The Lord's Supper
The Puritan theologian Thomas Watson wrote a short discourse on the Lord’s Supper. In his opening remarks to the reader, he said, “When I think about the holiness and solemnity of the blessed sacrament, I can’t help but feel a sense of awe and believe that I must hold this mystery in the highest respect. The elements of bread and wine are common in themselves, but under these symbolic representatives, divine excellencies are hidden.”[1] In this introduction, Watson captures a small piece of the beauty found in this ancient meal. The Lord’s Supper has captivated followers of Jesus for centuries. Shelves creak under the weight of the volumes written on this topic, and this paper will be nothing more than a small volume on that overflowing shelf. The goal of this paper is not to engage with the volumes of debates among Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin over the various views of this meal. Instead, the goal here is to clear the overgrown paths of the Scriptures, reaching farther back into the ancient practice revealed by the apostles and prophets, to uncover the beautiful tapestry of meaning in this sacred meal. In the following pages, this paper will prove that the Lord's Supper is a sacred Christian practice that calls believers to remember Christ’s death, proclaim His story, participate in His sacrifice, and anticipate the consummation of God’s Kingdom. Consequently, this meal is exclusive to those who are part of the redeemed body of Christ and leaves no place for outsiders. The arguments for this paper will be organized as follows: First, the doctrine will be defined by looking at the Biblical teachings surrounding this practice. Following that will be a defense against one of the teachings which undermines the significance of this meal. Finally, there will be a declaration of this doctrine in all its glory for the benefit of the Church today.
Defining the Lord’s Supper
Defining the Lord’s Supper is not a difficult task. The practice itself is very simple. Christians gather to share in a meal that consists of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine (grape juice or wine), in which they remember the death of Jesus and the redemption that death accomplished. The frequency of this meal differs across varying sects of modern Christendom, but in the earliest accounts, it seems to have been practiced weekly as part of the regular Lord’s Day assemblies.[2] This picture of the Lord’s Supper is easy to understand. However, the deeper theological meanings that lie under the surface of this practice are debated and often misunderstood. This section of the paper will return to the old Biblical paths to discern the beautiful tapestry of meaning behind the Lord’s Supper meal.
The Lord’s Supper is a Remembrance
In Luke 22:19, as Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper meal, he said, “Do this in remembrance of me.”[3] It is clear in the Gospel accounts that Jesus instituted this meal against the backdrop of the Passover celebration (Matt 26:19; Mark 14:16; Luke 22:15). The Passover was a time of remembering what God had done for Israel in their deliverance from Egypt. God told Moses the Passover meal was a “memorial” to be celebrated (Ex 12:14). Moses told the people that they were to “remember” the way God delivered them from Egypt as they ate the elements of the feast (Ex 13:3; Dt 16:3). This feast was to serve as a “reminder” of what God had done in
Egypt (Ex 13:9). It is no wonder then that Jesus, when He laid down a new meaning in this meal,
said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19, emphasis added). In commenting on Jesus’ institution of this meal during the Passover, William Barclay said, “It is his reorientation of an ancient memorial. The Passover feast was always a feast which commemorated the saving action of God; and now this saving action is to be demonstrated in a new and unique way. And just as the ancient memory had to be kept sharp and vivid, so had the new memory.”[4]Jesus took an ancient memorial that remembered God’s deliverance from Egyptian slavery and shifted the focus to God’s deliverance from sin through the death of Himself on the cross. This is why Paul referred to Jesus as “our Passover” (1 Cor 5:7). As Jonathan Warren said, “Christ intends his disciples to understand that his sacrifice, his body and blood offered upon the cross, is simultaneously a recapitulation and summation of the depth of meaning of the Passover meal, and a deliverance from a deeper slavery shared not just by Israel but by all of humanity to the powers of sin and death (Rom 6:1–14).”[5] Warren’s words reveal the new remembrance within the unleavened bread and the wine. The emblems were no longer a simple representation of God’s salvation in Egypt but a deeper representation of God’s salvation from sin in Christ’s body and blood, through His recapitulation of the Exodus story. Jesus identified Himself as a new
Passover for the people of God, and the new remembrance rested upon Him and His sacrifice. This new meaning is why Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19, emphasis added).
