A few years ago an American evangelist visited a congregation of saints in another land. When the Lord's table was uncovered he saw that it contained a small loaf of leavened bread. He was undecided as to whether he should partake of it, because he had always been accustomed to unleavened bread on the table. That afternoon he voiced his feelings in the home of one of the elders, pointing out that Jesus chose unleavened bread. The elder informed him that Jesus did not have a choice. The Lord's Supper was ordained in conjunction with the Passover which ushered in the feast of unleavened bread. During this time Jewish families ate unleavened bread as their staple diet. Jesus simply took the kind of bread they ate at their regular meals and consecrated it. The elder pointed out that they followed the example of Jesus and used the kind of bread that was used in their ordinary meals.
Tradition is a powerful force in moulding religious practice. So the preacher pointed out that Jesus took unleavened bread and we should do the same. It was quickly pointed out to him that when Jesus or the apostles spoke of the bread they used the word artos, which means a loaf, leavened or unleavened. They did not once use the word azumos, which is the Greek for "unleavened" in any of their instructions relative to the Supper. Jesus used unleavened bread because he was a Jew. This was the only bread at hand. To argue that no one can observe the feast acceptably while eating leavened bread is to impeach the standing of thousands of God's children in the world, as well as to set up as a law that which was an incidental feature. The family should not be divided into a "leavened bread party" and an "unleavened bread party." Such factionalism is a sin.
Speaking of sin reminds us that some are so careless as to state that the Jews ate unleavened bread at the Passover because leaven was a type of sin. This is not the case at all. Unleavened bread was used to remind the people only of the haste in which they fled Egypt. "They baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought out of Egypt, for it was not leavened, because they were thrust out of Egypt and could not tarry" (Exodus 12:39). Moses declared, "You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction--for you came out of the land of Egypt in hurried flight--that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt" (Deut. 16:3). Unleavened bread had a special relevance to the Jewish passover. It has none to the Lord's Supper.
The interesting thing about the preacher to whom we referred is his attitude toward some of his brethren in the United States. He was a champion of individual cups and regarded those who insisted on the use of one container as extremists. He opposed those who advocated the use of fermented wine in the Lord's Supper as radicals. He accused them of creating division by making laws where God had not made them, yet he had no hesitancy of trying to bind his view of unleavened bread upon congregations in another part of the world. One evident feature of the "rigid pattern concept" of the new covenant scriptures is that it renders inconsistent every one of its proponents and adherents. The pattern which all of them really follow is one concocted of partisan traditions, explanations and interpretations.
Perhaps the Lord's Supper will serve as a good illustration of how honest men divide over what they think is involved in "the pattern." It is especially important because it was to serve as a visible witness to our oneness. The word for fellowship (koinonia) is actually applied to it and translated communion (1 Cor. 10:16). The record says, "For we being many are one bread and one body: for all are partakers of that one bread." Surely if we are agreed upon any matter it should be this. The truth is that no other single item has been as divisive among us. Since it was divinely authorized as a demonstration of our cooperation, but has become the foundation for our disintegration it may furnish a clue to the nature of our trouble.
In spite of the fact that volumes have been written about the Lord's Supper what is said about it in the scriptures can be contained in very limited space. It is not even alluded to in most of the apostolic letters and had it not been for serious controversy existing at Corinth there is no indication it would have been mentioned in the first letter addressed to the saints in that city.
Christianity has no sacred places, no sacred days, and no sacred rituals. Its only earthly sanctuary is the human heart. Here the Spirit dwells and Jesus abides by faith. Its only law is love. It is universal in scope and makes no demands that cannot be met by half-clad aborigines in the jungles as well as by sophisticated intellectuals in other cultures. While its foundation Is the union of individual hearts to the Lord through the Spirit, this union creates a fellowship by its very nature. Those who are called out of the world and into Christ Jesus share in a new relationship with him, and through him, with all others who have responded to his call.
It is a koinonia of death and life. Those who compose it do so because they are dead to sin and are alive unto God through Jesus Christ the Lord. The watchwords of the fellowship are faith, hope and love. These sustain life in the three dimensions of which we are capable--past, present and future. Faith reaches back to the historical event of the cross which gave value to life; hope reaches forward to the consummation of the divine purpose and gives meaning to life. Love exists in the present and gives expression to life.
The ordinances of our Lord are two in number and both are designed to manifest our relationship to God in all three temporal dimensions. God is a divine economist. He imposes nothing that is superfluous. He requires nothing extraneous. Only two ordinances are required, one to mark our entrance or admission into the fellowship, the other to signal our continuance in it. Since those who are born into a family relationship need never re-enter, the first requires no repetition; but inasmuch as the family endures, the act expressive of it is continuous and repetitious.
