Sermon Tone Analysis

“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’

And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’”[1]

The grave danger of familiar traditions is that they will become routine; and thus, the power of the symbol is diluted, if not destroyed.

The Lord’s Supper is the continuing ordinance given to believers by our Saviour.

Those who have received Christ as Master of life are called to identify with Him immediately through the ordinance of baptism.

Only then, having identified with Him openly, those believers, gathered as members of a particular congregation, are instructed to actively call to mind His sacrifice and His promise through sharing in the tradition that we have received and know as Communion, or the Lord’s Table.

The Lord’s Supper is given to believers to remind them of Christ’s love revealed through His sacrifice, to encourage them to strengthen fellowship within the Body to which He has appointed them, and to encourage them in the hope that arises from His promise to return.

And though it is important that we remind ourselves frequently of what we declare, perhaps we need to shake off our lethargy from time-to-time and refresh our minds.

*The Setting for the Meal* — Sitting in a modern church building, it is doubtful that contemporary Christians capture the intimacy associated with the meal described in the Gospels.

We sit together in pews, or on seats, while first one and then the other of the elements are passed down the rows.

We sit obediently, waiting for the pronunciation of the formula that permits us to eat or drink.

Then, in unison, we chew the bread or hurriedly swallow the juice.

Just because we have eaten bread and drunken juice at the same time does not mean that we have experienced fellowship, nor even that we have worshipped.

What is done in such a setting is often not fellowship, but rather individual worship.

Don’t misunderstand; I am not opposed to worship as an individual, but the Meal is meant to be */communion/*—a sharing of lives.

Indeed, the Meal is to be observed in a group setting and not as a solitary act for an individual, or even for individuals focused on their own actions.

And the normal practise among contemporary Christians, however comfortable and regardless of how beautiful one believes the act to be, is not necessarily conducive to corporate worship.

Jesus was together with His disciples to observe the Passover Meal.

All were present, save for Judas who had just hurried out.

The Master had just finished washing the disciples’ feet, when he divulged that one of the disciples would betray Him.

Their response was shock.

John says that they “looked at one another, uncertain of whom He spoke” [*John 13:22*].

Their silence was broken as the disciples, one after another, asked, “Is it I, Lord” [*Matthew 26:22*]?

Jesus indicated that it was the one who had dipped his hand into the bitter herbs with Him.

Judas, also, asked whether he was the one who would betray Jesus, and the Master’s answer was, “You have said so” [*Matthew 26:25*].

It seems apparent that the other disciples did not understand the exchange, if they actually heard what was said.

Likely, they were each speaking, questioning what had just been said.

They were focused on their own thoughts, and so missed what was said.

Peter, recovering a presence of mind to wonder what Jesus meant, motioned to John to ask Jesus who it was.

John happened to be leaning back with his head near Jesus chest.

So turning slightly, he asked, “Lord, who is it?”

At this, Jesus responded, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.”

And with that, Jesus dipped the bread and handed it to Judas [*John 13:23-26*].

Handing the bread to Judas, Jesus said, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

I can only wonder that John didn’t exclaim his surprise, or turn and blurt out this stunning knowledge before the others.

Undoubtedly, Judas knew that he was exposed, and so he hurried out to betray the Master; and John sat there silent in the face of this stunning knowledge, perhaps unable to fathom what he had just witnessed.

It was after Judas left, that the Master instituted the Meal with those who were truly His disciples.

Fix in your mind that Judas was not present when Jesus instituted the Communion Meal! Flying in the face of modern evangelical practise, this singular observation sets precedence for excluding those who are not committed to Christ from the Meal.

Jesus had earlier identified Judas as “a devil” [*John 6:70*].

This is a truth that is acknowledged but seldom enforced among contemporary evangelicals.

There is a corollary to this truth, that those who are not committed to discipleship within the body of believers have no right to the Lord’s Table.

By inviting Judas to leave, the Master demonstrated that unsaved individuals and those who have no relationship to the assembly have no claim on the fellowship that should be expressed.

The disciples who followed Jesus—those who were committed to Him, to His purpose and to His Kingdom—were reclining at the table with Him.

The Passover observance was concluded; Judas had left the room.

