In the past year, I have had more pushback on the practice of closed communion (doctrine? practice? it's really a liminal space between the two) than in most of my life, partly because for much of it I didn't even realize it was a huge deal and thought pretty much everyone shared the Lutheran view (oops). So, I think really this would be a great place to put my entire biblical case for the doctrine.
First lets hit up the primary prooftext: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Generally, St. Paul is simply warning the Corinthians that improper communion practice has led to some in the congregation becoming "weak and ill, and some have died" (v. 30). What has caused this spiritual and physical harm? Well, the apostle says that "' Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself'" (v. 27-29). Lets look closely at this passage. Many are wont to point out that Paul's language of "discerning the body" could (and therefore ought to) refer to the body of Christ, believers, and therefore those who rightly recognize the body, which would simply be all believers, are welcome to the table. However, I find numerous issues with this position. Firstly, even assuming the interpretation of the phrase itself is correct, I don't think that those who recognize the body are necessarily synonymous with those of faith, as many denominations deny the faith of others (many Roman Catholics label Evangelicals a false church, and the Evangelicals are quick to return the favor). Thus, to not recognize the distinctions that are in the body of Christ at the moment and then commune is dangerous to the soul, because the sacrament is a meal of unity, as I will elaborate further much later. What's more, I also take issue with the defining the "body of Christ" merely as the meeting of the believers as this ignores the entire immediate context. Pr. Jonathan Fisk has an excellent book where he discusses the topic in detail, but to summarize, the language is both a reference to the unity of the believers and the place where that unity centers--the body and blood of our Lord with the elements. In this way, it is both a condemnation of the communing of those who do not actually have fellowship as well as those who deny the presence of our Lord in this place. This is also clearly seen in v. 27 where Paul does not say that the unworthy soul sins against the body alone but against "the body and blood of the Lord." The congregation of believers is never called the "blood" of the Lord, but only the body, which shows that the two are heavily linked by not synonymous. For more detail, I would commend to you the book linked above, it is one of my absolute favorites.
With that said, I do want to bring some other more minor proofs from that same text. In v. 17, St. Paul says that "when you [the Corinthians] come together, it is not for the better, but for the worse." That is to say, "it would be better if you did not partake in the Eucharist together." If he really believed in the responsibility of the individual to examine oneself alone and not the church to keep one another accountable, then this passage would make no sense, since it would only be the few sinners alone. Moving on from there, he also specifically does not condemn the factioning in this circumstance, saying, "there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (v. 19). This is odd, since one of the major themes in the epistle--including in the case of Eucharistic issues--is a call to unity against schism. But in this passage, he says that the abuse of the sacrament by the wealthy is a good thing because it points out their sin and unworthiness to partake in a clear way. As hinted at previously, some also hone in on verse 28 to say that the believers must examine themselves with a lack of a priestly command to examine. The reasons for this, however, are twofold. Firstly, this doesn't reflect the practice of the early church, in which one would confess their sins in front of the entire congregation rather than privately to the priest, but what's more, that also would make no sense in the context of the letter. This letter was not addressed to the priests like the pastoral epistles. On the contrary, this letter was meant to be read in church ("to the church of God that is in Corinth" 1:2), and thus he is commanding the people to examine themselves because that's his specific audience.
