Does Romans 9 Teach the Calvinistic Doctrine of Unconditional Election?

   The sovereignty of God is not disputed and is readily acknowledged and accepted on both sides of the debate.¹ Nonetheless, Romans 9 is about the overall “purpose of God” (v. 11) in implementing his redemptive scheme through Christ (v. 5) but is not addressing the Calvinistic notion of specific persons whom the Lord has allegedly elected to save or not save.² Contextually Paul is confronting the wayward attitudes and misconceptions of ethnocentric Jews who were discounting Gentiles from the Lord’s circle of acceptance (vv. 6-8, 24 ff.; cf. 2:1–15:33). Romans 9, a portion of this discussion, serves to vindicate God’s judgment against the obsolete system of exclusive Judaism.

     After expressing his remorse over the spiritual condition of fleshly Israel alienated from Christ, Paul acknowledges that Abraham’s biological descendants (through Isaac and Jacob) were selected by God to be instrumental in bringing the Messiah into the world (Rom. 9:1-5). But the divine purpose goes far beyond the physical.³ In fact, merely having a hereditary link with Abraham is not sufficient for being right with God, therefore Israel’s current spiritual condition cannot legitimately be blamed on God as though he were unjust (v. 14).

     Certain individuals (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Pharaoh) were divinely chosen – while others (e.g. Ishmael, Esau) were not – to play an important role in God’s plan based on his sovereign will. Calvinists claim that the focus of this chapter is on individual salvation and individual condemnation, but note that the passages quoted in vv. 12-13 (Gen. 25:23b; Mal. 1:2-3) are not about Jacob and Esau as individuals but are corporate views of their respective descendants: “Two nations … two peoples” (Gen. 25:23a); “Israel … Edom” (Mal. 1:1-4).⁴

     In stark contrast to human reasoning and preferences and innovations, the Lord’s purpose is rooted in his omniscience, foreknowledge, and infinite wisdom. In Rom. 9:15 Paul quotes the LORD’s statement in Exodus 33:19, in sparing a sinful nation (note chap. 32!):  “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy …” Yet the extending of divine mercy is not indiscriminate or arbitrary. Allowing the Bible to interpret itself, we read in Isaiah 55:7, “Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.” Proverbs 28:13 says, “He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy” (see also Exodus 20:6; Psalm 119:132; Luke 1:50).

     Then in Rom. 9:16 Paul observes, “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” This has nothing to do with someone who might desire to be saved but is disallowed, or one who is incapable of seeking salvation; it is all about the unfolding of God’s purpose (v. 11). Irrespective of Sarah’s ploy involving Hagar (Gen. 16:2), and Abraham’s initial choice of Ishmael (Gen. 17:18), and Isaac’s preference for Esau (Gen. 25:28), human ingenuity and fallibility neither determine nor improve nor thwart the divine scheme.

     Accordingly, in Rom. 9:17 Paul quotes words spoken to Pharaoh in Exodus 9:16, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” What’s the point? “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens” (Rom. 9:18). God has chosen to have mercy on those who humbly submit to his will (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and hardens those who defiantly reject his will (like Pharaoh). God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17), not by subverting Pharaoh’s free will, but by simply making demands that Pharaoh did not like. At the same time Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15, 19, 32; 9:34-35; 10:3; 13:15) because of his own stubborn pride and rebellion. God’s actions and demands in Egypt softened the hearts of many (Exodus 4:30-31; 9:20; 10:7) but hardened the heart of Pharaoh because of the brazen opposition of Pharaoh’s obstinate will.⁵

