BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER

(a study note )

History of Baptism
Two Ordinances
Baptism [John’s Baptism, Christ’s Baptism of Suffering Because of Our
Sins, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Baptism with Fire]
The Meaning of Baptism
Who Should Be Baptized
Differing Views on Baptism[Infant Baptism]
The Theory of Circumcision
Reformation
The Teaching of the Church of Christ
Household Baptism
Argument for Household Baptism

Bibliography

History of Baptism

            The following quote is from The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995). “Baptism – Baptism is the sacrament by which one becomes a member of the Christian community. The origin of the word is from the Greek term baptein, which means “to dip, to immerse” (p. 133).

            Acts relates the practice of administering baptism to almost every group or individual who believed in the preaching of the apostles (2:37-41, 8:12-38, 9:10-18, 10:44-48).  All those who accepted the preaching of the gospel and abandoned their former ways of life then came forward for baptism “in the name of Jesus” (cf. Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16; p. 134).

The Liturgy of Baptism

            The New Testament does not provide us with the exact rite of baptism or the exact formula. It does seem that baptism in the early church was by immersion. Paul’s reference in Romans 6:4 to being “buried with Christ” imply immersion. The account of the Ethiopian eunuch also speaks of a going down into the water and coming up out of the water (Acts 8:36-38; p.135).

Baptism in the History of the Church

             Further Catholic encyclopedias and other books on the history of baptism admit that the early church conducted baptism by immersion after believing Jesus Christ. Catholic history admits that today’s infant baptism, by sprinkling, evolved during the first three hundred years of Christianity. When church leaders lost their connection with the Lord Jesus Christ, they subtly introduced their own ideas in the biblical doctrines. The corrupted church made Simple New Testament doctrine of baptism to a cumbersome and difficult theology. 

            According to the Catholic encyclopedia, pouring water, or sprinkling, to baptize began since water was not available in some places. By the end of the second century, Tertullian and others taught the necessity of baptism for salvation from John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. Since they thought that the baptism was efficacious only for past sins, many began to postpone the baptism until near death. Emperor Constantine put off his own baptism until near his death. If baptism is a must for salvation, and it only covers past sins, one should wait till the very last moment of life. Therefore, sprinkling became the most convenient and suitable model for the sick and dying.

            Infant baptism created a theological problem. What about sins committed after baptism? Both Tertullian and Cyprian suggested one must make satisfaction for these by self-denial and good works, such as praying and giving alms. Here we see the conception of the doctrine of penance which later became a major Roman Catholic theology.

            Just after a few hundred years of the Christian era, the pure gospel of Christ was corrupted. Infant baptism became common after the stress was placed on baptism as essential to salvation. Infant mortality was very high and they wanted to send their children to heaven. Tertullian and his followers were urging the delaying of baptism so that all sins could be washed away. The other group urged baptism immediately after birth so the child would be safe. Augustine assigned all anabaptized infants to hell. Parents baptized their infants, believing the water washed away original sin, the sin inherited from Adam.

            Since there was only one baptism, and it could not be repeated, what is to be done about later sins? They then invented the theology of penance, or the sacrament of reconciliation. When someone tells a lie, he may have to invent numerous lies to cover up or justify the first lie. Similarly, departure from the truth forced the church to distort the truth further and invented many traditions. So, the gospel of grace was put on the side.

            Orthodox churches and Catholics built the system of baptism, penance and mass. Salvation by works was preached instead of salvation by faith. One is saved by grace alone. All other teachings evolved by demonic influence.

            The Reformation really changed the poisonous atmosphere of the Christian community. Although Luther reformed the church, he kept the clerical robes, infant baptism, confirmation, and a formal service. John Calvin and the reformed churches took a different approach while changing to infant baptism. Calvin drew a parallel with circumcision. Since Israel circumcised male infants, the churches should baptize infants. It is a sign of being included in the covenant.

            Anabaptists believed and practiced believers’ baptism. Because of their faith, they were hounded and butchered mercilessly. The opposing sect even killed children, women, and the elderly. A tragic chapter in reformation history is the treatment of the Anabaptists by other reformers. The concept of a state Church which some reformers held could not tolerate any dissentor liberty for individual conscience. Luther and Melanchton wrote, “But where someone has articles on spiritual matters alone, such as infant baptism, original sin and unnecessary division, because these articles also are important…. We conclude that in these cases also the obstinate may be put to death” (Warns, op cit, p.183). With a vengeance then those who did not agree with infant baptism were persecuted.

 “Neither age nor sex is spared, nor while the men are killed the woman and children perish in misery and hunger…. Each is regarded as if he were guilty of the worst, most pestilential of crimes. (Warns, op cit, p.202). those who did not recant were burned alive. Among the rest was a beautiful young girl of sixteen years who could by no means be brought to recant. Everyone pleaded for her life. The executioner took her by the arm, carried her to the horses’ watering place and held her under the water till she was drowned; then dragged her lifles body back and committed it to the fire. (Warns, op cit, p.202).  What was her heinous crime? She held to believer’s baptism and rejected infant baptism. Such was the spirit of tolerance and Christian love during the Reformation.

 The Roman Catholic Church baptizes infants and believes this brings them into the church cleansed of original sin. Lutherans and Episcopalians baptize babies and teach it as essential for salvation. The Presbyterian and reformed churches also baptize infants and teach they are in a covenant relationship with God. The Methodists also practice infant baptism. In India, local groups, such as orthodox churches, the Marthoma church and the Church of South India, practice infant baptism.

            The Anabaptist tradition is carried on by many believers today. The Church of Christ also teaches that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. The Bible says that salvation is a free gift of God, not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Paul placed a curse on whoever preaches a different gospel (Galatians 1:9). 

Conclusion 

Satan started his attack on humanity in the Garden of Eden. The cross is the message of Christianity. Satan has confounded and clouded the thoughts of many. Most church members now believe one becomes a Christian through baptism. He enters then upon a life of good works and pious religious observances. If he is faithful at the end, he will be saved. Otherwise, his salvation is lost.

