---

Why we celebrate the Lord's Supper in the context of a meal.

---

The Lord's Supper: Feast or Famine?

The Lord's Supper, sometimes called communion, the Table of the Lord, the agape or the Eucharist, is limited in most churches to a sip of wine and a piece of bread. Why then is it called a "supper" in the NT?

by Steve Atkerson

The meal is potluck, or as we jokingly say, “pot-providence.”  Everyone brings food to share with everyone else.  When the weather is nice, all the food is placed on a long folding table outside.  A chest full of ice sits beside the drink table.   Kids run wildly around.  They are having so much fun that they must be rounded up by parents and encouraged to eat.  After a prayer of thanksgiving is offered, people line up, talking and laughing as they load their plates with food.  In the middle of all the food sits a single loaf of bread next to a large container of the fruit of the vine.  Each believer partakes of the bread and juice/wine while going through the serving line. 

        The smaller kids are encouraged to occupy one of the few places at a table to eat.  (They sure can be messy!)  Chairs for adults (there are not enough for everyone) are clustered in circles, mainly occupied by the women, who eat while discussing home schooling, child training, sewing, an upcoming church social, the new church we hope to start, etc.  Most of the men stand to eat, balancing their plates on top of their cups, grouped into small clusters and solving the world’s problems or pondering some interesting topic of theology.  The atmosphere is not unlike that of a wedding banquet.  It is a great time of fellowship, encouragement, edification, friendship, caring, catching-up, praying, exhorting, and maturing.  The reason for the event?  In case you did not recognize it, this is the Lord’s Supper, New Testament style!

        Foreign though it may seem to the contemporary church, the first-century church enjoyed the Lord’s Supper as a banquet that foreshadowed the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.  It was not until after the close of the New Testament era that the early church fathers altered the Lord’s Supper from its pristine form.

 

Its Form And Focus:  A Feast And The Future

        The very first Lord’s Supper is also called the Last Supper, because it was the last meal Jesus shared with his disciples before His crucifixion.  The occasion for the meal was the Passover.  At this Passover Feast, Jesus and His disciples reclined at a table that would have been heaped with food (Ex 12, De 16).  Jewish tradition tells us that this meal typically lasted for hours.  During the course of the meal, “while they were eating” (Mt 26:26), Jesus took a loaf of bread and compared it to his body.  He had already taken up a cup and had them all drink from it.  Later, “after the supper” (Lk 22:20), Jesus took the cup again and compared it to his blood, which was soon to be poured out for our sins.  Thus, the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper were introduced in the context of a full meal, specifically, the Passover meal. 

        Would the Twelve have somehow concluded that the newly instituted Lord’s Supper was not to be a true meal?  Or would they naturally have assumed it to be a feast, just like the Passover?  The answers are obvious.

        According to one Greek scholar, “The Passover celebrated two events, the deliverance from Egypt and the anticipated coming Messianic deliverance” (Reinecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 207).  Soon after that Last Supper, Jesus became the ultimate sacrificial Passover Lamb, suffering on the cross to deliver His people from their sins.  Jesus keenly desired to eat that last Passover with His disciples, saying that He would “not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God” (Lk 22:16).  Note that Jesus looked forward to a time when He could eat the Passover again in the kingdom of God.  Evidently, the “fulfillment” (Lk 22:16) of this was later written about by John in Revelation 19:7-9.  There, John recorded an angel declaring, “Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!”  The Last Supper and the early church’s Lord’s Suppers all looked forward to a fulfillment in the wedding supper of the Lamb.  What better way to typify a banquet than with a banquet?

        His future wedding banquet was much on our Lord’s mind that particular Passover evening.  He mentioned it first at the beginning of the Passover feast (Lk 22:16).  He mentioned it again when passing the cup, saying, “I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Lk 22:18).  Then, after the supper, He referred to it yet again, saying, “I confer on you a kingdom . . . so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom ” (Lk 22:29-30).

       Whereas modern Gentiles associate heaven with clouds and harps, first-century Jews thought of heaven as a time of feasting at Messiah’s table.  This idea of eating and drinking at the Messiah’s table was common imagery in Jewish thought of the first century.  For instance, a Jewish leader once said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God” (Lk 14:15).  Jesus Himself said that “many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11).

