You will need
the following viewers
to view many of the
files on this site.

Click here to
download
Adobe Acrobat Reader

Click here to
download
Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer

University church of Christ

Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (9:30)

   AM Worship (10:20)

   PM Worship (6:00 pm)

 Wednesday

   Bible Classes
(7:00 PM)

Location

449 North Gay Street

Auburn, AL 36830
Click Here for Specific Directions

Review of Chapter 7

In An Unworthy Manner

By Terry W. Benton

The major argument that LaGard sets forth in this chapter is that we must observe the memorial Supper IN CONJUNCTION WITH "a normal, ordinary meal with the usual variety of food"(p.128). Somewhere in this normal meal of chicken, butterbeans, deviled-eggs, and camp stew, we are to pause with some unleavened bread and wine, and remember the offered body and blood of Jesus. He says that this is what the early Christians did, and he says that we "may" be abusing the Lord’s Supper if we do not, and he says that we have definitely NOT restored anything akin to the Lord’s Supper if we do not combine the memorial with a common meal. I do not know how he can argue that it "may" be abusing the Supper and also on the other hand "definitely" is nothing akin to the Supper when not a integral part of a common meal. He, apparently, did not realize he was contradicting himself here. If it is definitely not even "akin" to the Lord’s Supper, then there is no "may" about the abuse. Or, is that a definite maybe?

BUTTERBEANS MY BRETHREN?

He says "the Lord’s Supper was an integral part of a real meal".(p.129). By "integral part", he means that the Supper memorial cannot be disassociated from the normal, ordinary meal with meats, vegetables, and deserts, etc. He says it has to be "an actual food-and-drink meal" and "not just....crackers and grape juice"(p.132). He says we need to "go all the way and observe the Supper as an integral part of a fellowship meal in the manner of the early church"(p.141,142). He says this would be a radical, but needed change, but one in which there is "all that food to prepare"(p.142). Over and over he contends that meals were the focus of the church in which to give the Lord’s Supper a proper back-drop. His arguments are built on faulty logic, of course, as we will demonstrate and have demonstrated in previous chapters. We will show that a common meal is not an integral part of the memorial "love feast". We will freely admit that many Christians do not properly observe the Lord’s Supper, just as many in the first century were "weak and sickly" due to improper observance. See 1 Cor.11:17ff.

MORE FOOD OR BETTER TEACHING AND LEARNING?

The answer to the situation of improper observance is not to move the Supper into a common meal setting, but to better teach and emphasize the meaning and importance of the Lord’s Supper. Proper observance will involve learning how to "discern" the Lord’s body, perceive and appreciate His love and sacrifice, and find renewed passion about our profession of faith and loyalty to Him.  

LOVE FEASTS: Feasting on Food? Or Feasting On Love? 

LaGard assumes that "love feasts" were common meals together. I would argue that the memorial associated with unleavened bread and fruit of the vine (per Jesus’ instructions) is a feast of love, and it is a feast of the heart and not the stomach. It is feasting on Jesus, His kingdom and righteousness, that fills us with commonality and brotherhood, and a common meal is not itself a "love feast". It is the purpose of the Supper to provide us with united focus and concentration as we devote our attention together on what Jesus said for us to "remember". When we are casually eating chicken and butterbeans, we are not called to focus our thoughts on his body and blood. That is no more a love feast than a baseball game together is a "love game". We feast on Jesus’ love, our love and admiration of Him, and share common salvation and faith, when we take that bread and cup of blessing in a worthy manner in memory of Him together. THAT is a feast of love. In the Lord’s Supper we are advocating our faith and love ,and we are communing with Him.

a. Jno.6:27

Do not labor for the food that perishes. There is another food that endures to everlasting life. There is priority in the spiritual food over the physical food. There are things in spiritual food that nourish the soul, the inward man, the eternal aspect of our being. While this passage is not talking about the Lord’s Supper, and this spiritual food is available to us in the word always at all times, still the Supper of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine is A time when we "show forth" His death in a united way. In this memorial communion we are feasting our minds on the food that does not perish.

b. Jno.6:32-33

Moses did not give the bread from heaven. The Father has given the "true bread" from heaven. That true bread is Jesus who gave His life to the world. The physical elements of the Lord’s supper do not, themselves, give life. It is the remembrance made of those elements that allows or guides our minds to feast on the "true bread". We feast on the "true bread" and remember that He gave His life for us. Truly, then, the supper is a special occasion when we unitedly focus our attention on the true bread and feed our souls together. That is a feast of love. That is the "love feast", not a common meal together, not a game together, not an earthly pleasure together, but a moment of singularity in our sharing the love of God together in memory of what He did for us on the cross.

c. Jno.6:48-51

"Your fathers ate manna and are dead", Jesus told them. "I am the bread of life," He said. Eat this bread and you will live forever. "The bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I give for the life of the world". The physical unleavened bread of the Supper is NOT the bread of life. The Supper is not even the direct point of this passage. But, the memorial Jesus attached to the unleavened bread and told His disciples to "do", is a special occasion together to communally feast our hearts TOGETHER in soul-feasting memory.

d. Jno.6:53-58

"My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed". We can eat that flesh and drink that blood together and in private all we want. There is no time when we cannot eat His flesh and drink His blood. This is done by faith as we absorb a knowledge, understanding and appreciation for Him in ever-growing degrees of faith or conviction. By continually eating and devouring in our hearts the knowledge of Christ, we find that we stay attached to Him and "abide in Him". We find "life", spiritual energy, by feeding our souls on Him. The Lord’s Supper is a special time when we can do this together. It is not the physical unleavened bread and fruit of the vine that feed our hearts, it is the together proclamation, reminders, and discerning that feeds our souls. The Supper is not the only time we can feed our hearts, but it is a special moment when we can do so together. We "do this" in His memory. Otherwise, it would not feed our spirits, or nourish our inward man at all. A common meal together is but food that perishes. A common game together is but fun and recreation that perishes. What Jesus suffered in the flesh will feed our souls when we feast our minds upon it. This has eternal value.

e. Jno.6:63

"The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life". We eat His flesh and drink His blood by means of word-thought processes. Physical food cannot reach the soul to nourish it. Only words and thoughts can get to the heart. Therefore, we have a "love feast" when our thoughts are absorbing the great truths of Jesus and His love. We know beyond any doubt that we are enjoying a love feast when we are thinking on the words and concepts of what Jesus did for us in His flesh and through His blood. We must do this at all times on an individual basis, but we are commanded to do this together in the memorial elements of the Communion of Blessing.

