The community meal Paul described as ‘the Lord’s Supper’ (1 Cor. 11:20) has no exact parallel elsewhere in the New Testament. Acts certainly mentions ‘the breaking of bread’ in the church at Jerusalem (2:42), but the context shows that this was a way of talking about eating together in their homes ‘with glad and sincere hearts’ (2:46; cf. 20:7, 11). Their meals were not explicitly linked to Jesus’ Last Supper, as the Corinthian meal was (1 Cor. 11:23–26).139 Paul’s challenge to the Corinthian practice is based on what he ‘received from the Lord’ and ‘passed on’ to them when they were converted. Although he is likely to have taught other churches in the same way, we have no record of this.
However, Christian documents outside the New Testament soon show that a form of community celebration reflecting the words and actions of Jesus at the Last Supper was common in the second century AD. The word ‘eucharist’, meaning thanksgiving, came to be associated with these events, which focused on thanking God for the redemption accomplished by the Lord Jesus. The later title ‘communion’ recalls 1 Corinthians 10:16, where the word translated ‘participation’ can also be rendered ‘communion’. In this chapter I shall generally use the term ‘the Lord’s Supper’.
As with baptism, the development of Christian thinking and practice concerning the Lord’s Supper departed from the simplicity of New Testament teaching. Elaborate rituals and complex theology began to obscure the true significance of this gospel ‘meal’. During the Reformation of the sixteenth century there was much debate about the meaning of what by then was called ‘the Mass’. The Reformers devised new forms of service to facilitate a more biblical understanding and focus.140 We shall briefly reflect on these developments as we seek to discern a truly edifying way to obey the command of Jesus to ‘do this in remembrance of me’ (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25).
There are differences of emphasis in the various Gospel accounts, but each one points to the fact that it was in the context of a traditional Passover meal that Jesus enjoyed his last supper with the disciples.141 The Passover was an annual celebration of the way in which God had fulfilled his covenant promises in the time of Moses, rescuing Israel from bondage in Egypt in order to establish them as his own distinctive people in the Promised Land (Exod. 12:1–30).
According to Jewish tradition, the blood of the lambs sacrificed at the time of the exodus had redemptive power and made God’s covenant with Abraham operative. When families or groups of friends gathered in Jerusalem to eat the Passover meal, they were reminded in a very personal way of the whole basis of their relationship with God and existence as a people. In time, the Passover also became an occasion for Israelites to express their confidence in a future redemption associated with the coming of the Messiah.142
Jesus had a longing to celebrate this final meal with his disciples (Luke 22:15), but he also anticipated celebrating the fulfilment of the Passover in the kingdom of God (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16, 18). He embraced the prophetic hope of an eternal banquet, prepared by God for his people, when the messianic salvation was accomplished (Isa. 25:6–8; cf. Luke 14:15; 22:30). Jesus’ words at the Last Supper make it clear that his approaching death would accomplish that deliverance and usher in the kingdom.
The Lord’s Supper, which has its origin in Jesus’ teaching at the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11:23–26), is not itself to be regarded as the fulfilment of the Passover. In some respects the Lord’s Supper functions as a Christian substitute for the Passover, focusing on Jesus’ death, rather than the exodus from Egypt, as the means by which God’s people are saved and brought to share in the blessings of the inheritance promised to them.
Jesus himself took the unusual step of accompanying the distribution of the bread and at least one of the Passover cups with his own words of interpretation.143 In this way the food was presented to the disciples as a sign of his approaching death and of the salvation he would accomplish. Their eating and drinking would be an anticipation and symbolic reception of the benefits to be obtained by his death. ‘Jesus uses the grace before and after eating to give his disciples one after another the additional personal assurance that they share in the kingdom because they belong to the many for whom he is about to die.’144
Some commentators interpret the bread word and the cup word differently, since they were separated by the main course of the meal and each saying was meant to be complete in itself. Thus ‘this is my body’ is taken to refer to Jesus’ person – the bread broken and distributed is a pledge of his continuing presence with them – and ‘this is my blood’ is taken to refer to his sacrificial death. However, even though the two sayings were originally separate, ‘we must surely grant that Jesus intended the two sayings to be in some way complementary to each other. If, then, the second saying speaks of Jesus’ sacrificial death, we should expect something similar to be present in the former saying.’145
Most significantly, the cup word speaks of the inauguration of a new covenant by Jesus’ sacrificial death. In Matthew 26:28 Jesus says, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’ ‘My blood of the covenant’ recalls Exodus 24:8, where the covenant established by God at Mount Sinai was sealed by a blood sacrifice. ‘For the forgiveness of sins’ recalls the promise of Jeremiah 31:34. The New Covenant link is made even clearer in Luke 22:20 with the words ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you’ (cf. 1 Cor. 11:25).
