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!