Instituted Within A Meal

LaGard argues that the Lord’s Supper was an integral part of a meal from the beginning and must continue to be associated with a regular meal. Actually it was AFTER a certain TYPE of meal, the Passover meal, that Jesus gave new significance to the unleavened bread. The Passover was no "ordinary meal". No leaven was allowed. So, if we must include a meal of the kind from which Jesus instituted the Lord’s memorial supper, then it must be a meal in which we plan to get rid of leaven. It must include a lamb of the first year, a male lamb (Ex.12:5). There must be unleavened bread with bitter herbs (Ex.12:8). It must not be boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire (Ex.12:9). This was the meal from which Jesus, after THAT supper, memorialized two of the elements. He separated the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine from THAT meal, and stated that these two things should be used in remembrance of Him. So, does this mean 1) that Jesus wanted us to have ANY common meal of our choosing that must also include these two specific elements?, or 2) that Jesus wanted us to have the same specific PASSOVER meal which would always include these elements?, or, 3) that we are to have a new memorial of two elements that do not have to satisfy the stomach at all? It was the latter (choice #3). From the institution of this memorial, only two things were employed: 1) unleavened bread, and 2) fruit of the vine.

The Breaking of Bread

LaGard rightly argues that there are various connotations of meaning to the expression "break bread". This is true. The context usually helps us to determine the meaning or usage.

Consider:

1. Lev 22:23-25
23 Either a bull or a lamb that has any limb too long or too short you may offer as a freewill offering, but for a vow it shall not be accepted. 24 You shall not offer to the LORD what is bruised or crushed, or torn or cut; nor shall you make any offering of them in your land. 25 Nor from a foreigner's hand shall you offer any of these as the bread of your God, because their corruption is in them, and defects are in them. They shall not be accepted on your behalf.' " NKJV

Here we find that several things were included in "the bread" of your God. Further, the bread of your God was not considered just a common meal. Thus, the premise that breaking bread is ALWAYS just a common meal is a false assumption. As we can see, there are times when "the bread" can cover many different things. It is often used by a form of speech known as "metonymy" to include all that is offered at a given table including drink. We can easily see this in the next reference.

2. 2 Sam 9:6-7
7 So David said to him, "Do not fear, for I will surely show you kindness for Jonathan your father's sake, and will restore to you all the land of Saul your grandfather; and you shall eat bread at my table continually." NKJV

Did David mean that Mephibosheth could only eat "bread" but no meat, vegetables, or drink? No! Bread stood for all that was offered on the table.

3. Matt 6:11
11 Give us this day our daily bread. NKJV

Are we to assume that "daily bread" does not include drink? If it does include drink, then we must allow that "breaking bread" in Acts 20:7 does include drink. This point will be important to remember later on.

4. Matt 26:26
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." NKJV

Here we find the Lord "breaking bread", the bread that had been a part of the special PASSOVER unleavened bread. This breaking of bread was using the main element of the feast of unleavened bread and transferring upon it a new significance. Instead of looking back to the deliverance from Egypt, the disciples would soon use this broken bread to remember Jesus' body that provided for a greater deliverance. The breaking of bread on some occasions in Israel was just a common meal. On other occasions it was a SPECIAL MEMORIAL meal to remember their deliverance from Egypt. Special meals for memorial purposes often had exclusive contents or specified items. Likewise, there are times when disciples of Jesus break bread in a common meal. On other occasions they designate a special unleavened bread and break it together as a SPECIAL MEMORIAL meal to remember the one Who gave us deliverance from sin and condemnation.

5. Mark 14:22-23
22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
NKJV - This broken bread would be a very special time for remembering what Jesus did for us on the cross.

6. Luke 22:19-20
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." NKJV

The breaking of bread would have a special reference to this memorial bread.

7. Luke 24:29-31
30 Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight. NKJV -

A mental light came on in the mind of Jesus' disciples when Jesus "broke bread" again with them after His death and resurrection. Jesus was wanting them to connect with what he told them about "doing THIS (breaking bread) in REMEMBRANCE of Me". Thus, breaking bread together became a special time of reflection on what came to us through the body of Jesus on the cross, namely, deliverance from sin, spiritual slavery, and hopeless condemnation.

8. Luke 24:35
35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.
NKJV -

In a similar way, the disciples broke bread "in remembrance of Jesus" because in such special together meditations Jesus is "known" ever clearer in our "communion" with Him in this memorial feast.

9. Acts 2:42
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.NKJV

Here, it is most likely that the breaking of bread is a reference to the memorial breaking of bread that Jesus instituted, and that "opens eyes" to the significance of Jesus on the cross. Here the expression "THE breaking of THE bread"(gr.) has a different significance than "breaking bread" (common for eating meals of a common sort together). THE one that they break in conjunction with the apostles, listening to their doctrine, and engaging in prayers, is THE breaking of the bread that opens eyes to Jesus, communes with Him in memory, and is different than a casual meal of ordinary sorts. Like the Passover meal was a special breaking of bread, separate from other meals, so too this is THE breaking of bread (As Paul says, it is "the bread which WE break" as opposed to the bread that others break in common meals or other memorials like the Jew’s Passover bread), the one done in memory and eye-opening communion with Jesus. It is NOT likely that Luke is referring to a common meal together with "continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, and prayers" in Acts 2:42. This is descriptive of the spiritual things they did together with each other and with the apostles. This was different from the common meals they had together among the Jews. This was different from the bread the Jews break in observing the Passover. Truly, it was "the breaking of bread" where Jesus was "drinking it NEW with them in His kingdom". Consider the next passage in support of this conclusion:

