The Bread and the Cup
We live in a period of time in which individualism is huge and the centrality of the church is almost non-existent. One casualty of this unfortunate arrangement is that coming to the Eucharistic Meal is seen almost solely as an individual’s personal choice, not as a matter of the official ministry of the church. As a campus pastor of mine put it to unbelievers at our Friday night para-church meeting: “When the bread is passed, if you feel God tuggin’ on your heart, go ahead and partake.” In the first place, a para-church organization (of which there are about 14 billion) has NO BUSINESS administering the Sacraments given to the church by Christ. That aside, what does an unbeliever (even if he “feels God tuggin’ on his heart”) have to do with the Lord’s Table?! This is all quite misguided. It is wrapped up in the unseen errors of our own day, and it is a practice is not only largely missing from the history of the church, but is roundly condemned throughout the whole of that history. Finally, offering the holy Meal to people before they are baptized is not just contrary to church history, but is contrary to a sound reading of Scripture.
As to church history, and in order to keep this post reasonable in length, let one example suffice. This one example is from one of the earliest pieces of non-canonical Christian literature still extant, the Didache. Very little is said of Communion, but this is included: “But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs.’” Thus, from the very early days of the Christian church, it has been customary to serve the Supper of Thanksgiving (that is, of course, what “eucharist” means) to the baptized alone, but why? Is there a biblical reason for this long-standing practice?
There are really two reasons (as I see it) that the Eucharist should be served to the baptized and not the unbaptized. The first has to do with the differing natures of the two sacraments, and the second has to do with the connection of Baptism and the Supper in the NT to Circumcision and Passover in the OT.
Baptismal Font
The nature of Baptism differs at various points from the nature of the Eucharist. Baptism in the NT is tied (among other things) to new life, union with Christ, and initiation into the church (Rom 6:1-4; Titus 3:1-7; 1 Cor 12:12-13 – for starters). The holy Meal is (again, among other things) the sign of feeding, growth, and covenant renewal (1 Cor 10:15-17; 11:23-34). Baptism is the sign of rebirth and initiation, the sign of union with Christ. Communion is, well… COMmunion, a sharing of union with the others who also share in it. The union of Baptism necessarily precedes the communion of Communion. That is, one needs to be included in the body of Christ before one participates in the shared life of that body. One should be sacramentally born before one takes sacramental food.
Compelling as all that is, I think there is a more impressive argument to be made. The difficulty with this second argument is that it assumes that one understands that there is a link between OT Circumcision and NT Baptism, and also a link between OT Passover and NT Communion. That there is a connection between Communion and Passover is not difficult to spot, as Jesus instituted the Supper at a Passover meal (Mt 26:17-29). The nature of that connection is more difficult, as is the connection between Circumcision and Baptism. However, the two following passages should be enough to show that there is a connection, even if (just like in the case of Passover and the Supper) the nature of that connection is not easily grasped.
Colossians 2:11-12 links Circumcision and Baptism conceptually by linking them grammatically: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” In short, we, Gentiles, have been Circumcised in our Baptisms, for the shared substance of both signs is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 3:23-29 explains how believers, through faith Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham, become children of Abraham. Paul ends with these words: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” In baptism we put on Christ and are counted as Abraham’s children. What is the OT sign of being a child of Abraham? Read Genesis 17, if you can’t remember. The sign was Circumcision. In the NT, that sign is now Baptism.
Okay, so if in their central substance Baptism is linked with Circumcision and the Eucharist is linked with Passover, then we can proceed to show how, in the OT, in order to participate in the Passover meal, one needed to be circumcised. Exodus 12:43-49 says:
And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
So, in the OT the sign of initiation into the covenant community was necessary to participate in the shared meal of communion of the life of that community, the same should hold true in the NT (unless the NT changed this general requirement, which it does not).
Baptism has been required for participation in the Eucharist from the very earliest days of the Christian church. This practice is likely drawn from the thousands of years of practice in the Jewish church and also from the nature of the Sacraments themselves.
While I do agree that unbelievers are not to partake of communion, I don’t quite understand your take on what the Church is. You reference ideas like “the official ministry of the Church” and that it is not an individual thing, and para-church organizations shouldn’t be administering communion. I don’t get your point… or I don’t agree… I am not sure. Church is people, not buildings… wherever 2 or more are gathered to worship Christ is Church. I remember going to Mexico to an orphanage where we partnered with the Church of Christ, a Methodist Church (not a liberal one), and another American Baptist Church plant. We had communion with fellow believers independent of any Church organization, and it was OK. It was also individual because if you are not a member of the catholic Church you were asked not to partake.
