by Providence Pastor

One of the highest expressions of Christian worship is undoubtedly the Lord's Supper. In our partaking of the bread and wine, which represent the broken body and shed blood of our Lord, we show forth the death of our Lord, receive spiritual nourishment from Him, and testify of our fellowship with one another. One of the most difficult questions surrounding Communion is "Who should be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper?" Actually, we think this question should be rephrased. The right question is "What group of people should partake of the Lord’s Supper together?" We phrase the question this way because the Lord's Supper is by design a social ordinance.

The fact that the Lord’s Supper is to be a social ordinance is clearly seen in 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

Here we see that the Lord's Supper is to be observed by a group of people who comprise one body. The loaf of bread itself is to symbolize something of the unity that this body possesses. It is clear then that the Supper is a social ordinance to be participated in by a body of people. It is not to be taken in isolation. There is no example anywhere in Scripture of the Lord’s Supper being taken in isolation. A believer would be wrong to try to partake of the Supper at home alone apart from other believers. The Roman Catholic Church is wrong in administering the Supper to individuals who are on their deathbeds. Where there is not a body of people, there should be no Lord’s Supper.

Having established that the Lord's Supper should be observed by a group rather than by individuals, we must now attempt to determine who should comprise this group. Obviously, this group must be comprised of Christians; for the Supper is a Christian ordinance instituted by Christ Himself. Only those who have experienced a work of grace in their hearts and have trusted in Christ alone for their salvation should be included in this body of partakers. At this point, one might object and argue that in Luke's Gospel, Judas Iscariot, someone who was clearly not a believer, partakes of the first Lord's Supper. To this objection we answer: 1) It is not conclusive that Judas was at the Supper. Nevertheless, if he was: 2) One must admit that the first Lord's Supper was unique in many respects. For example, how could this first Lord's Supper clearly show forth the death of Christ when He had not yet died? How could the disciples partake of the first Supper in remembrance of Christ when He was still there with them? 3) Even though Judas later proved to be a false disciple, he had not yet proven to be a false disciple at the time of this first Supper. 4) It would be absurd to suggest that we invite known unbelievers to the table when Paul calls for the removal of an immoral brother from the table (1 Cor. 5).

In addition to being a true Christian, we also believe that only baptized Christians should comprise this body who partakes of the Supper together. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) teaches that in our disciple making, we are to first baptize those who have believed in Christ and then teach them to observe all that Christ has commanded. We should baptize our disciples before teaching them to observe the Lord's Supper. This is in agreement with the practice of the early church in Acts. After Peter's sermon at Pentecost, we see that "…those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer (Acts 2:41,42)." The order set forth here is: 1) Conversion, 2) Baptism, 3) Addition to the Church, 4) Observing the Lord's Supper. Therefore, those who partake of the Lord's Supper together should be a group of people who have all been baptized upon their profession of faith in Christ. There is no Scriptural example of anyone being baptized before conversion. Yet, the Scripture overwhelmingly depicts those who have repented and placed their faith in Christ as being the proper recipients for Baptism. We believe Scripture teaches that only believer's baptism constitutes a true Christian baptism, and that Christian baptism should precede Christian communion.

Finally, in addition to being believers who have received true Christian baptism, we believe a group who partakes of the Lord's Supper together should be in covenant relationship as a local church. As we have already seen in Acts 2:41, 42, the group that was breaking bread together was most certainly a local church. This is indicated by their common devotion to fellowship with one another, to pray together, and to continue corporately in the apostles' doctrine. Likewise, Paul’s instructions on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is directed to the local church at Corinth. He specifically says in verse 18, "…when you come together as a church…" It is our understanding that the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was given to the local church and is to be participated in by those who are members of the same local church body -- those who are in covenant relationship with one another.

