God has put eternity into our hearts, and we long not just for joy but for joy unending. Every happy experience we have on earth will end. That prick of incompleteness, of a premature finale, is an indication of the capacity of our souls. It points to a new land.

Somehow my oldest child is a freshman in high school. As I’ve experienced those where-did-the-time-go emotions that come with such minor milestones, I’ve started to feel a deep, preemptive loss.
I have loved being a parent. It has been one of the best callings in my life. My sadness at (possibly) having less than four years left with my daughter at home is not mere nostalgia for familiar or picturesque days. In the midst of a happy season, I can see its end on the horizon.
I’m not alone in this, and these feelings are not reserved for parents. I’ve felt this same grief in the middle of a family vacation as the lightness of the first few days becomes weighted with regret as I feel the end approaching.
This grief creeps into small things too, like stretching out the end of a good book to avoid snapping the cover closed for the last time. Or savoring a delicious coffee so long that it turns cold and sour.
This is a narrow, specific kind of grief, but it can be stifling.
Read More

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Friday, June 14, 2024
You can neither “crush” nor can you “drink” soggy bread. All the rich symbolism intended by Jesus as he deliberately separates the two symbolic elements from one another are lost. By the action of dipping the bread in the wine you have numbed the intended impact of both elements. Dipping the bread in the wine mutes the rich symbolism embedded in the two separate elements, the crusty bread and the potent wine.

