The Lord’s Supper
1 Corinthians 11
“On the night that our
Lord was betrayed, he took bread and broke it and blessed it saying ‘this is my
body which is broken for you…’” These words may have been the first ones
written down that Jesus spoke. Paul wrote his letters at least five or 10 years
before Mark wrote his Gospel.
For many denominations
the Lord's supper, also known as the Eucharist or communion is observed as the center
of almost every worship service. Southern Baptists churches tended to observe
the supper once a quarter. One major reason is a different view of the purpose
of communion. Some believe is a sacrament; others believe it is an ordinance.
A sacrament is an act
that by itself imputes grace, mercy, or other benefit to the worshiper. An
ordinance is the memorial and reenactment of an important event. If the Lord's
supper is a sacrament, the worshipers believe they are actually eating and
drinking the body and blood of Jesus. Those who accept communion is an
ordinance believe we are doing this in remembrance of Christ and all he did for
us. Some denominations holder a middle ground that believes Christ is
spiritually, not Physically present in the elements (bread and wine) of the
ritual.
In the early days of the
church, they held services known as "love feasts. " these would
have been like our potluck supper, with the Lord's supper concluding the
meal. Just as Jesus used the material at hand (bread and wine) the night
he was betrayed, so the believers ate a meal together and used the Bread and
wine from the meal. Were we to follow that principle today, we might use rolls
and tea for the elements!
In Corinth, one of the
nine major problems I believe this letter addresses is the abuse of the
communion meal. Apparently, some members arrived early and “pigged out” on the
food before everyone got there. Paul says it you’re that hungry, fill up at
home before you come to worship! Furthermore, the early comers hit the wine
bottles first and were tipsy by the time the last of the congregation gets
there.
This behavior horrifies
Paul. Whatever you think you are doing, you are NOT observing the LORD’S
supper. He then goes on to describe the founding of the communion in perhaps
the earliest written scene from Jesus’s life.
Jesus began by giving
thanks. Perhaps He had also given thanks at the beginning, but now he again
thanked God. What do you think was on His mind to be grateful for on that awful
Thursday night? What things are you grateful for at this stage of your life?
Then He broke the bread,
as His body would be broken on the cross. “This is my body, which is for you;
do this in remembrance of me.” Those who view the Eucharist (thanksgiving) as a
sacrament emphasize the word “is.” Jesus said this IS His body. Therefore they
believe that the outside (secondary) characteristics still look and taste like
bread and wine, the inside essence (primary) becomes the actual body and blood
of Christ. The use of this phrase led to charges by pagans that Christians were
cannibals.
Most Protestants,
however, focus on the next clause. We take the Supper as an ordinance, as a
remembrance of His death for our sins.
He repeats the
association of remembrance with the drinking of the cup, lending credence to
the ordinance approach.
Verse 29 adds a comment
by Paul - an evangelistic comment: whenever you observe the Lord’s Supper, you
are “proclaiming the Lord’s death!” We are preaching the Gospel! Telling the
story of the Cross! I had a seminary professor who maintained that every sermon
or lesson should end at the cross. He practiced it as well.
Paul continues that if
you take the Supper in an unworthy manner, you will be sinning against the body
and blood of the Lord. This verse has given many people trouble. They combine
the verse with the saying by Jesus not to worship while you are separated from
another person. First go straighten it out, then come back and worship.
I have bad news and good
news. The bad news is that Jesus’s statement applies to ALL worship, not just
communion. Indeed, He literally focused on the offering plate and said to leave
your gift at the altar (note the background of animal sacrifice) and go make
things right. Consistently the NT insists you cannot love God whom you have not
seen, if you do not love humans you can see. (1 John, repeatedly.)
The good news is the
Gospel. Some Catholics believe by going to confession (another sacrament)
before mass and having your sins forgiven, you are as clean as possible as you
eat the sacred bread. Yet Judas may have taken at least the first half of the
Last Supper, perhaps both. Peter certainly did. Plus all the disciples who fled
after His arrest. We always enter worship as sinners begging for mercy from the
Lord who is gracious and eager to bestow that mercy.
Women Uncovered!