It should be no surprise that the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance that was given to the local church. It is the local church that is to be "the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)." That it is the local church that is specified in this passage and not the universal church is clear from the context. Already in 1 Timothy, Paul had given instructions regarding public worship as well as a list of qualifications for elders and deacons. These are clearly issues relating to the local church. Further, Paul states in 3:14-15 that his purpose for writing 1 Timothy was to inform the recipients how they were to conduct themselves "in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." How a group of people coming together to conduct themselves in the household of God in the manner and order that the Apostle prescribes could refer to anything but the local church, we do not know.

Another clear indication that the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance that was given to the local church is seen in the scriptural connection between church discipline and the Lord’s Table. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul rebukes the local church at Corinth for not disciplining a brother who was committing open immorality. He admonishes the church, telling them:

Clean out the old leaven that you may be a new lump (5:7).

We here see that those who are under the discipline of the church are not allowed to celebrate the feast with the rest of the church. We believe that the feast referred to in verse 8 is the Lord’s Supper. If we are wrong in assuming that this feast in verse 8 is the Lord’s Supper, we can still see how a brother under discipline would be excluded from partaking of the Supper with the rest of the church, for verse 11 tells us that we are "not even to eat with such a one." Even if the eating referred to here is describing a meal other than the Lord’s Supper, we argue that a command which excludes us from eating with an immoral brother outside the church (a lower token of fellowship) would certainly exclude us from eating with an immoral brother inside the church around the Lord’s Table (the highest token of fellowship).

Due to this connection between discipline and the Lord’s Supper, it seems right to us that only those whom the church has authority to discipline should be allowed to the Lord’s table. We believe the church has neither the authority, nor the responsibility to exercise discipline with every single professing Christian who merely attends the public worship of the church. Only those who have committed themselves together as covenanted members of the local church are to exercise discipline over one another. This was also the conclusion of many of our Baptist forefathers. Writing about the church polity of early Baptists, Greg Willis states:

We wonder if this vital connection between the Lord’s Supper and the discipline of the church is not the reason for such widespread practice of open (or even "close") communion. It appears that when discipline left the churches, closed communion left with it.

As we have already stated previously, we believe that 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17 teach that the Lord’s Supper is to be observed by a body of people. We now seek to show why we believe that the body referred to in 1 Corinthians refers to a local church, and more specifically, members of the same local church.

That the body referred to in 1 Corinthians 10 is the local church, we infer from the context of the rest of the letter. This was a letter written to a specific local church. Paul addresses the recipients of the letter as "the church of God which is at Corinth (1:2)." Paul tells the recipients of the letter that he was sending them Timothy to instruct them in the things that Paul taught "everywhere in every church (4:17)," that is every local church. Further, the instructions concerning the Lord’s Supper that are given in chapter 11 are addressed to those "who come together as a church (11:18)." It seems evident that those who came together as one body to partake of the one loaf during the Lord’s Supper were those who comprised the one local church at Corinth.

We believe our position is greatly strengthened as we turn to the next chapter (12) in 1 Corinthians and see Paul continue to use "body" language in a way that can only refer to a local church.

For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just a He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.

Does the "body" language here refer to the universal invisible church, or to the visible local church? The answer should be obvious. Where can one point to a division in the universal invisible church? How do all the members of universal invisible church express care for another? When have all the members of the universal invisible church suffered because one member of the universal invisible church suffered? Or rejoiced because one was honored? Only in a local church do members guard against division, express care for one another, suffer together, and rejoice together. We do not deny the existence of the universal invisible church, nor that Scripture clearly refers to its existence; however, we are convinced that in this particular passage, "Christ’s body" must refer to the local church and those who are "individually members of it" must refer to the members of the local church. We point out that even respected study bibles like the NASB and NIV Study Bibles, which seek to take as broad an interpretive view as possible, or at least give as many major interpretations as possible, contain this study note on 1 Corinthians 12:27 regarding you are Christ’s body:

We also point out that the use of spiritual gifts, which is what Paul is addressing in chapters 12-14, is to be exercised in the local church. This is repeatedly indicated in chapter 14.

