Lords supper, does it have to be bread and wine?

[zoidar]

It is Passover. To keep it properly you need to keep Passover from a Christian perspective. And yes it is unleavened. And yes the wine is alcoholic but was often mixed with water to about 2-3% alcohol. A sip of that is not getting anyone drunk.

Often mixed with water? Since when? Not that I see any problem with that. Just wondering.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There is also water in the eucharist. Where does that idea come from? Jesus said nothing of water in the wine. As far as I know it's not mentioned in the NT.

Is it possible to use like less wine and more water? Would that do?

In our tradition we do not add water, in the Catholic tradition they do. The addition of water does not negate the fact that there is wine; however the water symbolizes the 5th wound that Christ suffered on the Cross, the spear piercing His side, and the mixture of blood and water that came from that final wound.

Scripture does not mention the addition of water to the wine, so we do not do it; but it in no way would invalidate the eucharist.

Likewise some Churches use white wine instead of red; some would say that red must be used because of the symbolism. Scripture does not specify (as as Sacristan, it would make cleaning the purificators and other linens much easier if we were to use white).

The west uses unleavened bread because of the association with the Passover Meal; the East uses leavened bread to symbolize the new life in Christ; bread is bread also, the presence or absence of yeast cells/CO2 in the bread does not matter either. Actual bread and actual wine does.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Eastern Orthodox bread for Communion and antidoron (instead of the Gifts)

 

[Albion]

Didn't the Eucharist come out of the Jewish Seder meal?

Of course. So that's another reason why if someone today, officiating at a Communion service, were to turn it into some other kind of meal than what Jesus intended, that it would be invalid. It would, in other words, be something else, not the sacrament.

 

[Strong in Him]

It needs to be done correctly or not at all. It is a portrayal of Christ's sacrifice....

It wasn't at the time; it was a final meal for Jesus with his friends.

Of course it was hugely symbolic - Jesus, the Passover Lamb, was killed on the day that the Passover lambs were slaughtered. He was also the Lamb of God, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19, the Good Shepherd who lay down his life for the sheep, John 10:11 and the true vine, John 15:1.
But it was a Passover meal, not a service with a small piece of bread and a drop of wine/juice. And Jesus said "do THIS is memory of me" - when you have a Passover meal remember, not that you were rescued from slavery in Egypt, but that I have given my body and blood for your sins and rescued you from slavery to sin.

anything with leaven in it portrays sin and Christ had no sin. ... etc.
It has it's basis in the Passover Meal.

So if we're going to do it "properly", we too should have a meal - not a bit of bread/wafer and thimbleful of wine/juice in the middle of a service.

The first-century congregation of Corinth did not understand the significance of the Passover. They observed it “in an unworthy manner,” not “discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Corinthians 11:27-29); they did not comprehend its real meaning.

They were not respecting, or looking out for each other.
That is why Paul was annoyed with them - some got to the meal early and started eating straight away, without waiting for anyone else, 1 Corinthians 11:21. Some indulged so much they got drunk from drinking too much wine, while others went hungry, 1 Corinthians 11:21. He said that the people who had nothing were being humiliated by those who ate and drank what they wanted, 1 Corinthians 11:22.
He did not say anything about them not understanding the Jewish Passover.
Just like in the rest of the letter, the Corinthians were behaving in a divisive manner - in chapter 3 they boasted that they followed different leaders, in chapters 12+14 some of them boasted that they had "better" gifts of the Spirit.

 

[Strong in Him]

What do you think? I heard that some guys used coke and cookies, when they were out camping.