With all that said, let's look at some of the other scriptural texts that address the topic. Firstly is the communion of Judas. This text is cited often on both sides, but I only barely understand the open communion take on it. For context, in the actual narrative of the Last Supper, it is debated as to whether Judas actually communed or not, but I would argue that he didn't, though to be perfectly clear, either case points to the practice. The Gospel of Matthew portrays a twofold scene. The first involves a passing around of bread where, at teh end of it, Jesus tells them (subtly?) that Judas would betray Him, and after that He moves into the institution of the Lord's Supper. John, on the other hand, while not actually mentioning the Supper, does mention the previous scene but says that "after receiving the morsel of bread, he [Judas] immediately went out," seemingly saying that he didn't commune (despite what most depictions portray). In this way, we see the perfect example of a priest keeping back the unrepentant sinner (as Christ verbally kept Judas from it) in the very institution of the Eucharist itself. However, even if he did commune and by "immediately" John was referring to the moment after the actual institution, this text still supports it. In this case, we would instead see Christ as the Holy God giving up the wicked unto their own vices (Rom. 1:28) and using it as an example to not commune without repentance in the heart. The alternative is that Christ was instead using this as an example of how we can commune anyone, even the unrepentant, but if so, this not only wasn't how anyone really interpreted the text until recently but is also is a really rough example, since Judas also would have been instantly condemned by the morsel he ate (John 13:27).
Another important point in the conversation is that the meal is itself one of unity. When talking about idolatry, St. Paul says "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?...You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons." (1 Cor 10:16-18,21) In this passage, we clearly see St. Paul talk about how the one bread makes us one and even says that those who eat and drink "participate" in the body and blood (remember the note from before) of Christ. We see the same sentiment in Matthew 5: "So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (v. 23-24). In this place, Christ speaks of the altar as itself this place of unity and if one has something against their brother, they ought not commune. The same is true in the modern day that those Christian bodies who have strong disagreements with one another ("something against you") that they must first be reconciled before they can unite together at the altar. A final place we see the Eucharist connected with the unity of doctrine is Acts 2:42, which goes as follows: "And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." In this way, the apostles' teaching is directly associated with the breaking of the bread, and as the departure from the teachings of the apostles' continues, so too must the factions cease breaking bread together.
This also carries into how the scriptures talk to us about such schismatics. We are told to avoid those who cause divisions (Rom 16:17), take note of which brothers deny the fullness of the truth (even so far as excommunicating them for a time, 2 Thess. 3:15), not even to allow those who teach falsely welcome into our houses (2 John 10-11), and not to associate with the sexually immoral who claim to be within the church, with St. Paul mentioning specifically not to eat with them (ie, celebrate the Eucharist; 1 Cor. 5:9-12). How do we square this with St. Paul's injunctions that the Church reject disagreements (1 Cor 1:10) as well as Christ's prayer to the Father to "keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:11)? Well this is solved in Jude, where he persistently blames the erring for schism rather than those who make such a division (18-19) as well as St. Paul's words mentioned previously that "there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (1 Cor 11:19). In this way, we can see the unity meal is not to be eaten by those who are not in unity, either in doing the works of God or in true doctrine.
Finally, I would like to address how the Eucharist is meant to be in the context of pastoral care, being witheld from the unrepentant and given to the repentant by the pastor's hands. In a positive sense, we see this in St. Paul's words about the disciples being "servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor 4:1). In this way, the priests are not simply Eucharistic vending machines meant to produce the body and blood and give it to the congregation. No, rather the Lord gives them this gift and they are called to "steward" or guard it, in the same way that the Levites, as warrior-priests, were the last line of defence between the people and the unquenchable fire in the holy of holies. They are there to guard it so that the people would not go in unworthily and die as Nadab and Abihu did (Leviticus 10:1-2, 6). In response to the talk about closed communion, I have heard some say that people could just lie and commune unworthily unbeknownst to the pastor, but this it even accounted for in the scriptures. The prophet Ezekiel tells us (and pardon the long passage):
"If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.” (3:18-21) In this way, we see the Lord tell the prophet Ezekiel that the souls of the people in his care will be required at his hand if he refuses to try. It's true that the wicked may disregard this warning, but that doesn't mean we should simply refuse to warn them. Rather, the priest ought to examine his flock so that all may go in with pure hearts as a sanctified priesthood wearing the vestments given by God rather than our filthy rags that make us deserving to be thrown out of the wedding feast. This is the true calling of our pastors as "stewards of the mysteries of God."
Comments