THE LORD’S SUPPER

Theme: “All believers are commanded to partake of Communion, also known as the Lord’s Supper, consisting of bread that signifies Jesus’ body that was broken for us and fruit of the vine that signifies Jesus’ blood that was shed for the remission of our sins.”

Matthew 26:26-29:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”  Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.  But I say to you, 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.”

(Isn’t it nice to know that you will still drink nice things after you’re with the Lord?)

Mark 14:22-25 contains an account that is so similar it would be redundant to cite it here.

These verses could still leave you wondering if communion is an option or a command. The account in Luke settles it, since in this passage Jesus commanded for it to be done in His remembrance:

Luke 22:17-20:
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”

At first the verses above seem like a contradiction of Matthew and Mark’s account, where the bread is mentioned first.  But as you continue reading Luke’s account, we see that the “fruit of the vine” was taken before AND after the bread.  As we will see, Communion was originally instituted as a meal, not a fast-food-drive-through style event lasting a minute or two. During Communion in the New Testament, you could partake of the bread and the “fruit of the vine” together.

Whether it is a command or not is “seconded” by another even more explicit passage:

1 Corinthians 11:23-26:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”  For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
 

Question 11-1: Was the “fruit of the vine” they drank for Communion alcoholic?

There is no mention either way as far as Jesus and His disciples go; the drink is only referred to as the “cup” (meaning its contents) or “the fruit of the vine”.  In early church practice, the only place we get any hint either way is in 1 Corinthians 11:21:  “For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.” The word drunk here means intoxicated, not just full, so it appears that the early Christians did use alcoholic wine for communion.

Question 11-2: So, then, are we required to use alcoholic wine for Communion like they apparently did?

Since Jesus in his command to take what we call Communion only referred to “the fruit of the vine”, anything that qualifies as “the fruit of the vine” can be used without breaking His command. While using alcoholic wine is never commanded explicitly, it is certainly not forbidden explicitly either, so it is no sin to use it.  It is ironic that some churches consider drinking (as opposed to outright drunkenness) a sin, yet the Church in Acts “drank” at Communion without sinning!

Some churches use alcoholic wine (probably to go along with the account in Acts) while others use grape juice or something similar.  I don’t see from the Bible that either type of church can tell the other they’re wrong.

On a practical note, since alcoholism is such a problem, I think it is wise not to put alcohol before people, since some might be trying to break free from it.  It also frees those who buy it from any suspicion by the outside world that what they’re buying might not all be for religious purposes! (One ministry actually ended because a minister was seen at a package store and the rumors got going, even though the person involved was actually buying cooking sherry at the time.)
 

Question 11-3: If an unbeliever partakes of communion, does he eat and drink judgement to himself?

No.  The old King James translation talks about the man who partakes “unworthily” as eating and drinking judgement to himself, but this does not refer to an unbelieving person who is “unworthy” of communion. Instead it refers to the manner in which a believer partakes of communion. “Unworthily” in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 very clearly means “in an unworthy manner”, not “in an unworthy state”. See the entire context below (verses 23-26 are already cited above).

1 Corinthians 11:20-22,27-34:
Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What!  Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?  Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?  What shall I say to you?  Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you………..Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgement to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.  But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.  Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.  But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgement.  And the rest I will set in order when I come.

The point here is that believers were walking out of love toward the body of Christ.

However, it is pointless for an unbeliever to take communion since he is not really “communing” with believers in his lost state.
 

Question 11-4: Who should be accepted, and who should be barred from taking communion in church services?  (Small children?  People whose salvation is dubious?)

I think it is a mistake to bar anyone from communion unless someone has been explicitly excommunicated for conduct that endangers the welfare of the flock or demonstrates the kind of disruptive behavior at communion itself that Paul describes..  I have no problem with a child taking communion as long as he treats it with respect. It isn’t practical to have a “salvation test” for every visitor who wants communion, nor would it be wise.
 

