Here’s a question for you on communion that I’ve been thinking about recently…. Back in the day of the last supper, wouldn’t bread and wine have been common foods? So, when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” wouldn’t that be a be a daily thing? A tangible, daily reminder of Christ’s sacrifice? How did it become something that is only done in church, and even there it is something very guarded and set apart?
The above question was posted on another thread and IMO it needs (and deserves) a post of its own, so here goes. This is a really good question, and I don’t have a complete answer that I’m satisfied with yet. So for now I’ll jot down what I know, incomplete as it is, and see what else I can come up with and post more later.
First off — the sacrament of Communion, or the Eucharist (which means “thanksgiving”) is the most sacred aspect of our faith, the greatest mystery, the greatest sorrow, the greatest blessing, the very heart of our Lord’s teaching. Approach with humility, confidence, and prayer.
Yes, back in Jesus’ day bread and wine were common foods. BTW hubby agrees “Do this in remembrance… (etc)” means “whenever you eat remember Me”. I have a sneaking suspicion this particular interpretation is Presbyterian in origin, and I don’t disagree with it — I think giving thanks for food at mealtimes is an excellent practice, as well as thinking about and talking about Jesus (remembering Him) while eating — but I don’t think this interpretation alone is enough.
At the Last Supper Jesus was celebrating the Passover, and He gave new significance to the broken unleavened bread and the 3rd cup of wine, as follows:
The Unleavened Bread – this was called the “bread of affliction” because it was made and eaten in haste before the Exodus (no time to let it rise). When the bread is eaten during the Passover meal, the host breaks the bread and says something along the lines of: “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Let all who are hungry come and eat. Let all who are in want come and celebrate the Passover with us. May it be God’s will to redeem us from all evil and from all slavery.” It was at the serving of this bread to His disciples that Jesus said “this is my body broken for you”.
The 3rd Cup of Wine – During the Passover service four cups of wine are served. The third is the “Cup of Blessing”. We know Jesus took the third cup because the gospels say “after supper he took the cup”, and the third cup was the one served after supper. At this point the people celebrating Passover say (in part) : “I will take the chalice of salvation, and I will call upon the name of the Lord.” It was at the serving of this cup that Jesus said “this is my blood shed for you…”, pointing to Himself as the blessing and our salvation. Btw even if the gospels have been misinterpreted and Jesus’ cup is actually the fourth cup, it still fits: the fourth cup was the “Cup of Melchizedek”, and Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek.
All the above by way of saying the scriptures make it clear communion is tied to the Passover, not just to everyday mealtimes. As for how communion became what it is in churches today, that was a slow process which I’ll try to summarize briefly.
Worship in the early church was divided into two parts: The first part was open to anyone, and included prayers, singing of psalms and songs, readings from scripture, and teaching. The second part was for baptized believers only — anyone not baptized had to leave before the second half — and included the “love feast” we now call Communion. Back then it was an actual meal that included the elements of bread and wine in memory of Jesus.
In the early church, communion and the meal were presided over by the apostles, and later by people trained by the apostles (called “bishops” meaning “shepherds”, not “church hierarchy”). Also in the early church the people met secretly in private homes. Buildings dedicated exclusively to Christian worship didn’t come into play for 100 years or more, mostly because Christians, being members of an illegal religion, could not openly own property. Strictly speaking church buildings were illegal until the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in the 300s AD.
Once Christians started meeting in church buildings, communion moved to the church buildings as well — but by the 300s many generations had come and gone, most believers were baptized as babies (there was no longer a need for two parts to the worship service) and something like the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was beginning to emerge. The words of the mass as we know it was also pretty much in place by then. (Note btw I didn’t say “Roman Catholic” — at this point the “Catholic” church still meant “worldwide” and there were five large churches that were sort of ‘leaders of the pack’: Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Hippo. Hippo was overrun by invaders as its last bishop, the great theologian Augustine, lay dying, and its church is no more. The other four still survive to this day: the Jerusalem Church, the Coptic Catholic Church (Alexandria), the Eastern Orthodox Church (Constantinople) and the Roman Catholic Church. All four have essentially the same communion service, with only slight variations which they do not consider slight.)
It should also be noted that the Protestant churches kept most of the wording of the mass in their communion services. Every church I’ve ever been in uses the words “In the night he was betrayed, our Lord Jesus Christ took bread…” etc. It’s the meaning of the sacrament, not the wording, that changes as one moves into the Protestant Reformation. (I’ll leave transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and representation, along with their respective proponents, for another post.)
So how did it become “guarded and set apart”? That’s the bit I don’t have a satisfactory answer for yet, only partial answers.
First: in the early church, the leaders of the church presided at the love feast, and the deacons helped serve. The idea was that these folks were “the servants of the servants of God” (which btw is now one of the Pope’s titles). Over time, humanity being what it is, these became treated as positions of authority rather than service, then positions of power, then positions of state(!) and by the Middle Ages these posts were actually being bought and sold. The priests and bishops became keepers of the sacraments, and if you didn’t behave you would be excommunicated, that is, prevented from taking the sacraments, and yes they actually believed this meant ‘cut off from God’. (What a thing to hold over people’s heads! It amazes me God in His mercy didn’t come down right then and give ’em what-for. But I digress…)
Second: at some point, the doctrine of transubstantiation comes into play. This is a doctrine that evolved over time, and was not universally taught for… I forget, but at least the first 5 centuries or so. Anyway, if you believe that the bread and wine actually become the physical body and blood of Jesus, it is necessary to have a priest to say the proper words and perform the proper actions.
Third: after the Protestant reformation, items #1 and 2 are no longer huge issues for Protestants, but you still have 1400 years of church tradition to deal with (and you know how slowly churches change!) plus the Reformers took the scriptures quite seriously when they say that anyone who eats and drinks the sacrament unworthily eats and drinks judgement on themselves. So in all but the most “free” of Protestant denominations, only ordained clergy may do communion… sort of a spiritual safety net.
BTW most Protestant churches, in some fashion or another, allow laypeople to serve communion that has been blessed by ordained clergy. Giving home communions is one example.
Having said ALL that! I think when Jesus returns He is going to have some choice words to say about what we’ve done with his sacrament. (Remind me to do Robin Williams’ version of the Second Coming next time we talk…)
Oh! And one other thing from the early church: the early believers, taking their cue from “This is the bread of affliction” — which was broken by Jesus — they saw communion as a celebration. It was a time to remember that Jesus broke the chains of our affliction, and brought us redemption and freedom. It was not, as so many churches today teach, a somber time to remember our sins and His death. While I would not ever want us to forget His sacrifice, I think churches would do well to recapture a little of the early church’s thinking.
Hope this helps! Thoughts?
Very interesting. I like the background you give on the passover, and the various aspects of that celebration like the 3rd and 4th cups of wine. I also like the early church custom of it being an actual meal, which seems difficult to imagine having grown up with the anglican wafer and the presbyterian tiny glass of grape juice. But I especially like is what you said about the symbolism of the bread of affliction being broken by Jesus. Good thoughts! It is so much fun for me to put work aside for a few minutes to have a good theological conversation. Very thought provoking, and of course every answer raises more questions!
Jeannette
Jesus sealed his blood with the wine of the Passover and his body with the bread of the Passover. Communion celebrated at any other time does not represent Jesus’ body and blood. Jesus said that those who did not celebrate the Passover of the new covenant had no life.
Find the church that follows God’s commands (Saturday Sabbath, Passover) and you will find the truth that sets you free.
Virginia, thanks for your thoughts.
With all respect I must disagree with what you’ve been taught about communion. Salvation is found, not in following a set of rules, but in Jesus’ death and resurrection, and in saying “yes” when He asks us to believe in Him and trust Him.
Jesus said that if we know the truth, the truth will set us free, and He said “I am the truth”. It is Jesus Himself who sets people free, not any church.
May He always lead you closer to Himself.
peg you are wrong, Virginia i like your thinking;) it is the set commands of god that we are to obey. There are rules, or there wouldn’t be “gods Commands” as described in the bible. So there must be a church that keeps the 7th day, and the passover hmmm search diligently;)
Danman – starting off a note with “you are wrong” is not exactly a way to win friends and influence people! 😉
There is no church on earth that is perfect or that teaches Scripture with 100% accuracy. However there are many churches that claim they’re better than the rest and anyone who disagrees is (at best) a questionable Christian.
If you choose to observe the Sabbath on Saturday, you have the right to do so… but nowhere in Scripture does it say “you must be a Seventh Day Adventist if you want to make it into heaven”. God’s Kingdom is far bigger than that.
It seems I was ‘blocked’ from participating on this site because of what I said about John chapter 6 and sacraments ?. I think someone answered for you Peg ?. The replier seemed peeved and churlish 🙂 bless him or her .
As regards being judged and suspicionedized by other Christians if you don’t toe the denominational line we should remember ; ‘The Lord knows those who His ; and let everyone who names the name of CHRIST , depart from evil ‘ .We should examine ourselves according to the scriptural pattern to see if we are ‘in the faith’ and then not be cowed by others !
On the matter of ‘Popes’ I would like Francis to examine the validity of if ‘Peters Keys’ passing to the papacy is real and valid, and does it apply to the church of today anyway . . Also , the make a statement about the forged ‘Donation of Constantine’ gift . Also about ‘the false decretals ‘ setting out canon law .
Hi Michael,
No, I didn’t block you, I just closed comments on one thread that I thought was getting too far off-topic. It wasn’t aimed at you.
I agree with you completely re: “the Lord knows who are His”! That’s something all of us can rest in and count on.
Your questions for Francis are interesting but I doubt he’s going to be spending much time defending Roman Catholic doctrine. He will probably figure most folks will assume he’s Catholic and go from there. 😉
Peg thanks for your clarification on the difficulty I experienced in posting . It may just have been a computer glitch !
But yes , Francis may not address those doctrines I mentioned as he may have to sort out others ; like to be or not to be celibate . There seems to be a loud clamor just to have that doctrine debated .?.
I noticed you mentioned the o.t covenant ‘made between God and Israel’. And if we read Jeremiah 31:31 + and Hebrews 8:8+ we should see that the New Covenant too was to be made by God with Israel an unconditional covenant.?!. But has it ever fully come in ?. Is it operational today . ?.
Some Christians feel that though the old has ‘ vanished away ‘ the New has not fully activated . Thus , discussion about who or when ‘the communion’ is taken may be irrelevant for the churches today 🙂 ( the scripture passages need to be read to see what the new covenant promises and for whom ! ).
Francis seems to be tackling a lot of problems already, in particular Papal privilege. He’s leading worship in a prison, he’s reaching out to common people… all things very much needed in Catholic leadership. At some point he will need to address the issue of a shortage of qualified priests, and maybe then he’ll tackle ordination of married people and/or of women. Give him time. 😉
I’m not sure what you’re getting at re: covenant. There’s God’s covenant with Israel, and there’s the new covenant in Jesus (for us Gentiles)… both of which are still in force but neither of which have been fully realized yet. Does that answer the question?
No Peg , It hasn’t answered the question this time round , as, apart from the Covenant made with Noah , all Covenants have been made with Israel , including the New covenant . That is why I asked if you and readers of these blogs might look at those scriptures Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8 to see what the Bible says about the New covenant , who it is for and what it will do and achieve . It may be a good idea to ask Who is spoken about , What is said , why is it said , and when is it for . Miles Coverdale advised something like it too .
I know it is widely thought that ‘we’ are in the new covenant now , but i’ve yet to be shown scriptural proof that it operates today for Jew or Gentile or the church .
