Sunday, October 25, 2009

Which one is the Lord's Supper?

We were running really late this morning and arrived just in time for the passing of the loaf and the little cups of grape juice. I was kind of relieved that we made it for the Lord's Supper. Then after the morning gathering, we hung around as the church and had lunch, breaking bread together and being in joyous fellowship.

Which one was the Lord's Supper as we see it in the Bible?

Bookmark and Share


Steve Martin said...

I would say it was the first one.

That is the one where His promises are attached in the words of institution.

That would be the one where Christ Himself is present as the body and blood.

The other one is a good thing, also. But in a different way. A way that does not require the body and blood of Christ be present, but where good fellowship and encouragement and consolation of the brethren also have the Lord in attendance.

Alan Knox said...


Very good question, and one that I've often asked myself. I'm going to attempt to answer it (kinda) in a post tomorrow.


Laura said...

I think the intention of the "meal" is the biggest factor, but the second (given proper intention) is definitely keeping the Lord's supper.

Alan Knox said...

Interestingly, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, he did not call this passage "words of institution", although I've often heard it called that. I wonder where that comes from? I also wonder how we might interpret 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 if we didn't stop in the middle (vs. 23) and read a few verses as "words of institution"?


Steve Martin said...

It's not 'our' intention (in the meal) that matters...but rather God's.

The proper direction is God to us.

That's why God's promises attached to the body and blood (bread and wine) are a vital part of the Supper.

That's Lutheran theology... anywho.

And I realize that it isn't too popular.