Chap XXX11 THE LORD'S SUPPER
T.P. Simmons
The Lord's Supper is the second church ordinance. It was instituted by Christ on the eve of His betrayal and
crucifixion. And Christ indicated that it was to be observed until His return.
1. IT IS NOT A SACRAMENT
The Roman Catholics make the Lord's Supper, which they call the Eucharist, one of their seven sacraments. And in
their compendium of theology known as the Catechism, a sacrament is defined as follows: "A sacrament is a visible
sign or action instituted by Christ to give grace." But there is no ground in the Scripture for such a view of the
Lord's Supper. It contradicts the real nature of grace, for grace is unmerited favor. If grace is received through an
outward act of obedience it is not wholly unmerited. It contradicts the teaching that eternal life is a gift (Rom. 6:23),
and that we are justified freely, which means gratuitously, for naught (Rom. 3:24). It also contradicts the teaching
of the Scripture that we are not saved through works (Eph. 2:8; Titus 3:5).
2. IT IS A SYMBOLIC ORDINANCE
This denies the following two things:
(1) That the body and blood of Christ are actually present in the bread and wine.
"The Catholic Church has always taught her children that at the moment the priest, at Mass, pronounces the words
of consecration over the bread and wine they are changed into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ" (The Seven
Sacraments, Vincent Hornyold, S. J.).
In an effort to substantiate this teaching as to the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine, Catholics appeal to
the words of Jesus in John 6:48-58, and they make two groundless assumptions. First, they assume, in direct
antagonism to Christ's own words, that He spoke literally when He said: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man
and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves" (John 6-53). In verse sixty-three He plainly indicated that He
had spoken figuratively in the foregoing verses. He said- "It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life." Second, they assume, contrary to the context, that
He alluded to our partaking of Him in the so-called Eucharist. Verse forty-seven shows that we partake of Him
through faith. It is plain to anyone not blinded by prejudice that verses forty-seven and fifty-three are parallel in
meaning.
Catholics then carry their unwarranted literal interpretation into every other passage that speaks of the body and
blood of Christ in connection with the Lord's Supper. This literalism issues from the paganistic mysticism imbibed
by Roman Catholicism. The fundamental principle of salvation by works also makes its contributions to this
perversion of scriptural simplicity.
(2) That the celebration of the supper constitutes a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ.
To the celebration of the Eucharist the Catholics have applied the name "Mass." And we read:
"Now, in the Mass a real sacrifice is offered to God, for Our Blessed Lord's humanity, by being placed under the
forms of bread and wine, is reduced to the equivalently lifeless state of a victim offered to the Eternal Father by the
Priest" (The Seven Sacraments, Hornyold, P. 10).
In reply to this, Strong says:
"It involves the denial of the completeness of Christ's past sacrifice and the assumption that a human priest can
repeat or add to the atonement made by Christ once for all (Heb. 9:28--apax prosenekueis). The Lord's Supper is
never called a sacrifice, nor are altars, priests, or consecrations ever spoken of in the New Testament. The priests
of the old dispensation are expressly contrasted with the ministers of the new. The former 'ministered about sacred
things' i. e., performed sacred rites and waited at the altar; but the latter 'preach the gospel' (1 Cor. 9:13,14)."
II. THE SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
1. It is a commemoration of the Lord's death.
Jesus said: "This do in remembrance of me" (1 Cor. 11:24). The Lord's Supper, then, is intended to refresh our
minds concerning Christ's vicarious death.
2. It is a proclamation of His death.
Jesus also said: "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come" (1
Cor. 11:26). So the supper is a preaching ordinance, as well as a commemorative one. This fact is in favor of
observing the ordinance in the presence of the entire congregation instead of dismissing the congregation and
having the church observe it privately. Since it is a preaching ordinance, let all witness it who care to.
3. It is a reminder of Christ' second coming.
We notice in the passage just quoted the words, "Ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come." Thus every time the
ordinance is observed we are reminded that we are observing it because of the absence of Christ's bodily presence,
and that someday the symbolic will give place to the literal.
4. It symbolizes the fact that we are saved by feeding on Christ.
We have already pointed out that our feeding on Christ is not literal. We partake of Him by faith. And thus we are
saved. This is symbolized in the Lord's Supper.
5. It pictures our need of constantly partaking of Christ for spiritual sustenance.
The repetition of this ordinance manifests that faith, by which we partake of Christ, is not merely a momentary
thing, but a continuous thing, by which the soul is constantly sustained.
