The Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist?

[Aquila]

I've actually opened this discussion topic upon having several requests. Here goes... lol

The Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist?

http://www.themindofchrist.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Communion-wafer-and-cup.jpg

This New Year’s Eve many churches throughout America will be celebrating what is commonly called “Communion”. They will gather in a large church service in a church building where a religious official will officiate the sacrament. A “token” wafer and a small glass of grape juice will be provided. Most will take much time to reflect and dedicate prayer to the event. But is this truly “Apostolic” in practice… or is it something else?

First, I’d like to say that I don’t want to condemn anyone for the manner in which they partake in the Lord’s Supper. However, I do wish to bring up some serious issues that I’ve come to see that relate to this sacrament and our practice of it.

In the original Lord’s Supper was a Seder (Passover Meal). It was a memorial meal designed to bring to remembrance the Lord’s mighty deliverance from Egypt. It was at the end of this meal that Jesus Himself instituted what soon became known as the Lord’s Supper with the breaking of bread and the passing of the cup. The bread and the wine were designed to represent the Lord’s body, broken for us. The cup (the wine) was to symbolize the Lord’s own blood… shed for us.

The early church appeared to make this meal (called the breaking of bread) a central theme of their gathering whenever they gathered. In Acts we read:

Acts 2:41-47
{2:41} Then they that gladly received his word were
baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them]
about three thousand souls. {2:42} And they continued
stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in
breaking of bread, and in prayers. {2:43} And fear came
upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by
the apostles. {2:44} And all that believed were together, and
had all things common; {2:45} And sold their possessions
and goods, and parted them to all [men,] as every man had
need. {2:46} And they, continuing daily with one accord in
the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat
their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, {2:47}
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And
the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

You will discover that celebration of this meal is mentioned along with the apostles’ doctrine, fellowship, and prayers. Many don’t realize that the Apostolic church of the Bible had no church buildings, pews, pulpits, choirs, or fellowship halls. The early Christians, being Jewish, would meet at the temple as was their normal Jewish custom, and then meet together in their homes for “Christian fellowship”. The church was primarily a home-based, grass roots, movement that proclaimed Jesus as Lord and Saviour. These smaller home-based meetings were blessed. They partook in a full meal, often called a “love feast”. Scholars have well documented how this feast was more central in the early church than the “sermonizing” we do today in our traditional churches. Paul describes open meetings wherein all participate and may prophesy in I Corinthians 14. And in I Corinthians 11 Paul clearly indicates that the “Lord’s Supper” was a full meal more akin to a banquet. It was over the table that the early Christians shared testimonies, prayed, prophesied, and edified one another, meeting needs that had arisen among them. Christianity was a “meating” not necessarily a “meeting”. Sadly, when Christians go out to eat together and fellowship over a dinner table at a restaurant it’s reflects early church gatherings more than the actual “service” they had just attended together.

Paul writes regarding the Lord’s Supper:

I Corinthians 11:17-34
{11:17} Now in this that I declare [unto you] I praise
[you] not, that ye come together not for the better, but for
the worse. {11:18} For first of all, when ye come together
in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and
I partly believe it. {11:19} For there must be also heresies
among you, that they which are approved may be made
manifest among you. {11:20} When ye come together
therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord’s
supper. {11:21} For in eating every one taketh before
[other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is
drunken. {11:22} What? have ye not houses to eat and to
drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them
that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in
this? I praise [you] not. {11:23} For I have received of the
Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord
Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
{11:24} And when he had given thanks, he brake [it,] and
said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you:
this do in remembrance of me. {11:25} After the same
manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying,
This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft
as ye drink [it,] in remembrance of me. {11:26} For as often
as ye eat this bread, and drink [this] cup, ye do shew the
Lord’s death till he come. {11:27} Wherefore whosoever
shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord. {11:28} But let a man examine himself, and so let
him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. {11:29} For
he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
{11:30} For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among
you, and many sleep. {11:31} For if we would judge
ourselves, we should not be judged. {11:32} But when we
are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not
be condemned with the world. {11:33} Wherefore, my
brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for
another. {11:34} And if any man hunger, let him eat at
home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And
the rest will I set in order when I come.

In this passage Paul rebukes the Corinthian church for not practicing the Lord’s Supper properly. First, we read how it was a gathering for a meal. We read that many who arrived first partook in the feast and often didn’t leave enough for those who arrived later in the day. We also read that some we actually getting “drunken” at this feast. The meal was to bring fellowship and harmony; instead it was bringing contention and strife as they observed it. Those believers who didn’t have very much were often provided for in these meetings. Those who devoured the meal left little for those who “had not”. Paul then brings to remembrance Christ’s institution of the meal. In I Corinthians 10:17 Paul states:

I Corinthians 10:17
{10:17} For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one
body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Paul speaks of being partakers of “that one bread”, also translated “loaf”. The single loaf is symbolic of their being only one Lord and therefore one body. Today many wafers are passed out in convenience, loosing this significance. The one cup that Paul speaks of (“the cup”) signifies the blood of one. The thimbles of grape juice being passed around today denies this reality.

The Lord’s Supper is an illustration of several truths.

First, in the supper we shew forth the Lord’s death until He comes. In the Lord’s Supper we are to re-live the crucifixion. When the loaf of bread is being torn apart, each of us taking our share, we are to envision the brutal beatings that tore our Lord to pieces. When partaking in the cup, we are to remember the blood that He shed to cleanse our undeserving souls. A tidy little wafer doesn’t truly bring this reality home. I remember my first house church meeting where I participated in my first actual Lord’s Supper. The elder blessed the bread and spoke of Christ’s body and suffering. Then as the loaf was passed around the table I watched it being torn apart. With ever tear, tears began to roll. It was a powerful reminder of the one who was torn apart to bring spiritual nourishment to a lost and dying people. Reliving the death of our Lord vividly in such humble surroundings was truly abasing. I realized that the pomp and circumstance of the traditional “Communion” was lacking. Like the early church, we should have one loaf… and one cup. And we should sincerely reflect on Christ’s suffering and death. I know many do, but throughout Christianity, this sacrament is regarded as merely a tradition to get through. Its meaning is often lost, especially among many Protestants and Catholics of our day.

TO BE CONTINUED....