Michael – Apologies, but I’m not going to be able to keep up the pace of this conversation… I have a life to attend to away from this computer screen. 😉 For now I’ll just say I looked at the scripture passages you mentioned and they speak of the new covenant with a new high priest, who is Jesus (doing away with the old system of high priests and animal sacrifices). The day has also come, and is already here to some extent, when God has written His law on the hearts of His people through the power of the Spirit. I have no doubt, from scriptures or the Spirit, that both Jews and Gentiles are a part of God’s plan.
ok Peg , I will (dv) space out my comments . But , I hope you will as you go about your life away from this screen , keep in mind those two portions of scripture on ‘the New Covenant ‘ look too at Romans 9:2-5 and perhaps write out a list of the things that belong to Israel ; and ask ‘ Why should I as a Gentile take out the covenants from that list and apply it to me today ‘?. Eph 2:11-13 Trust your general health is better ; and you enjoy the coming celebration of Christ Risen from the Dead . 🙂
Michael, I’ve been gracious enough to look up your church and a couple of scripture verses at your request, but that’s more than sufficient. You are not my teacher. The time has come to stop dropping hints and come straight out and say what you mean to say.
Do you know the history of the Communion Wafer? I’ve been looking everywhere. I cannot figure out when churches (aside from the Orthodox who still use leavened bread) generally made the switch from unleavened bread to wafers. Any ideas?
Mary , I think Peg has researched the date when the loaf of bread switched to the wafer .
The reason though was to pretty it up ; purely a cosmetic move for visual pleasing . ?.
Remember , in those days christendom had all but been overtaken by those who insisted that transubstantiation was norm and the worship of the supposed changed bread/wafer. orthodox . ?.
Michael – you’re commenting on a thread that is over three years old! I don’t think Mary is among our readers any more. 😉
Jeannette said: “I also like the early church custom of it being an actual meal, which seems difficult to imagine having grown up with the anglican wafer and the presbyterian tiny glass of grape juice.”
Just to clarify: the bread and wine were separate from the meal, but sort of at the same time, if you know what I mean? It was sort of like a church dinner at which, probably just before everyone sat down to eat, bread and wine would be shared. And the “words of institution” (liturgy) were pretty much in place and used consistently by around AD 100.
It is fascinating stuff, isn’t it? Gives a person lots to think about when taking communion…
After read Luke 22:17-20 it seems clear to me that Jesus wanted followers to come together for a meal and for it to be a holy time in remembrance of his physical sacrifice for us.
your explanation ( I’m sure sincere) is full of words like: Sort of..Know what I mean..Probably.. Pretty much………..Makes it hard to believe that the Scripture is telling us anything different other than what it says…plus to brake bread was always a meal.
Dee,
Welcome to the conversation! To be certain what we’re discussing here is a meal. The bread and wine, and remembering the words Jesus spoke over them, were related to the meal, but there is no record of exactly how and where it fit into the rest of the meal. Earliest records from the time of the apostles indicate that any nonbelievers and/or non-members present were dismissed before the bread and wine were shared, because communion is only for those who believe… but exactly what this might have looked like in practice we don’t really know.
The question then becomes: what should we do in our own day? I think there is scriptural support for *both* having pot-luck suppers and serving communion during regular worship services.
Mary asked: “Do you know the history of the Communion Wafer? I’ve been looking everywhere. I cannot figure out when churches (aside from the Orthodox who still use leavened bread) generally made the switch from unleavened bread to wafers. Any ideas?”
Interesting question! I never really thought about it, but you piqued my curiousity so I did a little digging. Here’s what I found…
Communion wafers have always been made of unleavened (flat) bread in the Catholic tradition because that’s what was used at the Last Supper (Passover).
The earliest recorded history of communion bread comes from pictures found in the catacombs dating back to the 200’s, and the bread was round in shape even then.
The earliest recorded history describing an actual communion wafer comes from a document written sometime around AD 1050. In those days the wafer was usually very large and the laity would break off pieces (“particles”) when they received the sacrament.
So it was about 1000 years ago or so churches started using communion wafers!
(credit goes out to the Catholic Encyclopedia Online for this information – http://www.newadvent.org)
PS – Correcting my original post… the Catholic Encyclopedia also mentions that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not widely accepted until the 900s.
“when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” wouldn’t that be a be a daily thing? A tangible, daily reminder of Christ’s sacrifice? How did it become something that is only done in church, and even there it is something very guarded and set apart?”
It is clear that Christ did not want his body of believers
to forget the true gospel. That His body was broken and
His blood shed so we might be saved from death and made
spiritually alive.
There is a lot to glean from the Passover service of the Jews.
Christ showed that the symbols they use were really pointing
to Him.
We sometimes forget that the institutional church and it’s building, is not really the church. In reality it is the ones
called out ….(that are collectively INVISIBLE) to the world and religious institutions) that collectively are part of the Temple,
the Body of Christ.. I suspect that in all the 44,000
different denominations, there are some of the Body
of Christ, but not the most of these denominations are
truly saved. So many think that because they are born
into a denomination or join a church and do their creeds,
rituals, devotions or what ever ….that they are saved because of these.
We can take the Lord’s supper any time any where …even by ourselves. The priesthood was done away at the cross.
It was the traditions of men that got all ritually about this matter of our Lord’s supper. A simple and pure, important
way to never forget our Savior and what He has Accomplished, for us. It is Finished.
Thanks Again for a great post.
BrotherMark
BrotherMark, you have a real way of cutting through all the carp and getting straight to the point! 🙂 Just a couple comments……
I totally agree with you that the institutional church is not really the Church, that the Church is the people of God wherever they may be. BUT the institutions are here and we need to deal with them somehow. And not all of them are bad, I’ve seen a number of very on-fire “traditional” churches. Having said that…
Most of the questions people have about communion — which I was trying to answer — come from being confused by the teachings of their local church or pastor… so I wanted to make clear what the actual church teachings are. Plus I’m not quite ready to toss out everything the institutional church has taught for the past 2000 years. 😉 There’s still some good in it even if there are a lot of Pharisees around.
I do need to take exception to one small point: that we can take communion by ourselves. The ancient church teaching on this — and I agree with it — is that communion represents both our unity with God AND our unity with other believers (the true Church) and therefore should not be taken alone. With one other person is acceptable.
“It was the traditions of men that got all ritually about this matter of our Lord’s supper. A simple and pure, important way to never forget our Savior and what He has Accomplished, for us. It is Finished.”
Amen! Personally I kind of enjoy all the ritual and the formalities but I’d be the last person to say they’re necessary. Jesus’ work is what it’s all about and that’s all we really need.
Very wonderful post I am a member of the churches of christ and me and my preacher have been discussing this very thing.
the problem with the current church set up in about all things is that is does not fulfill the calling of the church. the church is supposed to be a gathering or assembly for the purpose of encouraging, idification, building up, and uniity of the body of christ. and the practice of an audituriom style meeting hall where you look at the back of ones head for an hour doesnt exactly do that. the current incarnation the the lords supur also misses the mark and becomes more symbolic and ritualist then anything else. however in my oppinion Christ didnt come to set up symple and rituals. point of note though while Christ was in jerouselem for the passover the meal he ate was likely not the passover feast. as he stared his trials on late wed or early thusday and was on a cross by fri. which was passover day. remember that was why they where breaking legs so people would not be on the cross fro passover. the meal he ate would have been about 2 or 3 days prior to the passover feast. no where is unleavaned bread cited in the 4 gospels it is just assumed that if he was there for the passover feast it would have been unleavened. personally I think the churches should get away from the current communion and try reverting back to the meal that it started out as.
Aaron
koolkicker2@yahoo.com
curiouse on other peoples thoughts on the subject
Hi Aaron and welcome! Thanks for your thoughtful post.
A few thoughts:
the problem with the current church set up in about all things is that is does not fulfill the calling of the church. the church is supposed to be a gathering or assembly for the purpose of encouraging, edification, building up, and unity of the body of christ. and the practice of an auditorium style meeting hall where you look at the back of ones head for an hour doesn’t exactly do that.
I agree what you describe is very impersonal and is, unfortunately, the norm in far too many churches. So how do we fix it? It would be impractical to return to the ways of the early church, where people were often “in church” (so to speak) for better part of the day… but maybe we could borrow some ideas from them.
They did have times of teaching — reading one of Paul’s letters out loud for example (imagine hearing all of Galatians at one sitting!) — where people would be mostly sitting and listening. They would also eat together frequently. In our day, we could follow the service with a church dinner or picnic. Or we could follow up the service with discussion groups to talk about the sermon and how to apply it to life (this would help with the edification and encouragement part).
In other words, we need to get away from the idea that church is just a one-hour hymn-sandwich on Sunday morning, and find creative ways to bring the faithful together for more than just worship.
One correction on the history above: the meal Jesus had with His disciples was indeed the Passover meal (Matt 26:17-19) — at the crucifixion the reason the legs of the other victims were broken was because it was the Sabbath (John 19:31-33). It’s an important point because as the Passover Lamb Himself, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecy which the Passover looks forward to.
the current incarnation the the lords supper also misses the mark and becomes more symbolic and ritualist then anything else. however in my opinion Christ didn’t come to set up symbol and rituals.
Agreed. Jesus came to save sinners, not to impose new rules for people to follow or to set up a new way of doing church. OTOH what He was doing with the Passover meal was BOTH very real AND highly symbolic. Ritual and symbol have their place, namely to remind us of the Reality of Jesus and the Truth that He was teaching.
Some people (like me) find they need to be reminded of Jesus’ words frequently. Other people, like my husband, need very few reminders. Those of us who need reminders tend to love worship with a lot of ritual, while people like Hubby who don’t need reminders find ritual annoying. I have a feeling you’re probably more like him than like me! 😉
Peg
peg what a wonderful post. You are absulutly right on the reason for breaking the legs . i had to re-read that part and i did see that i in fact erred in my previouse statement. you are also right that rituals can have their place. however Rituals done for rituals sake is where problems arise. a good example is the catholic ritual of burning incense at the start of the sevice. it is tradiotional and many cathlics i have asked about it do not no why it is done but they cant picture mass without it. i wont bore you with the history of that particular ritual. unless you ask.
so you know my particular denomination came out of the stone cambell restoration movement. their purpose was to restore the church to the practises of the first century however in my studying of things it seem they only went so far back as the 3rd. however alex cambel wrote in his diary his vision of a meeting house. it would have a large table and all the church would sit around the table and pray and sing and discuss the scriptures. this is closely to how they met in the first century. you ask what we can do IMO the first place to start is to get the chuch out of the church. people say that the church building is a necasary evil. however you saw massive growth in the first century and only had houses in which they would gather. i dont have the answers however there has got to be a better way for the body to gather then in the current.
one other note. you mention bringin the church together for more then just worship. in the bible every act of worship involved a sacrifice. the jews by sacrificing animals and crops and such. the early christians by giving of allo they had including their lives when necassary. IMO to many christians view the hour long service as worship. when it is actually done for priasing and honoring God. a great example of the difarence between the 2 is found in the Army. Enlisted men salute officers. this is done to praise the acievments of the officer and show honor and respect to him. however they are not worshiping him. i believe the same is with our services they are or should be done for the perpous of glorifying Him. however as in the early times worship still need Sacrifice.
Rituals done for rituals sake is where problems arise.
