Biblical Analysis of the Lord's Supper

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#1
In light of the discussions in the Forum on consuming blood , let me suggest a Biblical analysis of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist).
Let's start with patterns (types) of it in the OT.

The first pattern would be the annual Passover, out of which the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) was instituted.
It was a commemoration of their deliverance from the angle of death, by the blood of the lamb in Egypt;
which Jesus changed to a commemoration of our deliverance from eternal death, by the blood of the Lamb on Calvary (1Co 11:25).
In the Passover meal, they were commanded to eat the flesh of the lamb that was slain.

A second pattern of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) would be the peace, or fellowship, sacrifice of Lev 3 (also 7:14-21, 19:5-8).
There were five different sacrifices in Israel: the guilt offering, the sin offering, the peace or fellowship offering, the grain offering, and the burnt offering.
But only one of these was eaten by the Israelite, and that was the peace or fellowship offering.

The purpose of this offering was threefold: peace with God, thanksgiving to God, and fellowship with God and the priest who offered it, through consumption of the sacrifice by both of them. The blood of this sacrifice was sprinkled on the brazen altar, which is a pattern of Christ who bore our guilt, and of his blood which cleanses our guilt. The flesh of this sacrifice was eaten in a fellowship or communion meal where, on the basis of the sacrifice, the Israelite received or participated in the benefits of the sacrifice, which were restoration of peace and fellowhip with God.

A third pattern of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) is the covenant meal on Mt. Sinai in Ex 24:4-11.
Having made atonement by burnt offering (v. 5), a covenant is established between God (represented by an altar, which were erected to honor God--Ge 8:20, 12:7, 13:18, 26:25, 33:20, 35:1; Ex 17:15) and Israel (represented by 12 pillars), probably with Moses passing between them as Mediator (Ex 32:30), as in Ge 15:8-9. The covenant was then ratified by the consent of both parties, and sealed by the sprinkliing of blood on both parties (vv. 6-8). Being sealed in covenant with them, God then admits them near to him (vv. 9-10), where they feast on the fellowship offering (v. 5) in the presence of God (v. 11; cf Dt 27:7), receiving or participating in the benefits of it because of that covenant.

This is the most complete pattern of the Lord's Supper, or Eucharist (Mt 26:26-28),
showing the covenant established on the basis of shed blood,
and the sacrificial meal whereby they participated in the benefits of the sacrifice, because of the covenant established in its blood.

Throughout the Bible, eating is a symbol of communion with; e.g., in Rev 3:20, Jesus says, "Here I am. I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me," a symbol of our communion with Jesus. And in Rev 29, we have the marriage supper of the Lamb, a symbol of the communion of the Church (called-out people of God) with Jesus (cf Mt 8:11; Lk 13:29, 22:30; Song of Sol 2:4).

Which brings us to our fourth pattern of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist), and that is the feeding of the 5,000 in Jn 6. There those who have received comfort from the works and words of Jesus are made to recline in a beautiful and comfortable place (v. 10), and are served a feast which satiated them all, as they ate and rejoiced with one another in the love of Jesus. And out of this fellowship meal of Jn 6:1-15 came the discourse of Jn 6:30-60 on eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which many of the disciples were not able to accept, Jesus himself linking the two (Jn 6:26-32).

It is Paul who puts all of these patterns together in 1Co 10:16 when he says, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation (communion) in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a participation (communion) in the body of Christ?" In 1Co 11:27 he says, "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. . .For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." And in 1Co 11:30, he applies to the Lord's Supper the regulation of Lev 7:20 on the fellowship offering.

So, in light of all the above, we can see what Jesus means at the Last Supper when he takes bread, gives thanks, gives it to them and says, "Take and eat; this is my body." And when he takes the cup, gives thanks, gives it to them and says, "Drink. . .this is my blood of the new covenant. . ." (Mt 26:26-28). To eat his flesh and to drink his blood in the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) is to participate in, or to receive, the benefits of the sacrifice of that flesh and blood.
And the OT patterns show us what those benefits are: passing over me of God's just judgment on my sin, and cleansing of my guilt, which establishes peace (Ge 26:28-30, 31:51-54) between me and God, reconciling or restoring me to him, and bringing me into personal and intimate fellowship (Ex 18:9-12) with him in a transforming process.

