QTM 306 // THE REPEATED FINISH

A Systems Audit of the Lord's Supper and the Finished Work of Christ

0.0 Preface: The Paradox of the Repeated Finish

To the Reader seeking clarity at the Table:

In the architecture of Christian doctrine, there is a perceived "collision" between two fundamental commands found in the Source Code. On one hand, the text records the absolute finality of the atonement in the dying words of Jesus:

On the other hand, the same Source Code issues a command for perpetual repetition regarding the Lord's Supper:

This creates a logical tension that many believers struggle to resolve: If the work of salvation was truly completed—"paid in full" in the sense John’s term tetelestai implies [I]—at the cross, why does the church return to the Table week after week? Skeptics often argue that if Jesus’ death were truly sufficient, any ongoing ritual would be redundant at best and a quiet admission of failure at worst. This audit will test that assumption against the text itself.

The Source Code doesn’t leave this “finished” claim in the abstract. It explicitly applies “once-for-all” language to Christ’s sacrificial work:

This paper, QTM 306, is a systems audit designed to resolve this tension. We adopt the "Berean Protocol" (Acts 17:11 [E]) as our investigative virtue, examining the theological mechanics of how the "once-for-all" event of the cross interacts with the "ongoing" practice of the Table.

To do this, we must distinguish between the accomplishment of salvation—the objective legal work completed by Christ in history—and the application of salvation—the subjective way believers participate in and receive the benefits of that work today. We will utilize the “Trust Fund” analogy [I]: the beneficiary does not add to the fund by withdrawing from it; they simply access the wealth that was already deposited.

In this audit, we will "steel-man" the major historical interpretations of Christ’s presence—from Transubstantiation to the Memorial view—evaluating each against the primary documentation. We will also address the "Security Warnings" found in the text, specifically the Corinthian context of partaking in an "unworthy manner" (1 Corinthians 11:27–32 [E]), and the eschatological horizon of the meal:

The goal is not to diminish the significance of communion, but to ground its significance in the right place: the finished work of Christ. We invite you to examine the data, parse the grammar of the institution narratives, and follow the evidence to a clearer understanding of why we commune when Christ has already said, "It is finished."

Let us begin the audit.

1.0 The Accomplishment: Defining "Finished"

Before we can understand the ongoing practice of the Table, we must audit the event it claims to represent. If the cross was merely a martyrdom or a moral example, repetition would be necessary to maintain its emotional impact. However, the Source Code presents the cross as a transaction that altered the legal status of the believer permanently.

To establish this, we must examine the lexical data regarding Jesus’ final declaration and the structural argument found in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

1.1 The Lexical Data: Tetelestai

The narrative reaches its climax with a single word in the Greek text:

The Greek word translated "It is finished" is tetelestai. To understand the theological weight of this term, we must look at its grammatical form and historical usage [C].

• Grammatical Form: Tetelestai is in the perfect tense. In Greek grammar, the perfect tense indicates an action that was completed in the past but has ongoing, permanent results in the present [C]. It is not merely "it ended" (aorist tense); it is "it stands finished."
• Historical Usage: Archeological evidence from the first century—specifically papyri fragments found in Egypt—shows tetelestai written on tax receipts and business documents [C].

The Inference [I]: When Jesus spoke this word, He was not simply announcing the end of His biological life. He was declaring the completion of a transaction. The debt of sin was not merely serviced; it was liquidated.

1.2 The Structural Data: The "Once-for-All" Argument

If John 19:30 provides the headline, the book of Hebrews provides the legal brief. The author of Hebrews constructs a rigorous argument contrasting the repetition of the Old Covenant with the finality of the New.

The text explicitly links "repetition" with "insufficiency":

The text then contrasts the Levitical priests with Christ:

Note the physical posture [I]:

• The Old Covenant priests stood (their work was never done).
• Christ sat down (His work was completed).

