What a wonderful Savior!!! What a great teaching!! Praise the Lord!! The picture the Pr. Piper drew on the feeding from the altar meaning we partake on the benefits thereof, was a mind-blowing to me! I had never understood it that clear! Thanks for sharing!!
Thanks to John for this teaching. I just had a strange and funny encounter about a teaching going on right now, that the Lord's supper are shadows about about Christ and therefore, since Christ has been resurrected, there is no basis for the Church to keep this ordinance. For those who partake in it are missing out and there is a veil over them. I responded by saying this is absolutely a heresy, considering the time Paul was writing this to the Corinthian believers. Paul had received this some decades after Jesus' death and resurrection, if people understand apostolic succession, they will not struggle on this.
@@onesimusbodams68 Partaking of communion is not an issue of apostolic succession. However, not participating on the basis of typology is a bit absurd (perhaps heretical, as you say), as Paul is affirming the practice AFTER Jesus. Clearly the practice was not fulfilled in Christ; rather it was inaugurated by Christ and finds its meaning in what Christ did fulfill. It is only in Christ’s death and resurrection that we are able to participate in Him through the ordinances/sacraments.
Nicholas Dookhram you are 100% right it was a Passover meal.Luke 22:13-20. Do this Passover in memory of me.When we take the Passover bread and cup we will get the same benefits and greater benefits than the Israeli got :health protection etc.
@@seanrathmakedisciples1508 You are conflating two things: The Last Supper was indeed a full Passover meal. However, it is this specific excerpt of the Cup (likely the 3rd cup of Redemption) and the broken unleavened bread that Jesus then repurposed - which the Apostle Paul then guides us to do when we gather. So, nothing wrong with pursuing a full Passover feast, but this is not what was being commanded by Jesus or Paul. Likewise, there is no magical benefit from partaking. Rather there is spiritual nourishment as we remember and participate in faith.
The Jews do a Shabbat dinner every Friday night. It’s a ritualistic dinner in which they bless the wine and bless the bread. The Passover dinner is a lot like it but has extra parts to it and the participants lounge. The last supper was a Passover supper and there is a lot of symbolism between the Gospel and the Passover dinner. I believe that we were meant to take communion every week as the beginning of a real meal. The Catholic Church outlawed the love feast that the early church participated in, a pot luck for the entire church. If the rich were bringing their own food and not sharing and the poor we’re going hungry than Paul should have told them to share, not to eat at home, which doesn’t help those who don’t have food at home.
Believing Piper to be Reformed, I was a bit concerned when he focused on "remembrance" but I think when he spoke of it as a means of grace, he effectively stayed true to Calvin's view of the presence of Christ in the elements. I believe most Protestant denominations, including my own, went down the wrong road by following zwingli's memorial only view of the Supper. After my own exploration of the subject, especially my reading of Given for You by Keith Mathison, I've come to believe that Calvin had the most accurate understanding of the Supper and I have received rich blessings (and certainly no harm) from believing the Supper to be far more than simply a memorial or remembrance.
I don't know if Mr. Piper has ever been to a Catholic Mass, but watching this makes me think that he would find it very interesting. Particularly a traditional Latin Mass. There would definitely be stuff that would make him uncomfortable, maybe even upset, but nevertheless, I would love to hear what he thought about the experience.
As Piper quoted from the Affirmation of Faith at around the 21 minute mark, "Those who eat and drink in a worthy manner partake of Christ's body and blood, not physically (and thus we are distancing ourselves from the [Roman] catholic doctrine of transubstantiation), not physically, but spiritually in that by faith they are nourished with the benefit He obtained, through His death, and thus grow in grace." My guess is Piper wouldn't find it interesting, rather he would find it heretical due to it's large investment in the physical and minimal investment in the Spiritual. I've personally noticed a lot of Roman Catholics think their religion is a form of spirituality, yet upon deeper consideration I find their ceremonies lack the true Spirit.