So, the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) is that NT sacrificial meal where, on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ,
we have communion with God and with Christ (the priest who offered it).
At the same time, the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) is also a proclamation of our faith in that sacrifice of his body and blood to save us (1Co 11:26).
So that the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) is both a proclamation of our faith in Christ's sacrifice to save us (1Co 11:26), and a receiving of or participating in the benefits of his sacrifice through that faith in him (1Co 10:16).
And for those who are trusting everything on the sacrifice of Jesus to save them, the Holy Spirit makes the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) a very personal, profound and powerful proclamation of their absolute trust in him, which is one of the purposes for which Jesus instituted it.

We can also see now why Christ insists five times in Jn 6:51-56 that it is only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood who have eternal life; i.e., it is only those who look to and trust on his sacrifice who receive the benefits of that sacrifice, which is eternal life. These include not only the benefits of his earthly ministry of sin-bearing, but also the benefits of his heavenly ministry of interceding (Heb 7:25), and of sanctifying, transforming (2Co 3:18), and preserving (keeping) us for glory (Jn 10:28), through his Spirit (Jn 15:26). Christ's heavenly ministry is one of applying the redemption he obtained in his earthly ministry.

And just as the Israelites received the benefits of their sacrifice when they participated in the fellowship meal (Ex 24:4-11; Lev 7:14-21), so we receive the benefits of Christ's redemptive sacrifice when we participate in the Lord's Supper (in the same way we receive those benefits in feeding on the Word of God, in prayeer, and in obedience). And finally, Jesus' emphatic insistance here on our trusting in his sacrifice points up the inadequacy of all (modern) notions of faith in Christ that come short of faith in his shed blood (Ro 3:25); i.e., his work on Calvary.

SUMMARY:
The Lord's Supper is that act of worship given to us by Jesus himself
to be the proclamation of the very heart of the gospel and of our faith in him,
in which the Holy Spirit bears powerful witness in the heart of the believer (1Jn 5:10) of the reality of Jesus' work on the cross saving him personally (Jn 16:14-15),
and where the benefits of that finished work are communicated to the believer in reality, and not just symbolically,
thus trasnsforming him from glory to glory (as he likewise transforms us in feeding on the Word of God, in prayer, and in obedience),
and making the Lord's Supper that supreme (and precious) NT act of worship (Ac 2:42)
proclaiming and communicating the benefits of that supreme (and precious) NT work of Jesus on Calvary.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#3
I like the much needed emphasis on the Supper being a 'proclamation';
but of the Sacrament of the Word and the Lord's Supper why do you suppose the Word is way more emphasized for growth over the observance of the Supper in the NT?
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#4
this basically summarizes why i prefer the doctrine of 'real presence'...that the bread and wine in communion is literally jesus' body and blood...
 
Jan 17, 2013
612
19
18
#5
Excellent article, Elin. Praise God.

If I may add...

The Real Presence
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).
"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

The Real Presence
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#6
Excellent article, Elin. Praise God.

If I may add...

The Real Presence
Yes, the patterns of the Lord's Supper in the OT are sacrificial meals, partaking of the sacrifice, and receiving its benefits into themselves.
So the Lord's Supper is the NT sacrificial meal, partaking in the sacrifice, and receiving its benefits into ourselves.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#7
I like the much needed emphasis on the Supper being a 'proclamation';
but of the Sacrament of the Word and the Lord's Supper why do you suppose the Word is way more emphasized for growth over the observance of the Supper in the NT?
It seems informed faith is necessary for growth. (Heb 5:11-14)

And the Lord's Supper received in faith is based in knowing what it means and what it effects.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#8
It seems informed faith is necessary for growth. (Heb 5:11-14)

And the Lord's Supper received in faith is based in knowing what it means and what it effects.
So you would say the Word is foundational ('based in knowing') to the Sacrament?
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#10
So you would say the Word is foundational ('based in knowing') to the Sacrament?
I would say foundational to growth in faith regarding it, not to the sacrament itself.
 
Last edited:

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#11
I would say foundational to growth in faith regarding it, not to the sacrament itself.
Paraphrasing Luther, 'the Sacrament is the Word wrapped in flesh and blood and without the Word it is mere bread and wine.'
How would you respond?
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#12
Paraphrasing Luther, 'the Sacrament is the Word wrapped in flesh and blood and
without the Word it is mere bread and wine.'
How would you respond?
I understand the wrapped Word to be Jesus,

and Jn 6:48-58 to be the Word without which it is mere bread and wine.

What do you think?
 
Last edited: