The Lord’s Supper

Introduction.  It was the night before Jesus would be crucified. Jesus and His disciples had gathered to eat the Passover meal. The preparation for this had been cloaked in mystery. As Jesus instructed, the disciples had entered the city and met a man carrying a water jar. Following him to a house, they entered its upper room and prepared a place to eat the meal. Jesus had shocked His disciples by kneeling down and washing their feet. As they ate, Jesus predicted His betrayal. Then, after the meal He spoke to them (Read: Luke 22:15-20).
            With these simple words Jesus instituted one of the most important memorials of the Christian faith—the Lord’s Supper.  In virtually every religious body which claims some faith in Jesus, this memorial is observed to one extent or another.  This morning I would like for us to consider what the Bible teaches us about the institution, significance, and observance of this memorial of our Lord’s death on our behalf.

I.  Institution of the Memorial.

A.  The gospel accounts parallel Luke’s account (Matt. 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26).

B.  The elements.

1.  “Fruit of the Vine” (Mark & Luke).  This shows it was not milk, nor fruit juice, nor a mixed drink. This was probably unfermented fruit of the vine because the Law forbade leaven within the house. The Heb. words for “leaven” chametz and some types of fermentation of wine (chamotz) are similar. Note: There has been a sect of the Jews known as the Kairites that for centuries has debated whether fermented wine is considered “leaven.” Some Kairites use a raisin wine which is unfermented.

2.   “Unleavened Bread” (Exodus 12:8; 15-20; Mark 14:12-16).  To follow the practice of the Lord we cannot substitute pizza, coke, hot dogs, or anything else for these elements, because special significance is connected to each element.

C.  It is very significant that this memorial was instituted on the Passover. It would not only serve to replace the Passover, but it would fulfill its significance.  Jesus has become “our Passover” lamb, whereby we can be delivered from death (1 Corinthians 5:6-8).

II.  History of Its Observance.

A.     The Church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42).  The Latin Vulgate connected the phrase “fellowship” (or “communion”) used later in Scripture as a name for the Lord’s Supper, with the phrase “breaking of bread”—rendering this “fellowship of the breaking of the bread.”

B.     The Church in Troas (Acts 20:7).  This is the sole example we have in Scripture which indicates when Christians did this.  However, the record of history confirms that Christians in the early centuries observed the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s Day.

1.      Justin Martyr (ca. 150 AD.) – “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, ‘This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;’ and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, ‘This is My blood;’ and gave it to them alone….Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” (First Apology 56, 57).

2.      The Didache “Teaching of the Twelve” (ca. 120 AD). – “But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure” (14).

C.     The Church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:17-26). Paul restates the institution of the Lord’s Supper, but also identifies a problem which Corinth had. They were treating the memorial as a common meal and not sharing it together.

1.       The solution: (1 Corinthians 11:27-34).  This is a memorial not a meal. The church is not involved in the business of common meals.

2.      Does that mean Christians should not eat together?  No. Christians ate with one another (Acts 2:46; 20:11). But there is a difference between the memorial (which is a work of the church) and common meals (which are activities of individual Christians).

3.      “Love Feasts.” Jude 12 speaks of what are called “love feasts,” a plural of the noun agape the Greek word for the sacrificial love which Christians are to demonstrate. It is unclear whether these “love feasts” were common meals observed by individual Christians or another name for the Lord’s Supper.

a.       Many reference works make the assumption that a “love feast” was a common meal originally connected with the Lord’s Supper.

b.      The Bible does not teach this—1 Corinthians 11 makes it clear that this is condemned.

III.  The Significance of the Memorial.  Let’s consider some things about the significance of the Lord’s Supper by surveying some false teachings that have occurred throughout church history.

False Doctrines Regarding the Lord’s Supper…

A.    Imposing a human name upon the memorial.  In A. D. 120 Didache taught prescribed prayers and set the stage for “closed communion” in which others judged who could and could not take the Lord’s Supper. It is called the “Eucharist” (from the verb used in the institution of the memorial declaring that Jesus “blessed” the elements). 1 Corinthians 10:16 calls the cup the “Cup of Blessing”—but Eucharist is not a name used in Scripture.

1.   Note: in its early use it is used to describe what is very close to the Biblical memorial.  As time went on the term “Eucharist” came to hold some very erroneous ideas.

B.     Making the memorial a “Sacrament.”  In his lesson a few weeks ago Jason talked about Roman Catholic “sacerdotalism.” This view came to teach that partaking of the memorial was a means by which grace was transmitted to a Christian. You will hear it called a “sacrament.” This is not a Biblical way of describing the memorial. We are commanded to observe the memorial, but it is not that we receive “extra grace” by partaking of it.

1.   As Christians we must avoid this kind of view.  This is the idea that if we can just take the Lord’s Supper everything else in the worship is just supplementary.

C.    Teaching that the elements change to the literal blood and flesh of Christ.  In A. D. 1215, influenced by Aristotelian philosophy, Thomas Aquinas formulated his theory of “Transubstantiation” (i.e. the idea that the elements literally transform into the body and blood of Jesus). Note: Before this some had mystified the memorial and drawn similar conclusions, but Aquinas formulated this theory.

1.   Appeal was made to John 6:27-35; 47-58, however, this is not talking about the memorial—it is talking about accepting Jesus’ words and sustenance.

D.    Only the Priest drinks the cup.  In A. D. 1414 the common people in the Catholic church were deprived of the cup and only a priest drank the cup. The thinking was, if the cup is the literal blood of Christ, you shouldn’t risk spilling it in giving it to too many people.  Clearly, an error was built upon an error (1 Corinthians 10:14-21). Note: All Christians partake of all elements. It is “communion” with Christ.

E.     Concepts of the Lord’s Supper from the Reformation.  In the 1500s among the Reformers there was an attempt to hold to some elements of the Catholic view of the Eucharist while looking closer to the evidence of Scripture.

1.    Martin Luther believed in “Consubstantiation” (i.e. the blood and body of Jesus is “in, with, and under” the material elements). The comparison was made to the way that he thought iron and fire mixed in a red hot iron.

2.    John Calvin taught that there was a “Divine presence” in the elements but it was more a matter of spiritual power.

3.    Ulrich Zwingli probably came the closest in his understanding of the issue. He concluded that there was no real presence in the elements—it was just an act of remembrance.  This certainly was what was involved in the Passover—it was a memorial (nothing mystical).  Jesus taught, “this do in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:25-26).

F.     Periodic observance of the memorial.  Protestantism in various forms has adopted the practice of observing the memorial only every quarter, or on special days. The example of Scripture (and early history) shows that this was observed every Sunday.

1.    The argument is that it loses its significance if done every Sunday.  The challenge is to keep it personally significant—not to neglect it because it is difficult to keep it special (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

2.   Do we neglect other responsibilities because it is difficult to keep them special?  We shouldn’t.

G.    The cup represents the New Covenant.  In the 20^th Century some members of the Church concluded that the element of the “fruit of the vine” involves two elements which hold significance: The “fruit of the vine” (the contents) represent Christ’s blood; the “cup” (the container) represents the New Covenant. Two problems with this view. First, Scripture does not describe three elements, but two. Jesus said “this cup is the New Covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25). The cup refers to the contents, and not the container. Second, Jesus told the disciples to divide the cup He blessed among them (Luke 22:17). It is this divided cup that He called “the New Covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20).

Conclusion.  The Lord’s Supper is a beautiful and important element of faith in Christ. It reminds us every Lord’s Day about the great sacrifice which Christ made on our behalf.  It is not magical, it is not a “sacrament”, or something miraculous by which Christ’s body and blood appear literally in the elements.  It is not the most important act of worship—but it is something which must not be neglected, or taken without the clear recognition of what it represents.  Every Lord’s Day as we observe it we must consider our own sinfulness, Christ’s death for us, and our own responsibility to live each day in recognition of what Christ’s death means for us.