There has been a long-standing
debate among Baptists about whether the correct position on the Lord’s Supper
is close communion, where baptized members of Baptist churches other than the
assembly in which the ordinance is being celebrated partake along with the host
church’s members, or closed communion, where the ordinance is restricted to the
members of each particular assembly only.
The view of open communion is clearly unscriptural and will not be examined
in this post.
debate among Baptists about whether the correct position on the Lord’s Supper
is close communion, where baptized members of Baptist churches other than the
assembly in which the ordinance is being celebrated partake along with the host
church’s members, or closed communion, where the ordinance is restricted to the
members of each particular assembly only.
The view of open communion is clearly unscriptural and will not be examined
in this post.
Arguments for Closed Communion
The arguments for closed
communion are strong. 1 Corinthians
10-11 identifies the Supper as the “communion of the body of Christ” (1
Corinthians 10:16), and the body of Christ is the local, visible assembly (1
Corinthians 12:27) to which one is added by baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13). Furthermore, both baptism and the Supper are
church ordinances, and since the church is a local, visible assembly, the
ordinance is naturally understood as pertaining to each assembly and its
members alone. The members of the church
are to discern the body (1 Corinthians 11:29) to avoid judgment. Pastor Brandenburg makes a good case for closed communion in his expository sermons on the relevant passages in 1 Corinthians,
and J. R. Graves likewise makes a good case in Chapter 7 of his book Old Landmarkism.
communion are strong. 1 Corinthians
10-11 identifies the Supper as the “communion of the body of Christ” (1
Corinthians 10:16), and the body of Christ is the local, visible assembly (1
Corinthians 12:27) to which one is added by baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13). Furthermore, both baptism and the Supper are
church ordinances, and since the church is a local, visible assembly, the
ordinance is naturally understood as pertaining to each assembly and its
members alone. The members of the church
are to discern the body (1 Corinthians 11:29) to avoid judgment. Pastor Brandenburg makes a good case for closed communion in his expository sermons on the relevant passages in 1 Corinthians,
and J. R. Graves likewise makes a good case in Chapter 7 of his book Old Landmarkism.
In response to the close
communion argument that the Apostle Paul partook of the Supper with the church
at Troas in Acts 20, many believers in closed communion argue that there was no
church at Troas at all. Others argue
that the breaking of bread at Troas was a common meal, not the Supper, since
the breaking of bread can be a reference to a simple meal (Acts 27:35). Furthermore, they argue that examples must be
interpreted in light of precepts, not the other way around, so the precepts in
1 Corinthians require that the example of Acts 20 does not involve Paul taking
the Supper with the Baptist church at Troas.
communion argument that the Apostle Paul partook of the Supper with the church
at Troas in Acts 20, many believers in closed communion argue that there was no
church at Troas at all. Others argue
that the breaking of bread at Troas was a common meal, not the Supper, since
the breaking of bread can be a reference to a simple meal (Acts 27:35). Furthermore, they argue that examples must be
interpreted in light of precepts, not the other way around, so the precepts in
1 Corinthians require that the example of Acts 20 does not involve Paul taking
the Supper with the Baptist church at Troas.
The closed communion position is
very attractive, and if it has a reasonable explanation for Acts 20, its
position is conclusive.
very attractive, and if it has a reasonable explanation for Acts 20, its
position is conclusive.
Arguments for Close Communion
Advocates of close communion
affirm that Paul partook of the Supper with the church at Troas in Acts 20, so
closed communion cannot be required by Scripture. They believe that, as the study here argues, it is not possible to explain Acts 20 as anything less than an assembly
of a church and a participation in the Lord’s Supper. They argue that the verb sunago, “came together” in Acts 20:7, is a church assembly word,
since the verb is used for church assemblies in Matthew 18:20; John 20:19; Acts
4:31; 11:26; 14:27; 15:30; 20:7, 8; 1 Corinthians 5:4 (cf. also Acts 15:6). The
references to sunago in the perfect tense in Acts only speak of church assembly
(Acts 4:31; 20:7, 8; cf. Matthew 18:20; John 20:19). The related word sunagoge is used for the Christian place
of assembly in James 2:2. The related word episunagoge
is used for the Christian “assembling” in Hebrews 10:25 in the classic command,
“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” The grammar in Acts 20:7,
“the first day of the week, when the disciples came together,” is very similar
to that of the church assembly of John 20:19, when “the first day of the week .
. . the disciples were assembled.”