typeZeroBansai Thanks for your comment, We now have videos on youtube on the Lords Supper by Sean Rath. Titles of these videos are Participate with me in the Lords Supper by Sean Rath or Passover Lords Supper
People got weak and sick and some even died because they didn’t discern the Lords Jesus body broken for them or didn’t avail of the blessings and benefits of the Lords Supper. When Israel ate the Passover lamb and applied the blood then not one person was weak or feeble among the tribes of Israel. Jesus gave His body for the life of the world so just receive Jesus abundant life and healing into every cell of of our bodies in Jesus name
Around 13:00 ish mark Pastor is wrong. Because paul in the same chapter of Corinthians says that "one of you is full and one of you is DRUNK". So you see that the wine was actually fermented wine
Piper didn’t say that we don’t know what they were drinking. Of course we know they drank wine. (Grape Juice is quite modern.) He was saying that the original command (see Luke’s telling of the Last Supper) is “the fruit of the vine.” We now have the fruit of the vine available to us in fermented and unfermented options. So, either may be chosen and be appropriate. (But Coca Cola misses the point).
@@chaddonal4331I understand what you're saying, and please be sure to hear my heart in my response as one of working this issue out together :) Essentially, to be short, I think your view (while neat) is basically just patent eisegesis. Like you said, Jesus WAS referring to wine when he spoke. The fact that we can now apply the term "fruit of the vine" to something else 2000 years later seems completely irrelevant for interpreting what he meant at the time that he spoke those words.
@@SamuelHaak Not eisogesis at all. That’s to import your own (foreign) ideas into the text. It could possibly be anachronistic however (which is putting modern ideas backwards into older contexts). Here’s why it may be legitimate: The original term is “fruit of the vine”. This only had one meaning for them (wine). But it has at least two meanings for us (fermented wine and unfermented wine - grape juice). My point was simply: Both are legitimately “fruit of the vine” today. My bias is that we should be using wine as the more authentic option. However, our cultural moment is so affected by abuse of alcohol for the past 100 years that we struggle to offer even a mere swallow to alcoholics that could set them back - thus injuring our weaker brothers. So, with two application options, other Scriptural values come into play. Again, this is not mere eisogegis, but is rather trying to work out Scripture in practical ways to serve real people in a ministry context. Do you have a solution for how to utilize wine at the Table generally and not contribute to alcoholics’ setbacks? Obviously many churches have continued to use wine. I do wonder how they shepherd the alcoholics among them.
@chaddonal4331 thanks for your reply! So, I said eisegesis because I assumed that it was your preference for juice driving the interpretation, but you're right it probably should be labelled anachronistic instead. I do agree that we could accurately refer to both as 'fruit of the vine' today, but again I think that misses the point because to interpret the passage it doesn't matter what the language can mean now, but rather what did Jesus himself mean when he said it. He was using the phrase to refer to something specific, and that specific thing is wine. And if someone would say that he deliberately used that term to be inclusive of other forms of fruit of the vine like grape juice, then couldn't we just as readily apply that definition to tomato juice as well? Or passionfruit juice? And if that isn't the case because we might say, for e.g., that he was referring specifically to the fruit of the grape vine, then it would follow that it actually DOES matter specifically what he was referring to, which leads us back to wine. To your point on alcoholics-- you're right it's a certainly a challenge to navigate for those people! At a base level, I think it's unwise to alter God's instructions for all believers because some people have difficulty with them. And at the very least, I think it's not useful to argue from what is ultimately an exception towards what should be the rule for church practice. I mean, what about the people with an allergy to grape juice? Does it follow that nobody should have grape juice? I don't think so, and I think that similar reasoning to mine can be seen in 1 Cor when Paul addresses those who are getting drunk off the communion wine, not by suggesting any kind of abstinence or substitution for all in order to account for those prone to drunkenness, but by calling for an increase of maturity and responsibility for everyone.
John I enjoyed your video on the Lords Supper. It is the most misunderstood ordinance of the church.. The Lords Supper is the fulfillment of the Lords Passover Supper. For Christ our Passover Lamb has been sacrificed 1 Corinthians 5:7. There is one perfect sacrifice on Calvary of our Passover lamb on the Feast of Passover and one continuous celebration Supper enforcing that total victory and eternal redemption.until Jesus returns in glory The Lord Jesus prepares His table for us in the presence of our enemies (sickness,diseases,fear etc) with His Passover bread and cup. Jesus is present where two or more come together in Jesus name Matthew 18:20.We get the same benefits as the Israeli got when they ate the Passover lamb and applied the cup.which are health and protection revelation 12:11. As often as we do this Passover we remember Jesus finished work and proclaim Jesus death unto Jesus returns.Forget not all His benefits. We discern that it was Jesus body was broken for us. People got sick,weak and died because they didn’t avail of God’s benefits just as Israel suffered the consequences of sin by failing to eat the Passover Numbers 9:13.There are two parts of every sacrifice the physical and spiritual. How did Israel participate in the sacrifices by eating of the sacrifices1 Corinthians 10:18. and it was imputed to them that they were participating in the Calvary sacrifice. Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness.We eat the Passover bread and cup and it is imputed to us to be participating in Jesus body and blood. The early believers broke bread daily from house to house Acts 2:41-46.
