This video series presents church leaders with growth strategies given by Jesus to the ancient church to stir up love and good deeds, foster oneness and community, strengthen the church, and increase holiness. This session explores an ancient church communion strategy for unity, community, and holiness, and is presented by Stephen Atkerson, President of the New Testament Reformation Fellowship. Did you know that the early church celebrated the Lord's Supper as an actual meal? Did you know that they celebrated the Lord's Supper as an actual meal every week, centered around one cup and one loaf? That's obviously not how it's done today. Question is, why did they do it that way? Perhaps more importantly, what are we missing if we don't do it that way? So why did they do it that way? Well, this was one of several growth strategies that Jesus left the early church. It's designed to result in supernatural unity, strong community, fantastic fellowship, and a focus on the second coming that will lead to holiness and anticipation of Jesus appearing. So I've made the point that the early church celebrated the Lord's Supper as an actual meal. Before I tell you the benefits of that, let's go into evidence of the fact that that really is what they did, because I know it sounds crazy to the modern ear. Proof number one is simple semantics. Words do have meaning, as Antonin Scalia said. Scripture calls it the Lord's Supper. The Greek word for supper is daipnon, It simply means the main meal of the day, or most commonly, the main meal toward evening. What it never means is appetizer, hors d'oeuvre, or snack. So when we talk about the Lord's Supper, when the New Testament calls it the Lord's Supper, it was indeed an actual meal. So for example, again, looking at the usage of this word, Jesus said, A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. Well, the word translated banquet is the same word for the Lord's Supper, Dapenon. A second proof lies in the realm of context. The Lord's Supper grew out of the Passover A feast is a lot of food, and in the New Testament time, the Passover feast was an all-day meal that the participants leisurely enjoyed. So when Jesus introduces the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper in the context of the Passover feast, there was no separation between the bread and the wine and the rest of the feast. For example, in Luke 22, Luke records that Jesus took a cup. And by the way, he passed that same cup more than once. This is the first time he passed it. He took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, take this and divide it among yourselves. And as you know, later he took the bread. When he had given thanks, he broke that and he gave that to them. Well, Matthew in his gospel, his parallel account in chapter 26, verse 26, says that it was while they were eating that Jesus took the bread. So again, you see the bread is an integral part of the rest of the food. And then Luke goes on to say in chapter 22, verse 20, that he passed that cup a second time after they had eaten. So the bread and the wine were an integral part of the Passover meal. Jesus passed the first cup, either before the meal or during the meal. He broke the bread certainly during the meal while they were still eating, and then the last cup after they had eaten. So the 12 rightly understood the Lord's Supper to be an actual meal, even as Passover was an actual meal. Now the third proof comes from the church in Corinth. 20 years after the Last Supper, different culture, a different country, a different continent. How was the church at Corinth celebrating the Lord's Supper? Was it an actual meal? Well, in fact, it was. Now there was trouble Corinth concerning the way they celebrated the Lord's Supper. And from the nature of these problems, we can tell it was an actual meal. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11 17, when you come together, it's for the worse. For when you come together as a church, I hear there are divisions among you. That's the root problem. And he said, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat, for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. So they had so abused the Lord's supper, it had ceased to be the Lord's supper and become their own suppers. But ostensibly, they were there to eat the Lord's supper. And the word for supper and the word for meal are the same Greek word, daipnon. Paul then says, and here's part of the sin, one goes hungry and another gets drunk. It's obviously a sin to get drunk at the Lord's Supper table. But part of the sin here in Corinth was that some people got sent home hungry. Now, no one today would ever get drunk at the Lord's Supper table, but the problem is everybody goes home hungry. So you can tell from the difference between then and now that their Lord's Suppers weren't like our Lord's Suppers. So it's clear that the early church celebrated the Lord's Supper as an actual meal. What was Paul's solution to the abuses in Corinth? Well, it wasn't to get rid of the meal. He goes on to write, so then my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. That is his solution. He goes on to warn about an unworthy manner of partaking of the Lord's Supper that resulted in sickness and even death in that church. He says in chapter 11 verse 27, whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Now the key here is an unworthy manner. He didn't say they were unworthy, he said the manner was unworthy. He goes on to write, let a person examine himself then and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. So there is to be an examination before the Lord's