The sermon by Eric Bechler focuses on the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper, specifically exploring the reformed position as outlined in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. The speaker differentiates between the symbolic and literal interpretations of the phrases 'This is my body' and 'This is my blood', emphasizing a figurative understanding in line with scripture. The sermon compares the reformed view with other Christian traditions, such as Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran, highlighting the reformed belief in a spiritual presence of Christ rather than a physical one. Concerns are raised over doctrines like transubstantiation and consubstantiation, which attribute divine qualities to Christ's human nature, conflicting with the Chalcedonian definition of Christ's dual nature. The sermon concludes that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are symbols representing Christ's body and blood, serving as spiritual nourishment and a means of grace for believers.

The outward elements in this ordinance duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ have such a relation to Him crucified as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit the body and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and in nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before. We continue today in our teaching of the Lord's Supper. We will once again focus on the elements of the Lord's Supper, more specifically the nature of the presence of Christ in Lord's Supper. Is there a sacramental union? Is the physical body and blood of Christ present in the elements?

Is it spiritual? This is another one of those controversial areas within Christianity. And there's very little chance of it being resolved soon, but I want to present the reformed position and in doing so, we'll, as a consequence, briefly touch on the positions held by other groups. Our confession today begins with the elements. We know what these are.

We've been speaking of them for a while. They are bread and wine. First, we know this from the command and example of Christ. And second, this has been the uniform custom of the Christian church from the beginning. Bread is the staff of life for the body is an appropriate symbol of that spiritual food that nourishes the soul.

Jesus is the bread of life, John 6.35, that bread from heaven, John 6.32. Wine in Greek, oinos, is the fermented juice of the grape. The wine points to Christ shed blood for the remission of sins and for the ratification or sealing of the new covenant with his people, Matthew 26, 28. The next part of our paragraph is the main point of our discussion today, that is the relation of the signs to the things signified or to what they symbolize. Much of what I discussed today is coming from Herman Bawink's reform dogmatics.

The Christian Church almost unanimously upheld the teaching of the mystical union, that is the union with Christ, as the import of the Lord's Supper. Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic, Lutheran as well as reformed believers are agreed and affirming that in the Lord's Supper, there occurs an objective and real communication of the person and benefits of Christ to everyone who believes. But among themselves, they diverge widely over the manner in which this communication takes place. The first three groups cited above are not satisfied unless the body and blood of Christ are also physically and locally present in the signs and received and consumed orally. The Reformed, however, teach that while Christ is truly and essentially communicated to believers, this occurs in a spiritual manner, and this in such a way that he can be received and enjoyed only by the mouth of faith.

And for this position, scripture furnishes abundance evidence. The disagreement comes from how we interpret Christ's words. This is my body and this is my blood. Do we understand this literally or do we understand this figuratively? And we'll go through a number of arguments here.

The first, let's look at the phrase, this is my body. This refers to the bread, the bread Jesus was holding in his hand. My body refers to Jesus's body. And the be verb here is, is what's called a copula, which unites or connects the subject bread to the predicate body. In the case where the subject and the predicate are distinctly different, the copula is figurative.

And we would read this more as a metaphor. This is like my body. This represents my body. This interpretation is consistent with many examples throughout scripture. From Genesis 41, 26 through 27, the seven good cows are seven years.

The seven good heads are seven years of prosperity. The seven thin and ugly cows are seven years. The seven empty heads are seven years of famine. In Revelation 1 20, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches. The seven lampstands are the seven churches.

We also have examples of metaphors with Christ himself from John 10 verse 9, I am the door. John 15 one, I am the true vine. First Corinthians 10 four, and that rock was Christ. Hebrews 10 20, the veil that is his flesh. Now if the bread and body are the same, there would be no metaphor used in this instance, and the copula would be one of true being, or literal rather than figurative.

Regarding this is my blood, we read in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, for this is my blood of the new covenant, Matthew 26, 28. This is my blood of the new covenant in Mark 14, 24. This is wine, the other element of the Lord's Supper. My blood is Jesus' actual blood flowing through his veins. Again, is would be the copula connecting the subject wine with the predicate blood.

Kind of like what we did for the bread and the body. However, for the second phrase, Luke and Paul use different words in their recording of Jesus' words of institution. In Luke 22, 20, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. And this cup is the new covenant in my blood in 1 Corinthians 11 25. So in this case, this cup is the subject, not wine.

And the predicate is the new covenant in my blood. In this situation, we would have to agree that what we have is a metaphor. The copula here would have to be figurative, not literal. That being the case, it would seem inconsistent to claim a literal reading in Matthew and Mark and a figurative reading in Luke and Paul. Well what if this does not refer to natural bread or natural wine?

What if this refers to the substance of Jesus's body and blood? In this case the bread and the wine would have to have already been changed into Jesus's body and blood. For those who hold the position that the substance of the bread and wine change to the substance of Jesus's body and blood. It is not until the words of institution are proclaimed by the priest that they change. But if they've changed before the words of institution are uttered, then the question arises, when and how were they changed?

Baving explains, the words Jesus uttered when he instituted the supper are not intended as a fixed formula. And this is evident from the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul reproduce them in different readings, and that the liturgical use of them by the Christian churches display all sorts of variation. It is even less possible to prove that the words, assuming we knew which words specifically have to be used, possess a consecratory operative or conversive power. For Jesus does not say this becomes, but this is my body, and has therefore already set this apart from general use and consecrated it by words of blessing and thanksgiving for a higher purpose. Furthermore, when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, He was physically with the disciples in the upper room.

