What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Lords Supper

Meal Four
Text: Luke 10:38-42
Meal: Hospitality at the home of Martha
Participants: Disciples
Significance: Discipleship
Teaching Moment: “Mary has chosen the better part.â€Â

This could be a very controversial meal for some for it is themed in the discipleship of women and their roles of ministry / servant hood. (diakonein vs. 40).

Fr. Eugene LaVerdiere suggests that Mary reflects the “development of Christian communities, which accepted women as disciples in the full sense.†(Dining in the Kingdom of God: The Origins of the Eucharist in the Gospel of Luke, pg 85)

John Mark Hicks comments on LaVerdeiere’s quotes by saying, “The story prioritizes discipleship over ministry and suggests that only focused attention on the word of the Lord gives meaning to table ministry. The table, therefore, cannot be separated from the word. The table gains its significance and the meaning from the word. The word must shape the table and the table must display authentic discipleship. Women may serve the table as authentic disciples who are attentive to the word of the Lord.†(Come to the table, pg. 60)

P.S. I'm going to go back and edit the other two meals and replace the headers to match the header on this post.
 
Meal Five
Text: Luke 11:37-54
Meal: Noon meal at a Pharisee’s house
Participants: Pharisees & teachers
Significance: Inner life
Teaching Moment: “You Pharisees clean the outside of the cup but inside you are full of great wickedness

This is a great meal story with many different angles where the issues start right from the beginning when a particular Pharisee just happens to notice (and surprised at what he was seeing) that Jesus didn’t wash before the meal. I realize that in our culture, not washing your hands before a meal is considered a sanitary issue, but in this case, washing ones hand was a ceremonial rite. Actually, the greek word for wash is baptizo.

Strongs 907 has this to say about the word translated as wash.
from a derivative of 911; baptizo
to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:--Baptist, baptize, wash.

In essence, Jesus is sitting at Table un-baptized and the Pharisee’s are so concerned about their own self righteousness, rites and rituals, they loose the true meaning and purpose of God’s word which is summed up in verse 41. (Net Bible) But give from your heart to those in need, and then everything will be clean for you.

The meals at the church in Corinth resembled this meal. More on this topic later when we discuss some of the problems that the church at Corinth were experiencing.
 
Meal Six
Text: Luke 14:1-24
Meal: Sabbath dinner at a Pharisee’s house
Participants: Pharisees & their friends
Significance: Invitation to all
Teaching Moment: “When you give a banquet, invite the poor, crippled, lame and blind.â€Â

This meal comes off the heels of Jesus healing the crippled woman on the Sabbath (Luke 13:12) and thus, humiliating the Pharisee’s. (Luke 13:17). As a result, at this meal, the Pharisee’s were watching Jesus with hostile intent when Jesus asks the question “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?†(Luke 14:3)

It is also at this meal that Jesus speaks to the great banquet of the Kingdom of God (Luke 14:15) where we are told that those that were invited, would not attend and as a result, the invitation went out to All.

From the earlier story (Luke 14:7-14), we learn that the table is a place of humility, and not pride. When we come to the Lords table, we come in humility as the Lords table is a table where the sick, the lame, and the hurting find rest and nourishment for their soul. It is not a place for pride, to seek places of honor or for any type of social status. Thus, when we come to the Lords table, we come not seeking our own righteousness, but we come in humility.
 
Meal Seven
Text: Luke 19:1-10
Meal: Hospitality at the house of Zacchaeus
Participants: Zacchaeus, the tax collector & others
Significance: Salvation for all
Teaching Moment: “The Son of Man came to seek & save the lost

While the text does not explicitly state that Jesus had a meal with Zacchaeus, it was Jewish custom that when you had a guest, you fed him.

Table is a place for those that are lost to find salvation (Luke 19:9). Table is a place of hospitality (Luke 19:6) and justice and repentance (Luke 19:18). It is a place where sinners are welcome and we go to those in need with compassion.
 
It is difficult to understand the so called "Lord's Supper" unless you realise how it came about. I have just completed a 12 month study of life in the New Testament church and the following 400 years. Details can be found on http://churchalive66.googlepages.com

The NT church never celebrated the "Lord's Supper" as we know it today. They came together for what is known as "love feasts" or the "common meal" where those that could contribute brought food so that those who couldn't like widows and orphans had something to eat.

