The Lord's Supper

The View of the Early Church
Examining the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, or any other teaching of the church, the student of Scripture must be careful to avoid buying without reservation what the early church taught. As with the church today, the bishops and elders were products of their own time and could easily slip into views that were not biblical, as they did with the extreme views of Gnosticism or mysticism. Very early Ignatius (35-107) was teaching the efficaciousness and necessity of the Lord's Supper for salvation. What he taught on the subject about Communion made a lasting impression on the early and Medieval Church. Later, even the Reformers struggled to see this ordinance as simply a memorial and not a requirement for redemption. 

Many believe Ignatius probably knew some of the disciples. However he certainly would not have gotten his aberrant views on Communion from them! Because of his influence, and the fact that he was highly revered, he was martyred in Rome around 110 or 115. On the Lord's Supper, he coined the term Eucharist (imparting good grace) which was seen as the "Communion ceremony" that constituted "a major aspect of the process of salvation."1 As he put it, the Lord's Supper became the ceremonial instrument that imparted eternal life—the medicine of immortality. The Eucharist became the "Communion meal," a sacrament—a means of grace that brought about a transformation of the one who was partaking.2 By all the evidence, this view became the guiding doctrinal principle for most of the early churches for both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic persuasions. 

The Word Mass
Isidore of Saville (d. 636) first used the word missa to describe the partaking of the Lord's Supper. The Latin word refers to a "dismissal." The people in the audience who were not members of the congregation were dismissed or asked to leave when the Eucharist was celebrated. The word missa appears to be related to the Greek word leitourgia (liturgy), and in time, both words were used to describe the entire Eucharistic ceremony. 

The Middle Ages
The doctrine of the Eucharist was fleshed out and put into a total teaching during the predominant period of the growth and development of the Roman Catholic Church doctrinal system. By around A.D. 1200, this teaching became the all pervading belief that became the glue for the Catholicism. It taught that at the "tabernacle table" (the altar) in all churches, "the Lord is truly present, and so speak of the 'real presence' of Jesus in the Eucharist."3 And, "It is in the Eucharist that Jesus manifests himself and gives himself to his church more fully."4 Catholic theologians use John 6:53-57 to defend this view. The Lord said, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." Jesus explained earlier what He meant by this. He previously said, "I am the bread of life; he who come to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." The coming to Him is the eating and the believing in Him is the drinking of Him! However, the Catholic Church ignored the full reading of the verses and the context of what Christ was trying to get across to the Jews. 

Salvation can be lost for the Catholic who does not partake of the Lord's Supper for an extended period of time. The Church says, "The Eucharist cures the diseases of the soul by purging it of venial sins and the temporal punishments due to sin. The remission of venial sins and of the temporal punishments of sins takes place immediately."5 The Catholic view of the Lord's Supper is labeled Transubstantiation, meaning that the real presence of Christ is "transferred" to the bread and wine, though both elements remain physically the same. 

The Reformation
Some of the Reformers attempted to retain some of the mystical elements in the Lord's Supper from the Catholic view. Luther held to certain mystical views and felt very strongly that the believer must take communion in order to finish the salvation process. Calvin taught that the entire person of Christ was in the communion not simply His flesh and blood. However, even the representation of the flesh and blood was neither physical nor local, "but only through the Holy Spirit, affecting the soul graciously."6 The "feeding" of the believer was not by the mouth but by faith of the soul! Many of the Reformers were content to see the Lord's Supper as a "remembrance" as described in Scripture. 

The Biblical Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
The Lord's Supper is an abbreviation of the ceremony of Passover commanded of the Jews in Exodus 12. Before leaving Egypt, the people were redeemed from bondage by the offering of a lamb or goat (v. 5). On the night of the escape from slavery the Lord passed through the land of Egypt and said, "When I see the blood [of the sacrificed animal] I will pass over you [the Israelites]" (v. 13). Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be that sacrificial lamb and substitute for sin. He wrote, "All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" (53:6). God's Anointed, His "Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities" (v. 11). 

