The Dispensation of the Mystery, the Lord's Supper and Ceremonies.

The Dispensation of the Mystery, the Lord's Supper and Ceremonies.

Phillip Dennis

[Acknowledgment: Much of the material in this outline has been extracted from the many study outlines and notes by Steve Rodabaugh and Bob Walsh, elders of Trinity Grace Fellowship, Pittsburgh. Their contributions and labors to the understanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Lord's Supper are gratefully acknowledged.]

I. Outline:

A. Dispensation of the Mystery and the Unity of the Body of Christ.

B. The Body of Christ and Ceremonies.

C. Sola Scriptura and Lord's Supper.

D. What is the Lord's Supper?

E. Conclusion.

II. Dispensation of the Mystery and the Unity of the Body of Christ

A. Seven Ones of Eph. 4:4-6 are the unity of the Body which members of the Body are to guard (Eph.4:3).

B. In the seven Ones there is no water baptism and no mention of the Lord's Supper, Sabbaths or any other ritualistic ceremonies or requirements.

III. The Body of Christ and Ceremonies.

A. Sola Scriptura plus the normative hermeneutic result in the recognition of Paul's distinctive gospel (good news) and the fact that the Body of Christ has no religious ceremonies. Aspects of the non-ceremonial nature of the Body follow:

B. The One Body has no religious surgery.

1. Circumcision was required for the Jews: Gen. 17:11, Deut. 10:16, Eze. 44:9.

2. For the Body, circumcision is expressly forbidden: Gal. 5:2, Phil. 3:3, Col. 2:11.

C. The Body has no religious bathing.

1. Israel had many religious baths. Many verses, see outline for session one.

2. Body has no religious baths: 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27, Eph. 4:5, Col. 2:12. This is confirmed by the doctrinal unity of the one Body in the seven Ones that there is but one baptism. Col. 2:12 states in parallel with the fact that we have no outward circumcision (we have the inner circumcision of the heart) that our baptism is likewise not external water but the inner baptism: Greek text of Col. 2:12 reads: "jointly-buried with Him in the baptism in which {baptism} also you were jointly-raised through the faith that is the operation of God." Clearly this is regeneration. Clearly this is not a water ceremony. We are complete in Christ apart from ritual circumcision and ritual water baptism.

D. The Body has no religious times, Sabbaths, Holy Days, or Lord's Day.

1. Israel had specific religious times as described throughout the Law (Lev. 16, 23, etc): weekly Sabbaths, monthly days, annual festivals and convocations, special times of the day. The observance of these continues in Israel's future empire: Eze. 40-47, Acts 2:1; 3:1.

2. Body has no religious times. Gal. 4:8-11, Col. 2:16, in order, in context.

E. The Body has no priesthood or religious holy places

1. Israel and religious places. The various parts of Israel's Law (Moses, Writings, Prophets, non-Pauline New Testament) describe various holy places, Holy Land, and succession of temples culminating in the New Jerusalem as the final, eternal temple of the Holy Nation.

2. For the Body there are no priests (Rom. 8:26-27, 34, I Tim. 2:5-6). Such would be a division within the Body (Eph. 4:4). There are no holy places since such always implies the need for a distinguished priesthood. The Body's hope is not earthly, but in the Third Heaven above the angelic hosts (1 Cor. 6:3; 2 Cor. 12:1-4; Eph. 2:6; Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1, etc.), so it has no holy land in this life. The Body is the Holy of Holies of God's Elect (Eph. 2:19-22 (Greek text), 1 Cor. 6:19), so it has no temples/sanctuaries.

F. No religious foods, or dietary rules for the Body.

1. Israel and religious foods/food rules. The Law for Israel is rife with food rules of various kinds.

2. No dietary rules for the Body: Paul is explicit in Col. 2:16-23 (cf. Greek text). The Lord's Supper is not an exercise in religious foods or symbols, but an actual meal. The point to be examined in this study.

G. No religious clothes for the Body.

1. Israel and religious clothes. Throughout Israel's past and her yet glorious future, the priesthood, and especially the high priest, was required to wear certain types of clothes: linen, mitre, ephod, breastplate, etc; this can be seen in Moses' Law and Ezekiel's Law (e.g. Eze. 44:17-20).

2. No religious clothing for the Body: 1 Cor. 11:4-6.

H. The Body has no other religious symbols/acts. Col. 2:21 in context. No religious rule concerning handle and touch hence no holy things; no religious rules concerning taste hence no religious foods; and regulation of foods by time and place hence no regulation of times and places, etc.

I. Summary: If there are no religious surgeries and baths and times and places and foods and clothes, then there are no religious things or symbols whatsoever. What remains is the reality of Christ as Head and our completeness in Him (Col. 2:8-23).

J. What if someone likes doing these things? Why would one want to? Such an attitude is explicitly self-righteous (Col.2:23) based on "vainly deceitful philosophy" (Col. 2:8); it is according to ranks of the world and a worshiping of angels (Col. 2:8,18,20); it is a man-made religion and will-worship (Col. 2:23). It is not holding to the Head (Col. 2:19), a denial of one's completeness in Christ (Col. 2:10), and one vainly puffed-up by a fleshly mind (Col. 2:18).

K. Summary: Christ destroyed all religious things with His blood for the Body of Christ (Eph. 2:11-16, Col. 2:11-18). Christ's death on the cross for the Body abolished the Jew-Gentile distinction and the related ordinances and all ceremonies. The abolishing of ordinances is an implication of the abolishing of the distinction between the twain, and the formation of the One Body. Eph 2:14-16; 4:5; Col 2:10,14,18; Gal 4:8,9.

L. What is a ceremony or ritual?

1. A representative definition from The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume II, University of Oxford Press, Oxford, 1993.

RITE n. (1) A formal procedure or act in a religious or other solemn observance.

