|
|
In the Christian religious world today
we see many different practices regarding the Lord's supper. Some
partake every Sunday, others once a month and still others less often.
Some have the members partake of both the communion bread and the fruit of
the vine, while others have the members partake of the bread only and the
"clergy" partake of the fruit of the vine. Some teach that
the emblems used in the Lord's supper become the actual body and blood of
Christ ("transubstantiation"), while others use the emblems as a
memorial of the broken body and shed blood of Christ but the emblems
themselves remain bread and juice. Again we must ask ourselves why
these differences exist. Are the teachings of the Bible so unclear
as to result in such confusion, or are we witnessing the doctrines of men
corrupting the clear teachings of the scriptures?
Let's look to the scriptures and see what they teach regarding this act of
worship.
When was the Lord's supper
instituted?
The Thursday
before Jesus' crucifixion He and the 12 apostles gathered together in the
upper room to eat the Passover meal (Matthew
26:17-20, Mark
14:12-17, Luke
22:7-14). The Bible records that they were eating the Passover
meal when Jesus revealed to the 12 that one of them would betray Him (Matthew
26:21, Mark
14:18). As they were eating the Passover meal the Bible records
that Jesus "took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to
the disciples, and said, "Take, eat: this is my body." (Matthew
26:26, Mark
14:22). Luke records Jesus' instruction for them to do this in
remembrance of Him (Luke
22:19). He tells them "This is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will
drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new
in the kingdom of God (Mark
14:24-25). Here we learn that Jesus Himself instituted the
Lord’s supper the evening before His crucifixion.
What emblems were used in observance
of the Lord's supper?
In
Exodus we read the instructions the Lord gave Moses regarding the feast of
unleavened bread (Exodus
12:14-20), which began the day after the Passover (Leviticus
23:5-6). The Passover in Exodus 12 was the final plague brought
upon the Egyptians. That night the Lord slew the firstborn of all
the Egyptians, from Pharaoh the king to their livestock (Exodus
12:29) The Israelites were commanded to kill a lamb and strike
its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post of their houses (Exodus
12:3-7). They were to eat the flesh of the lamb that night,
leaving nothing left over. Anything uneaten was to be burned.
The flesh was to be roasted, not boiled or raw. The people were to
have their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staffs in
their hands. They were to eat the Passover lamb in haste (Exodus
12:8-11). They were to be ready to leave as soon as Pharaoh
freed them. More detail regarding the feast is given in Deuteronomy
16:1-8. Moses was given repeated warnings regarding leaven for
this feast. The Lord tells him that, "there shall be no
leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days;" (Deuteronomy
16:4). The first day of the feast they were to remove all leaven
from their houses (Exodus
12:15). Therefore, during the Passover meal Jesus and His
apostles would have partaken of unleavened bread. We are given no
details regarding the drink consumed by the Israelites as they prepared to
leave Egypt. However, common sense would indicate the drink was
unfermented. These people had to be ready to leave Egypt at a
moment's notice. To have them drunk with wine would be inconsistent
with the urgency we read in Exodus 12. As Jesus and His apostles
partook of the Passover feast, the beverage they used almost certainly was
unfermented grape juice. Old testament references to the fruit of
the vine indicate they were grapes (Leviticus
25:5, Deuteronomy
24:21, Job
15:33, Song
of Solomon 2:15, Isaiah
5:2-4, Jeremiah
8:13). Jesus tells us that the drink they used for this memorial
was "fruit of the vine." Therefore, given the old
testament references to the fruit grown on a vine, and the urgency seen in
the instructions given to the Israelites on the Passover night, one is on
a solid foundation if one claims the "fruit of the vine" spoken
of by Jesus was unfermented grape juice.
What is the purpose of the Lord's
supper?
Jesus tells us in Luke
22:19, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me." Paul, in 1
Corinthians 11:26, tells us "For as often as ye eat this bread,
and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
So the Lord's supper is a memorial of the death of Christ, in which we
proclaim His death for our sins through the breaking of unleavened bread
and drinking of the fruit of the vine.
Who may partake of the Lord's supper?
In the first Lord's supper we see Jesus partaking of the bread and of the
fruit of the vine with His apostles. As He left the earth to return
to His Father He tells the apostles to "Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of
the world. Amen." (Matthew
28:19-20). In Acts
2:40-45 we see those who were baptized continuing steadfastly in the
apostles' doctrine, fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
So Jesus commands the apostles to teach those who were baptized to observe
all things He had commanded them (the apostles), and in Acts 2:42 we see
this command being put into practice. One part of the apostles'
doctrine recorded by Luke was the "breaking of bread." We
see the breaking of bread referring to the Lord's supper in 1
Corinthians 10:16 and 11:23-24.
In 1
Corinthians 10:16-17 Paul tells us specifically who should partake of
the Lord's supper. In verse 17 we read, "For we being many are
one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."
