01.15. The Lord's Supper

THE LORD’S SUPPER Memory Verse:Hebrews 10:25. The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ at the last Passover observed under the law of Moses. Hence, some familiarity with the Passover feast will help us to better understand some things connected with the Lord’s Supper. The Passover (Exodus 12:1) was peculiarly a Jewish feast, commemorating their deliverance from the destroying angel when he passed through the land of Egypt to destroy the firstborn. The Hebrews who sprinkled the blood of the lamb on the door posts and lintels of their houses escaped the destroying angel. "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." This lamb was to be secured on the tenth day of the first month, killed near the close of the fourteenth day, and eaten the following night, which, according to their method of counting, would be the night of the fifteenth. Not a bone of the lamb was to be broken; they were to roast it whole and eat it with bitter herbs. If one family could not eat the lamb, two families joined in the feast. If any remained, it was to be burned. Toward the close of the fourteenth day of the month they put away all leaven, and ate unleavened bread till the evening of the twenty-first. This month, Abib or Nisan, became the first month of their religious year. And this feast became a yearly feast. Great throngs attended this, the most solemn of the Jewish feasts. It is said that the Hebrews living in Jerusalem made great preparation to entertain their visiting brethren who came from all parts of the country to attend the feast.

Twelve Jewish months did not make a full year. To keep the year balanced with the seasons, another month was added every two or three years. It will be seen, therefore, that, although the Passover came on the same day of the first month every year, it varied somewhat as to the season. The Passover was typical as well as commemorative. Jesus is called "our Passover" (1 Corinthians 5:7). Also John says, "For these things came to pass, that the scriptures might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" (John 19:36). This was written concerning Christ only in the sense that it was written of the Paschal lamb, a type of Christ. See Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12. The Lord’s Last Passover Prepared.Luke 22:1-30. Jesus and his disciples had come to Jerusalem about a week before the Passover. During this week he taught in Jerusalem during the day and spent the night at Bethany. On the first day of unleavened bread, the day on which the Passover was sacrificed, the disciples asked, "Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover?" Peter and John were sent to make ready. "Behold, when we are entered into the city.” After Jerusalem became the capital city of the Jews, the passover was eaten inside the city of Jerusalem. The lamb was slain at the tabernacle or temple, and his blood was sprinkled on the altar. "Shall meet you a man." Probably Jesus had already arranged with this man to furnish them a room. "Bearing a pitcher of water: follow him." It was an unusual thing for a man to be seen in that country carrying water. Women were usually the water carriers. "And his disciples went forth and came into the city." Evidently they went from Bethany where they had spent the night. Here Jesus remained till later. What emotions must have filled his heart during this day of waiting! "And found as he had said unto them." It must have strengthened their faith to find things just as Jesus had said they would. "And they made ready the passover." The lamb had to be slain and roasted, unleavened bread prepared, and bitter herbs and wine procured. "In the evening he cometh with the twelve." Peter and John must have returned to Bethany after due preparation had been made for the Passover. The twelve, Judas included, were present.

INCIDENTS AT THE PASSOVER

"And as they sat and were eating." Special directions were given for the first observance of the passover in Egypt: "Thus shall ye eat: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand" (Exodus 12:11). They were to eat it in haste, and in readiness to depart on a moment’s notice. But when they were settled in their own land they ate the feast with more leisure. They did not sit at the tables as we do, but reclined on low couches or mats. In this way their faces were brought near the table. "One of you shall betray me." To that peaceful assembly that must have been a startling announcement. "They began to be sorrowful."They could not doubt his word, but that one of them should turn out to be so base as to betray him whom they adored was cause for inexpressible sorrow. Judas, of course, must pretend sorrow. "And to say unto him one by one, Is it I?" They knew not, of course, that he meant immediate betrayal, nor did they know in what way the betrayal would take place. They knew not what time and change might bring, but the thought of possible betrayal even in the remote future brought anxiety and sorrow to all but Judas. None seemed to be suspicious of another, but every one was anxious about himself. They knew they were in the presence of him whose all-seeing eye penetrated the remotest secrets and weakness of their hearts. It is astonishing that Judas was so blind by sin and his selfish plans that he thought his secrets were not known to the Master. "He that dippeth with me in the dish." A sort of sweet sauce was prepared into which they dipped the bitter herbs. A small group might use one dish of the sauce; in large groups, where all could not reach one dish, other dishes were prepared. This was perhaps the case here, and the reply of Jesus, while limiting the traitor to his group, did not specifically point him out. At Peter’s request John asked Jesus who the traitor was, and Jesus gave him a sign that did not reveal the traitor at all. "The son of man goeth, even as it is written of him." See Psalms 41:9; Isaiah 53:1-12. "But woe unto the man through whom the Son of man is betrayed." Blessings or woes are but the harvest of a life of righteousness or wickedness. Jehovah never made a good man bad, nor has he ever by the concurrence of events forced, a well-disposed man to do an evil thing; but there are instances where he used wicked men to accomplish his purposes. But even then he does not interfere with their freedom of will. THE LORD’S SUPPER INSTITUTED