Therefore, they argue, church assembly is in view in Acts 20:7, a view
supported by other exegetical arguments, as well as historical evidence for a
church at Troas from Scripture and early church history (see here).
affirm that Paul partook of the Supper with the church at Troas in Acts 20, so
closed communion cannot be required by Scripture. They believe that, as the study here argues, it is not possible to explain Acts 20 as anything less than an assembly
of a church and a participation in the Lord’s Supper. They argue that the verb sunago, “came together” in Acts 20:7, is a church assembly word,
since the verb is used for church assemblies in Matthew 18:20; John 20:19; Acts
4:31; 11:26; 14:27; 15:30; 20:7, 8; 1 Corinthians 5:4 (cf. also Acts 15:6). The
references to sunago in the perfect tense in Acts only speak of church assembly
(Acts 4:31; 20:7, 8; cf. Matthew 18:20; John 20:19). The related word sunagoge is used for the Christian place
of assembly in James 2:2. The related word episunagoge
is used for the Christian “assembling” in Hebrews 10:25 in the classic command,
“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” The grammar in Acts 20:7,
“the first day of the week, when the disciples came together,” is very similar
to that of the church assembly of John 20:19, when “the first day of the week .
. . the disciples were assembled.”
Therefore, they argue, church assembly is in view in Acts 20:7, a view
supported by other exegetical arguments, as well as historical evidence for a
church at Troas from Scripture and early church history (see here).
Furthermore, advocates of close
communion argue that the reference in Acts 20 to the “breaking of bread” is to
the Supper, not just to a common meal, because the purpose of the gathering in
Acts 20:7 was the breaking of bread; they “came together to break bread,” a
purpose clause. In the view of advocates of close communion, the fact that the
purpose of their getting together was the breaking of the bread proves it was
the Supper, not a common meal. If the breaking of bread was just eating some
food in this passage, it would hardly have been the reason that the church at
Troas assembled. On the night before the great apostle Paul and his fellow
laborers in the work of God were leaving, would they have come together, not to
bid him farewell, but to fill their bellies? Would the rare, precious
opportunity to be taught by and fellowship with the apostle to the Gentiles
have been passed over as a reason for assembling, in favor of eating some food?
Paul’s preaching was hardly a surprise. would they have been so ungodly as to
have said, “we are not gathering together to hear the apostle Paul preach, but
we are coming together for the more important purpose of having dinner.” Only
if this breaking of bread is the Lord’s Supper is it reasonably given as the
purpose for the church assembling. If the “breaking of bread” is the holy
Supper of the Lord, and the church at Troas was coming together to obey that
great command, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians
11:24-25), the importance placed on this event as the most important part of
their celebration is natural, and preaching in conjunction with a church
service is expected. Coming together for the purpose of celebrating the Supper
is also the pattern in 1 Corinthians 11:20, which has similar syntax to Acts
20:7. While they quite likely had a meal
as well as taking the Lord’s Supper (taking a break for refreshments somewhere
in the process of many hours of preaching is very natural—as it is natural to
expect that they did not send the apostle and his companions away on empty stomachs—especially
since Paul was going to walk to Assos from Troas, v. 13, a distance of c. 20
miles), this does not alter the fact that the purpose of their coming together
and their breaking of bread referred to the church ordinance. What is more, why would they wait until the
first day of the week to “come together” to eat a normal meal? Finally, advocates of close communion argue
that while the breaking of bread is not always the Lord’s Supper, it very
commonly—the large majority of the time—is (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke
22:19; Acts 20:7, 11; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:24; also Acts 2:42).
communion argue that the reference in Acts 20 to the “breaking of bread” is to
the Supper, not just to a common meal, because the purpose of the gathering in
Acts 20:7 was the breaking of bread; they “came together to break bread,” a
purpose clause. In the view of advocates of close communion, the fact that the
purpose of their getting together was the breaking of the bread proves it was
the Supper, not a common meal. If the breaking of bread was just eating some
food in this passage, it would hardly have been the reason that the church at
Troas assembled. On the night before the great apostle Paul and his fellow
laborers in the work of God were leaving, would they have come together, not to
bid him farewell, but to fill their bellies? Would the rare, precious
opportunity to be taught by and fellowship with the apostle to the Gentiles
have been passed over as a reason for assembling, in favor of eating some food?
Paul’s preaching was hardly a surprise. would they have been so ungodly as to
have said, “we are not gathering together to hear the apostle Paul preach, but
we are coming together for the more important purpose of having dinner.” Only
if this breaking of bread is the Lord’s Supper is it reasonably given as the
purpose for the church assembling. If the “breaking of bread” is the holy
Supper of the Lord, and the church at Troas was coming together to obey that
great command, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians
11:24-25), the importance placed on this event as the most important part of
their celebration is natural, and preaching in conjunction with a church
service is expected. Coming together for the purpose of celebrating the Supper
is also the pattern in 1 Corinthians 11:20, which has similar syntax to Acts
20:7. While they quite likely had a meal
as well as taking the Lord’s Supper (taking a break for refreshments somewhere
in the process of many hours of preaching is very natural—as it is natural to
expect that they did not send the apostle and his companions away on empty stomachs—especially
since Paul was going to walk to Assos from Troas, v. 13, a distance of c. 20
miles), this does not alter the fact that the purpose of their coming together
and their breaking of bread referred to the church ordinance. What is more, why would they wait until the
first day of the week to “come together” to eat a normal meal? Finally, advocates of close communion argue
that while the breaking of bread is not always the Lord’s Supper, it very
commonly—the large majority of the time—is (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke
22:19; Acts 20:7, 11; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:24; also Acts 2:42).