All the great saints of the New covenant partook of the Lords Supper daily Saint Peter, Paul. James,John,Mary Mark.Jude,Smith Wigglesworth, T L Osborne,John G Lake,Derek Prince etc. There are no rituals or symbols or emblems,or elements or memorial meals but we are participating in Jesus body and blood at the Lord Jesus table and in Jesus presence Matthew 18:20. The early believers who were all Jews broke bread daily from house to house Acts 2:41-46. When believers break bread daily is always the result of revelation of what the Lords Supper is all about.
En cuanto al dia y a la frecuencia la biblia si nos da luces...en Hechos 20:7, leyendo los versiculos anteriores y siguientes al versiculo 7, el Apostol Pablo espero el "Primer Día de la Semana" para "Partir el Pan"... Evidentemente la practica al principio de la Iglesia, era hacerlo cada Domingo...
As a Catholic, I'm grateful that I can definitively proclaim that the Lord's Supper of which I partake is not merely a sign or symbol but is the true Body and true Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. How is this possible? Of course, the Catholic Church has developed the doctrine of transubstantiation to attempt to explain it, but fundamentally it is a mystery. Ultimately, we Catholics simply trust in Jesus and His words at the Last Supper: "This is my body" and "This is my blood."
Thanks for sharing! Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. John 14:6 davidbahn-reflections.com/2016/09/28/the-eighth-i-am-statement-in-johns-gospel/
th-cam.com/video/93cqR-nwI8s/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared As a Catholic I too take great respect In Holy comunión because It transforms into the actual body. Once you know this its difficult to take Holy comunión any other way.
Reformed Theology: Anyone else notice how demonic entities will not allow you to perform certain rituals anyway you want in order to summon their powers, and yet we think that we could be loose with this ritual with God's?! 🤔
The historical reference of the Lords Supper is the Passover Supper. The Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of the Passover Supper for Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed 1 Corinthians 5:7. We now get the same benefits and blessings as Israel got when they ate the Passover lamb and applied the cup ( blood) Not one person was weak or feeble among the tribes of Israel Psalm 105:37. But when we didn’t discern the Lords body given for us many were weak and sick and some died 1 Corinthians 11:30. There is only one perfect eternal sacrifice and one continuous celebration sacrificial Supper proclaiming Jesus death until Jesus returns to the mount of Olives near Jerusalem. We participate in Jesus body and blood by the obedience of eating and drinking ( physical action). It is then imputed to us that we are feasting on Jesus body and blood or the Calvary sacrifice. Just as Israel were looking forward to the Calvary sacrifice and it was imputed to them by eating and applying the cup. The Lord Jesus prepares His table for us with Passover bread and wine Luke 22:13-20 The Israeli were given strict orders how to prepare. We all need to honor the Lord’s Supper by having Passover bread and fruit of the vine. The Lord Jesus prepares His table for us with Passover bread and wine. With every sacrifice there has to be a physical and spiritual part. The early believers broke bread daily from house to house and sometimes more often.As often as we do this ( Passover Supper) we do it in remembrance of Jesus. The bread I give you I give for the life of the world John 6:51.
What a wonderful Savior!!! What a great teaching!! Praise the Lord!! The picture the Pr. Piper drew on the feeding from the altar meaning we partake on the benefits thereof, was a mind-blowing to me! I had never understood it that clear! Thanks for sharing!!
Bula vinaka. 🥰💞💯Happy Sabbath day. Thank you very much. Wonderful message. Watching and applying from the Fiji Islands.
