“But Why Call It ‘The Lord’s Supper’?”

BUT WHY CALL IT “THE LORD’S SUPPER”?
A Sermonette by John Wheeler

INTRODUCTION:

• In the Church of God, we understand that the Eternal God instituted the Passover service for Israel “forever” and “throughout your generations” (cf. Exodus 12-13).

o Jesus intended that the Passover service continue after His death and resurrection.
o However, as the Son of God He had the authority to change the symbols of its observance from a roasted lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread to unleavened bread and wine.
o This is the main reason why we call the service He instituted the New Testament Passover (in contrast to the Old Testament Passover).
o Why then does 1 Corinthians 11:20 call that service “the Lord’s Supper”?

SPS:

• Today, I’ll discuss why this question matters to the religious world at large.
• Then, I’ll discuss why the question should matter to us – by explaining what Paul meant when he used that phrase.

BODY:

• The concept of a “New Testament Passover” had been rejected by “mainstream” Christianity by the mid-second century AD if not sooner.

o The early Catholic Church Fathers – that is, those writing before the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD – never used the phrase “the Lord’s Supper”, so far as I can discover.
o They consistently called their corrupted version of the service “Eucharist”, from the Greek word for “communion” in 1 Corinthians 10:16.
o Now 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 does refer to the same service that Paul describes as “the Lord’s Supper” in 1 Corinthians 11:20, but it does not use “communion” as a proper name.
o The Protestant Reformers and later commentators, rejecting both Catholic tradition and terminology while substituting their own, used “the Lord’s Supper” to refer to their own corrupted versions of the New Testament Passover.
o While both “communion” as an action and “the Lord’s Supper” as a proper name are both biblically based, “mainstream” Christianity uses these words to disassociate the hearer from any connection with the despised “Jewish Passover” and its symbols.
o But the real heirs of the apostolic Church continued to call their service “Passover”, even as they used the symbols Jesus Christ ordained rather than those originally ordained for Israel.

• Thanks to “guilt by association”, some in God’s Church have questioned whether we should use even “the Lord’s Supper” as a description of the New Testament Passover.

o Some of our past explanations of this verse aimed to make it seem as if Paul referred to the Passover supper that Jesus ate with his disciples before changing its symbols, and that Paul was discouraging the Christians in Corinth from eating that Passover supper.
o But Paul was doing nothing of the kind, as we shall see.

• In the context of 1 Corinthians 10:16, there are two equally valid ways of saying “the Lord’s Supper”, depending on what emphasis Paul meant.

o Both translate into English as “of the Supper of the Lord”.
o But depending on the word order and the vocal accentuation, the sense can be either the Supper which the Lord merely possesses, or the Supper which is in the Lord’s honor.
o The Greek text shows that the second emphasis is meant.
o The verb “to be” is also given special emphasis in context, and is accompanied by the absolute negative particle.
o And so were Paul speaking in English, he would emphasize the words like this: “When you come together into the same (place), it is absolutely not to eat of the Supper of the Lord.”

• Albert Barnes shows that Paul meant something like this:

o “It cannot be that such practices as are allowed among you can be a part of the celebration of that supper, or consistent with it. Your greediness 1Co_11:21; your intemperance 1Co_11:21; your partaking of the food separately and not in common, cannot be a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Whatever, therefore, you may profess to be engaged in, yet really and truly you are not celebrating the Lord’s Supper.”

• Paul therefore calls the service “the Supper of the Lord” as contrasted to a normal, “secular” supper, such as the Corinthians were actually eating.

o The contrast is not made with the Passover supper that the Jews still ate (which was equally ordained in honor of the Lord, the accusations of the early Church Fathers notwithstanding).
o That point was already understood, as the Lord Jesus had changed the symbols of that service for Christians.

• Albert Barnes goes on to say this:

o “[The Lord’s Supper is] that which the Lord Jesus instituted to commemorate his death. It is called ‘the Lord’s,’ because it is his appointment, and is in honor of him; it is called ‘supper’ (deipnon), because the word denotes the evening repast; it was instituted in the evening; and it is evidently most proper that it should be observed in the after part of the day. With most churches the time is improperly changed to the morning – a custom which has no sanction in the New Testament; and which is a departure from the very idea of a supper.”

• But Barnes insists on something which likewise has no sanction in the New Testament:

o “The apostle here particularly refers to their ‘assembling’ to observe the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. At that early period it is probable that this was done on every Lord’s Day.”
o This of course is nonsense. Paul specifically upheld every one of the Ten Commandments in his writings, including the Sabbath, and kept the Sabbath himself – just as Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath Day had while on earth.
o And while Jesus had the right to change the symbols of the Passover supper, He never changed the command to observe either Passover Day or the service to be held on it.
o Rather, He set the example for us to follow, and Paul cites it later on in 1 Corinthians 11.
o The heirs of the true apostolic church have continued to keep that New Testament Passover service from the close of biblical times to the present day.

CONCLUSION:

• So why does all this matter to us?

o The proper name of the service remains “the Passover” – the Lord’s Passover.
o It is still in honor of Him, as the original Passover service was.
o But its other proper name is “the Lord’s Supper”, describing it as an evening meal neither given to satisfy hunger or thirst nor to encourage drunkenness, but to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
o Jesus Himself likened the bread and the wine in that supper to His flesh and His blood – which means that they symbolize several different things at once.
o That is why we need to consider carefully and discern their symbolic meaning, which we can only do if we examine our lives and our motives first.
o If we treat those symbols like a common meal, we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves, for they represent the profound changes in body, soul and spirit that Jesus Christ demands of each and every one of His disciples.