The Lord’s Supper: Celebrating, Remembering, & Proclaiming Jesus’s Death

Introduction

The Lord’s Supper centers on remembering Jesus’s death on our behalf, which Jesus instituted as part of a Passover meal:

14 When the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 Then he [Jesus] said to them, “I have fervently desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks, he said, “Take this and share it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you, from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to them, and said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way he also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Luke 22:14–20)

The Lord Jesus commands his people to take bread and the cup to remember his death—his sacrificial, sin-atoning death that establishes the new covenant and accomplishes the salvation of his people. Jesus knows how easily we forget, even the truths we claim are most central to our faith. In the Lord’s Supper, he gives the church a repeated, embodied way to remember his death, give thanks for God’s grace, and proclaim what he has done.

The New Testament also gives us several clear windows into how the earliest Christians lived out this command together. These passages show that shared meals—and especially the breaking of bread—were not incidental or occasional, but a normal and theologically meaningful setting for Christian fellowship, worship, and discipleship:

  1. Acts 2:42, 46: The earliest believers devote themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer, breaking bread in their homes and eating together with joy and sincerity.

  2. Acts 20:7, 11: When the church gathers on the first day of the week, it assembles specifically to break bread, with extended teaching taking place in the context of the shared meal.

  3. 1 Corinthians 10:16–21: Paul describes the cup and the bread as real participation in Christ and frames the Lord’s Supper as allegiance at the Lord’s table, contrasted with rival tables.

  4. 1 Corinthians 11:17–34: Paul corrects serious abuses of the Lord’s Supper that arise from how the church eats together, assuming an actual communal meal that must be reformed rather than removed.

  5. Romans 14:1–15:7: Paul addresses disputes over food and shared practices, showing that table fellowship is a regular setting where unity, patience, and mutual welcome must be practiced.

  6. Galatians 2:11–14: Paul rebukes Peter for withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentile believers, calling such behavior “not in step with the truth of the gospel.”

  7. 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12: Later apostolic warnings assume that shared meals (“love feasts”) are a recognized and spiritually significant part of Christian life that can be corrupted if not guarded.

Taken together, these passages show that the Lord’s Supper belongs within the shared life of the church and was practiced in a meal-shaped context from the beginning. For this reason, like the first-century Christians, we celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the context of meals—not to add something to Jesus’s command, but to receive that command in the same table-shaped setting in which he gave it and in which the earliest churches lived it out.

Detailed Explanation

What follows are seven statements that outline the meaning and practice of the Lord’s Supper. For many Christians, points 1, 3, and 4 below will be the most useful for rethinking how we practice the Lord’s Supper within Christian community.

1. “The Lord’s Supper” is just one way the Bible refers to this Christian ritual.

The Bible uses different terms for the Lord’s Supper, each of which shapes how we view and observe Jesus’s command to remember his death.[1]

The Breaking of Bread (and the Cup of Blessing / the Cup of the Lord)

  • “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer.” (Acts 2:42)

  • “Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple, and broke bread from house to house. They ate their food with joyful and sincere hearts.” (Acts 2:46)

  • “On the first day of the week, we assembled to break bread. Paul spoke to them, and since he was about to depart the next day, he kept on talking until midnight.” (Acts 20:7)

  • “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16)

  • “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot share in the Lord’s table and the table of demons.” (1 Cor. 10:21)

These expressions almost certainly refer to the Lord’s Supper, particularly since they are embedded in such theologically-rich contexts. For example, the early Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer” (Acts 2:42); in such a list, it seems unlikely that “the breaking of bread” there can be reduced to merely eating food. Also, it is instructive that they “broke bread from house to house” AND they also “ate their food with joyful and sincere hearts” (Acts 2:46)—which means, in that context, that “breaking bread” and “eating food” had different meanings.

