The Sense of Scripture: Studies in Interpretation . . .

THE MEANING OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 

      In previous installments we have studied various principles of interpretation, along with a few recognized rules, and even some hermeneutical fallacies. This time around we will seek to apply what we have learned to a particular problem, the meaning of the Lord's Supper. I will do this by presenting a list of conclusions I have reached from my study of the data, especially as they relate to how we might more meaningfully observe the Lord's Supper. These may be thought of as propositions to be considered, drawn as they are from the evidence of Scripture, as I interpret that evidence, and certainly not dogmatic affirmations. I will not attempt to prove every proposition.

1. The Lord's Supper between Jesus and his disciples was both the Last Supper and a Farewell Dinner. They had had such meals together often. Jesus at least as he prepared for this meal knew that it would be the last, and he planned it accordingly. He thus introduced things into this last and farewell dinner that were new.

2. The Lord's Supper was a Passover meal. It was therefore very Jewish, and it was like many other such meals going on about the same time throughout the city of Jerusalem. Mk. 14:12 makes it clear that it was a meal that had to be prepared, the Passover meal.

3. There is reason to believe that Jesus himself did not partake of the Lord's Supper, that is, of the bread and cup offered to the disciples, for they were in reference to himself. Since Mk. 14:22 says "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread," we may conclude that Jesus may have joined in the eating of the Passover meal itself, but not of "the bread" and "the cup." But maybe not. He may have been fasting, for his death was imminent and he knew it.

4. There is a conflict as to the time between Mt-Mk-Lk, who clearly state that it was a Passover meal, "when they killed the Passover lamb" (Mk. 14:12), and John, who in 13:1 says that it was a day "before the feast of the Passover." Jn. 18:28 shows that at least some Jews had not yet eaten the Passover even after Jesus' arrest. This may be resolved by the fact that the Passover was observed on two different days of Passover week, some going by the Roman calendar and some by the Jewish. Mt-Mk-Lk were using one calendar, John the other. Since the Jewish days began at sundown, we may conclude with Mt-Mk-Lk that the Lord's Supper was on Good Friday (Thursday night) and that our Lord was tried and crucified later that same day. John, following a different calendar, supposes Jesus followed those Jews who celebrated the Passover on Thursday Wednesday night), and so his account places it a day earlier. It is no big deal.

5. Much of the meaning of the Supper is in the words Jesus used. When he took the bread and gave it to his disciples, he said "This is my body," which they could not possibly have understood to be his literal flesh since he was still in his body before their very eyes. Nor is it likely that Jesus meant merely that the bread "represented" his body. Since the Jews did not, like the Greeks, distinguish between body and spirit, but saw both as the life principle that makes a man what he is, it is likely that Jesus meant something like "This is myself sacrificed." When he said in Mt. 6:22, "The lamp of the body is the eye," he uses body in a similar way, to refer to the whole person and not simply to the flesh. Only Paul tells us (1 Cor. 11:24) that Jesus added "which is broken for you" when referring to his body. Since Jesus' body was never literally broken, we can take this to mean that Jesus himself was "broken" in heart and soul by the ordeal of the Cross.

6. When he took the cup and said ,"This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," he made one of the most remarkable statements of his entire ministry. It was the only time he ever referred to the New Covenant. He referred to his sacrificial death as if it were already accomplished. The cup points to his obedience unto death, which made the New Covenant possible. He therefore meant something like "This is my blood which is soon to be shed for many, which will make possible the new covenant between God and man."

7. Paul (I Cor. 11:25), whose account of the Supper is the earliest, which he said he received from the Lord (directly or through other disciples?), joins Luke (22:19) in telling us that Jesus also said, "Do this in remembrance of me," which is probably the most often quoted of any of the eucharistic sayings of Jesus. We even engrave them on Communion tables. But if we quote this saying the most we may understand it the least, for it surely does not simply mean that we are to remember what a great person Jesus was or recall things about his life. "Do this in remembrance of me" beckons us to recall an event in the past with such power that it brings a blessing in the present. We "remember" by entering into the event ourselves and becoming a participant in his suffering. It is more than a "memorial." It is a sharing in the gift of life, the repeated acceptance of the gift of salvation.