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

Second, the Lord's Supper illustrates for us the truth of our participation in the benefits of the death of Christ. Jesus told His disciples, "Take eat; this is My body. And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you" (Mt. 26:26¬27). Now, if the bread and the cup represent the body and blood of Christ given for us in His sacrificial death, then our taking and eating represents our appropriation of His sacrifice by faith. As we eat and drink, we are illustrating the truth that we must personally take in Christ and His work, making it ours by faith. As we eat and drink, in effect we are saying, "What He did, He did for me. I claim the benefits of the cross of Christ." Well, what are those benefits that come to us through the death of Christ? In Matthew 26:28 we read, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." In Luke 22:20 this covenant is referred to as the "New Covenant". There is a four-fold blessing to those who share in this New Covenant: 1) They shall have a new relationship to the law of God -- it will be written in their hearts. 2) They shall have a new relationship to the person of God -- He shall be their God and they shall be His people. 3) They shall have a new knowledge of God -- they shall all know God, from the least to the greatest of them. 4) They shall have a new standing before God -- they shall have all their sins forgiven. All of these blessings are received by those who enter into and receive the mercies of this New Covenant which was sealed in the blood of Christ at Calvary.

The Lord's Supper was instituted on the eve of Passover, and there is a very good reason for that. The Lord's Supper takes the place of the Passover for God's people. The Passover relates to the Old Covenant. It is a memorial of God's deliverance of all the firstborn Jews who had applied the blood of a lamb to the doorposts and lintel of their houses. In this way they were saved out of a cruel bondage to Pharaoh and his slavemasters in Egypt. Likewise, the Lord's Supper is a memorial of a deliverance as well. But the deliverance that Christ brings is far greater than the deliverance the children of Israel received. We are delivered from sin, Satan, death, and hell by Christ's shed blood. When we partake of the Lord's Supper we symbolize the fact that we appropriate these blessings by faith.

Thirdly, the Lord's Supper represents the spiritual nourishment of believers. Bread and juice are foods which nourish the body. They maintain our lives and give us strength. In the Lord's Supper we are reminded that Jesus Christ and Him crucified is that by which our souls are nourished and strengthened day by day. Christ Himself is the support and maintenance of our spiritual life. It was this truth that Jesus emphasized in John 6:53-57 when He declared, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me." Christ is pointing out here that His substitutionary atonement is the food our souls need to live day by day. Truly, the cross of Christ is God's refreshing, strengthening, and invigorating remedy for our spiritual lives!

Fourthly, the Lord's Supper represents the unity of all believers. We find this truth spelled out for us in 1 Corinthians 10:17 where Paul writes, "Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread." Just as we only use one loaf when celebrating communion, even though that one loaf is divided into many pieces, so too there is only one body of Christ though it is made up of many members. The one loaf is intended to portray the truth that we are all one in Jesus Christ. One of the purposes of the Lord's Supper is to depict the unity that we possess in Christ. For this reason, it would be best to use a single loaf, instead of many different crackers, to depict this unity that we share in Jesus.

Fifthly, the Lord's Supper represents the future Messianic banquet we will enjoy when Christ returns. Notice carefully Jesus' words in Matthew 26:29 directly after He had instituted the Supper, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." Just as there is a backward look in the Lord's Supper to our Lord's death to inaugurate the New Covenant, so there is a forward look to that day when Christ will return and we shall sit down to sup with Him again in His Father's kingdom. This may have been what Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 8:11 when He stated, "And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." Again, we have the Apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." There is in the observance of the Lord's Supper an eager looking forward to that day when Jesus will return and we shall sit down with Him to sup in His Father's kingdom. That's why a thimble full of grape juice and a tiny cracker are not fit symbols to be employed. Only a full meal can adequately represent the Messianic banquet held out for our future enjoyment.

So, how did the Lord’s Supper become what it is today? First, the early Church Bishops of the Catholic Church demanded sole right to officiate the Lord’s Supper. They condemned private meals and the connection of the Lord’s Supper with them. This was supposedly to stamp out secret religious societies and heresy (early Oneness brethren). So the Lord’s Supper was separated from the meal. Then it was demanded that people attend the Mass wherein only a priest officiated the service. This required attending the Mass. Gathered in such large groups, the church had to offer more scant tokens of the Lord’s Body and Blood… so sacramental loafs and wafers were provided. Soon the terms “sacrifice” and “mystical” were attributed to the meal, as with earlier PAGAN meals. The doctrine of Transubstantiation was taught, teaching that the priest mystically called down the very essence of God and transformed the bread and the wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus. The meal was taking on every form of a pagan mystery rite. Special garb were assigned to wear during this period. The common Christian was eventually deemed unworthy to partake, and so for some time only the priests (who were deemed worthy) could participate; with the congregation merely acting as spectators praying that by some way special grace would be imparted to them too. And so… the Eucharist was born.

The Protestant Reformation brought back the idea that the Eucharist was memorial and not literal body and blood. The also began calling it “Communion” more than Eucharist. However, the meal remained CEREMONIAL in nature. This also translated into the Pentecostal churches where today it is regarded ceremonially with the tiny wafer and thimble of grape juice that is blessed and handed out by an acting religious official.

This is why I have begun to feel convicted that the manner in which most churches partake in the Lord’s Supper is unbiblical. We would do well to bring back the love feast of the Apostles. Of course, this requires smaller gatherings. And this too is strongly encouraged to fulfill all that Paul states the Lord “commands” in I Corinthians 14, wherein all prophesy and the meeting is open and discussion based.

So, how should the Lord’s Supper be observed?

It Should Be Celebrated With Other Believers.
It Should Be Celebrated During A Common Meal Together.
It Should Be Celebrated With One Loaf And One Cup.
It Should Be Celebrated With The Blessing Of The Bread and the Cup.
It Should Be Celebrated By Breaking the Loaf in the Presence of the People.
It Should Be Celebrated With Believing Affection.
It Should Be Celebrated With Joy And Praise.

So, this New Years Eve… will you be found partaking in the Catholic Eucharist… or the Lord’s Supper?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k_rUevS9aJ8/Sw73BZUIhSI/AAAAAAAAEBM/A62Qcg3Dr5M/s320/IMG_4440.JPG

[Titus2woman]

Finally some place that we are in agreement!

I find it sad how our church celebrates 'Communion' but in recent years have had little to be sad about as they seem to have abandoned even the thimble and cracker in favor of staying home on New Years eve and watching the ball drop.

We consider the Lord's supper something that we practice at home when we fellowship. We will break bread over a homemade meal and talk about God's goodness. We do not announce to others from our fellowship that we believe this to be the 'Lord's supper' but have often brought up that this is so close to how it must have been in the early church.

