Introduction
Dipping the bread into the wine as a method of distributing and receiving the elements of the Lord’s supper is a matter that has recently come into discussion among some churches. This procedure, commonly called “intinction,” has significance in the life of the church because it directly affects the manner in which this sacrament, instituted by Christ, should be properly celebrated.
People who favor allowing intinction as one method for the distribution and reception of the elements of the Lord’s supper indicate that they see certain advantages in this procedure, and find nothing in Scripture that would disallow it. Among other considerations, they note the following:
(1) It is perhaps the most convenient way to distribute the elements.
(2) It emphasizes the central fact of the one celebration supper involving two elements.
(3) It falls naturally into the category of various other aspects of the celebration of the Lord’s supper in which a breadth of procedures is acknowledged as appropriate. These various aspects include: the type of bread that is used, whether of a single loaf or multiple pieces; the use of wine or unfermented grape juice, or an option of both; whether the elements are distributed among a seated congregation or the congregation comes forward to receive the elements; whether the people take the elements individually or simultaneously. These various aspects of celebrating the Lord’s supper are all generally regarded as acceptable, and left up to the various congregations. In a similar way, it is proposed that dipping the bread in the wine and taking both elements together in the sop falls into this same category of aspects in the celebration of the supper that may be experienced in equally legitimate but differing ways. Objecting to the procedure of intinction would seem to be making a large issue out of a small matter.
However, certain aspects of the biblical witness must be given full consideration. It is, after all, Scripture that must provide the defining word in all issues before the Lord’s church, whether it be matters clearly addressed or matters requiring more careful consideration. In this regard, several aspects of the biblical testimony deserve the church’s attention.
First, the nature of the sacraments
In contrast with the verbalization of the truth in the preaching of the Word, the sacrament communicates redemptive truth by the use of symbolic elements and actions. In the case of baptism, the minister applies the one element of water by the one action of sprinkling, pouring or immersing. The one element and the one action provide the method by which a person enters the covenant community, and symbolize the descent of the Spirit on the person as well as the washing away of sins.
In the case of the Lord’s supper, the minister makes two statements regarding the two elements. Regarding symbolic action, the minister takes the bread, breaks the bread, distributes the bread, and the people eat the bread. For the cup, the minister takes the cup, gives the cup and the people drink the cup. But does the congregation receive the bread and the cup with two actions or with one action?
The symbolic actions of the Lord’s supper are particularly significant due to the historic setting of its original institution. The time is specified as “the night in which he was betrayed,” the night before his death (1 Cor. 11:23). These words and actions represent what may be called Jesus’ “last will and testament.” More precisely, they are the words and actions that institute the “new covenant.” More sacred in biblical culture than a “last will and testament” are the words instituting a “covenant.” In his letter to the Galatians, Paul underscores the sacredness of the wording of a covenant: “Even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified” (Gal. 3:15 ESV). The words and actions of Jesus as recorded by the gospels and Paul institute the new covenant, the consummating covenant. If no one dares to modify a single word or phrase of a normal person’s last will and testament, or a human covenant, how much less is it appropriate for a person to modify a divine covenant, or what may be regarded as virtually the last will and testament of our Lord? These are his consummating covenantal words. They must be held in sacred honor. Neither the words nor the actions clearly indicated should be modified in any way. The symbolic significance of the actions as well as the words of Jesus in the institution of the Lord’s supper must be reverently preserved and observed.
Second, the clear establishment of two distinctive elements and two distinctive actions
The sacrament of baptism clearly has one element and one action: water and the application of the water. The sacrament of the Lord’s supper just as clearly has two elements and two actions: bread broken and eaten; the cup of wine presented and drunk. Two distinct elements and two distinct actions. Underscoring the distinction between the two actions is the clear indicator of a pause that occurred between the partaking of the two different elements. Both Luke’s gospel and Paul’s letter state that they ate the bread and then “after supper” they took the cup (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Unless it be proposed that Luke and Paul improperly added the notation about “after supper” between the taking of the two elements, it is clear that drinking the wine is separated from eating the bread.