In Corinthians, Paul is telling them off because those who brought food did not wait for those who didn't or couldn't bring food meaning that some were well fed and some didn't eat.

These meals were eaten in homes on a daily basis and were one of the activities of the NT church that others saw as an expression of love.

This happend until the third century when Constantine legalised christianity and made it the state religion. By 400AD the common meal had been dispensed with and the "Lord's Supper" replaced it to be officiated over by a robed priest, who was seen as more spiritual than ordinary christians and a class apart.

These people introduced the catholic idea of transubstantiation to make it a mystic ritual rather than a means whereby the body of Christ could minister to one another. The protestant ritual is only a variation of the catholic mass and has no support from scripture.
 
marksman said:
It is difficult to understand the so called "Lord's Supper" unless you realise how it came about. I have just completed a 12 month study of life in the New Testament church and the following 400 years. Details can be found on http://churchalive66.googlepages.com

The NT church never celebrated the "Lord's Supper" as we know it today. They came together for what is known as "love feasts" or the "common meal" where those that could contribute brought food so that those who couldn't like widows and orphans had something to eat.

In Corinthians, Paul is telling them off because those who brought food did not wait for those who didn't or couldn't bring food meaning that some were well fed and some didn't eat.

These meals were eaten in homes on a daily basis and were one of the activities of the NT church that others saw as an expression of love.

This happend until the third century when Constantine legalised christianity and made it the state religion. By 400AD the common meal had been dispensed with and the "Lord's Supper" replaced it to be officiated over by a robed priest, who was seen as more spiritual than ordinary christians and a class apart.

These people introduced the catholic idea of transubstantiation to make it a mystic ritual rather than a means whereby the body of Christ could minister to one another. The protestant ritual is only a variation of the catholic mass and has no support from scripture.
Click to expand...
I agree with you
 
Hi Marksman,
Nice post, thank you for your contribution.

I certainly agree that there was a shift in mentality over the centuries. Actually, as you have stated, the Lord’s Supper was themed more toward table in the earlier centuries, then it ever was themed after the Alter. (See earlier posts how OT sacrafices were also heavily themed Table). This is not to reduce the Alter and what occured at the alter, for to reflect on Alter is a time of re-dedication to the covenant, which in relation to the Lords Supper is the covenant in Jer. 31 based on Christ at the cross. Hence, the Cross is the Alter and the alter always grounds the table.

If we look at the Didache ( 1st century Church manual Chapters 8 9 and 10), it is very clear who, and how those in the church were to partake of the Lords Supper while Lukes writing in both Luke and Acts shows us what the table should look like when the Church came together for their Agape feasts and to break bread. In addition, while the Lord’s Supper was a part of the Agape feasts, it was set aside as a form of a traditional Jewish meal prayer for believers whereas the Agape feast was for anyone in need.

We start to see the shift from Table mentality to Alter mentality in the second century with Ignatius as some have pointed out that he see’s his own martyrdom coming soon with the persecution of the Church as an imitation of Jesus’ own sacrifice. Later, Cyprian of Carthage interprets this Alter language as the re-sacrificing of the Christ in the Eucharist (Letters 63:9)

If we use the church in Corinth as an example, we can really see how the Lord’s Supper was being abused. It was this type of abuse throughout the churches that caused the early leadership in the church to start regulating the when and the where of the meal and by the fourth century, the sever between the Agape feast (held in the evening) and the Lord’s Supper (held in the morning) was complete. By the eighth century, the Agape feast was all but a memory in the West.
 
I was checking out some verses last night and came across a note I had made in my bible. When I talk to anyone about the Lord's Supper and say that scripture does not support it, they always say that Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" in Luke.

This has been interpreted as daily/weekly/monthly observance of a religious ritual, which I fear in too many cases is seen as a way of earning brownie points to get us to heaven.

Apart from the fact that you should never base a doctrine on one verse of scripture, the term that Jesus used in Luke means in the greek a "single act" not a continuous one. Like me saying to my son, go and clean the car which means I am saying to go and clean the car now, not go and clean the car every Sunday.

The greek goes on to say by implication to execute or accomplish a single act. From this we have to deduce that Jesus told no one to perpetuate the Passover meal as a remembrance of him. The greek word is "poieo" meaning once and apparantly there is another greek word that is used if you are telling someone to keep doing what you are telling them to do.
 
