Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

LORDS SUPPER

A meal celebrated in honor of Jesus Christ commemorating his last meal with his disciples. In biblical theology Lord’s Supper is preferable to other synonyms: “communion” is a questionable translation of 1 Cor. 10:16, and “eucharist” does not appear as a name for this rite in the NT. In historical theology the eucharist is generally understood to refer to both the consecratory prayers and the rite of eating “the bread” and drinking “the cup,” practiced separate and apart from a regular meal in the Church. This practice can be dated as early as the 2nd century.

The term (Gk. kyriakós, “belonging to the Lord”) occurs only once in the NT (1 Cor. 11:20). The early Christian communities assembled in houses to share the main meal of the day (Gk. deípnon, which occurred in the Greco-Roman world later in the day) in honor of the risen Lord. The celebration of a meal in honor of Jesus Christ on the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10, the first day of the week on Jewish reckoning; cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2) is hallowed in Christian tradition (cf. Luke 24:1, 13, 29, the appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples after his crucifixion). The term “love-feast” (Gk. agápē) was also used in this connection (Jude 12; ; and some manuscripts of 2 Pet. 2:13).

Paul

1 Cor. 11:17-34

The instructions of Paul to the church at Corinth contain the earliest solid historical information about the Lord’s Supper. 1 Cor. 11:17-34 addresses the problem of disunity that threatened to wreck a house church in Corinth. According to v. 21, at the time of the main meal some remained hungry while others had more than enough and even drank to excess. Apparently each one brought his or her own food, and the rich had conspicuously more than the poor. Those who did not have enough were shamed and marginalized (v. 22).

Paul interprets this as an indicator of a spiritual blight that had fallen upon the church (vv. 27-32). He urges the church to welcome and treat one another hospitably at the Lord’s meal (v. 33). To substantiate his argument, Paul rehearses the apostolic tradition he received about the Lord’s Supper (vv. 23b-26). That the meal had its origin on the night Jesus was betrayed (v. 23) agrees with the Synoptic accounts of what took place in the upper room. Paul apparently understands Jesus’ taking bread and the words “This is my body on behalf of you” (v. 24) as occurring at the beginning of the meal. The reference can hardly be to anything other than Jesus’ offering of his life (body) on the Cross. The invitation to participate (“Do this in my remembrance”) was an invitation to renew sharing in the benefits of salvation accomplished through this once-and-for-all offering. Likewise, when the cup was taken (v. 25) at the end of the meal the same principle applied. Paul’s point was that if all at the table were able to receive a portion of gifts of this magnitude, it was unthinkable that all of the participants would not gladly share with their fellow believers in the food and hospitality of the meal.

Indeed, since the meal was not only an offer to reclaim the benefits of salvation under the Lordship of Christ but an anticipation of participation in the future messianic banquet at the Lord’s coming, it could be seen as a proclamation of the Corinthians’ faith (v. 26). Clearly then, the failure to welcome and show care for fellow believers indicated some were participating unworthily, and in so doing were misconstruing and defaming the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice which they supposedly intended to commemorate (vv. 27, 29).

1 Cor. 10:14-22

Paul also addresses the incompatibility of Christian participation in meals in honor of the Lord Jesus and those dedicated to other lords. Paul did not believe that the pagan gods had any real existence, but he did hold that behind them stood demonic forces with real power (1 Cor. 10:19-21). Just as spiritual food and drink did not protect the wilderness generation (vv. 1-13), neither would participation in the Lord’s Supper provide a wall of protection against the demonic powers operative at meals dedicated to pagan gods. Indeed, it was incompatible with the Christian confession to eat at the two tables; the two were mutually exclusive (v. 21).

In this context, Paul gives specific teaching with reference to the claim that the Lord Jesus made upon believers (vv. 16-17). Paul uses a fragment of tradition regarding the cup of blessing that probably derived from the actual meal on the night Jesus was betrayed (v. 16; cf. Luke 22:20). This is terminology used at the Passover to denote a final cup taken at the end of the meal. Paul claims that the cup of blessing is a participation (koinōnía) in the blood of Christ, and the bread in the body. Some, following analogies in Greco-Roman cultic activities, understand Paul as claiming that the believer is actually united with the risen Christ, who is thought to be present at the meal. More likely the reference is only to participation in benefits of salvation won through the death (blood/body) of Christ.

Alluding to the one loaf which is taken and eaten by many (1 Cor. 10:17), Paul sees in this common action an expression on the part of all the participants of the visible oneness of the Church which, as an extension of Jesus’ earthly ministry, now constitutes his presence in the world. Paul here anticipates 1 Cor. 12, , where again he calls for unity within the Church under the general metaphor of a body.