Even if no reason at all could be found for the separation in time between eating the bread and drinking the wine, it would be altogether appropriate to follow the clear pattern established by the Lord. He is as it were on his death-bed. These are his precise instructions. These instructions and these procedures should be followed.
Yet good reason for a separation between eating the bread and drinking the wine resides inherently in the two separate elements and the differing manner in which they are received. Consider first the distinctive symbolism inherent in the two physical elements of the sacrament, and the different manner in which these two distinct elements are received. Secondly, remember the redemptive-historical context of the institution of the Lord’s supper. Thirdly, note particularly the symbolism of the cup. Fourthly, consider the procedure followed in the eating and drinking.
1. The distinctive symbolism of the two elements, and the differing manner in which they are received
The bread. The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus. The bread is broken as Jesus’ body was broken. It was broken on the cross. From the crown of his head to the sole of his feet, his body was broken. From the right hand to the left outstretched, his flesh was pierced and his bones were broken by the nails. The spear of the centurion pierced his side. Jesus’ entire body was broken for you.
What do you do with the bread? You smell the bread. You hold the bread. You place the bread in your mouth. You crush the bread with your teeth. You share the guilt for the breaking of his body. By God’s grace it was broken for you. You swallow the bread, personally accepting his body as broken for you. That is the symbolic significance of the breaking and the eating of the bread.
The cup of wine. The cup of wine symbolizes the life-blood of Jesus poured out in sacrifice for you. By these two separate elements of the Lord’s supper, Jesus vividly displays the total character of his sacrifice for sinners. His body broken, his life-blood poured out.
Wine has different physical characteristics than bread. It has the semblance of blood. Wine smells differently than bread. It has a pungent odor. Wine creates different sensations when taken into the mouth. Bread does not sting when eaten. But wine burns as it is being swallowed. As you take the wine and experience the physical sensations it causes, you are vividly reminded that Jesus poured out his life-blood as a sacrifice for you. The burning sensation of the wine can hardly compare with the pain Jesus’ flesh experienced when the thorns pierced his head and the nails pierced his hands and feet. But at least the stinging of the wine serves as a physical reminder that he was wounded for your transgressions, bruised for your iniquities.
His body broken—the bread. His blood poured out—the wine. Take and eat. Drink, all of you, of it. Two symbolic elements, two symbolic actions of receiving.
But the bread made soggy with the wine. You do not experience the crushing of the bread. You do not experience the stinging of the wine. You can neither “crush” nor can you “drink” soggy bread. All the rich symbolism intended by Jesus as he deliberately separates the two symbolic elements from one another are lost. By the action of dipping the bread in the wine you have numbed the intended impact of both elements. Dipping the bread in the wine mutes the rich symbolism embedded in the two separate elements, the crusty bread and the potent wine.
It has been suggested that the words of institution spoken by the minister adequately communicate the difference of the bread in distinction from the wine. But to substitute the words of institution for the symbolic actions is to lose the point of a sacrament. By having the recipient ingest the two elements physically and separately, the truth pronounced by the differing words finds full reinforcement through the symbolism of the two separated actions.
2. The biblical-theological significance of the two elements and the two actions
A further consideration emphasizes the significance of the two elements and the two actions, which is the place in redemptive history of the institution of the Lord’s supper. As redemptive history progresses, each subsequent covenant incorporates by substance and symbol God’s previous covenants. The covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Mosaic covenant incorporates the basic elements of the covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Abrahamic covenant, though differing in its mode. Abraham saw in his vision a smoking pot and a flaming torch passing between the shattered pieces of the divided animals. In this way God “cut a covenant” with Abraham (Gen. 15:18). God pledged to absorb into himself the curses of the covenant by symbolically “passing between the pieces.” This symbolic action found its fulfillment in the crucifixion of Christ. Moses at Sinai could hardly have required over three million people to “pass between the pieces” in a covenant-making ceremony. Instead, by God’s ordering, he sprinkled the people and the altar with sacrificial blood, declaring, “Behold, the blood of the covenant which God has cut with you” (Exod. 24:8). By this symbolic action, Moses combined a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant with the institution of the Mosaic covenant, establishing the unity of God’s redemptive covenants.
