Must the Lord’s Supper Always Involve a Meal?
Thayer Salisbury

      It has been several weeks, perhaps even months, since I learned that some brothers and sisters have ceased meeting with a congregation of God’s people and are instead worshipping privately at home. I am told that a big part of the reason has to do with conclusions they have reached regarding the Lord’s Supper. Specifically, they believe that the Lord’s Supper was always to be eaten in connection with a full meal, as opposed to being taken as a ceremonial meal (with only a symbolic portion of bread and wine being consumed), and that it was always to be served in a private home.
We agree
      Before considering areas where we might disagree, first let me note that we probably have plenty of agreement on this matter. It is undeniably true that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper in the context of the Passover meal, and that the Passover meal was a full meal. The Passover meal was ceremonial, in the sense that it pointed beyond the meal itself to great spiritual truths and historical events. But it was consumed as a full meal.  In fact the Jews had been specifically commanded to take it as a full meal. The dishes to be served had been specified, they were told to eat it quickly, they were told to cook an amount suitable for the number of people at the meal, and they were commanded to “leave none of it until morning”1 (Ex 12:1-11).
      Not only is it true that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal, but it seems that the early disciples are likely to have often taken it in such a context. It would have been natural for them to have done so, since both Jews and pagans had been used to ceremonial meals that involved consuming normal, or even extra large, helpings of food.
      So, I think, we are not in disagreement as to the facts. Most, if not all, of the early Christians first experienced the Lord’s Supper in the context of a full meal. We would also agree, I am sure, that most early Christian gatherings took place in private homes. Some may have taken place in schools borrowed or rented for this purpose (Acts 19:9). Some took place in public places, such as the public areas of the temple (Acts 5:12). But it does seem that most took place in private homes and probably none took place in a building owned by the church. It seems that we agree on the facts. Where we may disagree is in the significance of these facts.

 The example at Corinth
      The church at Corinth seems to have been taking the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal. They were also, unfortunately, taking this meal in a way that created division and strife within the congregation (1 Cor 11:17-22). One understanding of Paul’s instruction to them is that they should either learn to share all the food brought to this meal, or confine what they did together to the ceremonial portion and eat the ordinary meal in their own private homes. His questions, “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (1 Cor. 11:22), would seem to indicate:

1. 1.   That wherever they were meeting, it was not an ordinary private home. It could have been the home of one of the more wealthy members, or more likely the courtyard of such a home. It could have been a borrowed or rented school, or some other public place. But it was not inside the home of an ordinary member, and does not seem likely to have been a private home at all.
2. 2.   That it would be acceptable to him if they left off having the Lord’s Supper as a full meal, ate a meal at home before gathering, and took only a symbolic portion of bread and wine once they came together.

      Some people believe that this passage was the pivotal event that caused a change in the practice of the early church, moving it from taking the Lord’s Supper in the context of a full meal, to the practice of making it a purely ceremonial meal. I am undecided on the matter, but I can see their point.
      Is any of what I have pointed out perfectly clear and certain? No. Perhaps they were meeting in a home. Perhaps Paul did not intend his words to imply that they ought to give up eating a full meal together. These are possible interpretations of the words, but they are far from certain.
What we are to do?
      But let us turn to the central question, “What are we to do?”  That really is the fundamental question, is it not? We do not partake of the Lord’s Supper in order to imitate the early disciples, we partake of it because it is the Lord’s will. There are probably hundreds of ways in which our practice does not match exactly with their practice, and matching our practice with their practice is not the point. The point is to do what the Lord wills us to do in our context, just as they did what He willed in their context. Can we learn from what they did? Yes, both positively -- seeing things that worked for them and were commended, and negatively -- seeing things they did that did not work out well for which they were rebuked. But the main thing is not to follow other disciples but to follow the Lord. What did He tell us to do? The earliest account we have of His command is that recorded by Paul in 1 Corinthians.
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Cor. 11:23-26)
      Yes, Jesus spoke these words in the context of a meal, the Passover meal, but does scripture indicate that, in order to properly remember him, we must take them in such a context? If so, then we ought to take the Lord’s Supper only at night, in an upper room, in the spring of the year...
In Paul’s instructions, appended to what the Lord actually said, does he indicate that a full meal or a private home are necessary to make the remembrance proper and acceptable? His emphasis is not on these external details, but on the attitude of heart, including, it seems, the attitude toward fellow believers. Might partaking of the Supper in a private home in the context of a full Passover meal promote good attitudes toward Christ and his body (the church)?  Yes, it might, and I, for one, have no objection to doing so on occasion. But does that invalidate the regular gathering of God’s people, in a public place, to “proclaim his death until he comes” through a ceremonial meal?  I think not.
The final nudge
      A series of little things happened that led me to believe that the Lord wanted me to write a response to this private home, full meal idea.  The last event was that, in looking for something else, I came across a series of statements that I will quote below. They come from some lectures given by E. F. Kevan in India. I have no idea who he was. I bought this book from a Baptist I knew in Nigeria more than a decade ago. Somehow the Lord brought the book across my desk today, and I noticed these statements, marked in red when I first read the book in the mid 90s - long before I ever heard of this private home, full meal teaching.
              The town-crier did not merely call the people out of their houses; he called them together. They were called out together, and that is what the ecclesia is. We are not merely called out of sin and out of alienation from God. We are not merely called out of the world, but we are called out together into the company of one another in Christ. ....
         The word fellowship, or communion, stands for the togetherness of Christian experience. Therefore, when we find in scripture that the Lord’s Supper is called “the communion of the body of Christ” and “the communion of the blood of Christ,” the thing we learn is that the Lord’s Supper stands as the expression of fellowship.
         Here a number of important truths and principles emerge. First of all the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance. We must observe it together. It was an ordinance which the Lord gave to us, His church, as a Church. We therefore come together to do it. Note the occurrences of this again in the book of the Acts. Acts 2:44 “All that believed were together” Acts 20:7. “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.” We do not scripturally observe the Lord’s Supper unless we come together to do it.  (E.F. Kevan, The Lord’s Supper pp 56-57)
            Kevan may have overstated the matter a little in that last statement, but this is a matter worth considering. Can it be right to insist on something the New Testament does not emphasize at the expense of things that it does emphasize? We are not told that the context, in terms of private home or full meal, is a matter of importance. Yes, the Supper was normally taken in that kind of context, but the New Testament never indicates any theological significance to that fact. But it DOES indicate that our togetherness is significant. The meal is even called koinonia, a word normally translated “fellowship” but (unfortunately) translated “communion” in the passages where it refers to the Lord’s Supper. The meal was supposed to promote fellowship in the church, and its failure to do so at Corinth may be what led to some changes in how it was handled.
      The meal was also supposed to serve as a proclamation (1 Cor 11:26). In that day and age (and climate), where meals were often served in a courtyard outside the house and were observed by neighbors and those passing by, one could partake at a home and yet be proclaiming to the world. To whom are we proclaiming today if we partake in our own dining rooms?
     What may be gained in accuracy of detail by partaking at home at mealtime is a loss in terms of functionality. The Lord did not tell us to do it at home or not to do it at home. He did not tell us to do it as part of a meal or not to do it as part of a meal. He DID tell us to do it as a form of fellowship, and as a form of proclamation. If taking it at home accomplishes that, then certainly we may do it at home. But I do not believe that we should limit ourselves to that practice, for in doing so we would often be missing two of the main things the Lord wants the Supper to accomplish.