This “sitting down” is not a casual detail. It is a direct echo of a Messianic decree:

The Data Point [E]: The Messiah is commanded to “sit” at God’s right hand.
The Logic [I]: The Old Covenant priests never sat in the Tabernacle or Temple because their work was never finished; the furniture lists in Exodus and Kings include no chair for the priest.
The Implication [I]: Christ’s “sitting down” signals not exhaustion but enthroned completion. The sacrificial work that could never be finished under the Law has reached its terminal state in Him.

1.3 The Theological Conclusion: A Closed System

Based on this data, we must conclude that the accomplishment of salvation is a "closed system" [I].

This verse introduces the critical distinction we will use throughout this audit:

1. "Made perfect forever" (Perfect Tense): The objective status of the believer before God. This is the Accomplishment.
2. "Being made holy" (Present Participle): The subjective growth of the believer in time. This is the Application.

The author of Hebrews drives the point to a hard stop:

The Verdict: Nothing can be added to the work of the cross. Any theology of communion that suggests we are re-sacrificing Christ, or adding to His finished work to secure more forgiveness, violates the core logic of the New Testament [I]. The debt is paid. The account is settled. The Priest has sat down.

This does not mean that our actions no longer matter or that grace licenses apathy. The Source Code anticipates this misunderstanding:

The Reality [I]: The cross does not create a moral loophole; it creates a new identity. The Accomplishment (Section 1) changes our legal status; the Application (to be explored in Section 2) changes our way of life.

2.0 The Application: The Mechanics of Remembrance

If Section 1.0 establishes the Accomplishment (the objective legal status secured at the cross), Section 2.0 audits the Application (the subjective way the believer interacts with that status). The Lord’s Supper is the primary "User Interface" for this interaction. We must determine if this repetition is a "re-sacrifice" (which would violate the closed system of Hebrews) or a "re-encounter" with a finished reality.

2.1 The Access Protocol: Anamnēsis vs. Mental Recall

The command for repetition is centered on a specific Greek term:

The word for "remembrance" is anamnēsis. In a modern context, "remembrance" often implies a passive mental recall of a distant, absent event. However, the lexical and cultural context suggests a much more active protocol [C].

1. The Hebrew Root: In the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), anamnēsis is often used to translate the Hebrew zakar. In the biblical worldview, zakar is not merely "thinking about the past"; it is an action that makes a past covenantal reality present and effective in its results [C].
2. The Passover Context: The Lord’s Supper does not appear in a vacuum; it is a deliberate Passover “firmware update.”
   “This is a day you are to commemorate (zakar); for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance.” (Exodus 12:14, NIV [E])
   The Data Point [E]: Israel was commanded not merely to think about the Exodus but to re-enact it annually through a meal.
   The Logic [I]: In the Passover, each generation did not say, “God brought them out of Egypt,” but “God brought us out” (cf. Deuteronomy 6:20–23 [E]).
3. The New Covenant Anchor:
   THE DATA POINT [E] The "new covenant" Jesus inaugurates at the Table was prophesied centuries earlier:
   "The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah... For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Jeremiah 31:31–34, NIV [E])
   
   THE LOGIC [I] The Old Covenant required repeated sacrifices because sins were "remembered" annually (Hebrews 10:3 [E]). The New Covenant's defining feature is that sins are "remembered no more"—which is why the sacrifice cannot be repeated. To repeat it would be to "remember" what God has promised to forget.
4. The Theological Logic [I]: When Jesus attaches anamnēsis to a covenant meal, He is not instituting a bare mental exercise but a covenant act that makes the once-for-all Exodus-from-sin present in its effects for each generation. If the Cross is the “Master Clock,” anamnēsis functions like a Network Time Protocol (NTP) sync: it does not restart the clock; it synchronizes the believer’s local “time” (experience) to the one definitive time-stamp of the Finished Work.

The Inference [I]: Remembrance is the "Access Key" to the Trust Fund. The beneficiary does not add to the fund by withdrawing from it; they simply access the wealth that was already deposited.