RITUAL n. (1a) A prescribed order of performing religious or other devotional service.

CEREMONY n. (1a) An outward rite or observance; the performance of some solemn act according to a prescribed form. (3) An object or symbolic attribute of worship, state or pomp.

2. The above definition shows that the general idea behind rite, ritual, and ceremony is that of an activity inherently "prescribed" in nature. That is, a ceremony, rite or ritual is a prescribed activity that is not part of the "normal" course of events.

3. Examples of prescribed activities abound in the Jewish ceremonial law. The Mosaic law requires many prescribed ceremonial acts, many of which are overseen by the priestly mediators.

4. The "traditional" communion service is clearly a religious ceremony or ritual.

a. In many denominations the ceremony is legislated by their creeds to be performed exclusively by an ordained minister. This amounts to a protestant ritual/ceremony with an exclusive priesthood.

b. The ritual is prescribed to consist of the following objects and procedures:

(1) Precisely two "elements," a morsel of bread and a sip of juice/wine

(2) The reading of 1 Corinthians 11:23, to include specific mentioning of elements and what they represent:

(a) Stating "this is my body" or its equivalent when the bread is distributed and eaten, and

(b) "This cup is the new covenant in the blood" or its equivalent when the cups are distributed and drank.

(c) Midrashing the elements is required. Note: midrash is a Hebrew term which means: to give an exposition or commentary.

(3) The requirement for each member to examine himself (moment of private confessional)

(4) Sometimes includes idea of discerning Christ's "presence" at the ceremony.

M. Question: How can Christ have instituted a ceremonial requirement for the non-ceremonial Body at the Last Supper?

1. The Body is non-ceremonial. Christ abolished all ordinances for the Body on the cross. This is explicitly clear from Col. 2:11-18; Eph. 2:11-16.

2. During his earthly ministry, Christ was a minister to the circumcision. Matt. 15:24,26; Rom. 15:8.

3. In fact, the Last Supper was precisely a Jewish Passover, a holy day, a Sabbath, a feast day, a sacrificial meal.

a. We will see later from the harmony of the gospels and the well-known format of the Passover that Christ did not introduce a new ceremony at the Last Supper. In terms of format, Christ introduced no new format, procedures, or addenda to the Passover at the Last Supper.

b. This is what the Scripture, by itself (sola Scriptura), generates when interpreted by the normative hermeneutic.

IV. Sola Scriptura and the Lord's Supper

A. Sola Scriptura: Scripture is sufficient for our doctrine and practice. No post-Scriptural tradition is to be used for establishing doctrine and practice. Scripture is to be interpreted by the normative hermeneutic.

B. Knowledge of Dispensation of the Mystery leads one to see non-ceremonial practice of the Body => leads one to recognize the essential ceremonial format of the "traditional" Lord's Supper => leads one to search the Scripture to test the doctrine. Scripture alone then leads one to see that there is no ceremonial/ritual Lord's Supper for the Body. The traditional view relies on a traditional practice that is not in the Biblical text. We have seen in session two that history itself defeats the historical view. Again back to sola Scriptura.

C. Our doctrine of the Lord's Supper must come from Scripture alone. No "traditional" arguments, appeals to "current practice" are allowed. We need to shed our "cultural" biases when reading the Biblical text.

D. The accounts of the Last Supper in the gospels, when understood by the normative hermeneutic, describe a Passover. This is a sacrificial meal and a feast for Israel (and requires circumcision in order for males to partake), not for the One Body. Rom. 15:8, etc.

E. If the practice of the Lord's supper is important, in fact, if it is a creedal issue down to the very prescribed format and obligatory frequency, why is Scripture silent on the details of a creedal issue?

1. Point: The Holy Spirit has seen fit to record details such as the images of Castor and Pollux on the ship on which Paul sailed, yet in the pastoral epistles Paul gives no commands, no detailed instructions as to format or the obligation of elders to administer any rituals, so-called "sacraments" or "ordinances."

a. Paul does give qualifications for elders.

b. Paul does give duties for elders.

c. Paul does not give instructions on administering water baptism.

d. Paul does not give instructions on administering the Lord's Supper.

e. This is perfectly consonant with the absence of all ceremonies for the Body of Christ.

2. Point: The book of Acts provides not one example of the practice of the "traditional" Lord's Supper. In every example of the saints gathering together, the Scriptures indicate that a regular meal was eaten, or in the case of the Jewish saints, a Passover. Passages will be given later.

F. 1 Cor. 10/11 is the only passage in all of Greek Scriptures that describes the Lord's Supper. Can we understand Paul, the apostle of the Body of Christ to be prescribing a ceremony for the non-ceremonial Body of Christ?

G. So this brings us to the question then, what is the Lord's Supper?

V. What is the Lord's Supper?

A. Biblical texts that are used for traditional view are the gospel accounts and the sole and only text in Paul: 1 Cor. 10; 11:17-34.

B. We will examine the following issues.

1. Usages of the word bread (lechem/artos) in Scripture and Hebraica.

2. Unity, covenant and eating in Scripture and Hebraica.

3. References to unity, covenant and eating in 1 Corinthians.

4. Outline of Passover and Harmony of gospels.

5. Examination of 1 Cor. 11:17-34.

VI. Usage of bread (lechem/artos) in Scripture and Hebraica.

A. Generally, we find that lechem and artos are never used of literal bread apart from a meal unless the context specifically so states. Historically, lechem originally meant (simply) food, being derived from lacham meaning to feed on, eat, consume. And while artos comes from airo (to raise as with leaven), artos very frequently translates lechem in the LXX. The normative hermeneutic (since it includes the law of precedence) therefore mandates that we understand artos in light of lechem unless specific contexts overrule. Indeed, we find these words are usually used of all that is chewed, and frequently of all that is ingested (drink included). This is explained by the figures of speech of synecdoche and metonymy, whereby a part is put for the whole: lechem in the narrow sense was a utensil indispensable to eating lechem in the broad sense, i.e. the meal. Little food was eaten without lechem (in the narrow sense) since the solid parts of the meal were wrapped in the flexible pieces of lechem (in the narrow sense) torn from a big loaf or sheet. The use of the figure of speech whereby bread is put for food ("bread" in the broad sense) is common in all languages and cultures. "To break bread" means to "have a meal." This usage was prevalent even in English until most recent times. It is also interesting to note, that such words as "company" and "companion" are derived from the Latin "cum" + "panis" = "with/sharing" + "bread." Thus, the word companion is rich in meaning; it carries both the notion of metonymy of "bread = full meal" but also the idea of intimate association. A companion is one with whom one regularly shares meals and such shared meals are an expression of the unity.

