The word Eucharist is not found in our English Bibles. In our efforts to "speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11), and to "call Bible things by Bible names", no place has been found for the word Eucharist and no justification has been given for its use in the Lord's church today.
        However, the word holds great significance to some of our religious neighbors. The Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments recognized by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. This is the sacrament that we would recognize as the Lord's Supper.
        The word Eucharist may not be found in our English Bible, but it is very present in the Greek text of the New Testament. Eucharist comes from the Greek word EUCHARISTEO, which Thayer defines as "to be grateful, feel thankful, give thanks" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 263). This verb, and its noun equivalent, are used frequently throughout the New Testament as means of expressing thanksgiving and gratitude.
        As it relates to the topic of this special issue, the word appears in all four accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper.
     "And he took the cup, and gave thanks…" (Matt. 26:27).
     "And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them…" (Mark 14:23).
     "And he took the cup, and gave thanks…" "And he took bread, and gave thanks…" (Luke 22:17, 19).
     "And when he had given thanks, He brake it…" "After the same manner also he took the cup…" (1 Cor. 11:24-25).
        The memorial aspect of the Supper is stressed today, and rightly so. The Lord specifically instructed us to partake of it "in remembrance of me" (Luke 22; 1 Cor. 11). But He also gave thanks, which shows us that it is also an appropriate and scriptural time to express our praise, gratitude and appreciation.
        The early church understood and observed this aspect of the Lord's Supper. History tells us that "Eucharist" was the most widely used term for the Lord's Supper.1 The use of this term can be traced back as far as the early second century.2
        We may be surprised to learn that early Christians referred to the Supper as the "Thanksgiving", but their focus upon this aspect of the Supper should not come as a surprise to any of us. The Lord's Supper is a memorial of the suffering and death of our Savior. No one who truly grasps what the Supper memorializes has to be told that it is a time of thanksgiving. It is only natural for us to respond in silent prayers of thanksgiving unto God for this great sacrifice. But what is it, exactly, that we have to be thankful for? Several things can be suggested from the four accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper.

1. The Body of Christ.
         All four accounts tell us that the bread represents the body of Christ. We need to be thankful, first of all, that a body was prepared. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me" (Heb. 10:4-5). God's righteous law required that a sacrifice be made for sin, but the blood of bulls and goats was not sufficient. The soul of a bull or goat was not lost in the Garden of Eden. The life of an animal can not take the place of the life of a man. We need to be thankful that a sufficient sacrifice was prepared for us.
        We should also be thankful for the One who was willing to give His body as that sacrifice. Jesus said, "This is my body which is given for you." (Luke 22:19). He bore our sins in His own body on the cross so that we might live (1 Peter 2:24). This sacrifice was motivated by His love for us (John 15:13).

2. The Blood of Christ.
         The Lord tells us that the fruit of the vine represents His blood "which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). Why is there so much emphasis upon blood in the Bible? "And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). The remission of our sins requires the shedding of blood; but why?
        Romans 3:25 says that the shed blood of Christ is a propitiation. This word has to do with appeasing, satisfying a requirement, or paying a penalty. God said that the penalty for sin was death: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17). Sin requires death, the giving of a life. Life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11), so blood had to be shed.
        However, as noted above, not just any blood would do. An animal wasn't lost in the Garden, a man was, so it had to be the blood of a man to pay the price. But God didn't lose just any man in the Garden - God lost a perfect, sinless man. The blood of a perfect, sinless man was required to atone for such a loss. When Jesus shed His blood on the cross, the righteous requirement of the law for sin was satisfied. He was the only one who could have done it.

3. The New Covenant.
         All four accounts identify the cup as representing the blood of the new covenant or testament. A covenant, or will, does not go into effect until a death occurs. The Old Covenant was dedicated by blood. When Christ died that Old Covenant was taken out of the way and replaced with a better one (Heb. 9:14-20).
        We should be thankful that we are able to be in a covenant relationship with God, in which He promises to recognize us as His people, and to be merciful to our sins. We should also be thankful that we don't live under that Old Covenant. With all its laws and requirements, it was still unable to forgive man's sins. We now serve God under a better covenant, inaugurated by a perfect sacrifice.