Matthew and Mark

A second major tradition involves the Synoptic accounts of Matt. 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26. Scholars have been unsuccessful in determining the priority of either account. The few variants may be explained mainly on either authorial style or differing liturgical practices in the communities that nourished these Gospels.

Both Matthew and Mark attest that the Supper was inaugurated at a Passover meal (cf. Luke 22:7-9). The reference to the cup (of blessing) after supper indicates that this was the unanimous view in the early Church (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). The different chronology of the Johannine Passion account (Jesus is killed while the paschal lambs were being slain; John 13:1; 18:28; 19:14, 31) suggests that John and the Synoptics reflect dependence upon different Jewish calendars or practices. John’s account is also governed by a theological agenda (cf. John 1:29).

This tradition is also more developed liturgically than that in 1 Cor. 11:24-26. The account of the tradition highlights only such features of the meal that would be most useful to a later community that observed the Supper. Although such a community could not deny its historical origin in the time of the Passover festivities, it clearly differentiated it enough to be a significant new reality in the history of salvation.

A major difference from the Pauline tradition is that the bread and cup sayings (reflecting developing Christian practice) are brought close together, presumably at the end of the meal. The words of institution for the bread (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) are the same as in 1 Cor. 11:24. Paul adds Gk. hypér, “on behalf of you,” a version of which Matt. 26:28; Mark 13:24 connect to the cup (and also Isa. 53:12). Clearly, in both the Pauline and Matthean/Markan traditions Jesus’ death is interpreted as something done on behalf of others (i.e., expiatory). This is underscored by Matthew’s emphasis in 26:28 that it is “for the forgiveness of sins.” As with the Pauline account — albeit in a more liturgical accent — the idea that the Supper is an anticipation of the banquet at the end of the age is stressed in both Matthew (26:29) and Mark (14:25).

Luke

The Lukan account seems to connect two major units (Luke 22:14-18, 19-20). The first highlights the fact that Jesus is gathering with his disciples for a final banquet together, perhaps representing the culminating act of earlier times when Jesus was at table (Luke 7:36-50; 11:37-52; 14:7-24). It also functions strongly as an anticipation of meals in the kingdom of God, fulfilled to some degree in the post-Resurrection meals with the disciples (Luke 24:30-35, 41-43).

Thus, Luke has understood the Passover meal (Luke 22:7-13) to be “a banquet meal,” a glorious precursor of life in the kingdom of God. The cup, most likely the Qiddûš or first cup giving thanks for the wine, taken before the Passover meal itself, is incorporated into the banquet scene (Luke 22:7-18).

This enables Luke to follow the basic pattern of incorporating the bread and cup saying in the standard order of early Christian tradition (Luke 22:19-20). However, Luke not only uses elements of the other Synoptic tradition, but also incorporates elements of the Pauline tradition, or one similar to it. Thus, Luke and Paul agree that the bread is taken at the beginning of the meal and the cup at the end (Luke 22:20). Luke also uses the hypér saying with the body and the call to “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25).

The fact that an important segment of the ancient textual tradition (Western) omits Luke 22:19b-20 has been endlessly debated. The matter is extremely technical, and for the purposes of this article these verses have been accepted as part of the genuine text.

Other Traditions

In John 6:53-58, at the end of the bread of life discourse, Jesus speaks of “eating his flesh” and “drinking his blood.” Although this may echo the Johannine understanding of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, the text may also reflect the Johannine emphasis of calling one to participate in the outcome of the incarnate life of Christ in order to have eternal life. One cannot presume any additional information here on the early Christian understanding of the Lord’s Supper (likewise in Heb. 6:4; 13:10).

The references to meals in Acts (e.g., 2:42, 46; 27:35, with the possible exception of 20:7, 11) reflect Luke’s emphasis on the continuation of the practice of disciples sharing meals together. The term “breaking of bread” here refers to a common practice at the commencement of the meal. It is synecdochical of an ordinary meal.

Conclusion

On the last day before the Crucifixion Jesus spent an extended time in a meal with his disciples. The details of what happened there have been susceptible to various interpretations throughout history; but no one can deny that the reality of these events have left an indelible impression upon the consciousness of the Church. Every first day since then people somewhere have gathered around a table in Jesus’ name. The traditions examined here indicate that central to these observances of the Lord’s meal is a projection of the mind of believers both into the past and into the future. By returning to the past the believer recalls and reclaims a share in the benefits of Christ’s death. Simultaneously, life with the risen Lord in the fully realized kingdom of God is anticipated in the future.

Bibliography. X. Léon-Dufour, Sharing the Eucharistic Bread (New York, 1984); J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1990); I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids, 1981); B. F. Meyer, ed., One Loaf, One Cup (Macon, 1993).

Allan J. McNicol

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

LORDS SUPPER

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)