I totally agree. Usually “ritual for rituals sake” happens when the clergy fail to teach the people what the rituals mean. I know for myself when people finally explained to me what they meant my reaction was “oh wow!” because it added a whole new layer of understanding to the faith. But without being explained ritual is spiritually deadly.
a good example is the catholic ritual of burning incense at the start of the service. it is traditional and many catholics i have asked about it do not no why it is done but they cant picture mass without it.
Great example! The incense represents the prayers of the people rising up to God. It has its roots in the ancient Jewish custom of burnt offerings which the Old Testament describes as “a pleasing aroma to God”. But it’s amazing how many people who see it done every week don’t know that.
As for taking the church out of the church, I have a lot of sympathy for the house church movement, which is seeing a lot of growth around the world these days. I think when looking at Scripture it’s important to understand the “house” churches back then often met in rich peoples’ homes — very large, with more than one room available plus usually an inner courtyard — most could hold 100 people or more if needed. Either that or they met in the local synagogue (if permitted) or in outdoor locations. Having said that, in modern times a network of small local house churches can be very effective, especially if they get together once in awhile for ‘larger’ fellowship and activities.
On worship and sacrifice — in our tradition we believe they are the same thing: “a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” as it says in the Prayer Book. Our communion service (the old one, which I happen to have sitting here) includes the words “…and here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto Thee…” Very much along the lines of what you’re talking about. I’m not saying churches should all start using the Episcopal prayer book 😉 but maybe the concept is worth borrowing….
very good. Abuot the incense if your look at when the catholic church started usiong it it sprang up around the middle ages. mainly stone churches where hot and when packed with a townfull of people even hotter. and then you take and the almost non existant personal hygiene habits of the day. and the mass could get uncomfortably stinky. understanding what the current symbology is it is however very likely that it sprang up out of necissity more cloaked in symbols.
for you last paragraph. you are right in the fact that in our tradition we believe sacrifice and worship are the same thing. then go on to talk about a sacrifice of praise and worship. probably in referance to the service. however, we are not really sacrificing when we attend a church asssembly. although some people legitimatly try to argue we are. we need to ask ourselves what are we giving up. sadly if the most we are giving up to worship our Lord is an hour sunday morning and evening. and possibly another one on wednesday. compared to what was sacrificed by the early church and by christ himself. then our worship is seriously lacking. I often find myself slipping into that habit and have to ask my self the same questions. our worship should take place in our life outside the church from sunday to saturday. we should be giving ourselves every chanch we get. however IMO to many christians are satisfied in their sacrifice being at the church sunday morning.
So if I’m hearing you right what you’re saying is sacrifice and worship and praise should happen seven days a week, not just for one hour on Sunday morning. Absolutely. That’s very much the teaching of Scripture and of the churches down through the ages. In fact you might find some of the quotes I’m digging up from the Renaissance era of interest (see some of the more recent posts — I’m doing a short series on the founders of the Anglican church).
Just about every major theologian I’ve read — from the apostle Paul to St. Augustine to Luther to Calvin to Wesley and on down to modern times — have encouraged people to read Scripture and pray daily and look for a fresh inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their lives every day.
amen. i am going to have to read your series on the anglican church.
peg & aaron
I j ust read all your postes I was just wondering if you guys looked up what paul had to say about communion to the called out ones in one of his letters ???
Hi Mike and welcome!
Sounds like you’ve got something on your mind regarding Paul’s teaching on communion. The mic is yours — step on up and present your thoughts!
Peg
Peg & all the others…
I have been praying over this weeks study for our adult bible study class (that I have the honor of facilitating). The focus this week is on communion – and I was drawn to gather deeper understanding than the study guide – that came with our book.
I was drawn to bring bread & ‘wine’ to close the class with a thoughtful communion – but felt like I would be violating something. 🙂 I am so thrilled to see it clearly presented & confirmation that I am hearing His lead so well. I trust His Holy spirit implicitly. My concern was how the class would take my presnting communion at the end of the lesson. I “knew” it was right – but didn’t have the words to explain it to them. I felt led to get more answers and found your post.
Thank you for all your insight – it will be an added blessing to tomorrow’s class!
Hi Dawn,
Welcome and thanks for your post! It’s a joy to be able to share thoughts about communion and especially to share the sacrament among a bible study group. Just one suggestion — I would run the idea past your pastor just to be sure your church is OK with this being done outside the main worship service… they may want to have a clergyperson present or have a prayer said over the elements in advance. It’s always worth asking. Either way — many blessings and go for it! If you have a minute stop by again and let me know how it goes.
Peg
Peggy,
I have enjoyed this information immensely. For the past several months I have been pondering and researching the subject of communion. I was raised in the protestant Assembly of God church and have always accepted everything from the pulpit as gospel. Now that I am older and hopefully wiser, I know that even ministers are human and some of what they tell us from the pulpit is just their opinion.
My thoughts on communion of late have been, should we even be celebrating a so called communion? From everything I see in scripture, Yashua was celebrating Passover. Should we even be pulling those elements out of Passover and calling it communion? I think that what Yashua was talking about was that every year as we partake of Passover, we are to remember what he did for us as our sacrificial lamb. I just don’t see where it was ever supposed to be it’s own separate observation. What are your thoughts?
Teresa
Hi Teresa,
Thanks for your thoughtful post and my apologies for the delay in responding — I haven’t been home much this past week.
You are not the first person to raise the question of whether or not we should do communion. I have heard some people say that when Jesus said “whenever you eat this bread or drink this cup do it in remembrance of me” what He meant was whenever we eat or drink *anything* we should remember Him… which as far as it goes is not a bad thing to do!
You’re also correct in tying communion to Passover. The Last Supper was a Passover meal, and Jesus is its fulfillment. Because Jesus fulfills the promise of Passover, it is no longer necessary to celebrate Passover. However…….
Having said that, from the earliest records of the early church — the days of Paul and Peter — the Christian church has broken bread and shared wine as part of its worship, and has restricted the meal to baptized believers only (as Paul wrote, to prevent nonbelievers from eating and drinking judgment on themselves). So communion is something that comes straight from the disciples themselves. Most of the historical proof of communion actually comes from the writings of the nonbelievers of the time, in which the early Christians are accused of “drinking blood” during “secret ceremonies” in worship!
I think the modern church often misses the point with communion, which can tend to make people start questioning why we should carry on with it. Where the modern church misses the point is that (1) communion was part of a meal intended to be shared every time the church gathered for worship, not just a few times a year; and (2) people tend to miss the corporate-ness of communion. Communion at its heart is a celebration of reconciliation, and the reunion goes in two directions: the unity of believer-with-God, and the unity of believers-with-each-other, both of which are made possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Our modern society is so very individualistic that we tend to lose the “us-ness” of communion and of the Christian faith.
I hope this makes some sense!
Peg
If Jesus commanded us to drink the cup and to eat the bread in his remembrance in place of Seder (passower lamb) thean why the church eat the passower every moon (the Passower can be eat only in 14 Nisan or whit a moon later , Yar 14). How many Passower do we have in one year? We eat from the body of Christ like passower lamb not like an other offering.
Sorry for my english…i’m a beginer..
Hi Lica,
Thanks for your question and welcome!
When Jesus gave his followers the bread and wine at the Passover Seder he used them to show that He Himself is the Passover lamb, that the bread of the Passover points to His body and the wine of the Passover points to for His blood. And He said “whenever you do this, remember me”.
Jesus did not tell his followers how often they should take communion, only that “whenever” they did it they should “remember Him”. After Jesus’ resurrection the early church usually shared communion every week or however often they gathered to worship.
So while communion points to Passover it is not the same thing as Passover… except for that one time when Jesus made it both at the same time.
I hope that makes sense!
What corespondent have communion between Pesat-Pesah in Torah? For Pesah i found…the lamb…but for communion….I can’t find.
“whenever you do this, remember me” ….that can mean evrery year too…like in case of Shamuel
I understand that communion is not Passower…but what it is than? I can do kiddush in His remember but there is His blood and His body too like we found it at Pesah?
Thank you!
Hi Lica,
Sorry for the delay in replying, it’s been a hectic week! I’ll do my best to try to answer your questions.
The connection between Passover (Pesah or Pesach) and the Last Supper is that both are things God did to save His people, to liberate them from slavery. At Passover everyone who had painted the blood of a spotless lamb above the door of their house was spared the final plague and set free from Egypt. In communion all who believe in Jesus have painted (in a mystical sense) the blood of God’s spotless lamb (Jesus) over the doors of their hearts and are set free from slavery to sin.
Jesus Himself made the connection between Passover and communion during the Last Supper when He said “this is My body broken for you” and “this is My blood shed for you”. When He said these things He was talking about the bread they ate and the wine they drank during the Passover meal, and He was saying it represented Him. In other words, He was saying He is the way to freedom and salvation, just as the Passover led to freedom and salvation back in the ancient days.
And yes, a person can remember Him anytime, whether communion is taken once a week or once a year. It doesn’t really matter how often a person takes communion, although most of the great spiritual people through the ages have said it’s good to take communion as often as possible.
As for what is communion… it’s difficult to say. It is the family meal of all believers in Jesus. It is our way of declaring Jesus’ death until He returns. It is, in a mysterious way, something that helps make us one with Him and He with us, and helps make us one with each other. It is a sacrament, a physical picture of a spiritual reality. It is all these things and more.
I hope this helps!
Peg
Peg,
I am looking to do a work on the Historical Practice and development of Communion through Protestant, Catholic and cult communities. Do you have any material/Ref that might help me in my journey, any denomination will do.
Myles.
Myles,
Thanks for your question. Just about everything I’ve seen comes at the subject from a denominational standpoint of some kind. A general overview of historical practice from outside any one particular church would be interesting… if it would be possible (we’re all influenced to some extent by our own backgrounds).
Having said that, I can recommend For the Life of the World by Alexander Schmemann as a starting point. Schmemann writes from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, which is different enough (for most of us in the West) to rattle us out of our preconceptions and get us thinking about the subject in a fresh way.
Let me know how it goes!
Peg
Wow. A lot of words. A lot. Of words.
My family have been Anglican since Henry VIII created the Church of England. I grew up Episcopalian in Salt Lake City, Utah.
I emerged with my faith and soul intact. MY faith. MY soul.
I’m 50 now.
I find the ‘Eucharist’ vile and disgusting. Eating ‘human flesh’ and drinking ‘human blood’ for ‘eternal life’ is Zombie/Vampire mythology.
Do not start the ‘symbolic’ crap with me. Trans-substantiation was a Roman Catholic theology well into the 20th century. I do not recall when the concept was abandoned by the Anglican Communion. That crummy wafer and watered-down wine does not, after being swallowed, actually turn into human ‘flesh and blood.’
‘No,’ the collared cleric said, ‘it’s ‘symbolic.’
Ok. Why are we ‘pretending’ to eat human flesh and drink human blood for eternal life?
It’s still warped, sick crap!
It has to stop!!
I think church sould be a big ‘kitchen,’ where the best parties end up.
Douglas, my hat’s off to you growing up as a minority! Having spent a number of years as a minority Protestant in Catholic circles I know how strange a journey that can be.
On Communion — I’m not and never have been Catholic and have never bought into the transubstantiation thing. On the other hand Jesus says in John 6: “I am the bread of life. […] I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” […] Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. […] The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
So the teaching comes straight from the mouth of Jesus and is key to receiving eternal life. The reality is (as Jesus says) spiritual rather than physical: we must take His Spirit into ourselves.
Communion is Not biblical, but the Passover is, which is celebrated once a year. (Check out the Feast of God) Jesus at the Passover now instituted Himself as part of the Passover feast, being He is our Passover Lamb. This is Only to be done once a year. Check it out in your Bible.
