THE LORD'S
SUPPER
T.P. Simmons
The Lord's Supper is the
second church ordinance. It was instituted by Christ on the eve of His betrayal
and crucifixion. And Christ indicated that it was to be observed until His
return.
1.
IT IS NOT A SACRAMENT
The Roman Catholics make the
Lord's Supper, which they call the Eucharist, one of their seven sacraments.
And in their compendium of theology known as the Catechism,
a sacrament is defined as follows: "A sacrament is a visible sign or
action instituted by Christ to give grace." But there is no ground in the
Scripture for such a view of the Lord's Supper. It contradicts the real nature
of grace, for grace is unmerited favor. If grace is received through an outward
act of obedience it is not wholly unmerited. It contradicts the teaching that
eternal life is a gift (Rom. 6:23), and that we are
justified freely, which means gratuitously, for naught (Rom. 3:24). It also
contradicts the teaching of the Scripture that we are not saved through works
(Eph. 2:8; Titus 3:5).
2.
IT IS A SYMBOLIC ORDINANCE
This denies the following two
things:
(1) That the body and blood of
Christ are actually present in the bread and wine.
"The
Catholic Church has always taught her children that at the moment the priest,
at Mass, pronounces the words of consecration over the bread and wine they are
changed into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ" (The Seven Sacraments,
Vincent Hornyold, S. J.).
In an
effort to substantiate this teaching as to the real presence of Christ in the
bread and wine, Catholics appeal to the words of Jesus in John 6:48-58, and
they make two groundless assumptions. First, they assume, in direct antagonism
to Christ's own words, that He spoke literally when He said: "Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in
yourselves" (John 6-53). In verse sixty-three He
plainly indicated that He had spoken figuratively in the foregoing verses. He
said- "It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the
words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life." Second, they
assume, contrary to the context, that He alluded to our partaking of Him in the
so-called Eucharist. Verse forty-seven shows that we partake of Him through
faith. It is plain to anyone not blinded by prejudice that
verses forty-seven and fifty-three are parallel in meaning.
Catholics then carry their
unwarranted literal interpretation into every other passage that speaks of the
body and blood of Christ in connection with the Lord's Supper.
This literalism issues from the paganistic mysticism imbibed by Roman
Catholicism. The fundamental principle of salvation by works also makes its
contributions to this perversion of scriptural simplicity.
(2) That the celebration of
the supper constitutes a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ.
To the celebration of the
Eucharist the Catholics have applied the name "Mass." And we read:
"Now,
in the Mass a real sacrifice is offered to God, for Our Blessed Lord's
humanity, by being placed under the forms of bread and wine, is reduced to the
equivalently lifeless state of a victim offered to the Eternal Father by the
Priest" (The Seven Sacraments, Hornyold, P. 10).
In reply to
this, Strong says:
"It involves the denial
of the completeness of Christ's past sacrifice and the assumption that a human
priest can repeat or add to the atonement made by Christ once for all (Heb.
9:28--apax prosenekueis). The Lord's Supper is never called a sacrifice,
nor are altars, priests, or consecrations ever spoken of in the New Testament.
The priests of the old dispensation are expressly contrasted with the ministers
of the new. The former 'ministered about sacred things' i. e., performed sacred
rites and waited at the altar; but the latter 'preach the gospel' (1 Cor.
9:13,14)."
II. THE SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LORD'S
SUPPER
1. It is a commemoration of
the Lord's death.
Jesus said:
"This do in remembrance of me" (1 Cor. 11:24). The Lord's Supper,
then, is intended to refresh our minds concerning Christ's vicarious death.
2. It is a proclamation of His
death.
Jesus also
said: "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the
Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26). So the supper is a preaching ordinance, as well as a
commemorative one. This fact is in
favor of observing the ordinance in the presence of the entire congregation
instead of dismissing the congregation and having the church observe it
privately. Since it is a preaching
ordinance, let all witness it who care to.
3. It is a reminder of Christ' second coming.
We notice in the passage just
quoted the words, "Ye proclaim the Lord's death till he
come." Thus every time the ordinance is observed we are reminded that we
are observing it because of the absence of Christ's bodily presence, and that
someday the symbolic will give place to the literal.
4. It symbolizes the fact that we are saved by feeding on Christ.
We have already pointed out
that our feeding on Christ is not literal.
We partake of Him by faith. And
thus we are saved. This is symbolized
in the Lord's Supper.
5. It pictures our need of constantly partaking of Christ for
spiritual sustenance.