Thanks to John for this teaching. I just had a strange and funny encounter about a teaching going on right now, that the Lord's supper are shadows about about Christ and therefore, since Christ has been resurrected, there is no basis for the Church to keep this ordinance. For those who partake in it are missing out and there is a veil over them. I responded by saying this is absolutely a heresy, considering the time Paul was writing this to the Corinthian believers. Paul had received this some decades after Jesus' death and resurrection, if people understand apostolic succession, they will not struggle on this.
@@onesimusbodams68 Partaking of communion is not an issue of apostolic succession. However, not participating on the basis of typology is a bit absurd (perhaps heretical, as you say), as Paul is affirming the practice AFTER Jesus.
Clearly the practice was not fulfilled in Christ; rather it was inaugurated by Christ and finds its meaning in what Christ did fulfill. It is only in Christ’s death and resurrection that we are able to participate in Him through the ordinances/sacraments.
The Lord's Supper was a Passover meal. That's why it's a supper in my humble opinion.
Nicholas Dookhram you are 100% right it was a Passover meal.Luke 22:13-20. Do this Passover in memory of me.When we take the Passover bread and cup we will get the same benefits and greater benefits than the Israeli got :health protection etc.
@@seanrathmakedisciples1508 You are conflating two things: The Last Supper was indeed a full Passover meal. However, it is this specific excerpt of the Cup (likely the 3rd cup of Redemption) and the broken unleavened bread that Jesus then repurposed - which the Apostle Paul then guides us to do when we gather. So, nothing wrong with pursuing a full Passover feast, but this is not what was being commanded by Jesus or Paul. Likewise, there is no magical benefit from partaking. Rather there is spiritual nourishment as we remember and participate in faith.
The Jews do a Shabbat dinner every Friday night. It’s a ritualistic dinner in which they bless the wine and bless the bread. The Passover dinner is a lot like it but has extra parts to it and the participants lounge. The last supper was a Passover supper and there is a lot of symbolism between the Gospel and the Passover dinner. I believe that we were meant to take communion every week as the beginning of a real meal. The Catholic Church outlawed the love feast that the early church participated in, a pot luck for the entire church. If the rich were bringing their own food and not sharing and the poor we’re going hungry than Paul should have told them to share, not to eat at home, which doesn’t help those who don’t have food at home.
Believing Piper to be Reformed, I was a bit concerned when he focused on "remembrance" but I think when he spoke of it as a means of grace, he effectively stayed true to Calvin's view of the presence of Christ in the elements. I believe most Protestant denominations, including my own, went down the wrong road by following zwingli's memorial only view of the Supper. After my own exploration of the subject, especially my reading of Given for You by Keith Mathison, I've come to believe that Calvin had the most accurate understanding of the Supper and I have received rich blessings (and certainly no harm) from believing the Supper to be far more than simply a memorial or remembrance.
Luke 22 and 1Cor 11 both report the Lord's words "do this in remebrance of me"
26:00 is exceptional. And an explanation of why deliverence is completely unbiblical. Jesus finished work on the cross is sufficient.
❤❤❤🎉
That’s the key when we eat physically then the spiritual benefits are appropriated. of the Calvary sacrifice
I don't know if Mr. Piper has ever been to a Catholic Mass, but watching this makes me think that he would find it very interesting. Particularly a traditional Latin Mass. There would definitely be stuff that would make him uncomfortable, maybe even upset, but nevertheless, I would love to hear what he thought about the experience.
As Piper quoted from the Affirmation of Faith at around the 21 minute mark,
"Those who eat and drink in a worthy manner partake of Christ's body and blood, not physically (and thus we are distancing ourselves from the [Roman] catholic doctrine of transubstantiation), not physically, but spiritually in that by faith they are nourished with the benefit He obtained, through His death, and thus grow in grace."
My guess is Piper wouldn't find it interesting, rather he would find it heretical due to it's large investment in the physical and minimal investment in the Spiritual. I've personally noticed a lot of Roman Catholics think their religion is a form of spirituality, yet upon deeper consideration I find their ceremonies lack the true Spirit.
typeZeroBansai Thanks for your comment, We now have videos on youtube on the Lords Supper by Sean Rath. Titles of these videos are Participate with me in the Lords Supper by Sean Rath or Passover Lords Supper
Catholicism teaches canabalism!
20:20 "If all you do is eat, drink, and remember, you are just acting like the devil."
