top of page

Scholarly Article on Communion:

Why Furniture Matters: A Biblical Look at Communion for Ecumenical Conversations

Communion. The religious ceremony that is meant to unite Christians is one of our most controversial issues.  So controversial that we even argue about the furniture. When some insist the table in the center of the church can’t be an altar, others accuse them of heresy.  When some call the table an “altar,” others flip their theological lids. Why all the fuss about naming a few pieces of wood or marble?  Here’s a clue from a commentary published in 1871:

 

“The Lord's Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. Our only altar is the cross, our only sacrifice that of Christ once for all.”  (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory of the Whole Bible, 1871.) 

 

These authors are adamant about furniture terminology because it gets at the primary dividing lines – whether Communion is about eating a feast or offering a sacrifice, whether the sacrifice happened only on the Cross or whether it somehow also is present on the altar/table in the church.  So, as silly as it might seem to an agnostic, we Christians can’t ignore furniture terminology.  Fortunately, we have the Bible in common and can look at what the Bible has to say.  The commentary quoted above later pointed to Malachi’s furniture terminology, so we’ll start there.  Why Malachi?  Because the New Testament’s longest treatment of Communion, First Corinthians, borrows the term “table of the Lord” (τραπέζης Κυρίου) from Malachi.[1]  

In Malachi 1:6, the priests are accused of dishonoring God’s name and they ask how they have done so.  God answers them, “7By offering polluted food upon my altar.  And you say, ‘How have we polluted it?’  By thinking that the Lord’s table may be despised (or polluted).[2]  8When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that no evil?  And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil?  ...  10BI will not accept an offering from your hand…   12“You profane it [my name] when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted and the food for it may be despised. … 14Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished…”  (Malachi 1:6-8, 10,12,14).

            First of all, notice that the table, the altar, and the name all belong to the Lord (“your,” “my” “the Lord’s.”)  The priests and the people are in God’s realm and it is not up to them to make the rules.  This should immediately give us serious reason to pause and be respectful as we debate about furniture terminology.  What this passage from Malachi shows is that the worshippers’ actions signal that they really don’t care about God, even as they worship.  (Whoa!)   It is clear that the primary action causing problems is the kind of animals they are sacrificing, not how often or where or which prayers they say.  The choice of animal is what turns the sacrifice from an acceptable offering into an offering that brings a curse, and that blemished animal is a problem both on the altar and on the Lord’s table. 

As for Malachi’s use of furniture terminology, note that the priests are accused of offering polluted food on the Lord’s altar and saying the Lord’s table is polluted (1:7, 12).  They have polluted the food upon the Lord’s altar by thinking that the Lord’s table may be despised or polluted (1:7).  And the blemished animals are simultaneously “food upon my altar” and “food for” “the Lord’s table” (1:7, 14).  Clearly table and altar are highly connected, perhaps even the same thing.  So much for important distinctions in furniture terminology, at least in Malachi.[3]

            But what about the New Testament?  Surely there is more clarity there.  The book of Hebrews was referred to by the 1871 commentary when it mentioned “our only sacrifice that of Christ once for all.”[4]           Perhaps Hebrews uses its furniture terminology clearly.  Hebrews 9:2-4 does indeed distinguish the “altar of incense” from other “tables” in the sanctuary.  But then in 13:10 there is no table at all; rather, food is eaten directly from the altar:  “We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.”  Hebrews, like Malachi, does not seem to distinguish “table” and “altar.”  The author goes on to describe Jesus like a sacrificial animal, then exhorts, “through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name” (13:15).  Catholics see this verse as a recognition of the sacrifice of the Mass; Protestants see this verse as a recognition that verbal praise is now our manner of sacrifice in worship.  Rather than get bogged down in arguments about the implications of that one sentence, let’s look at First Corinthians, where we have several paragraphs that are obviously intended to teach us about Communion.  What does (St.) Paul think?