B. Old Testament usage of lechem. In all of the following verses lechem is used to mean food in the broad sense, or used to describe a whole meal. Lechem is frequently rendered as food in many of these verses in the King James Version. Genesis 3:19; 14:16; 16:3; 19:3; Exodus 16:12; Leviticus 3:11; 22:7; Deut 10:16; Ruth 2:14; Judges 19:19; I Samuel 14:14.24.26; 22:13; 25:11; 26:20 ;28:22, 24 ; 30:11,12; II Samuel 3:29 ; 9:7,10; 12:17.20,21; I Kings 5:9; 13:6-9 ; Nehemiah 5:14.15, 18 ; Ezra 10:6 ; Job 24:3; Psalm 76:25;104:14 ;136:25; 146:7 ;147:9; Proverbs 27:27.27 28:3; 30:8 ; 31:14; Jeremiah 11:19; Ezekiel 16:27 ; 46:16, etc. throughout the Law and the Prophets.

C. Usage of lechem in the Talmud.

1. Sanhedrin: Folio 33a. Bread is used in conjunction with dates. The authors have never seen an example of bread (in the narrow sense) eaten by itself.

2. Sanhedrin: Folio 56b 59a. Bread is put for sustenance; this is a Gemara on Proverbs 12:11 in which bread has this same usage.

D. LXX usage of artos. Artos is generally identical with lechem since it usually translates lechem in the LXX.

E. New Testament usage of artos.

1. In all of the following verses, artos means solid food or the solid part of the meal, sometimes it encompasses the whole meal to include what is drunk. Matthew 6:11; Matthew 15:26 (here artos means solid food or the solid part of the meal; the translation crumbs is misleading, bits or pieces more accurately translates the Greek psichios); Luke 11:3 (same as Matthew 6:11); Luke 14:15 (cf. vv. 16-24); John 6:51 (artos equals flesh).

2. Pauline usage outside of 1 Corinthians 10 / 11 (the main passage under discussion) is precisely:

a. 2 Corinthians 9:10. Here artos shows its full range of meaning in a single verse: bread in the narrow sense (seed), fruits (note that artos in LXX translates lechem in Jeremiah 11:19, in which passage the Authorized uses fruit), and food (recall such usage for lechem given above and note artos is frequently the corresponding word in LXX).

b. 2 Thessalonians 3:8,12. Artos means in both verses food or sustenance (including drink).

VII. Unity, covenant and eating in Scripture and Hebraica.

A. Linguistic linkage. The word berith (covenant) derives from barah (to eat). Indeed, this latter verb is the verb barah meaning "to bind as in a treaty or covenant." So "covenant" apparently had the original meaning of "a (shared) meal". (See the usual lexicons: Brown-Driver-Briggs or Gesenius.)

1. The importance of this is that from the beginning, covenant and eating were interwoven: covenant or unity is expressed through eating a shared meal. Conversely, eating a shared meal, in the context of covenant or unity, is an expression of the covenant or unity without the necessary imposition of any additional prescribed ritualistic format.

2. It is well known that the Semitic peoples maintained this connection throughout their histories as the documented usages show. Comments below.

3. There is a close link between shared meals and sacrifices, for the latter are (almost) always instances of the former (with the obvious exception of the sacrifice of Christ).

a. The sacrifices were a shared meal eaten before God, and in some sense, with God and in union with God, since such meals showed covenant between God and the parties eating.

b. This is precisely Paul's point in his remarks in 1 Cor. 10:18-31.

c. It was probably the desire to ritualistically "strengthen" this link that led to the old Babylonian heresy of transubstantiation (whereby an actual physical union with a trans-substantiated god is achieved through eating) and its attendant formalistic, ritual meals featuring the wafer cracker (forerunner of the modern Eucharist or communion wafer).

4. Old Testament examples. The following sample verses do not include any of the passages detailing the food ordinances of the Mosaic Covenant. Passover is clearly a covenant meal and will be discussed later. In each of the following examples there is no evidence whatsoever of the covenant meals having an unusual or additional, prescribed ritualistic format: Genesis 2:15 3:21; Genesis 14:18; Genesis 18; Genesis 24:33.49.34; Genesis 26:26 31; Genesis 27; Genesis 31:44 53; Exodus 18:1 12; Exodus 24:9 12; Exodus 25:30 ; Judges 6:17-21; 13:19-21; 2 Samuel 3:20; 9:7-10 Cf. 1 Samuel 18:1-4; 20:15,42.

5. Examples from Hebraica.

a. Sharing a meal in covenant context always shows and expresses covenant relationship, with or without a prescribed, ritualistic format. We have already quoted Richard P. McBrien,[Catholicism, Study Edition. (Harper-Collins, 1981), p.758] in session 2, which we include here for completeness:

"The meal which is the object of these reports was only the last in a long series of daily meals which Jesus shared with his disciples. In the Oriental world of his day, a shared meal was always a sign of peace, trust, and commonality."

b. Also see William Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, 1889, A. & C. Black, Edinburgh, p. 251, cited in Gillian Feeley-Harnik, The Lord's Table: Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity, (1981, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia):

"The very act of eating and drinking with a man was a symbol and a confirmation of fellowship and mutual social obligations. The one directly expressed in the sacrificial meal is that the god and his worshippers are commensals [Smith's emphasis, "commensals" means meal-sharers], but every other point in their mutual relations is included in what this involves. Those who sit at meat together are united for all social effects, those who do not eat together are aliens to one another, without fellowship in religion and without reciprocal social duties."

