Communion Differences

Luke 22:15–20

¹⁵ And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: ¹⁶ For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. ¹⁷ And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: ¹⁸ For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. ¹⁹ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. ²⁰ Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 

The question related to communion has come up several times over the years and I desired to answer the main elements as fully and clearly as possible. While it is true that there are clear passages as to WHO can partake, specifics can only be gleaned rather than pointed to. While the question of WHEN to partake is given as to occasion, frequency is not at all clear, each week? Month? Year? None are stated.

Therefore, what makes the method and manner of communion right or wrong?

Answer: MOTIVE.

What are the reasons a Pastor has chosen to celebrate communion in the manner and frequency he has? If the Motive itself is not aligned with all scripture teaches, then the manner is wrong at its core.

This article aims to answer the question of WHO and WHEN, addressing both the specifics and the particulars as best as possible in the hope that Pastors and Brethren may have some clarity as to the real reasons why some Pastors differ from others in this ordinance. Some pastors certainly have pure motives in method and manner even though they differ one from another, but some have motive that steer both method and manner to an unbiblical end to the sorrow of those who desire to partake. 

I pray the essay is both illuminating and encouraging.

Pr Edi

WHO?

The general answer to the question ‘Who?’ is not difficult to recognise, all truly born-again believers have right to the celebration of remembering the Lord Jesus in communion. However, the specifics of how this is to be managed in a formal local Church assembly is not particularly clear and has given way to Pastors creating a diverse range of rules around communion, rules they generally feel are proper in the careful administration of this ordinance.

Communion certainly is that to be remembered by those who are confident they are born again; dire warnings are given within the scriptures of the risks and dangers that may follow those who “eat and drink unworthily” and who are in effect “eating and drinking damnation to” themselves (1 Cor 11:29). For example, nominal Christians are not included in the body, nor those who think they are saved but are likely the subjects of Matthew 7:23 whom Jesus will testify he “never knew”. Communion is only for those who are saved. 

All those who have been saved from the time of Christ till today are a part of the body, those still with us have right to remembering the Lord through Communion until he comes when in the company of a body.  

^“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” 

1 Corinthians 11:26

All Christians therefore have right to share and join in communion both yesterday, today and until he comes, but this is never seen being attended to in isolation, it is always done in the body, in the church or a part of a church, this is made evident in the very name of the celebration, “Communion”.

Communion simply means ‘fellowship’, it is done in association with those who have a share in the same celebration, and so we understand communion is done as a part of a gathering, “When ye come together therefore into one place...” (1 Cor 11:20a)

Further, Communion is not a lighthearted affair. Paul testifies to this when rebuking the Corinthian Churches for making light of it and not respecting the ordinance of communion in its proper order; 

“ When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not”. 1 Corinthians 11:20–22

It seems evident therefore that the ordinance of Communion has a proper order by which the Church should heed. 

It is this consideration that generally assumes all faithful Christians have joined themselves to a Local Assembly, as such they are then well ordered to share in this common meal remembering the Lord together.

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 

1 Corinthians 11:33

Communion therefore, by its very nature, is not one attended to solitarily but “in common”, in communion, “together” with others of the same heart and mind in Christ. 

A Little Tricky

While this seems simple enough, this is also when the “WHO” question becomes a little tricky to nail down, here is the question of the responsibility of the Pastor of those assemblies: Who, within the assembly, ought to take part in the communion for which they have been appointed as “overseers” (Acts 20:28)? For within the passage of 1 Corinthians 11 is a very somber warning for those who are indeed in the assembly, but who also have no right to the communion table;

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” 1 Corinthians 11:27–30

CLOSED COMMUNION

As such, many Pastors take the responsibility upon themselves respecting those who “eateth and drinketh damnation to” themselves. As caretakers of the flock, many pastors believe that it is far too risky on their part to permit any person to partake in communion who have not been thoroughly vetted by the Pastor, as such some may not permit any who are not voted-in-members of the local assembly to take part in communion. 

