The Bread and wine in some evangelical churches

JimiTime

A question arose in me after seeing in some evangelical churches, that normal levened bread rolls and fruit cordial were being used as the communion bread and wine.

The question that arose is as follows: The bread used by Christ was unlevened, when he said 'This means my body'. I always understood the significance of the 'unleavened' part to be representitive of his body being free from sin. Leaven being used as a symbol of corruption. The significance of the wine I'm not sure of.

the question is this. Does the accuracy of the bread and wine not matter? Could we go further and use whiskey and chocolate instead? (Genuine question). I'm just wondering at what the accuracy cut off point is or if it matters at all, and the reasoning behind it.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

A question arose in me after seeing in some evangelical churches, that normal levened bread rolls and fruit cordial were being used as the communion bread and wine.

The question that arose is as follows: The bread used by Christ was unlevened, when he said 'This means my body'. I always understood the significance of the 'unleavened' part to be representitive of his body being free from sin. Leaven being used as a symbol of corruption. The significance of the wine I'm not sure of.

the question is this. Does the accuracy of the bread and wine not matter? Could we go further and use whiskey and chocolate instead? (Genuine question). I'm just wondering at what the accuracy cut off point is or if it matters at all, and the reasoning behind it.

Whiskey & chocolate would be fine by me - they're just symbols.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Whiskey & chocolate would be fine by me - they're just symbols.

What would be your reasoning, as to why the symbols could be anything? Why bother using anything? Why not just remember Christs sacrifice without the food and drink?

The lamb of the passover was 'Just a symbol' too, was it not? A prophetic one looking forward, whereas we have a testimonial one pointing to a past event. In the interests of consistancy, is all such symbolism so malleable? If yes, then why bother with the nitty gritty of the symbol (Significance of leaven etc). If no, then what differentiates the unshifting symbols, and the malleable ones?

faceman

JimiTime wrote: »

What would be your reasoning, as to why the symbols could be anything? Why bother using anything? Why not just remember Christs sacrifice without the food and drink?

Its symbolic but its similar IMO to our national flag. The colours are symbolic too but could you change them? Why would you want to?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

What would be your reasoning, as to why the symbols could be anything? Why bother using anything? Why not just remember Christs sacrifice without the food and drink?

The lamb of the passover was 'Just a symbol' too, was it not? A prophetic one looking forward, whereas we have a testimonial one pointing to a past event. In the interests of consistancy, is all such symbolism so malleable? If yes, then why bother with the nitty gritty of the symbol (Significance of leaven etc). If no, then what differentiates the unshifting symbols, and the malleable ones?

Because Jesus told us to remember his death by sharing a memorial meal. He didn't specify that the wine had to be made with a particular variety of grape, nor that the bread had to be of a particular type.

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

Whiskey & chocolate would be fine by me - they're just symbols.

I see. And where might this church be located?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Because Jesus told us to remember his death by sharing a memorial meal. He didn't specify that the wine had to be made with a particular variety of grape, nor that the bread had to be of a particular type.

He does say 'product of the vine', and the fact that it was passover says it was unleavened bread does it not? Also the fact that the leaven was symbolic of sin, and we are using bread that represents Jesus' body would suggest to me that there is something to the symbolism. Or do you think the passover timing and sybolism etc is inconsaquential to Jesus' memorial?

Is there anyone here who see the bread and the wine as symbols, but also see it as important that its unleavened bread etc? Love to hear you state your case. Cheers.

lmaopml

JimiTime wrote: »

A question arose in me after seeing in some evangelical churches, that normal levened bread rolls and fruit cordial were being used as the communion bread and wine.

The question that arose is as follows: The bread used by Christ was unlevened, when he said 'This means my body'. I always understood the significance of the 'unleavened' part to be representitive of his body being free from sin. Leaven being used as a symbol of corruption. The significance of the wine I'm not sure of.

the question is this. Does the accuracy of the bread and wine not matter? Could we go further and use whiskey and chocolate instead? (Genuine question). I'm just wondering at what the accuracy cut off point is or if it matters at all, and the reasoning behind it.

