The Lord's Supper: The Lord's Supper

by Alfred L. Newberry

“This do in remembrance of Me” : Luke 22:19

Table of Contents

The World's Most Important Memorial
Hebrews 9:22 states unequivocally that, "without shedding of blood is no remission". Ever since sin entered into the world, God has required that the shedding of blood be the essential element in the process of atonement. There have been three Bible ages and in each the Lord has required the shedding of the atonement blood. During the Patriarchal and Mosaic ages, God required the shedding of the blood of animals, but during the Christian age, He has required the shed blood of His Son.

The shedding of blood for atonement was not a simple act of "blood letting" such as was practiced by physicians years ago. Atonement blood was always shed at the death of the sacrifice. Sacrificial animals were killed in a manner not unlike a normal butchering process. In other words, they did not die an excruciating death as Jesus did. All of the reasons for the trauma of Jesus' death are not known but some points are clear. The Lord's suffering vividly demonstrates His love for mankind and the story of the Cross is a powerful force which draws men to Him (I Cor 2:2). Christ's suffering also dramatically demonstrates the extreme seriousness of sin. Isaac said, "With his stripes we are healed" (Isaac 53:5). The prophet spoke of spiritual healing resulting from the forgiveness of sins, not physical healing.

The Lord's Supper is a perpetual memorial of the excruciating shedding of Jesus' blood. Due to the very nature of this memorial, every Christian should desire to observe it in God's Way. Sadly, one of the greatest tributes to mankind's lack of gratitude for the Cross is the controversy surrounding the Lord's Supper.

Remembering In Spirit And In Truth
In John 4:24 Jesus gives the two most fundamental requirements for acceptable worship. He said, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him “in spirit and in truth". Notice that these are mandatory requirements for worship and cannot be regarded as optional. Certainly the Lord's Supper, which is the memorial of the sacrificial death of Jesus, must satisfy these mandatory requirements.

Worship in spirit does not mean entering a "trance" induced by the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit. The miraculous period of the Christian Age ended in the Second Century. Rather, it refers to worship with the proper attitude and mental activity. This is especially important in observing the Lord's Supper. Paul writes, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (
I Corinthians 11:29).

A failure to remember the crucifixion when observing the Lord's Supper is a sin and Paul says condemnation comes on those who are guilty of this failure. Worship in truth means carrying out the proper events in the proper way. It might be said, then, that it is mandatory to observe the correct and proper mechanics in Worship. Many deny this, saying that God is pleased with virtually any system of worship that men can devise, as long as they do so with a clear conscience. Obviously those who hold this view have left the Word and are ignoring clear instructions. The mechanics of worship must be in complete harmony with the Divine Pattern found in the New Testament.

Unfortunately, there are a large number of disagreements over what it is that constitutes the proper mechanics of worship. As a matter of fact, there is not a single element of worship upon which there is even general agreement. Those who claim to follow Christ cannot agree on what "truthful" worship is. Who is to blame for this dilemma: God or men? The fault is not God's.

The information found in the Bible is so clear that any truly honest person can determine how to worship in truth. Paul writes, "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth" (II Thess 2:10-12). Clearly, there are many people who do not want to accept the truth. They resist and hate the truth and so the Lord has promised to help them find the deception and delusion they are seeking. The only way to be assured of having the truth is to earnestly want it, to diligently look for it, and to gladly pay the price to purchase it (Prov 23:23).

The Pattern Is The Solution
It is shameful that there is so much disagreement over the proper "mechanics" for observing the Lord's Supper, even among churches of Christ. If each member of the Church could somehow go back in time and be present as Jesus instituted the Communion and then watch and observe as He suffered psychologically, socially, physically, reflexively, and reciprocally in His sacrificial death, great unity on at least this one item of worship would surely result.

History records many amazing stories of the things family, friends, and even strangers have done to carry out the last requests of dying men. Yet it is sad that many have an unreasonable and independent attitude toward the last request of the dying Son of God. The reasons are explained well in II Thess. 2:10-12. Only a Christian who approaches the Lord's Supper (or any other Bible subject) with an open mind and an humble and receptive attitude can expect to determine what the Pattern for the Supper really is.

What things compose a scriptural observation of the Lord's Supper? How does one know what is

(1)

(2)

(3)

These questions are the very "crux" of the matter. (The word "crux" comes from the Latin word for cross and has come to mean a pivotal matter because of the crucifixion of Jesus.) To illustrate, it is well known that Jesus instituted the Supper in an upper room. Is the "upper room" included, excluded, or an incidental part of the communion? This is the crucial question. How can this question be accurately answered?

There are several solutions which might be proposed:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

These are not as ridiculous as they may at first seem. Many, even among churches of Christ, are greatly influenced by these factors in determining what they believe and practice. This is placing one's confidence in the wrong places.

Since the seven suggestions listed above are illegitimate, how does one determine if a particular thing is included, excluded, or an incidental in the Supper? There is only one way to make this determination and that is accomplished by two undeniable criterion.

(1)

It is quite clear that the upper room has no spiritual significance and, at the same time, is not excluded by any of the elements of the Supper. In John 4:21 Jesus taught that Christian worship is not coupled to any "sacred" geographical location. The conclusion, then, is very simple: the use of an upper room is an incidental with no spiritual significance. This is confirmed by the fact that the word "church" does not include or necessitate a building. Christian worship is not dependent upon a particular type of architectural design or a particular location within a structure.

It is important to point out that each element must be judged independently. The fact that the upper room is an incidental does not make another element an incidental. There are some who reason that way and it's wrong. They say, "If you have to do ‘this or that’ then you have to meet in an upper room." This is an invalid statement offered without proof and it must be rejected.

