Exposing Yesuthass' Exposy

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Exposing Yesuthass' Exposy

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

Partial Exposy on "If the Apostle Paul were to Visit Church Today" posted by RTC (Yesuthass)
Date: 2001, Apr 26
From: RTC

So Yesuthass is saying that the right way to have the Lord’s Supper is the present way we are doing it, a morsel of bread and a tiny cup of grape juice. Then we get it over and done within 10 seconds. He is saying that for the Lord’s Supper to be conducted in the context of a real meal is improper and unbiblical. He challenges my understanding of the Lord’s Supper, hoping that by successfully doing so he can also refute the idea of the house church as the biblical context for the Lord’s Supper and the church meeting. Well, let’s do an expose on Yesuthass’ exposy and see whose understanding is found wanting. I shall use a research essay from a reputed theological journal to support my position. The author of this essay is Donald Farner. I will reproduce his work in an edited manner for brevity. The full thing can be found in “The Lord’s Supper until He Comes”, Grace Theological Journal, V6 #2:391-401—Fall 85. Hopefully this would help to illuminate Yesuthass’ understanding of the Lord’s Supper, and also act as a vindication for what I have been sharing about the Lord’s Supper. *************************** Many dismiss the meal in the upper room as part of the communion ordinance by declaring that it was the Passover meal and that therefore, while it was significant for Israel, it only provided a setting for the Eucharist. However, it can be demonstrated that the NT teaches that the supper was not the Passover and that it was not the occasion for the eating of the Passover lamb. Constructing a harmony of the passages that present the time relationship of the upper room supper and the Passover shows that Jesus’ observance was not the Passover meal. After those events took place which are recorded in the gospels, it is recorded that the apostles perpetuated this supper from which is drawn the elements for the celebration of the bread and the cup. The early post-apostolic churches continued this pattern. Acts 2:42, 46 and 20:7–11 use the expression “the breaking of bread.” A study of this expression demonstrates that this is best understood as referring to a full meal rather than simply the Eucharist. This phrase became a technical expression for “The Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor 11:20) and the “Agape” (Jude 12). These terms also embodied the concept of a full fellowship meal with ceremonial significance. It is thus evident that the church in Acts perpetuated the practice of that meal experienced in the upper room on that fateful night. 1 Cor 11:17–34 demonstrates at least two things about the Lord’s Supper. First, it was an actual meal. Vv 20–22 make any other understanding of it impossible. Second, the supper was practiced, though severely abused, and its continued practice was expected and assumed in v 33 and in the warnings attached to continued abuse of it (vv 27–32 ). It is not known exactly how the Lord’s Supper came to be called the Agape (Jude 12). But before the NT era closed the fellowship meal, originating in the upper room, was called the Agape, the Love Feast. To summarize, both the apostolic record and the early postapostolic literature testify to the fact of the perpetuation of the Lord’s Supper or Agape as a ceremonial meal of symbolic significance. It is important to notice that the term “Eucharist” is not a scriptural designation for the bread and cup. It suggests that the bread and cup, called the “Eucharist,” are somehow set apart as more sacred and distinct from the elements of the Lord’s Supper (i.e., Agape). Such is not really the case. A careful comparison of the various accounts of the upper room supper in Scripture indicates that the food of the supper and the food of the “Eucharist” were materially and ceremonially one. A harmonization of the Synoptics with Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 11 is helpful. First, the bread and cup of the memorial (remembrance) were not a special portion of food kept aside from the meal for the celebration of a “Eucharist” after the meal. Matthew and Mark both place the bread memorial during the course of the meal, that is, “as they were eating.” Luke and Paul do not make such a specific statement but what they do say is easily harmonized with Matthew and Mark. Luke placed the bread memorial between the first and second sharing of the cup (Luke 22:17–20). Thus, the bread of remembrance is from the meal in progress. Second, both Luke and Paul place the memorial cup after the supper. Matthew and Mark present the memorial cup after the bread without comment as to time frame. But again, their account is easily harmonized with that of Luke and Paul. Third, there is a cup received by Jesus and shared during the supper according to Luke 22:17. The memorial of the cup is presented in v 20 . However, the two cups are one. Since the first cup (22:17 ) is without the article, and the second cup (22:20 ) has the article, this is an example of the anaphoric article or the article of previous reference. That is to say, after the supper Jesus took the previously mentioned cup and designated the remembrance. The point is that Jesus took the food of the supper, bread and wine, and designated the bread of the supper as a remembrance of his body, and the wine of the supper as the remembrance of his blood. The “Eucharist” has no separate existence or meaning apart from the supper from which it was taken. At the time of the original institution it was not a bread and cup celebrated after supper and apart from that supper as a separate ceremony. This is not to say that having a wafer of bread and a sip of juice for the Eucharist is wrong in and of itself. However, such a practice may suggest a separation that is not true. It implies the separation of those elements from the supper from which they were taken. It is clear that the subject under discussion in 1 Cor 11:17–34 is the practice or rather the abuse of the Lord’s Supper. Vv 20–22 plainly say so. The conclusion in vv 33–34 also indicates that the supper is the matter in Paul’s mind. The introduction of the bread and cup memorial in vv 23–26 forms the theological basis for an assertion regarding the danger of abusing the supper. The food of the supper is given ceremonial significance. To abuse the supper, that is, to eat and drink its food in an unworthy manner due to division and selfish strife, is to bring guilt (11:27 ) and judgment (11:29 ) upon one’s self. In fact, weakness, sickness, and even death are possible consequences. In short, the supper and its food, including the bread and cup, are united in such a way so that to abuse the supper is to defile the worship of the Lord as celebrated in the supper and its memorial. This points to a union of the two. The subject matter of 1 Cor 11:2–34 has to do with apostolic traditions and instructions given by Paul to the church at Corinth. In v 2 Paul praises the Corinthian church for holding fast to the traditions he had delivered to them. He then proceeds to give instruction concerning a tradition that needs reinforcement among them (11:3–16 ). In v 17 Paul begins instruction concerning another tradition with regard to which he does not praise them. He begins, “now giving instruction with respect to this, I do not praise”. This matter is one of the traditions which he delivered which was not being properly perpetuated. In fact, it was being grievously abused. In v 23 Paul specifically refers to that which he received from the Lord and delivered to them regarding the bread and the cup. He does so, not to distinguish the bread and cup from the supper, but to continue his argument against the abuse of the supper. The meaning assigned to the bread and the cup by the Lord is a strong argument against abusive eating of that bread and cup during the supper meal. A final look at this text will focus on 11:33 . The answer to the abuse of the Lord’s Supper is not to discontinue the supper but rather to “wait for” one another instead of each one “taking first” his own supper in the eating (21 ). The verb “to wait for” is in the imperative mood—it is a command. The participle “coming together” is dependent upon the imperative verb and can be construed as a participle of attendant circumstance. In that case, the imperative force of the main verb is carried over into the participle. Thus, the coming together for this supper is a part of the command. The abuses were to be corrected but the practice of the supper was not to cease. In summary, the Lord’s Supper is a meal which included the memorial of the bread and cup. It is an apostolic tradition perpetuated by Paul on the basis of the upper room model and the revelation to him from the Lord (1 Cor 11:17–34). It is a ceremonial meal which has a purpose beyond satisfaction of hunger (11:34 ). It is the source of the bread and cup which is shared in order to declare and memorialize the redemptive work of Christ. It recognizes the fellowship of believers worshiping the Lord Jesus for his sacrificial death. It involves the ceremonial fellowship of Christians looking forward to sharing a supper with the Lord when he returns.