THE LAST WEEK OF JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY AND HIS CRUCIFIXION

-Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper

-Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20

-While eating during this evening of the Passover, an occasion with great significance, Jesus was

 about to institute a memorial of even greater significance, the Lord’s Supper.  The first had

 reached its close, the latter was now beginning.

-As they were eating, Jesus took the bread, blessed it (offered thanks), broke it and instructed the

 apostles to take of it and eat.

            -“As only unleavened bread was eaten during the paschal supper, that kind of bread must

             have been used by our Lord, and it is fitting that it should still be used by us in keeping

             the Lord’s Supper, not only for propriety’s sake, but because that bread which is emblematic

             of purity is most suitable to represent the body of the sinless Christ” (McGarvey/Pendleton,

             pg 658).

-He then took the cup, gave thanks, passed it to the apostles and told them all to drink of it.

            -The emphasis was on the content of the cup and not the cup itself.  Obviously, the apostles

             were not to drink the actual cup but the content within it.  It is unfortunate that some, having

             misunderstood this easy concept, attempt to place a requirement upon the use of only one

             cup during the observance of the Lord’s Supper.  The idea of utilizing a single cup during

             the observance would fall within the category of preference (a choice).  To require the use of

             one cup only is to bind where the scriptures do not do so.  Such is wrong.

            -“Wine, mingled with water, was drunk during the paschal supper.  Jesus took a cup of this

             for his new institution.  But the word ‘wine’ is nowhere used in any of the accounts of the

             Lord’s Supper, the terms ‘cup’ and ‘fruit of the vine’ being employed in its stead.  Those,

             therefore, who choose to use unfermented grape juice are guilty of no irregularity” (ibid.).

                        -“It should be noted in passing, however, that the ‘wine’ of the first century, though

                         containing a degree of fermentation, did not have nearly the potency that modern wines

                         possess…Expediency, therefore, might be the prevailing factor in the case posed.  If

                         both grape juice and wine are available, grape juice, one would think, would be the wiser

                         choice.  It would avoid the appearance of evil, perhaps be less offensive (an occasion of

                         stumbling), and not be an avenue to temptation in some (who might have a weakness for

                         strong drink)” (Jackson, http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/was_the_fruit_of_

                         the_vine_fermented).

                        -Since the bread was unleavened and therefore a proper symbol of purity, it seems

                         logical that unleavened (unfermented) wine would be the best symbol for the blood of

                         Christ.

-Of course, the bread and fruit of the vine are representative of the body and blood of Jesus given

 on our behalf.  The concept of transubstantiation, the idea that the elements of the Lord’s Supper

 literally change into the body and blood of Jesus – has no scriptural support at all. 

            -When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, He was within His physical body and His blood

             was still unshed.  After the cup had been drunk from, Jesus still referred to its contents as

             “the fruit of the vine” (Matt 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18).  No change had taken place.

-The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is stated by our Lord in Luke 22:19 – “…this do in

 remembrance of me.”

            -The central purpose of the supper is to bring the sacrifice of Christ and all its blessed results

             vividly to mind…In keeping the Lord’s Supper we proclaim to our own souls and to the

             world our trust in the death of Christ, and our hope that he will return and fulfill the

             expectations begotten in us by it” (McGarvey/Pendleton, pg 659).

            -In regards to the apostles at this time, Dorris observed, “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” (pgs 330-331).

-Several ideas have been expounded regarding Jesus not drinking of the fruit of the vine “…until

 that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”  H. Leo Boles stated it well in

 his commentary on Matthew when he said, “‘Jesus did not literally drink wine with his disciples

 in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom of heaven.  The term

 ‘drink’ is used figuratively to express that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while

 they are eating the Lord’s Supper” (pg 505).

            -For the timing and regularity of observing the Lord’s Supper, one can consider the words of the

             apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and see that it is to be observed “often.”  Acts 20:7

             demonstrates that the Lord’s Supper is to be observed “upon the first day of the week.” 

                        -“The only authoritative case that can be made for the frequency of the Lord’s supper is this:

                         it was observed each Lord’s day by the early Christians, and, so far as the evidence reveals,

                         on that day only” (Jackson, www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_weekly_observance

                         _of_the_lords_supper).