Do you see in that text the implication (at least) that the Lord’s Supper was not a ritual or ceremony, but an actual meal, which the church shared? I can imagine the partaking of the bread and wine existing then as a special moment, maybe as a break in the eating, as the pastor re-focuses the attention of the congregation, calling for momentary silence as he recounts the story of the original Supper.

I had a few things to say about that, but the post got so long that I decided to leave them out (and a few other minor things as well).

I do not believe that a bite-sized cracker and a 1/10 of a ’shot’ of grape juice is what the Lord/Paul had in mind when instructing us to partake. This has actually been a big discussion as of late on a reformed baptist email list I subscribe to, so its fresh in my mind. But I’m not sure it was a full meal, as Paul says if you’re hungry, eat at home. I do think however that the purpose was to savor the proclamation, much more than the common setup allows for now. I am not a big fan of the way its commonly done now, but I also don’t think that it’s really a hill to die on. I can put up with the grape juice and crackers if my leaders think it is better that way.

Let me pull up some of the recent recommendations by others on this topic and I’ll get back to you.

You are quoting a Presbyterian(Horton) on the Lord’s Supper.Remember that Scripturally unbaptized people can’t be added to the visible church according to Acts 2 so they have no grounds for the Lord’s Supper.Ha Ha ! That was for Tim(Pet Peeve).
Our Baptist Church takes wine and grape juice(We are moving away from offering juice) and we break the loaf of bread and we let the people pull from the loaf. Since we are a full closed communion church and we serve it to church members only we don’t have to worry about the unbaptized. Do you believe that wine only should be served because it is quite clear that was made clear in 1 Cor 11 ? The Scripture never says the word immerse in baptism but we see the meaning in the greek( To dip, put under) and we clearly see people in Scripture going into the water and coming out of the water and many other passages that clearly show immersion. So we Baptists would never sprinkle then why do we continue to serve grape juice and little small crackers instead of the one loaf which pictures also church relations. I’m so thankful for this blog ! You are not afraid to dig and challenge our thinking. Let me clear the record once and for all( Tim’s comments) I’m concerned about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper because I see Baptists slowly moving more to accept the Presbyterians on these things but I do love my brothers( Presbyterians) but they walk disorderly and it has major consequences to being added to the visible church and taking the Lord’s Supper. Great Post !

Although this is beside the current subject, defining “baptizo” strictly as “to dip or to put under” is simply an oversimplification of the meaning of the word. I don’t hesitate for one moment that baptizo means to immerse. But one can be immersed by affusion (pouring)also. There are at least two Scriptural examples that corroborate this fact.

1. The passage where Scribes complained that the disciples ate with “unwashed hands.” The word translated is baptizo. Historical records are very clear on how they “washed” (baptized) their hands. One of the servants would literally pour the water over their hands as they washed them.

2. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is undeniably compared to a “pouring out” of the Spirit.

Acts 2:17, 18
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh…And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:”

Acts 10:45
“…On the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Also many of the Anabaptists practiced baptism by affusion, and also many of the church fathers. Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not for sprinkling. I believe the person must be “immersed.” But to give baptizo a very a wooden definition such as exclusively dipping is an oversimplification of the matter.

By way of agreement let me quote from “A modern exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith” by Sam Waldron, Pages 372-373.

“What is it to partake unworthily? Worthiness here is not a matter of legal merit, but of gospel propriety. There is such a thing as gospel worthiness. Revelation 3:4;Ephesians 4:1; Matthew 10:11, 37-38; Philippians 1:27;Colossians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:12 all contain the same root used in 1 Corinthians 11:27,29. Worthiness is a matter of, firstly, remembering Christ in our partaking (vv.24-26) believingly and personally; secondly, examining ourselves (v.29), proving and approving ourselves as those who are remembering Christ in the Supper and not thinking of the Supper as common food; thirdly. discerning the body (v.29), believingly appreciating the holy symbolism and spiritual significance of the Supper; and, fourthly judging ourselves (v.31), passing judgment on our failure to remember Christ in the Supper and repenting of such failure. If we truly believe that the Supper symbolizes the Lord’s death and partake of it mindful of that reality, we are worthy. Worthiness is not a matter of passing a morbid, super-strict examination of our lives during the previous month. It is a matter of seeing the Lord’s Table for what it is and taking it as a repentant and believing sinner. Paul nowhere encourages Christians to stay away from the Table. He everywhere encourages them to come in a right way. Staying away only says, ‘I refuse to repent of my profance approach to the Lord’s Table’”.