6. New Testament examples.

a. None of the following passages relating shared meals show any evidence of an unusual ritualistic format. Matthew 8:10-2; Matthew 14:19 / Mark 6:41 / Luke 9:16 / John 6:11; Luke 14:6-24; Luke 22:30; Luke 24:30-5; John 1:29; 6:50-8; 19:36; Acts 2:42-46; 20:6-12; 27:35; 1 Corinthians 10:18-20.

b. Especially pertinent are the passages in Acts. The verses above are the sole references to joint eating among believers in the book of Acts. There is not one yowd or tittle that describes a ceremony such as the Lord's supper as traditionally understood and practiced. No details whatsoever are given as to breaking, passing and eating only bread, passing and drinking a single cup of wine, and pronouncing a midrash over these two elements.

c. Passages relating the last Supper, a Passover: Matthew 26:20-30 / Mark 14:17-26 / Luke22:14-23 / John 13:1-30. Discussed later in harmony of the gospels and the Passover.

VIII. Theme of covenant eating is prominent in 1 Corinthians:

A. 1 Cor. 5.

1. This chapter deals with the fornicator within the Corinthian assembly who was allowed to continue in fellowship. Paul takes the Corinthian to task for indulging (glorying) in the presence of the fornicator in their assembly.

2. Instead the Corinthians should put the fornicator out of the assembly (vv. 1-5,7; vv.12,13).

3. Here the Corinthian fellowship meals are called a "feast" (v. 8).

4. The Corinthians are compared to a lump of dough, the presence of the fornicator at the fellowship meals is compared to leaven that leavens the whole lump. "Purging the lump" is the figure of speech Paul uses to describe putting the fornicator out of the assembly.

5. Paul's point is that since the shared meals ("feast" in this passage) in ekklesia represent agreement, unity and fellowship, eating in ekklesia with a brother in open sin is not to be condoned. In fact, Paul says the Corinthians are not to "associate" (sunanami,gnumi sunanamignumi) with the fornicator, as it would signify concurrence. Believers can still "associate" (sunanami,gnumi sunanamignumi) with unbelievers since there is no implied consent to the sin of "those who are without" (v.12), since they are not under the rule of the assembly. Paul goes on to say not to engage in regular joint meals ("business as usual" = indulgence) with a brother who is in open sin.

B. 1 Cor. 8:4-13. Paul here declares that demons are behind the idols and the pagan ritual practices. It is interesting to note that the demons are directly linked with "pagan meals."

C. 1 Cor. 10. Paul's discussion in this chapter sets the context for his rebuke of the Corinthians in chapter 11. In all of the following verses the continuing theme is what joint-eating represents.

1. 1 Cor. 10:1-6: Covenant Israel partaking of food and drink as a sign of the covenant

a. verse 3: spiritual meat (food) refers to the manna from heaven given to the Israelites by God, thus being another miracle to identify Israel as the people of God. (See Ex. 16 especially verse 35. Also see John 6:26-35).

b. verse 4: spiritual drink refers to the water from the rock which Moses smote at Rephidim (Ex 17:6), see also Kadesh (Num 20:11) and Beer (Num 21:6). See also Deut 32:4,14,18,30,31,37. These are miracles by which Jehovah declared Israel to be His people.

c. Note also, the other two miracles mentioned in this passage are associated with Israel's baptism (identification with) into Moses. Namely the Shekinah presence and their deliverance by the parting of the Red Sea.

2. 1 Cor. 10: 7: The idolatry before the golden calf included a sacrificial covenant meal. This meal signifying their unity covenant with the golden calf.

3. 1 Cor. 10:16: "Cup of blessing which we bless." This figure of speech means a cup over which was said a true and sincere thanks for the meal.

a. A rabbinical cup of blessing or benediction can occur in many circumstances. When it occurred, with the exception of Passover, it was the last cup of the meal and simply served as the benediction or giving of thanks or "grace" for the meal at the close of the meal. However, it was not mandatory in all cases; in particular, it was common but not mandatory in the rabbinical communions. It was used in

(1) ordinary meals;

(2) funerals;

(3) in rabbinical communion on the weekly Sabbath.

b. Its usage with Passover. Each of the four cups of Passover is a cup of blessing or benediction (even though the third cup is sometimes called the cup of blessing).

c. It is crucial to note that NO cup of benediction or grace was ever midrashed as to what it represented except the second and third cups of Passover. Indeed, no cup of any kind (benediction or non-benediction) of Sabbath, communion, or the other Feasts (with exception noted above), in Moses, the Prophets, or the rabbis, was ever midrashed. The rabbinical requirements for benedictions in the Talmud have no requirements that the contents of the cup and what they represent be mentioned (midrashed).

d. The cup of blessing here obviously stands for the drink which the assembly shared as an assembly in the house of hospitality attached to the Corinthian synagogue (where the Corinthians assembled), and which was blessed on behalf of the assembly.

e. "The bread which we break..." This phrase is the common idiom for sharing a meal.

f. The shared meal itself (cup and the food) is the fellowship of the blood and body of Christ. The Corinthians when meeting together in ekklesia (as an assembly of the One Body) and jointly eating, are here declared to be eating a meal of fellowship. The meal ate as joint members is declaring Christ's work on the cross on behalf of the Body. This is what joint eating together in ekklesia represented. Further, the very act of former Jews and Gentiles eating jointly without dietary laws is itself a declaration of the One Body. This is seen by the explanation Paul gives in the next verse.

