Are We Celebrating Communion Correctly?
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
One mistake which is commonly made, is the failure to distinguish between the weekly and sometimes daily agapé feasts practiced by the early church, and the Eucharist or Lord’s supper which was a special memorial commemoration of the Lord’s Death, and which was the New Testament replacement for the Passover. The distinctions here are important.
A False Motto
I have seen a slogan replacing the old slogan “Sola Scriptura” on church websites. “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible Alone) used to be the standard for reformed churches and ministries. But now there is a new motto crowding to the forefront. It’s really not new, however. It was first used by a Roman Catholic Church on November 4,1852 in the city of Neuwied Germany. This popular motto is "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity". It does not go back to Augustine, as is often falsely claimed. It goes back to this Roman Catholic church. But is it a good motto for reformed churches to have on their signs, letterheads and websites? I’d say no. Absolutely not.
Why would I say that this is a bad slogan? And why am I bringing it up at all? The motto is bad for at least three reasons:
1) It implies that there are non-essential things in the Bible. I would like someone to present me an example of something which is non-essential. If God saw fit to write everything in His book, then it seems to me that He thinks that everything He has thus written needs to be there for some essential reason. Who is the person, or group of persons which decide what is not essential? Do they have some special ability, or anointing which enables them to make such determinations? What if they say that God Himself is Non-essential? Are we to believe them? How about salvation? Is that non-essential?
2) It implies that eliminating these non-essentials will produce Unity. Ecumenism is thus reduced to a simple mantra…get rid of the non-essentials and we can all have wonderful “non-doctrinal” fellowship. This is not only a suspicious notion, but also a dangerous notion. Paul did not say that we should fellowship with devils just because they agree with us that “baptism” is non-essential. (I put baptism here as an example, but you could put whatever supposed non-essential that you choose…i.e. the role of women in church, the Christian Sabbath, a particular millennial view, the interpretation of a particular passage, or the matter of communion, which is what we are studying now). Paul is specific when he says we are not to have fellowship outside of truth (Look up Eph. 5: 6-18). “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph 5: 11). “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16: 17-18). “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioner’s, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat (1Cor. 5: 9-11).(Perhaps being an extortioner, covetous person, idolater, fornicator or drunkard are non-essential matters).“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” ( 2Thess. 3: 6). Orderly conduct is really non-essential isn‘t it?How about those having no power in their brand of Christianity?…that must surely be non-essential? “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (1Tim.3: 5). “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (1Jn 1:10-11). Paul does not say that since part of His doctrine is non-essential it would be ok to fellowship with people who don’t believe all of it. Then there is the case of communion. Surely that is non-essential? “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils” (1Cor. 10: 19-20). The basis for fellowship is never the absence of truth (non-essentials) but is always the presence of the truth.
3) It implies that a Christian’s Liberty comes from non-essentials. The notion of Christian Liberty is never based on what you do not believe, but upon your position in Christ. “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (Jn. 8: 36). He is the truth and what He gives believers is truth. To all of sudden make our liberty in Christ to be contingent upon the absence of solid Biblical truth is an insult to the Lord. We should be careful not to blindly embrace mottos or slogans which really undermine the solid underpinnings of our faith. The faith once delivered unto the saints has no non-essentials.
Why have I brought this up? I brought it up because it expresses an attitude that I often hear from people who are unwilling to change their preconceptions and embrace the truths that are revealed. It goes something like this. “You see it your way, and I see it my way, and this isn’t an essential doctrine anyway, so it’s ok for me to believe what I want, because that’s what I want to believe. You have your beliefs and I have mine.” This attitude grows out of this false idea that different belief systems are based on non-essentials. One such instance is in the matter of how different churches observe the Lord’s Supper. “I don’t believe that wine means wine, I think it means “fruit of the vine” that is grape juice, not wine. So you have your belief and I’ll have mine. It’s not important. It’s non-essential“. Everything in God’s word is essential! Failure to embrace all the truth, as it is revealed is a grave sin. The Holy Spirit is our guide into all truth (Jn. 16: 13). This is His function, and to say that He is not guiding, to say that He is not guiding when He is, is a sin. To say that He is unable to guide you in your beliefs is a sin. Refusal to submit to His guidance into all truth, is a mark of degeneracy and not the mark of a Christian. I realize that because we are humans there will be some differences of opinions between us. I’m not talking about opinions per se, except to point out that we are expected to found our opinions on truth, not on imagined non-essentials. I’m not so naive that I believe that every Christian will see eye to eye on every doctrine. It has not happened in 2000 years, and it’s not going to happen now. This however does not excuse us from having “the mind of Christ”. I believe this relates to the Lord’s supper, so I have included this brief discussion, so that we can change our faulty notions about communion, and bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ Jesus the Lord. “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2Cor. 10: 5).
