Communion

[Prosperity]

I would like to start a polite discourse about communion. Specifically, I believe that the Bible is clear that we should be taking communion with real wine and leavened bread.

Comments are welcome.

 

[Christina M]

My daughter was once divinely & instantly healed when we took communion with Triscuits and kool-aid.

 

[Glenda]

I believe that the reason we take Communion is the important thing..

 

[Father Rick]

I would like to start a polite discourse about communion. Specifically, I believe that the Bible is clear that we should be taking communion with real wine and leavened bread.

Comments are welcome.

Hmmm...

I understand the wine, but wonder why you believe it should specifically be leavened bread.

 

[FireOfGod]

At church we take communion with Motzo cracker things and white grape juice. Works all the same, really. At home it's wine and bread.

Wish I got to have a cup of wine during the service like Father Rick.

 

[Prosperity]

Because He has risen. No joke!

I've heard a great teaching on this issue. I'm still looking for it. Until I find it, I offer the following.

The Greek word for "leaven" is zume

The Greek for what we read as "unleavened bread" is azumos which is translated more properly as "unleavened" with out the word "bread."

When an author wishes to be specific about the type of "bread" in any incident, he uses azumos. That is, the emphasis is on "unleavened", and not on bread, e.g., I Corinthians 5:8.

The "bread" used at the Last Supper is the more generic Greek artos Hebrew lechem. In fact, Psalm 41:9 which describes a normal meal is used as a prophecy of this supper.

The conclusion drawn from these scriptures is that the last Supper was just that, a normal meal served with leavened bread.

 

[Prosperity]

When considering communion, I had to ask myself the following:

Did Jesus sin when he drank wine? (No!)

Am I ashamed ashamed of how Jesus drank wine? (No!)


Am I to believe that Jesus was saying drinking communion wine was OK for Him and his disciples but not for us? (No!)



Was grape juice available? (Yes!)



Did Jesus know what he was doing when he drank and gave wine to others to drink? (Yes!)



Do we do communion that way Jesus said to do it or do we do in a way that pleases men? (I say we should do it just as Jesus said to do it.)

So now I ask:

Why do we take communion?
How do we do communion?
How often do we do communion?
What do we get out of taking communion?

 

[Father Rick]

Because He has risen. No joke!

I've heard a great teaching on this issue. I'm still looking for it. Until I find it, I offer the following.

The Greek word for "leaven" is zume

The Greek for what we read as "unleavened bread" is azumos which is translated more properly as "unleavened" with out the word "bread."

When an author wishes to be specific about the type of "bread" in any incident, he uses azumos. That is, the emphasis is on "unleavened", and not on bread, e.g., I Corinthians 5:8.

The "bread" used at the Last Supper is the more generic Greek artos Hebrew lechem. In fact, Psalm 41:9 which describes a normal meal is used as a prophecy of this supper.

The conclusion drawn from these scriptures is that the last Supper was just that, a normal meal served with leavened bread.

You seem to be skipping over the fact that the Last Supper was a Passover meal-- which would automatically mean unleavened bread. Additionally, since leaven was seen as a symbol of sin, unleavened bread would represent His sinlessness.

BTW... while my jurisdiction allows either leavened or unleavened bread, unleavened is the most commonly used.

 

[Prosperity]

You seem to be skipping over the fact that the Last Supper was a Passover meal-- which would automatically mean unleavened bread. Additionally, since leaven was seen as a symbol of sin, unleavened bread would represent His sinlessness.

BTW... while my jurisdiction allows either leavened or unleavened bread, unleavened is the most commonly used.

A little leaven leavens a whole lump is much like one rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel. It doesn't mean that apples are bad. These analogies simply point out that sin, like active bacteria, does not stay static, rather it continues to spread its pollution much like diseases spread in the human body.

Unleavened bread can also be equated with a lack of life, which was the state of man after Adam sinned and before Jesus shed blood became available to us. Under the New Covenant God does not pass over our sin, rather Jesus' blood removes it. This is what makes the risen Christ's life available to us. Representative is this risen life filled bread of Christ's body rather than the lifeless spirit of man prior to the shedding of Jesus' blood.