     In Rom. 9:21 we read, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (cp. Isa. 29:16; Jer. 18:6). This statement responds to someone who might be spiritually short-sighted and oblivious [i.e. the misguided Jew], having the audacity to question the Creator’s sovereign purpose and work (vv. 19-20). God’s thoughts and ways are much higher than ours (Isa. 55:8-9). The Lord could have created each person as a pre-programed robot, unconditionally predestined for either honor or dishonor (the Calvinistic reading of the text). Or God could have designed each person as a free moral agent and predetermined that the submissive and obedient ones are destined for honor and the rebellious and disobedient ones are destined for dishonor (same “lump,” different results). The fact that God “endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath” (v. 22) indicates that sinful persons are afforded sufficient opportunity to repent and alter their destructive course [cf. 2:3-4; 2 Pet. 3:9]. God “prepared beforehand” condemnation for the defiant and glory for the compliant,⁶ regardless of Jew/Gentile ethnicity (vv. 22-33; cf. 2:1–15:33; Acts 10:34-35).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See 1 Chron. 29:11-12; 2 Chron. 20:6; Isa. 46:9-10; Dan. 4:35; Psa. 115:3; 1 Tim. 6:15; etc. All scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ² John Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 9 can be briefly summarized as follows: “… that though the counsel of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just” (Commentary on Romans 307, <Link>). In response, we maintain that from the foundation of the world God has chosen (elected) and predestined (predetermined) to save all who are in Christ (Eph. 1:1-14; cf. Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Pet. 1:2). Note the key phrase "in Christ" (and comparable expressions) in Eph. 1:1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20. It is not a matter of the Lord having preselected particular individuals to be saved and everyone else to be condemned. Rather, all who are "in Christ" have been predestined and chosen; every person must therefore decide whether or not to respond to the universal gospel call with obedient faith in order to enter Christ and be counted among the called/chosen/elect (Mark 16:15-16; Gal. 3:22-28; etc.).

     ³ Abraham had many more biological descendants than just those through Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 25:1-6; 36:1-9; 1 Chron. 1:32-33). Up to this point in Romans Paul has been using the national/political designation “Jews” (1:16; 2:9, 10, 17, 28; 3:1, 9, 29), but here he switches to the theological term “Israelites” (9:4, 6, 31).

     ⁴ In v. 13 Paul quotes Mal. 1:2-3, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Perhaps the English term “hate” seems a bit harsh, but the Greek miseō magnifies the sense of “esteem less” with respect to the absolute importance of one’s priorities (cf. Luke 14:26). Moreover, “love” and “hate” are not emotional expressions (as per modern westernized concepts) but are demonstrated actions (cf. Dan. 9:4; John 14:15; Rom. 5:8; etc.). In the 5th-century BC context of Malachi, “Jacob” represents the descendants of Jacob/Israel (1:1, 5) and “Esau” stands for Esau’s descendants, the people of Edom (1:4). The Israelites were being reminded of their special role in God’s scheme (“Jacob I have loved”), despite the persistent abuse of their privileged status, while the defiant Edomites were destined for destruction (“Esau I have hated”).

     ⁵ See Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart? 

     ⁶ E. F. Harrison points out the ambiguity of the expression “prepared for destruction” (v. 22), which does not necessarily implicate God in the action (in contrast to v. 23). He comments: “The preparation for destruction is the work of man, who allows himself to deteriorate in spite of knowledge and conscience” (“Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Ed. F. E. Gaebelein] 10:107).

Related Posts: Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints 

Related articles: Dave Miller, Flaws in Calvinism

Image credit: http://www.crusaders.biz/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/potter_s.jpg

Are Humans Totally Depraved from Birth?

     The Westminster Confession of Faith affirms: “[Adam and Eve] being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation…. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions” (6:3-4).¹  

A Biblical Response:

     There is no question that all humans have been adversely affected by sin (Gen. 3:16-19; Rom. 5:12), but the guilt of sin is not hereditary. Otherwise Jesus Christ, a biological descendent of Adam (Luke 3:23-38), would have inherited the guilt of Adam’s sin through his mother; but Jesus was without sin (1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20; cf. 28:15). Accountable persons become sinners when they succumb to temptation and violate the divine will (Jas. 1:14-15; 1 John 3:4).²

     Often used as a proof-text by those with a Calvinistic perspective is Eph. 2:1-3, wherein the pre-Christian state is described as, “by nature children of wrath” (v. 3). However, the context shows that being spiritually dead is the consequence of “trespasses and sins, in which you once walked” [not inherited]. Accordingly, the Greek term phusis, rendered “nature” here, is not necessarily indicative of something innate but rather “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon 660). Prior to their conversion to Christ, the Ephesians were deserving of God’s wrath because of their habitual practice of sin.

     Psalm 51:5 is rendered in the NIV: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” But other standard English versions do not convey this Calvinistic slant: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me” (ESV, N/ASV, N/KJV, RSV, etc.). As with all poetic literature, dramatic language should not be literalized or stretched beyond its original intent. Whether this statement depicts the sinful environment in which David was born (cf. 14:1-4; 17:9-12; 73:12-14; etc.)³ or employs hyperbolic imagery (cf. 22:9-10; 58:3; 71:5-6; Job 31:18) as an expression of deep remorse for his overwhelming sinfulness, at least one thing is certain. Throughout Psalm 51 David consistently takes personal responsibility for his own transgressions (vv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 14). See also 38:18; 58:3; Isa. 53:6; etc.

