THE LORD’S SUPPER LESSON  11   NOVEMBER 11, 2000.

These lessons are from the Seventh Day Baptist Church of Toronto

Study Scripture: MARK 14:22-25; MATTHEW 26:26-29:

1 CORINTHIANS 10:16-17; 11:17-34.

INTRODUCTION

The Lord’s Supper is a practice that practically every Christian Church follows. It is considered to be a rite established by Christ himself, with the specific instructions to continue it’s observance until he returns.

There is however considerable disagreement about  the precise nature of this Supper, and it’s meaning.

The Scripture passages which deal directly with the Lord's Supper are: Matthew 26: 26-29; Mark 14: 22-25; Luke 22: 19-20; 1 Corinthians 10: 15-17 and 11: 23-29.  A literal interpretation of these passages shows several things:

Firstly, Jesus himself instituted the Lord's Supper, and so it is clearly of divine origin.

Secondly, it’s practice was to be carried on perpetually as a result of Jesus’ direct command.

Third, bread and wine were the materials used by Jesus and by the early Church.

Fourth, these materials were first specially consecrated.

Fifth, the bread was broken and the wine was poured out.

Sixth, the bread and the wine were distributed to those partaking in the Lord's Supper.

Seventh, the Lord's Supper was held to commemorate the death of Christ, and to ensure that his death was always remembered.

Eighth, the bread was representative of Christ’s body, and the wine representative of his blood, which were shed to fulfill the ancient promise of a ‘ new covenant’. 

Ninth, participation in the Lord's Supper involved only the redeemed, who were part of this New Covenant.

Tenth, participation in the Lord's Supper was a proclamation of Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross.

Eleventh, there is serious physical and spiritual danger in participating in the Lord's Supper if the participant is not in the right spiritual relationship with Jesus, and if the Supper was not conducted in the proper and appropriate manner. Due reverence to God for his gift of love should be shown, with a sensitive recognition of God's presence, the proper sense of our unworthiness and God's graciousness. 

Twelfth, the redeeming purpose, and Mercy of God is in full view.  The Supper is communion with Christ, recognizing and uniting the Church as one in Christ.  It stresses that those who partake into the full meaning of the Supper are heirs of eternal life, and are totally committed to Jesus Christ.

The importance of the Lord's Supper therefore, cannot be over stressed.  All believers must examine themselves, and ensure that they are worthy to partake, and feed on Christ.  Not partaking, without an exceptionally good and valid reason, is an act of direct refusal to obey Christ.

The opportunity should therefore be provided for the children of God to partake of the Lord's Supper.

The Scripture passages which deal with the Lord's Supper, give rise to several questions, and we shall look at these to learn about the relationship of the Lord's Supper to previous practices, the precise meanings of Jesus’ words, the power if any in the practice, the possible meaning of the presence of Christ during the Supper, the benefit to the participants, restrictions to participation, who should administer the rite, how often the Lord's Supper should be observed, and other related matters.

What is the relationship if any between the Lord's Supper and the Jewish Passover?  There are many views on this matter, but it is an important matter since it bears on the general theme of the Scriptures.

This last meal that Jesus had with his disciples before he died, is traditionally regarded as a Passover feast.  The Gospels make this clear.  Even Paul in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-25 described Jesus new and distinctive actions which we now call the Lord's Supper, as taking place “after supper”, indicating that a full meal had already been had.

Some have challenged the traditional view on the grounds that this could not have been a regular Passover meal, for it appears to have been eaten on the evening before the correct Passover date.  They point to an alleged contradiction between John's account and Mark’s account.  Historical evidence shows however that the Pharisees celebrated the Passover one day before the Sadducees and the other official hierarchy.  Jesus would probably not have followed the official interpretation of the timing, and both John and Mark would have had this in mind when they referred to the timing of the Passover meal celebrated by Jesus.  Incidentally, information from the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates there was this disagreement on the timing of the Passover.

The Gospels clearly state that Jesus and his disciples sat down to have a Passover meal.  In Mark 14: 12-16, Jesus sent the disciples to the man who would prepare the Upper Room for them. They had then prepared the Passover, which would have involved visiting the Temple for the killing of the lamb, and then roasting the lamb at the house.

They would have conducted the required search to make sure there was no forbidden leaven in the house, and would have had unleavened bread, bitter herbs, and four cups of wine at different points in the supper.

Let us remember that the Passover was held to commemorate God delivering the Jews from bondage in Egypt. 

One writer states:

One commentator describes the event at a Passover feast as follows-

The order of events can now be noted, Jesus took the bread, blessed it, broke it and said, “This is my body”.  He then gave it to the disciples to eat.

He then he took a cup, blessed it and said, “This cup is the new Covenant in my blood”, as Paul puts it, or “This is my blood of the Covenant”, as Mark puts it.