One becomes a member of a church when he or she accepts Christ as his personal savior, not by baptism. If you want to please your Lord and Savior, obey the word of God. Traditions and rituals will not save anyone. 

 Two Ordinances

             Jesus Christ left us two ordinances to be observed by His disciples: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The Roman Catholic Church has added five more, namely confirmation, extreme unction, matrimony, penance, and holy orders. These, together with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are called “sacraments.”

            The test of the scriptural validity of a Christian ordinance consists of an affirmative answer to three questions concerning it. First, was it commanded by the Lord Jesus, as recorded in the four gospels? Second, was it practiced in the early church, as described in the Acts of the Apostles? Third, is its spiritual significance clearly expounded in the Epistles? Only two ordinances meet these threefold requirements: baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

            The word “sacrament” is not found in the Bible. It is derived from a Latin word sacramentum. This word was used in the days of the Roman Empire to describe the oath of allegiance, which a person took when he joined the army of the Roman Empire. In taking this oath, the recruit solemnly vowed that he now renounced his civilian life, with its independence and self pleasing, and from henceforth confessed that he belonged wholly to Caesar, whose every command he promised to obey.

            In the early days of Christianity, the word “sacrament” came to be used of the two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In early centuries, a Christian submitting to the ordinances of baptism and regular observance of the Lord’s Supper, proclaimed to the world that he had renounced his former life of living for sin and self. Now he belonged, body, soul, and spirit, to Christ, who he boldly owned as the supreme Lord of his life and the sole Master of his service. The observance of these two ordinances thus served the purpose of distinguishing the Christian from the world ling.

            The rite of baptism, commanded by the Lord Jesus, was performed once upon a person, after he had professed faith in the Son of God. This ordinance involved the entrance of the candidate into the water, his immersion under the water, and his emergence from the water (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 8:38-39). The believer also discovers that the Lord’s Supper, which was ordained by the Lord Jesus on the night of His betrayal, was observed regularly and often by companies of Christians, who thus fulfilled the request of their Lord and Savior to remember Him and show forth His death until He returned again (Matthew 26:17-30, Luke 22:7-22, 1 Corinthians 11:23-34, Acts 20:7). Thus, baptism is seen to be an individual act of obedience, on the part of a believer, to the command of his Lord and Savior, while the observance of the Lord’s Supper is the collective act of obedience, on the part of a group of believers who have met together in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the purpose of remembering Him in the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup.

            The distinction between these two ordinances can thus be stated. In baptism, each believer shows forth, in pictorial form, his death with Christ. In the Lord’s Supper, each Christian shows forth, in pictorial form, Christ’s death for him. In baptism, the believer testifies, “Christ died as me.” At the Lord’s Supper, he testifies, “Christ died for me.” Baptism is the illustration of the believer’s resurrection. The Lord’s Supper is the believer’s proclamation of his appreciation of the fact that Christ died for him and rose again. Thus, both ordinances combine to present the greatest event in the history of the universe: the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for our sins, and His victorious resurrection and glorification in Heaven.

            In the case of baptism, this ordinance has been so perverted by man-made theories, human traditions, and ecclesiastical decrees, that it is now accepted as a substitute for the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the person baptized. Therefore, what was originally intended by our Lord to be a confession of a believer’s faith in the Son of God, and a symbolical setting forth of his spiritual identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, is now declared to be the means by which this identification has been effected! Consequently, it is asserted that a baby at its christening, has by this act become “a member of Christ, a child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom.”

            In the case of the Lord’s Supper, its beautiful simplicity and spiritual significance has been allured to degenerate into a rite called the “sacrifice of the mass.” In the celebration of this rite, it is affirmed that on the pronouncement of certain words on the part of the “officiating priest,” the bread and wine is magically turned into the actual and literal body and blood of Christ. Thus, Christ is declared to be freshly sacrificed each time the mass is celebrated.

 Baptism

             Several baptisms are mentioned in the New Testament. A failure to distinguish between these various baptisms will lead to confusion. Each Christian must learn to do what Paul exhorted the Philippian believers to do, “distinguish between things that differ” (Philippians 1:10).

            John’s Baptism (Mark 1:4, Matthew 3:11) All who submitted to John’s baptism confessed, in so doing, that they repented of their sinfulness of the past, and acknowledged they were worthy only of death. Therefore, this baptism was a picture to them. The Lord Jesus, although He was sinless, took His place with them in baptism as the pledge that He was ready to go down into death for them. He was baptized to identify Himself with a rejected remnant. We, by baptism, are identified with a rejected Christ.

            Christ’s baptism of suffering because of our sins (Luke 12:49-50) In these words our Lord referred symbolically to the substitutionary sufferings and death, which He was to accomplish on the cross.

            Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5, 1 Corinthians 12:13) Acts 1:5, “For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” John the Baptist referred to this event. This baptism took place when “the day of Pentecost was fully come … with the sound as of a rushing mighty wind,” the Holy Spirit came and baptized the assembled believers and united them together into one organism, the mystical body of Christ (Acts 2:1-4). The “mystical body of Christ” means the figurative body of Christ, the Church, of which the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole Head and every believer is a member (1 Corinthians 12:12-31, Ephesians 1:22-23). Paul wrote of this event in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13). This baptism of the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ took place at Pentecost, and is therefore true of all believers. It is never spoken of as being the individual experience of a believer, but is always referred to in a collective sense, as being true of all believers.

            The individual aspect of the spirit’s work in the believer is described as follows: conviction of sin, regeneration, indwelling, sealing, infilling, leading, and empowering. Each believer was individually convinced, by the spirit, of his need as a sinner, and, on receiving Christ as his personal Savior, was regenerated and sealed by the Holy Spirit “unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). Each believer is indwelt by the Spirit, and may be led, filled, and empowered by Him for service on behalf of Christ. For detailed information, refer to the book by this author, “The Holy Spirit,” or log in to http://www.thekkel.com.

