Baptist Catechism 98-99

Q. 98. To whom is baptism to be administered?

A. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other. (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12,36; Acts 10:47,48)

Q. 99. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?

A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such. (Proverbs 30:6; Luke 3:7,8)

Scripture Reading: Acts 2:36–41

“‘Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.’ Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.’ And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:36–41, ESV).

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church but without the benefit of proofreading.

*****

As I’m sure you know, the Baptist Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (the Catechism used by many who are Reformed Presbyterians) are very, very similar. The same thing can be said of our confessions of faith. The Second London Confession and the Westminster Confession are very similar documents. The similarities are important and encouraging. They remind us that we have a lot in common with our Reformed, Presbyterian brothers and sisters. This should encourage Christian unity and love.  

Now obviously, there are differences between these standards. The primary difference is our answer to the question, to whom is baptism to be administered? 

On the one hand, I do not want to over-emphasize the importance of this question. Indeed, there are other doctrines more foundational to the faith than the doctrine of baptism. To be a Christian, one must hold to orthodox views regarding God, Scripture, the fall of man into sin, and salvation through faith in Christ, for these doctrines are foundational to the faith. They carry much greater weight, therefore, than questions about baptism. Stated differently, I do believe that it is possible for Christians to differ over the question of who should be baptized and to regard one another as true and dear brothers and sisters in Christ, their unity being rooted in Christ, and in their agreement on the foundational doctrines just mentioned. There is something to be said for the approach of majoring in the majors and minoring in the minors. 

But on the other hand, I do not think it is wise to dismiss this question as unimportant. Baptism is very important, brothers and sisters, for Christ has ordained it. He has commanded that disciples be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, baptism is connected to other things. Maybe you have heard me say that all theology hangs together. The meaning is that errors in one area will lead to errors in other areas. Errors in foundational doctrines (like the doctrines of God, Scripture, Man, Sin, and Salvation in Christ) are potentially catastrophic. And errors made in less foundational points of doctrine, though they might not disturb the foundation of the faith, will have a ripple effect on other doctrines, too. Our understanding of baptism will impact, in some way, our understanding of the church. It will impact our understanding of the nature of the New Covenant. Who are members of the New Covenant? Is the New Covenant breakable? These are a few related questions that come quickly to mind. 

Question 95 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “To whom is Baptism to be administered?” Their answer is, “Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the

visible church are to be baptized.”

Contrast this with question 98 of the Baptist Catechism: To whom is baptism to be administered? Answer: Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other. (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12,36; Acts 10:47,48)

This is the clear teaching of the New Testament. 

Firstly, we should remember what the NT says that Baptism signifies. We considered the symbolism of baptism last week with the help of Baptist Catechism 97: What is Baptism? Answer. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death, burial, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him; of remissions of sins; and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.” If it is true that baptism signifies union with Christ in his death and resurrection, new birth, cleansing from sin, and a resolve to walk in a new way, then it is most reasonable to think that this sign is for those of whom these things are true! Baptism is for those who have been united to Christ by faith, cleansed by his blood, who have died to their old self, and raised to new life.  

Secondly, we should remember what we say through the waters of baptism. It is through baptism that we profess our faith. It is through baptism that we say, Jesus is Lord! Yes, we say that Jesus is Lord with our lips. But that profession is to be made through baptism. To be baptized is to say, I believe. To be baptized is to say, I have been forgiven. To be baptized is to say, I have died to my old self and raised to a newness of life. Through baptism, we make a profession and a commitment. Baptism is for those of whom this is true. 

Thirdly, we should remember what God says to us in baptism. In baptism, God’s name is placed on his people (we are to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit). In baptism, God says, through Christ you are forgiven and adopted as my own. Again I say, baptism is for those of whom this is true. 

In fact, a careful study of the New Testament Scriptures reveals that it is only those who make a credible profession of repentance and faith who are to be baptized. 

Perhaps the most important text is the one we call the Great Commission: “And Jesus came and said [to his disciples], ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV, emphasis added). 

When baptisms are described in the New Testament, we see that it is those who believe who are baptized. Sometimes those who believe in infant baptism will point to the household baptisms found in the Book of Acts and say, there must have been infants in these households! Two things can be said in response. One, it is not wise to build doctrines on the foundation of assumptions and speculations. Two, most of these passages where “households” are mentioned teach that those in these households heard the word and believed, something infants and small children cannot do (i.e.  Acts 11:13-18,  16:29-32).

