The Berean Inquirer

Brothers and sisters, I would posit that, while Kevin Sherfey's assertions are indeed based solely on the Scriptures, his reasoning is mistaken. Sure, his arguments sound incredibly tender, liberating, and fundamental; nevertheless, they bear cross-examination. Not every doctrine based in the Scriptures is God’s truth. It is a well-attested fact that you can prove almost anything you want to with the Bible.

For example, in Mark 7:8-13, Jesus dealt with some teachers of the Scriptures who taught that, because of what the Word of God said about a man dedicating all his excess to God ("Corban"), such a man need not honor his mother and father, thus negating the commandment of Moses to do precisely this. It was a logical teaching based in the Scriptures; but in so teaching, according to Jesus, the men who were teaching this were "laying aside the commandment of God" and holding "the tradition of men" (v. 8).

Kevin Sherfey is a Good Man & Means Well

While I still have great respect for our brother in other areas of his teaching, nevertheless I am afraid that precisely the same kind of thing as Jesus accuses the Pharisees in Mark 12:8-13 is at work here. It can be amply shown that Jesus instituted a real, hunger-satisfying supper; yet, in our brother's essay, it appears that he would subvert the word of God concerning the Lord's Supper for the sake of the tradition of men. And, apart from this kind of arguument, his essay, "An Open Letter," says nothing to show that the Lord's Supper is not a real supper.

Have I missed Kevin Sherfey's Real Meaning?
Have I Misunderstood "An Open Letter to the Brethren That Meet in Their Homes"?

It should be observed that, in the only place in the New Testament where we are told the reason the saints assembled together (Acts 20:7ff.), it is said that it was in order to break bread. And a thorough study of what happens when men break bread in the New Testament clearly indicates that this means that they met to eat a meal. That the meal was the Lord's Supper is not denied; but that it was less than a full, hunger-satisfying meal must be affirmed with equal force. Further, First Corinthians 11:20 implies that when the assembly comes together in one place it should be to eat the Lord's Supper.

Nearly all teachers of the word, certainly of those who have majored on the book of the Acts, believe Acts 20:7ff is a referrence to the Lord's Supper. Yet, if the New Testament consistently indicates that the act of breaking bread meant a real meal, then we must conclude that the saints in this passage had, as the focus of their assembly meeting, the eating of food in which the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant were prominent features. Thus, if the Lord's Supper really is a meal, then, in a very real sense, the assembly's focus when it meets should be a meal.

However, I should be especially clear about one thing. Churches that meet to share a mere morsel of Bread and a teensy sip of the Cup are just as guilty of focusing on food in their meetings as they accuse those who believe that a full meal is what the Lord would have us share in the assembly. That the traditionalistic Lord's Supper focuses on a smaller amount of food and drink, and that its recipients are not physically satisfied by that food, does not mitigate the fact that it is food and drink for which the saints have gathered to partake. Although the intention of the assembly in gathering should normally be to share a meal together -- that is, the Lord's Supper -- ultimately the meal really is not to be the focus. Rather, the focus is to be what the meal represents.

Yet, at the same time, the symbols are ineffectual if, in some sense, we do not look intently at them. Thus, it is patently absurd to imagine that churches that share only tidbits of Bread and a thimble's worth of the Cup are, somehow, more attuned to the meaning and less focused on the symbolism -- unless, of course, the symbolism has ceased to function and has become merely a habit of protocol. So, it appears that there is to be a duel focus in the assemblies: 1. The more important spiritual focus on meaning; 2. The not unimportant physical focus on symbolism.

Examining "An Open Letter to the Brethren That Meet in Homes"

Food will not commend us to God:
Neither, if we eat not are we the worse:
Nor, if we eat are we the better. 1 Cor. 8:8

God, in the Law, used food, to instruct Israel in spiritual principles. Israel, however, has been slow in understanding and to a large extent, in their zeal to please God, has occupied themselves with the outward things, missing out on what God's heart desires for them.

This is quite correct. Indeed, one of the other outward things with which the Jews preoccupy themselves are various washings. Oddly, in the assembly of the Lord, we have a washing that Christ Himself instituted; a washing, known as baptism. It is rather interesting to me, however, that some of the most revered saints in the history of the Christian assembly, men renowned for their godliness and great service to the kingdom of God, have been peculiarly zealous that the saints properly administer the outward act of baptism; men like John Gill, C.H. Spurgeon, and John Nelson Darby. What shall we say of these men? Are they really just great hypocrites, seeing as they were so devoted to the proper administration of an outward ordinance? And what of us? Shall we neglect the proper mode of baptism, merely because it pays close attention to the details of an external command, a “mere” sign of a spiritual reality?

Therefore, the greater their zeal, the greater the burden of outward things becomes; which burden, bye the way, is inherent in the Law, but, the weight is made even greater when the spiritual significance of the Law is missed.

