Many sincere believers feel that to be consistent, those who claim that water baptism is not in God's program for this age should cease gathering at the Lord's supper too.

Here extreme dispensationalists and denominationalists stand together, their only difference being that while the former believe that neither the Lord's supper nor water baptism should be observed during this dispensation, the latter believe that both should be.

But both of these groups have based their arguments upon a wholly unscriptural assumption -- that water baptism and the Lord's supper belong together in God's program.  This is pure tradition and it is surprising that extreme dispensationalists, of all people, should accept it as truth.

Well do we remember how a startling misquotation of Col. 2:14 first led us into a study of this subject.  A Bible teacher had quoted it thus: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances, that was against us, leaving two, baptism and the Lord's supper!" When we began to search the Scriptures as to this we soon discovered that water baptism was an ordinance, but that the Lord's supper was emphatically not an ordinance, in the Scriptural sense of that term.

We must be Bereans and search for ourselves to see whether water baptism and the Lord's supper are linked together as ordinances either for Israel or the body of Christ, and if we find that they are not so linked, we should settle it in our minds and forever be done with the unscriptural notion.

The fact is that there are definite distinctions and even contrasts between baptism and the Lord's supper.

Water baptism was an Old Testament ordinance.

The Lord's supper is a New Testament celebration.

Water baptism, like all ordinances, was "imposed."

The Lord's supper was never imposed.

Water baptism was a requirement for salvation.

The Lord's supper, never!

Water baptism was associated with our Lord's manifestation to Israel.

The Lord's supper is associated with our Lord's rejection and absence.

Water baptism denotes an unfinished work.

The Lord's supper speaks of the finished work of Christ.

Water baptism was a single act.

The Lord's supper is celebrated again and again.

Water baptism was not included in Paul's special commission.

The Lord's supper was included in Paul's special commission.
 
 

As we have seen in our discussion of water baptism, that rite was distinctly an Old Testament ordinance.  The Lord's supper, however, is distinctly a New Testament celebration.  It is disappointing to find some well-meaning extremists calling the Lord's Supper "the Passover," for surely Luke 22:14-20 proves conclusively that after the Passover our Lord instituted a "remembrance" of His death.

When Paul recounts what our Lord did and said at the Lord's supper he mentions only the bread and the wine, while at the Passover there was more than this.

The Passover, like water baptism, was an Old Testament ordinance, but the Lord's supper is as distinctly associated with the New Testament.

"FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . . ." (Matt. 26:28).

The Passover, like water baptism, spoke of an unfinished work, for it is impossible that either the blood of beasts or the washing of water should take away sins.  Both were shadows of the blood and water that flowed from the Savior's side.

Because so many stumble over the fact that water baptism was practiced even after the Cross, we repeat that the full results of Calvary were not manifested until "due time," through the Apostle Paul.  Circumcision, the sabbaths and the Levitical feasts likewise spoke of an unfinished work, yet they were all observed after the cross.  This is simply because the time was not ripe for the unfolding of God's, secret purpose and the gospel of the grace of God until the raising up of Paul, and even then its unfolding and the passing away of the old order was a gradual matter.

BUT, whereas the Passover and water baptism were Old Testament ordinances, the Lord's supper is a New Testament celebration.

The celebration of the Lord's death should never be classed with ordinances, for while these all spoke of an unfinished work, the Lord's supper is clearly a celebration of the FINISHED WORK of Christ.

At least three times the Lord's supper is stated to be "in remembrance" of our Lord's sacrificial work.
 
 

Since the New Testament, or Covenant, was specifically made with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31), some have concluded that it can have no relation to the Gentiles and that therefore the Lord's supper should not be practiced today.

But this is an error.  The Old Covenant, like the New, was made with Israel, but it vitally affects the Gentiles.  See Paul's words in Rom. 3:19,20:

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that EVERY MOUTH may be stopped, and ALL THE WORLD may become guilty before God.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall NO FLESH be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

The Gentiles never were, and are not today, under the covenant of the law, but it would be a mistake to argue that the law does not affect the Gentiles, for it was given that the whole world might be brought in guilty before God.

Israel represented the world before God.  Israel was the only nation with which God still had dealings after He gave up the Gentiles.  When she finally fell, it meant that the whole world had fallen.  If God should demand from any group of people the righteous standards of the Old Covenant (Ex. 19:5,6), that group would surely be condemned.  That is why the New Covenant was necessary.

