When the bread and wine (or grape juice) are consecrated through prayer, they are sacred in God’s sight. He imputes holiness to them. In this post we look closely at this doctrine and review the basics of communion.

Let’s begin our study.

I.. Ordinance or Sacrament?

A.. Defining terms

Why do some churches call the Lord’s Supper an ‘ordinance’ and others a ‘sacrament’?

An ordinance can be defined as a “prescribed practice or ceremony” (J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology, vol. 3, p. 221) There are two visible or public ordinances in all churches: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (other denominations add more, like marriage and last rites).

Ordinance is related to the word ‘ordain,’ and Jesus clearly ordained those two ordinances. A sacrament means that the physical object (i.e. water or the bread and wine) are made sacred by faith and prayer and consecration. Those distinctions are not watertight, and so here are some generalizations.

B.. Standard Protestant traditions

Usually churches in the Protestant tradition call it an ‘ordinance’ because the elements are not sacred in themselves but are symbolic of or represent the Lord’s blood and body. But the Spirit is involved in this supper because he lives in the heart of the believer who has faith in the Lord as the Christian takes the elements. So it is not a meaningless meal, but holy or sacred, particularly when the participants pray in faith and in the Spirit. Baptist churches, Calvary Chapels, Pentecostals, and countless independent charismatic churches see things like this. But sometimes I hear them refer to the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament. (See more about this below)

C.. Roman Catholics

They call it a ‘sacrament’ because the elements are sacred or made sacred, for God transforms the substance beneath the appearances (note the stem sacred and sacrament in both words). They believe that they partake of the body and blood of Christ because of God’s miracle. This transformation is called ‘transubstantiation’ (see more about this below).

D.. Other Protestant churches

Lutherans, for example, also call it a ‘sacrament’ because they believe that those who take the bread and wine literally and physically partake of Christ’s body, but not because of a miraculous transubstantiation, but because of Christ’s glorified body and blood being “in, with and under” the bread and wine (Williams, vol. 3, p. 249, note 131). This view is called consubstantiation by those who are not Lutherans. In fact, Lutheran theologians do not like the term. It’s an indication that the one wielding the term is an outsider (see more about this below).

E.. Summary

I believe the bread and grape juice are sacred because they will have been consecrated with prayer. But I cannot affirm (or deny) that the body and blood of Christ are somehow involved with the two elements, in mysterious ways.

II.. Various Names of the Lord’s Supper

A.. The Lord’s Supper

It is used in 1 Corinthians 11:20, and oddly it is used with the word “not.” The Corinthians were abusing the Lord’s Supper, so Paul wrote that is not the Lord’s Supper that they were eating. But this term is used the most often in various churches today, says Williams (vol. 3, p. 241). However, in my experience, communion is the term used most often. Maybe in your church the next terms are used.

B.. Breaking Bread

It comes from Matthew 26:26, which says “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’” Acts 2:42 says that the disciples devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer (see also 2:46). Acts 20:7, 11 says that the believers in Troas gathered together on the first day of the week and broke bread. Williams cites several scholars who say that breaking bread in those contexts was an agape feast (potluck), and then the disciples celebrated the more focused Lord’s Supper after the feast.

C.. The Christian or Messianic passover

In 1 Corinthians 5:7 Paul says that Christ is our Passover lamb, and he has been sacrificed. Luke clarifies the connection when he says that when the feast of unleavened bread—the Passover—had come, on which the Passover lamb was sacrificed, Jesus sent Peter and John to get things ready for the last meal (Luke 22:7-8). Thus, Jesus and how he instituted the bread of his body and the cup of his blood are the fulfillment of the Old Testament Passover (Exod. 12:21-27).

Nowadays, however, many teachers on Christian TV claim that Christians—Messianic Jews or Gentiles—should celebrate the Seder meal, even though the Seder meal came after the original Lord’s supper. But let your conscience be your guide. If you do celebrate the Seder, please do it in a Messianic context.

D.. Communion

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:16 that the cup of blessing is the communion of the blood of Christ, and the bread is the communion of the body of Christ. The word communion can be translated as “participation or “sharing.” (It’s the Greek word koinōnia.) But since the old King James Version has “communion,” people have adopted it. In all the churches I have attended or visited and communion is offered, this term is by far the most frequent. I don’t recall Eucharist or Messianic Passover, though once in a while I hear the Lord’s Supper or the Lord’s Table.

E.. The Table of the Lord

Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 10:21 that we cannot partake of the Lord’s Table and the table of demons or gods of idols that have received sacrifices. The Lord himself is at his table, and let’s not have syncretism or mixture of holy and unholy. In any case Paul used the term “Lord’s Table” in that one verse.