It is difficult to know with certainty what this statement is intended to convey. One gets the impression that what is being asserted, here, is that an apparent zeal for an outward act must, by the nature of it, belie an inward declension. However, I would think that it is equally inherent in love and appreciation to the One who has bought us with His blood to become zealous and burdened for His commandments, regardless of whether they deal with inward things or with external things.

The law of Moses prescribed what can be eaten and what can not be eaten, when to eat and when not to eat, who to eat with and who not to eat with.

The traditional Lord’s Supper does the same. It says that only bread and fruit of the vine are to be consumed. Depending on the assembly, it may even specify that only unleavened bread -- and/or that only fermented fruit of the vine -- may be consumed. It specifies when it is to be eaten (usually the first Sunday of every month, sometimes quarterly, sometimes weekly, and almost always only in the meetings of the assembly). And it specifies with whom the saints may eat it, insisting that only believers may participate; and, in some cases, that only believers in good standing with the church may participate.

Their Holy Celebrations shared the same strictness, with food, playing a prominent part. Everything, in fact, in the community of God's people has to be just right in regards to the outward life of man, according to the written law. Touch not, taste not, was and is still, the life of the Jew; and this life, the apostle Peter declares, is unbearable and should not be put upon the disciples of Christ! (Acts 15:10 ).

And yet, the joy of the Jewish feasts is so lacking in the traditional Lord’s “Supper.” When one sits at a traditional Lord’s “Supper,” one is met with a quiet, somber atmosphere, people pausing before placing the bread or the cup to their lips, as though contemplating, “Now can I really do this without being blasted into eternal hell for some sin I’ve forgotten to confess?” or, “Is there some person, living or dead, whom I have not forgiven, that might cause God to strike me with sickness unto death?”

Today, however, many holding the name of disciples have put this yoke upon themselves. They follow the law: they will only eat the "clean" foods of the Old Covenant and they will celebrate the Feasts of the Law of Moses as worship to God. Most of us have known people like this and most of us realize they have taken a step backwards into the natural, in contrast to the spiritual. One can not help but heave a sigh, knowing what useless burdens they place upon themselves. These burdens, however, are not the worst consequences of such teachings, but, it is the distance they place between the Lord and themselves which is so despairing; for the Lord will have no fellowship with those who would place themselves under any yoke of legalistic bondage, ( Gal. 5:1-4 ). The natural outcome for our brothers will, of course, be a gulf, growing ever greater in distancing them from experientially knowing our Lord.

This is so true. Does this mean, however, that Christ-honoring Baptists, for example, should not place themselves under the “yoke” of immersion, in order that they might not forsake the fellowship of Methodists, Presbyterians, and any other sincere and Christ-honoring saints who “baptize” by sprinkling rather than immersion? Surely not. And this issue rightly creates a tension, a wall if you will, between Baptists and Presbyterians, even though the love between the two may be very sincere. Likewise, if the New Testament indicates that the thing Christ instituted on night of His betrayal was a supper, should not saints who see this insist upon it and refrain from that unscriptural “communion” which is manifestly not a supper? Surely they should. And, obviously, this issue, too, will rightly create a tension with those who teach and practice the Lord's Supper according to the traditions of the elders of the Catholic and Protestant churches.

The message should be clear: let not food become a central theme in your life as disciples, in regards to your worship of God.

This harkens back to the verse with which our brother prefaced his letter. Please look at this verse in its context. It is dealing with food that is offered to idols and the notion that somehow one is commended to God either by his liberty to eat such or by his faithfulness to his scruples against eating such. It manifestly is not dealing with obedience to the command of Christ and His holy apostles regarding the Lord’s Supper!

For He has said, to paraphrase, what goes in, goes out, but, it is the matter of the heart that counts. So, to be preoccupied with it, in any of the many ways prevalent today, is to regress into a legalistic mode of worship.

I'm at a loss to explain, here, how a brother, who ostensibly thinks it is important to follow the Scriptures, would actually suggest that because someone is zealous for the saints to obey their Lord in regard to the Lord’s Supper he is somehow preoccupied with food. It's puzzling, also, that zeal for the Lord’s commandment respecting the Lord’s Supper would be viewed as legalistic. Most Bible-believing saints I have been associated with, over the years, generally reserve the terms legalism and legalistic for scruples that either are clearly not found in the Scriptures, and/or are obsolete Old Covenant scruples.

If legalism is to be defined merely as a preoccupation with strict adherence to commandments, then it would appear that Paul himself was legalistic. That is, if we are not going to use the term as is normally customary among Bible-believing saints, then Paul was a legalist; for Paul was very insistent upon numerous things, including some that were obviously external (e.g., women’s head coverings). In point of fact, however, nowhere does the New Testament ever condemn “a legalistic mode of worship”; indeed, the terms legalistic and legalism are not to be found anywhere in the New Testament.

I have already mentioned one of the pitfalls, but, there are others and one in particular I would like to address, which is, maybe, more close to home, to those of us who meet in homes, and is just as likely to rob us of our freedom. For, we have been set free in Christ and we have all liberty before Him regarding eating and drinking. You see, it just is not that important to the Lord, this issue of food and when and how we as believers eat together.