In relation to 1 Corinthians
10-12, advocates of close communion argue that the passages do indeed teach the
Supper is a church ordinance, but that this fact does not eliminate the
possibility that a church can allow other baptized saints to participate. They argue that it is still the communion of
the body of Christ even if a tiny percentage of people who are not part of that
particular body are present, just as it is still the communion of the body if
unconverted people who are false converts yet are church members partake. Furthermore, many advocates of close
communion argue that 1 Corinthians 10:16, because of its parallel references to
the “communion of the blood of Christ” and “communion of the body of Christ,”
refers to the actual physical body and blood of the Redeemer rather than to the
church as the body of Christ.
10-12, advocates of close communion argue that the passages do indeed teach the
Supper is a church ordinance, but that this fact does not eliminate the
possibility that a church can allow other baptized saints to participate. They argue that it is still the communion of
the body of Christ even if a tiny percentage of people who are not part of that
particular body are present, just as it is still the communion of the body if
unconverted people who are false converts yet are church members partake. Furthermore, many advocates of close
communion argue that 1 Corinthians 10:16, because of its parallel references to
the “communion of the blood of Christ” and “communion of the body of Christ,”
refers to the actual physical body and blood of the Redeemer rather than to the
church as the body of Christ.
A Mediating Position Between Close and Closed Communion?
While I am definitely interested in
hearing comments, arguments, and interaction with the material above for close
vs. closed communion in the comment section below, I would in particular be
interested in hearing comments on the following proposed mediating position. This mediating position argues:
hearing comments, arguments, and interaction with the material above for close
vs. closed communion in the comment section below, I would in particular be
interested in hearing comments on the following proposed mediating position. This mediating position argues:
1.) The Lord’s Supper is clearly
a church ordinance from 1 Corinthians 10-12, and so is properly the domain of
the members of each particular Baptist church.
a church ordinance from 1 Corinthians 10-12, and so is properly the domain of
the members of each particular Baptist church.
2.) Nevertheless, Acts 20 teaches
that Paul partook of the Lord’s Supper with the church at Troas. However, this does not by any means establish
that a church is obligated to let people who are baptized members of other
assemblies participate with them in the Supper.
It is a different thing for a church to have the option of allowing others
to partake and for a church to be obligated to allow others to partake. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul was clearly
right with God, was the preacher on that occasion, and was the one God used to
organize the assembly in that location.
Thus, the church at Troas had as good a reason to believe Paul was right
with God as they did any of their own church members. It is a different thing for a church to allow
a preacher from a church that it works very closely with, and one who that
church knows is right with God, to participate in the Supper and for a church
to allow strangers who claim to be members of a Baptist church somewhere to
partake. The former allows the assembly
to still take care that unworthy participation is excluded, while the latter
does not.
that Paul partook of the Lord’s Supper with the church at Troas. However, this does not by any means establish
that a church is obligated to let people who are baptized members of other
assemblies participate with them in the Supper.
It is a different thing for a church to have the option of allowing others
to partake and for a church to be obligated to allow others to partake. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul was clearly
right with God, was the preacher on that occasion, and was the one God used to
organize the assembly in that location.
Thus, the church at Troas had as good a reason to believe Paul was right
with God as they did any of their own church members. It is a different thing for a church to allow
a preacher from a church that it works very closely with, and one who that
church knows is right with God, to participate in the Supper and for a church
to allow strangers who claim to be members of a Baptist church somewhere to
partake. The former allows the assembly
to still take care that unworthy participation is excluded, while the latter
does not.
3.) Thus, this mediating position
is stricter than the large majority of churches that practice close communion,
in that it only permits outside participation—if a church wants to exclude
everyone other than its own members, it has the liberty to do so, and practice
entirely closed communion. Furthermore,
it only derives from Acts 20 the lawfulness of participation of people that the
particular assembly knows very well are right with God, not anyone who simply professes
to be a Baptist or a Baptist separatist.
In this way, this mediating position contends that it can deal fairly
both with the evidence in 1 Corinthians 10-12 and Acts 20.
is stricter than the large majority of churches that practice close communion,
in that it only permits outside participation—if a church wants to exclude
everyone other than its own members, it has the liberty to do so, and practice
entirely closed communion. Furthermore,
it only derives from Acts 20 the lawfulness of participation of people that the
particular assembly knows very well are right with God, not anyone who simply professes
to be a Baptist or a Baptist separatist.
