Introduction
The first Christians were marked by persevering
“in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of
bread, and prayers” (Acts 2: 42). The fellowship in which they were
found and the teaching to which they were subject are therefore
classed together. Then, as flowing from this, there are the
practical matters which characterized them—the breaking of bread,
and prayers—for the omission of the conjunction and before
“breaking of bread”, makes that and “prayers” to be characteristic
actions of the Assembly (or Church). This immediately raises
questions with both reader and writer as to what characterises the
Christian community with which he or she is practically associated.
There may be teaching and fellowship, but is it such as the apostles
would recognise? Again, there may be many practical things going on,
but is the company characterised by prayers and the breaking of
bread? Nor should it be forgotten that it is possible for the
practical matters (and our subject here is particularly the breaking
of bread) to be taking place but in a setting where the teaching and
fellowship is adrift from both the letter and spirit of Scripture.
The
Lord’s Supper
To be preserved from formalism and the thoughts
of men, we need to get it established in our souls that the breaking
of bread is also
the Lord’s supper.
Scriptural terminology is critically important, and you will
invariably find that the spiritual state is poor (though perhaps not
acknowledged) where the “words … taught by the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:
13) are viewed as of little or no consequence. Now the word
supper is a translation
of the Greek word
deipnon
and refers to the principle meal of the day.
Thus when the Lord was made a supper at Bethany (see John 12: 2), it
was no mere light refreshment, but a distinct honour paid to Him.
Lazarus, Martha and Mary did it
for the Lord, and, in
essence, the supper provided belonged
to the Lord. That
meal was six days before the Passover, and therefore preceded the
institution of what we now know as “[the] Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:
20) but the principles are essentially the same. When we come to the
actual ordinance itself, some think that it is the very fact that
the Lord instituted it Himself that caused the apostle to describe
it as “[the]
Lord’s” (my
emphasis), but this overlooks the context in which the expression is
found. The Corinthian saints, in assembling together, were “each one
in eating” taking “his
own supper before
[others]” (v21, my emphasis), and it is clear that this is
contrasted with “[the] Lord’s supper” of the previous verse. Since
the expression occurs nowhere else in Scripture, “[the] Lord’s
supper” clearly has in mind a feast that belongs to Him. There is
also a parallel with the “feasts of Jehovah” (Lev. 23: 4), which by
the Lord’s time has become the feasts of the Jews (see John 5: 1; 6:
4; 7: 2). This change in language was necessary because “this people
draw near with their mouth, and honour me with their lips, but their
heart is removed far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment
taught of men” (Is. 29: 13). With this in mind, it is better to
avoid abbreviated terminology when referring to the breaking of
bread. Scripture never refers to it as the ‘supper’ but the ‘Lord’s
supper’, and the word Lord
is all–important for it serves to help prevent us forgetting that we
have to do with
Him and not just our
brethren. Sadly, the mere form of things may be kept up long after
spiritual power has departed.
The
Breaking of Bread
The
breaking of bread is the only other descriptor given to the
Lord’s supper, and clearly refers to the practical act associated
with it. The term in itself was nothing new, and the Jews were
certainly familiar with it (see Lam. 4: 4; Matt. 14: 19; 15: 36;
Mark 8: 6, 19). At root, it simply means to break a loaf into
manageable pieces (the Lord’s supper was instituted at the Passover,
when the bread would be unleavened and therefore hard and flat—see
Mark 14: 1). This basic meaning of the
breaking of bread is
clearly the sense in Luke 24: 30, 35 where the Lord was made known
to the two disciples in the breaking of bread, and in Acts 27: 35,
when Paul partook of food shortly before the ship–wreck. It may also
be the sense in Acts 2: 46, where the added words “they received
their food with gladness and simplicity of heart” would suggest an
ordinary meal rather than the Lord’s supper.
However, the term
breaking of bread also
had a heightened significance to the Jews (as well as Christians)
beyond mere eating. Thus in Jeremiah 16: 7 we read of the custom of
breaking bread and drinking wine with mourners to comfort them. It
was all that friendship could do when death had entered a household,
and bereavement pressed on those sorrowing. Scripture being one
whole, there is clearly a connection between what the prophet speaks
about and that which the Lord instituted on the night in which He
was delivered up. Yet there are differences too: Jeremiah speaks
only of a “cup of consolations” (v7), but the apostle speaks of a
“cup of blessing” (1 Cor. 10: 16). Again, instead of the finality of
bereavement that is before the prophet, Paul is able to say “for as
often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the
death of the Lord,
until he come” (1
Cor. 11: 26, my emphasis). Thus the NT feast is infused with
blessing and hope, just as the OT occasion lacked these features.
