By Angus Harley

I’ve been asked by a dear brother to comment on the question of whether we must use actual bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, or perhaps we can use banana juice and dried apricots.

There are a few things concerning the Supper of importance to our discussion: 1) the Lord’s Supper must be observed; 2) it is not to be observed in a way that causes division, or that precludes certain brothers and sisters from it; and, 3) it is a special time of fellowship with the Lord, remembering his cross.

Serious minded people wish to observe the Supper to the letter. It means a lot to some that it is actual bread and wine, and, more particularly, unleavened bread and fermented wine. This belief does not come from legalism, but from a desire to truly honor the Supper and observe it as faithfully as a Christian ought. It is what they represent: the bread is there for the body of Jesus; and the wine for his blood. Both Jesus and Paul specifically note these things. We don’t baptize people in air or dirt or sand, so why would we use anything but bread and wine? Are we that impoverished? Wasn’t the Passover meal something special, even to the point that our Lord attended it and passed round the bread and wine of his death at it? Doesn’t Paul severely chastise the Corinthians for treating the Supper like it were no big deal?

What about an assembly that has no access to bread or wine, never mind unleavened bread or fermented wine (not grape juice)? What of an assembly in the boonies, the bush, that has no electricity, no stores, and definitely no wheat or grape vines; a very poor assembly, whose only access to bread and wine is someone flying in those things, or bringing them from a long distance through rugged terrain? Should they simply give up on the idea of the Supper?

If we go the literal route of following the letter of the Supper, the answer is yes. If not, then the answer is no. I hardly think that the Lord of heaven and earth is going to break into a conniption over the saints of God using bread and wine substitutes to show their love and devotion to him when they have no chance of getting a hold of bread and wine. If I’m on a desert island, and all it has are coconut juice and coconut itself, then I will, with my brothers and sisters, use that coconut juice and coconut to the glory of the Lord in remembering Jesus’ death until he comes (or until I’m rescued!).

The religion of the flesh is over. The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking. Water baptism does not convert the soul; the mere doing of the Supper is not a mystical rite.  Bread and wine do not convey spiritual virtue, nor does the loaf or the cup. Going through the steps of the Supper is not some form of a pagan ritual endued with magic! It is merely a dramatization, a physical reminder or memorial of what Jesus did for us. If literalism is our measurement, why do we use little-biddy plastic cup thingees for grape juice? Why leavened bread? Why a fancy metal chalice? Why a special table with wooden engravings? Why a beautiful cloth or lace covering for the table? If we are truly concerned to keep to the letter of things, should we not all eat from one loaf and drink from one cup? Good luck with that in the post-pandemic world of neurotics! And what about those struggling with alcohol?

Having said these things, there is something admirable about the literalistic approach, is there not? It truly desires to honor the Lord’s command. The literal model may go too far, but the modern practice doesn’t go deep enough in its attitude. What is the Supper for most today? You could use cake and vodka and no one would mind. Doing the Supper is just another thing to do, extending the service and getting in the way of the roast chicken! I exaggerate, of course, but I think you get my point. The Supper is very important, otherwise our Lord and his apostle would not have instituted it. It is time to take it very seriously, but not legalistically so, lest we forget the One who died for us to love him and one another.