The Lord’s Supper is a Proclamation
In 1 Corinthians 11:26, Paul said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” There is yet another Passover parallel in this verse. In the Passover, God instructed Israel to retell this story generation after generation to proclaim to their children what God had done for them in Egypt. God said, “And when your children say to you, ‘What does this rite mean to you?’ you shall say, ‘It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians but spared our homes’” (Ex 12:26-27). Jewish tradition demonstrates that the children were expected to ask questions about the meal, and the father would respond by retelling the story of Israel from Abraham through the events of the Exodus.[6] This retelling of the story of the Exodus was no mere passing on of information. Rather, it became a way to participate in the Exodus story and to confess their identity as God’s people.[7] Paul drew a parallel between this element of the Passover and the Lord’s Supper when he said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor 11:26, emphasis added). Celebrating the Lord’s Supper is a retelling of the story of the cross for all future generations to confess their identity in Christ, their redeemer. These Biblical texts are why so many early
Church leaders thought it was vital to proclaim Christ as the substance within the shadow of the
Passover. Melito of Sardis was one of the most notable proclaimers of this reality. In his lengthy Easter sermon, he said, “He is the one led like a lamb and slaughtered like a sheep; he ransomed us from the worship of the world as from the land of Egypt, and he set us free from the slavery of
the devil as from the land of Pharoah…this is the Pascha [Passover] of our salvation.”[8] The Christian proclamation of Christ’s death is more than a mere retelling of the story of Jesus. This proclamation draws the image of the cross out of the shadow of the Passover and proclaims that reality for all future generations to see. Just as the annual Passover celebration was a proclamation of redemption accomplished in Egypt, so is the Lord’s Supper a proclamation of the redemption accomplished in Christ’s death on the cross.
The Lord’s Supper is a Participation
In 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, Paul discusses the koinonia (sharing, participation, or fellowship[9]) found in the Lord’s Supper. He identifies that the Lord’s Supper is a koinonia in the body and blood of Jesus (1 Cor 10:16). In what sense does Paul call it a koinonia? Paul teaches that just as those who partook in Jewish sacrificial meals became “sharers in the altar,” so also, through the Lord’s Supper, Christians become sharers in the altar of Christ (1 Cor 10:18). This is an allusion to the sacrificial meals of the Old Covenant (Lev 6:26; 7:15; 1 Sam 1:3-5). Just as those who offered sacrifices became sharers in the altar of Yahweh through a meal, so do Christians become sharers in the sacrifice of Christ through a meal. Paul makes another comparison in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21 when he warns the Church against eating the idol temple meals because he does not want them to become “sharers with demons.” Moses made clear that idolatry was “sacrificing to demons” (Dt 32:17). Based on this Old Covenant teaching, Paul admonished the Church by saying, “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1 Cor 10:21). There are several of the Oxrynchus Papyri that contain invitations to
Pagan sacrificial meals which reveal a dinner that took place in the temple of Serapis.[10] Barclay comments on these ancient invitations, saying, “What we would call an invitation to dinner reads like an invitation to dine with the god...This goes back to a very primitive idea…in which the god was supposed to be not only a guest at the feast, but in some sense also the host…and the initiate looked for communion with the god.”[11] These comments reveal much of what Paul alluded to when he spoke of sharing in the table of demons (1 Cor 10:20-21). Paul reveals that there was participation with demonic powers in the idol temple meals just as there was participation with Yahweh in the Jewish temple meals. What should be made of these comparisons? In each of these respective meals, both Jewish and Pagan, there was an element of participation with the unseen as they ate. Paul’s line of reasoning teaches that the Lord’s Supper has this same kind of participation in the unseen. There is a reaching upward to the risen Christ on the part of man and a stooping downward on the part of Christ, creating a sweet koinonia in this sacrificial meal. Perhaps this is why Origen referred to the Lord’s Supper as “partaking of divine mysteries.”[12] Maybe this is what Thomas Watson meant when he said, “The elements of bread and wine are common in themselves, but under these symbolic representatives, divine excellencies are hidden.”[13] Both of these point to a human and divine mingling in the meal of the Lord’s Supper. Just as Israel stretched out their arms to God through sacrifices and communed with Him in a meal, and the Gentiles did the same with their gods, so too Christians can stretch out their arms to Christ and commune with Him in the Lord’s Supper. Not only is this sharing with the unseen but also with each person who gathers to share in this divine meal. It is a
koinonia that unites Christians to each other and to Christ as they share the bread and cup (1 Cor 10:17). The Lord’s Supper is no common meal designed to fill the appetite. Instead, it is a meal containing simple elements by which those who partake are both connected to one another and to Christ. Through this meal, Christians are united with one another by their participation in the unseen beauties of Christ, creating a sweet koinonia in the bread and cup.
The Lord’s Supper is for Anticipating
When Jesus established the Lord’s Supper, He pointed to a future meal in God’s Kingdom (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16, 18). Embedded in the Lord’s Supper is an anticipation of the great banquet yet to come. This banquet is what Isaiah spoke of when he said, “The Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain” (Isa 25:6). Jesus taught about this banquet when He spoke of the heavenly table where one could recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matt 8:11; Luke 13:29). Jesus taught parables about His invitation of outsiders to this great banquet (Luke 14:16-24). Jesus Himself invited His apostles to eat and drink at the table in the Kingdom of God (Luke 22:30). John spoke of this same banquet when he said, “If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come to Him and will dine with Him” (Rev 3:20). This meal is what was revealed from heaven to John when the great voice said, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev 19:9). The Scriptures are saturated with a view to a future table of fellowship with Christ and the faithful saints of all generations. All these scriptures look towards the future meal Jesus anticipated when He established the Lord’s Supper, saying, “I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16). This is why Athanasius referred to the Lord’s
Supper as an “earnest of that heavenly feast.” He continued, “For if we diligently celebrate the feast here, we shall doubtless receive the perfect joy which is in heaven.”[14] These comments reveal an anticipation of a future banquet meal with the faithful saints of old and with Christ after His coming. The Lord’s Supper is shared in great anticipation of and as a foretaste of that glorious fellowship table to come.
Summary
Defining some of these deeper threads underlying the Lord’s Supper is a big task. This meal has endless parallels, types, meanings, and nuances that can be unearthed. However, the few that have been uncovered seem to build a strong foundation for what this meal is all about. These elements begin to craft a beautiful tapestry of meaning that illuminates the significance of this meal. The Lord’s Supper is a sacred Christian practice that calls believers to remember Christ’s death, proclaim His story, participate in His sacrifice, and anticipate the consummation of God’s Kingdom. These nuances help to clear the paths ahead so that the ancient ordinance of the Lord’s Supper can be redeemed from its neglect and abuse in the modern Church. In the next section, a defense will be given against a key doctrine that undermines the Lord’s Supper.
Defending the Lord’s Supper
Many teachings stand in opposition to the Biblical portrait of the Lord’s Supper. This paper will not have space to detail each one of them. However, one major teaching stands to undermine the profound significance of this sacred meal. The modern teaching of “open communion” will be discussed and refuted in this section of the paper. The goal is to expose the flaws of this teaching and draw out the glory of the Biblical picture of exclusivity within the Lord’s Supper.
