IF YOU WANT TO GET TECHNICAL ABOUT THE LORD’S SUPPER

THE LORD’S SUPPER IN SCRIPTURE: A MEAL, A FELLOWSHIP, AND A PRINCIPLE — NOT A LEGALISTIC RITUAL

Many treat the Lord’s Supper as a ritualistic pinch of bread and a sip of juice, bound to one specific day and performed in one precise manner. Yet when we turn to Scripture itself and allow the inspired text to speak, we discover something striking. The Supper — hē kuriakē deipnon (ἡ κυριακὴ δεῖπνον) — is literally “the Lord’s meal,” not “the Lord’s Rite” and not “the Lord’s Cracker and Cup.” If we wish to escape legalism and return to biblical proportion, we must examine what the early Christians actually did, how often they did it, what the words meant, and how the practice developed in the first centuries.

1. THE GREEK TERM “DEIPNON” MEANS A FULL MEAL — NEVER A NIBBLE

When Paul writes, “When you come together to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20), he uses the Greek term deipnon (δεῖπνον), which refers to the main meal of the day, typically eaten in the evening. This is the same term used in Luke 14:12 to describe the “great dinner,” in John 12:2 for the supper where Lazarus reclined with Jesus, and in Revelation 19:9 for the “marriage supper of the Lamb,” clearly evoking a banquet.

Never in Greek literature does “deipnon” refer to a symbolic bite-sized token. If one wishes to be strictly literal, one must reproduce an actual meal. Legalism collapses under the weight of its own claims; one cannot argue for “exact reproduction” and then redefine deipnon to mean “a thimble’s worth of grape juice.”

2. PAUL’S ENTIRE ARGUMENT IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11 PRESUPPOSES A FULL MEAL

Paul rebukes the Corinthian church for abusing a meal, not for performing a mismatched ritual. Some were eating too much: “One is hungry and another is drunk” (1 Corinthians 11:21). This cannot occur with a communion wafer and a plastic cup. Paul contrasts their behavior with “eating at home”: “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (v. 22). Drink what? Enough to become intoxicated. Eat what? Enough to be full.

The context also shows a shared table; when he says “When you come together to eat” (v. 33), he again uses the verb esthiein (ἐσθίειν), ordinary eating, not ceremonial nibbling. The entire argument becomes nonsensical if the Lord’s Supper consisted of a micro-portion. A legalist insisting on “first-century precision” must, if honest, reinstate a full evening meal. Anything less is selective literalism. This point is nearly universal among commentators: conservative, liberal, Catholic, and Protestant scholars all agree Paul is addressing the abuse of a common meal.

3. ACTS 2 SHOWS DAILY MEALS ASSOCIATED WITH “THE BREAKING OF BREAD”

Acts 2:42 says the early believers “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Only three verses later, Luke expands the picture: “They continued daily with one accord … breaking bread from house to house and eating their food with gladness” (Acts 2:46). Here, “breaking bread” is tied to eating their food (trophē, τροφή) and is unmistakably a meal context.

Anyone arguing that the first “breaking of bread” refers to communion while the second is ordinary food has no textual basis. Luke consistently uses “breaking bread” in connection with meals (Luke 24:30-35; Acts 20:7, 20:11). A legalist must therefore choose: either the early church took the Supper daily, or he abandons the “pattern” he claims to protect.

4. ACTS 20:7 DOES NOT ESTABLISH A WEEKLY LIMIT — IT DESCRIBES A SINGULAR EVENT

Some insist that Acts 20:7 sets Sunday as the exclusive day for the Supper, but Luke is describing a single historical gathering: “On the first day of the week when we were gathered together to break bread…” Verse 11 notes that Paul “broke bread and ate” after the midnight incident.

Again, the text emphasizes an event, not a recurring schedule. Luke’s emphasis is on the night Eutychus fell out the window, not on establishing a universal pattern. The text cannot legitimately restrict the Supper to Sundays without imposing a structure that Luke never intended.

5. THE TERM “AGAPĒ FEAST” IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY CONFIRMS THE SUPPER WAS A SHARED MEAL

In Jude 12 we read of “your love-feasts” (τὰς ἀγάπας). These feasts were not secular potlucks but sacred meals tied to fellowship and the remembrance of Christ. Early Christian sources confirm this practice. The Didache (c. A.D. 90-120) instructs believers to pray over a communal meal, remarkably similar to the Eucharist. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110) refers to gatherings where believers “break one bread.” Tertullian (A.D. 200) describes the agapē as a full meal, eaten reverently and concluded with prayer.

The historical pattern is unanimous: the Lord’s Supper was embedded in a meal, not a tiny wafer-and-cup ritual. The thimble-and-chip model is a later, medieval development, not apostolic.

6. WHAT REALLY MATTERS IS THE PRINCIPLE, NOT THE PORTION

Legalists often argue for precise “forms” while ignoring biblical flexibility. To replicate the early church exactly, one would need a full evening meal, a reclining posture, a shared table, a communal loaf and cup, daily or near-daily observance, and a household or domestic context. Since virtually no modern church meets all these requirements, appeals to exact replication are hollow.

Paul clarifies the principle: “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Frequency, portion size, setting, time of day, type of bread, and amount of food are all open. What is not open is the meaning: remember Christ, discern His body, proclaim His death, examine your heart, and maintain unity and love in the fellowship. Once this principle is grasped, legalism dissolves.

THE CONCLUSION: THE LEGALIST LOSES BY HIS OWN RULES

If someone insists, “We must follow the early church exactly,” they are compelled to eat a real meal, gather in homes, use a shared loaf and cup, eat daily or frequently, and eat until satisfied (1 Corinthians 11:34), while avoiding all modern adaptations. No contemporary group does this.

The consistent conclusion is clear: Christ gave a principle, not a ceremony; a remembrance, not a rigid ritual; a meal, but the meaning of that meal is the true substance. Binding where God has left freedom is rebellion against the gospel; restricting what God has left open is human tradition, not Scripture.

BDD