4. God's Faithfulness In Bringing This To Pass.
        The death of Christ was not an accident. It didn't just happen to work out for our good. It was planned and carried out by God: "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death" (Acts 2:23).
        Going back as far as Genesis 3:15 we see the promise of a Savior to come. God made promises to Abraham and David. He gave messages of hope through the voices of His prophets. When Jesus died on the cross, God delivered on these promises. Since God was faithful with a promise that cost Him the life of His Son, we can trust Him to be faithful with every one of His promises. We should be thankful that we serve a faithful and loving God.

5. Our Future Hope.
        Paul said that in partaking of the Supper we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes (1 Cor. 11:26). The Lord's Supper is not just a time to look back with remembrance, but also to look ahead with hope and thanksgiving. The Lord left with the promise of coming back to receive His own and to take them to be with Him (John 14:1-3). His death and resurrection give us something to hope for, which gives us much to be thankful for.
Conclusion: Thanksgiving is to be a way of life for the child of God (Col. 3:17). It only makes sense that we offer thanks to God as we remember the great sacrifice that was made on our behalf.
        There are several scriptural designations for the Lord's Supper. It is interesting that the early church called it "The Thanksgiving." Whatever we choose to call it, it must contain an element of thanksgiving. Consider these things as you assemble with the saints around the Lord's Table this Sunday.

1. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 1923
2. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 415

        The people of God have always tended to take on the characteristics of the people around them, often to their own peril. One of the most obvious ways that God's people are doing this today is by adopting the world's standard of dress. Immodesty is one of the many battle grounds in which local churches are fighting the distinction between being "in the world" and "of the world".
        Immodest dress has been a problem, to some extent, in every local church with which I have been associated. The problem is sometimes caused by ignorance - young members and new converts innocently following the fashions of the day. Sometimes the problem is the result of a rebellious attitude - "I'll dress how I want to and I don't care what anyone else says". Either way, the end result is the same: immodesty is a problem and local churches are left to struggle with it. Some churches have given up the fight against immodest dress, but souls are not won by surrendering to evil and error. We need repeated study and teaching on modesty and how it relates to the way we dress.
        I have not always agreed with the things which I now believe, teach and practice concerning immodest dress. At first I didn't think it was a big deal. I knew that God looked upon the heart, and I believed that was all that mattered (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Peter 3:4). Then I began to justify my appearance by comparing it to those in the world around me. As long as I wasn't as immodest as others, I felt I was doing good enough. However, as time went on, I began to think about the following points in this article. As I considered them, I began to realize that it does matter how I dress. I hope you will give them fair consideration as well.
Why should I be concerned about the way I dress?

1. I Should Be Ashamed To Be Naked.
         The Bible consistently associates shame with nakedness. This is found in both the Old and New Testaments (Micah 1:11; Nahum 3:5; Rev. 3:18, 16:15).
        In the beginning, man and woman were completely naked. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Gen. 2:25; all quotations taken from NKJV). There was no shame because there was no knowledge of good and evil. After they sinned, their eyes were opened, they knew that they were naked and sewed fig leaves together to make coverings for themselves (Gen. 3:7). What happened next teaches a lesson that many brethren have yet to learn: We don't have to be completely nude to be Biblically naked.
        "Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, 'Where are you?' So he said, 'I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.' And He said, 'Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?'" (Gen. 3:9-11). Adam was covered with fig leaves, yet he said he was naked and hid himself in shame. Notice - God did not tell him he was not naked. He agreed with Adam's conclusion.
        Adam wasn't clothed until verse 21: "Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them." Why was man still naked in the covering he made for himself, but clothed in the covering God made for him? The garment God made was more adequate, not because of the material it was made out of, but because of the parts of the body that it covered. Man was not clothed until his nakedness was covered. Are we going to be so bold in our dress as to reveal what God has covered? Some brethren are.
        Some people like to play the "where is it" game when it comes to modesty. Where is the line? How short is too short? How low is too low? How tight is too tight? I played this game too, until I realized that it was avoiding the real issue. "Nakedness" has to do with exposing parts of the body, not in measuring the fabric of the clothing. As we have already pointed out, we can have clothes on and still be naked in a Biblical sense.
        While some brethren are looking for that "line" between modest and immodest, they overlook the fact that the Bible has been very specific in telling us what is to be covered. There are certain parts of the body which, if left uncovered and exposed, constitute nakedness.
        The Thigh. "Take the millstones and grind meal. Remove your veil, take off the skirt, uncover the thigh, pass through the rivers. Your nakedness shall be uncovered, yes, your shame will be seen…" (Isaiah 47:2-3). To reveal the flesh of the thigh is to be naked, and should cause shame. Any clothing which reveals the flesh or form of the thigh is immodest. This would include (but is certainly not limited to) shorts, spandex jogging shorts, swimsuits, mini skirts, skirts with long slits, cheerleading uniforms and many athletic uniforms.
        The Buttocks. "So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as prisoners and the Ethiopians as captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt" (Isaiah 20:4). To expose the buttocks is to be naked, and should cause shame. Any clothing which reveals the flesh or form of the buttocks is immodest. This would include short shorts, men's and women's swimsuits, pants hanging off waist, hip-huggers, etc.
        The Breasts. "I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed, your hair grew, but you were naked and bare" (Ezekiel 16:7). To expose the breast is to be naked, and should cause shame. Any clothing which reveals the breast (in part or in whole), or is specifically made to showcase or augment the form of the breast is immodest. This would include low cut tops, loose fitting sleeveless tops, tube tops, tight sweaters, push-up bras, etc. This would also apply to men going without a shirt, wearing a muscle shirt, or leaving their shirt unbuttoned.
The Bible is very clear in specifying parts of the body which need to be covered. To wear clothing which reveals, exposes, or draws attention to these parts of the body is to dress immodestly. Proximity to a large body of water, or to a swimming facility, doesn't make a swimsuit modest. Calling sports (cross-country, wrestling, basketball, gymnastics, etc.) or cheerleading outfits a uniform does not make them modest. If these popular garments expose the thigh, buttocks or breasts (men's chest), the one wearing them is naked in a Biblical sense, and ought to be ashamed.