My belief is that:
a) another word for Communion is "fellowship"; we are in fellowship with the Lord Jesus all the time if we are born again and live in him.
b) Jesus was sharing a meal with his friends - the Passover meal, in which every element represented something about their time in slavery in Egypt and how they were rescued.
c) We can eat any meal and remember the Lord Jesus who gave his life so that he can be with us and in us. It might not be what the church would call "communion"; but that doesn't detract from the fact that God can still be with us, bless us and send his Spirit.
d) I don't, personally, see that a church service where people file up to the front to receive a tiny bit of bread and wine is any more, or less, "Communion" than believers sitting in a Bible study group, thinking about Jesus's death, eating and drinking tea and snacks.
e) the idea that an ordained person has to "preside", read the account of the last supper and correct liturgical words, is not Scriptural. The early church broke bread daily - we are not told that they had to wait for an apostle to lead them, nor that an apostle even had to be present. The only account in Scripture of a church celebrating the Lord's supper is in 1 Corinthians 11. Again, this was a meal; there is no mention of any special liturgy, that an apostle had to preside, and they ate more than just bread and wine/juice.

I say this as someone who still loves communion services.
Even though I haven't taken part in one for over 18 months, I don't feel hard done by, spiritually bereft nor that God hasn't been with me during that time - quite the opposite.

 

[Strong in Him]

It is not a case of "Must" but "Should". A person who is not ordained does not have the authority of the Church, and therfore Christ to do so.

Christ gave all his followers authority.
He also told all his followers to "do this in memory of me" - he said nothing about waiting for a member of the clergy to be present first.

 

[Albion]

Christ gave all his followers authority.
He also told all his followers to "do this in memory of me" - he said nothing about waiting for a member of the clergy to be present first.

Actually, he only told the Apostles to do this "in memory of me," and they are universally considered to be the first clergy of the church that Christ founded, and that they then commissioned others to carry on and expand the work of the church. This is recorded in the New Testament.

 

[Strong in Him]

Actually, he only told the Apostles to do this "in memory of me," and they are universally considered to be the first clergy of the church that Christ founded, and that they then commissioned others to carry on and expand the work of the church. This is recorded in the New Testament.

But neither they, nor Jesus, said that only "apostles", or those specially commissioned, can preside at this meal, which we have now turned into a special service where people receive only bread/a wafer and a drop of wine/juice.
If people want to celebrate this as the last supper was celebrated, it should be a meal, with lamb. In fact, if people want to celebrate it as OT Jews celebrated the Passover, they should clean their houses for a week to get rid of all traces of yeast and make sure that any bread eaten has no yeast.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

But neither they, nor Jesus, said that only "apostles", or those specially commissioned, can preside at this meal, which we have now turned into a special service where people receive only bread/a wafer and a drop of wine/juice.
If people want to celebrate this as the last supper was celebrated, it should be a meal, with lamb. In fact, if people want to celebrate it as OT Jews celebrated the Passover, they should clean their houses for a week to get rid of all traces of yeast and make sure that any bread eaten has no yeast.

The Greek word for bread in the passages is artos not azymos, which indicates that bread was leavened.
Matt 26:26
Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

This is a good point.

It wasn't at the time; it was a final meal for Jesus with his friends.

Of course it was hugely symbolic - Jesus, the Passover Lamb, was killed on the day that the Passover lambs were slaughtered. He was also the Lamb of God, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19, the Good Shepherd who lay down his life for the sheep, John 10:11 and the true vine, John 15:1.
But it was a Passover meal, not a service with a small piece of bread and a drop of wine/juice. And Jesus said "do THIS is memory of me" - when you have a Passover meal remember, not that you were rescued from slavery in Egypt, but that I have given my body and blood for your sins and rescued you from slavery to sin.



So if we're going to do it "properly", we too should have a meal - not a bit of bread/wafer and thimbleful of wine/juice in the middle of a service.



They were not respecting, or looking out for each other.
That is why Paul was annoyed with them - some got to the meal early and started eating straight away, without waiting for anyone else, 1 Corinthians 11:21. Some indulged so much they got drunk from drinking too much wine, while others went hungry, 1 Corinthians 11:21. He said that the people who had nothing were being humiliated by those who ate and drank what they wanted, 1 Corinthians 11:22.
He did not say anything about them not understanding the Jewish Passover.
Just like in the rest of the letter, the Corinthians were behaving in a divisive manner - in chapter 3 they boasted that they followed different leaders, in chapters 12+14 some of them boasted that they had "better" gifts of the Spirit.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Personally speaking, I wish we kept the purification and liturgical laws of the OT as they point to and inform us about Jesus. I understand that we ought not to keep them as covenant, but to not keep them at all seems to deprive us (or maybe it's just me) of some much needed spiritual context. I would rejoice to be 'Jewish' in practice, bc I would recognize it as a connection to Jesus (doing as he did, as Father of my house and Lord of my life)