10. 1 Cor 10:16
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? NKJV

Notice that this was a distinguishing "cup" and a distinguishing "bread which we break". It is distinguished from the bread which the Jews break on Passover or other meals by other people. It is distinguished from the bread which unbelievers break together. It is the THE bread which WE break (unique to disciples of Jesus). What bread is that? The breaking of bread that we engage is in communion and memory of our Lord's death on the cross. THIS is THE breaking of bread that Luke refers to in Acts 2:42. Christians also broke bread from house to house (Acts 2:46), but that was not THE breaking of bread which WE break. THE breaking of bread which WE break is the one where we are remembering Jesus' body and blood. At other times, especially from house to house, we share common meals that are not done in memory of His death. In Acts 2:46 the article "the" is absent to show that they broke bread from house to house, meaning that they took care of each other's needs from house to house. Those who were in town for Pentecost and were converted to Christ needed places to stay and eat. Those who lived in the area opened their homes and houses to their fellow believers and shared their food and shelter with them. Thus, they broke bread from house to house. But, "THE breaking of THE bread" was of a different sort and a different significance. This was THE memorial bread of the Lord's supper. This was THE bread which WE (we Christians) break.

11. 1 Cor 11:23-24
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." NKJV -

Paul is here (in the context of this passage) discouraging the practice of coming together for the purpose of having a common meal. He is encouraging that they come together to reflect on Jesus and take this memorial bread in a responsible and reflective way. He wants them to make sure that they are making this occasion count toward their spiritual strength.

The daily meals together in Acts 2:46 - Acts 6 were necessary for survival. It was necessitated by the unexpected need to stay in Jerusalem to become more grounded in their new faith. Jews had come to Jerusalem from all over the world for the Jewish feast of Pentecost and had not come with extra provisions. They brought only enough for their intended trip and ran out. Conversion to Christ was not expected when they left home. Their conversion to Jesus called for an extended stay in Jerusalem for further teaching and training under the apostles. The local members had to believe that this church and kingdom was far more important than their lands and houses. They felt for the ones who needed a place to stay and food to eat. They opened their hearts and houses and broke their personal food supply with other disciples of Christ. However, "THE breaking of bread" of Acts 2:42 was of a different sort than "breaking bread from house to house" of Acts 2:46.

It is true that WHEN Jesus instituted the supper HE gave no time, place or day for partaking. However, "as often as they did it" would be established by the Holy Spirit as He guided the apostles into "all truth" (Jno.16:13). What Jesus said was "as often as you do it", make sure you do it in memory of me. That expression does NOT affirm that it is totally up to them as to WHEN they do it. More can be said later to establish a WHEN. But, as often as that may occur, it was to be done in Jesus' memory. We know that a "when" was established later in the actual kingdom period. They did this "on the first day of the week" (Acts 2:42 and 20:7 along with 1 Cor.11:17ff and 16:1,2). That is certainly right and can't be wrong. Therefore, we cannot err in making the same practice our practice. Other days of observing it cannot be done by faith for the expression "as often as" does not clearly mean that we can choose other days. One might say "as often as your boss pays you, you are to tell him how much you appreciate it". The "as often as" may be established later as every Friday. That may be WHEN you expect to get your check. The expression "as often as" does not establish a time, but other statements do. The boss TOLD you to expect the check on Friday of each week. Likewise, we are told the significance of the first day of the week, and we are told the precedent of taking the supper then. We know we do not err if we stay within Biblical precedent.

12. Acts 20:7

We are told why Paul met with them on the first day of the week. He met with them because that was the day the disciples came together, and they came together to break bread. (Acts 20:7). We are also told that Paul had been there for several days before that day "when the disciples came together to break bread". Paul did not see the "traditions of men"(Matt.15:9; Col.2:8f) in this practice, so he waited and joined them at the specified time. He is seen waiting for that event and then coming together with the disciples on the expected day. The pattern of sound words certainly allow for our doing what they did, and the pattern of sounds words do NOT allow for another day of coming together to break bread. So, the only thing we can conclude is that the "traditions of men" would allow for another day of assembly to break bread, but the traditions of God tell us to likewise meet on the first day of the week to break bread. There is no evidence to support the assumption that the disciples made a point of meeting together on this day to have "an ordinary meal". They were coming together to "break bread" in the manner that Jesus said, "in remembrance of Me". Ordinary food was available, apparently, for the long stay through the evening and into the morning hours, but the common meal was not the purpose of their coming together.

These are all the verses that have a bearing on the Lord’s Supper. We have seen that breaking bread can have and ordinary connotation, and we have seen that it can also specify a certain special breaking of bread such as the bread breaking of Passover, or "the bread which WE (Christians) break" in the communion of the Lord’s Supper. We saw that Jesus specified the elements involved in His memorial bread-breaking. They are the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine.

If we can add steak and potatoes to these elements and eat them all together, then we can do so with no command, statement, approved example to give us authority. If we can do that with no authority, then we can do all things with no authority.

On page 128 LaGard admits that it was "from all appearances" observed in conjunction with a "fellowship meal". The basic error he makes is in assuming the "fellowship meal", as he calls it, was more or other than the two elements of the Lord’s Supper. Where does it "appear" in statement or example that the disciples came together to break bread of the sort that included more than the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine? He first assumes that the disciples came together for an "ordinary meal" with "the usual variety of food"(something neither stated nor necessarily implied), and stakes his whole case on what merely "appears" to him to be the case. Then he runs with confidence with the assumption stating it was a "fellowship meal" of this sort throughout his book.

What Was Actually Included?

On page 129 he says that when Jesus inaugurated the memorial of His body and blood, "the memorial was part of an actual meal being shared, which included bread, wine, and whatever dish it was into which Jesus dipped the bread before handing it to Judas (Jno.13:26-27)". On the contrary, we ask the reader to look again. The items from which Jesus selected only TWO were "part of" the PASSOVER meal. The Passover meal included more than two items. From the collection of items which also included lamb and bitter herbs, as well as the bread, wine, and dip, Jesus selected only two items to represent Himself. He did not pick up the dip or the lamb and bitter herbs and give new significance to them. He did select the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine.

