When the priests offered the sacrifices, the blood was spilt and sprinkled and it was the body that was then offered up. Jesus fulfilled these types in the spilling of His blood and the sacrifice of His body. Therefore, it is important in our commemoration that not only in our words but in the very giving and partaking we show forth this separation of the body and blood of Jesus, clearly proclaiming His death.

Recently, the Ohio Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) released their study committee’s report on intinction. A few days later one of the committee members (Mr. Rae Whitlock) released his response to and dissent from the committee’s report.

While I agree with the final conclusions of the committee’s report, I don’t think it presented the strongest arguments against the practice. At the same time, Mr. Whitlock’s response to the committee’s report was not convincing for a number of reasons.

First I would like to respond to Mr. Whitlock’s arguments against the committee’s report, and then I will provide a positive case for the administration and partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

Mr. Whitlock’s Arguments Against the Committee
The first section, following the Preface, regarded the issue of whether or not intinction is a “disputable” matter. The committee’s report states that the practice of intinction is not a disputable matter for historical, Scriptural, and constitutional reasons. Mr. Whitlock’s response argues that intinction is disputable based on history. He relies on the committee’s work to show that intinction has been practiced as early as the fourth century, in Eastern and Western church traditions, in some early reformed churches, in the RPCES, and in some PCA congregations today. It is because of this historical practice that Mr. Whitlock states that intinction is “disputable.”

However, that same argument could be used to declare that Eutychianism or Arianism is disputable. These views have been held by some since early in Church History and still appear today in some circles, yet they have all been condemned as heresy by the Church. Apparently, intinction was also condemned at the Council at Braga in 675 AD.

In any case, the historical argument is unconvincing. It really matters little except to give us background. Is it debatable or disputable? Everything is, isn’t it? Aren’t all men sinful, and don’t they all err? Thus, we need to check everything by Scripture, and history cannot be decisive.

The second section of the response regards the meaning of the word “drink.” Mr. Whitlock compares the use of the verb πίνω (to drink) that is found in the Last Supper narratives and in 1 Corinthians 11 to the verb ποτίζω (to give to drink) found in Mark 15:36 when Jesus was offered a sponge filled with wine vinegar. He does this in an attempt to show that the action of “drinking” as used in the New Testament “can apply to the intake or consumption of liquid, regardless of the instrument of the liquid’s delivery.” If I am reading him correctly, he is saying that as long as liquid is coming into the mouth in some form it can be considered drinking according to the New Testament word usage. Therefore, Mr. Whitlock states,

We can further conclude, then, from Mark 15:36, Matthew 27:48, and the light of human reason that both the eating of bread and the drinking of wine are indeed taking place when the Lord’s Supper is administered by intinction. (emphasis original)

Yet if we consider carefully the sponge offered to Jesus for him to drink we realize that the intent was not for him to eat the sponge, but rather for him to suck out the wine vinegar from the sponge. This action would obviously be considered drinking. So this line of reasoning doesn’t support Mr. Whitlock’s argument. To be a similar situation to the practice of intinction, the wine would have to be sucked out of the bread. This isn’t the normal practice of intinction, so this argument falls apart.

The third section makes additional observations. The first observation focuses on inconsistent exegesis. He says:

If “drinking” is absent in intinction, consistency in the exegesis that brought the majority to this conclusion would demand that any receptacle other than a common cup be likewise judged “out of accord with Scripture.”

Again, this argument proves nothing on the subject of intinction. We could discuss the common cup, how the Lord’s Supper should actually resemble a supper and not a sacrifice, a feast and not an individual snack, and how there should be ‘one bread’ (1 Corinthians 10) to symbolize the “one body” of the Church, but this gets us no further in determining whether or not the practice of intinction is proper. The issue of “one cup” is a distraction from the question of intinction.

The second observation is a response to the committee for not showing how the Lord’s Supper narrative is prescriptive based on their interpretation. I’ll address this below when I present my own argument.

The third observation deals with the theological implications of the “one cup.” Does the preservation of a “single cup” theologically trump the keeping of the elements separate? Both the committee’s report and the response agree that it doesn’t, and I agree with the response that neither “trumps” the other. Pitting the two against each other is a wrong step. The “one cup,” as stated before, has nothing to do with whether the practice of intinction is valid or not.

The fourth observation has to do with the evidence used by the committee, which is said to weaken the committee’s report. Again, this observation really means nothing to the primary question, “Is the practice of intinction a valid practice?” Mr. Whitlock’s response does not lead to an answer of that question, whereas the committee’s report did. The question that must be asked is not “Why not intinction?” but “Why intinction?”

What does Scripture say about the Lord’s Supper? What can we determine by good and necessary consequence about the administration of the Lord’s Supper? Finally, why would a congregation then practice intinction?

The Positive Case for the Lord’s Supper
Although the practice of intinction does appear at times throughout church history (and has also been condemned by many throughout church history), history cannot be the foundation for determining whether or not it should be permitted. The question about whether intinction includes the action of “drinking” is potentially very important. Christ does command us to “drink” in the Supper. Therefore, if it can be shown that intinction includes “drinking” then the practice would not be excluded on this ground. However, if it does not include “drinking,” it must be rejected as failing to obey the command of Christ to “drink.”