        This eating that is associated with the coming of Christ’s kingdom is even seen in the model prayer of Matthew 6:9-11.  In reference to His coming kingdom, Jesus taught us to pray, “your kingdom come, your will be done.”  The very next sentence is “Give us today our daily bread.”  The Greek underlying Matthew 6:11 is difficult to translate.  Literally, it reads something closer to, “the bread of us belonging to the coming day give us today.”  Linking 6:11 with 6:10, Jesus may well have been teaching us to ask that the bread of the Messianic (kingdom come) banquet be given to us today.  That is, let the kingdom come and the feast begin today!

        The most extensive treatment of the Lord’s Supper is found in chapters ten and eleven of 1 Corinthians.  The deep divisions of the Corinthian believers resulted in their Lord’s Supper meetings doing more harm than good (11:17-18).  They were partaking of the Supper in a “unworthy manner” (11:27).  The wealthier people among them, perhaps not wanting to eat with the lower social classes, evidently came to the gathering so early and remained there so long that some became drunk.  Making matters worse, by the time that the working-class believers arrived, delayed by employment constraints, all the food had been consumed and they went home hungry (11:21-22).  Some of the Corinthians failed to recognize the Supper as a sacred, covenant meal (11:23-32). 

        The abuses were so serious that what was supposed to be the Lord’s Supper had instead become their own supper (11:21, NASV).  Thus Paul asked, “Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?”   If eating their own supper was the entire objective, private dining at home would do.  Their sinful selfishness absolutely betrayed the very essence of what the Lord’s Supper is all about.

       From the nature of their abuse, it is evident that the Corinthian church regularly partook of the Lord’s Supper as a full meal.  In contrast, very few people in modern churches would ever come to a typical Lord’s Supper service expecting to have physical hunger satisfied.  Nor could they possibly get drunk from drinking a thimble-sized cup of wine (or much less, grape juice). 

        The inspired solution for the Corinthian’s abuse of the Supper was not that the church cease eating it as a full meal.  Instead, Paul wrote, “when you come together to eat, wait for each other.”  Only those so famished or undisciplined or selfish that they could not wait for the others are instructed to “eat at home” (1Co 11:34).  Keep in mind that Paul wrote to the Corinthian church some twenty years after Jesus turned His Last Supper into our Lord’s Supper.  Just as the Last Supper was a full meal, so too the Corinthians understood the Lord’s Supper to be a true meal. 

        Additionally, the word behind “supper” (1Co 11:20) is deipnon, which means “dinner, the main meal toward evening, banquet.”  It never refers to anything less than a full meal, such as an appetizer, snack or hors d’oeuvres.  What is the possibility that the authors of the New Testament would use deipnon to refer to the Lord’s “Supper” if it were not supposed to be a full meal?  The Lord’s Supper originally had numerous forward looking aspects to it.  As a full meal, it prefigured the feast of the coming kingdom, the marriage supper of the Lamb.  

        The opinion of most Bible scholars is clearly weighted toward the conclusion that the Lord’s Supper was originally eaten as a full meal.  For example, Donald Guthrie, in The Lion Handbook of the Bible, states that “in the early days the Lord’s Supper took place in the course of a communal meal. All brought what food they could and it was shared together.”  

        Dr John Drane, in The New Lion Encyclopedia, commented that “Jesus instituted this common meal at Passover time, at the last supper shared with His disciples before His death . . . the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, and it looks forward to the time when He will come back again.  Throughout the New Testament period the Lord’s Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that the Lord’s Supper was moved to a special building and Christian prayers and praises that had developed from the synagogue services and other sources were added to create a grand ceremony.”  

        J. G. Simpson, in an entry about the Eucharist in The Dictionary of the Bible, observed that  “the name Lord’s Supper, though legitimately derived from 1 Corinthians 11:20, is not there applied to the sacrament itself, but to the Love Feast or Agape, a meal commemorating the Last Supper, and not yet separated from the Eucharist when St. Paul wrote.” 

        Canon Leon Morris, in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians for the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries  insists that 1Co 11 “reveals that at Corinth the Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us, but an actual meal.  Moreover it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food.” 

        Howard Marshall, in Christian Beliefs noted that the Lord’s Supper “was observed by His disciples, at first as part of a communal meal, Sunday by Sunday.”