4. 1 Cor. 10:17: "For we the many are one bread, one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." [Greek text] (Paul means neither Jew nor Gentile, cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).

a. One body: We are not literally a body.

b. One loaf: We are not literally a loaf.

c. The parallelism is clearly and explicitly stated to be between One Body and One Loaf. The one bread/loaf is the joint shared meal among members of the One Body in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

d. Paul is neither describing nor giving requirements for a ceremony consisting of precisely one loaf!

e. Point: Paul's point is that there is not a separate Gentile loaf and a separate Jewish loaf (this is the case with the dietary restrictions and the middle wall of partition); instead the One loaf/bread stands for the entire shared meal. The meal itself declares the joint unity of the One Body.

5. 1 Cor. 10:18: Priests of Israel who eat of the sacrifices are "partners" with Jehovah thereby declaring their covenant with Jehovah. In the same way, the pagans covenant with demons as they sacrifice to and fellowship with (idols) devils.

6. 1 Cor. 10:19,20: Paul's point is that food, whether sacrificed to idols or not, is immaterial. No food is unlawful in the Body. The issue here isn't what is eaten but rather what eating represents.

7. 1 Cor. 10:21-31: Again, no food is unlawful for the Body, but if the food served at a feast to which the believer is invited (verses 27-31) becomes publicly declared to be a sacrifice to a demon, then the believer is to abstain. Why? Because to continue in the meal implies consent (in the unbeliever's mind) to fellowship with his god. This is precisely the point that "joint covenant eating" ==> fellowship with the sponsoring "god."

8. There is nothing in the prior verses to suggest that format has anything to do with the issue Paul is addressing in the Corinthian assembly. Rather the issues have to do with behavior and doctrine.

9. The context also speaks of those of Israel being overthrown by God because of their sins. This is precisely parallel with Paul's warnings, throughout 1 Cor. 10-11 to the Corinthians: 1 Cor. 10:6-11; Paul warns the Corinthians that continued rebellion (not discerning the Body) resulted in God's judgment. Some had in fact died.

10. Summary of words used by Paul to describe the Corinthian fellowship meals: (1) "feast" (1 Cor. 5:8); (2) "one loaf" (1 Cor. 10:17); (3) "breaking of bread" (the common idiom for a meal) (1 Cor.10:16); (4) "cup & table of the Lord" (1 Cor. 10:21); (5) "supper" (main meal) (1 Cor. 11:20-21).

11. 1 Cor. 11: With the above points from chapter 10 in mind, the point is that the Corinthian fellowship meals represent the unity of the One Body. The joint communal meal in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile publicly declares the removal of the middle wall of partition torn down by Christ's death. The meal itself is the memorial; the shared meal declares the unity of the Body. The Corinthian schisms or "cliques" during the meal were a visible testimony of their disunity. Paul mentions the betrayal of Christ because the schisms were destroying the unity of the Body. The admonition to examine oneself and discern the Body meant, not Christ's physical body, but rather their fellow saints as the One Body.

IX. Outline of Passover and Harmony of the gospels.

A. Harmony of the gospels bears out the point that the Last Supper was a Passover. Christ was not introducing a new non-Jewish (so-called "Christian") ceremony/ordinance after the Passover. We should also note that there was more than one cup, so this alone defeats the common practice of there being precisely two "elements" (one cup and one nibble of bread).

B. In broad outline, the Passover at the time of Christ consisted of:

1. Two courses. A preliminary course of bread and bitter herbs, and a main course of the Passover lamb;

2. Four cups of wine interspersed during the ceremony. Only the second and third cups were midrashed, i.e. drank with an accompanying narrative, interpretation, explanation. In passing we should mention that Luke's account explicitly mentions two of the four cups. The following outline is taken from the most ancient sources for the Passover.

C. The order of the Seder in the time of Christ. This order is derived directly from the tractate Pesachim of the Talmud. There are differences of minor details within each course, but no conflicting data on the number of courses, cups, order. This order is the same as the modern practice.

1. FIRST CUP: Over this cup was given the blessing for the vine and the day.

2. FIRST BREAKING/DISTRIBUTING OF BREAD, DIPPING, AND EATING: At this time was the eating of the bitter herbs and unleavened bread. The table did not yet contain the paschal lamb. This was the course that taught the need of redemption (out of Egypt). Christ added to the traditional midrash his customary teaching (John 6:4,48-58) that this course represented His body in the work of redemption.

3. SECOND CUP: The blessing for the flight from Egypt was now given over this cup, and the father began to question his son as to the meaning of this night. Christ added to the traditional midrash his customary teaching (John 6:4,48-58) that this course represented His blood in the work of redemption.

4. SECOND BREAKING/DISTRIBUTING OF BREAD, DIPPING, AND EATING: At this time was the eating of the full paschal supper, including the flesh of the lamb. This was the main part of the supper, and one could eat his fill. There was a midrash on the meaning of the lamb. This is the course that taught redemption from judgment by the blood of the lamb. Christ added to the traditional midrash his customary teaching (John 6:4,48-58) that this course represented His body in the work of redemption. His words, "this is my body," spoken before the eleven partook of the course declared that He is the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

5. THIRD CUP: Over this cup was the blessing given for the meals as a whole.

6. FOURTH CUP: Over this cup was said, or more accurately sung, the blessing of God (hymn of praise) as given in the Psalms (usually Psalm 136 was included). This concluded the Passover.

D. Harmony of the gospels:

1. In the following table the Matthew, Mark, Luke "consistent" and John columns are to be read simultaneously to get the flow of events on the night Christ was betrayed.

