Holy Communion
G. Culthrop, M.A. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break… (John 14:15; Matthew 26:26, 27; and text): — I. CONSIDER THE THREE TEXTS IN ORDER. 1. From the first we learn that the test of love to the Saviour is obedience to His will and keeping of His commandments. Now when Christ says, "Keep My commandments," does He mean that we are to choose amongst them? Certainly not. He means, of course, keep all My commandments. 2. The second belongs to a very solemn occasion, and has the power of a dying request. It was the very last that the disciples were likely to neglect. 3. In the third, as well as in all other records of the history of the early Church, we find that the whole body of believers were communicants, and that it was a strange, indeed almost an unheard-of thing for any adult to be an habitual absentee from the table of the Lord. What, then, is to be thought of a man's pretension to love the Saviour when he lives in wilful and systematic violation of one of the Saviour's most important commandments? II. THERE ARE TWO MISTAKES OFTEN MADE ABOUT THE HOLY COMMUNION. 1. That of scrupulosity. The majority of those who absent themselves from the Lord's table do so from the secret conviction that they have not given their hearts to Christ. To come to church they think commits them to nothing. But attendance at the communion does commit them, and they dare not, whilst they feel that they are living for the world and not for Christ, they dare not approach the Lord's table. No one, of course, can blame them. The only wonder is that, knowing they are in a wrong state, they can be contented to remain in it. Look at the excuses that are made. (1) Some say, "Many frequent the Lord's table regularly, who are yet not a bit better than others. What is the good of communicating, then? I will have nothing to do with it whilst these people go there." Now, what sort of reasoning is this? When Peter asked Christ a merely inquisitive question, the Lord said, "What is that to thee? Follow thou Me." May not the same be said to these singular reasoners? The question is about my duty, not about the manner in which another man fulfils, or fails to fulfil, his. (2) Others say, "Oh, a man sets himself up to be so much better than others if he becomes a communicant." Now that is precisely what the man does not do. In fact, his coming forward to the holy table is a virtual confession of his unworthiness and weakness. (3) Another says, "It is such an awful thing to fall into sin after receiving the holy communion." Now that means really, "I am bound to lead a strictly Christian life if I attend the communion; but I am not so bound if I continue to absent myself from it." Is not this a fallacy, and a very ruinous one? Those of you who are non-communicants are as much bound to live a holy life as the communicants are. The difference between you and them is that they are taking the right means to do it and you are not. (4) Another says, "But if I come to the holy communion, people will set up a higher standard for me, and watch my conduct; and should I fall into any inconsistency they will speak reproachfully of me." Well, what else does the New Testament lead you to expect, if you would be a follower of Christ, but that you will become a marked man? The city set on a hill cannot be hid. And Christ warns His followers that they are to expect the world to even "hate" them. What right, then, have we to claim exemption from the usual consequences of Christian discipleship? (5) Others say they are "not good enough to be communicants." But we do not come because we are good, but because we want to be made better. The question, then, is not, Are we holy? but, Have we given our hearts to Christ? 2. That of superstition: and this is more fatal than the other. It is taught that in the act of consecration some mysterious change passes over the elements; so that a man receiving the bread and wine receives something — it is difficult to say what — quite irrespective of his state of mind and of his relation to Jesus Christ. Now this is simply untrue. Life is necessary for the reception and assimilation of food. So, spiritual life — that being, of course, inseparably associated with true faith — is essential to the right use and enjoyment of the privilege of holy communion. And whenever you give the bread and wine to a man who is destitute of a true and living faith in the Saviour, you are simply putting food into the mouth of a corpse! Whilst keeping yourselves from that miserable fetichism which attributes to the sacrament a magical efficacy, regard the holy communion as the chiefest of the means of grace which God has appointed for your edification and comfort, and for your growth in the Divine life. (G. Culthrop, M.A.) Parallel Verses KJV: 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? WEB: The cup of blessing which we bless, isn't it a sharing of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, isn't it a sharing of the body of Christ?