The Lord's Supper, also called the "Communion," is a simple memorial of the death of Christ - the most renowned event in history.
Unfortunately, the mechanics of how it should be observed has been a lamentable and unnecessary source of much division, uncertainty, and confusion across the "Christian" religious world. Of course, the proper way for us to avoid division is to ensure our practices are in harmony with the "ultimate authority" - the Word of God.
God's Word is complete and contains all relevant truth for the Christian (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 16:13; & 17:17). Not 80% of God's will, 90% of God's will, or even 99% of God's will. It's 100% complete. Everything we need to know about what we need to do as Christians is in the Bible. Obviously, this includes what we need to know about the Lord's Supper.
Furthermore, God has expressly prohibited any adding to or subtracting from His Word (Dueteronomy 4:2 & 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; & 119:160; Hebrews 13:7; Revelation 22:18-19; Matthew 24:35; Luke 16:17; Acts 20:27). Therefore, it is God's Word alone with which this article will be entirely concerned. The prophet of old summed it up quite well when he said: "I would not be able to go beyond the word of the Lord, to do either good or bad of my own will; what the Lord speaks, that will I speak" (Numbers 24:13).
In this article we want to survey the following:
1) How did Christ observe the Communion? Since Christ was the One who instituted the Lord's Supper, investigating this should give us vital clues on how He wants it to be observed today.
2) How did the Apostolic Church observe the Lord's Supper? Did they follow Christ's original pattern or was this unimportant?
3) How did the Jews observe the Passover? Understanding this is important since Christ instituted the first Communion right after the conclusion of the Passover. Therefore, knowing how the Jews practiced the Passover gives us insight into the mechanics of Communion.
4) How did the Post-Apostolic Church observe Communion? This is interesting since it gives us information about whether or not the Church continued to follow the Biblical pattern of Christ and the Apostles, or whether they felt it was unimportant.
5) When did significant change occur in the Communion, and why? This section helps us understand when the first major changes to certain aspects of Communion occurred, and what was behind these changes.
6) Opposing Arguments to Biblical Communion. This final section examines 10 top reasons why many choose not to follow the Biblical pattern of Communion, and the problems in their logic.
HOW DID CHRIST OBSERVE
THE COMMUNION?
Since Christ was the One who originated the Supper, and since He's the central focus of the Supper itself --- then most people would probably agree that finding out exactly how He instituted it is of paramount importance. Since this is the logical starting point, we begin by noticing exactly how Christ observed Communion.
Matthew 26:26-29. The first Biblical account of the Lord's Supper is in Matthew 26:26-29 (inside brackets are author's comments; all Biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Version):
“And while they [the disciples] were eating [during the Jewish Passover Feast], Jesus took some bread [unleavened because that's all that was allowed during Passover], and after a blessing [prayer], He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is [represents] My body.’ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it [the cup] to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; For this [what you are drinking] is My blood of the covenant [the New Covenant of Christ], which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine [what was inside the cup] from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.’ "
That's it. As you can see, it's incredibly simple: Jesus was sitting at a table with His disciples eating the Passover Supper. At the end of the Passover Supper, Jesus simply took a loaf of bread (the original Greek word artos means "loaf"). He then thanked God for it in prayer. He then broke it (or broke a piece from it, literally a fragment from it, according to the original Greek) and gave the rest to His disciples. He then issued a command: He told them to eat it - not from the bread that was probably directly in front of each of them, but from the same loaf He had blessed and given to them.
But why did Christ do this? Why did Christ take a loaf? Because of its symbolism. The bread represented, or symbolized Christ's body. Of course, the disciples probably didn't realize what Christ meant by all of this - they were oblivious to the fact that He was going to be crucified the very next day - within 24 hours. Not realizing this, they probably did not make the connection that the loaf would represent Christ's body, which would soon be dying on a cross to take away the sins of the world. Furthermore, we know the bread was unleavened because the Jews did not allow leaven in their homes during the Passover Feast (Exodus 12:15).
Next of all, Christ took "a cup" [containing liquid "fruit of the vine" or grapejuice]. He gave thanks [prayed] for it. He then gave this same cup to the disciples and asked each of them to drink from that cup. It is important to realize that although each of the disciples probably had individual cups in front of them (we'll see why in a moment), Christ did not "propose a toast" here - but rather, He asked His disciples to do something a bit strange - a bit inconvenient - something they would not understand until later. He asked them to all drink from the same cup, from His cup.
