By James Jester
February 23, 2020
Scripture Reading: Matthew 26:26-29
“And when they were taking food, Jesus took bread and, after blessing it, he gave the broken bread to the disciples and said, Take it; this is my body. And he took a cup and, having given praise, he gave it to them, saying, Take of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the testament, which is given for men for the forgiveness of sins. But I say to you that from now I will not take of this fruit of the vine, till that day when I take it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” – BBE
Are the Sacraments necessary for our spiritual growth or ultimately for our final salvation? Many churches believe they are. That is certainly their business and I would not condemn them for their beliefs. But the point here is, do the sacraments have Biblical support for what these churches claim? The Protestants have narrowed the Sacraments down to two: Baptism and Communion; but even these lack a full and unquestionable support from the Scriptures (in my opinion).
If you were to ask me, what is my favorite sacrament of the two, I would have to say Communion (I’ve never been fond of water). Likewise, Communion is very meaningful to many sincere Christians; and I do not intend to offend anyone with this study.
Baptism and Communion are not necessary to our salvation for that is already accomplished by the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ. The Sacraments should not be looked upon as a “law” although many churches imply this meaning. If they consider the Sacraments as such, I should remind them that my main premise to refute this idea is that the Old Covenant law was “abolished” (Eph. 2:15), as Paul declared. This I documented thoroughly in the last sermon. Since the law is gone in regard to our covenant relationship to God, there is no need for a substitute law, as the Sacraments are sometimes considered. Instead, the Sacraments should be referred to as rites or ceremonies.
Our Scripture reading is Matthew’s account of the last Passover meal of our Lord with the disciples. It should be noted that the last verse of our text turns from a memorial supper to a prophetic remembrance, “…I will not take of this fruit of the vine, till that day when I take it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Substance over Symbolism
In the first sermon on the Sacraments, I had concluded with the idea of service (that is, substance) being more important than symbolism. What do I mean by this? Let’s start with the dictionary:
substance: the quality of being important, valid, or significant: he had yet to accomplish anything of substance.
- the most important or essential part of something; the real or essential meaning: the substance of the treaty.
- the subject matter of a text, speech, or work of art, especially as contrasted with the form or style in which it is presented.
symbolism: the use of symbols to represent ideas or qualities: he has always believed in the importance of symbolism in art.
- symbolic meaning attributed to natural objects or facts: the old-fashioned symbolism of flowers.
- (also, Symbolism) an artistic and poetic movement or style using symbolic images and indirect suggestion to express mystical ideas, emotions, and states of mind. – Apple Dictionary
In the last sermon, I concluded with the witness of James, “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves” (Jas. 1:22). Many people tend to lean on church tradition and symbols rather than actually doing the will of God in their life. This, of course is a mistake and grave error, if not a sin. The Scriptures make it very clear that obedience to God’s laws and substantive service to Him is far better than any kind of symbolic ritual. James continues:
“For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror [Symbolism]: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But he that looketh into the perfect law [Substance], the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh [Substance], this man shall be blessed in his doing.” – Jas. 1:23-25
I feel that the Sacraments can become a “crutch” that some of our people might lean upon, rather than taking self-initiated action to serve Yahweh. There are many people that attend church somewhat regularly, and others such as “C. & E. Christians” (Christmas & Easter) that think they are safe from Judgment Day simply because they are baptized or take a sip of wine in a church ritual. Beyond that, they care little about the furtherance of the kingdom of God, and what they can do in Christ’s service to make known the kingdom of Yahweh. James also gives us an example of such service in verse 27,
“Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
So, there is more to the Christian life than just being “religious” in a church setting. “Christians” who lack this motivation in Christ-like service and real substance, are one of the main reasons our country has deteriorated into degeneracy in more ways than one.
The Holy Eucharist
The Eucharist (from a Greek word meaning grateful) also called The Lord’s Supper or Communion has long been a subject of debate and schism in the denominational church world. In the Catholic tradition, it is the Mass, and in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Divine Liturgy.
Communion is the Christian ceremony commemorating the Last Supper of Jesus Christ, in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed. The bread and wine are referred to as the body and blood of Christ, though much theological controversy has focused on how substantially or symbolically this is to be interpreted.