The Eucharist

  • “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.” (Luke 22:17)

  • “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”” (Luke 22:19)

  • “23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”” (1 Cor. 11:23–24)

The Greek word eucharisteo is a verb and often means “I am thankful” or “I give thanks”—a word used to express Jesus’s gratitude to God before he distributed the cup of wine and broke the bread. (The Greek word eucharistia is a noun that means “thankfulness” or “thanksgiving.”) These verses teach us an essential truth regarding how we should take the Lord’s Supper—with thanksgiving for God’s gracious provision. Yes, we are thankful to God for the food and drink we receive. But how much more should we be grateful for Jesus’s death on our behalf!

The Participation (or Sharing / Communion / Fellowship)

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? (1 Cor. 10:16)

The Greek word koinonia points to our individual and collective participation in Christ’s death on our behalf. In 1 Corinthians 10:16, the word can be variously translated in English as participation, sharing, communion, or fellowship. As Christians, we are integrated vertically into the life of the triune God through Jesus’s death and resurrection, and therefore we are integrated horizontally into the body of Christ (Rom. 6:3–4; 1 Cor. 10:16; 12:12–26).

The Lord’s Table

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot share in the Lord’s table and the table of demons. (1 Cor. 10:21)

Here “the Lord’s table” is contrasted with “the table of demons.” Both parts of the term are important: it is the Lord’s table (which emphasizes Jesus’s rightful position as the Lord of the universe and the Lord of his table!), and it is the Lord’s table (which prompts us to remember that the Lord’s Supper was part of a fellowship meal).

The Lord’s Supper

When you come together, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. (1 Cor. 11:20)

The Corinthians may have thought they were eating the Lord’s Supper, but their sinful hearts and practices had perverted it beyond recognition. May God help us to take the Lord’s Supper correctly.

2. The Lord’s Supper is both an ordinance and a sacrament.

Oftentimes, Christians have a strong preference for referring to the Lord’s Supper as either an ordinance or a sacrament. Both are acceptable terms, because both accurately describe the ritual.

The word ordinance emphasizes that Jesus ordained this ritual in and for the church. He commanded that we do it.

The word sacrament emphasizes that the Lord’s Supper is a divine work of God that helps us to grow in personal holiness—but only to the extent that we participate in faith. The Lord’s Supper conveys NO benefits to someone who is either (a) unable to understand the meaning of the ritual (such as a baby or young child) or (b) unwilling to take the Lord’s Supper with a heart of faith and gratitude. However, the Lord’s Supper is one way that Jesus conveys grace to his people, including the experience of intimacy with Jesus, the assurance of forgiveness through Jesus’s death on the cross, and the joy of fellowship with other Christians. The same could be said for baptism: God conveys grace through that ordinance. But, again, we only receive grace in baptism and the Lord’s Supper if we participate by faith.

3. The Lord’s Supper was instituted and practiced as a covenant meal—both truly eaten AND richly symbolic.

Before Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, God had already established a category for redemptive covenant meals that were simultaneously real meals, symbolically charged, and communal. These elements were not separable in God’s design; together they formed the means by which covenant remembrance was enacted. The Passover was not a minimal ritual act accompanied by food; it was a commanded meal to be eaten together, remembered together, and interpreted together (Ex. 12; Deut. 16:1–8). The form of the meal served the meaning of redemption.

First, the Passover’s form was intentionally meal-shaped, and its meaning was inseparable from eating. Israel was commanded to eat the lamb, prepared and consumed in households, with specified foods, within a defined time, and in the context of gathered families and communities (Ex. 12:3–11). The meal carried deep symbolic meaning—the blood, the lamb, the deliverance—but that meaning was not detachable from the act of eating. The symbolism did not replace the meal; the meal carried the symbolism. No Israelite would have imagined obedience that extracted symbolic elements while bypassing the meal itself. Such a move would have been unintelligible within the covenant God established. The eating was not incidental; it was the God-appointed form through which remembrance, covenant identity, and communal participation were enacted (Ex. 12:24–27; Deut. 16:1–3).

