Jesus taking Communion?

[Facite]

It does not specify in the Bible that Jesus took his own Body and Blood at the Last Supper, but I was wondering if Jesus did take his own Body and Blood when he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist? Since the priest during Mass acts “in persona Christi” and receives Communion during Mass, wouldn’t Jesus, during the first Mass, do the same thing? And if so, why would he do this? In my opinion it would be to no benefit. Jesus himself is himself, he can’t become more Jesus by taking himself, so yes. Thank you for your time!

 

[Cristiano]

It does not specify in the Bible that Jesus took his own Body and Blood at the Last Supper, but I was wondering if Jesus did take his own Body and Blood when he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist? Since the priest during Mass acts “in persona Christi” and receives Communion during Mass, wouldn’t Jesus, during the first Mass, do the same thing? And if so, why would he do this? In my opinion it would be to no benefit. Jesus himself is himself, he can’t become more Jesus by taking himself, so yes. Thank you for your time!

Please see Scott Hahan:…There are four cups that represent the structure of the Passover. The first cup is the blessing of the festival day, it’s the kiddush cup. The second cup of wine occurs really at the beginning of the Passover liturgy itself, and that involves the singing of psalm 113. And then there’s the third cup, the cup of blessing which involves the actual meal, the unleavened bread and so on. And then, before the fourth cup, you sing the great hil-el psalms: 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118. And having sung those psalms you proceed to the fourth cup which for all practical purposes is the climax of the Passover.
Now what’s the problem? The problem is that gospel account says something like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus says, “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of God.” And it says, “Then they sang the psalms.” Every Jew who knows the liturgy would expect: and then they went ahead and said the grace and the blessing and had the fourth cup which climaxed and consummated the Passover. But no, the gospel account say they sang the psalms and went out into the night…

 

[Facite]

Please see Scott Hahan:…There are four cups that represent the structure of the Passover. The first cup is the blessing of the festival day, it’s the kiddush cup. The second cup of wine occurs really at the beginning of the Passover liturgy itself, and that involves the singing of psalm 113. And then there’s the third cup, the cup of blessing which involves the actual meal, the unleavened bread and so on. And then, before the fourth cup, you sing the great hil-el psalms: 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118. And having sung those psalms you proceed to the fourth cup which for all practical purposes is the climax of the Passover.
Now what’s the problem? The problem is that gospel account says something like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus says, “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of God.” And it says, “Then they sang the psalms.” Every Jew who knows the liturgy would expect: and then they went ahead and said the grace and the blessing and had the fourth cup which climaxed and consummated the Passover. But no, the gospel account say they sang the psalms and went out into the night…

I am still confused. What are you trying to get out from this?

 

[Cristiano]

I am still confused. What are you trying to get out from this?

The point is that according to Luke it looks like that Jesus did not drink from the chalice when he shared it with the other people and there is a lot of theology going to explain that symbolism.

In regard to the priest acting in persona Christi you have to understand that it does not pose limits on Jesus actions. Jesus does not have the necessity of some actions to be in persona Christi like a priest. Actions can be determined by factual needs and symbolism. Drinking of the chalice is a factual need and a symbol for the priest while it might have been simply a symbol to instruct the disciples in the case of Jesus. That would be a benfit by itself. However, the instruction did not say “do like I do” it says “do this in memory of me” and so we can safely assume that he did not drink or ate, it does not make any difference either.

 

[Skeptic92]

The point is that according to Luke it looks like that Jesus did not drink from the chalice when he shared it with the other people and there is a lot of theology going to explain that symbolism.

In regard to the priest acting in persona Christi you have to understand that it does not pose limits on Jesus actions. Jesus does not have the necessity of some actions to be in persona Christi like a priest. Actions can be determined by factual needs and symbolism. Drinking of the chalice is a factual need and a symbol for the priest while it might have been simply a symbol to instruct the disciples in the case of Jesus. That would be a benfit by itself. However, the instruction did not say “do like I do” it says “do this in memory of me” and so we can safely assume that he did not drink or ate, it does not make any difference either.

NO that is not what Dr Hahn is getting at! The Eucharistic Chalice is the Third Cup of the Passover not the 4th, please see Brant Pitre- Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper as Dr Hahns Lectures assume you have some basic knowledge of the traditions and Theology behind what he is discussing, whereas Dr. Pitre doesn’t have this assertion in his book.

Christ did drink the Eucharistic Chalice, as the third cup (the Chalice of his Blood) is before the singing of the Great Hillal if you follow Dr Hahn’s thinking. Scripture does not explicitly state whether he did or didn’t but as to complete the Passover meal 4 cups would have to be consumed (only 3 of which are in the Last Supper, through close examination, and eisegesis using Jewish Traditions of the day, plus some inter-gospel comparisons and St Pauls Epistles) and a 4th Cup (hyssop branch) being consumed on the Cross to complete the meal and the sacrifice.

If you want me to go into this argument in depth please respond, as you have misunderstood Dr Hahn’s argument (although to be fair, Dr Hahn does not explain himself to well, considering he is speaking to Theologians and Biblical scholars generally of Post-graduate level in his lectures so he makes assumptions as to your background knowledge) which Dr. Brant Pitre also makes, but a lot clearer.

 

[Cristiano]

NO that is not what Dr Hahn is getting at! The Eucharistic Chalice is the Third Cup of the Passover not the 4th, please see Brant Pitre- Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper as Dr Hahns Lectures assume you have some basic knowledge of the traditions and Theology behind what he is discussing, whereas Dr. Pitre doesn’t have this assertion in his book.

Christ did drink the Eucharistic Chalice, as the third cup (the Chalice of his Blood) is before the singing of the Great Hillal if you follow Dr Hahn’s thinking. Scripture does not explicitly state whether he did or didn’t but as to complete the Passover meal 4 cups would have to be consumed (only 3 of which are in the Last Supper, through close examination, and eisegesis using Jewish Traditions of the day, plus some inter-gospel comparisons and St Pauls Epistles) and a 4th Cup (hyssop branch) being consumed on the Cross to complete the meal and the sacrifice.

If you want me to go into this argument in depth please respond, as you have misunderstood Dr Hahn’s argument (although to be fair, Dr Hahn does not explain himself to well, considering he is speaking to Theologians and Biblical scholars generally of Post-graduate level in his lectures so he makes assumptions as to your background knowledge) which Dr. Brant Pitre also makes, but a lot clearer.

I did not make any comments about Jesus being the third or fourth chalice. In my first post I simply linked to a transcript of an argument by Scott Hahn. I think that you are trying to read too much in what I wrote in my second post. My point is that Jesus did not have a factual need, like the priest has during Mass, to drink and eat.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I did not make any comments about Jesus being the third or fourth chalice. In my first post I simply linked to a transcript of an argument by Scott Hahn. I think that you are trying to read too much in what I wrote in my second post. My point is that Jesus did not have a factual need, like the priest has during Mass, to drink and eat.

Of course he did not have a need, just as he did not have a need to be baptized, but he did it for our sake.

The O.P. was asking if Jesus drank, and the answer is simply yes, he did. He drank the 4th ‘cup’ on the cross, so logically he would have drank the other 3. And since the purpose of the passover meal was to eat with his disciples, he would have ate the bread also.