Regarding bread and wine at meals at different times with the disciples in homes, this was done in fellowship/friendship. This was done throughout Old Testament and New Testament times. It had nothing to do with communion representing Jesus.
Passover is what you should celebrate, not church taught communion.
Hi Frankie and welcome to the blog!
I think perhaps communion is “not Biblical” in the sense that communion services as we know them today don’t appear in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean the early church didn’t have communion or that it is unscriptural to celebrate it. (There are a lot of things about everyday life in Palestine back then that didn’t make it into the Bible.)
What little Scripture does say about the early church is that when the people met together they shared in “fellowship, breaking of the bread, and prayers”. “Breaking of bread” could mean either a community meal or the celebration of communion — the former being open to anyone in the neighborhood, the latter being limited to believers.
But the apostle Paul affirms a specific ‘believers’ communion’ when he writes these words: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, 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. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (I Cor 11:23-29)
Just curious… what church is it that is teaching Passover only (and only once a year) and not communion?
I was raised Presbyterian and Episcopalian. We switched to the Anglican tradition when my mother remarried after my father’s death. I later joined the Catholic Church in college, left at 30 and have returned to the Catholic Church at 50. Long story…too long. However, Upon joining the Episcopal Church at age 8, I remember being taught transubstantiation as real. It made sense to me as a child. That’s what Jesus said in Scripture. He did not explain Himself.
As I grew older and learned more of Scripture, I have noticed that Jesus usually explained Himself to His disciples when there was confusion about a teaching or a parable. He never did this in relation to eating His flesh and drinking His blood. It seems to me He meant what He said. Scripture says that many walked away and left Him when He first said this to His followers. He asked the twelve if they would leave as well. Peter said they had nowhere to go, that Jesus was life.
At Passover, Jesus again told them to eat His Body and drink His Blood. He did not explain or equivocate. He did not say do this symbolically in remembrance. Not trying to be a literalist, I simply take Him at His word. I do NOT understand it and do NOT consider it cannibalism or gross or disgusting. God died on a cross for me. Saving me from myself. I don’t understand this either.
But I try to do as He told me, very poorly in fact. These are simply my beliefs, in accordance with Scripture. And in accordance with the traditions of the Church. This is how Jesus lived, as a prefect Jew, in accordance with the Scriptures and traditions of the Jewish faith.
I do NOT say anyone else is wrong. I just see the Catholic perspective as right for me.
John
John,
There are advantages to having such a broad church background – not the least of them being having the ability to articulate clearly what one believes while accepting variations within the Christian faith. Thanks for sharing the Roman Catholic experience so clearly!
Speaking for myself, I’m on the Protestant/Wesleyan end of the Anglican communion, so I believe in the Real Presence without going totally for transubstantiation. But I respect all Christian viewpoints where the Sacrament is concerned… and when questioned I tend to come down on the side of “just take it as often as you can!”
It is curious, at best, to view the historical debate over the specifics of holy communion. What are we doing exactly when we, wether we be Catholic, Protestant, or whatever, participate in communion? Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and representation? What’s the difference when you really think about it? Although on the surface it seems like there are differences, there are none. There is no way that any bread, leavened or non, can physically become the flesh of any man, no matter what religion, voodoo, or mysticism you practice. In the end it is all representation, anyway. The difference lies in how each denomination defines said representation. However, this is not the point that I am trying to make. Please forgive the brief tangent.
What Jesus was actually refering to wasn’t a meal at all, although the two times that he mentioned it just happened to be at (or near to) the Passover celebration. That it just so happened to coincide with His particular fulfillment of the Passover was of no mere coincidence, I’m sure. No, Jesus wasn’t talking about actual bread and actual wine to represent his physical body and physical blood. He was refering to his Spirtual body and Spiritual blood. What exactly is that, you may ask? The Bible defines it very well, especially in the books attributed to John. Jesus’ body (his flesh, mind you) simply means his WORD. Read John 1, there is no denying this fact. The blood that Jesus refers to is his Holy Spirit.
So, what Jesus was basically stating by saying “Eat my flesh and drink my blood (paraphrased), he was saying consume, or intake, my WORD (which is the WORD of God and God actually – again, refer to John, chapter one) and to drink, or fill yourself, with the Holy Spirit (also God). Everytime that you eat the BODY (WORD) and drink the BLOOD (SPIRIT) do so with the reflection that the WORD and the SPIRIT was manifested as a human here on earth in Jesus Christ and that human bought our sins on the cross. Therefore, have hope and faith in forgiveness and redemption for your soul when you partake of these elements.
Also remember, that you can’t have one without the other. You can have a BODY, but if you have no BLOOD, then you have no LIFE. Also, if you have BLOOD, but no BODY to contain it, you have no LIFE. Our own lives rest in the reassurance that Jesus was GOD and he sacraficed himself for our trespasses. Without Jesus, we have no LIFE.
Wafers, Crackers, Bread, Wine, Grape Juice, or anything else man made is completely useless in any religious ceremony or rite and are, to be perfectly honest, borderline idolotry. Every marvelous thing in this universe is a reflection of God Almighty and his awesome power, yet we continually reduce him to a tiny, tasteless cracker and a thimballful of purple liquid for the sake of our own skewed traditions. To philosiphize that it represents this or becomes that is absurd, at best. How have theologians, scholars, ministers, decons, layity, etc. missed that simple truth for centuries? How many reformations, revolts, and revolutions have been started by one simple misunderstanding? It is my opinion that if people embraced this one simple, yet very powerful, truth, we could begin to understand many, many more mysteries concerning our faith. Hopefully, it will catch on.
Hi Jackie and welcome to the blog!
Wow, you’ve said a lot here. I’m not quite sure where to jump in, so I’ll start with Scripture.
Jesus said “this is my body broken for you, do this in remembrance of me” and “this is my blood poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins, whenever you drink it do this in remembrance of me.” The “this” in question was breaking a common piece of flatbread and sharing a common cup of wine within the context of the Passover meal — the one and only context in which Jesus ever spoke these words.
The Passover meal was a commemoration of God’s delivering the Jewish nation of Israel from slavery in Egypt in ancient times. On the night this happened the Israelites placed the blood of a lamb over their doorposts so the Angel of Death would ‘pass over’ them, and then ate unleavened bread and roast lamb as their last meal in captivity. After they were liberated, the Israelites continued to have a Passover meal every year to commemorate their freedom from slavery and God’s mighty acts in liberating them.
On the night before He died, Jesus shared one of these Passover meals with His disciples. But Jesus added to the Jewish memorial meal by drawing a parallel between Passover and Himself. What He was saying is that He is the Lamb of God, that His blood, like the lamb’s blood at Passover, will save us from death. We as believers are to share in the Passover bread and wine as a re-enactment of Jesus’ last night and remember that by His sacrifice on the cross we are no longer slaves to sin.
Down through history different churches (Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational, etc) have developed different traditions and practices and theology around this meal — different ways of looking at and describing the same thing. I don’t think it’s possible to *prove* that one church is more right about it than another.
Bottom line, communion is a commemoration of our salvation. It’s a mystery in which God and humanity become one. It’s a Christian duty. Anything beyond that is educated guesswork.
Thanks for the response and explanation Peg. I stumbled upon your blog quiet by accident and have enjoyed your readers responses. I did feel compelled to comment about it though, hence my previous post.
I would like to point out that Jesus continually spoke metaphorically through parables. Jesus explains why when his disciples asked him, “why do you speak in parables?” in Matthew chapter 13 and in Luke chapter 8. This particular instance is of no exeption. As a matter of fact, the entire Bible is loaded with metaphors and it only stands to reason because God (who is Jesus) was the devine author of the Book. It would make scense that one would communicate the same as the other since they are one and the same.
For Jesus to actually suggest to his people to make something on earth, wether it be bread, wine, or whatever, that represented him would be a clear violation of the 2nd Commandment. Even the old Testament Tabernacle and Temple wasn’t a reflection of the Lord, but mearly his dwelling place. You may say that a loaf of bread or a glass of wine isn’t an “image”, but isn’t it? Just because it is not artwork, doesn’t mean that it cannot become an idol that steals worship from the Lord. If a person says that anything man made on this planet represents (or actually becomes) God (or simply the Body or Blood of God) then there is no denying that idolatry has occured. You failed to comment even remotely about idolatry in your response.
You also failed to comment about what the scriptures actually said about the metaphor of bread. John chapter one begins by explaining this. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” When reading this particular scripture, there is no denying what Jesus was actually referring to when he said, “This (the bread) is my body…” Even when the Bible speaks of real bread, there is metaphor involved. Take the term leavened and unleavened for example, where leavened is a metaphor for sin and transgression and unleavened represents truth and purity.
The metaphor for blood is found throughout scripture, especially in the old Testament. See Leviticus chapter 17. There is also a great commentary on the blood of Christ in Hebrew chapter 9, which states that Jesus’ sacrifice was a one time only occurance. To continually take the cup of wine during a communion ceremony and to say that it represents HIS blood (or becomes HIS blood) and that it somehow attones for one’s sins would simingly repeat the sacrifice over and over. Clearly a contridiction to HIS holy word.
Yes examples of metaphors are found throughout scripture. Lets take the word lamb, for instance. It was highly symbolic, even during the 1st Passover, which Jesus was celebrating with his disciples. Now, it is no great mystery that Jesus wasn’t actually a lamb, but he said that he was. His disciples said precisley the same thing, although they knew that Jesus wasn’t a real sheep. Also take the words, WATER, WHEAT, TARES, GOAT, SHEEP, and TALENT, etc. which all were words Jesus used metaphorically. However, no one ever questions that these are actually parables because Jesus told us that they were. The same can be said about the bread and wine.
Now, it is not my place to question church tradition and I am not saying that Holy Communion is necessarily wrong. I am merely examining and hopefully raising some intrigue about it. Are we doing it in accordance to the Lord’s articulation? Do we even understand what it means? I do feel like some of our more cherished traditions should be examined from a scriptural perspective to test their significance. Mark chapter 7 is highly critical regarding human traditions in lieu of God’s word and truth. Perhaps we are missing the point and perhaps this is precisely the reason that a debate has raged on the topic for centuries. The Bible seems to be clear, at least to me, on what Jesus wanted us to partake of and remember as oft as we did it. It is my sincere prayer that everyone who reads this will seek the counsil of the Holy Spirit for revelation on the topic. Search the scriptures diligently and always trust in Him, who is the Truth.
Hi Jackie,
I totally agree with you that Jesus spoke metaphorically. (with a big AMEN!) Personally I believe Jesus’ words at the Last Supper were spoken metaphorically. I don’t believe the bread and wine at Communion turn into anything else. I do believe that God is *present* at Communion in a unique way — feeding and strengthening the Holy Spirit within us — but it’s hard to put into words how that happens. I also believe, having read some of the documents of the early church, that the Last Supper was meant to be commemorated on a regular basis. The practice of the early church — and by “early” I mean while the apostles Peter and Paul were still alive — was to re-enact the Last Supper whenever Christians gathered for worship.
And all of that is different from transubstantiation, which is the doctrine that the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of Christ. BUT having said that, I think to refer to transubstantiation as idolatry is to misunderstand the teaching. Granted it has been mis-interpreted that way even by some of the people who believe it — but in no way are the elements of bread and wine meant to be worshipped. What transubstantiation claims is that Jesus was *not* speaking metaphorically but literally — and that when someone takes Communion believing this, a miracle occurs, and the bread and wine actually become flesh and blood. Having spoken in some depth with people who believe this, and asking them how they can believe it when the elements are clearly bread and wine and don’t change, I’ve been told that the miracle happens after the elements have been eaten.