Baptism, as a demonstration of our trust in Jesus, is simply a direct participation in "the passion play" drama of the ages. By faith we look back to the cross and are crucified with him. Through hope we look forward to justification in his presence. In love we are raised to walk in new life, the life of love. As Jesus died for us and was raised but one time, so we need to die and be raised only once. Death brings a cessation of all past relationships and their consequences and results. Resurrection introduces us to a new relationship with all of its blessings and privileges, whether we understand them all at the time or not. Baptism is an initiatory act. It is not to be multiplied. One may be born again because he should sustain a relationship to both flesh and spirit, but since these are the only two relationships into which he can come he should not be born again and again.
In the Lord's Supper we give constant testimony to faith, hope and love. We proclaim the Lord's death (past) until he comes again (future). We do this as a communion (koinonia) of the body and blood of our Lord. This is an overt and public declaration that the called ones constitute the one body and that they are held together by the mutual ties of love. So important is this that when cleavages exist and factions are present, those who meet as a congregation cannot eat the Lord's Supper. They may partake of the ingredients, but it is not the Lord's Supper. It is not eating the bread or drinking the cup which makes our attitude acceptable unto God, but our attitude toward each other which makes eating the bread and drinking the cup acceptable unto God. "I am told that when you meet as a congregation you fall into sharply divided groups . . . The result is that when you meet as a congregation, it is impossible for you to eat the Lord's Supper.
The Lord's Supper is a public witness that we are one body, the Lord's body. As to this fact the apostle said, "I speak to you as men of sense. Form your own judgment on what I say." The implication is that there is but one judgment to which men of sense can come as they contemplate the Supper. The apostle then says that about which he wishes the judgment to be formed. "When we bless the cup of blessing, is it not a means of sharing the blood of Christ? When we break the bread is it not a means of sharing the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, many as we are, are one body, for it is one loaf of which we all partake." If one partakes of the bread as a factional function or partisan privilege, he does not discern the body at all. Instead, he regards the faction or the party as the one body, a concept which counts the blood of the covenant wherewith we are sanctified an unholy thing and of less value than partisan conformity. Such a person, by his very eating and drinking, brings judgment on his head. "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment on himself if he does not discern the Body" (1 Cor. 11:29).
In view of this emphasis it is astounding how men have divided over various features connected with the Lord's Supper, and created factions to advance their divergent views. Those who have done so do not wilfully and deliberately desire to disregard the word of God. All of them want to fear God and keep his commandments. Without exception they are trying to be faithful to what they regard as "the pattern" for the Lord's Supper as they have been conditioned to do. All read the same Bible. All appeal to it for authority for their respective positions. Each charges the other with apostasy from the truth.
Why is it that honest and conscientious men cannot see "the pattern" alike? Is it possible that there is no meticulous and legalistic pattern and that all are searching for what does not exist? Can it be possible that men have been taught that the accounts of the life of our Lord and the letters from the envoys constitute a pattern, until they are trying to read a specific pattern into the text, elevating the incidental to the domain of the essential? To be explicit, brethren have divided over the use of individual containers for one thing. Did Jesus shed his blood to create a body to contend for the pro or con of such an issue?
In general, the debaters for each side assume that Jesus provided a pattern, that they both know what it is, and that the opposition is either ignorant or sectarian in attitude. If there is a plain pattern how can honest men who love the Lord disagree about it? It will avail nothing to impugn motives or imply dishonesty. Both parties have their share of sincere people. Both have their share of spiritual delinquents. If Jesus never intended to give "a pattern" for the things involved, and the word of God was not written for such a purpose as it is quoted during controversy, the dispute is much ado about nothing, and each congregation might well determine how it will proceed without attack or reprisal from any other.
Jesus instituted an ordinance designed to proclaim his death and to be a visible testimony to the unity of the one body. Such an ordinance had to be the essence of simplicity as it would be observed by unlearned and illiterate as well as by those of advanced knowledge. It had to consist of that which was universally known and practiced so that elaborate instruction would not be requisite. It is a tribute to the divine mind that eating and drinking, the very acts essential to the preservation of life, were adopted and elevated to a plane of spiritual significance. To make these common acts a portrayal of fellowship or communion, it was ordained that they must be performed together with others.
For generations before Jesus came, the act of feasting together was regarded as one indicative of sharing in common with others. Even the eternal state was portrayed as one in which men would come from the east and the west and sit down together at a table with the fathers--Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This was fellowship manifested in a practical fashion. From it came a veritable vocabulary of togetherness. For example, it is said of Jesus that, "he raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places."