This is an important point that should not be "glossed over." Think about the extra effort required in what Christ did here. Wouldn't it have been easier and more sanitary for Christ to have asked each of them to eat the bread nearest them and perhaps directly in front of them? Wouldn't it have been more convenient for Him to have proposed a toast and asked each of His disciples to simply drink from their own cups that were undoubtedly sitting in front of them? But, instead, Christ asked His disciples to all share the same cup. Why? Why go to all this extra trouble? Was it all meaningless?
Of course, sincere Bible students realize that Christ did not conduct His life frivolously. Everything He did here had meaning, significance, and purpose. We are going to notice that not only did the loaf, cup, and fruit of the vine contain symbolism, but so also did the "oneness" of the loaf and cup. Said another way, the fact that there was only one cup and one loaf was just as symbolic as the loaf itself and the cup itself and the fruit of the vine itself. Paul explains all of this in I Corinthians 10, a passage we will notice shortly.
Finally, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus explains His actions. He explains that the "fruit of the vine" (v 29) they drank represented His blood, which in the next few hours He would shed for the forgiveness of the world's sins. (Note that Jesus did not use the common Biblical word "wine," but rather "fruit of the vine," strongly suggesting that this was not fermented wine, but the natural fruit, or product, of the vine.)
Later, in I Corinthians 11:25 (to be examined shortly), Paul will explain that not only did the fruit of the vine represent Christ's blood, but the cup from which He drank also had great symbolism; it represented the "New Testament" which was ratified by Christ's death on the cross.
The only other 2 accounts of Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-20, essentially say the same thing as Matthew 26:26-29.
A Brief Summary. In summary, Christ's example of the Communion went like this: He took a loaf of unleavened bread, He gave thanks for it, and He ate a fragment from it and then passed the loaf on to His disciples, commanding them to do the same.
He then took a cup containing "fruit of the vine"; He gave thanks for it, drank from it, and then gave the cup to His disciples commanding them to all drink from the same cup as well. While doing these things He explained what it all meant. The bread represented His own body (to be sacrificed shortly, like the Passover Lamb, for the sins of the whole world). We also know the cup represented the New Covenant between God and man (I Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8:7-13); and the fruit of the vine within the cup represented the blood He would soon shed. In essence, it was an extremely simple memorial packed with meaning.
HOW DID THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH OBSERVE
THE LORD'S SUPPER?
We've just noticed how Christ and His disciples observed the original institution of the Lord's Supper. We've seen how Christ went to special effort to be sure the disciples all drank from one cup and not from their own individual cups; and that they all ate from one loaf and not from individual pieces of bread; and how that basically everything He did had important symbolism.
Due to the special and particular effort of Christ in originating the Lord's Supper, it should come as no surprise that this is exactly the way the Apostolic churches of the 1st century were commanded to observe the Lord's Supper. Regardless of the many various and interesting man-made approaches to Communion among modern Christians, we're about to discover that the Church founded by Christ and established by His Apostles was strictly instructed to keep it exactly as it had been originally delivered by Christ.
I Corinthians 11:23-34. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he found himself writing to some spiritual babes in Christ who were having difficulty comprehending several fundamental concepts of Christianity. Among their challenges were divisions, gross immorality, and misunderstandings about the resurrection - to name a few.
Also among their problems was a misunderstanding concerning the correct observance of the Lord's Supper. Like many modern day churches, the Corinthians didn't realize it was unacceptable to observe the Lord's Supper "just any old' way you please." This is why I Corinthians 11 is an extremely important chapter, because it essentially silences any conjecture about how the Lord's Supper was to be properly observed.
According to I Corinthians 11:17-22, the Corinthians were divided. And although it's not completely clear just exactly what was going on at Corinth during Communion, fortunately it's not important to know all the trivial details. The main thing to know is that they were doing it wrong and Paul was about to tell them how to do it right:
“20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in your eating each one takes his own supper first... What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God...What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.”
Stern words indeed! The Corinthians had corrupted the Lord's Supper to Paul's conspicuous displeasure. And it no doubt shocked them to know they were not eating the Lord's Supper at all! They certainly thought so. After all, they were assembling, they were communing, and they were remembering Christ - weren't they? True, but the problem was that they had altered this simple memorial to the extent Paul would say, in effect, "it's not the Lord's Supper you're eating any more." In other words, they were eating their own Supper rather than the Lord's Supper.
