eat it, this is my body (which is given (being revealed - Strong's # 1325) for you - Lk 22:19); do this in remembrance of me." and in I Cor 11:24 "Take eat.., my body broken (to break - Strong's # 2806) for you (on behalf of you - Strong's # 5228).

We notice it is the body that is broken, not the bread. Just like with the cup, it is the blood that is shed for the remission of sins, not the wine. "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world" (John 6:33) "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) "I am the living bread that came down from heaven.., the bread that 1 give is my flesh..." (vs. 51)

This caused as much confusion among the people who were present when Jesus said it, as it causes today. Many would contend that the bread of communion is either Jesus's body; or in some way, Jesus is connected to that bread by more than just symbolism. We know the Jews (along with some of Jesus's followers) were taking this literally asking "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (vs. 52) To this, Jesus asks them. "Does this offend you?" (vs. 61) Finally, Jesus explains this. "It is the Spirit that quickens (makes alive), the flesh profits nothing, the words I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life."

It is this explanation ("the words...are spirit., and life") that assures us Jesus was setting forth a parable of sorts. We know the disciples understood that "the flesh profits nothing" for if they hadn't, they would have eaten Jesus after He died. So we conclude this is symbolic; since they knew cannibalizing Him would not have saved them. Likewise, our consuming a piece of bread and believing it will bestow on us some sort of grace; is also a work of the flesh.

Celebration of Communion:

So since it's established that the bread is not Jesus's literal flesh, what is He talking about? Is there even a possibility that some form of grace is imparted to the partakers of the communion table; even if we know it doesn't save us? What about the notion of Christ's presence at the table? To get a more complete answer we have to look in the book of Corinthians.

Communion and Idol worship:

I Cor 10:14 tells the "dearly beloved" to "flee from idolatry", while verse 16 says; "the cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ." To this I pose a question of my own. If one believes that God has imparted a blessing to them for just simply eating these elements, would that not involve a work of the Spirit of God?

The answer is - of course it would. We don't receive anything from God without the operation of the Spirit of God and since we already know that; we now have a problem with the passage. Verse 14 would not make any sense if we try to incorporate the idea of receiving some sort of grace from the mere eating of the elements, for why would the Scripture be instructing the Holy Spirit to flee from idolatry?

Quite to the contrary, we know God does not commit idolatry; but we do if we are looking to this bread and wine to bestow on us some sort of blessing from God. In essence, we are telling ourselves that we need this to know Him better; and in doing so, we have put the creature above the Creator and become idolaters. The passage in Romans (Rom 1:18-27) describes this process and what is the end result of the wrath of God being revealed from heaven to all those who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

The manifestation of God giving them over to their vile affections is homosexuality. This is exactly what national Israel did (became idolaters) and therefore the transgressions of their leaders would have eventually manifested themselves in this ungodly behavior. We know this was true, since the leaders of Israel enjoined themselves to the Roman rule and homosexuality was a very common practice in the empire. Israel's idolatry (worshiping the ceremonies and the law instead of God) is why they were cut off from Him; since when God Himself (Jesus Christ) appeared on the scene, "they knew not the time of their visitation." Luke 19:43&44

Sadly to say, we see these same manifestations in the corporate Christian community today. There is a whole denomination who claims to follow Christ and literally believes that if they partake of communion; these elements turn into Jesus's flesh and blood after having been eaten. This is only one means of the same idolatry I mentioned in the paragraph above. It's interesting to note how the Scripture has so accurately predicted the outcome; since this denomination is dodging scandals of it's leaders being involved in homosexual behavior with children.

This is not to say that God does not have His elect people who may be still currently attending congregations of this (or another apostate) denomination; for there are whole nations where these churches are the only ones available. The Holy Spirit is remarkable in His ability to snatch any of us out of the gates of hell. This is as true today as it was of national Israel at the very dawning of Christianity. Just like there were Jews who became believers in Jesus and eventually exited Judaism; many of us have left false churches as well.