Two Emblems And A Mind

From the Passover meal Jesus selected two things and announced that His disciples would "do this" (take the same two items) in His memory. Not even LaGard would argue that Jesus wanted the PASSOVER meal to continue. But, that was the "meal" Jesus had been eating when He sanctified the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. The Lord’s supper includes three necessary ingredients: unleavened bread, fruit of the vine drink, and a memory reflecting on His body and blood. Just as baptism is reduced to mere insignificant dunking if penitent faith is not included, so the Lord’s Supper is reduced to mere eating bread and juice if the purpose and memory of Jesus body and blood is not included. It is not the Lord’s Supper if anything is added or subtracted from those three essential ingredients (unleavened bread, grape juice, and reflections on Jesus’ body and blood).

LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS

Consider the following logical propositions or syllogisms:

Major Premise:

Jesus instituted the Memorials of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine from the midst of the Passover meal.

Minor Premise:

All other aspects of that meal were not memorialized.

Conclusion:

Therefore, only the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine may be used in the memorial meal.

The only deduction that LaGard, or anybody else, can draw from the original inauguration of the memorial meal is that it involved however much of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine they wanted to take in memory of Jesus. We have no problem with congregations that want to eat and drink a lot more than others. Just as long as you divide it so that there is enough for all to partake, there is no issue about how much or how little to eat. The problem I have here is in the assumption that more is better. At Corinth more was NOT better. We could eat more. But, is the amount really something that Jesus is interested in? I have broken off a piece that was ten times more than what I had usually eaten, but I could not tell a difference in the quality of my communion with Christ. I was not ten times more involved with Him in my thoughts.

Now, here is the logical proposition LaGard is affirming. See if it is really logical or even scriptural.

Major Premise:

Jesus made the Memorial elements of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine part of a common meal.

Minor Premise:

We must follow Jesus’ example and do what He said.

Conclusion:

Therefore, we must make the Memorial elements part of a common meal.

The minor premise is true, but the major premise is false. Jesus did not make the memorial elements part of a common meal. He took them from a special Passover meal. The best LaGard could do is affirm the following:

 

Major Premise:

Jesus took the Memorial elements from the Passover meal and instituted the Memorial Supper on two items from that meal.

Minor Premise:

We must follow Jesus’ example and do what He said.

Conclusion:

Therefore, we must take the memorial elements from the Passover meal.

In this case, the major premise is correct, but states an insignificant fact. The minor premise is correct, but the conclusion is false because it draws a conclusion on the foregone conclusion that the Passover meal is significantly attached to the two memorial elements.

A more accurate syllogism of the matter can be stated as follows:

Major Premise:

Jesus separated the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine from the Passover meal in order to give them a new memorial significance.

Minor Premise:

We must follow Jesus’ example and do what He said.

Conclusion:

Therefore, we must take the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine separate from the Passover meal and take these two things in His memory.

In this case, the major premise is true and states the significant facts. The minor premise is still true, and the conclusion is true. The Lord’s Supper is separated from the Passover meal and all other meals. It has its own value and significance, and stands separate from the Passover meal and all other common meals. Jesus did not command or authorize us to bring these items into a common steak and potatoes meal.

The Amount Is Significant?

Keep in mind that it was "after the supper"(the Passover supper) that Jesus took the cup and announced a new significance to it (Lk.22:20). Therefore, the intent was not to satisfy the stomach or bodily needs. Paul tells us that "we have houses to eat and drink in" (1 Cor.11). So, the purpose did not have the same objective as the common meal. It had only spiritual, memorial objectives. Since the objective is not to satisfy the stomach, then the amount eaten is not significant. All who eat and drink any non-gluttonous amount are eating that one bread with Christ and His people in His kingdom. It is the communion together than counts. The amount distributed or eaten is of no significance. To undermine others for taking only small portioned amounts is carnal, divisive, and evil-mindedness. Mocking people for taking small amounts of the memorial elements is clearly to be unacceptable.

Integral Part?

On page 129 LaGard says: "the Lord’s Supper was an integral part of a real meal". Integral means "necessary to the completeness of the whole; essential"(Thorndike-Barnhart Dictionary). Thus, his argument holds that the memorial supper is incomplete without a meal of regular things like steak and potatoes. This means that all have sinned and come short who do not include a regular meal with the memorial elements.

Similar Argument To The One-Container Argument

The argument is very similar to the argument that some brethren make of the container. They first imagine that "one cup" means one container, and then proceed to define the container as an "integral" part of the Supper. From their assumed premise, they move quickly to another assertion that the container represents the New Testament. By assuming that the container was one container only, and then assuming that their imagined one container represented the one New Testament, they made the container an "integral" part of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, to them, there are three essential memorial elements to the Lord’s Supper: the bread, the wine, and the container, and each of these are to be remembered for three different things: the body of Jesus, the blood of Jesus, and the New Testament of Jesus. Their starting premise was imagined and then the discussion builds on that imagined premise.

Likewise, LaGard imagines that the Lord’s Supper was always served during a common meal, from which faulty premise he assumes it was an "integral"(essential) part of a "real meal". The fact is that Jesus separated two items from the Passover meal, and "after supper"(not during, and not as an integral part) assigned new meaning to the drink of fruit of the vine. The bread was not to be considered an "integral" part of a usual meal. It was to be specially dedicated to the memory of Jesus’ body.

Snide, Derisive, Prejudicial Remarks

The attempt to undermine and prejudice his readers by calling my communion elements "crackers and juice" is a common lawyer’s tactic. When his own evidence is weak, he feels he has to make his opponents’ evidence seem weaker by undermining the evidence. We have seen this carnal tactic used in regard to baptism. Those who wanted to prejudice people against our correct teaching about baptism would call it "water salvation" or call us "the dunkers". It was all to cheapen what we were doing and teaching. By building up the issue of faith and cheapening the act of baptism, the false teacher tried to make it appear that they were teaching the essential element of "faith" and "grace", and we were teaching people to "get in the water". The tactic worked only in those who were not willing to think through the actual teaching regarding scriptural baptism.