Like I said, I personally don’t believe in transubstantiation… but I haven’t gone so far as to pump someone’s stomach and examine the contents to find out what’s really in there! 😉
As to what the metaphor of bread and wine stand for… there are many, many ways they could be interpreted, and it’s entirely possible that more than one interpretation would be accurate. My own personal take on it — and this is me, not any specific church or teacher that I know of — is that the the blood represents life (scripture talks about the blood being the “life” of a living creature, and also talks about “lifeblood”) and that the bread represents mortal flesh/death. With this meaning, when we take communion, we say to Jesus “yes Lord, I will be one with You in life and in death — You gave Your life for me, and I give my life to You. Let Your life and death be in me, as my life and death are in You.”
And in my church we believe having one piece of bread and one cup symbolizes the unity that all believers have in Christ… so communion is both about communing with God and with each other.
Two of officers in our church refuse to partake in the monthly Holy Communion ceremony because they think this is not the bible teaching and created Catholic in the ancient time. Is that true?
Confuse and need answer.
Two of officers in our church refuse to partake in the monthly Holy Communion ceremony because they think this is not the bible teaching and created Catholic in the ancient time. Is that true? Please clarify for ASAP. Thanks.
Confuse and need answer.
Hi Jeffer and welcome! I have heard people say things like what your church officers say but I have never heard it explained why they think communion is not the Bible’s teaching.
Luke writes in Acts 2:42, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” The “breaking of bread” is both eating meals and taking communion, since the first churches were house churches that had both a meal and worship. The first communion service that was ever written down was written around 100AD, over 200 years before the Catholic church started. And the apostle Paul, writing before 100AD, says in I Corinthians 10:16, “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?”
And Jesus Himself, on the last night before the crucifixion, “took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matt 26:26-28)
Jesus, Paul, and the people Luke was writing about, all of them were Jewish… not Catholic. All of these things happened before the Catholic church got organized.
Let me know if this helps, and if you can explain to me more about what your church officers are thinking.
A blessed Holy Week to you,
Peg
Question……………I’m trying to find the history and/or origions of “First Communion”. when did this begin?…..Is it a way to copy the Jewish Barmitzvah?
Hi Rolly,
Communion is a re-enactment of the “Last Supper”, the last meal Jesus had with His disciples before He died. The last meal they shared together was the Passover meal, the highest of Jewish holidays.
Regards,
Peg
Jesus said to do this in rememberance of me, specifically proclaiming His death. We need then to look at what His death signifies. His blood washes away all sin as he was the last and final sacrifice and His broken body our healing.
Scott, you won’t get any argument from me on that!
This is a very helpful discussion. Thank you.
I’m trying to find when the christian churches communion service was separated and became distinct from the Jewish Passover. Also , and it may shock , should the communion service be celebrated at in our churches ?.
Someone has suggested that there is no example of the communion service being celebrated by Gentiles , and , it remained part of the annual Passover celebration until the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel .
I may agree that the Lord may have something to say about how that simple meal has become what is is today among the churches .
Generally speaking I think it would have been the night before Jesus’ crucifixion. His interpretation of the elements of bread and wine in the passover meal pointed directly to his death and resurrection, giving a whole new meaning to the meal.
After the death and resurrection of Jesus most of the believers were Jewish and still attended synagogue, but that didn’t last long. Even during the lifetime of the apostle Paul, Christians were becoming separate from the synagogues, and Christian worship (including communion) was already becoming established by the time Jerusalem fell in 70AD.
We are soon having Communion at our Church, it will be first Communion for my children. I was researching for facts and the history of Communion. Your article has been very helpful.
The only thing I really see differently is your statement
” So in all but the most “free” of Protestant denominations, only ordained clergy may do communion… sort of a spiritual safety net.
BTW most Protestant churches, in some fashion or another, allow laypeople to serve communion that has been blessed by ordained clergy. Giving home communions is one example.”
I have grown up in various Protestant Denominations in the South. (Baptist (of various Baptist groups), Church of God, Church of Christ, Apostolic, Non-Denominational, Mennonite etc.. ) and in ALL of those Churches since I remember taking Communion (about 1980) it has always been open to all professing, baptized believers. Baptism did not have to occur at the Church you were taking Communion at, they would take your word for it. It was a time of extremely reverent fellowship, and usually the weeks before the Pastors taught that you should examine your life, pray, fast, and be sure not to take part unworthily. It was a very solemn and holy occasion. The congregation is then served by the deacons, elders and pastor of the Church. The scriptures are read, and basically the same thing is said as you mentioned above.
Same for “foot-washing” ceremonies. Remembrance of our servitude to each other.
I can’t speak for Protestant churches outside the Southern US as I have always lived in Tennessee. Just wanted to clarify that it is not that unusual in our Churches and it is served TO the lay people, BY the ordained deacons, elders and pastors.
Again, your information was EXTREMELY helpful.. Thank you so much for taking the time to share.
In Jesus’ Name
Greetings and welcome! I’m glad the information here was helpful.
I should clarify the point re: taking communion. In every Protestant church I know of (there may be some exceptions) any baptized believer is welcome to take communion. What I meant to say is that most Protestant denominations require that the communion service be *led* by an ordained person – that is, someone ordained must pray over the elements and then pass them to elders, deacons, etc to distribute to the people. As you say, the congregation is *served* by the pastor, elders, and deacons. Most Protestant churches don’t allow laypeople to serve communion without some kind of training and/or ordination. By all means anyone who is baptized and a believer can receive communion.
Congratulations to your children on their first communion! 🙂
Despite ‘communion ‘ being practised in nearly all the churches , albeit with their different meanings – the ‘last supper’ is mentioned only about three times in scripture and , it could be was only practiced by the Jewish christians being that the Gentile christians were asked only to observe four things and were excused from the Jewish practices and traditions ?.
I understand there is an unclear picture of what was happening in the christian church from AD 70 up to about 120 when suddenly it emerges as very Gentile and largely found in Rome ?.
The last supper or communion was much connected with the New Covenant and Jer 31 and Heb show that the New Covenant was to be made with ISRAEL and Gentiles were ‘strangers’ to those Covenants . The New Covenant was to be made made with the same people that the Old Covenant was made with .
So , I wonder if the practice as done in the churches today is a mistaken assumption that Gentile christians – or better , The church the Body of Christ- eph – should be doing it ?.
The Popes, Luther , Swingli ,and Calvin could NOT agree on that prolific practice ‘the communion service’ and I do not think any can agree today ?. Why is that ?. Because the true meaning the New Covenant to be made with Israel was lost early on with the Gentile ‘church fathers’. ?. And today it is one of the traditions of men ?. Check out . Look at the scriptures ; Get help with J.Eustace Mills booklet ‘The New Covenant’ or Michael Penny’s booklet OBT by the same title . It may be an exciting journey . 🙂
Michael – You’re quite right in saying that the various churches don’t agree on what communion means. It would be hard to find two individual *people* who agree exactly on what communion means! Nonetheless Christians practice communion because Jesus commanded it: “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19, repeated by Paul in I Cor 11:24)
In the early church, Jewish and Gentile Christians worshiped together. This happened during the days when Jesus’ apostles were still alive, and is recorded in a number of places in the book of Acts.
While ancient history is not 100% clear 2000 years later, documents available from the time period are remarkable in their clarity and consistency.
Re: the covenant with Israel – from the earliest of the Old Testament writings God made it clear that Israel was to be the people through whom God would bless all the world. Jesus is called “a light to the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel”. The Gentiles were always a part of God’s plan of salvation from the beginning.
Michael, it appears you’re writing from the point of view of a Berean denomination. I encourage you to stick with whatever church brings you closer to Christ. Having said that, in my experience Berean churches typically teach that only Berean churches have the “correct” interpretation of Scripture, and all other churches are in error. Be careful not to be enslaved by this.
Thank you for your reply , comments and caution . But you say ‘In every church Jewish and Gentile christians worshipped together ‘ ? * But not in the Temple. Not in the synagogues . Gentiles still had their separate places ;and woe betide if they stepped out into forbiddden space . ?. That is , may be, except circumcised proselytes who were regarded as Jews ?. Also , you make it sound as if Gentiles were always in the Pentecostal church ?. The first Gentile converted to Christ was Cornelious Acts 10 in about AD 41 . Note AD 41 10 + years after Christ began His miistry to Israel ?. Before that the Apostles like Christ did , spoke exclusively to the Jews . ex matthew 10:5… ? Acts 2 ? and had the Jews in view. But it some years later that through the ministry of the Apostle Paul the Gentiles were preached to regularly – but after the Jews. It was to make the Jews ‘envious’ and provoke more of a favourable response to the Gospel ?.
So it was only after an event in Rome when Paul and the gospel were rejected by the Jewish leaders , that ‘God’s salvation was sent to the Gentiles …. ‘ and the gospel was not preached with Israel in view. In Ephesians and Colossians we gather that Gentiles and Jews were now equal co sharers in the gospel . The Jews were released from their obligations to the Law ; and the Gentiles were no longer separated from the Jew because of the Law and ordinances . ?
Remember ,* Peter got into trouble for ‘associating’ with a Gentile . Paul got into trouble because he was accused of bringing an uncircumcsed Gentile into the Temple precincts ?. It might put how things were then and for readers , it is all in the scriptures which we ought to ‘rightly divide’ distinguishing things which differ; noting when things change . 🙂 Pray that God’s word will have free course in our own hearts and in the people in the world . obt.org.uk could help .
Hi Michael,
Since the threads won’t nest any deeper, I’ll continue our discussion here:
You wrote: ~~~you say ‘In every church Jewish and Gentile Christians worshipped together~~~
I said “in the early church” Jews and Gentiles worshipped together. Not necessarily in every congregation. But what made the early church unique was that Jews and Gentiles often DID worship together. It was this togetherness that sparked heated debate over whether or not Gentiles should be required to observe Jewish law. This led to the first-ever church council in Jerusalem, where it was decided, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” (Acts 15:28-29)
~~~~~you make it sound as if Gentiles were always in the Pentecostal church ?~~~~~
I’m assuming by this you mean the church after the first Pentecost, not the denomination that started in the 1800s. Acts chapter 2, talking about the first Pentecost, clearly describes both Jews and Gentiles from all over the world hearing the Gospel in their own languages and coming to faith. The story of Cornelius, which takes place shortly after Saul/Paul’s conversion (not 10+ years later) is the first Gentile convert we know of *by name* to be welcomed into the church by Peter.
~~~~Before that the Apostles like Christ did, spoke exclusively to the Jews~~~~
Jesus spoke to a number of Gentiles during his lifetime, and praised the faith of at least two: the Centurion (Matthew 8) and an unnamed Gentile woman (Matthew 15). He also inspired a Samaritan woman to be the very first evangelist (John 4). While it is true that he said his mission was to the Jews, he didn’t limit his ministry to Jewish believers only.
~~~~~~So it was only after an event in Rome when Paul and the gospel were rejected by the Jewish leaders , that ‘God’s salvation was sent to the Gentiles …. ‘ and the gospel was not preached with Israel in view.~~~~~~~~~~~
You’ve gotten hold of some faulty history here. The gospel was rejected by the Jewish religious establishment in *Jerusalem*. Paul was martyred in Rome under *Nero* (rejection by a civil court, not a religious one).