2. Biblical evidence that there was more than one cup and more than one course is found in the Luke passage.

a. The first point is that Luke's account explicitly mentions two of the cups, in a cup-bread-cup sequence. The first cup is in Luke 22:17 and the second (called the "cup after dining," i.e. after eating the first course, not after the entire Passover!) is mentioned in verse 20.

b. The second point is that in Luke we would have Judas betraying after a cup, bread then cup, while all the other accounts have him betraying Christ before a cup and bread. Judas cannot betray both before and after the cup and bread (if there were only one cup and bread as traditionally understood ), that would be a contradiction. However, if there is more than one cup and bread (broken before each course in the meal), then we can construct a consistent narrative, and it is that consistent narrative that precisely matches both the ancient and current Jewish practice of Passover (except that the fourth cup associated with the hymn -- the hallel cup -- is not mentioned in the Gospels).

3. After the accounts have been harmonized it can be seen that

a. Luke explicitly gives a cup-bread-cup sequence (followed by the betrayal). Thus Luke describes the first part of the Passover.

b. Matthew and Mark explicitly give a bread breaking-cup sequence (preceded by the betrayal). They implicitly mention the fourth cup by mentioning the hymn. These together give a bread-cup-cup sequence, i.e. the last half of the Passover.

c. Putting 3.a and 3.b together using the betrayal event as the "glue," we get a cup-bread-cup-(betrayal)-bread-cup-cup sequence. The precise Passover sequence!

d. Note: John gives no details of the sequence of the Passover. John however has supplied Christ's customary Passover teaching in John 6:4:48-58.

e. Comment: This is a beautiful example of the normative hermeneutic in action and the criteria of coherence, non-contradiction, simplicity, etc. of correct frameworks mentioned in session 2.

4. In the table below, the manner in which the narratives have been aligned to make the betrayal events coincide can be seen by looking at row "H".

5. Harmonized Narratives:

NOTE: The "Strife" in row N and "Kingdom appointed" in row O of "Luke 22 Consistent" are displayed as aligned with the traditional sequence at this point so as not to obscure the key point of the synchronization of the betrayal event. These events can also be harmonized as occurring earlier.

	Matthew 26	Mark 14	Luke 22 Traditional	Luke 22 Consistent	John 13
A	Preparation for Passover vv. 17-19	Preparation for Passover vv. 12-16	Preparation for Passover (vv. 7-13)	Preparation for Passover (vv. 7-13)
BEGIN FIRST COURSE
B			eschatological remark (vv. 15-16)	eschatological remark (vv. 15-16)
C			cup passed (v. 17)	(1st) cup passed (v. 17)
D			eschatological remark (v. 18)	eschatological remark (v. 18)
E				blessing, bread: "This is my body" "in remembrance" (v. 19)
END OF FIRST COURSE
F				(2nd) cup after dining blood of the covenant for you (v. 20)
G					after dining, foot washing (vv. 2-20)
H	Prophecy of betrayal "inquiries" (v.22) identified to "them" as the one having dipped with Christ (v. 23) Judas identified to Judas (v. 25)	Prophecy of betrayal "inquiries" (v. 19) identified to "them" as the one having dipped with Christ (v. 20)		Prophecy of betrayal "hand of betrayer on table" (vv. 21-22) "inquiries" (v. 23)	Prophecy of betrayal "one of you" Peter signals John John privately told it is the one to whom Christ gives the morsel (vv. 21-26)
I					Satan enters Judas Judas leaves (v. 27)
BEGIN MAIN MEAL
J	blessing, bread distributed "Take, eat, this is my body" (v. 26)	blessing, bread distributed "Take, this is my body" (v. 22)	blessing, bread distributed "this is my body" "in remembrance" (v. 19)
K	the (3rd) cup, gives thanks; command to drink blood of the covenant (vv. 27-28)	the (3rd) cup, gives thanks blood of the covenant for many (vv. 23-24)	the cup after dining blood of the covenant for you (v. 20)
L	eschatological remark (v. 29)	eschatological remark (v. 25)
M			Prophecy of betrayal identified to "them" as one "at the table" "inquiries" (vv. 21-23)
N			Strife as to greatest (vv. 24-27)	Strife as to greatest (vv. 24-27)
O			Kingdom appointed (vv. 28-30)	Kingdom appointed (vv. 28-30)
P			Prophecy of Peter's denials (vv. 31-34)	Prophecy of Peter's denials (vv. 31-34)	Prophecy of Peter's denials (vv. 36-38)
Q					Christ's prayer and discourses (14:1-17:26)
END MAIN MEAL
R	hymn, (4th Cup) leave for mount of Olives (v. 30)	hymn, (4th Cup) leave for mount of Olives (v. 26)	(hymn & 4th Cup) leave for mount of Olives (v. 39)	(hymn & 4th Cup) leave for mount of Olives (v. 39)	(hymn & 4th Cup) leave for mount of Olives (18:1)
S	Repeats prophecy of Peter's denials (vv. 33-35)	Repeats prophecy of Peter's denials (vv. 29-31)

6. Recap: When one considers the gospel narratives and the harmonization one finds that:

a. Christ instituted no new format at the Last Supper. In fact, Christ upheld the Law. The practice of making a midrash over the elements of the Passover meal was a well-established rabbinical tradition which Christ followed.

b. The Last Supper was a Passover at which Christ added a Messianic midrash for New Covenant Israel. This Messianic midrash declares that Christ is the Passover lamb. From this point forward in time, New Covenant Israel celebrates Passover (still a Passover) as a memorial ("do this for My memorial" Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24) by the addition of the Messianic midrash.

c. The Body is not Jewish, the Body does NOT observe Passover (Christ abolished the ceremonial law for the Body, Christ's death on behalf of the Body removed the middle-wall-of-partition contained in the ordinances, Christ is our Passover, 1 Cor. 5:7).

d. This being said the only remaining passage to be discussed is 1 Cor. 11:17-34.