            Baptism with fire (Matthew 3:11-12, Revelation 20:15) The “baptism of fire” is connected with judgment on the ungodly, or the “chaff.” Some Christians sincerely, but mistakenly, believe that this baptism of fire refers to an individual’s baptism of the Holy Spirit, subsequent to regeneration, by means of which the carnal nature, or the flesh, is completely eradicated in the believer so that he consequently becomes sinlessly perfect, and is therefore incapable of sinning. This error is clearly indicated, not only by the general teaching of the word of God, but also by the spiritual experience of godly Christians everywhere. The baptism of fire is reserved for those who neglect, reject, or despise the Savior, who provided this great salvation at such an infinite cost. Should they die in that condition, they will be consigned to that dreadful lake of fire for all eternity, there to “weep and wail and gnash their teeth forever.”

 The Meaning of Baptism

            The word “baptism” comes from the noun form of the Greek word baptisma. The verb form is baptize. Both these words are derived from the word bapto, which means, “to dip.” Thus, the idea conveyed by the word is immersion. As Christ went through the awful reality of dying for our sins, being buried and rising again, so does the believer, by going down under the waters of baptism and emerging there from, announces to all who witness it that he confesses he has died to sin in the person of his Substitute, has been buried with Him, and has been raised together with Him, henceforth to walk with Him in newness of life and to live for His glory.

            It is important to notice that baptism is only the figure, or illustration of what has already taken place in the experience of the believer. The ordinance itself has no saving virtue. It does not make a person a Christian, but simply marks him as a Christian. Just as the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper only pictorially represents the body and blood of the Lord, so baptism only pictorially represents the great fact of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and the believer’s identification with Him.

            Christian baptism is the act by which a person who has trusted Christ as his own personal Savior and Lord, openly and publicly identifies himself with the Lord Jesus Christ. By this, he shows, symbolically, that Christ’s death was his death, that Christ’s burial was his burial, and that, henceforth, he is forever identified with the Lord Jesus, to His supreme lordship, and to live for His glory for the remainder of his life.  

Who Should Be Baptized?

             The New Testament teaches only one baptism, the baptism of believers. I urge the reader to read the following scripture sections to validate the point: Acts chapters 8, 10, and 18. In the above narratives, we can see an order to receive baptism. They heard the word, believed the message, trusted the Savior, and accordingly, were baptized upon their profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 Differing Views On Baptism 

            Infant Baptism This is the belief of many people, especially Roman Catholics, but the belief in baptismal regeneration is not confined to the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox churches; it is also accepted in some Protestant groups. Luther, Calvin, and others practiced infant baptism. There are no records of infant baptism during the first 200 years of church history. John 3:3-5 is often quoted in support of infant baptism. These were the words addressed by our Lord to Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The proponents of infant baptism declare that the water here mentioned refers to the literal water used in baptism, and that, through it, the person baptized is regenerated.

            In the first place, this passage has nothing whatever to do with Christian baptism, for this ordinance was not instituted until after the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20). If the water of John 3 refers to the literal water used in baptism, what shall be said of the “water” of John 4, where Christ said, “the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life.” Obviously, this cannot refer to literal water, but is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, who indwells the believer the moment he trusts in the Savior. See John 7:37-39.

            The water to which Christ referred is the Old Testament symbol of the word of God, a figure with Nicodemus, as a ruler of the Jews, should have been quite familiar. In this connection, see, Ezekiel 36: 24-27 and compare 37:1-14. Here in the vision of the valley of dry bones, the prophet shows that both the word of God and the spirit of God were necessary to bring about the rebirth of Israel nationally. The same figure is used in Psalm 119:9. It is the word that cleanses the life, even as water does the body. This is made crystal clear by 1 Peter 1:23, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.” Surely, nothing could be plainer than this. It will be noted that baptism is not mentioned at all in this passage. Titus 3:5 reads, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,” and Ephesians 5:26 reads, “that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.”

            The explanation of John 3:5 is that the spirit of God so applies the word of God that he is led to see his need as a lost sinner, and trust the Lord Jesus as his Savior and is born again. Thus, the word of God enlightens the soul (Psalm 119:130, John 16:7-14, John 3:14-16).  

The Theory of Circumcision

             It is argued that in as much as each Jewish male child was commanded to be circumcised on the eighth day, so, in Christianity, each child should be baptized to bring it into a place of covenant blessing.

            In the first place, circumcision was an ordinance confined to the nation of Israel and its proselytes. Yet baptism is an ordinance peculiar to Christianity, which is unique and entirely distinct from Judaism. Circumcision was a rite commanded by God, and this was a compulsory act for every male child eight days after he was physically born. Baptism is a voluntary act on the part of a person after he has been spiritually born through faith in the Son of God. Circumcision was confined to the male children only of the Jewish race, at a definite time after birth. Baptism is for both male and female, of any age, after they have been regenerated.

 Reformation 

            John Calvin agreed with Luther that infants should be baptized, but differed with him as to its effect. He did not believe it effected the regeneration of one baptized, but affirmed that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper were a symbolic confirmation of an inwardly experienced grace. He did not believe that baptism secured the forgiveness of sins, or resulted in the impartation of the Holy Spirit. Calvin taught that inasmuch as believing parents belonged to the Lord, so also did their children. Therefore, he held that these children should be baptized, not to effect their regeneration, but to receive them into the church.

            The reformed view is that when adults turn in repentance to the Lord and profess faith in Him, then they may be baptized. For the “sacraments” are a sign and seal for believers, the newborn, and for all who have been received into God’s covenant grace who are Christ’s possession! As believing parents are now viewed as being in a covenant relationship with God and thus removed from membership in the sinful race of Adam, their children are also considered to be included in this covenant of grace. Although they have not yet reached the age of understanding, they may be baptized as “little members of the covenant.” In due time, they are to be confirmed as actual members of the reformed church, after they have satisfactorily answered the questions of the catechism. To assert that Christian baptism, as applied to children, has taken the place of the Jewish rite of circumcision is bad doctrine, for circumcision has no relation to Christian baptism. The Presbyterian denomination is largely patterned after this idea of Calvin’s.

