MATTERS OF FORM IN COMMUNION
MATTERS OF FORM IN COMMUNION
Virgil Warren, PhD
An appropriate principle would apparently be not to change the form of a ritual command. The form of a performative commandment is not subject to cultural alteration. This is true because the form of the ordinance does not rest in the nature of things but in the authority of the One who establishes it by positive commandment. Maintaining the form of the ritual command is especially sensible if the New Testament makes a point of some aspect of the form that the ordinance has.
In religious matters there is a general practice of carrying the above principle into an absolute; it is called “patternism,” which refers to being concerned with exact forms of procedure. It rests on the assumption that God is very concerned with such matters. It does not question whether scripture clearly attaches any intentional or conceivable meaning to a particular pattern in the Bible. Those who adhere to patternism fear that raising such an issue smacks of insubordination to divine authority.
Patternism can be involved in strictures against instrumental worship—and other matters of silence in regard to worship, the Lord’s Supper, church organization, healing formulae, exorcism rites, the administration of baptism, and the like.
I. One Cup/One Loaf vs. Individualized Portions
The basic issue on form is whether oneness is part of the intended symbolism along with the elements as emblematic of the body and blood of Christ (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29) by which the New Covenant is established (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25). The level, or degree, of symbolism is also the issue in whether leavened bread and/or grape juice is acceptable; see essay on “Communion Elements.”)
In regard to the loaf, Paul does make a point of the one loaf as symbolic of the oneness those should have who unite in the observance of the communion: “The bread/loaf that we break—is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we who are many, are one loaf/bread—one body; because we all partake of the one loaf/bread.”
It is at least obvious that when Jesus instituted the supper, the disciples drank out of the same cup rather than from separate ones (Matthew 26:27 = Mark 14:23 = Luke 22:20 = 1 Corinthians 11:26-28). Luke’s account does use the expression “divide [the cup] among yourselves,” which could allow for their not drinking directly out of the cup but “dividing” it out into separate personal containers. If a person were so to understand the expression, he could then use that idea as a guideline for understanding “all of you drink out of it” indirectly; that is, drink from it as we do by drinking from the individual cups in the tray of cups filled from a common container. It should be obvious, however, that this is not, in fact, what happened in the upper room.
The alteration of this practice comes from Western sensitivities to drinking after each other and the fear of spreading germs from one person to another.
Questions are raised as well about how the cup would be observed in large assemblies of several hundred. This could be answered by saying that the whole assembly would not have to partake out of the same vessel. The symbolism of unity can be expressed between those who share a particular chalice.
Those who use individual cups conceive of the tray of cups as equivalent to the chalice from which all would otherwise drink; so to speak, the individual portions are poured out of a common container into separate containers for the act of consumption itself. The tray becomes a “pitcher of cups.”
There are three inter-connected points of ambiguity in the Greek text of Matthew’s institution statement. One has to do with the antecedent of “it” in the statement “All-of-you drink of it.” Does it refer back to the cup (ποτήριον [potērion]) or to its contents? The second has to do with whether it looks back to cup—or content—or forward to “my blood” or even “this fruit [γέννημα, sg. neut.] of the vine.” In the statements about bread (ἄρτος, [artos] sg. mas.), this (τοῦτο, [touto] neut.) looks forward to blood (αἷμα, [haima] neut.) because this is neuter like blood rather than masculine like bread. The third difficulty is whether ἐκ (ek) means “out of” or “of.” These issues cannot be solved grammatically.
II. Observance of Both “Kinds” and in “One Kind”
From the doctrine of real presence, the reasoning is that if the loaf is actually the body of Christ, then the blood is contained in it. Only the administrator partakes of the cup; the laity partakes only of the wafer, thus the expression communion “in one kind.” Similarly, intinction means dipping the bread (host) into the wine and observing the two elements simultaneously. Partaking of “both kinds” individually by administrator and laity follows the clear example at the institution. There seems to be no reason for doing the observance some way different from the manner in which it was established by the Lord himself. The “clergy” has no special reason to distinguish itself from the laity in this matter; we are all one in Christ.
III. Prayer Before Each Element
To some people, Jesus’ offering a separate prayer before the observance of each element is an aspect of the observance we should maintain. Interestingly, however, churches that concern themselves with this matter of form sometimes have two men “presiding” at the table, and each one offers a prayer for the different emblems; Jesus, however, offered both prayers. Furthermore, the two prayers are often given for both elements by both presiders rather than one prayer for the loaf and another for the cup. Finally, he circulated the loaf before he offered the second prayer and circulated the cup, a pattern that is not necessarily maintained by these same observants.
Since scripture offers no clear example of such aspects of procedure and correlates no meanings with them, they are best left as matters of opinion and preference.
IV. Sequence
There is seldom any departure from the pattern of taking the bread first and the cup second even though Jesus himself made no point of taking the bread first. Luke’s account mentions a cup before the bread as well as one afterward (22:14-20).
In a sense there is a departure from sequence in the practice of dipping the bread—often unleavened bread—into the liquid and taking both simultaneously (intinction). This could be seen as more like the real situation if a person were to eat the actual flesh of another; the blood would be in the “meat.”