Recall our study of the body and the church? Paul tells us "we
being many are one bread, and one body:". Who is the body of
Christ today? The church! He continues with the phrase,
"for we are all partakers of that one bread." What
"one bread" does Paul speak of? Notice verse 16:
"The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ?" So the bread, which they brake together, was the
unleavened bread of the Lord's supper, and those who broke that bread were
members of the body of Christ. Being members of the body of Christ
is synonymous with being members of the church, since the body is the
church. Paul confirms this statement in 1
Corinthians 11:27-30. Here he warns us against partaking of the
Lord's supper in an unworthy manner. He states that many of the
Christians in Corinth were "sick", "and many sleep"
(verse 30). The reason they were either spiritually sick or dead was
their lack of consideration of the significance of the Lord's supper as
they participated in this memorial (verse 29). So these were Christians
who were participating in the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner.
Can a non-Christian ever participate in a worthy manner?
Jesus tells us in John
3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God." The Greek word pisteuo
is translated "believeth" and "believed" in this
verse. Do you recall the meaning of "faith" in the NT?
Here I've pasted a section from Vine's
Expository dictionary. Notice the significance behind the word pisteuo:
The
main elements in "faith" in its relation to the invisible God,
as distinct from "faith" in man, are especially brought out in
the use of this noun and the corresponding verb, pisteuo; they are
(1) a firm conviction, producing a full acknowledgement of God's
revelation or truth, e.g., 2 Thess. 2:11,12; (2) a personal surrender to
Him, John 1:12; (3) a conduct inspired by such surrender, 2 Cor. 5:7.
So pisteuo includes a firm
conviction, a personal surrender, and conduct inspired by personal
surrender. Many people today have a firm conviction, but the
personal surrender is lacking. This is not faith. According to
Jesus such a one is condemned already, because they have failed to
surrender to the commandments of Jesus and therefore cannot manifest
conduct consistent with such surrender. We've seen in several
examples how those who participated in the Lord's supper were members of
the church, the body of Christ. If one has failed to follow the
requirements for entry into His church, has one believed in Him? No!
Such a one is condemned already because of their lack of obedience to the
commands of the Lord. The Greek word translated
"damnation" in 1
Corinthians 11:29 is krima,
a word derived from krino.
Where do we see krino used elsewhere in the NT? John
3:18, where krino is translated "condemned"! So
a derivative of the word "condemned" used by Jesus to refer to
those who haven't believed (pisteuo) in Him is used to refer to
those who fail to discern the significance of the Lord's supper as they
participate in this memorial. But how can one who is already
condemned ever participate in the Lord's supper in a worthy manner?
They cannot! Therefore one who has failed to obey the commandments
of the Lord with regards to entry into His church has failed to manifest
the personal surrender and conduct required of those who believe on Him
and is condemned already. Such a one cannot participate in the
Lord's supper in a worthy manner. One must be a member of the body
of Christ before one may cease partaking of the Lord's supper unworthily.
Are all Christians to partake of both
the bread and the fruit of the vine?
In Matthew
26:26-27 Jesus commands the apostles regarding the bread and the fruit
of the vine used during the Lord's supper. Notice what Matthew
records, "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it,
and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is
my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them,
saying, Drink ye all of it;". The apostles were commanded to
partake of the broken bread and the fruit of the vine. Does
this apply to us? Most certainly. Again recall Jesus' words in
Matthew
28:20, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen." Jesus commanded the apostles to partake of both
the bread and the fruit of the vine. The apostles were also
commanded to teach others to observe all things Jesus had commanded them.
Therefore, all Christians are commanded to partake of both the bread and
the fruit of the vine during the Lord's supper.
How often are we commanded to partake
of the Lord's supper?
We
have one NT reference indicating the frequency the first century church
partook of the Lord's supper: Acts
20:7. Here we read, "And upon the first day of the week,
when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,
ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until
midnight." In this verse we see both a frequency and a purpose.
Frequency: the first day of the week. Purpose: to break
bread. I don't think many would argue about the frequency.
They came together on the first day of the week. Each week has a
first day. Therefore we know they met every Sunday. However,
many seem to disagree on the purpose. What does it mean to
"break bread?"
Let's see if the original language
answers this question for us. 9 different Greek words are translated
"break" in the NT. Klao
is the Greek word translated "break" in Acts 20:7. A
review of the use of the word in Matthew
14:19 and 26:26
shows us that the word is used to refer to either the Lord's supper or the
breaking of bread for a meal. Since the word in the original
language could mean either a meal for nourishment or the Lord's supper, we
must consider the context of the verse to answer the question.