Official “Members” of a Church can only be so if the Pastor, Deacon and the existing Church Body are thoroughly convinced the individual is born again before they vote to include them into membership. Thus, the Pastor would trust it safe to permit all members to partake in communion.

This is referred to as CLOSED COMMUNION. One MUST be a full, voted-in-member of the Church prior to being permitted to partake in this ordinance, irrespective if they believe themselves to be truly born again. 

In such cases the Pastor has taken the responsibility upon himself that the person is born again and thereby “safe” that he is not eating and drinking damnation to himself when partaking in communion. But does this guarantee the individual is actually saved, or is there a possibility that the Pastor and the Church have been fooled and thereby added insult to injury? Are they affirming all the more the professing Christian is “eating and drinking damnation to himself” after confirming in their minds that he is saved, if he is not?

More importantly, does the scripture place the responsibility for qualification of eligibility upon the Pastor? Or is it the individual that is warned? 

Can a Pastor or the Church ever truly know a person is genuinely saved? Can tares be planted among the wheat? Goats among the sheep?

Varieties Within CLOSED COMMUNION

There are varieties of this form of CLOSED COMMUNION. 

Some add ‘Regular attendance’ to the requirement, others add ‘serving’ in the Church to it, and others may add ‘faithfully attending other ministry responsibilities’ such as Bible Study and Prayer meeting, and still some require that the believer be not ‘presently in sin’ in the hope of avoiding the risk of such becoming “weak and sickly” in accordance with verse 30 of our 1 Cor 11 passage. And still others may require a combination of these before they deem the professing Christian to be acceptable by the Pastor.

But Pastors are no more qualified to “deem” a man worthy of communion than he is of “deeming” a man is truly saved. Pastors who attend to this sort of rule and behavior are at risk at this point of “being lords…over God’s heritage..” (1 Pet 3:12). No pastor is given charge to know the state of a man’s heart simply through the profession of his mouth or the appearance of his state. The Pharisee gave a tithe of all he had, he looked the goods, but it was the wretched, repentant publican who was found worthy (Lk 18:10-14). Indeed, it is those who “have respect to persons” which “commit sin” (James 2:8), Pastors who see themselves as arbiters in such matters, at the least, take on a responsibility that is not theirs and, at worst, think far too highly of themselves to qualify and perfectly judge.

The responsibility we have is to warn as Paul warned of the consequence of eating and drinking unworthily. We then place the outcome of that responsibility upon the shoulders of those to whom the consequences are laid. If Pastors take on the responsibility themselves then it stands to reason the Pastors ought to bear the consequences, but this is not seen in the scriptures.

The fundamental question, therefore, respecting CLOSED COMMUNION, is related to RESPONSIBILITY and MOTIVE. 

Whose responsibility is it to know with any degree of certainty that an individual is truly saved or faithful in all matters respecting their faith? And what is the motive of the pastor in this regard?

Due to the above truths and in line with the plainness of what I read in the scriptures; I do believe that the responsibility belongs to the individual partaking in the ordinance to know of his own sate. My responsibility goes as far as that of Paul’s responsibility, that is to warn the eater and drinker to be sure he is a saved man and thereby a part of the very body he is remembering. My motive is not to go beyond the bounds set by the scriptures, Eve’s “neither shall ye touch it lest ye die” always comes to my mind when we attempt to go beyond God’s words (see Gen 3:3).

Please understand that in holding the above position, this Pastor in no way condemns other ministers for taking a stronger stand, notably that of Membership. Such a stand is NOT demonstrably wrong at all. Done in sincerity, it is simply the conviction of a pastor to limit the error of a presumptuous false convert as best as possible. 