Hello Marksman,

Interesting post… I’ll have to do a deeper study on Luke 22:19 unless you want to be more specific.

In our church, we tend to lean towards 1 Corinthians 11:26 and Acts 20:7 to support our weekly tradition of partaking of the Lords Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

And Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

I used Luke and Acts as a spring board in this study because Saint Luke (The author of both Luke and Acts) refers to the Lords Supper as “Breaking Breadâ€Â, thus, the language is transferable. In other words, it’s normative that when Luke writes, “Break breadâ€Â, it generally serves to point to the Lord’s Supper. Check out the verses that I’ve already listed from Luke to see what I mean.

In Acts 20:7, we also refer to the “First day of the week†as the “Lords Dayâ€Â, because our savior Jesus Christ rose early on the first day of the week.

Luke 24:1-3 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

Though it is normative that we celebrate the Lord ’s Supper each Lord’s day in accordance with scripture, it is more out of a lack of tradition, that we do not partake on Wednesday, or other gatherings. That being said, we do not exclude the right to partake on any given day that the church assembles to worship and teach, we simply don't take advantage of the opportunity.

As far as those that partake as to earn 'brownie points', that's between them and God and hopefully one day I pray, they will partake in a worthy manner as God draws them closer to Him.

Grace and peace,

Jeff
 
For me, what the scriptures say is more important than what people interpret it to say. Luke 11:29 is what is says as I set out, not what I interpret it to mean.

Those that support a regular "Lord's Supper" (ritual as opposed to a meal) from 1 Cor 11:26 have a major problem on their hands. This chapter is instructions to the Corinthian church when they came together for a MEAL, not a religious ritual. It is obvious to anyone who cares to see that Paul was telling them that they had to share their food with everyone attending and not to ignore those who could not bring food.

Therefore, if anyone wants to justify their ritual from this passage, they have to prove to me that they are following the teaching of the whole passage and are sharing a meal together where everyone brings something. To do otherwise is to say that we will use those parts of the bible that suit us and ignore those parts that don't.

Acts 20:7 likewise must be seen in context. The first day of the week started at sundown on Saturday as the Jewish week finished at sundown on Saturday so the first day was sundown Saturday. They did not go from midnight to midnight. These are historical facts not religious.

For the Jew who worked six days a week, sundown Friday to sundown Saturday was his day off and Sunday would be a normal working day so the church could not have met Sunday morning. They met on Saturday night that is why the young man fell out the window at midnight. If they met Sunday morning the meeting would have been at least 14 hours long by midnight.

The breaking bread here means to break a loaf (not hand out wafers). It was a tradition for jewish families when they sat down to a meal for the head of the house to break up a loaf and hand a piece to each person sat at the table. This signalled that the meal was to commence. (again this is historical fact). The fact that the NT church did not have "communion" until Constantine made christianity legal and introduced the idea of priests and laity indicates that 'breaking of bread" in scripture was a meal. The breaking of bread in Acts 2 is talking about eating "meat" in the greek. Therefore your contention that it means the "lord's supper" is quite wrong.

What is normative is to follow the teaching of scripture, something that the modern day western church does very little of. Having done a 12 month exhaustive study of the NT church, I can categorically state along with 40 other authors I consulted that the modern day "Lord's Supper" has no foundation in scripture and was not practiced by the NT church.

If you want fuller details go to my website http://churchalive66.googlepages.com
 
Marksman,
I believe I can adequately respond to your recent post. I only ask that you have patience as I do not have much free time this week and do not wish to respond in haste.

In the meantime, I do not wish to start throwing around web sites. I believe that this study has a good structure, and I would hate to rail the thread in a wrong direction based on some site. For this to be an effective study, we must maintian a form of structure. Agreed?

That being said, your last post brings us directly into the church in Corinth, with the liberty to touch onTroas, a gentile city from where Luke (a gentile) resided... a natural direction for this study I wished to head anyway.

Peace and grace
 
In the meantime, I do not wish to start throwing around web sites. I believe that this study has a good structure, and I would hate to rail the thread in a wrong direction based on some site. For this to be an effective study, we must maintian a form of structure. Agreed?
Click to expand...
:crazyeyes:

Could you rewrite this in plain english.

