Saturday, April 9, 2016

The Lord's supper?

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

Is What we Believe Tradition or God's Word?

  A sampling of comments and thoughts to think about when considering what we believe: A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” “In tod...