Your Feasts of Charity
Jude 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear
The earliest practices of the New Testament Churches are recorded in the Book of Acts. It quickly became a common practice to have “Love Feasts” or “Agapé meals. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers“ (Acts 2: 42). This practice of social fellowship was routinely called “breaking bread” or “the breaking of bread”. “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart“ (Acts 2: 46). Notice that these fellowship meals happened “daily” and from “house to house”. They were times of “gladness” and “singleness of heart”. They did not, however, include the whole church. These were small fellowship meals in various homes of believers. The church at Jerusalem was a mega-church. It had 3,000 members saved in just one day. Homes were not as we might think, “house churches”. That is an incorrect view. The church in Jerusalem probably had 10,000 members, so it did not meet in homes. It met in the temple (Acts 2: 46; Acts 3: 1-10; Acts 5: 20-21; Acts 5: 42; Acts 22: 17) . But even so, it is clearly recorded that the Christians opened up their homes for one another, and broke bread together. This is obviously important or it would not be mentioned.
Because of this we have to be careful to differentiate between the casual gatherings, in peoples homes, and the official gatherings of the church. So there is a difference between the “feasts of charity” and “the Lords Supper”, also called the “Eucharist”, or “communion”.
Some simple observations about the Lord’s Supper.
1). It was a supper not a breakfast. The Jewish day began at 6 PM. There is a record in Acts 20: 7 where the sermon at the time of “breaking of bread” lasted until midnight. Most modern churches do not celebrate communion after the scriptural manner of an evening meal. It was something which was done by candlelight (Acts 20: 8). Is this an important observation? Yes it is. If we want to emulate the Last Supper in our communion services, we should keep it as a supper and not modify it to accommodate the bigger crowds who come to morning services. Let them come in the evening, as we are taught that they did in Acts. And if they do not come, we should not schedule a breakfast to accommodate them in their error. We should follow the Biblical pattern despite the people who say, “Oh that’s really non-essential”. Bull crap. It’s essential, or God would not have put it in there.
2). It is a memorial, not just a weekly or monthly ritual. It is commemorative. But what was it commemorative of? The Death of Christ as our Paschal Lamb. The Lord’s Supper was instituted on “the Passover”. Christ is the true Passover lamb (1Cor. 5: 7). The institution of the Lord’s Supper replaces the Jewish Passover. The Passover of the Old Testament looked forward and anticipated Christ’s death, but now we have a memorial which looks backward and celebrates His death as a finished atonement.
3). It should be celebrated once a year, just as Passover was celebrated. Having communion every week, or every month, robs it of it’s special spiritual significance, and makes it commonplace. When, we do it too often, it becomes the same sort of ritual that the Catholics do. Even though we do not teach salvific merit in the observation, people tend to think that it does have salvific merit, because we do it so often. The Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of Passover, and it should be observed with just the same sort of solemnity and meaning as Passover. My feeling is that an entire evening service should be devoted to it. It is not just a little something attached on the end of a service. It is a service of special observation and memorium.