2. I Don't Want To Advertise Something About Myself That Isn't True.
        Our clothing sends a message. The Bible talks about a Christian woman professing godliness in her dress and conduct (1 Timothy 2:9-10). It also talks about the "attire of a harlot" (Proverbs 7:10).
It is interesting to note what some in the world have to say about today's popular fashions. They willingly admit what some Christians try to deny. The legs, breast, buttocks and midriff of a woman will attract the attention of men. The muscular build of a man (shoulders, arms, chest and buttocks) will attract the attention of women. Clothing designers know this, and many of today's fashions are made to empower men and women with the ability to attract this attention to themselves.
        Most reasonable people will admit that this attention is actually lust. Clothing which reveals parts of the body meant to be covered will incite lust in members of the opposite sex. The clothing is going to do what it is designed to do - even if the person wearing it is a Christian. It sends a message that Christians shouldn't be sending. It invites sexual attention. It leads people on.

3. I Don't Want To Cause Another To Stumble.
        "Then He said to the disciples, 'It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones'" (Luke 17:1-2). The Lord condemned those who would be stumbling blocks. He shows, with graphic language, that it would be better for one to die a brutal death of drowning before offending another than to face Him in judgment after doing so.
        We have already pointed out that some clothing is designed to produce lust. What is wrong with lust? Why can't we "Look But Don't Touch"? What's wrong with giving others something to look at?
The Bible does not portray lust as an innocent thing to be enjoyed, but as a dangerous thing to be avoided. "Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11). Lusts are those things which will cause us to lose our souls in Hell. "Flee also youthful lusts…" (2 Timothy 2:22). We are to flee lusts, not invite them.
        Whatever naturally provokes and excites these sinful lusts must be opposed and avoided - including the wearing of revealing clothing. The sight of bare flesh provokes lust. Young people have more power in this area than many of them realize. They need to be aware, not only of the signals they are sending with immodest clothing, but of the affect it has on others. To dress or behave in such a way as to cause one to lust is to be a stumbling block.
        To encourage another to dress immodestly is to cause that person to stumble as well. Parents who approve, justify and provide opportunities for their children to dress immodestly are making a "provision for the flesh" (Romans 13:14). By allowing their children to dress immodestly, they have become a stumbling block for other parents who are trying to instill a sense of modesty and shamefacedness in their own children. Christian parents have a hard enough time battling against the evil influence of the world. However, the sad fact is that when it comes to modesty, they often have to battle against the evil influence of their own brethren in addition to the world.