 

I Corinthians 10:14-22 

14 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[e] (κοινωνια) in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[f] (κοινωνια) in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners (κοινωνοι) in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners (κοινωνους) with demons. 21 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. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

            

            (St.) Paul has more to say, but let’s stop here for just a minute.  At the end of this section we see the term “table of the Lord” from Malachi.  Does (St.) Paul mean anything other than Malachi did?   He compares “table of the Lord” to the “table of demons,” which he has already shown to be full of “food offered to idols… what pagans sacrifice...”  Whether the “table” was a physically different object than the “altar” makes no difference:  “are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?”  “I do not want you to be partners with demons. … You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”   Whether the term is “table” or “altar,” it’s covered with sacrificial food which connects those who eat it with the sacrifice on the altar.  When (St.) Paul starts this section, he says, “shun the worship of idols.”  It then becomes clear that what he means is, “don’t eat food from the idol’s sacrificial table even if someone else offered it on the altar.”  Why?  Because eating makes you a partner in the offering, and, more importantly, a partner of the one to whom the food was offered.  Wow!

While (St.) Paul does not come right out and say, “When we Christians eat the bread and drink the cup, we are partners in the Lord’s altar,” he couldn’t get any closer.   So let’s look at that term for “partner,” which is closely related to the term translated “participation,” often translated as “communion” or “fellowship.”  When we take a look the use of these words in other places of the New Testament, it becomes apparent that fellowship doesn’t mean the warm fuzzies we often associate with the coffee and donuts we enjoy after worship.

The fellowship/communion/participation we experience with the body and blood of Christ is κοινωνια.  The partnership Jews experience with their altars and pagans with demons in κοινωνος.

Here are the uses of κοινωνια in the New Testament:

Rom. 15:26 - “contribution for the poor”

I Cor. 10:16 - “participation in the blood of Christ… participation in the body of Christ”

II Cor. 8:4 - “relief of the saints”

II Cor. 9:13 - “contribution for them”

I Cor. 1:9 - “fellowship of his Son”

II Cor. 6:14 - “Do not be mismated with unbelievers.  For what partnership have righteousness an iniquity?  Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”

II Cor. 13:14 - “fellowship of the Holy Spirit”

Gal. 2:9 - “gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised”

Phil. 1:5 - “your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.”

Phil. 2:1 - “and participation in the Spirit”

Phil. 3:10 - “may share in his sufferings”

Phm. 1:6 - “the sharing of your faith”

Heb. 13:16 - “do good and to share what you have”

I John 1:3 - “fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

I John 1:6 - “if we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness”

I John 1:7 - “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another”

 

Here are the uses of κοινωνος in the New Testament:

Mt. 23:30 - “we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.”

Lk. - 5:10 “James and John…who were partners with Simon.”

II Cor. - 1:7 “as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.”

II Cor. - 8:23 “As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker in your service.”

I Cor.- 10:18, 20 “partners in the altar,” “partners with demons” 

Phm. - 1:17 “So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would me.” 

Heb. 20:33 - “sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated.”

I Pet. 5:1 - “I… [am] a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.”

II Pet. 1:4 - “his precious and very great promises, that through these you may… become partakers of the divine nature.”

 

Clearly biblical usage of these terms has far more to do with joint actions than emotional connection.  A partner is someone who actively works with another to join with them in deed, not just sentiment.  When (St.) Paul says a Jewish worshipper is a partner in the altar, and a pagan eating something sacrificed to an idol is a partner with demons, and a Christian eating the bread is in partnership with Christ’s body, he is saying something very profound.  Communion is not simply a nice way to pray.  It is an action which makes us partners in Christ’s sacrificial action.[5]  So it is misleading to say, “The Lord’s Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar.”  The tables (St.) Paul and Malachi refer to, if they are not altars, are obviously located close to altars, both physically and spiritually.  The feasts on these tables contained meat butchered on the altar and/or bread and wine offered on the altar.  The intermediate step of cooking the meat or moving it to another table did not somehow diminish the spiritual meaning of the food. Otherwise, eating the food of an idol sacrifice would not be a problem.  And (St.) Paul points this out immediately following his treatment of Communion:

 

23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 (But if some one says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience’ sake— 29 I mean his conscience, not yours—do not eat it.)”  I Corinthians 10:23-29a