Jesus’ atoning death re-established God’s relationship with Israel on a new basis. After his resurrection, however, Jesus made it clear that ‘repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ should be ‘preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem’ (Luke 24:47). So the blessing of the nations promised to Abraham (Gen. 12:3) came about because renewed Israelites experienced the benefits of the New Covenant through Jesus (Acts 3:25–26) and offered those benefits to Gentiles.
The command to ‘do this in remembrance of me’ is found only in Luke 22:19 (after the bread saying) and in 1 Corinthians 11:24–25 (after both sayings).146 The present tense of the Greek imperative implies the need to go on doing what Jesus commands: eating and drinking in remembrance of him. The cup saying in 1 Corinthians 11:25 even more emphatically indicates a pattern to be followed (‘Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me’).
Paul further explains the significance of the action when he says, ‘whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ (1 Cor. 11:26). ‘This bread’ and ‘this cup’ point back to the Last Supper account in the preceding verses. Jesus’ words indicate that the focus is to be on the significance of his death, until he returns to consummate God’s kingdom plan. Paul’s use of the Last Supper narrative implies that there was meant to be a certain formality about the gathering of the Corinthians to eat and drink together. Their meeting was to be influenced by what Jesus said and did.
Sometimes the words ‘in remembrance of me’ are taken to mean ‘as a memorial before God’, suggesting a ritual to ‘remind’ God of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.147 But the Passover was a memorial meal for Israel’s benefit (Exod. 12:14), even though it was clearly a feast in honour of the Lord. Jesus indicates that believers under the New Covenant should likewise celebrate in the form of a meal the great benefits won for them by their Saviour and do so ‘until he comes’ (1 Cor. 11:26).
Taking bread, giving thanks to God, breaking and distributing it was the normal method of saying grace and beginning a meal in Jewish culture. Similarly, a host would indicate the formal end of a meal together by taking a cup of wine, giving thanks to God and sharing it with all present. These were not new customs introduced by Jesus and they were certainly not cultic acts to be performed by priestly officials. Nevertheless, by means of a spoken grace, such meals became ‘an association under the eyes of God’.148
The Last Supper was the climax of a series of meals shared with his disciples and with the religious and moral outcasts of his day. The scribes and Pharisees protested vehemently about this practice (e.g. Matt. 9:10–13; Luke 15:1–2), but Jesus continued to use table fellowship as a means of expressing the forgiveness, acceptance and companionship that belong to the messianic salvation (e.g. Luke 19:5–10). Such meals were an anticipation of the kingdom of God.
At the Last Supper Jesus clarified the significance of eating and drinking together as the community of the Messiah. He did this by means of his words of interpretation, challenging disciples to remember the basis of their relationship in his redemptive death and the certainty of their hope of feasting together in his kingdom.
The Gospel of John does not record Jesus’ words about the bread and wine at the Last Supper. The foot-washing incident is provided where this might have been expected (John 13:1–17). Jesus’ humility and self-sacrificing service proceed from a love for ‘his own’. When he washes the feet of his disciples, he prefigures the crucifixion and points to the significance of his death for their service to one another.
Some have argued that Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6:51–58 is a substitute for the Last Supper sayings in this Gospel.149 Although such views are widely held, there are good reasons for challenging them. When 6:51–58 is compared with 6:35, it is clear that ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ Christ are vivid metaphors for coming to him and believing in him as the bread of life.
When the imagery changes from eating the bread of life (6:48–51b) to eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood (6:51c–58), the challenge is to believe in the Son of Man who became flesh and blood and was a real human being. At the same time, ‘flesh and blood’ suggests a sacrificial death: the one who comes down from heaven must give himself in death to bring eternal life to the world. Those who want to be raised up at the last day and live with him for ever must come to the crucified Messiah and believe in the necessity of his atoning death for their salvation (see 1:29; 3:14–16; 12:31–3).
An important clue for understanding the figurative nature of the language is given at the end of the discourse. Jesus makes it clear that ‘eating’ his flesh and ‘drinking’ his blood will be possible only if the crucified Son of Man ascends to the Father and sends the life-giving Spirit (6:61–63). Those who believe the Spirit-filled word about his incarnation and sacrificial death receive the eternal life he makes possible. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood means taking advantage of the benefits of his death by faith.
So should John 6 influence our thinking about the Lord’s Supper in any way? We might say that eating and drinking in remembrance of Jesus’ death re-enacts that coming to him and believing in him as the crucified Saviour that is foundational to the Christian life. But it is the Spirit, not the elements of bread and wine, who gives life, and he does so ‘primarily through the words of Jesus’.150
Paul’s first reference to the communal meal at Corinth is in the context of urging believers not to attend pagan feasts (10:14–22). The unique relationship shared by Christians with their Lord, and expressed by eating together in his name, makes any association with demon worshippers at idolatrous feasts impossible. Those who engage in such meals are ‘participants’ with demons (10:20). By implication, those who ‘drink the cup of the Lord’ and ‘have a part in’ the ‘Lord’s table’ (10:21) are ‘participants’ with Christ and express their fellowship with him in the common meal.
