It’s never wrong to honour Christ. Worship and honour come
from the heart. How do we determine which practices are from the heart and
which are ritualistic. Listening to Jesus I get the idea that our lives are our
worship. Jesus was the exact representation of his Father, we are
representatives of Jesus. The love that flowed through Jesus from God is to be
seen in us. In that way we honour God through Christ. The Pharisees were
wrapped up in their traditions.
This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human
precepts as doctrines.[1]
The Lord’s supper
While they were eating, Jesus took a
loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and
said, "Take, eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, and after
giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for
this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness
of sins.[2]
While they were eating, he took a loaf
of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said,
"Take; this is my body." Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks
he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, "This
is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I
will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it
new in the kingdom of God."[3]
He said to them, "I have eagerly
desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will
not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Then he took a
cup, and after giving thanks he said, "Take this and divide it among
yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of
the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Then he took a loaf of 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." And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, "This cup
that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[4]
When he was at the table with them, he
took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were
opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.[5]
I give you a new commandment, that you
love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one
another.[6]
The cup of blessing that we bless, is
it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a
sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are
one body, for we all partake of the one bread.[7]
Indeed, there have to be factions among
you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. When you come
together, it is not really to eat the Lord's supper. For when the time comes to
eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and
another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do
you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?
What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend
you! For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord
Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had
given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do
this in remembrance of me." In the same way he took the cup also, 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. Whoever,
therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner
will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and
only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink
without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For
this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged
ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are
disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my
brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If
you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for
your condemnation.[8]
Your ancestors ate the manna in the
wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so
that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from
heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will
give for the life of the world is my flesh."[9]
They devoted themselves to the
apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the
apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they
would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as
any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they
broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts,[10]
…we sailed from Philippi after the days
of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we joined them in Troas, where we stayed
for seven days. On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul
was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he
continued speaking until midnight. Then Paul went upstairs, and after he had
broken bread and eaten, he continued to converse with them until dawn; then he
left.[11]
The first consideration in studying the Lord’s Supper is to recognize
that the customary practices in most Churches are nothing like the original
supper during which Jesus instituted the memorial bread and wine. Modern day
practices do not resemble Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians, he challenged
them to let love govern their fellowship. Jesus offered the bread as a symbol
of his body, and the wine as a symbol of his blood. Both his body and blood
were given in sacrifice. A dime-sized crumb of bread and a thimble of grape
juice do not constitute a meal. That we have accepted these tokens suggests
that the observance is more ritualistic than symbolic.
The bread used in the
Lord’s supper:
So, in conclusion, the fact of the matter is that the Bible never teaches
us or even implies that the Lord’s Supper was to be taken with unleavened bread.
If it were to be, it never tells us what the lack of leaven would stand for, as
the only explanation ever given for its place in the Passover ritual was as an
historical recollection of Israel’s hasty departure from Egypt. The
Lord’s Supper was instituted on the occasion of a Passover meal. But it
is not itself a Passover meal. Nor is the Lord’s Supper the Last Supper.
There are many features of that particular meal that do not carry over
into the Lord’s Supper of the Christian church. It was twelve men and men
only. Nowhere are we told in the NT that women should participate.
It was taken with the participants reclining about a central table.
There were the remnants of a large meal on that table. The Lord’s
Supper is not defined by any of this. The Lord’s Supper arose out of a
Passover meal, but it is itself only what the Lord made it to be. The Lord, we
are told, “took bread” and told us to take it as well: “bread” not “unleavened
bread.” And he took the fruit of the vine. We are to do the same.
Bread and Wine are the elements of the Lord’s Supper as the Lord himself
defined that Supper.[12]
In all three Gospels what Jesus gave the disciples is [in Greek] “artos,”
meaning simply “bread.” It is striking that He is not said to have given
them “azumos” or “azuma” which are the proper words for unleavened bread, AND
which are clearly available since they are used in each of the Gospels in the
context to refer to the Passover. In other words, the use of “artos” by
Matthew, Mark and Luke to tell us what Jesus gave the disciples makes the fact
that this may have been unleavened bread of NO importance. At the same
time we also must recognize that because the Scripture NOWHERE calls it
“unleavened bread,” we cannot at all be sure that it was (throughout the NT
“artos” is used for common or leavened bread). We simply may not base our
teaching on the silence of Scripture because then we are really basing our
teaching on a human conjecture. So, the fundamental argument, “Jesus used
unleavened bread, therefore we should too,” is in fundamental error. This
should close the case, but there is more.[13]
ἄρτος artos - bread (as raised)
or a loaf: - (shew-) bread, loaf.