Dipping the bread into the wine as a method of distributing and receiving the elements of the Lord’s supper is a matter that has recently come into discussion among some churches. This procedure, commonly called “intinction,” has significance in the life of the church because it directly affects the manner in which this sacrament, instituted by Christ, should be properly celebrated.
People who favor allowing intinction as one method for the distribution and reception of the elements of the Lord’s supper indicate that they see certain advantages in this procedure, and find nothing in Scripture that would disallow it. Among other considerations, they note the following:
(1) It is perhaps the most convenient way to distribute the elements.
(2) It emphasizes the central fact of the one celebration supper involving two elements.
(3) It falls naturally into the category of various other aspects of the celebration of the Lord’s supper in which a breadth of procedures is acknowledged as appropriate. These various aspects include: the type of bread that is used, whether of a single loaf or multiple pieces; the use of wine or unfermented grape juice, or an option of both; whether the elements are distributed among a seated congregation or the congregation comes forward to receive the elements; whether the people take the elements individually or simultaneously. These various aspects of celebrating the Lord’s supper are all generally regarded as acceptable, and left up to the various congregations. In a similar way, it is proposed that dipping the bread in the wine and taking both elements together in the sop falls into this same category of aspects in the celebration of the supper that may be experienced in equally legitimate but differing ways. Objecting to the procedure of intinction would seem to be making a large issue out of a small matter.
However, certain aspects of the biblical witness must be given full consideration. It is, after all, Scripture that must provide the defining word in all issues before the Lord’s church, whether it be matters clearly addressed or matters requiring more careful consideration. In this regard, several aspects of the biblical testimony deserve the church’s attention.
First, the nature of the sacraments.
In contrast with the verbalization of the truth in the preaching of the Word, the sacrament communicates redemptive truth by the use of symbolic elements and actions. In the case of baptism, the minister applies the one element of water by the one action of sprinkling, pouring or immersing. The one element and the one action provide the method by which a person enters the covenant community, and symbolize the descent of the Spirit on the person as well as the washing away of sins.
In the case of the Lord’s supper, the minister makes two statements regarding the two elements. Regarding symbolic action, the minister takes the bread, breaks the bread, distributes the bread, and the people eat the bread. For the cup, the minister takes the cup, gives the cup and the people drink the cup. But does the congregation receive the bread and the cup with two actions or with one action?
The symbolic actions of the Lord’s supper are particularly significant due to the historic setting of its original institution. The time is specified as “the night in which he was betrayed,” the night before his death (1 Cor. 11:23). These words and actions represent what may be called Jesus’ “last will and testament.” More precisely, they are the words and actions that institute the “new covenant.” More sacred in biblical culture than a “last will and testament” are the words instituting a “covenant.” In his letter to the Galatians, Paul underscores the sacredness of the wording of a covenant: “Even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified” (Gal. 3:15 ESV). The words and actions of Jesus as recorded by the gospels and Paul institute the new covenant, the consummating covenant. If no one dares to modify a single word or phrase of a normal person’s last will and testament, or a human covenant, how much less is it appropriate for a person to modify a divine covenant, or what may be regarded as virtually the last will and testament of our Lord? These are his consummating covenantal words. They must be held in sacred honor. Neither the words nor the actions clearly indicated should be modified in any way. The symbolic significance of the actions as well as the words of Jesus in the institution of the Lord’s supper must be reverently preserved and observed.
Second, the clear establishment of two distinctive elements and two distinctive actions.
The sacrament of baptism clearly has one element and one action: water and the application of the water. The sacrament of the Lord’s supper just as clearly has two elements and two actions: bread broken and eaten; the cup of wine presented and drunk. Two distinct elements and two distinct actions. Underscoring the distinction between the two actions is the clear indicator of a pause that occurred between the partaking of the two different elements. Both Luke’s gospel and Paul’s letter state that they ate the bread and then “after supper” they took the cup (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Unless it be proposed that Luke and Paul improperly added the notation about “after supper” between the taking of the two elements, it is clear that drinking the wine is separated from eating the bread.
Even if no reason at all could be found for the separation in time between eating the bread and drinking the wine, it would be altogether appropriate to follow the clear pattern established by the Lord. He is as it were on his death-bed. These are his precise instructions. These instructions and these procedures should be followed.
Yet good reason for a separation between eating the bread and drinking the wine resides inherently in the two separate elements and the differing manner in which they are received. Consider first the distinctive symbolism inherent in the two physical elements of the sacrament, and the different manner in which these two distinct elements are received. Secondly, remember the redemptive-historical context of the institution of the Lord’s supper. Thirdly, note particularly the symbolism of the cup. Fourthly, consider the procedure followed in the eating and drinking.
1. The distinctive symbolism of the two elements, and the differing manner in which they are received.
The bread. The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus. The bread is broken as Jesus’ body was broken. It was broken on the cross. From the crown of his head to the sole of his feet, his body was broken. From the right hand to the left outstretched, his flesh was pierced and his bones were broken by the nails. The spear of the centurion pierced his side. Jesus’ entire body was broken for you.
What do you do with the bread? You smell the bread. You hold the bread. You place the bread in your mouth. You crush the bread with your teeth. You share the guilt for the breaking of his body. By God’s grace it was broken for you. You swallow the bread, personally accepting his body as broken for you. That is the symbolic significance of the breaking and the eating of the bread.
The cup of wine. The cup of wine symbolizes the life-blood of Jesus poured out in sacrifice for you. By these two separate elements of the Lord’s supper, Jesus vividly displays the total character of his sacrifice for sinners. His body broken, his life-blood poured out.
Wine has different physical characteristics than bread. It has the semblance of blood. Wine smells differently than bread. It has a pungent odor. Wine creates different sensations when taken into the mouth. Bread does not sting when eaten. But wine burns as it is being swallowed. As you take the wine and experience the physical sensations it causes, you are vividly reminded that Jesus poured out his life-blood as a sacrifice for you. The burning sensation of the wine can hardly compare with the pain Jesus’ flesh experienced when the thorns pierced his head and the nails pierced his hands and feet. But at least the stinging of the wine serves as a physical reminder that he was wounded for your transgressions, bruised for your iniquities.
His body broken—the bread. His blood poured out—the wine. Take and eat. Drink, all of you, of it. Two symbolic elements, two symbolic actions of receiving.
But the bread made soggy with the wine. You do not experience the crushing of the bread. You do not experience the stinging of the wine. You can neither “crush” nor can you “drink” soggy bread. All the rich symbolism intended by Jesus as he deliberately separates the two symbolic elements from one another are lost. By the action of dipping the bread in the wine you have numbed the intended impact of both elements. Dipping the bread in the wine mutes the rich symbolism embedded in the two separate elements, the crusty bread and the potent wine.
It has been suggested that the words of institution spoken by the minister adequately communicate the difference of the bread in distinction from the wine. But to substitute the words of institution for the symbolic actions is to lose the point of a sacrament. By having the recipient ingest the two elements physically and separately, the truth pronounced by the differing words finds full reinforcement through the symbolism of the two separated actions.
2. The biblical-theological significance of the two elements and the two actions.
A further consideration emphasizes the significance of the two elements and the two actions, which is the place in redemptive history of the institution of the Lord’s supper. As redemptive history progresses, each subsequent covenant incorporates by substance and symbol God’s previous covenants. The covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Mosaic covenant incorporates the basic elements of the covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Abrahamic covenant, though differing in its mode. Abraham saw in his vision a smoking pot and a flaming torch passing between the shattered pieces of the divided animals. In this way God “cut a covenant” with Abraham (Gen. 15:18). God pledged to absorb into himself the curses of the covenant by symbolically “passing between the pieces.” This symbolic action found its fulfillment in the crucifixion of Christ. Moses at Sinai could hardly have required over three million people to “pass between the pieces” in a covenant-making ceremony.
Read More
Related Posts:

The SJC is the Supreme Court of the PCA.  This decision has more authority than the BCO or any decisions of a Presbytery or a General Assembly.  In any future cases it will be used as the rule book, as the authoritative interpretation of Scripture on the matter.  The PCA is now officially a Side B2 denomination.