In this way, this mediating position contends that it can deal fairly
both with the evidence in 1 Corinthians 10-12 and Acts 20.
Where am I on this topic? I have been a member both of churches that
practice closed and of churches that practice close communion. Bethel Baptist Church, where Pastor
Brandenburg shepherds the flock, switched from close to closed while I was a
member there, a decision of which I was glad.
As a local-only church advocate, an opponent of alien immersion, a
believer in an actual succession of churches, a believer that Bible-believing
Baptist churches are the only true churches on this earth and that (in this
dispensation, though not in eternity) Christ’s bride is the church, I naturally
really like closed communion. However, I
have difficulty explaining Acts 20 in a totally closed way. Thus, at this particular time I am
essentially at what I have called the “mediating position” above—more closed
than the large majority of “close” churches, but more open than the strictly
“closed” churches.
practice closed and of churches that practice close communion. Bethel Baptist Church, where Pastor
Brandenburg shepherds the flock, switched from close to closed while I was a
member there, a decision of which I was glad.
As a local-only church advocate, an opponent of alien immersion, a
believer in an actual succession of churches, a believer that Bible-believing
Baptist churches are the only true churches on this earth and that (in this
dispensation, though not in eternity) Christ’s bride is the church, I naturally
really like closed communion. However, I
have difficulty explaining Acts 20 in a totally closed way. Thus, at this particular time I am
essentially at what I have called the “mediating position” above—more closed
than the large majority of “close” churches, but more open than the strictly
“closed” churches.
Feel free to try to convince me
with Biblical, exegetical, and theological arguments to leave my mediating
position one way or the other in the comment section—or to support me in my
mediation.
with Biblical, exegetical, and theological arguments to leave my mediating
position one way or the other in the comment section—or to support me in my
mediation.
There are a number of pastors and missionaries who pastor more than one church. Closed communion is the logical conclusion in the application of Scripture. When you put these two facts together, it becomes clear (to me) that ordained men commissioned or supported or ministering in a church under right authority would be welcome to participate in the Lord's Supper. This conclusion would match the example of Scripture in the case of Paul in Acts 20, and it does no harm to the Bible's teaching on who participates in the Lord's Supper observed by a local church. We send missionaries out from our church. They have started churches in other places and countries. They are the members of the churches they start. Why would we, as their sending church, deny them participation from the Lord's Supper when they are at home with us?
Hi,
I wrote the chapter on the Lord's Supper in the book, A Pure Church, and in that book I argued for the separating position of communion was the protection of the Table. With whom do we separate over the position on the Lord's Table? Our church will not separate from a church which takes a close position that is a separatist church that practices church discipline, that is interested in protecting the table. This is communion, and we don't want to dumb down communion to include false doctrine and practice.
For another consideration, I ask "closed" churches, like ours, why you will take missionary support from "close" churches, but why you will not support close churches' missionaries. I think that is an inconsistency that betrays your closed perspective. I see this all the time among closed churches. I know of close churches where you go for support, but whose missionaries you won't support. Please explain.
"Furthermore, both baptism and the Supper are church ordinances, and since the church is a local, visible assembly, the ordinance is naturally understood as pertaining to each assembly and its members alone."
So, Ross, are you telling me that if you go to Bethel Baptist church you are not allowed to take communion???? Are you kidding, or what. That is biblical ignorance of the entity of the body of Christ, the church, to the core. This is the foolishness of this autonomous local assembly that goes too far the other way and pushes toward Briderism! Can you not see the obvious?
You all need to be taught the balance of the biblical entity of the church (one of many) and how it should operate.
Dear Bro Webb,
Thanks for the comment. Are the missionaries/world evangelists you send out members of your church until an assembly on the field is organized? I mm interested in why they are members of the church on the field.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for the comment. I agree.
Dear George,
Yes, closed communino means members of the church participate. No, I am not kidding.
And yes, your presbyterian polity religious organization is not Christ's Bride.
Also, adding extra question marks does not contribute to the logical force of your argument.
Furthermore, if you really believe Jesus is the Father you won't be in the New Jerusalem that is like a bride adorned for her husband in the future. And that is not a joke–its tragic.
"Furthermore, if you really believe Jesus is the Father you won't be in the New Jerusalem that is like a bride adorned for her husband in the future. And that is not a joke–its tragic."
This is personal to you Ross– just read it and delete it.
Your just a proud no-it-all who is so FULL of himself, that you have very little concept of the bride of Christ. Son, you are in the back of the line when it comes to Christianity, a spiritual child, who believes in DOGMA instead of the living Christ. Thank the Lord God, there is room for your stupidity, and your not saved by communion, but by the living Christ. Your not saved by your short comings in Trinitarianism, but by the Lord Jesus Christ and if he was the Father (he is and he is not!), then all is well for me.