4. I Need To Be Careful To Preserve A Good Conscience.
        The conscience is what holds everything in check. It is our warning system which tells us when we are about to do something wrong. The Bible warns that after we have violated our conscience enough, it can become hardened and no longer work (1 Tim. 4:2). Once that restraint is gone there is nothing left to keep us from going further into sin, and nothing left through which God can appeal unto us to repent.
        Some obviously look upon immodest dress as a little thing. Why are some brethren wanting to make such a big deal out of it? Because we know that big things come from little things. The Bible teaches that sin becomes progressively worse, not better: "But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Tim. 3:13). If I can convince myself that nothing is wrong with dressing immodestly, it will not be hard to convince myself that nothing is wrong with mixed swimming, dancing, drinking, bad language, petting and fornication.
        Parents who teach their teenagers that it is all right to dress immodestly have taught them that it is all right to violate God's word. Such parents should not be surprised to later discover that their teenager is drinking, smoking, using drugs, cursing, and/or having sex. We have all witnessed the heartbreak of parents seeing their teenagers come forward and confess these terrible sins. Perhaps, in some cases, the seeds of rebellion and disobedience were sown by the parents themselves in allowing their teenagers to dress immodestly.
        "Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, before the difficult days come, and the years draw near when you say, 'I have no pleasure in them'" (Eccl. 12:1). It is best to form our convictions and habits early in life. If we do so properly, our consciences will serve us well and we will be a good influence upon others. However, if we fail to grasp the importance of dressing modestly and concealing our nakedness, we leave ourselves open to rebellion against any and all of God's commandments.

Conclusion:
        Approaching immodest dress from this point of view is not meant to leave the impression that the matter is open to personal interpretation. Nakedness is clearly defined for us in the Bible. God's word specifies what parts of the body are to be covered, and common sense tells us why they need to be covered. Christians who still insist on dressing immodestly are violating both.

        The church is a divinely ordained organization with a divinely ordained purpose. The local church is authorized to spread and defend the gospel (1 Tim. 3:15), to teach and edify its members (Eph. 4:11-16), and to relieve its needy members (Acts 6:1; Rom. 15:26; 1 Tim. 5:16). Just like any other organization, the church needs money to do this work.
        The question of how a church can raise its funds is not a trivial one. If God's word was silent on this subject, we would be free to use any means we deemed necessary, convenient, expedient and tasteful. Some churches obviously use this freedom in fund raising. They engage themselves in things like carnivals, car washes, car shows, pancake breakfasts, bingo games, bake sales, calendar sales, rummage sales, etc., without giving a thought to whether or not God approves. Some churches will even solicit funds from area businesses, asking them to "invest" in worthwhile projects that their regular budget will not allow them to do.
        These practices are common and acceptable among many churches today. However, we can't find any churches in the Bible doing things like this. Certainly these fund raising opportunities were available in the first century. The church in Joppa had a member named Dorcas who made clothes for some of the members there (Acts 9:36-39). Why didn't she and some of the other ladies there make clothes for a church sale? Silver shrines were a hot item in Ephesus (Acts 19). Why don't we read of the church there tapping into this opportunity by selling silver "JESUS" fish decals to put on the back of chariots?
        Not one word is said about the churches in the Bible engaging themselves in any sales or economic ventures. Churches never solicited funds from people who were not members. Neither did they plan projects that were larger than their budget would support, then turn and ask other churches or businesses to help them with the cost. We never read of the elders or deacons assessing the income of the members and telling them how much they had to give. This approach may seem bold and far fetched to some of you, but it exists. Not only have I heard of it being used by some denominations and the Catholic church, it was also advocated by J.W. McGarvey (see McGarvey's Sermons, pages 275-279).
        The only means of fund raising we find the church of the Bible using is the freewill offerings of its members. The apostle Paul wrote: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come" (1 Cor. 16:1-2). In Acts 4:34-37 we find Christians bringing money and laying it at the apostles' feet. These brethren were not commanded to do this, neither were they told the amount they had to give. This was their own choice, which is made clear in the next chapter. Ananias and Sapphira's sin was not in failing to give all the proceeds of the sale of their land, but in lying in order to make people believe that they had. Notice what Peter told Ananias: "…why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:3-4). The apostles didn't have the authority to tell him how much he had to give. Ananias was the one with the "power" to choose how much to give. Paul said that we are to give as we purpose in our hearts (2 Cor. 9:7). When the church determines the exact amount that the members must give it has gone beyond the teachings of Christ. Such a contribution is no longer a freewill offering. It is a bill that has to be paid to stay in the church's good graces.
        The Bible says nothing about these kinds of practices. We must learn to be content with God's pattern; and remember that the silence of Scripture is prohibitive, not permissive. The local church is designed and equipped to do the work that God has ordained it to do. When the members are giving as they should (2 Cor. 9:6-7), the church will have the funds it needs.

TOP            BACK