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.—Matthew 26:26-29.

22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body. 23 And he took a cup and when he had given thanks, he gave to them; and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured put for many. 25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.—Mark 14:22-25.

19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like manner, after supper, saying. This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you. 21 But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 For the son of man indeed goeth, as it hath been determined: but woe unto that man through whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to question among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.—Luke 22:19-23.

23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.—1 Corinthians 11:23-30. The Lord’s Supper was instituted at the close of the Passover feast. The leaders of the Jews had been planning his death, and Judas had already bargained for his betrayal. None of them knew the emotions surging in their Master’s bosom, nor did they know what he was about to do. Before he left the supper table, "he took bread," the unleavened bread of the Passover feast; no other was allowed. "When he had blessed." He did not bless the bread, as some suppose. Luke says, "When he had given thanks." Paul says the same. "He brake it." He first took some for himself, and then gave to his disciples. "The cup." Read what each writer says. "This is my blood of the covenant"— Matthew and Mark. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood"—Luke and Paul. The literal cup was not meant, but by a figure of speech the container was put for the thing contained. The Roman Catholic Dogma. The Roman Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of "consubstantiation" and "transubstantiation." They contend that when Christ said, "This is my body," "This is my blood," the bread and fruit of the vine were the actual body and blood of Christ, and that when the priest "blesses" the bread and wine they become the literal body and blood of Christ. But any one of intelligence knows in his heart that the bread is still bread with no change in its nature, and that the wine still contains the same elements and properties. When Christ said, "I am the vine; ye are the branches" (John 1:55), he did not teach that he was a literal vine and his disciples literal branches. When he said, "I am the door" (John 10:7), "I am the way" (John 14:6), he did not teach that he was either a literal door or road. Earlier in his earth-life Jesus said, "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35; John 6:48). Was he at that time a literal loaf of bread? Of Hagar and Sarah, Paul says, "These women are two covenants" (Galatians 4:24). Was Hagar literally the old covenant and Sarah the new? "This Hagar is mount Sinai." Was she a literal mountain? Not even a Catholic so believes. In interpreting the dreams of two fellow-prisoners, Joseph said, "The three branches are three days" (Genesis 40:12); "The three baskets are three days" (verse 18). In interpreting Pharaoh’s dream Joseph said, "The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years" (Genesis 41:26). These expressions are as positive as the statement of Jesus, "This is my body"; but not even a Catholic would argue that these were not figurative expressions. When Jesus said, "I am the bread of life," the Jews and many of his disciples made the same blunder as do the Catholics in taking his words ("This is my body") literally; and the Jews said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" and "many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (see John 6:41-66). Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant." Will the Catholic say that is literal? If so, he believes that the literal cup in the hand of Jesus was actually the New Testament. The Catholics are compelled to admit this is figurative, and in this admission they lose their point. When Jesus said concerning the bread in his hand, "This is my body," had he disappeared and the bread remained, his disciples might have believed in transubstantiation, but this did not occur—his body remained at the table with no change in form, and in his hand he held the bread. When the disciples ate, they ate bread and not flesh. Paul says, "As often as ye eat this bread," "Whosoever shall eat the bread," "So let him eat of the bread." It is, therefore, expressly stated that in the communion we eat bread, not flesh. And that the fruit of the vine was still the fruit of the vine when they drank it is clear from the Savior’s own words: "I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom" (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25).

