The Lord's supper...

Front matter

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

\X

THE METAPHYSICAL PUBLISHING CO.

Chapter I

Paul's definition of ' the body of Christ,' and application of the definition to I Cor. x. 16. — Meaning of the word ' koinonia ' and ' breaking of bread.'

So far as our present knowledge extends, the Apostle Paul was the first writer who put together in literarycomposition the words 'GdojuarovXpiGTOv/ * the body, or external manifestation, of Christ.' Neither the phrase, nor the idea expressed in it, is found in any other Apostolic writer of the New Testament. As a matter of common-sense, therefore, we must look to St. Paul alone for his meaning of the words. Fortunately for us, he leaves no room for doubt upon this point. He specially defines the phrase in every Epistle in which it is found ; viz., in the Epistle to the Romans, in the First to the Corinthians, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and, lastly, in that to the Colossians. And these several definitions are so full and exact, and so thoroughly agree with each other, as to leave no room for doubt as to the propriety of its uniform application to all other passages in which the associated words are found.

We will take the definitions in their respective order.

In the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle writes: 1 Even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office, so we, the many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another ' (xii. 4, 5).

In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, he expresses the same idea several times : ' Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ ? . . . and he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit ' (vi. 15, 17). And farther on we find almost the same words as we have already quoted from the Epistle to the Romans : * For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all members of the body, being many, are one body ; so also is the Christ' (xii. 12). And the Apostle continues : ' For in one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jew or Greek, whether bond or free, and we were all made to drink of one spirit.'*

And after describing through the next thirteen verses the agreement and perfect unity of different members of the human body, in their various relationships to each other as parts of one complete organism, he winds up the illustration with this emphatic application to the Corinthian Church : ' Now ye are " a soma of Christ " — an external manifestation of the

* He repeats this in his Epistle to the Galatians, chap. iii. 26-28.

Spirit of Christ — and members of the " soma," each in his part,' i.e., according to the service he fulfils in it.

In his Epistle to the Ephesians, certainly one of the last, if not the last, of the Apostle's literary works, and that which may be regarded as his legacy to the Universal Church, this idea of the Church being the body of Christ, and individual members of the Church members of His body, may be said to permeate the whole. This is the central idea of the Epistle, round which gather and culminate all the hopes, privileges and duties of the Christian disciple. But our present object is simply to bring into review those passages in which the Apostle defines his own peculiar phrase, 'atiy-a rov Xpiffrov, ' body of Christ.'

Our first quotation is from the first chapter, beginning with the seventeenth verse : ' The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory. . . . when He raised the Christ from the dead, made Him sit at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and all authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come ; and He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the CHURCH, which is HIS BODY, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all'

The whole of the second and third chapters are devoted to a description of the privileges and blessings involved, and bound up in this Divine relationship between the believer and Christ. In the fourth chapter he connects all the duties of discipleship with this relation, as their common spring. Thus,

1 There is one body and one Spirit ' (ver. 4). And he goes on to say that all the gifts vouchsafed to the different orders of men in the Church, ' whether apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers, were all given for the end of the building up of the body of the Christ, . . . that the disciple may grow up in all things into Him who is the Head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love' (vers. 12, 15, 16).

In the fifth chapter the Apostle deduces from this union of Christ with His Church the relative duties of husband and wife, ' because we are members of His BODY ' (ver. 30), and adds that the original promise connected with marriage, that the two so conjoined shall become one flesh (vers. 30-32), has its fulfilment in the relation of Christ to the Church.

In the Epistle to the Colossians, the Apostle pursues the same line of thought ; but what he describes in the Epistle to the Ephesians as springing out of the mystery of the Divine will — ' the reunion under one head of all things in the Christ '- — is here more directly spoken of as the creation of all things in the pre-existent * Son of His love,' as a * new creation.' 'In Him were all things created. . . . He is before all things, and in Him all things are held together, and He who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, is the Head of the BODY, the CHURCH, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence ' (chap. i. 16-18).

Again, in the twenty-fourth verse, the Apostle says : : I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of the Christ in my flesh, on behalf of His BODY, which is THE CHURCH, of which I was made a minister.'

And again in chap. ii. 16, 17, he says: 'Let no man judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of a feastday, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow of things to come ; but the body ' (in contrast with the shadow) ' is the body of Christ.'

