Communion

contact writer

Questions for Discussion

1.  What food is used for communion and why?

2.  What reasons can be given for understanding Jesus’ words, “This is my body,” as figurative?

3.  What reasons can be given for having a communion service every Sunday?

4.  Why is communion not a sacrament?

5.  Who should partake of communion?

Several terms are used in the Bible to describe the communion service.  It is referred to as “the last supper” since it was the last meal that Jesus had with his disciples before his crucifixion.  It is referred to as “the Lord’s table” in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 10:21 ).  It is “the Lord’s Supper” in 1 Cor 11:20 .  It is “the breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42  and 20:7 .  (In Acts 2:42 it is the breaking of “the” bread, in Greek, which differentiates it from the breaking of bread in a common meal in verse 2:46 .)  It has been referred to as the “eucharist” because the word translated as “thanksgiving” in 1 Corinthians 11:24  is a form of that Greek word.  The word “communion” comes from the King James Version of 1 Corinthians 10:16 .  We will also consider whether it is proper to consider communion as a sacrament.

Jesus’ last meal with his disciples was a Passover meal.  Matthew, Mark and Luke all describe it as a Passover meal.  (Matthew 26:19 , Mark 14:16  and Luke 22:13 )  The menu for the Passover was roast lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread. (See Exodus 12:3-10 .)  It was also traditional to close the meal with a cup of wine.  (See Luke 22:14-18 .)  It is important to note this in Luke so that one does not get confused about the order of communion, the bread, followed by the cup.  It is also important to note that Luke makes a clear distinction between the Passover meal and the communion meal.  The Passover meal was first completed by the drinking of the cup and then it was followed by the instructions of Jesus for communion.

The communion service is a simple matter.  There is a prayer of blessing or thanksgiving for each of the things to be taken, the unleavened bread, followed by the cup.  The bread is unleavened since that is what Jesus used.  The cup is “fruit of the vine” because that is what is specified.  It is a matter of indifference whether the fruit of the vine is fresh or fermented (alcoholic).  Fermentation is a natural process and grape juice will naturally progress from juice to wine to vinegar unless the fermentation process is interrupted in some way.  Jesus probably used wine since that was customary during the Passover meal, but when the matter was recorded in scripture the word for wine was not used.  “Fruit of the vine” is what one finds specified in the word of God.  This differs from the bread since it was a matter of law that there was to be no leaven in Jewish homes beginning on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread when they celebrated the Passover.  There is no probability attached to the matter of the bread.  There is on the matter of the contents of the cup as to whether the juice was fresh or fermented.

There has been some confusion about the words of Jesus, “This is my body,” “This is my blood.”  In reading the account in Matthew 26:26-29  there are a couple of things to note.  First of all, with Jesus sitting before them, the disciples would not have been confused about the words.  They would not have taken them as literally meaning that the bread and juice had become the body and blood of Jesus since Jesus was physically present.  He did not become bread and juice, nor were there two Jesuses sitting at the meal.  Also, after saying that the cup was his blood, he referred to the juice as “fruit of the vine” in verse 29.  He did not change the juice to blood and back to juice during the meal.  The language is figurative meaning that the bread and cup are to remind the disciples of Jesus since he said, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

Communion is not a ritual in which the body and blood of Jesus are sacrificed again and again.  Hebrews 7:27  refers to the sacrifice of Jesus as “once for all.”  In this passage the writer contrasts the sacrifice of Jesus with the daily sacrifices of priests under the Law of Moses.  To make the sacrifice of Jesus a daily ritual is to ignore what was done for us at Golgotha on the cross.  By his death, Jesus ended the practice of offering sacrifices.  His death is the only atonement for our sins.  Jesus completed what was left undone by the daily and occasional sacrifices that had been offered from the beginning of time.  Communion is not taken for the forgiveness of sins, but in memory of the sacrifice that was offered for the forgiveness of our sins.  Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me,” (quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 11:24 and 26 ).