As to the symbols it ought to be very clear and simple…Christ took the bread and broke it….it was a) bread (not wafers or anything else, probably acceptable but why not just use common bread?) b) one piece of bread that was broken. Likewise it was wine and almost certainly one cup. Also I believe the emblems should be taken in unison, not as we receive them into our hand, but all together, in other words when we have all broken off a piece of bread then we eat together, when we all have a cup of wine then we drink together, or if we are using one cup, we can take it individually as it is passed around, the single cup functions as the unifying emblem.

This is an important subject, and this discussion is very helpful.

JP

Thanks for your comments. The church I Pastor is a 1689 confession church. With that being said we have 60 members and we all take from the one loaf after it is broken and we serve wine and grape juice and are moving away from juice. In your opinion based on Scripture should a church only serve wine ? I feel like we Baptists are not consistent when we say that we see Scripture teaching and showing us immersion for Baptism but we are afraid to use wine in the Supper. We only have two adults that take the juice and our converted teenagers and children. The two adults have both told me and my other Elder that they know Scripture points to wine and give them some time to work through it. Nobody brings alcohol to church fellowships but I feel strongly that we are not correct in using grape juice. Has anybody heard this line ” What about the recovering alcoholic ? I hear it all the time. There were drunks in Jesus days on the earth. Paul never told the churches to stop and even in Corinth where he rebuked some for being drunk at the Supper. Anybody ?????????

I think my opinion accords with yours…this is a symbolic meal and so the symbols are important.

I would say that firstly the bread should be bread….I can think of no reason why anything but bread should be used. Don’t know where the wafers idea came from (though I have suspicions)….secondary in importance I can see no reason why we shouldn’t use just one lump of bread, and while we need not interpret Scripture with such literalness all the time why not in this case? Nothing is so simple as to just have bread. Bit of a “no-brainer” when you think of it, or am I missing something?

Now on the wine, what is of primary importance is to maintain the symbolism…it must be red. I jest you not but I have heard (but can’t give a corroborating reference) that at least some missionaries in Africa were pemitted to use milk as wine was not available. To my mind this is plain crazy. The wine represents the blood of Christ…it must be red, I might concede that wine cannot be had in Africa everywhere but surely there would be something that could at least dye water red? That said for the rest of us why not literallly use wine. Non-alcoholic wine is available (that’s what we use), on occasion we have used real wine with no complaints, which is my preference. Incidentally it was not uncommon in the ancient world to water down wine (see Homer’s Odyssey etc.) but it was still alcoholic to a good degree.

With regard to the recovering alcoholic I personally am uneasy about altering the ordinances in any way to accomodate the perceived weaknessess of humanity. I have heard it said in one particular instance that it was impossible to baptise someone because of their weakness and illness. I doubt that. Obedience to Christ is never something that tempts to sin or causes harm, and if it is a means of grace how would this be possible?…..however I suppose we could apply some common wisdom at times….the main issue is that of the red/blood symbolism….to my mind this cannot be compromised.

In summary….I think the wine should be red wine of some sort or other (if someone has a conscience regarding alcohol search and see if you can get a non-alcoholic communion wine), and the bread should be one loaf (or lump of bread)…maintain the symbolism at all costs…I think that is the most important thing.

If I can think of anything else I’ll chip in again.