Jesus was already eating with his disciples when he ordained the Lord's Supper. As Jews, they were keeping the feast of the passover. "During supper he took bread, and having said the blessing he broke it and gave it to them, with the words: 'Take this; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, and having offered thanks to God he gave it to them; and they all drank from it. And he said, 'This is my blood of the covenant, shed for many. I tell you this: never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God'" (Mark 14:22-25).
It is imperative that we remember that Jesus ordained a supper. This requires two actions--eating and drinking; and these, in turn, require two substances, a solid and a liquid. Jesus used bread for the first and the fruit of the vine for the second. Thus, Jesus ordained that we eat the bread and drink the cup. This is the ordinance and I know of none of us who disagree on anything related to it. When we eat the bread and drink the cup as a memorial to him, we have the proper motivation as relates to Jesus; when we do so to proclaim his death we have the proper motivation as relates to others; when we do so discerning the Body we have the proper motivation as relates to self.
Jesus did not ordain that we have a certain kind of bread, nor did he ordain that we use one container. It is true that Jesus personally used a certain kind of bread and I am convinced that he used but one container. These features, however, borrowed from the passover setting in which the Supper was ordained, are incidentals and not essentials. They are not essentials to our eating and drinking together nor are they essential to the threefold motivation with which we are to eat the Supper. Those who use leavened bread and those who use multiple cups for distribution of the fruit of the vine, eat and drink together as certainly as do others who use unleavened bread and one container. Those who insist upon the latter procedure as the only acceptable and valid one must do so on their deductions based upon the following postulates.
1. The historical account narrating the action of Jesus was intended to be a meticulous and detailed law of procedure for all times and places where the Supper is observed.
2. That which Jesus did as a Jew and because of his national relationship to the passover is binding upon Christians in their observance of the Lord's Supper. Jesus used unleavened bread because he was a Jew and there was no other bread available to him at the passover. Unleavened bread was the kind used in the regular diet of the Jews at this season of their religious year.
3. That which Jesus did incidentally, and as a matter of course, must be crystallized into an exacting law and become a criterion for judging the spiritual worthiness of others. Jesus took a cup for the simple reason that it is impossible to pass a liquid to others without some kind of container. But the container has nothing more to do with communion (fellowship), than a plate upon which to pass the bread. It is eating and drinking together, as in community, that makes communion.
4. All facts connected with an historical event are equally important and are as binding as that which we are commanded to do, so that it is better to forego any expression of fellowship as the aim of the command than to be in error about some detail of method for achieving it. This leads ultimately to the view that man was made for ordinances and not ordinances for men.
No one can prove these postulates to be scriptural by quoting a passage from the new covenant writings which even implies them. Nor will it do any good to resort to the common tactic of those who do not find specific authority and appeal to the essence or tenor of the scriptures, for it can be shown that the trend of the scriptures is generally opposed to them.
They constitute a philosophy of interpretation based upon rationalization and presupposition. They represent the approach made to the scriptures and the sin lies not in having a way of approach, for all men do this, but in dogmatically equating the approach with the will of God. To do this means we cannot correct the approach without feeling that by so doing we are denying God's will. We believe the approach represented in this philosophy needs correction and we give a few reasons for thinking so.
1. It renders its advocates inconsistent for they do not apply the postulates to all actions of Jesus with the same force that they do in the case of the partisan tests of fellowship. In his attendance at "public worship" Jesus stood up to read the scriptures and sat down to expound or explain them. When he prayed he "looked up to heaven" or "lifted up his eyes to heaven." Because we generally stand up to speak to an audience and close our eyes when we pray, one who followed the example of Jesus would be called an eccentric and would prove embarrassing to the average congregation. We generally insist on "doing as our Lord did," in those things only that conform to our traditional modes.
2. We can insist that the bread in the Lord's Supper must be unleavened while at the same time we can glibly explain away such things as footwashing and the holy kiss. We are nowhere told to use unleavened bread because Jesus did, but he did say, "Ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you" (John 13:15). We have no problem with such phrases as "Ye should do as I have done," nor with pointed commands such as "Greet one another with a holy kiss." These are not part of a partisan pattern.
3. We tend to ignore or disregard the fact that if Jesus adjusted his methods to the background and environment of which he was a part and made use of such means as were available to accomplishment of his design, he set a precedent indicative of his reaction to our present environment and means if he were with us in the flesh as he most certainly is in the spirit.