8. Again it is only Paul who records these words, which may be his own statement rather than a quotation from Jesus: "For as often and you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" I Cor. 11:26). This means that the Supper itself, celebrated by those who believe that Jesus is the risen Lord, is a proclamation of the gospel. The use of "till he comes" places no emphasis on the when of Jesus' coming. The great hope is that he will indeed come, and the saints proclaim their faith in that promise by meeting and breaking bread.

9 All three gospels record this statement from the lips of Jesus: "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." This shows that the Supper points to the future as well as to the past and the present. This probably reflects a belief that Jesus shared with the Jews of his day, that God has prepared a heavenly banquet to which all his children will be invited. The Messiah would host such a banquet. In the New Testament eating together is an expression of intimate fellowship, as in Lk. 14:15, "Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God," and Rev. 3:20 where Jesus promises to go in and dine with anyone who will open the door when he knocks. In promising to drink with his disciples in "that day" he is referring to the heavenly banquet, not to the ongoing celebration of the Supper through the centuries. Jesus does not drink with us when we meet as his church to break bread. We drink with each other in reference to what he has done for us. But he is with us when we drink together. In "that day"  in heaven - he will drink with us, which is a way of referring to the intimate fellowship we will have with him. You will note that "again" does not appear in the text, as if "I will not drink again," but simply "I will not drink." While he did drink with them on previous occasions, it is not likely, as we have seen, that he did so the night he instituted the Lord's Supper.

10.  The Supper as a whole, especially Jesus' words and actions, including the washing of feet, was what the scholars like to call "prophetic symbolism." It was after the order of Isaiah going about barefoot and Jeremiah breaking a bottle. Jesus was reenacting what had not yet happened. It was a kind of prophecy. The bread was his body that had already been broken and the cup was his blood that had already been shed. It can mean the same to us in that his sacrifice is continually cleansing. His death keeps on saving us. It is past, present, and future.

Once we have a fairly accurate picture of the Lord's Supper as it is described in the New Testament, we still have the task of relating it to our own time. This calls for a different set of propositions.

1. There is no way for us to "restore" in exact detail the Supper as it was observed by Jesus and his disciples or even by the early church, if for no other reason because it was originally part of a Passover meal. Mt. 26:26 says, "While they were eating Jesus took bread." We do not and probably could not take the Lord's Supper while we are eating a meal, unless we tried to do what the early church did for a time, take the Supper in conjunction with the Agape or love feast. But even the early church did not celebrate the Supper during Passover as Jesus did. If they had they would have taken the Supper only once a year, for Passover came but once a year.

2. The data we have defies any exact pattern for taking the Supper. We always serve the bread and then the cup, which is the order in Matthew, Mark, and Paul. But Luke (22:17) has Jesus taking the cup first, then the bread. In fact in Luke he takes the cup twice! But that again reminds us that it was a Passover meal where there were four symbolic cups. Luke being right, as we believe he was, Jesus must have taken two cups during the Supper, not just one. Are we then to take two cups? That may depend on what you make "restoring the ancient order" mean.

3. We must recognize that there is hardly any resemblance between the way we take the Lord's Supper and the way Jesus did, or even the early church. We would feel out of place if we reclined with them at the celebration of the Passover sader. They drank wine and did not just sip grape juice; they broke a hunk of bread and ate it and did not pick up a diced wafer or a pinch of Matzo cracker. There were but twelve of them, which again was the right number for a Passover meal. There is no way for us to serve scores or hundreds in the same atmosphere. But it is all right for us to do it differently (we really have no choice) so long as we capture the meaning of the Lord's Supper. There are things we might do to make it more meaningful.