JP

In regards to wine versus grape juice, I would tend to agree with you on that, but I haven’t thought it all out. The concern I have is with believers under 21yrs of age. Certainly they cannot break the law in that regard, and so are they then unable to obey biblically? Personally, I find JP’s point about it being ‘red’ intriguing, but even still, we’re basing a whole lot on implications of the text rather than what the text says explicitly.

Bread, yes, should be one loaf, that much is clear. The wafer idea is strange to me as well –don’t know where that came from!

Nevertheless, we are in the process of visiting two separate churches right now. We have also participated in the Lord’s Supper with each of them, and it was a wonderful time. Considering that we might visit these churches for months before we decide where to join, I find it very difficult to accept that we are just supposed to ‘abstain’ from the Supper because of closed communion. Closed communion, while I agree in the principle you are trying to adhere to, just seems to me as a stretch, both biblically and practically. That’s just my thoughts; I’ll have to study it further.

Thanks for your comments. And JP, I certainly applaud your comments. Thank you.

SDG

JP

Well put my friend ! Read Dr. John Gill in his Body of Divinity on the Lord’s Supper concerning that the wine needs to be red and not white ! Also, you are one of the first to say that we have no authority to change from wine to grape juice because of alcoholics. The real issue is what authority do we have to change it for weak humanity. I’m not trying to be uncaring to people but what is clear in Scripture can’t change.
Good post !

Here’s a sermon by William B. Sprague which deals at some length with why wine should be used in the ordinance….look about 2/3 the way down I think. It’s a little off-topic so I’ll make no more comment.

http://www.naphtali.com/overwise.htm

JP

Again, the only objective I have with using alcoholic wine is the restraints of the law in regards to minors. That is a tough situation. Also, there certainly isn’t a command telling us to ‘make sure’ and use the hard stuff

The Reformers and Puritans frequently referred to the ordinance as a “visual sermon”, and so that necessitates that the emblem be reasonably similar to the reality, this together with the communicant’s meditation on the meaning of the emblem is the core of what the Supper is about (along with the bread of course).

In short, in my opinion whether the wine is alcoholic or not is at least secondary and perhaps of no consequence at all. Wine was what they had in Palestine and therefore of necessity that is what Christ used to create this ordinance symbolic of his atoning death. Theoretically speaking, my own opinion is that Christ could equally have used fresh red grape juice if it had been available.

As an interesting aside I have heard it said in a sermon that New Testament wine (specifically the wine at the wedding at Cana) was not alcoholic because Christ would never have carried out a miracle that evidenced corruption (through sin). The preacher said fermentation was a corruptive process and therefore a consequence of the Fall. This to my mind is plain bizarre as when Christ turned two dead fishes into baskets and baskets of dead fish, the fish were dead to begin with and no less dead at the end of the meal and so Christ did do miracles which showed evidence of corruption; death being the ultimate evidence of corruption via sin.

Anyway, back to the subject. The legalities of wine taking within the UK are different because the age limits are younger, but it presents an interesting conundrum to you guys in the US. However if you agree with my view that the primary element is the symbolism of the wine, perhaps the wisest course is either to use alcohol-free wine or continue to use some form of red grape juice. I personally wouldn’t get too hung-up about it.

JP

Are you guys talking about a regular loaf of bread? Should we not use unleavened bread. After all, this is what the Jews ate for the passover (Lord’s Supper is the NT passover) , and, besides, leaven is undoubtedly a picture of sin (Christ bore our sin, but nevertheless, was sinless).

Again I’m not sure why we don’t just use unleavened bread as you say this would seem to fit best with what actually took place in the upper room. That said I wouldn’t personally get too hung up as long as the symbolism is maintained (see above). Does anybody know if any of the Reformers or Church Fathers wrote on the subject of the wine and bread? I would be interested to know when the changes from normal wine and unleavened bread took place and if there are any sensible reasons given.

JP

I think you raise an interesting question. This verse seems to indicate that the leaven was symbolic for evil deeds:

Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. - 1 Cor 5

Have been doing some thinking on the unleavened bread issue.

We need to be careful that we don’t stretch things beyond where they should go and perhaps enter into a little allegorical interpretation. Don’t get me wrong though, there can be little doubt that Christ did use red wine and unleavened bread in the Upper Room, however none of the Apostles elaborate, nor does Christ himself elaborate on the details. The simple terms of wine and bread are used without further qualification. There are no interpretative gymnastics needed to arrive at the fact that if we are bound to follow the exact details of Christ’s institution that we should have red wine, probably one cup, and one lump of unleavened bread. However The key to the supper is the symbolism however and since there are no specific instructions in Scripture if we maintain the symbolism then there can be some flexibility in the actual elements. The elements are clear are unmistakable, wine and bread, but what do they symbolise?

The bread was most likely unleavened but Christ does not stipulate, nor do any of the Apostles that this must be the case. The bread represents the body of Christ, now in our mind we can think of many ways in which it represents Christ’s body, but the plain words Christ says are, “This is my body broken for you”. I don’t think the symbol is meant to represent anything else, such as sin. The bread represents the body of Christ who is the “staple”, only food whereby we receive eternal life, just as bread is the “staple” or was, of physical life. That seems to be to the symbolism, without reference at all to sinlessness or sinfulness in either Christ or us who partake of it.

It is possible that the emblems could have dual or multiple symbolisms attached to them but it is unlikely, such an approach would be more akin to allegorical interpretation than I would be comfortable with.

We also need to consider why Unleavened bread was used in the Passover, again this was not so far as I can detect because of any link with sin or iniquity per se but rather, (see Exodus 12:34-39) unleavened bread was used only because as they left Egypt they did not have time to wait for the bread to rise under the influence of the yeast, their leaving was to be with haste. So the symbolism of the Passover bread is not directly linked to sin or iniquity either.

One final point, leaven is not uniformly used in the NT with connotations of sin and iniquity, certainly it is used that way, but note for example Matt 13:33 which compares the kingdom of God to leaven…..a mysterious, powerful, unstoppable, spreading force for good shall we say .

Interested to hear your thoughts.

JP

Good stuff guys ! These comments have caused me to go to Scripture and really search. We have been using red wine for about a year and the bread and not the little” Whatever you call it”. Not to beat this horse in the ground but I do want further comments with you guys on this because I take these questions serious and so did our early Baptist brothers such as Kiffin(Sober Discourse and Right to Church Communion), Gill, Brine, and early Southern Baptist. Here is my question realating to the Supper concerning our Padeobaptist brothers:

1. As Baptists do we believe Padeobaptism is Scriptural Baptism ? My answer is NO !

2. What two things does Acts 2:41 say happened before these new converts were added to that church ? My answer is Conversion and Baptism. In other words Baptism puts us into the local” Visible ” church. Notice in Acts 2 that the Supper came behind baptism.

3. Work with me on this question: If a person received the Word( Conversion) and was sprinkled upon that Profession of Faith would the early disciples have allowed them to come into the local ” Visible” church ? My answer is NO. Why because sprinkling before or after conversion is not baptism.

4. Is the Lord’s Supper a local ” Visible” church ordinance ? My answer is yes. In otherwords the universal church does not gather all togther at one time, no officers to serve it and I could go on and on….. Only the local” Visible” church is to baptize and serve the Supper ? My answer is yes.

5. How are the unbaptized ever put in a visible church ? Are the unbaptized walking disorderly ? My answer is yes. 2 Thess 3:6 says we are to withdraw from them and thats why Baptists don’t put them into local “Visible Church” membership and therefore they are not to take the Supper.

6. Can anyone show me in Scripture where any unbaptized person ever took the Supper ? My answer is all that took it were baptized ! Were the disciples baptized before they took the Supper with Jesus ? Yes !

You said: Unleavened bread was [not] used in the Passover…because of any link with sin or iniquity per se but rather was used only because as they left Egypt they did not have time to wait for the bread to rise under the influence of the yeast, their leaving was to be with haste. So the symbolism of the Passover bread is not directly linked to sin or iniquity either.”

