JFJ Forums

Many churches use grape juice, rather than wine. In their view that is what "the best wine" was. Not fermented/bitter wine.

FTR~ wk, I should have said his before: I am not "bothered" by transubstantiation. I don't hold to that view, but *IMO* (emphasis on OPINION), it isn't something to divide over.

Mariology is much more troubling...perhaps a thread on it??

Yetzirah –
I’m not sure about other faith traditions but I know the Catholic (both eastern and western rites) mix water with the wine before the consecration.  This is done during the part of the Sacrifice of the Mass called the Offeratory, where, like the Todah sacrifice, bread and wine are offered in thanksgiving (Todah/Eucharistae), just like the offering by Melchezidek.

Prior to the consecration of the bread, the priest says the following prayer:
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation.  Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made.  It will become for us the bread of life.”  And the congregation responds “Blessed be God forever.”
The similar Haggadah prayer in Hebrew… “Baruch Atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech ha'olam Borei peri ha-motzi le-chem min ha-aretz.”

Water is then mixed with the wine and the following prayer is said:
“By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who
humbled himself to share in our humanity.”

This mingling of water and wine is understood to represent the mystery of Jesus’ simultaneous human and divine nature and how in his divinity, he takes on our sinful humanity.  It is an exchange of persons, a covenant renewal.  Catholics believe in a real, substantial, physical presence so we see this as not only a spiritual exchange and renewal but a physical one as well.

The water is also a symbol of the Spirit of God’s abundant grace, poured out for all, just as both the blood and water poured from the side of Jesus, the Passover Lamb (Jn 20:34). We understand this sacrifice, the piercing, the covenant renewal, the issuance of blood and water, to be the fulfillment of many prophecies, such as a partial fulfillment of Zech 12:10f ( “… when they look on him whom they have pierced …”) and Ezekiel 47:1ff (sanctifying water flowing from the side of the temple).

With the wine:
“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation.  Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands.  It will become our spiritual drink. ” And the congregation responds “Blessed be God forever.”
The similar prayer in Hebrew … “Baruch Atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech ha'olam Borei peri ha-gafen.”

The priest then takes and washes his hands just like the “Urchatz/Rachatz” and offers the following prayer:
“Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.”

So much more to say but time is limited.  I guess I got carried away since you were only asking about the mingling of water and wine.  I’m curious about the specific references to water/wine/blood you mention from the Tanach.  Do you have specific verses?

Ripleys’ –

I’m by no means an expert on the Mitzvot but based on Lev 3:17, the Jewish people were forbidden both fat and blood.  It is physically impossible to remove every bit of blood and every bit of fat from meat, so it would seem that this, along with the other Mitzvot are nearly impossible to keep.  As Christians, we believe that ALL of the Torah points to our Savior Jesus Christ and that he is the complete fulfillment of the Torah. He came not to abolish the Law (teachings) but to fulfill it’s meaning and what it was leading to.  

Immanuel, God with us, the Passover Lamb says “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

For me, this means that the Torah forbade consumption of blood of animals as a teaching and constant reminder that “life is in the blood”.  Jesus takes this teaching and fulfills it’s purpose by commanding his disciples (all Jewish) to now do the very thing they were previously forbidden to do, for the very reason they were forbidden to do it – because “life is in the blood”.

Nowhere does Jesus use the word “bread”.  He held up the Passover Afikomen, broke it, and said “Take, eat; this is my body” (Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22), and “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” (Lk 22:19)

You ask: So, is it possible/probable that He was telling them a SPIRITUAL TRUTH, rather than a literal one?

I suppose it’s possible but I believe it is more likely that he meant it literally for the following reasons:
- He is very clear about what he is saying.  His DISCIPLES are not accepting it yet he continues to restate the difficult teaching several times.
- After the final reiteration, Jesus allows his disciples to “walk away and follow him no more”.  If they misunderstood this as a literal teaching instead of a spiritual teaching, Jesus would not have allowed his disciples to turn from him.
- There is an overwhelming number of connections between a literal meaning of John 6, and the words of consecration during the last supper, with the Passover, the Torah, blood sacrifices, “bread of presence” in the tabernacle, the multiplication of loaves, turning water into wine, the road to Emaus, the offering of Melchizedek, Cain/Abel, Jesus as the Lamb of God ….
- Historical secular evidence that Christians were viewed as a Jewish sect that participated in “cannibalism”
- The abundance of writings from the Early Church fathers proclaiming a literal physical presence
- The absence of early Christian writings proclaiming a spiritual only presence

As for a thread on Mariology … maybe in the future.  I have three separate threads as it is now and an annoying virus making it difficult for me to post.