Likewise, LaGard is not proving his assertion of a common meal, but maybe he can gain some ground if he undermines the scriptural use of the two elements Jesus attached new significance to and demeaningly make it seem to be merely "crackers and juice" in comparison with his idea of a real, "fellowship meal". Jesus said "do this", and "this" was eating some unleavened bread in memory of His body and drinking some fruit of the vine in memory of His blood. Call it "cracker worship" if you want. I call it "communion" with His body. Call it "juice" if you want. I call it "the cup of blessing"(1 Cor.10:16). Cheapen it if you have a heart disposed to such, but it is very special to Jesus and me.

Out of The Home And Into The Supper

When Paul said that you have "houses to eat and drink in", LaGard struggles with the point to make it appear that Paul really wanted them to keep bringing their food out of the home and into the Lord’s Supper. So, seeing that there is something about Paul’s statement, at least in LaGard’s mind, to actually demand that the two elements be an integral part of a common meal, I thought it would be in order for me to return to the text of 1 Cor.11 and see if I can see what LaGard is saying is actually there. Did I miss it all the other times I have read the passage? Admittedly, it is possible, and it is always wise to re-examine what you think you know. So, let us take another look.

1 Cor 11:17-34

A. Reading The New King James Version of the Text:

17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come. NKJV

B. Reading The NIV of the Text.

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes 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 praise you for this? Certainly not!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. NIV

C. Reviews And Commentary.

1. Was The Meal Supposed To Be A Part?

a. Adam Clarke:

[Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not] In the beginning of this epistle the apostle did praise them for their attention in general to the rules he had laid down, see 1 Cor 11:2; but here he is obliged to condemn certain irregularities which had crept in among them, particularly relative to the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Through some false teaching which they had received, in the absence of the apostle, they appear to have celebrated it precisely in the same way the Jews did their Passover. That, we know, was a regular meal, only accompanied with certain peculiar circumstances and ceremonies: two of these ceremonies were, eating bread, solemnly broken, and drinking a cup of wine called the cup of blessing. Now, it is certain that our Lord has taken these two things, and made them expressive of the crucifixion of his body, and the shedding of his blood, as an atonement for the sins of mankind. The teachers which had crept into the Corinthian Church appear to have perverted the whole of this divine institution; for the celebration of the Lord's Supper appears to have been made among them a part of an ordinary meal. The people came together, and it appears brought their provisions with them; some had much, others had less; some ate to excess, others had scarcely enough to suffice nature. One was hungry, and the other was drunken, methuei (NT:3184), was filled to the full; this is the sense of the word in many places of Scripture. At the conclusion of this irregular meal they appear to have done something in reference to our Lord's institution, but more resembling the Jewish Passover. These irregularities, connected with so many indecencies, the apostle reproves; for, instead of being benefited by the divine ordinance, they were injured; they came together not for the better, but for the worse.

b. Albert Barnes:

It may seem remarkable that such scenes should ever have occurred in a Christian church, or that there could have been such an entire perversion of the nature and design of the Lord's Supper. But we are to remember the following things:

(1) These persons had recently been pagans, and were grossly ignorant of the nature of true religion when the gospel was first preached among them.

(2) They had been accustomed to such revels in honor of idols under their former modes of worship, and it is the less surprising that they transferred their views to Christianity.

(3) When they had once so far misunderstood the nature of Christianity as to suppose the Lord's Supper to be like the feasts which they had formerly celebrated, all the rest followed as a matter of course. The festival would be observed in the same manner as the festivals in honor of idolaters; and similar scenes of gluttony and intemperance would naturally follow.

(4) We are to bear in mind, also, that they do not seem to have been favored with pious, wise, and prudent teachers.

There were false teachers; and there were those who prided themselves on their wisdom, and who were self-confident, and who doubtless endeavored to model the Christian institutions according to their own views; and they thus brought them, as far as they could, to a conformity with pagan customs and idolatrous rites, We may remark here:

(1) We are not to expect perfection at once among a people recently converted from paganism.

(2) We see how prone people are to abuse even the most holy rites of religion, and hence, how corrupt is human nature.

(3) We see that even Christians, recently converted, need constant guidance and superintendence; and that if left to themselves they soon, like others, fall into gross and scandalous offenses.

c. My Observations.

There can be no doubt that other religions combined a common meal with their deity worship. It would have been easy to suppose that a common meal could be integrated into the Memorial Supper of the Lord, if one did not listen carefully to the divine instructions. It is obvious that carnality, lack of spiritual depth, was present at Corinth. Very poor judgments had been made in regard to going to law with one another, who was the best preachers, accepting a fornicator among them, etc. The text we are to examine should clarify the misunderstandings they had regarding the Supper of the Lord’s Communion, and should set the record straight for what we should include or exclude from the Memorial assembly.

2. Taking The Text Verse By Verse.

17. Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse.

There was something they were doing or not doing when they came together that made the assembly a detriment to spiritual good and spiritual growth. The assembly should be a positive impact on each one. In their case, it was not. Paul will explain why.

18. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.

They were coming together "as a church", but assembled in that capacity revealed "division" instead of unity. The location of assembly does not matter, whether in a public location or a private home. What matters is unity of purpose. Are we coming together to be the Lord’s assembly or not? The divisions at Corinth took away from the assembly and made it something "worse", something that took spiritual energy out of the church. Paul said he could believe it because divisions must come at times to separate the genuine and sincere from the insincere. Divisions are never pleasant, but they "must" come at times and places where the Spirit of God and the insincere have to finally part ways.

19. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

The "approved" are the sincere, genuine, and loyal lovers of God and His truth. They can be recognized by their alignment with the truth, the strength they retain in Christ, and the ground they gain when they properly observe the Memorial Supper.

20. Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

First, let us notice that Paul did not say they came together in a "house". Paul did not think a "house-church" was important or the only expedient place to meet. They came together in one place, and it does not matter where that place is. Jesus taught that the place of worship would not be in the temple or any other exclusive place (Jno.4:21-24). The "place" is anywhere you can safely and expediently do so. There was no emphasis placed upon a "house" over another building.

Secondly, notice that Paul tells the Corinthians that their intent was not really to eat the LORD’S Supper. The Lord had included and excluded the intended elements and purposes of HIS memorial meal. Paul will remind us not to turn the occasion into something for our own pleasures and purposes. Otherwise, it ceases to be the Lord’s and it becomes our own. Today, some people come together to be entertained or to fill their stomachs. That is THEIR assembly. It is not the LORD’S. Let us make sure that we come together to eat the LORD’S Supper, and not our own supper.