מצּה
matstsâh - From H4711 in the sense of greedily devouring
for sweetness; properly sweetness; concretely sweet (that is, not
soured or bittered with yeast); specifically an unfermented cake
or loaf, or (elliptically) the festival of Passover (because no leaven
was then used): - unleavened (bread, cake), without leaven.
ἄζυμος azumos - From G1 (as a
negative particle) and G2219; unleavened, that is, (figuratively)
uncorrupted; (in the neuter plural) specifically (by implication) the Passover
week: - unleavened (bread).
I believe the bread of the Lord’s supper was the commonly
used bread for meals. Wine used in the memorial supper was common wine (fermented).
I believe also that the Lord’s supper was a fellowship meal, not a ritualistic
ceremony. Many scholars insist on the “love feast” being a separate meal to the
Lord’s supper. I am not convinced that early Christians would have recognized
any difference.
If you were to ask the ordinary
Christian today what a Christian meeting was like in the days of the apostles,
you would probably get different answers. An evangelical Christian would
probably answer that it consisted primarily of preaching and singing. A charismatic
Christian might reply that it primarily incorporated worship, praise, and the
exercise of miraculous gifts. An Anglican might reply that it was principally a
celebration of the Eucharist. Of course, all of those responses are partially
right. However, a rather dominant part of apostolic worship that few Christians
would think of today is that it centered around a meal.
That’s right—a meal! The early
Christians referred to this meal as the agape. Even after the death of the
apostles, the pre-Nicene Church continued to practice the agape or love feast.
Yet, within a century or so after Constantine’s conversion, this important part
of apostolic worship totally disappeared.
For the origin of the love feast, we
need to look no further than the Last Supper. “As they were eating, Jesus took
bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat;
this is My body’” (Matt. 26:26). So the very first Eucharist was instituted in
the context of a meal! A meal continued to be the normal setting in which
Christians met together for fellowship and worship. Acts 2:46 tells us:
“Continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house
to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart.” The
expression, “breaking bread,” no doubt includes the celebration of the
Eucharist. However, the phrase, “they ate their food with gladness” would also
indicate that this was more than communion; it was also a meal.
Nowhere is this practice more clearly
confirmed than in the communion passage of 1 Corinthians 11:20-34. Paul begins
that passage by saying, “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is
not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper
ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.” Now, this is
obviously talking about more than just the Eucharist. Nobody gets drunk from
the small amount of wine taken in communion, nor is it credible that various
persons would receive communion before others because they were hungry. No,
Paul is obviously describing a meal—the love feast—that preceded the actual
Eucharist.[14]
In its setting the Fellowship meal was both a memorial of
Jesus’ death, and an encouragement for participants. Early in its history the
Church incorporated the Lord’s Supper into its list of sacraments. The how of
the Eucharist became institutionalized and the when became dogma. The Church
disassociated the communion from the “love feast” when assemblies moved from
homes and large rooms into religious buildings. That separation has been
popularized by people insisting that the Lord’s Supper is a Church function to
be practiced only on Sunday. I am not persuaded that scripture warrants such an
interpretation.
In the case of the Lord’s supper I believe that “necessary
inference” is neither valid nor sensible in determining what is necessary.
What is necessary inference? If the assumptions or premises are a
true basis this specific type of conclusion is logically inevitable or
unavoidable.[15]
We sailed from Philippi after the days
of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we
stayed seven days. On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together
to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next
day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. … When he had gone back
up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until
daybreak, and then left.[16]
Acts 20:7 is the go to scripture for proof that Sunday is
the only day to participate in communion. That decision is based on “necessary
inference”. It is false, that such a conclusion actually meets the standard
test for “necessary inference”. In verse 6 the word for bread is ázumos –
unleavened bread, in verse 7 the word for bread is ártos’ – bread. According to
those who insist on the use of unleavened bread for the communion, the stated
breaking bread on the first day of the week could not be the Lord’s supper. Regarding “the first day of the week,” which
calendar was being used? If Jewish the meeting would have been after the
appearance of three stars ending the Sabbath, if Roman it would have been any
time after midnight Saturday. If the latter breaking bread was after midnight that
would have been Monday. We are not certain whether the group met on Saturday
after dark or Sunday.
The early church shared a “potluck”
meal called the “love feast” (agape), after which they would observe the
Lord’s Supper (Act_2:42; 1Co_11:17-34). The “breaking of bread”
in Act_20:7 refers to the Lord’s Supper, whereas in Act_20:11 it
describes a regular meal. By sharing and eating with one another, the church
enjoyed fellowship and also gave witness of their oneness in Christ. Slaves
would actually eat at the same table with their masters, something unheard of
in that day.[17]
Wiersbe
provides the standard explanation of “breaking bread” as communion in verse 7,
and a meal in verse 11. I have no idea how he came up with that interpretation!