What did Paul do to correct this situation? Did he give them some guidelines totally different from those Christ prescribed in Matthew 26:26-29? Quite to the contrary, Paul directed the Corinthians right back to the way the Supper had been originally observed (I Corinthians 11:23-27):
"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.’In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.‘ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”
Doesn't this sound familiar? Needless to say, Paul basically quotes the gospel accounts of how Christ observed the Communion, telling the Corinthians to do exactly the same. In other words, Paul vigorously urged the Corinthians to observe the Lord's Supper - not as they pleased - but exactly as Christ had originally ordained. Even though decades had passed since Christ, in that upper room in Jerusalem, had carefully demonstrated to His disciples proper observance of the Communion - they were still not at liberty "to do things their own way." Changes were not permissible.
But because of the problems the Corinthians were having with this simple memorial, Paul reminded them why it was important to keep it unaltered - because of the symbolism involved. He repeated that the bread represented the Body of Christ, and that the cup was "the new covenant in my blood." The cup literally stood for, or represented, the New Covenant of forgiveness between God and Mankind; a covenant ratified by Christ's blood (symbolized by the fruit of the vine within the cup).
Notice also that Christ commanded His disciples to "Do this" (v 24,25). This is a direct command to do exactly what Christ had done! Christ did not command the Corinthians to "do something else" but to "do this", that is to say, to do exactly what He had done in this simple memorial. Any change was precariously unauthorized.
Then, to remind them of the importance of the Lord's Supper, Paul went on in verse 26 to explain: "as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." The Lord's Supper was God's way of perpetually keeping the greatest sacrifice ever made before the human race.
Finally, in verse 27, Paul reminded them of the dangers of improperly observing this important memorial. He said: "...whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." A chilling statement indeed!
The Corinthians were observing the Lord's Supper "every first day of the week." It's very apparent that the Corinthians, under Paul's direction and instruction, were not observing this unprecedented memorial every Easter, nor were they practicing it just whenever they acquired a pious urge; rather, the Corinthians were attending to Communion every single first day of the week. (Notice that they weren't communing every "Sunday" but every "first day of the week" - a day which was understood by early Christians to be the first day following the Jewish Sabbath, i.e., a day which started at dusk on Saturday and ended at dusk on Sunday).
How do we know they communed every first day of the week? Because in I Corinthians 11:18-22 we find that the Corinthians were communing "when they came together." Later on, in I Corinthians 16:1-2, we discover exactly when the Corinthians "came together": "every first day of the week" - a time when they also made financial contributions to the Church, among other things. Therefore if they were coming together "every first day of the week," and if when they came together they were communing (I Corinthians 11:18), then obviously the Corinthians were partaking of the Lord's Supper every first day of the week. Acts 20:7, along with numerous historical references, provides further supporting evidence.
I Corinthians 10:16-17. As you can see, the Bible is incredibly harmonious and uncomplicated when it comes to Communion. And I Corinthians 10:16-17 is no exception:
“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?”
Notice that when the Corinthians drank of the one cup together, they were "sharing" in the blood of Christ (thus, the Lord's Supper is also called "Communion," which means "sharing," or "joint participation"). The point is, they were to share the one cup rather than drink from individual cups.”
With the bread it was the same. They were to share it as well, rather than have individual fragments of pre-broken bread. Paul explains this better in the next verse:
“17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.”
Paul makes it plain that all the Corinthians were partaking of "one bread." Why were they doing this? Why the inconvenience, why - as some would hysterically suggest - this needless exposure to germs? Because, according to Paul, the "oneness" of the bread represented unity in the body of Christ, or Church of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23). If one bread represents one body (or one unified Church), what do you think many individual loaves must represent to God? Would it not represent the division caused by the introduction of these innovations to worship?
There's no question that God considers division to be a great sin(I Corinthians 1:10). Soon we're going to show that it was not until almost 1900 that the concept of multiple cups and multiple loaves was sizably advanced among Christian churches - and it predictably led to immediate and major division.
When symbols are changed, meanings also change. As a final review, let's briefly inspect each item of the Communion containing symbolism:
1) The Bread symbolized the literal body of Christ, as well as the spiritual body of Christ, the Church.
2) The Cup symbolized the New Testament, or New Covenant, that God made with mankind.
3) The oneness of the loaf represented the unity of Christ's Church.
4) And the oneness of the cup represented the one and final New Testament, or Covenant, we have with God.
Obviously, if any of these symbolic items are changed, the symbolism changes too. And, the same reasoning used to justify one modification may also be used to justify any other modification.
