Page |
New |
Mailing List |
Guest book |
Guest book |
Information |
Board |
Links |
The Case For The Traditional Lord's Supper:
Examined and Found Wanting
A Review of a Treatise by Kevin SherfeyIan A. Paul
At the time this paper was originally penned (it has been slightly edited since then), it has been almost two years since I gave my first group presentation of my conviction that the Scriptures present the Lord's Supper as nothing less than an actual supper. That message was not well received, although none of my hearers offered so much as one legitimate reason not to receive it (the objections were either pragmatic, or fallacious). About six months to a year later, Kevin Sherfey gave a message at our assembly in which he proposed that the traditional view of the Lord's Supper is just a morsel of bread and a sip of wine.
It should be understood from the outset that I am not judging Kevin Sherfey as a man or a servant of Christ. I am confident that he that he means well in advancing these unscriptural ideas. Kevin Sherfey is personally known to me to be a dear brother who genuinely loves the Christ and His body, as well as individual believers themselves. He is a man of an extremely evangelical heart, and who usually is an exceptional teacher of the Word. However, as much as I hate to say it, it is my opinion that, in the matter at hand, the bulk of his arguments and evidences are paultry and trite.
However, as mistaken as he is on this matter, our brother is a man who bends over backwards for the believers and unbelievers alike, and who really invests more than most in the Lord's assembly. So please, let us not judge him by his view of this doctrine. It is unfortunate that he is persuaded of this tradtionalistic view of the Lord's Supper, but when our brother shares on many other subjects there is much that we all can learn.
Now, with respect to the message our brother taught on the Lord's Supper, the strength of his position rested in two arguments; both of which sound quite profound, but neither of which will hold water.
First, and oddly enough, this argument betrays another of our brother's arguments, wherein he insists that Luke wished to draw a clear line of demarcation between the Old Covenant and the New; but apparently that is a matter of mere convenience, for here he insists that the rules of the Old govern the New. Second, ironically this argument does not answer our brother's own assertion that the apostles and the Lord, themselves, were still eating when Jesus instituted the bread and the cup, and continued to do so even after the cup had been passed! Clearly, if it can be shown that Jesus or the apostles ate other food while they enjoyed the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant, then this argument is shown to be specious.
I believe that, in my lecture, Is it the Lord's Supper We're Eating?, as well as in what follows, I amply demonstrate that Jesus and the apostles did indeed partake the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant in the context of the Passover Supper - the bread being taken early on in the Supper, the Cup being taken only after they had finished eating the Supper. But, third, the Lord's Supper that I see taught in the New Testament is, essentially, a transformed Passover Supper. No longer do the stipulations of the Old Covenant apply to the meal, save, perhaps, the requirement of unleavened bread and the use of wine.
Fourth, there is one other fatal difficulty with the theory under consideration: Neither the Bread nor the Cup is offered up on an altar; neither is sacrificed. They represent or symbolize two elements of one sacrifice, the Body and Blood of Christ; but they are not, themselves, the actual sacrifice. (Only in the minds of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and certain few Protestant denominations, are the bread and the cup sacrificed, by way of their unscriptural notions of consubstantiation or transubstantiation.)
…for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.But, alas, our brother completely misses the point, here. Paul is not saying that because each man takes his own supper that what he eats and drinks is not the Lord's Supper. Rather, what Paul is saying, here, is that because each man takes his own supper (i.e., his own portion of that which is intended to be the Lord's Supper) first or "before other" - and, as a result, some get drunk and others go hungry - that for this reason the meal that they were eating was not the Lord's Supper.
For Paul, there seem to be at least two issues here: 1. Some of the brethren were going hungry, and 2. Some of the brethren were getting drunk. Now, clearly, removing the supper element from the Lord's Supper would resolve one of the two issues, but it would be as heartless to the poorer members of the assembly as where those who had been taking the lion's share of the food and getting drunk. Further, it would create an entirely new problem, that of changing the Lord's Supper into the Lord's snacklette. As we shall see, for both Paul and our Lord, the Lord's Supper consisted of not only the Bread and Cup of the New Covenant, but also a supper.
In any event, since Paul offers, in this passage, no further suggestion regarding those who were forced to go hungry by those who were taking their supper first and getting drunk, he cannot be seen as prohibiting the celebration of the Lord's Supper as a real supper. Telling people to eat before they come to the meeting does nothing to comfort the poorer members of the assembly who were being despised and dishonored by the gluttonous rich of the church. Further, Paul specifies that, according to the instructions he received from the Lord, the cup is not to be shared until after the supper (1st Cor. 11:25).
In any event, apparently, the post had been sent, months earlier, to an e-mail address I rarely check, and had been lost in my Internet service provider's shuffle to switch over to a new e-mail system. When this was revealed, our brother re-posted his arguments, and I present them to you, here, for your consideration. At the end of his thesis, I shall assay to interact with his arguments.
The Traditional Lord's Supper
by Kevin SherfeyThere are four accounts given of the last Passover our Lord celebrated, where He instituted the Lord's Supper. The one in Matthew Chapter 26 very closely resembles Mark's account in chapter 14, whereas that in Luke chapter 22 resembles the account of Paul's, in 1st Corinthians 11. Paul's account, however, is focusing on the instituting of the Lord's Supper; and he presents it in an out of context manner, assuming the Corinthians knew well the story of what we now refer to as the Last Supper and would supply the setting in their own minds. He had indeed, been the very one that had told them the story.
Matthew and Mark's accounts appear to be more focused on the betrayal of Judas and, therefore, give the sequence of events out of order; reporting first the history of Judas' sin from the time of the incident of the woman anointing Jesus with the precious ointment in Simon the leper's house, to his going to the chief priests to make a deal to deliver Jesus up, and finally, to the conversation with Christ at the table. Their lack of concern for sequential accuracy is, assumable, so as to give the whole story concerning the betrayal without a break. They afterwards backtracked and gave the account of the Lord instituting His memorial supper, which actually took place prior to the conversation acknowledging the Lord's awareness of Judas' betrayal. Judas was present to take the loaf and the cup according to Luke and John, so our understanding of the happenings of that evening is easily confused if we do not understand this point.
