Sermon Tone Analysis

“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.’”[1]

The Body of Christ,” mumbles the priest as he places a wafer on the tongue of each worshipper.

Those participating in that ritual are told that they are eating Christ’s body as they chew the host.

After all, did not the Master say to His disciples when He instituted the Meal, “Take, eat, this is My body?”

Such a thought is repugnant to individuals who have not had their thinking distorted through early and repeated twisting of the words of the Master.

It points up a gulf in the approach to the Lord’s Table that exists in Christendom.

Catholics hold to a doctrine known as */transubstantiation/*.

According to Catholic doctrine, the bread becomes the body of Christ as the priest pronounces the Words, “This is My body,” and the wine becomes His blood as the priest pronounces, “This is My blood.”

Therefore, according to Catholic doctrine, communicants actually dine on the body of Christ.

In fairness, this is not teaching some form of ecclesiastical cannibalism, but it does argue that in participating, worshippers actually receive Christ in totality through eating the bread.

Officially, the Council of Trent declared, “Because Christ our Redeemer declared that what He offered under the species of bread was truly His Body, it has always been the faith of the Church of God (and this holy Synod now states it again) that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change takes place in which the entire substance of the bread is changed into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and the entire substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood.

This change the Holy Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls *‘transubstantiation.’*”[2]

However, medieval theologians within the Catholic realm were not united in accepting transubstantiation; a surprising number advocated the doctrine of */consubstantiation/*.

Consubstantiation presents the view that the substance of the bread and wine are not actually changed, but that the body and blood of Christ co-exists with the bread and the wine.

Today, some theologians within the Anglican communion, among Eastern Orthodox churches and within the Lutheran churches, hold to the doctrine of consubstantiation.

Most contemporary evangelical Christians see the statement of the Saviour as symbolic.

It is doubtful that any evangelical theologians believe that Christ is physically received through participating in the Communion Meal; they are virtually unanimous in seeing the statement as symbolic.

Thus, the bread symbolises the broken body of the Saviour; and the wine symbolises His blood that was shed because of our sin.

Tragically, it sometimes seems that the Communion Meal has become just another ritual without great meaning in the estimate of participants.

Observance of the rite is rushed because worshippers feel pressed to get through it in order to get on with their lives, or because they don’t wish to give thought to the observance.

This should never be allowed to happen.

I would not ever want to see the Meal degenerate into a mere ritual.

I would not ever want to see us rush through the observance simply because we had an arbitrary schedule we felt compelled to keep.

It would be far better for us to cease observing the Communion Supper than to permit it to become a mere formality tacked on at the conclusion of a service.

In that case, we will have become the centre of what we call worship rather than focusing on Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.

The Master invited His disciples with the words that are so familiar: “Take, eat; this is my body.”

Join me in thinking about the Master’s invitation to worship.

*The Setting for the Meal* — What was happening when Jesus instituted this tradition for His disciples?

If we understand the circumstances that surrounded the event, we will have greater understanding of what He meant when He spoke the words that are the focus of our study this day.

Turn your mind back to events that began a day before the Last Supper.

Jesus was leading His disciples toward Jerusalem.

He had repeatedly endeavoured to prepare them for what was coming.

Approaching Jerusalem on that final journey, Mark tells us that Jesus “began to teach [the disciples] that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed” [*Mark 8:31*].

It is fascinating that Mark, writing as Peter amanuensis, adds, “And He said this plainly” [*Mark 8:32*].

Six days later, Jesus was transfigured before Peter, James and John, an event recorded in several of the Gospel accounts.

Coming down from the mountain, He healed a demonised boy and rebuked His disciples for their lack of faith.

Passing on through Galilee and toward Capernaum, we read that “He was teaching His disciples, saying to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him” [*Mark 9:31*].

Such pointed teaching was hard for the disciples to take.

Matthew appends the observation that the disciples “were greatly distressed” [*Matthew 17:23*].

Once again, Jesus attempted to inform the twelve about what was going to happen.

Doctor Luke’s account records the words of the Master.

“See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished.

For He will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon.

And after flogging Him, they will kill Him, and on the third day He will rise” [*Luke 18:31-33*].

Then, Luke adds, “But they understood none of these things” [*Luke 18:34*].

In fact, the response of James and John was a request that they be appointed to first and second place in the Kingdom of God [*Mark** 10:35 ff.*].

It is not at all clear that they acted on their own initiative, instead being prompted by their mother.

Matthew records the incident as follows.

“The mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to Him with her sons, and kneeling before Him she asked Him for something.