F.. The Eucharist

Luke 22:17, 19 says that when he took the bread and gave thanks, he broke it. “Gave thanks” comes from the Greek word eucharisteō (pronounced yew-khahr-eest-eh-oh) and it means “I thank (you).” (It is still used in modern Greece for the standard “thanks!”—ef-khah-REE-stoh!) Williams points out that the word Eucharist as such is not found in the New Testament, but the word is used in the early Christian document the Didache (pronounced dee-dah-khay) at Section 9.1 (vol. 3, p. 244).

G.. Summary

All of these terms are interchangeable. If you lead a church, I suggest you settle on one term and stick to it. Using these different terms each week may confuse the average believer. “We’re taking communion this week, but last we had the Eucharist. Are they different? I don’t understand.” But of course churches can go their own way on the terminology or they can explain that any of the above terms are legitimate.

III.. Old Testament Background

A.. Sample verses

The lamb must be slaughtered for each household. The people must eat in haste, with the right clothing placement to symbolize the flight or exodus out of Egypt:

Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household.  […] ⁷ Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. […] ¹¹ This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Passover. (Exod. 12:3, 7, 11)

Then the bread must be specially prepared:

¹⁴ “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance. ¹⁵ For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast.  (Exod. 12:14-15)

The NIV’s translation “commemorate” could be translated as “memorial” (Hebrew masculine noun zikkaron). This is an important word for what follows, particularly for Luke 22:19, which says to partake of the bread and grape juice as a memorial or remembrance.

B.. Importance of the blood

In the next verse, Moses had already instituted the Sinai Covenant, and the Ten Commandments had been thundered down from on high, so he sprinkled blood to ratify the covenant:

And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exod. 24:8)

Next, Moses said that no one may eat blood:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. ¹² Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.” (Lev. 17:11-12)

It is important that we do not interpret the cup of wine into the literal blood of the Lord, even under the appearances. We are not to drink blood. To confirm that the blood is the means of atonement, Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.

C.. The New Covenant was predicted.

Finally, Jeremiah prophesied the New Covenant. The key clause is the forgiveness of iniquity and remembering our sins no more:

³³ This is the covenant that I will make with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord: I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. ³⁴ And no longer will they teach their neighbor and or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sin no more.” (Jer. 31:33-34, emphasis added)

Hebrews 8 also quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34. And the Epistle to Hebrews says the Sinai covenant is obsolete. Jesus is now launching the cancellation of this old Sinai covenant, and he is doing it by taking over two elements of the Passover meal: bread and wine.

D.. Question

How deeply and far do we interpret the words of Jesus, as he takes over the Passover meal and reduces it to two elements with new meaning?

Exodus 12:14 says it is a memorial. As we will see below, Jesus said to take the bread and cup in “remembrance of me.” On further exegesis of passages in the NT about the bread and grape juice in an earlier post on the sacred elements, I have concluded that God imputes holiness and sacredness to the two elements because he consecrated them in Scripture, and now we should pray over them before we partake of them. After our prayer of consecration, they become sacred first in in the mind and sight of God, and then they (should) become sacred in the mind and sight of the leaders and the people. We follow God. He imputes or thinks of them as holy, and they become holy, so we too should think of them as sacred and holy. Therefore, mere memorialism is insufficient.

IV.. Exegesis of the Synoptic Parallels

A.. Brief intro.

Readers are invited to study Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26, and Luke 22:13-20, for the following exegesis of those passages.

B.. Passover context

Jesus instituted the Last Supper during the Passover meal. Given the above context, the Passover ritual had no place for the words “this is my body.” It must have shocked the twelve Jewish disciples when Jesus says the wine is his blood and to drink it, even though it is symbolically–not literally–his blood, and the disciples could see with their own eyes that it was wine. It was shocking, for they were not permitted by law to eat blood, let alone to drink it. For centuries later, people falsely accused Christians of cannibalism.

Streamlining the meal to its essence, Jesus raised up the Passover to a whole different level. He made it his own. It now speaks of intimacy and relationship with him (John 15). In Luke 22:19, he says it is a memorial or remembrance of him.

C.. Blessing the meal

Jesus had blessed God for bread before (Matt. 14:19). The typical Jewish prayer of thanksgiving: “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth” (m.Ber. 6:1). In Greek the verb literally means to “speak well” and comes from eulogeō (pronounced eu-loh-geh-oh, and the “g” is hard, as in “get”). BDAG defines the term, depending on the context, as follows: (1) “to say something commendatory, speak well of, praise, extol”; (2) “to ask for bestowal of special favor, especially of calling down God’s gracious power, bless”; (3) “to bestow a favor, provide with benefits.” Here it is the second definition. Some translations have “he gave thanks.” Being grateful even for food shows gratitude and an acknowledgement that God is the source. More than gratitude, though, we call down God’s gracious power. This is a special, empowered meal. Does this empowerment extend as far as the body and blood of Christ being involved somehow in the two elements? Or do they become sacred? Or both divine activities are happening?