I also think that what is really missed about communion is that Jesus said that this is my body (bread) and my blood (wine). He stated this very literally. I personally believe that the spiritual essence of Jesus blood and body are ushered into us by eating the bread and drinking the wine. In other words the bread and wine contain the actual body and blood of Jesus, even though we can't physically discern this. If we could see into the spiritual world we would see the reality of this. I believe that communion is one of the most powerful spiritual acts that we can perform and can render tremendous benefits.

I further believe that to drink the cup unworthily simply means that if we take communion without discerning the benefits that the body and blood of Jesus make available to us, then we are taking communion unworthily. Some believe that you shouldn't take communion if you have sin in your life. I say that if you can get the sin out of our life without the blood of Jesus, then you don't need to take communion.

Comments are welcome.

 

[godson777]

The point of communion is not really in WHAT we are eating, but in WHY we eat it. I do not think that one's communion becomes void in God's eyes if one's bread was leavened or unleavened, or if it was grape juice or wine. The physical substance is not the point. What it represents (his broken body for out healing and His shed blood for our redemtion) is what matters. It is legalism to suggest that one must eat unleavened bread or wine, otherwise your communion is declared void. I have nothing against wine personally, I just don't like the taste. And whether it is leavened or unleaved bread, who cares? Probably best to get something bready, but otherwise, eat and drink whatever, but do it in rememberance of Christ and what He has done for us. There is freedom in Christ.

 

[Prosperity]

The point of communion is not really in WHAT we are eating, but in WHY we eat it. I do not think that one's communion becomes void in God's eyes if one's bread was leavened or unleavened, or if it was grape juice or wine. The physical substance is not the point. What it represents (his broken body for out healing and His shed blood for our redemtion) is what matters. It is legalism to suggest that one must eat unleavened bread or wine, otherwise your communion is declared void. I have nothing against wine personally, I just don't like the taste. And whether it is leavened or unleaved bread, who cares? Probably best to get something bready, but otherwise, eat and drink whatever, but do it in rememberance of Christ and what He has done for us. There is freedom in Christ.

It seems that you are saying that Jesus' example of communion is not really important. No offence intended, but I just don't see where you hold any value to any area of Jesus' example in the area of communion. Conversely, you think it legalistic to try to obtain the full meaning of communion. Jesus could have chosen any elements he wished, but he chose wine and bread (presumably leavened). Did Jesus know what he was doing or not?

Consider the power of communion when combined with sound doctrine, fellowship and prayer.


Acts 2:41-43 KJV

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

 

[godson777]

It seems that you are saying that Jesus' example of communion is not really important.

Not at all. There is symbolic representation in the wine and unleavened bread, but that doesn't mean you must have red wine and you must have unleavened bread or your communion is in vain. That's fleshly and legalistic. We have a God who looks at the heart, and whilst I think it is good remain as close as possible to what Jesus said, I do not think that the power of communion lies in the physical substance that is eating. The power of communion is released by the faith of the one taking it, in Jesus and what the food represents. So I am not saying at all that Jesus' example of communion is not important, I think it is very important and that's fine and good if you choose to drink wine and eat unleavened bread. I just don't believe one's communion becomes void if the physical substance entering their body is not the exact same as what happened on the first communion. If you get caught up in that, you are missing the point.

No offence intended, but I just don't see where you hold any value to any area of Jesus' example in the area of communion.

No offense intended, but I just think you are exaggerating and attempting to twist what I am saying to make your argument seem the better.

I believe we should take communion regularly and in rememberance of Jesus and what He has purchased for us. I think it is good to stay close to what Jesus actually ate himslef, but the power is not in the food, but in the one who the food represents and in the faith of the one who is eating. Whether its grape fruit or wine or leavened or unleaved is largely irrelevant. It is impossible for a little bit of yeast in someone's bread roll to make void their faith in Jesus and their taking of communion. That is legalistic bondage. It is good to stick closely to what Jesus ate, but it is not essential.

Conversely, you think it legalistic to try to obtain the full meaning of communion.

Not at all. I just don't think that the full meaning of communion is achieved by sticking to a particular type of bread or grape drink. That's not where the full meaning of communion lies. The full meaning of communion lies in Jesus and particular types of drink or food are largely irrelevant.

Jesus could have chosen any elements he wished, but he chose wine and bread (presumably leavened). Did Jesus know what he was doing or not?