"My blood of the covenant." Animal blood was the blood of the old covenant (Hebrews 9:19-22). But the blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. "Which is poured out for many." The term many is not used in contradistinction from att, for we know by explicit statements in other passages that Jesus died for every man (Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15). It is used here as in Romans 5:15; Romans 5:19, where the context shows that it means all. When the persons included are contemplated individually, the term many is employed on account of the vast number of them; for no man can number the individuals for whom Christ died. But when they are contemplated under the feebler conception of the whole, the term all is employed.—McGarvey.

"I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." The literal use of wine is not here meant; for Jesus does not literally drink wine with his disciples in the kingdom, as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom. The term drink, therefore, is used figuratively for that communication which Jesus had with his disciples while they are drinking the wine of the Lord’s Supper. The term new is more naturally understood as modifying wine, but as the wine of the supper is not necessarily new wine, I think it rather indicates the new method of drinking wine just indicated."— McGarvey.

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

Commemorative. "This do in remembrance of me"; not in order to remember me, but do it because you remember me; and those who cherish his memory in their hearts will gladly show it in faithfully keeping this sacred feast. We are not to eat the supper simply in memory of his death, as some think, but, "This do in remembrance of me." Do it in memory of HIM, remembering his birth, his life, teaching, obedience, and good deeds, as well as his death. The world builds monuments to her great men of the most durable material, and engraves on them records of their valorous deeds; but, even when not destroyed by man, the relentless mill of time grinds them to powder. But the Lord’s Supper, builded of such perishable material, has endured through the centuries and is as fresh today as when builded. It is the Lord’s monument. Let skeptics account for its existence. It is not enough that they tell us we keep it because of tradition. Let them tell us how it began; let them tell us why the first group ate their supper. If it celebrates a myth, let them tell us who fooled the first group into sitting down to the table to celebrate that which never existed. How was such a thing possible? Let them explain why a new word was coined to point out the peculiar relation of this supper to the Lord. It is called the Kuriakos supper. This word, not found in Greek literature previous to this, is defined: "Of or belonging to the Lord; relating to the Lord."— Thayer.

Declarative. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come again." It is a powerful means of preaching to the world. In its observance we proclaim the fact of his death. And in its observance we look forward to his coming again, and proclaim our faith in the certainty of that glorious event.

It is a means of spiritual nourishment. "Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in yourselves. He that 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." (John 6:53-55). The Lord does not here refer directly to the supper, for a faithful observance of all his commands is a means of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. It Is also true that eating the Lord’s Supper is distinctly commanded, and in its faithful observance as well as in any other duty discharged, we are feasting our souls on his spiritual food. WHO SHALL EAT THE SUPPER?

It is the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s table, and all who are his have a right to partake of the feast. It is in his kingdom: "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom" (Luke 22:29-30). Some contend that the church and the kingdom are distinct institutions, that the Lord’s table is in the church, and that those who are born into the kingdom have no right to the supper till they are baptized into the church. But the Lord says plainly that the table is in the kingdom. Certainly all the citizens have a right to all the blessings and privileges of the kingdom. It seems absurd that any one should argue that some of God’s children, some who have been born again, born into his family, have no right to sit down at his table. The effort to show a difference between the church and the kingdom here in this world is unscriptural and hurtful. The table of the Lord is for those in his kingdom, for those who cherish him in their hearts and who believe in his sacrificial death. Others should not presume to. eat.

Self Examination. "Let a man examine himself." So Paul admonishes those who are citizens of the kingdom. But let each examine himself, not another. Let a man examine himself to see whether he be in the faith, whether his heart is right with God, and whether he properly esteems the sacredness of the institution. You are at the place of worship, and the hour has come— why are you there? Would your heart disturb you if you had neglected to come? What does it all mean to you? Do you cherish any sin in your heart? "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, 0 Jehovah, my rock and my redeemer" (Psalms 19:14).

