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