They were all together sharing the Passover meal when He spoke the words, this is my body and this is my blood. It seems unlikely that they would understand that with their physical mouth they would eat Jesus's own body and drink Jesus's own blood, much less actually do it. How could they do it if he was standing there before them? How would that work? Note the Old and New Testaments prohibit the eating and drinking of blood.

Genesis 9 for Leviticus 17 10 through 14 and Acts 15 28 and 29. Clearly Jesus wouldn't be causing his disciples and in the future all of us, to sin. This leads to the question, in what manner did Jesus offer his body and blood at the first supper? Our confession answers this for us, that the bread and wine represent Christ's body and blood. Bovingt supposes, if no trans or consubstantiation and no literal eating with the mouth took place at the first supper, then neither may it be accepted at the supper the Christian church celebrates after Jesus's death at his command and according to his institution.

It needs to be consistent. Dr. Sproul reminds us that Calvin and other reformers rejected both transubstantiation and consubstantiation on Christological grounds. What does that mean? If the physical body of Christ is in heaven, they asked how can it also be present wherever on earth the sacrament is being observed.

And all at the same time, that would require the human nature of Christ to have the divine attribute of omnipresence. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 took place to address the heresies regarding the incarnation and dual nature of Christ. And it's important to note that Rome still holds to the declaration of Chalcedon, as do the Protestants and all of the Orthodox Christianity. Chalcedon affirmed that Christ had two natures, truly man and truly God. One person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature.

This is really difficult to understand. So much so that those gathered, they didn't tell us how the two natures are united. They only tell us how they are not united. The two natures of Christ are united without mixture, without confusion, without separation, and without division. This also means that each nature retains its own attributes.

In other words, we must not deify the human nature nor humanize the divine nature. When we cross one of these boundaries or compromise on one of these negatives, we cross into some degree of Christological heresy. Dr. Sproul raises this concern that the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation give a divine attribute to the human nature of Christ. In order for Christ's body and blood to be physically present whenever and wherever the Lord's Supper or Mass is celebrated, His physical body must be ubiquitous or omnipresent.

That is a divine attribute. The divine nature of Christ can be here and there at the same time, but the human nature of Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of God. And this explains how Jesus could tell his disciples that he was departing from them in John 16, 7, 16, and 28, yet would still be present with them to the end. The Heidelberg Catechism in question and answer 47 teaches, In his human nature, Christ is not now on earth, but in his divinity, majesty, grace, and spirit, he is never absent from us. Thus, we do not see the human nature of Christ when we celebrate the Lord's Supper.

Body and blood belong to his humanity, not his divinity. Bavink raises one more argument. Suppose even if Christ were physically and locally present in the Supper, One cannot see to what end this is necessary or useful. Suppose that with our physical mouth we literally ate Jesus's own body. How would that profit us?

Is not the point of the supper that our soul, that is our spiritual life, be nurtured and strengthened. And this, in the nature of the case, cannot happen by our eating Christ's body with our physical mouth, for the things we eat with, in part, become constituents of our own body, and in part, are expelled from our own body. Dr. Beeke states, hence when Christ said, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him." John 6 56. He referred to receiving the crucified Savior in his saving grace by faith in the heart, not by the mouth.

Christ said, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, " John 6, 53. But only faith, not eating the supper, is necessary for eternal life. However, when Christ later instructed the ordinance of eating the bread and drinking the cup of which he said, this is my body and this is my blood. Those physical acts with the mouth become signs of faith that feeds spiritually on Christ crucified. Therefore, John 6 is about eating Christ by faith, not the Lord's Supper.

But the Lord's Supper is about eating Christ by faith as depicted in John 6. Baving concludes, in the sacrifices of the Old Testament, flesh and blood were of primary importance since they were typologically pointed to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Yet the Lord's Supper itself is not a sacrifice, but a memorial of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, and expresses the communion of believers with that sacrifice. For that reason, Christ did not choose flesh and blood, but bread and wine as food and drink for the Lord's Supper. To indicate thereby that it is not a sacrifice, but a meal.

A meal on the basis of, in memory of, and as an exercise of communion with the crucified Christ. To that end the sign of bread and wine are imminently suited. And as I mentioned in the beginning, this is a very complicated and controversial topic which will probably not be resolved in our lifetime. But it's good, and I think it's healthy, that we discuss it and go through the arguments. It's important because it touches on the nature of Christ, an area that is under attack in our culture for many directions.

I hope what we've discussed has been helpful and sheds a little more light on this important topic. And to conclude, we believe that the outward elements, the bread and wine, represent the body and blood of Christ in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. We believe and confess that there exists a figurative meaning between the bread and the body and the wine and the blood, not a literal interpretation. We believe and confess that in substance and in nature, they still remain truly and only bread and truly and only wine. As they were before, when we receive them in faith, we derive benefit and nourishment from feeding on Jesus Christ spiritually.

Despite the controversies, I want you to remember that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a gift to God's people. It is a means of grace. It is a source of spiritual nourishment and a true and true communion with Christ and his church. Amen.