I think it is very safe to say that not one text in the New Testament clearly teaches us to baptize infants. But we are not biblicists. We reject the idea that for something to be believed as true there must be a verse that says it. No, we are not biblicists. We agree that some doctrines are to be believed because they are taught by way of necessary consequence. This means that the whole of what the Bible says on a subject is to be taken into consideration when forming our doctrines. The most famous example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible in some places teaches that God is one. In other places, the Bible teaches that God is three. No one verse can be found that teaches that God is three in one, but when all is carefully considered, we are moved by the testimony of the totality of Scripture to confess that God is Triune. 

Never does the New Testament command infant baptism – only the baptism of those who profess faith and repentance.

Never does the New Testament describe infant baptism – only the baptism of those who profess faith and repentance.

But do the Scriptures require us to believe in infant baptism by way of necessary or certain consequence? In other words, does a theological reading of Scripture require us to baptize the children of believers? Stated one more way, is infant baptism taught in a similar way to how the Trinity is taught in the Scriptures – no one verse of Scripture teaches it, but when the whole Bible is considered on the subject, we are bound to believe that babies are to be baptized? 

If we are to be consistent in our interpretation of the Scriptures, we must be open to the possibility (for we are not biblicists!), but the answer is no.

Listen to Baptist Catechism 99 after that, I will explain why.  Question 99: Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized? Answer: The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such.

So why are we to baptize those who make a credible profession of repentance and faith in Christ only, and not the infants of those who make such a profession?  

1. The Scriptures nowhere command infant baptism. 
2. The Scriptures nowhere describe infant baptism. 
3. A careful, theological, covenantal, redemptive-historical study of the totality of the Scriptures – Old Testament and New – does not necessitate the practice of infant baptism. To the contrary, a careful examination of the Old Testament Scriptures agrees with the teaching of the New Testament that baptism is for those who profess faith in Christ alone. 

Those familiar with the debate between Reformed paedobaptists (paedo means child) and Reformed credobaptists (credo refers to a profession of faith) will know that the Reformed paedobaptists do not argue for their practice of infant baptism from the New Testament but from the Old. 

They argue like this:

1. The sign of circumcision was applied to infants under the Old Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. 
2. The Old Covenant was a particular external administration of the Covenant of Grace, and the New Covenant is a particular external administration of the Covenant of Grace.
3. Given that the sign of admission into the Old Covenant (circumcision) was applied to the infants of covenant members, it must necessarily be that the sign of admission into the New Covenant (baptism) be applied to the infants of covenant members, namely, of those who believe. 

So you can see that the Reformed paedobaptists do not typically argue for their position by pointing to this verse or that in the New Testament. They argue from the Old Testament by reasoning that if circumcision was applied to infants under the Old Covenant, then it must necessarily be that baptism is to be given to infants under the New Covenant, even though the New Testament never says so.  

With all due respect to our Reformed paedobaptist brethren (many of whom we esteem very highly), we reject this reasoning. 

One, we do not agree that the Old Covenant was a particular external administration of the Covenant of Grace. The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were mixed. They were covenants of works that could be broken (and they were). But they carried within them promises, prophesies,  types, and shadows that pointed forward to Christ, his kingdom, and the covenant that he mediates – the New Covenant. The New Covenant alone is the Covenant of Grace. The Abrahamic and Mosaic anticipated and pointed forward to the Covenant of Grace, but they were not the Covenant of Grace, properly speaking, for they did not have Christ as head and mediator. We could talk about this for hours. And we have before in other studies. For now, let me say that our particular articulation of covenant theology, which differs from the typical paedobaptists’ articulation of that doctrine in important respects, leaves no room for the argument from infant circumcision to infant baptism that the paedobaptists are so fond of making. Do circumcision and baptism share something in common? Yes! They are both signs of their respective covenants, Old and New. But it does not necessarily follow that because one was applied to infants, then the other must be applied to infants also. The two covenants, though certainly interrelated, differ substantially from each other. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the signs of the covenants also differ substantially.   