And again in the nineteenth verse he warns the Colossians against ' not holding fast the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and bands, increaseth with the increase of God.' And lastly, in summing up the privileges of the Christian believer, and speaking of the duties arising from his union with Christ, and of the new human nature, of which, by virtue of this union, he has become a partaker, and through which he has become a member of Christ's body, he repeats in substance, and almost in form, what he said before to the Galatians and Ephesians, that in that body there cannot be Jew and Greek, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman and freeman : but Christ is all, and in all ' (chap. iii. 11).

And here we may notice, before proceeding further, as additional evidence that this is the only meaning of the phrase ' the body of Christ ' in St. Paul's own mind, that, when he speaks of the natural body of the Lord before His death, or of His glorified body after His resurrection, he speaks of the one with the needed qualification, 'the body of His flesh' (Col. i. 22), and of the other as ' the body of His glory ' (Phil, iii. 21).

We have now fully exhibited the meaning which St. Paul attaches to his own phrase, i body of Christ,' and which we have seen to be always and emphatically ' the Church ' — that union of men and women which more or less is animated by the Spirit of Christ; which He uses as His earthly instrument, and through which He works for the accomplishment of His own divine purpose : the formation and establishment of the kingdom of God upon earth— a kingdom which is to be the embodiment of the Divine nature in humanity ; and in which the will of God shall be done as it is done in heaven.

And this being St. Paul's own definition and meaning, we can have no safer or better guide to interpret all other passages in the Apostle's writings where the phrase occurs. And we will proceed now to apply this meaning to explain i Cor. x. 16: 'The bread which we break, is it not a " koinonia " of the body of the Christ ? '

To remove, in order, the obstructions which lie in our way, we will exchange the phrase, ' the body of the Christ,' for St. Paul's own definition of it — 'the Church ' ; and the question will then read : ' The bread which we break, is it not a " koinonia " of the Church ? '

It is obvious that the Apostle's question presents three ideas to the mind of the reader :

i. The bread which the Corinthian Church broke; which bread was also

2. A ( koinonia ' of

3. The body of Christ, or the Church.

We have already shown that, according to St. Paul's own definition, ' the body of the Christ ' is the Church; and on this point we have no occasion to add anything more.

The next word requiring our attention is Koivoovia — ■ koinonia.' This word, as is well known, is an abstract noun, from ' koinos,' which means * common to a number,' ' possessed or enjoyed,' ' sharing, or shared in common ; ' and always signifies or implies ' union ' — union or bond of union of a number, for a common purpose or object in view. It never signifies division or separation, or an individual, as distinguished from a general or common participation of anything.

Such unions may have many efficient causes or sources of origin, many ulterior purposes or objects of pursuit.

An analysis of the general idea involved in, or expressed by, the word, will show its legitimate uses and applications (see Appendix A). Primarily, it expresses the idea of a community, partnership, or brotherhood, acting in unity or concert. Secondly, the object or purpose, or proximate cause of their union. Thirdly, the formal instrument, sign, symbol, or custom which the society has established or recognizes for the purpose.

Or we might say that every ' koinonia,' or company, which is always an aggregate of units, has two essential factors : one dynamic and one formal. The first is the motive or moving power, which binds the members together ; and the second is the instrument or sign, which is the formal evidence of the first, or io THE LORD'S SUPPER.

of the member's union with it. The ' koinonia,' in its fulness and entirety, being the actual union of both these factors in operation.

Thus to illustrate. The British nation is a ' koinonia.' The pivotal centre, or bond of union, is the Queen, round which radiate the two Houses of Parliament. The Queen expresses her will through her Ministers. When the Parliament, representing the different orders of the people, join her in approval, the will so expressed becomes law to all the millions of her subjects to whom the measure applies.

The spiritual bond of union of the State is loyalty to its constituted authorities, and obedience to the laws which are its expressed will. Its formal bond of union is either a birthright, in the case of a native, or, in the case of a foreigner who wishes to become a subject of the Queen, letters of naturalization.

An army is a ' koinonia.' The pivotal centre is the Commander-in-Chief. The dynamic bond is loyalty to his authority, shown in willing submission and obedience to his orders. The formal bond is the oath taken on entering the service, and the outward sign of belonging to the army is wearing the uniform of the service.