Another point I would like to make in regards to incorporating some means of grace with eating communion; is that it would mean Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient. If we believe we need to take part in a ceremony to become more holy, we've lost the meaning of atonement and "that by works no man is justified". "For if Abraham were justified by works, he would have had something to glory in, but not before God. But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Rom 4:2&5) "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.." (Gal 2:16)

If we incorporate (in any way) the obtaining of God's favor by any action we take, (including this notion of "accepting Christ") than we still (like national Israel) have only the shadow and not the substance. When we consider what substitutionary atonement really is; (Christ suffering the wrath of God in the place of the believer) how can we think that something we do on this earth is some how going to add to that? But isn't Jesus present at the communion table? Is He not in some way closely connected to the elements themselves? I mean, communion is really the only ceremony Jesus left us with. Isn't our personal connection to Jesus what communion is suppose to be about? If it's just a symbol, where's the substance?

Many may be asking these questions especially in the light of how communion really is the only ceremony generally celebrated by the people who gather together as a "church". The only real requirement for baptism is that there be a baptizer and a baptizee. Baptism is not an action that has to be performed in the presence of a crowd of people. Communion on the other hand, has to have a congregation to commune; since it's very nature is to show unity in Christ.

So, now that we are all gathered together at this table for this purpose; it has to mean something more and different than the other congregational things we might do, such as a potluck supper or a Bible study. After all, it is the only public ceremony Jesus instituted.

Well, of course it means something special, that is unquestionable. Now what is that mystery and why does it happen? We know that it's not the bread and wine God operates His blessing through, because physical things can not (in and of themselves) show us the grace of God. We only see grace through the Holy Spirit. So maybe rather; communion has to do with our connection to Jesus through the Spirit of God and not the elements at the table.

This, I think is a fair assessment of what this mystery is. Any blessing we might feel from partaking in a communion ceremony is based in what God would reveal to us as we "do this in remembrance" of Him. Thinking on God and what His grace and mercy means to us as individuals in the light of what Jesus surrendered in order that we might have a place in the Kingdom (this Kingdom we share with the other communicates) gives us far more blessing than any thing we could eat. For it says "Where ever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them." - not if you eat this cracker and drink this wine, I'm there among you.

The Body of Believers:

So, now what does "the communion of the body" and "the communion of the blood" really mean? We find the answer in verse 17 (1 Cor 10) "For we being many are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." All of us who are believers ought to be communing together at the table regardless of our denominational background. "Now this I say that everyone of you says, I am of Paul (Luther) and I am of Apollos (Wesley) and I of Cephas (Methodist) and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Luther crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of John Wesley?" (1 Cor 1:12&13)

There are churches who permit only members of that congregation or denomination to partake in the communion because they think they are some how protecting the table of the Lord; when in actuality, they are committing sin. Often times the preacher will sight scriptures that he believes holds him accountable before God. (These passages I will address later) To this notion I have to ask these men. Is Christ unable to "protect" His own table?

The practice of what is called close(ed) communion is very offensive to God. For in their denial of those visiting their congregations (or attending their churches) who really are believers; it would be just like forbidding the Lord from coming to His own table. In a ceremony that is suppose to show unity in Christ; this is far more grievous to the Spirit of God than admitting one who doesn't belong.

How is this so? In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus sets forth a series of sayings about the Kingdom of God. The nations are standing before Him and He is dividing the sheep from the goats. The sheep are invited into the Kingdom "for when I was hungry, you gave me meat: I was thirsty and you gave me drink: I was a stranger and you took me in: naked and you clothed me: sick and you visited me: I was in prison and you came to me." (vs. 35&36) Those who think they are righteous ask Him - When were You; (all these things)? And Jesus tells them "Insomuch as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me!" (vs. 40)

What does all this mean? Sure, there is definitely a practical application to this, but there is also a far deeper substance than just our physical needs. When I was hungry, you fed me with the word of God (gave me meat). When I was thirsty, you gave me the gospel (living water - you gave me drink). I was a stranger, you welcomed me into your congregation, knowing I was a believer you did not deny me communion (you took me in). I was naked (had no covering for my sin), you showed me where to get the robe of righteousness; (clothed me). I was sick, (spiritually stumbling), you showed me compassion; (you visited me). I was in prison, (in bondage to my sin) you showed your concern and prayed for/with me; (you came to me).