4). It should use the proper elements. These are carried over from the Passover, and they are “unleavened bread” and “unleavened wine”. You may have never heard of “unleavened wine” but it is wine which has been fermented completely, thus removing the natural yeast found in all the grape juice of Bible times. The alcohol content of the wine, made it pure from leaven. Grape Juice does not qualify as OINOS, because it contains leaven. When Jesus turned the water into wine. He was not making vats of grape juice, He was making OINOS. That is alcoholic wine. Somebody says: “Well we shouldn’t use wine in communion, because alcoholics can’t drink it. They might relapse”. This is no reason to desecrate the Lord’s Supper. This kind of reasoning would justify the use of kool-aide or milk as the beverage. Or the use of wonder bread because “it enriches bodies twelve ways”. Come on, be reasonable. If an alcoholic is going to relapse over a thimble full of wine, then he should abstain. If he has no better control over his body, passions and flesh then that, he has a deep and serious spiritual problem. A person who has no mastery whatsoever over his flesh is probably not a Christian to start with. A Christian is one who has crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. “And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” (Gal. 5: 24-25). To serve grape juice is no different then serving Coca-cola or Mountain Dew. If you are not going to serve the appropriate symbol for the pure unspotted and unspottable blood of Christ, then you might as well serve any kind of beverage that you like. I like coffee, so maybe we should use that?
5). It should be restricted to believers only. Both of the ordinance of the church are "believers only ordinances. Just as we refuse to baptize the unsaved, so we ought to discourage unbelievers from partaking in the Supper of our Lord. It is not for them, it is for us. That’s why Jesus excluded everyone else but the twelve Apostles. He excluded Judas, by pointing Him out before the service was over.
6). It should include serious soul-searching, as Paul teaches. “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup (1Cor. 11: 28). The rush with which communion is administered in most churches today is not conducive to introspection and examination. This needs to be changed.
These are just some basic and quick observations that I have about the lord’s Supper. I hope they will help you to think clearly about these things. God Bless.
©2010 Earl Jackson All Rights Reserved
PERMISSION IS GRANTED to post this article on any website or blog, or other electronic media, provided it is posted in it's entirety without alteration, and a clear link is included back to this website. No permission for hard copy, print, or other use is hereby granted. This article may not be sold or used on for profit websites or projects. CLICK HERE to send us any links to the places where you put this article.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
One mistake which is commonly made, is the failure to distinguish between the weekly and sometimes daily agapé feasts practiced by the early church, and the Eucharist or Lord’s supper which was a special memorial commemoration of the Lord’s Death, and which was the New Testament replacement for the Passover. The distinctions here are important.
A False Motto
I have seen a slogan replacing the old slogan “Sola Scriptura” on church websites. “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible Alone) used to be the standard for reformed churches and ministries. But now there is a new motto crowding to the forefront. It’s really not new, however. It was first used by a Roman Catholic Church on November 4,1852 in the city of Neuwied Germany. This popular motto is "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity". It does not go back to Augustine, as is often falsely claimed. It goes back to this Roman Catholic church. But is it a good motto for reformed churches to have on their signs, letterheads and websites? I’d say no. Absolutely not.
Why would I say that this is a bad slogan? And why am I bringing it up at all? The motto is bad for at least three reasons:
1) It implies that there are non-essential things in the Bible. I would like someone to present me an example of something which is non-essential. If God saw fit to write everything in His book, then it seems to me that He thinks that everything He has thus written needs to be there for some essential reason. Who is the person, or group of persons which decide what is not essential? Do they have some special ability, or anointing which enables them to make such determinations? What if they say that God Himself is Non-essential? Are we to believe them? How about salvation? Is that non-essential?