In fact, all of the accounts leave out many of the events that took place that evening. In John's gospel, chapter 13, we find that during the Passover meal Jesus rises and, laying aside His garments, taking a linen towel, and girding Himself, He washes the disciples feet; He accompanies the action with a teaching, and Judas is still among them at this time. Then back to the table where He passes the Passover cup for all to drink, ending the formality of the Passover; prematurely one might say, for they were actually still eating. This is clearly presented in Luke's account. Then with Judas in their company Jesus takes and blesses the loaf, signifying a different observance (since they would have already blessed the Passover), and He passes it; and then the cup, as well, instituting the Lord's Supper as the memorial meal His disciples were to observe.
The passing of the cup was with the comment, "after the supper," in Luke's account. This was to further distinguish the Passover, which ended with a passing of a cup, from the Lord's Supper, which likewise, ended with the passing of a cup. It would otherwise have been very likely to understand the cup of the Lord's Supper as part of the Passover, that is, the ending of the Passover. For a tradition had developed to end the Passover meal with the passing of a cup, which is, I believe still practiced today. A distinction must be made, for the Lord would have no union between the old and the new, Law and Grace. The error has become prevalent in the church at this present time and this verse is given just for such an occasion. So this is the reason for this comment.
Both the loaf and the cup were taken after the final cup of the Passover; therefore, both were taken after the Passover meal had ceremonially finished. Therefore, the statement 'after supper' does not refer to a meal in between the loaf and the cup, but distinguishes the Lord's Supper from the Passover. If it were to indicate the eating part of the night was over by the Lord passing the cup of the newly instituted celebration, there would be no mention of the eating afterwards. However there is mention: Luke 22:21, Mark 14:18, Matt. 26:21 and John 13:26. The words 'after supper' are given, not to set up a formula of loaf-meal-cup but to simply make a distinction between the two memorials. They were physically eating during the Passover, during the institution of the Lord's Supper and afterwards as well. It is not then addressing the actual act of eating, but the two ceremonial memorial meals.
So, the sequence of events that night are best represented by Luke's account; with it and additions from the others, especially John's, we can come up with this understanding of that evening:
1. The Lord and the twelve are eating the Passover together.After looking from all angles I fail to see any formula as loaf-meal-cup, but quite to the contrary. I hope this might give some room for thought.2. The Lord interrupts the meal for the feet washing.
3. They all return to table.
4. The Lord summarizes His emotions and thoughts concerning the Passover and formally ends the supper with passing the Cup.
5. The Lord then signifies a different observance by blessing the loaf, for they would have already blessed the Passover. This is while they are still at table and still eating. He then passes the loaf instituting the Lord's Supper.
6. The Lord then passes the cup as well finishing the instituting of the Lord's Supper.
7. Still as they were eating, after the formal acknowledgment of the Passover and the Lord's Supper being over, He converses with the twelve concerning His betrayal, commenting that "the hand of him that delivers me up is with me on the table" for they were still eating.
8. Peter then makes a sign to John who is in the bosom of Jesus asking John to inquire who it might be that would betray Him and Jesus answers, 'he it is to whom I, after I have dipped the morsel, give it and having dipped the morsel, gave it to Judas,' for they were still eating.
9. Judas, after he receives the sop and Satan entering into him, leaves the table into the night.
10. Jesus begins a long evening of teaching and consoling.
11. A hymn is sung.
12. They leave for the Mount of Olives.
These are leading statements. Sadly, they are misleading. It must be observed that, according to Paul, his account of the Lord's Supper was directly from the Lord. More importantly, his tradition of the Lord's Supper, here, is fundamentally the same as that which he had already delivered to them (1st Cor. 11:23). If there was anything essentially different, or supplementary in the account of the Lord's Supper which he had already delivered to the Corinthians, the text neither says nor implies.
It is not legitimate, therefore, for us to infer from Paul's statements anything more than what he actually says or unequivocally implies. Whatever we may conclude about Paul's teaching must not be based upon information from the gospels that we might suppose Paul had already taught his audience; for we do not know precisely what additional information concerning the Lord's Supper the apostle may previously have provided the Corinthians, and it is not reasonable to assume that it included the entirety of the combined data of the four gospel accounts, much less that it included any specific detail we may wish it to have included.
Be that as it may, it seems quite clear that Paul did not assume anything regarding the Corinthian's understanding. For, although he indicates that he had already taught them the lesson at hand, he apparently felt compelled to repeat it for them, here. In terms of how the church is to practice the Lord's Supper, Paul's version of the order of Lord's institution of the bread and the cup is, ultimately, the only version that counts.
The gospel accounts are valuable in this regard, of course, but only as supporting evidence. Paul never refers to the witness of others in the matter, and only speaks of what was revealed to him by Christ. Therefore, we would do well to stick with what Paul says, and not drag into his teaching gospel contexts in order to infer our own speculations of how the Corinthians might have understood his instructions in view of the gospels. I cannot emphasize these things enough. Indeed, they bear reiteration.
Although one could certainly formulate Paul's order of the Lord's Supper from a straightforward approach to the gospel accounts, when it comes to the basic practice of the Lord's Supper, the contexts provided in the gospels are, in this regard, essentially irrelevant. The only context we really need for our practice of the Lord's Supper, in terms of its order of procedure, is that which Paul provides in the eleventh chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians. It is simply erroneous to assume that the Corinthians were interpreting Paul by some knowledge that is, at best, only vaguely alluded to - and not specifically stated - in the letter itself.
When Paul says, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you," he is saying only that: 1. His doctrine is from the Lord; and, 2. His doctrine has not changed from that which he has already taught them in the past. Since, as the argument at hand acknowledges, Paul's account is focused on the instituting the Lord's Supper, it is his account upon which we should rely for our understanding of what was instituted in the apostolic churches; his account should have the final say.
Matthew and Mark's accounts appear to be more focused on the betrayal of Judas and, therefore, give the sequence of events out of order; reporting first the history of Judas' sin from the time of the incident of the woman anointing Jesus with the precious ointment in Simon the leper's house, to his going to the chief priests to make a deal to deliver Jesus up, and finally, to the conversation with Christ at the table. Their lack of concern for sequential accuracy is, assumable, so as to give the whole story concerning the betrayal without a break. They afterwards backtracked and gave the account of the Lord instituting His memorial supper, which actually took place prior to the conversation acknowledging the Lord's awareness of Judas' betrayal. Judas was present to take the loaf and the cup according to Luke and John, so our understanding of the happenings of that evening is easily confused if we do not understand this point.