Thirdly, Clarke agrees. He says, "They did not come together to eat the Lord's Supper exclusively, which they should have done, and not have made it a part of an ordinary meal.

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

They had a grand feast, though the different sects kept in parties by themselves; but all took as ample a supper as they could provide (each bringing his own provisions with him), before they took what was called the Lord's Supper. (Clarke)

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.

They should have taken their ordinary meal at home, and have come together in the church to celebrate the Lord's Supper.(Clarke)

The very purpose of the Memorial Supper is not for the stomach but for the heart and spirit. There is a proper place for a common meal, and it is not as an "integral" part of the Lord’s Supper. The point that LaGard insists upon is denied by Paul. Paul could have said for them to eat the ordinary meal in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper, but he says instead that the common meal is "their" idea, not the Lord’s. He will go on tell ALL the real contents of the LORD’s Supper, and he will insist on filling the needs of the body apart from the memorial assembly at home.

[Despise ye the church of God] The church of God is not like the heathen, or even the Jewish assemblies. We must conduct ourselves with the dignity of the children of holy deity. To think so selfishly of our own wants and desires above the desires and commandments of the Lord is to, in effect, despise and cheapen the Lord’s people’s assembly.

[And shame them that have not?] Some did not have because they did not intend to come for a common meal. They had to watch the despicable sight of so-called "Christians" eating a common meal in the very place they all were to worship in unity, some to the point of gluttony and drinking to the point of drunkenness. The eaters were "shaming" the whole church before the world, shaming the non-eaters by engaging something that was not to be expected of the assembly. Some did not have because they may have been poor and expected a caring brother to take them home after assembly. But, here they were seeing selfish indulgences by some brethren who came to the assembly to eat and combine the common meal with the Lord’s memorial meal. These selfish brethren were shaming the ones who came unprepared for this Judeo-pagan feast.

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:

[I have received of the Lord] . The indulging Corinthians received their ideas of the Memorial assembly from some place OTHER than the Lord. Perhaps from Jewish and Pagan worship customs. As we saw before, the ONLY instructions of what is included and excluded from the Lord’s Supper is given by Jesus Himself when He first instituted the Memorial. There were only THREE things included: 1) unleavened bread, 2) fruit of the vine, and 3) the mind engaged in MEMORY. There was nothing said about a common meal. The Corinthian indulgers were doing the same thing that LaGard has done. They got their ideas from imagination or some place other than the Lord.

[The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread] - Paul takes us back to what was ACTUALLY done by Jesus. Whenever we have doubts or confusion about something, always go back to the original pattern and see if you overlooked something or imagined something that was not really there. When Jesus finished the Passover meal, He took the unleavened bread. He said nothing about the future memorial needing to be a part of a common meal. The Memorial meal is not part of the Passover meal or any other meal unless the Lord said it was. His silence on the matter is not permission to go beyond what He said. If He wanted us to associate it to a common, ordinary meal, He would have said so. Paul wants us to get the matter straight, so he goes back to what Jesus originally did and said.

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.

[This do in remembrance of me.] Do WHAT in remembrance? Eat the Passover meal before the bread? No! Take and eat this bread as an "integral" part of a "real meal"? No! The only instructions thus far is to take the unleavened bread and eat it in remembrance of Jesus. The WHOLE of what Jesus wanted done as far as "eating" was concerned, was to take a portion of that unleavened bread and associate a remembrance of Jesus with that bread. How can we get a whole common meal out of the divine instructions? The difference between Paul and the indulging Corinthians was that one "received of the Lord" the instructions, and the other got their ideas from imagination, or some other association of ideas. So far, all we have is unleavened bread and remembrance of Jesus. No common meal. No Passover meal. No pagan feast. Just bread and remembrance of Jesus.

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.

Now we have another single item. The cup was a "drink", and we learn further from what Jesus did in the beginning that it was "fruit of the vine" or the juice of the grape. This substance was "in the same manner" to be done in "remembrance" of Jesus. Again, we see the limitations and extensions of all that Jesus wanted. Three items: 1) unleavened bread, 2) fruit of the vine, and 3) the mind given to remembrance. No "common meal". No fourth, but unmentioned "integral" container or "integral" meal. The Corinthians had to have outside help (either directly into their imaginations from Satan, or indirectly through Jewish and/or pagan relationships) to get anything more or other than these three things. Likewise, to get anything else, like integral common meals, out of what Jesus said and did, is from imaginations influenced from some outsider.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

[Ye do show the Lord's death] By doing what Jesus said, we show the Lord’s death as important to our lives and our hearts. We do not show a self-centeredness, self-indulgence, or a disregard for the Lord and His people. We unite around the cross and show the death of Jesus as significant to us all. Whenever we take the two items and engage our hearts and memories with it in the way He said, we are honoring His death. We show to all that we value that death till He comes. We must not allow Him to come back while we have polluted the memorial meal with something we should do at home instead of in the memorial assembly.

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.

[Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily] It is "shameful" and "unworthy" of the honor Christ should have to make the occasion a time for common meals or a time for self-indulgence. It is unworthy of the occasion to just eat the elements with no real reflection.

[Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.] It was apathy on the part of some, lack of courage on the part of others, lack of truth-seeking on the part of others, lack of taking responsibility on the part of others, that caused the evil acts against Jesus in His crucifixion to start with. If our apathy allows people to pervert, change, alter, or add to what Jesus said, then we become JUST LIKE the people who let Jesus be crucified to start with. We become similarly guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. We must carry forth the proclamation of His death with the dignity and respect that He deserves.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

[Let a man examine himself] Instead of being careless and indifferent about the meaning Jesus attached to the two elements of the memorial, let us look within, reflect, and examine whether we have duly remembered Jesus’ body and blood. We need to ask ourselves if we are really reflecting on that magnanimous event.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

[Eateth and drinketh damnation] The matter is serious. To become "guilty" of being like the indifferent people who let Jesus go to the cross without defense or who may have washed their hands of the matter, or who may have deliberately acted against Him, is to come out from the safety zone of being "in Christ" and to enter into the state of condemnation. The failure to "discern" because we are thinking about our stomachs or some other such thoughts, is to be like the undiscerning who put Him on the cross or allowed Him to be put on the cross.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Spiritual weakness, feebleness, and death are sure to come if we fail to remember Jesus together and strengthen one another. There is no better source of spiritual strength, health, and life than gathering together to unitedly remember and proclaim and discern His body and blood. The Christian assembly should strengthen, but the Corinthians were feeding their bodies but not their souls. They were feeding themselves and indulging their appetites selfishly, and therefore their assemblies were "for the worse". It was bringing about weakness, spiritual illness, and spiritual death. They needed to put the common meals back in the home and bring the original purpose and pattern back to the church.