Transubstantiation – In the Roman Catholic Church, “the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration; only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.” – Apple Dictionary
Consubstantiation – “The doctrine, especially in Lutheran belief, that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.” – Apple Dictionary
Representation – In Protestant churches, the elements represent (symbolic) the body and blood of Christ, i.e., there is no actual body or blood present.
The word “substance” is seen in the first two theories concerning Communion; and it is claimed to be Substance (or real). The Representation version of Communion, of course, is Symbolic. Now, Substance is a good thing – that is what we want. But are they correct? No. There are problems here: 1) in the Law we are told not to eat blood, “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat” (Gen. 9:4; also Lev. 3:17, 7:26, 17:12, 19:26, etc.); and 2) Jesus Christ, in my opinion, did not make Communion a binding “ordinance” (law, rite). (We shall look further into this shortly.)
The Reformation Perspective
I feel this presentation would not be complete without giving some of the thoughts of the Protestant Reformers. I have underlined certain areas worthy of comment or question. Quoting from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
“Calvin’s position on the doctrine of the Eucharist tends rather to the Lutheran than to the Zwinglian view. With Zwingli, the sacrament is little more than a sign; with Calvin, it is both a sign and a seal. The reality of communion with Christ and the benefits of His death, received by a living faith – all this is common to the Lutheran and the Calvinistic views. The Lord’s Supper is far more than a mere memorial service; it is a marvelous means of grace as well. Calvin sides with Zwingli in denying all physical, local or substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But he differs from him in making the eucharistic act far more than a confession of faith, and he lays far greater stress than Zwingli on the meaning of its true participation. With Luther, he holds that Christ is truly present in the Supper, and he lays stress especially on the mystic union of the believer with Christ. In the Supper, both the benefits of Christ’s death and His glorious person are touched. But Christ does not descend in the Supper to the believer, but the latter ascends to Him in heaven. The central thought of the Calvinistic conception of the Supper is this, that the communicant, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, comes in spiritual contact with the entire person of Christ and that he is thus fed unto life eternal. Every close student of Calvin’s works will have to admit that his ideas on the subject are somewhat involved and confusing. [And I would add, quite mystical.] This is due no doubt to the mediating position he occupied between Luther and Zwingli. But his position as a whole is quite plain. All his followers agree in holding that (1) Christ is only spiritually present in the Supper; (2) that the participation in the benefits of the Supper must therefore be spiritual, although it is real, and (3) that only true communicants, by a living faith, can communicate therein, and that this participation in the atoning death of the Saviour is sealed to us by the use of the ordained signs of the sacrament.” – ISBE
Now, while I greatly respect the beliefs and opinions of these Reformers, I cannot help but think that these convictions were not all that far removed from Catholicism and Mysticism; and for me, quite confusing. There simply is no Scriptural support for most of these underlined concepts. I believe they are leftovers from Romanism.
I have some questions about these concepts (working backward):
- Christ is “touched” – This sounds confusing. How can Christ be touched physically? The quote goes on to explain that this is a spiritual contact with Christ. With that, I would agree. If I understand the writer correctly, he causes the language to appear physical because of touching the elements of the sacrament.
- Christ is “present in the Supper” – Does this mean He is not present when we are not taking the sacrament? To the contrary, Yahweh is always present with His covenant people.
- A “means of grace” – How can any work or ritual that we do be a way to grace? This term may be found in theological reference books, but it is not found in the Bible. “But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” – Rom. 11:6, ASV
- A “sign and a seal” – It is true that the sacraments can be called “signs” (circumcision is referred to as a sign), but a “seal” is a different matter. No ritual that a person performs can be a seal of anything. Only the Holy Spirit can be our seal. “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). A truly Christian life is one that is guided by the Holy Spirit, as thus the Apostle states, “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” – Rom. 7:6
Thus, we see that even the Reformers had problems with the Eucharist.
Signs for Israel
Let us compare the ordinances used by the “called out” body of Israel: Circumcision and Passover. Circumcision was a prerequisite to Passover, “…for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof” (Ex. 12:48). After the New Testament, Circumcision was dropped and Baptism took its place; thus, it too was a sign of the believing Israelite. Likewise, Passover (the feast of unleavened bread) became “the Lord’s Supper” or “Communion.” All of these were for the racial covenant people of God. Neither of these sacraments was universal to all, as they are today.