We are currently in prayer for a home church opportunity that will be more authentic then how we corporately worship now.

BTW: how do you insert the individual names in your text?... nifty trick.... or if you'd rather not say I can ask my middle son the super hacker.

[Amanah]

you type [ y o u ] but without the spaces

[Titus2woman]

you type [ y o u ] but without the spaces

Ahhh... wonder if it will work on my cow board... that would freak 'em out! ;)

[Timmy]

Where's the Cliff Notes? ;)

[Aquila]

Finally some place that we are in agreement!

I find it sad how our church celebrates 'Communion' but in recent years have had little to be sad about as they seem to have abandoned even the thimble and cracker in favor of staying home on New Years eve and watching the ball drop.

We consider the Lord's supper something that we practice at home when we fellowship. We will break bread over a homemade meal and talk about God's goodness. We do not announce to others from our fellowship that we believe this to be the 'Lord's supper' but have often brought up that this is so close to how it must have been in the early church.

We are currently in prayer for a home church opportunity that will be more authentic then how we corporately worship now.

BTW: how do you insert the individual names in your text?... nifty trick.... or if you'd rather not say I can ask my middle son the super hacker.

Yes, it sounds like we are in full agreement. To me... this is very serious. As in the Christmas thread, I see much of the Christmas celebration as cultural and not necessarily "biblical", nor is it a part of my worship. However, the Lord's Supper is biblical, and something that should be done biblically.

P.S.
We've done the same in my home. In addition, I'm part of a house church network (primarily baptists lol) at this time.

[Aquila]

Ahhh... wonder if it will work on my cow board... that would freak 'em out! ;)

lol

[Amanah]

I was thinking of how you could implement this in a larger congregation.

You could replace the "Christmas Banquet" some churches have and make it a communion banquet instead.

[Digging4Truth]

Wolfgang Simson said the following in his excellent book "Houses That Change The World" speaking of the Lord's Supper...

The Lord's Supper "was actually more a substantial supper with a symbolic meaning, than a symbolic supper with a substantial meaning."

Our church doesn't do a service on New Year's Eve. We might do a Lord's Supper at our home this year.

[onefaith2]

There is no evidence the Lord's supper had more than bread and wine. A full meal would have meat and potatoes!

Is this another pun on Catholic tradition? While there are many wrong things about Catholic tradition, the Bible does not give clear instruction on how Communion or the Eucharist or the Lord's supper (for Church of Christ) was done.

There is evidence, as Aquila has posted, that there was enough bread for a large group (wafers work) and enough wine/fruit of the vine to make someone drunk if need be.

Notice Paul said, don't you have houses to eat food in? The Lord's supper was NOT meant to be a full fledged supper. Paul said in verse 34 IF anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.

You wouldn't eat a full fledged meal unless you were hungry...

Personally I think the manner in which most churches do it is closer to the Bible than the full meal.

[Digging4Truth]

Of course... he also said...

Wolfgang Simson wrote, "If we cannot make revival happen, we can at least stop hindering it!" (Houses that Change the World, page 104)


It is a great book.

[TGBTG]

Of course... he also said...

Wolfgang Simson wrote, "If we cannot make revival happen, we can at least stop hindering it!" (Houses that Change the World, page 104)


It is a great book.

:jolly:santathumb

[Titus2woman]

Yes, it sounds like we are in full agreement. To me... this is very serious. As in the Christmas thread, I see much of the Christmas celebration as cultural and not necessarily "biblical", nor is it a part of my worship. However, the Lord's Supper is biblical, and something that should be done biblically.

P.S.
We've done the same in my home. In addition, I'm part of a house church network (primarily baptists lol) at this time.


Jesus gave very few commandments... 'Do This' definitely sounds like more than a suggestion. I think in the desire to break away from Catholicism the reformers missed the boat with communion. They reduced the frequency but did not change the practice. I am more inclined to believe it just the opposite, which is that the frequency was right (every time we meet) and it was the practice (cracker) that was left in error.

I do not think a full meal is excluded but am not sure that it must always be included as in ministering to the traveler, the sick or dying. I am sure even a bite of bread and a sip of wine could suffice.

I also wonder about the communal cup. Drinking after many other people takes an act of faith for most of us. To know that those in our fellowship of believers care for their temples and are free of social diseases... or as an act of faith or obedience that overcomes the gross out factor... or maybe we are just so much more delicate than people of old

And before you start the blitz I know that it's kinda out there but my mind loves to wonder at how God decides what is good for us compared at how we decide what is good for ourselves.

[Titus2woman]

There is no evidence the Lord's supper had more than bread and wine. A full meal would have meat and potatoes!

Is this another pun on Catholic tradition? While there are many wrong things about Catholic tradition, the Bible does not give clear instruction on how Communion or the Eucharist or the Lord's supper (for Church of Christ) was done.

There is evidence, as Aquila has posted, that there was enough bread for a large group (wafers work) and enough wine/fruit of the vine to make someone drunk if need be.

Notice Paul said, don't you have houses to eat food in? The Lord's supper was NOT meant to be a full fledged supper. Paul said in verse 34 IF anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.

You wouldn't eat a full fledged meal unless you were hungry...

Personally I think the manner in which most churches do it is closer to the Bible than the full meal.

I believe that Paul's point is that those who were well off were overindulging and contributing nothing to or even leaving anything for the poor thereby leaving them not only hungry but also embarrassed.

[Aquila]

I was thinking of how you could implement this in a larger congregation.

You could replace the "Christmas Banquet" some churches have and make it a communion banquet instead.

True. Some churches actually do this.

[Titus2woman]

True. Some churches actually do this.

What an awesome idea... now getting 'ministry' to do it... that is another story.

[onefaith2]

I believe that Paul's point is that those who were well off were overindulging and contributing nothing to or even leaving anything for the poor thereby leaving them not only hungry but also embarrassed.

That was one point yes but he said you have houses to eat in.. not to indulge yourself in

[Aquila]

There is no evidence the Lord's supper had more than bread and wine. A full meal would have meat and potatoes!

Is this another pun on Catholic tradition? While there are many wrong things about Catholic tradition, the Bible does not give clear instruction on how Communion or the Eucharist or the Lord's supper (for Church of Christ) was done.

There is evidence, as Aquila has posted, that there was enough bread for a large group (wafers work) and enough wine/fruit of the vine to make someone drunk if need be.

Notice Paul said, don't you have houses to eat food in? The Lord's supper was NOT meant to be a full fledged supper. Paul said in verse 34 IF anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.