What does the context tell us? In
Acts 20:7 the breaking of bread by the Christians at Troas occurred on the
first day of the week. Let's see if the frequency mentioned by Luke
sheds some light on this act of the Christians at Troas. Did the
Christians meet one day every week to have a meal together? Please
turn to Acts
2:46. Here we see the disciples "continuing daily with one
accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat
their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,". Here again
we see a frequency and a purpose. Frequency: daily.
Purpose: breaking bread from house to house. In this verse we
see the disciples coming together daily as a unified group in the temple
and from house to house, breaking bread and eating their meat with
gladness. The breaking of bread by the disciples in Acts 2:46 is
clearly a meal for nourishment. However, in Acts 20:7 we see the
Christians at Troas meeting once every week. Therefore, the purpose
must be different. Let's look further at the context of 1
Corinthians 11:17-22. Paul tells them that he doesn't praise
them for some practice of theirs (11:17). He condemns them for their
factions (11:19), and for their eating practices (11:21). We see the
Corinthian Christians in disarray. As one eats to his satisfaction,
another is hungry, and a third person is drunk. Paul asks them,
"What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the
church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you?
Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not." (11:22) He
condemns them for doing something when they come together which they
should be doing in their own houses: eating and drinking.
We've seen two different frequencies noted in the scriptures regarding the
breaking of bread: daily and once a week on Sunday. We've seen
in 11:20 how Paul was speaking of their coming together to partake of the
Lord's supper. Did they do so daily, or once every week?
Recall Acts 2:46. In this verse we know the "breaking of
bread" referred to a gathering to eat meat together. They
gathered daily for this purpose. In 1 Corinthians 11:20 we see a
different purpose for their gathering. Since the purpose is
different, the frequency of gathering for this purpose must also be
different. We've seen only two frequencies of gathering for the
purpose of breaking bread. Since daily gathering referred to
partaking of nutrition, the gathering on Sunday must refer to the Lord's
supper. In addition, Paul separates the Lord's supper from taking
meat in this passage. He condemns them for using their time together
for observing the Lord's supper as a time for eating a meal. This is
something he commanded them to do at home.
So we see that the first century
Christians observed the Lord's supper on the first day of the week.
Since every week has a first day, the Lord's supper is to be observed
every Sunday. Many religious organizations fail to follow this
example and observe the Lord's supper much less frequently. This is
a deviation from the practice of the Lord's church and is a sign of a
religious organization that is not the one body of Christ.
Do
the bread and the fruit of the vine become the actual body and blood of
Christ?
The Catholic
church teaches that, during the "Eucharist" (the name they use
for the Lord's supper), the emblems of bread and fruit of the vine become
the actual body and blood of Christ. Does the New Testament support
this claim? During my study of this topic the Catholic church
appeared to use two verses to bolster their claim that
"transubstantiation" occurs: John
6:47-66 (specifically, 53-56)
and Jesus' statement that "this is My body" and "this is My
blood" as he distributed the bread and the fruit of the vine during
the Passover meal (Matthew
26:26-28). Let's look at this claim in greater detail.
John 6:47-66: I'm sure many of you
are very familiar with this passage. Here Jesus teaches us that He
is the bread of life that fulfilled the two criteria which identifies the
true bread of God (John
6:33): He came down from heaven, and He gives life to the world.
Many angels have come down from heaven, but they didn't give life to the
world. In John 6:47-66 Jesus expounds on the fact that He is the one
who gives life to the world. Jesus' lesson regarding the bread of
life was given to refute the false teaching of the people who followed Him
to the other side of the sea of Galilee (6:22-31).
He had just finished feeding the 5,000 with five barley loaves and two
small fishes (6:9-10).
That night His disciples took a ship across the sea of Galilee, and Jesus
followed them walking on the water (6:16-21).
The next morning the people couldn't find Jesus and His disciples, so they
too sailed across the sea and found Him in Capernaum (6:22-25).
They asked Jesus how he crossed the sea, but He didn't even answer their
question. He went right to their motive for seeking Him: The
day before they ate of the loaves and were filled (25-26).
Jesus, as He was so effective in doing, shifted the topic from physical
nourishment to spiritual food (27).
He tells them, "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that
meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give
unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed (27). In the next 3
verses we read, "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we
might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This
is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They
said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and
believe thee? What dost thou work?" (28-30).
In verse
31 we learn of their belief regarding the manna their fathers
received: It represented the bread spoken of in the scripture that
said, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat." Jesus then
tells them of the bread of God, "Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the
true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down
from heaven, and giveth life unto the world (32-33).
They believed that the manna their fathers received was the bread from
heaven recorded in the scriptures. Jesus is showing them the error
of this teaching. Verse
34 reveals their response to Jesus' statement, "Then said they
unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread." However, they
didn't expect the response Jesus would give. Verse
35 reads, "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he
that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall
never thirst." They murmured at this statement (41-42),
but Jesus continued His teaching (44-47).