D.. The bread

In Luke’s version Jesus said of the bread, “This is my body.” In Matthew’s version he said, “Take, eat; this is my body” (26:26). In Mark’s version he said, “Take; this is my body” (14:22). So do these words not necessarily teach a miraculous transformation under the appearance of the bread into the literal, glorified body of Jesus? Didn’t Jesus say, “This bread is my body”? Surely there is something mysterious going on. But what exactly?

E,. The cup

It was a literal cup, but it stands in for the wine. It is used in a metaphorical sense for wrath (Matt. 20:22-23 and Mark 10:38-39). But in Luke’s version, he said “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.” He did not say “this is my blood.” Yes, he said in Matthew’s version of the wine: “Drink of it, everyone, for this is my blood of the covenant” (26:28). And Mark says the same, but with a slight variation (14:24). But Luke’s version has the intervening vessel instead of the direct statement: “this is my blood.” Therefore, we should not overread the words in Matthew and Mark, as if they necessarily teach a transformation of the blood.

V.. Exegesis of John 6

A.. Brief intro.

Readers are invited to read John 6:47-59, 63. Some protestant interpreters say this was before Jesus taught on and instituted the Last Supper or the Eucharist. True, but it still have some truths to teach about the Spirit bringing life into eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

B.. Explanation

In v. 48, Jesus makes his proclamation that he is the bread of life or the bread that gives life. He is spiritual bread, and the one who feasts on it has life. Once again, we feed on his “person” to indicate that this is his presence and Spirit, not his physical body. Even when Jesus talks about his flesh and blood, he means it symbolically. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood certainly cannot be literal because Jesus was offering his listeners neither one, right then and there. This feasting is done by faith and in the power of the Spirit (v. 63). It is important to note at this stage that people feast on it. He will expand the metaphor in v. 51 and 53-57 to say that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, spiritually or symbolically. The fact that he introduces the metaphor right now tells us not to take the symbolism too far when he introduces his flesh and blood.

In v. 51 Jesus contrasts eating the manna from heaven with his being the bread of life. The people who ate the physical manna-bread died, though it too came down from heaven. In contrast, the true bread coming down from heaven can be eaten, and then people will not die spiritually, but live forever spiritually. Yes, they will die physically, so that explains why Jesus has kept saying he will raise them—their bodies—up on the last day (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54). But those who belong to him will never die in their soul and spirit. They have eternal life.

Verse 63 unlocks the long, symbolically charged long section of Scripture. Literally the Greek reads: “The Spirit is the lifemaker.” His words are intended to speak of spiritual things, for the Spirit alone gives life. We are called to receive the life of the Spirit by symbolically and by faith eating his flesh and symbolically, and by symbolically and by faith drinking his blood. This deep union with the Son is empowered by the Spirit and by our faith.

C.. Summary

The main point is that life in the Spirit is the whole project and new way that God grants to people in the New Covenant (Luke 24:49; John 20:22; entire book of Acts; Rom. 8; Gal. 5). The Spirit is involved in our partaking of the two elements (John 6:63). Thus, these verses take away the objection that importing the Spirit into the passages about Lord’s Supper, which do not bring up the Spirit in the Synoptics is out of context.

I prefer streamlined simplicity in my interpretation of Scripture, and the Spirit gives life to my heart when I symbolically partake of the two elements. Therefore, John 6 confirms the main point of this post: the two elements, after they are consecrated, are sacred in God’s thoughts. So call them sacred symbols with a spiritual meaning in the hearts of the participant through the Spirit living in her.

VI.. Exegesis of Paul’s Key Passage

A.. Agreement

He agrees with the three Synoptic Gospels about the bread, “This is my body, which is for you” (1 Cor. 11:24). More specifically, Paul agrees with Luke about the cup: “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25).

So, once again, the cup interferes with the neat and tidy and direct correspondence between “This is my blood of the covenant.” If Paul had believed in a miraculous transformation under the appearance of the bread and wine or the Real Presence coming down from heaven, he would have made it clear in a teaching of some kind. Interpreters have to import this prior belief into a symbolic supper that includes bread and wine. And the same goes for the Synoptic authors

B.. Something miraculous

However, something miraculous may be happening, since some partake unworthily and have become sick and died prematurely (1 Cor. 11:30). Those judgments were probably caused by some people treating the consecrated and holy bread and wine as common or profane, which brought judgment on people in the OT (Lev. 22:15-16 and Ezek. 22:8). Also, they were eating and drinking unworthily, which means they had not prepared their hearts with God’s willing forgiveness of their unclean heart, on their repentance (2 Chron. 30:15-20). Evidently, Paul is bringing forward the judgment against profanation into the New Covenant. Once again, this is why the church must think of the bread and grape juice as sacred. God thinks of then in this way.