You wouldn't eat a full fledged meal unless you were hungry...

Personally I think the manner in which most churches do it is closer to the Bible than the full meal.

Bro... the Last Supper was a Passover Seder:

http://graftedinelena.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/seder.jpg

I've yet to find a NT scholar who didn't agree with the fact that the first church not only gathered in homes for Christian worship for nearly 200 years... or the fact that these gatherings were around the Lord's Supper served as a large meal, a "love feast", with the bread being broken and the wine being passed at the end of the meal as with the Last Supper.

Notice Paul said, don't you have houses to eat food in? The Lord's supper was NOT meant to be a full fledged supper. Paul said in verse 34 IF anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.

Context is everything. Yes, the Corinthians were practicing the Lords Supper like it was an ordinary meal, without any reverence. They were showing up, eating everything and getting drunk... leaving the less fortunate brethren who arrived later with nearly nothing to feast upon. They were being inconsiderate pigs. Paul was essentially telling them that if they are that hungry and want to just get drunk... they should just stay home and do that.

[Aquila]

While the sacramentalists who value Catholid tradition over Scripture don't want to accept it... the Lord's Supper was performed by Jesus Himself like this:

Matthew 26:26-28
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Full meal. This was also the practice of the early church....

Acts 2:41-47
41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

All of these are references to the love feasts that the early church would have that included the breaking of the loaf and the passing of the cup.

It's the "Lord's Supper"... not the "Lord's SNACK". ;)

[onefaith2]

Bro... the Last Supper was a Passover Seder:

http://graftedinelena.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/seder.jpg

I've yet to find a NT scholar who didn't agree with the fact that the first church not only gathered in homes for Christian worship for nearly 200 years... or the fact that these gatherings were around the Lord's Supper served as a large meal, a "love feast", with the bread being broken and the wine being passed at the end of the meal as with the Last Supper.


I've yet to read a Bible translation that mentions any meat or other items at that supper. It was Bread and Wine. There was also a basin for foot washing. Where is that in the picture? It was at a table and they were able to dip their bread. There is NO evidence of a full fledged meal like a feast. Its just not there.


Context is everything. Yes, the Corinthians were practicing the Lords Supper like it was an ordinary meal, without any reverence. They were showing up, eating everything and getting drunk... leaving the less fortunate brethren who arrived later with nearly nothing to feast upon. They were being inconsiderate pigs. Paul was essentially telling them that if they are that hungry and want to just get drunk... they should just stay home and do that.

Paul also said you have a house to eat in. The meal was not to get full or get drunk but to remember the body and blood of the Lord. There is no evidence it was supposed to be a meal. They were making it a meal by getting drunk and eating up all the bread.

[onefaith2]

from wikipedia.org

Raymond Brown has argued that during the Jewish Passover Seder, the first cup of wine is drunk before the eating of the (unleavened) bread, but here it occurs after. This may indicate that the event was not the first Passover Seder (which occurs on Nisan 15), and hence more in line with John's chronology which places it on Nisan 14, although the meal could easily have been altered during the Last Supper for symbolic or religious purposes. Among Christian denominations, the Eastern Orthodox Church holds that this Eucharistic meal was not the Passover Seder, but a separate meal.[57] The Presbyterian Church documents also specifically rejects the Seder arguments and state that given that no Jewish Seder texts exist earlier than the 9th century, it is historically implausible to attempt a reconstruction of the Seder to create a parallel to the Last Supper, and that the Gospel accounts clearly indicate that the purpose of the Last Supper was not the annual repetition of the Exodus.[58]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There seem to be many reasons why its plausible the Lord's supper was NOt the Seder

[Aquila]

Interesting blog:

Concluding Thoughts to the Lord's Supper Series
This series has set out to show some oft-neglected theological aspect of the Lord's Supper that held significance for the early church. Most of what we know about these things comes from the pen of Paul who defines the Lord’s Supper in a number of very specific ways. At the very outset, the Supper must enjoy the consensual unity of its participants, without which it ceases to be the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17-22). Yet consensual unity is not enough. The Supper must also visibly express that unity through the singularity of the bread and cup (1 Cor 10:16-17). When this visible expression is present, we find that the singularity of the bread and cup actually causes bodily unity. This unity aspect prevails in the earliest manifestation of the church and finds support in a number of patristic sources as well.

Perhaps the most significant and theologically loaded aspect of the Lord’s Supper is the fact that the Supper was originally a full meal. Indeed, what Paul refers to when he coins the title “Lord’s Supper” is the meal, of which the bread and wine are prominent components, and apart from which the Lord’s Supper cannot properly be called a “supper.” The separation of the meal from the bread and wine occurred sometime after the apostolic age and, contrary to popular belief, was quite unintended by Paul. Whatever may have been the relationship between the bread and wine and the meal in a later age, they belonged together in the New Testament church. This meal, also known as the Agape, is alluded to by both Jude and Peter, and was widely practiced by the early post-apostolic church. The fact that this meal received no fewer than two specialized names (Lord's Supper; Agape) argues strongly for its apostolic endorsement. These two names, in addition to other phrases assigned to the Supper (such as “breaking bread”), show the universal acceptance of the meal in the early church, so that it will not do to postulate that the meal-aspect of the Supper was characteristic of Paul's churches only.

The Supper held a wide range of purposes. First, it served as an expression of concern for the poor in the believing community ("those who have nothing," 1 Cor 11:22). In all likelihood, the Supper was a potluck of sorts provided by the rich to demonstrate their love to those less fortunate. It is probably this practice that resulted in the adoption of the title Agape ("love feast"). A second dimension of the Supper is that it compelled the Christian community to live out the theology of equality of status in Christ (by which I certainly do not mean equality of roles), violating the Hellenistic societal norm to hold homogenous banquets where class distinctions were acutely recognized. Closely related to this, the Supper also erased ethnic divisions between Jew and Gentile, forcing the Jewish Christians to regard as “clean” what God himself has declared clean (Acts 10:1-13; cf. Gal 2:11-13).