But neither they, nor Jesus, said that only "apostles", or those specially commissioned, can preside at this meal, which we have now turned into a special service where people receive only bread/a wafer and a drop of wine/juice.
If people want to celebrate this as the last supper was celebrated, it should be a meal, with lamb. In fact, if people want to celebrate it as OT Jews celebrated the Passover, they should clean their houses for a week to get rid of all traces of yeast and make sure that any bread eaten has no yeast.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Why does the West use unleaven?

The Greek word for bread in the passages is artos not azymos, which indicates that bread was leavened.
Matt 26:26
Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον

 

[Albion]

But neither they, nor Jesus, said that only "apostles", or those specially commissioned, can preside at this meal, which we have now turned into a special service where people receive only bread/a wafer and a drop of wine/juice.

True, but are we at liberty to say that whatever Christ did NOT specify is ours to innovate? I don't think so, and the commission given to the Apostles at the Last Supper (and also at other times) amounts to making them the first ministers of the church.

We also know from Scripture that it was they who decided organizational matters like the naming of Matthias to replace Judas and that they commissioned others to continue their own work of leading the churches. It's pretty solidly outlined in the NT, much moreso than a rationalization that says "He didn't expressly exclude anyone, so we can take it that he meant 'everyone is included!'"

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Why does the West use unleaven?

Not sure why the west ended up using unleavened bread. It is a minor theological point in the Great Schism.

 

[RDKirk]

Often mixed with water? Since when? Not that I see any problem with that. Just wondering.

For one, Justin Martyr, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that they cut their communion wine with water.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

For one, Justin Martyr, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that they cut their communion wine with water.

Regardless, it is still wine that has been consecrated. When intinction is used the bread is dipped in the wine, and both are consumed, the bread with a small amount of wine. The person has received the body and blood of our Lord. If I am assisting and Pastor and I consume the remaining consecrated wine in the chalice, and we each happen to get 3 or 4 oz, the person who communed via intinction received the same as Pastor and I did.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

My belief is that:
a) another word for Communion is "fellowship"; we are in fellowship with the Lord Jesus all the time if we are born again and live in him.
b) Jesus was sharing a meal with his friends - the Passover meal, in which every element represented something about their time in slavery in Egypt and how they were rescued.
c) We can eat any meal and remember the Lord Jesus who gave his life so that he can be with us and in us. It might not be what the church would call "communion"; but that doesn't detract from the fact that God can still be with us, bless us and send his Spirit.
d) I don't, personally, see that a church service where people file up to the front to receive a tiny bit of bread and wine is any more, or less, "Communion" than believers sitting in a Bible study group, thinking about Jesus's death, eating and drinking tea and snacks.
e) the idea that an ordained person has to "preside", read the account of the last supper and correct liturgical words, is not Scriptural. The early church broke bread daily - we are not told that they had to wait for an apostle to lead them, nor that an apostle even had to be present. The only account in Scripture of a church celebrating the Lord's supper is in 1 Corinthians 11. Again, this was a meal; there is no mention of any special liturgy, that an apostle had to preside, and they ate more than just bread and wine/juice.

I say this as someone who still loves communion services.
Even though I haven't taken part in one for over 18 months, I don't feel hard done by, spiritually bereft nor that God hasn't been with me during that time - quite the opposite.

I am fairly certain that you likely don't accept the very real presence of the body and blood, but only treat this as a commemoration rather than a sacrament. Purely symbolic with no efficacy what so ever?

 

[RDKirk]

Regardless, it is still wine that has been consecrated.

Sure. I didn't imply anything else. It's still from the fruit of the vine.

The question was about where there was any evidence that they cut their wine.

In fact, cutting the wine with water was the normal way Romans drank wine.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Not to get too far off track, but I was wondering, what is the connection between blood and wine?