Supper. Now, typically today, people are quietly introspective. They're asking the Holy Spirit to shine the searchlight of His holiness into the deepest recesses of their hearts, looking for unconfessed sin. That's a good thing to do. That's not what Paul's talking about here. He's dealing with the explicit sin of division. So deep, it caused the rich Christians to not want to eat with the poor Christians, so therefore they connived to get to church early. to eat the meal before the poor got there. So that by the time the poor did come, all the food was gone. So he's saying these Christians in Corinth, the rich one, needed to examine themselves before coming to the Lord's table. He says, then, anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. The rich fail to discern the poor as equal and legitimate members of the body of Christ, and so they shame them. That is the sin that was resulting in judgment on that church, and that is the sin that expressed itself in this unworthy manner. Paul said, that is why many of you are weak and ill. And some have died. It's the unworthy manner that he condemned. The Greek word there is anoxios. And if you look it up in the Greek dictionary, it says just what the ESV in our case says here, an unworthy manner. So that unworthy manner is that they came together for the worse. There were divisions. It had ceased to be the Lord's Supper. It had become their own supper. Some went home hungry. Others had been so long there that they had become drunk. But the root cause were those divisions that led to the Corinthian trouble. That's why Paul says, let a person examine himself then and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. And his conclusion and his solution then regarding the meal is in verse 33. So then my brothers, when you come together to eat, do what? wait for one another. He did not abolish the meal. Now, what if you're so hungry you just can't wait? You're tempted to eat early. He says, well, if anyone is hungry in that sense, let him eat at home so that when you come together, it will not be for judgment. So the early church, it's clear, celebrated the Lord's Supper as an actual meal. Now, as we look out into church history, it's obvious that congregations continue to celebrate the Lord's Supper as a meal for the next one to two hundred years after the New Testament era. Researchers have difficulty precisely understanding why this transition took place, but the point to be observed is the New Testament church celebrated the Lord's Supper as a meal and then continued to do so for the next one to two hundred years. Our fourth proof comes in the realm of scholarly testimonies. Leon Morris, an Australian New Testament scholar, said that Holy Communion was not simply a token meal, as with us, but an actual meal. Moreover, he said, it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food. Gordon Fee, a Canadian New Testament scholar, From the beginning, the Last Supper was for Christians, not an annual Christian Passover, but a regularly repeated meal in honor of the Lord, hence the Lord's Supper. John Gooch, editor of the United Methodist Publishing House, said that in the first century, the Lord's Supper included not only the bread and the cup, but an entire meal. And John Drane, a UK theologian, said the early church observed the Lord's Supper as an exclusive community meal. So now the question is, why did they do that? Why did the ancient church celebrate the Lord's Supper as a meal? It's pretty obvious they got that idea from Jesus and the apostles. But what was the purpose of it? Well, one purpose is it serves as a prophetic type of the marriage supper of the Lamb. See, the biblical picture of heaven is not floating on a cloud playing harp. It's feasting in the kingdom of God. For example, Jesus said, many shall come from east and west and do what? Recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob when? In the kingdom of heaven. And a random Jewish man came up to Jesus and reflected what was then the common sentiment. Blessed is everyone who shall eat bread, when? In the kingdom of God. And Jesus, at the Last Supper, said, I sign to you a kingdom that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom. So at the Last Supper, Jesus said, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. That's why we call it the Last Supper. It's the last one Jesus ever ate with us. But although often today when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we only look back to the past, to the cross, Jesus himself introduced many forward-looking aspects in the Last Supper. He goes on to say in Luke 22, 16, For I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Now, that word until is a forward-looking word. It's from the Greek, in this case, from hios houtou, and it tells you when, in the future, something will happen. He said, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled. Well, what is it referred to? He's been talking about the Passover. So, there's something about the Passover that's going to be fulfilled in the future in the kingdom of God. Now, in the Bible, when you read about things that have fulfillment, we often think of prophecy. Well, that means the Passover And in that sense, turning to the Lord's Supper is like a prophecy. It's going to have a future fulfillment. It's a type. And what is that fulfillment? Well, most people think it's the marriage supper of the Lamb that we read about in Revelation 19. So, the Passover, of course, looked back to the exodus from Egypt, when the death angel passed over and spared the firstborn of the Israelites. But the Passover also had a forward-looking