We must be careful not to make too much of Matthew and Luke's supposed preoccupation with being "focused on the betrayal of [Jesus by] Judas." That they are distracted from the actual order of events by this concern is not as apparent as this argument asserts. For example, Matthew and Mark place far more space between Jesus' prophecies of Judas' treachery against Him and its actual fulfillment than does Luke. For another, Luke also details the event of Judas going to the Chief Priests to bargain with them for the life of the Lord. And he does so much more tightly than the other two synoptic gospels, for he omits the story of the woman pouring out her perfume on Jesus' feet.
But, what is most troubling to me, here, is our brother's apparent attempt to suggest that the incident of the disciples balking at the woman who anointed Jesus, which is not mentioned in Luke's pericope, was a sin conceived by Judas. Neither Matthew nor Mark ever suggests this. This was something in which the disciples seemed to have been in concert. Of course, it would be nice, for the traditional view of the Lord's Supper, if Matthew and Mark had placed the blame for the disciples' sinful attitude squarely on Judas' shoulders; for then it would appear that these two authors were indeed placing greater focus on the traitor than does Luke. But such is not the case.
Thus, it appears that the physician actually places greater focus on the betrayal than do Matthew and Mark, for he creates a tighter unit of the pericope, tying together Jesus prophecy of how He would be betrayed much more closely with its fulfillment than do Matthew and Mark. The fact is, as was stated in the argument, none of the three synoptic gospels "give the whole story concerning the betrayal without a break"; however, Luke gives the whole story with less of an interruption than do Matthew and Mark. Thus, it is questionable, at best; whether Matthew and Mark were making any concerted attempt to create a greater focus on Judas than Luke.
Further, placing too much weight on the supposed preoccupation of Matthew and Mark with Judas will distract us from the fact that, for both of these gospel writers, the institution of the Bread and the Cup was integral with the supper itself! Both of them say that it was "as they were eating" that "Jesus took the bread." Neither is interested in distancing the bread and the cup from the meal; indeed, the meal was the stated purpose of Christ and His apostles in coming to the upper room.
Of course, the traditionalist will insist that, while it is true they were eating when Jesus instituted the Bread of the New Covenant, it was not the supper they were eating. But what is the contextual evidence for this? There is no contextual reason why we should introduce, here, some extraneous eating that was not the supper for which purpose they had come to the Upper Room!
The only "evidence" that this was not the Passover Supper that the Lord and His apostles were eating is the theological necessity of the traditionalist that it was something other than the Passover. In other words, the traditional view knows that if the Lord and the apostles were eating the Passover when Jesus instituted the Bread of the New Covenant, that they would have no case; therefore they must assume that their view is correct, and on that assumption conclude it was a different, extraneous eating that Matthew and Mark speak of. Of course, Matthew and Mark never identify it as an extraneous eating, nor do they suggest that the Passover meal was over, already.
More importantly, perhaps, is that it is not even provable that Matthew and Mark are mistaken on their sequential detail regarding the Lord's Supper! That they present somewhat different perspectives than Luke appears to give is not in dispute; but the differences do not necessarily reflect inaccuracies in the details of the sequence they present. Indeed, later on in this essay, I present a chronology of the Last Supper which is perfectly in harmony with the proposition that Matthew and Mark are as chronologically accurate as Luke; this is a chronology that was written long before I thought to argue the present point, and in which no intention came to mind that I should try to substantiate the thing here argued.
In any event, Matthew and Mark never suggest that Judas was not present to share in the Bread and the Cup. However, what the value of this may be for the traditional Lord's Supper position, with respect to the discussion at hand, is difficult to see. While the Lord's willful invitation to even Judas, whom He had known for some time would betray Him, might seem to suggest that the church is not to concern itself if unbelievers eat of the Covenant Meal, this is hardly an implication that supports the traditional view. Nor does Judas' presence seem to have any other implications regarding the Lord's Supper. Clearly, Jesus cannot be seen as deliberately, or even thoughtlessly, tempting Judas to sin by inviting and allowing him to eat of the Bread and drink of the Cup.
Now, although the breaking of bread is, formally, the start of a meal, it is not necessary for us to suppose that this precludes the participants from having begun to eat, already. There is nothing that requires us to insist that the ancient people of Israel were as strict about not beginning to eat a meal until after a prayer has been said as we are, much less than that they would not begin eating before the formality or ritual of the breaking of bread. That the breaking of bread was done at or near the beginning of a meal, however, is apparent, as I have just said, from several New Testament contexts; and we are without any context to suggest that it was ever done halfway through a meal, or after the completion of a meal.
We may think of this breaking of bread ritual in much the same way we think of the common American way of "saying grace." Now, although, in some societies, "grace" is said after the meal, this is not the ordinary way in America. Follow my illustration, if you will. While in some corners it is considered more than a social faux pas to place so much as an appetizer in one's mouth prior to "grace" having been said, in many quarters is not such a big deal. This is what appears to be the case with the breaking of bread at the Last Supper of our Lord. He and the disciples had begun eating, already - perhaps as the food was being placed in front of them by whomever was serving - when, still at the beginning of the meal, Jesus took the bread and broke it and, blessing it, gave it to His disciples.
While we see from a number of contexts that the breaking of bread was the common way of beginning a meal, none of the Lord's Supper contexts strictly or specifically indicate that Jesus broke the bread prior to His or His disciples having begun to eat the meal, already. It is implied, however, that the meal - or at least the main portion of it - was consumed between the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup. In all accounts, the drinking of the cup came "after they had eaten" the supper, but in no account is it indicated that the bread was eaten after the supper.
In fact, all of the accounts leave out many of the events that took place that evening. In John's gospel, chapter 13, we find that during the Passover meal Jesus rises and, laying aside His garments, taking a linen towel, and girding Himself, He washes the disciples feet; He accompanies the action with a teaching, and Judas is still among them at this time. Then back to the table where He passes the Passover cup for all to drink, ending the formality of the Passover; prematurely one might say, for they were actually still eating. This is clearly presented in Luke's account. Then with Judas in their company Jesus takes and blesses the loaf, signifying a different observance (since they would have already blessed the Passover), and He passes it; and then the cup, as well, instituting the Lord's Supper as the memorial meal His disciples were to observe.
This is a gross distortion of the facts. In John's gospel we find no such thing as has been described in this argument. What we find, in John, is that "during the Passover meal Jesus" does no such thing as is stated here. According to John, it is only after the supper - not during it - that Jesus rose to wash the disciples' feet:
And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Him, Jesus... rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself. And after that He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. -- John 13:2-5Further, though some of this might be inferred from Luke's account, none of it is clearly presented there; indeed, it is arguable that it is not even implied in Luke's account.
