by Chris Reeves
Synopsis: From time to time, we provide brethren with the opportunity of addressing significant issues from different perspectives. Accordingly, we include these two articles relating to the observance of the Lord’s supper.
For many years, there have been occasions when brethren have been “providentially hindered” to where they could not assemble to partake of the Lord’s supper. Inclement weather, natural disasters, illness, surgery, etc., have kept faithful brethren away from the local assembly of saints. On occasions like these, some brethren partook of the Lord’s supper at home, while others did not. It was always left to the individual conscience of brethren. I do not judge or condemn my brethren for partaking individually when their consciences dictate in such cases. I certainly understand why faithful brethren who have taken the Lord’s supper regularly for many years would want to continue doing this when they are told that they cannot assemble.
However, earlier this year, during the COVID-19 outbreak, when many Christians could not assemble for various reasons, some brethren attempted to make a scriptural defense of individuals partaking of the Lord’s supper at home. Exegesis of well-known Bible passages with some new arguments was made that I had never heard before. Instead of leaving it in the realm of the personal conscience as we had always done, I was now hearing appeals to scripture for the practice. It is these new arguments that I would like to answer in this article. Now is the time to study these things and make sure that we are “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15, NASB).
Argument #1: Romans 14 allows brethren to differ over where they partake of the Lord’s supper, whether corporately (in the assembly) or individually (outside the assembly).
Answer: First, Paul wrote about individual practices that are not necessary to being a Christian. The Lord’s supper is not the same thing. Partaking of the Lord’s supper is necessary to being a Christian (“do this”). Second, Paul wrote about daily practices, like eating, that can be done regularly. The Lord’s supper is not the same thing. We are being told that partaking of the Lord’s supper outside the assembly should be done only under dire circumstances, not on a regular basis. It is clear that the Lord’s supper, whether partaking in or out of the assembly, does not fit in Romans 14.
Consider two more points from Romans 14. Paul wrote about practices that can be done or not done. You can do it (eat), or you can abstain from doing it (eat not); it doesn’t matter either way (v. 3; cf. 1 Cor. 8:8). The Lord’s supper does not fit with this. Would it be ok for brethren to say, “You can eat the Lord’s supper in the assembly if you want, or you don’t have to”? Of course not.
Paul also wrote that a Christian must be willing to give up the practice if it causes a brother to stumble (v. 21; cf. 1 Cor. 8:13). The Lord’s supper does not fit with this. Would it be ok for brethren to say, “I will give up eating the Lord’s supper in the assembly if it causes my brother (who wants to eat it outside the assembly) to stumble”? Of course not. Romans 14 is not a sound defense for partaking of the Lord’s supper outside the assembly. We take this passage out of context when applied to the Lord’s supper.
Argument #2: Individuals partake of the Lord’s supper, so the Lord’s supper is an individual action, not a corporate (church) action. Therefore, individuals can partake of the supper outside of the assembly.
Answer: Brethren making this argument appeal to the wording in 1 Corinthians 11 that speaks of individuals partaking (“whosoever shall eat,” verse 27; “let a man,” verse 28; “he that eats,” v. 29; etc.). Yet, focusing on the wording that speaks of individuals should not cause us to ignore the context of the assembly. Of course, individuals partake (no one argues that they do not), but those individuals do so in the assembly. Paul uses the singular “you” when speaking of the individual action of discerning the Lord’s body in the supper (vv. 27-32), but he uses the plural “you” when speaking of the actual observance of that supper in the assembly (vv. 20, 26, 33).
Additionally, the words “this do” (vv. 24-25), “you drink” (v. 25), and “you eat,” “drink,” and “you proclaim” (v. 26) are all in the plural. These actions are clearly done by a plurality (two or more) of Christians. It is not right to focus on the individual (the who) and ignore the assembly (the where), just like it is not right to focus on “Believe on the Lord Jesus” in Acts 16:30 (as some faith-only advocates do) and ignore “was baptized” (v. 33) in the same context. Paul also wanted the Corinthians to withdraw fellowship from the fornicating brother in 1 Corinthians 5. They would do so individually, but it was still to be done “being gathered together” (5:4).