In a similar but even more climactic manner, Jesus took the remnants of bread and wine from the celebration of the covenantal meal of the Passover. By using these elements, he intentionally indicated that the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants found their consummation in the New Covenant. The broken bread could be perceived as naturally recalling the shattered bones of the animals divided at the time of the making of the Abrahamic covenant. The wine poured out would recall the blood of the Mosaic covenant sprinkled on the altar and the people. Moses said, “Behold the blood of the covenant which is cut for you.” Jesus echoes these very words when he says, “This is the blood of the new covenant poured out for many.” By superimposing the establishment of the new covenant onto the covenantal ceremonies of these older covenants, Jesus binds the preceding covenantal ceremonies to his own climactic covenant.
Giving a distinctive place for receiving these two distinctive elements provides the recipients of the bread and wine an opportunity to recall both these old covenantal ceremonies as they anticipate the inauguration of the new covenant. By retaining the distinction between the presentation and the reception of these two totally different elements, the symbolism of the whole sacramental celebration is greatly enriched.
The suggestion has been made that the dipping of the bread into the wine and the taking of the two elements by a single action serves well to represent the one event of the celebratory meal. The communicants joyfully celebrate as they take the sop.
Indeed, the Lord’s supper is a many-splendored thing. We celebrate in anticipation of the future marriage supper of the lamb. But even in this comparison, proof can hardly be given that bread will be dipped into wine at the Lamb’s marriage feast.
But two additional factors must be remembered. Jesus said that in this supper you “proclaim the Lord’s death until he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). The Lord’s death has an inherently sobering element. Remember his physical, mental, psychological sufferings. Rejected by men and by God, hanging between heaven and earth as though rejected by both, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. That is what we are to remember.
Remember also as previously indicated that the Lord’s supper is first and foremost a covenantal meal, not merely a communal meal designed for celebration. Covenants were instituted in various ways in Scripture: by taking an oath, by passing under the rod, by sprinkling of blood, by passing between the pieces. Eating a meal was one way of making a covenant. Jesus himself focuses attention on the making of a covenant when he pronounces these solemn words: “This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out (as a sacrifice of atonement) for you.” It is the covenant, not the communal meal, that is at the heart of the ceremony.
The idea of a single celebratory meal is not what Jesus instituted. In administering these two elements, he uttered two distinct commands involving two distinct actions: (1) “Take, eat; do this in remembrance of me” (Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 11:11:24c); (2) “Drink of it, all of you. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (Matt. 26:27; 1 Cor. 11:25c). Jesus receives appropriate honor when we do what he commands. Jesus on the night before his death used two elements which he administered by two different actions while indicating that they be received in two different ways.
3. The symbolism of the cup
In Jesus’ words, the symbolism of the cup receives special attention. It is generally overlooked that Jesus specifically offers the cup. Earlier in his ministry, Jesus asks two of his ambitious disciples, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?” (Mark 10:38; Matt. 20:22). When Peter later seeks to defend Jesus with a sword, the Lord responds: “The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11). This cup represents for Jesus the cup of suffering that he must endure to fulfill the will of his Father. The symbolism of this bitter cup recurs repeatedly in redemptive history (Isa. 42:25; 51:17, 11; 66:15; Psa. 75:8). It reappears as the cup of the fury of God’s wrath in the book of Revelation (Rev. 14:10; 16:19). For Jesus it is the cup of God’s wrath against sin that he drinks on our behalf. As the believer takes the cup of communion, the Lord has instructed that he must remember him in his suffering as he drinks. For us it is a cup of blessing that we bless, which puts us in communal fellowship with the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). At the same time, whoever drinks the cup in an unworthy manner drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). For this reason, many Corinthians had already fallen sick and others had died (1 Cor. 11:30).
