Rethinking the Lord

by Eric Svendsen
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood areas of ecclesiology has to do with the significance of the Lord's Supper. Since the Reformation, much has been written about the presence of Christ in the so-called "elements," whether there is a real presence or a symbolic presence. This has been a popular debate among Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans and Zwinglians to name a few. Unfortunately, because of this preoccupation with the "presence of Christ" debate, many other aspects of the Lord's Supper have been either downplayed or ignored altogether by these same groups. The problem is compounded by the prevailing mentality that supposes we have found all truth that is truth and that there's nothing left to consider or reconsider. Indeed, many of the things that will be brought up in this article are common knowledge to many Christians (and especially scholars), but, for one reason or another, have not been given the weight due them. We would like to address four such aspects of the Lord's Supper: they are (1) its centrality; (2) its frequency; (3) its focus; and (4) its form. None of these is, in our opinion, expendable or otherwise less important than any other aspect.

The Centrality of the Lord's Supper

Seemingly one of the most pressing tenets in the constitution or ecclesiological-doctrinal statement of any given evangelical institution (church or seminary) is the centrality of preaching. This tenet is often stated as though its inclusion or exclusion is the measure by which an institution is judged to be biblical or non-biblical. But just what is meant by the "centrality" of preaching? If by this phrase one means that the church is to be actively involved in proclaiming the gospel, then we couldn't agree more. If, on the other hand, one means by this phrase that preaching is to be the central focus of the church meeting (as I suspect is the case), then we disagree. There is no evidence in the NT that the church came together to be preached to; nothing to suggest anything like our modern emphasis on "preaching." The evidence to the contrary will be dealt with in future articles; in any case, it cannot be taken up now.

What then is the central focus of the meeting? Surprisingly the NT has much to say about this. On one level the focus is to participate in mutual edification (Heb 10:25; 1 Cor 14:26). Yet even here the focus is a secondary one. The texts cited do not explicitly give this as the purpose for the assembly (though I believe it is an important objective), but rather merely state that this must take place during the assembly. The central focus of the meeting is accompanied by a purpose clause in the NT. In Acts 20:7 Luke says, "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread . . . ." The thing that distinguishes this purpose for gathering together from any other purpose is the presence of the telic infinitive "to break bread," which really means "in order to break bread." Hence, the expressed purpose for coming together as a church in the NT is to celebrate the Lord's Supper. One might object that Luke is merely recording what happened in this instance and that narrative cannot be used to determine what is normative for the church. Besides, one passage does not a doctrine make; there must be other texts of Scripture to support this if it is in fact to be viewed as normative. In response to the first objection, neither then have we any ground for meeting on the first day of the week, since this is the only Scripture in the NT that explicitly says this is what the early church did. Moreover, the view that narrative in the NT is written solely to record historical events and cannot therefore be used to determine normative church practice is naive and is rejected by all NT scholarship. Granted, Luke did record historical events; but he did not record all historical events. Instead, he selectively recorded those events which would best instruct the early churches.

In response to the second objection; very well then, Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor 11. First Corinthians 11 is often overlooked in discussions pertaining to the central focus of the church meeting. Yet this passage twice states the purpose of coming together as a church. That Paul is concerned with the church meeting is clear from v. 18; "first of all, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you." He repeats this in v. 20; "Therefore, when you come together in the same place [i.e., as a church], it is not to eat the Lord's Supper." One might think it strange that someone arguing for the centrality of the Lord's Supper would want to mention this verse at all. After all, how can one contend that the Lord's Supper is central to the church meeting when Paul so clearly says "when you come together it is not to eat the Lord's Supper"? This is no problem, however, since Paul explains what he means in the next verse ("for each one takes his own supper," v. 21). Paul is not telling the Corinthians not to eat the Lord's Supper when they gather together. Quite the contrary--he's telling them that that's what should be taking place at their meetings, but because of their disunity it can no longer be viewed as the Lord's Supper; instead, it has become their own supper (v. 21). The direct implication of Paul's statement is that when the church comes together it should be "to eat the Lord's Supper" (again, the telic infinitive is used, "in order to eat"). Paul makes this even more clear in v. 33; "so then, brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another." That this is not merely an occasional observance of the Lord's Supper celebrated every so often is clear from his previous statement in v. 18; "when you come together as a church." This leads us to our next point.

The Frequency of the Lord's Supper

One other direct implication of Paul's statements is that the Lord's Supper is to be celebrated whenever the church "comes together" (vv. 18, 20). It seems clear that Paul has in mind the weekly gathering on the Lord's Day. This means then that Paul expects the Lord's Supper to be celebrated every week, as an integral part of the Lord's Day meeting. This same conclusion may be inferred from the text of Acts 20:7 as well; "On the first day of the week, when we came together to break bread." In many churches today the Lord's Supper is celebrated monthly or quarterly. The rationale for this is standard: Won't the Lord's Supper become common and lose its meaning if we celebrate it weekly? But this standard is rarely applied to other practices of the church. Why not apply it, say, to prayer, or sermons, or collections, or the singing of hymns? Why not meet together as a church once per quarter? Moreover, this kind of reasoning betrays a misunderstanding of the full theological significance of the Supper. Yes, the Supper reminds us of our benefits obtained by Christ's death, but is that all it does? We think not. There are other foci of the Supper that are typically ignored, and it is to these that we will turn next time.