And He said to her, ‘What do you want?’

She said to Him, ‘Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at Your right hand and one at Your left, in Your kingdom.’

Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking.

Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?’

They said to Him, ‘We are able.’

He said to them, ‘You will drink My cup, but to sit at My right hand and at My left is not Mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.’

And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers” [*Matthew 20:20-24*].

Again, the Master spoke of the agony of what He was about to experience, and the two men were incapable of recognising what He was talking about.

They were so focused on advancing their own interests that they failed to see His greater mission of presenting His life as a sacrifice because of the sin of the world.

Again and again the Master had spoken of His pending agony, the things He would shortly suffer, and the disciples did not understand.

Jesus performed yet another miracle as he was leaving Jericho, still moving toward Jerusalem.

He restored sight to two blind men [*Matthew 20:29-34*], one of whom is identified as Bartimaeus [*Mark 10:46-52*].

I assume that since we are told specifically that Bartimaeus followed the Master [see *Mark 10:52* and *Luke 18:43*] and nothing further is said of the second man who received his sight, that the Evangelists mean for us to understand that one man received a miracle and followed Jesus who showed him compassion, whilst the other man, though also having received a miracle, did not believe.

Simply witnessing the mercy and the power of God does not make one a Christian.

Believing in Him who possesses power to give life, the One who gave His life and conquered death, gives eternal life and transforms a person.

Nearing Jerusalem, Jesus sent two disciples into the city to fetch a colt on which He would ride into the city.

The purpose of this was not to relieve Him in His weariness, but to signify to the populace that this was the Messiah, God’s anointed one.

Matthew brings out the significance of this fulfillment of prophecy when he adds the explanatory note, “This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,

‘Say to the daughter of Zion,

“Behold, your king is coming to you,

humble, and mounted on a donkey,

and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.”’”

[*Matthew 21:4, 5*]

Crowds followed Him from Jericho, but with the arrival of the colt, the crowd began to swell; people were excited at the opportunity to witness this historic event.

They became so excited that some in the crowd spread their cloaks on the road as a sign of homage to this promised Messiah.

Others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road.

The crowd, now surrounding Him and moving into the city with Him began to shout, “Hosanna to the Son of David!

Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord!

Hosanna in the highest!

Blessed is the coming Kingdom of our father David!

Blessed is the King who comes in the Name of the Lord!

Peace in heaven and glory in the highest” [*Matthew 21:1-11*; *Mark 11:1-10*; *Luke 19:28-38*]!

The noise of the crowd grew in intensity, finally becoming so great that some of the Pharisees took umbrage, less at the enthusiasm than at the mere fact that people were anticipating the coming of God’s Kingdom.

“Teacher,” they shouted when they were at last close enough to be heard, “rebuke your disciples.”

However, the Master answered them, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out” [*Luke 19:39, 40*].

The crowds followed Jesus to the Temple, where He witnessed the self-serving concessions—moneychangers and pigeon sellers, together with other religious entrepreneurs.

You will undoubtedly recall the stern words that Matthew recorded, “My House shall be called a House of Prayer, but you make it a den of robbers” [*Matthew 21:13*], after which He drove them out of the Temple.

Then, His immediate work completed, He looked around, and because it was late, He turned and left the city to overnight in Bethany with the twelve [*Mark 11:11*].

The next day was exhausting as the chief priests and the elders, the Pharisees and the Sadducees tested Him, much as a Passover lamb would be tested to discover whether there was some flaw which would disqualify the sacrificial animal.

Moses had written that the lamb chosen for sacrifice must “be without blemish.”

It was to be set aside and examined carefully to ensure that there was no blemish.

Only when it was certain that the lamb was perfect would it suffice for sacrifice [*Exodus 12:5, 6*].

So the Master was scrutinised, and He passed the tests.

The chief priests and elders blustered, demanding that Jesus tell them what authority He claimed for cleansing the Temple.

He turned the tables on them, placing them on the horns of a dilemma; He asked them to declare openly whether John’s baptism had the approval of heaven or whether that baptism was merely an act that he had made up.

They discussed the matter and wisely concluded that they dared not give an answer.

If they said John had acted with heavenly authority, then Jesus would wonder why they had not believed him.

If they said that he acted on mere human authority, the crowd, which had been delighted with John’s ministry, would attack them.

Therefore, they hedged, claiming they were unable to answer.

Using their own answer, Jesus refused to identify the source of His authority [see *Matthew 21:23-27*].

The Pharisees were next in line to test the Lamb of God.