The repetition of this
ordinance manifests that faith, by which we partake of Christ, is not merely a
momentary thing, but a continuous thing, by which the soul is constantly
sustained.
6. It
points out the unity of the church.
In 1I Cor. 10:16,17 we read:
"The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not a communion of (or participation in) the
blood of Christ? The bread (or loaf) which we break, is it not a communion of
(or participation in) the body of Christ? seeing that we, who are many, are one
bread (or loaf), one body: for we all partake of the one bread (or loaf)."
These verses bring out the
fact that the unity of the church is manifested by the members
in partaking of one loaf. For that reason, the bread should be brought to the
table in one loaf or piece. Otherwise the type is not so impressive.
III. THE ELEMENTS OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
There are
two, and only two, scriptural elements. They are:
1.
UNLEAVENED BREAD
Strong says: "Although
the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance
was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the
symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the
wafer" (Systematic Theology, p. 539). As to the exact words of this
statement, we agree with Strong. And we go farther and say that the Romanist
use of the wafer (a small flat disc of bread) tends to obscure a part of the
symbolism of the supper. But we take it that Strong's
statement connotes that the symbolism of the supper does not necessitate the
use of unleavened bread. It does and for three reasons, viz.,
(1) Only unleavened bread can
fitly represent the sinless body of Christ.
(2)
Unleavened bread also answers to the sincerity of heart in which we should
partake of the supper.
"Let us keep the feast,
not ... with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread
of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:8).
(3) Unleavened bread,
moreover, emphasizes the need of purging the church. "Purge out the old
leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover
also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not
with old leaven, etc." (1 Cor. 5:7,8). This passage, following Paul's injunction to exclude the incestuous man, shows that he
connected unleavened bread with the purity of the church. For the above
reasons, crackers and lightbread should never be used in the celebration of the
Lord's Supper. It is better not to celebrate it than to celebrate it
improperly.
We offer three reasons why
fermented wine should be used:
(1) Christ used wine in the
institution of the supper.
Upon this point we offer the
following quotations.
"Every Jew in the night
of the Passover must have four cups of red wine" (The Jewish Passover and
the Lord's Supper, by Harry Singer, erstwhile superintendent of
the Hebrew-Christian Mission of Detroit, Mich.). Reference to Prov. 23:31 will
show what kind of wine "red" wine is.
"Every Jew knows that the
Passover Supper must be celebrated by the drinking of real wine and not
unfermented grape juice ... You will find all of this fully corroborated
if you will consult the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is most dependable and
authoritative on all matters Jewish" (From a personal letter to the author
by J. Hoffman Cohn, General Secretary of the American Board of Missions to the
Jews, of Brooklyn, N. Y.).
Leopold
Cohn, editor of "The Chosen People" in reply to the question:
"Was the wine of the Passover fermented or not," said: "Yes,
according to the Jewish ritual no wine can be so called and used in the
ceremonies unless it is intoxicating. Furthermore, the wine used at the
Passover was so strong that it had to be mixed with water."
"A great attempt has been
made to prove the wine drunk at the Lord's Supper was unfermented, by and for
the sake of temperance workers of our day and nation. Such attempts are apt to
do more harm than good among those familiar with eastern customs today, or the
history of those nations. But the Apostle Paul has stated
the case for total abstinence in Rom. 14 in such a way that it does not need
the treacherous aid of doubtful exegesis for is support" (Peloubet's Bible
Dictionary).
Some assume that Christ
abstained from all use of wine. But this is assumed in the face of the fact
that Christ, just before His death, drank "vinegar" (Mark 15:36; Matt. 27:48; John 19:28-30), which, according to Thayer,
Broadus, Hovey, and W. N. Clarke (the latter three being writers in "An
American Commentary on the New Testament) was the sour wine that the soldiers
drank.
(2) The church at Corinth used
fermented wine in the supper and received no correction
from the Apostle Paul.
We know the church at Corinth
used wine because, through the abuse of the supper, some became drunk (1 Cor. 11:21).
A Greek lexicon will show that the Greek word here means exactly what we
commonly understand from the English term "drunken."
other cases of the use of the same Greek word (methuo) will be found in Matt.
24:49; Acts 2:15; 1 Thess. 5:7. Concerning this word, we read in "An
American Commentary on the New Testament".
"The word itself means is
drunk, and nothing softer. The passage is conclusive as to the
wine used by them at the Lord's Supper."