Jesus was having the passover feast with His disciples. They were required to eat unleavened bread and wine was a common drink for those days. What Jesus ate was based largely on the culture of His day and on obedience to the Law of Moses which He was still in the process of fulfilling, but has now been abolished. Jesus could've eaten anything. The power is not in the food, but in what it represents. As long as your grape juice and cracker represents the blood and flesh of Jesus to you, that's all that matters.

Consider the power of communion when combined with sound doctrine, fellowship and prayer.

Communion is a great 'experience' or 'ceremony' (I am trying, but I can't seem to find a more appropriate word - sorry) and there is great power in it. I loved the story of Christina M's daughter who got miraculously healed even though she was eating Triscuits and Kool-aid. The power is not in the food, but in what the food represents. If you want to drink wine and eat unleavened bread for your communion then go for it! That's great! But it is legalism and it is missing the point to say that one's communion is made void if the food they are eating isn't quite right and their comunion has been cancelled. Sounds like we're getting back under bondage to the Law again. We've died to the Law, so let's live in the freedom with which Christ has set us free! (Gal 3)

 

[Prosperity]

Not at all. There is symbolic representation in the wine and unleavened bread, but that doesn't mean you must have red wine and you must have unleavened bread or your communion is in vain. That's fleshly and legalistic. We have a God who looks at the heart, and whilst I think it is good remain as close as possible to what Jesus said, I do not think that the power of communion lies in the physical substance that is eating.

Then what did Jesus, or even one of the disciple say, just take communion any way that you choose?

The power of communion is released by the faith of the one taking it,...

I agree. The power of prayer is also released by faith, but I don't pray in the name of Fred. I don't think I would get the same results praying in the name of Fred.

...in Jesus and what the food represents.

Perhaps the bread and wine is more than what it represents. Perhaps it is the spiritual content of the wine and bread, when done correctly and in faith, that is significant.

So I am not saying at all that Jesus' example of communion is not important,...

If the example is impotent, then why wouldn't we want to do it Jesus' way?

...void if the physical substance

????

...is not the exact same as what happened on the first communion.

Why isn't it the same?

If you get caught up in that, you are missing the point.

I think I'm on point.

...you are exaggerating and attempting to twist what I am saying to make your argument seem the better.

No offense intended, but I never try to twist another's words, nor am I arguing with you. I'm simply putting out information, forming opinions and responding to your comments.

I believe we should take communion regularly and in remembrance of Jesus and what He has purchased for us.

Agreed.

I think it is good to stay close to what Jesus actually ate himself, but the power is not in the food, but in the one who the food represents and in the faith of the one who is eating.

Maybe that you are more likely to receive that power if you do it Jesus' way.

Whether its grape fruit or wine or leavened or unleavened is largely irrelevant.

Then why didn't Jesus say it is irrelevant.

It is impossible for a little bit of yeast in someone's bread roll to make void their faith in Jesus and their taking of communion.

I never said it voided anything, however putting you confidence (faith) in the wrong thing or exercising your faith in the wrong way may not produce the same results as doing it Jesus' way.

That is legalistic bondage. It is good to stick closely to what Jesus ate, but it is not essential.

I think it is much the same thing as praying in the name of Jesus. Jesus said to pray in His name and to take communion in a certain way. You can do it any want you want but you may not get the same results as you would if you had done it Jesus' way.

Not at all. I just don't think that the full meaning of communion is achieved by sticking to a particular type of bread or grape drink. That's not where the full meaning of communion lies. The full meaning of communion lies in Jesus and particular types of drink or food are largely irrelevant.

Doing communion Jesus way is part of communion and must have relevant meaning or Jesus would have performed a relevant act in an irrelevant way.

Jesus was having the Passover feast with His disciples. They were required to eat unleavened bread and wine was a common drink for those days.

Jesus could have used anything for the communion elements, but he chosen bread and wine.

What Jesus ate was based largely on the culture of His day and on obedience to the Law of Moses which He was still in the process of fulfilling, but has now been abolished. Jesus could've eaten anything.

If this act was to be abolished, along with the rest of legalistic ceremony, then why did Jesus say to do it often?

The power is not in the food, but in what it represents.

The power could well be in the bread and wine much as God's spirit is in you body. Your body isn't the source, but is in the location.

As long as your grape juice and cracker represents the blood and flesh of Jesus to you, that's all that matters.