The reason you keep bring this up is you are proud knowing nothing, and your stupid Greek will not help your cause. Your ignorance of the scriptures when it comes to your private interpretation is obvious.
Grow up in Jesus Christ and quit being a divisive and schismatic Christian because the Lord our God DISPISES such a one.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and IDOLATORS, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Rev 21:8)
George, it is actually loving to warn you that your false god cannot save.
Gentlemen,
1) Presbuteros is the biblical model for Church governance; that is a ruling body of elders, in every assembly. Churches that have a "Pastor" who is the only elder, and dictator, are not biblical Churches. I have been in independent Baptist Churches who practice this abomination, and I could not stay.
If you do not have a Presbytery you are not practising the biblical model of Church governance.
Clearly 1 Tim. 5:17 indicates that not all elders preach, but all elders do have power, and all deserve honour.
2) Up until the mid 1800s all Churches, Baptist and otherwise knew that "oinos" was wine, and used it in their communion services. In the mid 1800s some Christians came along who knew better than God, and instituted a new doctrine where "grape juice" replaced wine (oinos). These people thought they had the right to add to Scripture.
In fact these Churches have departed from the truth even while strenuously contending that they proclaim it!
If you are using grape juice in your communion services you are not obeying Scripture. God had a reason why He chose this beverage to represent the blood of Christ. As in unleavened bread, the yeast represents sin. What happens in fermented wine is that the yeast produces alcohol, which represents the judgment of God. Sin produces judgment. At a certain point in fermentation the alcohol kills the yeast that made it. At this point the yeast is removed from the wine leaving only the alcohol behind.
Further to this as new yeast spores land on the open wine, it is instantly killed by the alcohol. Thus communion with wine as the beverage is the only communion that continues the picture of God's judgment.
In contrast to this picture of God's judgment, when you use fresh grape juice, you are actually drinking active yeast. It may not be readily apparent, but as soon as you open a bottle of fresh grape juice mold spores land in the juice and immediately begin fermentation. Sin is there, but it just can't be seen as yet. Boy that sure honours the Lord Jesus Christ!
3) With regard to open or closed communion, the Lord Himself on the night he instituted this ordinance, did so specifically with Judas Iscariot in the room, and specifically included this unbeliever in the feast. Luke 20:17-22 is clear that Judas was there when the Lord instituted this practise.
You don't know the heart of those you are associating with. Your very own children could be false believers. 1 Corinthians 11:27 clearly indicates that it is the responsibility of the participant that they alone are answerable for the manner in which they partake. It is between them and God. The Church is not commissioned to be the Lord's police force.
It is not your job to agonize over whether or not someone else is right with the Lord. You don't know, and can't know, their heart. It is your job to preach the word.
Be that as it may, if you are not faithful in 1) or 2) above you are already disobedient!
Dear Daniel,
Did you know that water has a very small amount of radon in it– probably about the same amount as there is yeast in fresh grape juice? So when you drink alcohol in the Lord's Supper you are consuming radioactive material in the water that is part of the alcohol. Clearly, that proves your position is wrong the Lord Supper. Great argument, no? It is as valid as yours is about the yeast.
We are all against having a dictator for a pastor. Furthermore, we all think it is great if there is more than one pastor or elder. That is a very different thing than stating that a church is in sin if it has only one pastor.
By the way, presbuteros is singular in Greek. Check your first sentence.
1 Tim 5:17 proves nothing of the kind.
If you are consistent with your argument about Judas, then you should let Muslim terrorists who are plotting to kill and betray Christians participate in the supper. Judas did not participate – after Christ gave him the sop he went out and then they celebrated the Supper, as John's Gospel makes clear. Jesus did participate in meal that took place beforehand.
Thanks.
Also, adding extra question marks does not contribute to the logical force of your argument.
HA!
I have a couple of co-workers I need to remember that one for.
I was using dictation software (Dragon Dictate; I have not been impressed) and looking over my comment there were some serious typos. The program wrote down "Jesus did not participate" in the Supper, but it should have said "Judas."
"Clearly, that proves your position is wrong the Lord Supper" should have been "Clearly, that proves your position is wrong on the Lord's Supper."
Also, the word oinos isn't even used for the Lord's Supper. It just says "fruit of the vine." Therefore, for Daniel's argument to work in saying that it is disobedience to use grape juice in the Supper he should prove that grape juice is not juice from the fruit of the grape vine, which will be a little difficult to do.
Dear D4,
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi Everyone,
I'm really late with this comment, but I wanted to chime in. The arguments for closed communion are indeed very strong, and that is the position that my sending church and I hold to. Having said that, I also believe that church planting evangelists should be able to partake of the Lord's supper in the churches that they have planted. Paul very clearly taught the Corinthians how to partake of the Lord's supper (I Corinthians 11:2, 23-27), and the logical conclusion is that he taught them this ordinance by example – that is, by participating in it with them.