I strongly disagree with this statement. Unleavened bread was not an option. Leaven was always connected with sin in the Law. Consider these verses:

“Even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.” (Ex. 12:15)

“Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread” (Exodus 12:20)

“Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.” (Ex. 13:7)

We must also remember that the Lord’s supper IS the passover. That’s why Christ broke bread on the Day of the Passover.

You misunderstand me, probably because I wrote it wrong! Of course you are right, the unleavened bread HAD to be taken, and disobedience to the direct command of God to take it was clearly sin…what I meant was that the only REASON (maybe rationale would be a better word) given by to explain the symbolism of the Unleavened bread is that of NECESSARY HASTE, what I mean is I can’t think of anywhere where God told them Leaven was emblematic of sin (as far as I can see, please do put me right if there is further explanation somewhere else,).

Exodus 12:39 “39 And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they had brought out of Egypt; for it was not leavened, because they were driven out of Egypt and could not wait, nor had they prepared provisions for themselves.”

I didn’t mean you to think that I believe it was only circumstances that necessitated them using unleavened bread clearly God commanded it. Fingers working quicker than brain!

Leaven is interesting of course and seems to be connected with decay (and therefore sin) and espeically of the pervasive power of sin over mankind see e.g. Lev 3:11 where it was not permitted in any offerings made to God. Even here we’re not told as far as I can see why this should be the case.

It seems to me that the OC Unleavened Bread is prophetic of the sinlessness of Christ…the pervasiveness of sin being conquered in Him. Still I’m not sure we need to use it in the Lord’s Supper to fulfill the symbolism but, on the other hand I can think of no reason why we shouldn’t just use it.

JP

“One is to be neither superstitious nor concerned regarding the kind of bread and wine. The bread and wine which Christ used were such as were available and in common use. It is credible that in light of the Passover Christ used unleavened bread; but that was incidental, for leavened bread was neither permitted to be used not was it available in Jersualem at that time [he means during the festival]. It is therefore not necessary to follow suit in this respect. It must be bread which one commonly uses for nourishment, thus to typify the spiritual nourishment of the soul. The wafers of the Papists and the Lutherans consist more of foam than of bread, and are not suitable for nourishing and strengthening. This is contrary to the institution of the Lord’s Supper; Christ had no wafers, but took bread, broke off fragments and gave them to the disciples. He did not give a wafer to anyone. As we may not be superstitious relative to the bread, so we must not be superstitious relative to the wine; that is. whether it be pure or diluted with water. The latter is customary in warm countries to prevent it from being overheated. However, it must be “fruit of the vine” (Matt. 26:29). It is also immaterial whether one drinks from a cup or a glass; likewise the manner in which it is done. Common substances must be used without superstition”

I think that pretty much sums up where I stand on the issue.

Going back to Nathan’s orginal post, which we should probably all do! I would reccomend getting hold of Sam Waldron, quoted above, Thomas Watson - The Lord’s Supper (Puritan Paperback) and The Lord’s Supper by Thomas Dolittle (Sola Deo Gloria). These all more or less follow Nathan’s line on self-examination which I accord with.

Scott, still doing some research on your questions regarding permitting Presbyterians to commune. It’s not an easy one. Maybe you need a blog of your own and then we can all go there and hassle you instead of Nathan! (BTW Scott, because of how emails and text come out some times that’s meant to be humourous and not a sarcastic dig at you for bringing it up brother, it is a good question)

JP

I was thinking and it seems a fair question to me. I agree that baptism should be proper and that membership into a local church should require baptism. So I put forth a scenario and ask how you would deal with it?

A person makes a profession of faith in your church, then you what? (a) immediately baptize them (b) put them through a rigorous new members class (c)wait till you have enough people to fill the baptismal pool.

Now, let’s say there is a communion service immediately following their profession. Unless you do (a) then are you not withholding the table from one who has openly professed Christ and you have not followed the precise pattern of Acts 2 (immediately baptizing)? I don’t know how you do things there. I am just asking per our conversation the other day.