Perhaps the most important, yet oft-missed aspect of the Supper is its eschatological focus. The Lord’s Supper prefigures the Messianic Banquet and acts as a means to petition Messiah to come again. The Supper is to be repeated on a regular basis in order to sound this petition and to give the participants the opportunity to proclaim with one voice, Maranatha! This is not far different from the practice of Israel during the hallel of the Passover Haggadah to petition God to send the Messiah the first time. This eschatological focus has direct implications for the form, frequency, and centrality of the Supper. If the Supper is to prefigure the Messianic Banquet, then the Supper itself must have the form of an actual meal. Moreover, if the focus of the Supper is to sound a plea for the parousia, then it is natural to suppose that the church practiced it whenever it met together. As it turns out, the regular gathering of the church in the NT is on a weekly basis, and on the first day of the week. We also find that the very purpose of the regular meeting of the church was to partake of the Supper, entailing that the Supper, too, was practiced on a weekly basis. This is not surprising given that both the "Lord’s Supper" and the "Lord’s Day" have very similar titles, perhaps even by design.

Finally, we found that the physical setting of the church played a significant role in the early practice of the Lord’s Supper. The house church was conducive to the kind of intimate table fellowship demanded by the Supper. Further, this setting helps to answer the question of just who is invited to partake of the Supper. Since the church meeting itself was centered on the Supper (likely occupying the entire length of the meeting), and since we know that in at least some cases unbelievers joined themselves to the early believers for this occasion (1 Cor 14:23-25), it follows that unbelievers also partook of the Supper with the church, and that the church allowed it.

Because this table setting is absent in most evangelical churches today, some of the intended theology of the Supper is lost as well. What is needed is not more adaptation of the Supper to accommodate our modern setting; what is needed is more of a willingness to conform our setting to accommodate the Lord’s Supper as revealed in the New Testament. Until we do, much of the theology of the Supper will remain lost to us—and with it, its benefits to the church.

http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/concluding-thoughts-to-lords-supper.html

[Aquila]

Another great article:



http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=9

[Aquila]

from wikipedia.org

Raymond Brown has argued that during the Jewish Passover Seder, the first cup of wine is drunk before the eating of the (unleavened) bread, but here it occurs after. This may indicate that the event was not the first Passover Seder (which occurs on Nisan 15), and hence more in line with John's chronology which places it on Nisan 14, although the meal could easily have been altered during the Last Supper for symbolic or religious purposes. Among Christian denominations, the Eastern Orthodox Church holds that this Eucharistic meal was not the Passover Seder, but a separate meal.[57] The Presbyterian Church documents also specifically rejects the Seder arguments and state that given that no Jewish Seder texts exist earlier than the 9th century, it is historically implausible to attempt a reconstruction of the Seder to create a parallel to the Last Supper, and that the Gospel accounts clearly indicate that the purpose of the Last Supper was not the annual repetition of the Exodus.[58]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There seem to be many reasons why its plausible the Lord's supper was NOt the Seder

Raymond Brown is a sacramentalist. Also, he ignores the efforts of the Roman church to separate the bread and wine from an actual meal to herd congregants into Catholic Cathedrals.

[onefaith2]

Supper

1) supper, especially a formal meal usually held at the evening,

a) used of the Messiah's feast, symbolising salvation in the kingdom

2) food taken at evening

These are different meanings from strongs concordance related to the greek word for supper used in 1 Corinithians 11.

As we can see, there is a distinct definition which fits the event that doesn't necessarily refer to food taken at the evening or a feast.

[Aquila]

Great article:

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/11Church/ServiceLordsSupper_Farstad.aspx

[onefaith2]

Raymond Brown is a sacramentalist. Also, he ignores the efforts of the Roman church to separate the bread and wine from an actual meal to herd congregants into Catholic Cathedrals.

And you disagree with his theology so you throw out his assessment? What do you say of John's timeline in the gospels that the supper occurred on Nisan 14 rather than on Nisan 15 when the Seder supposedly was celebrated? On Nisan 14 the lambs are still being executed. No feast took place on this day.

It is important to note that the Bible declares no meal, rather than a simple breaking of bread and a cup of the fruit of the vine.

[Aquila]

Consider:

Matthew 26:17-28
17Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
18And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
19And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
20Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
21And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
22And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?
23And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
24The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
25Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

[Aquila]

And you disagree with his theology so you throw out his assessment? What do you say of John's timeline in the gospels that the supper occurred on Nisan 14 rather than on Nisan 15 when the Seder supposedly was celebrated? On Nisan 14 the lambs are still being executed. No feast took place on this day.

It is important to note that the Bible declares no meal, rather than a simple breaking of bread and a cup of the fruit of the vine.

The dude is bent.

[onefaith2]

Consider:

Matthew 26:17-28
17Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
18And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
19And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
20Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
21And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
22And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?
23And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
24The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
25Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

It was a Passover Seder.

Matthew puts in on Nisan 15 while John does not. However the Eucharist was spotlighted only on the bread and the wine. The Lamb meat was not blessed as the body of the lord neither was any other food. He said, THIS ye do in remembrance of me. (He said nothing of keeping the passover feast to remember him)

While the setting may or may not be the Seder, there is no evidence that the New testament teaches it as a feast.

The point is to cross over out of Jewish tradition as Paul indicated. That is why I believe the Bible stresses the Lord's supper to be bread and wine only, not meant to be a meal or feast, like the Seder that you imply.

Why is it that John disagrees with Matthew regarding the date?

[Aquila]

And you disagree with his theology so you throw out his assessment? What do you say of John's timeline in the gospels that the supper occurred on Nisan 14 rather than on Nisan 15 when the Seder supposedly was celebrated? On Nisan 14 the lambs are still being executed. No feast took place on this day.

It is important to note that the Bible declares no meal, rather than a simple breaking of bread and a cup of the fruit of the vine.

From Wickipedia:

The Passover Seder (Hebrew: סֵדֶר‎ [ˈsedeʁ], "order, arrangement"; Yiddish: Seyder) is a Jewish ritual feast that marks the beginning of the jewish holiday of passover. It is conducted on the evenings of the 14th day of Nisan in the Hebrew calendar, and on the 15th by traditionally observant Jews living outside Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder

Dude doesn't know his stuff. The Seder was celebrated when??? 14th day of Nissan.

[onefaith2]

The dude is bent.

Both the Eastern Orthodox church and the Presbyterians agree, that it was not Seder. The antiquity of the Eastern Church along with the Antiquity of the Roman church, although they are a split, both agree.

Do you have any Christian historians such as Iranaeus or Ignatius that claim its the Seder?

[onefaith2]

Here are a few


Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (the Didache), 9:2; 14:1, circa 90 A.D.:

Regarding the Eucharist ... Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too, the saying of the Lord is applicable: Do not give to dogs what is sacred.

On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations. [Mal 1:11,14].


Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:

Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.