People got weak and sick and some even died because they didn’t discern the Lords Jesus body broken for them or didn’t avail of the blessings and benefits of the Lords Supper. When Israel ate the Passover lamb and applied the blood then not one person was weak or feeble among the tribes of Israel. Jesus gave His body for the life of the world so just receive Jesus abundant life and healing into every cell of of our bodies in Jesus name
Let's partake in the celebration of the Lord's super.
*supper
@@madmurdock100The super Supper!
Around 13:00 ish mark Pastor is wrong. Because paul in the same chapter of Corinthians says that "one of you is full and one of you is DRUNK". So you see that the wine was actually fermented wine
Piper didn’t say that we don’t know what they were drinking. Of course we know they drank wine. (Grape Juice is quite modern.) He was saying that the original command (see Luke’s telling of the Last Supper) is “the fruit of the vine.” We now have the fruit of the vine available to us in fermented and unfermented options. So, either may be chosen and be appropriate. (But Coca Cola misses the point).
@@chaddonal4331I understand what you're saying, and please be sure to hear my heart in my response as one of working this issue out together :)
Essentially, to be short, I think your view (while neat) is basically just patent eisegesis. Like you said, Jesus WAS referring to wine when he spoke. The fact that we can now apply the term "fruit of the vine" to something else 2000 years later seems completely irrelevant for interpreting what he meant at the time that he spoke those words.
@@SamuelHaak Not eisogesis at all. That’s to import your own (foreign) ideas into the text. It could possibly be anachronistic however (which is putting modern ideas backwards into older contexts).
Here’s why it may be legitimate:
The original term is “fruit of the vine”. This only had one meaning for them (wine). But it has at least two meanings for us (fermented wine and unfermented wine - grape juice). My point was simply: Both are legitimately “fruit of the vine” today.
My bias is that we should be using wine as the more authentic option. However, our cultural moment is so affected by abuse of alcohol for the past 100 years that we struggle to offer even a mere swallow to alcoholics that could set them back - thus injuring our weaker brothers. So, with two application options, other Scriptural values come into play. Again, this is not mere eisogegis, but is rather trying to work out Scripture in practical ways to serve real people in a ministry context.
Do you have a solution for how to utilize wine at the Table generally and not contribute to alcoholics’ setbacks? Obviously many churches have continued to use wine. I do wonder how they shepherd the alcoholics among them.
@chaddonal4331 thanks for your reply! So, I said eisegesis because I assumed that it was your preference for juice driving the interpretation, but you're right it probably should be labelled anachronistic instead.
I do agree that we could accurately refer to both as 'fruit of the vine' today, but again I think that misses the point because to interpret the passage it doesn't matter what the language can mean now, but rather what did Jesus himself mean when he said it. He was using the phrase to refer to something specific, and that specific thing is wine. And if someone would say that he deliberately used that term to be inclusive of other forms of fruit of the vine like grape juice, then couldn't we just as readily apply that definition to tomato juice as well? Or passionfruit juice? And if that isn't the case because we might say, for e.g., that he was referring specifically to the fruit of the grape vine, then it would follow that it actually DOES matter specifically what he was referring to, which leads us back to wine.
To your point on alcoholics-- you're right it's a certainly a challenge to navigate for those people! At a base level, I think it's unwise to alter God's instructions for all believers because some people have difficulty with them. And at the very least, I think it's not useful to argue from what is ultimately an exception towards what should be the rule for church practice. I mean, what about the people with an allergy to grape juice? Does it follow that nobody should have grape juice? I don't think so, and I think that similar reasoning to mine can be seen in 1 Cor when Paul addresses those who are getting drunk off the communion wine, not by suggesting any kind of abstinence or substitution for all in order to account for those prone to drunkenness, but by calling for an increase of maturity and responsibility for everyone.