C.. Participation in the blood and body

Paul states that something very special goes on with the bread and the wine. He writes:

¹⁶ Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? ¹⁷ Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. (1 Cor. 10:16-17)

The Greek noun here for participation is koinōnia, which simply means “communion” or “participation,” as the NIV translates it. But to be more precise, Paul says that participating in eating bread also means participation in the body of Christ. This participation symbolizes our unity: One Loaf = One Body of Christ = the Body of Believers (1 Cor. 12:12-27). Though we believers are many parts of the body, we still belong to it, the body of Christ. Paul does not say what participating in drinking the wine signifies, but presumably it also means our unity in Christ. But does this unity happen by the Spirit or by the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ being connected to it somehow? “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). The answer is that the two elements become sacred. On this, all sides can agree.

D.. Referencing the ancient Israelites

Further, Paul appeals to the ancient Israelites and their participation with sacrifices at the altar in the temple, which they are permitted to eat: “Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?” (1 Cor. 10:18). How do they participate in the altar? Did the presence of God come down from heaven? Maybe so, but how? And how would this coming down from heaven take place in the New Covenant? Would it encircle or touch the bread and wine or the participant? Would it not be done by the Spirit? Whatever one concludes about the presence of the Lord surrounding the bread and grape juice, everyone sees (or should see) the two elements as sacred.

E.. Parallels between Paul and Luke’s versions

Here are Jesus’s words in the Gospel of Luke

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (touto poieite eis tēn emēn anamnēsin)
“Do this for my remembrance” (Luke 22:19)

The noun anamnēsin (accusative) comes from anamnēsis (nominative), which means “reminder, remembrance, memory” (Shorter Lexicon). It is used only four times in the Greek NT: Hebrews 10:3; Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (twice). The latter two occurrences are in the context of the Lord’s Table, and the wording in Greek in 1 Corinthians 11:24 is exactly what is seen in Luke 22:19, duplicated just above. Exactly.

Paul’s words:

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (touto poieite eis tēn emēn anamnēsin)
“Do this for my remembrance” (1 Cor. 11:24)

Recall that Luke and Paul were traveling companions at various times. Therefore, “remembering” what Jesus did—Memorialism—is perfectly biblical, if churches want to hold to it. But other verses, as we just read, say that something miraculous may be happening, if people who eat and drink unworthily get sick and die prematurely. This cannot signify mere memorialism.

VII.. Overview of Church Traditions, Simplified

A.. Brief intro.

I approach this section with fear and trembling because people have killed each other over these articles of faith. My goal is not to offend, but to understand.  Four views: Roman Catholic, “High-Church” Protestants, Reformed, and various Evangelical churches.

B.. Roman Catholics

In celebrating the Mass, they call the miraculous transformation transubstantiation because the substance below the appearance is somehow, mysteriously, transformed. (Note the word “substance” in transubstantiation.) The appearance does not change, but the substance underneath the accidents does. The substance is difficult to define, but the idea surely comes in from Aristotle and then through Thomas Aquinas, who incorporated some of Aristotle’s views into Catholic theology. The bread and wine really are the glorified body and blood of Christ, but under the accidents (appearances).

So their article of faith works out like this, boiled down without complications (the arrow meaning “leads to,” “brings about” or “effectuates”):

Bread + Wine + Priestly Prayer of Consecration → Miraculous Transformation of the Substance under the Appearance

So the bread and wine are sacraments. One good thing about the equation is that the elements are treated as sacred. Everyone can agree on this.

C..  High church protestants

In comparison, Lutherans believe that the presence of Christ is in, under, and around the bread and wine, or a variation of this, but the substance is not transformed. Lutherans do not like to call this article of faith consubstantiation, meaning the presence is “with” the substance (“con” means “with”). They want to take out the idea of a substance in their doctrine. (I don’t blame them for this.) But others say the label is right because Christ’s glorified body and blood enter the two sacraments under the appearances.

And so let’s say, for our limited purposes, that Lutherans believe that somehow, mysteriously, the presence of Christ is in, within, under the bread and wine, but without a miraculous transformation of the substance. Christ’s presence comes down from heaven and blesses the bread and wine. Therefore, the bread and wine are sacraments–holy things, holy in themselves.

Here is their article of faith in this equation:

Bread + Wine + Consecrated Prayer → Glorified Body and Blood → Presence in, under, around the Sacraments

Once again, we can reach the basic agreement that the elements are sacred.

D..  Reformed

Broadly speaking, this church says that the bread and wine are also the glorified body and blood and Christ in a spiritual sense. The bread and wine are spiritual signs (or symbols) and seals and sacraments. The elements are for the eyes, and the preaching of God’s word is for the ears. The word brings us to Christ, but the sacraments build our faith. So the elements are superior or equal to the word. The Spirit communicates or is the means of grace and power to the participants.