  

 Its Functions:  1)  Reminding Jesus

        Partaking of the bread and cup as an integral part of the meal originally served several important functions.  One of these was to remind Jesus of His promise to return.  Reminding God of His covenant promises is a thoroughly Scriptural concept.  In the covenant God made with Noah, He promised never to destroy the earth by flood again, signified by the rainbow.  That sign is certainly designed to remind us of God’s promise, but God also declared, “whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth” (Ge 9:16, emphasis added ). 

        Later on in redemptive history, as a part of His covenant with Abraham, God promised to bring the Israelites out of their coming Egyptian bondage.  Accordingly, at the appointed time, “God heard their groaning and He remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.  So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them” (Ex 2:24-25, emphasis added).   

        During the Babylonian captivity, Ezekiel records that God promised Jerusalem, “I will remember the covenant I made with you” (Eze 16:60, emphasis added). 

        The Lord’s Supper is the sign of the new covenant.   As Jesus took the cup He said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28).  As with any sign, it is to serve as a reminder.  Thus Jesus said that we are to partake of the bread “in remembrance of” Him (Lk 22:19).  The Greek word translated “remembrance” is anamnesis and means “reminder.”  Literally translated, Jesus said, “do this unto my reminder.” 

        The question before us is whether that reminder is to be primarily for Jesus’ benefit or ours.  The prepositional phrase “of me” (or “my”) is translated from the single Greek word, emos, which grammatically denotes possession (i.e., the reminder belongs to Jesus).  Thus, the church was to partake of the bread of the Lord’s Supper specifically to remind Jesus of His promise to return and eat the Supper again, in person (Lk 22:16, 18).  Understood in this light, it was originally designed to be like a prayer asking Jesus to return (“Thy kingdom come,” Mt 6:11).  Just as the rainbow reminds God of His covenant with Noah, just like the groaning reminded God of His covenant with Abraham, so too partaking of the bread of the Lord’s Supper was designed to remind Jesus of His promise to return.   Colin Brown quotes J. Jeremias as understanding Jesus to use anamnesis in the sense of a reminder for God, “The Lord’s Supper would thus be an enacted prayer” (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, III, p. 244).

        Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:26, confirms this idea by stating that the early church, in eating the Lord’s Supper, did actually “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”  To whom did they proclaim His death, and why?  Arguably, they proclaimed it to the Lord Himself, as a reminder for Him to return.  It is significant that the Greek behind “until” is achri hou.  As it is used here, it grammatically can denote a goal or an objective (Reinecker, Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament, p. 34).  According to the English usage, I may use an umbrella “until” it stops raining, merely denoting a time frame.  (Using the umbrella has nothing to do with making it stop raining.)  However, this is not how  the Greek behind “until’ is used in 1 Corinthians 11:26.  Instead, Paul was instructing the church to partake of the bread and cup as a means of proclaiming the Lord’s death (as a reminder) with the goal of (“until”) persuading Him to come back!  Thus, in proclaiming His death through the loaf and cup, the Supper looked forward to and anticipated His return.

        This concept of seeking to persuade the Lord to return is not unlike the plea of the martyrs of Revelation 6 who called out, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” (Re 6:10).  And what did Peter have in mind when he wrote that his readers should look forward to the day of God and “speed its coming?” (2Pe 3:12).  If it was futile to seek to persuade Jesus to return, then why did Jesus instruct his disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done?”  (Mt 6:10).

 

Its Functions:  2)  Creating Unity

        All this emphasis on the Supper as a true meal is not to say that we should jettison the loaf and cup, representative of the body and blood of our Lord.   To the contrary, they remain a vital part of the Supper (1Co 11:23-26). 

        Just as the form of the Lord’s Supper is important (a full fellowship meal that prefigured the wedding banquet of the Lamb), also important are the form of the bread and cup.  Mention is made in scripture of  the cup of thanksgiving (singular) and of only one loaf:  “Because there is one loaf, we who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1Co 10:16-17).  The one loaf not only pictures our unity in Christ, but according to 1 Corinthians 10:17 even creates unity!  Notice carefully the wording of the inspired text.  “Because” there is one loaf, therefore we are one body, “for” we all partake of the one loaf (1Co 10:17).  Partaking of a pile of broken cracker crumbs and multiple cups of juice is a picture of disunity, division, and individuality.  At the very least, it completely misses the imagery of unity.  At worse, it would prohibit the Lord from using the one loaf to create unity in a body of believers.