To take another familiar instance. Teetotalism forms the subject of a large and popular ' koinonia.' The members of this body are united for establishing a universal custom of fulfilling all the duties of social life without the present customary use of intoxicating drinks as a common beverage. The formal instrument, sign, or symbol of membership is the pledge, signed or spoken by the novitiate. The ' koinonia '

THE LORD'S SUPPER. n

in its fulness is seen in an assembly of pledged ^members joining together by speech and action to spread the principles which bind them together. But the spirit of the union is embodied in each of its members. By-and-by a more ' enthusiastic body sprang up amongst the teetotalers known as the ' Blue Ribbon Army.' This later form of aggressive teetotalism has the same pledge for its basis, but took as its more conspicuous symbol a piece of blue ribbon, worn openly in some part of the member's dress, thus making a public declaration, in season and out of season, of their common faith, object, and purpose, and thus making the ribbon so worn the special sign, or outward bond, of their union.

Every limited-liability company is a'koinonia.' In each case the bond of union is the money subscribed by each member on entering the company, which goes to form a common fund, for the purpose of carrying on their business or trade. The formal instrument, symbol, or sign of membership is the share certificate.

Freemasonry is a ' koinonia.' It is a society holding within itself, and handing down from generation to generation, as its bond of union, ancient rites or symbols, containing, when rightly understood, a revelation of God as the Artificer of the universe, the unity of the human race, and the consequent brotherhood of man. These knowledges, duly cultivated, help the growth of the spiritual nature of the Masonic brother and the general happiness of mankind. Freemasonry has numerous symbols, but its primary symbol is an occult sign of brotherhood, by which the Freemason is universally known and recognized by his brethren.

So the Church — the body of Christ — is a ' koinonia.' Its object is to spread abroad over the earth the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the human race, and to unite all men as a free and equal brotherhood in the bond of this common faith. Its Divine bond of union is the Holy Spirit — the Spirit of Christ — animating the individual life of its members, which collectively form the body of Christ. The outward symbol, or sign of membership in this body of Christ, ordained by the Lord Himself, is sitting at a common table and ' breaking bread together in remembrance of Him.'

Every self-contained community is a ' koinonia.' The newly-married couple, by virtue of their marriage, become a 'koinonia.' The family, the city, the tribe, the nation, are each of them a ' koinonia ' — a union of men, or of men and women, for a common object.

Now, in the light of these illustrations, let us read St. Paul's question : ' The bread which we break, is it not a bond of the union of the Church ?' To sit at the table of the Lord is the outward sign of Christian brotherhood and union. This ? breaking of bread together ' is the symbol of Church membership — the outward sign of belonging to Christ, of being a member of Christ's body ; and individual participation in this common ' breaking of bread ' is the outward and public recognition of the fact by the Church, which personally makes each individual one with the Saviour, and, so far, a member of His body, an external manifestation of Him who is his Life and his Salvation.

We have now cleared the ground for the full explanation of the second clause of the Apostle's question, and so we will read : ' The bread which we break, is it not the symbol of our Christian fellowship and common brotherhood, of our being members of the Church, and so of our belonging to Christ, and of our oneness with Christ our Head ?'

The first clause of the question still remains for consideration. The phrase ' to break bread ' means to exercise the rites of hospitality. It is an Eastern expression that describes in a figure the functions of the head of a family presiding at his family table, and distributing to the guests their respective portions of the good things provided for them, and their joint participation of them.* And the family table as a common bond unites the company, for the time being, in a 'koinonia.'