Really? Does this mean we are free to use unleavened Bread when we sit down to the Lord’s Supper? Does this mean we are at liberty to use Pepsi in the Cup, instead of wine? I want to know, are we really as free as our brother seems to imply, here? Or is the matter of the Bread and the Cup somehow different? Do not the churches preoccupy themselves, especially, with eating and drinking these two things?

The matter, to which I refer, is the teaching which places a common meal as the focal point of our gathering as believers.

Let us agree on two things from the outset: First, let us agree that a supper is a meal. Second, let us agree that the term “common” as used of the meal spoken of, here, means that this meal is “shared” not that it is “ordinary”!

Also, observe that in Acts 20:7ff., the reason the disciples gathered together was to share a common meal! Those who insist on the traditions handed down by the elders of the Catholic and Protestant denominations would argue that the expression “break bread,” in verse 7 of this passage, refers only to the Bread and the Cup; but what is the proof of this? Indeed, I see no cup mentioned in the passage at all! Nevertheless, everyone agrees that to break bread implies eating and drinking regardless of the quantity of food and drink involved.

So, clearly, here is an assembly of saints who gathered with eating and drinking “as the focal point of their gathering as believers.” You might say they were preoccupied with this eating and drinking, even. Since even those who receive the traditions of the elders of the Catholic and Protestant churches call the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant “the Lord’s Supper,” it is apparent that the focus of this meeting -- regardless of the manner in which they might have eaten -- was indeed a common (i.e., shared) meal (viz., supper).

Further, in First Corinthians 11:17ff. Paul indicates his belief that the focus of the saints gathering together should be to have a common meal; namely the Lord’s Supper (v. 20)! It is pure silliness to suggest that Paul defines the Lord's Supper as merely the Bread and the Cup; nowhere in the passage is there anything that would lead one to conclude that the apostle's four mentions of the Bread and the Cup somehow define what he means by the expression the Lord's Supper. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from these four mentions, apart from an overt and obvious "this is this" correlation, is that the Bread and the Cup are the prominent features of what he terms the "Lord's Supper."

This I believe is in conflict with some major principles of the Way of The Lord. For, the Lord has brought us out of a natural religious relationship with Him into a spiritual relationship.

This sounds like an excellent Quaker argument for doing away, altogether, with the Lord’s Supper and simply recognizing the spiritual meaning behind it. One could equally employ this argument against continuance of the physical act of baptism, even as the Quakers do! George Fox could not have argued with any greater clarity.

To turn back to a natural form of worship is to lose out on the reality of the Spirit.

So now it appears that adherence to the instruction of the Lord is turning back to a natural form of worship, and to lose out on the reality of the Spirit. Or does our brother’s argument, here, presuppose the correctness of his own view of the Lord’s Supper as handed down to him by the elders of the Catholic and Protestant churches (even if by way of the elders of the Plymouth Brethren and other teachers from whom he has learned)? If so, he certainly has not proven his view.

The Lord makes His heart known in this regards, when talking to the woman at the well, for He says to her, "The hour cometh and now is when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be His worshipers" ( John 4:23 ).

Again, does this mean that those who worship in spirit and truth should not pay attention to that which the Lord commands regarding the Lord’s Supper? Or, again, does it merely mean that our brother presupposes that his own view of the Lord’s Supper is correct, and that those who view the Lord’s Supper as a supper, and not a snacklette, are mistaken?

The Lord is indicating, to the lady, the tremendous change that was to come with the baptism of the Spirit. But, the story continues and adds yet more contras between the two religious realms. While the Lord spoke with the woman, His disciples were gone to get food and when they returned and desired for Him to eat, He replied, " I have meat to eat that ye know not.", the disciples therefore, said one to another, "Hath any man brought Him aught to eat?". The Lord answered them saying, "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to accomplish His work."

Is it not food for His disciples to do the will of Him who saved them? If it was His will for the saints to eat the Lord’s Supper, not the Lord’s Snacklette, then should not the saints do precisely this?

The Lord was confusing the disciples, as we know He did so many times during His earthly ministry, as he did the time He warned them of the leaven of the Pharisees, of which they took literally as well, but in both these incidents our Lord was speaking spiritually.

And yet, would our brother argue that Paul is speaking spiritually when he refers to eating the Feast with unleavened bread, in First Corinthians 5:8? Or would he insist that, based on this verse, the saints should eat the Lord’s Supper with unleavened bread? I have heard him argue for unleavened bread on this passage alone.

The bread and the leaven He spoke of were both spiritual. Brothers, we are to be occupied with the need for spiritual food, for, the food of the church is spiritual.

But does this mean that we should not be fastidious about eating the Lord’s Supper according to the Scriptures?

We are, as the disciples were, drawn by the Lord away from the shadows of the true, to the true itself- the reality.

Again, a marvelous Quaker argument. Shall we then discard the Lord’s Supper entirely, since we are obviously so clearly illumined as to its meaning as to no longer need this external ordinance?