Jesus didn't say that the bread and wine simply represented His body and blood, He said they were His body and blood. The only way that this could be true is if His statement were made in the same context as when the Bible states that man is a spirit. Your physical body is not a spirit but the real you, which is your spirit, emanates from God and cohabitates the same space as your physical body until your body dies. In this way, perhaps the body and blood of Jesus, which exists in the spiritual world, emanates from God while cohabitating in the same space as the bread and wine until it is released by your faith through your obedience to Jesus eating it as Jesus instructed. Perhaps when you bless the bread and wine, in the Name of Jesus, it charges the elements with His body and blood is a spiritual sense as you are a spirit. Is this the reason that we should bless the elements. Consider the following scriptures:


Matthew 26:26-28
19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-25
22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Communion is a great 'experience' or 'ceremony' (I am trying, but I can't seem to find a more appropriate word - sorry) and there is great power in it. I loved the story of Christina M's daughter who got miraculously healed even though she was eating Triscuits and Kool-aid.

There are people who receive from God, even when they have prayed erroneously because of their level of maturity in Jesus and God is a merciful God. This does not mean that we will continue to receive if we refuse to grow in Him and be obedient to his instructions. Milk serves babies well, but don't try to survive on it as an adult.

The power is not in the food, but in what the food represents. If you want to drink wine and eat unleavened bread for your communion then go for it! That's great! But it is legalism and it is missing the point to say that one's communion is made void if the food they are eating isn't quite right and their communion has been cancelled. Sounds like we're getting back under bondage to the Law again. We've died to the Law, so let's live in the freedom with which Christ has set us free! (Gal 3)

You appear to be saying that Jesus was telling us to continue to practice the law when He told us to take communion often. I don't think communion is legalism, nor do I believe that doing it the way that Jesus gave us example to take it is legalism. I think, to most, it is simply a ceremonial or religious observance. To me, it is actually receiving the body and blood of Jesus. You are free to either take communion or not, just like you are free to pray in the name of Jesus or not. Freedom does not free us from our responsibility to seek God's specific will in our lives.

Comments are welcome.

 

[PastorJoey]

I would like to start a polite discourse about communion. Specifically, I believe that the Bible is clear that we should be taking communion with real wine and leavened bread.

Comments are welcome.

I dont think that it really makes any difference if you take it with Donuts and milk. Use what you got on hand.
PJ

 

[Adammi]

Unleavened bread and wine and/grape juice. Jesus used unleavened bread, if he was using leavened bread then he wouldn't have been celebrating passover., and if he wasn't celebrating passover then there wouldn't have even been a point to it.

 

[Prosperity]

I dont think that it really makes any difference if you take it with Donuts and milk. Use what you got on hand. PJ

You are certainly entitled to you opinion, however I don't think it lines up with the Word.

 

[Adammi]

You are certainly entitled to you opinion, however I don't think it lines up with the Word.

I think it should line up with the word too, that's why I say unleavened bread.

 

[Prosperity]

Unleavened bread and wine and/grape juice. Jesus used unleavened bread, if he was using leavened bread then he wouldn't have been celebrating passover., and if he wasn't celebrating passover then there wouldn't have even been a point to it.

Or mabe Jesus was celebrating passover in a new was as He was now to be the passover Lamb. He was the lamb that would die and then rise again.

The Greek word for "leaven" is zume

The Greek for what we read as "unleavened bread" is azumos which is translated more properly as "unleavened" with out the word "bread."

When an author wishes to be specific about the type of "bread" in any incident, he uses azumos. That is, the emphasis is on "unleavened", and not on bread, e.g., I Corinthians 5:8.

The "bread" used at the Last Supper is the more generic Greek artos Hebrew lechem. In fact, Psalm 41:9 which describes a normal meal is used as a prophecy of this supper.

The conclusion drawn from these scriptures is that the last Supper was just that, a normal meal served with leavened bread.

 

[Tenebrae]

I believe that the reason we take Communion is the important thing..

IMO, I think thats the important thing, remebering why we do it...

 

[Adammi]

[BIBLE]Matthew 26:2[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Matthew 26:17[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Matthew 26:18[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Mark 14:1[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Mark 14:12[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Mark 14:14[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Mark 14:16[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Luke 22:1[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Luke 22:7[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Luke 22:8[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Luke 22:11[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Luke 22:13[/BIBLE]
Need I say more?