Another matter which is raised is the use of a plate for the loaf. Clearly the plate was never assigned any spiritual significance. It is equally clear that the use of a plate is not excluded by the spiritually significant elements and is, therefore, an incidental. The use of a plate is purely incidental, which means it is equally proper to either use one or not use one. In addition, like the upper room the plate has no bearing on other elements. The plate does not force something else to either be

(1)

(2)

The Pattern For The Lord's Supper
It would seem that of all the things involved in serving the Lord, the Lord's Supper would be the one thing upon which men would agree since it was His "last request". But at the same time, this is probably the one thing which Satan delights the most in adulterating with false doctrines. It comes as no surprise, then, that many are influenced by Satan to violate God's Pattern for the Communion.

As has been said, there is not a single element of worship upon which there is general agreement. Sadly, there is likewise not a single element or component of the Lord's Supper upon which there is general agreement. An analysis of these controversies reveals that there are six major areas of general disagreement over the elements of the Lord's Supper.

1. Unleavened bread or leavened bread?

2. Grape juice or fermented wine?

3. Transubstantiation or symbolism?

4. One loaf or a multiplicity of loaves?

5. One cup or individual cups?

6. Unbroken loaf or a specially broken loaf?

If all of the above practices are equally pleasing to God, far be it from anyone to forbid a single one of them. If only certain of them please Him, then God forbid that anyone should advocate that a single unauthorized item be practiced. The necessary thing is to determine just what it is that the Lord wants and then to do that regardless of what the consequences may be. It is infinitely better to please God while displeasing men, than the other way around. The wise and sincere Christian will go directly to the Word of God with the proper approach to determine what the truth is.

This brings to mind a brother who wanted to know the truth on several of the abovementioned issues. He spent approximately 70 hours in intense private study. He went to libraries and book stores and did research. He visited Universities and interviewed Greek professors. Unfortunately, many take a different approach. They run to the Bible and to other sources hastily looking for "arguments" which support their beliefs. Such individuals make themselves vulnerable to some of the most erroneous of beliefs. Some "ever learn but never come to a knowledge of the truth" and others "find the strait and narrow way".

A major reason for the difference is one's approach to the Word of God. If one approaches it with an "I want to do what it tells me to do" attitude, he can find the truth. But if one arrogantly uses the Bible as a source book to "prove" his practices, he may well never learn what the truth is.

The Edible Elements
In I Corinthians 11:20-22, Paul forbids that the Lord's Supper should be turned into a meal in which one eats for the savory enjoyment of filling his stomach. Verse 20 declares that an erroneous observation of the Communion is not regarded by God as even being the Communion. After condemning this practice, Paul repeats the Pattern for the observation of the Lord's Supper. Notice that he gives much the same account as do Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

What Jesus did is what Christians are to do. Those in Corinth who deviated from this simple pattern were condemned for it. It is clear from I Cor 11:23-25, Luke 22:19&20, Mark 14:22-25, and Matt 26:26-29 that Jesus took bread and fruit of the vine. He spiritually defined the loaf as a symbol of His Body and the fruit of the vine as a symbol of His Blood. Since both the loaf and the fruit of the vine were given spiritual significance, they are beyond doubt a part of the Pattern.

From these two facts, there is no doubt that hamburgers and Coca Cola must not be used in the Lord's Supper. The motivation for using these things is to satisfy the savory desires of the flesh. This practice clearly violates Paul's condemnation of the eating of a meal. In addition to this, the Principle of Exclusion forbids that any edible elements other than grape juice and bread should be used. The Lord did not give a long catalog of excluded edible items. The list would undoubtedly exceed the length of the entire New Testament Scriptures. Rather, the Lord's example tells one to use unleavened bread and fruit of the vine and, therefore, water, Coca Cola, hamburgers, etc. are forbidden and excluded.

Leaven Is Foreign In The Lord's Supper
“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” I Corinthians 5:7

In both the Old and New Testament Scriptures, leaven or yeast is a symbol of all types of sin. In I Cor 5:8, Paul used leaven to represent immoral sins, while Jesus used leaven to symbolize the doctrinal errors of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees (Matt 16:6). This makes it clear that leaven represents all types of sin, whether it be some act of wicked immorality or the altering of God's Will by the doctrines of men.

In the context of the Lord's Supper, leaven has been introduced into this most sacred item of worship in two distinct ways: physically and spiritually. First, there are those who use leavened bread and fermented wine instead of the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine which Jesus used. Second, there are many who have contaminated and polluted the Lord's Supper with the leaven of the sin of doctrinal error. The first is really a combination of the two.

Leaven Or Unleavened?
It is not a coincidence that Jesus instituted the Communion during the Passover feast; these two events were Divinely coordinated. Jesus is the Passover lamb for all of the Christian age (I Cor 5:7), and it is clear that the Passover feast pointed forward in time to the Crucifixion while the Lord's Supper points back in time toward this same great event. A strict provision of the Passover was the absolute exclusion of anything leavened from the houses of the Jews.

A leavened food item is one upon which yeast has acted. Some have made the unlearned argument that fermented wine has no yeast in it because the yeast cells are dead and, therefore, wine is not leavened. When yeast bread is baked, all the yeast is killed by the high temperature, but it is still leavened bread. Likewise, fermented wine is leavened fruit of the vine because it has been altered by yeast fermentation.

Jesus Used Unleavened Elements
It is a fact that Jesus used both unleavened bread and unfermented grape juice when He instituted the Lord's Supper. The Scriptures teach that all leaven was to be removed from the houses of the Jews during the Passover (Ex 12:8,15,17). This applied to all food stuffs, not just bread. Dr. S.M. Isaacs, an eminent Jewish Rabbi, said, "The Jews do not, in their feasts for sacred purposes, including the marriage feast, ever use any kind of fermented drinks".

The question is, then, "Is the use of unleavened bread and unfermented grape juice a part of God's Pattern for the Lord's Supper?" The answer is definitely "yes" because the use of unleavened elements is spiritually significant, having spiritual meaning. Leaven represents and symbolizes sin; but unleavened, by contrast, represents purity. Relegating the matter of leaven to the level of an incidental like the "upper room" is to blindly ignore this Divine symbolism without a cause.