These alleged “ordinances” (or customs) are not necessary, but have only been passed down to us from catholic (universalist) doctrine and tradition. The practice of certain church rituals is an attempt to cause us to think that we can have some part in our salvation. This is a wrong principle, for there is nothing we can do, or add, to what Jesus Christ our Kinsman Redeemer has done for us. Rituals have also been used as control mechanisms upon the people by the priesthood.
The allusions to eating and drinking in the New Testament such as, Luke 22:17-19 (and parallel accounts), I Cor. 10:16-17, 11:28-29, and Jude 12, are examples of how the redeemed church maintained fellowship with their kindred.
“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” – Lk. 22:17-19
Our Scripture reading (a parallel account) said, “And when they were taking food, Jesus took bread and, after blessing it, he gave the broken bread to the disciples…” (Matt. 26:26). These passages were never intended to demand, or make as an “ordinance” (or law), a church ritual that somehow benefitted its participants. This occasion was the Passover meal that the Israelite nation had always observed among themselves, usually in a house (Lk. 22:11).
Communion, as fellowship and edification, is the essence of the church. It is not a law (or ordinance) that we perform a ritual. True Christian communion is interaction with our racial brethren in Christ’s assembly.
The Lord’s Supper (Passover meal) was simply an example for us to follow just as our Lord did in washing the disciple’s feet. “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you” (Jn. 13:14-15). It was never proposed by our Lord, or the church fathers, that foot-washing was to become a ritual in the church (some have) or, likewise, that the example of our Lord’s Passover meal become a ritual or law in the church. Such rituals (symbolism) or acts that we do can never merit any divine grace. Christ has done all for our salvation. We can add nothing but service (substance) to our Lord and His kingdom. James said, “…faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:26).
Most of Christendom maintains that Christ, on the occasion of the Passover meal, instituted a special ritual or ordinance for the church. They base this assertion on the fact that Jesus did this after the Passover supper. Matthew said, “…As they were eating”; Mark said, “…As they did eat”; Luke said, “Likewise also the cup after supper…” and Paul said the same. It is no wonder that Paul and Luke agree on the timing, since they traveled together. This anomaly may cause us to doubt the timing of the events that evening; but it neither proves nor disproves that Christ instituted an ordinance for the church.
Another anomaly is that the words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” are also common to Paul and Luke. The phrase does not appear in Matthew and Mark. Thus, there are incongruities in these accounts. But perhaps the greatest anomaly of all is found in John’s Gospel.
The Bread of Life
While John covers many aspects surrounding the later events of our Lord’s life, he does not mention the last supper (Passover meal), and obviously not the alleged Communion ritual, which followed that meal. However, John does talk a lot about eating early on in chapter six:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes on Me has everlasting life. I am the Bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and died. This is the Bread which comes down from Heaven, so that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven. If anyone eats of this Bread, he shall live forever. And truly the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Then the Jews argued with one another, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus says to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. Whoever partakes of 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 partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent Me, and I live through the Father, so he who partakes of Me, even he shall live by Me. This is the Bread which came down from Heaven, not as your fathers ate the manna, and died; he who partakes of this Bread shall live forever.” – Jn. 6:47-58, MKJV
Is this where the Catholic Church gets their justification for actually eating the flesh and blood of our Lord? Perhaps, but it is not valid for many reasons, one of which we have already noted, that the law of God forbids the eating of blood.
This discourse is simply a figure of speech; and it means to believe on Jesus Christ for eternal salvation. We know it has to be a figure of speech because what it is stating literally is impossible. Some of the Judeans understood this and asked, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” He cannot and would not. Jesus also said, “I am the Bread of life” (v. 48). Was Jesus literally a piece of bread? No. That is another impossibility. This is meant spiritually – as bread is for physical sustenance, so believing in Christ is spiritual sustenance. And, our Lord illustrated this with, “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and died” (v. 49).