Second, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper within this Passover meal framework, not outside of it. The Gospels portray Jesus “reclining at the table” with the apostles and explicitly identify the occasion as the Passover he “desired to eat” with them (Luke 22:14–15; Mark 14:12). Jesus does not abstract covenant remembrance from the meal; he intensifies and fulfills it. He does not replace a covenant meal with a detached ceremony, but reorients an existing covenant meal around himself as its fulfillment, identifying the bread and cup as the means by which the new covenant is remembered and proclaimed (Luke 22:19–20).

Third, the Gospel and apostolic timing markers confirm that the bread and cup function within an actual meal. Mark records that Jesus took bread “as they were eating” (Mark 14:22). Luke—and later Paul—note that Jesus took the cup “after supper” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). These temporal markers are deliberate and theologically significant, not incidental narrative details. They indicate that the bread and cup are integrated actions within a real meal, not symbolic elements extracted from table fellowship.

Fourth, the New Testament’s ordinary names for this practice are table-meal language. Luke places “the breaking of bread” alongside “they ate their food” in homes (Acts 2:46). Paul speaks of “the Lord’s table” and “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 10:21; 11:20)—terms that naturally describe a shared meal rather than a brief ritual act. Scripture itself refuses to describe the Supper as a disembodied or purely momentary observance. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul grounds the Supper’s meaning in participation (koinōnia) through eating and drinking and then ties that participation directly to the unity of the church: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body” (1 Cor. 10:16–17). The logic of one bread and one body presupposes a shared table where unity is enacted, not merely asserted.

Fifth, Paul’s contrast between two tables assumes real eating as covenant participation. He warns that believers cannot partake of “the table of the Lord” and “the table of demons” (1 Cor. 10:18–21). In the ancient world, idolatry was regularly expressed through cultic meals tied to sacrifices. Paul’s warning only works if eating itself is understood as a form of real participation and real allegiance. The Lord’s Supper, therefore, is not merely symbolic recollection, but a concrete table act of covenant loyalty enacted through eating and drinking.

Finally, Paul’s extended correction in 1 Corinthians 11 only makes sense if the Supper was practiced as part of a real meal. Some go hungry while others become drunk; the poor are shamed; the body is not discerned (1 Cor. 11:21–22). These distortions arise from the abuse of a meal, not from a brief ceremonial act. Crucially, Paul does not respond by minimizing or removing the meal. He reforms the table so that its practice aligns with its meaning. He commands the church to wait for one another and to eat in a manner that does not invite judgment (1 Cor. 11:33–34). His instructions presuppose a substantial communal eating context rather than a symbolic fragment detached from shared table fellowship.

4. The Lord’s Supper belongs at the center of Christian gatherings because table fellowship is integral to its gospel meaning.

The question, therefore, is not whether the Lord’s Supper can be observed in abbreviated forms, but whether Scripture presents the meal context as integral to the Supper’s meaning—and thus as something the church must take seriously in its practice.

It is possible to acknowledge that Jesus and the first Christians took the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal and still argue that this pattern is merely descriptive rather than prescriptive. Scripture does contain practices—such as casting lots in Acts 1:26—that are clearly situational and not binding for the church today. However, this objection misunderstands how Scripture exercises authority over the church. Jesus did not merely describe a practice; he instituted the Lord’s Supper and commanded his disciples to “do this” in remembrance of him. Paul then received this practice “from the Lord” and passed it on as authoritative apostolic tradition (1 Cor. 11:23). He further regulated how the Supper was to be practiced, correcting abuses without detaching the Supper from its meal context. When Scripture institutes a practice, transmits it as apostolic tradition, and corrects its misuse rather than abolishing its form, the church is not free to treat that form as optional. The absence of commands specifying every detail does not nullify the binding force of an instituted and regulated practice.