Likewise, although one might construe it from the other narratives, in John's gospel, after Jesus washes the disciples' feet, it is not "then back to the table where He passes the Passover cup for all to drink, thus ending the formality of the Passover." According to John, as we have already seen, it was not until "supper being ended" that Jesus washed the disciples' feet. There is no mention of the cup being passed in John's gospel, and to insist or insinuate otherwise is to add to the Scriptures.
To say that the supper was only "formally" ended, and that the disciples continued to eat, is a nice theory; but that is all it is. There is nothing to prove this hypothesis, other than the theological necessity of those who insist that the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant were not instituted as part of a meal; but this is precisely the point in question, so it cannot legitimately be assumed. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that they did not go "back to the table where He passes the Passover cup for all to drink, thus ending the formality of the Passover meal, prematurely" or otherwise.
At best, we can only say that Judas was not finished eating, although, until he took the bread, he undoubtedly considered himself to have finished eating. In any event, it is plainly foolish (and desperate) to attempt to establish that the disciples continued to eat on the basis of Jesus handing a remnant of bread to just one of them, especially when it is not even certain that he ate it. After all, what would it mean, if I were to say of a wedding banquet I had been invited to, that after everyone had eaten I took pulled out a breath mint and ate it? Does this somehow negate the fact that everyone had finished eating? Only a desperate necessity would so twist what took place as to construe the eating to have continued because one person at one morsel more at some point after he had finished eating!
The passing of the cup was with the comment, "after the supper," in Luke's account. This was to further distinguish the Passover, which ended with a passing of a cup, from the Lord's Supper, which likewise, ended with the passing of a cup. It would otherwise have been very likely to understand the cup of the Lord's Supper as part of the Passover, that is, the ending of the Passover. For a tradition had developed to end the Passover meal with the passing of a cup, which is, I believe still practiced today.
Here we have an assertion without any proof other than an assumption that the Lord's last Passover and His institution of the Bread and the Cup were two completely separate events; and assumptions aren't evidence. Indeed, the assumption, here, is the very thing under debate; it is patently silly to present as evidence for one's belief the mere assumption of the thing one believes. It is the same as saying, "It's true because I believe it is true."
Now John clearly refers to the Passover as "supper" (13:2), so how do we know that Luke does not do the same thing? Indeed, why would Luke refer to the eating of a single shred of a cracker as "supper" when the Lord's Supper includes both bread and wine? How could the Cup of the Covenant be instituted after the supper if the Lord's Supper includes the Cup itself? For that matter, why would he use this term "supper" of a mere nibble of bread and a teeny-tiny sip of wine, when a legitimate supper had just been eaten?
Oddly enough, it is obvious, even to the vast majority of theologians who do not believe in or practice a full meal Lord's Supper, that Luke's supper is none other than the Passover meal and not a separate event that took place after the completion of the Passover. Frankly, I see no reason to view Luke as presenting the institution of the Bread and the Cup of the Covenant after the completion of the Passover Supper except a theological predilection to do so. It certainly has never occurred to me to view it that way, even before it had ever occurred to me that that which the Lord had instituted at the Last Supper included a full meal!
Even more odd, is that none of the gospel writers clearly indicate that the Passover was concluded prior to Jesus passing the Bread of the New Covenant; indeed, they all seem to indicate that they had just begun eating when Jesus blesses the bread! Sure, there is that seemingly "first" cup, in Luke; but we must go to extra-biblical sources to even infer that this cup ended the Passover; Luke simply does not state it. Does our brother mean to say, then, that we are unable to understand the New Testament apart from a cultural understanding of the times?
I admit, a grasp of the culture of the times may be useful; but if we are to hang an interpretation upon it, are we not saying that this knowledge is indispensable? Regardless, and even given the verity of our cultural knowledge, how can we know for certain that any specific aspect of this knowledge was in the mind of a sacred writer at any particular point, unless the writer himself clearly states or alludes to it? If Luke alludes to it, here, it certainly is not clear to any but those whose theological agendas depend upon it.
A distinction must be made, for the Lord would have no union between the old and the new, Law and Grace. The error has become prevalent in the church at this present time and this verse is given just for such an occasion. So this is the reason for this comment.
Really? Does this then rule out the notion that, because the priests of the temple were forbidden to eat that which was not on the altar, we cannot eat at the Lord's Supper anything that is not on the altar, too? This is, after all, a stipulation of the Law; would not adhering to that commandment create a union between Law and Grace?
But, what were the disciples eating, when Jesus instituted the Bread of the New Covenant? Even if it were true that the Passover was officially over when Jesus instituted the Bread, what were the apostles eating if it was not the food of the Passover meal they had "officially" quitted? And why did our Lord, the Rabbi, not rebuke them or tell them to desist? Why, in this view, do the apostles continue to eat after the passing of the Cup of the Covenant? And why would Jesus desecrate His own institution, after the cup, by dipping a piece of bread into the sop of the Passover meal and giving it to Judas? These are questions a reasonable Christian will want answers to, but which those who are stuck in tradition will no doubt brush off as trivial (although, they no doubt would not think it so trivial if someone in their midst were to be already eating when it came time for their institution of "the Lord's" Snacklette, and/or if they were to continue eating afterward).
Whatever the case may be, this is interesting to me; because, from my observation, Luke, alone among the gospel writers, seems to forever unite the Passover with the New Covenant (22:14-18), as does his traveling companion, the apostle Paul (1st Cor. 5:7-8)! In his narrative of the Lord's Supper, the first thing the physician does is to establish how important the Last Passover of our Lord was to Him. Here is what Luke records for us: "Then He said to them, 'With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.'" It certainly appears that, for Jesus and Luke, the Passover has an abiding relevance in the New Covenant.
Jesus longed (the word is "lusted" in the Greek) to eat the Passover, and the reason was because He would not eat it again until it was fulfilled in the kingdom of God. In other words, Jesus has a great expectation of eating a Passover Supper, again! Nor does Jesus suggest that His disciples will not eat a Passover Supper, again, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God! Now I'm not entirely sure what to make of this, but it is difficult to avoid the idea that Luke sees Passover as vitally significant to the New Covenant and the future kingdom of God. My own view is that the Lord's Supper is the Passover celebration of the New Covenant, not to be adhered to according to its original stipulations, but in the freedom that has come in Christ as the fulfillment of the Passover.