In his letter to the church in Rome Paul writes of the Jewish people: "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. […] If the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you." (Romans 11:1-2, 16-18)
Apparently some of the Gentile Christians had gotten the idea that they were supposed to replace the Jews as God’s chosen people, and Paul is correcting their error. Paul says they are our “root” and they “support” us — without them Gentile Christians don’t have a thing to stand on.
Hello Peg – I read your very interesting article from the book of Numbers and also of your own healths trials, tribulations and triumphs and your adventures with ‘hats’.
You say that that at the annual Jewish feast of Pentecost when at that one the Holy Spirit came in power upon the apostles and disciples Acts 2 it ‘clearly describes both Jews and Gentiles from all over the world hearing the gospel in their own language …..’ But Peter’s sermons are to Israel . ‘Ye men of judaea….v14 Ye men of Israel v22 Therefore let all the house of Israel know…v36. The whole oration is directed to and for Israel ?
You say that the Lord Jesus did speak to some Gentiles .Yes He did . But it was those few who came to Him. About 4 are recorded ?. Jesus even said His then mission was to Israel and He also told the disciples not to go to the Gentiles ?. The enigma ? is that Jesus went to the Samaritan woman. But were samaritans Jews who had separated from Israel proper ?. They had their own Temple .
Yes the gospel was rejected first in Jerusalem and then various other branches untill the final branch in Rome. After that the Gospel of God was not preached to Israel as ‘God’s people’ but ‘ the salvation of God was sent to the Gentiles ‘ without as previously , with reference to Israel. Acts 28 . What this meant to Israel and to Gentiles is revealed in the last epistles of Paul , but specifically in Ephesians and Colossians .
I know these doctrines are not prevalent in the majority of christian churches . But once grasped ; once understood;once embraced , it is difficult to run with the crowd on the broad highway of general christendom. Those quotes you gave from Romans concerning Israel are in abeyance .They were true at the time. The Gentiles are no longer grafted into Israel because the whole Israel tree was cut down . Yes the root remains and will one day revive- regrow. But today , Gentile and Jew are co shares equal in the gospel co inheritors in Christ and the Gospel . Christians today are advised to get to know Eph ,Col ,phil , 1 and 2 tim , titus, philemn very well as they are the last words of Paul from the risen Christ . But all scripture is profitable I think it may be because those extra special revelations and instructions given to Paul have been overlooked that they are not well known or spoken about . How many christians are aware that what Paul received from the Lord in glory , had ‘never before been revealed ‘ but were secrets hid in God till revealed to the apostle and apostles and prophets of the risen Christ , Paul ?. Eph ch 3 ?.
It seems to me like we’re splitting hairs here in terms of definitions/ interpretations. I can see we both believe in the authority of Scripture, and that’s a common ground.
I found this quotation on the obt website you recommended:
~~~~We believe very much that “All Scripture is God-breathed” and we believe that all Scripture “is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). However, we also believe that we should give greater emphasis to the Epistles, more than we give to the Gospels.~~~~~ (Progressive Revelation page)
The Gospels contain the words of Jesus, who was God. The epistles were written by men — inspired men, granted, but still men. I don’t think the gospels and epistles contradict each other, but if I were going to give greater weight to one or the other I would weigh Jesus’ words over anything else. I would not say that revelation is progressive and therefore the Epistles are more important.
The Berean Church is not the only church that teaches “Progressive Revelation” (the idea that more and more of God’s truth is revealed over time). This concept can also be found in Mormonism, has a close parallel in the “church tradition” of the Roman Catholic church, and is a strong part of the argument of radical Protestant churches (left or right) when they defend departures from scriptural teaching.
The problem I have with Progressive Revelation is that every church that teaches it looks down on other Christians as inferior, sometimes excluding them completely from God’s kingdom. All these churches say they are the ONLY true church, the only one that teaches God’s truth perfectly. Anyone outside the “one true church” is either not a Christian or not a very good one and needs to be converted.
I will never be a part of any of these churches (or recommend them to others) because I don’t believe God excludes anyone from heaven, or from His body of believers, for understanding Him imperfectly.
Hello Peg , Im surprised you do not recognize ‘progressive revelation ‘ . It took a few thousand years for God to show more and more of His will and ways through events , Prophets , and His Son . ? . And now we have the completed word of God , the Bible .
Also , though we do have those words of Jesus God wanted us to have , John 21:25 , all scripture is the word of God . All scripture is inspired of God . Paul commended the Thessalonians for receiving his words , ‘not as the word of men , but as it is , the word of God which effectively works in you that believe ‘ 1 Thes 2 .
I suppose you like the ‘red letter bible’ where the words of Jesus are emphasized in red and you infer you take more heed of them , have more confidence in them and perhaps value them more than all the Prophets and apostles ?. Yet all , Jesus Christ , the Prophets and the Apostles all spoke the word of God .’Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit ‘ We can have confidence in all scripture as the word of the living God. And I think you would agree 🙂
As for your remarks on ‘ the Berean churches ‘ ‘the mormons ‘ ‘Roman Catholic tradition ‘ or strongly Protestant churches I’m not convinced they are all champions of biblical progressive revelation . The ‘catholic tradition may be un scriptural sometimes non scriptural and extra-biblical as with Mr Smith and the Mormons ?.
Thanks for your input / output anyway 🙂
Hi Mike,
Revelation may seem progressive from our point of view because we live in time, while God does not. We mature in our understanding of God as we get older. God doesn’t change – God is always the same, yesterday, today and forever. In our lifetimes we learn more about Him and grow in our understanding, and in that sense we make progress.
But the term “progressive revelation” means something different. It means that the more recent a teaching is, the more weight it should be given. Therefore the New Testament is more weighty than the Old Testament, and the Epistles are more weighty than the Gospels, and (if you follow the logic) today’s teachers carry even more weight than the Epistles, because they’re the most recent. This is a question not so much of knowledge as of authority. I believe there is no authority higher than God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God).
Therefore IF Moses and God disagreed (they don’t), God would have the last word. IF Paul and Jesus disagreed (they don’t), Jesus would have the last word. Why? Because both Moses and Paul bow to God and acknowledge Him to be above all and in all.
Given the definition of ‘progressive revelation’ above, what “we’re still learning and making progress” boils down to in terms of living out the faith is “Jesus and…” something that’s more recent. Mormons = Jesus and Joseph Smith. Roman Catholics = Jesus and Church tradition. Conservative Protestants = Jesus and America (or whatever country they live in). Liberal Protestants = Jesus and social action. The OBT seems to be saying “Jesus and take the Epistles more seriously”.
I don’t deny that there are faithful Christians in all of these groups. But what Scripture says is, Jesus alone is enough.
Peg , just remember that is y o u r definition of what you think ‘progressive revelation ‘ is and your definition of the implications and the result !!! . You are making the idea and then knocking it down . But just an example of what progressive revelation might be is at one time Paul advised against people getting married . But later Paul counseled people should get married if they wanted to . The first was because of the hardship expected because of the times ; But then when all had settled down , Paul’s advice changed . Progressive revelation may have to do with God’s purposes to and for certain people at certain times and depending on results . ie conditional prophecy ?. The christian Israelites were expected to carry on following the ceremonial Law up till a certain time . That time was when ‘ God’s salvation was sent to the Gentiles …… ‘ acts 28 and in Ephesians 2 you can read that the Israelites need not now continue to follow that Law of Moses as before . ?. Indeed they could not fully even today , as in AD 70 the Temple was demolished and the people scattered over the Roman Empire ?. Just a few thoughts on progressive revelation . I’m glad you looked up obt.org.u.k and they are on You Tube too .
“Progressive revelation in Christianity is the concept that the sections of the Bible that were written later contain a fuller revelation of God compared to the earlier sections.” – Wikipedia (who note that belief in progressive revelation is also found in the Bahai faith)
“The term “progressive revelation” refers to the idea and teaching that God revealed various aspects of His will and overall plan for humanity over different periods of time, which have been referred to as “dispensations” by some theologians. […] Whereas dispensationalists debate the number of dispensations that have occurred through history, all believe that God revealed only certain aspects of Himself and His plan of salvation in each dispensation, with each new dispensation building upon the prior one.” – GotQuestions.org
“Chrtistian gay advocates say: progressive revelation has “revealed” that homosexuality is now acceptable to God. Just as it was okay to have multiple wives in the Old Testament, and God changed that rule such that we can now only have one wife, we can now see in our culture that God has changed the rule about homosexuality.” – evangelical.us (an example of how the extreme right and extreme left can use the concept of progressive revelation)
Again, I’m not saying that belief in progressive revelation negates one’s faith in Christ. I’m just saying it can be easily manipulated for purposes that are not Godly.
Perhaps it would be better to say that God – who lives outside of time and is unchanging, the same today as in the beginning – chooses to reveal Himself in Scripture to different people in different ways at different times. This does not imply “progress” but rather the variations that naturally come from being in relationship. Just as I share some things with my father and other things with my sister (who is more recent) does not imply that what I share with my sister is a fuller revelation of me.
Peg , I think I accept what you say about progressive revelation in the second and the last paragraph of your comment. , but not those examples of others who appear to claim ongoing progressive doctrine outside the canon of scripture ?. We may discover new things from scripture ; but I doubt new doctrines apart from scripture as for instance in the Roman church like ‘the assumption of Mary ‘ , that Mary is Queen of heaven , that ‘she’ is a mediatrix and advocate and co-saviour , co redeemer etc .
It’s a bit sad that the input by OTHERS is slow .. But do you think ‘communion’ is necessary to participate in as some think baptism is ?
Re: input from others: this thread is over 5 years old. 😉
You’re thinking a lot about Roman Catholic teachings… any chance you came out of that background? Just curious.
Re: communion and baptism: keeping in mind that salvation is by faith alone and not by works, I think participation in both is the norm and should be expected, with exceptions being made in times of need.
Yes I did ‘come out ‘ of a Rcatholic past But I don’t major on my themes because of that (i think) , but because the truth is important and there are so many ‘shades’ about . Also ,we should be ‘thinking christians’ and not just have accepted a creed from well meaning carers and not be famiiar with all the Bible has to say to us but especially about salvation and Christ .
So , I’m also concerned at present about how you and others might think of the oft used words , ‘the righteousness of Christ ‘. You say ‘that salvation is by faith alone ‘ and therefore by grace alone in Christ’s dying on the cross for our sins . His sacrifice was acceptable and He arose again from the dead having accomplished so great salvation for all who believe on Him.
But there is an idea very much held in Evangelical Christianity , that Christ ‘lived a perfect life on our behalf – kept the Law in our place to ensure our righteousness ‘ , and then died on the Cross for our sins .
In fact , in 1999 a gathering of Evangelicals as reported it was an ‘essential belief ‘ and, stated , ‘ We deny that our salvation was achieved merely or exclusively by the death of Christ without reference to His life of perfect righteousness ‘
Yesterday , at the church I attend , a hym was chosen to be sung twice. At the start and at the finish of the service . 🙂 . It was I now feel directed for my ‘benefit’ by some adherents to those views as a testimony . It was , ‘My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness……………. ‘ I sang or tried to ……. ‘God’s righteousness ‘ along the lines of ‘Abraham believed God and it was credited – imputed to him for /as righteousness ‘
The words , ‘the righteousness of Christ ‘ as a work He done for sinners before His death , are not found in scripture ?. But , ‘The righteousness of God BY faith of Jesus Christ ‘ is . See www. middletownbiblechurch or ‘The Westminster confession of faith exploded by metcalfe publishing if you need more info ‘ about this doctrine .
