What is the Significance of the Communion Bread/Wafer?

[bbbbbbb]

I'm late to the party, and this is already a month old, however:

- No, not everyone has faith.
- The one whom God has given faith has faith.
- No one can say Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

Trust in Jesus is not human beings taking some already existent power and ability residing in them and, by their own strength, turning to Jesus and doing X, Y, and Z. Trust in Jesus is given to us by God by the power of the Spirit who works through Word and Sacrament to create faith in us. Which is why St. Paul says, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17), and it's why he calls faith a gift in Ephesians 2:8, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God." So faith comes from God, as a gift, by grace, through the Word. That Word is preached in the preaching of the Gospel, that Word is also found connected to and with the water of Holy Baptism and bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist--that is what makes Baptism Baptism and the Eucharist the Eucharist; without that Word it isn't Baptism, it's just water; without that Word it isn't the Eucharist, it's just bread and wine. Water can do nothing, the words of human beings can do nothing, bread and wine can do nothing; but the Word of God is efficacious and does all that God sets out to do, "My word be that goes out from my mouth shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)

When we preach the Gospel, we are preaching God's word, it is the word of the Gospel itself, the word of God's promise and grace of the crucified and risen Jesus and all which He has done delivered to us, efficaciously, because it is God's word, not our word. When the Sacraments are administered, it is not just water being applied upon a body washing away dirt, it is "the pledge of a new conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus" (1 Peter 3:21), and the bread and wine is not just bread and wine, it is the body and blood of Jesus because He Himself said, "This is My body" and "This is My blood" and it is written, "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless participation in the blood of Christ?" and "Is not the bread which we break participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16)

It is not just the words of men, it is not just empty rhetoric, it is not just water, it is not just bread and wine; it is the very Word of God, the precious Gospel, God Himself working and speaking and doing to take us, make us His, and bring us into His own gracious life in Himself on Christ's account and the power of the Spirit. It is God who gives us faith, it is God who justifies us, it is God who gives us the Holy Spirit, it is God who adopts us and makes us children and heirs, it is God who forgives us of all our sins, it is God who says that on account of all these things we should with boldness, confidence, and hope look forward to the resurrection of the dead and life of the age to come. God has done, God has promised, therefore God alone is glorified.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for the lengthy reply. However, I seem to have missed your answer to my final question, which was, "How can you tell if a person has the gift of faith or not?"

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for the lengthy reply. However, I seem to have missed your answer to my final question, which was, "How can you tell if a person has the gift of faith or not?"

I answered that,

- No one can say Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

If you want a fuller answer:

It's not our job to decide who does or doesn't have faith or not, but we can be confident in our faith because of the promises of God attached to the external Means. If someone believes in Jesus, then I should probably believe them--it's not my job to judge the "authenticity" of their faith or judge their salvation, Christ alone will weed out the tares from the wheat. If you, my brother, say you trust in Jesus, and you confess that He is Lord, then what reason do I have to say you don't have faith?

So on the one hand, the "evidence" is God's word and promise. On the other hand, it's not our place to be making those sorts of determinations.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

I answered that,

If you want a fuller answer:

It's not our job to decide who does or doesn't have faith or not, but we can be confident in our faith because of the promises of God attached to the external Means. If someone believes in Jesus, then I should probably believe them--it's not my job to judge the "authenticity" of their faith or judge their salvation, Christ alone will weed out the tares from the wheat. If you, my brother, say you trust in Jesus, and you confess that He is Lord, then what reason do I have to say you don't have faith?

So on the one hand, the "evidence" is God's word and promise. On the other hand, it's not our place to be making those sorts of determinations.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you. I did miss your answer.

Now, if I as a non-Lutheran decide to take communion in your church because I confess Christ as my Lord and Savior, although I do not hold to a Lutheran understanding of communion, would I be able to partake? Why or why not?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thus speaks the sacerdotalist. I find it odd that virtually no sacerdotalists that I am aware of actually believe in the efficacy of sacraments. I have yet to see any performing baptisms for sinners in the hospital wards or feeding the poor with the sacrament of communion in order to give them grace. If sacraments in and of themselves do, indeed, impart God's grace, then it is only reasonable that the most loving thing any clergman could do is to administer these sacraments to as many people as humanly possible.

Not so; providing the Eucharist to those who can not or will not discern Christ's body and blood; or those who do, but are un-repentant in their sin would be causing them to sin. A competent "loving" Pastor should never allow this to happen. Certainly, the Pastor can not see into the hearts of his Parishioners or persons of other Churches, but he should never knowingly do so.

Genuinely sacramental Protestants are not common in the US. There are also ethical guidelines that chaplains must abide by. So there are reasons you've never heard of it happening. Baptisms do happen in hospitals, though, when requested. And bringing Communion to the hospitalized is not rare.

The sacrament of Holy Communion is not common food, and its grace doesn't operate apart from faith.

We are sacramentalists, not sacerdotalists. Sacerdotalism is a different animal altogether. A pastor in the Lutheran church is ontologically no different than any of the laity, it is not some kind of magic in his hands that is the power behind the sacraments: it is Jesus own words.

