I'm taking care of my 93-year-old mother.  This morning she did not feel up to going to church.  I've had back surgery and often have to take medicine at night; I don't want to get behind the wheel.  We drive twenty miles to services.  Is it okay if we study together on Sunday and have the Lord’s Supper?

 

Sincerely,
Home Bound

Dear Home Bound,

The Scriptures are clear that we should not forsake the assembly of christians (Heb 10:24-25), but if you are unable to leave your house, you are unable to leave your house.  There are always individual cases with extenuating circumstances that don’t conform to the standard rule.  The average person is able to get out and attend services, but if you are sick, socked-in by a blizzard, in the military, etc. – then your situation isn’t average.  God only holds us accountable for what we are able to do (2 Cor 8:12).  If you are ready and prepared to attend services as normal, but health problems don’t permit you to fulfill the desires of your heart, God understands.  The key is that you aren’t making empty excuses or rationalizations to avoid going to services.  As long as your reason for missing is legitimate (and your case certainly sounds that way), you can in clear conscience know that you did your best.

By all means, stay home and care for your elderly mother.  When you can make it to services, do so… but don’t feel bad when your or her health prevents you.  There is no need to take the Lord’s Supper when you can’t attend services.  The Lord’s Supper is taken by the church when they assemble together (1 Cor 11:20-21).  It is an act of the group to partake together in unity, not individually (1 Cor 11:33).  Because you are unable to leave your home to be with the church, it is not a sin for you to not take the Lord’s Supper.

In your previous post, Divided We Stand, you wrote, "When we take the Lord’s Supper, we use Christ’s example as our guide.  Christ took the bread first and then the juice (Matt 26:26-27), so we do it in the same order." I understand this, but would this not also mean that we should only use one cup?

Sincerely, Cupbearer

Dear Cupbearer,

We should only use one cup… unless the Scriptures give us a reason to think that the one cup was an unimportant detail – which they do. Jesus states that it is what is in the cup that matters, not the cup itself (Matt 26:29). When Jesus took the cup, He gave thanks for the grape juice inside of the cup (Mk 14:23-24). The grape juice represents Christ’s blood; the cup does not. In fact, Jesus told the apostles to divide the juice among themselves (Lk 22:17). We don’t know how the apostles went about doing that. They may very well have poured the juice from Jesus’ cup into twelve other individual cups. When we use multiple cups to distribute the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper, we are doing what Christ did… dividing the juice among all the believers who are going to remember Christ’s death.

What was God's purpose in specifying unleavened bread as opposed to leavened? Did leavened bread have bacteria in it that could harm?

Sincerely, Health Conscious

Dear Health Conscious,

Unleavened bread was eaten during certain Old Testament feasts (like the Passover) and during the Lord’s Supper for symbolic reasons, not for medical ones. Aside from the days of Unleavened Bread, leaven was allowed in homes during the rest of the year (Ex 12:19). Certain sacrifices even required leavened bread (Lev 23:17). So yeast was not considered bad or good, but it was considered an additive.

The idea of unleavened bread is that it is bread that hasn’t been tainted by anything. Unleavened bread is pure bread. The symbolism of unleavened things representing holiness can be found throughout the Scriptures. The false teaching of the Pharisees was called ‘the leaven of the Pharisees’ (Matt 16:12). Herod’s worldliness was considered ‘leaven’ that could harm godly people by its influence (Mk 8:15). The christian that had fallen into the horrible sin of sleeping with his father’s wife was considered ‘leaven’ that could spoil the whole congregation (1 Cor 5:6). On the other hand, life in Christ is considered unleavened (1 Cor 5:7). Unleavened bread is compared to a life of sincerity and truth… while leaven is compared to a life of malice and wickedness (1 Cor 5:8). Paul compares false teaching to leaven that can destroy the whole church (Gal 5:9).

It isn’t yeast that we need to be wary of. What christians should fear is a world that will tear them away from God’s Word and leaven their lives with corruption (Jas 4:4-8).

Should communion bread be unleavened?

Sincerely,
Kneading An Answer

Dear Kneading An Answer,

The Bible only uses unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper, and therefore we should only use unleavened bread. The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ during the Passover when the Jews only ate unleavened bread (Mk 14:12, Ex 12:19). Paul alludes to the unleavened bread used in communion and in the Jewish Passover in 1 Cor 5:8.

If the church disregards the example of using unleavened bread in communion, it might as well disregard using bread altogether. Why not orange juice and bacon? Or potato salad and diet Coke? It is very important, vital even, that we always use Bible examples as our guide (Php 3:17), that we imitate the faithful who have gone before us (1 Cor 11:1). Only when we follow Biblical examples can we be confident that we are God’s church and not just another man-made religion.

Thanks for tackling this question earlier. You gave a good explanation of how offering the Lord's Supper twice is consistent with the command to "wait for one another" in 1 Cor 11:33, but your answer left me with a few more questions. We often talk about how we need to have a command, example, or necessary inference for everything the Church does. In this case, I'm not aware of a command or example to have the Lord's Supper twice, and the inference doesn't seem necessary to me. Where is our authority to do this?

Many of the exhortations in 1 Cor 11 imply that communing with our brothers and sisters in Christ is an important aspect of the Supper. Why is it that when we come together we all sing, we all pray, we all meditate on the Scriptures together, but only some of us take communion? It seems like we all should participate, or none of us should. What if only one person comes forward to take communion in the evening? Who are they communing with?

Sincerely, All or Nothing

Dear All or Nothing,

If one person takes the Lord’s Supper, they are communing with the Lord (1 Cor 10:16), the same as if a hundred people took it. The point of the Lord’s Supper is:

1. Proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Cor 11:26).
2. Examine ourselves (1 Cor 11:28).
3. Remember His suffering on our behalf (1 Cor 11:25).

All three of those items are an individual command. The Lord’s Supper is taken individually and offered collectively. In this case, we have to split hairs. A congregation is responsible for offering the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) and to offer it in an orderly way (1 Cor 11:18); the individual is responsible for taking it when it is offered.

The issue of command, example, and necessary inference for all Biblical practices still holds true in this case. Christians are commanded to take the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:24). We have an example of the church offering the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). We necessarily infer that if the churches partook on the first day of the week, we also should do so. The question comes down to how to logistically make that happen. Every congregation must offer the Lord’s Supper in an orderly way, so that all members have opportunity to fulfill the command to partake of it. One congregation offers it only in the morning; another offers it in the morning and at night… both fulfill the Lord’s wishes. As long as it is offered every Sunday, a congregation has the freedom to organize this particular part of worship as they see fit.