One who speaks in tongues edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying (14:4, 5).

So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church (14:12).

…however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue (14:19).

Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad (14:23)?

Do these passages refer to the edification of the universal church body or the local church body? Does Paul desire to speak five words that he may instruct the universal church body or the local church body? Can the whole universal church body assemble together or does 14:23 refer to the local church body assembling together? The answer to these questions is obvious. The body Paul has in mind throughout these chapters is the local church body.

We believe we have adequately shown from the Scriptures that the instructions given concerning the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 are directed to the local church and that those who participate in the Supper together are to be members of the local church body. The Corinthians were individually members of one body, the local church body, which is the body of Christ. The one loaf that they partook of in their observance of the Lord’s Supper was to remind them of the fact that they were one body (1 Cor.10:17). We feel that the only question that remains is what constitutes membership in a local body? What makes one a part or member of a local body?

It is our understanding that commitment and covenant relationship to the rest of the local body is what constitutes membership, however formal or informal this profession of commitment may be. In other words, how do the members of the local body know who is committed and who’s not, who’s in and who’s out? For our church, this is a fairly formal process. We require our members to sign a church covenant that indicates their commitment to the local body and their willingness to submit to the authority and discipline of the church. Because we live in a society where few people are willing to commit themselves to anything or anyone (including their own spouses), we believe that a formal commitment is necessary for church membership. We realize that such a formal commitment might not have been as necessary at other times in history, or be as necessary in other societies. One can imagine that in times of persecution, merely attending the meetings of the early church may have indicated that one was a committed member, since one risked death in doing so. In addition, one can imagine a society that takes commitment much more seriously than our own. In this society, it may be that there is no need for such a formal process as a covenant to show that one is committed to the local body. This can be easily illustrated using the marriage covenant as an example. For instance, one can imagine a culture where, when a man desires to get married, he takes a woman into his tent, spreads his skirt over her, and the two become one flesh. By this act, he is indicating to the woman that he is her husband, that she is his wife, and that he is committed to her until death. Likewise, the entire village understands that the two are now a married couple because of this act. Can a man taking a woman into his tent communicate lifelong commitment and true marriage? Yes. But what if a man in our culture were to take a woman into his house and have intercourse with her? Does this communicate lifelong commitment and true marriage? Would anybody in American society view them as married simply because they had sex? Certainly not! We realize that because so many sexual partnerships in our society are not based on committed covenant relationship, those of us who wish to communicate real commitment and covenant relationship must do so in a marriage ceremony called a wedding. We exchange rings and vows to communicate to our spouse and to our larger "village" that we are committed in a way that other people who sleep together and live together are not. It is absolutely essential that my wife know that I am committed to her, that I know that she is committed to me, and that everyone else knows that we are committed to each other. This is accomplished through the covenant of marriage, where all the parties involved understand the commitment that is being expressed. Likewise, it is absolutely essential that my local church body know that I am committed to them, that I know that they are committed to me, and that everyone else knows that we are committed to one another. This is accomplished through the covenant of church membership, where all the parties involved understand the commitment that is being expressed. We are not trying to argue that first-century church membership looked just like ours today. However, we do believe that people in the early church knew who was committed to the local body and who was not.

We go back to our original question asked at the beginning of this essay, "What group of people should partake of the Lord’s Supper together?" It is our conclusion that only those who are in covenant relationship together as members of a local church should partake of the Supper together. It is this group of people who are identified as one body and as Christ’s body in 1 Corinthians. It is this group of people who show forth their communion with one another even as they commune with Christ around his table. It is this group of people who proclaim to be one body, the spiritual body of Christ, even as they partake of the one loaf, which represents the physical body of Christ. It is to this local body that the ordinance was given. And it is this local body who is to remain the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and perform her divine duty to keep this ordinance pure (1 Cor. 5) by exercising the discipline that has been commanded her (Matt. 18:17) until Christ shall return.