Now you introduce a human element apart from divine grace - faith. Is faith a necessity for the grace of sacraments to be effective or are the sacraments effective in and of the themselves apart from any human element?

What human element; even our confessions state that Word and Sacrament remain efficacious even when administered by evil men! Even those who partake but do not discern, or are in a state of willful unrepentant still receive Christ's body and blood.

Thank you. I did miss your answer.

Now, if I as a non-Lutheran decide to take communion in your church because I confess Christ as my Lord and Savior, although I do not hold to a Lutheran understanding of communion, would I be able to partake? Why or why not?

No, for the reasons stated above. If you have received proper catechesis and have been confirmed; the Church accepts that you at least know what is what; only you and the Holy Spirit know if you are or are not receiving in a "worthy manner"; without such instruction, the Church can only assume that you may not be, and may have a bad or no understanding of the gravity of what you are participating in.

Christian Questions and Answers; an addendum to the Small Catechism, admonish us that this is very serious, that there are serious consequences, that this "is not childsplay".

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not so; providing the Eucharist to those who can not or will not discern Christ's body and blood; or those who do, but are un-repentant in their sin would be causing them to sin. A competent "loving" Pastor should never allow this to happen. Certainly, the Pastor can not see into the hearts of his Parishioners or persons of other Churches, but he should never knowingly do so.

What human element; even our confessions state that Word and Sacrament remain efficacious even when administered by evil men! Even those who partake but do not discern, or are in a state of willful unrepentant still receive Christ's body and blood.

No, for the reasons stated above. If you have received proper catechesis and have been confirmed; the Church accepts that you at least know what is what; only you and the Holy Spirit know if you are or are not receiving in a "worthy manner"; without such instruction, the Church can only assume that you may not be, and may have a bad or no understanding of the gravity of what you are participating in.

Christian Questions and Answers; an addendum to the Small Catechism, admonish us that this is very serious, that there are serious consequences, that this "is not childsplay".

I regret that you are not the Lutheran poster I responded to. He stated that "It's not my job to judge the "authenticity" of their faith or judge their salvation, Christ alone will weed out the tares from the wheat."

However, you establish proper catechesis and confirmation as means of judging another's faith. You have, therefore, established objective means of determining whether one is or is not an actual Lutheran Christian as opposed to embracing any and all individuals as Lutheran Christians simply because they were baptized as Lutherans.

 

[Tangible]

Another Lutheran Luchadores tag-team poster here.

The two are not mutually exclusive. We do not judge that those with whom we are not in communion are not Christians, nor question their profession of faith in Jesus Christ, apart from possibly in their confession of the contents of the ecumenical creeds. We do not expect that all Christians should have the same confession and doctrine that would permit inter-communion.

There is also a range of practice among different Lutheran groups regarding admission to Holy Communion. The Lutheran Confessions teach closed communion. Those who seek to maintain a faithful subscription therefore admit only those who are very close in doctrine and practice, according to their own standards and definitions. There are other Lutheran groups who choose to practice a more open admission to communion, according to their own standards and definitions.

 

[pescador]

I just happened on this post and wonder why nobody is discussing the OP's subject: what is the significance of the communion bread and wafer?

Jesus told his disciples that the bread was (symbolically) his body. (If he was sharing the bread with them at the table it was obviously symbolic.) He said to eat it in remembrance of him (obviously at a future time).

In the New Testament there is no ritual after Jesus' death and resurrection that even remotely resembles modern communion. There was a celebratory supper where the attendees drank wine and ate bread (and other foods) together (and were chastised for their selfish behavior of not including everyone equally). There was no solemn mourning ritual where the participants ate a tiny wafer and drank an ounce of wine.

The "communion" ritual should properly be a celebration of the Lord, who is alive and will some day, like a bridegroom, return for his bride (the church). If you want to be like those who knew Christ, then share a festive meal that includes bread wine, good food, and joy in being a part of God's family.

 

[Tangible]

symbolically

Prove that from scripture.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thank you. I did miss your answer.

Now, if I as a non-Lutheran decide to take communion in your church because I confess Christ as my Lord and Savior, although I do not hold to a Lutheran understanding of communion, would I be able to partake? Why or why not?

We in the ELCA do not peer into men's souls, and the exact policies will vary by church, but at our own church we are explicit that Christ welcomes all people to his table as the host but gives himself to us as the meal also. It's just strange and curious why you'ld want to receive communion in a Lutheran church if you think we are wrong about a sacrament we consider a sacred mystery.

 

[pescador]

Prove that from scripture.

When Jesus was having the last supper with his disciples, he was there as a human being. He held up a piece of bread and said, "this is my body". So which was his body, the flesh and blood that was holding up the bread or the bread itself?

Similarly he held up a bowl of wine and said, "this is my blood". So which was his blood, the fluid coursing through his human body, or the wine in the bowl?

Then he told them to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him (when he was no longer with them). Why would anyone remember someone who was actually present with them?