The cup, the cup, the cup. It is the cup that Jesus employs as the symbolic instrument for the second element of the sacrament. He does not say, “Drink from the wine.” Instead, he says, "Drink from it," that is, “the cup” (Matt. 26:27; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25); "…and they all drank from it," that is, “from the cup” (Mark 14:23). Always it is the cup that is offered and drunk. Indeed, it is the wine in the cup that is swallowed. But the cup has special significance. It is the cup of Jesus’ sacrifice. The cup represents his choice to submit to the will of his Father, which involves surrendering his life as a sacrifice.
When Jesus offers the cup to his disciples, including yourself, he offers the same life of sacrifice. He said to his overly ambitious disciples, “The cup that I am drinking, you will drink” (Mark 10:39). As you receive the cup, you not only receive the cleansing blood of the lamb of God. You also accept the “cup,” the life of self-sacrifice embodied in Jesus himself.
To deny the cup in the celebration of the Lord’s supper is a serious thing. To deny the cup is to fail to give each disciple the opportunity to consecrate himself once more, body and soul, at each celebration of the Lord’s supper, to an ongoing life of self-sacrifice.
To take into your own hands the cup, and then to drink from the cup, is a significant part of the symbolism of the Lord’s supper. It could of course be argued that the “cup” is simply a symbolism for the wine. But that observation in itself involves an admittal that the cup does as a matter of fact have symbolic significance. Jesus spoke of the cup, Jesus offered the cup, and Jesus invites you to drink of his cup of a life of self-sacrifice. Every disciple should hold the cup in his own hands and regularly commit himself in a covenant of life and death to Jesus by drinking from his cup.
A sop cannot replace the symbolism of the cup. Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Drink all of you of it, that is the cup; and a sop cannot substitute for a cup.
4. The procedure followed in the eating and drinking
Two separate actions with the two distinct elements is a most ancient procedure that goes back to the institution of the Mosaic covenant, one thousand five hundred years before the institution of the Lord’s supper. Moses formally institutes the covenant by sprinkling the altar and the people with the blood (Exod. 24:6-8). Then climactically as one of the most astounding actions recorded in Scripture:
Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel…they saw God, and they ate and drank! (Exod. 24:9-11).
By two separate actions, Moses, the priests and the elders celebrated the first covenantal meal in the immediate presence of God. They ate and they drank. This precise pattern Jesus initiates at the time of the institution of the Lord’s supper. First they ate. Then “after supper” they drank (1 Cor. 11:25). To accentuate the two separate actions with the two distinctive (not combined) elements, Jesus said twice, “Take, eat. This is my body…do this in remembrance of me.” After supper, having given thanks he said, “Do this, whenever you drink it,” in remembrance of me” (Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 11:24, 25; Luke 22:20).
Multiple times over, Paul makes this distinction between the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup:
“…as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup…” (1 Cor. 11:26)
“Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner...(1 Cor. 11:27)
“Let a person …eat of the bread and drink of the cup…” (1 Cor. 11:28)
“Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning…eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:29)
In making this clear distinction between the two actions corresponding to the two elements, Paul follows the pattern established by the Lord himself. Though some may dispute whether the Apostle John is speaking in anticipation of the Lord’s supper, Jesus’ wording possesses the same repetitive nature, underscoring the two elements and the two actions:
“…unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood…” (John 6:53)
“The person who eats my flesh and drinks my blood…” (John 6:54)
“My flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink” (John 6:55)
“The person who eats my flesh and drinks my blood…” (John 6:56)
The synoptic gospels are not all equally precise. But the more complete report of Matthew serves as the fullest record of the Lord’s words and actions. Jesus took bread, blessed, broke and gave to the disciples. Then he said, “Take, eat.” Then he took the cup and after having given thanks he gave it to them, saying “Drink of it, all of you” (Matt. 26:26, 27). As in the case of Luke and Paul, an interruption separates the eating and the drinking of the two elements.