It seems to us that the basic fallacy lies in the assumption that historical accounts, or letters, written because of local circumstances or conditions (which would never have been written at all had such conditions not arisen) were intended to be made a written code of legalistic procedure and to be applied irrespective of circumstances, discoveries, or cultural growth and development. The spirit of legalism knows nothing of mercy. It can make no allowances and if the one who affirms it does make such allowances he thereby condemns his whole philosophy.
One must become as near like God as possible, but he must choose whether he will do so in the realm of authority or in the domain of love. In the first he becomes a usurper of divine prerogatives, in the second he becomes a participant in the divine purpose. The first encourages him to lay down laws with which to enslave others; the second to lay down his life to help save others. The law of God as expressed in Jesus is summed up in love which is unitive. Any attempt to enforce human deduction to the point of division among brethren is not fidelity to God but failure to comprehend the divine purpose.
It is at this juncture that brethren sin when they divide over such issues as the manner of passing the fruit of the vine to the communicants, and become a "one cup party" or a "multiple cups party." It is no doubt useless for those who oppose individual containers to argue that there would be no division if some had not adopted individual cups, because those who oppose them are divided among themselves over various other things, some of which are related to other phases of the Lord's Supper. Actually we are divided because we have the will to divide.
We adopt the premise that the letters of the apostles constitute a detailed law, we then proceed to interpret it as specific law, and regard ourselves as the divinely authorized enforcers of the law. When there are two viewpoints of interpretation and those who hold them begin with the idea that there must be either conformity or separation, factions are inevitable. If we were not divided over individual cups we would be divided over numerous other things, as indeed we are. It is our fallacious philosophy which is factional in its very nature.
But what can we do when brethren regard "the pattern" as requiring but one container, and others regard it as allowing more than one? Must we form two parties? Indeed not! We will not do so if we discern the Body and love all of its members. Faced with such a problem, the first thing we must do is to utterly reject division of the family as offering any proper solution. Division is a sin regardless of whether "cups" are right or wrong. There is no scripture which specifically condemns individual containers. Those who oppose them must do so by inference or deduction. But there are numerous specific passages which condemn schism and division among brethren as a sin. We dare not negate a specific declaration by a negative inference.
Second, we must recognize the right of sincere and honest men whose intellectual attainments at least equal our own, to examine the word of God for themselves and to form conclusions concerning what they read. And we must remember that this means they may reach different conclusions than ourselves. Since we are not responsible for their conclusions we must respect our brethren even while we dissent from their deduction.
Third, we must put such matters back where they belong, and that is in the realm of congregational determination. When a congregation of consecrated saints examines the word of God with the conviction that they exhibit more fidelity to its intent by use of one container they should be respected in their decision. When such a congregation is convinced that it can implement God's will by use of individual containers it also should be respected. Neither should be placed under censure by the other. Neither should seek to bind its deduction upon the other. The autonomy, that is, the self-government of each congregation must be maintained without external coercion.
It will be asked if division will not result from the fact that the congregations differ in their conclusions on this one matter. It need not do so. The mere fact that congregations meet in separate areas and differ in their method of passing the fruit of the vine does not of itself spell division. Unity is not based upon geographical proximity but upon spiritual affinity. It does not consist of conformity in method but of oneness in Christ. We will not divide until one or both groups become factional. If one binds its deduction as the law of God and demands that the other accede to it as the price of fellowship, division will result, not because of what the Bible says, or even because of our interpretation of it, but because of dogmatism.
Congregations of saints should regard each other as brothers in the Lord whether they use one container or many. They should cease to brand each other as hobbyists or sectarians. They should stop hurling insults and desist from accusations of apostasy. This exhibits a spirit of carnality and immaturity wholly unbecoming to the profession we make. We need each other as the eye needs the mouth and as the hand needs the foot. Brethren who use one container and those who use multiple containers all share in the same grace of God and are in the communion of saints. They may disagree about details of expressing that communion from one congregation to another but this need not affect the communion or fellowship. The communion of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus is one thing, the mode of distributing the elements indicative of it is a wholly different thing. It is not sharing in the same opinion about passing the fruit of the vine that makes us one but the fact that we all share as branches of the One Vine.
It would be sinful for me to go into an area where brethren have personal convictions as to the use of one container and wreck their peace and wreak havoc by insisting that they have multiple containers as the price of fellowship with me. If I have faith (personal conviction) about such matters I must have it to myself under such circumstances. They are men for whom Christ died. They are the work of God. I must not destroy the fellowship which He created over an incidental as to its demonstration. The love of a man for his wife is more important than any demonstration of it, and so must be our love for one another. Certainly we should seek to grow in an exhibition of love and fellowship but first we must possess it, for one cannot grow in something which he does not have.