Then Jesus (pointing to Himself) emphasized, “This is the Bread which comes down from Heaven, so that a man may eat of it and not die” (v. 50). As the manna came down to feed Israel, so Christ came down for Israel’s eternal life. Then He reiterates, “I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven. If anyone eats of this Bread, he shall live forever…” (v. 51). This illustrates the truth of salvation in the Anointed One. This passage does not refer to a Communion ritual. It is figurative of believing or depending on Jesus Christ, both now and forever. “He who believes on Me has everlasting life” (v. 47). John Wesley explained the concept thusly, “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man – Spiritually: unless ye draw continual virtue from him by faith. Eating his flesh is only another expression for believing.”
Earlier in this chapter, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes on Me shall never thirst” (Jn. 6:35). This was spiritual, of course. It cannot mean that one would never get physically hungry and thirsty again. This was the first of the seven “I am” discourses through which Jesus expressed His power and the work He had come to do. He is the Bread of spiritual life, and to partake of that Bread we must believe in Him.
Furthermore, just as Jesus lived because of the Father, so we of Israel live because of the Son. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (Jn. 6:57). Likewise, the Apostle Paul confirms, “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10).
This is the meaning of the discourse on the Bread of Life. It is not literally eating and drinking of flesh and blood in the form of a rite.
More on Figures of Speech
From the Apple Dictionary:
metaphor – A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable: “I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression….”
idiom – A group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., “rain cats and dogs”, “see the light”).
Notice the figures of speech in the following verses:
- Exodus 24:11, “…Also they saw God, and did eat and drink.”
“The Hebrews used this expression with reference to knowledge by the Figure of speech Metonomy (of the Subject), as in Exodus 24:11, where it is put for being alive; so eating and drinking denoted the operation of the mind in receiving and ‘inwardly digesting’ truth or the words of God (See, Deu. 8:3, and p. Jer. 15:16, Eze. 2:8). No idiom was more common in the days of our Lord.” – E. W. Bullinger
- Deuteronomy 8:3, “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”
- Jeremiah 15:16, “Your Words were found, and I ate them; and Your Word was to me the joy and gladness of my heart; for I am called by Your name, O Jehovah, the God of Hosts.” (MKJV)
- Ezekiel 2:8, “But you, son of man, hear what I am saying to you. Do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving you.” (MKJV)
The idea here is the close relationship God’s people have with Yahweh and His anointed race, Israel. True communion is eating and drinking of our own “blood” (race). Fake communion, the ritual as practiced by most of churchianity, is universal to all races. Certainly, if those who believe in Christian Identity are to practice the ritual at all, they must have a closed communion only to their kind (race, blood). Each pastor of the local church must make this decision. The pastor need not be a “fruit inspector” for Paul said, “But let a man examine himself…” (I Cor. 11:28).
The Authorized Version of the next verse (29): “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” However, some of the original manuscripts do not contain the words “unworthily” or “Lord’s”. Thus, the American Standard Version translates it as: “For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.”
“The Lord’s body.” The texts read “the body”. That is, he does not recognize the common membership of all the saints (1Cor 10:17). This was the sectarian and selfish spirit rebuked in verses: 1 Cor 11:19-22. Note the Figure of speech Paregmenon. – E. W. Bullinger
“Damnation” here is misleading, for it is only “judgment” as in the previous verse where the man is to “examine” or “judge” himself. Many of the rich at Corinth were keeping their food and eating lavishly in front of those with “nothing” (v. 22); thus, forcing them to go hungry. Paul could not praise such conduct, for this was unworthy of a Christian. Such should certainly examine and judge themselves in relation to the rest of the body of Christ in fellowship.
True Christian Communion
Did our Lord really establish a Communion ritual for the church to observe? What did Paul have to say? In answer, we turn to William Finck’s essay (abridged).
“All of Christian Israel has communion in Christ, because the real body and blood of Christ are not the bread and the wine, but the children of Israel themselves, and communion is the fellowship which they should have one with another. The bread and the wine are the objects of the communion, which is the fellowship that the members of the body of Christ should have with each other. Paul explains this fellowship in I Corinthians chapter 11. But first there is some historical context required to understand Paul’s words here. It was customary in the pagan temples for participants to feast with gluttony and intoxication; and all sorts of acts of immorality had typically accompanied that gluttony. Many of the Corinthian Christians were formerly pagans, and they took the practice of feasting into their gatherings in the Christian assemblies.
Paul had written in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:17-21;
“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies [or sects] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.”