Two, (and this point deserves much more time and attention than what we can give to it today) while we agree that it is appropriate to argue from necessary consequence in many matters of theology, it is not an appropriate thing to do with the positive laws which God added to the various covenants that he has entered into with man. The signs that God attached to the various covenants he made with man – trees, the rainbow, circumcision, and baptism – are arbitrary. By that I mean, they are simply based on God’s choice. We cannot necessarily reason from one to the other to figure out what they are and how they are to be applied. With positive laws, we are completely dependent on God’s express command. And this is why we look to Christ, his words, and to the New Testament to know what baptism is, what it signifies, how and to whom it is to be given. We are not biblicists. We acknowledge the validity of the interpretive principle of necessary consequence (Trinity). But we deny that it is appropriate to use this principle when it comes to positive laws and sacramental things, for it is impossible to reason from one sign to the other.

Now,  I suppose we are right to expect that signs will be attached to the Covenants God makes, for this is God’s established way. And of course, we should expect that the sign of a covenant will agree in its symbolism with the substance of the given covenant. It makes perfect sense that the sign of the Covenant of Works made with Adam in the garden would be two trees representing two choices, and two paths,  but God could have chosen a different sign. And it makes sense that the sign given to Abraham in the covenant that he made with him and all his physical descendants would be applied to the male reproductive organ, that it would involve the removal of something, thus symbolizing the threat of being cut off from the covenant (a covenant of works!) through disobedience, and that it would be bloody, signifying the crosswork of Christ who would be cut off for his people. This Christ was promised to Abraham and his children. He is the promised seed of the woman, the offspring of Abraham and David. Circumcision fit the Old Abrahamic Covenant, and it made perfect sense that it was to be applied to all of the male children of Abraham at eight days old irrespective of faith, for the Old Abrahamic covenant was made with them by virtue of the birth. For what it’s worth, it seems to me that circumcision was an excellent choice for the sign of the Old Abrahamic covenant, for it agreed with the substance of that covenant.

But the sign of circumcision does not fit the substance of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Think of it. The New Covenant is not made with an ethnic group. It is made with God’s elect. It is made with all who are born again and believe. It is those who have the faith of Abraham, not the DNA of Abraham, who are members of the New Covenant. And there is no threat of being cut off from the New Covenant. All who are true members of it will be preserved. And Christ, the seed of Abraham and David has come. He was cut off for us on the cross. He shed his blood to atone for sin. For all of these reasons, circumcision has been fulfilled and taken away, and baptism has been given as the sign of the New Covenant instead.

And baptism agrees with the substance of the New Covenant and thus serves as a fitting sign. Baptism signifies many things – union with Christ in his death and resurrection, the washing away of our sin, death to our old self, and new birth. This sign is to be given to those of whom these things are true.

The point is this: our Reformed and paedobaptist brethren error when they look to the sign of the Old Covenant to figure out to whom the sign of the New Covenant is to be applied. These are two different covenants made with two different groups of people (though there is some overlap, thanks be to God). We cannot reason from the one to the other, therefore. To know the answer to the question, to whom is baptism to be administered? To Christ and the New Testament we must go, for there this positive law is revealed. 

*****

Conclusion

Q. 98. To whom is baptism to be administered?

A. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other. (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12,36; Acts 10:47,48)

Q. 99. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?

A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such. (Proverbs 30:6; Luke 3:7,8)

Baptist Catechism 95

 Q. 95. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?

A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives. (Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)

Scripture Reading: James 1:19–25

“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.” (James 1:19–25, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church but without the benefit of proofreading.

*****

When we talk about the ordinary means of grace, two things must be remembered. On the one hand, we confess that these are the things that God ordinarily uses to work within the lives of his people: the Word of God read and preached, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer. On the other hand, we must guard against the error of thinking that these things work in an automatic fashion irrespective of the condition of the mind and heart of the one who partakes. No, brothers and sisters, we do have the responsibility to partake of these means of grace in a worthy manner and with hearts prepared.

Does that sound like a strange thing for a Calvinistic minister to say?  I’ll say it again, we do have the responsibility to partake of these means of grace in a worthy manner and with faith in our hearts. It is a common misunderstanding, but a very serious one, that the Reformed only believe in the sovereignty of God over salvation and deny all human responsibility. Have you encountered that misconception before? Or perhaps you have actually held such a view. It simply is not true. 