Hey guys, and I hope you don't take it the wrong way...but he actually said, 'this is my body..'...translated from aramaic, greek etc. etc. It actually means 'is'...not 'represents'..or even, 'means'...


Anyways, I know this is an evangelical thread so I shall depart promptly....


*departs* in peace..but has to say her 'bit'...lol...

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

Hey guys, and I hope you don't take it the wrong way...but he actually said, 'this is my body..'...translated from aramaic, greek etc. etc. It actually means 'is'...not 'represents'..or even, 'means'...


Anyways, I know this is an evangelical thread so I shall depart promptly....


*departs* in peace..but has to say her 'bit'...lol...

No problem. 'Is' my body then. Doesn't make a difference to the point, unless of course you want to get into the cannibalistic;) versus symbolic arguement, which would be best in the Catholic - Protestant mega thread.

smurfhousing

The Lord used bread and wine. Not coffee and doughnuts, or tea and crumpets. It would be wise to follow the example of the Lord. Anything else would be disobedience and pride, since we would thereby claim to know better than the Creator of heaven and earth, Who used bread and wine for a reason.

philologos

I personally prefer communion wine, and bread, I suppose it is pretty much down to taste, but if it is a memory of the Last Supper, it is easier to make the connection if one uses what was used at the Last Supper, or something similar. Although, it is notable to mention that sometimes fruit cordial is used due to the fact that people might be weak in respect to alcohol, or they may be recovering alcoholics. This is an important consideration also.

PDN

faceman wrote: »

Its symbolic but its similar IMO to our national flag. The colours are symbolic too but could you change them? Why would you want to?

Just to note that I couldn't give a toss about any flag either. They tend to be wretched pathetic scraps of cloth designed to dupe the poor and uneducated into sacrificing their lives to promote the interests of the rich and influential.

Rant over.

gbee

JimiTime wrote: »

use whiskey and chocolate instead? (

Absolutely, and don't forget the condoms!

lmaopml

JimiTime wrote: »

No problem. 'Is' my body then. Doesn't make a difference to the point, unless of course you want to get into the cannibalistic;) versus symbolic arguement, which would be best in the Catholic - Protestant mega thread.

Lol, cheers Jimi...I'm kinda pedantic, a fault of mine, but I mean no harm...but I'm not a cannibal..yikes!

...and in fairness, I agree with PDN about the flag issue too..

..what a steaming pile of unadorned shyte..or even over adorned shyte...

: DDDDDD

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

but I'm not a cannibal..yikes!

I know, was just teasing. Though theres some truth in Jest;)

...and in fairness, I agree with PDN about the flag issue too..

..what a steaming pile of unadorned shyte..or even over adorned shyte...

: DDDDDD

Indeed, its an idol of sorts.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally prefer communion wine, and bread, I suppose it is pretty much down to taste, but if it is a memory of the Last Supper, it is easier to make the connection if one uses what was used at the Last Supper, or something similar. Although, it is notable to mention that sometimes fruit cordial is used due to the fact that people might be weak in respect to alcohol, or they may be recovering alcoholics. This is an important consideration also.

Reading the above, it would seem that you are of the same opinion as PDN, but its just that you like the traditional approach. Of course, so does PDN in that he would use bread and wine/cordial, but in essence, you don't believe it matters?

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

Reading the above, it would seem that you are of the same opinion as PDN, but its just that you like the traditional approach. Of course, so does PDN in that he would use bread and wine/cordial, but in essence, you don't believe it matters?

Not that much, but I personally would prefer to have communion with communion wine and bread. I can see why they have cordial in some cases, due to people in the congregation perhaps having problems with alcoholism.

smurfhousing

Jakkass wrote: »

Not that much, but I personally would prefer to have communion with communion wine and bread. I can see why they have cordial in some cases, due to people in the congregation perhaps having problems with alcoholism.

Mustum can be used for people who have problems with alcohol, even in the Catholic Mass. It is very low alcohol content wine.