Seeing Christ coming toward him, John the Baptist referred to Isaiah 53:6-7 when he said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29, 36). Taking Passover for the last time with His disciples, Jesus made it clear to these followers that He was about to die for sinners as the Passover lamb! While distributing the bread and wine to them He said:
This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. ... This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." (Luke 22:19-20) The biblical doctrine of the Lord's Supper is spelled out in great detail in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Apparently the Corinthian church had terribly distorted the ceremony. They used it as an excuse for eating and drinking, completely ignoring its spiritual significance for the assembly. Because most of the members of the Corinthian congregation were Gentiles, they may have had only limited understanding of its relation to the Jewish Passover. In these verses the apostle Paul sets forth a series of guidelines that are meant to make the Lord's Supper convey spiritual meaning to the entire church:

The Lord's Supper may or may not be taken at every church meeting. This may be Paul's emphasis when he writes: "When you come together" (vv. 18, 33), "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup" (v. 26). Some churches believe the Lord's Supper should be taken every Sunday, but this may not be required by the apostle.

The Lord's Supper should not be taken when the church is going through strife and division. The Corinthian church had ongoing problems with divisions and factions (vv. 18-19). The congregation was at war with itself with fights and carnalities that were sapping its spiritual strength and destroying its witness (3:1-5).

The Lord's Supper had turned into a banquet or even an orgy with people coming simply to eat and get drunk. (11:20-22). Apparently they may have been getting a free meal because Paul writes that they should be taking their suppers at home and not in the church (v. 22). Also it seems that when the people arrived at the church they began to eat immediately and were not taking this time of remembering the Lord's death together as a group (vv. 33-34). Paul earlier referred to the real and the spiritual meaning of the Lord's Supper in 5:7-8. He calls Christ "our Passover" and refers to the Supper to be celebrated as a feast. Believers are to "Clean out the old leaven, that you can be a new lump" (v. 7), meaning a new spiritual being. Believers are to be like new leaven bread, and Christ is the one who was sacrificed. The unleaven bread is a reference to living the Christian life without sin and fault as much as is humanly possible.

The Lord's Supper was meant to be a remembrance. The apostle Paul does not indicate that the Lord's Supper was efficacious, i.e., that it was essential in someway for salvation. Neither did it impart some semblance of spirituality. Christ said it was to be done as a "remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19). Paul repeats these words of Christ (1 Cor. 11:24, 25). Believers are to be continually looking back at the cross and living lives that honor His death for their sins.

The Lord's Supper emphasizes the fact that Christ's death signified the beginning of the new covenant. The Lord made this clear in Luke 22:20 and Paul repeats this thought in 2 Corinthians 3:1-9. The new covenant was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31. It would replace the Mosaic covenant, the Law, and bring forth a final blessing to all who would believe in the Messiah! The Lord's Supper was meant to "proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). While it is true the church today partakes in the blessings of the new covenant, it was made first and foremost for the nation of Israel and will be finally fulfilled in the future millennial kingdom (Jer. 32:37, 40-41).7

The Lord's Supper requires a time of contemplation so that it is not demeaned by the partaker. While there may not be today a judgment and a condemnation on those who share in the Lord's Supper thoughtlessly, there was such a "discipline" laid upon the Corinthian church by the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 11:27-32). Some could even be stricken with illness or death, or rendered physically weak, by their almost blasphemous attitude toward the sharing of the Supper (v. 30)! Apparently Paul wanted to make an example of this church in how the ceremony and remembrance should be handled!

