Lord's Supper

by David Lasseter


 

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.


 

God has a

marvelous gift

waiting for you!

Click on the

picture to learn

more.

 

Monitor page
for changes
    
   it's private  

by ChangeDetection