Then Jesus made a major declaration with prophetic meaning.  He vowed not to partake with them of this kind of table fellowship until he returned to complete the bringing in of the Kingdom of God.

Here is the promise of Jesus to return and hold the Marriage supper of the Lamb with all those who are a part of his body.

The early believers, instructed by Jesus, thus look forward to fellowship with him in the perfect Kingdom of God.  This was their hope, and therefore the Apostles and Paul could stress the return of Christ and the perfection of their body.

Note that the hymn that Jesus and the disciples sung at their Passover commemoration  would be Psalms 113-118.

Clearly then, we know the root of the Lord's Supper.  The Lord's Supper came out of the Passover supper, which celebrated the great deliverance from Egyptian slavery and bondage.

Deliverance from bondage in Egypt brought two things.  It came with the “good news” from God through the instrumentality of Moses, that God would deliver by means of blood.

It was also stressed that the ‘good news’ had to be believed, and following belief it’s instructions had to be applied.  The Jews had to believe Moses, that he had brought the word of God, and that they had to put the blood on the door posts of the house.  They had to believe that it was the shed blood of the lamb sprinkled on the door posts that would save and deliver them. Then the Israelites would do as commanded.

So it is with us.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is the news; that based on the shedding of his blood, redemption has come from God.  An individual has to believe that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, and that his blood has been shed for their personal salvation.  It is not enough therefore just to have an intellectual knowledge that Jesus is a Savior, or that his blood has been shed for salvation in general. 

For salvation there has to be personal knowledge, an application of that knowledge, and a resting in the merits of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Note that this act of Jesus which we call the Lord's Supper was originally done with the inner circle of disciples, those intimately and fully committed to Christ.  The group was purified, Judas the betrayer and Satan's man, having left in the middle of the meal.

It is thus accepted that the Lord's Supper should be restricted to believers.  Paul later called for self-examination, thereby stressing that before a person can eat or drink it in a worthy manner, one not only had to be a believer, but also had to be a practicing believer.  If this were not the case, that person would be committing a sin.  See 1 Corinthians 11: 27-34.

The Lord's Supper is therefore for the Church, that is; it is not something for an individual or for separate individuals to practice by themselves in isolation, rather it is something for the ‘functioning’ body of Christ, and not for non-believers.

It should be noted here, that there is no specific teaching on who should administer the Lord Supper in the body.  Some groups do not limit or restrict who can administer the Lord's Supper, holding that any believer with the spiritual qualifications to partake of the Supper can administer it for the brethren.  Other groups establish a particular form for convenience.  Some groups base their practice on whether they believe that certain rites should be restricted to clergy or officers who hold a special position. Still others  believe that the Supper is a Sacrament, which conveys grace and accomplishes the individual’s salvation, and therefore only certain qualified persons can administer the sacraments.

THE MEANING OF THE ELEMENTS

Jesus’ words have led to different interpretations over the meaning of, and significance of the elements.

There are a number of different views and here we list four positions.

1. The bread and the wine are the actual physical body and blood of Christ.
2. The bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ.
3. The bread and wine contain the physical body and blood of Christ.
4. The bread and the wine contain spiritually the body and the blood of Christ.

One of the major views is that of the official Roman Catholic Church, which was outlined in the Council of Trent, held in 1545-1563.

They believe in transubstantiation, the doctrine that when a properly ordained priest blessed the bread and wine, an actual change in the substance of the bread and wine takes place, changing it into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. The change is in the “substance”, not in the “accidents”(appearance, smell taste etc.). The bread and wine looks, smells, tastes, and has the same shape and the same chemical analysis as before but it's essence has been changed.

This type of distinction between “substance” and “accidents” is a metaphysical distinction coming from the Greek philosopher Aristotle, adopted by Thomas Aquinas, the great Catholic theologian.  His view became part of official Roman Catholic theology, and even though no one else accepts or thinks in these strange, unbiblical metaphysical terms, the Roman church has not been able to give up this error.

Catholics therefore believe that the whole of Christ is fully present in each of the particles of the bread and the wine, and everyone who participates, literally ingest the physical body and blood of Christ. 

Catholics also regard the Lord's Supper as actually involving a sacrifice, for in the Mass, they believe that Christ again offers a real sacrifice for the benefit of the worshippers.  This sacrifice, repeated over and over again, satisfies the demand of God, as atonement for venial sins.

Catholics also believe that only a properly ordained priest can properly consecrate

the bread and wine, and by following the correct formula, change the elements into the actual flesh and blood of Christ.

Since both the bread and wine each contain fully the body and blood of Christ, it is not necessary for the congregation to have both the bread and wine.  The priests alone take the wine, to avoid the terrible desecration that would occur, if any of the congregation spilled the wine, and the blood of Christ was to be trampled.