The New
Covenant
There are four inspired accounts of the
institution of the Lord’s supper (see Matt. 26: 26–30; Mark 14:
22–26; Luke 22: 19, 20; 1 Cor. 11: 23–26). Matthew is the only
eye–witness account, and the only one to tell us that the cup speaks
of blood shed “for remission of sins” (Matt. 26: 28). Matthew also
tells us of the Lord’s words “drink ye all of it” (v27) but only
from Mark do we know that they did
all drink of the cup
(see Mark 14: 23.) In Matthew and Mark we read of His blood shed
“for many”, but in Luke it is “for you” (Luke 22: 20) and he repeats
this in connection with the breaking of the loaf (the others do
not). This makes the announcement more personal and pointed. Paul,
in his account, uses the words “in the night in which he was
delivered up” (1 Cor. 11: 23)—phraseology which emphasises the depth
of the Lord’s love and care for His own.
All four writers, however, are alike in drawing
a connection between the Lord’s supper and the new covenant (or
covenant in Matthew and
Mark). Now the only reference to the new covenant in the OT is in
Jeremiah 31: 31–34 (although other prophets describe the blessings
to be enjoyed under it). Jeremiah did not, however, state on what
sacrifice this covenant would be based. It was the Lord Himself who
revealed this when he declared “This cup [is] the new covenant in my
blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22: 20). Such words would
naturally recall to the disciple’s minds the passage in Jeremiah, a
passage which specifically states that the new covenant is made
“with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:
31). They would therefore understand that Israel’s entrance into the
millennial kingdom was to be founded on their Lord’s own death. This
might appear to leave no place for the Assembly, but we should not
forget that, as Christians, we receive many of the same blessings
(such as the remission of sins—see Matt. 26: 28), that Israel will
enter into in the day of their national repentance (“And this is the
covenant from me to them, when I shall have taken away their
sins”—see Rom. 11: 27). There is thus no inconsistency in Paul and
his fellow–workers claiming to be “ministers of [the] new covenant”
(2 Cor. 3: 6), while engaged in furthering the Christian gospel.
However, the omission of the definite article before the word covenant
indicates that the apostles’ ministry was only “of spirit”—that is,
a ministry simply having the spirit or character of the new
covenant. It was not “of letter”
(v6) or
literally the
ministry of the new covenant. There is thus no basis for the
Assembly abrogating Israel’s rights under the new covenant, nor,
conversely, for the Lord’s supper being viewed as wholly Jewish.
The
Lord’s Supper and the Passover
As well as the new covenant to be made with
Israel, there is also the connection between the Lord’s supper and
the Passover to be taken account of—for the disciples partook of
both the Passover and the Lord’s supper at the same table, and in
the same night.
Indeed, neither Matthew nor Mark make a
clear distinction between the Jewish feast and the new arrangement
that the Lord set on. In Luke the distinction is more obvious—his
account of the Passover is given in Luke 22: 15–18, while that of
the institution of the Lord’s supper follows in verses 19, 20. Now,
in the original regulations about the Passover there was no mention
of a cup, and so while the Lord did not object to being given one of
the traditional Passover cups, he did not partake of it but simply
said “Take this and divide it among yourselves” (v17). It was a
human innovation in the feast of Jehovah. None of this is part of
the Lord’s supper—it is still the Jewish feast. In verses 19, 20,
however, the Lord takes a loaf and having given thanks breaks it,
and gives it to His disciples, and “in like manner also”
another “cup, after
having supped” (v20, my emphasis). Now the word
supped does not mean
sipped (as the reader
might misread it) but refers to the Passover meal or supper that
preceded the Lord’s supper. Indeed, the words He uses in association
with the two cups described make the distinction between the old
feast and the new crystal clear: “this
cup” (v20, my emphasis) in contradistinction to the earlier
“having received
a cup” (v17).