Is God sovereign over our salvation and our sanctification? Yes, he is. Do we come to be saved and to be sanctified by his grace alone? Yes, we do. But are we also responsible to repent and believe in Christ, to turn away from evil and to cling to what is good, and to persevere in Christ, making use of the means of grace that God has provided? Yes, we are. And this is why the Scriptures call us to do these things. They are things that we must do. But we can do them only by the free grace of God. 

All of this does connect to what we are learning about the means of grace, doesn’t it? God works through these means; that is true. But we are called by God to partake of these means thoughtfully and prayerfully with faith in our hearts.  

*****

Baptist Catechism 95

So then, the Word of God is a means of grace. People are brought to salvation through the Word, and they are sanctified in Christ by the Word. The Spirit of God works through the Scriptures as they are read and preached. 

Now we ask, “How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?’ In other words, how are we to approach the Scriptures?

Let us consider the answer: “That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence…” This means that we are to give our undivided attention to the Word regularly. ​​In Proverbs 8:34 we read, “Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors” (Proverbs 8:34, ESV). The one who is wise will run daily to God for wisdom and nourishment. We must diligently partake of the Word of God as it is read and preached.

Next, we find the words, “preparation and prayer”. ”That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer…”  The prayer of the Psalmist in Psalm 119:18 should be our prayer: “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.” I’ll ask you this, do you pray on Saturday night, or as you come to church on Sunday morning that the Lord would speak to you through his Word as it is read and preached. Do you pray for those who minister the Word that they would speak with clarity and that God’s Spirit would move upon you and others? Do you come to hear the Word eagerly, expecting to hear from the Lord? We should, brothers and sisters. We should expect God to work through the ministry of the Word every Lord’s Day, and we should come to the assembly with our hearts and minds prepared to receive. James says, “Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21, ESV).

You know, we live in an age where Christians may scour the internet and find audio recordings of the most gifted preachers delivering the very best sermons. Beware of this, friends. Those resources are a blessing, but do not forget that God has determined to work through the ordinary — ordinary preachers reading and preaching God’s Word in an ordinary way. Come expecting to hear from the Lord, and come prepared. 

Next, we are instructed to receive the Word “in faith and love”. To receive God’s Word in faith is to receive it, believing that it is, in fact, God’s word to us, that he inspired the composition of it, and has preserved it so that when we read the Scriptures, we are, in fact, reading the Words of God. To receive God’s Word by faith is also to receive it believing that God will surely keep all of the promises that are found within. One should not expect to be blessed by the Word, nourished and strengthened, if he comes doubting, “for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord” (James 1:6–7, ESV). To receive God’s word with love is to receive it, being reassured of God’s love for us in Christ, and with love in our hearts for God. 

Next, we are to lay God’s Word up in our hearts, brothers and sisters. This means that we are to hear God’s Word, meditate upon it, cherish it, and even devote it to memory. This is what Psalm 119:11 so beautifully describes, saying, “I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you” (Psalm 119:11, ESV).

This leads nicely to the last phrase of our catechism, which is “practice it in our lives.” We are to approach God’s Word with the intention of putting it into practice. We must be doers of the Word, and not hearers only. 

Listen again to James: “Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.” (James 1:21–25, ESV)

*****

Conclusion

The one who diligently hears God’s Word read and preached, with their heart prepared, in faith and with love towards God, with the resolve to obey what God commands, will be blessed. To approach God’s Word in this way is a very good thing. It is a means of grace for the people of God. I am afraid it is a very dangerous thing, however, to approach God’s Word in a careless manner. To come to it casually and unprepared, with unbelief and a lack of love for God, with no intention to obey what is said. Both the Scriptures and experience testify that to approach God’s Word in this careless way leads not to a blessing but a curse. The one who approaches God’s Word in this careless way will find their heart growing harder and harder with the passing of time, and not softer to God and the things of God. Let us approach God’s Word with reverence, brothers and sisters.  

Q. 95. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?

A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives. (Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)

Old Testament Reading: Deuteronomy 16:1–3

“Observe the month of Abib and keep the Passover to the LORD your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night. And you shall offer the Passover sacrifice to the LORD your God, from the flock or the herd, at the place that the LORD will choose, to make his name dwell there. You shall eat no leavened bread with it. Seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction—for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste—that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 16:1–3, ESV)

New Testament Reading: Luke 22:14-20

“And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, ‘Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’ And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’” (Luke 22:14–20, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church, but without the benefit of proofreading.