4. We could capture the "small group" atmosphere by taking the Supper in our classrooms rather than in "the sanctuary," and thus have five to twenty or more gatherings in each congregation on Lord's day for the Supper. This would allow for an intimate fellowship and mutual sharing around the table as it was with Jesus and his disciples.

5. This would allow for a single chalice or cup, and all could drink from the same cup as did Jesus and his disciples. Scores or hundreds of tiny plastic cups stacked several feet high in silver trays and served by a dozen waiters makes it very difficult to catch the symbolism of the Supper we read about in the New Testament.

6. There should also be one loaf placed before the partakers, not diced wafers or Matzo crackers. A loaf and not crumbs. It need not be unleavened. When Jesus "took break" it was unleavened only because it was a Passover meal. He did not choose unleavened bread, and he certainly did not prescribe it. It would be appropriate for us to "take bread" that is consistent to our way of life, which is not Matzo crackers (Herein is probably our greatest sin in the way we do the Supper) or unleavened cakes. I would suggest a large loaf of French bread, the bigger the better. Let it be blessed and broken, like Jesus did, and let it be passed among the believers, not on a plate but hand to hand, so that they could literally break bread together. One could hold the loaf while another broke off a piece (not a crumb), and thus they would break bread together, perhaps on their knees. In the same way we would pass the chalice to each other and drink together, just a few of us, no more than twelve to each room. We could then repair to the auditorium to sing and praise God together and for the preaching of the gospel. We could rotate the groups so that in time we would all break bread together in an intimate fellowship.

7. This would capture the symbolism that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor. 10:17, "For we, being many, are one loaf and one body; for we all partake of the one loaf." It is rich symbolic truth when the community of believers gathers around one loaf. What are we saying when we gather around crumbs? Is the body one or is it divided?

8. While the earliest church broke bread on a daily basis (Acts 2:46), it appears to have eventually settled on a weekly observance, every first day (Acts 20:7). The modern church should observe it no less frequently than weekly, even if we cannot be dogmatic about it. Since the apostle says "As often has" (I Cor. 11:26), we have to leave the time and frequency open. But we can agree with I. Howard Marshall who concludes after an exhaustive study of the sources: "In line with what appears to have been the practice of the early church in the New Testament the Lord's Supper should be celebrated frequently in the church, and there is good reason for doing so on each Lord's Day."

9. The Supper can be conducted by any believer that is appointed by the church to do so. It does not have to be "consecrated" by priest or minister. There is no reason to exclude women.

10.  There should be no prayers or extended ritual. Only the breaking of the loaf and thanksgiving, which is why it is sometimes called the eucharist, meaning thanksgiving.

11.  It should be open to all who profess to be disciples of Christ, including believing children. There is no basis for making baptism a condition for taking the Lord's Supper. A church has no right to lay down conditions. It is the Lord's Supper, not the church's supper. The church should "neither invite nor debar," as the Campbells put it. Each one is to examine himself, "and so let him eat."

12.  Around the table is the ideal time to give testimonials of love for one another and of concern for the sick, the poor, and the oppressed.

13.  The Lord's Supper is the profoundest testimony we can give to the unity of the body and the fellowship of the Saints. You are in fellowship with anyone with whom you can meaningfully break bread. To make the Supper factious or to use it in any divisive way is what Paul was referring to by the phrase "discerning not the Body" (1 Cor. 11:29), which should probably be capitalized as I have done, for it refers not to the bread but to the Body of Christ, the church. We eat and drink damnation to ourselves, not simply by not being as reverent as we might, but by refusing to behave in a way consistent with the unity of the Body. This is why some in the Corinthian church were ill and some had died, a "sin unto death" judgment (1 Cor. 11:30).

That is a good note to close on: that in the early church the Lord's Supper was taken so seriously (by the God of heaven as well as by the apostles) that when what it stood for as a symbol of the united Body was flouted by a factious spirit the penalty was sickness and even death. Just as one who refuses to forgive should not pray the Lord's prayer, so one who has a sectarian heart should not partake of the Lord's Supper, lest he eat and drink damnation to himself. — the Editor.