Luke described in chapter 22: [Jesus said] "For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Then he took bread, and after giving 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.” And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Paul's wrote a similar description to the church in Corinth. Jesus is announcing the new covenant! Is that something to be sad about??

The communion practiced today is not scriptural. There is no ritual in scripture where people line up to mournfully eat a wafer and drink an ounce of wine. The Lord's supper was described as a festive feast, a complete supper, although some turned it into a banquet for themselves, excluding others.

Personally, when I have bread and wine with other Christians, it is always a time of rejoicing that our Lord has risen and is alive with his father in heaven. There is nothing mournful about it, as we wait with joy for his return when we can be with him forever.

 

[Tangible]

When Jesus was having the last supper with his disciples, he was there as a human being. He held up a piece of bread and said, "this is my body". So which was his body, the flesh and blood that was holding up the bread or the bread itself?

Similarly he held up a bowl of wine and said, "this is my blood". So which was his blood, the fluid coursing through his human body, or the wine in the bowl?

Then he told them to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him (when he was no longer with them). Why would anyone remember someone who was actually present with them?

Luke described in chapter 22: [Jesus said] "For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Then he took bread, and after giving 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.” And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Paul's wrote a similar description to the church in Corinth. Jesus is announcing the new covenant! Is that something to be sad about??

The communion practiced today is not scriptural. There is no ritual in scripture where people line up to mournfully eat a wafer and drink an ounce of wine. The Lord's supper was described as a festive feast, a complete supper, although some turned it into a banquet for themselves, excluding others.

Personally, when I have bread and wine with other Christians, it is always a time of rejoicing that our Lord has risen and is alive with his father in heaven. There is nothing mournful about it, as we wait with joy for his return when we can be with him forever.

The only thing that you proved from scripture is that Jesus Christ himself has told us "this is my body". Do you believe him or not?

 

[pescador]

The only thing that you proved from scripture is that Jesus Christ himself has told us "this is my body". Do you believe him or not?

You mean do I believe your understanding of what he said? Unless he is made of bread, of course not.

Scripture is totally clear about this. Luke wrote, "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” It is a symbolic act to remember what Jesus did for mankind. He gave his body as a penalty for our sins.

If I hold up an American flag and say "this is America, fly it in remembrance of our founders", does that mean that the cloth is America? Of course not. It is a symbol.

Again, Jesus was and is most definitely not bread and wine. Have you ever heard bread talk?

 

[pescador]

It is beyond obvious that if anyone holds up a piece of bread and says "this is my body" that it is not their body. If you don't believe me, the next time you have a meal with others, hold up a piece of bread and tell them that it's literally your body. They would rightly think that you were joking or insane.

Jesus established a ritual so that when believers assemble to celebrate their Savior, they eat bread and wine to remember what he did so that they could become children of God. There is no other interpretation possible.

If the bread is literally his body, then eating it is cannibalism.

 

[Albion]

It is beyond obvious that if anyone holds up a piece of bread and says "this is my body" that it is not their body.

Something like saying that it is obvious that no one rises from the dead or walks on water since both are impossible to do.

 

[pescador]

Something like saying that it is obvious that no one rises from the dead or walks on water since both are impossible to do.

Have you ever seen a piece of bread walk on water? Although bread rises it's because of yeast, which is alive.

Stop the reductio ad absurdem. Try sticking to the subject, i.e., the significance of the communion bread wafer.

 

[Albion]

Have you ever seen a piece of bread walk on water?
Stop the reductio ad absurdem. .

That's close to what I thought about that bread walking on water concoction.

 

[pescador]

That's close to what I thought about that bread walking on water concoction.

As I said before, try sticking to the subject.

If Jesus is holding up a piece of bread and saying "this is my body", it is obvious to most people that it's a symbol. Jesus Christ is not bread, and bread is not Jesus Christ.

When he said, "do this in remembrance of me", what do you think he was talking about if something other than a symbolic action?

 

[Albion]

If Jesus is holding up a piece of bread and saying "this is my body", it is obvious to most people that it's a symbol.

Actually, to most people (at least to most Christian people) it means that it is his body--in some sense or other.

 

[pescador]

Actually, to most people (at least to most Christian people) it means that it is his body--in some sense or other.

"In some sense or other"? A piece of bread is not Jesus' body; it is symbolic of his body. How could Jesus, seated at a table, be holding up his entire body in his hand? The bread represents his body and the wine represents his blood. No other interpretation makes the slightest bit of sense.

You are taking one phrase and trying to make some sort of strange doctrine out of it. It is obvious what Jesus meant: bread and wine are meant to represent his body and blood. Jesus didn't think he was a piece of bread! Do you think God's son is bread? Is the one sitting at the right hand of God a piece of bread?

When God said "this is my son" was he referring to a living being or a piece of bread? Was a piece of bread crucified?

 

[Albion]

"In some sense or other"? A piece of bread is not Jesus' body; it is symbolic of his body.

That's right, but Jesus did not say that this is symbolic of my body, represents my body, stands for my body, or will remind you of my body.