6. It points out the unity of the church.
In 1I Cor. 10:16,17 we read:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of (or participation in) the blood of Christ? The bread (or
loaf) which we break, is it not a communion of (or participation in) the body of Christ? seeing that we, who are
many, are one bread (or loaf), one body: for we all partake of the one bread (or loaf)."
These verses bring out the fact that the unity of the church is manifested by the members in partaking of one loaf.
For that reason, the bread should be brought to the table in one loaf or piece. Otherwise the type is not so
impressive.
III. THE ELEMENTS OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
There are two, and only two, scriptural elements. They are:
1. UNLEAVENED BREAD
Strong says: "Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the
unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord's Supper which necessitates the
Romanist use of the wafer" (Systematic Theology, p. 539). As to the exact words of this statement, we agree with
Strong. And we go farther and say that the Romanist use of the wafer (a small flat disc of bread) tends to obscure a
part of the symbolism of the supper. But we take it that Strong's statement connotes that the symbolism of the
supper does not necessitate the use of unleavened bread. It does and for three reasons, viz.,
(1) Only unleavened bread can fitly represent the sinless body of Christ.
(2) Unleavened bread also answers to the sincerity of heart in which we should partake of the supper.
"Let us keep the feast, not ... with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity
and truth" (1 Cor. 5:8).
(3) Unleavened bread, moreover, emphasizes the need of purging the church. "Purge out the old leaven, that ye
may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore
let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, etc." (1 Cor. 5:7,8). This passage, following Paul's injunction to exclude
the incestuous man, shows that he connected unleavened bread with the purity of the church. For the above
reasons, crackers and lightbread should never be used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. It is better not to
celebrate it than to celebrate it improperly.
2. FERMENTED WINE
We offer three reasons why fermented wine should be used:
(1) Christ used wine in the institution of the supper.
Upon this point we offer the following quotations.
"Every Jew in the night of the Passover must have four cups of red wine" (The Jewish Passover and the Lord's
Supper, by Harry Singer, erstwhile superintendent of the Hebrew-Christian Mission of Detroit, Mich.). Reference
to Prov. 23:31 will show what kind of wine "red" wine is.
"Every Jew knows that the Passover Supper must be celebrated by the drinking of real wine and not unfermented
grape juice ... You will find all of this fully corroborated if you will consult the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is most
dependable and authoritative on all matters Jewish" (From a personal letter to the author by J. Hoffman Cohn,
General Secretary of the American Board of Missions to the Jews, of Brooklyn, N. Y.).
Leopold Cohn, editor of "The Chosen People" in reply to the question: "Was the wine of the Passover fermented
or not," said: "Yes, according to the Jewish ritual no wine can be so called and used in the ceremonies unless it is
intoxicating. Furthermore, the wine used at the Passover was so strong that it had to be mixed with water."
"A great attempt has been made to prove the wine drunk at the Lord's Supper was unfermented, by and for the
sake of temperance workers of our day and nation. Such attempts are apt to do more harm than good among those
familiar with eastern customs today, or the history of those nations. But the Apostle Paul has stated the case for
total abstinence in Rom. 14 in such a way that it does not need the treacherous aid of doubtful exegesis for is
support" (Peloubet's Bible Dictionary).
Some assume that Christ abstained from all use of wine. But this is assumed in the face of the fact that Christ, just
before His death, drank "vinegar" (Mark 15:36; Matt. 27:48; John 19:28-30), which, according to Thayer,
Broadus, Hovey, and W. N. Clarke (the latter three being writers in "An American Commentary on the New
Testament) was the sour wine that the soldiers drank.
(2) The church at Corinth used fermented wine in the supper and received no correction from the Apostle Paul.
We know the church at Corinth used wine because, through the abuse of the supper, some became drunk (1 Cor.
11:21). A Greek lexicon will show that the Greek word here means exactly what we commonly understand from the
English term "drunken." other cases of the use of the same Greek word (methuo) will be found in Matt. 24:49;
Acts 2:15; 1 Thess. 5:7. Concerning this word, we read in "An American Commentary on the New Testament".
"The word itself means is drunk, and nothing softer. The passage is conclusive as to the wine used by them at the
Lord's Supper."
Marcus Dods says:
"Although the wine of Holy Communion had been so badly abused, Paul does not prohibit its use in the ordinance.