The Sunday Assembly

Furthermore, after this we always remind one another of these things. Those who have the means aid those who are needy, and we are always united. Over everything which we take to ourselves we bless the Creator of the universe through His Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

On the day called after the sun [Sunday] there is a meeting for which all those dwelling in the cities or in the countryside come together. The records of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows. When the reader has stopped, the one who is presiding admonishes and encourages us by a sermon to the imitation of those good examples.

Then we all stand up together and lift up our prayers and, as I said previously, when we have finished our prayer, bread is brought forth and wine and water. The one who is presiding offers up prayers and thanksgiving according to his ability and the people acclaim their assent with ``Amen.'' There is the distribution of and participation on the part of each one in the gifts for which thanks has been offered, and they are sent to those who are not present through the deacons.

We all come together on the day of the sun since it is the first day, on which God changed darkness and matter and made the world. On that day, Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead. They crucified him on the day preceding that of Saturn, and on the day of the sun he appeared to his Apostles and disciples and taught them these things which we have presented also to you for inspection.

[Aquila]

Please note that one aspect of the Lord's supper was that it also served as a meal of charity to those saints who were in need:

I Corinthians 11:22
22What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

1 Corinthians 11:22
English Standard Version (ESV)
22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

1 Corinthians 11:22
New Living Translation (NLT)
22 What? Don’t you have your own homes for eating and drinking? Or do you really want to disgrace God’s church and shame the poor? What am I supposed to say? Do you want me to praise you? Well, I certainly will not praise you for this!

1 Corinthians 11:22
Amplified Bible (AMP)
22What! Do you have no houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and mean to show contempt for it, while you humiliate those who are poor (have no homes and have brought no food)? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, [most certainly] I will not!

Your sacramentalist position doesn't allow for the Lord's Supper being a feast of charity that also served to feed the poor. The problem was that many of the Corinthian brothren, who didn't need such assistance, were pigging out on the meal and leaving nothing for those in need.

1 Corinthians 11:22
The Message (MSG)
20-22And then I find that you bring your divisions to worship—you come together, and instead of eating the Lord's Supper, you bring in a lot of food from the outside and make pigs of yourselves. Some are left out, and go home hungry. Others have to be carried out, too drunk to walk. I can't believe it! Don't you have your own homes to eat and drink in? Why would you stoop to desecrating God's church? Why would you actually shame God's poor? I never would have believed you would stoop to this. And I'm not going to stand by and say nothing.

Paul wasn't rebuking the notion of the Lord's Supper being the meal that it was. Paul was rebuking the abuse of it and the inconsiderate carelessness that left those in need without food. Paul's point is simply this... if those who were not in need were that hungry and wanting to get buzzed on some wine... they should have do that at home instead of coming to the love feast to pig out and get drunk in an invironment that is supposed to be one of worship and devotion.

In the house church I attend, we are very considerate to ensure that everyone has had their fill of the Lord's Supper before seconds are taken... and we never get drunk. If we know someone will be late, we set aside a plate for them. And yes, we break a loaf of bread and pass it around. And yes, we pass around a single cup. Participants dip their bread into the cup and partake as it passes by. And yes... only those who are baptized are permitted to partake in the bread and the wine.

[Aquila]

Both the Eastern Orthodox church and the Presbyterians agree, that it was not Seder. The antiquity of the Eastern Church along with the Antiquity of the Roman church, although they are a split, both agree.

Do you have any Christian historians such as Iranaeus or Ignatius that claim its the Seder?

So you actually think that the love feast, the Lord's Supper, was to be this sacramental "wafer" (made of God knows what) and a thimble of grape juice??? LOL

You're pulling from early Catholic church history, the Greek Orthodox, and the Presbyterians. They are the ones who desecrated the Lord's Supper and sacramentalized it into resembling a pagan mystery rite.

So, Onefaith, this New Year's Eve... will you partake in the Catholic Eucharist or the Lord's Supper?

[onefaith2]

So you actually think that the love feast, the Lord's Supper, was to be this sacramental "wafer" (made of God knows what) and a thimble of grape juice??? LOL

You're pulling from early Catholic church history, the Greek Orthodox, and the Presbyterians. They are the ones who desecrated the Lord's Supper and sacramentalized it into resembling a pagan mystery rite.

So, Onefaith, this New Year's Eve... will you partake in the Catholic Eucharist or the Lord's Supper?

Neither, I will take Communion. However, Communion is not meant to be a supper as I find no scripture that mandates it so. I assume you desire to keep the Jewish traditions of Seder in your remembrance of the Lord for a reason. That is your personal preference.

As for pulling from early Catholic history, I am pulling from early church history and part of that is Catholic. Everything that the Catholics teach is not false. Their historical accounts of folks like Iranaeus and Justin Martyr are true and they show how the early church partook in the Communion, which they called the holy Eucharist. It was bread and fruit of the vine.

[Jay]

The problem would still exist today, where the greedy and selfish would eat more than is reasonable, and then others would eat little. The RCC just eliminated the meal and preserved the cermonial portion of the event. Perhaps, if not done originally, they solved the irritant that was the excessive and irreverant feasting.

[Aquila]

Neither, I will take Communion. However, Communion is not meant to be a supper as I find no scripture that mandates it so. I assume you desire to keep the Jewish traditions of Seder in your remembrance of the Lord for a reason. That is your personal preference.

As for pulling from early Catholic history, I am pulling from early church history and part of that is Catholic. Everything that the Catholics teach is not false. Their historical accounts of folks like Iranaeus and Justin Martyr are true and they show how the early church partook in the Communion, which they called the holy Eucharist. It was bread and fruit of the vine.

Bro... the Catholic church condemned the Lord's Supper as was practiced by the Apostles. It was separated from the meal and then it was ordered that only a priest could facilitate it. These are the individuals who distorted the Lord's Supper. Of course they will support pagan sacramentalism.

[Aquila]

The problem would still exist today, where the greedy and selfish would eat more than is reasonable, and then others would eat little. The RCC just eliminated the meal and preserved the cermonial portion of the event. Perhaps, if not done originally, they solved the irritant that was the excessive and irreverant feasting.