Defining Open Communion
There are several paths to discuss within the teaching of open communion.[15] For the scope of this paper, the version of open communion being addressed is that taught within the Wesleyan Methodist tradition. Brannon Hancock most clearly articulates this, saying that “nonChristians or pre-converts” should be welcomed to share in the Lord’s Supper as a means of hospitality, evangelism, and invitation to be drawn to Christ. Hancock argues that “our communion tables should be radically open, because the table is Christ’s table, and Christ was open to everybody, welcomed everybody, even sinners.”[16] The basis for his argument is threefold. First, Jesus invited all, even sinners, to eat at the table with Him in His ministry. Therefore, the communion table should be open to all. Second, Jesus’ body and blood were given for all. Therefore, all should be welcomed to share in the Lord’s Supper table and partake of His body and blood. Third, the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace by which Christ can stir the affections to draw people nearer to him. Therefore, outsiders ought to be welcome to the table to draw them into the love of Jesus.[17] These arguments trace back to its earliest and much milder form in John Wesley. In his 1787 sermon, The Duty of Constant Communion, Wesley argues that the Lord’s Supper is a means of mercy, and thus, all who earnestly seek Christ should be invited to partake in it.[18] The 1964 edition of Doctrines and Disciplines of the Methodist Church follows Wesley’s lead, stating, “All people who intend to lead a Christian life are invited to receive this holy sacrament.”[19] Hancock claims that Wesley has been famously cited among Methodists as calling communion a “converting ordinance.”[20] Hancock adds to this claim by saying, “Y’all come, as long as you feel Jesus loves you,” captures the heart of Wesleyan tradition surrounding the Lord’s Supper.[21] Undoubtedly there are others in varying sects of modern Christendom advocate for this doctrine, but these claims seem to be where this doctrine finds its roots. In summary, as advocated by the Wesleyan Methodist tradition, open communion is the invitation of “nonChristians or pre-converts” into the Lord’s Supper meal as a means of hospitality, evangelism, and an invitation to be drawn to Christ.
Defending Against Open Communion
Despite the appeal of the Lord’s Supper being a message of inclusion and invitation, there are several flaws in the thinking surrounding open communion. These flaws will be addressed in two primary arguments. The first argument will deal with the misunderstanding of how Jesus’ inclusive table ministry relates to the Lord’s Supper meal. The second argument will deal with the misunderstanding of the Biblical teachings on the exclusivity of the Lord’s Supper meal.
A clear flaw in the Wesleyan tradition is revealed in Hancock’s arguments above. Using Jesus’ table ministry in the Gospel accounts as a direct parallel for how the Lord’s Supper should be practiced is a serious misapplication of the Biblical texts. When Jesus gave His parable in
Luke 14:16-24, He spoke of His inclusive invitation to the table. However, this is not the Lord’s Supper table Jesus refers to here. It is the table of the “kingdom of God” (Luke 14:15). This is the same table where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob recline (Luke 13:29) and the same table where the great marriage supper of the Lamb will be held (Rev 19:9). Indeed, all are invited to this table. However, only those who accept the invitation are welcome. In the parable, many made excuses about why they could not come to the meal (Luke 14:18-20). Then, at the end of the parable Jesus said, “None of those who were invited shall taste of my dinner” (Luke 14:24). Even the broad invitations they use to support open communion were exclusive to those who accepted the invitation. Furthermore, there is a fundamental difference between Jesus’ tableministry and the Lord’s Supper. Jesus’ table ministry was an evangelistic ministry in which he ate with people in an effort “to seek and to save that which is lost” (Luke 19:10). None of the evangelistic meals of Jesus are connected to the Lord’s Supper meal. The meals Hancock seeks support from were common meals meant to reach the lost sheep of Israel with the gospel message. In contrast, the Lord’s Supper meal is never described as a tool for seeking and saving the lost.