If the use of unleavened bread and unfermented fruit of the vine is indeed a part of the Pattern, the use of anything else is forbidden. Leaven elements are thus doubly excluded:

(1)

(2)

The Leaven Of Transubstantiation?
The doctrine of transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic dogma (a dogma is a teaching which cannot be reversed and is equal in authority to the Bible). Transub-stantiation is the doctrine that the bread and wine (Roman Catholicism uses fermented wine) become the actual body and blood of Christ. As follows are some quotations from the Council of Trent regarding this doctrine:

CANON I: If anyone shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure--let him be accursed!

CANON II: If anyone shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ--let him be accursed!

CANON VI: If anyone shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of Latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of the Holy church, and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters,--let him be accursed!

This doctrine was first vaguely held by men like Ambrose hundreds of years after Christ. In 831 AD Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise or article advocating this doctrine. This doctrine became an officially recognized dogma in 1215 A.D. by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council. The Council of Trent (1563 A.D.), from which the above quotations were taken, upheld this doctrine.

In 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent". In very simple terms, this doctrine teaches that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ and that these elements are miraculously converted, not into part of Him, but as one Catholic put it, "He is really here, body, soul, and divinity".

In other words, the loaf becomes Jesus and He is reduced to a form where He is carried around in the hands of the priest. Notice that Canon II declares that anyone who says that the substance of the bread and wine remain is to be accursed. This means that anyone who says the bread is still bread and the wine is still wine is accursed.

In 1563 A.D., this statement was easier to make than it is now. Every miracle in the Bible was scientifically verifiable. Had a meteorologist been present when Jesus calmed the storm (Matt 8:26), his instruments would have shown it. Had a doctor been present when Peter healed the man lame from birth (Acts 3), it could have been scientifically proven. X-rays and body weight would have proven that a miracle had occurred. There are a multitude of scientific tests which will detect and identify microscopic amounts of human blood and tissue. These instruments cannot be fooled. If this doctrine were true, it could easily be scientifically verified.

One thing is certain, if these tests would indeed verify this doctrine, they would be performed and the results made known to the world. The reason they are not is that the bread and wine remain bread and wine and nothing else.

The So-Called "Proof Text"
The "proof text" given for the doctrine of Transubstantiation is John 6:53&54, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life". This passage is interpreted literally, and it is therefore held that in the Lord's Supper the literal body and blood of Jesus are eaten. A careful study of the entire text (verses 31-63) reveals that Jesus is speaking not literally, but metaphorically. For example, in verse 35 He says, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst".

The hunger and thirst are JUST as literal as the body and blood. Yet, what person who believes in transubstantiation will say he never hungers or thirsts because he has eaten Christ's "literal" body and blood? Notice what Jesus is really saying, "he that believeth on Me shall never thirst". This is not physical, but rather spiritual hunger and thirst. Jesus used the same metaphor in John 4:14, "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst".

Obviously, Jesus did not speak of physical water or thirst; He spoke of the life giving "water" of His Word. The metaphor is found again in Matt 5:6, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled". In verse 47, Jesus said, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life". In verse 54, He said, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life". This explains what Jesus meant. It is a fact that faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17), and Jesus is the Word who was made flesh (John 1:14). To metaphorically consume the Lord's flesh is to consume His Word. This produces faith and, if it is a living faith (Jas 2:26), the believer will have the promise of eternal life.

It is quite clear that John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper because the Lord's Supper is a memorial. Jesus said, "this do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19). John 6 says nothing about a memorial. When Jesus said, "This is My body", this was not transubstantiation, for His body did not become bread and the bread did not become His body. Before the blessing, the loaf and His body were two separate physical entities. After the blessing, the loaf and His body were still two separate physical objects. The bread represents His body in the memorial; it does not become His body.

Crucial Lessons From The Passover
“Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us”
I Corinthians 5:7
It is a fact that the lamb of the Jewish Passover was typical of the crucifixion of Christ. This means that there is a relationship between the two which was predetermined by the Lord. In the book of Hebrews, this relationship is compared to that of a shadow and the object creating the shadow (Hebrews 10:1). A careful study of the Passover, sheds some very important "light" on the crucifixion and on the Lord's Supper. The Passover pointed forward in time to the Cross while the Lord's Supper points back in time to this same event. No honest Bible student would deny that there is, as a result, a relationship between the Passover and the Communion since they mutually "symbolize" the same great event.

Some of the important principles found in the Passover reinforce and clarify the essential truths contained in the New Testament Pattern for the Lord's Supper.

One Lamb For Each House
"In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: and if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb." Exodus 12:3&4.

This passage teaches that the Jews were to observe the Passover with only one lamb for each house. It would have violated God's Pattern just as much to have used two lambs per house as it would have to have eaten a calf. Eating only one lamb was just as important as eating lamb! This illustrates very clearly that number can be, and often is, spiritually significant. The term spiritual significance is defined as that to which God has assigned spiritual meaning, value, purpose, or importance.

Anyone who rejects and denies God-given spiritual significance, sins; for as Samuel told Saul, he has rejected the Word of the Lord. The concept of spiritual significance of "number" should not be new to students of the Bible. In Ephesians 4:3-6 Paul says, "Endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all...". Notice, for example, there is only one baptism.

It is just as wrong to preach and practice two baptisms as it would be to advocate sprinkling! Other examples of the spiritual significance of number are found in the twelve tribes of the Israelites, the twelve Apostles, and the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls. A study of this matter reveals, however, that in the New Testament the most important spiritually significant number is the number "one". As Paul shows in Eph 4:3 and in I Cor 10:17, "one" represents and symbolizes "unity".

One Lamb For Each House
Another important principle taught by the Passover lamb is that the house is to conform to the Pattern rather than adjusting the Pattern to fit the house. God said to use one lamb for each house. He also anticipated that the people would begin to find reasons why this wouldn't work so he made it clear how these problems were to be solved. The people were to adjust their numbers so they could fit the lamb, that is, so they could obey the Pattern. The Lord said, "And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb" (Ex 12:4).