The testimony of the synoptic gospels, of John and of Paul all agree. The witness of Scripture is uniform. Two distinctive elements presented, explained and distributed: bread and the cup with wine. They are received in two distinctive ways: by eating and by drinking.
In summary, ten different instances may be cited from Scripture in which two distinct and separated actions are described: “eating” and “drinking.” In view of this uniform testimony of Scripture, this is the procedure that should be followed. If a different procedure is to be promoted and practiced in the church, adequate evidence should be provided from Scripture that establishes this procedure.
Third, the Reformed Tradition
In terms of the Reformed tradition, it of course must be recognized that “tradition” is “tradition,” not Scripture. Yet the unity within our particular ecclesiastical fellowship is based on an agreed understanding of Scripture, which constitutes our “tradition.” Whenever an agreed understanding is broken by the introduction of a teaching that has not been an accepted element in the tradition, the unity so precious to Christ’s church is in danger of being broken. In terms of the Presbyterian Church in America, our symbols of unity are: (1) the Scriptures, our primary standard; (2) the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and (3) the Book of Church Order, our secondary standards. Already the united testimony of Scripture with regard to the distribution and reception of the elements at the celebration of the Lord’s supper has been noted. As many as ten times over, the actions of eating and drinking are clearly distinguished. Alternatively, no instance may be cited from the Scriptures in which the bread of communion is dipped into the wine.
With regard to the Westminster Standards, the Larger Catechism speaks specifically to this issue. Question 169 reads as follows:
Q. 169: How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?
A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.
The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America reads as follows:
The bread and wine being thus set apart by prayer and thanksgiving, the minister is to take the bread, and break it, in the view of the people, saying:
“The Lord Jesus Christ on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; …”
Here the bread is to be distributed. After having given the bread, he shall take the cup, and say:
“In the same manner, He also took the cup,…”
While the minister is repeating these words, let him give the cup.
-Book of Church Order, 58-5
The three symbols of our ecclesiastical unity all agree. The bread and the cup are to be presented separately, and received separately. No provision is made in these standards for the dipping of the bread into the wine, with the two elements received by a single action.
Charles Hodge as a representative spokesman for the Reformed tradition offers the following comment about dipping the bread into the wine, and taking the two elements in one action:
It is against the nature of the sacrament, when instead of the two elements being distributed separately, the bread is dipped into the wine, and both are received together. This mode of administering the Lord’s supper, was, it is said, introduced at first, only in reference to the sick; then it was practiced in some of the monasteries; and was partially introduced into the parishes. It never however, received the sanction of the Roman Church. In the Greek and the other oriental churches it became the ordinary method, so far as the laity are concerned. The bread and wine ae mixed together in the cup, and, by a spoon, placed in the mouth of the recipient. Among the Syrians the usual custom was for the priest to take a morsel of bread, dip it in the wine and place it in the mouth of the communicant. From the East this passed for a time over to the West, but was soon superseded by a still greater departure from the Scriptural rule. [withholding the cup from the laity] (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), vol. III, 620).
A more recent comment by Simon Kistemaker as a Reformed exegete may be found in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. He says: “[Paul] repeats the words as often as and links them to both the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup. These two actions must always be equal elements of this sacrament” (Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 398).
Conclusion
The testimony of Scripture, the Westminster Standards, and the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America all concur. The twice-repeated command of the Lord is clear: respecting the bread, “Do this in remembrance of me;” respecting the cup with wine, “Do this in remembrance of me.” The two elements are presented separately, received separately, and taken differently. Proper honor is best rendered to the Lord by conforming to his directions as he institutes the perpetual covenantal meal on the night before his death.