All of this comes down to a deep-rooted misunderstanding of the exclusivity of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 10:21, Paul said some were participating in the pagan temple meals and could not be sharers with Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The author of Hebrews said that those who served the tabernacle (a reference to those Jews who refused to accept Christ) had “no right to eat” at the Christian altar (Heb 13:10). It has also been argued that Paul referred to the Lord’s Supper when he instructed the Church in Corinth to refrain from “eating” with so-called brothers who were practicing sin (1 Cor 5:11).[22] Furthermore, the Passover background of the Lord’s Supper is rooted in exclusion of outsiders. God repeatedly told Moses and Aaron that those who were not Israel were not welcome to share in the Passover unless they were circumcised to become a part of Israel (Ex 12:42-49). The Lord’s Supper is built on the foundation of exclusivity. Consider the very meaning of the Lord’s Supper. An outsider cannot reflect on their redemption obtained by the cross, for they have no redemption. A lost soul has no need to participate with Christ, for they have no participation with Christ. An outsider cannot proclaim Christ as their Passover, for He is not yet their Passover. What enemy of the cross needs to remember, proclaim, or participate in the cross? This line of reasoning is precisely why the early Church held to the exclusivity of the Lord’s Supper so boldly. Justin Martyr said, “no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins.”[23] The Church concluded in the Didache that “no one is to eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord.” They even extended this thought by saying, “Do not give that which is holy to the dogs,” as a demonstration of how those outside of the Christian faith had no share in the holy elements of the Lord’s Supper.[24] All of this, and more, is why Everett Ferguson says that the Lord’s Supper is “a meaningful communion of the redeemed people of
God,” thus excluding the non-redeemed people of the world because it has no meaning for them.[25]
Summary
This section has briefly dealt with this false teaching of open communion, as promoted by Wesleyan tradition. The early Christians were appalled by the notion that outsiders be welcomed to the Lord’s table.[26] The clear Biblical teaching is that this meal is exclusive to the redeemed people of God as a memorial of their redemption, a proclamation of their Lord, a sharing in His sacrifice, and an anticipation of the great heavenly meal yet to come. No outsider has a place in all of this. Thus, open communion must be rejected by the Church of today.
Declaring the Lord’s Supper
Restoring the ancient practice of the Lord’s Supper will require thoughtful and deliberate action from the Church today. It is not enough to grow in understanding the facts surrounding the Lord’s Supper if those facts never lead to implementation. It is not enough to confront the errors concerning the Lord’s Supper if the Church never changes its practice. Because of this, in the following paragraphs, there will be three final charges to admonish the readers of this paper to implement what can be seen so vividly in the Biblical tapestry, which is the Lord’s Supper.
Restoring the Weekly Observance of the Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper was central to the early Church. The earliest Christians “were continually devoting themselves” to this meal (Acts 2:42). The earliest Christians met on the first day of the week for the purpose of sharing this meal together (Acts 20:7). The Church in Corinth ate of it when they “came together” as a congregation (1 Cor 11:17-20, 33-34). The early teachings of the Church reveal the same centrality of this sacred meal when they say, “Come together each Lord’s Day of the Lord, break bread, and give thanks.”[27] In his description of early worship services, Justin Martyr placed the Lord’s Supper at the pinnacle of that service, having its own separate ceremonies and thanksgivings.[28] These references are why Everett Ferguson describes the Lord’s Supper as “the climax” of the Christian worship service.[29] If the Lord’s Supper was so central to the early Church, should it not be just as central to the Church of today? After all, if this meal is everything the Bible says it is for the Church, should it not be central to the life and practice of the Church? Most sects of Christendom will likely agree that the Lord’s Supper is significant and necessary. Most will even reference the same reasons referred to in this paper to bolster their arguments in favor of the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, very few have returned to the ancient Biblical pattern of making this meal a central element of each Lord’s Day. Perhaps one of the first steps to be taken in upholding the Lord’s Supper is returning to that ancient pattern laid out by the apostles – the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. If the modern Church is willing to take this step, perhaps the centrality of this meal can be everything Christ intended it to be for His people.