His moderation and wisdom have not in this respect been universally followed. On infinitely less occasions
alterations have been introduced into the administration of the ordinance with a view to preventing its abuse by
reclaimed drunkards, and on still lighter pretext a more sweeping alteration was introduced many centuries ago by
the Church of Rome."
(3) The symbolism of the supper demands fermented wine.
Fermented wine alone corresponds to unleavened bread, and is required for the same reasons that unleavened
bread is required.
In reply to our inquiry, Frederick J. Haskin, Director of Information Bureau at Washington, D. C., gave the
following significant reply: "The Bureau of Plant Industry of the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture says that grapes
naturally contain a leavening agent and that this is present in the juice." We then asked what happened to this
leaven in the process of fermentation. To this Mr. Haskin replied: "The leaven is used up in the process of
fermentation so that the finished product or wine does not contain any."
But some one asks what is to be done about the pledge that some have made never to touch any intoxicants. We
reply that scriptural consistency and a proper commemoration of the Lord's death should come before a pledge or
anything else. It is better to break a pledge than to fail to properly keep this memorial. God does not hold one
responsible for the keeping of a pledge that hinders him in properly honoring Christ. Let those who have made the
pledges stick to them in general; but let the pledge not come between them and the proper commemoration of
Christ's death.
IV. CLOSE COMMUNION VINDICATED
Close communion is a historic Baptist practice. Many pedobaptists have recognized Baptist consistency in close
communion, having recognized that the Scriptures do not sanction the coming of the unbaptized to the Lord's table.
No practice of Baptists is better grounded in the Word of God than close communion; yet, perhaps, no other
practice is more misunderstood and more opposed. Let it be understood that Baptists do not deny that members of
other denominations are saved. It is simply that they do not believe they have been scripturally baptized.
Baptists practice close communion-
1. Because Christ instituted close communion.
When Christ instituted the supper only the eleven apostles were present with Him, Judas having already gone out.
He did not have His mother there. Neither did He have others of His followers in Jerusalem there. He did not, so
far as we have any record, invite the man in whose house the supper was instituted.
Why? Because the supper was for none but His church. Hence, since Baptists do not regard others as members of
Christ's church, they do not invite them to the supper.
2. Because the scriptural order observed on Pentecost and thereafter leads to close communion.
The order on Pentecost and thereafter was (1) faith; (2) baptism; (3) church membership; and (4) the Lord's Supper.
See Acts 2:41,42. This is exactly the order insisted on by Baptists. They do not deny that others may have faith,
but they do deny that they have received valid baptism and that they are members of a church of Christ.
3. Because the interests of scriptural church discipline demand the practice of close communion.
In Rom. 16.17 and 1 Tim. 6:3-5 we have implied ground for excisive discipline in the case of persistent teachers of
doctrinal error. The need of unity in the church also makes excisive discipline necessary in the case just mentioned.
Now suppose a church finds it necessary to exclude a false teacher. If the church practices open communion, this
false teacher can still commune with the church, notwithstanding the fact that partaking of the Lord's Supper is one
of the most intimate and sacred privileges of church membership. Allowing such would go a long way toward
nullifying church discipline. It would involve the church in glaring inconsistency. If one is not fit to be in the church,
he is not fit to partake of the Lord's Supper.
4. Because it is impossible to observe the Lord's Supper by open communion.
A church may eat unleavened bread and sip wine with a group in which divisions are present, but Paul plainly says
that, "it is not possible to eat the Lords Supper" under such circumstances. See 1 Cor. 11: 19, 20 in R. V.
5. Because the Lord's Supper is a local church ordinance.
The meaning of this statement is that it is to be observed by the members of one local church. Not all Baptists
recognize this. But it is recognized by most of the stricter Baptists. And where it is recognized, it becomes the most conclusive proof of close communion.
In proof of this proposition two proofs are offered:
(1) The one loaf in the supper symbolizes the unity of the one body.
For a discussion of this, see division two of this chapter. Now, for others, than the members of the church observing
the supper, to partake is incongruous with this symbolism.
(2) There are certain classes that a church is commanded not to eat with.
See 1 Cor. 5:11. When a church invites those outside its membership to partake of the supper, it is boldly
disregarding this injunction; for it cannot know that some of those invited are not of the classes mentioned in 1 Cor.
5:11.