However, if becoming a member of a Church is not attended to with serious enquiry as to the state of the soul it is of little value. If becoming a member is as simple as answering a few questions or the filling out of a form or acceptable attendance criteria, or a mix of each, then there is little difference if a person be a member or not, for such can be done without a commitment to being a member. Pastors have all made errors from time to time in accepting people as members of their Churches who ought never to have become members. (more respecting the matter of membership below).

CLOSE COMMUNION

It is with the above understood that we come to the manner of communion held by Hope Baptist Church.

Many Churches see that the responsibility respecting communion falls squarely on the heads of those partaking. Nevertheless, a loving Pastor does not wish that any be sickly nor perish in wrongful assumption of salvation, and so do all they can to both limit the number of people caught up in such assumption as well as regularly expound the Corinthian passage to warn those who risk the consequence of such presumption. This is seen as CLOSE COMMUNION.

It differs from the OPEN COMMUNION attended to in Anglican or Roman Catholic services where anyone, saved or lost, can partake. And it differs from CLOSED COMMUNION in that there is no requirement for membership to partake.

This form testifies that all who truly believe themselves to be saved have the right to commonly remember the Lord until he comes within the context of a local assembly, a local Church, whether they be a member or not. Though membership may certainly limit the error depending on the manner by which the Pastor qualifies the prospective members, nothing can completely eliminate the risk other than the professing individuals own personal ‘examination’ whether a member or not, “but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Cor 11:28).

We also see that no presumption is made to perfect faithfulness in the 1 Cor 11 passage. No presumption is made thinking that simply because individuals partake in other ministry responsibilities they are thereby perfectly faithful in other matters, indeed Jesus words in Matthew 7 testifying the potential to the contrary;

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:22–23

Nevertheless, the Pastors own love and care for people may make Communion a dedicated and separate service from the normal service times to limit casual partakers who do not see the somber and respectful nature of the ordinance. He may also regularly warn, as Paul does, to the danger of presumption and he will leave the responsibility to those who endure the consequence of eating and drinking unworthily. 

Does this guarantee “unworthy”, nominal Christians will not partake? No. Not CLOSED services nor CLOSE communion services can guarantee that some will partake of communion that have no true share in the body of Christ. Many professing Christians have ascended to the highest level of Christian office but have never been truly born again, therefore, if a lost deacon or pastor “eateth or drinketh unworthily”, we cannot hope to perfectly ensure the common man wont.

WHEN?

While it may be considered simple enough to answer the question related to WHO can take part in communion, the question as to ‘WHEN’ has two elements, one simple and the other not so. The two elements are related to OCCASION and FREQUENCY.

As to ‘Occasion’ the scriptures simply state, “when ye come together” in 1 Cor 11:20 & 33. As to ‘Frequency’, no such clarity is given.

The ‘Occasion’ always relates to Christian fellowship. We had seen it in the first communion to which this ordinance was ordained, when the disciples and Jesus took part in what is famously referred to as The Last Supper. A ‘supper’ which interestingly included Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus and went to his own place (Acts 1:25).

The Occasion therefore is a gathering of brethren who share in the body and the blood of our Lord, but more than this may be gleaned from the origin of the supper.

The “Last Supper” was in the celebration of the Passover Meal instigated at the time of the Exodus of the Jews from their bondage in Egypt. Jesus thus demonstrating that he himself is the true Passover Lamb represented from long ago and memorialized at each Passover by the Jews. 

This is a good segue into the question of “Frequency”; how often ought we to share in the ordinance of Communion? Some do so every time they come together. Yes, both each Sunday service and each service on Sundays, some add Bible Study and Prayer meeting to the list, and so share frequently each week in this ordinance. 

To the other end of the scale, some do so only once per year, and may do so in line with the time of Passover. They make the communion ordinance an occasion for which they greatly prepare for, some even going as far is assimilating every aspect of Communion with the ceremonial aspects of the Passover as written in Exodus 12, Numbers 9 and Deuteronomy 16. The problem with this, is that Communion is NOT Passover.

