Communion is a very serious topic to be covered, but it can also be a very large one which is, I suppose, why I have put it off for so long. Today among mainstream Christendom there is even discussion as to real presence, symbolic, or stances in between. Beyond that in the Torah Observant world we run into discussions of if this should be once a week, more than once a week, or even once a year! This ads up to one big topic, just on the issues to be addressed within it before we even consider how serious it is simply because it is a command of our Messiah that he placed a lot of weight on, and his Apostles in turn placed significant importance on this act.
This is a topic that struggles to have any sense of a 'basic' area to start on. Even when go to the bread and wine in their individual properties we get to complex issues. So this time we are going to start with where the bread and wine came from, which leads us into how often it is done. Most often when people think of communion they link it to the Last Supper, which is absolutely the basis for our modern understanding; so let's give it a start.
The Last Supper is found in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and with a different accounting that begins in John 13. Many believer the Last Supper was the Passover supper, the seder. In my blog post called 'What day was the Crucifixion, and why does it matter?' I show this not to be the case, but the day before the Passover dinner would have been held. This dinner would have been at the start of the Passover evening, before the daytime of Passover as the Holy Day began. This is far more significant than many perhaps realize. Within Messianic teaching many teach that communion is to be had only once a year, as they feel it was a part of the seder meal. 1 Corinthians 11:26 says, For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes. Telling us how often to partake in communion. This, however, isn't clear unless we know what bread and wine they where partaking of! Thus it would stand to reason, if the seder was the source of the Last Supper, to partake only once a year. However, since I have shown that it cannot be what bread and wine then was being consumed?
Many at this point wish to dismiss what I am about to say because it is founded with tradition, yet I hope you will continue to read as the tradition goes deep into biblical matters and has its root in our Messiah Yeshua. The seder, as well, after all, is founded within tradition. What takes this now beyond tradition is that Yeshua himself kept this tradition, he din't condemn it as he did many others, modeling for us that it was then to be kept. 1 Corinthians 11:25 builds on 26, saying, likewise also the cup after the meal, saying, “This cup is the New Covenant effected by my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, as a memorial to me.” How important then it is to know what cup he was drinking of to know how often to drink it!
This leads us into the cup it would have been. The Kiddush cup is a cup of wine that has been within Jewish tradition for so long the exact time it began has been lost to history, but it is believed to have originated sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C.E. Kiddush translates directly into our word Sanctification, the origins of word Kiddush coming from the Hebrew Kadosh which means Holy. In this way this cup was used on the eve of the Sabbath and the eve of every Holy Day as a way to represent the sanctification of that day by Elohim. So by Yeshua partaking in this cup and telling us to do so as well we then see that this cup, the wine of communion, is to be taken on the eve of every Sabbath and the eve of every Holy Day! This gives us then a clear and concise timeline of how often we are to partake in communion.
The Tanakh, sadly, does not have much to tell us of what the wine means, leaving its representation before Y'shua to what we see of tradition. Sanctification. It can however be seen as being given to us for joy, being a part of some offerings, and being forbidden to those who take the Nazarite Vow. But where the Tanakh lacks the Messianic scriptures make up for in abundance. Beyond 1 Corinthians 11 linking the wine to the Messiah's blood we also see this done by himself in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22. Indeed the very same blood which sanctifies us. Leviticus 17:11 shows us that blood is necessary for atonement, saying, For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for yourselves; for it is the blood that makes atonement because of the life.’ Yet we also know from Hebrews 9:12-14 that it wasn't the blood of the animals which did this atonement, it was always and will always be the blood of the Messiah which does this, saying, he entered the Holiest Place once and for all. And he entered not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, thus setting people free forever. 13 For if sprinkling ceremonially unclean persons with the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer restores their outward purity; 14 then how much more the blood of the Messiah, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself to God as a sacrifice without blemish, will purify our conscience from works that lead to death, so that we can serve the living God! Without Atonement there is no Sanctification. And thus the two pull together into this dance that shows us Y'shua's blood in the Kiddush cup. By his blood we are sanctified, justified, Kadosh. By drinking of the wine we partake of this. Taking part of it as often as he told us to, on the eve of every day that Elohim himself sanctified and made Kadosh, Holy. Every Sabbath eve and eve of a Holy Day.