 

 

Here is where the sacrificial food loses its spiritual power:  once it is on a foodstand or a dinner table, it is no longer on the “table of demons” and no longer part of the sacrifice.  Having told the Corinthians they must never commit idolatry by eating from a sacrificial table, (St.) Paul clarifies that no idolatry is involved if they eat the very same food from a regular table.  Why?  Because a sacrificial table is connected to the altar of sacrifice in a way that regular tables aren’t.   Worship has more to do with kind of table than the kind of food.  Astounding!  Our quibbles over furniture terms actually do matter!  This makes clear where Protestants and Catholics must agree.  Whenever we speak of the “table of the Lord,” we are speaking of a sacrificial table, not a regular table.  Those who want to call it a “table” and those who want to call it an “altar” are both standing on biblical ground, but no one can say, “The Lord’s Supper is a feast on a table” and mean thereby that it is “not a sacrifice on an altar.”  Such a statement makes no sense in the light of First Corinthians ten, where eating from a sacrificial table has the same spiritual meaning as offering a sacrifice on an altar. [6]

Since this is a very important issue, let’s look at other Scriptures to be sure we have interpreted (St.) Paul correctly.

 

I Corinthians 5:7b-8  

Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil (πονηρίας), but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

 

Several versions of the Bible translate “festival” as “feast,” so here is the basis for our “feast on a table.”[7]  But are these verses about the Lord’s Supper or a more metaphorical celebration?  Exodus is clear about how the Passover feast was celebrated: by putting the lamb’s blood on the doorposts and by eating the roasted flesh of the sacrificed lamb “with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.”[8]   We already know that Paul views eating the Lord’s Supper as eating a sacrifice.  The context of chapter 5 makes it clear that Paul is talking about celebrating the feast as a gathered Christian group, in church:  these verses come immediately after Paul’s instruction that the church of Corinth is to assemble and expel one of their members who is leaven because of his πορνεία, (5:1-7a); these verses are immediately followed by Paul’s clarification that it is within the church, rather than in the world, that the Corinthians should not associate with or eat with immoral people (πÏŒρνοις) (5:9-13).  It would be difficult for the Corinthians not to conclude that as they celebrated the Lord’s Supper, served on the sacrificial table of the Lord connected to the altar of the Cross, they were feasting on none other than Christ our Passover Lamb, who was sacrificed for us (5:7).   

This should be no surprise to us, because it was not Malachi or (St.) Paul, but Jesus Himself who brought the concepts of table, altar, and Passover together.  (St.) Matthew and (St.) Luke make it clear that the Last Supper was a “Passover” meal at a “table” (Mt. 26:19-20; Lk. 22:14-15), yet also make it clear that the bread was brought to that table from the altar of the Cross:  “this is my body” (Mt. 26:26; Lk. 22:19).   (St.) John’s Gospel begins with John the Baptist saying, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)  (St.) Matthew includes, “…this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28).  Whatever feasting the disciples managed to do that night at the table, they could not have helped but notice that their Passover meal that year was about eating a different kind of sacrificial lamb from a different kind of altar, and that the different lamb’s blood was not to be put on their doorframe, but in their mouths.

In saying “this is my blood of the covenant” (Mt. 26:28), Jesus referred to Exodus 24:8, where Moses said, “Behold the blood of the covenant,” as he put the blood of sacrificed animals on all the people after they promised adherence to the law.  Christians, in both Protestant and Catholic worship, after hearing the words of the covenant from Jesus as the people of Israel did from Moses, reaffirm their commitment to the covenant and receive the blood of the sacrifice to confirm the covenant, just as the Israelites did.  The leaders of the Israelites “beheld God and ate and drank,” and we do, too (Exodus 24:11).  The Lord’s Supper is not merely a feast or a sacrifice, but a covenant ceremony involving the food and the blood of the sacrifice.  Let’s take a look at First Corinthians eleven to see what (St.) Paul has to say about this covenant ceremony.

 

I Corinthians 11:20-34a   

                                    20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[b] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[c] 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened[d] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another — 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned.