aspect to it. Fritz Reinecker, a German theologian, said the Passover celebrated two events. First, the deliverance from Egypt, and second, the anticipated coming messianic deliverance. It looked backwards, it looked forwards. So too, the Lord's Supper looks backwards, of course, to the cross, but it also looks forward to the second coming. This is reflected in the Baptist faith and message of year 2000. The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, number one, memorialize the death of the Redeemer, and number two, anticipate his second coming. So when you celebrate the Lord's Supper, do you only think of what happened on the cross or are you also reminded of the second coming of Jesus? You should be thinking both directions. So why did the ancient church celebrate the Lord's Supper as a meal? First reason I gave is it's a prophetic type of the marriage supper of the lamb. What better way to typify the marriage supper of the lamb than with his supper now? But there's more. Why else did the ancient church celebrate the Lord's Supper as a meal? Well, number two, it was a fantastic time of fellowship and community building. This can be seen in Acts 2 42, a famous verse about how the early church did things. They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and the fellowship. to the breaking of bread, that's a reference to the Lord's Supper, and the prayers. Now a casual reading of that verse looks like there were four things the early church was devoted to. Apostles teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. But actually there's not four things here, there's only three. And you can see that in the presence or absence of the word and. See, the word and is between teaching and fellowship. The word and is between breaking of bread and prayer. It's missing, however, between fellowship and breaking of bread. There were only three things they were devoted to. The first was the apostles' teaching. The third, the prayers. The second thing was fellowship in the breaking of bread. The fellowship, the breaking of bread fellowship. So when they had the Lord's Supper, Luke described it as a time of fellowship. So you can tell that's completely different than how we do the Lord's Supper today. So Jesus designed that the church would be edified through fellowship in the breaking of bread of the Lord's Supper as an actual meal. Luke goes on in verse 46 to say, they were breaking bread in their homes, they received their food, see the Lord's Supper is associated with food, with glad and generous hearts, praising God. So, when they did the Lord's Supper in the first century, that was associated with food, gladness, and praising God. It was not. time of morbid introspection. It was not like a funeral. It was like a wedding feast. So why did the ancient church celebrate the Lord's Supper as an actual meal? First reason I gave is a prophetic type of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Second reason I just gave is it is designed, properly done, to be a wonderful time of fellowship and community building through communion. But there's more. Why else did the ancient church celebrate the Lord's Supper as a meal? Well, the third reason, it's an acted out prayer that asks Jesus to come back again. Back in Luke 22, 17, Luke records that Jesus took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, take this, this cup, and divide it among yourselves. Now, we're used to remembering that he said it represents his blood. His blood was shed on the cross. That's a past event. But that's not what he said here. What he said here was something to do with the second coming. He said, why should they divide the cup? For, that's because, here's the reason, I tell you that from now on, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine till the kingdom of God comes. So whenever you partake of the Lord's Supper and you drink the fruit of the vine, you should remember that Jesus promised to come back and drink it again with us. Of course it represents his blood, but it also is to be a reminder of his promise to come back and drink it again with us. And there's that word until. I will not drink it until the kingdom of God comes. Again, it's from hiyas hutu. Again, it's a future looking word. Tells you when something will happen. And then in verse 19, it says that Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, gave it to them, and said, this is my body, which is given for you. Now, of course, since the bread represents his body on the cross, given for us, his blood was shed, that's in the past. But even here, there's a future aspect. There's more to this than meets the eye that actually points to the second coming. And that's because Jesus said, do this in remembrance of me. The Greek word for remembrance is anamnesis. We get our word amnesia from that. An means not, amnesis means forget. So don't forget, forget not. If you look it up in a Greek dictionary, it simply means reminder. Our translators often put remembrance. Now there is a difference between a remembrance and a reminder. They're alike, but they can also be different. A remembrance only looks to the past. A reminder can look to the past or it can be a reminder to do something in the future. Stereotypically, we say you tie a string around your finger to remind yourself to do something in the future. So a reminder can be forward-looking. Jesus literally said, do this unto my reminder. So is the reminder to remind of something past or Could it be that the reminder is to remind of something future? Jesus said, it's my reminder. Do this as my reminder. Suppose you heard me say, hey, that's