Ummmm.... Jay... I attend a house church network. We do the Lord's Supper every week with a type of potluck. We always ensure that all have eaten before going for seconds and we always hold back at least a plate if somone reports that they are running late. We've had no issues and I've been attending these meetings for well over a year. During the meal we share testimonies and prayer requests. It's like a family dinner. After the meal we pray, reflect on the Lord's death and what it means to us. We evaluate ourselves and yes it's not unusual to PUBLICALLY CONFESS sin and ask for prayer from the group. After prayer, praise God and we then pass a loaf of bread and a cup of grape juice around the table. After the Lord's Supper we sing songs and then clean up. After clean up we men break away and go to the basement. It's here that we "check in" and talk about our spiritual walk and condition as it relates to our position in Christ. We pray for one another to become all that Christ intends. The women are upstairs doing the same. Then the women join us in the basement and we cover a passage of Scripture. The elder reads it or we take turns. It depends on if he wishes to lead off the discussion. After the passage is read the elder shares his thoughts and gets us discussing it and it's practical application to our lives. It's a time wherein we minister to one another sharing our insights and experiences. It's a beautiful thing Jay. And it happens every week in our church community. :)

Here's an introductory video from the house church network I attend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLSkWrypu3Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGnuhg2uEE&feature=related

[onefaith2]

Bro... the Catholic church condemned the Lord's Supper as was practiced by the Apostles. It was separated from the meal and then it was ordered that only a priest could facilitate it. These are the individuals who distorted the Lord's Supper. Of course they will support pagan sacramentalism.

The catholic church did no such thing. The Catholic church wasn't even completely formed when quotes were made by Early Church fathers regarding what they called Eucharist. When do you believe the institution of the Catholic Church began?

The Roman Catholic Church didn't truly begin as its structured until later with the Roman Bishop as head.

Jesus said, this is my body (he broke bread) and this is my blood (they drank of the cup). Neither Jesus or the apostles taught you as a Christian had to observe this as a feast. That was a Jewish custom and you know how the transfer of jewish customs into Christianity worked out?

So if you choose a feast, that is your preference, as there is no condemning either. However the only part to be concerned about is the bread and the vine.

[Aquila]

The catholic church did no such thing. The Catholic church wasn't even completely formed when quotes were made by Early Church fathers regarding what they called Eucharist. When do you believe the institution of the Catholic Church began?

The Roman Catholic Church didn't truly begin as its structured until later with the Roman Bishop as head.

The Catholic Church has codified it. Did they not officially decree that the Eucharist was to be taken as part of Mass? Did they not decree that it could only be officiated by an ordained priest.

Jesus said, this is my body (he broke bread) and this is my blood (they drank of the cup). Neither Jesus or the apostles taught you as a Christian had to observe this as a feast. That was a Jewish custom and you know how the transfer of jewish customs into Christianity worked out?

I'm not talking about a Jewish feast. lol I'm talking about the Lord's Supper. I Corinthians 11 is clear that it was originally conducted as part of love feast.

So if you choose a feast, that is your preference, as there is no condemning either. However the only part to be concerned about is the bread and the vine.

I could go as far as to say that the only truly imortant part is the bread and the wine (or grape juice). But that takes away from it being in remembrance of the Last Supper. It takes away from it being a love feast of fellowship (ancient cultures valued eating together as part of covenant). It takes away from it being a symbolic meal representing the one in which we will feast with Jesus in the Kingdom. Lastly, it was a feast wherein the less fortunate saints were often fed.

To partake in a tiny wafer and a thimble of grape juice as the Catholics do is to completely gut the Lord's Supper of it's true symbolic and functional meaning.

I mean, if it doesn't bother you to take the Lord's Supper as a Eucharistic "snack"... that's you're choice. However, give me true Apostolic custom.

[bbyrd009]

...
TO BE CONTINUED....

HA! Amen ( ;

[bbyrd009]

The Catholic Church has codified it. Did they not officially decree that the Eucharist was to be taken as part of Mass? Did they not decree that it could only be officiated by an ordained priest...

To partake in a tiny wafer and a thimble of grape juice as the Catholics do is to completely gut the Lord's Supper of it's true symbolic and functional meaning.

I seem to remember a thoughtful argument being made by Arnold Murray, I believe it was, that doing the bolded part up there guts it pretty good, too? Early Christians had the Lord's Supper like 3 or 4 times a year?

Great thread, ty.

[houston]

Btw, the Rcc uses wine, not grape juice.

[shag]

Partaking of the Bread and wine unworthily ....


1 Cor.11: ..27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.

32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.




So...what are some thots on this....does God still make folks sick and kill them for doing this "unworthily"? (judgement)

[Timmy]

So, do Catholics partake unworthily? Is that why many of them are sick, and some die?

[Timmy]

So, do Catholics partake unworthily? Is that why many of them are sick, and some die?

Doh! Posted before seeing Shag's post. Consider this a bump of his question, then. :)

[Hoovie]

Waiting for discussion on Shag's question! That's a truly puzzling passage of scripture.


Supper, Feast, Snack, Churrasco, or Fondue... in the end it is the two elements that are to remind us of his broken body and shed blood... Wine and Bread.

If those two elements are there then it is enough. Same in Baptism... the important thing is that the Name of Jesus is called upon for salvation and the baptism is with water.

[Aquila]

Btw, the Rcc uses wine, not grape juice.

Yes, interesting isn't it? The RCC uses wine, as Jesus most likely used... but sacramentalizes it in a tiny itty bitty wafer. And your mainstream Apostolic churches use the Catholic wafer AND don't use wine, opting to use Welche's Grape Juice. So one could argue that communion among Apostolic churches is even further removed from the original form than the RCC's sacrament.

[Aquila]

Partaking of the Bread and wine unworthily ....


1 Cor.11: ..27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.

32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.




So...what are some thots on this....does God still make folks sick and kill them for doing this "unworthily"? (judgement)

I believe it's possible. You know... we don't see a lot of divine healing in churches today. What I'm about to say is simply hypothetical... but... What if the lack of divine healing, and therefore the resulting sickness and death among us, is connected to the way we partake in the Lord's Supper without discernment and proper self examination?

What if we are not taking this ordinance serious enough? You know... we kind of shove it off to do once a year and it appears that the early church partook in the Lord's Supper quite often... perhaps everytime they gathered. Some theologians would say the Lord's Supper played a central role in gatherings next to the discussions and teaching. This would mean that they came together to fellowship over the table, partook in the Lord's Supper, and discussed the truths of the Scripture together. No choirs, no programs, no big buildings, no sound systems. It's humbling to consider how the early church did things compared to how we do things... we've turned church into a multimillion dollar operation that requires a team of trained professionals. No wonder the church isn't growing as fast as it did in the first two centuries.