2.2 The Proclamation Interface: 1 Corinthians 11:26

The Source Code defines the act of communion as a specific type of "speech act"—a proclamation.

The Logic [I]:

• Proclamation vs. Performance: To "proclaim" (katangellō) is to announce a fact, not to perform a deed.
  Lexical Note [C]: In the New Testament and wider Greek usage, katangellō often carries the sense of public announcement—the heralding of news (e.g., Acts 13:5; 17:3 [E]).
• The Eschatological Horizon: The phrase "until he comes" provides the system’s expiration date. The Table is a temporary interface used during the "Already/Not Yet" phase. The same story-arc culminates in a future meal:
  “Then the angel said to me, ‘Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ And he added, ‘These are the true words of God.’” (Revelation 19:9, NIV [E])
  The Data Point [E]: History is moving toward a final covenant meal—the wedding supper of the Lamb.
  The Logic [I]: The Table is a beta version of that final banquet: a temporary interface that will be “uninstalled” when the Architect returns.

The Implication [I]: Because it is a proclamation of a past event ("the Lord's death"), it reinforces the finality of that death. You do not proclaim a work that is still in progress; you proclaim a victory that is already won.

2.3 The Participation Variable: Koinōnia

The Source Code indicates that the Table involves a unique type of participation.

The word for "participation" is koinōnia (fellowship, sharing, communion).

The Logic [I]:

• Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions: Koinōnia involves both a vertical participation in Christ and a horizontal participation with the body.
  “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.” (1 Corinthians 10:17, NIV [E])
  The Data Point [E]: The "one body" language is not a casual metaphor; it is a core ecclesiological claim:
  "There is one body and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all..." (Ephesians 4:4–6, NIV [E])
  The Logic [I]: The Table is not merely a symbol of unity; it is a participation in the one body that already exists. To partake while denying that unity is to contradict the very reality the meal signifies.
• Real Presence Without Re-Sacrifice: The Source Code uses “altar” language to describe this ongoing access:
  “We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.” (Hebrews 13:10, NIV [E])
  The Data Point [E]: Christ's ongoing role is not to re-sacrifice, but to mediate the benefits of His once-for-all sacrifice:
  "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant..." (Hebrews 9:15, NIV [E])
  The Logic [I]: A mediator administers an existing agreement; he does not re-negotiate it. Christ's heavenly ministry is the ongoing application of a finished transaction.

2.4 The Security Warning: System Self-Check

Because the Table is a direct interface with the "Finished Work," the Source Code issues a severe Security Warning regarding its misuse.

The Logic [I]:

• The "Breach Log": Paul logs the specific abuse before he issues the warning:
  “For when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers... one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. ...Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:21–22, NIV [E])
  The Logic [I]: The “unworthy manner” was not that sinners were present, but that some were denying the unity of the body and despising the church of God.
• The Self-Examination Protocol: The "System Check" (dokimazō) is a call to verify alignment.
  Lexical Note [C]: The verb dokimazō was used for testing metals to prove their genuineness.
  The Logic [I]: Self-examination is not about achieving sinless perfection but about testing whether one’s faith and conduct are aligned with the Gospel.

2.5 Conclusion: The Application Layer

The audit of the Application layer reveals that the Lord’s Supper is not a "top-up" for a failing atonement. It is a Proclamation of a finished victory, a Participation in a living Savior, and a Remembrance that synchronizes the believer’s present reality with their eternal legal status.

The Verdict: The repetition of the Table does not signal the insufficiency of the cross; it signals the infinite sufficiency of the cross. Skeptics often assume that repetition signals deficiency. In the case of the Table, the repeated act does not repeat the sacrifice; it repeatedly draws on a sacrifice whose value can never be diminished or improved. We repeat the meal because we can never exhaust the wealth of the "Trust Fund" that was "Paid in Full" at the cross [I].