my picture. I'm pointing at something, and you look, and I'm pointing to a painting. Well, that would mean the picture belongs to me. I own it. It's mine. But if I said, hey, that's my picture, and I'm pointing to a newspaper and a newsstand, and it's got my mug on the front cover, I might not own that newspaper, but I'm the subject of the picture that's on the newspaper. So when Jesus said, it's my reminder, that could be that the reminder is about Jesus, he's the subject, or the reminder could belong to Jesus, he's the owner. The standard Greek word for my is mou, and it's grammatically ambiguous as to which it could mean. The reminder could be about Jesus. The reminder could belong to Jesus. But what's interesting is the normal Greek word for my is actually not in the text here. It's the more emphatic word emmas. Emmas more specifically denotes possession. Jesus said emas, not mu. The reminder actually belongs to Jesus, meaning it's his reminder. Dr. Jehoiakim Jeremias said that Jesus used an amnesis in the sense of a reminder for God. And he said the Lord's Supper would thus be an enacted prayer. It's good biblical theology to say that God remembers covenant promises. For example, when God made the covenant with Noah, he said, I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant. When the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant. When the bow is in the clouds, I, and it's Jehovah God talking, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant. So that's why I say it's good theology to say God remembers various promises that he's made in the covenants between God and different people. Same is seen in the covenant he made with Abraham. It says in Exodus 2 that the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and they cried out for help. God heard their groaning, and what did God do? God remembered his covenant with Abraham. God remembers covenant promises. The same is seen in the covenant he made with ancient Israel at Mount Sinai. later through Ezekiel. It's recorded, thus says the Lord God. He's speaking to the Israelites. I, God, will remember my covenant with you, Israel, in the days of your youth. So God remembers covenant promises. Well, the reason I bring this up is this is also true of the new covenant. Jesus remembers new covenant promises. What did he promise? He passed that cup, according to Matthew 26, 28, he says, this is the blood of the covenant. I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine. until that day when I drink it new with you and my Father's kingdom." So part of the promise of the new covenant is that Jesus is going to come again and he's going to partake of the Lord's Supper with us in the Father's kingdom. Thus, when Jesus says, do this unto my reminder, arguably it has a forward-looking aspect to it. It's a reminder to Jesus of his promise to come back and need it again with us. In 1 Corinthians 11, 26, Paul wrote, as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death, okay, and that's why the Baptist faith and message says the Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church will moralize the death of the Redeemer. But then Paul writes, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. And that's why the Baptist faith and message says we are to anticipate His coming through the Lord's Supper. Now, we've been looking at the word until. Normally, it's the Greek word hios houtou, which simply tells you when something will happen out in the future. But let's say I had an umbrella and I was out in the rain with it and I said, I'm gonna use this umbrella until it stops raining. Well, I've just told you how long I'm gonna use the umbrella. Using the umbrella does not cause the rain to stop. And that's true of this word hios houtou. But that's, interestingly enough, not the Greek here in 1 Corinthians 11, 26. The Greek for until, this time, is akrihu. Akrihu, when used with an aorist subjunctive verb, which it is here, can denote a goal. It's not telling you when, it's telling you why. Fritz Reinecker, German theologian, said it means until the goal is reached. So more than a simple time frame telling you when, the Greek behind until in 1126 refers to an objective. Paul says we are to proclaim the Lord's death through the Lord's supper until what? He comes, that's the objective. That's why Jehoiakim Jeremias said that this reminder was for God and that the Lord's Supper would thus be an enacted prayer. It is a prayer that we act out. We see this in one of the earliest Christian writings, the Didache. When they celebrated the Lord's Supper, they always said, Maranatha, O Lord, come. They understood that the Lord's Supper had something to do with the second coming. British scholar R.P. Martin, in his commentary on Corinthians, noticed that at the end of the book of Corinthians, in chapter 16, verse 22, Paul wrote Maranatha. And he believed that this was set in a Eucharistic, Lord's Supper setting, so that at the conclusion of the letter, which was read publicly to the church, they would celebrate the Lord's Supper. And Paul had written extensively about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians. So why did the ancient church celebrate the Lord's Supper as a meal? Well, the third reason is it was like an acted out prayer asking Jesus to return. That's why at the beginning I said Jesus gave a communion strategy to the ancient church that would give a focus on the second coming, that would build second coming excitement and result in holiness in view of the second coming. 