New Testament churches owned no buildings.  They had no altars, no sacred furniture, no pictures nor symbols of their religion.  There are later references (long after the New Testament was completed) to the use of a fish as a symbol outside their meeting places.  The fish was used because the letters, for fish, in Greek are an abbreviation for Jesus Christ of God.  Communion was not observed at an altar because no such thing existed among early Christian communities.  The altar came in after communion had been corrupted from a memorial feast to the sacrifice of the mass.  New Testament churches today do not feature an altar as a fixture in their church buildings.

After the resurrection of Jesus there is no record of disciples having communion other than on Sunday (the Lord’s Day, Rev 1:10 ).  There are three instances in which communion is placed in a first day of the week (Sunday) observance.  These are in Luke 24:13-31 , Acts 20:7  and 1 Corinthians 11:17 -34  when considered with 16:1-2 .

Luke 24 begins by telling us of the events that occurred on the day that Jesus was raised.  Two disciples were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus when Jesus joined them.  They were prevented from recognizing him as they walked, together, along the road.  Jesus talked with them about the scriptures that were fulfilled in the events that had recently transpired concerning him.  When they reached the village, Jesus was invited to come in with them.  “He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.  And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him.”  (Luke 24:30-31 )  The language parallels that used by Paul in describing communion in 1 Corinthians 11:24 and 29 .  This is the first occasion on which disciples participated in communion after the death of Jesus.  It was on Sunday, the day on which Jesus was raised.

The second passage to be considered is Acts 20:7 .  Paul was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem for Passover.  Yet he remained in Troas for seven days before resuming his journey.  Verse 7 tells us why he waited.  “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight .”  It is evident from this passage that the first day of the week was the meeting day for the church.  The purpose of that meeting is stated:  “We came together to break bread.”  Paul preached but they had not come together in order that Paul might preach to them.  They came together to break bread and Paul used that opportunity of a gathering of the disciples to speak to them.

In Acts 2:42  we are told what the 3,000 disciples who were baptized on the day of Pentecost devoted themselves to.  There are four things that were important to them as new followers of Christ:  the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers.  While “breaking of bread” might refer to a common meal it cannot in this context.  The breaking of bread here is something to which they devoted themselves after becoming disciples.  They had not spent their lives in fasting and suddenly began eating after being baptized.  They devoted themselves to a particular breaking of bread, that is, the breaking of the bread in memory of Jesus.

The third example in scripture for communion on Sunday comes from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians .  In chapter 16 there are instructions concerning a collection being taken.  In verse 2 we read, “On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.”

Some have argued that this refers to a private collection set aside at the home of each disciple.  Yet note, the instruction specifically says that the practice being advocated will eliminate the need for a collection when Paul arrives.  If the money were set aside at home it would still need to be collected with money from other families on Paul’s arrival.  The collection that Paul is advocating eliminates the need for any such collection.  Therefore, the collection would be taken as a part of a gathering of the disciples together.

In chapter 11, as Paul begins discussing the problems with communion in Corinth , he refers to the disciples coming together.  From chapter 16 we know that their meetings were on Sunday.  Therefore, what he says about communion concerns something they were doing on Sunday.

The Old Testament made the testimony of two or three witnesses sufficient to establish any matter.  There is the required number of witnesses to establish that communion in the New Testament church was on Sunday.  There is no record of communion, in the church, being on any other day.  Therefore, Sunday is the day, and the only day, on which the New Testament authorizes disciples to partake of communion.

There are several other important things to learn about communion from the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians.  Obviously, the Corinthians were wrong in the way that they were observing communion.  Apparently the emphasis was upon eating rather than upon Jesus.  It is in that context that Paul asks, “What!  Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?  Or do you despise the church of God , and shame those who have nothing?”

Churches in the first century did not own places in which to meet.  Some of them met in homes.  There were meetings of the Jerusalem church in the temple courtyard.  Paul met with the disciples in a school at Ephesus .  For the most part we do not know where there meetings took place, but we do know that they did not own buildings.  It was several hundred years before the practice of churches owning their own property began to be common.