It was at this point, in the intimacy arising from the warm fellowship of the disciples, that Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to them to eat.

The significance of His action could not have been foreseen, but the intimacy of sharing His heart with His devoted followers is often missed in this day.

The Lord’s Supper is meant to be a festive, joyful occasion.

Too often we attempt to make it such a solemn event that we fail to realise the joy that attends being in the presence of the Risen Saviour and His redeemed people.

The Meal the Master instituted that night was not so much an act of worship as it was an expression of love.

To fail to realise the intimacy of fellowship with the Master, and consequently the fellowship we enjoy with those who follow Him, is to miss an essential aspect of the act.

If I sit in a service of Communion and claim to worship without knowing the intimacy of being a disciple of Him who is worshipped, and if I participate at the Lord’s Table but fail to share my life with those participating at that time, how can I say that I have recognised the presence of the Master or acknowledged His Body?

I have performed a rite, participated in a ritual, but I have not truly received the blessing that God intended this action to be.

When I came to faith, it was in a congregation that practised strict adherence to the Word of God as an inerrant guide for faith and practise.

They observed the Lord’s Table but once each year.

Before the Table was set, the pastor would address the assembly, explaining the Scriptures and asking that all who were not members of the congregation to please excuse themselves as the Body would be observing the Communion Meal.

In doing this, they were in line with the practise of the earliest churches.

In an ancient work known as The Didache, we read, “Let no one eat or drink from your Eucharist except those who are baptised in the Lord’s Name; for the Lord also has spoken concerning this: Do not give what is holy to dogs” [*The Didache: 9:5*].[2]

*The Doctrines Presented by the Master* — There is a joyous sense surrounding the Communion Meal.

However, there are a number of vital doctrines taught by Jesus’ words and by this ordinance that we need to acknowledge.

There are at least five great doctrines suggested through a review of the text before us at this hour.

[3]

First, note */the vicarious atonement/* of Christ the Lord.

This is a perfectly fine theological term that is easily forgotten in this day.

All that is meant by this term is that Jesus, who needed no atonement or covering for sin, provided atonement for us.

Christ the Lord became our substitute, taking our punishment on Himself so that we could live.

He received the punishment we deserved; and now we can enjoy His life.

The Saviour gave His life as a substitute because of our helpless condition.

Jesus died in our place as our substitute; He took our guilt on himself and received the punishment for our sins in His own body.

This is the import of Isaiah’s words that were recorded hundreds of years before Jesus was born of a virgin.

“Surely he has borne our griefs

and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,

smitten by God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,

and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned—every one—to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.”

[*Isaiah 53:4-6*]

Paul makes this identical point when in his letter to the Corinthian Christians he wrote, “For our sake [God] made [Christ Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” [*2 Corinthians 5:21*].

The Passover, which was being observed that very week as the Master instituted this continuing ordinance, commanded the sacrifice of an innocent lamb for the sin of others.

This is what is symbolised by the breaking of the bread—in the same way the bread was broken, so Jesus’ body would be broken, but not for Himself.

His body would be broken for those who would trust him as their Saviour.

It is impossible to read this account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper without drawing the conclusion that the Meal emphasises */a new covenant/*.

*Matthew 26:28* is the only verse containing the word “covenant” in this Gospel.

It is an important use of the word and almost certainly a reference to *Exodus 24:8*, where Moses is recorded as saying, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

Since Exodus 24 records the establishment of the old covenant, we can hardly miss the contrast between that old covenant and the new covenant that is set in place by Jesus.

Matthew and Mark do not use the word “new,” but Luke does.

He records Jesus’ words as the cup representing “the new covenant” in Christ’s blood [*Luke 22:20*].

Not surprisingly, Paul also preserves the word in his transcription of Jesus’ words, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood.

Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” [*1 Corinthians 11:25*].

Jesus’ testimony linking the old covenant and the new covenant makes clear that His death was the fulfillment and end of the millions of bloody sacrifices that had been used to seal and maintain the old covenant.

There would be no more need for sacrifices once he had died for our sin.

This is the emphasis found in the Letter to Hebrew Christians, where we read, “When Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

“Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” [*Hebrews 9:11-15*].

The author’s conclusion is that “We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” [*Hebrews 10:10*].