The recent Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) decision on the complaint of the action of Missouri Presbytery of the PCA is now public.  I have not seen any public reaction to it yet, but then, too, I don’t surf the internet nor do I belong to any chat rooms.  After reading the decision, I have come to three conclusions which may be of value to some and of no value to others.
First, a few years ago, when the whole Side A and Side B controversy associated with the Gay Community became a public matter, I see now that I was way behind the curve in understanding my brethren.  I thought the definitions were fairly simple.  Side A homosexuals did not hold back their sexual passions and consequently entered into physical homosexual relationships.  Side B homosexuals (generally biblical Christians) practiced celibacy and refrained from sexual relations with those of the same sex.
The way I understood it, the goal of conservatives in the PCA was to oppose the PCA from becoming a Side B denomination.  In my mind this meant that any man who had homosexual desires (and made it public) would not be above reproach and therefore was ineligible to hold office in the PCA, although he would be welcomed as a member in any PCA Church.  I do believe the Bible clearly teaches this.
Then, I learned of my mistake.  Actually, Side B, as I now understand it, is not really Side B as I used to understand it.  Side B needs to be divided into two parts, which I call Side B1 and Side B2.  Both Side B1 and Side B2 practice celibacy.  Both fight against homosexual temptation.  Side B1 describes those men with homosexual desires who have concluded that it is a permanent condition.  They were born this way and they do not expect God to intervene and take away this desire. They need to be accepted in the church as they are, and encouraged to flourish in their identity. They should not be prevented from holding office in the PCA.
Side B2 is a description of those who believe that change is possible, although it is unlikely. They constantly struggle with homosexual desires every day, but they are in a continual process of mortifying this sin.  However, this sin is, at root, no different than illegitimate heterosexual desire or any other sin, be it gossip, slander, financial disorder, or whatever.  It may be a little more heinous than most other sins but not much. Their identity in Christ is greater than their identity as a same-sex-attracted (SSA) person.
Side B2 reflects the PCA Study Committee on Human Sexuality.  It also reflects the proposed amendments to the PCA Book of Church Order adopted at the last General Assembly, and now before the Presbyteries for a vote.
Secondly, the SJC is an appellate court, and thus I was surprised at the procedure of the SJC in allowing Greg Johnson to answer questions previously not in the original approved Record of the Case.  I don’t doubt the legality of this action per the SJC Manual, but it did change the traditional nature of the role of appellate courts.  Their justification of this action was noted in the decision as follows.  “The SJC rescinded the Officers’ previous OMSJC 11.1.e ruling that the Record in Case 2020-12 is ‘complete and sufficiently documented,’ thereby suspending the Officers’ [January 2021] ruling that the Case is ‘judicially in order.’ The SJC agreed to send a letter to Presbytery’s Respondent, adopting the procedure outlined therein for responses to questions and supplemental [addendum] briefs, per the authority of OMSJC 7.4.b and 7.4.e.(3).”
Thus, Greg Johnson, late in the game, was given the opportunity to answer questions proposed by the SJC after the decision of Missouri Presbytery had been rendered.  Years ago, when I was an appellee on a particular SJC Case, this would have been considered a retrial of the Case.
I don’t doubt the integrity of Mr. Johnson at all, but the answers he gave to the SJC were almost a perfect representation of the Side B2 position.   I don’t think the answers could have been written any better to reflect the Side B2 position, even by a person on the PCA Study Committee on Human Sexuality.   Anyone who supports the Side B2 position, in my opinion, should be happy with the SJC decision. They should consider it as a victory.
Thirdly, whether the proposed BCO amendments pass or not is now irrelevant. The BCO must currently be interpreted in light of the SJC Decision.  I believe this is called legal precedence. The SJC is the Supreme Court of the PCA.  This decision has more authority than the BCO or any decisions of a Presbytery or a General Assembly.  In any future cases it will be used as the rule book, as the authoritative interpretation of Scripture on the matter.  The PCA is now officially a Side B2 denomination.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tennessee.