First, the Lord’s Supper is presented not as a single narrative detail but as a consistent and theologically loaded pattern that receives apostolic regulation. It appears in the institution narratives, in Acts’ descriptions of the church’s shared life, and in Paul’s sustained teaching and correction (Luke 22:14–20; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16–21; 11:17–34). Paul treats table practice as morally and theologically consequential, not as a neutral backdrop. This combination—repeated practice across multiple settings together with apostolic correction of abuses—functions in Scripture as a normative pattern, not a dispensable detail.

Second, the meal form serves the Supper’s meaning rather than merely accompanying it. The Supper proclaims the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26), enacts participation in Christ (1 Cor. 10:16), displays the unity of the one body (1 Cor. 10:17), and draws a clear boundary between allegiance to Christ and rival worship (1 Cor. 10:21). These realities are not merely declared; they are enacted through shared table practice. A shared table forces the church to wait, to share, to recognize one another, and to act together as one body under one Lord. Because the Supper’s meaning is enacted through shared eating and drinking, a form that minimizes embodied, mutual participation inevitably weakens the very realities Paul says the Supper is meant to display.

Third, the apostles treat table fellowship as gospel-significant, not as an optional social custom. In Galatians 2, Paul rebukes Peter for withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentile believers, declaring that such behavior was “not in step with the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:11–14). Table practice publicly communicates whether the gospel’s unifying truth is being embodied or denied. Paul’s rebuke shows that table practice is not a secondary matter of preference, but a visible confession about who fully belongs in Christ—and therefore about whether the gospel itself is being faithfully lived out.

Fourth, Romans 14 assumes that ordinary, repeated table fellowship is a normal arena where the church must practice unity in love. Paul does not address food scruples as an abstract theological debate, but as a concrete problem that surfaces when believers share life together—especially around eating and drinking. His commands (“welcome,” “do not despise,” “do not judge,” “pursue what promotes peace,” “do not tear down God’s work because of food”) only make sense if believers are actually sharing meals in close proximity and are tempted to fracture fellowship at the table (Rom. 14:1–3, 13–21). In other words, Romans 14 treats table practice as a real, recurring setting where Christian unity is either embodied or denied, and Paul’s solution is not to privatize convictions or segregate the church’s eating, but to keep welcoming one another and to order shared practice in love for the sake of peace and mutual upbuilding (Rom. 14:19). That is precisely why it is a blindspot to discuss Romans 14 without confronting the table dynamics of the church: Paul is regulating not merely opinions, but shared life in a way that preserves embodied fellowship.

Fifth, the book of Acts repeatedly locates the church’s shared life in homes, where believers broke bread, ate food, received instruction, and proclaimed Jesus as Messiah (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 20:20). These descriptions are not incidental. Homes were the ordinary setting where sustained teaching, communal meals, and embodied fellowship could occur together. Read in light of Paul’s later instruction and correction in 1 Corinthians, these house gatherings provide the most natural context for understanding how the Lord’s Supper functioned within the life of the early church. Acts presents the home as the ordinary space where Word, prayer, and table fellowship remained integrated, cohering with the church’s regular “breaking of bread” when the gathered church assembled (Acts 20:7).

Sixth, later apostolic warnings assume that communal meals were a recognized and spiritually significant setting of Christian life that could be corrupted. False teachers are condemned for “feasting with you” and for endangering the church at its “love feasts” (2 Pet. 2:13; Jude 12). These warnings presuppose that shared meals functioned as central expressions of Christian fellowship and worship. Such warnings only make sense if these meals were not peripheral gatherings, but recognized settings where holiness, unity, and shared allegiance to Christ were publicly enacted.

Taken together, this evidence gives the meal-shaped practice of the Lord’s Supper more than historical interest. It carries normative theological weight. If God established covenant remembrance through a commanded meal in the Passover, if Jesus instituted the Supper within that meal logic, and if the apostles corrected abuses of the meal rather than replacing the meal with a detached ritual, then separating the bread and cup from table fellowship requires positive justification, not mere appeal to convenience or tradition. Where the church consistently detaches the Supper from shared table fellowship, it risks obscuring the very realities the Supper is meant to proclaim: participation in Christ, unity as one body, and exclusive allegiance to the Lord at his table.