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

A question arose in me after seeing in some evangelical churches, that normal levened bread rolls and fruit cordial were being used as the communion bread and wine.

The question that arose is as follows: The bread used by Christ was unlevened, when he said 'This means my body'. I always understood the significance of the 'unleavened' part to be representitive of his body being free from sin. Leaven being used as a symbol of corruption. The significance of the wine I'm not sure of.

the question is this. Does the accuracy of the bread and wine not matter? Could we go further and use whiskey and chocolate instead? (Genuine question). I'm just wondering at what the accuracy cut off point is or if it matters at all, and the reasoning behind it.

In the West unleavened bread is used exclusively since around 9th century. In the East leavened bread has always been used (except some pre-Chalcedonian Churches). Both camps had very important symbolic meaning attached to both kinds of bread and it actually was the major reason for the Great Schism in 1054. So the leavened bread you saw in a Evangelical church is not something new or unusual. These days Evangelicals may or may not pay any attention to the symbolic meaning of leavened or unleavened bread and just use some Cuisine de France rolls as soon as it's bread.

As for the cordial instead of wine, well, they are Evangelicals and as long as that particular congregation does not mind it being cordial I don't see a problem with it. It is "wine" for them. Symbolically.

JimiTime

Ok, thanks for the responses, but I suppose we haven't really got down to the nitty gritty yet.

So the obvious question for me is this: If something is symbolic, in reference to feasts etc, does it mean that you can discard the symbolism used as long as you know what was behind the symbolism in the first place?

Offering up a lamb with no blemish etc is what God commanded the Jews to do. Would it have been ok to offer up an infirm pigeon instead, if one knew what the lambs relevance was? Or being more relevant to this topic, offer up a lamb with an infirmity?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, thanks for the responses, but I suppose we haven't really got down to the nitty gritty yet.

So the obvious question for me is this: If something is symbolic, in reference to feasts etc, does it mean that you can discard the symbolism used as long as you know what was behind the symbolism in the first place?

Offering up a lamb with no blemish etc is what God commanded the Jews to do. Would it have been ok to offer up an infirm pigeon instead, if one knew what the lambs relevance was? Or being more relevant to this topic, offer up a lamb with an infirmity?

Tbh, I don't think what the Jews did is particularly relevant. They were under law, but we are under grace.

We translate lots of stuff culturally (eg, greeting one another with a hug or a handshake rather than a kiss). I believe that we should be striving to observe the spirit of unity and fellowship displayed in the communion meal, not worrying about the letter of the details.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Tbh, I don't think what the Jews did is particularly relevant. They were under law, but we are under grace.

I think its relevant in that it gives insight. Obviously its not a case of, 'If the Israelites/Jews did it, then we must'. If we can use the OT to see what the symbolism meant to God, and Why he used it etc, it may give me/us insight into how important it is or not.

I believe that we should be striving to observe the spirit of unity and fellowship displayed in the communion meal, not worrying about the letter of the details.

I wholeheartedly agree with the former of that sentance, but I'm wondering about the latter. There is no reason why both cannot be achieved, but its whether we should bother with the latter I suppose is the question I'm asking. I am someone who hates the ritualism that is present in so much of Chritendom, and things like the doctrine of sacraments etc. However, this is a question of respect more than a question of salvation IMO.

Why do you think God used symbolism like leaven and the unblemished lamb etc? Why did he bother with it? Do you think in answering these questions it could provide any insight into the question I have asked?

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

If we can use the OT to see what the symbolism meant to God, and Why he used it etc

Interesting point. Do you thing symbolism really means anything to God? Why would He need symbols?

it may give me/us insight into how important it is or not.

Is not the whole Old Testament, every single bit of it, fulfilled in Christ? And if it is then the OT symbolism as such is not important for us at all, i.e. on its own it has zero value now, doesn't it?

There is no reason why both cannot be achieved, but its whether we should bother with the latter I suppose is the question I'm asking. I am someone who hates the ritualism that is present in so much of Chritendom

I think Christendom is 100% free from ritualism; it has a lot of symbolism though.

and things like the doctrine of sacraments etc.