Argument #3: If the Lord’s supper has to be eaten in the assembly, then that is like the Catholic Church who controls and sanctions all the sacraments.
Answer: We follow the uniform examples in the New Testament of partaking in the assembly, not the Catholic Church. It is true that the assembly does not “sanction” or “validate” the Lord’s supper, but the assembly is the only place mentioned in the NT as the place to partake. The Holy Spirit, not the Catholic Church, controls the place of the Lord’s supper by revealing the assembly. Actually, if any practice is tied to the Catholic Church, it would be partaking of the Lord’s supper outside the assembly. Catholics have what they call “Last Rites” or “Final Communion,” where an individual is given the Lord’s supper at home.
Argument #4: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, addresses division in the Lord’s supper, not individuals partaking outside of the assembly, so it is ok to do so.
Answer: This is a fallacious argument because it is an argument from silence. It is an attempt to argue from what Paul did not say. There are many things that Paul did not address in this chapter, but that does not make them authorized. Our institutional brethren use this same line of argument. They say, “Paul is addressing division in the Lord’s supper, not eating a meal in a fellowship hall after the service, so eating a meal in a fellowship hall is authorized.” Of course, Paul did not address partaking outside the assembly because brethren were not doing that. All the NT evidence we have of brethren partaking is partaking in an assembly (1 Cor. 11:18-34; Acts 20:7). Why would Paul address something that brethren were not doing in the first place?
Argument #5: If you require that the Lord’s supper be taken in the assembly, then you are adding an element to the Lord’s supper. You are adding assembling to the bread and the fruit of the vine.
Answer: We should never add to or take from the word of God (Rev. 22:18-19), so I take very seriously the charge that I am adding to the word of God. We are not adding to the word of God when we require the assembly. We recognize the binding nature of the NT examples that limit the Lord’s supper to the assembly. Those brethren who make this argument say that Paul mentions only two elements, the bread and the fruit of the vine, so we are limited to that. True. That’s why we are limited to those two elements. With the same reasoning, we know that the only place where the Lord’s supper is mentioned is in the assembly. That’s why we are limited to the assembly. We do not add a “third element” to the Lord’s supper when we require the assembly, just like we don’t add a “third element” when we require the Lord’s supper to be observed on the “first day of the week.”
Argument #6: The gathering together in Acts 20:7 is not a binding pattern, just like the upper room in the same account is non-binding.
Answer: It is true that the upper room in Acts 20:8 is not binding, and there’s a reason for this. The upper room is not binding because we know from other accounts that NT Christians met in other places (like Solomon’s porch in Acts 5). One location for the assembly should not be bound when other locations are obviously authorized. However, we don’t have the same thing with regard to the assembly itself. In all the NT examples of Christians partaking of the Lord’s supper, an assembly is present. Not one time is there an example of an individual partaking of the Lord’s supper. The assembly (and not the upper room) of Acts 20:7 is binding because we have no other example than the assembly. Exclusive examples (where something is done one way and one way only) become binding examples.
Consider also the day of the week in Acts 20:7. Luke records: “upon the first day of the week.” Is this also not binding, as some brethren have said in the past? If the upper room and the assembly are non-binding, then is the day of the week (Sunday) non-binding? Some brethren in the past have answered “No” and now offer the Lord’s supper on days other than Sunday. What about the frequency of observance? Is every Sunday binding or not? Brethren today who are making the above argument need to answer these questions. The fact is, the “first day of the week” (and by implication, the frequency, every Sunday) is binding because it is the only day mentioned in the NT. It is an exclusive, binding example. The day of the week, the assembly, and the two elements (bread, the fruit of the vine) are all binding. If the exclusive example of the assembly is not binding, then neither are the following exclusive examples binding: church benevolence to needy saints only, direct support to preachers or needy brethren, and singing without an instrument.
Argument #7: You do not need specific authority for individuals to partake of the Lord’s supper if you have generic authority to do so. The general authority, “This do in remembrance of me,” allows for individuals to partake of the Lord’s supper if they want.
