The Lord’s Supper as a Part of a Meal – Right or Wrong?

Should the Lord’s Supper be incorporated as a part of a larger meal in the worship of God in the Christian religion? Some are today arguing for such a practice. All any of us can know about what we should or should not do is found in the Bible, at least that has been the traditional view of conservatives.

Today there is a liberal element in Christianity who feels they no longer need Bible authority for what they do. That being the case they feel free to do as they please and make anything and everything an act of worship that their heart so desires. They are no longer restricted by the Bible. What I say here will be of no value to them for that very reason.

But, I do want to investigate this subject and see if there is any merit in the argument they make based on what the Bible does say about the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The relevant passages are found in Matt. 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Cor. 11:23-26.

The Lord’s Supper was instituted during the observance of the Jewish Passover meal. The observance of this meal was commanded of God as a memorial for what he did on the night when he brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. That night he struck dead the firstborn of the Egyptians while passing over the homes of the children of Israel who had sacrificed a Passover lamb and put the blood on their two doorposts and the lintel. One can read about the institution of the Passover and what it was about in Exodus 12.

Jesus is the Passover lamb for Christians, “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” (1 Cor. 5:7 ESV) It is by his blood that we are spared spiritually. The Lord’s Supper is our memorial in remembrance of his sacrifice, “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 ESV) It is partaken of in remembrance of Jesus, “do this in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor. 11:24 NKJV)

The Lord’s Supper is the antitype of the Passover. The Passover meal was a remembrance of an event that brought physical salvation. The Lord’s Supper is a remembrance of an event that brought spiritual salvation.

The Passover meal was a major meal. There was to be a lamb for a household. (Exodus 12:3 ESV) It was to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. (Exodus 12:8) None of it was to be left until morning and if it was it was to be burnt. (Exodus 12:10 ESV) This was the type. Would we expect the antitype to be the same?

As the Passover meal had its regulations as to what and how it was to be observed and what was to be eaten so does the Lord’s Supper. One is not just free to do as he pleases. In both cases what was to be partaken of was designated plainly in scriptures and for us living today it is not steak and potatoes.

The Lord’s Supper was never meant to be a major meal. Paul said of the Corinthians eating, “it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.” (1 Cor. 11:20 ESV) They were filling up okay, those that could (1 Cor. 11:21), but Paul says it was not the Lord’s Supper they were eating. They thought it was but he didn’t. There ought to be a lesson in that for us. How you do things makes a difference. What you call eating the Lord’s Supper may not be how God sees it.

Eat at home is his admonition. “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (1 Cor. 11:22 NKJV) The Lord’s Supper was never about filling up. Not then, not now, not ever. Do that at home.

In fact, when the Lord’s Supper was instituted the Bible says of Jesus that “he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying ‘Drink from it, all of you.’” (Matt. 26:27 NKJV) Mark says, “they all drank from it.” (Mark 14:23 NKJV) There is little doubt but what one cup was used in instituting the Lord’s Supper. One cup and all the apostles drink from it. Does that give you the idea that they are doing what the Corinthians were doing in the Corinthian’s abuse of the institution? Are they gulping down large quantities of drink in partaking of the Lord’s Supper? To ask is to answer to the man who will reason. The Lord’s Supper is not about filling up or satisfying hunger.

But, the modern day desire is to have a meal (pass the chicken and mashed potatoes and gravy) as a part of the worship and we will somewhere during that time frame take time out and observe the Lord’s Supper. It is said in so many words that all Paul meant when he said to eat and drink in their houses (words to that effect) is to just eat enough at home to knock the top off your hunger so you do not make a hog of yourself when you arrive at the assembly where a meal will be served and eat it all up before others arrive. Believe it if you can.

The very verses that are said to prove this prove just the opposite, verses 33 and 34 of 1 Cor. 11. “Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment.” (NKJV) The Lord’s Supper is not about satisfying hunger. Eat at home is what Paul says about satisfying hunger but that will never be good enough for the guy that wants to eat in worship.

One brother I know of who wants to go the social meal incorporated into the worship route believes 1 Cor. 11 supports his position. He sees them as having a social meal (he would say along with the Lord’s Supper) and sees the problem being only that some went ahead and did not wait on others and basically hogged the food and did not share. If they had waited and shared he feels all would have been well. He considers the social meal to be in fact a part of the worship.