 The Teaching of the Church of Christ

             The Church of Christ denomination believes and teaches that however good and godly a believer may be, if he has not been baptized subsequent to his profession of faith in Christ, he is still a lost sinner and under the condemnation of God. Their theory is based on Mark 16:16, Matthew 28 and Acts 2:38. In Mark 16:16, baptism simply indicates the normal outward evidence that a person has believed on Christ. He is baptized, not in order to be saved, but because he is already saved. Scripture teaches that we are saved by a person, and on the basis of a work accomplished by that person, and not by an ordinance. The word of God assures all believers that they are saved (Acts 16:31, John 10:27-31, Ephesians 4:30) Ephesians 1:3, that they have been blessed with “all the spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ.” To assert that such are lost because they have not been immersed in water is to deny the plain truths of God’s word. Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This denomination teaches that this scripture should read, “Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all men by baptizing them,” etc. They teach that disciples are made by baptism. This error can be seen by referring to John 4:1 where we read, “Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.” Consequently, the making and baptizing of disciples are two distinct and separate things. Baptism does not make disciples; it only marks them as being disciples.

            In Matthew 28:19, the principal verb is “make disciples,” which is followed by a participle, “baptizing them.” Some would make this to mean, “Make disciples by baptizing them,” thus treating the principal verb and the participle by describing only one action. By this they seek to find scriptural support for baptizing persons without prior personal faith in and acceptance of Christ as Lord. They allege that by baptism such receive the status of being disciples. The falsity of such reasoning can be easily demonstrated by turning to similar construction of words in the New Testament. For example, Ephesians 6:17-18 reads, “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.” “Take (the principal verb) the helmet of salvation, praying, and being watchful. It would confuse the whole passage to render it “Take by praying and being watchful.” Acts 18:23, “He departed (the principal verb) passing through the country” etc. It would make no sense to read, “They departed by passing through” Acts 14:21-22, “They returned (the principal verb) to Lystra confirming the souls of the disciples.” This cannot be made to mean, “They returned by confirming,” etc. Look at Acts 21:2-3, “They set sail (principal verb) and coming in sight of Cyprus.” No one would translate this, “They set sail by coming in sight of Cyprus.”

            In like manner, it is only nonsense to translate Matthew 28:19, “making disciples by baptizing them.” The scripture previously quoted, “Jesus made and baptized more disciples,” which should settle this once and for all. Those who teach that disciples are made by baptizing are trying to make the scriptures affirm what they do not teach.

            The New Testament describes how disciples are made. It is not by baptism, but through faith in the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:19-20). How did these people at Antioch become disciples (verse 21)? Read Acts 8:13, 36, 10:47, 13:38-39, 16:14-15, 30, and 18:8. It will be clear from these verses that these people were saved when they believed, and were baptized because they were saved, and not in order to be saved, or add to their salvation.

             Acts 2:38 People who believe that baptism is essential for salvation quote this verse. They point out, by a chart, the three steps necessary to salvation:

1.      Repent

2.      Be baptized

3.      Receive the Holy Spirit.

They argue that there can be no salvation without baptism. This all sounds very convincing to the person who is not familiar with all the many other scriptures that bear on this matter of salvation.

            In the first place, to whom was Peter’s message directed? Notice in Acts 2:14, “Men of Judea,” verses 22 and 29, “Men of Israel,” and in verse 36, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know.” Compare also Acts 3:12, 4:10, 5:30-31, 7:2, 51. It was a message addressed specifically to the Jews, and not a word is addressed to the Gentiles, as such. The Gentiles are not brought in until Acts 10, and then the message of salvation is quite different. The Jews are here charged with dreadful and national crimes of having rejected and crucified their Messiah. They are now urged to repent of this and, by their baptism, to publicly disassociate themselves from their complicity in the awful crime. By their baptism, they outwardly severed the link that bound them to the unbelieving nation, and thus came over on to Christian ground. This was also true of Saul of Tarsus, who was similarly urged to “arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Saul had been a saved man for three days (Acts 9:9). Read Romans 10:9 also. By his baptism, Paul showed, in the sight of men, that he, who had previously been a hater of Christ and a persecutor of His people, now repudiated all he had once stood for, and confessed in this symbolic way, his belief in and allegiance to the Son of God. Thus, in a metaphorical way, he “washed away his sins.”

            Since it is the blood of Christ alone that cleanses from all sin, how many sins are left for water to wash away? Baptism, for the remission of sins, is confined to two preachers only: John the Baptist and Peter. And in each case, the message is addressed to Israel only.

            The people who teach that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation fail to take into consideration the transitional character of the first ten chapters of Acts. In Acts 2, the order is (1) repent, (2) be baptized, (3) the remission of sins, and (4) the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the tenth chapter, this order is completely changed.

            In Acts, baptism was the condition on which the Spirit should be given. In Acts 10, the Spirit is given before baptism. In Acts 2, it is “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” In Acts 10, not a word is said about repentance and baptism being conditional for the remission of sins. From chapter 10 on, it is the normal procedure for both Jews and Gentiles alike. (Read Romans 10:12 also). Unless this transitional character of the first ten chapters of Acts is taken into consideration, confusion would follow. A gradual transition is seen between Acts 2 and 10. For instance, in Acts 2, the Jews received the Holy Spirit after water baptism. In the eighth chapter, the Samaritans received the Spirit through the laying on of the hands of the apostles. In chapter 10, the Holy Spirit is received without water baptism, or the laying on of hands. The only answer for this difference is to see dispensational aspects. Therefore, to apply Acts 2:28 as God’s present way of salvation for all is to ignore dispensational truths and ignore numerous scriptures that clearly teach that salvation is by grace alone, through faith in the person and work of the Son of God, entirely apart from any ordinance, whatever it may be.