Answer: The command, “This do in remembrance of me” in Luke 22:19 applies to the drinking of the cup and the eating of the bread. It applies to the drinking and the eating, not to the number of people. Jesus’ command, “this do” in Luke 22:19, is actually in the plural (“you all do this”). This makes the original Lord’s supper setting an assembly (Luke 22:14-23). When this generic command was carried out and obeyed by the NT church, we find that they, guided by inspired apostles, limited the day to “the first day of the week,” they limited the occasion to when they had “come together.” They limited the elements to the bread and the fruit of the vine. We follow these same limitations today. We don’t simply read the generic command, but we also read how this command was carried out in specific ways by NT Christians.
Argument #8: The coming together in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 11 was not required but was only incidental. The Corinthians happened to come together on this occasion, but it was not necessary for them to do so.
Answer: Saying that the coming together in 1 Corinthians 11 is incidental is eisegesis—reading into the passage what is not there. This is someone’s pure assumption and “ipse dixit,” or say so. In fact, the text indicates otherwise. The text indicates that the Corinthians came together for the very purpose of partaking the Lord’s supper. Look at the wording in verse 33: “when you come together to eat.” In Greek, this is “συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν,” lit., “coming together in order to eat.” Several Greek expositors note that the word εἰς here (and again in v. 34) has the force of purpose, end, or design. The whole purpose, end, or design of the Corinthians coming together was to eat the Lord’s supper. So, no, the coming together was not just an incidental thing at Corinth, but a purposeful act designed in order to eat the Lord’s supper.
Before closing, consider some consequences that might follow if we give brethren a scriptural defense for partaking outside of the assembly. First, the assembly could become, at best, only helpful and, at worst, completely unnecessary. If all service to God is individual and not corporate, as some have argued, then you could never require brethren to assemble ever again. You could say that the assembly is for encouragement (as per Heb. 10:25), but not necessarily required. The “virtual church” approach to worship that has been so popular among the denominations for years might now become more popular among our brethren.
Second, if you give someone a scriptural defense, then even faithful brethren (not just the unfaithful looking to abuse the practice) could start saying, “I can take the Lord’s supper at the lake because brother so-and-so told me that partaking outside the assembly is authorized.” If you respond, “Well, that’s an abuse.” I would say, “No. It’s reality.” The reality would be that more brethren, even the “faithful,” would stay away from the assembly now that they know that they can scripturally partake outside the assembly.
Third, if partaking outside the assembly is authorized by the NT, then it is not just something that brethren may do; it is something they must do. Brethren must do it the next time they are “providentially” hindered. It’s not optional, just like partaking in the assembly is not optional. Elders must make sure that all their flock is partaking individually when the elders decide to cancel the assembly. They must make arrangements for their flock to have the Lord’s supper at home. Also, what about all the local churches with elders that did not encourage the individual partaking of the Lord’s supper earlier this year? Did they do wrong?
Fourth, if the NT teaches the partaking of the Lord’s supper outside the assembly, it is not only justified for COVID-19, but for all times. Each week, not just during a pandemic, brethren could partake outside the assembly. The NT does not teach that partaking outside the assembly is for pandemic situations only, but in all other situations, the assembly is required.
Fifth, if the Lord’s supper can be done individually outside the assembly, the contribution can also be done individually outside the assembly. The contribution is an individual action just like the Lord’s supper is, so why not allow it outside of the assembly (1 Cor. 16:1-2)? Some brethren have already been doing this even before COVID-19. Do we really want these things?
Is it scriptural for individuals to partake of the Lord’s supper outside of the assembly? No direct statement (or command) can be given for it. No example can be provided for it. No implication requiring a necessary inference can be given for it. No generic authority can be given for it. Brethren, there is no need to give a scriptural defense of something that is not necessary to do.
Let us leave this matter in the realm of the personal conscience, as we have always done before and not produce new, fallacious arguments to defend it. When faithful brethren are “providentially hindered” from assembling—and they will be—they are not required by Scripture to partake of the Lord’s supper. They can simply wait until they can assemble again to do it.