That's interesting. Do you think there is such a thing as the sacrament of salvation, for instance?

Anyway, getting back to your question whether we should bother with it or can discard it, I think in case of bread and wine it's all really down to the question of "in remembrance only" vs "real body and blood". For the former I think the answer is no, we should not bother. I think in this case communion meal should even be optional and not strictly bound to any particular symbols or to any symbols at all. Otherwise that would be the first step to ritualism. However if it's the latter then the symbolism is important and should be observed.

Why do you think God used symbolism like leaven and the unblemished lamb etc? Why did he bother with it?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. This and everything else in OT is just to make it possible that within a certain nation one couple could give birth to a girl who could become Theotokos. And that within that nation there would some other men who could share bread and wine with her Son and then in few days become witnesses of His resurrection and would be able to make sense out of it and could go and preach the gospel to all nations.

chozometroid

I think unleavened bread and unfermented wine would be proper for use in representing the body and blood of Christ. But that's only if you actually think an act involving communion with God in rememberance of the sacrifice of Christ demands any sort of special reverence or guideline of any sort. I think the fact that Christ performed this service as an example should be worth something. He used the purest forms of food and drink available to Him at the time.

1 Corinthians 11:27-34 (King James Version)


27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

This segment begins by stating that our thoughts and self-examination are important during this act. We are to look upon ourselves and examine our sins. The last verse speaks against taking communion for the purpose of pleasure/hunger. You can do that during "normal" hours at home, but not during this time. Choosing chocolate and whiskey just for fun would be an insult to what communion is about, IMO.

That said, if you do not have access to unleavened bread or unfermented wine, then I'm sure you can use what you have. It's not a rule, but a proper guideline. It is the intention that matters in the end. If you feel fine about purposefully choosing something as dissimilar as possible to what Jesus used, then that is your choice. Perhaps during the service you will be able to properly examine your choice.

Greaney

The reason for the unleavend bread is the passover supper, that's of huge significance because through Christs death came the ulitimate Passover. We are passed over and escape Gods judgment.

I'm afraid the Israelites didn't eat chocolate for the 'exit' meal before they fled Egypt.

gbee

JimiTime wrote: »

Offering up a lamb with no blemish etc is what God commanded the Jews to do. Would it have been ok to offer up an infirm pigeon instead, if one knew what the lambs relevance was? Or being more relevant to this topic, offer up a lamb with an infirmity?

So you show your true colours, and to be true to tradition, no is the answer, but that does NOT give you the right to be sacrificing virgins to the Devil Or God.

Substituting, an evening meal for a half hour mass is fine, using yesterday's McDonnell buns is fine, using Cordial is fine.

None of these hurt things.

You are not allowed to make blood sacrifices today and using religious practices from a by gone age to satisfy a blood lust is not acceptable.

As God, I'd be insulted that you'd even think of such a thing. We do not kill in God's name. That you honour me with breadcrumbs, as long as you honour me, is acceptable.

LeprachaunPope

PDN wrote: »

Whiskey & chocolate would be fine by me - they're just symbols.

BLASPHEMY!

JimiTime

gbee wrote: »

So you show your true colours, and to be true to tradition, no is the answer, but that does NOT give you the right to be sacrificing virgins to the Devil Or God.

Substituting, an evening meal for a half hour mass is fine, using yesterday's McDonnell buns is fine, using Cordial is fine.

None of these hurt things.

You are not allowed to make blood sacrifices today and using religious practices from a by gone age to satisfy a blood lust is not acceptable.

As God, I'd be insulted that you'd even think of such a thing. We do not kill in God's name. That you honour me with breadcrumbs, as long as you honour me, is acceptable.

So was the pub busy tonight?

gbee

JimiTime wrote: »

So was the pub busy tonight?

I'm serious. Take heed.

JimiTime

gbee wrote: »

I'm serious. Take heed.

Oh right. So what you are saying is, we CANT sacrifice virgins anymore?

But what about my religious freedom?