To return to an Old Covenant type of feast as the mode of worship in our assemblies is to regress to the preoccupation of outward things, the darkness of the shadows and the burden of legalism.

Ah, but where does our brother get the idea that the church is to meet in order to worship in the first place? Is this not another idea handed down by the elders of the Catholic and Protestant churches? It certainly is not to be found in the pages of the New Testament.

Further, does our brother not know that the Passover Feast was ordained as a perpetual ordinance before the Old Covenant was established? Read about it for yourself in Exodus chapter twelve. While I would agree that the stipulations of the Passover as originally ordained have ceased to apply, it would seem that the Lord’s Supper is the mode of celebrating the Passover in the New Covenant age. Hence Paul can allude to the Lord’s Supper as the Feast that signifies Christ who is our Passover (1st Cor. 5:7-8).

I have already heard of the cries of the sisters in meetings of this nature. They have begun to dread the meetings, instead of looking joyfully towards them. The practical side of things can become very heavy, to where it can take from the spiritual edification of those burdened.

Tis a sad thing when the commandments of the Christ are viewed as burdensome by any believer. I have heard many sisters bemoan the same thing of that onerous stipulation that they wear a head covering in the assembly. Quite a few are offended that they should have long hair. Many others decry the loathsome command that they keep silent in the churches, and are not permitted to teach men. Are we, then, to be led by the passions of women?

Nevertheless, if it is a matter of preparing food rather than sitting down to hear the teaching in the assembly, our Lord was very understanding and even solicitous of this very attitude in women. And, if this be the case, let those women who are so concerned with hearing the teaching of the Word neglect the food and listen intently to the teaching. However, I would suggest that it is rarely the case where the issue is an either/or situation.

I personally know a number of women who would feel it a great joy and a privilege to regularly participate in the meetings in just the fashion in which this brother has described. Some have said that without a gift to prophecy or speak in an unknown tongue, they just don’t feel that they have very much to contribute to the assembly meetings, noting that if we were to eat together each week, they could at least bring an offering of food to the saints.

Not that any of the sisters would want to do away with eating all together, for, I believe, they find it a joy when not a demand and not so frequent as every meeting.

A few things should be said, here. First, although I do not like the idea for myself, men can participate in preparation of food for the meetings, too, as well as in the clean-up afterward. Second, in too many Christian homes parents act as though they have no say over their own children, who can and should help out with such preparations. Third, what do these poor women do when it comes to the demands of their own families? Do they simply check into a motel when family duties come too frequently?

What is this brother saying, here? Again, is the assembly of the Lord to function according to what the saints feel like doing? Personally, I don’t always feel like preparing to speak in the assembly, and sometimes I just don't feel like singing in the assembly, even; yet, when it became apparent that I and/or others felt this way, it was Kevin Sherfey who taught a most excellent lesson demonstrating that this is not a luxury that God has granted to us.

Paul, the apostle, puts things in the right perspective when he says, " Meats for the belly and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to naught both it and them.", emphasizing the fact that we have freedom in this mater of food and it is of little importance in our lives as saints.

Here, again, our brother quotes a verse of Scripture in a foreign context; read First Corinthians chapter six. The verse just quoted comes between verses 12 and 14; in this context, then, can we really say that the apostle Paul has given any perspective to our understanding of the Lord’s Supper?

We can eat what we please and when we please. No one is to tell us otherwise.

Really? Is it okay to eat blood sausages, then? I'm pretty sure the eating of blood was proscribed prior to the Old Covenant. Would it be legalistic, too much of a preoccupation with food, if we suggest that believers shouldn't eat blood (Acts 15:29). This seems like an incredibly thoughtless assertion.

With regard to the Lord’s Supper, it seems that Paul indeed puts the matter in perspective, when he says, “Therefore, when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you” (1st Cor. 11:20-22). Here were brethren eating “when” they pleased (viz., “before others”), and here also is the apostle Paul telling them “otherwise” (“I do not praise you”). Again, some would argue (I believe our brother, here, is among them) that First Corinthians 5:8 is where the apostle says "otherwise" to the assemblies who eat the Lord’s Supper with leavened bread.

We may, or we may not, have a meal together as saints, it is at our own discretion, it just should not be that much of an issue, it has nothing to do with our worship, other than, our enjoying the company of one another.

Aside from the fact that our brother assumes what is not taught in the New Testament, that the purpose of the assemblies is worship, Paul seems to very clearly disagree with him. When Paul says, “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” he implies that when we come together in one place it should be to eat the Lord’s Supper. At the same time, when he criticizes the Corinthians that it is not the Lord’s Supper they are eating, he implies that he sees no other reason that the assembly should be eating together.

Indeed, one must wonder, why a thoughtful believer would ever wish to meet with the assembly to eat if it is not the Lord’s Supper that he is going to eat? Those who have received their tradition of the Lord’s Supper from the elders of the Catholic and Protestant churches think they have an answer to this question; they would doubtless say to have a full meal. But the question remains, “What makes a mere meal with the church an event to be anticipated or desired?” Where is there even one clear case of an assembly eating anywhere in the New Testament?