This ' breaking of bread ' requires as its necessary constituents three several elements: I. A common table round which the company gather; 2. The orderly arrangement of the food to be eaten ; 3. The joint participation of the food provided. And thus the phrase ' to break bread ' signifies to hold a festive party, or a social gathering of friends ; just as the more modern phrase ' to take tea ' implies or involves all the adjuncts named. And thus the meaning of the phrase ' to break bread ' is not to be limited to its

* The Church of Rome acknowledges this in her administration of the wafer to her communicants. There is no ' breaking of bread ' in the literal sense of the words, in the Romish rite. The priest presides at the altar, and ' breaks the bread ' of the Lord's table by giving with his own hands to each communicant his share of the food provided.

apparent literal signification of dividing a loaf into pieces, but must be understood in its wider sense as including all the particulars mentioned. And the emphasis, if any, in St. Paul's question should be laid upon the word 'we' — the bread which 'we' break; and this has its exact equivalent in the corresponding phrase, ' our breaking of bread,' and this is what the Apostle means by this clause of his question . ' Is not our breaking of bread at the Lord's table a symbol ordained by Christ Himself to express and embody the brotherhood of the Church and its unity with Himself?' a unity which constitutes every individual Christian a member of the body of Christ; every local Church an organized embodiment of Christ, and the Church universal * the fulness of God in Him ' (Ephes. i. 23).

And that this is the meaning of the Apostle may be seen from the verse following (1 Cor. x. 17) : ' Even as the loaf is one, we, the many (who are in Christ), are one body, for we are all joint partakers of the one loaf,' and thus members of the Church which is the body of Christ. And then he puts this Christian ' breaking of bread,' this social union of Christians, considered as the expression of the believers' unity in and with Christ, into contrast with, and in direct opposition to, social unions of Jews and of heathen Gentiles in their respective sacrificial feasts. 'Look at Israel after the flesh ; are not the eaters of their sacrifices,' kqivgovoi, ' koinonoi,' ' associates of,' ' united spiritually with ' the altars at which their sacrifices have been offered? (ver. 18). And so we may thus paraphrase his following words (vers. 19-21). And 'whilst not teaching that an idol is anything to a disciple of Christ, more than the materials of which it is made ; or that that which is offered to an idol is anything more than, or different from ordinary food, so long as it is not eaten with a conscious reference to the idol — I do say that these heathen services carry the worshipper into a spiritual communion or common partnership with demons, whose power and influence upon earth the Lord Jesus came to destroy, and I would not have you enter into any such union with demons.'

' All conscious participation in idol services conjoins the worshippers spiritually to the demon which the idol represents — in like manner as partaking of the Lord's Supper conjoins you to the Lord — and you cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons.' A man canrtot be a willing servant of the demons, who are the enemies of God, and yet be a disciple of Christ. You may choose for yourself the object and form of your worship and service, but your choice and your practice inseparably unite you with the spiritual power and influence to which you ally yourselves. You may indeed choose which God you will serve, the true or the false ; but you cannot serve both.

Chapter II

Application of Paul's definition to I Cor. xi. 23, 24. — Meaning of the word ' body.' — ' This do in remembrance of Me.'

One other passage remains for consideration — 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24 : 'I received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This is My body, which is for you. This do in remembrance of Me ; ' or, ' This do to call Me to mind,' for the renewal, or for the revival, of My memory to all generations.

In this passage the Apostle not only gives us the form of the Lord's Supper, as the Lord Himself ordained it ; but he includes in the narrative, as a constituent part of it, the historical facts connected with the Institution, all of which he declares ' he received from the Lord.'

We therefore conclude that the narrative includes not only all that the Apostle deemed needful for the correction and instruction of the Corinthian Church at the time he wrote ; but, by direct inference, all that the Divine wisdom saw needful for the Apostle's instruction and guidance in the fulfilment of his apostolic commission and duties. And so in the last resort it becomes the standard by which the accuracy of every other account must be measured, and to which they must be submitted for correction, if there be any difference between them.

Before we proceed further to apply St. Paul's meaning of the phrase ' the body of Christ,' to the interpretation of our Lord's own words, we may premise that Mov to etifia, ' the body of Me,' from the mouth of the Lord, on this occasion has its exact equivalent in the corresponding phrase to ffc^/xa rov XpiGTov, ' the body of the Christ,' from the pen of St. Paul.