 

In (St.) Paul’s version of the Last Supper, the cup was not just for a covenant, but for a “new” covenant (11:25).  In Second Corinthians 3, (St.) Paul elaborates on this theme, referring back to the Exodus covenant more directly.  His emphasis is that the Jews have veiled minds just as Moses had a veiled face after receiving the written covenant from God, and that “through Christ it is taken away” (II Cor. 3:14).[9]  But for (St.) Paul the most important thing is “a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (II Cor. 3:6).  (St.) Paul also stresses this concept in Galatians 3:15,17 & 4:24.[10]  For our purposes here, it is sufficient to note that First Corinthians makes clear that this important new covenant is entered into through the Lord’s Supper.  A rather literal translation of I Corinthians 11:25 would be, “This the-cup-of-the-new-covenant is in my blood.  This do, as often as you drink it, in my memory.”  Thus the new covenant is tied more closely to the cup than to the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross.  In Mark 14:24, Jesus says of the cup, rather literally, “This is the blood of the (new) covenant, the poured out for many.”  Matthew 26:28 is very similar, adding “for the forgiveness of sins.”  Luke 22:20 combines I Corinthians and Mark, saying literally:  “This the cup the new covenant in the blood of me which is poured out for you.”  An examination of manuscripts also makes it appear that the word “new” first appeared in First Corinthians and Luke and then later was added to the other gospel accounts.  Which makes sense, given how important the concept of a “new covenant” was to (St.) Paul.  Nonetheless, in all accounts, the cup, the blood, and the covenant are bound tightly together.  In the old covenant, blood was sprinkled, but in the new it is drunk from a cup in the form of wine.  Given the importance of the new covenant for the Gentiles, who were not included in the old, and for the Jews, who were unable to meet the demands of the old, the blood from the altar of the Cross which is now in the cup takes on great significance.  When the Corinthians act so selfishly that their meal is no longer the Lord’s supper, they are out of the new covenant and thus eating judgment upon themselves (11:20, 29).  This is how (St.) Paul can end his entire teaching with, “wait for one another… lest you come together to be condemned” (11:34).  Just as in Malachi, worship can turn from a blessing to a curse if it is blemished by selfishness.

The comment, “The Lord’s Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar” prompts another question:  How does the “feast” get to the “table” without a “sacrifice” and an “altar”?  As we have seen, it doesn’t, which is why the statement is so misleading.  In Corinthians, the Lord’s Supper is about eating the body and the blood of our sacrificed Lord on a sacrificial table as a signing of the new covenant.  Since the sacrifice is Christ on the altar of the Cross, how then is the bread and wine on the table also the meat and drink of that sacrifice?   Many Protestants and Catholics would agree that it is by Jesus’ spoken word repeated by the celebrant, causing either a literal or spiritual transformation of the bread and wine.  Thus the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus becomes a never-ending sacrificial meal.[11]  And since the table is not really separate from the altar, the sacrificial event is never really over.  The sacrificed body died once, but continues to exist somehow on the table in a perpetual renewal of its existence.  Some Protestants would argue that this perpetual renewal happens after the Cross, in order to emphasize that Christ died only once,[12]whereas Catholics pinpoint the perpetual renewal as happening at the table which is both altar and Cross, in order to emphasize that the sacrifice itself is still active,[13] not just for us in the meal but also as an offering to God.[14]  Either way, according to (St.) Paul, Christ’s sacrifice is perpetually participated in by believers at a sacrificial meal (10:14-21).  It is impossible to treat (St.) Paul’s “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes,” (11:26) as anything less.[15]  

So what do we make of the phrase often found on communion tables, “Do this in remembrance of me?” (11:24,25)  How does this phrase help us understand the Lord’s Supper?  “Remembrance” (á¼€νάμνησις) occurs four times in the NT; twice here, once in Luke 22:19, and once in Hebrews 10:3, where the Jewish sacrifices were a reminder of sin since they couldn’t really take away sin.  It is from á¼€ναμιμνήσκω, “remember,” which means just that in Mk.11:21, Mk. 14:72, I Cor. 4:17, II Cor. 7:15, II Tim. 1:6 and Heb. 10:32.  So, if I Corinthians 11:24-25 were all we had about the Lord’s Supper from (St.) Paul, the meal might be simply a way to not forget Jesus and what He did for us, as some theologians have suggested and some Christians do in practice.  