Actually, this matter of worship is really quite important, here. Our brother seems to attach some special meaning to “worship.” Apparently, in his view, eating a small social meal, such as a potluck, “has nothing to do with our worship”; but the Lord’s Supper is apparently entirely a matter “to do with our worship.” But where is this notion taught in the New Testament? Unless one concludes that the Lord’s Supper is in fact the Passover Feast altered by Christ to fit the New Covenant context, there really is no basis to see it as somehow “worship” in a way that the assembly’s eating a picnic or potluck is not.

Jesus’ teaching on worship, which our brother has referred to, is that worship is in spirit and truth. Truth, in this instance, means according to reality. If, then, the assembly cannot eat a potluck or a picnic in spirit and truth, then perhaps it should not eat it at all.

We need to come to the point where we understand that worship is not some humanly (often nebulous) conceived idea of Sunday protocols; it is that act of service and reverence to God which is to be performed in every instant of our lives. In whatever we do, we are to do all to the glory of God. If, then, a small meal in the assembly has nothing to do with worship, then the assembly should not eat that meal. And, in fact, from what Paul seems to indicate in First Corinthians 11:20, if it isn’t the Lord’s Supper the church is eating, then it isn’t to be eaten in the church!

The reason why so many churches have had to resort to other meals in the assembly, is because meals satisfy some very basic functions which, before the Bread and the Cup came to be a separate activity from the holy meal, the Lord’s Supper once satisfied. Now, surely, if these other functions are purely carnal or fleshly functions, and therefore the reason the churches should not commingle the Lord’s Supper with a real meal, then it would seem to be an equally strong argument for not having meals in the church at all. Surely the churches do not want to promote carnality and fleshliness in their gatherings; do they?

Forbid that we should make the environment of a common meal essential to our gathering in His Name. To do so, is to make what is of little importance the central theme.

This is a touching argument, even if mistaken. At the Passover Feast, the lamb was the central theme. Yet, who would argue that it was made of little importance because it was part of what was a much larger “common” meal? Would anyone say, God forbid that a common (i.e. shared) feast be made essential to the nation of Israel, lest the Paschal lamb be made of little importance? Not when God Himself commanded the Feast? Christ Himself instituted a supper, not a snacklette. God forbid that we should disparage what Christ instituted, what the New Testament saints quite evidently kept, and what the apostle Paul reaffirmed: The Lord’s Supper as a supper.

But, even, if we think this mode of worship accentuates the fact of our co-fellowship in Christ and that it is pleasant (at least for a while, for when it becomes THE CORRECT WAY , it will eventually become a burden), it is still missing the mark.

When not viewed correctly, any of the commandments of our Lord and His apostles may become burdensome. Many today shun the idea of becoming involved in house churches because it is apparent from the outset that such will eventually become a burden. Indeed, for many of us who are in house churches, we would readily agree that it is a burden. However, depending on one’s attitude toward the Lord and His commandments, our burdens can feel either heavy or light; we can rejoice in the task, or we can grumble under it. This includes the Lord’s will in instituting the Lord’s Supper.

The church, needs no emblematic feast to portray our interrelatedness in Christ. For we have the reality in the Spirit.

This is a nice argument. It seems to me, if our brother is correct, that the Quakers have made the right conclusion, then. But our brother has not shown that the church does not need the Feast of which we have been speaking. Further, it appears that our brother does not seem to understand the full significance of the meal. It is not merely a sign of the body and blood of Christ; though it is that primarily. It is also a reminder to Him that He is not eating with us, that He has yet to complete what He has begun, that He has yet to return to receive His inheritance, take His bride, and take His seat as the King of Kings. It is to remind Him that He that there is a future Passover which He will some day eat (Luke 22:15-16). I don't know about you, but seeing someone eat a morsel of bread and take a sip from a cup wouldn't exactly motivate me (and it certainly would not be much of a reminder, either) to go to a banquet -- even if I were ravenous.

When the Person of our Lord is the central theme, that is, when He is in actuality The Center, all things in our relationships with one another, whether during a meal or not, will portray the reality of Jesus Christ in our midst and that He is our Lord.

Again, this is a nice argument for the Quaker view of the Lord’s Supper. The fact is, when the Person of our Lord is the central theme, we will honor Him by doing as He has commanded. He commanded that we eat the Bread “while they were eating,” unlike the Cup which He commanded to be drank “after the supper.” What makes us think that these two things, separated by a considerable amount of time, should be glued together, back to back, without a meal?

We know that the act of breaking bread indicated a full meal, and that the Lord’s Supper is called the breaking of bread; and we know this because the Lord provided a number of passages in the New Testament with various descriptions of bread being broken to make it clear to us. Why then would we wish to depart from the Scriptures’ own definition of breaking bread? We know that in the only passage where anyone claims that Paul was making a distinction between eating a meal and eating that which the Lord instituted on the night of His betrayal, the apostle calls it by the term “supper”; not exactly the smartest thing if you’re trying to persuade people it isn't supposed to be a supper in the first place!