Question 11-5: Does the “bread and fruit of the vine” literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

No.  This doctrine is known as “transubstantiation”. It’s not a heresy or anything, but it is obvious from the original communion that Jesus was not ripping off hunks of His flesh and making His disciples literally drink His blood.  The communion elements are commemorative. It is no sin to eat them afterward or throw the leftovers in the garbage. Some churches that believe in transubstantiation actually have a “sacristy” where the unused elements are dumped so that they don’t go into the common sewer, but this is a needless expense for a church.  Let’s fact it, the homes in Acts did not have sacristies in which to dump to unused communion elements, and there are no Bible rules on handling the leftovers.

Another practical issue would be, “At what point would it change from bread and juice/wine to the literal body and blood of Christ?” Some answer that this occurs when a “priest” says so.  However, all believers are priests in the New Covenant.

Perhaps this belief came from Jesus’ statement that believers need to eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:53). It’s not anything worth having a big fight over whichever way you believe on this, but if you believe that the elements become the literal body and blood of Christ, it does lead to the practical problems just described.
 

Question 11-6: If I visit another church and they have communion, is it OK for me to take communion with them?

Assuming that they are Christians, absolutely yes! There is only one body of Christ, and all believers are part of it and can partake of communion together.  If the church isn’t Christian but claims to be (i.e., a dead denominational church or a dead community church), take your pick.  God isn’t going to be upset with you either way.
 

Question 11-7: Is it permissible in God’s sight to serve yourself communion or do it with friends when no recognized member of the clergy is present?

If it’s by yourself, there’s no one to “commune” with, but you could still do it in remembrance of Jesus if you wanted to.  Nothing in Scripture requires a “clergyman” to celebrate communion. Besides, in the New Testament, clergy does not take the place of Old Testament priests who had a higher standing than the common people.  Every believer stands the same before God, and any believer can celebrate communion with any other.
 

Question 11-8: How often should communion be celebrated?

A nonzero number of times, since it is the command of the Lord.  Beyond that, the Bible does not specify how often the “Lord’s Supper” is to be observed.
 

Question 11-9: Is it true you can get (or stay) sick because you take communion without recognizing that the Lord’s body was broken for your healing?

Not because of communion itself. “Recognizing the Lord’s body” in 1 Corinthians 11 refers to recognizing the body of Christ, or the Church. The people who were stuffing their faces while letting others starve at “communion” were guilty of not realizing that all the people present were part of the Lord’s body and needed to be in on it. These people were actively judged by the Lord.

You can stay sick by failing to recognize that the Lord’s body was broken for you and that you were healed by Jesus’ stripes, but you could do that whether or not you take communion!  That does not seem to be the point Paul was making here.  God would not judge you for failure to recognize that fact; you would simply suffer the consequences in your body of not recognizing that healing is yours in Christ. (This will be developed in a later lesson.)
 

Question 11-10: If God has no sickness to give and never makes anyone sick, how can He judge sinning believers who make light of communion with it?

First, there is sickness that will come from heaven in the form of judgement in Revelation, so it is not entirely accurate to say that God could never give a sickness or that there is no sickness in heaven, though it certainly isn’t in manifestation there!  Does this mess with your theology?  Read Revelation 2 and see the Lord Jesus Christ promise to smite a hypocritical loose woman with sickness and kill her children! God struck enemy armies with blindness or just killed them outright.  God never puts sickness on a believer who is not involved in gross sin, but in both testaments, He judges sin. In this case, it is still mercy so that the person will not continue sinning and end up lost forever. Go back to 1 Corinthians 11 above and see how His judgment in such a case could stop a believer from ending up condemned with the world.

A more “modern traditional”” answer would be that God allows the devil to put sickness on someone, but Jesus’ statement that He would kill Jezebel’s children with death in Revelation 2.  He does not say that He will use the devil as His heavenly hitman; He says that He will do it. But unless you’re in gross, unrepentant sin that God has been dealing with you about, you don’t have to worry about “sickness from heaven” falling on you!
 

Question 11-11: If we have trouble sleeping at night, should we take communion unworthily, since many did that and slept afterward?

No, “sleep” in this passage and many others is a euphemism for being physically dead!

[On to Lesson 12: Baptism with the Holy Spirit][Basics Index][Bible Study Index][Home]