For example, if I change the oneness of the cup (i.e., have multiple cups in Communion), why can't I change the contents to water, or coke? If I change the loaf to crackers, why not change it to a hamburger? In fact, why do I need to drink or eat anything during Communion? Isn't this a spiritual observance, anyway? Can't I just "think it?" After all, isn't remembering Christ the main idea? One of the inconsistencies in the logic of those who oppose Biblical Communion is that these same people would greatly object if someone decided to use water instead of grape juice or a hamburger instead of unleavened bread - and well they should.
It is also important to realize that while some items involved in the Communion were symbolic, some "items" were not. The things symbolic cannot be changed without destroying the intended symbolism. The things that are not symbolic are not important, and may be scripturally changed. They are "incidentals."
For example, Christ also commemorated the memorial at night, in an upper room, in Jerusalem, with 12 other men. Does this mean we all have to commune in Jerusalem, at night, in an upper room, with exactly 12 other men? Certainly, if Christ had given symbolism to any of these things then we would be required to copy His actions. However, because He did not, we don’t. In fact, it would be just as wrong to give symbolism to something that lacked it as it would be to take away symbolism from something that did not.
HOW DID THE JEWS OBSERVE
THE PASSOVER?
"Why is it important to know how the Jews observed the Passover?" someone might ask. As we have just seen, Christ chose to originate Communion just after the Passover Feast had ended. He did this for profound spiritual reasons. Paul referred to Christ as "our Passover Lamb" who was sacrificed for us (I Corinthians 5:7). Clearly, Paul was making a connection between Christ's crucifixion and the killing of the Passover lamb. Jesus was also called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:35). Therefore the fact that Christ chose to originate the Lord's Supper right after the Passover dinner and during the Passover feast itself was no accident. What this means is that understanding more about the Passover will only serve to help us better understand the Lord's Supper and how Christ expected us to observe it.
The Passover was an annual Jewish celebration of their freedom from Egyptian bondage under the leadership of Moses around 1500 B. C. The celebration, or "feast," lasted 7 days. The word "Passover" was derived from the 10th plague God sent on Egypt (when all the firstborn sons in Egypt were to be killed by the destroying angel - Exodus 12:3-40); the angel "passed over" the houses of the Israelites. The feast is also sometimes called "the Feast of Unleavened Bread" because the Israelites hastily baked unleavened bread before departing Egypt, thus the Jews were commanded to observe the Passover using only unleavened bread. During the Passover the Jews also developed customs over time that involved drinking "fruit of the vine" from various cups - a custom we will now notice in more detail.
Although we will not go into great detail about the Passover, let's briefly examine what historians and scholars have said regarding some of the Passover's mechanics. The following quotations we owe to the work of George Hogland in his tract "The Cup of the Lord, Is it the Fruit of the Vine Only?" Underlines have been added for emphasis:
Eadies Biblical Cyclopedia, by John Eadie
Comments on I Corinthians 10:16
“The master of the feast took a cup of wine in his hand and solemnly blessed God for it and for all the mercies which were then acknowledged. It was now passed to all the guests, each of whom drank of it in turn.”
Greek New Testament with English Notes, by J.A. Spencer
Comments on Mark 14:23
“At the Passover the guests all drank out of the same cup.”
Hastings Dictionary of the New Testament
Vol 2, pages 326-7
“A cup of red wine, mixed with water was poured out for each guest...at the Passover Supper each participant had his own cup to drink from...”
Lenski's the Interpretation of Matthew
Page 1027
“Whether a different cup was used for each of the four or five times of drinking in connection with the Passover, or whether only one cup was used and this was refilled as needed is not certain and quite immaterial. The point is that Jesus instituted the sacrament with the use of one cup and that He bade all the disciples to drink out of this one cup.”
The Broadman Bible Commentary
Page 164
“In common practice each person had his own cup in the celebration of the Passover. But here all the disciples drink from Jesus' cup. While realizing that some of these men were attaching their own opinions and comments, they seem to basically agree that each participant in the Passover had a cup of his own, although it was also common for the master of the Passover feast to have a common cup from which all the participants drank. It's therefore readily apparent that these historical/ scholarly accounts fit flawlessly with the Biblical description of how Jesus observed Communion. He took His cup, blessed it, and passed it to each of His disciples. Although they had their own cups and easily could have used them, Jesus insisted that they all drink from His.”
HOW DID THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH
OBSERVE COMMUNION?