Yet, although the Lord’s Supper is often called “Eucharist” (“Thanksgiving”), it is nothing like the American holiday of Thanksgiving.  At Thanksgiving, we remember the Pilgrims and tell their story while we eat foods similar to, but in no way actually connected with, the foods the Pilgrims ate.  The whole of I Corinthians makes it clear that this kind of remembering is not what (St.) Paul had in mind for “Do this in remembrance of me.”  The Lord’s Supper is not a memorial repetition of what Jesus did with the disciples, although we do repeat Christ’s words and actions.  A footwashing ceremony is a mere repetition; the Lord’s Supper is much more.
           This is because the word “remembrance” (á¼€νάμνησις) actually hearkens back to much of Israel’s worship.  This noun can be found in the Greek version of Leviticus 24:7 and also Numbers 10:10, which uses the related verb á¼€ναμιμνήσκω in the previous verse.  That verb is used many other places, as is another related verb μιμνησκω.  In terms of worship, the concept of remembrance is important because both God and Israel must remember each other and their mutual covenant so that they can act upon it.  For example, in Genesis 9:16, ‘‘When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant betwen God and every living creature... [and never again send a flood].’’  Exodus 2:24, ‘‘God heard their groaning [under their bondage in Egypt] and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob [and then sent Moses].’’  Exodus 20:8, ‘‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy [by not doing any work].’’  Leviticus 26:44-45, ‘‘... when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them... so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them... but I will for thier sake remember the covenant with ther forefathers...’’  Numbers 15:37-38, ‘‘...bid them to make tassels on the corners of their garments... to look upon and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them...’’  Deuteronomy 8:11,18, ‘‘Take heed lest you forget the LORD your God, by not keeping his commandments... You shall remember the LORD your God... that he may confirm his covenant which he swore to your fathers...’’  And, of course, it helps to have reminders, μνημÏŒσυνον.  The first was God’s name (Ex. 3:15), the second was the Passover, “This day [Passover] shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord…” (Ex. 12:14).   Since the Last Supper was a Passover meal during which Jesus spoke about a new covenant, is it any wonder that the celebration of the new Passover of the new covenant should be done “in remembrance” of the one with whom and by whom we make our covenant?

This idea that eating the bread and drinking the wine mean covenantal remembrance is supported by (St.) Paul’s insistence that eating and drinking can only happen at one kind of table, not both the table of the Lord and the table of demons (10:21).  It is also supported by (St.) Paul’s claim that eating and drinking improperly constitute guilt of the body and blood as well as judgment (11:27, 31).  If “in remembrance” meant merely thinking about Christ’s Last Supper, or merely thinking about his Cross, these verses would make no sense.  Likewise, if eating and drinking were a sentimentalized connection with Christ’s body and blood rather than a real spiritual connection, the verses would be strange.  But if the one who consumes the food and drink of the table is participating in the covenantal sacrifice from whence they came, then it makes perfect sense that it would be impossible to so participate in any other sacrifice, Jewish or pagan.  And it would make sense that sinning against the brother or sister for whom Christ sacrificed His life - sinning while eating and drinking from that sacrifice - would completely nullify the participation in the covenant and so set us up for judgment and illness.[16]