        Some in Corinth were guilty of partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an “unworthy manner” (1Co 11:27).  The rich refused to eat the Supper with the poor.  The rich arrived at the place of meeting so early that when the poor got there later, some of the rich had become drunk and all the food had been eaten.  The poor went home hungry.  These shameful class divisions cut at the heart of the unity the Lord’s Supper is designed to achieve.   The Corinthian abuses were so bad that it had ceased being the Lord’s Supper and had instead become their “own” supper (1Co 11:21, NASV).  This failure of the rich to recognize the body of the Lord in their poorer brethren also resulted in divine judgement:  many of them were sick, and a number had even died (1Co 11:27-32).   Paul’s solution to the harmful meetings?  “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other” (1Co 11:33).  Anyone so hungry he could not wait was instructed to “eat at home” (1Co 11:34).  Part of the reason the Corinthians were not unified is precisely because they failed to eat the Lord’s Supper together as a full meal, centered around the one cup and loaf.

 

Its Functions:   3)   Fellowship

        In speaking to the church at Laodicea, our resurrected Lord offered to come in and eat (deipneo) with anyone who heard His voice and opened the door, a picture of fellowship and communion (Re 3:20).  The idea that fellowship and acceptance is epitomized by eating together was derived not only from the Hebrew culture of Jesus’ day, but also from the earliest Hebrew Scriptures.  Exodus 18:12 reveals that Jethro, Moses, Aaron, and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread in the presence of God.  More divine dining occurred at the cutting of the Sinai covenant, when Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel when up on Mount Sinai where they “saw God, and they ate and drank” (Ex 24:9-11).  It is significant that “God did not raise his hand against these leaders” (Ex 24:11a).  They were accepted by Him, as evidenced in the holy meal they ate in His presence.

        This “fellowship in feasting” theme is continued on in the book of Acts, where we learn that the early church devoted themselves to “fellowship in the breaking of bread” (2:42, literal translation).  In your English version, notice that in Acts 2:42 there is an “and” between “teaching” and “fellowship,” and between “bread” and “prayer,” but not between “fellowship” and “bread.”  In the Greek, the words “fellowship” and “breaking of bread” are linked together as simultaneous activities.  They had fellowship with one another as they broke bread together.  Luke further informs us that this eating was done with “glad and sincere hearts” (2:46).  Sounds inviting, doesn’t it?  Many commentaries associate the phrase “breaking of bread” throughout the books of Acts with the Lord’s Supper.  This is because Luke, who wrote Acts, recorded in his gospel that Jesus took bread and “broke it” at the last supper (22:19).  If this conclusion is accurate, then the early church enjoyed the Lord’s Supper as a time of fellowship and gladness, just like one would enjoy at a wedding banquet.

        In contrast, many modern churches partake of the Lord’s Supper with more of a funeral atmosphere.  An organ softly plays reflective music.  Every head is bowed, every eye is closed, as people quietly and introspectively search their souls for unconfessed sin.  The cup and loaf are laid out on a small table, covered over by a white cloth, almost like a corpse would be during a funeral.  Deacons somberly, like pall bearers, pass out the elements.  Is this really in keeping with the tradition of the apostles concerning the Supper?  Remember that it was the unworthy manner that Paul criticized (1Co 11:27), not the unworthy people.  That unworthy manner consisted in drunkenness at the table of the Lord, in not eating together, and in the poor going home hungry and humiliated.  Indeed, every person ought to examine himself before arriving for the meal, to be sure he is not guilty of the same gross sin that the Corinthians were guilty of:  failing to recognize the body of the Lord in his fellow believers (1Co 11:28-29).  Once we have each judged ourselves, we can come to the meal without fear of judgement and enjoy the fellowship of Lord’s Supper as the true wedding banquet it is intended to be.

 

Its Frequency:  Weekly

        How often did the New Testament church partake of the Supper?  Early believers ate the Lord’s Supper weekly, and it was the main purpose for their coming together each Lord’s Day.