Regardless of the answer, there are better reasons to reject the practice, as we will see. Bringing up the idea of the “one cup” (or “one bread” or the feast meal nature of the sacrament) is not a reason for or against the practice of intinction. All of these arguments are at best peripheral to the issue of intinction.
Our Westminster Confession of Faith states:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men…” (1:6)

All things necessary for living the Christian life are either set down in Scripture or deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. Also, Chapter 21:1 says:

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

The way in which we worship God is limited to Scripture’s teachings, and He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men or in any other way not prescribed in Holy Scripture.

As Presbyterians we have taken vows before the Lord to hold to these Standards because they are a summary of Scripture’s teachings. So we must go to the Scriptures. How does the Lord tell us to worship Him? When we come to those Last Supper narratives, are we given just the most basic requirements: we need to have bread and wine, we must give thanks, etc., or is it more specific? The context of the Last Supper is the Passover meal in which Jesus and the disciples were partaking following God’s command in the Old Testament. It is in this context that Jesus transitions and abrogates the Passover meal and institutes the Lord’s Supper. We see some of the Passover elements described in the passage, especially in Luke’s account, in which there is a cup prior to the institution of the Lord’s Supper. That is the third cup of the Passover meal, which He uses as a transition to point to His perfect death through the institution of the Lord’s Supper, a better death than the lamb sacrificed in Exodus.

In Luke 22, Jesus institutes the Supper as a sacrament for His Church. Verse 19 says,

“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.’” He says literally, “This do to remember me.”

Do what? Exactly what I, Jesus, have done to show forth My death. Mr. Whitlock’s argument is based on whether this narrative is descriptive or prescriptive. I gather that he would say that these narratives are descriptive. But this simple clarification fails to take into account that this is the establishment of the Lord’s Supper, and Jesus says do what I have done. This is prescriptive.

What does Jesus do next? After eating He gave the cup. The language is very clear in Luke that it was after the eating of the bread (“after eating”) that He took the cup and offered it to them. There is a break between the giving and partaking of the bread and the giving and partaking of the wine in the institution.

The two elements in the Lord’s Supper point us to two separate things: the body given (bread) and the blood spilt (wine). We are commemorating this blood separated from the body of Christ at His death to show the significance of the sacrifice offered.

Therefore, we partake of the bread and the wine separately as Jesus did. We consider how Jesus’ death was foreshadowed in the ceremonial law and the sacrifices. When the priests offered the sacrifices, the blood was spilt and sprinkled and it was the body that was then offered up. Jesus fulfilled these types in the spilling of His blood and the sacrifice of His body. Therefore, it is important in our commemoration that not only in our words but in the very giving and partaking we show forth this separation of the body and blood of Jesus, clearly proclaiming His death.

1 Corinthians 11 also gives a repetition and further explanation of the instructions for Lord’s Supper. In case we were confused when reading the Last Supper narratives in the gospels concerning the specifics of what we must do, the Lord clarifies for us through the apostle Paul by giving us another example of the administration of the Lord’s Supper. Here we find a clear answer as to whether the gospel account was just a description or if it is prescribed and commanded.

First the administration of the bread:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

Do what? Exactly what Jesus did. You take the bread, give thanks, break it, and speak the words, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Thus, you communicate Christ’s body given and sacrificed for salvation. Then we have the cup after the eating of the bread, for it says, “after supper”:

In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Here we see that the sentence, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” Do what? Exactly what Jesus did. After the supper, He then offered the cup, and they drank from the cup, and the Words were spoken to strengthen the faith of God’s people.

Paul’s example to us as an explanation or exegesis of the Last Supper narrative makes a clear distinction between the giving of the bread and the giving of the wine. They are not mixed together. Thus, Paul considers the narrative as prescriptive. There can be no dipping of the bread in the cup. We don’t see that in the Gospel narratives or in 1 Corinthians 11. The separation of the elements in the first administration and participation means that we must partake in this way as well, for Jesus said, “Do this.”

Paul gives the example, and He did what Jesus did. It is therefore not a form but part of the essence of the Lord’s Supper to partake of the elements separately. If we change the way we do this we will rebel against the Lord in worship and change the message communicated. If we change the way we do this we break the command of God. For He says concerning His worship, “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.”

Mr. Whitlock states at the end of his response:

The minority’s concern is that, absent conclusive Scriptural arguments and evidence
against it, liberty to practice it continues to be afforded, and that without the threat of suspicion or harassment from those who do not.

This only makes sense if we consider the Scriptural mode of administration to be a form or circumstance of worship rather than an element. Such a conclusion presumes that the only mode of administration recorded in the Scripture has nothing to do with the meaning communicated in the Supper.

Finally, it must be remembered that this is an issue of great importance for it is central to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in that this sacrament “proclaims the Lord’s death until he comes.” Changing the method from the one which Christ commands will necessarily change the message of the Gospel communicated.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Whitlock’s response to the committee doesn’t clarify but rather confuses the issue. We all agree that Scripture is the final Word. As we have seen, the evidence leads us to the conclusion reached by the committee: “Intinction is out of accord with Scripture.”

Andrew Barnes is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is the newly-called Pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) of Kansas City, Missouri.