Hi Michael,
Sorry for the delay getting back to you – I must have missed this post! I mentioned the Roman Catholic background because I sense many of your arguments are (at least in part) a way of confronting the errors Protestants often see in the RC church. Nothing wrong with that of course! 🙂 Just an observation.
Yes I agree with evangelicals that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. And I believe Jesus lived a sinless life. I’m not sure what would be gained by believing differently.
Glad I found this site!!! Because the last couple of months the Lord keeps bringing me back to “Communion”. And now I’m wondering how it seems to have been put on a back shelf in the church of today
In the new testament it was clearly an important rite,that was part of a whole meal daily and from house to house. And it is obviously not for believers only,
because at the last supper with Jesus, He allowed Judas to partake, all the time knowing that he would betray Him, and that he was a thief and who knows what else.
Also I believe that the verses 1Cor. 11:27-29 have been misinterpreted by many pastors, because if you go back to verses 18-22 and then jump ahead to verses 33 and 34, Paul is obviously talking about those who would come early and eat up the whole meal leaving nothing for those who would arrive later. —Am I not right?
Now I was also one of those who were mislead by verses 27-29, and even several times I did not partake of the communion because “I examined myself
and found myself not worthy”, now come on!!! I have this continuous blood of my Savior Jesus Christ that washes over me like a waterfall!!! so what else could I possibly need to make me worthy!!!
Now since the Lord [my Daddy!!!] has been bringing back to the Communion rite and how it should be, I think that it is going to be a very important part in our discipleship in these last days. Because Jesus was our example and nothing that He did was to be taken lightly on our part.
‘
Hi Jo and welcome to the blog! I can totally understand what you’re saying about communion taking a back seat these days. Many churches only offer communion once a month, or once a quarter, and a few hardly ever offer it at all! There are some churches (Lutheran, Episcopal/Anglican, Catholic) that offer it every Sunday and I think they’re helping to make communion a more common occurrence.
I think you’re correct in your interpretation of I Cor 11. That said, I do think it’s proper for only believers to take part in communion. There are lots of scriptural reasons for that… for now I’ll just mention two. The first is the concept of ‘covenant’. God is a maker and keeper of promises. In the OT the covenant was between God and Israel, and anyone who wanted to take part in that covenant either had to be born into it (that is, be Jewish) or convert to Judaism (which included getting circumcised if you were a guy).
The second has to do with the teaching of the early apostles. In the very early church – even predating the first pope in the AD300s – the worship service was divided into two parts. The first part was teaching and preaching, and was open to anyone, and the second part was communion and was open to only baptized believers. Back in those days there was an actual break in the service – after the teaching worship stopped while the unbaptized and inquirers departed the worship service. The apostles were that serious about communion being only for those who understood it, and a person needed to be a believer in order to understand it.
I do think there are times when it’s OK for a believer to take communion if they haven’t been baptized yet. One example I can think of is the women I sometimes meet in the local jail. Women in prison generally don’t have access to baptism… but when they become believers imo they should be welcome at the Lord’s table even without having been baptized.
Just my 2c fwiw.
Oh Peg , this reply is sooner than I expected as you said , more or less, my replies were too quick as you have other things to do ? . But I sensed you would , or might , welcome a quick reply this time ?.
What I meant and have meant that what the churches do each Sunday , or each month or some each year , ‘the communion’ or ;Lord’s table ‘ is linked to the New Covenant promised to Israel , and the Passover remembrance for Israel . That the Covenants and the Passover belong to Israel and are not for the Church . That is why I pointed you to scripture , for the doctrine and practice are I and and few others think , have come about through Tradition .
If you don’t see it in scripture ,then you don’t see it . But it is plain to see. Just read the words of scripture . The New Covenant will be made with the same people as the Old Covenant . The Old Covenant was not made with Gentiles and the New Covenant is to enable Israel to do and be all that they didn’t do or become under the Old . The reason being God’s promises to Abraham Isaac and Jacob and for His own Glory and yes , so Israel will be enabled to bless the Gentiles . See Romans 8 and 9 . obt.org.uk The Covenants .
Thanks if you looked up those scriptures I suggested .
Finally , If as I suggest , the New Covenant has not been fully implemented as Israel have not God’s ways written on their hearts , and their will be no need for every man to teach his neighbor ‘know the Lord ‘ for each will know the Lord , to the very least one , there will be no need for forums like this , nor denominations cults or sects . 🙂 But till then , the work of evangelism goes on , and we are to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ and search the scriptures if what we hear follow or do , are according to the scriptures .
Hi Michael,
I’m still having some difficulty trying to sort out what you’re saying but here’s what I’ve got so far:
You’re addressing the subject of communion (or the Lord’s Supper).
Communion is linked to the New Covenant… which makes sense since Jesus said “this cup is the new covenant in my blood”.
Communion is also linked to the Passover – which is true, since Jesus instituted it during a Passover seder meal and used its elements when he broke the bread an d poured the cup.
The Covenants and Passover belong to Israel – in a sense yes, in a sense no. The Mosaic Covenant (Old Testament) was between God and Israel with the understanding that the whole world would be blessed through Israel’s obedience. Passover was a remembrance of Israel’s delivery from slavery in Egypt, and has a parallel in the New Covenant delivery from sin. The New Covenant that Jesus spoke of is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies but is also the open door for the Gentiles to come in.
As for how to read Scripture, the Bible is open to interpretation to some extent. There are many passages that can have double or triple meanings… some passages are poetry, some are parables, some are allegory. Again I warn against any one church or person who claims they have the only truth. Only God (or Jesus) can make that claim.
The apostle Paul had a great deal to say about Israel and their relationship to the church in his letter to the Romans. Again there is no one correct interpretation of this work… just an indication that where it comes to Israel the story is not over yet.
At the very least we are agreed that evangelism is still needed, and study of the scriptures is still needed… and may God bless our efforts on His behalf!
And hi Peg to you . I try to be brief as it’s a large subject ; but you agree the announcing of the New Covenant is linked to the Passover meal then , and the the Covenants and Passover belong to Israel , but yes and no ; that the old Covenant was an arrangement between God and Israel ‘WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD BE BLESSED BY ISRAELS OBEDIENCE ‘ Exo 19:3-9. But Israel were NOT obedient ; in fact they broke the Covenant the same day it was made and at various times . But God made a provision for them in a New Covenant . Jer 31:31+ and Hebrews 8 . Instead of demanding obedience FROM Israel , God would make it possible that Israel would and could be obedient with a New Covenant . by supplying a new heart. God is going to write His law on the hearts of those people ; and they will ALL know the Lord from the least to greatest . Such a situation has not yet been known on this earth in Israel – let alone among Gentiles if it was meant for Gentiles . It didn’t happen during the days of the Apostles ; but will happen when Israel calls upon God their Messiah ; and acknowledge that Jesus is their Lord and King .
As W.M.Henry says in Search 148 ‘ The New Covenant…….is a covenant with Israel…… effective wghen they are restored to their land and delivered from their enemies by a return of the Lord Jesus Christ . Israel , redeemed by Christ’s blood of the New Covenant… will be a kingdom of priests unto God ‘.
(I’ve paraphrased WmHenry’s article ). obt.org.uk with acknowledgement to M.Penny .
Nowhere in Scripture — Old Testament or New Testament — are God’s covenants, God’s mercy, or God’s forgiveness limited to Israel only. Gentiles are saved and blessed under both covenants.
But since we disagree on this point, is it really important? And if so, why? Bottom line it for me please. What does a person need to believe in order to be saved?
I think I;ve shown that apart from the Covenant made with Noah regarding the safety of the world by flood , and the rainbow is a reminder , all other Covenants are made with Israel ?. And , if I read correctly , the New Covenant Jer 31 ;31 is made and to take effect for Israel . And yes , Gentiles were saved under the old Covenant but by joining themselves to Israel. (God fearers-Proselytes ?) . (If Gentiles were saved apart from that I don’t think we are told. But God knows ) . In the Acts Gentiles were saved because Israel rejected the Gospel , the Apostle went to Israel first , and in those places where Israel rejected the Gospel ,Paul turned to the Gentiles .
Is it important ?. All scripture is important .It is all God’s word . Who are we to disagree and hold our own pet doctrines and opinions. Think of the Pharisees. They cobbled together a system of religious doctrine and practices that made the word of God of non- effect . But having different doctrines is a human failing.Even Paul was dealing with that when he preached to the churches then . Paul warned Timothy to ‘Give attention to doctrine’. Why ?. Because a little leaven leavens the whole lump. One rotten apple in a barrel of good ones can affect the whole if not rooted out . We are supposed to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’. It was important for Israel to follow God’s word accurately , so why not the Church ?. The Bereans ‘searched the scriptures to see whether those things were so ‘. I don’t think we do that very much ?. Our faith , what we believe , should come from the scriptures which are the word of God .
But Paul did not say those whose doctrine had gone astray wern’t saved if they acknowleged and received Jesus as their Messiah , Saviour and Lord . But they were mistaken . It was imperative then that it was corrected .
You asked what the bottom line anyone needs to be saved . ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ . That He died for our sins , was buried , was raised from the dead and has ascended into heaven . When we believe on Christ we are believing God who said , …..’whosoever believes in Him has everlasting life’. By grace are you saved through faith , and not of yourselves , it is the gift of God , not of works so none can boast ‘. Eph . when we believe we are sealed by the Holy Spirit and are counted as new creations in Christ . Eph.
I hope that clears the air . a little ? :).
Yes and no. 😉 If I’m understanding your answer correctly, what you’re saying (what Bible-believing Christians have always believed) re: the covenants and salvation: God’s covenants were made with Israel but are open to all people, and salvation is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I think that’s the bottom line.
What still remains to be answered is this. You wrote:
If we are in agreement about Scripture and salvation why do you feel it necessary to say “who are we to disagree” etc? We’re not disagreeing.
I meant that ‘we’, generally – maybe a rhetorical question ?. Sometimes people can have doctrines or practices they have (we have) picked up apart from the scriptures . But then we may find what we have believed does not accord with the scriptures once we get into them and / or people introduce a different point of view which may or not be helpful .
Paul also counseled Timothy study the scriptures which by then included the writings of what we call the New Testament and the Acts , and Epistles .
However , Isn’t it good when we attend a meeting and we are in one accord , hearing the word of God read , hearing it expounded and singing with joy in our hearts unto the Lord .
Amen! 🙂
Thank you. I have often had a hard time celebrating communion in my Protestant church being that it never seems to align with the scriptures. I also question when it moved away from a meal and became a sip of wine and a small cracker? As you read 1 Cor 11 it clearly indicates a meal setting. I don’t want to dishonor God by not participating but how can the way we celebrate be reformed? Thanks, Cory
Your comment and question came to me Cory , when perhaps it should have ,or you meant it , to go to Peg .
I don’t know why you , ‘ had a hard time celebrating communion……..’ but you appear to be correct that 1 Cor 11 ‘indicates a meal setting’. But I thought Paul told those people that they were not in fact celebrating what they thought they were ?. Why is that ?.
How do you think you might ‘dishonor God ‘ by not participating in to days communion communion services ? And why would you want to ‘not participate ‘ anyway ?. Also , why do you want ‘it to be reformed ‘ ?.
Martin Luther had ideas that the communion service needed reforming . It was because the church in excessive power over men’s lives taught practiced and persecuted any who not ascribe to the belief of Transubstantiation and the worship of the wafer and wine .. Martin came up with an alternative , Consubstantiation . It may have been a similar idea , but a spiritual presence rather that an actual bodily change of the elements of bread and wine and the bread and wine were thought to remain , bread and wine or wafer/cracker and wine .