        The first evidence for this is grammatical.  The technical term, “Lord’s Day” is from a unique phrase in the Greek, kuriakon hemeran, which literally reads, “the day belonging to the Lord.”   The words “belonging to the Lord” are from kuriakos, which occurs in the New Testament only in Revelation 1:10 and in 1 Corinthians 11:20,  where Paul uses it to refer to the “Lord’s Supper” or the “Supper belonging to the Lord” (kuriakon deipnon).  The connection between these two uses must not be missed!  If the purpose of the weekly church meeting is to observe the Lord’s Supper, it only makes sense that this supper belonging to the Lord would be eaten on the day belonging to the Lord (the first day of the week).  John’s revelation (Re 1:10) evidently thus occurred on the first day of the week, the day in which Jesus rose from the dead and the day on which the early church met to eat the Supper belonging to the Lord.  The resurrection, the day, and the supper go together as a package deal!

        Second, the only reason ever given in the New Testament for the regular purpose of a church meeting is to eat the Lord’s Supper.  In Acts 20:7, Luke informs us that,  “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.”  The words “to eat” in Ac 20:7 reflect what is known as a telic infinitive.  It denotes a purpose or objective.  Their meeting was a meating! 

        Another place in the New Testament that the purpose for a church gathering is stated is found in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22.  Their “meetings” (11:17) were doing more harm than good because when they came “together as a church” (11:18a) they had divisions so deep that Paul wrote, “when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat” (11:18b).  From this is it obvious that the primary reason for their church meetings was to eat the Lord’s Supper.  Sadly, their abuses of the Supper were so gross that it had ceased being the Lord’s Supper, but officially they were gathering each week to celebrate the Supper. 

        The third and last location of a reference to the reason for an assembly is found in 1 Corinthians 11:33, “When you come together to eat, wait for each other.”  As before, it shows that the reason they came together was to “eat.”  Lest this appear to be making a mountain out of a mole hill, it must be realized that no other reason is ever given in the Scriptures as to the purpose of a regular, weekly church meeting.

        The fellowship and encouragement that each member enjoys in such a gathering is tremendous.  It is the Christian equivalent of the neighborhood bar.  It is the true happy meal or happy hour.  It is a time that God uses to create unity in a body of believers.  This aspect of the church’s meeting should not be rushed or replaced.   Certainly it is appropriate to also have a “1 Corinthians 14 phase” of the gathering (an interactive time of teaching, worship, singing, testimony, prayer, etc.), but not at the expense of the weekly Lord’s Supper.

 

Practical Considerations

        Practicing the Lord’s Supper as a full meal today is can be a means of great blessing to the church.  Here are some practical considerations concerning its implementation.

        Attitude:  Be sure the church understands that the Lord’s Supper is the main purpose for the weekly gathering.  It is neither optional nor secondary to some type of  “worship service.”   Even if all a church does on a given Sunday is celebrate the Lord’s Supper, it has fulfilled one of its primary reasons for having a meeting that week.

        Food:  If at all possible, make the meal one that is shared and purpose to eat whatever is brought.  This makes the administration of the food much easier.  Trust God’s sovereignty!  Over-planning the meal can take a lot of the fun out and make it burdensome.  The one thing that should be pre-planned is who supplies the one loaf and the fruit of the vine.  (In our church, the family that is hosting the meeting always supplies these things.)

        Giving:  Since celebrating the meal is a New Testament pattern and something important to the life of a properly functioning church, time and money spent by individual families on food to bring is truly a part of their giving unto the Lord.  Rather than merely dropping an offering in a plate each week, go to the food store and buy the best food you can afford.  Bring it to the Supper as a sacrificial offering!

        Clean Up:  To facilitate clean up, you may want to consider using paper plates and napkins along with plastic forks and cups.  Also, since folks sometimes carelessly throw away their utensils along with the rest of their trash, it is better to accidentally throw away a plastic fork than a metal one!  To help avoid spills the host family supplies wicker plate holders, which can be reused and don’t usually need to be washed.

        Logistics:  In warm weather it may be appropriate to eat outside.  Spilled food and drink is inevitable, and clean up is much easier.  A large folding table can be placed where necessary and stored away after the meeting.  In cold weather, when eating indoors is necessary, consider covering any nicely upholstered furniture with a layer of plastic and then cloth.  Since children make the most mess, reserve any available seating at a table for them and insist they use it!        