Introduction

As you may know, this is the third sermon I have devoted to the topic of the Lord’s Supper. We have been working our way very slowly through the Gospel of Luke, and in Luke 22:14-20, we learn of the institution of the Lord’s Supper by Jesus Christ. This has provided us with an opportunity to look closely at this holy ordinance. In the first sermon on this subject, we considered the Lord’s Supper, its author, and elements. In the second sermon, we considered its administrators, recipients, and timing. And in this sermon, we will consider its purpose. 

Why did Christ institute the Supper? For what purpose did he give this ordinance to his churches? What is the Lord’s Supper designed to do for disciples of Jesus? This is the question I wish to address today.

When we come to our text in Luke 22:14-20 with the question of purpose in mind, three categories emerge. First of all, the Lord’s Supper is meant to remind us of Jesus. “Do this in remembrance of me”, Christ said. Secondly, the Lord’s Supper has something to do with communion with Jesus. “This is my body”, Christ said. And the cup is said to be the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. When we eat of the bread and drink of the cup, the faithful partake of Christ and commune with him and with one another. Thirdly, the Lord’s Supper has something to do with the covenant that God has made with us in Christ Jesus. Again, Christ said, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” To eat of the bread and drink of the cup is to renew the covenant that Christ has made with us—a covenant ratified in his blood. 

To Remember Christ

The first thing to say about the purpose of the Supper is that it is designed to remind us of Christ, especially his death on the cross. 

Just as the Passover celebration observed yearly by the Hebrews was meant to remind them of the day when God brought them out of the land of Egypt (Deuteronomy 16:3), so too the Supper is designed to remind us of Jesus, especially his atoning sacrifice, through which we are saved from our sins. 

Is the Lord’s Supper more than a memorial? In other words, is it designed to do more than prompt us to remember Jesus? Yes, of course. But it is no less than a memorial. And I think we should take a moment to consider just how powerful it is to memorialize or remember Jesus.   

Brothers and sisters, we are prone to quickly forget things—even important things—yes, even Jesus. You know how this goes. Something impactful will happen to you. At first, you think about the event all the time—the memory of it naturally comes to mind. But as time goes by, the event does not dominate the mind as it once did, and the memory begins to fade. If you wish to maintain the memory of something, you must choose to remember it. Something must be done to memorialize the person or event. We do this with many things. We memorialize wedding days with anniversary celebrations. We memorialize births with birthdays. If you are like me, you record the dates that those you love passed so that you might remember their lives in a deliberate was. We experience many, many things each and every day. Very few of those events are worthy of being memorialized, but some are, given their life-shaping importance, and so we choose to remember them. 

And what is one thing that God has commanded us to remember by way of memorial in this New Covenant era? Christ is to be remembered. Christ is memorialized in the sacrament of the Supper. “Do this in remembrance of me”, is his command.  

Jesus is to be remembered by us individually. When each individual disciple of Jesus comes to the Table, they are to remember Jesus.  

And Jesus is to be remembered by us corporately. When the church assembles for worship and partakes of the Supper, it is the covenant community that remembers Jesus collectively. Paul seems to emphasize this corporate or collective dimension of the Supper when he says, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26, ESV). The eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup proclaim something, namely, the death or Christ. How do these elements, which cannot speak, proclaim the death of Christ? They do so in a sacramental or symbolic way. When we eat the bread and drink the cup a message is communicated to all who have eyes to see—Christ’s body was broken for sinners and his blood was shed to make atonement for sin. Of course, it is the Word of God and the preaching of the Word of God that fills the sacrament with its meaning. To observe the Supper without preaching or without words of explanation is highly inappropriate. Without the preaching of the Word of God and words of explanation concerning the meaning Supper, the sacrament would quickly devolve into a meaningless, superstitious, and lifeless ritual. But when the sacrament is faithfully observed and explained according to the truth of Holy Scripture, its symbolism preaches Christ crucified for us and for our salvation.   

Now, when Jesus commands us to remember him, what, in particular, does he want us to think about?  

