The practice of communion, also known as the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist, holds great significance for Christians. It serves as a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and a celebration of the new covenant established through His blood. The specific method by which communion is practiced, however, has been a source of debate throughout church history. One particular method – intinction – has raised questions about whether it aligns properly with Scripture and tradition.
Intinction refers to dipping the communion bread into the wine before consumption. Rather than drinking from a shared cup, the bread acts as a vehicle to partake of both elements. Proponents argue this reduces the risk of transmitting illness and facilitates distribution to larger gatherings. Critics counter that intinction contradicts Christ’s command to “drink” the wine and destroys the symbolism of partaking separately of Christ’s body and blood.
To thoughtfully consider this issue, we will explore the key biblical texts about communion, review the historical practice of the church, examine potential reasons to use intinction, and synthesize principles for wise application. Our goal is not to pass judgement on churches who in good conscience use intinction, but rather provide perspective to inform each congregation’s approach.
Key Biblical Texts About Communion
When evaluating any church practice, we must begin with scripture as our guide and final authority. There are three primary passages that shape our understanding of communion and how it was originally instituted by Jesus:
The Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-23)
In the context of the Passover meal on the night before His crucifixion, Jesus transformed the symbolic bread and wine into representations of His body soon to be broken and His blood soon to be poured out on behalf of sinners. After giving thanks and breaking the bread, Jesus said “Take, eat; this is My body.” He then passed a cup of wine and instructed them to all drink from it, saying “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:26-28).
A few key insights emerge from Jesus’ words and actions:
- Jesus intended the bread and wine to symbolize His physical body and blood sacrificed on the cross.
- Partaking of the bread and wine were to be done in “remembrance” of Him (Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25).
- Jesus distributed the bread to be eaten and the cup to be drunk, indicating two separate actions.
Paul’s Instructions to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:23-34)
The apostle Paul reiterated Jesus’ words instituting communion to correct abuse of the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian church. Paul explained that improper observance resulted in some becoming sick and others dying (v.30). To avoid this judgment, Paul commanded them to wait for one another and rightly discern the body and blood of Christ in the meal (v.29, 33).
Paul’s instructions make several principles clear:
- Communion involves special spiritual discernment to properly commemorate Christ’s sacrifice.
- All believers should partake together, not individually.
- There are serious consequences for participating incorrectly.
The Lord’s Supper on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35)
After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to two disciples headed to Emmaus but prevented them from recognizing Him. As they broke bread together, Jesus took it, blessed and broke it then gave it to them. At this moment, the disciples’ eyes were opened to realize it was Jesus. Though this occurrence was not an official communion observance, it powerfully echoes Jesus’ Last Supper words and reinforces the sacred nature of breaking bread in His presence (v.35).
This text highlights:
- Breaking bread with Jesus enabled the disciples to have intimate fellowship with Him.
- Partaking of bread blessed and broken by Jesus is a holy encounter with Him.
These passages give us a biblical foundation for communion practices centered on remembering and discerning Christ’s sacrifice. With this grounding, we can better evaluate historical perspectives on the topic.
Historical Practice of Communion in the Church
Evidence from church history and tradition provides helpful insight into how communion methods developed over time. Several key observations can inform our view of intinction:
Separate Reception of Bread and Wine
The early church followed the pattern Jesus established of receiving the bread and wine as separate spiritual foods. Writings from church leaders like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian show that for the first several centuries, the normal practice was eating the bread to symbolize Christ’s body followed by partaking of the wine as His blood.
Common Cup, but Separate Reception
As church gatherings grew larger, it became impractical for all believers to drink from a single communion cup. This led to the widespread use of a common cup from which communicants would individually drink. While the wine originated from a shared vessel, partaking of it remained separate from the bread.
Intinction and Infrequent Communion
Not until the practice of infrequent communion arose in the medieval church did intinction become more common. With communion only occurring annually or less often, the priest would intinct the bread and place it directly into the recipient’s mouth to ensure proper reception. By the 11th century, intinction became the normative practice.
This change coincided with a shift from regular community celebration to the Eucharist being viewed as a mysterious ceremony performed only by priests. Reformers like Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin reclaimed communion as an act of remembrance for all believers and restored the separate reception of elements.
Modern Intinction Renewal
Though most Protestant groups continued using common cups into the 19th and 20th century, some began adopting intinction again over concerns like sanitation or convenience. Certain denominations officially approved intinction, while in other churches it emerged as a casual practice without formal sanction.
This historical perspective highlights how intinction arose most prominently under certain conditions like infrequency of observance or overly priestly administration. The long-standing tradition of separate reception of bread and cup suggests this best aligns with scriptural patterns.
Reasons Some Churches May Favor Intinction
In evaluating any church practice, we should also seek to understand why it has been adopted. What issues or needs does intinction aim to address? Here are several factors that may motivate churches to use intinction:
Minimizing Health Risks
Drinking from a common communion cup raises concerns about spreading contagious illness like colds, flu, or more serious conditions. Intinction avoids these concerns since the wine stays contained and recipients do not drink after one another.