The third cup at the Passover, for which God was ‘blessed’ or ‘thanked’, was called ‘the cup of thanksgiving’.151 It was this cup that Jesus interpreted as ‘the new covenant in my blood’ at the conclusion of the Last Supper (11:25). When Paul mentions ‘the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks’ (10:16), it appears that this technical Jewish expression was known and used by the Corinthian Christians in connection with their fellowship meals, suggesting a formal link with the Last Supper.
‘The bread that we break’ also recalls the language of the Jewish meal (see Acts 2:46; 20:7, 11; 27:35). Eating together, with a focus on Christ’s death and its implications for congregational life, is a means of expressing a common participation in the body of Christ. To eat the ‘one loaf’ (1 Cor. 10:17) is to share with others in ‘that company which, through its union with Christ, has by anticipation entered upon the new age which lies beyond the resurrection’.152
Perhaps the Corinthians began their meal together with a thanksgiving in connection with the breaking of bread and concluded with a thanksgiving over a shared cup of wine. Eating and drinking together in this context was a means of demonstrating a common participation in the benefits of Christ’s suffering. ‘The Lord’s table’ (10:21) was not an altar where sacrifice was taking place, but ‘a fellowship meal where in the presence of the Spirit they were by faith looking back to the singular sacrifice that had been made and were thus realizing again its benefits in their lives’.153
Mention of the cup before the bread in 1 Corinthians 10:16 puts the focus on the benefits for believers of their common participation in Christ’s death before turning to the implications for their relationships with one another. Paul’s encouragement to recognize their unity in the body of Christ as they eat from one loaf (10:17) prepares for the extended argument in 11:17–34 about divisions in their meetings.
The divisions at the Corinthian meal appear to have had a social dimension, the ‘haves’ devouring their own supper and failing to share with the ‘have nots’ (1 Cor. 11:21), as well as a theological dimension: not treating one another as fellow members of Christ.154 Those with plenty to eat and drink were humiliating those who had nothing and were despising God’s church (v. 22). Their behaviour indicated to the apostle that their gathering together as the church was for the worse rather than the better. It was not, in fact, ‘the Lord’s Supper’ they were eating (v. 20)!
The noun translated ‘supper’ was used in the Greco-Roman world for the main meal of the day, usually eaten towards evening or at night. The accompanying adjective ordinarily meant ‘belonging to the Lord’ but may have been understood in this context to mean ‘in honour of the Lord’.155 As long as individuals were preoccupied with consuming their own food and disregarded the needs of others (v. 21), they could not possibly be having a meal in honour of the Lord Jesus.
Their coming together ‘to eat’ (11:33) was for the purpose of sharing a real meal and not for a token or symbolic feast. However, the technical expressions ‘the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks’ and ‘the bread that we break’ (10:16), in association with Paul’s reminder about the tradition concerning the Last Supper (11:23–25), imply that their common meals were to have a special character.
Jesus’ teaching and example at the Last Supper should have transformed these Jewish customs for them into expressions of New Covenant theology. In reality, the significance of the Last Supper was being obscured, because they were not reflecting its meaning for their life together. Christ died ‘to create a new people for his name, in which the old distinctions based on human fallenness no longer obtain’.156
Paul warns the Corinthians of the dire consequences of continuing to eat and drink ‘without discerning the body of Christ’ (11:27–32), that is, without recognizing the significance of their partnership in the body of Christ. They were to satisfy their personal needs at home if necessary, so that when they met together it might not result in judgment (11:33–34).
The Lord’s Supper, which has so often throughout church history been understood as a means of deepening the personal communion of believers with their Lord, is clearly meant to focus the eyes of the participants on one another as well as on God. We do not simply meet to have fellowship with God but to minister to one another as we express our common participation in Christ as our Saviour and Lord.157 Here is an occasion for edifying the church.
By the middle of the second century AD Justin Martyr records that Christians in Rome met together each Sunday to hear readings from ‘the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets’, to be taught how to respond to the readings, and to pray. Then he describes how bread was brought, and wine with water, ‘the president’ offered prayers and thanksgivings, and the congregation responded with ‘Amen’. The deacons gave a portion of the bread and wine to each of those present and carried away a portion to those who were absent.158
In Justin’s experience, the Lord’s Supper was no longer a shared meal, as it had been in Corinth. A more formal celebration of salvation through Christ had developed, with only portions of bread and wine being distributed.159 The thanksgiving had become so significant that the food was called ‘eucharist’. Justin recalled Jesus’ words at the Last Supper as he explained how the bread and wine were ‘consecrated’ or given special significance through thanksgiving.
