Lord's supper history?

[lynnie]

I've wondered about this for a while. In Corinth they had a meal, and some people got drunk.

So when did it turn into a tiny bit of drink and bread? Why don't we have a meal? If people want to be biblical, why does it center on wine instead of juice, and not on a real supper instead of the tiny tokens? What is the historic basis for the way we do it now?

Thanks.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

The meal is probably a cultural circumstance that can be adopted to the individual church culture. The bread and wine are the elements which always remain consistent, which technically form the sacrament, regardless of quantity.

 

[earl40]

I turned into a tiny bit with The Last Supper in that the bread and wine was served in the mist of the supper.

 

[RamistThomist]

I doubt there is one simple answer. Certainly as the supper became more an object of adoration, it ceased to be a meal. You don't worship and adore a meal. And as the Supper happened at a very structured part of the liturgy, it wasn't necessary to make it a meal.

 

[lynnie]

If "one gets drunk", I picture it more like a fellowship dinner that many churches have. I don't have time to look for links but I've seen them in the past advocating for a supper. But thanks for the replies. It isn't a big deal for me and something I long for and pray for, but I have wondered.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I deny that the Lord's Supper rite was a full course "meal" in Corinth.

I think there were "meals" at the Corinth church, meals ostensibly for fellowship--just like in 99% of our churches. And part of the offense of these gatherings was that so far from being fellowship and unity, the cliques got together and ate and drank, or rich folk/families brought their feasts--and they ate hearty, while a poorer contingent or an individual sat out with his crust of bread or nothing. All this, while they were supposed to be fellowshipping one another.

And then they all sat down together in worship, and ate the Supper like they were all "one in Christ?" While some were loosening their belts, and other's stomachs were growling? Who had just prior to the service watched the better half pig out, and maybe even get drunk? No wonder Paul declared that they weren't truly eating the Lord's Supper. They were making a mockery of it. "Eat your meals at home, in that case!"

 

[Scott Bushey]

Though the consensus is split, the LS has a connection to Passover; hence, it's history is rooted in the Passover.

 

[TheOldCourse]

I deny that the Lord's Supper rite was a full course "meal" in Corinth.

I think there were "meals" at the Corinth church, meals ostensibly for fellowship--just like in 99% of our churches. And part of the offense of these gatherings was that so far from being fellowship and unity, the cliques got together and ate and drank, or rich folk/families brought their feasts--and they ate hearty, while a poorer contingent or an individual sat out with his crust of bread or nothing. All this, while they were supposed to be fellowshipping one another.

And then they all sat down together in worship, and ate the Supper like they were all "one in Christ?" While some were loosening their belts, and other's stomachs were growling? Who had just prior to the service watched the better half pig out, and maybe even get drunk? No wonder Paul declared that they weren't truly eating the Lord's Supper. They were making a mockery of it. "Eat your meals at home, in that case!"

Well said. I can't say that I'm familiar with any detailed examination of early church history on the practice of the Lord's Supper--no doubt there was diversity--but I would hope that any church that took Paul's admonitions seriously ceased treating it as a meal of physical nourishment.

 

[lynnie]

I deny that the Lord's Supper rite was a full course "meal" in Corinth.

I think there were "meals" at the Corinth church, meals ostensibly for fellowship--just like in 99% of our churches. And part of the offense of these gatherings was that so far from being fellowship and unity, the cliques got together and ate and drank, or rich folk/families brought their feasts--and they ate hearty, while a poorer contingent or an individual sat out with his crust of bread or nothing. All this, while they were supposed to be fellowshipping one another.

And then they all sat down together in worship, and ate the Supper like they were all "one in Christ?" While some were loosening their belts, and other's stomachs were growling? Who had just prior to the service watched the better half pig out, and maybe even get drunk? No wonder Paul declared that they weren't truly eating the Lord's Supper. They were making a mockery of it. "Eat your meals at home, in that case!"

That is really interesting and makes sense of the passage. Thanks! I don't know why I never saw this opinion on those verses before. Good old PB.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Though the consensus is split, the LS has a connection to Passover; hence, it's history is rooted in the Passover.

The occasion of the LS was Passover, and there are obvious connections between the two meals. However, Jesus couldn't die twice, and that's why he wasn't also sacrificed on the Day of Atonement, or in conjunction with the Feast of Trumpets as well as the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Still, the fulfillment of the LS was the whole sacrificial and ceremonial system, including the entire calendar, and all the significance of the Temple, the priesthood, etc. The LS is not "more" about Passover than about the Day of Atonement, since it happened near the first, rather than the second. It is a really big table, because it is stuffed with the whole Old Testament, and sat around it is the entire congregation of the elect, with more seats being added all the time.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Some relevant data on the LS by the Reformed:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/the...le-of-worship-articlesindex/the-lords-supper/

 

[TheOldCourse]

It ought to be noted in Jesus' institution, that, while the occasion of the institution was the Passover meal, the institution itself was not that meal in its totality but a piece or loaf of bread which Jesus broke and a single cup of wine which was shared among the number present. Matthew's account notes that Christ instituted the Supper after the eating of the meal had already begun so it was not the meal as a whole that was blessed and set apart as a new sacrament but rather particularly the cup and the loaf.