Communion is not the Passover as much as remembering Jesus is not Jesus. Jesus is the Passover represented in the Passover Ordinance kept by the Jews since the time of the Exodus. 

Prior to Abraham being withheld from sacrificing his only begotten son, he was asked by his son Isaac of the lamb required for the sacrifice, to which Abraham responded, “God will provide himself a lamb...” (Gen 22:8). Jesus is that lamb.

Communion however is the remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ whose body was broken and blood was spilt, who was formally represented to Israel as the Passover Lamb, “behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” pronounced John the Baptist (Jn 1:29). When Jesus said, “Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me”, he instituted a change, a memorial of an event that was passed and would continue until his coming again. Passover similarly does so, but it remembers an historical event of the people, not of Christ even as it does so in anticipation for Christ. 

Christ, having now come, we therein have a share in his body as our own Passover, “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor 5:7), not in the events of the exodus for which the original ordinance was a call to Israel to remember, but in the perpetual knowledge that we are forgiven, saved through the blood of Christ shed for the remission of sin. 

While we have no charge to remember the Passover, which none but Israel were required to keep (notwithstanding the mixed multitude that came out with them at the Exodus), we do have a charge to “shew the Lords death till he come” (1 Cor 11:26). 

SUMARY

It is the sadness I see in true Christians being withheld from enjoying this wonderful remembrance of our Lord in fellowship with other brethren that compels me to consider this argument.

Do ALL Christians, truly born again, have a right to the ordinance of the Lord without the need to formally become members of a Church to which they may not perfectly see eye to eye with? Is coercing true Christians to become members, prior to permitting their share of this wonderful memorial in spite of their potential differences on some biblical doctrines, just and right and in the spirit of this memorial? Is doing so opening up greater problems for the Church while not truly solving the issue of responsibility?

Our Church will certainly not permit any person to be a member if they do not personally believe as we believe, but ought this to disqualify an individual from a memorial we ALL have a share in, even though our doctrines on other matters do not perfectly align?

If Communion is NOT Passover, why conflate the two ordinances as one? Where does this new tradition come from? If such a tradition comes from the Covenantalist notion that the Church has replaced Israel, then the conflation of the two is understandable but in gross heretical error to which individuals ought to separate. If, however, it is simply a mistaken simile, then perhaps communion ought to be granted as even the mixed multitude and strangers were granted permission both in the Exodus event and the future ordinance; “membership” thereby not being required.

It is the MOTIVES behind the rules around the ordinance that is of primary importance. This alone tells if the manner in which the ordinance is celebrated is justifiable or not. There is no “frequency” identified in the scriptures, therefore Communion can technically be held several times per week or once a decade if need be. But if the frequency is based on a belief system that is false, then the determined frequency is in error.

So, in respecting the ‘WHO’ question: If the Pastor is trying his best to limit the error of false converts partaking in communion and does so by closing it off to any but members, his motivation may be just and good and right, nevertheless consequences will naturally present. For in doing so he also denies communion to those truly born again, while at the same time not guaranteeing those members he permits communion are themselves truly saved. As such, the loving pastor potentially adds insult to injury and may find himself facilitating the very thing he desired to avoid.

If the Pastor does so, to lord it over the people or respects only the appearance of persons, he is in sin. No pastor can know the state of a man simply because that man attends or does not attend certain ministry endeavors the Pastor creates.

At Hope Baptist, keeping it as simple as possible, both enables the Pastor to place responsibility where responsibility is due and also help all convinced brethren to share in this memorial with other believers and to do so without coercing them to become members of a Church, in which they may not perfectly trust all the doctrines of. They understand that two cannot walk together accept they be agreed (Amos 3:3), and yet trust that both agree respecting the body and blood of the Lord. 

While we at Hope remember our Lord on the first Sunday of each month, we do so for the sake of simplicity and ease of remembrance and not a theological predisposition. And we will serve all who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord, until he comes.

Pr Edi Giudetti