‘We do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, being incarnate by the Word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also have we been taught that the food over which thanks has been offered by the formula of prayer which comes from him, and from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.’160
Justin briefly indicates what the thanksgiving involved: ‘praise and glory to the Father of all, through the name of the Son and Holy Spirit’, some recollection of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, and gratitude that ‘we have been deemed worthy to receive these things at his hand’. But the president offered up these prayers and thanksgivings ‘according to his ability’, meaning that he had freedom to do this without being bound by a set pattern of words.
Soon, however, the ‘eucharistic prayer’ became fixed and more elaborate, as subsequent Christian documents indicate. For example, the so-called Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus reveals that by AD 215 the church in Rome was expressing a theology of sacrifice and transformation through this prayer.161
Bread and wine were brought to the ministers to be blessed by the laying on of hands and prayer. The bishop gave thanks for the incarnation and death of the Son of God and recalled the actions and words of Jesus at the Last Supper. The command to ‘do this in remembrance of me’ was taken to mean that a ‘memorial’ of his death and resurrection was to be made by offering to God the bread and the cup, for which he had been thanked.162 Hippolytus then records that the Holy Spirit was asked to come upon the offering of the church and to enable the believers to confirm their faith in truth.
In the liturgy of Hippolytus we see a move towards the theology and practice of the medieval Mass. This gave full expression to the notion of ‘eucharistic sacrifice’, by requiring that the consecrated bread and wine be offered to God for the benefit of the living and the dead. Transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ was said to take place when the priest uttered the words of Jesus spoken at the Last Supper (‘This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood’). The glorified Jesus was said to be present in the form of bread and wine.163
The Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century argued that the Mass had become a denial of the gospel and was dishonouring to Christ. Teaching about the need for ongoing ‘eucharistic sacrifice’ obscured the New Testament insistence on the unique sacrifice of Jesus and its eternal effectiveness (see Heb. 2:17–18; 9:11–14, 28; 10:11–14). Teaching about the Mass being a means of achieving merit before God replaced the doctrine of justification by faith alone (see Rom. 3:28 – 4:8). Seeking the presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine was a form of idolatry and hindered people from seeing his true glory and worshipping him appropriately (see Rom. 11:33 – 12:3; 1 Cor. 1:18–31).
As well as writing and preaching about the need for change, the Reformers and those who followed them devised new forms of service. As the attempt was made to remove doctrinal confusion, the simplicity and power of New Testament teaching was re-established. The potential for the Lord’s Supper to edify the church and proclaim the meaning of Christ’s death until he comes was rediscovered. Assurance of salvation was given to believers on the basis of faith in the finished work of Christ.164
Whatever the tradition in which we have been nurtured, there are important lessons to be learned from the way Christian thinking about the Lord’s Supper developed over the centuries. Here are some questions to consider in relation to the practice of the Lord’s Supper in our churches today.
The Last Supper provided Jesus with an important opportunity to teach his disciples about his approaching death and its significance for their life together. He announced the fulfilment of God’s saving plan in the inauguration of the New Covenant by his blood, but spoke also about the ultimate fulfilment of the Passover in the kingdom of God, promising that his disciples would one day eat and drink at his table in his kingdom (Luke 22:29–30). Eating and drinking together in the upper room was a way of affirming their share in all the benefits of the sacrifice he was about to make for them.
Jesus’ command to ‘do this in remembrance of me’ was part of the Last Supper tradition that Paul passed on to the Corinthian Christians. The apostle used the account of Jesus words and actions to challenge and correct the way the Corinthians were holding meals in honour of the Lord. Their disregard for one another was an offence against ‘the body and blood of the Lord’ (1 Cor. 11:27). They failed to see the profound implications of eating and drinking together as the community that shared the benefits of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice.
By the second century AD the ‘suppers’ being held in honour of the Lord were more formal, with only portions of bread and wine being distributed by church officials. This took place in the context of a ministry of the word and prayer, with thanksgiving for the salvation won by Christ as a preliminary to eating and drinking. But confusion over the significance of blessing God for this food developed. Notions of priestly ministry associated with the consecration and offering of the bread and wine to God were introduced. Views about the transformation of the bread and wine distorted people’s understanding of the way of salvation.
Recovery of the biblical gospel at the time of the Reformation led to the production of new patterns of service, seeking to express New Testament teaching about the Lord’s Supper more authentically. But Christians continue to disagree about the best way to understand and do what Jesus commanded. In the face of divergent traditions we need to reflect together more radically on biblical teaching and how it is expressed in our practice today. It is also important to consider the lessons of history and to see how easily biblical teaching can be obscured by our practices and the significance we attach to them.