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

Each person must examine and judge his own purpose for assembling, his own reflective involvement in the memorial of Jesus. If we would do our own judging, we would be stronger, and such rebuking, critical letters from Paul, or needed rebuking sermons or personal confrontations would become unnecessary. No one would judge us as being weak, ill, or dead spiritually. If you do not want the preacher to "step on your toes", then keep your feet moving in the paths of righteousness.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

When the Lord can reach our conscience with such letters of rebuke, it is better to feel the discomfort of a spiritual spanking designed to get us back on track, than to go our way into the full and final condemnation of the world.

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

It might have been translated "when you come together to THE eat". Wait for the assembly to come together to eat (the eat, the eating of the bread Jesus commanded). It is the eating of the unleavened bread in His memory. Perhaps it is used in a dual way: 1) eating the prescribed unleavened bread in His memory, and 2) eating of spiritual thoughts and memories to feed, nourish, and strengthen the soul (which is the real reason for assembling).

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.

[And if any man hunger] Let him not come to the house of God to eat an ordinary meal, let him eat at home-take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of his body before he comes to that sacred repast, where he should have the feeding of his soul alone in view. (Clarke).

Notice that if the meal was indeed an "integral part" of the Lord’s Supper, he could have said to wait till the so-called "fellowship meal" and you will not be hungry anymore. Instead, he said to satisfy that need at home and leave the assembly for its intended purpose. In all of this text or any other text, there was nothing about a "fellowship meal" other than the fellowship meal of the two memorialized items. The two items alone set the table of the only "fellowship meal" the Bible puts in the assembly. The Lord’s Supper is composed only of two items. We have fellowship or communion as we partake of these items together in memory of Jesus’ body and blood. That is the fellowship meal. A fellowship meal is NOT corn, butterbeans, chicken, and gravy. These things should be eaten at home and not be brought into the real fellowship meal. Our commonality is in Christ and what He did in His body and by His blood for us. We feast on Jesus as our source of true fellowship.

[The rest will I set in order when I come.] Notice that Paul set in order what had been out of order in regard to the supper. Order mandated that common meals be eaten at home. So, today, it is out of order to bring common meals back into the church as a function of the church, and especially the combining of a common meal with the memorial meal. The correct order is to go back to what Jesus said to use in memory of Him. He separated only TWO items for this purpose. It is out of order to bring more than these two items and make them an "integral part". The order that Paul set in this disordered church did not include a "real meal" or "ordinary" food, as LaGard imagines. Jesus gave the order. Paul said he received his information from the Lord. The order is given, and the only thing said about common meals is that they are not to be part of the assembly and that they belong at home before or after assembly.

We tend to divide over what is not said, but why don’t we unite on what He did say and go no further? Imagination got the Corinthians off course. All they should have done was take the two memorial elements and used them to remember Jesus’ body and blood. That is simple enough. Why complicate it? Why do some want to read a common meal INTO the words of Jesus and Paul? We cannot unite on the "fellowship meal" that LaGard says must include a real meal along with the two memorial elements. But, we can all agree that Jesus gave us only two items to use in His fellowship meal. Why would anyone want to cause divisions by adding to the divine order? I think I know why.

Barnes Tells Us Why The Divisions Must Be So.

The foundation of this necessity is not in the Christian religion itself, for that is pure, and contemplates and requires union; but the existence of sects, and denominations, and contentious may be traced to the following causes:

(1) The love of power and popularity. Religion may be made the means of power; and they who have the control of the consciences of people, and of their religious feelings and opinions, can control them altogether.

(2) Showing more respect to a religious teacher than to Christ; see Notes on 1 Cor 1:12.

(3) The multiplication of tests, and the enlargement of creeds and confessions of faith. The consequence is, that every new doctrine that is incorporated into a creed gives occasion for those to separate who cannot accord with it.

(4) The passions of people-their pride, and ambition, and bigotry, and unenlightened zeal. Christ evidently meant that his church should be one; and that all who were his true followers should be admitted to her communion, and acknowledged everywhere as his own friends. And the time may yet come when this union shall be restored to his long distracted church, and that while there may be an honest difference of opinion maintained and allowed, still the bonds of Christian love shall secure union of "heart" in all who love the Lord Jesus, and union of "effort" in the grand enterprise in which ALL can unite-that of making war upon sin, and securing the conversion of the whole world to God.

....The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God. So in all divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held, and where the corruption of the mass does not require separation, such divisions show who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are indisposed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation; see Rom 16:17, "Mark them which cause divisions, and AVOID THEM."

(from Barnes' Notes)

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:

[For ...] In order most effectually to check the evils which existed, and to bring them to a proper mode of observing the Lord's Supper, the apostle proceeds to state distinctly and particularly its design. They had mistaken its nature. They supposed it might be a common festival. They had made it the occasion of great disorder. He therefore adverts to the solemn circumstances in which it was instituted; the particular object which it had in view-the commemoration of the death of the Redeemer, and the purpose which it was designed to subserve, which was not that of a festival, but to keep before the church and the world a constant remembrance of the Lord Jesus until he should again return, 1 Cor 11:26. By this means the apostle evidently hoped to recall them from their irregularities, and to bring them to a just mode of celebrating this holy ordinance. He did not, therefore, denounce them even for their irregularity and gross disorder; he did not use harsh, violent, vituperative language, but he expected to reform the evil by a mild and tender statement of the truth, and by an appeal to their consciences as the followers of the Lord Jesus.

(Barnes Notes).