But what about this assumption, that "the Lord would have no union between the old and the new, Law and Grace"? Does it necessitate an end to all that was ordained in the Old Covenant and, if so, does it forbid bringing over into the New Covenant anything that was ordained in the Old? Is the Lord completely finished with Israel, then? Some believers would say Yes! but many would not. Is tithing no longer applicable to the people of God under the New Covenant? I would affirm that tithing is not an obligation of the followers of Christ, but many sincere believers would say it is.
Is that which is spoken of in the Law concerning the silence of women in the churches of no relevance? Certainly, many today are affirming this very thing, but Paul did not seem to agree with them (1st Cor. 14:34). Surely these things demonstrate that some things that are in the Law may also be normative under Grace. It is not necessary to dismiss Passover, which was ordained before the Law (Ex. 12), in order to keep the distinctions between Law and Grace - the Old and the New - clear.
Clearly, then, in Paul's mind, in some sense the Passover has union with the New Covenant! If, then, the idea of eating the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread is considered a New Covenant mandate (as it is by many - and rightly so, in my opinion), then it must be acknowledged that the Lord's Supper is the Passover Feast of the New Covenant, and that, therefore, Luke has failed to make the kind of distinction that is supposed to have occurred in his narrative of the Last Supper.
What Paul speaks of in 1st Corinthians 5:8 is a feast. True, it is actually Christ who is our feast; but, it is also Christ who is our unleavened bread; if then the feast is not also real, on what basis do we conclude that the unleavened bread is real? The Lord's Supper, as practiced by the vast majority of Christendom, is barely even a snack. It is the equivalent of a morsel of bread (which has a greater association with what was given to Judas than with the terms "feast" or "supper"), and a thimbleful of juice or a mere sip of wine. The term feast is consistent with Passover, in which unleavened bread, and a goodly quantity of other food (food not offered on the alter), was eaten. The feast in this passage cannot be unequivocally connected to the Lord's Supper, unless it be understood that the Lord's Supper is the believer's Passover Feast, signifying Christ Himself who is the embodiment of the Passover.
Both the loaf and the cup were taken after the final cup of the Passover; therefore, both were taken after the Passover meal had ceremonially finished. What is the basis for such a statement? True, it does seem to appear as though there are two cups in Luke's gospel, but closer examination of the facts reveals that these "two cups" are actually one and the same cup. Respecting the "first" cup mentioned, clearly the Passover cup, in Luke's account of the Gospel, Jesus tells us that drinking from this cup will be the last time He will drink of the fruit of the vine until His kingdom comes (Luke 22:17-18 cf. vv. 15-16). Yet, in Matthew and Mark, the Lord tells us that the cup which He institutes as the Cup of the New Covenant would be the last time He would drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom comes (Matt. 26:27-29 & Mark 14:24-25)!
Now, if the Cup of the New Covenant comes after the Passover cup, then Jesus is found to have broken his previous word, in which He said that He would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes (Luke 22:17-18). He cannot make the official ending of one supper the last time He will drink of the fruit of the vine, and then, without perjuring Himself, make the official ending of a subsequent event the last time he drinks of it; if He can, what is there to prevent numerous subsequent imbibings from being the last time?
If it is thought that the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant were both enjoined "after the Passover meal had ceremonially finished," because Luke has supposedly distinguished between the Passover and the Supper, using these two different words, then one is arguing upon the basis of an unproven hypothesis. In other words, what is being asked, here, is that one believes there were two events because the interpreter of this passage (not necessarily the writer of it), without any proof, supposes that a difference in terms (viz., "Passover" and "supper") means two different events. Yet, John clearly uses both terms to refer to the same event (John 13:1-2); so what is it about Luke's telling of the story that makes it impossible, or even unlikely, that he does the same? It simply isn't a natural reading of the text to view it this way. It appears to be a machination born of desperation to prove a point. The proper place for Luke to have to drawn distinctions and to delineate division, if such were his intent, is precisely where the events divide not where the supposed latter of two events concludes.
But, even after the instituting of the Lord's Supper, and after the statement they drank of the cup 'after the supper,' they were still at table and still eating, for it is after the instituting of the Lord's Supper that the Lord converses with the twelve concerning His betrayal. This is when Judas receives the sop and leaves. How long the eleven continue at table eating we are not told, but, according to John's account it could have been of considerable length, for the night went on with much teaching and consoling before they left for the Mount of Olives.
That they remained at the table may be true. This however does not suggest, nor is it stated or implied in any of the gospels, much less in John's, that they continued to eat. The supper was over because they had finished eating it. It is said that they had finished eating because all of them, including Judas, had stopped eating. When Jesus handed Judas the bread that He had dipped, it was after they had finished eating, after the supper. Judas had, until that time, stopped eating; no doubt he himself considered that he had finished eating. For all intents and purposes, the Lord and the apostles were done eating, and it is not even clear that Judas ate the morsel that the Lord gave to him. No one is said to have eaten after we read the words, "after the supper."
That Judas may have eaten one last morsel, some time after he had finished eating supper, does not prove that either he or the others had continued eating, or that they were not through eating. This sort of argumentation is both petty and disingenuous. Only obdurate prejudice would contrive such an argument from the consumption of a mere morsel after the supper, after one had finished eating. But, again, keep in mind that none of the gospels actually says whether or not Judas ate the morsel. While it seems likely that he did, there is no objective evidence to definitely conclude that he did. Are we, then, to insist upon a doctrine on the basis of a mere probability, however high that probability may seem?
Therefore, the statement 'after supper' does not refer to a meal in between the loaf and the cup, but distinguishes the Lord's Supper from the Passover. If it were to indicate the eating part of the night was over by the Lord passing the cup of the newly instituted celebration, there would be no mention of the eating afterwards. However there is mention: Luke 22:21, Mark 14:18, Matt. 26:21 and John 13:26. The words 'after supper' are given, not to set up a formula of loaf-meal-cup but to simply make a distinction between the two memorials. They were physically eating during the Passover, during the institution of the Lord's Supper and afterwards as well. It is not then addressing the actual act of eating, but the two ceremonial memorial meals.
There are a few crippling difficulties with this argument. First, if the apostles could eat a meal, then continue to eat some more, then have the Lord's Supper, then continue, again, to eat some more, then it would appear that there is a real problem for those who oppose a real supper Lord's Supper. If the assertions made in this statement are true, one has to wonder how the apostle Paul could condemn the saints at Corinth for doing essentially the same thing, as is supposed by those who are antagonistic to a real supper Lord's Supper. Indeed, the language of 1st Corinthians makes it appear as though the Corinthians were eating their supper before breaking the bread. But, according to our brother, the Lord and His apostles did the same thing!