            Mormons teach and practice baptism for, or on behalf of, dead people. They base their theory on 1 Corinthians 15:29 which reads, “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” Mormons base their doctrine of baptism by proxy on this verse. They teach that a living person, who is a Mormon, can be baptized in the place of another who has died without embracing Mormonism as his religious belief. Some Mormons have been baptized over a hundred times on behalf of their deceased relatives, sincerely supposing, in doing so, that the spirits of those who have died outside the pale of Mormonism would be benefited thereby and enabled to accept Mormonism in a future life, is they so desired.

            The New Testament does not say anything about baptism by proxy. There are three explanations given by A.P. Gibbs.

(1) The subject of 1 Corinthians 15 is the physical resurrection of physically dead bodies. There were false teachers in Corinth who denied the resurrection of the dead, and Paul is here combating this false teaching. Verse 29 is an illustration that Paul uses to enforce his argument for the resurrection of the dead. He asks, “If there is no resurrection from the dead, then what is the use of being baptized?” Baptism is the symbol of the believer’s identification with Christ, not only in His death, but also in His resurrection. The emergence of the believer from the waters of baptism means something. What does it illustrate? It illustrates the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, if Christ is not raised, and there is no resurrection of the dead, then baptism becomes a meaningless rite, a dead and useless thing, and a hollow mockery. Those believers, who during their lifetime were baptized, and who have since died, were baptized in vain if there is no resurrection. If death ends all, then baptism is a cruel farce, for it has in view the resurrection.

(2) The argument from an illustration of a military figure. This is a very satisfactory interpretation of this verse. It will be noted that verses 20-28 are parenthetical. The argument from the end of v.19 is taken up again in verse 29. The words “dead ones” refers to Christians who have died. Now let us think of all Christians as forming the army of the Lord Jesus and doing battle against the common enemy. As time goes on, the ranks of this army become depleted by the hand of death, and thus, there are gaps left in the front ranks. The question is, who is to take the place of these dead ones, and thus fill up the gaps in the ranks? There is only one answer. Those believers who are being saved and baptized will fill those gaps in the ranks. Thus, by their baptism, which is the outward expression of their inward identification with Christ, these young believers would step into the places of those who had been removed from the ranks by physical death.

Hence, the question, what shall they do who are baptized for [Greek: “in the place of”] the dead ones, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized to take the place of the dead ones? If there was to be no resurrection of the dead ones whose places they had taken by virtue of their baptism, then their faith and their baptism had been all in vain, for they too would soon pass from this scene with no hope for the future. This seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of this disputed passage.

(3) The argument from the altered punctuation. There are no punctuation marks in the original, and a well-known and able teacher of the word, Mr. Harry Lacey, has suggested that a slight alteration of the punctuation of this verse would clarify it. He points out that 1 Corinthians 15:12-32 forms part of a reduction to absurdity argument, by which Paul seeks to combat the false teaching which denied the resurrection from the dead. After the parenthesis of vs.20-28, Paul renews the argument in verse 29, and he suggests that this verse should be punctuated as follows, “Else what shall they do who are baptized? It is for the dead, if the dead rise not at all. Why, then, are they baptized for them?” Then follows the logical conclusion if there is to be no resurrection, “If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (v.32). He then goes on to show that the denial of the resurrection blasphemes Christ, impugns apostles, and reduces baptism to a farce, since it is merely for the dead, if there is no resurrection. It leaves us with one course open, that of fatalistic “Epicureanism,” a philosophy current in that day, which affirmed that pleasure was man’s highest good.

Household Baptism 

            J.N. Darby, F.W. Grant and some followers taught the practice of “household baptism.” They introduced this new teaching. The theory of household baptism is that when a father or mother of a family is saved and baptized, each member of that family should also be baptized, including the infants and the servants. Furthermore, that all children subsequently born into the family should also be baptized, which has biblical support. These baptized persons are introduced into a place or “circle of privilege,” or into “the kingdom of heaven,” or saying they are, by baptism, brought onto “Christian ground,” However, they do not believe that those who are baptized are thereby regenerated, but simply introduced into a sphere of privilege that the children of unsaved parents do not enjoy.

            It will be observed that the theory closely approximates the Calvinistic idea, or “the reformed theology.” This affirms that children of believers are, by physical birth, brought under the covenant of blessing of their believing parents. Thus, they should therefore be baptized, not in order to regenerate them, but to bring them into the church, or into a place of privilege.

 Argument For Household Baptism

             It is argued that since the New Testament describes the baptism of five different households, that each, or at least some of these households, must have included little children, and that these children were baptized on the strength of their parents’ faith.

            1) The house of Cornelius, Acts 10:24-48. Peter, as a result of a direct revelation from the Lord Himself, goes to the home of a Roman centurion who has gathered his friends and relatives together to hear the message that Peter is to bring. Cornelius said to Peter, “We are all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.” Thus, all present were capable of intelligently hearing the message that Peter was to bring. This naturally eliminates all ideas of babies being present, for they are incapable of intelligently hearing and believing. Peter presented Christ, and the spirit of God fell on all of them, which heard the word. The effect of this visitation was that they all spoke in tongues, they all magnified God, and they received the Holy Spirit, and were baptized as believers. To suppose that there were little babies in this company and that these little ones were recipients of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, magnified God and were baptized is somewhat of a strain on one’s imagination and credulity.

            2) The house of Lydia, Acts 16:14-15,40. Here was a businesswoman, a seller of purple from Thyatira, a city 200 miles from Philippi. She was accompanied by her household servants who carried her goods. Through the ministry of Paul, the Lord opened her heart and she attended to the message of the gospel and was saved. Then, when both she and her household had been baptized, she invited Paul and Silas to stay in her home, and the invitation was accepted.

            Later on, after the arrest, imprisonment, and miraculous release of Paul and Silas, we are told, “They went out of the prison and entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed.” From those three verses, the household Baptists would have us believe that (1) Lydia was a married woman, (2) that she had little children, (3) that these children were with her at the time, (4) that these little children, on the strength of her faith, were baptized, and (5) that all her household servants, on the strength of her faith, were also baptized. This is the suppositious “evidence” for household baptism in the case of Lydia, on whose strength they are prepared to baptize babies, the unsaved servants of a Christian master, and the unconverted children of a Christian father or mother.