Obviously the problem will be greater for a consecrated brother who has a deep conviction as to one container when he is among those who regard it as an incidental matter. It seems to me that it will help us all if we cease to categorize our divisive problems as matters of faith and matters of opinion. When we do this we automatically separate ourselves into two warring camps. One is then regarded as faithful to Jesus, the other as a betrayer of the faith, based upon an honest conviction as to the thing under discussion. But fidelity to the Lord cannot be measured by such a criterion. We cannot measure its magnitude by such a rule any more than we can determine the content of the Pacific Ocean with a gallon bucket.
We have borrowed the slogan, "In matters of faith unity, in matters of opinion liberty, in all things charity." In reality, however, there are no matters of opinion, as we apply the slogan, for someone regards everything as a matter of faith which others regard as a matter of opinion. The result is that love is exhibited in nothing for fear we will deny the faith.
If we could cease to classify our divisive problems as matters of faith and matters of opinion and regard them as "matters of understanding" it would help greatly to remove the barriers of division. This would make our honest attitude toward these things not so much a matter of fidelity to Christ Jesus as a matter of spiritual growth. One can be tolerant of others in their lack of maturity when it would be difficult to make allowances for those who are untrue to Jesus.
Faith could be left in the realm of acceptance of Jesus and trust in Him as our Savior and Lord. Our differences in Him would be distinguished from questions about Him. There is a distinction between what is requisite to come into Christ and what is necessary to grow up into Him in all things. We should not make every issue in life as important as life itself. Certainly every problem of association is not a matter of life and death. No partisan peculiarity about the method of showing the Lord's death must ever become as vital to us as the fact of that death and its purpose as relates to fellowship.
To some of my brethren it is very important to use only unleavened bread. To others it is very important to use only fermented wine. Still others regard the manner of breaking the loaf or the use of one container for the fruit of the vine as important. There are other details which are also regarded as important by many saints. Now none of these things are unimportant to me, but they are not important to me because of any intrinsic value I attach to them, but simply because they are important to my brothers--all of whom are very important to me because Jesus died for them. I cannot be unconcerned about anything which concerns one for whom Christ died. It is not that these things give validity to brotherhood or that brotherhood gives validity to them. Rather it is brotherhood which gives validity to the concern which brethren feel for such matters.
The personal scruple a brother holds may not seem important to me, but the brother who holds it, or is held by it, is important to me. The word scruple literally means "a little pebble in the shoe." It does not take a large pebble to cause a brother to limp. Nothing may appear less important to me than a small rock in the shoe of a companion, but, at the same time, nothing appears of more significance unto him. I am not obligated to respect the pebble, nor to limp because he does. But if we are brothers I will sympathize with him and will slow down my pace so we may walk together. It may be urged that I should help him remove the pebble. This is true, but there may be complications.
I certainly am not free to remove it by force, and it may be that I shall first have to convince him that it is a pebble which is causing the difficulty. Moreover, even after it has been removed, the effect of it may linger for a long time. One who has had a rock in his shoe all his life may still limp for some time after it is gone. This is especially true if he has always been taught that such a condition is normal and the only correct way to walk. Long after a scruple has been intellectually discarded it may be emotionally retained, and I may have to walk slowly in order to walk lovingly with my brother. Under such circumstances it will help me immeasurably to realize that Jesus is my pattern. I can receive my brethren as He has received them--and me!
The Lord's Supper is not observed in memory of a law, a precept or a code. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." My task is not to lay down laws governing the Supper but to live up to the love which it entails and embraces. I shall not conclude that brethren cannot remember my precious Lord when they deviate in some detail from our method of observance. I shall allow Him to be the judge as to motivations and achievements of their hearts.
If my human judgment causes me to err in my attitude toward maintaining brotherhood, I prefer that it is in the direction of mercy and leniency rather than slanted toward stringency and implacability. The former will make it possible for Him to be merciful unto me in the Great Confrontation when I shall need mercy the most. I am no longer concerned about answering to a small clique of my brothers for an exhibition of love to all. I am concerned with answering to Him about limiting to some of my brothers that love which He exhibited for all. He is my pattern! Let me close with this quotation from David Lipscomb:
The truth is, I have always tried to keep free from partisanship in religion and other things, and am glad to recognize and encourage every truth that exists among any people, and, instead of repudiating it, I would make it a starting point to lead on to other and fuller truth. In doing this, there is no compromise of truth; but we follow the example of Jesus and Paul, who seized and encouraged every truth, found among Jew or Gentile, as a ground and starting point whence to lead them to more and fuller light. Paul quoted and approved what of truth heathen poets and philosophers taught, and sought from this truth to lead them up to fuller truth of God.