X. Main Text: 1 Cor. 11:17-34.

A. Verses 17-21: These verses are the context for Paul's purpose in repeating the events of the night of Christ's betrayal. The occasion for the passage was the public scandal of manifest disunity and schisms during the Corinthians' fellowship meals. Except for the occasion of the Corinthians' scandalous behavior, there would have been no reason for Paul to have penned 1 Cor. 11:17-34. Points:

1. The assembly was divided between the rich clique and the poor. There were those who came famished and were taking their fill so that there was not enough for the others; and there was also drunkenness.

2. The selfishness and drunkenness were occurring during the Lord's Supper. It is not possible to be drunk or to eat your fill with a sip of grape juice and a nibble of cracker. It was an actual hunger-satisfying meal. Point: The Lord's Supper is not a separate ritual activity before or after a regular meal.

3. It was because of this manifest disunity that Paul says "it is not to eat the Lord's supper" (v.20) yet the manifesting of the disunity in the context of their meal Paul says is necessary for manifesting those who are not approved (v.19).

4. The grammar of 1 Cor. 11:20, points back to the disunity and the schisms as that which turned their fellowship meals into manifest disunity and thus could not be denoted a "Lordly supper," the Greek text reads:

"Therefore in your coming together evpi. to. auvto. ["for the same," or "as you do," i.e. the heresies, schisms and selfish manners in v.18,19], it is not to eat a Lordly supper..."

"supper" is the Greek word dei/pnon meaning a feast, a banquet; a supper, a main meal or "the principal meal of the day" .

This word is never used of a "snack." By the normative hermeneutic, what else can Paul mean? This alone ought to settle the issue. But we can see in verse 21 that the same word is used of the Corinthians' shared meals!

5. Verse 21: "for in eating every one takes before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken."

a. "For" (Greek ga.r) points back to, and reiterates, why the Corinthian fellowship meals were "not a Lordly supper to eat." The "haves," selfishly fully-fed, were shaming the "have-nots" who went hungry. This manifest schism was a mockery of the unity of the one body.

b. supper again is the Greek word dei/pnon. Each one was taking their own supper, it was not being shared by some, so they went hungry. This confirms that the supper was a hunger satisfying meal or more properly "a main meal"

B. Verse 22

1. What? have ye not...to drink in] The Greek construction in idiomatic English is: "For you do have houses for to eat and to drink, don't you!?" Requiring a "yes" answer. Verse 22 makes it clear that the context is not eating a symbolic ritualized meal but it concerns discord and improper behavior at actual meals of fellowship. The activity in the assembly eating can be done at home. This is confirmed by verses 33,34. If someone is famished he can eat at home, so he won't be famished when he comes to the fellowship. The point is that eating at home solves the problem of selfish eating at the fellowship. This is so regardless of whether or not one takes verse 34 as a command to disfellowship.

2. Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?] Those who were eating their fill,"the haves," were holding in contempt the church of God and shaming the poor, "the have-nots."

C. Verses 23-26: Paul reiterates what he had told the Corinthians prior to this letter. Paul had learned of the events at the Passover on the night the Lord was betrayed directly from Christ through divine revelation (Paul was not an eyewitness). The Corinthians' behavior was shaming Christ and denying the unity of His Body.

1. Verse 23: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." The traditional view takes this introductory phrase to be a commandment to the Body to partake of a ritualistic meal. THIS IS NOT THE CASE; Paul is merely relating history.

a. Paul's introduction no more implies a command than does the same wording in 1 Cor. 15:3, where Paul again is relating history. Clearly Paul is not delivering a command in 1 Cor. 15:3. Paul's language in 1 Cor. 11:23 and in 1 Cor. 15:3 does NOT indicate the beginning of a new context-free, separate revelation. It is the same language used in Mark 7:4,13, and in many examples in contemporaneous Greek. All the available evidence proves that "receive" and "deliver" simply indicate that such an individual has been a faithful/accurate middleman. In the context of the rabbis (Mark 7:4,13), the "traditions" have been handed down precisely; in the case of Paul, he is repeating faithfully what Christ told him of the midrash at the Passover. Recall: Christ instituted nothing new at the Last Supper. He did not institute a new Christian adjunct to the Passover; he merely gave a Messianic commentary on the contents of the cups and courses.

b. There is nothing in the context that indicates Paul is requiring the Body to read 1 Cor. 11:23-27, or its equivalent over elements of a ritual meal. In fact, since the Body is non-ceremonial Paul cannot be requiring this.

c. Paul is simply reiterating what happened that night. He has given NO command to the Corinthians. Thus, the Lord's Supper for the Body is nothing more than the normal meal that they would have eaten any time they got together for purposes of fellowship and study. There is NO ritual involved for the Body. The very act of former Jews and Gentiles eating jointly without dietary laws/restrictions is itself a declaration of the One Body; the joint Body purchased by Christ through His death on the cross. This is precisely why the fellowship meal is the fellowship (koinonia) of the blood and body of Christ, 1 Cor. 10:16,17. (See comment on 1 Cor. 10:16,17 above).

d. "the same night in which he was betrayed." "Betrayed" looks forward to the "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" in verse 27. Judas who betrayed Christ was guilty of the body and blood of Christ by his act of traitorship. Paul is presenting the traitorship of Judas within the context of "the examples for our admonition" which he had related previously in 1 Cor. 10:11 and the judgment on the Corinthians which Paul describes later in his closing statements in 1 Cor. 11:30. The Corinthians who were eating divisively at the fellowship meals, creating schisms, were acting as ones outside the fellowship of the Body, and were thus emulating Judas. This is the reason Paul introduces the events of the Passover night and the meaning of the Passover for New Covenant Israel, and how, by his traitorship, Judas manifested that he was not of New Covenant Israel. In the context of 1 Cor. 9:24-11:34, Judas is yet another example, for our admonition, of an Israelite with whom God was not well pleased and who was overthrown.