We have already shown, beyond the possibility of rational contradiction or doubt, what St. Paul understood by the words ' body of Christ ' (see Appendix B). The only ' body of Christ ' of which the Apostle teaches anything was the Church of Christ, either local or universal. Strictly speaking, a local Church can only practically exist in its own assembly. The formal purpose of its assembly was to break bread together for the renewal or revival of the memory of the Lord Christ. At the orderly assembly of the Church at Corinth there was a real supper provided for this purpose. The materials of this supper were sufficient to satisfy the wants of hungry men, and to enable others to drink to excess. There was no priest present in the Church in St. Paul's days to administer the elements. So far as appears, the Corinthian supper in its arrangements was a transcript of the Last Supper of the Lord with His disciples. It is in perfect agreement with the account given in chap - ter xiii. of the Fourth Gospel. In the midst of the Corinthian supper each member of the Church ' broke bread ' with his neighbors at the table, in obedience to the injunction of the Lord, ' This do for the purpose of renewing My memory amongst yourselves.' And this breaking of bread together on the part of each one sitting at the table was regarded as a token of, and the evidence of their fraternal equality, and of their union with each other as disciples of Christ and members of His body.

When our Lord instituted the Supper as His abiding and perpetual memorial, the word ' church,' in its ordinary New Testament meaning, was not known. Neither as a fact in the world's history, nor as an idea in the disciples' minds, had it any existence. It was therefore impossible for our Lord to have used it. The words He did speak we have reported to us in St. Paul's narrative. Let us endeavor to ascertain, if we can, what our Lord meant by His use of the word ' soma,' ' body,' on this occasion, and what the specific idea was which He intended to convey by it.

St. Paul, certainly — there can be no rational doubt on the subject — understood by the phrase ' body of Christ ' the Church. So far we are standing on solid ground. And, further, by the word ' Church ' he understood a community of believers spiritually united by their common faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour ; by their cordial acceptance of Him as their spiritual Head and Exemplar ; by their loving obedience to Him as their Divine Teacher and Guide ; and objectively or outwardly by their ' breaking bread together in obedience to His command.'

And interpreting the spoken words according to the ordinary and universal law of the Greek language in relation to the necessary agreement in gender of nouns and pronouns, this is the only possible meaning of the words spoken. The pronoun rovro, ' this,' is neuter; the word apro3, 'bread,' is masculine. The words cannot be construed together without a breach of universal law in Greek grammar.* There is between them an impassable gulf.

And there is not the least necessity for any such forced grammatical construction. The Apostle himself describes the institution under the title ' deipnon ' — ' supper.' And in this connection the word ' deipnon ' is the exact equivalent of the phrase ' breaking of bread.'

We will, therefore, paraphrase the words of our Lord in harmony with St. Paul's doctrine. ' This {supper)f is for you, the clothing and symbol of My

* The word apro} occurs some 99 times in the New Testament. In not less than 50 of these it is construed with masculine adjuncts. In no case is it found conjoined with a word in the neuter gender.

f Let it be remembered here that the Apostle teaches, as we have already seen, that the ' breaking of bread,' which he designates 'the Lord's Supper ' in the twentieth verse, is the ' koinonia ' spoken of in chap. x. 16, as the outward bond of the union of the Church. Each of the two words, 'deipnon,' 'supper,' and 'koinonia,' ' bond or symbol of union,' refers to the same fact, and represent the same idea, because ' the supper ' was the ' symbol of union ' of every local Church.

Like 'koinonia,' the supper has three elements: (1) The people sitting at the table ; (2) the food upon the table ; (3) joint-participation of the food provided. And this, in its entirety, forms the Church, or the body of Christ,' localized in places.

spirit ; — My time manifestation. Let all who shall hereafter believe in Me — let all who are animated by My spirit, keep — observe — celebrate this supper, for the renewal of My memory — for the purpose of calling Me to mind, until I come again. This supper is for you, and for all my disciples, the symbol of your brotherhood in Me ; and as each one of you makes discipleship to Me the rule and purpose of his life, I will be with him, spiritually uniting Myself to him as a consciously Divine force, delivering him from his self-centered life, which is the beginning and power of sin in him, and lifting him up to a higher plane of existence, in which he shall be conscious of My presence with him, and of his own sonship to the Universal Father, and of his own brotherhood to universal humanity, so that he shall become a representative of Me in the world, reflecting the image of My Sonship in himself

To read ' bread ' — ' This bread is My Church' — is impossible. The Apostle's word, ' deipnon ' —

' supper ' — found in the twentieth verse, meets all the difficulty. There is no grammatical, nor, indeed, any real difficulty, logically or doctrinally, connected with this view of the subject. The difficulties all lie on the other side.