We've already shown how Christ observed the Communion; and we've shown how Paul instructed the early Church to follow the same original pattern. We've seen that historical accounts of the Passover also harmonize seamlessly with the Biblical account. But what about early Church history? How did the Church observe the Communion after the death of the Apostles? How was it done in the 2nd Century and beyond?
While baptism, Church government, worship, and many other original patterns of worship were rapidly revised after the passing of the Apostles - one-cup Communion, by contrast, was such a simple fact of plain Biblical interpretation that it remained intact for almost 1900 years.
Naturally, it's greatly inadvisable to pattern today's Church after any historical church excepting the one described in the Bible, for one can cite all sorts of godless acts performed officially by "churches of Christendom" down through the ages. However, history is valuable in that it reveals important information concerning how the vast majority of Christian churches observed Communion before they became too steeped in the Apostatizing influences of the Roman Catholic Church.
So, let's look at some historical quotes of the early Church regarding Communion. We owe thanks for most of these to J. D. Phillips' tract: "The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness Being a Treatise to Restore the Scriptural Observance of the Lord's Supper":
Ante-Nicene Fathers
Vol. 1, page 81
Quote of Ignatius, bishop in the Church at Antioch, martyred in 107
“There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of His blood...”
Vol. 1, page 185
Justin Martyr (Christian leader martyred in 165)
“There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine. The sacrifice which we offer in His name, according to the commandment of Jesus Christ, i.e., in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Cup, and which are offered by Christians in all places throughout the world.”
Against Heresies
By Irenaeus (130-202?), bishop of Lyons
“...the bread and the mingled cup...the cup of the Eucharist, the communion of His blood...When the mingled cup and the...bread received the Word of God, the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ.”
The Ante-Nicene Fathers to 325 A.D.
Vol VII, Page 554 [quote taken from about 200 A.D.]
“The priest...says a prayer...then breaks the bread, and holds the half in his right hand, and the half in his left...And when he gives a single piece to each chalice, he says...”
Ad Caecilium Dominici Calicis, Ep 63, 62, 16
Cyprian, Christian martyred in 258 A.D.
“Since Christ says: "I am the true vine," the blood of Christ is not, therefore, water, but wine; nor can His blood appear to be in the cup by which we have been redeemed and made alive, when the wine is absent from the chalice by which the blood of Christ is shown forth...Seeing that they drink the cup of Christ's blood..."
Ambrose (340-397), bishop at Milan
Theodorst Hist. Eccl.
Vol 17
“We, receiving of one loaf and one cup are receivers and partakers of the body of the Lord...With what rashness dost thou [the Emperor Theodosius] take with thy mouth the cup of precious blood, when by the fury of thy words innocent blood has been spilt.”
Ambrose (340-397), bishop at Milan
Book on the Sacraments
L. IV, Ch. 4
“Wine is put into the cup...”
Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Antioch
Chrysostom (347-407), bishop at Constantinople
“One body is now available for all, and one cup...”
Ad Neophytos, I
Augustine (354-430), early Christian writer
“Receive in the cup that which was shed from Christ's side...”
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
Second Series, Vol 14, Page 138-9
“The others [deacons] bring and set upon the altar the breads and chalices prepared for the sacred banquet...then taking his inspiration from the last words...and declaring that it is in order to observe this memorial...this eucharistic bread and wine...”
What history seems to be saying is that, while a few isolated cases of multi-cup Communion started emerging by 200 A.D., and while other innovations to Communion were also surfacing (wine in Communion, transubstantiation, etc) the vast majority of early "Christian" churches worshipped as Christ and the Apostles had done - with one cup and one loaf. It was apparently not until almost 200 years after Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper that any case of individual cups in Communion could be found whatsoever. In fact, even with the many false teachers about whom Christ and the apostles had warned the Church repeatedly, it was not until almost 1900 that multiple cups/loaves in Communion became widespread in any Christian church of any sort.
While infant baptism, superstitions, and various blatant doctrinal errors flooded Christian churches almost immediately - one-cup Communion remained constant for practically 1900 years. And this shouldn't come as a big surprise considering the utter plainness and simplicity of the Bible on this topic.
WHEN DID SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OCCUR
IN THE COMMUNION, AND WHY?