2) It implies that eliminating these non-essentials will produce Unity. Ecumenism is thus reduced to a simple mantra…get rid of the non-essentials and we can all have wonderful “non-doctrinal” fellowship. This is not only a suspicious notion, but also a dangerous notion. Paul did not say that we should fellowship with devils just because they agree with us that “baptism” is non-essential. (I put baptism here as an example, but you could put whatever supposed non-essential that you choose…i.e. the role of women in church, the Christian Sabbath, a particular millennial view, the interpretation of a particular passage, or the matter of communion, which is what we are studying now). Paul is specific when he says we are not to have fellowship outside of truth (Look up Eph. 5: 6-18). “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph 5: 11). “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16: 17-18). “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioner’s, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat (1Cor. 5: 9-11).(Perhaps being an extortioner, covetous person, idolater, fornicator or drunkard are non-essential matters).“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” ( 2Thess. 3: 6). Orderly conduct is really non-essential isn‘t it?How about those having no power in their brand of Christianity?…that must surely be non-essential? “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (1Tim.3: 5). “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (1Jn 1:10-11). Paul does not say that since part of His doctrine is non-essential it would be ok to fellowship with people who don’t believe all of it. Then there is the case of communion. Surely that is non-essential? “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils” (1Cor. 10: 19-20). The basis for fellowship is never the absence of truth (non-essentials) but is always the presence of the truth.
3) It implies that a Christian’s Liberty comes from non-essentials. The notion of Christian Liberty is never based on what you do not believe, but upon your position in Christ. “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (Jn. 8: 36). He is the truth and what He gives believers is truth. To all of sudden make our liberty in Christ to be contingent upon the absence of solid Biblical truth is an insult to the Lord. We should be careful not to blindly embrace mottos or slogans which really undermine the solid underpinnings of our faith. The faith once delivered unto the saints has no non-essentials.
Why have I brought this up? I brought it up because it expresses an attitude that I often hear from people who are unwilling to change their preconceptions and embrace the truths that are revealed. It goes something like this. “You see it your way, and I see it my way, and this isn’t an essential doctrine anyway, so it’s ok for me to believe what I want, because that’s what I want to believe. You have your beliefs and I have mine.” This attitude grows out of this false idea that different belief systems are based on non-essentials. One such instance is in the matter of how different churches observe the Lord’s Supper. “I don’t believe that wine means wine, I think it means “fruit of the vine” that is grape juice, not wine. So you have your belief and I’ll have mine. It’s not important. It’s non-essential“. Everything in God’s word is essential! Failure to embrace all the truth, as it is revealed is a grave sin. The Holy Spirit is our guide into all truth (Jn. 16: 13). This is His function, and to say that He is not guiding, to say that He is not guiding when He is, is a sin. To say that He is unable to guide you in your beliefs is a sin. Refusal to submit to His guidance into all truth, is a mark of degeneracy and not the mark of a Christian. I realize that because we are humans there will be some differences of opinions between us. I’m not talking about opinions per se, except to point out that we are expected to found our opinions on truth, not on imagined non-essentials. I’m not so naive that I believe that every Christian will see eye to eye on every doctrine. It has not happened in 2000 years, and it’s not going to happen now. This however does not excuse us from having “the mind of Christ”. I believe this relates to the Lord’s supper, so I have included this brief discussion, so that we can change our faulty notions about communion, and bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ Jesus the Lord. “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2Cor. 10: 5).
Your Feasts of Charity
Jude 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear
The earliest practices of the New Testament Churches are recorded in the Book of Acts. It quickly became a common practice to have “Love Feasts” or “Agapé meals. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers“ (Acts 2: 42). This practice of social fellowship was routinely called “breaking bread” or “the breaking of bread”. “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart“ (Acts 2: 46). Notice that these fellowship meals happened “daily” and from “house to house”. They were times of “gladness” and “singleness of heart”. They did not, however, include the whole church. These were small fellowship meals in various homes of believers. The church at Jerusalem was a mega-church. It had 3,000 members saved in just one day. Homes were not as we might think, “house churches”. That is an incorrect view. The church in Jerusalem probably had 10,000 members, so it did not meet in homes. It met in the temple (Acts 2: 46; Acts 3: 1-10; Acts 5: 20-21; Acts 5: 42; Acts 22: 17) . But even so, it is clearly recorded that the Christians opened up their homes for one another, and broke bread together. This is obviously important or it would not be mentioned.
Because of this we have to be careful to differentiate between the casual gatherings, in peoples homes, and the official gatherings of the church. So there is a difference between the “feasts of charity” and “the Lords Supper”, also called the “Eucharist”, or “communion”.
Some simple observations about the Lord’s Supper.