3.0 The System Audit: Historical Models & The Forgiveness Question

Having established the Accomplishment (Section 1) and the Application (Section 2), we must now audit the historical models the church has built to explain this interface. Throughout history, the tension between "It is finished" and "Do this" has led to various theological "patches." We will audit these configurations against the Source Code to see which best preserves the integrity of the Finished Work.

3.1 Auditing the Four Configurations

Historically, the church has run four major configurations regarding Christ’s presence at the Table. We evaluate each against the data points of Hebrews 10 (The Finished Work) and 1 Corinthians 10 (Real Participation).

1. Transubstantiation (The Roman Catholic Configuration): Asserts that the bread and wine change substance into the actual body and blood of Christ, often viewed as a propitiatory sacrifice.
   • The Data Point [E]: This view leans heavily on the apparent literalism of Jesus’ words: "Take and eat; this is my body." (Matthew 26:26, NIV [E])
   • The Audit [I]: However, this faces a critical error when tested against Hebrews 10:11–12 [E]. It effectively stands the Priest back up to offer sacrifices "again and again," conflicting with the "kill switch" of Hebrews 10:18 [E].
   • The Hardware Conflict [I]: At the moment Jesus said these words, His physical body was still sitting at the table, distinct from the bread He was holding.
2. Consubstantiation (The Lutheran Configuration): Asserts that Christ is present "in, with, and under" the elements, like heat in a heated iron, without changing their substance.
   • The Metaphysical Patch [C]: Appeals to the communicatio idiomatum to argue Christ's physical body shares in divine omnipresence.
   • The Data Point [E]: However, the Source Code treats Christ’s human body as locatable: "This same Jesus... will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9–11, NIV [E])
   • Secondary Locational Anchor [E]: "Set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God." (Colossians 3:1, NIV [E])
   • The Logic [I]: If Christ's physical body were ubiquitous, the command to seek Him "where Christ is" would be meaningless.
3. Memorialism (The Zwinglian/Baptist Configuration): Asserts that the Table is strictly a symbolic act of remembrance; Christ is present only in the believer's mind.
   • The Appeal [I]: Rightly emphasizes "do this in remembrance of me" and the sufficiency of the once-for-all sacrifice.
   • The Low-Bandwidth Error [I]: However, if the Supper is reduced to a purely mental recollection, then Paul’s language of koinōnia (participation) in 1 Corinthians 10:16 [E] becomes strangely redundant.
4. Spiritual Presence (The Reformed Configuration): Asserts that Christ is not physically in the bread, but the believer is spiritually raised by the Spirit to commune with the seated Christ.
   • The Data Point [E]: "And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:6, NIV [E])
   • The Logic [I]: We do not drag Christ down from heaven to re-sacrifice Him. Rather, by the Spirit, we are lifted into communion with the One who is already seated there. This provides a coherent “network path” between the once-for-all sacrifice and the ongoing participation.

3.2 The Forgiveness Variable: Matthew 26:28

A critical question remains: Does taking communion forgive sins?

The Prepositional Audit [C]: The phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” uses the Greek preposition eis (εἰς). This is the same construction found in Acts 2:38 [E].

• The Grammar Audit [C]: The phrase is grammatically linked to the participle "poured out" (ekchunnomenon), not to the command to "drink".
• The Logic [I]: The saving act (Christ’s blood poured out) is linked to a public rite (the Cup). The rite is the way to receive and certify what the saving act secured, not a mechanical engine that generates forgiveness.

3.3 The Skeptic’s Objection: Repetition vs. Finality

Finally, we must address the skeptic’s logic: "If Jesus died once for all, why do we keep doing communion? Doesn't the repetition suggest the first time didn't work?"

This objection confuses an Event with a Relationship.

The Wedding Analogy [I]: A couple does not celebrate their anniversary to become married again. They celebrate it because they are married. The repetition of the dinner does not undermine the finality of the wedding; it honors it.

The Data Point [E]: The Source Code itself grounds the repetition of the meal in an explicit command to proclaim: "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26, NIV [E])

The Logic [I]: Repetition here is a function of proclamation, not insufficiency. You do not stop telling a story because the story is complete; you keep announcing it because it is complete.

