Thoughts on Communion

A friend of mine asked me to look into communion and answer for him what I thought the proper observance of it, specifically answering who should take it. So that’s what I’m going to do. We will begin with what biblestudytools says communion is:

It was designed:

1. To commemorate the death of Christ: "This do in remembrance of me."

2. To signify, seal, and apply to believers all the benefits of the new covenant. In this ordinance Christ ratifies his promises to his people, and they on their part solemnly consecrate themselves to him and to his entire service.

3. To be a badge of the Christian profession.

4. To indicate and to promote the communion of believers with Christ.

5. To represent the mutual communion of believers with each other.

The elements used to represent Christ's body and blood are bread and wine. The kind of bread, whether leavened or unleavened, is not specified. Christ used unleavened bread simply because it was at that moment on the paschal table. Wine, and no other liquid, is to be used ( Matthew 26:26-29 ). Believers "feed" on Christ's body and blood, (1) not with the mouth in any manner, but (2) by the soul alone, and (3) by faith, which is the mouth or hand of the soul. This they do (4) by the power of the Holy Ghost. This "feeding" on Christ, however, takes place not in the Lord's Supper alone, but whenever faith in him is exercised.

I am immediately struck with how the ritual of communion doesn't appear to succeed at its goals. It is experienced individually from pastor to supplicant and I've never heard anything said about the Holy Spirit being involved in the consumption of the offering or that this joining with Christ is experienced outside of communion as well.

Next we will read what each of the gospels has to say about the last supper and what Paul had to say about celebrating it during the early church period.

MARK 14

22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

I find verse 25 to be particularly interesting because it implies there is the drinking of wine in the spiritual world. Yeshua told Pilate that He was no threat to Roman rule because His kingdom was not of this earth, which would indicate that in verse 25 He is referring to drinking in the spirit realm. My assumption would be that Yeshua is using the drink as a metaphor for saying that he will receive no sustenance or cheer until he has passed from the natural world, but it could be legitimately taken literally as well, or taken to mean that He will next drink wine after the second coming, in which case it would imply that eventually the kingdom of God will be a joining of a heavenly kingdom with a physical kingdom, where spirits and natural things co-exist.

I also take note that this says Yeshua took bread as they were eating. This was something done in the middle of a meal, using items served in that meal and blessed in the moment. This was not a specially prepared ceremony nor was it conducted with specially reserved items. What I would conclude from this is that modern communion is so far from the circumstances of the original that the debate over whether the bread has to be unleavened and the wine has to be alcoholic is moot. If every other part of your ceremony is unliked the original event, I cannot see that it matters how closely the bread and wine match. I think you could conduct communion with iced tea and cheetos and it would still be proper, because all the power of the ceremony seems to come from symbolism, and not from the particulars.

MATTHEW 26

17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” 18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.

20 When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve.[a] 21 And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” 22 And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” 23 He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” 25 Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”

26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

So, with the more fleshed-out story we learn that Yeshua knew not only at the time of the last supper, but before He ever arrived that He would not live. He knew about it long before of course, but the note indicates He was publicly acknlowedging it. This means that the disciples knew it was to be the last supper before sitting down to it. I believe in properly commemorating an occasion, attention has to be given to whether it was a sad or happy one. I believe this one would definitely have been melancholy, and probably best thought of as how it felt the last day before knowing one would be separated from a loved one for an extended period of time.

From this I take that a proper communion should be a somber affair, where equal attention is paid to the death of Yeshua as is paid to the joining with Christ.

LUKE 22

7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus[a] sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” 9 They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters 11 and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” 13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it[b] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[c] 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” 23 And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this

The most significant thing here is, I think, that Yeshua specifically speaks of this being a remembrance. He says the bread is his body and to remember him when eating it. This does not sound like the declarative "this is my body" that transubstantiation relies on. I believe the use of remembrance is an indication that the bread is to remind you of his person when you it, while the wines to remind you of the sacrifice He made to establish the new covenant. This appears to be a direct statement from Yeshua that His death is to be taken as ending the old covenant of the Law, which He had said He had come to fulfill, and that the shedding of His blood symbolizes the new covenant where faith replaces works.

If this is the case, then we can say that each who ate at the last supper was a Christian as we would think of it now, one who accepted that covenant and placed faith in Christ as the true pathway for humans to reach God forever after under the new covenant.

I notice when He gives them the cup in this gospel He tells them it is the covenent in his blood they are drinking. He does not say that it is His blood they are drinking, He says it is the covenant. The wine becomes the covenant here, it does not become His blood. I believe this is strong evidence against transubstantiation as well.