Equation:

Bread + Wine = Body and Blood in a Spiritual Sense → Building Your Faith through the Sacraments

E.. Various other Evangelical churches

The next equation is typical of Evangelical Protestants, like Baptists and Calvary Chapel and independent charismatic churches and Pentecostals. Recall that Luke’s version says that drinking the wine is done in remembrance of Jesus (22:19). And Exodus 12:14 says that Passover is to be celebrated as a memorial (recall once again the Hebrew masculine noun is zikkaron). So Memorialism cannot be ruled out. Just the opposite. It has to be ruled in.

Bread + Wine = Symbolic Memorials + Partaking of Them by Faith → Miraculous Transformation in the Person by the Spirit

I cannot be sure that Baptists and Calvary Chapels see the work of the Spirit in participating in the communion, but Renewalists are open to this. The latter part of the equation looks like Calvinism (Reformed), but the first part looks like Memorialism. This is my view, too. I expect the Holy Spirit to move in my heart as I partake of the bread and wine. Deep activity of the Spirit can happen when we remember his death on the cross and take the elements by faith. The activity goes directly from the Spirit to my own heart, without the intervening elements being transformed.

The main point of the fourth view is that for Renewalists life in the Spirit is the whole project and new way that God grants to people in the New Covenant (Luke 24:49; John 20:22; entire book of Acts; Rom. 8; Gal. 5). People of the Old Covenant did not have life in the Spirit, in the same way, as do people of the New. So the Spirit is involved in our partaking of the two elements in New covenant believers. Thus, hopefully these verses take away the objection that importing the Spirit into the passages about Lord’s Supper, which do not bring up the Spirit in the Synoptics, is eisegesis. We achieve unity during our partaking of the one loaf by the Spirit (Eph. 4:3).

F.. Summary

Bottom line for this section: in the three parallel passages and Paul’s theology, there is no context for a miraculous transformation of the substance of the bread and wine or the presence of Christ in, under, or around the elements. This interpretation takes the original context of the Passover too far. Therefore, the bread and wine are not sacraments with saving power in themselves. At the very least they represent and symbolize Christ’s body and blood. And in the New Covenant and after Pentecost, the Spirit makes communion or the Eucharist supernatural in the hearts of the participants. Faith is important to receive the operation of the Spirit, while the participants eat the bread and drink the wine.

While I cannot go as far as Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism, I like bow they reverence the elements and treat them as sacred. The elements are sacred because we consecrate them to God. We do this because they were consecrated by Jesus himself in the Scriptures in the synoptic Gospel. God considers or imputes sacredness to them; therefore they are holy and sacred to us.

VIII.. Meaning of Communion

A.. It inaugurates the New Covenant

The most important and deepest meaning of the meal is that by it Jesus himself inaugurated the New Covenant. Recall that Luke 22:20 says that Jesus took the cup and said that it was the cup of his new covenant. Then his death on the cross, where he shed his blood, ratified his covenant with all of humanity that receives it by faith. Animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were always inadequate; humans needed a permanent and once-and-for-all-times sacrifice. They have it now in Jesus. Taking holy communion is a reaffirmation and a reminder of the New Covenant.

B.. It is a remembrance or memorial of his sacrificial death

Paul records traditions about the Lord’s Supper he got from the Lord himself (1 Cor. 11:23-26). And when the Corinthians took the bread and cup, it was ordered to do this “in remembrance of me.” So taking the Lord’s Supper was an historical event; “it is an earthly representation of an historical event,” so it was not an elaborate ritual, but it has a stark simplicity to it (Williams, vol. 3, p. 245).

The Eucharist is the remembrance that our sins are forgiven. Matthew’s account of the supper says that all of the disciples should drink, for it is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:27-28). The cost of our forgiveness is immeasurable—the death of God’s dear Son. The Eucharist is a reaffirmation of God’s gift of salvation. In every communion we take, we affirm God’s seal in our hearts—we have been totally forgiven.

C.. It is a communion between Christ and his church, the church and Christ, and each other.

So the divine exchange between these two sides is full and active during the communion.

First, Jesus said that he was eager to eat the Passover with his disciples (Luke 22:15). He literally says, “with you.” He desired close fellowship with them (and you). After his resurrection, the eyes of the disciples were opened after he took bread and broke it (Luke 24:30-21; John 21:12-13). That’s the communion or spiritual fellowship between Christ and his church.

Second, in the communion between the church and Christ, in John 6:53-54, Jesus said that unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life in you; but those who do, have eternal life. Clearly, this is a spiritual participation, not a literal one. How could it be? Many say this passage does not refer to the Lord’s Table, because he said before entered Jerusalem, but I say it still touches on the Lord’s Supper. Communion enhances the spiritual communion between Christ and his people—communion that already exists in relationship between him and them.