The Greek words for “break” in vs 7 - klaō, and “broken” in verse 11 are
exactly the same. There is nothing to indicate that the assembly “broke bread”
before it is mentioned in verse 11. “On the first day of the week, when
we met to break bread” specifies the intention of the gathering, not what they actually
did. We’re guessing that there
were two “breaking breads”. And we assume they met on Sunday or maybe late
Saturday. The standard for “necessary inference” is that it is “logically
inevitable or unavoidable.” There is no way to logically prove that the assembly
participated in the Lord’s supper some time before midnight, and then ate a
meal after midnight. Conclusions like these are not unavoidable. Since there is
no difference in language between vs 7 and vs 11 the Lord’s supper cannot be
assumed to have taken place, nor can it be proven that it didn’t. What is
obvious is that no conclusion meets the standard of “necessary inference”.
There are too many unknowns and too many unfounded assumptions to substantiate
any certainty.
John’s account of the mealtime is very different to the
other gospels. The difference I believe indicates the true nature of the
fellowship meal. John records events of that evening, how Jesus out of love for
his disciples washed their feet and then issued the new commandment; “love one
another.” Love was missing in the Corinthian fellowship and Paul told them that
because of that, “many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”[18]
Breaking bread in fellowship was signature to Jesus, he broke the bread to feed
five thousand men not counting women and children. He broke bread to feed four
thousand. Jesus broke bread in the house of Cleopas and doing so revealed his
identity. Breaking bread was something that Jesus did to show his love, and it was
symbolic of giving his life. The Lord’s supper in its time was meant to
memorialize Jesus and proclaim his death, which was the ultimate act of
fellowship and love. In reality this is an unnecessary debate since the Lord’s
supper was to be celebrated until Jesus returned. Which he did circa 70 CE.
Therefore no one is to act as your
judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a
Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the
substance belongs to Christ. Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by
delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on
visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not
holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held
together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. If
you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if
you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to
things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and
teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of
wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the
body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.[19]
Our being in Christ is a blessing for which he paid a very
high price. How comfortable and secure we feel in Christ has much to do with
what we think of the Bible. As a rule book, it leaves me feeling inadequate. As
a text book for Church teaching, it causes me frustration and doubt. As the
story of God’s reconciliation, it provides assurance and confidence. I believe
the Bible is a collection of individual books largely written by authors
unassociated with each other over many centuries. The reconciliation of people
with God is the primary focus of all scripture. I believe that everything Adam
messed up, Jesus fixed up. I am sure there are some things in the Bible which
have yet to happen, but reconciliation is not one of them. God kept his
promises, God reconciled man to himself through Christ.
Abraham is the father of the faithful, we are his children.
Jesus is our high priest and advocate. There is no condemnation to those who
are in Christ. Sin barred man from God’s paradise, Christ opened the way for
man to enter God’s paradise. Taking our place among the redeemed is not a
personal achievement, but the gift of God’s grace. There is no need to
memorialize Jesus’ death in a ritualistic ceremony, but to celebrate his
sacrifice showing God’s love and grace in our lives.
The Lord’s supper was put in place for a specific reason and
a specified time. There is nothing wrong in sharing a commemorative meal
honouring Christ. It’s not an obligation, but it can be a very spiritual
ceremony. I believe our predecessors have positioned us to question traditions
and move to a more personal relationship with God. Fellowship is an essential
component for growing in faith. Church services generally are not times of
fellowship, but they could be. Kingdom life is taught in the parables and general
teaching of Jesus. Learning to live and love like Jesus is a daily task that cannot
be assigned to Church services or programs. Each day must be a day of worship,
helping, caring for, and loving others. In many ways we have to
deinstitutionalize our live so that we can be confident serving God in his
kingdom.
[1] Mat
15:8, 9
[2] Mat
26:26-28
[3] Mar
14:22-25
[4] Luke
22:15-20
[5] Luke
24:30, 31
[6] Joh
13:34, 35
[7] 1Co
10:16
[8] 1Co
11:19-34
[9] Joh
6:49-51
[10] Act
2:42-46
[11] Act
20:6, 7, 11
[12] Robert Reyburn
[13] Robert Grossman
[14] http://earlychurch.com
[15]
Black's Law Dictionary Free
Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
[16] Act
20:6, 7, 11
[17] Wiersbe Bible Commentary
[18] 1Co
11:30
[19] Col
2:16-23
No comments:
Post a Comment