They were not to use half a lamb or two lambs but, rather, make the house fit the lamb. Man has always struggled against God's Pattern in his desire to do things in ways that seem best to his human thinking. For example, most who claim to follow Christ oppose immersion as the true form of baptism. Many argue that it would have been impossible for the Apostles to have immersed 3000 people on the day of Pentecost; therefore, they conclude that baptism need not be immersion. On the contrary, the Passover lamb shows clearly that the Church is to do what is necessary to make the people fit the Pattern. The Pattern cannot be modified to fit the people.

The Lamb Was Left Whole
Exodus 12:9 says, "roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof". Verse 46 says, "neither shall ye break a bone thereof". These passages underscore the typical (meaning type-antitype) relationship between the Paschal Lamb and the crucified Christ. John tells us that by God's Will the Romans were not allowed to break Jesus' legs. "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" John 19:36. It was not a coincidence that His bones were not broken, rather God prevented it from happening.

Keil and Delitzsch quoting from Archaology say, "Through the unity and integrity of the lamb given them to eat, the participants were to be joined into an undivided unity and fellowship with the Lord, who had provided them with the meal" . These commentators very correctly point out that the use of one lamb was a symbol of unity. They also indicate that the use of an unbroken lamb was essential to that "oneness". A lamb divided into two or more pieces would not have represented this oneness or this unity.

Each House Was Autonomous
The Passover was observed in and only in the context of one household. Any other observance of the Passover was unscriptural and a violation of the Pattern. For example, suppose that the entire tribe of Reuben had decided to assemble in a "community building" and all eat the Passover together. Would this "super-household" observance of the Passover have been scriptural? Suppose, on the other end of the spectrum, that one of the members in a family was upset so he took his portion of the lamb to a separate place and ate by himself. Would this "sub-household" observation be pleasing to God? Clearly either situation violates the Pattern because the Pattern specified that the Passover was to be observed in the context of one household. The Passover had no meaning in any other context. It is meaningless to say the Israelites were to use one lamb for the Passover unless it is well understood and accepted that this means one lamb for each household, not one lamb per person nor one lamb for each tribe.

"Crucial Lessons From The Passover"
The title of this section is a significant play on words. The word "crucial" means critical, decisive, of extraordinary importance. The word comes from the Latin for "cross" and derived its meaning as a direct result of the cross of Christ. It came to have this meaning because the Crucifixion (notice the words are from the same root word) of Christ was of extraordinary importance to Christianity since this event made the New Covenant possible. The principles found in the Passover are crucial because the Passover was typical of the crucifixion of Jesus and because these principles are of extraordinary importance. Not only are these principles critical to an understanding of the Crucifixion, they are also crucial to an understanding of the Lord's Supper. It has been demonstrated that the Passover pointed forward to the Cross while the Lord's Supper points, even at the present, back to the Cross. Since they point to the same great event, they are closely related to each other. It is not without solid Biblical basis, then, that it is held that these important principles from the Passover do indeed "illuminate" the Pattern for the Lord's Supper.

The Crucifixion Of Christ
The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the very focal point of Christianity. Paul wrote, "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (I Cor 2:2). The Crucifixion was the central theme of Paul's preaching and must be the central theme of the Church today. Faithful members of the Lord's Church must understand this event; first, because it is the basis of salvation and, second, because this understanding is vital to an observation of the Lord's Supper. Since the Lord's Supper, in effect, "pictures" Christ's death, one must thoroughly understand the Crucifixion in order to have a full and accurate understanding of the Communion. The respective elements of the Lord's Supper have significance only to those who know what events transpired when Jesus died and who comprehend the great significance of those events.

I. His Body Was Sacrificed

Isaiah 53

lamb

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world

John 1:29

Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us

I Cor 5:7

Passover angel of the second death

Luke 22:19

This is My body which is given for you

body

II. His Blood Was Shed

Without shedding of blood is no remission

Heb 9:22

bloodless

it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins

Heb 10:4

This is My blood of the New Covenant (or New Testament), which is shed for many for the remission of sins

Matthew 26:28

blood

Rev 1:5

His own blood

covenant

Hebrews 9

Acts 20:28

III. The New Covenant Was Ratified

half of the transaction

The body, the blood, and the New Covenant combine to form the complete or total transaction on that awesome day in 33 A.D. at Golgotha, the place of the skull.

The Three Spiritually Significant Elements
His Body Was Sacrificed
His Blood Was Shed
The New Covenant Was Ratified

The three spiritually significant events of the Crucifixion are listed in the table above. Surely there were innumerable happenings which occurred during the Crucifixion, but all were a part of one of these three major elements. For example, Jesus was thirsty. This was a part of the sacrifice of His body. A soldier thrust a spear in His side. This was a part of the shedding of His blood. Corresponding to the three elements of the Crucifixion, there are three elements in the Lord's Supper. The three pairs are related by symbolism which was ordained by Christ.

There Are Three Elements In The Lord's Supper
There are four N.T. books, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and I Corinthians, which outline the Pattern for the Communion. In these passages are clearly recorded three statements which the Lord made in defining the spiritual significance of the elements of the Lord's Supper. (These statements are listed in the table below.) These statements are all different. Each has a different subject, a different object, and a different modifying clause.

The Lord's Three Definitive Statements

"This (loaf) is My body which is given for you" Lk 22:19
"This (fruit of vine) is My blood of the New Covenant" Mt 26:28
"This cup is the New Covenant in My blood" I Cor 11:25

These statements are of identical grammatical structure but are different in grammatical content and different in doctrinal content. Although they all function so as to define a respective element of the Lord's Supper, each defines a different Communion element in representing a different item of the Crucifixion.

"This (Loaf) Is My Body"
Matthew 26:26
On the night He was betrayed, tried, and sentenced to die, the Lord gave the Apostles the instructions for a perpetual memorial of His crucifixion which was only hours away. Rather than simply giving His followers a set of verbal instructions to be followed, the Lord showed them how the memorial was to be observed by observing the first Lord's Supper with them. During the observation of this first Supper, the Lord explained the meaning of the elements and, thereby, defined the spiritual significance which each of these elements possesses.