5. Why Celebrate the Lord’s Supper on a Weekly Basis?

Jesus commanded, “Do this in remembrance of me.” He did not specify frequency. That means the question of how often must be answered the same way we answer other questions about gathered worship: by examining how the apostles and earliest churches actually ordered their common life. The New Testament consistently authorizes church practice not by isolated commands, but by instituted practices that are modeled, transmitted, and regulated. Once that is clear, the weekly logic of the Lord’s Supper becomes much harder to dismiss without also destabilizing other weekly practices.

1. The church gathered weekly on the first day of the week as a fixed rhythm, not an occasional event. Paul assumes a regular, first-day assembly when he writes, “On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside” (1 Cor. 16:2). This instruction only makes sense if the church normally gathered on that day. The weekly gathering itself is not explicitly commanded anywhere in the New Testament—but it is universally assumed, modeled, and received. The same logic that supports weekly preaching or prayer also supports weekly table fellowship.

2. When Scripture tells us why they gathered on the first day, breaking bread is named explicitly. Luke does not merely note that the church gathered, but for what purpose: “On the first day of the week, we assembled to break bread” (Acts 20:7). This is the clearest narrative description of a Christian gathering, and breaking bread is not peripheral—it is one of the stated reasons for assembling. If this verse cannot carry normative weight, then neither can any descriptive text about early Christian worship.

3. The earliest church treated teaching, prayer, fellowship, and the Supper as a unified set—not optional components. Acts 2:42 summarizes the settled pattern of the Jerusalem church: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer.” These are not four independent activities that leaders later sort by priority or convenience. Luke presents them as the core practices of gathered Christian life. To argue that some of these belong naturally in weekly gatherings (teaching, prayer) while others do not (breaking bread) requires a rationale external to the text—usually pragmatic or cultural.

4. Paul assumes the Supper happens when the church “comes together,” and reforms it rather than relocating or minimizing it. In 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, Paul repeatedly situates the Lord’s Supper in the context of the assembled church: “when you come together.” The problems he addresses—division, shaming the poor, drunkenness, exclusion—only make sense if the Supper is part of a real, recurring communal meal. Crucially, Paul does not respond by reducing frequency, privatizing the meal, or detaching it from table fellowship. He reforms the practice so that its form matches its gospel meaning. That move assumes the Supper’s regular presence in the gathering.

5. Table fellowship is treated as a gospel issue, not a secondary or optional practice. Romans 14 shows that disputes over food and shared practices were happening within the life of the gathered church, and Paul addresses them pastorally rather than dismissing the practices themselves. The solution is not “eat separately” or “stop sharing meals,” but receive one another, limit freedom in love, and pursue peace around the table. Even more sharply, in Galatians 2 Paul rebukes Peter for withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentile believers, declaring that his behavior was “not in step with the truth of the gospel.” This makes table practice a public, embodied confession of the gospel’s unity. That logic only works if shared meals—including the Lord’s Supper—were a recognized and regular part of church life.

6. In practice, churches already treat many elements of the weekly gathering as essential because they are shaped by apostolic pattern rather than explicit frequency commands. The New Testament nowhere explicitly commands: Teach the Word weekly in the gathering. Pray weekly in the gathering. Sing weekly in the gathering. Exercise gifts weekly in the gathering. Yet churches instinctively regard these practices as central to regular worship because this is how the apostles ordered the life of the church. Recognizing this helps clarify how decisions about gathered worship are normally made. When that same pattern-based logic is applied consistently, it raises an important question about why the Lord’s Supper—despite its institution by Jesus, its regulation by Paul, and its integration into table fellowship—is often treated differently from other apostolically patterned practices. At the very least, this invites churches to ask whether their practice reflects deliberate biblical judgment or unexamined habit.