It follows then that Paul is not forbidding them to eat in the church building.  In fact there is no command of Paul at all concerning the place in which to eat.  Further, if they were not allowed to eat in the place in which they met for worship, then churches would no longer have been allowed to meet in homes.  This is not the case as is evident from Romans 16 and other New Testament references.  Paul only asks a question.  Questions are not commands.  The problem at Corinth was a rupture in fellowship.  There was no sharing in what was supposed to be a sharing in the body and blood of Jesus.  (See 1 Cor 10:16 .)

Another matter of concern is Paul’s comment in verse 27, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.”  In the King James Version there is a reference to eating and drinking “unworthily.”  Without noting the difference between an adjective (referring to the person) and an adverb (referring to the action) there developed an understanding among some that one must be a worthy person in order to partake of communion.  It is the manner that Paul addresses, not the worthiness nor the unworthiness of the person.  What then followed was that some, after having a “bad week” would come to worship and not take communion because they did not feel worthy.  Communion is taken in order to remember Jesus.  It will often bring memories of our failures for which the blood of Jesus was shed.  It will also remind us of how God washes away our sins in the blood of Jesus so that we stand pure before his throne of grace in spite of what we might have done.  Forgiveness for a Christian is accomplished by the way set forth by John in 1 John 1:5-10

One more thing to note from the passage in 1 Corinthians is Paul’s comment in verse 28:  “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”  This affects the question of whether the church should practice “open” or “closed (close)” communion.  The examination as to whether one should or should not partake of communion is a private examination.  There is neither basis in this passage nor any other known to me that would authorize a church to pass judgment upon who may or may not participate in communion.  This does not mean that we should not answer questions from those who are not yet Christians about the appropriateness of their partaking.  It does mean that the final decision will be left in their hands.

Certainly the church must teach about communion.  That teaching will contain instruction as to the significance of communion.  Communion is taken in the fellowship of others who have the same beliefs.  Communion has no significance in a group of strangers who have no knowledge of one another.  There are numerous passages in the New Testament that emphasize the relationship that disciples must have with other disciples.  Disciples are to love one another, pray for one another, encourage one another, etc.  Communion is a common meal with those with whom we share a common faith in Jesus.  It is not only communion with Jesus it is communion with brothers and sisters in Christ.

Communion has no significance outside of a commitment that has been made to Jesus in baptism.  The Corinthians who were supposed to be sharing in the body and blood of Jesus had all been baptized by one Spirit into one body.  (1 Cor 12:13 )  Those who have not been scripturally baptized are outside of the fellowship of God’s people.  Their participation in communion cannot come out of a common faith, for they have not yet affirmed their faith in Jesus in the waters of baptism.  Yet they are not more lost because they partake of communion.  They are simply partaking out of an ignorance of the true nature of the communion meal.  We have a responsibility to teach all who would participate in communion.

Down through the years, communion has been used as a “control issue.”  Churches have set up strict guidelines and enforced them as a matter of “church law.”  It is important to note that it is “the Lord’s Supper” not the church’s supper.  It is the Lord who decides who may and who may not sup with him.  As Jesus invited the disciples to his last Passover meal, so Jesus invites his disciples to sup with him in communion.  He said, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”  (Matt 26:29 )  Paul taught the church at Colossae , “He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”  ( Col 1:13 )  Disciples are in the kingdom and it is with Jesus that we commune.  It is his table.  It is his memorial.  It is in remembrance of him, not of some man who would assume control over the people of God.  We are communing with Jesus.

With the rise of the clergy system, other changes were brought into the church to augment the power of the clergy.  Included among these was the sole right to administer communion.  Having assumed power over the communion service, all sorts of changes followed which are evident in religious groups today.  Among those powers are the supposed ability to change the bread and fruit of the vine into the literal body and blood of the Lord.  There is no special person in the New Testament who alone is invested with authority to pray over communion and then distribute it to other disciples.  It is a common meal and the only rules that apply are the ones that apply to any assembly of God’s people.  Those rules are generally found in 1 Timothy, chapter 2 , in a letter from an apostle to a preacher.

There is a passage in 1 Corinthians 11:29  that is sometimes used to prove that Jesus’ words, “This is my body… this is my blood” ought to be understood literally.  “For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly.”  It is argued that the body here refers to the body of Jesus.