For those who are willing to justify themselves and claim they never saw the need Jesus tells them "Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into life eternal." (Matt 25:45&46)

Practical Aspects of Communing with Others:

Now, in connection to the body of Christ (body of believers) "So we being many are one body in Christ and every one members of one another." (Rom 12: 5) "Now you are the body of Christ and members in particular." (1 Cor 12:27)

The next several verses of 1 Cor 10:18-22 talk about things sacrificed to idols and having fellowship with devils. To this, the Scripture says - you can't have both. "You can't drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils ... Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger then He?" (Vs 21&22) The answer here (provoke the Lord to jealousy) obviously is no. God is not jealous of an idol since an idol is nothing. The end result of such foolishness is simply, we are cast into hell; since we by our own vain imaginations are not stronger than God.

We in this day and age often think this verse is talking about people in the Corinthian church who would attend worship at a Roman pagan temple; and than come to this Christian group and worship with them (obviously partaking of communion) too. That probably did happen with some folks, but I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of these injunctions about idol worship had to do with Jewish converts since the majority of the early church were Jews.

Now, some of these people I believe were honestly confused. They'd been raised in a very ethnocentric culture that had been considered to be God's "chosen" people for two millennia prior to the coming of Christ. Even Paul was amazed, in that he said it is a marvelous grace of God that the Kingdom included the Gentiles also. As time went on these Jewish believers began to see how the fulfillment in Christ had truly freed them from all these laws and customs. They began to rest in their messiah and the atonement that He'd paid and while undergoing that process they moved away from the empty symbolism to the true and complete worship of God.

This obviously was not true for everyone since there were Gentile churches that would begin and "judaisers" would come in and tell these people they needed to do according to the Hebrew customs in order for God to show favor upon them. This of course we know is erroneous and what Paul was telling them is short is that these people were attempting to cause them to commit idolatry by eating meat (sin offerings etc) sacrificed to idols. Paul explained to these Gentiles that when the Messiah appeared on the scene all these feast days were done away with.

There also seemed to be a problem with these new converts being invited to parties or feasts of their unbelieving friends and relatives and what were they to do? Should they eat the food even if they are told by the host that it was brought to (or from) some temple in which they either sacrificed to; or gave the idol credit for the provision. The answer -(vs. 28) is that if you (or the person(s) serving the food) are conflicted by your eating it -than don't.

There is something to be said for our human need for celebrations that mark the passing of the seasons and I don't think God sees that need as something that's (in and of it's-self) evil for Jesus participated in His "cultural heritage". This need to create psychological bonds of unity among groups of people is a legitimate one and often times "religious" holidays do that.

One example could be a Christian from a Jewish family participating in a modern Passover Sadder (where there is no "sacrifice" per say). We also might have a friend of some other religion inviting us to a wedding, funeral or some other social event. Should we be conflicted if a Muslim neighbor invites us to their feast at the close of Ramadon? What about ceremonies of friends or family in an apostate denomination? How do we deal with "secularized holidays"? (i.e.. Christmas and Halloween) Do we participate; and if so, to what extent?

Verse 31 actually answers this question. "Whether therefore you eat or drink or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God." You are not confined by any law to participate (or not participate) in these events. Romans 14:5-9 also talks about how in all we do, the way we live, and all that is (exists), belong(s) to the Lord any ways. If we (or someone else) esteems a day, (or pays no regard to it) - in all, we still give thanks to God.

Beside the topic of foreign or pagan holidays, comes the question of other religions. Is it O.K. to read or study their writings; and/or be present at their ceremonies on account of someone else (or our own curiosity)? Is this provoking the wrath of God and therefore making the person in question unworthy of the table of the Lord?

We find the answer to this question in 2 Kings 5:17-19. This is the story of Naaman, (a Syrian general) who was cured of leprosy. He asks Elisha, that God would pardon him (Naaman) when he goes with the king into the temple of Rimmon and has to bow down with the king, (who leans on Naaman) to worship. Elisha tells Naaman "Go in peace." God knew where Naaman's heart was; and likewise, if we participate in a ceremony of a religion (or apostate denomination) we do not believe in (i.e. - our Grandmother's funeral or neighbor's wedding) so long as we know who our heart really belongs to, we have not sinned against God.

Communion and Jesus's death:

I Cor 11:23-26 - is the last passage I will address concerning communion. The only portion of this passage dealing with the reason we take communion (that has not already been covered) is the phrase "For as often as you eat this bread, and drink of this cup, you do show forth the Lord's death until he come." What does it mean that we are "showing forth his death.."?