Restoring the Exclusivity of the Lord’s Supper
As already discussed at length, the Lord’s Supper is naturally exclusive. It is a
“meaningful communion for the redeemed people of God” and, therefore, has no significance for the unredeemed people of the world.[30] The Scriptures make it clear that some have no place at the Lord’s Table due to their flawed relationship with Christ, and until that flawed relationship with Christ is made right, a person cannot sit at the Lord’s table (1 Cor 5:11; 1 Cor 10:21; Heb 13:10). This is no new interpretation of the Scriptures. These Scriptures are precisely why the early Church taught, “No one is to eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord…Do not give that which is holy to the dogs.”[31] These Scriptures are why St. Augustine was concerned with allowing disciplined brethren and false teachers into the house of God to eat from the altar of God.[32] In contrast, the modern Church is satisfied with inviting entire communities of outsiders to a special communion service on Easter and Christmas. The Church of today takes no issue inviting visitors to share in the meal, with no question of whether they are part of the body of Christ. This practice is foreign to the Biblical portrait of the Lord’s Supper. If the modern Church is to restore the beauty of what Jesus established with His people, there must be a resurgence of exclusivity. In His book describing healthy churches, Mark Dever said, “We must be careful about telling non-Christians the theological lie that they, in the most profound sense, belong.”[33] One of the most dangerous things a Christian can do is tell the lost that they are saved and have a place in the body of Christ when, in fact, they are lost and have no place in the body. Every time a Church invites outsiders, who are not saved nor a part of the body, into the fellowship of the Lord’s table, they give the lost false assurance that they are indeed saved. When the Church proclaims to the world that outsiders can taste of the heavenly gift, receive God’s gracious favor, commune with Christ, and anticipate eternal rest through the Lord’s Supper – when in reality they cannot – the Church tells a horrible lie leading to a false sense of security for the world. A Church that teaches or practices communion this way is dangerously straying from the Biblical pattern. It is the exclusive nature of this supper that makes it so special for God’s people. Therefore, the exclusive nature of this supper must be restored if the significance and beauty of this meal is to be uncovered today.
Restoring the Splendor of the Lord’s Supper
From the third century onward, the topic of the Lord’s Supper became a topic of division. As Barclay said, “The Lord’s Supper moved from being an act of the heart’s devotion to being a center of theological debate.”[34] In those later patristic years, into the medieval years, and even through the reformation, there was more debate about Christ in the Lord’s Supper than there was awe of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. This lineage of debate has led the modern Church into a pendulum of passivity concerning the Lord’s Supper – a passivity that is not just doctrinal but also in affections. The modern Church does not seem to know what to make of the Lord’s Supper, so it is set aside to be practiced on special occasions without much thought given to its Biblical glory. If the modern Church is to return to the old paths of the Apostles, the arguments must turn into awe, the strife into splendor, and the dullness into devotion. To accomplish such a restoration, the Church must return to the concepts behind the initial Eucharist. The ancient meal gained the name Eucharist because of the “thanksgiving” offered through this meal. The Greek word used by Jesus when establishing the Lord’s Supper is eucharisteo (Luke 22:17,19) which means “to give thanks.”[35] This definition is why the early Church developed a theology of thanksgiving surrounding the Lord’s Supper. Justin Martyr spoke of those presiding over the Lord’s Supper as “offering thanks at considerable length for being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.”[36] Irenaeus even compared the Lord’s Supper to an “offering” of thanks similar to those offered under the Old Covenant.[37]When restoring the splendor of the Lord’s Supper to the modern Church, going back to a simple act of eucharisteo(thanksgiving) will inspire awe. When the Church sits at the foot of the cross, examines the Christ that hung there upon it, and participates in the beauty of His atonement, one cannot help but be moved to deeper awe, splendor, and devotion. At the foot of the cross, the ancient debates seem to fade into the shadows. It is not that those debates were unimportant, but that they can easily become the end instead of the means, thus overshadowing the glorious weight of this meal instead of illuminating it. Therefore, if the Church today is to restore the splendor of the Lord’s Supper, there must be a return to practicing eucharisteo – a simple yet captivating giving of thanks beneath the splendor of the cross.
