The Berean Expositor
Volume 21 - Page 110 of 202
Index | Zoom
To be logical, if one wants to keep to the tradition of the twelve, he or she should
consider the Passover as they did, viz., as an offering. The Roman Mass has this
character and seems, therefore, to approach to the ceremonial of the twelve. During the
Acts, while the temple stood, the Jewish priest had his part in the Passover. Had the
church replaced Israel, and had no new dispensation commenced after Acts 28:, the
Roman Church would have been consistent in referring to the teaching of the twelve and
to the tradition of the first century.
The Churches of the Reformation will remain in confusion so long as they adhere to
the new covenant and the twelve, but do not follow their traditions. If we will but leave
to Israel what belongs to Israel, and believe the testimony of the apostle Paul as to the
dispensation of the mystery, all will be clear.
The Lord's Supper.
This expression is only used once (I Cor. 11: 20). The other references speak of a
"meal", and of a "cup" after the meal (I Cor. 11: 23). Let us examine the passages that
refer to the Lord's Supper.
MATT. 26: 26-29.--We observe that the Passover is mentioned in verse 19, and in
verse 23 is mentioned the dipping of the bread. Mark 14: 22-25 is very similar.
LUKE 22: 15-20.--If this is a new institution, it is remarkable that there is no
instruction as to manner, time and circumstance for the guidance of future observes. As
it stands it is obviously a part of the Passover.
JOHN 13: mentions the Passover, but gives no details about the bread and the cups.
As John's Gospel was written after Acts 28: (see articles in Volume XX on "The
dispensational place of John's Gospel") at a time when the Passover was no longer to be
observed because Israel had by then been set aside, nothing is said about them. If it had
concerned a new institution, it would have been very necessary to give all details in order
to ensure that all would keep the ordinance according to the will of God.
I COR. 10: 16; 11: 20-26.--Paul gives no new detail, not even about the time. All he
says is, "as often as". When Luke 22: 20 and I Cor. 11: 25 speak of a cup "after the
meal", it can only be the third cup of the ritual. This is confirmed by I Cor. 10: 16, where
this cup is called by the very Jewish name, "The cup of blessing".
The Word of God teaches nothing about a new institution for Christians, but shows,
on the contrary, that the Lord's Supper was a perpetuation of the Passover feast, with this
difference, that Christ Himself is the true Passover, and the covenant in view is not Sinai
(as it was at the Exodus), but Calvary and the new covenant in His blood. Every item in
the New Testament record refers to the non-ritual meal, and the explanations given only
explain more fully the significance of this part of the ceremony. To take a part of it and
apply it to the "church" is not scriptural.