There is really no biblical warrant for these teachings.  Transubstantiation is not taught by the Bible, and is not rational.  Jesus is not sacrificed repeatedly for the forgiveness of sins.  In any case, the language of Scripture does not support this interpretation.  It only makes sense in the strange metaphysical world of Aristotle and Aquinas.

Lutherans modify this position.  They reject the idea that the bread and wine are changed into the flesh and blood of Christ.  They however believe that the body and blood of Christ is present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, so that we have the body and blood of Christ in addition to the bread and wine.

Luther did not accept the Catholic view of the Mass that it was a sacrifice, or that the priest had any power to transform the elements by saying certain words.

He believed however that at the Lord’s Supper, there was a real taking in of the body and blood of Christ into the participants. The benefit was however due to the reception of the Word by faith. The Supper was a sacrament and gave real spiritual benefit to the participant’s body.

The Calvinist position is that Christ is present spiritually, not physically or bodily.  The elements signify the death of Christ, the value of his death, the believers’ participation in the crucified Christ, and the union of the believers with each other.  They also believe it seals.

The Lord’s Supper thus brings real genuine benefits because of what Christ does at the Supper. Participating brings renewal and vitality, and an experience found nowhere else.

The faith and reception of the believer affects the value of the sacrament to that person.

Other's hold that the Supper commemorates Christ’s death and his powerful and indispensable work on behalf of believers. Christ is spiritually present everywhere, not at any particular time and place. The Lord’s Supper brings benefit when we receive it by faith. Christ can never be with the unbeliever, no matter where he is and what he does. But he always is with the believer.

THE REAL ISSUE

Jesus, when he called for the practice of the Lord's Supper, was clearly dealing with the relationship between himself and those close to him, that is, his own, the members of his Body. He had previously taught them that he was the Bread of life, the Water of Life, that he was the Vine and they were the Branches. This was clearly figurative language.

Jesus had also taught his disciples that he would be with them everywhere they went, and also especially when believers gathered together in his name.

With this in mind, we note that Paul emphasized the commemorative nature of the Lord’s Supper, for in this the believers would be remembering the Lord’s death until he returned.

The Lord’s Supper is obviously a time when believers meet to have communion with Christ, confident that there will be a day when they will meet him and feast with him. Christ is always present with us in a real and powerful way, but this is a time when we, together, draw closer to Christ.

Those who share the Bread and the Wine are thus bound together with each other, and are found in the One Christ. There can therefore be no class-consciousness and insensitivity, as in the Corinthian Church. There must be loving concern for each other.

God had expressed his love in sending Jesus Christ, and believers should share in that love, fully cognizant of what had happened.

Jesus had come to fulfill the role symbolized by the Passover rite. He was the Paschal Lamb. His blood was now to be poured out to death voluntarily, but violently, as predicted in the Isaiah passages about the Suffering Servant of Jehovah.

The penal sacrifice of Jesus was for the remission of our sins, and that act established the New Covenant in his blood. Thus was pardon for man bought. All the symbols in the Lord’s Supper teach us about the voluntary, penal, substitutionary death of the Lamb of God, who alone could atone for our sins.

The Lord’s Supper then is a time for focus on the work of Christ in dying for us and establishing that great New Covenant, Israel and the prophets so longed for.

It promised the exaltation of Christ, and the coming fulfillment of the Kingdom promises, when we would again feast with Christ.

The Lord’s Supper therefore, is for us to thankfully remember his death, and to hold up his death high to the world. We know that the Cross of Christ is an offence to the world, but it must be held up and proclaimed.

We must focus our celebration of the Lord’s Supper therefore not on his life, miracles, or other teachings, but on his death and what it means for our redemption and salvation.

It is not a time for us to focus on ourselves, but on Him, and what he is, as one writer puts it:

Paul stressed the redeeming purpose of what Christ did, and it’s significance at the time of the Lord’s Supper. This is a time for the remembrance of mercy.

Jesus’ command, the instructions of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, and the practice of the early Christians, all point to the necessity of repetition. There is to be constant and dramatic display of Christ’s death and its accomplishments.

It is to force self-examination on believers, so that the vital relationship with Christ will continue without interruption. It is to be a constant proclamation that the crucified Christ had been resurrected and would one day return.

These matters must not be allowed to slip from our conscious mind. We must frequently reflect on their truths, so that believers will live in a constant state of preparedness, and partake with the brethren, in total and continuing unity.

Paul highlighted the importance of the occasion in a separate ceremony, so that believers would participate because they were ready and wanted to. They would not be there simply because it was part of another service, a fellowship dinner, or of some other matter.

It is most important for believers to recognize the importance of pondering on the Lord’s death, to realize the immense seriousness of it, the wonder of it, and the need to approach our considerations of it with utter reverence.

This is a most serious occasion and the implications for us are staggering, for those who are unworthy will suffer the consequences. Those who are not believers will not be saved.

Those who understand and believe in Christ will however live and have eternal life.