Obviously, the problem at Corinth was actually with gluttony, drunkenness, and dishonoring the poorer members of the assembly. I do not question that. But our brother argues, here, that the real sin of the Corinthians was that they were eating an actual supper. He says that their sin was in eating things, along with the Lord's Supper (by which he means only the Bread and the Cup), that were not offered on the altar, which were not the body and blood of the Lord. And yet, when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, even he admits that the disciples were eating other food, and he says that they continued to do so after the Cup was passed.
One has to wonder, why Christ, the Master and Teacher, appears to have sat idly by while His disciples, according to the anti-supper view, apparently disrespected both the Passover and the Lord's Supper by their casual eating after the Passover and, again, after the Lord's Supper. According to the anti-supper view, this was a significant part of the sin that Paul was attempting to correct in the latter half of the 11th chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. Certainly, one might conjecture (and that's all it would be) that the Lord formally separated the two institutions; but, if He did, it appears (from the argument under consideration) that Jesus and the apostles, in an apparently casual, nonchalant, almost lackadaisical way, forever intertwined of the two institutions by their blasé eating between the Passover and the breaking of the Bread of the New Covenant!
Second, the argument, here, indicates that Luke 22:21 mentions that there was eating "after supper." Actually, however, upon examination of this passage, one finds no such thing is stated. All this verse tells us, is that Judas' hand was on the table. Nothing is said about eating. Nothing is said about food. Likewise, Mark 14:18 says nothing about eating after the supper, either. However, Mark's statement comes at the beginning of the meal, where you would expect to see continued eating! So also, Mathew 26:21. Nevertheless, Matthew and Mark do not say what Luke says; that they both deal with Jesus indicating who it was that would betray Him, it is true, but they do not present the same sign given in Luke.
Third, the argument says that, "If [ the words 'after supper'] were to indicate the eating part of the night was over by the Lord passing the cup of the newly instituted celebration, there would be no mention of the eating afterwards." The argument is fallacious, for in neither of the accounts where it says "after supper" or "supper being ended," does it actually say that the disciples continued to eat, or that they at some point resumed eating. Even in the case of the dipped bread that was handed to Judas by our Lord, none of the accounts indicate that the traitor actually ate the morsel! Indeed, look at what John 13:27 says:
Now after { _____ ___ _____ } the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to him, "What you do, do quickly."Where I have provided scroll brackets, the NKJV apparently had no confidence about including the words, "Judas had eaten" in that sentence - even in italics! In fact, every reputable or near reputable translation I looked at was equally conservative; KJV, Darby, ASV, RSV, YLT, NASB, KJ21, LITV, MKJV, WEB, WE, were equally reticent to include such words! Only paraphrases (e.g., the New Living Translation), and so-called dynamic versions (e.g., the NIV), which are not to be relied upon for doctrinal purposes, have dared, in this instance, to state what may seem to be the likely result of Judas being handed the morsel of bread by Jesus. The only thing that we know with certainty about the morsel that the Lord gave to Judas, is that he received it (John 13:30).
So, how is it possible for Matthew and Mark to be true without invalidating Luke and John's accounts? It is really quite simple. Remember, Matthew and Mark are more thematic, rather than chronological, in their narratives of the gospel. But, this does not mean they aren't chronological with regard to individual pericopes; and it certainly cannot negate the specific qualifiers they both use, indicating that Jesus spoke of being betrayed "as they were eating." The solution is to accept that Jesus spoke this prophecy both "as they sat and ate," and "after supper," indicating in both instances whom it was who was going to do it.
That Jesus prophesied of Judas betrayal of Him on more than one occasion in the Upper Room is borne out from the various ways the gospel writers tell us that Jesus indicated which of the disciples it was who would betray Him. Although the means of indicating Judas as His betrayer had to do with the table in each instance, they are indisputably different signs. Matthew tells us that Jesus said, "He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me." This, apparently, was said to the Twelve, not just to he who lay on his breast. But it does not appear that the answer meant anything to any of them other than, perhaps, Judas. Mark's telling of the gospel is virtually the same as Matthew's. This sign is clearly not the same as Jesus dipping bread and handing it to Judas. Nor is it the same as that where Judas' hand being on the table with Christ is that which identifies him as the betrayer.
Thus, it appears that Jesus prophesied of Judas betraying Him while they were eating, and, again, after the supper. It certainly appears to have been Matthew and Mark's intent to say that Jesus prophesied concerning Judas betrayal of Him at the beginning of the meal. Any supposed purpose in focusing on Judas betrayal of the Lord, as the reason for introducing the betrayal at this time, rather than after the meal, is thwarted by the greater lapse of time between Jesus' prophecy in Matthew and Mark and the actual fulfillment in their gospels.
Luke seems to bring the story together in a much more cohesive and focused manner, seeing as the betrayal occurs almost immediately after the prophecy in his version.
Our brother fails to recognize that Jesus prophecied Judas betrayal more than once at the Last Supper; this is seen in that on one occasion He was very obscure about who it was who would betray Him, and on three other occasions He employed three different signs to indicate who it was. Thus, it was not just after the supper, that Jesus prophecies of Judas betraying Him in Matthew and Mark's gospels, but as they were eating. It is only when one brings Matthew and Mark's gospels to Luke and John, guided by the notion that the Passover and the institution of the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant were two separate things, that one can construe the disciples to be still eating after the supper. Apart from theological prejudice, we really have no reason to view it this way; and as I believe I have shown, there are a number of very good reasons not to accept this view.
So, the sequence of events that night are best represented by Luke's account; with it and additions from the others, especially John's, we can come up with this understanding of that evening:
2. The Lord interrupts the meal for the feet washing.1. The Lord and the twelve are eating the Passover together.
[John says it was after the supper, not that the supper was interrupted for it. Cf. point number four in this chronology. To say that Jesus got up to wash the disciples feet at this point in the chronology is to teach as the doctrine of God the tradition of men.]
3. They all return to table. [It's a minor point, but neither John nor the other gospel writers ever suggest that any of the disciples had left the table, much less that they returned to it.]