EATING AND DRINKING UNWORTHILY

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:27). The church at Corinth had corrupted the Lord’s Supper till it was no longer the Lord’s Supper. It was a common meal; each took his own supper. Some were full, others were hungry. For this reason Paul said, "When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s Supper" (1 Corinthians 11:20). They were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner. It is not likely now that any will imitate their excesses, but it is yet possible to commit the same sin, possible yet to eat in an unworthy manner. In their eating they failed to discern the Lord’s body—they made no difference between this eating and a common meal. May we not eat the bread and drink the cup with no thought of its significance, not discerning in them the representations of his body and his blood? "For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body" (1 Corinthians 11:29). Do you eat and drink in a light, flippant way? If so, you eat and drink in an unworthy manner.

Perhaps you feel unworthy to engage in such sacred and holy worship. Even that feeling is a worthy preparation of heart. Remember Paul is talking about the manner of eating and drinking, and not your feelings of unworthiness. On account of our imperfections every devout worshiper must approach the sacred feast with a feeling of unworthiness. Such an one is not likely to eat and drink in an unworthy manner. His humility and reverence is a safeguard against unworthy conduct.

OPEN OR CLOSE COMMUNION

Self-examination must eliminate the idea that any man or set of men has the right to sit in judgment and determine who shall and shall not eat the supper. The Lord has not conferred police powers on any one to stand guard over his table, and to beat off those who may be judged as unworthy. It is a communion with the Lord, not with each other. (1 Corinthians 10:16).

HOW OFTEN By what rule shall we decide? Is every church left to formulate its own laws? Is the individual left to decide for himself? Should there be any regularity about it? If so, who has the authority to regulate? No man or set of men has a right to regulate another man’s religious conduct. If God has indicated no special time for its observance, by what authority do churches observe it annually, semi-annually, quarterly, monthly, or weekly? If God has set no time for its observance, the one who eats and drinks once in a lifetime would be as scriptural as any one else. THE FIRST DAY The Pre-eminence of the First Day: In olden times God demanded the first-fruits and the firstlings of the flocks and herds. It is true that they rested the seventh day, the last day of the week, but that day, strictly speaking, was not given to God; it was for man and his beasts. It was, therefore, no exception to the general rule that God required the FIRST of everything. It is significant to us who live under the new order of things, that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, "the first-fruits of them that slept," that he appeared to his disciples on the first day of the week, that the Holy Spirit came on the first day of the week, that the church had its beginning on the first day of the week, that the first gospel sermon under the Great Commission was preached on the first day of the week, and that the first-fruits of the Christian harvest was presented to God on the first day of the week. It is the national day of the kingdom of Christ.

"Not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh" (Hebrews 10:25). Some could not establish a "custom" of staying away from meetings unless there was a "custom" of meeting. The church had a regular time to meet; some had a habit of staying away. Paul exhorts all not to forsake this assembling. Had Paul said, "when the church decides to assemble for worship, let all attend," the case would have been different. Expressions used by Paul in the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians indicate they had a regular meeting. "Ye come together," "when ye come together," "when therefore ye assemble yourselves together." His charge concerning the contribution for the poor saints shows when that regular meeting occurred: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come" (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). It will not do to say that each one on the first day of the week was to separate his money and put the Lord’s part to itself at home. The contributions were to be made in such a way that no collections would have to be made when Paul arrived. Had each one set aside his amount at home, the collecting would have had to be made after Paul’s arrival, the very thing he was seeking to forestall. The collection was to be made on the first day of the week. To do this there had to be a common treasury in which all contributions were placed. The churches, therefore, met on the first day of the week.

"And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow" (Acts 20:7). The manner of speech here employed indicates that the first day of the week was the regular day for meeting. If some one in a foreign land should read a news item like this: "On the fourth of July, when the banks closed to celebrate the Declaration of Independence," etc., would he not conclude that on that day they regularly closed to celebrate. And in reading the foregoing verse would not any unbiased person conclude that the church at Troas regularly met on the first day of the week? It is useless to argue that Paul ate before midnight, for the text says they met on the first day of the week to break bread. Paul’s prolonged discourse, evidently after the supper, and his anticipated journey on the morrow made it necessary for him to take refreshments. The Greek text indicates that Paul alone ate this meal. Certainly he did not eat the Lord’ Supper alone.

TOPICS FOR INVESTIGATION AND DISCUSSION

QUESTIONS