Verses
50-58 are used by the Catholic church to justify their claim that the
bread and fruit of the vine become the actual body and blood of Christ.
Jesus teaches those at Capernaum that, "Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will
raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my
blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent
me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by
me (53-57). Now His disciples started murmuring. Notice verses
60-61, "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard
this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew
in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this
offend you?" Verse
62 is key to understanding Jesus' teaching in these several verses.
Notice His question asked of His disciples, "What and if ye shall see
the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" Why is this key?
It shows us that Jesus didn't mean a literal consumption of His flesh and
blood, as those to whom He was speaking believed. What if they were
to see Jesus ascend up where He was before? If they were to
literally eat His flesh in order to receive eternal life, they would have
no hope! If His body was no longer on the earth, they could no
longer eat His flesh or drink His blood. Jesus tells us the meaning
of His teaching in verse
63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are
life." If the flesh profiteth nothing, how could Jesus be
referring to a literal consumption of His flesh and blood in order to
receive eternal life? He couldn't! The spirit gives life, and
the words He spoke were spirit and life. One must "eat and
drink" the words spoken by Jesus in order to have eternal life.
He tells us what those who are of His fold will hear in John
10:4-5: They will hear only His voice, and not that of a
stranger. To do so is life for His sheep. In John
4:13-14 He tells the Samaritan woman, "Whosoever drinketh of this
water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I
shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him
shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
If one is going to say that one must eat of the literal body and blood of
Christ in order to receive eternal life then one must search out the water
spoken of by Jesus which will serve as a permanent thirst-quencher and a
well springing up into everlasting life! We all know such physical
water doesn't exist. We all should also know that it is unnecessary
for us to consume the literal body and blood of Christ. It is His
words we must consume! Again, in order to be consistent, one who
holds to the idea that we must literally consume His flesh must also teach
that Jesus consumed the flesh of His Father! Notice John
6:57, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the
Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." If our
life is generated by the consumption of His flesh, then His life came from
the consumption of His Father's flesh. Ridiculous, you say? Of
course it is! But why is it ridiculous? It is simply a logical
conclusion one must reach if one requires literal flesh and blood to
fulfill this passage. It is ridiculous because the teaching that led
to this conclusion is ridiculous! Jesus tells us what His meat was
in John
4:31-34, "In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying,
Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know
not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man
brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do
the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." Jesus'
life on earth was dedicated solely to doing His Father's will. Our
lives on earth must be dedicated solely to the same purpose.
For us to consume the blood of Christ
would directly violate another New Testament teaching. As you
recall, Judaizing teachers were going forth from Jerusalem and teaching
the Gentiles that they must be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts
15:1). This led to the meeting of the apostles and elders in
Jerusalem, which we reviewed earlier in our study. What did they
state in their letter to the churches at the conclusion of this meeting?
We read in Acts
15:28-29 that, "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to
lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye
abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye
shall do well. Fare ye well." What?! They were to keep
from blood?! If they were to literally consume the blood of Christ
in the Lord's supper then it would have been impossible for them to keep
these instructions, which came from the Holy Spirit Himself! This is
a terrible dilemma for those who teach that the fruit of the vine becomes
the blood of Christ. To do so would indicate a direct contradiction
of the Holy Spirit's teaching. In one place He tells us to drink the
blood of Christ, in another to abstain from blood. What must we
conclude? The doctrine of transubstantiation is of men, not of the
Holy Spirit. Since it is of men, to practice it leads to vain
worship (Matthew
15:9).
I'll make only a few brief comments
regarding Matthew
26:26-28. Notice the tense of the verb Jesus uses in these
verses. "Is" is the present singular form of
"be." The significant word in that sentence is
"present." When Jesus said, "This is my body" He
couldn't have meant that it was His literal flesh. His flesh was
holding the bread, which He stated, was His body. They were
obviously two different things. Jesus' use of the present verb
"is" must mean that the bread represented His body.
His body and the bread cannot be the same thing since "is" shows
the relationship between them. The same reasoning applies to the
fruit of the vine. The bread and the fruit of the vine remain
physical bread and grape juice during the Lord's supper. They
represent the broken body and shed blood of our savior.
Summary
In this study we've
considered the Lord's supper in depth. Such a study allows one to
objectively identify the one true church that Jesus said He would build.
Jesus instituted the supper on the Passover before His crucifixion.
Unleavened bread and grape juice ("fruit of the vine") are used
to represent Jesus' body and blood. The supper serves as a memorial
of the death of Christ, and is practiced by members of His church.
Only faithful members of His church may partake of the supper in a worthy
fashion. Those who partake without considering His death, or those
who partake and who are not members of His church eat and drink damnation
unto themselves. All members of His church partake of the supper
every Sunday, and partake of both the bread and the fruit of the vine.
The emblems remain bread and grape juice during the supper.
|
