The Spirit was not yet Given

[eveh]

The only reason Jesus served the cup and bread to his disciples at the "last supper" was that the communion in spirit which he wanted them to have was not available. Jesus had not yet been glorified, and so the Spirit had not yet been given (see Jn. 7:39). If Jesus could have had fellowship with his disciples, as he did with his Father, there would have been no point in passing around a cup of wine saying, "This is my blood . . . all of you drink of it." On the day of Pentecost, when true communion with the Father became a reality for Jesus' followers, there was no longer any need for a symbol of it.

From a message by Pastor John Clark

[eveh]

This was already discussed in another forum. I would remove it but since I started it, I can't..just ignore it.

[Gabrielle A]

There is approximately 52 days between the sacrifice of the passover lamb (Christ) and the day of Pentecost.

I do not believe that the last supper was a something that believers partook of, until the day of Pentecost (for 52 days) but rather until he comes again.

There are two very significant key points that Paul makes in his letters to the Church at Corinth...

1. It was to remember Christ shed blood as an atoning sacrifice on behalf of all believers until he comes.

2. This memorial was being practiced by the Church after Pentecost because Paul wrote these letters approximately 55 A. D. while in Ephesus and scholars have determined (based on biblical accounts) that Jesus was crucified around 30 (which some..considered too early a date) possibly 31 A. D.

I Corinthians 11
17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

Institution of the Lord's Supper
   
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

Examine Yourself
   
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

If Paul thought that partaking of the Lords Supper was not relevant for the Church at that time... he would have admonished them for it. (Did he not also have the Holy Spirit?)

Instead he urges them to examine themselves before doing so, lest they pour judgment upon themselves and therefore, be condemned along with the world.

Is the Lords Supper something that believers are to partake in until he comes again? I believe it is! 

Blessings!!!

[Cobalt1959]

The only reason Jesus served the cup and bread to his disciples at the "last supper" was that the communion in spirit which he wanted them to have was not available. Jesus had not yet been glorified, and so the Spirit had not yet been given (see Jn. 7:39). If Jesus could have had fellowship with his disciples, as he did with his Father, there would have been no point in passing around a cup of wine saying, "This is my blood . . . all of you drink of it." On the day of Pentecost, when true communion with the Father became a reality for Jesus' followers, there was no longer any need for a symbol of it.

From a message by Pastor John Clark

To say that "there is no longer any need" for the Lord's Supper flies in the face of clear Biblical instructions on the subject from Jesus Himself:

Luke 22:14-20  14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.  15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.  16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."  17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you.  18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."  19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."  20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

"Do this in remembrance of me" is not a suggestion or an option, it is a command.  Jesus instituted 2 ordinances within His Church.  One was baptism and the other was the Lord's Supper.

Paul repeats this same command in 1 Corinthians in his Epistle to a church which was observing the Lord's Supper incorrectly.  If there was no need to be partaking of this ordinance, the church wouldn't have been doing so and Paul would not have needed to instruct the church on how to observe it correctly.

From everything I have found about Pastor John Clark on the internet, he is someone to steer clear of.  You won't be finding true and correct theology from him. 

[Hawking]

I always thought of it as a reminder of my covenant with Jesus for all time. I think of it in a very personal way just between him and me entering into this everlasting covenant. It is where I committ myself to him and he is committing himself to me. I'm giving him my life and he is giving his life for me.
I guess each to their own but this is the thought when I receive the Lord supper within me.