(St.) does not say exactly how Christ is present, but every time we eat the bread and drink the cup, (St.) Paul says we eat and drink the exact same thing that the disciples ate and drank with Jesus, His Passover sacrifice on the Cross, His body and His blood.  “For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.  Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (5:7-8).  Again, (St.) Paul does not specify whether the sacrifice becomes perpetual at the altar of the Cross or at the altar of the table in the church.  But, according to (St.) Paul, every Lord’s Supper is the same sacrificial meal of the same sacrifice, if it is done properly.   Without proper behavior, it is not the Lord’s Supper, or worse, it is judgment (11:20, 27-32).[17]  That is why (St.) Paul says it is so imperative that it be eaten worthily, examining oneself and “discerning the body,” perhaps in the bread, perhaps in one’s bodily hunger, but most likely the Body of Christ in other believers.  (St.) Paul begins with “It is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.  For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal…” Then he ends with “wait for one another – if anyone is hungry let him eat at home - lest you come together to be condemned” (I Cor. 11:20-21, 33-34).   If one eats in an unworthy manner, one becomes guilty of the body and blood rather than forgiven by them (11:27-29, 33).  Illness and death follow (11:30).[18]  What does that say about the fact that every Sunday we Christians eat and drink separated from one another, and do not “wait for one another,” as if we weren’t “discerning the body” which is Christ’s body, the Church?  Would (St.) Paul say that we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves every week?  Is this perhaps part of the reason the Church is ill and dying in many places?  Is our arguing about furniture terminology really that important?

While there is great reason for us to be concerned about those who do not take the Lord’s Supper seriously, whether in Corinth or in modern Protestant and Catholic churches, there is also great reason to be concerned about those who use furniture terminology to divide rather than unite the body of Christ.  At best, many of us may be missing out on what Jesus gave us; at worst, we are bringing judgment on ourselves.  Perhaps it is time to come together, to agree on what we can agree on, rather than focusing on our differences. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” which is His body (10:17).  (St.) Paul meant that quite seriously, as we can see from his great concern about divisions and his emphasis on the working together as members of the Body of Christ, issues which he brings up in six of First Corinthians’ sixteen chapters (1, 3, 11-14).  Yet how can we be one body when we eat of so many different breads?  Fortunately, baptism also makes us one body, as does the one Holy Spirit, which we share (I Corinthians 12:12-13).  And if we let the Holy Spirit guide us and let Christ unveil our minds, perhaps we will see that we truly eat off of only one kind of furniture, because we all eat one kind of bread, the body of Christ sacrificed for us once for all time.

 

[1] Malachi 1:7, 12, LXX; I Cor. 10:21.  The author of First Corinthians, (St.) Paul, an educated Jew, most surely would have known the passage from Malachi and we will see that his use of furniture terminology matches Malachi’s very closely.

[2] In addition to this variation, the LXX text of verse 7 contains an extra phrase not in the English, though very similar to verse 12: και τα επιτιθεμενα βρωματα εξουδενωμενα or simply και τα επιτιθεμενα  εξουδενωμενα – “and the (food) on it [the table] despised.”

[3] Likewise, in Ezekiel 43, the term “altar” is used repeatedly, but Ezekiel 44, the term “table” is used.  Ezekiel 44:7-8,15-16 – “In admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning it, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. … You have set foreigners to keep my charge in my sanctuary. … But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok… shall enter my sanctuary, and they shall approach my table, to minister to me, and they shall keep my charge.”  This makes it clear that the altar is also a table because the Lord eats His food from it! 

[4] Hebrews 10:10.

[5] Whether we participate as priest, victim, or as the one who offers the victim is a large topic which will not be addressed here.

[6] Remember that in Hebrews 13:10 there is no table at all; the sacrifice is eaten directly from the altar:   “we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.”  To their credit, the authors of the 1871 commentary immediately qualified their extreme statement by saying, “The Lord's Supper stands, however, in the same relation, analogically, to Christ's sacrifice, as the Jews' sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices (compare Malachi 1:7, "altar . . . table of the Lord"), the communicant in the Lord's Supper has in it a real communion of, or fellowship in, the body of Christ once sacrificed, and now exalted as the Head of redeemed humanity.”  Nonetheless, their insistence on particular furniture terminology contradicts their own more nuanced position.

[7] “The Lord's Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar”  (Jamieson and  Brown’s 1871 Commentary).  The term “feast” is used rather than “festival” in the official US Catholic translation, the New American Bible, and the Protestant favorites, the King James Version and the New International Version.

[8] Exodus 12:6-8.