After Israel's failure under the Old Covenant had become increasingly apparent, God promised to make a new covenant with them.  This New Covenant was to be made with the favored nation alone.  Jeremiah distinctly states this, as we have seen above.

And God did make this new covenant with Israel and Judah -- at Calvary (Matt. 26:28).  It was there that Christ procured for His covenant people what they could not attain to under the law.  It was there that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled:

"For the transgression of my people was He stricken" (Isa. 53:8).

It was on the basis of Calvary and the blood of the New Covenant that the kingdom blessing was offered to Israel at Pentecost, but that generation in Israel refused the blessing and the New Covenant awaits a future fulfillment.

But it does not follow from this that the New Covenant does not affect the Gentiles.

If the Gentiles come under the curse of the Old Covenant, they may also partake of the blessings of the New, for why was the blood of the New Covenant shed if not to remove the curse of the Old?

If by the Old Covenant with Israel God showed how the whole world stands condemned in His sight, then, by the New Covenant with Israel God shows how all may be justified in His sight.¹ Heb. 2:9-16 says that Christ "took on Him the seed of Abraham." But why? "That He by the grace of God might taste death for EVERY MAN."

At Calvary God vouchsafed to Israel by solemn covenant: "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer. 31:34, cf. Matt. 26:28).  God did not make such a covenants with the Gentiles, but what He promised by covenant to Israel, we receive by grace.

The reader should carefully examine Jer. 31:31-34 and note that the blessings of the New Covenant are all spiritual.² There is nothing about the land, the kingdom or the throne.  Do members of the body of Christ today receive the blessings outlined there?  Yes, all of them.  Has He not written His law upon our hearts?  Is it not our desire to obey Him?  Do we not "know the Lord"?  Is He not our God?  Are we not His people?  Has He not forgiven our iniquities?  Does He remember our sins against us?

We must not forget that "we have redemption through His blood" -- that same "blood of the New Covenant." That blood saves us even while Israel gropes in blindness and staggers in unbelief.

But there are other important distinctions between water baptism and the Lord's supper.
 

Water baptism is clearly associated with the manifestation of Christ to Israel.  Consider the words of John the Baptist in John 1:31:

"AND I KNEW HIM NOT: BUT THAT HE SHOULD BE MADE MANIFEST TO ISRAEL, THEREFORE AM I COME BAPTIZING WITH WATER."

In contrast to this, the Lord's supper is associated with the rejection of Christ and was first given to His followers to celebrate in His absence, until God should make His enemies His footstool.

It was by revelation that the Apostle Paul subsequently made known God's wonderful purpose to delay the judgment and usher in a period of grace.  By revelation he declared that the Lord, in love to sinners, would remain away, an Exile, meanwhile sending forth ambassadors to offer to His enemies reconciliation by grace, through faith in His finished work (Eph. 3:1-4 and II Pet. 3:3,4,8,9,15).

Every believer today should have in his heart and on his lips the message which Paul so faithfully proclaimed, and which the church has since then so grievously confused and obscured:

"Now then we are AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you IN CHRIST'S STEAD, be ye reconciled to God.

"FOR HE HATH MADE HIM TO BE SIN FOR US, WHO KNEW NO SIN; THAT WE MIGHT BE MADE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM" (II Cor. 5:20,21).

It was because of the continued absence of Christ that Paul, by revelation, "delivered" the Lord's supper as a celebration of our Lord's death "till He come" (I Cor. 11:23,26).
 
 

We have seen that water baptism, both before and after the cross, was required for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, 16:15,16, Acts 2:38).  With the Lord's supper the very opposite is the case for only those already saved are invited to partake of it.

Our denominational brethren should surely recognize this distinction, for while they make baptism a prerequisite to membership in most of their churches, rarely do they make the Lord's supper a prerequisite.  On the contrary, the Lord's supper is a privilege extended only to the saved; sometimes, indeed, only to the members of the particular churches in which it is "observed."

Like all other ordinances, because water baptism represented an unfinished work it was required for salvation.  No man could claim salvation without it.  But contrast this with the Lord's supper.

Matt 26:28: "FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS."

Though our Lord's words at the table were not yet fully understood, they nevertheless mark a vital distinction between baptism and the Lord's supper.
 