The King James Version translates, “Discern the body.”  It is urged that the bread must therefore have been changed into the body of Jesus.

The problem with that line of interpretation is that no one (that I know of) would argue that when the bread and fruit of the vine are changed that they become the flesh and blood of Jesus.  No one argues that the outward form has changed.  The bread is still bread and the wine is still wine.  If then there is no outward change, one cannot literally see the body and blood of Jesus in communion.  It is still figurative.  And if it is still figurative, one figurative meaning will suit the context as well as another.  It is with the “mind’s eye” that one sees Jesus in communion.  That is equally true whether one believes in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or simply in a memorial commemorating the death of Jesus.  The passage cannot be used to prove transubstantiation.

Many churches refer to communion as a sacrament.  The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there are seven sacraments.  The Greek Church uses the word “mystery” instead of sacrament, but again they teach that there are seven.  Many Protestant churches teach that there are two sacraments, baptism and communion.  The Mormon Church teaches that there is one sacrament, communion.  However, they appear to use a different definition for sacrament than that being used by other churches.

The word sacrament comes from a Latin word.  According to one authority it signifies the military oath of enlistment.  According to another it signifies a deposit that is set aside by two parties to a dispute.  Neither of these definitions exactly corresponds to its religious usage.  This is no surprise since many of the Greek words used in the New Testament have entirely different meanings today than they had to the original authors of the New Testament.  Many practices have been changed from New Testament times, but the words have remained the same.  This is a matter of great concern for those who want to be disciples like Peter and Paul in the first century.  It is sometimes difficult to sift through all the contradictory data and arrive at the truth.  While it may be difficult, it is a necessary task that will result in obedience to God rather than to the teachings and doctrines of men.

In the Catholic Church a sacrament is a means of acquiring grace through participation in a ritual prescribed by the church.  The faith of the person administering the sacrament and the faith of the person receiving the sacrament are of no importance.  The sacrament is considered valid because church rituals are being observed.  This is made clear in the Decree of the Council of Trent, Canon 7.  Martin Luther  taught much the same thing about sacraments in the churches that came to be called Lutheran.

There are several things to be considered in deciding whether communion is a sacrament.  First of all there is the consideration of whether it is a sacrifice.  Second, there is the matter of a stated ritual for the observing of communion.  Third, there is the matter of whether forgiveness is granted through the observance of communion.

From the dawn of creation, people have been offering sacrifices to God.  Cain and Abel offered sacrifices.  Noah offered a sacrifice after the flood.  Abraham built altars and offered sacrifices in the land of Canaan .  The Law of Moses had elaborate rituals for offering all sorts of sacrifices.  Included in the instructions for the sacrifices were instructions for the altars to be built for those sacrifices.

Nothing comparable to these instructions is found in the New Testament for communion.  While there are references to a “table” there are no instructions for the construction of this table.  While the writer of Hebrews refers to “an altar, from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat,” (Heb 13:10 ) there are no detailed instructions for the construction of this altar.  The altar and the table in the tabernacle have detailed instructions for their construction.  If this “altar” is a reference to the place from which communion is served it is interesting that it is singular rather than plural.  Since communion was being observed in many different places in the New Testament there would have been many altars rather than one if the reference in Hebrews is a reference to the communion table.

What is even more certain is the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice.  According to the writer of Hebrews, Jesus sacrifice was a “once for all” sacrifice.  (Hebrews 7:27 )  Further, a sacrifice involved giving up something of personal value to God without receiving anything of physical value in return.  The animals offered as sacrifices were burned.  A small piece of bread and a sip of wine do not involve any hardship especially since these are not provided by the worshipper, but instead are given to the worshipper.  Communion is not a sacrifice it is a meal in remembrance of Jesus.

In the New Testament, communion is a simple meal observed by the early Christians in remembrance of what Jesus had done.  The meal was partaken in remembrance of him.  In communion one commemorates the favor received by God in baptism and in one’s daily walk with the Lord.  One is not forgiven because one takes communion.  Rather, one takes communion because of forgiveness that has already been received.