        The Cup and Loaf:  Some have found that taking the cup and loaf prior to the meal separates it from the meal too much as a separate act.  It is as if the Lord’s Supper is the cup and loaf, and everything else is just lunch.  To overcome this false dichotomy, try placing the cup and loaf on the table with the rest of the food of the Lord’s Supper.  The cup and loaf can be pointed out in advance of the meeting and mentioned in the prayer prior to the meal, but then placed on the buffet table with everything else.  This way, believers can partake of it as they pass through  the serving line.

        Should the loaf be unleavened and the fruit of the vine alcoholic?  The Jews ate unleavened bread in the Passover meal to symbolize the quickness with which God brought them out of Egypt.  Jesus used unleavened bread in the original Last Supper.  Nothing is said in the New Testament, however, about Gentile churches using unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper.  Though sometimes in the New Testament yeast is associated with evil (1Co 5:6-8), it is also used to represent God’s kingdom (Mt 13:33)!  As we see it, this is a matter of freedom.  Regarding wine, it is clear from 1 Corinthians 11 that wine was used in the Lord’s Supper, because some had become drunk.  No clear theological reason is ever given in Scripture, however, for so doing (but consider Ge 27:28, Isa 25:6-9, Ro 14:21).  As with the unleavened bread, it would seem to be a matter of freedom for each church to decide.

        Unbelievers:  Should unbelievers be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper?  The Lord’s Supper, as a sacred, covenant meal, has significance only to believers.  To nonbelievers, it is merely food for the belly!  It is clear from 1 Corinthians 14:23-25 that unbelievers will occasionally attend church meetings.  Unbelievers get hungry just like believers do, so invite them to eat too.  Love them to Jesus!  The danger in taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner applies only to believers (1Co 11:27-32). 

        Regarding the one cup and loaf, if an unbelieving child desires to drink the grape juice just because he likes grape juice, that is fine.  However, if the parents purposely give it to an unbelieving child as a religious act, then that might be a violation of what the Lord’s Supper is all about.  It would be closely akin to the concept of infant baptism.

        Ordained Clergy:  Some believe that only an ordained clergyman can officiate at the Lord’s table.  The New Testament makes no so such requirement.  Indeed, the very concept of a special class of clergy is totally absent from Scripture and goes directly against apostolic tradition.  There clearly are to be leaders in the church (such as elders) but they are not to be classified as clergy versus laity.

 

Conclusion

        Now that the New Testament form of the Supper has been duly established, the next question facing believers today concerns our Lord’s intent for modern churches.  Does Jesus desire for His people to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the same way it was eaten in the New Testament?  Or could it be a matter of indifference to Him?  Do we have the freedom to deviate from the Supper’s original form as a true banquet?  Certainly not.  Why would anyone want to depart from the way Christ and His apostles practiced the Lord’s Supper?  The apostles clearly were pleased when churches held to their traditions (1Co 11:2) and even commanded that they do so (2Th 2:15).  We have no authorization to deviate from it.

        In summary, the Lord’s Supper is the primary purpose for which the church is to gather each Lord’s Day.  Eaten as a full meal, the Supper typifies the wedding supper of the Lamb and is thus forward looking.  It is to be partaken of as a feast, in a joyful, wedding atmosphere rather than in a somber, funeral atmosphere.  A major benefit of the Supper as a banquet is the fellowship and encouragement each member experiences.  Within the context of this full meal, there is to be one cup and one loaf from which all partake.  These are symbolic of Jesus’ body and blood and serve to remind Jesus of His promise to return.  One whole loaf is to be used, not only  to symbolize the unity of a body of believers, but also because God will use it to create unity within a body of believers.

 

— Steve Atkerson

Revised 06/13/05

Reprinted by the kind permission of Steve Atkerson from his website, http://www.ntrf.org

Steve and his wife Sandra live in Atlanta and homeschool their three children. Steve earned an M.Div. from Mid America Baptist Theological Seminary and then served seven years as one of the pastors of a Southern Baptist Church. He resigned in 1990 to work with biblical house churches. Steve is now a bi-vocational local house church elder, itinerant teacher, and president of the New Testament Restoration Foundation. He can be contacted at nt_restoration_foundation@juno.com .

Return to Our Practices Page