6. THE LORD'S SUPPER Mark 14:22-26 (Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25) 22 And as they were eating, he took bread,--Or "a loaf" (footnote), one of the thin flat loaves of the country--made without leaven of any kind. "A loaf" does not mean two or more loaves, but one. The loaf, which was one, points to the body of Christ. Jesus had one body he offered for the sins of the world and the one loaf represents that one body. Two loaves on the Lord's table are out of place and have no divine sanction. One loaf is safe, two are doubtful, to say the least. It is always safe to be on the safe side. and when he had blessed,--The word "blessed" is used interchangeably with "gave thanks." That is, the same act is sometimes expressed by the one form and sometimes by the other. Here and in Matthew (Matthew 26:26) what is expressed by "blessed" in Luke 22:17; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24 is expressed by saying "had given thanks." And in the account given by Matthew and Mark, the one expression is used in reference to the bread, and the other in reference to the cup. They therefore mean the same thing, or rather express the same act, for that act was both a benediction and thanksgiving; that is, it is addressed to God, and therefore may be expressed either by the words "had blessed" or "given thanks." he brake it,--After he had expressed thanks. The Passover bread, as used by the Israelites now, is very thin and easily broken. This represented his body broken on the cross. Breaking of the bread is essential to the true idea. Cutting it is a perversion. The ordinance is even called "the breaking of bread." (Acts 2:42.) and gave to them,--To the eleven disciples, probably, not certainly, first partaking of it himself. They were all baptized believers. No one is authorized to eat at the Lord's table who has not been immersed into Christ. The Lord's Supper is for those who are members of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:20; 1 Corinthians 11:33), and those who are not members of the church ought not to partake of the bread and wine. [I do not think Judas ate the Lord's Supper with Jesus and his disciples. John (John 13:21-30) shows plainly that Judas went out before the supper was observed. He went out to get his band to take Jesus and betray him to the chief priests; after he had gone, the Lord's Supper was instituted. There is a distinction between the Passover feast and the Lord's Supper appointed at the feast.] and said, Take ye: this is my body.-- [When his own living body was present before them, they could not otherwise than understand that this bread that was broken was the representative of his body--the symbol of it to them. This was another of the parables he had so constantly presented to them within these last days. They could not have understood it otherwise than as a representation, or symbol, of his body to them. This bread was given in view of his coming death for their sins. His body would he broken as this loaf was broken, and he gives this as the representative, or memorial, of it. To establish a memorial of a deed before it is performed is not like man, but God frequently did it. Man never knows what will happen; God does. Jesus was before him as "the Lamb that bath been slain" from the foundation of the world. The bread used in this supper was the unleaven bread of the Passover week. As the bread and the wine constitute the staff of life--that on which our bodies are sustained--even so this body broken and this blood shed for the remission of sins constitute the food upon which our spirits must feed, that they may grow into the likeness of Christ.] 23 And he took a cup,--"A cup" is one, not two nor a dozen. Luke says: "The cup," so also Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25), and both insert "after supper." Paul also calls it (1 Corinthians 10:16) "the cup of blessing." "Cup" here is used figuratively for what it contains. The cup contained wine, the juice of the crushed grape--a striking emblem of his own blood, which would be shed for the sins of the whole world. and when he had given thanks,--This is what made it "the cup of blessing." He did not give thanks for the bread and cup at the same time, as some do now. To do so is a perversion of the truth--it is unscriptural. All mentions of it show thanks for the bread first, then the cup. he gave to them: and they all drank of it.--[The cup contained the fruit of the vine. It was the cup, or wine, used in the Passover feast. For this he gave thanks. Blessing and giving thanks seem to be used interchangeably, and therefore refer to the same thing. Luke reports him as saying: "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." The truth, when they as yet understood so little of his death and resurrection, was not apparent to the disciples; but like so many other things which they did not understand, after he died and was raised from the dead they remembered it, and they understood it; so they believed. In Acts 2:42 we find: "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers." This refers to the breaking of bread in memory of the Lord. Many think the breaking of bread daily in verse 46 also refers to the supper; but it seems to refer to the daily meals, inasmuch as it is said: "And breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart." Eating their food for sustenance. Acts 20:7 : "And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them." Paul says: "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, 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. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body." (1 Corinthians 11:23-29.) From this we learn that it was a memorial institution to keep in memory the heroic deeds of Jesus in dying to redeem man. It was to be observed by their coming together on the first day of the week to break bread. It was the will of God set forth in the shedding of his blood for the sins of the world. Monuments are designed to commemorate the worthy deeds of those to whose memory they are built, with the hope that future generations, when they learn of the deeds commemorated by the monument, will be inspired with the same spirit, and be led to emulate these worthy deeds. Just so this monumental institution was ordained to perpetuate the memory of the self-denying spirit and heroic deeds of Jesus Christ for the good of man. It is done with the view that those who see these memorials of the deeds and death of Jesus will drink into the same spirit, and be led to emulate his life and deeds of self-sacrifice for the good of others. Man builds monuments of marble and granite, of iron and brass. He seeks the imperishable. Despite all his precaution, they molder and crumble. God through Jesus selected the perishable loaf and volatile fruit of the vine as the materials out of which he would build a monument that would endure with perennial freshness through time till Jesus should come again. No mortal would ever seek to build an imperishable monument out of material so perishable as the bread and wine. God only could breathe into it a spirit that would render it immortal--that could cause it to continue in its freshness and vigor till he come.] 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.--He shed his blood "unto remission of sins" and so baptism is "unto the remission of your sins." (Acts 2:38.) Both came from the same Greek word and mean the same in both passages. If baptism is not "unto remission of sins" as some contend, then Jesus did not shed his blood "unto remission of sins." They both stand or fall together. [Just as he gave the bread as the representative of the body so he gave the fruit of the vine as the cup--as his blood. A testament is a will. God through Jesus makes a new will, or testament, as that through Moses is called the old will, or testament. This is the memorial of that blood that was shed to seal and confirm this new testament. The old testament was sealed with the blood of animals; this is sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ shed for the remission of sins. He is called "the Lamb of God," in John 1:29, and "the Lamb that hath been slain," in Revelation 13:8. He offered himself for man's redemption when man sinned. God accepted him as the Redeemer; but "he was manifested to take away sins." (1 John 3:5.) "Ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of the times for your sake, who through him are believers in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God." (1 Peter 1:18-21.) This blood of the New Testament was shed for many. "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." (1 John 2:2.) Jesus shed his blood for all, but only for those who appropriate its cleansing efficacy, who enter into the temple of the living God, and walk in its blood-sealed appointments and laws. Matthew (Matthew 26:28) says his blood "is poured out for many unto remission of sins"--that their sins might be remitted;that they might be freed from sins; that God "might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:26.)] 25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.--[It has been a question of doubt as to what is meant by the expression: "I shall drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." The general interpretation is that it referred to the new spiritual communion with him in the eternal kingdom of God that is typified by the partaking of the bread and wine. Others think that it means he would not partake of it again until the church of God was fully set up on Pentecost; and then, in their observance of it and through time, he would be with them in spirit when they met to remember his death in these memorials he gives. Others still think he means when he comes again to earth he will, with his disciples, partake of the bread and wine.] 26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.--[Christ and the apostles sang at the first institution and observance of the supper. They sang--not one of them. Paul and Silas, in the Philippian jail, sang at midnight. This might not be called a "public song service," but it was a part of the worship engaged in by these two disciples in the prison. Acts 16:25 reads: "But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns unto God, and the prisoners were listening to them." They both sang, and the prayer and singing are associated as equally acceptable to God, each constituting an act of acceptable worship to God. Paul, in Ephesians 5:19, says: "Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord." They were to speak to each other in the singing. It must have been when they were called together. Again, Colossians 3:16-17 says: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God. And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." This singing must be done when they were together, that each might be admonished by the singing done. This is clear and distinct authority for the song service. That it should be called in question is an indication as to what extremes people will go in trying to justify practices not required by God.] I can see no excuse for brethren, in some instances, omitting the song after the supper, when we have an example of singing set by Jesus and the apostles when the supper was instituted. There is as much authority to omit all the song service when we meet for worship as there is to omit it after the supper. There is none for either. Neither is there any authority for singing while making the contribution or partaking of the supper.