As far as Acts 20 goes, I personally don't believe that it's talking about the Lord's Supper just because it mentions breaking bread. As the author pointed out, there are several passages that mention breaking of bread that aren't talking about the Lord's Supper (Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42; Acts 2:46; Acts 27:33-35). The other strong argument is the fact that the cup is not mentioned at all in this passage in Acts 20, whereas it is clearly mentioned in the passages that we know are speaking of the Lord's Supper(see Matt 26:26-30; I Cor 10:16; I Cor 11:23-27).
That's my two cents,
Brother Don Clough
Missionary to Scotland
http://www.unaffiliatedbaptistchurchfinder.blogspot.com
Dear Bro Clough,
Thanks for the comment.
Why would the purpose of their coming together be to break bread rather than to worship God, hear Paul preach, etc. unless a central act of Christian worship were involved in the act?
Again, I don't see how this breaking of bread points to the Lord's Supper. It says they came together to break bread, but the vast majority of their time was actually taken up listening to Paul preach. (It's much like you and I saying that we're going to a fellowship meeting, when fellowship is just a part of what will be going on.) The actual breaking of bread, which I believe is in reference to a meal, occurred well after midnight. Again, the focus of their meeting was to hear the preaching of God's Word from Paul, and the breaking of bread was just a small part of that meeting.
Rather than the Lord's Supper, it seems much more likely to be a type of fellowship meal. We're told that Paul had eaten, which seems to me to indicate that he had a meal, instead of actually participating in the Lord's Supper. I personally don't have any problem believing that they came together for a fellowship meal and to hear Paul preach to them before he left. As to the meal, Paul would have needed refreshment before he took his journey on foot, as we're told in verse 13.
One friendly word of advice would be to avoid coming to a conclusion from these few verses in Acts 20. Especially when it's not clear that it's actually referring to the Lord's Supper.
God bless you Brother!
Dear Bro Don,
Thanks again for the comment. I believe they also had a meal, but I don't see why the purpose of the church gathering on the first day of the week would be just to eat some food. I actually would like to have a good reason to get out of thinking that Paul partook of the Supper with the church at Troas, but I don't think I have one at this point.
I appreciate your church directory, and have it linked to on my website as the 1st one to look at before looking at Bro Cloud's 2nd. Perhaps, if you have the time, you could expand it to an international one also.
Thanks again for the comment.
J.M. Pendleton in his book titled, "Landmarkism", on page 34, says that there are "not less than six terms in the original Greek of the Acts of the Apostles which are translated, "preach". The one used in Acts 20:7, is the meaning where we get the word "dialogue". It is not used of preaching the Gospel. It is used as "discussion", "to reason", or "declare". I am no scholar. Just wanted to share the info. Maybe someone could take a look at it and see if there is a point to be made. Hint: Bro. Brandenberg!
Dear Charles,
Thanks for the question. The word in v. 7, dialegomai, is used for the sort of instruction that fits preaching. Later in the passage ("talked," v. 11) homileo is used also. The church assembled to hear preaching that probably had interaction. After midnight the discourse was more informal (homielo, not dialogidzomai). Below are the definitions of the two words in BDAG, mainly for the purpose of looking at the crossreferences:
διαλέγομαι impf. διελεγόμην Ac 18:19 v.l.; 1 aor. διελεξάμην (s. λέγω; Hom.; Polyaenus 3, 9, 40; 7, 27, 2) Ac 17:2; 18:19; pf. 3 sg. διείλεκται (Tat. 21, 3). Pass.: fut. 3 sg. διαλεχθήσεται (Sir 14:20); aor. διελέχθην ([Att.] LXX; Just., D. 2, 4) Mk 9:34; Ac 18:19 v.l. (Hom.+).
① to engage in speech interchange, converse, discuss, argue (freq. in Attic wr., also PPetr III, 43 [3], 15 [240 b.c.]; BGU 1080, 11; Epict. 1, 17, 4; 2, 8, 12; TestAbr A 5 p. 82, 3 [Stone p. 12] τὰ διαλεγόμενα ὑμῶν; Tat. 21, 3), esp. of instructional discourse that frequently includes exchange of opinions Ac 18:4; 19:8f; 20:9. περί τινος (Ps.-Callisth. 3, 32, 2; Just., D. 100, 3; Ath. 9:1) 24:25. πρός τινα (X., Mem. 1, 6, 1; 2, 10, 1; Ex 6:27; Ps.-Callisth., loc. cit.; Jos., Ant. 7, 278; AssMos Fgm. a Denis p. 63=Tromp p. 272) Ac 24:12. τινί w. someone (for the syntax, s. 1 Esdr 8:45 ‘inform, tell’; 2 Macc 11:20; EpArist 40; Just., D. 2, 4: the three last ‘discuss, confer’) 17:2, 17; 18:19; 20:7; sim. converse MPol 7:2.—Of controversies πρός τινα with someone (Judg 8:1 B) Mk 9:34. περί τινος about someth. (cp. Pla., Ap., 19d; Plut., Pomp. 620 [4, 4]; PSI 330, 8 [258 b.c.] περὶ διαφόρου οὐ διαλ.; PFlor 132, 3; Just., A II, 3, 3) Jd 9.