By the way , the Salvation Army do not participate in communion services at their meetings and do not seem to be dishonoring our Savior God .
Hi Cory,
Good questions! You’re right, in New Testament times communion was definitely – if not part of a meal – at least taken in conjunction with a meal. The elements of bread and wine were always present though. I’m not certain of the history behind the change but my guess is the move away from a meal-type setting was a gradual one, most likely brought on (at least in part) by necessity during times of persecution. I do know by the time Christianity became the state religion of Rome (early 300s AD) communion as we know it was pretty much an act of worship independent of a meal.
How might the modern-day church recapture the meal-like setting of communion? That’s a great question, and one that I think is worth exploring. Maybe having potluck dinners (or breakfasts?) before communion services? I’d love to hear your ideas, and any suggestions from our readers!
Peg
Hmmmm, how interesting. No one mentioned that the Gentiles are grafted onto the root and eventually, if no longer fruitful, will be pruned away and the original branches returned to the root. Also no one seems to have noticed that the word used for bread at the Last Supper is leavened bread, not unleavened. It was not Passover. It was his last meal with his disciples, but not Passover. Interpreters called it that, but not with leavened bread. You will notice that the lamb is not mentioned, either. After dark the day of preparation for Passover began, which is why Jesus was hastily tried and convicted. The Sanhedrin that night (it was still dark) was mostly Sadducees, since the Pharisees would consider it illegal to convene then. They had to hurry, because Passover was coming. I don’t know if anyone here is aware of it, but the first day of Passover is a high holy day, also called a Sabbath. Passover actually has 3 sabbaths in it. Both the first and the last days are sabbaths and somewhere in between will be the weekly sabbath.
It was that word for bread that radically changed my life. Research it yourself and you will be quite surprised. I certainly was. I took the challenge and checked it out for myself, and there I was, amazement on my face. I had to rethink and restudy everything, because for far too long I had taken everyone’s word for it. Don’t take my word for it, either. Research it yourself.
Hi Lilra,
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I agree the Gentiles are grafted into the root of Judaism, and that any unfruitful branches (Jewish or Gentile) will be pruned, with an eye to making them fruitful.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the teaching that the Last Supper is not Passover? It is called “Passover” in John 22:7, 8, and 13. And the Greek word for “bread” (arton) does not differentiate between leavened or unleavened bread… it is simply “bread”. The Gospels don’t use any language other than Greek or any word other than arton to describe the bread.
The story of the Last Supper doesn’t include all the details of all the courses of the Passover meal – the lamb isn’t included, and neither are the bitter herbs or a number of other items. That doesn’t mean they weren’t there, it just means the writers of the gospels didn’t write them all down. As Jews writing to Jews they wouldn’t need to because their readers all knew what went into a Passover meal.
If you’ve been taught differently I’d be interested in knowing who your teacher(s) are.
Regards,
Peg
The term ‘communion’ is Catholic by nature. If you wish to do as He says. Then you should celebrate the Passover. Not communion. Passover is sometime in March or April. I celebrate the feasts that God set in order. Not these man made traditions. Do not do communion. Start doing as God commanded in Leviticus 23 and celebrate his feasts.
‘Communion’ is a fairly generic term with multiple meanings. The Lord’s Supper – by whatever name a particular church may call it (Eucharist, Communion, Lord’s Table, family meal, etc) – is a re-enactment of the final meal Jesus had with his disciples, which was a Passover meal.
Oh that men would praise the Lord for all His wonderful works.
That being said, I think it no small coincidence that the apostle Paul went into the explanation of holy communion only after having addressed the divisions and schisms in the church. For if the One does not bring about oneness than the whole of sharing in His sacrifice which was to create one new man tearing down the walls of division. Take your place at the table knowing that it is Christ who will judge our worthiness. By faith I believe that heavenly host along with Christ is with every meal spiritually. For the just shall live by faith. It always blesses me when I read the words of Jesus said before He began what we call holy communion. How I have long to celebrated this moment with you. Man and God had lost communion for 4000 years but that was now going to change in a drastic way by Jesus going to the cross.
Beautifully said Wellwick – thank you! : – )
good stuff.
plenty to read, and think about.
I’m a non-denominationist, myself.
If you believe you are in, else you are out.
Jesus is the Truth and the Light.
The rest is all just “icing on the cake” – pink icicng, white icing, decorations,m or plain – it is all just icing.
It is the event for which “the cake” is baked that counts, not the little details.
(for a longer answer. I go with the Greek Creed, not because I believe that the Holy Spirit doesn’t come also from Christ, but because I find myself unable to assert that it does – for me it is an undetermined, and frankly irrelevant, question – so my Creed is the one that covers what I know, rather than what I would like, or don’t understand. And, guess what, if you say it in Greek, the Greek Creed counts as OK in a Catholic Church – the filioque only being required in Latin and “vernacular”!)
“The rest is all just icing in the cake” – I like that! All the different colors and flavors of icing just make the cake all that much more delicious. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life… that’s all we really need to know.
yes it is interesting to read all the different viewpoints on ‘the communion’. If I was presently in favor of the rite , I would be inclined to agree with Susan Sept 14 that it should be celebrated once a year at Passover and by those entitled to participate in Passover . In other words , by Israel . 🙂 .
My present understanding though would have me thinking that ‘the Lords supper ‘ is history till He come again and eat the bread and drink the wine in His Kingdom .
There are those who may immediately say ‘but Jesus told the disciples to do it ‘ untill He return ‘ . But He did not return . Look at Acts chapters 2, 3 and 4 . If Israel – the nation – accepted the Lord Jesus is their Messiah , and believed and were baptized , then He would return . But they did not believe . So Israel cannot function as they did as the Temple was destroyed and the nation dispersed . But God had a hidden secret . Eph/Col and ‘the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles ……. ‘ It is marvelous if you can grasp and receive it . Paul seems to say Christians must pray for enlightenment , to understand thie newly revealed truth . Eph ch1 18- 23 . Obt.org.uk and Bereans 52a wilson street London uk Ec2 2ER The Church was is it . ?
Jesus said “whenever you eat this bread or drink this cup, remember me”. He didn’t say “if”, he said “when”.
That said, there are a wide variety of interpretations and experiences of communion within Christendom. My experience is closer to that of CS Lewis, who found it beneficial to take communion once a week if possible… not because taking it makes a person more ‘holy’ but because communion draws us closer to the most amazing expression of God’s love and grace and mercy.
For all of us – wherever we stand, and whatever our traditions are – we need to find ways to include people in God’s kingdom, not hinder them.
I probably have a much more simplistic view on communion than many…. I note that Jesus was sharing a meal with believers. It was a meal set apart from others because it was a special celebratory meal. To me therefore Communion in it’s current form (little cups of wine along with a loaf of bread passed around in church once a month) is a mere church tradition that often alienates non-Christians or seekers in the church setting because it sets them apart & makes them feel awkward & outcast. In this respect nothing about it demonstrates God’s commandment to love others and spread the good news. Whereas in the setting of a special celebratory meal with other believers it becomes part of the celebration for them & them alone without compulsion.
I look at Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” To me this adds context – communion like all things in “The Church” should not be a tradition that occurs once a month just because that is the way we do things. In my view it is a celebration when we figuratively eat of the bread & drink of the wine as part of a celebratory meal shared with other believers because “He is there in the midst of us” & we are there together sharing that special meal with fellow believers and we are to remember Him & what He has done to bring us there together. What a blessing that we can do this.
Why would the message of the New Testament be one of leaving behind the traditions and laws of the Old Testament Churches, only to add more traditions & laws in the New Testament Churches? We have a new and blessed freedom in Christ so my understanding is that we do not need to abide by traditions or laws to please him, we are set apart, we are saved, we are blessed and because of this we have a higher calling – “to spread the good news.” It is no longer about us, it is about Him, so all that we do should be to glorify Him & to share His love with others. I believe a formal & traditional approach to communion does not do this – because when something becomes a church tradition it steals the joy & the celebration and the true communion of our hearts with the Lord & with out fellow believers & it excludes others who may have come to church to learn of the Good News & this amazing freedom we have in Christ.
To me “church” in it’s self is about worshiping the Lord, speaking & sharing of His love for us, reading His word together & enjoying fellowship with other believers – there is no need for any tradition in order to do this. But then again I am not a particularly “traditional” person.
Just a few thoughts rambling through my head today.
Hi Nina! Welcome to the discussion.
I appreciate your thoughts and the gracious spirit behind them. Just a few random responses…
Communion is celebrated differently in various churches. In the early church it was restricted to believers only — the church actually had two separate (back-to-back) services, the first part for seekers and the second for baptized believers. Communion took part in the second half. And the early church shared from a single loaf of bread and most likely a single cup.
On the other hand, in the church I attend we have communion every Sunday, and we come forward and usually kneel to receive it. So there are lots of different traditions. I think the key thing is Jesus’ words, “remember me”. However we observe communion, the focus is on Him.
As for traditions – and you’re right, the New Testament is a new and different thing, in which the laws are fulfilled in Jesus – IMO traditions are meant to be good things, things that recall to mind what’s important, things we share in as part of our identity. Sort of like family traditions around holidays. They’re not laws but we observe them because they’re part of what makes us who we are.
Traditions should never be seen as unchangeable though – they should adjust as needs change. For example, if our family tradition is to serve ham on Christmas Eve, but someone in the family develops an allergy to pork, then the family tradition needs to change. And if church traditions around communion are leading people to take Jesus’ sacrifice lightly, then the traditions need to change, because it’s meant to be all about Him.
Just a long way of saying I think we’re both saying a lot of the same things. 😉
I haven’t read all of the comments so I don’t know if someone has mentioned this but the forth cup is actually not the Cup of Melchizedek, as you have referred it as. It is actually called the Cup of Restoration in which Christ did not drink of it with His disciples for obvious reasons. If you would like a great source about the Passover Seder with a Christian slant, then I would point toward this website: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Spring_Holidays/Pesach/Seder/Kadesh/kadesh.html
The numbers on the top starting at 1 ending at 14 represent the 14 parts of the Passover Seder meal. Hope that helps.
Virginia, I agree with all you have said. However, consider the fact that there were no tape or video recorders in his day and the notion that by the third or fourth cup of wine, speaking may be slurred and translation of word allegedly spoken almost two centuries ago and not written down until decades later could be open to debate. From Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to German, to English, who really cares what was said or not said? You are correct, a simple, common act at every meal I believe was the original intent.
I sat through a Mass last Sunday for the first time in decades and to be honest, I wanted to puke at the ridiculous dogma the faithful must suffer. A simple man with a simple message and look what we’ve done!!!
Simple as this. The origin of the eucharist was at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday-the day that jesus was betrayed. The next day Jesus was to be taken by Pontius Pilate and nailed to a cross. On that night he gave his disciples bread and wine telling them that it was his body and blood which would be given up for many to save us.
I am disappointed by the last two posts (Jan 13 and June 10), which seem to me to be saying “my way is the only right way to see things”.
As ancient texts go, the Bible is remarkably dependable. Many writings are eyewitness accounts, and their preservation through history is something many have given their lives for.
While I understand the impulse to disregard church history and defy the authority of ancient churches and their worship rites, I think we need to be careful (a) not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and (b) to be charitable to those who have been trained up in Christian traditions other than our own.
I am considering closing this seven-year-old thread to comments but I will hold it open under one condition:
To those who post on this thread in the future: demonstrate a well-researched, compassionate understanding of an opposing viewpoint before posting your own opinion.
Thank you.