What is the Lord's Supper?

[dldjr86]

I'm wondering what everyone thinks the Lord's Supper is? I would also like to know what everyone thinks make up the Lord's Supper, why we take of it, and how often we are supposed to take of it? I hope that this turns out to be a good study.

 

[dldjr86]

Doesn't anyone want to study the Lord's Study?

 

[Polycarp1]

Definitely.

But on some points you'll find agreement, and others are hotly controverted.

Couple of quick points for your consideration:

It's something we're told to do by Christ's command. It was the custom of the early church as described in Acts and Paul's letters. Therefore nobody is privileged to choose whether or not to do it -- it's merely in freqency, meaning, rite and ritual that we differ.

Something very significant is obscured in translation. Quick parallel: the German verb werden is translated "become" -- but the English verb implies passive acceptance of external forces; one "becomes" something because things act on one to make one over into what one becomes. In contrast, werden is most accurately translated "make oneself into" -- it's an active verb, implyng a personal act of will.

In the same sense, "remembrance" in "Do this in remembrance of me" is something of a mistranslation -- it implies a simple act of recollection, a quiet recall of something past. The Greerk noun it translates, anamnesis, is by no means that passive -- it literally means "un-forgetting" and carries a connotation of "bringing to vivid life by act of memory." When we "do this in remembrance of" Him, we are not solemnly merely recalling the Last Supper, but making His sharing of the bread and wine with the Twelve a vivid presence in our own lives today. A witty theologian once said that the Eucharist (Lord's Supper/Holy Communion) is really the only functional time machine -- It brings us to be present in the Upper Room with the Twelve as Christ shares His last meal with them.

 

[aggie03]

I'd like to study it! I guess that I'll ask a simple question and see what other people have to say. For those who only do so twice a month (Lutherans, in particular), what Scriptural justification do you have for doing so?

 

[dldjr86]

Aggie,

I had the same question. I'm interested to see this.

 

[Philo]

Is this an Acts 20:7-based thread? Just wondering. Not that I care particularly about what day or when anyone takes communion... But I have always thought the Acts 20:7 discussion was interesting.

 

[dldjr86]

I like to use Acts 20:7 to show the Biblical reasoning. How bout you, Philo? What verse do you thin

 

[Philo]

Okay. Critical examination time:

Luke records in Acts 20 the story of Paul visitting the house of some believers, the only one mentioned by name being Etychus. Now, it mentions that they had broken bread and it was the first day of the week. In order to show that this sets some kind of precedent for communion in the church, you should be able to show:

1. They were partaking of communion, and not just eating dinner as it seems to imply in verse 11.

2. That the fact that it was the first day of the week wasn't just an incidental fact.

3. Any other mention of communion being taken on a specific day. And no, just in case you were wondering, laying up in store is not communion.

So, answer me these questions three, and we can be on our way to a fruitful study of the Lord's Supper!

 

[aggie03]

So, anyone who practices anything else than partaking of the Lord's Supper on the Lord's Day must then be able to also prove their position from the Scriptures.

They must be able to show that the early Christians met once or twice a month to partake of the Lord's Supper (Lutheran in particular). They must be able to prove that they believed it was the literal body, the literal blood (Catholic in particular). I am most interested in hearing from those who do not partake of the Lord's Super every week, only on the first day of the week (Catholics, Lutherans, Baptist, Methodist, to name a few).

I am most interested in seeing some of these views outlined with the questions you have presented. Of course, I am planning on presenting and defending my own beliefs - probably later tonight as I must needs to be on my way to class!

 

[dldjr86]

Same here, can't wait!

 

[Philo]

Just in case you were wondering, I think it would be positively okay to take communion on a Tuesday afternoon, as long as you are coming into it with a right heart. Paul did make mention of when we are not supposed to take communion, but last time I checked it had more to do with being right with God than being right with the Calender.

I think taking Acts 20:7 as a command to take communion on the first day of the week is reading a tad bit too far into it... Mostly because there is a huge margin of error involved. I do believe that taking the Lord's Supper on Sundays, every week, is a perfectly good and holy practice. It's convenient and in a setting where more than most of our lives we are allowed time to sit and focus on God entirely.

Is there any Scriptural evidence that tells me that the Apostles might have taken the Lord's supper on any day but Sunday? Nope, not that I see. But, in the same way, I cannot see any substancial evidence that it was actually a Divinely instituted practice to be observed every single Sunday. Come to think of it, where is that verse where it says "take the Lord's Supper every week." If there is such a verse, I would really appreciate someone pointing it out to me, in all seriousness. I could be mistaken in my belief that a verse such as this isn't to be found in the NT.