Certainly, we are to remember the death of Christ on the cross, for that is the thing most clearly symbolized by the broken bread and the wine poured out. But I do not think our minds are to be fixed on the crucifixion of Christ alone. The significance and supreme importance of the crucifixion of Christ cannot be understood if we do not ponder the things that happened before and after, as it pertains to him. 

You know, there were two others crucified along with Christ, one on the right and one on the left. They were crucified—their bodies were broken and their blood was shed—in much the same way that Christ was crucified. We do not memorialize the crucifixions of those men (or of the thousands of others who were crucified throughout history). Why is it that we memorialize Jesus’ crucifixion, then? It has everything to do with the things that led up to and proceeded from the crucifixion of Jesus.    

When you come to the Lord’s Table, remember Christ, his death, and those things that preceded it. 

There is plenty to consider, brothers and sisters. Though the cross of Christ is at the center of the story of Jesus, it is not the whole story. 

When you come to the Table, remember God’s eternal decree to send the Son to redeem his elect. 

When you come to the Table, remember man’s fall into sin and those promises, prophecies, types, and shadows revealed in Old Testament times, which pointed forward to Christ and the salvation he would one day accomplish. 

When you come to the Table, remember Christ’s virgin birth and incarnation. How did the eternal Son of God (who is a most pure spirit, without body, parts, or passions) come to have a body that could be broken and blood that could be shed? Answer: he assumed a true human body and a reasonable soul through the virgin birth. In other words, he became incarnate for us and for our salvation. Remeber that when you come to the Table. 

When you come to the Table to remember the death of Christ, remember also his life—his teachings, his claims, his miracles, and all of the sufferings he endured. Remember all of these things when you come to the Table, brothers and sisters. 

And when you come to the Table, do not only remember those things that preceded the crucifixion of Christ, but also the things that happened afterward. Jesus died on the cross after his body was broken and his blood was shed. But we do not worship and serve a dead Savior, friends. Our faith is set on the one who is risen, ascended, and soon to return. If Jesus died on that cross but did not rise, then he would not have the power to save. And so we must remember his resurrection, his ascension, and his promise to return. 

The point is this: when Christ said, “do this in remembrance of me”, he intended for his disciples to remember him, not in a narrow way, but broadly and thoroughly. 

You might say, How can I possibly think about all of this each time that I come to the Table? 

First of all, I am not suggesting that you must think about all of these things in great detail when you come to the Table. But you ought to remember the death of Christ within the broader context of the story that is told in the Bible from beginning to end concerning him. Though the cross of Christ is central, there is much more to Jesus than the cross.

Secondly, as you remember the whole Christ, likely, some particular aspect of the story of Christ or some particular truth about him will strike you as you come to the Table one Lord’s Day, and another will strike you the next. 

Why did Christ institute the Supper? What is its purpose or design? It is intended to remind us of Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. And I am suggesting that this is very important and powerful, for we are prone to forget; we are prone to wander for the one we love. The Lord’s Table is a kind of touchstone that brings us back, again and again, to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. 

To Commune With Christ

But as has been said, the Lord’s Supper is more than a memorial. It is also a means by which worthy partakers enjoy communion or fellowship with Christ and with one another. Stated differently, those who partake of the Supper worthily and by faith do, in fact, come into contact with Jesus through the Supper. 

The question is, what is the nature of this contact? Is it physical? Do we come into contact with the physical body of the ascended Christ when we eat the Supper,  as the Romanists and Lutherans claim? Or is it spiritual, as Calvin and the Reformed have maintained? As was said in the previous sermon, we believe it is a spiritual communion with Christ that is enjoyed in the Supper.

This is what we confess in the Second London Confession 30.7. “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.”

This principle that we enjoy communion and come into contact with Christ in the Supper is implied in our text when Christ commanded his disciples to eat the bread, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’” But the key text is 1 Corinthians 10:16, which says, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16, ESV). The word participation may also be translated as communion, sharing, or fellowship. Clearly, when Christ’s disciples partake of the sacrament by faith, they do more than remember him. They also come into contact with him, spiritually speaking. In the Supper we enjoy communion or fellowship with Christ.