Including Small Children
Since young children may have trouble drinking from a regular cup, intinction allows including them in communion by giving them a small piece of bread to dip in the wine. Some argue this promotes including children in the Lord’s Supper at younger ages.
Simplifying Distribution
Passing communion plates and cups to large gatherings can require an army of servers. Intinction simplifies the process since bread and wine are delivered together.
Enhancing Symbolism
Some suggest intinction more powerfully represents our union with Christ. Just as the bread absorbs the wine, we absorb Christ into our lives. The mingling of elements reflects the intermingling of His life with ours.
Preventing Accidents
Use of common cups runs the risk of spilling the communion wine. Intinction helps avoid potentially embarrassing accidents, staining of carpets or clothing, and disruption of a solemn spiritual time.
These rationales offer insight into why well-meaning congregations may choose intinction. The motives are often valid – protecting health, including children, simplifying logistics, or enriching meaning. But valid motives alone do not confirm alignment with scriptural principles and warrant careful evaluation.
Biblical Principles to Guide Communion Practices
In assessing any communion approach, including intinction, our ultimate evaluation must be biblical faithfulness – does this support correct administration of the ordinance? Several principles emerge from our review of Scripture and church history to guide this analysis:
Remembrance of Christ’s Unique Sacrifice
Jesus clearly instituted communion as a memorial of His broken body and shed blood. Any practice must uphold this core symbolism and not allow other meanings to obscure the central focus on Christ’s death. Combining the elements could blur the distinct work accomplished through each.
Clear Teaching and Discernment
Due to the sacred nature of communion, Paul urged careful instruction so believers understand its meaning and participate worthily. Obscuring the separate forms could require additional teaching to avoid confusion.
Orderly Administration
Paul’s instructions emphasized orderly distribution for communal participation. Practices should enable all believers gathered to partake appropriately and together. Individual or disorderly observance should be avoided.
Simplicity and Accessibility
Jesus instituted communion in the everyday elements of bread and wine. While administration can be refined, communion should remain simple enough for all Christians regardless of age or ability to participate.
Continuity with the Biblical Pattern
While traditions can have value, Scripture remains our ultimate standard. Strong precedent exists in the Bible and church history for separate reception of the bread and cup. Continuity encourages proper understanding.
Of course, other principles could be emphasized as well. But these five provide a balanced framework to evaluate communion practices against biblical teaching.
Assessing Intinction in Light of Biblical Principles
How then should churches assess the practice of intinction based on these biblical principles regarding communion? Does intinction enhance or detract from biblically-sound administration of the Lord’s Supper? Some considerations include:
Intinction Could Distort Symbolic Meaning
Combining the bread and cup could blur their distinct symbolism. The mingling might imply Christ’s work was intertwined versus the separate acts of his death and resurrection.
Intinction Could Confuse Proper Discernment
Unclear separation of elements could require additional teaching so believers properly discern the body and blood of Christ.
Intinction Limits Communal Experience
Intinction usually reduces the shared experience since each person partakes individually versus together from common elements.
Intinction Complicates Inclusion of Children
Though often promoted for including children, intinction makes it difficult for younger ones to partake of the wine soaked into the bread.
Intinction Alters the Biblical Model
Dipping the bread into the wine departs from Christ’s institution of eating followed by drinking. This breaks continuity with the biblical pattern.
At the same time, some considerations in intinction’s favor include:
Intinction Addresses Health Concerns
Dipping the bread mitigates sanitation concerns over passing one cup among many communicants.
Intinction Simplifies Distribution
From a logistical standpoint, intinction facilitates passing communion in large gatherings through faster distribution.
Intinction Need Not Obscure Meaning
With proper teaching, the symbolism of Christ’s death and resurrection can remain clear even utilizing intinction.
This analysis shows intinction involves tradeoffs. Churches must weigh which concerns hold priority based on their ministry context. But in doing so, biblical faithfulness must guide the process.
Conclusion: Principled Flexibility with Biblical Fidelity
In navigating this issue, churches should exercise principled flexibility coupled with fidelity to biblical patterns. Wise pastoral discernment means considering each congregation’s needs without compromising core truths. Several implications emerge for charitably addressing intinction:
- The biblical example of eating followed by drinking commends continuing this historic church practice.
- Since intinction arose later, churches should retain a preference for separate reception of elements.
- If health risks necessitate intinction, extra teaching should clarify the meaning.
- Whatever approach chosen, Christ-focused observance among believers gathering together remains central.
By grounding our communion methods in Scripture’s principles, we can charitably adapt traditions while upholding the rich biblical truths that shape the Lord’s Supper. Through discerning Christ’s body given for us and His blood poured out for the forgiveness of sins, He remains at the center of this holy sacrament.