I suppose it’s possible but I believe it is more likely that he meant it literally for the following reasons:
- He is very clear about what he is saying.  His DISCIPLES are not accepting it yet he continues to restate the difficult teaching several times.
- After the final reiteration, Jesus allows his disciples to “walk away and follow him no more”.  If they misunderstood this as a literal teaching instead of a spiritual teaching, Jesus would not have allowed his disciples to turn from him.
- There is an overwhelming number of connections between a literal meaning of John 6, and the words of consecration during the last supper, with the Passover, the Torah, blood sacrifices, “bread of presence” in the tabernacle, the multiplication of loaves, turning water into wine, the road to Emaus, the offering of Melchizedek, Cain/Abel, Jesus as the Lamb of God ….

To answer these three first statements:
His Apostles/disciples did not understand that He was going to DIE. So, for them just the thought of equating Him with a dead sacrifice would have been unthinkable. Maybe it was this they could not accept. Remember Peter's rebuke of Him? They thought He was the Conquering King of Israel's Deliverance, RIGHT THEN. They did not understand that He would return to finish His Messianic Mission, like non-messianics who reject Him today. (See Acts 1, they ask Him if He is going to deliver Israel from Rome.)

- Historical secular evidence that Christians were viewed as a Jewish sect that participated in “cannibalism”

A misunderstanding based on the reading as literal would lead to that, whether Christians followed that rendering, or not.

- The abundance of writings from the Early Church fathers proclaiming a literal physical presence

You know what I think of "early writings"...ponderings, speculation, disagreement, no consensus = Talmud/commentary/man's musings. And does not equal scripture.

- The absence of early Christian writings proclaiming a spiritual only presence

An arguement from silence is not convincing to me. It could simply mean that there was no controversy over -whatever- position. It is the NT writings that I appeal to.

Either way, wk, we *both* feel it important to partake of Communion, as we are told, to to be obedient children.

There is no mention in this passage that Jesus will undergo death nor do I believe it was revealed by this time, especially to anyone but the 12.  His message is one of new and eternal life. They are not rejecting his Kingship but the difficult teaching on the bread of life discourse.  This on the heels of his miracle of loaves, where Jesus showed the abundance of grace and miracles he can provide from something so simple as bread and wine.  They experienced the miracle of the loaves and the miracle at Cana and believed enough to follow him to Capernaum but could not believe that his flesh and blood, in the form of bread and wine, can bring about new and eternal life.  The apostles also had a hard time understanding but instead of leaving …  “To whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life, and we believe” (though do not understand)

Regarding the accusations of cannibalism …  you should do an internet search on “Octavius and Caecilius” and you will come across a dialog between a pagan and Christian.  The pagan, Caecilius, makes accusations of cannibalism and orgies and Octavius defends the Christians.  Nowhere does Caecilius show any sign of having ever read scripture.  His misunderstanding was not based on the reading of scripture but instead on his witness of the beliefs and practices of the Christians in Rome.

We agree that the ECF writings are not scripture.  They are writings of the beliefs and practices of the early Church.  I personally consider them extremely valuable because of their proximity in time to Christ and his apostles.  Most of their teachings are in complete harmony with scripture so can be seen as commentary on scripture with the added benefit of a more direct line to the apostles.  The same “ponderings/commentary/mans musings/disagreement” can be said of today’s commentary.

There is no silence from the early church on the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  The loud voice is the real physical presence.  The silence is of those who walked away and followed him no more.

wkirscher Thank you, I will save it in ''my'' documents...

Sorry I'm not a specialist about water and wine... So please ask a Rabbi
Besides that I follow a Sephardi Custom, where we don't put water in the wine. I even don't know exactly why. There is so much else to study...

The prayer is indeed simular... I saw it once on an altar in THE Old-Catholic Church, and it surpriced me. I didn't knew than, but it was on a day of Architecture and I was studying religion in general for a year. So had an exception to go into Churches somehow... (normally Jews will not go into churches according to our Laws).
I mean THE, because I lived in Utrecht, never realizing that that Church was some kind of International ''headquater'' for Old-Catholics, and also Holland has some non-Roman Catholics.

More cultures used bread and wine of course in ritual meaning.
But I don't know if our blessing is realy an offering, mainly or totally not. Nice that in your blessing is added ''work of human hands''. Only with Pesach realy we connect meaning to it in the sence of salvation. The rest is remembering the Sabbath etc.
Our personalisation is in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person is in the Blessing itself.
Blessed are YOU MY-God, OUR-God, King/Master of THE WORLD.