The Lord's Supper Today
Following the Roman Catholic tradition many Protestant churches call both the Lord's Supper and Baptism Sacraments, meaning that they are sacred in themselves. In reality they are not. They are but expressions, commanded reminders, and symbols, of historic events that are most important to the believers. With the slip of the tongue, many Christians may use the word sacrament to describe them. The word Ordinance is also often used but this word is more legitimate in that there is the ordering or commanding that they are to be practiced. Buswell rightly notes:
On the one hand, I do believe with all my heart that any legalistic or formalistic sacramentarianism should be avoided. The Lord's Supper is not magic. The elements have not in themselves any supernatural efficacy. The words recited are not magical incantations. The supreme matter of importance in the form of celebration of the Lord's Supper is that God's people call to remembrance our blessed Lord, and show forth as a testimony to all, His atoning death, looking forward to His glorious return.8 The High Churches, those who view the Lord's Supper with heavy sacramentalism (Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox, much of the Church of England), take a heavy redemptive view of the ordinance. The Lutheran and Presbyterian churches have a spiritually modifying view. Generally speaking, most other Protestant churches see it mainly as a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. Some churches (1) practice closed communion, allowing only those who are members of the local congregation to partake.
(2) Others forbid those to share if there is blatant sin in their lives. And, (3) almost all churches would not urge or even welcome the unbeliever to join in on the communion service. What all attempt to stress is the spiritual contemplative nature of the ceremony. Buswell adds:
The quiet dignity of ... the institution of the Lord's Supper ought in itself, to counteract tendencies to disorderly conduct. Note that Paul does not lay down rules and regulations for the details of the administration. He recounts in a simple manner, what Jesus said and did in the essential parts of the sacrament. And he calls attention to the two explicit purposes: (1) in remembrance of Christ; (2) and proclaiming His death; both of which are to be remembered in view of the glad expectation of His coming again.9
It is interesting to note that when the three thousand souls were added to the church following Peter's great sermon about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:14-40), they continued to listen to the apostles' teachings and continued in fellowship and "the breaking of bread" and prayer (v. 42). Most of these converts probably had partaken in Passover earlier but this new "remembrance" was part of what happened after their conversion. (see also 20:11) Most churches today practice the Lord's Supper with simplicity and meaningful order. Dead formalism should be avoided.
Some have adopted the practice of a merely formal or ritualistic use of the ordinances, observing them as a custom or churchly performance, without any true conception of their intent. Such observance has no real value, for as ordinances they have an important relation to the experiences which they symbolize. And if there be no vital experiential reference point, there can be no true symbolism.10 Is the love feast of Jude 12 the Lord's Supper? Some commentators do not believe so, however Lightner believes that it was, or at least was a meal that had been later added on to Communion. Carnality seems to always follow the rituals set up by humans. Lightner writes:
In the early days of the church, the love feast was the setting for and a major part of the observance of the Lord's Table. These love feasts sometimes became occasions of greed and disorder and even immorality (cf. 1 Cor. 11:20-22). The false teachers, Jude declares, were like danger hidden in the water and would bring about spiritual shipwreck. They must have taken part in the communion service and that "without fear" (v. 12).11 Conclusion The Corinthian church was to be commended for holding on to the "traditions" passed down from the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 11:2), yet they were due heavy and sharp criticism for the way in which they did so. In the ceremony of the Lord's Supper, the Corinthian assembly had become guilty of carnality (vv. 17-22), and were truly in need of correction (vv. 23-26). They stood in even mortal danger of being judged by the Lord (vv. 27-34). Christ's blood shed on the cross obtained eternal redemption for those who trust Him (Heb. 9:12). "The emphasis is on the blood. This signifies our Lord's death, which in turn signifies the ground on which eternal salvation is secured for the believing sinner. 'Do this, as often as you drink it' (v. 25). Note that the observance is commanded, but the frequency is not. ... The service at the Lord's Table looks both back and ahead. It recalls the accomplishments of Calvary and anticipates our Lord's glorious return."12 The Bible does not set out an order for the Lord's Supper that must be adhered to, but it does focus on its purpose and the spiritual message that is to be conveyed.

_____________

1. Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 48.
2. Ibid, 49.
3. Alan Schreck, The Essential Catholic Catechism (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1999), 194.
4. Ibid., 241.
5. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Faith (St. Louis: Herder Book Co., 1962), 395.
6. Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 641.
7. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989), 68.
8. James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2 volumes on one (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 2:275.
9. Ibid. 2:277.
10. Emery H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 310.
11. Mal Couch & Ed Hindson, gen. eds., The Epistles of John & Jude, Robert Lightner (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2003), 152-53.
12. Mal Couch & Ed Hindson, gen. eds., The Book of First Corinthians, Dan Mitchell (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2004), 167.