            Now let us look at the facts as they are recorded in the word. In the first place, no mention is made as to whether Lydia was married or not, as to whether she had children, that these children were with her on this business trip, that these were little children, not old enough to object being baptized, and finally, that her household servants, without any profession of faith in Christ on their part, were compelled to be baptized. The facts, which are here recorded, surely point entirely in the opposite direction. What married businesswoman, with little children, would undertake a 200 mile journey with these little children? There is no mention whatsoever of children in this story. What is mentioned, however, is that her household consisted of “brethren” who could be “comforted” by the word ministered by Paul and Silas.

            3) The house of the jailer of Philippi, Acts 16:22-40. Here also, we see the description of the event. Paul and Silas spoke the word of God to the jailer and to all the others in his house. Immediately after the jailer and all his family were baptized, the whole family rejoiced. Again, we are told that there must have been little children in this home, and, on this gratuitous assumption, we are assured that all these little children were baptized on the strength of the faith of the father, the head of the house, who had been saved! However, as we look carefully at the wording of this account, we discover there is no mention whatsoever of little children. On the contrary, we are told that Paul and Silas spoke the word of God to all that were in his house. The word “all” is mentioned three times in verses 32-34. They all believed, and they all rejoiced. Can you imagine a little baby listening intently and intelligently to the word of God, then believing and being baptized and rejoicing in the assurance of salvation?

            4) The house of Crispus, Acts 18:8, 1 Corinthians 1:14. “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house.” Here again, we hear the same argument.

            5) The household of Stephanus, 1 Corinthians 1:16, 16.

The argument from the above five households mentioned afford no evidence whatsoever for the baptism of any, save those who have heard the word and believed in Christ. To assume that infants were in each of these households, and that they were baptized because of the faith of the head of that household is pure speculation and entirely unsupported by any evidence of its actuality.

The Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26)

            The Lord’s Supper is central to the Christian faith. The Lord’s Supper is a corporate act, which should be observed with constant regularity. The remembrance feast must not be relegated to a secondary place in the assembly. When we observe the Lord’s Supper, we look backward to the cross and remember the Lord’s sufferings in our place. We look upward to heaven and remember that the Lord is risen, and that He sustains us every moment of our life. We look forward to and remember that He is coming again to receive us to Himself.

            Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe the Lord’s Supper: Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:19-20. The apostle Paul, who was not present at its institution, was given a special revelation of it by Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Our Lord Jesus Christ has instituted this ordinance.

The Passover

             Luke 22:16 This was the Passover He had in mind, when hundreds of years before, He had given instructions to Israel, through Moses, to observe it (Exodus 12:1-14). The countless thousands of lambs, which had been sacrificed since the inception of the Passover, had all pointed forward to this particular night when the Lamb of God was about to offer Himself as a sacrifice to God on behalf of our sins. Truly, it was the night of nights, when all the types of the Old Testament were about to be fulfilled, and the old dispensation of the Law was to give place to the glad dispensation of Grace. The Passover that was to end all Passovers would be utterly meaningless and valueless in the eyes of God, for we read, “Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). The old covenant was about to give place to the new covenant, which was soon to be signed, sealed, and ratified by the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The time had come when Christ was about to offer “the one sacrifice for sins forever” (Hebrews 10:12 by which He was to satisfy all the demands of a holy law and the righteous claims of divine justice. As we read Luke 22:7, the meaning is amazing, “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.”

            The Passover presents a beautiful picture of God’s way of salvation today. On the night of the Passover, there was but one way of salvation – a lamb slain. There was but one ground of assurance – the promise of God’s word, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” There was but one place of safety – behind the blood applied to the doorpost of the house. Our dear Lord well knew, on this fateful night, that He was soon to fulfill the type of the spotless lamb that was slain.

            It is difficult to discover just what was the exact order of events at this Passover supper. Edersheim suggests the following sequence of events:

            1. The discussion among the apostles as to who was the greatest (Luke 22:24-30).

            2. Thanksgiving for the first cup (Luke 22:17).

            3. The washing of the disciples’ feet (John 13:2-12).

            4. The continuation of the Passover supper.

After the Lord had resumed His place at the table, He proceeded to apply the truth, which He had demonstrated by His example. Note how He reversed the order of His titles, “Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet.” In these words He indicated that it is possible for Christ to be the master of our service without necessarily being the Lord of our life, but He cannot be the Lord of our life without also being the master of all our service. See 1 Peter 3:15. It will be noticed that Judas called Him “Master,” but did not address Him as “Lord” (Matthew 26:25). Once Christ is enthroned in our hearts as Lord, He also becomes the Director of all the affairs of our life.

            The supper was now brought in. First came the bitter herbs, to be dipped in salt water or vinegar and eaten. This would remind them of the bitter bondage of Egypt from which, as a nation, they had been delivered. Then came the unleavened bread, which was broken and passed to each of the disciples. Finally came the roast lamb in a large dish, which was now placed on the table. And then the announcement of the traitor in their midst (John 13:18-30). As they were eating, Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me.” There was a horrified hush, and we are told, “they were exceeding sorrowful.” They began to inquire of him, “Lord, is it I?”

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

             The question as to whether Judas was present or not at the institution of the Lord’s Supper has long been a matter of difference of opinion on the part of very sound and able teachers of the word. Judas might not have been present at the Lord’s Supper. The bread, which the Lord gave to Judas, was part of the Passover supper. On receiving this bread, “Judas immediately went out.” Thus, Judas left before the Passover meal was concluded, for the giving of the bread did not terminate the feast. Matthew tells us that “while they were eating,” Jesus took bread and instituted the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:26). This indicates that after the interruption caused by the departure of Judas, the Passover meal was resumed. In Mark’s account, the same thought is expressed. We do not know that it was after the Passover meal that the Lord’s Supper was instituted. If we only had Luke’s account, we might conclude that Judas was present at the Lord’s Supper, but Luke does not always describe events in their chronological order. See, for example, Luke 3:19-22, 22:22-23. While John does not tell us of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, he does describe the Passover supper, and indicates at what juncture Judas left to perpetrate his foul deed, and this, as we have seen, was immediately after he had received the bread.

