Many Lord's Suppers
By Liston E. Wallace
[Page 73] |
The Lords Supper is strained and torn in every aspect. There is disagreement as to its importance, what it is, where, when and how to serve it, and who is to participate in it. Jesus was observing the feast of the passover with his disciples when he "took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his disciples." According to Matthew and Mark they were still eating when he did this. But Luke says that it was after supper.
Whether it was during or after the passover supper we do not know. We do find later on, though, the church observing the Lord's Supper along with a feast or meal. Paul admonishes the church at Corinth, not because they were observing the Lord's Supper along with a meal but for the manner in which they were doing it. Many were getting drunk. Some were eating while others were getting nothing to eat. They were not concerned at all with other members who were there.
Somewhere in history most Christians eliminated the meal but still continued with breaking of bread and drinking of the cup. Some, however, take the bread and not the cup. Only their leaders are permitted to drink of the cup. But Mark 14:23 says, "And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it."
Jesus said, "This is my body...this is my blood." This has caused many to believe in transubstantiation, that is, that the emblems actually become the body and blood of Jesus as one partakes of them. Others believe they only represent his body and blood. Those who do not believe there is an actual change in composition should not argue the point too strongly because Jesus did use the words, "This is my body...this is my blood."
Of all the differences pertaining to the Lord's Supper, the most familiar deals with when and how often it should be taken. Observing this memorial once per week, once a month, once a year, are points of serious disagreement. Christ did not tell his disciples how often or upon what day it should be observed. The only mention he made of time was
[Page 74] |
Acts 20:7 says the Christians met on the first day of the week to break bread. It is argued here that it does not say "every first day." Christians like to argue over words. Acts 2:46 says they met daily "breaking bread from house to house." Also, note in this verse: "did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of heart," indicating that the Lord's Supper may have been observed along with a meal.
No set rules are found as to how often Christians should have this supper to remember Christ. The only stipulation Jesus has set down for any of his commandments is, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The breaking of bread is commanded. Whether we do it or not, and how often, may depend a great deal on how much we love him. Some take the Lord's Supper on the first day of every week because they say a precedent was set by the Christians of the first century. That precedent was good, but should not love for Jesus be the real motivation? Whose precedent was followed by the Christians in the first century?
It is said, "Taking the Lord's Supper too frequently causes it to become common and lose its meaning." Does eating three meals per day become common and meaningless? Our spiritual bodies require lots of food as do our physical bodies. Our spiritual bodies require much more food than most of us give them. One's love for Christ is the only real gauge for measuring how much the Lord's Supper means to him.
In explaining what the Lord's Supper means to me I always use this illustration. When my mother was living she always invited my family over for Sunday dinner. I was thrilled to go. It meant a good meal but also meant wonderful fellowship with her and Dad. I did not realize it then, but she must have been thrilled at my acceptance even more than I, because now when we invite our own son to dinner I know how happy it makes us for him to come. I am thrilled to accept the invitation of Christ to his Supper. I have a feeling that he is more thrilled than I.
Modes and methods for observing the memorial are many. Some use one cup, others use individual cups. Indications are that Jesus used only one cup. "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them" (Matthew 26:27). It is now argued, "There were only twelve disciples present then. What would Christ have done had there been several hundred?" There is also the reasoning that use of the same cup for everyone is unsanitary.
Some use wine in the cup, others use grape juice. The Bible is not specific about this. It simply refers to "the fruit of the vine." Some partake of the bread and cup as it is passed to them. Others take the emblems and hold them until all have been served, then all partake together. Others kneel at an altar and partake of the bread that has first been dipped into the cup. Some observe the memorial service during the worship hour. Others wait until the service is over and then partake. Then they sing a hymn and go out. Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn after supper and went out to the Mount of Olives.
Some partake in the morning, others do so at night. There are those who say it cannot be called a supper unless it is served at night. Many churches serve the Lord's Supper in the morning and again at night. It is served at night primarily for those unable to attend the morning service. Why is it that those who partake in the morning refuse to participate at night? Few ever take it twice in one day. There are many reasons, perhaps, but surely it is not because Christ has withdrawn his invitation to the second one.
Some refuse to serve the emblems to, or partake of them with others, for various reasons Not being members of the same particular kind of church is probably the biggest of these reasons. As far
[Page 75] |
Should the Lord's Supper be taken to the sick? How any Christian could refuse a shut-in or one who is sick, if they request it, is inconceivable. Yet it has happened. On the other hand, even without being requested, it has been taken to those who were too sick to fully understand what they were doing. There is no record in the Bible where anyone ever took the Lord's Supper to the sick.
Christ instituted this Supper as a reminder. He wanted his followers to remember that it was his body which was given for their redemption. Jesus left no picture or statue of himself. He left no monuments or structures by which to be remembered. He left the simple memorial of the bread and fruit of the vine as a reminder that he gave his life for the sins of many. A Christian shows the world that he believes this by his participation. "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26). Partaking of the bread and cup is a communion of a Christian with his Lord.
It is strange indeed how Christians can generate so many different ideas about such a simple memorial. It is stranger still how they can become so disagreeable over these differences. To disagree is human. To be disagreeable is devilish. It is when members become like devils that the body of Christ is not being discerned. To them, in such a state, the eating and drinking becomes a damnation instead of a blessing.
There may never be complete agreement on the Lord's Supper until Christ comes again, but there would be closer communion with him if we would all strive, in an attitude of love, to be more tolerant with one another in our differences, thereby creating an atmosphere in which some of these differences might be dissolved into more harmonious agreement.
-------------------
Brother Liston E. Wallace, 4234 Adams Avenue. Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70802, will welcome your comments on his article or your enquiries concerning the implications of what he has written.