• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 The Lord’s Supper as a Part of a Meal – Right or Wrong?Should the Lord’s Supper be incorporated as a part of a larger meal in theworship of God in the Christian religion? Some are today arguing for such apractice. All any of us can know about what we should or should not do isfound in the Bible, at least that has been the traditional view of conservatives. Today there is a liberal element in Christianity who feels they no longer needBible authority for what they do. That being the case they feel free to do asthey please and make anything and everything an act of worship that theirheart so desires. They are no longer restricted by the Bible. What I say herewill be of no value to them for that very reason.But, I do want to investigate this subject and see if there is any merit in theargument they make based on what the Bible does say about the partakingof the Lord’s Supper. The relevant passages are found in Matt. 26:26-29,Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Cor. 11:23-26. The Lord’s Supper was instituted during the observance of the JewishPassover meal. The observance of this meal was commanded of God as amemorial for what he did on the night when he brought the children of Israelout of Egypt. That night he struck dead the firstborn of the Egyptians whilepassing over the homes of the children of Israel who had sacrificed aPassover lamb and put the blood on their two doorposts and the lintel. Onecan read about the institution of the Passover and what it was about inExodus 12. Jesus is the Passover lamb for Christians, “Christ, our Passover lamb, hasbeen sacrificed.” (1 Cor. 5:7 ESV) It is by his blood that we are sparedspiritually. The Lord’s Supper is our memorial in remembrance of hissacrifice, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaimthe Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Cor. 11:26 ESV) It is partaken of inremembrance of Jesus, “do this in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor. 11:24 NKJV)) The Lord’s Supper is the antitype of the Passover. The Passover meal was aremembrance of an event that brought physical salvation. The Lord’s Supperis a remembrance of an event that brought spiritual salvation. The Passover meal was a major meal. There was to be a lamb for ahousehold. (Exodus 12:3 ESV) It was to be eaten with unleavened breadand bitter herbs. (Exodus 12:8) None of it was to be left until morning and if 
 
it was it was to be burnt. (Exodus 12:10 ESV) This was the type. Would weexpect the antitype to be the same?As the Passover meal had its regulations as to what and how it was to beobserved and what was to be eaten so does the Lord’s Supper. One is not just free to do as he pleases. In both cases what was to be partaken of wasdesignated plainly in scriptures and for us living today it is not steak andpotatoes. The Lord’s Supper was never meant to be a major meal. Paul said of theCorinthians eating, “it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.” (1 Cor. 11:20ESV) They were filling up okay, those that could (1 Cor. 11:21), but Paul saysit was not the Lord’s Supper they were eating. They thought it was but hedidn’t. There ought to be a lesson in that for us. How you do things makes adifference. What you call eating the Lord’s Supper may not be how God seesit.Eat at home is his admonition. “What! Do you not have houses to eat anddrink in?” (1 Cor. 11:22 NKJV) The Lord’s Supper was never about filling up.Not then, not now, not ever. Do that at home.In fact, when the Lord’s Supper was instituted the Bible says of Jesus that “hetook the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying ‘Drink from it, all of you.’” (Matt. 26:27 NKJV) Mark says, “they all drank from it.” (Mark 14:23NKJV) There is little doubt but what one cup was used in instituting theLord’s Supper. One cup and all the apostles drink from it. Does that give youthe idea that they are doing what the Corinthians were doing in theCorinthian’s abuse of the institution? Are they gulping down large quantitiesof drink in partaking of the Lord’s Supper? To ask is to answer to the manwho will reason. The Lord’s Supper is not about filling up or satisfyinghunger.But, the modern day desire is to have a meal (pass the chicken and mashedpotatoes and gravy) as a part of the worship and we will somewhere duringthat time frame take time out and observe the Lord’s Supper. It is said in somany words that all Paul meant when he said to eat and drink in their houses(words to that effect) is to just eat enough at home to knock the top off yourhunger so you do not make a hog of yourself when you arrive at theassembly where a meal will be served and eat it all up before others arrive.Believe it if you can.
 
 The very verses that are said to prove this prove just the opposite, verses 33and 34 of 1 Cor. 11. “Therefore, my brethren, when you come together toeat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lestyou come together for judgment.” (NKJV) The Lord’s Supper is not aboutsatisfying hunger. Eat at home is what Paul says about satisfying hunger butthat will never be good enough for the guy that wants to eat in worship.One brother I know of who wants to go the social meal incorporated into theworship route believes 1 Cor. 11 supports his position. He sees them ashaving a social meal (he would say along with the Lord’s Supper) and seesthe problem being only that some went ahead and did not wait on others andbasically hogged the food and did not share. If they had waited and sharedhe feels all would have been well. He considers the social meal to be in facta part of the worship.He is correct to a point. They were not waiting and they were not sharing butwhat was to be shared and why were they to wait? It was so they couldpartake together of the Lord’s Supper. Paul is not trying to regulate a socialmeal as worship as this brother wants to make it out to be. Paul’s point ashe starts this discussion, the very first verse of it, in 1 Cor. 11:20, is that“when you come together it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.” (ESV) Doyou not get the point Paul is making? He is saying that is not what you aredoing but it is what you ought to be doing. Let me state that again foremphasis. You are not eating the Lord’s Supper but that is what you ought tobe doing.What would they be sharing? The only bread allowed at the Passover mealat which the Lord’s Supper was instituted was unleavened. We know thedrink was the fruit of the vine. What is my point? The purpose of theircoming together was to partake of the Lord’s Supper and these were the twoelements of the Supper thus what was to be shared. Is this what my liberal,make a social meal out of it, brethren want to share? To ask is to answer.Paul wants them to partake of the Lord’s Supper and do it right. That meanswaiting on the group to assemble, eating together the unleavened bread anddrinking the fruit of the vine (with due attention to proper thoughts as to themeaning and proper behavior), and sharing in such a way so that all can doso. One must remember the poverty of the first century. Some well may nothave been able to bring anything and evidently in the first century churchthis is the way the bread and the fruit of the vine were assembled in orderfor the church to partake of the Lord’s Supper.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...