            1. The selling of it. It was after the pascal feast. Thus, while it is associated with the Passover, yet it is entirely distinct from it. It might be well to notice the contrast between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper.

a). This Passover was the last ever to be recognized by God, and it signified the end of the dispensation of the law. The Lord’s Supper was the first celebration of this new ordinance, and it marked the inauguration of the dispensation of grace.

b). This Passover was the memorial of a great event in the history of Israel, their redemption from the bondage of Egypt. The Lord’s Supper is the memorial of the greatest event in the history of the universe, the sacrifice of the Son of God to redeem a lost humanity.

c). This Passover was a feast especially designed for the nation of Israel. The Lord’s Supper is a feast especially designed for Christians only, who have been saved by His grace out of every tribe, kindred, tongue, and nation.

d). This Passover necessitated the slaying and eating of an animal sacrifice, a lamb without spot or blemish. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the sinless, holy, spotless Lamb of God who, in infinite grace, bore our sins and died in our stead.

e). This Passover looked forward to a coming Redeemer who should fulfill the type of the pascal lamb. The Lord’s Supper looks backward to the One who accomplished, once and forever, our eternal redemption, and yet, looks onward to the time when, at His second coming, He will glorify all His people.

f). This Passover reminded Israel of their sins, which required the life of a substitutionary sacrifice as an atonement. The Lord’s Supper provides an opportunity for Christians not only to remember the Lord Jesus, but also to be reminded that all their sins have been forgiven and forgotten because of the sacrifice of the Son of God, by whom they have been reconciled to God (Romans 5:11).

            2. The symbol He used. The bread was the picture of His body, soon to be crucified, in which He was to bear away their sins. The cup was the emblem of His blood, soon to be shed for their redemption. Both elements were available from the Passover supper, and the Lord, from these two elements, presented the great truth of His substitutionary sacrifice on their behalf.

3. The thanks that He gave. Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer to this, as also does Paul. The term “giving of thanks” is Eucharisto, from which the word “Eucharist” is derived. Matthew 26:26 says, “Jesus took bread and blessed it.” In Luke 22:19 we read, “And He took bread and gave thanks.” Thus, to “bless” simply means to give thanks.

            The Lord Jesus, with full knowledge of all that lay before Him in the immediate future, gave thanks. Knowing the dreadful reality of what was symbolized in the bread and the cup, He gave thanks. In the light of all that was involved in Gethsemane, Gabbatha and Golgotha, He gave thanks! This would be incredible, but for the fact that it is plainly stated in each of the accounts of the institution of the supper.

            4. The request that He made. The words are simple and admit of no other interpretation. “This do in remembrance of me.” The Lord’s Supper was therefore only intended by the Lord Jesus to be a memorial of Himself. It was given in order to provide an opportunity for His disciples to call Him to remembrance. There is therefore no virtue or value in the bread and the cup, save as they speak to each partaker of the Lord Jesus, and the infinite cost of His redemptive work.

            Christendom, by its many additions and innovations, has practically buried this simple fact beneath a rubbish heap of sacerdotalism. It has perverted what Christ intended to be a simple memorial of Himself into what is now called the sacrifice of the mass. 

 The Distinction Between the Lord’s Table and the Lord’s Supper

             The phrases “the table of the Lord,” and “ the Lord’s Supper” are found once only in scripture, the former in 1 Corinthians 10:21 and the latter in 11:20. First, both are described as being the Lord’s, thus, indicating they have a common ownership. Each views the people of God as being partakers of its provision. Then again, both speak of the bread and the cup. Although the Lord’s Table and the Lord’s Supper are related, there is a marked distinction between the two.

            The term “the Lord’s table” is common to both the Old and the New Testament, whereas “the Lord’s Supper” is only used in the New Testament. Malachi uses the word as being synonymous with the altar, from which God supplied the needs of the priests. See Leviticus 6:16,26, 7:6,31,32, Numbers 18:21,24,30, 1 Corinthians 9:13, 10:18, Malachi 1:7, and Ezekiel 41:22. The altar was literally the table of the Lord from which the priest derived his physical nourishment. A certain part of the sacrifices brought to the altar become the portion of the priest (Joshua 13:14). Thus, the altar became the table by which his physical needs were met. If the people of Israel were lax in bringing their offerings, the priest suffered as a result. In this way, the “altar became his table.” It was God’s way of providing for the needs of the priests. See Exodus 23:18, Leviticus 21:6, and Numbers 28:2.

            By the word “table,” therefore, is meant the provision of the Lord for His people. Needless to say, it is not a literal table that is in view, but a figurative one. The term simply stands for the provision it supplies. David spoke of this table when he said “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies” (Psalm 23:5). Did he refer to a literal table, with four legs and made of wood? Of course not. He was speaking of the Lord’s provision for all his needs (Psalm 78:19, Deuteronomy 8:3,15). In Proverbs 9:2 we read, “wisdom has furnished her table.” David prayed that the table of his enemies would become a snare before them (Psalm 69:22). The Lord’s table is the sum total of all God’s provision for His people, and this, of course, would also include the Lord’s Supper. Thus, “the Lord’s table” is a general and inclusive term.

            The term, “the Lord’s Supper” is used only in the New Testament, and is exclusively an ordinance for Christians only. It belongs to the dispensation of the Church; the called-out company of those redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and united to Christ, the Head in heaven, and to every other believer on earth. “The Lord’s Supper” is, therefore, a specific and exclusive term that refers to one thing only.