 

Water baptism was an ordinance; a yoke. It was "imposed."

Heb. 9:10: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and DIVERS WASHINGS [Gr. BAPTISMOIS], and carnal ORDINANCES, IMPOSED ON THEM UNTIL THE TIME OF REFORMATION."

This is why Col. 2:20 says:

"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye SUBJECT to ordinances?"

And this is why Col. 2:9-12 shows our circumcision and baptism as having been accomplished for us by Christ, and adds:

"BLOTTING OUT THE HANDWRITING OF ORDINANCES THAT WAS AGAINST US, WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO US, AND TOOK IT OUT OF THE WAY, NAILING IT TO HIS CROSS" (Ver. 14).

Many preachers have taught that God's children should "submit" to water baptism, but has the reader ever heard any one insist that we should "submit" to the Lord's supper?  The Lord's supper can never be classed with Old Testament ordinances.  It was never imposed or required for acceptance with God.  On the contrary, the Scriptures clearly present it as a celebration, a "remembrance," in which it is the believer's privilege to participate "as often" as he wishes (I Cor. 11:26), though it is taken for granted that he will wish to remember in this way what his Lord has done for him.
 
 

Another sharp distinction between water baptism and the Lord's supper is that while the former was to be administered only once, the latter was to be celebrated again and again.

Without a shred of evidence or a single Scriptural proof, it is asserted by some that the purpose of water baptism is to bear public testimony to our death, burial and resurrection with Christ.  But then why should believers be baptized only once?  Is one testimony enough?  Can we tell by looking at a person whether he has been baptized or not?  If water baptism were meant for a testimony that the believer has been crucified, buried and raised with Christ, we should be baptized again and again, not just once before one group of people.

But the Scriptures do clearly teach that the Lord's supper was meant to remind believers and the world of the death of Christ.

"THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" (I Cor. 11:24).

"THIS DO YE . . . IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME"(I Cor. 11:25).

"FOR AS OFTEN AS YE EAT THIS BREAD, AND DRINK THIS CUP, YE DO SHOW FORTH THE LORD'S DEATH TILL HE COME" (I Cor. 11:26).
 
 

Baptism was not included in Paul's special commission.

"FOR CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL . . ." (I Cor. 1:17).

The context does not alter this fact in the least.  True, the Corinthians were puffed up and carnal, and for this reason Paul was glad he had not baptized more of them.  This, however, does not modify, it rather emphasizes the fact that he was not sent to baptize, and those who insist that he was sent to baptize, as John the Baptist and the twelve had been, should produce the evidence.

Our denominational brethren can easily prove that John the Baptist was commissioned to baptize.  They can easily prove that the twelve were commissioned to baptize, but they wholly fail to produce any Scriptural evidence that water baptism was included in the great commission which Paul received by revelation.  If I Cor. 1:17 means anything, it means that water baptism was not included in that commission.  This does not mean that Paul did wrong in baptizing before Israel was set aside, any more than that he did wrong in working miracles or speaking in tongues or confirming Peter's message as God's Word to Israel.³

But the Lord's supper was included in Paul's special commission.

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread." These are the words with which Paul proceeds to "deliver" the memorial of the Lord's death to them (I Cor. 11:23).  This was part of Paul's distinctive message.

Paul did not have a number of divergent gospels.  The various items of good news which he proclaimed were all part of one great message progressively developed in his epistles and called again and again, "my gospel," not "my gospels."

This is not to deny that He confirmed Peter's message.  It is simply to point out that even in his early ministry his great message was not "the gospel of the circumcision" as some would have us believe, but "the gospel of the uncircumcision" (Gal. 2:7), and that the Lord's supper belongs to this distinctively Pauline message.
 
 

Frankly, it is difficult for us to follow the "logic" of some of our extreme brethren who reason that since our position and our blessings are in the heavenlies, we should not partake of the Lord's supper because it is a physical celebration.

They say: "Imagine a dead man eating!  Imagine one at God's right hand partaking of a supper down here!" But can this "logic" apply only to the Lord's supper?  Imagine a dead man, or one in the heavenlies, telling lies!  Imagine him stealing!  Imagine him traveling or held a prisoner!  Yet Paul, in his later epistles, exhorts brethren whose position is in the heavenlies not to lie and steal, and refers to his own travels and his bonds.