First, a quick statement
about what seems to have been going on: apparently, the custom of the day was
for women to have some kind of head covering during worship experiences. A few
scholars believe this referred to their long hair. Most believe it refers to
some kind of shawl or veil, perhaps similar to Islamic women’s headwear today.
Some of the women in Corinth came to church with their heads uncovered. The
Corinthians had asked Paul about this along with her other concerns. His answer
was that women's heads should be covered, but not the men’s.
The major question here
is whether Paul’s instructions applied only to his day and time, or whether
these are meant as eternal truths. This is the problem that crops up again and
again in Bible interpretation. Few, if any, of us are consistent. For example,
In the first half of the 20th century, there was considerable discussion about
women and "bobbed hair.” As a result, most Christians denominations
decided it was acceptable for women to cut their hair. However, a few
Pentecostal groups still teach that women should not cut their hair.
Now let's take a detour
through some simple sociology and anthropology. Throughout history most
societies have been patriarchal, with men considered superior to women. This
probably rose from two sources. First, they were physically bigger and stronger
than women. Second, women were frequently pregnant and/or caring for children.
Even up to the time of the American revolution, our founders provided the
constitution with the assumption that voters and officeholders would all be
educated white men who were property owners. The Civil War resulted in black
men being able to vote, but it was about 40 years later that women won the
right to vote. Then World War II put a lot of women to work to replace the men
who had gone to fight. After the war, they continued to work and advancements
in technology made housekeeping easier. Not long after that "the
pill" came along enabling women to plan their families. Suddenly, there
was a new freedom to work while still getting housework done.
This revolution in
technology spawned a slower but strong revolution in society. More women ran
for office and won. Books were written by women who led in the movement for
equal rights for women. Many of us applaud such things as equal pay, especially
if our wives and daughters are concerned.
I remember as a child,
my mother and the other women normally wore hats for church on Sunday morning.
Catholic women may still do so. But at that time, women wore hats more
generally than they do today, not just for church.
Somewhere along the way,
women began wearing pants suits and slacks more generally including for work.
Inevitably, women came to church in slacks, first on Wednesday or Sunday
nights, which are more informal. By now, the vast majority of women come in
slacks, jeans, or bermuda shorts.
Many preachers used to
oppose this, citing the OT law that a “woman not wear anything pertaining to a
man,” whatever that meant. I remember thinking how they could tell? All the
Bible pictures had both men and women dressed in bathrobes!
There’s a strong
movement among Roman Catholics that pushes for allowing women to become
priests, coupled with a desire to allow men priests to marry. So far, their
strong traditions have held that Jesus only called men as His Twelve Apostles,
although certainly there were also women followers. Many denominations have
begun to ordain women as pastors and even national leaders.
Southern Baptists in
their Baptist Faith and Message in 2000 stated clearly that “While both men and
women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to
men as qualified by scripture.” I note here the BF&M does not mention
deacons, and a few churches allow women in the diaconate. I have a sister-in-law
who served as a deacon in a Kentucky church.
What then, are we to
make of Paul’s statement? First, I would point you to verse 13 - “Judge for
yourselves!” Paul does clearly say that women in church should have some kind
of head covering. Does that mean women today should wear hats? I frankly don’t
know.
A famous conservative
principle is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. In this case, we find a huge
problem. Paul’s clearest statement on men and women is Galatians 3:28: There is
neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female,
for you all are one in Christ Jesus. And that’s about as strong as you can get!
In Chapter 7 of 1
Corinthians he maintains that husband and wife are equal in their sex
relations. Each has authority over the other one’s body, presumably their needs
and desires.
Frankly, I believe Paul
was trying to keep the church on track and not get side-lined on non-essential
issues. The entire world was patriarchal at that time, and a show of
independent womanhood might shift attention from the central gospel message.
Still, I would certainly agree that women AND men today should dress and act in
ways that do not attract attention to themselves, especially “advertsing”
sexual attraction. I likewise respect those who dissent and believe hats should
come back. If they do, I hope they become more simple like “pillboxes” and not
huge sunscreens. I sat behind enough of those as a kid!