The first element defined by Jesus was the loaf of bread. He assigned spiritual meaning to it with the statement,
"This is my body" (Matt 26:26). Obviously, He did not mean that the bread had become His body because the bread was still bread and His flesh was still flesh. Rather, He meant that the loaf was a token, emblem, or symbol of His body which was to become the Paschal sacrifice of the Christian age.

The Antecedent Of The Pronoun "This"
The Lord began the institution of the Lord's Supper by picking up a loaf of bread. He blessed the bread by prayer, broke off a portion and gave it to His disciples. He then said, "This is My body" (Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, and I Cor 11:24). The term "this" is a near demonstrative pronoun and, like all pronouns, must have an antecedent. The antecedent is the Greek word artos (pronounced like are-toss). There is little disagreement about the fact that artos is the antecedent of the pronoun "this", but there is much disagreement as to exactly what artos means.

Artos is a common Greek word which is defined as bread; a loaf or thin cake of bread . Unlike in English, there were not two separate words for "loaf" and "bread" in Koine Greek used in the New Testament. Therefore, the context must be consulted in order to determine precisely what artos means in a given text. It is commonly understood that there are three contexts to be considered in studying the Bible:

(1)

(2)

(3)

The most basic and reliable indicator of the meaning of the word artos is a preceding numeral. That is, when artos is preceded by a number, the meaning is clearly "loaf" or "loaves". Duo artoi means two loaves, not two breads; pente artoi means five loaves, not five breads, etc. In the miracle of the feeding of the 5000, Jesus began with 5 loaves and 2 fish (Matt 14:17). It is clear that this does not mean that He began with five types or kinds of bread and two kinds of fish. This is adding a completely different meaning without any cause, reason, or authority. It is a fact that Jesus began with 5 loaves of bread and two fish, not five kinds of bread and two species of fish.

Is The Number Of Loaves Spiritually Significant?
Many members of the Church of Christ believe that, with regard to the Lord's Supper, the word artos is to be understood simply as "bread" and never as "loaf". They hold that there is no spiritual significance in the number of loaves that are used. This is an area over which there is not only disagreement but also division in the Body of Christ. The real issue, then, is not whether number can possess spiritual significance in God's Pattern because clearly it can. This principle is solidly established by the example of the Passover lamb and by such New Testament verses as Ephesians 4:3-6. The issue is simply this: "Did God attach any spiritual significance to the number of loaves used in the Lord's Supper?" The solution to this issue is plainly set forth in three places:

(1)

(2)

(3)

I Cor 10:17.

The Lord's Example
The text states clearly that Jesus took a loaf of bread. It could not be said that He blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples if He had taken two or three or twelve loaves. Likewise, He could not have said "this is My body" if He had picked up several loaves; rather, He would have said "these are My body".

The only proper way to study the Bible is to strive to determine what it is saying, not what one can make it say. Some work hard in an attempt to refute the idea that Jesus took only one loaf, but one thing is for certain: the Lord's actions were definite. He either took one loaf or several loaves. The language that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul use shows plainly that He took only one loaf and regarding that one loaf said, "This is My body".

The Passover Shadow
The Passover Lamb and the Communion Loaf point to, or symbolize, the crucified Body of Christ. It follows, then, that the type-antitype principles found in the Lamb are also to be preserved in the spiritual significance of the Communion Loaf. Just as the Israelites were to use only one lamb for each house, so each congregation is to use only one loaf in the Lord's Supper. The one lamb represented the one Christ who was to die for the world. Likewise, one loaf represents the one Christ who has now died for mankind. The "number" of paschal lambs was spiritually significant. Eating one lamb was salvation from the death of the first born by the Passover Angel. Eating more than one lamb was wrong. Likewise, the use of one Communion Loaf is obedience to God's Pattern. The use of more than one loaf is wrong.

The Passover And The Large Assembly Argument
Each Israelite family was to adjust its numbers to accommodate God's Pattern. They were not to adjust the lamb to fit the house, but rather the house to fit the lamb. It was unscriptural to use half a lamb or to use two lambs. The Pattern said one lamb per house, nothing more or less. Many today object to the use of one loaf in the Lord's Supper, saying that it is impractical to serve a large audience with only a single loaf. Some argue that the 3000 believers on Pentecost all observed the Lord's Supper that day in one assembly, and this proves it is permissible to use more than one loaf. It is a human assumption that the 3000 met for worship, because the Bible says only that 3000 were baptized. It is a second assumption to say that they all met in one assembly.

This assumption is fallacious because a meeting place for 3000 Christians in a Jewish controlled city was highly unlikely, and certainly not available within a few hours notice. Human assumptions prove nothing in civil courts, and they prove nothing about God's Pattern. God expects man to always "make the house fit the lamb". Man is never permitted to change the Pattern to fit his own desires. The size of the congregation is to be adjusted to fit God's Pattern for the Lord's Supper. The Pattern cannot be desecrated and spiritual significance cannot be destroyed to satisfy man's desires for large, impressive congregations where men "bury their talents" on an equally grand scale.

I Corinthians 10:17
Because there is one loaf, we, the many, are one body; for we are all partakers of that one loaf. (Translated by Alexander Campbell in The Christian System)

It is an undeniable fact that the congregation at Corinth had many problems, among them a lack of congregational unity. The members had formed factions around outstanding men such as Paul, Apollos, and Peter. In the first chapter of I Corinthians, Paul rebuked this sinful condition and called for unity. In the context of discussing the Lord's Supper, Paul, in the tenth chapter, once again establishes the importance of unity and shows that the Lord's Supper portrays that unity. He said that the members of the congregation were many, but that they were spiritually one in Christ because of, or due to the fact, that they all jointly partook of the one loaf in the Lord's Supper. Paul did not say "a loaf” and "a body" but used the numeral "one" three times in this verse, saying "one loaf", "one body", "one body".