With the wine was always the bread. This bread began at the same time as the Kiddush tradition but it's representation comes from the time of Moshe; linking back to the manna that Elohim provided Isreal from heaven while they where in the dessert. Like the wine we don't have a lot from the Tanakh to go on, beyond what we do know of manna. Deuteronomy 8:3 says, He humbled you, allowing you to become hungry, and then fed you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had ever known, to make you understand that a person does not live on food alone but on everything that comes from the mouth of Adonai. Which is then built upon by Y'shua when he presented the Last Supper and even within John 6.
The issue then becomes, how literal do we take the statements made by Y'shua when he presented the Last Supper to the Apostles? When we pray over the bread and wine does this transubstantiate them into his physical body and blood? Many would say yes based on the literal nature of the language he used. Essentially, that a 'like my body' or a 'as my blood' is no where to be seen in these passages. Yet is this alone evidence enough to defy what we know as the dietary laws? We can temporarily dismiss that human flesh is clearly unclean to eat by the standards of Leviticus 11 and instead turn to how often the drinking of blood is forbidden. Genesis 9:4 is our earliest record of this law, saying, only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you are not to eat. But it isn't alone. It's repeated in Leviticus 3, 17, and 19, Deuteronomy 12, and then it is even restated in the Messianic Scriptures within Acts! Acts 15:29 and 21:25 both condemn the drinking of blood because of what it represents. So clearly the wine and bread can not then become a literal transubstantiation of the Messiah's blood and body or he would be commanding us to defy his own commandments!
So what, then, can we make of his use of language in his presentation of the bread and wine at the Last Supper? We can look to John 10 for an example of how we should understand this. In this passage Y'shua refers to himself as 'the gate' and 'the good shepard' with the same lack of language indicating these to be symbolic. Yet he did not change before them into a gate, nor a shepard herding sheep. We know then that these are, in fact, representative; painting for us an illustration to understand his role as the Messiah. John 15 continues this theme of literal language being used in a figurative way in Y'shua calling himself the vine and his followers the branches. So when John 6 is read we can see then that it is no different than his common style. Saying, At this, the Judeans disputed with one another, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Then Yeshua said to them, “Yes, indeed! I tell you that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life — that is, I will raise him up on the Last Day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me, and I live in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live through the Father, so also whoever eats me will live through me. 58 So this is the bread that has come down from heaven — it is not like the bread the fathers ate; they’re dead, but whoever eats this bread will live forever!” 59 He said these things as he was teaching in a synagogue in K’far-Nachum.
We can then return to what 1 Corinthians is telling us. 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 isn't directly trying to speak to us of communion itself, but uses communion in presenting a case of idolatry. Using it in such a way that it does, indeed, make it applicable to this topic. It says, Therefore, my dear friends, run from idolatry! 15 I speak to you as sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. 16 The “cup of blessing” over which we make the b’rakhah — isn’t it a sharing in the bloody sacrificial death of the Messiah? The bread we break, isn’t it a sharing in the body of the Messiah? 17 Because there is one loaf of bread, we who are many constitute one body, since we all partake of the one loaf of bread. 18 Look at physical Isra’el: don’t those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 So, what am I saying? That food sacrificed to idols has any significance in itself? or that an idol has significance in itself? 20 No, what I am saying is that the things which pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice not to God but to demons; and I don’t want you to become sharers of the demons! 21 You can’t drink both a cup of the Lord and a cup of demons, you can’t partake in both a meal of the Lord and a meal of demons. 22 Or are we trying to make the Lord jealous? We aren’t stronger than he is, are we? Showing us that in partaking of the communion we are partaking of Y'shua's sacrifice, his body and blood; just as if we partake of pagan ceremonies they are partaking of what they mean to the pagans. But Saul isn't finished bringing up communion and he returns to it in chapter 11. Verses 23-32 say, For what I received from the Lord is just what I passed on to you — that the Lord Yeshua, on the night he was betrayed, took bread; 24 and after he had made the b’rakhah he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this as a memorial to me”; 25 likewise also the cup after the meal, saying, “This cup is the New Covenant effected by my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, as a memorial to me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the Lord’s bread or drinks the Lord’s cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of desecrating the body and blood of the Lord! 28 So let a person examine himself first, and then he may eat of the bread and drink from the cup; 29 for a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 This is why many among you are weak and sick, and some have died! 31 If we would examine ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined, so that we will not be condemned along with the world. With this we see again that return to the literal language, this time by Saul and not Y'shua. Yet again we would run into the same issues if we where to take this as literal as it sounds.