[9] Exodus 34:32-33 – “Moses gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in Mount Sinai.  And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.”  Note that (St.) Paul also refers readers back to Exodus 34 in I Corinthians 10.  I Corinthians 10:14-22 -  “Shun the worship of idols…are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?... Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy?”  Exodus 34:14-15 – “You shall tear down their altars… (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land… and when they play the harlot after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and one invites you, and you eat of his sacrifice.”

[10] It is worth noting that the author of Hebrews, in comparing the old and new covenants, refers to covenants 18 times.

[11] Paul’s term, “the Lord’s Supper,” emphasizes this point.  We are familiar with the term and so miss its punch:  it means “the dinner belonging to Jesus,” perhaps “the dinner Jesus served,” or even “the dinner Jesus ate.”  The implication is that the Corinthians are not trying to imitate Jesus’ last meal, they trying to eat it with Jesus as if they were the twelve.  The term “the Lord’s Supper” is not plural.  Jesus is present, but He does not serve a new meal to each group of Christians that repeats his words.  There is one supper and we all join it.  

[12] Heb. 7:27; 9:25-26.  Actually, the term often translated “once for all” in these verse simply means “once” (e.g. Hebrews 9:7 “once a year”).  See next footnote.

[13] Hebrews 10:12,14 make it clear that this “once” sacrifice is not over: “when Christ had offered for all time (εá¼°ς τὸ διηνεκá½²ς) a single sacrifice… by a single offering He has perfected for all time (εá¼°ς τὸ διηνεκá½²ς) those who are sanctified.”  What does this mean?  Hebrews 10:1 speaks of the Mosaic “sacrifices which are continually (εá¼°ς τὸ διηνεκá½²ς) offered year after year…”  In Hebrews 7:3, Melchizedek “has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever (εá¼°ς τὸ διηνεκá½²ς).”  Hebrews 9:12 speaks of Christ offering Himself “once” to secure our “eternal (αá¼°ωνίαν) redemption.”  The whole point of Hebrews is not to argue that Christ’s single, once-for-all sacrifice is over, and therefore we can only remember it as a past event; the point of Hebrews is to argue how it is that Jesus’ one-time historical sacrifice was actually an eternal heavenly sacrifice, so that Christ’s sacrifice as High Priest is eternally available to sanctify us so that we can “have confidence to enter the sanctuary [literally, “the holies,” the same place Jesus offered His sacrifice in Hebrews 9:12] by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which He opened for us through the curtain, that is, through His flesh…” (Hebrews 10:19-20).  In our communion with His blood and flesh, in our acceptance of “the blood of the covenant” (10:29) we go where Jesus went when He sacrificed Himself (a theme repeated in Hebrews 13:12-13). See next footnote.

[14] Since only the high priests were allowed to enter where Hebrews says Christians should enter (10:19), and since in Hebrews Christians are told to enter this place where Christ offered His eternal sacrifice (9:12), it is reasonable to ask what we would do there as priests aside from offer Christ’s eternal sacrifice with Him.  Hebrews 12 concludes with “let us offer to God acceptable worship” (12:28).  Likewise Peter urges believers to “be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:5).  In Romans 15:16, Paul describes himself as “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”  Malachi 1:11 must be fulfilled in us – “In every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations.”  Hence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1353-4 says, “The power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all. In the anemnesis that follows, the Church… presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him.”  1182 – [referring to church furniture:] “The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord’s Cross, from which the sacraments of the Sacramental mysteries flow.  On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs.  The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited.”  (Just before communion, the priest paraphrases Revelation 19:9, “Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.”)

[15] The word “proclaim” is normally translated “preach.”  If all (St.) Paul said about communion was, “you preach the Lord’s death,” communion would simply be a teaching opportunity and a way to prevent heresies which denied Christ’s bodily death.  Certainly this has been an important role the Lord’s Supper has played throughout the centuries, but (St.) Paul gives us much more.

[16] See footnote on Exodus 34 on page 6.

[17] Paul now returns to the concern he raised in chapter five, that communion not happen with “the leaven of malice and evil” (5:8).

[18] This echoes Malachi, where offering a blemished animal brought a curse.

bottom of page