Many discussions have been taking place recently over the question of open versus closed communion. Open communion is the practice of publicly inviting the unbaptized to take communion (this includes not merely unbelievers but also children and those with low-functioning disabilities). Closed communion is the opposite. It is closing the Lord’s Table to anyone not baptized into Christ. 

In modern Churches of Christ, we practice a version of open communion, though most probably don’t realize it. We typically allow anyone to walk into our worship services and take communion. No questions asked. While this is not quite publicly inviting the unbaptized to partake, it does open the door to such behavior since we don’t question whether a person is baptized before we allow them to pick up a communion pod. 

However, the practice of open communion is not evidenced among the early church as shown in the Church Fathers (i.e., Christian writers and leaders in the first few centuries of the church). The Didache says, “Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs” (Did. 9:5). Justin Martyr says, “This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ has handed down to us.” (First Apology, sec. 66). Cyril of Jerusalem says that the Eucharist is the completion of the discipleship process where a person becomes a Christbearer (Mystagogical Catechesis, 4:3). 

The reason I believe Church history primarily reflects a closed table is because the table closed relatively early, by the end of the first century. Though, the table began as a table open to all who would come and partake.

The Lord’s Supper began as part of a common meal, rooted in the fact that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper as part of the Passover meal. This is evidenced by Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:17–34, our earliest account of the Lord’s Supper. Paul says that the Corinthians are not truly eating the Lord’s Supper because when they come together for this meal, a part of which would include sharing of bread and wine to remember Jesus, they are divided. The rich are getting full and drunk while the poor are going hungry. You’ll also notice that Paul’s account of Jesus’s institution says that Jesus gave the disciples the cup “after supper.” Paul makes sure to include that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper as part of a larger meal, mirroring the Corinthians’ practice of the Lord’s Supper as part of a fellowship meal. 

I believe the Lord’s Supper was open at this point in the church’s life. We know that, at least at times, unbelievers were a part of early Christian gatherings. In 1 Corinthians 14:22–25, Paul discusses the practice of tongues and prophecy within the church’s gathering. He says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, not believers, while prophecy is a sign for believers, not unbelievers. Therefore, Paul believes how the church conducts itself during regular gatherings is crucial because he doesn’t want an unbeliever to show up and think they’re crazy. 

My point is that there was at least some expectation that both Paul and the Corinthians had that unbelievers would be a part of their gathering. Additionally, since unbelievers would sometimes be a part of the gathering, part of the gathering needed to be understandable and impactful to the unbeliever. That said, imagine how the Corinthian practice of the Lord’s Supper might have looked. They gather together, believers and unbelievers. As a part of this gathering, they share in a fellowship meal. In the middle of this meal, they pass around unleavened bread and wine and retell the story of Jesus. 

If this is a valid reconstruction, does it make sense that the unbelievers would be allowed to participate in the fellowship meal but, in the middle of the meal, told they are no longer allowed to eat and drink? Does it not make more sense that an unbeliever would be allowed to partake of the entire meal with the hope that their experience of the Lord’s Supper and the telling of Jesus’s story would convict them, just like Paul hopes the practice of prophecy will do? If Paul expected that unbelievers would be part of the assembly, would he not have addressed them in his discussion of the Lord’s Supper in chapter 11? What about children or a person with a low-functioning disability who does not need to be baptized? Were they left out of the meal, or would they have been included? It seems most reasonable to me that everyone attending the meal would have been included in the entire meal. 

If this is the case, how does the table come to be closed by the time we reach the second century? When you move from the earliest account of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 to the second account in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 14:22–25), something interesting happens. Mark’s account takes place during the Passover meal, the context of Jesus’s institution never changes, but Mark does not mention the supper during his account of the Lord’s Supper. The same thing is the case in the third account in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 26:26–29). 

When you compare the language of 1 Corinthians 11, Mark, and Matthew, the overlap is in what is called liturgical language (liturgy simply means worship, so worship language). There appears to have been a common way of telling the story of Jesus’s institution of the Lord’s Supper during the first century. This language likely became common because it was regularly recited during the early church’s practice of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, this common language finds its way into all the New Testament accounts of the Lord’s Supper. 

Therefore, it seems that the Lord’s Supper began as part of a common meal, as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 11. However, over time, it became more of a formal practice as a part of a formal worship setting. This seems to be evidenced by the development of the common liturgical language and the lack of the mention of the supper in Mark and Matthew. Mark and Matthew likely dropped the language of the supper because their communities were no longer taking the Lord’s Supper as part of a common meal. If this is the case, then I don’t think it is much of a stretch to hypothesize that many of these communities had made the table closed and no longer open, or as open, to unbelievers since it was no longer a part of this larger meal. 

One additional point needs to be added to this discussion. It appears that early on, Christian communities were relatively open, allowing the coming and going of unbelievers into their gatherings, worship, and to their tables. However, towards the end of the first century, Christians began to be persecuted. This persecution caused the communities to become more closed. They had to be somewhat weary of unbelievers. This was a part of the process of the church developing more liturgical and formal traditions that helped contribute to the closing of the table. 

It is amid this context that our third Gospel, the Gospel of Luke, was written. If you read Luke’s Gospel, it becomes evident that Luke has an affinity for Jesus’s table fellowship. In Luke, Jesus is always eating or talking about food. Luke’s table theme culminates in Jesus’s institution of the Lord’s Supper. I believe Luke emphasizes Jesus’s table fellowship because he believes the church has forgotten about it. 

Luke knew and was taught by Paul. You can even see this when you compare their versions of the Lord’s Supper. There are unique things only found in Luke’s and Paul’s versions. At least early on, Paul’s communities emphasized the fellowship meal aspect of Jesus’s ministry, the church’s ministry, and the Lord’s Supper. However, if it is true that by the time of Luke’s writing, many communities were no longer practicing the Lord’s Supper as part of a common meal, then Luke could very possibly emphasize Jesus’s table fellowship to fight against this. Luke even adds the reference to the supper back into his Lord’s Supper account and heightens its connection to the Passover meal. 

I believe this shift from the Lord’s Supper being part of a common meal to a more formal worship setting is how the Lord’s Table moves from open to closed and why, by the time we get to the second century, it seems the general practice of the church was closed communion. I also believe this is why Luke emphasizes not only Jesus’s table fellowship but also his table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners. Luke is arguing for an open table amid a context where the table is beginning to close. Ultimately, the traditions that support a closed or semi-closed table win out, as evidenced by the practices in the second century. However, Luke, and I believe Paul, would argue against using the traditions in Matthew and Mark to close the table to unbelievers.

By: Spencer Shaw

---

Check Out the Entire Series

---