Should the Lord's Supper Be Served to Shut-ins?

What if the church (by congregational vote) authorized the distribution of the Lord’s supper to shut-ins?

[Don Johnson]

Do you think Reymond is AT ALL biblical here?

…why insist that there is something magical about communion? Exactly what does “means of grace” and “spiritual nourishment” mean? Since when is grace (of any kind) obtained by performing a ritual (work)? Supposedly the Reformed are the people of “by faith alone”, but unfortunately they are still stuck with a few toes in Rome. It isn’t merely a trivial dispute.

So why do we observe the Lord’s Supper? Is it an empty ritual? Just rote obedience? Or does it show something and preach Christ in divinely appointed symbol? If this latter, doesn’t something spiritual go on in its observance? As we consider how bread and wine nourish our physical bodies and remember those words “if you will not eat my flesh and drink my blood …” isn’t God graciously at work in our hearts strengthening our faith?

Symbolic? Yes.

Means of grace? Yes.

Mystical event? YES!

[DavidO]

So why do we observe the Lord’s Supper? Is it an empty ritual? Just rote obedience? Or does it show something and preach Christ in divinely appointed symbol? If this latter, doesn’t something spiritual go on in its observance? As we consider how bread and wine nourish our physical bodies and remember those words “if you will not eat my flesh and drink my blood …” isn’t God graciously at work in our hearts strengthening our faith?

Symbolic? Yes.

Means of grace? Yes.

Mystical event? YES!

All right then, as a means of grace, what grace does the participant get that a non-participant doesn’t get and why?

The grace that God may work in those who observe the ordinance.

If you take no real issue with my description of the supper, the matter is simple. If the supper is commanded, even in part, for our benefit, it follows non-observance can mean less benefit received.

What is that?

Further, are you saying that the physical act of taking part in communion conveys that grace? Whatever it is?

You appear to be dancing around without actually defining what this supposed grace is. What is it? do you have any biblical terminology to clearly delineate it and how it is procured?

It strikes me that if we are indeed to do this in remembrance of Him, that perhaps those who are shut in not only can, but ought to partake as a matter of obedience and proclaiming Him. No?

Not a matter of receiving grace, of course, but I would infer that those who partake despite not being able to attend a church meeting do indeed receive a blessing (a blessing in sanctification?) due to their obedience to eat that supper and proclaim His death until He comes again.

One possible key issue is that the “you” in 1 Cor. 11 and in the Gospel narratives is plural—or if not, Luther’s 1545 translation betrays me (sorry, my Greek is not good enough to do it in the original). So I would be OK with arguing that more than one person ought to partake, and that perhaps some teaching of the homebound ought to take place—which probably ought to take place when visiting the homebound or nursing-home-bound anyways, no?

I could simply answer that means of grace are those appointments (preaching, Bible reading, the ordinances/sacraments, exhortation from non-clergy) by which God imparts faith and growth and edification (gracious endowments from our Father, no?) to his people, but it would perhaps be more helpful to hear you explain what you think the memorial of the supper accomplishes. Is it merely a duty of obedience? An act of worship? What’s it for?

EDIT: I should clarify that I don’t view this as mechanical as in: Eat the bread, get grace; drink the juice, presto—more grace! I don’t know that I can be more clear than I was above. In seeing the breaking of the bread, the pouring of the wine; in eating and drinking, we experience a vivid reminder of what was done on our behalf as well as being made mindful of his soon return. It strengthens our faith and encourages us in our relationship with Christ. This is a grace of God to us. The supper is the means, the occasion, if you’d rather, by which it is communicated to us.

I should also clarify that I don’t say the things above to argue that special trips must be made to shut-ins to administer the supper. I think the Bible teaches it is a corporate thing. I don’t think it would be improper, however, for a pastor and group from the congregation to visit shut-ins who so desire to hold a mini-communion service.

From Keach’s Baptist Catechism:

Q. How do baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lords supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ (1 Pet. 3:21; Mt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:6, 7), and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:3; Mt. 28:19).

Q. What is the Lord’s supper?
A. The Lord’s supper is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to his appointment, his death is shown forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace (Mt. 26:26, 27, 28; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 10:16).

Chapter 30: 7._____ Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 ) [emphasis mine]

While not all Reformed Baptists agree in this area, the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace is indeed traditional Particular Baptist teaching. If you read their writings, they weren’t generally afraid of the term “sacrament” either, using it synonymously with “ordinance.”
By “means of grace,” we mean a visible manifestation of the Word proclaimed which strengthens faith. Just as the Spirit, through the simple act of reading the Word of God, produces and strengthens faith, so faith is strengthened through the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Richard Barcellos does a great job on the exegetical side, discussing the passage of 1 Corinthians 10 in-depth, and explaining that the term “participate” suggests an authentic, vertical dimension not communicated in the strict memorialist view, i.e., real communion with Christ. Otherwise, Paul’s warning about “participating with demons” is robbed of force.

[TylerR]

Your quote included the following:

worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses

I find no warrant for this kind of suggestion. We observe the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of His shed blood and broken body until He returns. I see no justification for suggesting Christ is present, in any form or fashion, in the bread and wine (juice!). I’ve never understood. I read Reymond’s view. I’ve read Berkhof. I’ve read Calvin. I honestly just don’t understand where folks get this idea.

For what it’s worth, here is my own explanation of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial. I have to re-do it to interact with Reymond; I’ll get to it someday.

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

What does it mean to “share” in the blood of Christ? What does it mean to “share” in the body of Christ? It must somehow be parallel to the “sharing” that occurs when partaking of pagan sacrificial meals, which Paul warns about later, wherein there is a spiritual sharing in demons.

Again, this is all in the context of warnings against idolatry. But if this is only a memorial in view, why should that be an issue? If Christ is not spiritually present in some sense, what is the community partaking of?
A purely memorialist view just doesn’t seem to square with what Paul is communicating in this passage.
(once more, I’m not much of an exegete myself, so I’m heavily relying on Richard Barcellos’s work here, which I found excellent and convincing. For a much better treatment on the issue, refer to him.)

[Andrew K]

TylerR wrote:

Your quote included the following:

worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses

I find no warrant for this kind of suggestion. We observe the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of His shed blood and broken body until He returns. I see no justification for suggesting Christ is present, in any form or fashion, in the bread and wine (juice!). I’ve never understood. I read Reymond’s view. I’ve read Berkhof. I’ve read Calvin. I honestly just don’t understand where folks get this idea.

For what it’s worth, here is my own explanation of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial. I have to re-do it to interact with Reymond; I’ll get to it someday.

I don’t disagree that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial. But I think that Scripture indicates it is more than that. Again, in 1 Cor. 10.16:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

What does it mean to “share” in the blood of Christ? What does it mean to “share” in the body of Christ? It must somehow be parallel to the “sharing” that occurs when partaking of pagan sacrificial meals, which Paul warns about later, wherein there is a spiritual sharing in demons.

Again, this is all in the context of warnings against idolatry. But if this is only a memorial in view, why should that be an issue? If Christ is not spiritually present in some sense, what is the community partaking of?

A purely memorialist view just doesn’t seem to square with what Paul is communicating in this passage.

(once more, I’m not much of an exegete myself, so I’m heavily relying on Richard Barcellos’s work here, which I found excellent and convincing. For a much better treatment on the issue, refer to him.)

Chip, in light of I Cor. 11:26, a purely memorial view does not seem sufficient.

… as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The supper is a means of proclaiming Christ to people who are already converted. What does this accomplish? What does the making of the memorial accomplish.