Third, celebrating the Eucharist also enhances communion and union with each other. In 1 Cor. 10:17 Paul affirms that there is one loaf, and so we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one loaf. The one loaf of his body is unity. So there is a vertical dimension between God and humankind, and a horizontal dimension between person to person. 2 Cor. 6:14-15 says that light and darkness have no “communion” or fellowship (koinōnia), and the inverse is true: light and light have fellowship with each other. Celebrating the Lord’s Supper is a deep way to have communion with each other.

D.. It celebrates expectation of the eternal kingdom.

Jesus himself said he would not partake of the Eucharist until it finds its fulfillment in the kingdom of God, and he would not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes (Luke 22:16, 18). Then he said he would celebrate it anew when he drank the cup with the disciples in his Father’s kingdom (Matt. 26:29). Paul writes that when we take the bread and cup, we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26). And Rev. 19:7, 9 depicts the Lord’s Table as the marriage supper of the Lamb, which has come and met the Bride (of Christ). So the Messianic Passover will find its ultimate fulfillment in the coming kingdom, and then all of us together will take it with him.

IX.. The Communion Service

A.. Who may administer communion.

Christ Jesus himself administered it. He is the chief administrator of the Eucharist.  He ordained it, and now he has sent his Spirit into our hearts, and he blesses the physical taking of the bread and wine. He is present during this meaningful ceremony in his name. In the four Gospels and Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, it is never spelled out who can administer it. Therefore, let’s open up the door and say that any believer in Jesus who has purified and surrendered his life may administer it.

B.. Where and when

In the key verses in Acts and 1 Corinthians, the agape feast was done regularly. Acts 2:46 says day by day, breaking bread in various houses. Acts 20:7 says it was celebrated on the first day of the week (Sunday) in an upstairs room. 1 Corinthians 11:18 says that when “they assemble together,” indicating all the believers in that city. Back then, the church did not have separate buildings, so they met in assembly in an open space or a larger building already available. So in large gatherings or small house meeting, they took the Lord’s Supper.

Paul writes the words of Jesus, who said, “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26, NKJV). In other words, you may take communion every day or once a week or as often as you like.

C.. Private communion?

Some pastors have said that you can take communion by yourself, in your car at work during lunch break or in your home or elsewhere. On the other hand, Williams urges the church that to teach that communion is not solitary, no privacy allowed. It is a community meal, and every passage in which it is found does suggests this is true (vol. 3, p. 256).

However, I used to agree with Williams but have since changed my mind, because of my interpretation of Scripture and my own healing. There are two approaches to interpreting Scripture when it is silent on private communion.

1.. When Scripture does not clearly prohibit private communion by command, and communion is a blessing to the individual, then he should take it.

2.. When Scripture does not clearly prohibit private communion by command, but the weight of the evidence says to take it in community, then the individual should not take it in private. Too risky.

My interpretation is that that the Bible does not say “only” in community. Therefore this biblical silence leaves the door open to solitary communion. However, I leave it to your conscience to be your guide. Please take it also in community, if you take it privately. Both the community setting and the private setting is a blessing.

D.. The participants

Who may partake?

The clearest truth is that all participants must be followers and believers in Jesus Christ. They must be born again. Jesus set up his supper for his disciples, and Paul assumed that the Corinthians were believers. Therefore every denomination or believer in any church should be allowed to take it. It is not appropriate for a church to block or exclude other believers. Communion is for every born-again follower of Jesus, regardless of his or her church background.

But there are certain people who are excluded. In today’s consumer-driven and number-crunching church of “y’all come!” this is hard to swallow, but Scriptures are clear.

First, unbelievers are not allowed, though they can certainly attend church when it is being offered. Communion must not be a “y’all come!” ceremony. Unbelievers can come to the agape feast (potluck in today’s culture), but they must stop short at the separate Eucharist. They must have first made a profession of faith. If they are born again at the church service when the Eucharist is taken, then it is up to them if they take it on that very day. They may or may not feel comfortable.

Second, children who have not received Christ as Lord are not eligible, even though they are in a different category from unbelievers, for their parents (or one parent) are probably saved. Family ties is not the qualification, but the profession of faith is. Further, Paul writes, “Let a man examine himself” (1 Cor. 11:28). A child cannot do this properly, until he gets older. He can look forward to taking it as the months and even years move forward. When exactly this happens is up to the parents, and if they are unclear, they can ask their pastor. Many mainstream churches have catechism classes. (But the ones I have attended and attend do not.)