I was not aware that anyone was throwing around websites as you so quaintly put it. It would seem that you are not aware of the purpose and value of websites, so let me explain. I have had many requests for my teaching from people living in other countries. Initially I emailed them all seperately with a copy of my work. Then I thought that the best way to make it available to a wider audience was via a website.

The problem was that I did not know how to build one, so I did some research on the internet via websites and found out how I could do this without knowing HTML language. The end result was my first website. Now anyone can access my teaching without having to contact me and if they do I can refer them to the website. This way I do not throw it at anyone, they access it by choice or request the information.

The other aspect about websites is that you are exposed to a much more diverse expression of the christian walk which normally would not be available to you. If one has an enquiring mind as I do, the resource is invaluable.
 
marksman, you said this:
The breaking bread here means to break a loaf (not hand out wafers). It was a tradition for jewish families when they sat down to a meal for the head of the house to break up a loaf and hand a piece to each person sat at the table.
Click to expand...
This is true, but you overlook what Paul was telling them here. He specifically passes on to them that which he received from the Lord.

1 Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

Then Paul precedes to repeat the words of Jesus. My Bible even has these in red letter:

1 Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Now this wasn't your ordinary breaking of bread and this wasn't simply a loaf of bread. This was Passover week, which means , no leaven! Many churches simply use matzo; wheat flour and water dough. The wafer you speak of is basically the same, made and packaged under much stricter and cleaner conditions.

I don't want to get into whether or not this passage is just about gluttony and hunger, though I think there are two themes going on here. I just wanted to clarify the bread Jesus broke with His Disciples wasn't ordinary loaf.

That is all.
 
I haven't overlooked that fact because it is not relevant to the NT church. The Passover meal is Old Covenant. We do not live under the old we live under the new and the scriptures make it quite clear that rituals, rites, priests, buildings etc are part of the old, not the new.

As a result atonement is in Christ, not sacrifices or observances. This passage that you have quoted has some flaws in its interpretation. You quote Paul as saying "take eat this is my body, which is broken for you." The word "broken" is not in the original greek, and is contrary to scripture which says not a bone of his body will be broken. You will also note that not one of his bones were broken.

Next, this teaching was to a gentile church which would not have celebrated passover. The Jewish church made no demand on them that they needed to. When Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" the orginal greek means to execute or accomplish a single act, not a continous one so jesus asked no one to continue a jewish ritual which was meaningless to the church as the messiah had come.

Third, the teaching was in context of a common meal and being gentiles they would have brought bread, not matzos as that is jewish and being a common meal, bread was served not matzos. Paul makes it clear what eating the Lord's Supper involved as he said in verse 20 "it is not the Lord's Supper you eat", and then he goes on to explain that the Lord's Supper is bringing food to share and waiting until everyone is there so that all can enjoy the food provided.

Finally, this meal that Paul was talking about has nothing to do with Passover week. Twice he says "when you come together" not "when you celebrate passover week" so your contention is incorrect because the church came together on a daily basis to eat the common meal which was the lord's supper.
 
I believe if you really comb over the chapter carefully, you will realize Paul is rebuking them for combining The Lord's Supper with this common meal. It was taught to them that this should be a separate act altogether. That is why he told them it was not the Lord's Supper they were eating. Nor should it be treated as a true Passover meal, which it wasn't. He was crucified on the day of preparation, just before Passover Eve. This supper would have occurred the day before. Those who subscribe to a Friday crucifixion ( I don't) call it Holy Thursday.
 
ranger.gif


I learned that years ago thanks Vic :wink:
 
vic C. said:
I believe if you really comb over the chapter carefully, you will realize Paul is rebuking them for combining The Lord's Supper with this common meal. It was taught to them that this should be a separate act altogether. That is why he told them it was not the Lord's Supper they were eating. Nor should it be treated as a true Passover meal, which it wasn't. He was crucified on the day of preparation, just before Passover Eve. This supper would have occurred the day before. Those who subscribe to a Friday crucifixion ( I don't) call it Holy Thursday.
Click to expand...

In my study of this subject, I have read at least 40 other authors and not one of them agree with you.
 
I am sorry turnorburn, Vic is not spot on. I have been studying this topic for years and have not come across one author or theologian who agrees with him. Not once have I seen his view suggested as a possible explanation for the passage. Bearing in mind that I have over a 1,000 books in my library, we can't all be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top