     Since “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:10-12, 23; 5:12), would this not include infants and young children? The consistent focus of Romans is not a universal evaluation and indictment of each individual person, regardless of age, mental capacity, and culpability. The “all” (guilty of sin) is contextually qualified, and at the very least we know that Jesus is not included (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15). The overarching theme of Romans is that Jews and Gentiles stand before God on the same footing. Gentiles sin and are thus condemned (1:18-32), but they are not the only ones; Jews are also guilty before God (2:1-5). Whether Jew or Gentile, the obedient receive divine favor and the disobedient face God’s wrath (2:6-16); there is no partiality with God (2:11). All have sinned (3:10-12, 23; 5:12) = both Jews and Gentiles (3:9, 19), not just the one to the exclusion of the other. Moreover, “all” (both Jews and Gentiles) have equal access to God through Christ and are accepted by him on the same terms (3:29-30; 4:16, 24; 5:18; etc.).

     Death is the consequence of sin (Rom. 5:12), and seeing that infants are subject to death, does this not prove they are guilty of sin? It is important to note the fundamental difference between physical death, to which all mortals are amenable (1 Cor. 15:21-22; Heb. 9:27; Jas. 2:26), and spiritual death, which is the consequence of personal sin (Isa. 59:1-2; Rom. 6:23; Rev. 20:14). This distinction is crucial to understanding the otherwise perplexing words of Jesus in John 11:25-26 and of Paul in Romans 5:12-21. We all die physically because of Adam’s sin, but each accountable person is responsible for the sins he/she commits (cf. Rom. 14:12; 1 John 3:4) – leading to spiritual death – and is therefore in need of the spiritual life that only Jesus can provide (cf. Eph. 2:1-10).

     Infants and young children are not evil (Deut. 1:39; Matt. 18:1-5; 19:13-14; Luke 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 14:20). In Mark 9:33-37 Jesus teaches his disciples an important lesson about meekness and humility by taking a small child in his arms and saying, “Whoever receives one of these children in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, not only receives me but the one having sent me.” Then in Mark 10:13-16 the Lord seizes another opportunity to impart a similar object lesson. Upset by the disciples having rebuked certain ones for bringing young children to be blessed by him, Jesus says, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them, for of such is the kingdom of God. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child, by no means will enter into it.” The Lord obviously considers children to be the epitome of humility, eagerness to learn, receptivity, trust, innocence, and spiritual purity. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The Confession of Faith: the Larger and Shorter Catechisms (London: Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1962): 39-40. The Westminster Confession of Faith was approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1646 and ratified by Parliament in 1649 and 1690. The ideas of original sin, total depravity, and predestination can be traced as far back as Augustine of Hippo (354-430), revived and popularized by John Calvin (1509-1564) and others during the early Protestant Reformation Movement. Today a number of Protestant denominations advocate a form of this view as a tenet of Reformed Theology.

     ² Age of accountability? See Deut. 1:39; Neh. 8:2-3; 10:28; Num. 14:29-31; Isa. 7:15-16; John 9:21, 23; cf. Ezek. 18:20; 28:15; Eccl. 7:29; 1 John 3:4; 1 Cor. 13:11; Luke 2:40-52.

     ³ When foreign Jews on the Day of Pentecost made reference to “our own language in which we were born” (Acts 2:8), their cultural environment is clearly in view, and surely no one would interpret this as articulate babies!

Addendum: What about Job 14:4, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one”? In this section of the book, in his extreme misery, Job speaks of the way things appear to him, comparable to the observations of his friends Eliphaz (15:14) and Bildad (25:4). Note how very negative and despondent Job is throughout this section; his hazy perception even sees a tree as better off than a human (vv. 7-10)! But Job’s perspective is comparatively limited in contrast to how God views things (38:1–41:34). If Job’s observation in v. 4 were a divine affirmation of inherent sin, then Jesus, who was also “born of woman,” would necessarily be included. But Jesus was without sin (1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). The “no one” of v. 4 is simply Job’s reference to his fellow human beings, but God can certainly bring what is clean from the unclean (31:15). Job recognized that his view of the world was incomplete, while God’s view is perfect (25:14; 28:12-13, 20-28; 42:1-6), and Job later confessed, “I have uttered what I did not understand” (42:3a).    

Related Posts: Age of Accountability, One of the Worst Things About Hell, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints, "You were perfect in all your ways ..." (Ezek 28 15)  

Related articles: Wes McAdams' Infant Baptism, Dave Miller's Flaws in Calvinism, Psalm 22:9

Image credit: http://www.trbimg.com/img-52d5af84/turbine/la-dd-please-dont-bring-your-crying-baby-to-my-restaurant-20140114

The Frequency of the Lord's Supper

     They should have known better. Only a few years after the Lord's church had been established in Corinth, their assemblies had regressed into something the Lord never intended. Thus Paul issues a stern reprimand: “But in these instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse …. Therefore coming together in one place [epi to auto], it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:17, 20).¹ The ESV renders v. 20, “When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.” While communion was meant to be a recurrent reminder of Christ’s atoning death (vv. 23-29), their abuses and misbehavior had rendered it unrecognizable.

     The implication of this rebuke and the accompanying directives for restoring the Lord’s Supper is that the sacred memorial was to be kept on a regular basis (hosakis [“as often”] vv. 25, 26). But how often? These Christians were to keep it as often as they gathered for worship. So how often did the Corinth church assemble?

A Uniform Practice of First-Century Churches

     Later in the same epistle Paul writes: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I ordered the churches of Galatia, so you do also. On the first day of every week [katá mían sabbátou], let each of you by himself store up whatever he is prospered, that there be no collections when I come” (16:1-2).² Since the perí dé (“now concerning”) formula in 1 Corinthians draws attention to the apostle’s answers to their questions (7:1),³ the current response presupposes their previous knowledge of this collection. 

     These same directives had been communicated to the churches of Galatia (16:1c),⁴ and the Macedonian churches were also involved (v. 5).⁵ Paul goes on to reference the churches of Asia (v. 19), who apparently participated as well (Acts 20:4), plus all the churches in the province of Achaia (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 1:1; 9:2).⁶ Throughout 1 Corinthians the readers have been consistently reminded of what is taught and practiced everywhere in all the churches (1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33).⁷

     “On the first day of every week” (katá mían sabbátou) indicates a regular occurrence on a specific day each week (16:2a). The implication is that the Corinth church and her sister congregations in various places were assembling weekly on this particular day.⁸ If the Corinthians were to observe the Lord’s Supper as often as they gathered for worship (11:20-29), and they were assembling each first day of the week (Sunday), the Lord’s Supper was to be observed every Sunday.⁹

     About a year after these instructions were penned, the apostle was passing through the Roman province of Asia (Acts 20:5 ff.). Although he was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (v. 16), for some reason he stopped for a whole week in Troas (v. 6). Why? “But on the first day of the week [tē mia tōn sabbatōn], having come together to break bread [klasai arton], Paul spoke to them, ready to depart on the next day; and he continued the speech until midnight” (v. 7).¹⁰

     The expression “to break bread” is a customary idiom, used in two different senses in the NT. Sometimes it refers to a common meal (Matt. 14:19; 15:36; Mark 8:6, 19; Acts 2:46; 20:11; 27:35), whereas at other times it applies to the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24). Either way, seeing that both involve more than just literal bread breaking, the phrase is obviously idiomatic. The question is, how is it used in Acts 20:7? As a general rule of thumb, whenever a modifier such as “food” or “eating” is included, a normal meal is in view (cf. Acts 2:46; 20:11). When the expression occurs in conjunction with spiritual activities, the Lord’s Supper is in view (cf. Acts 2:42; 20:7). There is a clear distinction between these two actions (one common and the other sacred), and they are not to be commingled and confused (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

     It is highly unlikely that Paul would have postponed his journey to Jerusalem for seven days just to eat an ordinary meal with the Troas brethren. But if the church assembled each Sunday, like other first-century Christians (noted above), and if Paul and his traveling companions arrived on Monday, it would have been necessary to stay there a week in order to assemble with these saints to observe communion with them. The expressed purpose of this assembly was “to break bread,” and the specified day was “the first day of the week.” Immediately after this worship service, Paul ate food and resumed his hastened voyage (v. 11).

A Special Day

     Sunday marks the historical juncture when our Lord Jesus conquered death (Mark 16:9), providing the cornerstone of the Christian faith (Rom. 1:4; 6:4-11; 1 Cor. 15:1-4, 12-22; 1 Pet. 3:21). Thereafter it was this day of the week on which the Lord’s church was established (Acts 2:1; cf. Lev. 23:15-16; John 19:31) and early Christians assembled together to commemorate Christ’s atoning sacrifice (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-26; 16:1-2).¹¹

     While Jesus instituted this sacred memorial on a Thursday evening (Matt. 26:26-29), the NT gives no special meaning to the fifth day of the week. It was another couple of days before the enormous significance of Sunday became a reality (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:9). Even though baptism was an integral part of the ministries of John the baptizer and Jesus and his disciples (John 3:22-23), it wasn’t until Christ’s resurrection that its full connotation was established (Rom. 6:3-11). The day of the Lord’s resurrection was to be the day his church was built and his spiritual kingdom realized (Matt. 16:18-19; Acts 1:3-8; 2:1-47),¹² and ultimately the memorial day of his death (cf. Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16, 18; Acts 2:42; 20:7).

Conclusion

     For all who are committed to restoring the NT church, we have clear directives concerning the Lord’s Supper with respect to what, how, and when. If the early Christians assembled every Sunday to observe communion in remembrance of the Lord’s sacrificial death, what should we be doing?

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² See The Sunday Collection <Link>.

     ³ See also 1 Cor. 7:25; 8:1, 4; 12:1; 16:1, 12.

     ⁴ Cf. Acts 16:6; 18:23; Gal. 1:2. These are probably the churches in the southern region of the Roman province of Galatia, including Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium (Acts 13, 14, 16). Note that Gaius of Derbe and Timothy of Lystra were part of the delegation that carried the funds to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). 

     ⁵ Cf. Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:1–9:7. Macedonian cities where churches had been planted were Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea (Acts 16:9–17:14). Representatives of the Thessalonica and Berea congregations helped deliver the funds (Acts 20:4), and Luke may have represented the church at Philippi (Acts 16:12; 20:6).

     ⁶ The province of Achaia included Corinth, Cenchrea, and Athens (Acts 17:24; 18:18, 27; 19:21; Rom. 16:1).

     ⁷ While the churches of Jerusalem and Judea were on the receiving end of this benevolent aid, they too participated in funding the Lord’s work through free-will offerings collected in a common treasury (cf. Acts 2:42, 44, 45; 4:32, 34-37; 5:1-2; 6:1-4). Consider also the generosity of the Syrian Antioch congregation (Acts 11:29-30). Providing for the physical needs of destitute brethren is not the only work first-century churches supported (cf. 1 Cor. 9:11-14; 16:6; 2 Cor. 11:7-9; 12:13; Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:15-20).

     ⁸ These verses constitute an apostolic command issued to multiple congregations in various locations to be regularly observed on a specified day each week. While “each of you by himself” (v. 2b) describes a personal responsibility, the expression “let him store up” (thēsaurízōn) (v. 2c) means to treasure up or store up in a common treasury (= the single “gift” of v. 3). Just as the contribution involves both individual and collective components, so too does the observance of the Lord’s Supper (11:20, 26, 28).

     ⁹ What if the church also met on Wednesdays or other days of the week? The bottom line is, Paul is addressing what the church in mid-first-century Corinth was actually doing (assembling every Sunday), not other possible scenarios that would have required qualifying directives.

     ¹⁰ The term mesonúktion (“midnight”) applies to the second of four watches of the night (Mark 13:35; cf. 6:48), equivalent to 9 pm–12 am.

     ¹¹ John’s allusion to “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10) employs the adjective kuriakos, and the only other occurrence of this word in the NT is in reference to “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), commemorated as regularly as these Christians assembled together (vv. 20-34), viz. every Sunday (16:2).

     ¹² Cf. Mark 9:1; John 3:5; Acts 1:3; 2:30-38, 47; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31; Col. 1:13. See The Kingdom of God Part 3 <Link>.

Related Posts: Chronological Confusion, Questions about the Lord's Supper, Closed Communion, Apparent Discrepancies (Part 3), A Closer Look at the Elements of the Lord's Supper 

Related articles: Wayne Jackson's Weekly Observance; Dave Miller's Sunday and the Lord's Supper and Lord's Supper on Sunday?; Ben Giselbach's Protecting the Lord's Supper; Neal Pollard's Keeping Our Thoughts on the Lord's Supper

Image credit: http://oneyearbibleimages.com/passover_bread.jpg