John I enjoyed your video on the Lords Supper. It is the most misunderstood ordinance of the church.. The Lords Supper is the fulfillment of the Lords Passover Supper. For Christ our Passover Lamb has been sacrificed 1 Corinthians 5:7. There is one perfect sacrifice on Calvary of our Passover lamb on the Feast of Passover and one continuous celebration Supper enforcing that total victory and eternal redemption.until Jesus returns in glory The Lord Jesus prepares His table for us in the presence of our enemies (sickness,diseases,fear etc) with His Passover bread and cup. Jesus is present where two or more come together in Jesus name Matthew 18:20.We get the same benefits as the Israeli got when they ate the Passover lamb and applied the cup.which are health and protection revelation 12:11. As often as we do this Passover we remember Jesus finished work and proclaim Jesus death unto Jesus returns.Forget not all His benefits. We discern that it was Jesus body was broken for us. People got sick,weak and died because they didn’t avail of God’s benefits just as Israel suffered the consequences of sin by failing to eat the Passover Numbers 9:13.There are two parts of every sacrifice the physical and spiritual. How did Israel participate in the sacrifices by eating of the sacrifices1 Corinthians 10:18. and it was imputed to them that they were participating in the Calvary sacrifice. Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness.We eat the Passover bread and cup and it is imputed to us to be participating in Jesus body and blood. The early believers broke bread daily from house to house Acts 2:41-46.
All the great saints of the New covenant partook of the Lords Supper daily Saint Peter, Paul. James,John,Mary Mark.Jude,Smith Wigglesworth, T L Osborne,John G Lake,Derek Prince etc. There are no rituals or symbols or emblems,or elements or memorial meals but we are participating in Jesus body and blood at the Lord Jesus table and in Jesus presence Matthew 18:20. The early believers who were all Jews broke bread daily from house to house Acts 2:41-46. When believers break bread daily is always the result of revelation of what the Lords Supper is all about.
En cuanto al dia y a la frecuencia la biblia si nos da luces...en Hechos 20:7, leyendo los versiculos anteriores y siguientes al versiculo 7, el Apostol Pablo espero el "Primer Día de la Semana" para "Partir el Pan"... Evidentemente la practica al principio de la Iglesia, era hacerlo cada Domingo...
Thanks Pastor John for your explanation, i have one question in mind during this pandemic, can the church conduct online lord supper..
No...
1 Cor 11 uses the language 4x "when you come together" (corporate gathering) for the Lord's Supper
As a Catholic, I'm grateful that I can definitively proclaim that the Lord's Supper of which I partake is not merely a sign or symbol but is the true Body and true Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
How is this possible?
Of course, the Catholic Church has developed the doctrine of transubstantiation to attempt to explain it, but fundamentally it is a mystery. Ultimately, we Catholics simply trust in Jesus and His words at the Last Supper: "This is my body" and "This is my blood."
Thanks for sharing! Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.
John 14:6
davidbahn-reflections.com/2016/09/28/the-eighth-i-am-statement-in-johns-gospel/
What?! so you mean it's literal? not symbolical?
It's a mystery because transubstantiation is a completely unbiblical concept
th-cam.com/video/93cqR-nwI8s/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
As a Catholic I too take great respect In Holy comunión because It transforms into the actual body. Once you know this its difficult to take Holy comunión any other way.
Reformed Theology:
Anyone else notice how demonic entities will not allow you to perform certain rituals anyway you want in order to summon their powers, and yet we think that we could be loose with this ritual with God's?! 🤔
The historical reference of the Lords Supper is the Passover Supper. The Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of the Passover Supper for Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed 1 Corinthians 5:7. We now get the same benefits and blessings as Israel got when they ate the Passover lamb and applied the cup ( blood) Not one person was weak or feeble among the tribes of Israel Psalm 105:37. But when we didn’t discern the Lords body given for us many were weak and sick and some died 1 Corinthians 11:30. There is only one perfect eternal sacrifice and one continuous celebration sacrificial Supper proclaiming Jesus death until Jesus returns to the mount of Olives near Jerusalem. We participate in Jesus body and blood by the obedience of eating and drinking ( physical action). It is then imputed to us that we are feasting on Jesus body and blood or the Calvary sacrifice. Just as Israel were looking forward to the Calvary sacrifice and it was imputed to them by eating and applying the cup. The Lord Jesus prepares His table for us with Passover bread and wine Luke 22:13-20 The Israeli were given strict orders how to prepare. We all need to honor the Lord’s Supper by having Passover bread and fruit of the vine. The Lord Jesus prepares His table for us with Passover bread and wine. With every sacrifice there has to be a physical and spiritual part. The early believers broke bread daily from house to house and sometimes more often.As often as we do this ( Passover Supper) we do it in remembrance of Jesus. The bread I give you I give for the life of the world John 6:51.
8:11
25:48
And we cut the covenant in his blood.
Do as a biblical way not man's way