4. The Lord summarizes His emotions and thoughts concerning the Passover and formally ends the supper with passing the cup. [Luke is the only gospel writer who tells us anything of Jesus' "emotions and thoughts concerning the Passover"; he places Jesus' words immediately after Jesus and the Twelve sat down to eat, before the supper had begun. Hence, the Lord's summary of "His emotions and thoughts concerning the Passover" was before the "supper being ended" (John 13:2) and long before the "after that," when Jesus poured water to wash His disciples' feet (John 13:5). Are we now changing the facts to fit our agenda? Again, the so-called "first cup," which is mentioned only in Luke (22:17-18), is the very same cup Matthew and Mark identify as the Cup of the New Covenant (Matt. 26:27-29; Mark 14:24-25). It contains the fruit of the vine, which Jesus says He will not drink again until He drinks it in the Kingdom of God, which effectively proscribes Him from drinking of this beverage in any subsequent event, such as a supposed event that takes place after the Passover.]
5. The Lord then signifies a different observance by blessing the loaf, for they would have already blessed the Passover. This is while they are still at table and still eating. He then passes the loaf instituting the Lord's Supper. [Here the notion of two events is argued by little more than the assumption that two events took place. Since the idea of two events is what is being debated, it makes no sense to say there were two events, simply because the interpreter is sure there must have been two events. When it is argued that they would have already blessed the Passover, it is being assumed that the Passover was a previous event, the very point in question. Since we do not see the Passover being blessed as a separate event, we cannot assume that it was blessed as a separate event. The only logical thing, then, is to conclude that the Bread of the New Covenant that was blessed was blessed at the beginning of the Passover Feast. The fact that we do not see two breakings of bread seems to give evidence that there was only one event, that is one supper, under consideration in the gospel accounts of the Last Supper of our Lord.]
6. The Lord then passes the cup, as well, finishing the instituting of the Lord's Supper. [It is this cup, not the bread, upon which the anti-supper Lord's Supper doctrine relies. It is because it is stated that, "after the supper" - instead of "after the Passover" - that another event is assumed. (Well, of course, a second event is also assumed based on an assumed previous breaking of bread; but an assumption based upon an assumption is a palpably weak argument.) Supposedly, the expression "after the supper" is intended to differentiate between the Passover Feast and that institution of the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant. However, this is another case where one must assume two events in order for the argument to make sense; but, again, this is precisely the point that is being debated. It is one thing to assume certain uncertain secondary facts for the sake of argument, it is another to assume as fact the very point being argued for the sake of argument; if one assumes the latter, no argument to the contrary can mitigate the point under debate. But this no more proves the point than if one were to assume, for the sake of argument, that there was only one event, namely the Passover, and that the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant were instituted as an integral part of that event.]
7. Still, as they were eating, after the formal acknowledgment of the Passover and the Lord's Supper being over, He converses with the twelve concerning His betrayal, commenting that "the hand of him that delivers me up is with me on the table" for they were still eating. [In other words, the apostles ate both the Passover and the Lord's Supper in what, according to the anti-supper Lord's Supper view, would be "an unworthy manner," and Jesus never bothered to rebuke them for it. (Indeed, under this supposition, what is there to say that Jesus Himself did not continue to eat, also?) Here again, however, the argument relies on the assumption of the point under debate. The only formal acknowledgment that the Passover was over, in this view, is the breaking of the Bread of the New Covenant. Yet, it really has not been shown that the Bread of the New Covenant was broken after the completion of the Passover Feast.]
8. Peter then makes a sign to John who is in the bosom of Jesus asking John to inquire who it might be that would betray Him and Jesus answers, 'he it is to whom I, after I have dipped the morsel, give it and having dipped the morsel, gave it to Judas', for they were still eating. [It is important to observe where the quotation ends, here: after the words, "gave it to Judas." The words, "for they were still eating," are not in John's text, nor are they in any of the synoptic gospels, either! This is a blatant case of adding to Scripture that which is neither stated nor implied. The fact that Jesus gives something to eat to one of the apostles does not prove, nor even suggest, that the apostles were still eating. It does not even prove that the disciple to whom He gave it was still eating, much less that he ate that which was given to him. Also note, here, how this point acknowledges that Jesus' sign indicating Judas as His betrayer in Luke is substantively a different sign than that by which he indicates Judas in John (cf. point 7 in this chronology).]
9. Judas, after he receives the sop and Satan entering into him, leaves the table into the night.
10. Jesus begins a long evening of teaching and consoling.
11. A hymn is sung.
12. They leave for the Mount of Olives. Well, once again, it should be observed that it has already been acknowledged that Paul's account was for the purpose of establishing the Lord's Supper as an institution. So, it would seem that this settles the matter as to the order in which the Lord's Supper took place - at least so far as its implications for the practice of the churches is concerned. For Paul, the order was to eat the bread, then, only after the supper, to drink the cup. This is a tradition that the apostle tells us he received from Christ Himself. Now, if, in Paul's view, the supper is simply the bread - indeed, if this is the view of the entire New Testament - why does the apostle not refer to the bread as the supper in the first place? It would be much clearer that the bread really is the supper if Paul had said:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: That the Lord Jesus, on the same night in which He was betrayed, took supper; and when He had given thanks, he broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup, after the bread, saying… etc.Clearly, the word "supper" is not a synonym in the New Testament for the word "bread." If it were, one would expect to see it used in a manner that would clearly indicate that it is. But the instances in which the word supper is consistently used in connection with the Lord's Supper, while easily being misconstrued to be the bread by those who have an agenda to prove that it is the bread, nevertheless do not unequivocally suggest any such thing.
Indeed, the terms bread and supper are used in the various Lord's Supper contexts in ways that easily lend themselves to precisely the understanding of the terms that normally apply to them; they do not, of themselves, suggest anything else, and even by looking to their contexts for further implications they do not easily lend themselves to other meanings. The evidence for the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant being inextricably interwoven into a full meal far outweighs this unlikely interpretation of our Lord's institution of the Covenant Meal as an event only far-remotely resembling a real supper.
Even if Paul was going on the assumption that his readers were fully acquainted with and clearly understood the details of the Last Supper from all four of the gospel narratives, and from this acquaintance and understanding would assume the supposed distinction between the supper and the institution of the Bread and the Cup of the Covenant that the hard-line traditionalists make, it hardly seems likely that, in this context, he would have used the precise language of Luke's gospel (actually, Luke was using Paul's language). For, even assuming a complete knowledge of the gospel narrative, it would have made greater sense - assuming he wished to end the Corinthians' practice of eating a real supper -for the apostle to have said:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: That the Lord Jesus, on the same night in which He was betrayed, after the supper, took bread; and when He had given thanks... etc.But this is manifestly not what he said. Nor is there any apparent reason why the Lord should have given Paul the institution of the Lord's Supper in the precise language Paul provides his readers if He did not intend that a supper be eaten. For if the traditional view is correct, there is no need, here, to distinguish the institution of the bread and the cup from the Passover, since the Jewish Passover is not in view in this context, and has not heretofore been introduced into the discussion.