            There is a difference in the context, or the subject matter in which the words are found. In the case of the Lord’s Table, the prominent thought is fellowship. Notice the words “communion,” “partakers,” and “fellowship” (1 Corinthians 10:16-18, 20,21,30). At the Lord’s Table, we express the fact that we have died with Christ, and henceforth, are identified with Him at His table. Here, the believer is seen in contrast to the world.

            At the Lord’s Table, the prominent thought is remembrance and proclamation (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). There is no mention of communion. At the supper, we express the fact that Christ died for us, for we proclaim the Lord’s death, till He come, each time we observe this ordinance. Thus, at the supper, the believer is seen in relation to the assembly.

            There is no mention of a “coming together” at the Lord’s table - for all the Lord’s people are viewed as being already together and partaking of the Lord’s provision at His table. No believer has even to take a physical step to get to the Lord’s Table, for he is described as being already there, enjoying the rich provision of God’s infinite grace. At the Lord’s Supper, however, there is a “coming together” on the part of the Lord’s people to observe this ordinance. See 1 Corinthians 11:18,20.

            The Lord’s Table is viewed in contrast to two other tables: the table of Israel (1 Corinthians 10:18, Malachi 1:12), and the table of demons for idolaters (1 Corinthians 10:20-21).

            All believers are viewed as being participants and partakers of the provision of the Lord’s Table. “We being many are one bread, and one body” (1 Corinthians 10:17). The moment a person is saved, he is viewed by God as being at the Lord’s Table. At this table, he remains all the days of his Christian life. An illustration of this can be seen in the case of Mephibosheth. When he was brought into the presence and favor of David, we are told “he did eat continually at the king’s table” (2 Samuel 9:13). This does not mean that he spent every moment of his time eating at David’s table, but that David’s provision was continually at his disposal, and that David’s table was his rightful place and privilege. In 1 Corinthians 5:8, the whole period of the believer’s life is likened to the feast of unleavened bread, which was associated with the feast of the Passover. The Lord’s Table is a permanent thing, from which the believer is never absent. Every moment of every day, he is viewed by God as being there.

            The Lord’s Table is not visible to human eyes. It cannot be seen, smelled, tasted, or touched. It is a spiritual reality, nevertheless, and, as we have seen, is figurative of the sum total of all God’s provision for His people. The Lord’s Supper is something that can be seen, smelled, tasted, and touched. There is a loaf of bread and a cup containing the fruit of the vine. It is a literal loaf and a literal cup that symbolizes the body and blood of the Lord. The table on which the bread and cup is placed is not the Lord’s Table. It is simply a piece of furniture that conveniently holds the elements. A box, or even the floor, would serve the same purpose.

            The Lord’s Table is not a rite, or an ordinance to be observed, but a provision that has been supplied by the Lord for all His people. The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Himself on the night of His betrayal, and is to be observed by Christians as an act of obedience. Not only so, but the Lord’s Supper is the subject of a special revelation from the glorified Lord to His servant Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23). Our Lord’s request demands a voluntary and willing act of obedience on the part of each participant. No human being or any company of human beings can either receive or put away a person from the Lord’s Table. This is the sole prerogative of the Lord Himself, and He has assured us of that (John 6:37).

            At the Lord’s Supper, however, Christians may welcome their fellow believers if they are sound in doctrine and moral in life. They are also given authority, if the circumstances should warrant it, to put away a person from their gathering and deny him the right to partake of the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and Romans 15:7). Thus, in the Lord’s Supper, there is the element of human responsibility.

            In the description of the Lord’s table, the cup, which symbolizes the blood of Christ, is mentioned first, and the bread, which speaks of His body, is mentioned last (1 Corinthians 10:16). In the Lord’s Supper, the bread is mentioned first, and then the cup. Why is the order reversed? The answer is simple. It is the precious blood of Christ that makes possible our place at the Lord’s Table. Apart from the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, which necessitated the shedding of His blood, there could neither be the remission of sins, nor the provision of the Lord’s Table.

            In the Lord’s Supper, as ordained by the Lord Himself, the order is, first, the bread, and then the cup, for this is an ordinance by which we remember the one who gave Himself for us. Thus, we take the bread, emblem of His body in which He bore our sins, and this focuses our minds on His person. Then, we take the cup and thus are brought to realize the awful cost, to Him, of our eternal redemption.

            In the description of the Lord’s Table, the bread is said to be a picture of the mystical body of Christ, the Church, formed by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. We are told, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body … and have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Thus, the bread here symbolizes the unity of all believers, hence, it says, “For we, being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17). Thus, the bread, at the Lord’s Table, represents the sum total of all believers.

            At the Lord’s Supper, the bread is distinctly declared to be a picture of the symbol of the actual body of our Lord, in which He wrought our redemption. This explains why the Corinthian believers had come under the chastening hand of God, for they had been observing the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, and had not been “discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Corinthians 11:29).

            In the description of the Lord’s Table, the partaking of the cup and bread is called a “communion” with His death (1 Corinthians 11:26).

In connection with the Lord’s Table, the partakers are warned about living unworthily (1 Corinthians 10:21). In the Lord’s Supper, the warning is directed against eating unworthily (1 Corinthians 11:29).

            At the Lord’s Table, there is no mention of the Lord’s second coming, for believers will always be at the Lord’s Table. At death, the believer does not cease to be a partaker of the provision of the Lord’s Table. In fact, he is declared to be “with Christ, which is better” (Philippians 1:23). The Lord’s Supper, however, is only to be observed “until He come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). At Christ’s coming, there will be no more need for the Lord’s Supper. Clearly, we have seen the Lord’s table and the Lord’s Supper, though related, are quite distinct, and each believer would do well to keep these distinctions in mind. It will be recalled that Paul’s desire for the believers at Philippi was that they might learn to “try [or distinguish] the things that differ” (Philippians 1:10).

 Bibliography

Materials were taken from the following books:

1.      Gibbs, Alfred P. Christian Baptism.

2.      Gibbs, Alfred P. The Lord’s Supper.

3.      Reid, John. The Chief Meeting of the Church.