 

[Polycarp1]

The longstanding Tradition of the church as a whole -- recognizing that since the Reformation some groups have stepped away from this, for what they see as good and proper reasons -- has been to have the principal service of the Church on the first day of the week, and to have it include acts of praise, readings from the Scriptures, whenever possible a teaching (homily or sermon), prayers, and the solemn sharing of bread and wine set apart for the purpose by prayer. There are Scriptures that allude to this, though none that directly command it. Most of us who feel that it's the proper course see the last as a case of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" -- Paul's letters were intended to correct errors of doctrine and prctice, not usually to affirm what the church was doing properly.

I think we could get into an interminable argument with no edification by discussing exactly what the communion elements -- the bread and wine -- supposedly are, and it's one that perhaps does not need delving into. Rather, let me suggest a "common ground" statement: In John 6, Matthew 26:20-29, Mark 14:17-25, Luke 22:14-30, and I Corinthians 22:17-34, Jesus (and Paul in viritually the only direct quote of Jesus he ever uses) imply that there is a strong spiritual connection between the bread and wine shared at the Last Supper and Christ's body broken for us and His blood poured out for us, and that we participate in that sharing and are bonded into the Body and share in the nourishment of the Blood in the receiving of communion. I Corinthians 11:26 and John 6:53-56 are particularly instructive in this regard. Whatever we may regard the communion elements as being, those passages furnish common understanding for what they do in the soul of the believer.

I'd ask any knowledgeable Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical Protestant to review what I have just said and critique it, not for what it doesn't say, but for what it does affirm.

 

[tulc]

Sound's good to me Polycarp1.
tulc(thank's for emphasizing the things that can be agreed on)

 

[Florida College]

Just in case you were wondering, I think it would be positively okay to take communion on a Tuesday afternoon, as long as you are coming into it with a right heart. Paul did make mention of when we are not supposed to take communion, but last time I checked it had more to do with being right with God than being right with the Calender.

What about Romans 10:17? And 1 Peter 4:11a?

I think taking Acts 20:7 as a command to take communion on the first day of the week is reading a tad bit too far into it... Mostly because there is a huge margin of error involved. I do believe that taking the Lord's Supper on Sundays, every week, is a perfectly good and holy practice. It's convenient and in a setting where more than most of our lives we are allowed time to sit and focus on God entirely.

Is there any Scriptural evidence that tells me that the Apostles might have taken the Lord's supper on any day but Sunday? Nope, not that I see. But, in the same way, I cannot see any substancial evidence that it was actually a Divinely instituted practice to be observed every single Sunday. Come to think of it, where is that verse where it says "take the Lord's Supper every week." If there is such a verse, I would really appreciate someone pointing it out to me, in all seriousness. I could be mistaken in my belief that a verse such as this isn't to be found in the NT.

Romans 15:4 & Exodus 20:8 - - How often did God expect the Israelites to keep the Sabbath? Was it every week? Or were the Jews allowed to keep it whenever they felt like it?

 

[R.E.Taet]

Communion is an shortened form of the Passover. The Passover happened once a year.

 

[Philo]

FC,

You know the verses you cited had absolutely nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, right?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

There seems to be a desire amongst some parts of the church to find rules about this sort of thing. But Jesus sets us free from rules. Therefore we should look rather to established practice than a set of "How 'tis done" from the NT. All the NT says is that everything should be done "in order". There is no absolute right and wrong, but there is church order.

About frequency - Our Lord said "do this as often as you drink it" - taken literally that means never, of course, for the teetotaller - about three times a week for me. But rather, methinks, Jesus is saying it should occur often, in the normal order of things. My tradition (Anglican) tends to go for weekly, but many of our churches also offer midweek Eucharists, generally fairly short affairs without hymns or sermon.

There is a more central "divide" here, IME, than simple disputes over trans/consubstantiation/memorial; the divide between those who believe their primary source of spiritual nourishment is Bible reading and preaching, and those who believe it is the Eucharist.

 

[Philo]

Gasp. I agree with the backslider. The end must truly be nigh.

 

[Kookaburra_45]

Is there any Scriptural evidence that tells me that the Apostles might have taken the Lord's supper on any day but Sunday? Nope, not that I see. But, in the same way, I cannot see any substancial evidence that it was actually a Divinely instituted practice to be observed every single Sunday. Come to think of it, where is that verse where it says "take the Lord's Supper every week." If there is such a verse, I would really appreciate someone pointing it out to me, in all seriousness. I could be mistaken in my belief that a verse such as this isn't to be found in the NT.

Philo, In Luke 22:14, it says definite time, definite hour, when the hour comes. We do it in rememberance of the Lord's death, his memorial observed anually. Some people find taking the Lord's supper will strengthen their faith. Other's say taking it too often may cause it to be meaningless.