If one wants to argue that, although the Passover was not a concern in this context, but that the Corinthians' eating of a full meal was, then one is still left wondering why Paul used the same precise language as we find Luke later using in his gospel, since making a distinction between a real supper and the Lord's Supper should take place at the point of demarcation, not at the point where the supposed latter of two institutions is being concluded. Thus it appears that the supper to which the apostle refers can be none other than the Passover Supper; the beginning of which was officiated by the institution of the Bread of the New Covenant, and, likewise, the ending with the Cup of the New Covenant.
Further, if the traditional view is correct, is Paul then saying, if the church is going to have one, that the assembly must eat the supper prior to having the Bread and the Cup? And, if Paul permits the assembly to have a real supper, albeit apart from the Bread and the Cup, how has he regulated those real meals so that the things that were happening at Corinth do not happen at these now separate suppers? Clearly, his commandments in First Corinthians 11:20-34 have to do with how the assembly partakes of the Lord's Supper, not "extra-curricular" or "optional" potlucks and picnics.
A better scenario of the Last Supper, therefore - one that is entirely consistent with all four gospels and the apostle Paul's institutional narrative - which does no violence to any of the accounts, would be as follows:
1. The lord and the twelve sit down to eat the Passover together (Matt. 26:20; Luke 22:14).2. Christ prophesies that He will be betrayed, and indicates it is the one who dips his hand in the bowl with Him (Matt. 26:21-24; Mark 14:18-21).
3. As they were eating, Jesus soliloquizes on the Passover, and institutes the bread of the New Covenant with a blessing (Luke 22:15; Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22).
4. After the supper, Jesus institutes the Cup of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; Matt. 26:27-29; Mark 14:23-25).
5. Jesus prophecies, specifically, by way of a sign, that Judas will betray Him (Luke 22:21-22).
6. The sign has eluded the Eleven, and they begin to question which one of them it might be (Luke 22:23).
7. An argument breaks out among the disciples as to which one of them would be the greatest (Luke 22:24).
8. Jesus begins to teach them concerning the thing about which they are arguing (Luke 22:25-30).
9. The Lord gets up to wash the apostles' feet (John 13:3-11).
10. Jesus sits back down, presumably where He had been at the table (John 13:12).
11. Jesus teaches the apostles about what He had just done (John 13:12-17).
12. Christ prophesies, again, that He will be betrayed, but does not indicate, this time, who it is who would betray Him (John 13:18).
13. Jesus encourages the Eleven (John 13:19-20).
14. Jesus again prophesies that He will be betrayed, and now dips a piece of bread and hands it to Judas, indicating whom it was who would betray Him (John 13:21-26).
15. After the incident with the piece of bread, Satan enters Judas, and the Lord tells him to hurry up and do what was in his heart to do (John 13:27).
16. After receiving the bread, Judas immediately went out to betray Jesus (John 13:30).
17. Jesus converses with His disciples some more, teaching them again about His kingdom (John 13:31-17:26).
18. A hymn is sung, and the Lord and the apostles go to the Garden of Gethsemane, on the Mount of Olives (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26; Luke 22:39; John 18:1).
Upon examination of the arguments and proofs our brother has presented, this is hardly surprising. When the primary proofs of one's position are arguments based on the assumption of facts not in evidence - specifically the assumption that the point in question is an unquestionable fact - it is impossible to come away with any other conclusion than the expected outcome. This is clearly the case in a number of the arguments presented.
Indeed, the loaf-meal-cup formula is obvious to even the vast majority of those who practice the traditional "Lord's Supper." What is not so obvious is the reason those in the various denominations (e.g., the Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches) do not practice what they see. In any event, to see the Lord's Supper as a real supper one need merely take as profoundly meaningful the formula that the apostle Paul gives in 1st Corinthians 11:13-26. If "all Scripture is… profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2nd Tim. 3:16), surely Paul's words, cited below, are profitable for the understanding of the Lord's Supper that I have proposed in this essay:
...the Lord Jesus, on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after the supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." -- 1st Corinthians 11:23-25
In view of the fact that the Lord and the apostles had come to the Upper Room for the very purpose of eating a real supper, the Passover, it is entirely natural to understand the gospel narratives as referring to the Passover when they say "supper," and entirely disingenuous to view them as attempting to distinguish between the Passover Feast and our Lord's institution of the Bread and the Cup of the New Covenant.
Add to this the fact that the New Covenant institution is never called the Lord's Supper except in the very passage where Paul is supposedly arguing against taking the Bread and the Cup in the context of a real supper, then the idea of the Traditional Lord's Supper becomes ridiculous indeed. Add to this the fact that Paul ostensibly also calls the New Covenant institution the "feast" (1st Cor. 5:8), and that another apostle (2nd Pet. 2:13 ) and one of the brothers of Christ (Jude. 12) also refer to it as a feast (one at which one might "carouse"), and the traditional Lord's Supper view appears even more preposterous. Add to this the fact that Paul's contrast of the Table of the Lord with the table of demons (1st Cor 10:21) is not in the least quantitative, and is in a context in which the apostle is discussing eating and drinking in physically sustaining quantities (vv. 3-4, 18, 25, 27-28, 31), and the traditional view soars beyond being incredible.
Finally, add to this the fact that in seven of the eight New Testament passages where we see the breaking of bread (whether for spiritual purposes or not), or where we read references to such, it is unequivocally indicated that it was at or near the beginning of a full meal, or at the beginning of what was evidently intended to be a full meal. In the one instance in which the context does not unequivocally tell us that the breaking of bread took place at the beginning of a full meal (Acts 2:42), the context does not indicate to the contrary, either (certainly not unequivocally).
In fact, though the traditional view conceives of the breaking of bread in Acts 2:42 as nothing more than bread and wine, it can be conceived with equal or greater legitimacy that a full meal is in view; indeed, if a full meal is not in view, what is there in this text to suggest that the sharing of a cup of wine is in view?. When all this is considered, it becomes difficult to view continued insistence upon the traditional practice as anything but sheer obduracy on the matter.
Page |
New |
Mailing List |
Guest book |
Guest book |
Information |
Board |
Links |
If the year in the date, above, is not 2001, you need to get Internet Explorer 5.0