Third, unrepentant believers should not be invited to take communion, unless they repent from their hearts just before communion (and perhaps during it). In 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, Paul warns that we should not associate or eat with brothers and sisters who are sexually immoral or greedy or idolaters, slanderers or alcoholics or swindlers (this is a vice list that is not exhaustive, but a sample). Communion is the ultimate meal, and caution must be heeded before they can partake of it. It is holy; let’s not demean it with cheap grace.

But how do we proclaim its sacredness without excluding people who have not yet repented, but are about to or not about to, at that time? Do we call for first-time salvations and rededications, so they can get their hearts right, and then take communion? Do we not say anything about examining oneself, but just let the “chips fall where they may”? If so, then Paul’s words are thrown aside, and we risk putting condemnation on the spiritually unprepared. I suggest that in a large church where the newcomers are not known, salvation and rededication be offered first, and then take communion. In a smaller community gathering, an announcement can be made that this is for believers, and this announcement can be made at a big church too.

To sum up so far, all believers who come in a spirit of repentance are welcome to take communion. One does not have to do those items in that vice list (1 Cor. 5:11) to need repentance. All believers should repent of their sins before taking the cup and the bread. “Lord, I repent of all my sins. Thank you for your willingness to forgive.” If the Lord quickens specific sins to your memory, repent of them. But don’t allow Satan to prompt all sorts of condemnation for all your sins. That’s out of balance and excessive. Just the one or ones the Lord prompts, without guilt and condemnation.

E.. The kind of bread and fruit of the vine

The original Passover meal required flat, unleavened, unrisen bread. Pita bread is the closest we have today. Jesus used this kind. As to using wine, fermented grape juice may trigger alcoholics, and in Islamic countries, alcohol is forbidden. Therefore, high-quality grape juice is a good substitute. Do not use plain water or lemon juice or something else like that.

F.. How we examine ourselves

Paul writes these sober words in 1 Corinthians 11:27-34:

²⁷ So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. ²⁹ For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. ³⁰ That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. ³¹ But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.  ³² Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world. ³³ So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. ³⁴ Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. (1 Cor. 11:27-34).

That passage is filled with warning and promise. The Lord’s Supper is serious because it is sacred. The context is the previous verses (vv. 17-22): divisions among them; self-centeredly eating apart from others at the feast; one person is hungry and another is drunk; humiliating the “have-nots.” The vice list done by brothers and sisters can also provide the bigger context (1 Cor. 5:11). The Corinthians had been treating the agape feast and then the Lord’s Supper lightly.

In any case, self-examination is the way to come to the Lord’s Table worthily. Self-examination can be done just before taking the meal, for it prepares the heart. Self-examination leads to clearer discernment. That is a key word in that passage. If we examine ourselves, then we will not fall under judgment. That’s the good news.

Please note that the key word is an adverb “unworthily.” Behavior influences the soul and heart, and they produce bad behavior. The good news is that the heart and soul and behavior can change in Christ. Repentance and humility is the key.

G.. Reversing disease?

Paul writes that the ones who have taken communion unworthily have gotten sick and some of them have died prematurely. Can we have health and strength and not die prematurely when we eat worthily? My own take on this issue is that everything flows from the atonement, salvation and healing included. So can the reverse be true? We can reverse sickness by communion, as long as we think of the elements as sacred, because they represent the atonement.

H.. What words we speak before offering communion

I suggest that you read a passage from one of the synoptic Gospels: Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-20; or from 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Then pray out loud in public before distribution is done. Those words from any of those passages can guide your prayer. Be thankful. It is called the Eucharist, after all. Be sure to include in your prayer the consecration of the elements. Here is a suggested prayer:

“Father, in the name of your Son, we consecrate these two items in your holy presence. We use them for the sacred purpose that your Son ordained at the Last Supper on the night he was betrayed. After this consecration we believe, biblically speaking, that they are sacred in your sight. So they are now sacred to us too.”

Pray something like that in front of the people.

I.. Distribution of bread and cup

This varies in so many ways in so many churches that it would be presumptuous to be rigid. Williams suggests taking the bread from one loaf, which symbolizes the one body of the Lord (vol. 3, p. 261). Then it is broken into pieces, which symbolizes his body being broken open. Good idea. But nowadays churches rush the Lord’s Supper, so a large church may not find that feasible, for it would take too long. Or the large church can tell the people that the loaf had been prayed over and broken before the church service. That seems like a good compromise.

Finally, Williams suggests that the elements be placed on a table, whether they are distributed by ushers afterwards or people come up to take them (ibid. 262). Jesus himself reclined at table, but when he explained the elements’ significance and distributed them, surely he sat up. A table in a modern church reminds the church of that scene, two thousand years ago.

Both bread and the grape juice should be taken, not one or the other. To offer only one, usually the bread only, does not completely follow the Lord’s Supper he set out in the New Covenant Scriptures. A needless omission.