I understand these things were stated briefly in the sermon I preached last Sunday, but I do believe they are worth repeating. Brothers and sisters, it is vitally important that you think of the Lord’s Supper, not as a memorial only (as powerful and important as that may be), but as a means of grace—a conduit of sorts—by which the faithful come into contact with the crucified, risen, and ascended Christ. When a minister blesses the elements, the bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine (the elements do not change into anything other than the substance of bread and wine). But when the elements are blessed, these common elements are set apart for a holy use. The bread, though bread, is no longer common bread. And the wine, though wine, is no longer common wine. It is sanctified or set apart as holy. And by partaking of this holy sacrament, God’s people do “really and indeed… spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death…” 

It is this truth—the truth that the Lord’s Supper is more than a memorial and that real communion or fellowship with Christ is experienced in the Supper—that should motivate us to come to the Table worthily. As Paul warns, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body [that is to say, the body and blood of Christ] eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:27–32, ESV). 

What does it mean to partake of the Lord’s Supper worthily? We must partake of the Supper with faith in Christ in our hearts, humbly, having turned from known sin, and with an understanding of what it is that we are doing when we eat and drink of the holy sacrament. We must know that when we eat and drink, we are communing with, and even feasting upon, our crucified, risen, and ascended Lord. We come into contact with him through the Supper, brothers and sisters. It is no wonder, then, that the Apostle warns about the judgment that will come upon those who partake of the body and blood of Christ in an unworthy manner. These unworthy partakers make this fatal error—they eat and drink while failing to discern (to judge, see, and know) that the bread and wine are not common but holy, and that Christ is present in the elements. Those who partake of these holy things irreverently, without faith in their hearts, or while living in unrepentant sin, eat and drink, not a blessing upon themselves, but judgment. 

What is the purpose of the Supper? Why did Christ give it to his church? It is one of the primary ways that Christ communes and strengthens his people by his grace. But we must not forget that we also commune with one another in the Supper.  

Paul speaks of this in 1 Corinthians 10:17 when he says, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Believers commune with Christ in the Supper through their Spirit-wrought union with him, and therefore, their communion is also with one another. 

What is it that binds us together, brothers and sisters, except Christ and our union with him? Christ is the head, and we are his body. He is Lord, and we are his subjects. He is the Shepherd, and we are the sheep of his pasture. He is the cornerstone in the foundation of the New Covenant temple, and we are the living stones built up upon him. The Scriptures contain many metaphors to speak of our relationship to Christ and our relationship to one another in him. And I am saying that that communion we enjoy with one another is symbolized and experienced at the Lord’s Table. Hear the Apostle again: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”    

To Renew Our Covenant With Christ

So, when we partake of the Lord’s Supper, we remember Christ. More than this, we commune with him. Finally, when we observe the Supper, Christ renews his covenant with us and we with him.  

Baptism, as you know,  marks entrance into the New Covenant community. It is not a private or family ordinance. It is a church ordinance. And those baptized are ordinarily baptized into the membership of a local church. As our catechism says in Q. 101. “What is the duty of such who are rightly baptized?

A. It is the duty of those who are rightly baptized to give up themselves to some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ, that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”

The Lord’s Supper signifies continuance in the New Covenant. Do not forget what Christ said about the cup. “This is the New Covenant new covenant in my blood.” The cup signifies the entire New Covenant. And those who partake of it are to be members of the New Covenant and partakers of its benefits. 

What is the New Covenant? It is the promise of God to forgive all who turn from their sins and place their faith in Christ Jesus. 

Jesus is not a member of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace; he is the head and mediator of it! The New Covenant, notice, is ratified in his blood! For Christ, the Covenant of Grace required work—active and passive obedience to God the Father. 

For us, the Covenant of Grace does not require work, but only faith in Christ, and even this faith is a gift from God. 

How appropriate, therefore, to have the cup symbolize the New Covenant. What did Christ have to do to make the New Covenant? He had to live and die in obedience to God the Father (John 17). And what must we do to receive the benefits of the Covenant of Grace, namely, the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God,  and life everlasting? We must receive him; we must eat and drink of him. This is what Christ said to the crowds in the wilderness—“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54, ESV).

The Lord’s Supper is a covenant renewal. 

When we partake, we are reminded that we are forgiven in Christ Jesus. 

When we partake, we renew our vows to honor Christ as Lord and King.

Conclusion