4.0 The Eschatological Horizon: Proclamation & Anticipation

The Table is not merely a look backward at a finished event (Section 1) or a look inward at a present participation (Section 2); it is a look forward at a promised future. This is the "Eschatological Horizon" of the meal.

4.1 The Proclamation Protocol

The Data Point [C]: The verb katangellō ("proclaim") is the language of public announcement—the heralding of news (cf. Acts 17:3, NIV [E]).

The Logic [I]: Communion is a "speech act." The Table is not a private mystical signal; it is a public broadcast into history and to the powers (cf. Ephesians 3:10, NIV [E]).

4.2 The "Until" Variable: The King’s Fast

The word "until" (achris hou) creates a temporal boundary for the ritual. This is reinforced by Jesus’ own vow of abstinence:

The Data Point [E]: The Source Code already contains a pattern of covenantal abstinence in the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:3–5).

The Logic [I]: Jesus’ promise not to drink “until that day” functions like a royal Nazirite vow—a King’s Fast. He refuses to lift the cup again until the mission is complete and His people are gathered.

4.3 The Marriage Supper: Beta vs. Gold Master

The Table we set now is a "Beta Version" of the final feast. The repetition of the meal is a function of anticipation, not insufficiency.

This New Testament hope is grounded in the Old Testament promise of a physical, tangible restoration:

The Anti-Gnostic Reality [I]: Skeptics (and some Christians) picture heaven as a non‑material existence. The Source Code instead promises resurrected bodies on a renewed earth (Revelation 21:1-2).

4.4 Conclusion: The Bridge

The audit of the Eschatological Horizon confirms that the Lord's Supper is the bridge between the "It is finished" of the past and the "Behold, I am making all things new" of the future.

The Verdict: The Table is designed to become obsolete. It is a temporary provision for the road, not the destination itself.

5.0 System Configuration: The Fourfold Function & Security Protocols

To run the "Communion Node" according to the Source Code, the user must move beyond historical "patches" to the explicit execution instructions found in the New Testament.

5.1 The Fourfold Function

1. Remembrance (Anamnēsis): A System Sync with the Finished Work. (Luke 22:19, Exodus 12:14).
2. Proclamation: A Public Broadcast that announces the gospel to the powers. (1 Corinthians 11:26, Ephesians 3:10).
3. Participation (Koinōnia): The spiritual Network Path to the seated Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:16, Hebrews 10:12, Ephesians 2:6).
4. Anticipation: A Beta Version of the Marriage Supper, enacted during the King’s Fast. (Matthew 26:29, Revelation 19:9).

5.2 Security Protocols: The "Unworthy Manner"

The Logic [I]: "Discerning the body" involves two layers of verification:

1. Vertical Verification: Recognizing the elements are spiritually linked to the sacrifice of Christ.
2. Horizontal Verification: Recognizing the "Corporate Body" (the Church). To partake while harboring division is a Packet Loss error.

The Logic [I]: The Table is not a minefield for the anxious; it is an open door for the forgiven. The proper posture is confident humility.

5.3 Theological Triage & The Berean Protocol

Frequency Note [I]: The Source Code does not mandate a specific frequency. Early practice ranged from daily (Acts 2:46) to weekly (Acts 20:7). The command is "whenever you eat"—implying regularity without legislating a calendar.

The Triage [I]: We must distinguish between the "First Importance" core (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) and the "Secondary" configuration.

5.4 Final Execution Instructions

1. Verify the Accomplishment: Ensure the user understands that the sacrifice is "Once-for-All" (Hebrews 10:12).
2. Initialize the Application: Approach the Table for koinōnia (participation), not re-sacrifice.
3. Run the Security Check: Perform self-examination (dokimazō) and discern the corporate body.
4. Execute the Proclamation: Eat and drink as a public broadcast of the King’s death and return.

6.0 Section 6: System Logs (References)