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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.