Here's an interesting video. It touches on methods of the early church and the Lord's Supper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ZIMJU3DhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2_hiPSW54Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrxi5yt77ZQ&feature=related

[shag]

Something I noticed when we did the bread and wine at church the other night....our pastor was leading it going thru the scriptures, however, I noticed that while he read it 2-3 times that he stopped every time at the point of verse 28 instead of reading on down about what happened when we take it unworthily.

We had a lot of guests there,(probly 375-400 people including guests, total) and he made it a point to tell all that all did not need to partake and it was up to each individual based on "examining oneself".

But everytime(2-3) time it came to scripture, no reading on down about death and sickness for taking it unwirthily. Seems a pretty big deal to me to leave that out.... suppose many were "unworthy", even unrepented guests, and got sick and died...whose fault is that?

Seems pretty serious...

[Nitehawk013]

I wondered myself as to this verse Saturday. Whqat did Paul really mean by unworthy? And were people mystically getting struck with sickness and death a la Annanias and Sapphira? Or are we losing something in the translation and centuries that have gone by?

Perhaps it was less a mystical thing, and more a practical thing. Maybe they got sick, or even died, from drinking and eating too much? Too much food makes you sick, and too much wine can kill you dead from alcohol. I don't know. I'm curious as to what Paul was really trying to tell us.

[Timmy]

Something I noticed when we did the bread and wine at church the other night....our pastor was leading it going thru the scriptures, however, I noticed that while he read it 2-3 times that he stopped every time at the point of verse 28 instead of reading on down about what happened when we take it unworthily.

We had a lot of guests there,(probly 375-400 people including guests, total) and he made it a point to tell all that all did not need to partake and it was up to each individual based on "examining oneself".

But everytime(2-3) time it came to scripture, no reading on down about death and sickness for taking it unwirthily. Seems a pretty big deal to me to leave that out.... suppose many were "unworthy", even unrepented guests, and got sick and died...whose fault is that?

Seems pretty serious...

That's very interesting. My guess is that your pastor doesn't believe there is any real danger of death, if anyone there partook "unworthily". He might base that opinion on his observation that nowadays, nobody actually does die because of that. The sickness/death warning that passage may (in his opinion) have been true back in that day, but (again, in his opinion) may no longer be applicable. Probably didn't want to take the time to explain all that, during communion.

[Aquila]

Something I noticed when we did the bread and wine at church the other night....our pastor was leading it going thru the scriptures, however, I noticed that while he read it 2-3 times that he stopped every time at the point of verse 28 instead of reading on down about what happened when we take it unworthily.

We had a lot of guests there,(probly 375-400 people including guests, total) and he made it a point to tell all that all did not need to partake and it was up to each individual based on "examining oneself".

But everytime(2-3) time it came to scripture, no reading on down about death and sickness for taking it unwirthily. Seems a pretty big deal to me to leave that out.... suppose many were "unworthy", even unrepented guests, and got sick and died...whose fault is that?

Seems pretty serious...

Our house church will not allow anyone to participate in the Lord's Supper unless they are water baptized.

[Aquila]

That's very interesting. My guess is that your pastor doesn't believe there is any real danger of death, if anyone there partook "unworthily". He might base that opinion on his observation that nowadays, nobody actually does die because of that. The sickness/death warning that passage may (in his opinion) have been true back in that day, but (again, in his opinion) may no longer be applicable. Probably didn't want to take the time to explain all that, during communion.

What if this has something to do with the lack of physical healings we see in the church today compared to the church of the first century? Because of partaking of the Lord's body unworthily, many who might have been healed become very sick and often die. What do you think?

[Timmy]

What if this has something to do with the lack of physical healings we see in the church today compared to the church of the first century? Because of partaking of the Lord's body unworthily, many who might have been healed become very sick and often die. What do you think?

Somewhere here on AFF, someone said there are many reasons for not getting a healing. He (or she? I forget who it was) listed several Bible-based reasons, and went on to say there could be other reasons God has that aren't even mentioned in the Bible. Is this a healthy view of God? That He withholds nice things, such as healings, for any of several reasons, including possible reasons He doesn't even tell us about? Is this something we'd expect from a God who "is love"?

Most of us earthly fathers, being evil (read that somewhere :heeheehee), are not that nitpicky and vague. Sure, we may not give our kids ice cream every time they ask, and we may not even explain why every time, but we sure wouldn't stand by and let our child be abused by someone as we look on, keeping our reasons to ourselves. (As if there could be a good reason for doing so!) God apparently does that kind of thing all the time.

[Aquila]

Somewhere here on AFF, someone said there are many reasons for not getting a healing. He (or she? I forget who it was) listed several Bible-based reasons, and went on to say there could be other reasons God has that aren't even mentioned in the Bible. Is this a healthy view of God? That He withholds nice things, such as healings, for any of several reasons, including possible reasons He doesn't even tell us about? Is this something we'd expect from a God who "is love"?

Most of us earthly fathers, being evil (read that somewhere :heeheehee), are not that nitpicky and vague. Sure, we may not give our kids ice cream every time they ask, and we may not even explain why every time, but we sure wouldn't stand by and let our child be abused by someone as we look on, keeping our reasons to ourselves. (As if there could be a good reason for doing so!) God apparently does that kind of thing all the time.

Father knows best.

[Timmy]

Father knows best.

Uh huh.

[RandyWayne]

Somewhere here on AFF, someone said there are many reasons for not getting a healing. He (or she? I forget who it was) listed several Bible-based reasons, and went on to say there could be other reasons God has that aren't even mentioned in the Bible. Is this a healthy view of God? That He withholds nice things, such as healings, for any of several reasons, including possible reasons He doesn't even tell us about? Is this something we'd expect from a God who "is love"?

Most of us earthly fathers, being evil (read that somewhere :heeheehee), are not that nitpicky and vague. Sure, we may not give our kids ice cream every time they ask, and we may not even explain why every time, but we sure wouldn't stand by and let our child be abused by someone as we look on, keeping our reasons to ourselves. (As if there could be a good reason for doing so!) God apparently does that kind of thing all the time.

Actually.... I know some parents who's children joined the military and DID have a difficult time thinking of their "poor widdle ones" being abused by the evil maniacal "full metal jacket" drill sergeant. But they stood by and held their tongues. They ultimately knew the "abuse" was good for them in the long run.

Granted this is probably a little different situation than what you were referring too. I DO see some similarities.

[Praxeas]

His emphasis was on the bread and wine, not on the rest of ceder.

We don't celebrate the "supper"...nobody that I know considers this act of remembrance a supper.

It's symbolic and done in remembrance

[Dante]

Eucharist.