Marcus Dods says:
"Although the wine of
Holy Communion had been so badly abused, Paul does not prohibit
its use in the ordinance. His moderation and wisdom have not in this respect
been universally followed. On infinitely less occasions alterations have been
introduced into the administration of the ordinance with a view to preventing
its abuse by reclaimed drunkards, and on still lighter pretext a more sweeping
alteration was introduced many centuries ago by the Church of Rome."
(3) The symbolism of the
supper demands fermented wine.
Fermented wine alone
corresponds to unleavened bread, and is required for the same reasons that
unleavened bread is required.
In reply to our inquiry,
Frederick J. Haskin, Director of Information Bureau at Washington, D. C., gave
the following significant reply: "The Bureau of Plant Industry of the U.
S. Dept. of Agriculture says that grapes naturally contain a leavening agent
and that this is present in the juice." We then asked what happened to this leaven in the process of fermentation. To this Mr.
Haskin replied: "The leaven is used up in the process of fermentation so
that the finished product or wine does not contain any."
But some one asks what is to
be done about the pledge that some have made never to touch
any intoxicants. We reply that scriptural consistency and a proper
commemoration of the Lord's death should come before a pledge or anything else.
It is better to break a pledge than to fail to properly keep this memorial. God
does not hold one responsible for the keeping of a pledge that hinders him in
properly honoring Christ. Let those who have made the pledges stick to them in
general; but let the pledge not come between them and the
proper commemoration of Christ's death.
IV. CLOSE COMMUNION VINDICATED
Close
communion is a historic Baptist practice. Many pedobaptists have recognized
Baptist consistency in close communion, having recognized that the Scriptures
do not sanction the coming of the unbaptized to the Lord's table. No practice
of Baptists is better grounded in the Word of God than close communion; yet,
perhaps, no other practice is more misunderstood and more opposed. Let it be
understood that Baptists do not deny that members of other
denominations are saved. It is simply that they do not believe they have been
scripturally baptized.
Baptists practice close
communion-
1. Because
Christ instituted close communion.
When Christ instituted the
supper only the eleven apostles were present with Him, Judas having already
gone out. He did not have His mother there. Neither did He have others of His followers
in Jerusalem there. He did not, so far as we have any record,
invite the man in whose house the supper was instituted.
Why? Because the supper was
for none but His church. Hence, since Baptists do not regard others as members of
Christ's church, they do not invite them to the supper.
2. Because
the scriptural order observed on Pentecost and thereafter leads to close
communion.
The order on Pentecost and
thereafter was (1) faith; (2) baptism; (3) church membership; and (4) the
Lord's Supper. See Acts 2:41,42. This is exactly the order insisted
on by Baptists. They do not deny that others may have faith, but they do deny
that they have received valid baptism and that they are members of a church of
Christ.
3. Because the interests of
scriptural church discipline demand the practice of close communion.
In Rom. 16.17 and 1 Tim. 6:3-5
we have implied ground for excisive discipline in the case of persistent
teachers of doctrinal error. The need of unity in the church also makes
excisive discipline necessary in the case just mentioned.
Now suppose a church finds it
necessary to exclude a false teacher. If the church practices open communion,
this false teacher can still commune with the church, notwithstanding the fact
that partaking of the Lord's Supper is one of the most intimate and sacred
privileges of church membership. Allowing such would go a long
way toward nullifying church discipline. It would involve the church in glaring
inconsistency. If one is not fit to be in the church, he is not fit to partake
of the Lord's Supper.
4. Because it is impossible to
observe the Lord's Supper by open communion.
A church may eat unleavened
bread and sip wine with a group in which divisions are present, but Paul
plainly says that, "it is not possible to eat the Lords Supper" under
such circumstances. See 1 Cor. 11: 19, 20 in R. V.
5. Because
the Lord's Supper is a local church ordinance.
The meaning of this statement
is that it is to be observed by the members of one local church. Not all
Baptists recognize this. But it is recognized by most of the stricter Baptists.
And where it is recognized, it becomes the most conclusive proof of close communion.
In proof of this proposition
two proofs are offered:
(1) The one loaf in the supper
symbolizes the unity of the one body.
For a discussion of this, see
division two of this chapter. Now, for others, than the members of the church
observing the supper, to partake is incongruous with this symbolism.
(2) There
are certain classes that a church is commanded not to eat with.
See 1 Cor. 5:11. When a church
invites those outside its membership to partake of the supper, it is boldly
disregarding this injunction; for it cannot know that some of those invited are
not of the classes mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:11.