[When he had supped] That is, all this occurred after the observance of the usual paschal supper. It could not, therefore, be a part of it, nor could it have been designed to be a festival or feast merely. The apostle introduces this evidently in order to show them that it could not be, as they seemed to have supposed, an occasion of feasting. It was AFTER the supper, and was therefore to be observed in a distinct manner. (Barnes Notes)

[In remembrance of me] This expresses the whole design of the ordinance. It is a simple memorial, or remembrance; designed to recall in a striking and impressive manner the memory of the Redeemer. It does this by a tender appeal to the senses-by the exhibition of the broken bread, and by the wine. The Saviour knew how prone people would be to forget him, and he, therefore, appointed this ordinance as a means by which his memory should be kept up in the world. The ordinance is rightly observed when it recalls the memory of the Saviour; and when its observance is the means of producing a deep, and lively, and vivid impression on the mind, of his death for sin. This expression, at the institution of the supper, is used by Luke (Luke 22:19); though it does not occur in Matthew, Mark, or John.

(from Barnes' Notes)

[And if any man hunger ...] The Lord's Supper is not a common feast; it is not designed as a place where a man may gratify his appetite. It is designed as a simple "commemoration," and not as a "feast." This remark was designed to correct their views of the supper, and to show them that it was to be distinguished from the ordinary idea of a feast or festival.

If all Christians would follow implicitly his directions here in regard to the Lord's Supper, it would be an ordinance full of comfort. May all so understand its nature, and so partake of it, that they shall meet the approbation of their Lord, and so that it may be the means of saving grace to their souls.

(from Barnes' Notes) 

EVEN WITH LAGARD’S "CURRENT VERNACULAR"

On page 131 he says, "If the reason you are participating in the fellowship meal is to feed your stomach, then you’d do better to stay home and pig out!"

This rendering would encourage us to:

1) Avoid giving people that "reason" by not providing that temptation or stumbling-block.

2) Bring only enough that cannot be used to feed the stomach.

3) Avoid the common meal being made an "integral" part of the Lord’s Supper, the real fellowship meal of the soul.

4) Provide other occasions at home and at resturaunts for meal and recreational hospitality purposes.

All the evidence, even when LaGard gives it a "current vernacular" alteration (not an accurate translation at all), points to avoiding a "real meal" and using a non-meal portion for memorial purposes only. The fellowship "meal" is spiritual food. But, it seems a bit overboard to tell people to "pig out" at home. Surely Paul is telling them to eat enough to satisfy the needs of the body at home and use the occasion of the memorial supper for no fleshly needs at all, but to join in a spiritual meal of hearts that take non-meal-sized portions of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine in memory of and in communion with Christ Jesus the Lord.

The text, then, does not help LaGard’s contention that the memorial elements has to be an integral part of a common meal. The texts asks plainly that common meals be eaten at home and that disciples take the supper in non-common-meal proportions, enough to use in memory of Christ. After all, it is about memorial, feeding the heart, not about eating a meal. So, LaGard has tried to maneuver the text, but it still tells what to take - the cup of blessing and the unleavened bread in memory of Jesus, and what not to do - do not make it a common meal. Eat your common meals at home so that you won’t denegrate the Lord’s Supper and the church of God.

Vibrant Essence?

It is a lawyer’s skilled tactic to make his case sound better than it really is and to make his opponents’ case seem worse than it really is. This tactic comes out in LaGard’s book. When he speaks of the first-century disciples eating a common meal together, and out of which they supposedly break the special bread, he has us imagining that their common meal was "vibrant essence"(p.132). When he thinks about how his parents and I observe the Lord’s Supper, and how he use to, his description of us is "ritualized version" and "crackers and grape juice". But, when I think of the Supper his parents and I partook of, I think "vibrant essence", and of the Corinthian meal as a "shame". LaGard says that the common meal can make the Lord’s Supper more "vibrant". That is just plain foolish! No common eating of chicken and green beans can make the Lord’s Supper "vibrant". That is wishful imagination only.

Paul tells us how to make the Supper "vibrant". He tells us to specifically put your mind and heart into "discerning" the Lord’s body and blood. "Discerning" is the key element to "the vibrant essence of the Lord’s Supper". Did you get that? Paul is telling us that it is all dependent upon what you do with your mind. The divine affirmation is that people can capture the vibrant essence of the Lord’s Supper with just the bread, in non-meal proportions because it does not involve the stomach at all, and just the cup of blessing with proper "discerning".

Paul gives the idea that a common meal can be a hindrance to this "discerning". So, the common meal is definitely NOT an "integral part" of the Supper memorial. There are only three integral parts to a vibrant, and correct participation in the Lord’s Supper: 1) unleavened bread in non-common-meal proportions, 2) fruit of the vine as the "cup of blessing", and 3) a "discerning" heart. Two items and a mind given to "remembering" and "discerning" His body and blood, and you have "the vibrant essence of the Lord’s Supper." We are told to eat regular meals at home so that we do nothing that invades on this spiritual feasting. Paul agrees that there are only three essential elements. LaGard is making the claim that there are FOUR essential elements: 1) a regular pot-luck type meal, 2) unleavened bread, 3) fruit of the vine, and 4) a discerning heart. LaGard adds one that Paul excluded. Therefore, LaGard is at odds with divine truth. We must reject his assertions.

He says, "The ritual we now euphemistically call "communion" (not wholly unlike the Catholic’s sacramental Eucharist) doesn’t hold a candle to the dynamic koinonia communion of the first-century disciples in their sharing together of the Lord’s Supper within the context of the fellowship meal." (p.135). Remember, he has already asserted several times that his "fellowship meal" is a "real meal" of potatoes, chicken, corn, etc. So, LaGard makes this a fourth essential element. Remember also that Jesus and Paul told us there were only THREE essential elements. It is our conviction that adding this fourth element will pervert the Supper and cause us all to take it in "an unworthy manner". It will be only a human tradition that adds that fourth element. We must obey God rather than man. Terry W. Benton

Terry W. Benton

Terry's Website and E-Mail Address

www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

terrywbenton@bellsouth.net

Click Here to Return to "Dangers Facing the
Non-Traditional Christian"