1 John 3, 2. We know that when he appears, we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure." So the Lord's Supper was celebrated by the ancient church as an actual meal. It was celebrated every week. Now, let's look at the evidence for that. I. Howard Marshall said that this simple rite was observed by his disciples at first as part of a communal meal Sunday by Sunday. What's the evidence of that? Well, first, semantics. Revelation 110, John wrote that he was in the spirit on the Lord's Day. He's not talking about the eschatological day of the Lord. He's talking about Sunday, the first day of the week, because the Greek here is different than the Greek for the day of the Lord. In fact, it's a very unusual construction. It's kuriake haimera. Kuriake is an unusual way to say that the day belongs to the Lord. It's from Kuriakhan. It means belonging to. So it's this day that belonged to the Lord. That's the day he rose from the dead. The only other time that odd phrasing is used is in 1 Corinthians 11 20 with reference to the Lord's Supper. The Supper that belongs to the Lord is Kuriakhan. the supper belonging to the Lord. So the link between these two odd ways of saying this shouldn't be dismissed. You've got the supper belonging to the Lord that was eaten weekly on the day belonging to the Lord. The two things went together. Proof number two is the fact that the only clear purpose given in Scripture for a weekly church meeting is to eat the Lord's Supper. For example, in Acts chapter 20, verse seven, it says, on the first day of the week, that's the Lord's day, when we were gathered together, why? To break bread, it's the Lord's supper, Paul talked with him. Now, they didn't gather on the first day of the week to hear Paul. Their regular custom was to gather on the first day of the week to celebrate the Lord's supper. Knowing that, Paul spoke to them. Another example of this is in what Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He says, when you come together as a church, and then he talks about the Lord's Supper, as if that is what they always did when they came together as a church. He also gives the purpose of a church meeting. In 1 Corinthians 11, 33, he says, when you come together to eat. That's italic infinitive. It gives you the purpose. Why did they come together? To eat. And what he's talking about there is the Lord's Supper. Now, that's three times we're given the reason for a church meeting. No other reason is ever given. We know they did other things. They had preaching. They had worship. They had prayer. But the only reason given is the primary driving force for gathering each Lord's Day was to eat, to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Unless you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. You know how many times the Bible mentions the virgin birth in the New Testament? Once. And yet it's a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. It's in all the creeds and the confessions, the belief in the virgin birth. Just says it once. Well, how many times has God got to say something before we take it seriously? In this case, we got it a trinity of times, three times references to the fact that the early church met weekly as their purpose to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Well, the third proof is the testimony of early Christian writers. Justin Martyr in his first apology, the Dake I've already mentioned, The politicians all wrote about the fact that when the early church came together, every week they had the Lord's Supper. John Calvin concluded, there is not the least doubt that the Sacred Supper was, in that era, said before the believers every time they met together. So now why did they do it? Why did the ancient church celebrate the Lord's Supper every week? Well, because that's a prescription that Jesus gave. That's part of the formula. It's the primary purpose of a weekly church meeting, since that's a prescription Jesus gave. If you want to get the same results they got, you got to do it the same way Jesus said to do it, not only as a meal, but every week. This growth strategy, when done that way, will result in supernatural unity, fantastic fellowship, and the second coming excitement. So let's imagine you wanted to get all buffed up. You want to go to the gym and work out and build your muscles. You consult a weight trainer. He tells you what to do. He says, you need to be doing these reps two to three times per week. And so he sends you off. And a month later, you come back and you're still a 98-pound weakling. And the trainer says, I don't understand. What are you doing? How often do you do these things? Well, once a month. He says, no, man, you got to do it three times a week. Well, that's the way it is with the Lord's Supper. The prescription that Jesus gave the early church was to do the Lord's Supper as a meal every week. So if we don't do it as a meal and we don't do it every week, we're not going to get the same results that they got. The early church celebrated the Lord's Supper as an actual meal every week. Now, the next ingredient we need to consider is the fact that this meal was centered around the bread and the wine in the form of a single cup and a single loaf. So why did the ancient church use only one cup and one loaf? Well, it has everything to do with unity. I'm going to argue the one cup and the one loaf actually create unity. Therefore, it's very important that we use it. Paul, for example, in 1 Corinthians 10, verse 16, writes of the cup of blessing that we bless, singular, and the bread that we break, Greek word is loaf. And then he goes on to say in 10, verse 17, because there is one loaf, we who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Now