Conclusion
“When I think about the holiness and solemnity of the blessed sacrament, I can’t help but feel a sense of awe and believe that I must hold this mystery in the highest respect. The elements of bread and wine are common in themselves, but under these symbolic representatives, divine excellencies are hidden.”[38]Those words of Thomas Watson capture so much of what this meal is all about. The Lord’s Supper is a sacred Christian practice that calls believers to remember Christ’s death, proclaim His story, participate in His sacrifice, and anticipate the consummation of God’s Kingdom. Consequently, this meal is exclusive to those who are part of the body of Christ and is not for outsiders to take part in. The goal of this paper has been to articulate this view of the Lord’s Supper clearly and effectively. The ancient meal contains a beautiful tapestry of elements designed to lead us into deeper devotion and communion with the Lord. May God bless all who share in this blessed meal under the cross of Christ.
Footnotes
[1] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Supper: In Modern English (Independently Published by Modern Puritans, 2024), 11.
[2] Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 14.1
[3] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references are from the New American Standard Bible, (NASB) (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1995).
[4] William Barclay, The Lord’s Supper (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 54.
[5] Jonathan Warren, “The Lord’s Supper,” Lexham Survey of Theology. Edited by Brannon Ellis and Mark Ward. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018),
[6] M. Pesachim 10:4
[7] W. Ross Blackburn, The God Who Makes Himself Known: The Missionary Heart of the Book of Exodus, New Studies in Biblical Theology 28 (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2012), 51.
[8] Melito of Sardis, On Pascha, 67-69.
[9] BDAG (1957), s.v. “koinonia”
[10] P. Oxy. 110, 523, 1484.
[11] William Barclay, The Lord’s Supper, 110-111.
[12] Origen, Homilies on Exodus, 13.3.
[13] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Supper, 11.
[14] Athanasius, Festal Letters, 6.1
[15] Brannon Hancock outlines three major avenues of open communion to address. To read more on what they are see Brannon Hancock, “Borders and the Body Broken: Liminal Space at the Table” Wesleyan Theological Journal 54, no. 1 (2019), Atla Religion Database, 25-26
[16] Ibid., 33.
[17] Ibid., 33-36. This is a summary of the three major arguments Hancock makes for the Wesleyan view of
open communion. To read the arguments in their totality, see the pages listed here.
[18] John Wesley, “The Duty of Constant Communion.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
[19] Doctrines and Disciplines of The Methodist Church (1964), P 1715.
[20] Brannon Hancock, “Borders and the Body Broken: Liminal Space at the Table,” 27.
[21] Ibid., 27.
[22] St. Augustine. On Baptism, Against the Donatists. 7.45.89. St. Augustine makes the argument that Paul referred to “the altar of God” as the place where they should not eat with the sinful brother.
[23] Justin Martyr. The First Apology of Justin, 66.
[24] The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 9.
[25] Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the Frist Three Centuries (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Company, 1971), 101.
[26] St. Augustine. On Baptism, Against the Donatists. 7.45.88. Here St. Augustine expresses his concern for inviting sinful brethren and false teachers into the home and into the house of God to share in fellowship with the saints based on 2 John 10-11 and 1 Corinthians 5:11.
[27] The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 14.
[28] Justin Martyr. The First Apology of Justin, 66.
[29] Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries, 96.
[30] Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries, 101.
[31] The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 9.
[32] St. Augustine. On Baptism, Against the Donatists. 7.45.88-89.
[33] Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Fourth Edition, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 141.
[34] William Barclay, The Lord’s Supper, 114.
[35] BDAG (1957), s.v. “eucharisteo”
[36] Justin Martyr. The First Apology of Justin. 65.
[37] Irenaeus. Against Heresies. 4.17.5.
[38] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Supper: In Modern English (Independently Published by Modern Puritans, 2024), 11.