Most members of the Church, and even many denominations, understand the absolutely essential nature of unity both in terms of universal Church unity and in terms of congregational unity. Unity cannot be compromised, because it is mandatory and not optional. It is not possible that Paul could have argued for and established something so critical as unity upon something of lesser importance or upon something of no importance. When commenting on these verses, Alexander Campbell said: “Here the apostle reasons from what is more plain to what is less plain; from what was established to what was not so fully established in the minds of the Christians."

There was no dispute about the one loaf; therefore there ought to be none about the one body. This mode of reasoning makes it as certain as a positive law; because that which an apostle reasons from must be an established fact or an established principle. The Christian System page 305 It is clear that the use of one loaf is spiritually significant and that this spiritual importance is on par with that of congregational unity. To observe the Lord's Supper with a plurality of loaves and to fail to recognize, honor, and accept this Divinely defined significance is to worship in error.

What Does I Corinthians 10:17 Really Mean?
The meaning of I Cor 10:17 is somewhat unclear to many members of the Church because of the way it is translated in KJV. The KJV is certainly an authoritative translation, but the translation of this particular verse does not communicate the true meaning as clearly as some other translations. Listed below are 8 translations of the verse from the five most authoritative English versions, the ASV marginal rendering, Campbell's translation, and a word for word interlinear translation from the Nestle Greek Text.

---I Corinthians 10:17---
KJV “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of
that one bread.”
ASV “Seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake
of the one bread.”
ASV (marginal rendering) “Seeing that there is one loaf, we, who are many, are
one body: for we all partake from the one loaf.”
RSV “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all
partake of the one bread.”
NASV “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all
partake of the one bread.”
NIV “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all
partake of the one loaf.”
CAMPBELL “Because there is one loaf, we, the many, are one body; for we are all partakers of that one loaf.”
INTERLINEAR”hoti heis artos, hen10 soma hoi polloi Because one loaf, one body
the many esmen hoi gar pantes ek tou henos10 artou metechomen. we are --- for
all of the one loaf we partake.”

No one who sincerely desires to worship God in truth wants to see what the Bible can be forced to say; rather, such a person desires to know the actual idea the writer by inspiration had in his mind as he wrote. As one studies these translations, particularly the Interlinear version, it is very clear that Paul was saying the following in I Cor 10:17: Due to the fact that one loaf of bread is used in the Lord's Supper, the congregation is spiritually made one Body in God's sight because all the members jointly partake of the one loaf. This verse makes it very clear that it is unscriptural and a violation of God's will for a congregation to observe the Communion with a plurality of loaves. The use of a plurality of loaves destroys the spiritually significant sign of the unity or "oneness" of the congregation. Worship which not only ignores but actually destroys God given spiritual significance is unacceptable to the Lord (John 4:24).

The Ephesus-Corinth Objection
Far too many people handle the Bible the way certain lawyers handle the law. Some lawyers study the law looking for ways to force it to mean what they want it to mean. They look for "loopholes", technicalities, and other devices which will allow them to "manipulate" the law to suit their own purposes. The sad thing is that many members of the Church of Christ handle such verses as I Cor 10:17 exactly the same way. They work hard to make it say something other than what a literal, straightforward interpretation indicates it means.

The most common device used against I Cor 10:17 is the so-called Ephesus-Corinth Objection. The Ephesus-Corinth Objection states that Paul was in Ephesus when he wrote I Corinthians. Since he used the expression "we all partake of the one loaf", it had to include both the congregation at Corinth and the one in Ephesus. The conclusion is: Both congregations were using the same "one bread" so the meaning is not "one loaf", but, rather, "one kind of bread" or "one type of bread".

This argument is on the same level as the objection against baptism based upon Paul's statement, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach". Both arguments ignore the true meaning of the passage and attempt to circumvent the truth. Both arguments wrest the respective passages from their context and apply an artificial and contrived interpretation. The following facts refute the Ephesus-Corinth argument.

FACT: The Lord's Supper is observed and exists only on a congregational level. The observation of the Communion on either a "super-congregational" or a "sub-congregational" level is plainly unscriptural. The argument, therefore, is meaningless because everything said about the Lord's Supper applies in and only in the context of a local congregation's observation of this item of worship. Bible statements regarding the Lord's Supper can be interpreted only on a congregational level.

FACT: Paul frequently used the word "we" because, as he explained, "For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit" (Col 2:5). For example, in I Thess 4:17 he wrote, "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air...." If Paul's usage of the pronoun "we" carries special significance, then here it means he is still alive and will be alive when Christ returns. The "over interpretation" (attaching meaning where there is none) of Paul's usage of "we" in either I Cor 10:17 or I Thess 4:17 leads to false doctrine.

FACT: Paul is contending with the problem of unity within the Corinthian congregation. Paul used the spiritual significance of the "use of one loaf" to show the need for congregational unity. The Ephesus-Corinth argument wrests the verse from its context and true purpose and gives it a false and illogical meaning. Paul was not dealing with a unity problem between Ephesus and Corinth. Let the honest seeker of the truth be the judge and determine which is the correct meaning of the verse.

FACT: One of the most important rules of Bible interpretation is that every passage is to be understood literally unless one is forced to understand it figuratively.

The burden of proof always is attached to the figurative. Clearly, the Ephesus-Corinth argument violates this rule. Those who make the argument have never proved that the passage cannot be understood literally and must be understood another way.

FACT: The concept of "type" or "kind" cannot be introduced artificially to escape the true meaning of a numerical adjective. For example, "One God the Father" does not mean one type or kind of God, allowing one to believe there are many heavenly Fathers. "One Passover lamb" did not mean one kind of lamb for each house, permitting the eating of several lambs. "Five loaves and two fish" does not mean Jesus had five kinds of bread and two species of fish (Matt 14:17), allowing one to deny this was a miracle. Likewise, when I Cor 10:17 says that there is "one loaf" , this cannot be made to mean one type or kind of bread, but rather "one loaf of bread".

The Gospel Advocate Commentary On Mark
The Gospel Advocate Company is one of the major publishers of churches of Christ who use individual communion cups. Gospel Advocate publishes their own set of commentaries on the New Testament. The commentary on Mark was written by bro. C. E. W. Dorris and his comments on the number of loaves to be used in the Lord's Supper are photo-reproduced directly from the book below. Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of this commentary can mail order it from: Gospel Advocate Company, P.O. Box 150, Nashville, TN 37202, USA. The catalog number is G5002-x. The commentary is listed on page 9 of the 1986 catalog.

The Loaf Represents The Body By Faith
Some believe that the physical appearance of a loaf of bread made from bleached flour is suggestive of Christ's body "pale in death". Bleached flour was unknown in the days of Christ; but more than that, Christians accept the loaf by faith and acceptance of God's Word, not upon a basis of physical appearance. It has also been suggested that the loaf represents the body because one eats of it. This is not a valid thought. The loaf represents the Body because Christ said it does. One eats of it because Christ said to "take and eat". The symbolism of the loaf is not a function of the eating, that is, it is not subordinate to the eating. The symbolism and the eating are coordinate elements and both are accepted by faith. Those who recognize the Communion Loaf as being an emblem or token of Christ's Body do so by faith.
"This (Fruit Of The Vine) Is My Blood"
Mark 14:24
Jesus said, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mark 14:24 ASV).
The antecedent of the pronoun "this" is clearly the fruit of the vine. It is universally understood that it is the fruit of the vine which represents the blood of Christ. The prepositional phrase "of the New Covenant" means that by Christ's shed blood the New Covenant was ratified or purchased. Since those who are in the Church are the only partakers of the New Covenant, it may be said that Covenant was purchased by the blood, because the Church was (Acts 20:28).

Metonymy
Some hold that the antecedent of "this" is actually the word "cup". This is grammatically permissible since a pronoun may be used metonymically while the antecedent is being used either literally or metonymically. It is also a fact that the antecedent of a pronoun may either precede or follow the pronoun. An example of this is a statement like, "Since it is boiling, please take the kettle off of the stove". The antecedent of the pronoun "it" is kettle. In this sentence the word "kettle" is literal while the pronoun "it" is metonymical and precedes the antecedent.

The word "metonymy" comes from two Greek words, "meta" indicating a change and "onoma" which means "name". Hence, metonymy means a change of name, the employing of the name of one thing to make reference to another thing which is closely linked to the first. There are several types of this figure of speech, such as an author named to refer to his writings (Luke 16:29), a parent named to suggest his descendants (Gen 9:25), a container named to refer to its contents (I Cor 11:26). "Container for the contained" metonymy is commonly used in everyday speech. Some examples are, "The kettle is boiling", "The skillet is on fire", and "During the cold weather, the pipes froze". In each of these three examples, the container is named to refer to the contents. The literal kettle cannot boil but the water it contains will boil. An iron skillet cannot burn but the grease in the skillet will burn. An iron pipe cannot freeze but the water inside the pipe will freeze.

In the text dealing with the Lord's Supper, metonymy is definitely used in as I Cor 11:26 & 27. This type of metonymy is obviously "container for contents". The container, the cup, is named to refer to the content which is the fruit of vine. With metonymy of the "container for the contained", there must be a literal container and literal contents. It cannot be said that an empty kettle is boiling, nor can water boiling in a radiator be called a "boiling kettle". In order to take the cup (the drinking vessel) out of the Lord's Supper, many have sought to mis-define metonymy by using examples which are invalid.

Two common illustrations used are "The baby was raised on the bottle" and "She brought my favorite dish to the supper". The argument is that a baby can be raised on formula without using an actual bottle, so the word bottle here means formula and no container is suggested. Likewise, one can bring a "dish" to a supper without a container, so the word "dish" means a food item and no container is suggested. The fallacy of the argument is apparent. These are not examples of metonymy, but of English idioms which have their root in metonymy. Consider how foolish this becomes when applied to a nonidiomatic situation. How incorrect it would be to say, "pour me a hot cup of kettle" instead of a hot cup of tea. Likewise, it would be foolish to say, "I wrecked my car and all the radiator ran out on the ground". It would be absurd to point to burning grease and say, "Look at the burning skillet running down the front of the stove".

In the same way, it is just as grammatically invalid to say that “fruit of the vine is cup” even if it is not held in a drinking vessel. How foolish it would be to say "The purple stains on my shirt are cup", "I want to buy a liter of cup", or "The cluster of grapes yielded a cup of cup". The Bible is not using an idiom when it uses the word "cup" with regard to the Communion. It does use simple metonymy of the cup (the drinking vessel) named to refer to the fruit of the vine.

The Fruit Of The Vine Represents The Blood By Faith
It has been said that the physical appearance of the FOV is suggestive of Christ's Blood since many types of grape juice are somewhat reddish in color. This logic is invalid. Christians accept the FOV by faith in God's Word, not upon a basis of physical appearance. It has also been suggested that the FOV represents the blood because one drinks of it. This is also not a valid thought. The FOV represents the blood because Christ said it does. One drinks of it because Christ said to "drink". The symbolism of the FOV is not a function of the drinking. The symbolism and the drinking are coordinate elements and both are accepted by faith. Those who recognize the FOV as being an emblem or token of Christ's Blood do so by faith.

"This Cup Is The New Covenant"

“This cup is the new covenant in My blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in
remembrance of Me.” I Corinthians 11:25 ASV

“This cup is the new covenant in My blood, even that which is poured out for you.”Luke 22:20 ASV

There are two basic views of the cup (drinking vessel) in the Lord's Supper. Some believe that when containing the fruit of the vine, the Communion cup represents the New Covenant. Others deny that the cup has any significance whatsoever and believe that virtually any technique for distributing the fruit of the vine in Communion is acceptable. This is a critical issue. If the former view is incorrect, those holding it are guilty of fabricating spiritual significance where there is none. On the other hand, if the latter view is incorrect, those with this belief have destroyed spiritual significance defined by Jesus and have defied His Word.