Mark, I don’t mean the church as a physical building, but the church as an historical institution. As I mentioned, this aspect is almost completely lost on modern Protestants. The church has officers. The church has the keys to the kingdom. The church really exercises those keys. The church has the Word. The church has the sacraments. Individual Christians are baptized into the body of the church. This institution is not at all apart from the people, but you and I sitting in a prayer meeting do not constitute the church. When two or three are gathered together (in church discipline, by the way – that’s the context of that famously misused verse) Christ is with them, but that doesn’t mean that those two or three can or should start ordaining ministers, baptizing people or serving the Supper. Nor should you and I get together and start exercising church discipline, should be. Should my wife and I sit down at dinner and begin excommunicating people from the church of Christ? Of course not. The church, as institution, has a government which Christ has charged with these things. These things belong to Christ’s church, not to individual members of that church. Does that clarify some, Mark?
Oh, I was on board with what you are saying, I just don’t think Scripture tells us that communion is to be observed and implemented the way you are suggesting. From got questions… Scripture does not designate where the communion service must be held. It has been served in hospitals and nursing homes for ill patients. Missionaries on the field have served communion to believers where no churches have yet been established. Some families perform their own communion service on special occasions such as Christmas Eve. Our Lord, in commemorating the Passover with the disciples in the upper room, instituted the first communion service. The only instructions we have regarding the process of the rite come from Jesus’ own words to “do this in remembrance of me” until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). This passage gives all the instructions we need to perform the rite of communion and to understand the significance of what we are doing.
It was after Pentecost when the church was established that communion was regularly served in church settings and considered to be an ordinance of the church. As such, the recognized church leadership administered the service. But there is no biblical reason why the Lord’s Supper cannot be administered in homes among friends and family, in a home church setting, or anywhere else. The important thing is not location, but the remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, whereby we are saved.
Mark, there’s a bit more instruction regarding the Supper than you let on. For instance, it’s to be done together as a body – “when you come together to the Lord’s Supper, wait for one another.” Thus, the body should be gathered (not extensively, but substantially – that is, not every single person, but the body in the main or in general) when the Supper is served. The church serves this meal; it’s not a private meal. The church can gather at a house, in the mission field, or in a hospital room to be sure, but the church must be gathered. The Eucharist is not in the first place a private act of devotion, but a gathered, public proclamation of the church. For in the Eucharist, WE (the church) proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. In the Eucharist, WE have a public “remembrance” of Jesus. The private and devotional aspects must be well rooted in the public and corporate, which emphases are primary.
What impresses me is that you think of the unbaptized as dogs. Or swine, if you continue the verse.
Ted, I’m sorry to say that I did not personally author the Didache.
Mark, the “Church of Christ?” As in the cult?
Oh we are all cults to somebody. There are true cults, but that term is so misused… simply to describe somebody who worships differently. While there are Church of Christ’s who have cultish properties, many of them are true brothers and sisters in Christ… same as members of the RC. The Church itself is wayward, however there are many within the Church who have real relationships with Christ and just don’t know the big picture of their mother Church.
I disagree. Christ told Nicodemus “you must be born again.” The COC denies the operation of the Holy Spirit in the lives of today’s believers. For me, that’s the equivalent of somebody assuring you that they’ve never had any spiritual experience whatsoever. They deny the trinity. They also believe that they can work their way to heaven, they believe that they are the only ones going to heaven as well. How much does a group of people have to err before they’re considered a cult? The reason I say all of this is because my entire family is COC, and a few years ago the Lord saved me out of it. I wish that my only problem with them would be how they worship, but the truth is they’ve denied the essential truths of the faith.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Church-of-Christ.html
Would be curious to see where you find that COC denies the Trinity as every COC website that has a creed or “what do we believe” section affirms the Trinity… here is one:
http://www.franklinchurchofchrist.com/sermons/date/2006/htm/20060425PM.htm
This website also confirms that the COC believes we are to have a relationship with the Holy Spirit… although they interpret that relationship a little differently than some traditional Christianity.
This website also confirms that the Holy Spirit is God.
Mark, There is a huge diversity among the COC. As the this quote from your link says
“Even within the most widespread “Church of Christ” denomination, there can be significant differences between the churches.”
The group my family is affiliated with denies the Trinity.
The page you provided on having a relationship with the Holy Spirit is very unorthodox. Here are some quotes:
“The word “dwell” does not necessitate a literal indwelling of the Person.”
“When we are obedient to the Spirit’s word, it is then that we are controlled by the Spirit.
1. We are said to be born again when we obey the truth that was given through the Spirit, 1 Peter 1:22-23.
2. When we obey the word given by the Spirit, we bear the fruit of the Spirit in our lives, Galatians 5:22-23. ”
As you can see, they remove anything supernatural from conversion. Every step of the way is initiated and completed by the individual. Basically they are saying that being indwelt with the Spirit simply means obeying the bible. They say the same about being born again, to them it means nothing more than when they start reforming themselves under their own power.
Maybe I’m wrong and overly critical about this, but I’m unable to convince myself that these people know God.
I understand why you might come to your conclusions… however, I was also brought to Christ via a COC Church plant in Colorado. The Holy Spirit was ever so present and He was always thought of as God. Maybe I just got lucky, but it goes to show, there are believers everywhere despite the governing body… which is why it is important to believe that the Church is the people and not the governing body nor the building. God bless…