look at the grammar here. We talk about cause and effect in life. You see the word cause and because? One loaf is the cause of something. What does one loaf cause? One loaf causes one body, cause and effect. And in case you missed it, Paul says it a different way. For we all partake of the one loaf. The word for is similar to the word because. Why is there one body? Well, Paul tells you again, for we all partake of the one loaf. So one loaf causes one body. He says it going and he says it coming. Maybe he didn't mean what he said, but that is what it says in both English and Greek. For example, Wainwright, an English theologian, wrote that the one loaf both signifies and causes unity. Robertson and Plummer, Anglican commentators in their work on Corinthians, said the single loaf is a symbol and an instrument of unity. Gordon Fee wrote of the solidarity of the fellowship of believers created by all sharing the one loaf. Jesus prayed that we may all be one so the world would believe that you have sent me. Jesus prayed that. I have reason to think the father would answer a prayer that he prayed. But the provision he gave for that includes celebrating the Lord's Supper weekly as an actual meal. using the one cup and the one loaf. So in the Lord's Supper, at the very least, you'd have to conclude that we express our oneness in Christ through the picture that is presented of a single cup and a single loaf. Now I have to ask, if this symbolizes unity using one cup and one loaf, then what does this symbolize, to use pre-broken cracker crumbs and little thimblefuls of wine? Does that not symbolize division? So why did the ancient church use one cup, one loaf? Well, the one cup and one loaf not only symbolize unity, but more importantly, actually creates unity. But it's a package deal. The early church celebrated the Lord's Supper as an actual meal every week using one cup and one loaf. Now what's the overall point for us? Well, it comes down to how does this compare to your communion services? If we look at the Church of History, what they basically say is, sorry, but we're just not interested. They might think that this presentation is about the Lord's Supper is interesting. It's interesting they did it that way. It's informative, but it's not compelling. It's not commanded. We're not gonna do it. It's no compulsion to act on it. Most evangelicals, if the Bible teaches something, there's command there, they want to obey it. But when they look at the traditions of the New Testament, the patterns for how things were done, those are seen as optional. You can take it or leave it. And I'm going to say, well, not so fast. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, 12, 13, and 14, has a long section on church practice. And the church in Corinth was following the practices that he gave them for how they did church. He writes in 11 to, I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. Now this word for traditions is parodicis, It refers to things like the Lord's Supper and how they had worship services. That's all in that section. The verb form of parodicis is paradidomi, and it simply means to deliver over, to hand down. So in 1 Corinthians 11 24, Paul said, I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread. And then Paul starts talking about the Lord's Supper. Well, that word for delivered is paradidomi, the verb form of parodicist. So the practice of the Lord's Supper was received by Paul from Jesus, and he then traditioned that practice onto the church. Do we really want to neglect a Lord's Supper tradition that came directly from Jesus? So the question is not, do we have to do things the New Testament way? No. Why would we want to do it any other way? That's the question. So it's obvious the Lord's Supper was celebrated by the early church as an actual meal every week, centered around one cup and one loaf. Problem is, for us, the last supper has become the lost supper. And so to go back to the original question, what are we missing if we don't do it the way Jesus and the apostles originally gave it to the church? What we are missing are blessings. What blessings? Well, this again is a growth strategy Jesus gave the early church for supernatural unity, for communion community that's gonna result in fantastic fellowship and a second coming excitement that's gonna lead to holiness in anticipation of his appearing. Now, you can read more about this at our website, ntrf.org. We've got articles there. We've got a book, New Testament Church Dynamics, that deals with various other strategies that Jesus left the early church. There's a workbook there you can get if you want to teach through this, the teacher's guide in Socratic format. On our website are all kind of MP3s. You can listen to the various strategies and like this video on YouTube. We have other tutorials on growth strategies of the ancient church. There's a size strategy for effective ministry. There's a pastoral strategy to help you lead like Jesus did. There's a worship strategy to stir up love and good deeds. And there's a traditions strategy for success in ministry. So you want to check those out. I'm Steve Atkerson, New Testament Reformation Fellowship. Thank you for watching. This message was produced by the New Testament Reformation Fellowship, reforming today's church with New Testament church practices. Permission is hereby granted for you to reproduce this message. You can find us on the web at www.ntrf.org. May God bless you as you seek to follow Him in complete obedience to His Word. May your faith in the Lord Jesus be strengthened and your daily walk with Him deepened. . . . Oh.