Thanks, be well and be well, don't drink to much...

Exactly, wk. But I assure you that if that same person was sitting in on Potestant or non-denominational church's Communion, and heard the reading of the scripture pertaining to it, they would think the same thing even though we don't hold to the transubstantiation view. Especially if they were attempting to discredit the church. So, honestly, it proves nothing.




Amen! The only view that matters is God's, contained in His word.

I have to disagree.  If the non-believers observed a person holding up a piece of bread and a cup of wine or grape juice saying "this is my body/blood" they would not take it literally.  The immediate reaction is that they observe bread and wine and assume a symbolic meaning.  Especially if that is what the Christians were explaining. The only way a non-believer would associate the Eucharist with cannibalism is if someone insisted on the difficult teaching of the Real Presence over a symbolic presence.  This dialog and the writings of the ECF paint a very clear picture of what the early church believed.

And this "view" is entirely in harmony with God's Word (both in scripture and in flesh).  I hope you are not saying it isn't.

And I have to disagree. People accuse Roman Catholics TODAY of worshipping idols because they see people bowing before icons and statues and praying. You have to explain to those willing to listen that you are not worshipping the "thing". And even then they may not believe/understand you.

You appeal to the church fathers, I appeal to the Apostles who were present. I do not think that they thought they were literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood at that, or any subsequent meeting/Communion after. Precisely because they were Jews.

It also doesn't hold the signicance to me that it does you. And before you accuse me of lowering it's importance, let me explain what I mean: for you "doing things" is part of "working out your own salvation". You and I don't agree on that point. For me it was finished on the cross 100%. No caveats. I am called to be obedient, but my salvation is secure. Done. Finito. In other words, my salvation is not dependent on anything I do, to the letter or not to the letter. It is my attitude toward Him and trust in His work that is paramount. As it has always been throughout the history of the Patriarchs.

Your view is that you are participitory in your salvation, so the letter is very important to you. I do understand that, even though I don't agree. Yes, very Rabbinic.

Both of us look to Jewish (OT) foundation for our understanding. I reject the literal eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood because it is foreign to Hebrew (OT) foundations. The blood of sacrifice was always sprinkled on the Mercy Seat, never consumed. When I partake of Communion, it is that that is in my mind. His body broken on my behalf, His blood poured out for me, His presence before the throne Advocating for me, even now.

Ripley’s – I don’t expect you to agree but this thread is about the similarities between the Passover and the Eucharist, not what you think my views are on salvation.

You said:  “You appeal to the church fathers, I appeal to the Apostles who were present”.
It sounds to me like you are saying that your interpretation is based on scripture and mine is based on the ECFs.  Well mine is based on scripture as I’ve pointed out and it is based on our Jewish roots.  AND it just so happens to be in line with numerous writings from the ECFs.

The Messianic Church believed in the Real Presence precisely because they were Jewish.  They believed in the Real Presence because God was really present in the burning bush.  They believed in the Real Presence because God was really present in the pillar of fire and smoke.  They believed in the Real Presence because God was really present in the tabernacle.  He wasn’t just spiritually present: He was physically present!  Don’t you agree?  The Messianic Jews believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist because when God Made Flesh, the Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world held up the Passover Afikomen and the Cup of Blessing, he said this IS my body and this IS my blood.

The blood of the sacrifice was not spread only on the mercy seat….

Prior to entry into Canaan (the same place Jesus turned water into wine), God renewed his covenant with Israel. Moses put the Law into writing, built an altar, and Israel offered communion sacrifices.  After spreading the blood of the sacrifice over the altar, Moses then sprinkled the blood over the people saying “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you”.  When Jesus lifted up the Cup of Blessing, he said “Drink from this, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. (Mt 26:26ff)

The blood of the Passover Lamb was commanded to be spread over the entry way to the houses of God’s chosen people so death would pass them over and they would be released from bondage.  Is the Blood of the Passover Lamb able to continue to save us from death, release us from bondage, and bring us to new life?  Indeed it is and so we spread it over the doorposts of our hearts.

Eating the Passover Lamb???  Very Jewish.  Life is in the blood? Very Jewish.  God’s Real Presence?  Very Jewish. Covering our temples, sprinkling our hearts with the Blood of the Passover Lamb?  Very Jewish.  None of this is “foreign” to the Jewish roots of our faith!