Those who forward the above argument against the celebration of the Lord's supper simply forget to distinguish between our standing in Christ and our state.  The apostle warns against "carnal [physical] ordinances," to be sure, since the mystery has been fully revealed, for now any former requirement, even if appended to faith, would be a reflection on the finished work of Christ.

But the Lord's supper was never a requirement for salvation and cannot be classed with the ordinances.  Nor does Paul ever teach, indeed he refutes, the error that physical things as such are incompatible with spiritual blessings.

There are many physical privileges which, when rightly used, are translated into spiritual blessings.

We may eat and drink to the glory of God (I Cor. 10:31).

We may bow our knees unto the Father (Eph. 3:14).

We may study out of physical books and a physical Bible (I Tim. 4:13, II Tim. 2:15).

We may assemble with other saints on earth, generally in buildings (Heb. 10:25, Col. 4:15).

We may gather around a physical table and remember Christ's death with physical food and drink, and this table is called "the Lord's table" (I Cor. 10:21, 11:23-26).
 
 

Recently someone advanced the argument to us that the Lord's supper could hardly be for this age since, as he put it: "I never felt moved at the Lord's table."

But are we to go by feelings or by faith? by the will of man or the Word of God?

Many will testify that they were filled with joy and peace when they were baptized with water.  Does this prove that water baptism is in God's program for this age?  Many have been deeply moved by the robes, the chants, the beads and candlesticks of Rome.  Does this make these things Scriptural or pleasing to God?  Most assuredly not.  Faith rests only on the written Word of God.

Many do not feel moved at the Lord's table because its true meaning is not appreciated.  The Scriptures are as much against the legalistic manner in which many of the brethren observe the Lord's supper as they are against the practice of water baptism for today.  The Lord's supper is not a mass.  It is something infinitely more precious than that.
 
 

Every instructed believer today rejoices in the glorious fact that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ -- yea into Christ Himself; that he has been given a position in Christ in the heavenlies.

But has it ever occurred to the reader that to accomplish this, our blessed Lord had to be baptized into the human race -- become bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh -- one with us, yea one of us?  Before we could be baptized into Deity, He had to be baptized into humanity.  Before we could be baptized into His death, He had to be baptized into our death (Luke 12:50).  To lift us from earth to heaven; to bless us with all spiritual blessings, He had to take upon Himself a physical body, to be beaten and scourged and spit upon and crucified.

God would have us remember this.  He would make us more deeply conscious of it and more heartily thankful for it.  This is why He has given us one solemn and precious memorial of Calvary.  He would remind us again and again in this tangible way that

"You that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled,

"IN THE BODY OF HIS FLESH, THROUGH DEATH, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight" (Col. 1:21,22).

And not only would He remind us of this stupendous fact and have us live in the light of it -- He would have us show it forth to others as well.

"THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."

"FOR AS OFTEN AS YE EAT THIS BREAD, AND DRINK THIS CUP, YE DO SHOW FORTH THE LORD'S DEATH TILL HE COME."
 
 

1.  With respect to the Lord's supper and water baptism, where do denominationalists and extreme dispensationalists agree and where do they disagree?

2.  Give three proofs that water baptism and the Lord's supper do not belong in the same class Scripturally.

3.  Prove from Scripture that the Lord's supper is not the same as the Passover.

4.  What is the relation between the Old and New Covenants?

5.  With whom were these covenants made?

6.  How do both affect the Gentiles?

7.  In what prophecy did God promise to make the New Covenant?

8.  When was the New Covenant actually made?

9.  When will it be fulfilled?

10.  What was the nature of the promises under the New Covenant?

11.  How do we come into the blessings of the New Covenant?

12.  Show from Scripture how water baptism was an ordinance, in the Scriptural sense of the term.

13.  Show how the Lord's supper is not such an ordinance.

14.  Were John the Baptist and the twelve sent to baptize?

15.  Was Paul sent to baptize?  Give Scripture.

16.  Was the Lord's supper included in Paul's special revelation and commission?

17.  Show from Scripture how the Lord's supper was meant to be a testimony.

18.  How would you answer the argument that the celebration of the Lord's supper is not compatible with our position in the heavenlies?

19.  Explain why God has given us this one physical "remembrance."

20.  Until when are members of the body of Christ to show forth the Lord's death in this way?