Clearly, then, to ignore these things is to ignore the one we are claiming to venerate as our “central theme.” It simply is not possible to “portray the reality of Jesus Christ in our midst and that He is our Lord” if we are unwilling to obey the obvious statements of Scripture and forsake a natural interpretation of the plainest language for an obscure if not obtuse interpretation, simply because it fits our personal theories and/or agenda.

We as a local assembly and our fellowship with one another, is not to up stage the Lord in any way, make sure of that!

How on earth does obeying the New Testament with respect to the Lord’s Supper upstage the Lord? The way Israel upstaged Him with its Passover Feast? Does this mean, then, that when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a mere snacklette we are letting Jesus take center stage, that we are giving Him the limelight, but that when we enjoy a potluck or a picnic together, even without the Bread and the Cup, that we are then upstaging Him with the sheer quantity of our food -- or because such occasions are manifestly more joyful than our traditional Lord’s Suppers?

The Lord is to receive all the glory in the church; the church none. The community of the saints, when it becomes the central theme, become an idol.

As far as I am aware, all who teach that the Lord’s Supper is a real supper would agree that the point of eating the Lord’s Supper in this manner is in order to be in conformity to the will of Christ and to be in alignment with what was the practice of the New Testament churches. I know of no real supper teacher who would suggest that the point of a real supper Lord’s Supper is to glorify the church. Just as there is a proper way to baptize, which glorifies Christ, so there is a proper way to celebrate the Lord's Supper that glorifies Him.

There are no feasts, ceremonies or any other symbolic practices among believers which primarily represents the church.

Again, as far as I am aware, no one who teaches the Lord’s Supper as a real supper teaches that it primarily represents the church. I certainly do not teach this. Indeed, I am not certain that I would even go so far as to say that the Lord’s Supper represents the church in a secondary or tertiary way, even. In fact, I have no idea how the Lord’s Supper as a real supper could be construed at all to represent the church -- even by the most obtuse Bible teacher.

In the age to come she will share in her Lord's glory, but, now she is to be occupied with her First Love, the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, it is the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ which is central; the community, the church, is the outcome of that realization in the hearts of the saints.

If the Lord instituted a supper (which, presumably is why it is called the Lord’s Supper), then is it possible to glorify Him by turning it into something that could hardly even be deemed a mini-snack? A morsel of bread? That’s what Jesus gave to Judas; not what he gave to the churches. If we are truly occupied with our First Love, we will want to obey the clear teaching of the New Testament on the Lord’s Supper; which is that it is a full meal.

That the Lord's Supper as a real supper has not been clear to so many for so long is not due to any fault of the Scriptures. Rather, it is that it is very difficult for us to really see where tradition has blinded our eyes. And brethren, as we examine what the New Testament actually says, without reading into it what is manifestly not stated, it is very clear that the Lord's Supper was instituted as a real supper, and that it was practiced as a real supper by the New Testament churches/

If women are occupied with their First Love, then, when the Lord’s Supper as a real supper is recognized as THE CORRECT WAY, they will not feel burdened with it; or the burden will seem light. But, again, men may participate in this aspect of our assembly meetings, too. And perhaps we should. And please, let us not neglect to bring our children into this aspect, also; let us not pamper our kids with so much "freedom" (idleness, really) to satisfy their own fleshly desires, and comforts to their laziness that they are unable to serve the Lord by so much as putting a dish in the dishwasher!

Once we turn our eyes upon ourselves, as to form, in anyway, a revelation of purpose or an identity not dependent on the Lord's preeminence in our relationships with one another, we have completely turned out of the Way of The Lord. Make what is important to God paramount and what is of little importance treat as little.

I think I am beginning to understand. The Lord’s Supper is actually of very little importance, and, therefore, we are not to concern ourselves with what the Scriptures teach concerning it. Odd, is it not, that Paul spent so much time in First Corinthians talking about it (5:7-8; 10:16-17, 21; 11:20-34)? Odd, too, is it not, that three of the gospel writers found it necessary to tell of our Lord’s institution of the Supper?

But, is it not those who are concerned about the practical matters, such as how the women feel about a real supper Lord’s Supper, who have turned their eyes upon themselves? Indeed, I would imagine that the most influential reason that any home assembly would not practice the Lord’s Supper as a real supper is because wives tell their husbands “There’s no way I’m going along with that. That’s just too much trouble.”

There is no commandment to the church, to share a social meal! Not from Our Lord or His apostles. We have liberty to, but, we do not have to.

I categorically deny this. When Jesus instituted the Bread, it was "while they were eating" the supper. When He instituted the Cup, it was "after the supper." What could possibly lead us to believe that the disciples would take one thing Jesus commanded, and then another thing he had commanded at a considerably later time, and bind them together without that which went between?