② to instruct about someth., inform, instruct (Isocr. 5 [Phil.] 109; Epict.; PSI 401, 4 [III b.c.]; 1 Esdr 8:45; Philo; Joseph.; EHicks, ClR 1, 1887, 45) δ. may have this mng. in many of the above pass. (e.g. Ac 18:4), clearly so Hb 12:5 (δ. of a Scripture pass. also Philo, Leg. All. 3, 118).—GKilpatrick, JTS 11, ’60, 338–40.—Frisk s.v. λέγω. M-M. TW. Sv.
ὁμιλέω (ὅμιλος) impf. ὡμίλουν; fut. 3 sg. ὁμιλήσει Pr 15:12; 1 aor. ὡμίλησα; pf. inf. ὡμιληκέναι Just., D. 62, 2 (Hom.+, prim. mng. ‘be in association with’ someone, and then ‘converse’) to be in a group and speak, speak, converse, address (Hom., Pla., et al.; LXX. Cp. our use of ‘meet’ in the sense ‘have a discussion’ about someth.) τινί (with) someone (Philemo Com. 169 K. ἐὰν γυνὴ γυναικὶ κατʼ ἰδίαν ὁμιλεῖ; Ael. Aristid. 28, 116 K.=49 p. 529 D.: θεῷ; POxy 928, 5 ὡμείλησας δέ μοί ποτε περὶ τούτου; Da 1:19; GrBar 7:3; ApcMos 16; Jos., Ant. 17, 50; Just., D. 59, 1 al.—Of God’s intimate association with the Logos τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ διὰ πάντος ὁμιλῶν Theoph. Ant. 2, 22 [p. 154, 20]) ὡμίλει αὐτῷ he used to talk with him Ac 24:26 (Himerius, Or. 48 [=Or. 14], 18 ὁμ. τινι=confer with someone). Of Christ talking to martyrs (cp. Herm. Wr. 12, 19 [τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ] μόνῳ ὁ θεὸς ὁμιλεῖ) παρεστὼς ὁ κύριος ὡμίλει αὐτοῖς the Lord was standing by and conversing with them MPol 2:2. Also πρός τινα (X., Mem. 4, 3, 2; Jos., Ant. 11, 260 τούτων πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμιλούντων): ὡμίλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ πάντων they were conversing w. each other about all the things Lk 24:14. W. acc. of thing οὐ ξένα ὁμιλῶ I have nothing strange to say Dg 11:1. ἃ λόγος ὁμιλεῖ 11:7. Abs. (Diod S 13, 83, 1) Lk 24:15. ἐφʼ ἱκανὸν ὁμιλήσας ἄχρι αὐγῆς after talking a long time until daylight Ac 20:11.—RAC IX, 1100–45.—DELG s.v. ὅμιλο. M-M.
Hello, I have some questions for brother Ross and Brandenburg on this topic. I am local church only. I believe that baptism and the Lord’s supper were given to the local church (1 Cor 11:2). I believe the communion is taken “when ye come together.” I believe it is impossible to “put away that wicked person” if they are not part of your church, which limits the “leavened/unleavened lump” to the local church. 1 Corinthians reads to me as Paul presenting the importance for the church at Corinth to see the importance of individual and church responsibility to be pure as pictured in the Lord’s supper which would limit the supper to only the church. I see that the “communion of the body” is the “one body” and having members from another body would complicate that picture. I see this as the stronger argument, so then I would think that it is on “close” to prove their case rather than closed to prove there wasn’t “close.”
All that said. I have a hard time being dead certain on this. It’s something I’ve tried to teach and I haven’t felt that I have been able to prove it without doubt. The people at my church have had questions. They are used to close communion and feel I am teaching that believers fellowshipping around the blood and body of their Savior is bad (especially their friends who were longtime members at our church that moved away). I explain that it’s not so much what I am against as that I am for the Lord’s supper being practiced as close, but again, I haven’t been able to “dot every i and cross every t even in my own mind.
It is hard for me to imagine Paul sending Timothy to churches or even Phebe for that matter to the church at Rome and them not partaking in the Lord’s supper. I know that’s not an argument and I’m not trying to make it. It’s still hard to imagine even with all that it seems is taught in 1 Corinthians. I believe the church has the right and authority to limit who takes off the table, but those are for severe things laid out in Scripture.