JOHN 13:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, 4 rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. 5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” 8 Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” 9 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet,[a] but is completely clean. And you[b] are clean, but not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”

12 When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant[c] is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. 18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled,[d] ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ 19 I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”

The message of John here is completely different. John and Matthew would both have been at the supper themselves, while Mark relied on Peter and Luke relied on any number of sources, including possibly John and/or Matthew. So John is one of the ones who was at the supper, and his recollection of it was more about the actions of Yeshua and the admonition against pride and to remain a brotherhood than about His breaking of bread and sharing of wine and what He said about it.

We have Matthew, who was there, emphasizing Yeshua's supper speech, while John, also there, emphasizes both the benefits and the fragility of fellowship. If Yeshua was using this final night to instill in His disciples what was important, we see two things that His disciples took away from the occasion. We can also put the accounts together to reveal a fuller picture of what exactly was going on both before and after the meal as well as during.

Next we have an account of how Paul thought of the commemoration of the last supper, but at this point we have read a definition of communion and have read the relevant parts of all the gospels. I believe I can offer some ideas at this point, and then conclude later with any differences the words of Paul made.

I believe we should think of communion as a ritual to commemorate the last supper. Additional information has only served to strengthen my suspicion that differences between modern communion and the last supper are too great for it to be considered a re-enactment. This conclusion leads me to a few inferences.

One is, as I suspected before, that transubstantiation is not supported by scripture. I believe the doctrine was arrived at by taking "this is my body" and "this is my blood" out of verses and losing the context. I believe the context of the body was the Body of Christ as the church, and the context of the wine was the new covenant, in particular salvation by faith.

Another is, having read all the gospels, that it appears to me the emphasis was on all sharing in the body of Christ and in the victory of Christ over death. I did not get any sense of a one-to-one connection between Yeshua and any single disciple being the point of what was going on, and I believe this is emphasized by the foot washing in John. I believe the meal was the final establishment of the new covenant - a body of believers who are united in walking the path of Christ and who are united in being made children of God through the blood of Christ, which was the sacrifice sealing the new covenant. I believe we see here the meaning encapsulated in the famous John 3:16 verse. We see that God, the Triune God, so loved its creation that it redeemed that creation from the corruption of sin by sacrificing itself. I believe that much of the power of that day is lost in the modern celebration of communion. I see the significance and power that communion could have being far greater than it has in the ways it is currently celebrated.

I believe that as marriage symbolizes the relationship of Christ to the church, it follows that fathers should be able to administer communion to all within their family. I believe a family could indeed make every dinner into communion.

In the end, I conclude that communion per se shouldn't be celebrated at all. It is a small section taken out of the larger celebration of The Lord's Supper and I believe it cheapens the event to only celebrate a slice of it. I believe communion and the Lord's Supper ought to be synonymous and that should be celebrated rather than what we currently do with communion. In the context of the Lord's Supper I believe it should be unleavened bread and wine, not leavened bread, special wafers, or grape juice.

As for who is to be invited to take communion, I would say that communion is about being in the body of Christ and being saved, so I see two obvious answers. First, any Christian. Having studied the gospels, I believe the current practice of restricting communion to members of a particular church or denomination is wrong. By not taking communion with them, I believe the message is being sent that the other is not saved. The second answer that occurs to me is the answer to the question of who Yeshua wanted to be in His body and saved by His blood, and the answer to that is everyone. Under this logic, anyone should be invited to communion.

I believe the Lord's Supper better expresses what communion is about than what modern communion does. Now we will go on to what Paul has to say about early Christians celebrating communion and see if it changes my mind.

1 CORINTHIANS 11

20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for[f] you. Do this in remembrance of me.”[g] 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[h] 31 But if we judged[i] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[j] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brothers,[k] when you come together to eat, wait for[l] one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment.

This answers the question of which way to go with who is invited. It was the first option, only Christians are invited. But all Christians -- I say Paul's writing confirms what I surmised, that doctrinal differences beyond mere faith in the death and resurrection of Yeshua should not prevent people from taking communion together. The body of Christ encompasses many different Christians.

It also shows us an example of communion closer to the Lord's Supper, further confirming my inkling that modern communion rituals weren't firing on all cylinders. The example shows that communion is taken as part of a meal, and that this meal should be communally shared. Paul also admonishes the people of Corinth which further supports my contention that communion is a serious thing which should be approached with reverence.