1). It was a supper not a breakfast. The Jewish day began at 6 PM. There is a record in Acts 20: 7 where the sermon at the time of “breaking of bread” lasted until midnight. Most modern churches do not celebrate communion after the scriptural manner of an evening meal. It was something which was done by candlelight (Acts 20: 8). Is this an important observation? Yes it is. If we want to emulate the Last Supper in our communion services, we should keep it as a supper and not modify it to accommodate the bigger crowds who come to morning services. Let them come in the evening, as we are taught that they did in Acts. And if they do not come, we should not schedule a breakfast to accommodate them in their error. We should follow the Biblical pattern despite the people who say, “Oh that’s really non-essential”. Bull crap. It’s essential, or God would not have put it in there.
2). It is a memorial, not just a weekly or monthly ritual. It is commemorative. But what was it commemorative of? The Death of Christ as our Paschal Lamb. The Lord’s Supper was instituted on “the Passover”. Christ is the true Passover lamb (1Cor. 5: 7). The institution of the Lord’s Supper replaces the Jewish Passover. The Passover of the Old Testament looked forward and anticipated Christ’s death, but now we have a memorial which looks backward and celebrates His death as a finished atonement.
3). It should be celebrated once a year, just as Passover was celebrated. Having communion every week, or every month, robs it of it’s special spiritual significance, and makes it commonplace. When, we do it too often, it becomes the same sort of ritual that the Catholics do. Even though we do not teach salvific merit in the observation, people tend to think that it does have salvific merit, because we do it so often. The Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of Passover, and it should be observed with just the same sort of solemnity and meaning as Passover. My feeling is that an entire evening service should be devoted to it. It is not just a little something attached on the end of a service. It is a service of special observation and memorium.
4). It should use the proper elements. These are carried over from the Passover, and they are “unleavened bread” and “unleavened wine”. You may have never heard of “unleavened wine” but it is wine which has been fermented completely, thus removing the natural yeast found in all the grape juice of Bible times. The alcohol content of the wine, made it pure from leaven. Grape Juice does not qualify as OINOS, because it contains leaven. When Jesus turned the water into wine. He was not making vats of grape juice, He was making OINOS. That is alcoholic wine. Somebody says: “Well we shouldn’t use wine in communion, because alcoholics can’t drink it. They might relapse”. This is no reason to desecrate the Lord’s Supper. This kind of reasoning would justify the use of kool-aide or milk as the beverage. Or the use of wonder bread because “it enriches bodies twelve ways”. Come on, be reasonable. If an alcoholic is going to relapse over a thimble full of wine, then he should abstain. If he has no better control over his body, passions and flesh then that, he has a deep and serious spiritual problem. A person who has no mastery whatsoever over his flesh is probably not a Christian to start with. A Christian is one who has crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. “And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” (Gal. 5: 24-25). To serve grape juice is no different then serving Coca-cola or Mountain Dew. If you are not going to serve the appropriate symbol for the pure unspotted and unspottable blood of Christ, then you might as well serve any kind of beverage that you like. I like coffee, so maybe we should use that?
5). It should be restricted to believers only. Both of the ordinance of the church are "believers only ordinances. Just as we refuse to baptize the unsaved, so we ought to discourage unbelievers from partaking in the Supper of our Lord. It is not for them, it is for us. That’s why Jesus excluded everyone else but the twelve Apostles. He excluded Judas, by pointing Him out before the service was over.
6). It should include serious soul-searching, as Paul teaches. “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup (1Cor. 11: 28). The rush with which communion is administered in most churches today is not conducive to introspection and examination. This needs to be changed.
These are just some basic and quick observations that I have about the lord’s Supper. I hope they will help you to think clearly about these things. God Bless.
©2010 Earl Jackson All Rights Reserved
PERMISSION IS GRANTED to post this article on any website or blog, or other electronic media, provided it is posted in it's entirety without alteration, and a clear link is included back to this website. No permission for hard copy, print, or other use is hereby granted. This article may not be sold or used on for profit websites or projects. CLICK HERE to send us any links to the places where you put this article.