Brother Ross, I hear your liking for the allowance by a church to allow those who they wish to partake (i.e. my godly parents are into town and we allow them to take with us), but that seems to get rather dicey and subjective, does it not? What if one person knows them well but others don’t? Do we take one person’s vouching?
Sorry to be bothering you guys so much but most independent Baptists won’t even look at these things because they’re following tradition and I’ve appreciated the discussions and honesty here.
A “member” is physically connected to the body. Can a liver live on it’s own? No, it needs the body; the assembly. Members are to tarry one for another, judge themselves, and determine if their be heresies among them. This can only be done in a closed, members only setting. There is no way to know if a member of another Church isn’t a secrets heretic. Members who assemble together often know one another, and therefore, tarry one for another.
Thank you anonymous. I understand and agree with everything you said. My question is more along the lines of, was this understood and practiced in the New Testament in this fashion.
When Timothy was in Corinth and they took the Lord’s Supper, did he say, “This is the supper for your church and I will not partake because I’m not a member.” If Timothy had tried to partake, would the church of Corinth have said, “Sorry Timothy, this is for our body to remember Christ and you’re not a part of our body”?
Bro Thompson,
I don’t know if you read what persuaded me of closed communion, but it’s simple. 1 Cor 10:16 says it is the communion of the body of Christ. 1 Cor 10:27 Paul says to the church at Corinth, ye are the body of Christ. He excluded himself in the only definitional verse for the body of Christ in the NT. When you open it to those outside of the body, it is no longer a communion of the body. I think there are other good reasons, but this is what clinched it for me. I can’t wiggle out of that.
For the record, that last phrase was unnecessary and painting with a broad brush. I’m thankful for many independent Baptists that love God’s Word and study hard and are willing to talk about God’s Word. I’ve also seen a lot of shallowness and unwillingness to discuss doctrinal issues that differ from the status quo.
I will let Thomas answer this. It’s his post.
Dear David,
Thanks for asking. I like closed communion a lot. I think the 1 Cor argument is strong. I just also think it looks like Paul partook in Acts 20, so we have to put it all together. So I think a church has liberty to be completely closed but they are not sinning if they choose to allow a limited number of people of known character with whom they are in fellowship partake. They are also not sinning if they don’t do that but are totally closed. Again, totally closed is great.
I am spending a lot of time preparing for the debate with James White. So if you want something better than my quick answer here-which may not be the best-please feel free to ask again post-debate.
Thanks.
Thank you all for your responses. I read a booklet by JR Graves on this topic and he took brother Brandenburg and Anonymous’s position. In my mind, that it is a local church ordinance automatically excludes all who are not part of that local church/body of Christ, not for the sake of exclusion but for the purpose of the Supper. I think that much emotional attachment to “close” communion comes into play with many feeling that a closed position is some sort of superiority complex. Also, many feel that they would be excluding someone from remembering Christ who was saved by Christ because they don’t understand the local church nature of the supper.
Brother Ross, I’ve wondered if Paul’s apostolic office may have been the exception, but that cannot be proven. Graves took the position that there was no church at Troas and the “breaking bread” was a regular meal. I guess those are things we cannot know with certainty.
Once again, thanks for discussing this with me. I want to please the Lord as I lead His church.
Brother Ross, I will pray that the Lord will help you prepare for your debate.
Lord willing, I will be ordained this Sunday by two pastors who are local church only and believe in Church succession. I’m thankful the Lord has allowed me to serve Him. The Lord bless each of you as you do the same.
If anyone is interested. Here is the link for JR Graves booklet.
https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/5296/GravesJR-LordsSupper-OCR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
The church I am a member of practices what is known as Restricted Communion also known as “fencing the table”. That means that if a person was to visit and if that person wished to participate in Communion (which takes place just before the end of each Sunday Afternoon service) that person would need to talk to one of the Elders who would question that person about the following four things: 1. Salvation. 2. Baptism. 3. Membership in a local assembly 4. The person’s walk with the Lord. The Elder would then decide whether or not to admit the person to partake in Communion.
The church I am a part of does use wine instead of grape juice and has a plurality of Elders, not just a single Pastor. All the Elders/Pastors do meet the Biblical Qualifications for Pastors. In addition the church I am a part of does practice Biblical Church Discipline and is a Confessional Church. I am one of only maybe two people who use the King James Version in my church but I am being spiritually fed more than I would be if I attended a “King James Only” church in my area.
Hi Dale,
Fencing the table is an interesting term. I’ve seen non-closed communion pastors who do a better job fencing their table than those who are closed. However, my chief reason for closed communion is that the Lord’s Table is the communion of the body according to ! Cor 10 and the body is local only (1 Cor 12:27).
I’ve never seen the use of alcohol for the Lord’s Table, but I’ve had people tell me about it. I don’t get it from an exegetical standpoint. It seems to be a small denomination of Baptists that have other characteristics that combined, I think would be tough for me to join.
Thanks for the comment.