Fundamentally, the Passover is both a memorial
and a sacrifice (see Deut. 16: 1, 2). The Lord’s supper, however,
while also a memorial, is fundamentally
not sacrificial in
character. To make the Lord’s supper a sacrifice is to nullify the
fact that what was accomplished at the cross is once for all and
never to be repeated (see Heb. 9: 12, 26; 10: 10, 12, 14). When the
Lord comes again, He shall appear the second time “without sin for
salvation” (Heb. 9: 28)—which does not mean that He is personally
pure (though true), but that the question of sin has been settled at
His first coming. As a type, the Passover was
fulfilled in the
death of Christ (see 1 Cor. 5: 7). Thus when an enlightened Israel
celebrates the Passover in the future kingdom (see Ezek. 45: 21), it
will be as a memorial of the Lord’s death (rather than of their
national deliverance from Egypt). The Lord’s supper is quite
different to the Passover in that it was
inaugurated
immediately prior to the death of Christ (“in the night in which he
was delivered up”—1 Cor. 11: 23), and will cease when He returns for
it is “until he come” (v 26). Thus although it has the character of
a memorial (“in remembrance of me … ye announce the death of the
Lord”—vs. 25, 26), it looks forward as well as back.
Christians are to celebrate the Lord’s
supper—hence the Lord’s words “this do” (1 Cor. 11: 24). However, in
1 Cor. 5: 7 we read that “our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed”
(that is, a Passover lamb belonging to Paul and the Corinthians),
followed by an exhortation to “celebrate the feast” (v8). Does this
mean then that Christians are to celebrate the Passover? No,
otherwise the apostle would be contradicting what he said in
Galatians 4: 10 as to observing “days and months and times and
years”. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul is making a
spiritual application
of “the feast of unleavened bread, which [is] called the passover”
(Luke 22: 1)—the context demonstrates this (see 1 Cor. 5: 7). The
moral state of the Corinthians was bad (leavened in the type—for
leaven in Scripture always speaks of sin). They ought (in a
spiritual sense) to keep the feast of unleavened bread—that is, to
feed on Christ as the One without sin—and so bring their moral state
into accord with what had been done for them in the death of Christ
(as typified by the Passover proper). They had not done that for,
sadly, it is possible to
actually eat the
bread and drink the cup of the Lord, while failing to be
spiritually in accord
with what is set out in the feast of unleavened bread. This is to
participate in the Lord’s supper “unworthily … not distinguishing
the body” (1 Cor. 11: 27, 29)—that is, effectively dishonouring the
Lord and what He has done in delivering up His body for us.
Again, despite what many seem to think, the
emblems of the Lord’s supper have no
inherent value in
themselves. In fact it is quite disturbing to meet otherwise
well–informed Christians who seem to think that some kind of ‘magic
grace’ is conveyed by a physical appropriation of the bread and
wine. This appears to stem from a mistaken idea that John 6: 53
specifically has in mind the breaking of bread and that partaking of
the emblems on that occasion is how we eat the flesh and drink the
blood of the Son of man. However, John 6 refers to a spiritual
appropriation of the death of Christ that ought to mark
every day of our
Christian lives. There is thus no warrant for confining the teaching
of John 6 to the Lord’s supper, and there is a very real associated
danger in so doing of losing sight of the
daily necessity of
feeding upon the Lord in His death as the bread of life to sustain
us spiritually. The truth is that the loaf and the cup of the Lord’s
supper are merely
symbols—and this is
easily proved, for when the Lord said “this is my body” and “this is
my blood” (Mark 14: 22, 24) He had not yet died. What the loaf and
cup
represent is
calculated to bring the Lord
Himself forcefully
before our minds in the most touching way—“in remembrance of me” (1
Cor. 11: 24). There is nothing that can draw out the affections of a
true believer more than being reminded of the Lord’s own words “this
is my body … given for you” and “my blood … poured out for you”
(Luke 22: 19, 20). The effect is that the heart and mind are drawn
away from the trifles of this life to contemplate the One who gave
His all to secure us. This leads us on to the consideration of the
character and meaning of the ordinance.
The
Lord’s Supper—Its Character and Meaning
As to the
character of the
Lord’s supper, “the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was
delivered up, took bread, and
having given thanks
broke [it]” (1 Cor. 11: 23, my emphasis). That is all we are told He
did before He broke the bread, and gave it to the disciples. Matthew
and Mark state that He also gave thanks before giving the cup (see
Matt. 26: 27; Mark 14: 23)—Luke and Paul only imply this. Mark and
Matthew also speak of the Lord blessing (eulogew)
before He broke the bread, whereas Luke and
Paul tell us that the Lord gave thanks (eucharistew).
The difference is not great, and can be
explained in that
eulogew
gives the character of His utterance, while
eucharistew
expresses the form in which it was delivered.