He is correct to a point. They were not waiting and they were not sharing but what was to be shared and why were they to wait? It was so they could partake together of the Lord’s Supper. Paul is not trying to regulate a social meal as worship as this brother wants to make it out to be. Paul’s point as he starts this discussion, the very first verse of it, in 1 Cor. 11:20, is that “when you come together it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.” (ESV) Do you not get the point Paul is making? He is saying that is not what you are doing but it is what you ought to be doing. Let me state that again for emphasis. You are not eating the Lord’s Supper but that is what you ought to be doing.

What would they be sharing? The only bread allowed at the Passover meal at which the Lord’s Supper was instituted was unleavened. We know the drink was the fruit of the vine. What is my point? The purpose of their coming together was to partake of the Lord’s Supper and these were the two elements of the Supper thus what was to be shared. Is this what my liberal, make a social meal out of it, brethren want to share? To ask is to answer.

Paul wants them to partake of the Lord’s Supper and do it right. That means waiting on the group to assemble, eating together the unleavened bread and drinking the fruit of the vine (with due attention to proper thoughts as to the meaning and proper behavior), and sharing in such a way so that all can do so. One must remember the poverty of the first century. Some well may not have been able to bring anything and evidently in the first century church this is the way the bread and the fruit of the vine were assembled in order for the church to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

The Passover meal itself was an act of worship and a command. It was not a group of brethren getting together saying to one another why don’t we get together and throw a spread and make it a part of worship which is what is being proposed by modern day liberals. The liberal minded brethren of today are taking that which is profane, solely of man, and attempting to bring it into the worship based solely on their own authority. The Passover meal had the authority of God behind it. What is proposed today does not.

But, as I said early in this article, those of this mindset will readily tell you they do not need God’s authority and that takes boldness I don’t have and I am glad I do not have. When I say I know as well as God knows what is and is not acceptable I am bold okay but I fear I might also be reckless.

I want to make sure I am being understood as to what I am and am not saying. I am not saying that first century Christians observed the Lord’s Supper in all its particulars like we do today. I am satisfied they did not have tiny communion cups as we do and it is likely no one single individual was responsible for preparing the supper. I have no problem at all in believing that each family and/or individual brought with them what was necessary which was then to be divided up among those assembled so all could partake of the Supper.

Neither am I in the least bit concerned about how much they ate of the unleavened bread or drank of the fruit of the vine. There is no scripture on how much bread one should eat or how much fruit of the vine one should drink other than its purpose is not to fulfill hunger (1 Cor. 11:22, 34), be a gluttonous feast, so God has left it up to us to use some common sense. The only regulation I know of is, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:40 NKJV) As one conservative brother said to me one time it says to eat and he did not call breaking off a little snippet eating. I am certainly not going to argue about how much or how little is taken.

But that is not the problem today. The liberal brothers today are not in the least interested in eating more unleavened bread or drinking more grape juice. That is not what they have in mind at all. They want some “good food” – a real smorgasbord. They are interested in the meal they want to throw, not the Lord’s Supper.

What Paul said in simple words in 1 Cor. 11:23-26 is not enough. That does not satisfy them.

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same manner he also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes.” (1 Cor. 11:23-26 NKJV)

Paul told the Corinthians this was what they needed to be doing (he said he got it straight from the Lord) and it is what you and I need to be doing today as well. The emphasis by those who want to add a social meal as a part of the worship is not on the Lord’s Supper but on the meal they propose to throw. They are as off base in their own way as the Corinthians were when Paul rebuked them.

Is it wrong for brethren to have a social meal together? I know of no place that teaches any such thing and I do not teach it either. I have personally eaten with the brethren many times in years gone by. That is not the issue. The issue is making the social meal a part of the worship.

Do I believe brethren had meals together in New Testament times? Yes. Again, that is not the issue. I think it is great if the brethren got together and had social meals together and especially if they could help feed the less fortunate among them, the hungry (the church has a benevolent work to do). The only issue is the making of the meal a part of the worship.

When we do that we are again making a commandment for God for on the day we do it we tell the brethren that assemble with us this is what you will do today if you worship here. A man is bold when he is willing to make commandments for God and place them on the backs of the brethren.