The Cup (Poterion) Is A "Token" Of The Covenant
The word "cup" is translated from the Greek word poterion which is defined simply as "a drinking vessel". The word does not refer to such things as barrels, buckets, thimbles, etc. The word poterion is not an idiom which means fruit of the vine, either in New Testament Greek or modern day English. The real issue with regard to the cup (poterion) in the Lord's Supper can be stated as follows: Is the cup, the poterion, the drinking vessel, a spiritually significant element in the Lord's Supper? Does the cup represent the New Covenant or is it a mere incidental? This is the issue!

As has been stated previously, there are many ways one might go about to resolve this issue:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

It might seem that this list is somewhat unnecessary because obviously the last suggestion is the only valid one. Unfortunately, experience indicates that many members of the Church of Christ allow some or all of the other factors to cloud their thinking and influence their decisions about this issue.

Mark 14:24 And I Corinthians 11:25
“This (fruit of vine) is my blood of the New Covenant” Mk 14:24

“This cup is the New Covenant in My blood” I Cor 11:25
The issue is resolved

(1)

I Cor 11:25

(2)

Some believe these two statements are, in effect, identical; that is, two different ways of saying the same thing. There is, however, no basis for this belief. Clearly, the two statements are of the same grammatical and syntactical structure, but are of completely different content. The subjects, predicate nominatives, and modifying clauses are all different between the two. Due to these facts, it cannot be said that one is merely a restatement of the other. Mark 14:24 says that something is (represents) the blood of Christ.

The modifying phrase defines the blood as that which ratified the New Covenant. On the other hand, I Cor 11:25 says that something is (represents) the New Covenant. The modifying phrase "in my blood" means that the blood is the "instrument" by which the Covenant exists. Clearly the blood and the New Covenant are two different things. The blood was the red liquid which flowed in the circulatory system of Jesus. The New Covenant is an agreement between God and man. Everyone agrees that in Mark 14:24 Jesus defined the fruit of the vine as a symbol of His blood. It is agreed that the antecedent of the pronoun "this" is "fruit of the vine", regardless of whether this is understood directly or by way of metonymy.

There Are Only Two Ways To Interpret I Cor 11:25
Jesus said "This cup is the New Covenant". This can only mean that something named by the expression "this cup" represents the New Covenant. There are only two ways to understand the expression "this cup": literally or figuratively. One of the fundamental rules of Bible interpretation is that everything is to be understood literally unless one is forced to understand it figuratively. The burden of proof rests with the figurative. The figure must be identified and justified.

A literal interpretation is that the cup, the drinking vessel, is spiritually significant in that it represents by faith the New Covenant. When Christians observe the Communion, they are to be reminded of the Covenant by the cup; just as they are reminded of the body by the loaf. The only other option is that the expression "this cup" is to be understood metonymically. Some argue that the word "cup" is used metonymically in I Cor 11:26 so it must be metonymical everywhere. This is incorrect reasoning. A noun may be used both literally and metonymically in the same context and even in the same sentence. If "this cup" is to be interpreted metonymically, then it means the fruit of the vine, which results in the following:

“The fruit of the vine represents the New Covenant.”

This is a false interpretation because it creates a Bible contradiction. This interpretation results in Jesus saying in Matthew and Mark that the fruit of the vine represents the blood; but in Luke and I Cor, saying the fruit of the vine represents the New Covenant. Because it is without justification and because it creates a Bible contradiction, a metonymical interpretation of the expression "this cup" must be rejected as being a false interpretation of the Bible and a contradiction of Truth.

The Cup Represents The New Covenant By Faith
The cup is not an incidental in the Lord's Supper because Jesus said the cup is a token of the New Covenant. It might be pointed out that the cup is not a symbol of the New Testament Scriptures. The Covenant was in effect on Pentecost in 33 A.D., but the Scriptures were not completed until 98 A.D. The concept of a symbol for a covenant is not new to the diligent Bible student. After the flood, God said, "This (rainbow) is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth" (Gen 9:17). Clearly the rainbow, by faith, should remind Christians of God's promise not to destroy the earth by water a second time. Regarding the Old Covenant with Abraham and his descendants, God said, "Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you" (Gen 17:11).

Faithful Jews accepted circumcision as a symbol of their Covenant as God's chosen people. Likewise, Jesus said, "This cup is the New Covenant". Just as the rainbow was a token of the Noahic Covenant and circumcision was a token of the Old Covenant, so the Communion cup is a symbol of the New Covenant. Some argue that bread looks like flesh, FOV like blood, but the cup does not look like the New Covenant; therefore, it does not represent the Covenant.

First, physical appearance is not the basis for accepting the loaf and the FOV as tokens of the body and blood. They are accepted because Jesus defined them. Likewise, the cup is accepted as a symbol of the New Covenant because Jesus defined it as such. Secondly, nothing physical will ever "look like" a non-physical covenant. A rainbow and the surgical procedure of circumcision do not "look like" covenants. Clearly, the rainbow, circumcision, and the cup are all accepted by faith, not by appearance. Some have argued that the loaf and FOV represent the body and blood because they are eaten, but the cup cannot be eaten. The symbolism is not a function of eating; rather, the loaf and FOV are symbols because Christ said they are. They are eaten because Christ said, "eat" and "drink".

No one has the right to declare that only edible elements can be spiritually significant in the Communion. The cup is a symbol of the Covenant by faith because Jesus said, "This cup is the New Covenant". A multiplicity of loaves destroy the signification of congregational unity and individual communion cups destroy the spiritual signification of the New Covenant. Both are therefore unscriptural.

The Lord's Supper

Blog Archive

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Lord's Supper

No comments:

Favorite Sites for Spiritual Growth

Please contact me if you have any Suggestions, Comments, or Questions

How did you find this site?