Interestingly, Paul, in speaking of what Christians were
characterised as doing in later celebrations of the Lord’s supper,
says “the cup of blessing which we bless” (1 Cor. 10: 16), thereby
showing that both loaf and cup are to be blessed. However, no record
is anywhere given of what was said on such occasions. Even when we
return to the very first breaking of bread, no indication is given
of the terms with which the Lord blessed and gave thanks. Matthew,
(who must have heard it), is silent about it, and neither of the
other historians nor Paul have supplied the omission. Certainly that
thanksgiving must have been full and perfect and yet not a syllable
of it has been preserved in Scripture. And rightly so, for since the
Spirit of God is to direct us in our worship, the words of the Lord
Jesus on that first occasion have been carefully kept from us. Had
it been otherwise, it would surely have been used as a form and no
service would have been thought complete without them. The loss
would have been great, however, for then dependence on the Holy
Spirit’s guidance would have been surrendered.
The character of the service thus expressed by
the Lord’s actions, its
meaning was explained
by His words when He handed to the loaf and the cup to His disciples
saying “This is my body which is given for you: this do in
remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped,
saying, This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, which is poured
out for you” (Luke 22: 19, 20). Paul expands on this further in 1
Cor. 11: “For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the
cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come” (v26). The
breaking of bread is thus both a remembrance of the Lord Jesus, and
an announcement of His death.
First as to
the remembrance of
the Lord. The emblems of the bread and the wine represent the Lord
as actually dead, the former being the symbol of His body, and the
latter of His blood, the separation of the two speaking of his
death. Hence a communion that only has a loaf but not a cup (as in
Romanism) is a denial of the Lord’s death, for it virtually presents
the blood as not shed. The loaf and the cup, in a very vivid and
touching way, therefore remind us that the Lord has died. We do not,
however, remember a dead Christ, but a living Christ and this is the
force of the word remembrance
(anamnesiV)
or, as it can
be rendered, a calling of me
to mind. The symbols of His death, recall to our minds the One
we now know as living.
Second, as to
announcing the Lord’s
death. The words “for as often …” immediately remove any idea of an
infrequent observance, for that would indicate that the Lord’s death
meant little to us. Nor do we
remember the Lord’s death (we remember the Lord) for the word
that is used in relation to His death is
announce
(kataggellw)—that
is, for others to take account of. It is not that the breaking of
bread is an evangelistic service (that would be to destroy its
character as being for the Lord), but that we testify to heaven (and
unbelievers if they are present) where our loyalties and affections
lie.
One further matter
in connection with the meaning of the Lord’s supper. In 1 Cor. 10,
Paul tells us that “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
[the] communion of the blood of the Christ? The bread which we
break, is it not [the] communion of the body of the Christ? Because
we, [being] many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that
one loaf” (vs 16, 17). Space precludes much being said on this but
the service is clearly not an individual one, except in the matter
of proving one’s personal fitness beforehand in order to partake of
it (see 1 Cor. 11: 26–32). Individualism at the actual breaking of
bread is therefore totally out of keeping with its character—as is
any sectarianism, of whatever shade and form. The Lord’s supper is a
very profound expression of fellowship, for not only is the loaf a
symbol of the Lord’s body given for us in death, but it is also a
figure of how
the “many” have been made into “one
loaf” (1 Cor. 10:17) by a common interest in the death of Christ.
There can be no proper celebration of the Lord’s supper if our
thoughts do not take in every soul that belongs to Him, even if our
collective failure and weakness means that expressing this is
necessarily curtailed. It should also raise a question in our
consciences when Scripture says “we, [being] many, are one loaf”
while, as to practical fellowship, we can only say ‘we, being few’!
Conclusion
The over–riding impression of this profound
subject is how everything is presented in a very simple fashion.
Even when the ordinance is to take place is left open (in contrast
to the exact stipulations connected with the OT feasts of Jehovah).
Thus “this do ye, as often as ye shall drink [it], in remembrance of
me” (v 25)—though there was clearly a strong association with the
first day of the week (see Acts 20: 7). Man being what he is, he
loves to legislate in the absence of clear direction in the Word,
and so a whole raft of frankly unhelpful rules and regulations have
been attached to the simple “this do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor.
11: 24). Certainly more could be drawn from Scripture than has been
presented here, but the relative dearth of the instruction is
undeniable. This is surely intentional for the occasion demands
hearts moved in love towards the One who has loved us rather than
minds conformed to a dry ritual.