That said, however, we can not then dismiss this totally! We must understand what is then being said by Saul in these passages. It can not then be mere symbolism, as we see that in taking a part of these we are actively taking part in the body and blood. Nor can it be consubstantiation, the idea that the physical body and blood are present parallel to the bread and wine, as we then return to breaking the dietary laws. Nor that these elements, the bread and the wine, transubstantiate into the physical body and blood, but that taking part of them is a physical representation of us taking part in the body and blood spiritually, simultaneously, a spiritual presence. This stance is today called receptionism, a term that didn't exist until the mid 1800's, yet a position held by some millenia before. While transubstantiation certainly held a popular vote by the likes of Irenaeus, Martyr, and Tertullian, records which have survived until today, their own records show that there where some who did not hold to this at all.
I'd like to then turn us to the very first scriptural instance of bread and wine being presented together. We see them linked together for the first time in Genesis 14:18-20, with Melki-Tzedek, saying, Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought out bread and wine. He was cohen of El ‘Elyon [God Most High], 19 so he blessed him with these words: “Blessed be Avram by El ‘Elyon, maker of heaven of earth. and blessed be El ‘Elyon, who handed your enemies over to you.” Avram gave him a tenth of everything. Hebrews 7 and 8 show us that this Priest King is a typecast of the Messiah. How amazing then is it that he himself is bringing bread and wine to Abraham, then Abram? While this significance is not clearly laid out in either text I think we can now conclude what it is. We can then see that the wine and the bread being presented by this figure who so closely typecast the Messiah who is our ultimate Priest King toward Abram so clearly show us the same level of typecasting in what would be brought to us, the blood of the Messiah to make us Holy and his word, his body, given by the Messiah. This then enforces that these are not mere symbolism, as Hebrews shows that Melki-Tzedek is not merely a normal typecast such as the Yehoshua (Joshua) who followed Moshe in leadership of Israel. But it is also not the physical entity as Melki-Tzedek was still a typecast, not a christophany.
As we can then see the importance within the sacrament of communion, and when to have it and what it means, we can then turn to the vitality of the elements themselves that are used within it. To fully get to this we must dispel a few myths which tend to float around in the process.
Let us start with the bread this time. While the bread at the Last Supper would indeed have been unleavened in preparation for Unleavened Bread starting immediately after the day of Passover the bread used every other Sabbath and for four out of seven Holy Days was indeed leavened. So provided that bread is used, which is what was commanded and modeled, you are meeting the qualifications. Be this unleavened, leavened, gluten free, however the bread need be prepared that it involves the basis of grains with flour and water it meets the definition of a bread.
The wine becomes a far more discussed element within communion. We can see that 'fruit of the vine' is the command given for what element we are to use, so clearly anything which does not qualify as that is disqualified from being this element. We also know from there that what is modeled and spoken of outside of the modeling was directly wine, narrowing this fruit of the vine down to grapes. This is where we run into some of the more debated aspects. Within much of the world wine has been replaced with grape juice. But is this truly what should be done? Not at all! We are to do as Y'shua did, which involved true wine. Many myths float around concerning Y'shua and wine sadly, one of which that he drank grape juice and they just called it wine. Yet in the story of Y'shua turning water into wine at a wedding in Cana in John 2:1-11 we see that when a cup of it is brought to the host he praises it as the best wine yet! Indicating that it was well fermented and aged. We also know that younger wines could be even worse on the system than the older, stronger ones. Acts 2:13 has people accusing the Apostles of being drunk on new wine because of how they were behaving. So the wine used at the Last Supper was likely not new wine, but also not the best wine as it was purchased. We then can see that the wine itself was indeed an alcoholic wine, the idea of fermentation being halted simply wasn't an availability at the time. This makes wine our primary element.
Now, in the case that wine is absolutely Not an option, be it things like alcoholism, taking a Nazarite Vow, or availability then a substitute of grape juice would then fit in with the command. Yet the substitute should never take over as the primary! So churches which offer solely grape juice I would say are in violation of the elements for communion, they should be allowing both for the congregant to either use what Y'shua modeled for us and commanded for us, or the subsitute if necessary. It is, after all, wine and not grape juice linked to his blood and sanctification. As a side note then it is generally recommended that this be a red wine, as others simply don't hold the appearance to what the element is tied to.
I hope that this writing has been to your benefit, that you now grasp further why I hold to the stance that I do regarding the sacrament of communion. May Elohim bless you and keep you as you partake in his flesh and blood.