As has just been noted, although isolated cases of individual cups can be found in history, the vast majority of Christian churches clung quite adamantly to one-cup Communion. As has been mentioned, it was apparently not until almost 1900 that widespread changes were made to the Lord's Supper. Though several men have clamored to take "credit" for the lamentable Church divisions caused by these innovations, it seems the man most deserving was the "Reverend" and Presbyterian preacher J. G. Thomas, MD, who was granted a patent in 1894 for individual cups. His congregation was presumably the first to use patented multiple cups for Communion. Of course, their introduction received bitter opposition in virtually all denominations.
G. C. Brewer, in his book Forty Years on the Firing Line (1948), boasted: "I think I was the first preacher to advocate the use of the individual communion cup and the first church in the State of Tennessee that adopted it was the church for which I was preaching...after a long struggle, I got the individual communion service into [another congregation]. Of course, I was fought both privately and publicly and several brethren took me to task in the religious papers and called me digressive."
The Lutherans were strongly opposed to the introduction of individual cups. Listen to the Lutheran commentator Lenski on Luke 22:20: "...Jesus instituted the sacrament with a common cup that was used for all the disciples. Any change in what Jesus did, which has back of it the idea that he would not do the same thing today for sanitary or esthetic reasons, casts a reflection on Jesus which is too grave to be allowed when He is giving us His sacrificial blood to drink."
Why all the change after 1900 years?
One might wonder why, after so many centuries, Christians suddenly "got the urge" to alter what Jesus, the Apostles, and the vast majority of Christian churches throughout the ages had consistently practiced. The motives behind these changes are rather predictable. After 1900 years of adhering relatively close to the Apostolic pattern - due to 19th century medical research - the world was becoming more and more aware of little, microscopic organisms called "germs."
Due to the discovery of these germs, apparently some religious leaders felt it was time to take decisive action for the safety of the churches. They ostensibly believed that Christ and Paul had either overlooked or totally forgotten about these little organisms when instructing the disciples and early congregations to all drink from a common cup. But doesn't it seem odd that Christ and the Holy Spirit - both directly involved in the universe's creation - somehow unanimously and inexplicably acquired "bacterial amnesia" until primitive 19th century scientists helped them out?
"the foolishness of God is wiser than men"
(I Corinthians 1:25).
Yet, incredibly, after almost 1900 years, "modern man" felt he had discovered something God had overlooked, felt he had a "better idea," an idea that was destined from baseless fears to destroy the simple symbolism intended by Christ in the Communion and divide churches across the world.
Thus, germs were the culprits precipitating the wave of fear in the Church, fear of the unknown. This anxiety immediately compelled some to consider alternatives to the scriptural method of Communion. And it wasn't long before scriptural justifications for such innovations were being carefully crafted. In a moment we will notice some of the complicated and convoluted argumentation invented to confuse this otherwise rudimentary issue and thus win followers - argumentation used by those who had decided first that cups would be necessary for hygienic reasons before finally looking to the Scriptures for divine justification.
It's also worth noting that this new-found logic was unknown before men decided they wanted to use multiple cups in the Communion. Believe it or not, scholars did not read all the plain Bible verses on Communion and then exclaim: "We should have been using multiple cups all along!" It was clearly the other way around. It was first decided - due to the discovery of germs - that individual cups would be necessary; then men looked for Biblical justification.
You can accept the authority of Christ by doing what He commanded (Matthew 7:21; John 14:15; 15:10-14; Luke 6:46). Notice the pattern for becoming a Christian as revealed in the Scriptures. The Gospel was heard, resulting in faith (Romans 10:17). Repentance of (turning away from) sin (Acts 17:30) and confession of Jesus as the Son of God followed (Romans 10:10). Believers were baptized INTO Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins (See Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Peter 3:20-21), and added to His church (Acts 2:47). Christians were taught to be faithful even to the point of death (Revelation 2:10).
Following the instructions of the Scriptures, members of Christ’s body assemble as congregations for worship, encouragement, and Bible study. The congregation in your community welcomes you to investigate the Bible with us. With a spirit of brotherly love we would seek to reconcile any differences by following the Bible ONLY. We recognize the Bible as God’s inspired word, the ONLY reliable standard of faith and practice. We desire the unity for which Christ prayed and which the Bible emphasizes in the expression, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Together we seek to maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
A friendly welcome awaits you. We do not wish to embarrass you in any way. You will not be asked for contributions. We assemble for Bible study and worship each Sunday morning and we welcome you to meet with us. We would be happy to talk to you about your questions and we want to be of encouragement. Please e-mail me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com for comments or further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.
No comments:
Post a Comment