THE PREEMINENCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER IN THE SCRIPTURES

THE PREEMINENCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER IN THE SCRIPTURES  IN REFERENCE TO THE COMMUNION SERVICE

 

 

lb. John makes reference to this meal as a supper (John 13:2,4). This is the name given to the meal eaten at the close of the day. It was a full meal. It was not a tidbit of bread and a sip of juice. It was the big meal of the day when the work was finished and people were making ready for rest. Unlike the customs of our country, it was not partaken at five or six in the evening, but rather anywhere from 8 to ten o'clock. The main substance was bread (John 13:18). Along with this there was a sort of soup or broth into which the bread could be dipped making a sop (John 13:26, 27). This meal was not in any sense to be construed as the Passover meal. For that was yet future as indicated by John (John 13:29). The disciples thought that what Jesus had said about Judas, and because he was the treasurer and carried the bag, that Jesus had sent him forth to buy what was necessary for the Passover feast which was fully 24 hours in the future.

2b. It is Paul who pointed to the significance of this meal when he referred to it as the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), a term which has persisted from the beginning. This meal was inaugurated by the Lord Himself. He is the one who presided at the meal. And it is clear that He was the very center of this meal. All this led Paul to use a term that would distinguish this meal from any other. He used an adjective made on the word Lord. This was the Lord­ing Supper. This means more than that the meal belonged to Him. It means that He is the center and substance of this meal. This is the pattern that is used by John when referring to the Day of the Lord in Rev. 1:10. It is the Lording Day. He is the center and substance of that day. It is therefore impossible to treat this meal as something on the common level. But that is exactly what the Corinthians’ were doing, and this called forth the severe denunciation of Paul. They came together not to eat the Lord's Supper, but to eat their own supper. This gathering was for the worse and not for the better. There were divisions among them, which is the very thing this meal was to correct. Treating it as they did, some went hungry, and some were even drunken. If it is mere hunger they seek to satisfy, then let them eat at home. And in coming together let them re­member that this is the family of the Lord and they should wait on one another. This is the Lord's Supper.

3b. The preeminence of this meal is further indicated by reference to it as the "breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42, 46). Four times in the book of Acts this expression is used and it always has reference to the Lord's Supper. It is true that some theologians have usurped this expression and applied it to the Eucharist, and that is the commonly under­stood application. But a careful examination of the phrase will demonstrate that it refers to the meal. Take for instance the case set forth in Acts 27:34-35. As a prisoner Paul is being transported to Rome by ship. A storm has overtaken the ship and a wreck is in prospect. Some of the sailors are about to flee in small boats. Paul warns them that the only hope is to remain in the ship. To appease the gods, the sailors are fasting. And Paul urges them to take some food. 14 days without food has left them weak and in despair. So Paul encourages them with the words that there shall be no loss of life. "And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in the pre­sence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat". In this situation you can be sure he was not admin­istering the Eucharist. But he was leading in the partici­pation of a meal.

Now the expression "the breaking of bread" grows out of the customs of that day. Meat, that is, the flesh of animals was not the central item of a meal, such as is true in our society. The central item was bread. Grain, ground into flour, was mixed and then baked into cakes, and these cakes were hard. It was absolutely essential for the substance to be broken so that it could be distributed to those at the meal, and for it to be in small enough portions for it to be eaten by the participants of the meal. The other items of food were added to the bread. But bread was the important item of the meal, and provided the way by which the meal was described.

Is it not significant that in making reference to the activity of the early church that it is the meal which is especially mentioned? Notice the reading of Acts 2:42, 46-‑"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer. . . And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat (food) with gladness and singleness of heart". This does not mean that they did not observe the feetwashing and the Eucharist, but it does mean that the meal was pre-eminent. In the one other instance that it is mentioned in the New Testament, it is still the meal that stands out as pre-eminent. Listen to Acts 20:7, 11. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them. . . When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed".

All this is sufficient to make it clear that the supper was the outstanding feature of the communion service in the experience of the early church. This does not mean that the feetwashing service and the Eucharist were in any sense de­meaned in their estimation. The feetwashing service was essential to full fellowship and enjoyment of the Lord's Supper, and the Eucharist was to remind them that it was Christ's work at Calvary that provided the absolute founda­tion upon which the experience of the supper was possible. But the Supper was preeminent.