2. Verse 24: "Take, eat, this is my body," etc.

a. This phrase occurs in precisely these words in Matt. 26:26 (all Greek texts); Mark 14:22 (Majority text); and here (Majority text).

b. What is the "this" in the phrase "this is my Body?" The traditional approach says it is the bread and that the Lord's supper consists of precisely one bread breaking.

(1) We have already shown that there was more than one bread breaking over which Christ said "this is my body."

(2) What does "this" refer to? It refers to the contents of the courses eaten at the Passover, not merely the bread. This can be seen by considering two points: Greek grammar and the setting of Christ's statement.

(3) By Grammar:

(a) First, "this" does not agree in gender with the supposed antecedent, which would be the bread presented to the view of the twelve. "This" (Greek: touto) is neuter in gender, "bread" (Greek: artos) is masculine in gender. Based on grammar and syntax, the word "this" must take a "neuter" antecedent and does not refer to the bread (narrow sense).

(b) The Lord took bread twice, not once, and said "This is my body" twice during both courses. 1st course, bread and bitter herbs. 2nd course, bread and Passover lamb.

(c) In both courses, the word "this" refers to the composite courses (complex of all things within the course). Complexes are construed as neuter.

(d) A familiar example of this grammar and syntax occurs in Eph. 2:8: "For by grace [fem.] are ye saved through faith [fem.] and this [neuter] not of yourselves: it is the gift of God..." Here the word "this" is neuter and refers back to the entire phrase, or complex: "For by grace are ye saved through faith." Phrases have the natural gender (as a complex) of neuter.

c. By Passover setting:

(1) Breaking the bread and distributing it was the precursor to partaking of the food in each course. So the sequence would be: (1) break the bread; (2) distribute it; (3) invite all to begin eating by saying "eat." Here the object of the imperative "eat" is not the passed bread, but by context it is the invitation to partake of all that was to be eaten.

(2) This is the context. In this context Christ says "this is my body." This is Christ's midrash on each course. This is precisely the purpose of the midrash at the Passover: the midrash was a commentary on the food within the courses. Further, this is how a Jew, a member of the original audience, would understand the phrase.

(3) Where is there contravening evidence to the contrary?

d. Summary: "This" thus refers to not only the bread but all of the food eaten during each course. The invitation "to eat" refers to eating all of the food of each course not just the bread which was being distributed. The first course, of bread plus bitter herbs, represents the bitterness of Christ's sufferings in His sacrifice. The second course, of bread plus lamb, speaks of His sacrifice as the lamb of God.

e. "Do this is remembrance of me." The Greek is literally, "Do this for my memorial." "Do this" in context refers to all of the facets of the Passover, not just eating a single morsel of bread. The Passover previously was a memorial of the Exodus, now in addition the Passover is a memorial of Christ's death.

3. Verse 26. "This bread and this cup." See comment above on 1 Cor. 10:16,17. The Jewish members of the Corinthian assembly would not have understood Paul's reference to the Last Supper as indicating a single cup and a single morsel of bread. For, as we have seen, the bread is not to what Christ was referring at the Last Supper. Further, there was more than one bread breaking and more than one cup, as the Passover context shows. The Corinthians, when meeting together in ekklesia (as an assembly of the One Body) and jointly eating, are thereby engaging in a meal that declares the unity of the One Body.

D. Verses 27-29: The Greek text says: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." Paul states to the Corinthian believers that to make a mockery of the Lord's Supper, by eating unworthily of the bread (metonymy for the whole meal) or of the cup (metonymy for all that is drank), is to be guilty of (the body) and (the blood).

1. The Corinthians who were defiling the fellowship meals were guilty, just as Judas who betrayed Christ was guilty of the body and blood of Christ. This is the reason why Paul relates the events of the Last Supper introduced by the phrase.

2. "Unworthily" is an adverb which describes how they were eating. This answers back to verses 18-22. Those who ate their fill and deprived others so that they were hungry are eating the "bread" unworthily. Those who were drinking the cup to the point of drunkenness were drinking the "cup" unworthily.

3. "Not discerning the Body of the Lord..." discern is the same Greek word rendered "judge ourselves" in verse 31 below. Paul is not commanding the Corinthians to mystically detect/experience the Lord's presence within the ceremony/elements. Instead he admonishes the Corinthians to recognize the other assembly members as the Body of Christ and act appropriately!

E. Verse 30: Those who were eating divisively from the joint-table, intentionally and without repentance, were supernaturally killed as a sign of their eternal damnation.

F. Verses 31-34:

1. The Corinthians should examine their behavior, (judge themselves) and correct their behavior toward other members of the Body (at the fellowship meals, by context) so as not to come under the Lord's chastisement. The corrective action is to correct their behavior at the supper = main meal.

2. Verse 33: The result of the Corinthians' self evaluations should be to tarry one for another. They are to show due consideration for other members of the One Body, thereby discerning the Body of the Lord. (V. 29).

XI. Conclusion.

A. The Body of Christ is completely non-ceremonial.

B. The Lord's Supper is a regular meal of fellowship. It is not a prescribed symbolic ritual or ceremony.

C. We conclude with the summary from our doctrinal statement:

The "Lord's Supper" is a regular meal of fellowship (1 Cor. 11:21, 22, 33, 34) which is eaten by members of the Body who come together as an assembly (in ekklesia). This common meal, taken without dietary restrictions or regulations (1 Cor. 10:17), is itself a declaration of the removal of the dividing wall of partition that previously separated Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14-16) and a recognition/acknowledgment of the unity of the Body. Behaving divisively at this fellowship meal (like Judas, who defiled Israel's Passover during Messiah's last supper) is the sin for which some of the Corinthians were judged (1 Cor. 11:29-30). Individuals who behave divisively at the fellowship meal manifest their failure to discern and embrace the saints (literally "set apart ones") as joint-members of the Body of Christ.