This feasting, which Paul addressed here, is a remnant of the pagan temple practices.
Paul then said in response to this feasting, verse 22, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.”
The church was not gathered for the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, communion was to be conducted outside of the assembly. So why did Christians start going to church for communion? Paul is about to describe the fellowship of the Body of Christ, but that does not mean that it is to be conducted in the assembly, since he just told them to eat and drink in their houses.
He continues in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:23-26;
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner, also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.”
Christ did these things at a Passover meal prepared in a private home at a dinner with his friends and family, who were His associates. That word for supped in 1 Corinthians 11:25 is the Greek verb δειπνέω (dipe-neh'-o, Strong’s #1172), means “to take the chief meal of the day.” Paul, referring to the Passover meal, which Christ celebrated with His disciples, certainly used an appropriate verb. But Paul tells these Christians to do this in their houses, and not in the assembly. The context has not changed since verses 20 and 22, where Paul expects these things to be done at home, not in a Christian assembly.
Note that Paul had said in verse 26, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” Paul said that after he had told them to eat in their houses. This refers not only to some Sunday dinner event, or even to a Passover meal; rather, “as often as you eat” means that every dinner a Christian has in common with his family or friends should be eaten in memory of Christ. As for the Christian assembly, Paul describes why Christians should gather in 1 Corinthians 14:26 where he says: “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” The only conclusion relevant to Paul’s explanation is this: Christians do not gather for communion; rather, they have communion in their homes.
In the later verses of 1 Corinthians chapter 11, from 27 through 33, Paul goes on to tell the Corinthians that they must distinguish themselves and not eat with anyone who is unworthy of fellowship. Then he closes by saying “Consequently, my brethren, gathering in to eat, you await one another.” But that statement does not negate that fact that Paul had already said, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper” and “have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” So we see that Christian fellowship is something to be done apart from the regular gatherings, which are for spiritual edification.
This should prove beyond doubt that there is no valid communion ritual. The example of Christ was to have a Passover meal in a private house with His friends and family; and that is also the insistence of Paul, that we should eat and drink in His memory at home, not in a church. The ritual is an invention of the professional priesthood, nothing more. – William Finck
The lesson of the Old Testament was that the children of Israel could not save themselves through rituals. The New Testament is clear that there is absolutely nothing we can do to merit salvation; “Not of works lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:9).
Our friend, brother Kurtis, has designed a logo for our faith that says: “Christian Identity – Our Race is our Religion.” At first glance, this may seem offensive because it sounds like we worship our race. Of course, this is not true. We do not worship mankind. Now, if we soften the word “race” by using the word “family” it helps to bring it all into context and focus, because that is exactly the meaning of the word: race, nation, family, tribe, kin, blood, generation. These are all synonymous (or closely related) in Biblical context and usage. We do not worship our ancestors, but who can argue that family is not important? The same extends to our racial brethren.
This is very important to Yahweh, for He instructs us to remain pure and separate as a race. After all, we are His children. The impurities of race caused the great flood of Noah’s day! We are to have communion with our kind and our Kinsman Redeemer; for through His atonement, both Houses of Israel are one again (Eph. 2:14). Indeed, we are the anointed (christos, Gal. 3:16). True communion is the fellowship and unity of our race. This really, is true Christianity.
In summary, Communion (as a law, or rite) is unnecessary because:
The Apostle Paul said, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” – I Cor. 11:20
The Apostle John uses Figures of communion with our Lord.
The Apostle James teaches that substance is above symbolism, “…faith without works is dead.” – Jas. 2:26
If viewed as a law, the Scriptures tell us that the ordinances have been abolished. “For truly there is a putting away of the commandment which went before….” – Heb. 7:18, MKJV
A “magic wafer” (my dysphemism for the symbol because of the implied powers of a priesthood to affect the spiritual life) will never bring us closer to our Lord, only humble obedience to His Word. This is real, substantive Christian living (not symbolism). It is not Christ plus the Sacraments it is Christ plus nothing.
When we lift the cup, we should be mindful of the blood Jesus shed for His people. Every time we gather around a table of food with our people (our blood), we are in communion with them and with the Kinsman Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. “And it happened as He reclined with them, taking the loaf, He blessed it, and breaking it, He gave to them.” – Luke 24:30, MKJV