Further, when Paul tells us, in a didactic and credal form, that which he had been taught by the Lord Himself, he includes Jesus' words about the supper after the Bread and before the Cup (1st Cor. 11:25). Nor is this the extent of the evidence for a real supper Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, if we agree that a supper is a meal, then the Lord’ Supper is indeed a meal. Since it is held in common among the saints, it is indeed a social meal!

On the other hand, if there is no commandment to the church to share a social meal, then how is it that the church can come to a decision to do what is nowhere commanded? Do not churches do this every time they decide to have a potluck or a picnic? If the church decides to have a social dinner apart from the command of Scripture, could it not decide, also, that it will have a Sunday school, a Christmas pagent, a Fourth of July celebration, or any number of things the Scriptures do not command and to which many godly saints would object? Could not a church come to an agreement that they will buy a building, have a special identifying name, create a covenant among themselves, and participate with other churches to hold conferences all across the country (and to be in an association together)? Could not a church agree together to incorporate with a private contract that does not recognize the state's authority over the assembly as an entity? (Apparently this has been done.) Could a church not agree together to have one man as their pastor, to make all future decisions for them? Could not a church agree together that its creeds, counsels, traditions, and decisions were as binding as Scripture itself?

The command we have received is to take a single loaf and a single cup and in a spiritual act, share them with the whole assembly, understanding they present to us the Body and the Blood of our Lord- No common meal, but, "The Cup of Blessing which we bless" and "The Loaf which we break", in which we have communion with Christ.

I trust that when our brother says the Bread and the Cup "present to us the Body and the Blood of our Lord," that he means they present to us a symbol of the Body and Blood of our Lord; for they manifestly do not present to us the actual Body and Blood of our Lord. Scientific investigation of the Bread and the Cup would, obviously, bear out that they are Bread and Wine, and that no human flesh or blood is anywhere present in them (and it was Jesus human albeit sinless flesh and blood that were sacrificed for us). Indeed, physical observation undoubtedly informed the apostles, themselves, that when Jesus said "This is My body," it was not really His body that His body held in hand.

In any event, the command to take a single Loaf was given at a different time than the command to take a single Cup; the former was “while they were eating,” the latter “after the supper.” This is something that Paul reiterates in that chapter where he supposedly disassociates the Bread and the Cup from a real supper. Paul could have easily omitted any mention of the Supper in his credal statement of how the Lord's Supper is to be eaten; it makes no sense to have included it unless a real supper is crucial to how the assemblies are to eat the Lord’s Supper. Thus, the command is not simply to take a single loaf and a single cup; but, rather, to take a single loaf, and, after the supper to take a single cup.

It is odd, is it not, how our brother can call this mere morsel of bread and minute sip of wine the “Lord’s Supper”? Yet, how is it that he cannot seem to call it a meal? Is that because it really isn’t a meal? Well guess what? It really isn’t a supper, either! Further, does our brother not know that the Cup of Blessing is a term that comes directly from the Passover Feast? It is term used for the “third” cup of the Passover Supper. Still yet, does our brother not realize that if we share this Loaf and Cup, that they become common to us (not in the sense of being ordinary, but in the sense of being something we all have in common together)? Does our brother deny that in every instance in the New Testament in which context clearly tells us something about "breaking bread," it always tells us that a meal is intended? If so, would he be so kind as to show us where there is a clear context that indicates otherwise?

The Lord's Supper, some say, must be a full meal, for the word in the Greek means the main meal. My dear brothers, we all know so much, but, what we need know is the scriptures and what they plainly say, before going off to the Greek scholars.

Are not the New Testament Scriptures that we have in our English Bibles translated from ancient Greek manuscripts, copies of Greek originals? Is it not a facile argument, then, to suggest that we need to know our Bibles before going off to Greek scholars? Do we not, in a sense, go off to Greek Scholars every time we read our English translations of the Bible?

But the fact remains, it is not necessary for English readers to go off to Greek scholars to know what this word means. In every reputable translation of the New Testament in the English language it is called the Lords Supper! We know what this word supper means in English, and it is only under extraordinary circumstances that it can be construed to mean something that cannot even be considered a snack! And the Lord’s Supper does not fall under such a category as would allow us to call it a supper while it is yet manifestly not a supper.

We are to first search the scriptures for an internal definition for the meaning of "supper" when coupled with "The Lord's". When we do, we find it is clear: First Corinthians chapter 11 verse 20 speaks of the believers coming together to "eat the Lord's Supper" which is then, in the remainder of the chapter, defined as "The Loaf and The Cup" at least four times!