Since we already know this is a ceremony of remembrance, the next question is; how are we showing forth His death? The answer to that comes forth in the proclamation of the atonement. One of the things that should occur (and usually does) when the administrator of the communion ceremony presents the elements; is an explanation as to where communion came from. This usually begins with something like "Now Jesus the night He was betrayed ... " The next thing that should occur, (and usually doesn't) is an explanation as to why Jesus did this.

Sadly, the "why" of it is usually missing because the preacher often times does not know why. Sometimes, he gets tangled up in one of the traps of mistaking the wine and bread for the body and blood of Christ, attempting to make it into some means of redemption or grace, or be burdening himself with the responsibility of who should and who should not eat it. None of which is showing forth Christ's death. To show forth Christ's death means we need to be concentrating on that death and what that death means. We need to ask ourselves, what was that death about? Why did Jesus die in the first place? The answer to this question; of course, has to do with atonement for sin, but we must know what atonement really is in order to show forth His death.

The Communicant:

Before I get into the atonement, I want to take a look at the remaining verses in the passage. (1 Cot 11:27-34) These verses talk about eating and drinking unworthy, being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and not discerning the Lord's body. What does this all mean?

To "discern the Lord's body" is a little easier to explain than being guilty of the body and blood; since we already know the "Lord's body" is the church. To not discern His body is a person who never realizes they are not a believer. This is the member of the congregation who has done all the denomination requires to be "worthy" of partaking; yet, their heart is far from God. They show no fruit of the Spirit, no love for the Lord or desire for the Holy Spirit to really transform their life. They may show a sorrow for their sin; yet that sorrow never drives any change. Commonly, their sorrow is not sorrow of repentance; but only sorrow that their sin was exposed.

Now, what does it mean to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? For our answer; again, we must turn to the Greek. This word "guilty" (Strong's # 1777 which is a derivative of Strong's # 1758) means to be "in opposition" (usually to God). It is based on another Greek word (Strong's # 1758) that means to be "in quarrel with". This word (Strong's # 1777) is only used 10 times and interestingly enough, is always connected with eternal punishment. The connotation is - he who quarrels with God is in danger of being cast into eternal damnation.

If we say it this way - he who partakes unworthy is in danger of the eternal wrath of God because he's quarreling (with God) over the body and blood of Christ: it makes it a hair easier to understand. We know by this translation that it does not mean the person is in danger of hell because they have some how defiled Jesus with their unworthy eating. They have not betrayed or crucified Him all over again. We know that's not possible since He was the sacrifice offered up once and for all. (Heb 10:10) Yet, to those who believe the bread and wine are more than just a symbolic representation; this (the defiling of Christ) is the only conclusion they can come to.

The next verse (1 Cor 11:28) tells us why they are in a quarrel with God. It is because they have not examined themselves. This begs the question of what does it mean to examine ourselves? 2 Corinthians 13:5 gives us the answer. "Examine yourselves as to weather or not you are in the faith; prove your own selves; (or to your own selves that you really do believe). Don't you yourselves know that Jesus Christ is in you: (lives in you) unless you are reprobates?"

We are examining ourselves as to whether or not we believe what Christ says. He says He's comes to seek and to save the lost. Are you lost? He's comes to call sinners to repentance (be turned). Are you a sinner? He's comes to deliver men from hell. Do you believe you are deserving of hell? What is it that human beings most often quarrel with God over? Is it not our righteousness? Don't we often consider ourselves to be more than we actually are in the sight of God? Do we believe God when He declares that our hearts are "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked"? (Jer 17:9)

In this way we "judge ourselves that we not be judged" (1 Cor 11:31) We examine ourselves as to whether or not we believe in Christ. Notice 2 Cor 13:5 does not say examine yourselves for sin; since anyone who is being honest would certainly find it. Our sin does not exclude us from the table. Repentance simply means to turn from our sin. If we find ourselves struggling with our sin; (which we do all the time) it indicates we haven't fully turned yet. This, by no way, is evidence that our heart is in the wrong place. Repentance is an action and the end result of God delivering that individual from a specific attitude. (Rom 2: 4, Acts 5:31) Repentance does not measure a person's intent, nor does it measure what exactly God is working on. It's simply the finished product. "Turn us oh Lord and we shall be turned? (Lamentations 5:21)

Minister of the Elements:

The very last thing I would like to look at in connection to communion, is the responsibility of the human agent who is serving it. 1 Tim 3:1-14 gives us all the qualifications of what bishops and deacons should be. Most of what's named in this passage is related to the fruit of the Spirit; along with the standard that they ought to be good leaders of their own families. No-where in this passage does it say anything about the administration of communion. The distribution of the elements and who is responsible for that, isn't mentioned in the Scriptures.