And finally in disposing of the elements, they are sacred, so dispose of them carefully. Each church should do this in whatever way seems suitable (ibid).

J.. Hymns or Worship

In the passages in Matthew and Mark, Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn. Tradition says that Psalms 113-118 were sung. That is a huge section, particularly Psalm 118, so it is up to the church to edit and exclude and include words or songs. Instrumental music during the meal and a set of songs to be sung afterwards is a great idea. The Lord’s Supper is a sacred and sober recollection of the sacrifice of the Lord. Once the elements are eaten and drunk, celebrate his resurrection. Those psalms have vocal praises in them. “Praise the Lord!”

X.. Application

A.. Original purpose of communion

The main purpose of Christ in instituting the Lord’s Supper is to demonstrate that the inauguration of the new way, the New Covenant. Just before the Exodus, the blood of the lamb was spread on the doorframe (Exod. 12:1-29, 43-51), and Jesus is keying off of this practice and replacing the lamb’s blood with his own blood, the Lamb of God. His sacrifice is once and for all (Heb. 9:26) and eternal (Heb. 9:12). Wine now symbolically replaces the blood. His sacrifice does not have to be done every year or every time we take communion. The unleavened flatbread symbolizes eating in haste because the exodus from Egypt is about to happen–soon–now! The bread now symbolizes his body.

B.. Transformation of the original Passover

The New Covenant is superior and better than the Old Sinai Covenant, as the epistle of Hebrews teaches. Jesus was simply taking over the Passover meal when he held up the bread and cup. (The demonstrative pronoun “this” in “this is my body” indicates he was holding it up before his disciples.) He also knew that Exodus 12:14 says that the entire Passover meal was to be a “memorial.” In effect he was saying: “This unleavened flatbread right here which I am holding up before your eyes is now my body, and it no longer symbolizes what Moses had said about it. It symbolizes something new: my body. And the wine which is used for celebration is now my blood. I am now the Passover lamb, which had shed its blood for the ancient Israelites. Everyone, converted Jew and converted Gentile living in my New Covenant, must take it regularly, not once a year. When you do, remember me and my sacrifice, from now on.”

C.. Regular participation

You must take communion regularly and meaningfully. Pray to repent of your sins. Recall that the bread and wine is taken for the forgiveness of sins. Before you take it, recall that it is done in memory of the sacrifice of Christ. A little reflection about this would match its purpose. Understand that it is sacred. Do not treat holy things casually. Then after you take it, celebrate it.

D.. Open communion

I now believe in an open communion table at our churches for everyone of any church background, only provided that they are born again and declare with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead, and they surrender daily to his Lordship, as all of his disciples must do. Roman Catholics can come into our churches and partake of the communion elements if they meet those criteria, though I do not share their doctrine of transubstantiation or a perpetual re-sacrifice of Christ. But when they come into our house and not demand that we believe as they do, then they can participate or wait quietly without participating. Their doors are closed are closed to us. Our door is open.

E.. Plain memorialism

Plain memorialism is insufficient in itself for communion. The communion elements not holding a sacred quality after their consecration is a deficient belief. But I will not quarrel with those who hold to this belief. Roman Catholicism and high church Protestantism goes towards excess. Plain memorialism goes towards deficiency. As usual with me, I prefer the middle of the road between the two extremes, the via media.

F.. Peace in the Body of Christ

Throughout the centuries people have killed each other over these articles of faith. I say: let everyone have their belief. There is a certain intangible beauty in devout belief. We are analyzing two physical objects (bread and wine) and calling them symbols and then taking the symbolic meaning to various degrees of sacramental transformation or just memorials and anything in between. None of these views can overtake the others and shut them out in the hearts of people. They are articles of faith, which cannot be verified empirically. Whatever your belief about the sacraments / elements might be, let’s not quarrel or break our deeper unity of love over it, for the Lord’s Supper expresses the New Covenant of love and unity. One loaf, one body. We are one people—his people.

G.. Sacred elements

God imputes holiness to the elements, after they are consecrated. Call them sacred symbols. Therefore, we should consider the elements as holy and uncommon, not to be treated lightly. And John 6 also spiritualizes the elements because the Spirit is involved when we partake of the two elements.

H. Christ’s presence

Jesus said about a gathering:

“For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” (Matt. 18:20)

When we take communion, Christ’s personal presence is with us, and I see no reason not to believe his presence includes the bread and wine. That is, his spiritual presence does include the two elements. But I cannot (yet) reach the conclusion that his body and blood in somehow present in, with, and under the two elements. Transubstantiation is much too far. His presence is not corporal or carnal (fleshly) but personal. He is there with us and blesses the two elements with his presence, spiritually, just as he promised in Matthew 18:20.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In some sections, I depended on J. Rodman Williams, vol. 3, chapter 6.

Works Cited