This seems like a deliberate denial of the truth. It seems like a categorical misrepresentation of Paul. In any event, it is naive. Regardless, and however sincere our brother is in asserting this, it is very much mistaken. Paul never so defines the Lord’s Supper as just the Bread and the Cup. Our brother is reading into the passage that which he simply desires to find there. He fails to understand that Paul speaks of the Bread and the Cup because these are the central aspects of the meal; these are the things that give special significance to the meal. The fact that Paul four times speaks of the Bread and the Cup in the context of his discussion of the Lord’s Supper no more defines the Lord’s Supper as the Bread and the Cup than if I were speaking of a wedding banquet and mentioning cake four times would thus define the banquet as a cake. And yet, although a wedding banquet has many items of food, it is the cake and the wine that are central; it is these that have special, symbolic meaning, not the rest of the foods that comprise the banquet.

Please, dear brethren, read First Corinthians 11:20-34 for yourselves, and see if you come away with the impression that Paul is defining the term “supper,” when combined with the word “Lord’s,” as merely bread and wine. Please, also, read my exegesis of this passage and see which interpretation makes better sense of it -- see for yourselves which interpretation seems to display a greater sense of integrity to the passage.

A single loaf and a single cup, therefore, makes up the Lord's Supper! Never as more than one loaf and one cup is the Supper described anywhere in the scriptures. The beautiful spiritual significance, the word supper seems to have in regards to this memorial observance, is that, in Christ and Him alone is supplied all we need. It is God's full meal for us, not satisfying to the fleshly, natural appetites, but, fully satisfying to God and man spiritually.

Ah! So this, then, is Paul’s answer to those who had nothing and were being dishonored by those who were eating all the food and getting drunk! It all becomes clear to me, now. When Paul says, “Have you not homes in which to eat and drink?” he is actually talking to the poor of the assembly who, no doubt, kept a fine supply of food and wine in those cardboard boxes they crawled into to keep warm at night. Please forgive the sarcasm, here; but our brother’s unwarranted assertion, here, seems to demand it.

And what are we to make of Christ, lusting to eat the Passover Supper one last time in Luke 22:15? And, yes, according to the Greek, He did lust to eat it (it’s the same word Jesus uses of those who look to “lust” after a woman -- and you don’t have to be a Greek scholar to determine that what I am saying is true, here). Of course, we must never think that Jesus lusting to eat this Passover had anything to do with satisfying mere physical appetites; whereas, with those of us who teach that the Lord’s Supper is a real supper, we must always ascribe the most carnal motives, even while we affirm their sincerity and goodness of heart.

Please note our brother's use of the word "seems," here. Whenever a man uses the word "seems," it is because it seems that way to him, and he is not certain that it necessarily should. Earlier I said it seemed to me that our brother was catagorically denying the truth. I said that is seemed that way, because I am not certain that he actually intends to do so. Perhaps our brother really believes what he is saying; if so, then it is not a categorical denial of truth, but merely a dogmatic affirmation of his mistaken understanding of what the truth is.

Here our brother says, "[What] the word supper seems to have in regards to this memorial observance, is that, in Christ and Him alone is supplied all we need." It may seem that way, to him, and certainly it is true that in Christ alone is supplied all that we need; but Paul never says anything to suggest that this is what he has in mind when he uses the word "supper." Indeed, since in Christ alone is all we need supplied, why not let the Lord's Supper, which represents Christ, be that portion of our Lord's supply that also satisfies our hunger and which aides our fellowship together? Or, on the other hand, if Christ alone is all we need, then what need is there for the Bread and the Loaf, even? And, if the symbolism of the Bread and the Loaf are intended to show that Christ is all we need, why do they not satisfy our physical hunger to signify the spiritual reality of this fact?

My dear brothers, even as we are not to add or take away anything from the person and work of our Lord, so, add nothing to nor take anything away from the Lord's table, for it primarily speaks of Him, not us and it is most holy.

Finally, we come to the end of this highly charged letter. One must admire our brother's fervency for his convictions. Clearly he desires good for the assembly. However, I believe that when one studies the Scriptures pertaining to the Lord’s Supper itself, instead of going to such Scriptures as refer to the eating of food far removed from the context of the Lord’s Supper, it will be seen that those who have received the traditions of the elders of the Catholic and Protestant churches are the ones who transgress the teachings of the New Testament in regard to the Lord's Supper. They do indeed take away from the Lord’s Table.

Throughout his treatise, "An Open Letter to the Brethren That Meet in Their Homes" our brother seems to be suggesting that spiritual and non-material are synonymous. As Jon Zens so aptly observes, this is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. "Obviously the overwhelming emphasis is on the spiritual, but the spiritual gospel works itself out in a number of "material" ways -- feeding the widows, selling land to help folks, ekklesias sending gifts to help Paul, the Gentile assemblies sending aid to Jerusalem, etc., etc., and in baptism, and in the Lord's Supper."

Thus, articulating an apparent understanding that “the Lord’s Table is most holy” should not be a mantra; we need to recognize it in its reality. I am confident that when we do, we will cease seeking various new means of preventing the saints from following the command and example of Christ and His apostles regarding it, and will see it not as an end table or a plant stand, but as a supper table.

Index Page

What's New

Join The Mailing List

Sign The Guest book

View The Guest book

My Contact Information

Bulletin Board

Useful Links