What is a preachers responsibility than? Outside of the passage mentioned above, there is not much information about "what" they should be accountable for. If we look at 1 Cot 4:1-5 - This gives us a little more insight as to the human agent's responsibility. "Moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful." (vs. 3) Faithful in what? "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15) A minister of the gospel is to know the gospel and the grace of God.

All these things I've labored to spell out as plainly as I can on these pages, are just a portion of what we are to "study" and "rightly divide". If anything comes to us, via any human being currently living or not; (theological expositions and/or sermons written by people from history past) we are to "receive the word with all readiness of mind and search the scripture daily whether those things were so." All this is fine and good; yes, we are to know the Scripture, but what about those who come to the table? What about a preacher's responsibility to not allow someone to further condemn themselves for eating unworthily? That is all well and fine, if you as the preacher can see the hearts of all in your congregation; but we all know better than that! This privilege is reserved for God and God alone. "Who are you to judge another man's (Christ's) servant? to his own Master he stands or falls. Yes, he shall be held up, for God is able to make him stand." (Rom 14:4) "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre (gain), but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, you will receive a crown of glory that does not fade away." (1 Pet 5:2-4)

Atonement:

Now I am finally onto atonement, I saved this for last because as I stated in the previous paragraph is that the person distributing the elements should be explaining the atonement.

First, I will present it in a simple acronym some might be familiar with; TULIP. This method of description comes from a man named John Calvin - 1509-1564. He was a Swiss reformer who came up with this summed up explanation in response to another man Arminious. They had two opposing theologies that used the same acronym except with different meanings to the letters. I think Arminious was the first one to come up with the acronym, although Calvin got the credit for it. The acronym is TULIP.

Total Depravity - Man is depraved to the point that in and of his own nature, he can not please God. Humanity is not so depraved that we are incapable of doing any human good. The unregenerate can in deed be kind, loving and generous. They can feed the poor, care for the sick and help out their fellow man. They may appear to be very "holy" and say they do this on behalf of God. They may truly believe they do this on behalf of God but their motivation is that God see some goodness in them and reward them for it. The Scripture says that man by the works of his own flesh can not please God

Unconditional Election - This point states that people are not chosen based on what they do. They are only welcomed into the kingdom of God based on whether or not their sin has been atoned for. The only atonement for sin is the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus is the only way any of us get into heaven.

Limited Atonement - Christ only died for the sin of those who would believe. Some people today prefer to call this "particular atonement" since they have a problem with the term "limited". The basic point remains the same though; Jesus did not pay for the sin of every single human being that ever lived, He only paid for the sin of the believers. If His atonement had covered everyone, God would have no justification for sending anyone to "hell" - (being defined earlier as the state of being under the wrath of God). Everyone would go to heaven whether they believed on Christ or not because our entrance into the kingdom is based on atonement for sin. Belief and repentance are evidence of that atonement since it is very clear in the Scripture that they are a working of the Spirit of God, just as all of the rest of the fruit of the Spirit is.

Irresistible Grace - The grace of God can not be overcome by human will. We can not will ourselves to be unsaved if God has indeed redeemed us. That grace is also irresistible in that anyone who truly sees it will not disregard it. Those who are drawn by the Father, find it unfathomable to not believe in Christ.

Perseverance of the Saints - The people of God will continue to persevere despite the powers in this world and their own sin. They will continue to believe even when believing does not make sense and they are struggling with themselves and the sovereignty of God.

Conclusion:

Well, Like I said with the last study - what can be said that hasn't been said already? I know there is a lot in this study that relates to Baptism and Communion in an indirect way, but sometimes that's the fun in Bible study. We find things we never knew were there. I've learned things from doing this study that I never knew before and I must say some of my thoughts on the subjects have been more finely honed while others have changed altogether. I hope whoever reads this study finds it encouraging as well as enlightening. May the grace and peace of God the Father go with us all - in the name of Jesus.