7. Early post-apostolic evidence is suggestive, not decisive—but it points the same direction. Sources from the first two to three centuries indicate that many churches continued to associate the Lord’s Supper with the church’s primary gathering, often weekly. This evidence does not bind conscience, but it confirms that early Christians did not view frequent communion as unusual or extreme. They appear to have received the apostolic pattern rather than reinventing it.

The argument for weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not that Scripture issues a calendar command. It is that the same New Testament logic that gives us weekly gatherings, weekly preaching, weekly prayer, and weekly mutual ministry also gives us a regularly practiced Supper embedded in table fellowship. Once we acknowledge that we cannot selectively abstract certain practices from the apostolic pattern while retaining others, the Lord’s Supper naturally belongs at the center of the church’s regular gathering—not because it eclipses the Word or prayer, but because it stands alongside them as one of the practices the apostles handed down.

6. The Lord’s Supper is rich and multifaceted in meaning.

The Lord’s Supper is not a single-purpose ritual; Scripture assigns it multiple, inseparable meanings that together govern how the church understands and practices it. Paul’s concentrated teaching in 1 Corinthians 10–11 shows that the Supper simultaneously calls the church to remember Christ’s death, participate in Christ by faith, proclaim the gospel publicly, anticipate Christ’s return, and give thanks for God’s saving provision. When any one of these dimensions is isolated from the others, the Supper is diminished and its biblical purpose is obscured.

First, the Lord’s Supper is remembrance—an obedient, embodied act of recalling Christ’s saving death for his people. Jesus commands his disciples to “do this in remembrance of me,” and Paul repeats that command as foundational to the church’s ongoing practice (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25). This remembrance is not mere mental recollection but covenantal remembrance enacted through eating and drinking, by which the gathered church intentionally returns to the meaning of Jesus’s body “for you” and his blood establishing the new covenant (1 Cor. 11:23–25). The Supper therefore trains the church to remember the cross not abstractly, but concretely and communally.

Second, the Lord’s Supper is communion—real participation in Christ that unites believers to him and therefore to one another. Paul asks rhetorically whether the cup and bread are “a participation (koinōnia) in the blood…[and] body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16), indicating that the Supper is a means by which believers share in the benefits of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice through faith. This participation is not only vertical but also horizontal: because there is one bread, those who share it are one body (1 Cor. 10:17). The Supper thus reinforces the church’s identity as a unified body whose life together flows from shared participation in Christ.

Third, the Lord’s Supper is proclamation—publicly announcing the gospel through the church’s own life together. Paul explains that whenever the church eats the bread and drinks the cup, it “proclaims the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). This proclamation does not replace preaching but complements it by embodying the gospel in visible form: Christ died, his people belong to him, and they gather because of his saving work (1 Cor. 11:26; 1 Cor. 15:3–4). The Supper therefore functions as a lived confession of the gospel at the heart of the church’s gathering.

Fourth, the Lord’s Supper is eschatological anticipation—living now in light of Christ’s future return. Paul’s phrase “until he comes” places the Supper between the cross and the consummation of Christ’s kingdom (1 Cor. 11:26). Jesus himself framed the Supper with this forward-looking horizon, declaring that he would not drink again until the kingdom of God comes (Luke 22:16–18; Mark 14:25). Each observance of the Supper thus trains the church to live in hopeful expectation, anchoring present faithfulness in future fulfillment.

Fifth, the Lord’s Supper is thanksgiving—receiving Christ’s saving work with grateful faith. The institution narratives emphasize that Jesus “gave thanks” before breaking the bread, and Paul preserves that emphasis as part of the church’s practice (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). Thanksgiving is therefore not incidental but essential, expressing the posture of those who receive salvation as a gift rather than a right. At the table, gratitude guards the church from treating grace casually and reminds believers that all they have rests on Christ’s self-giving love (Hammett, 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 184–187; 205–210).

Taken together, these five meanings show that the Lord’s Supper is a theologically dense act in which remembrance, participation, proclamation, hope, and thanksgiving converge. Scripture does not invite the church to choose among these meanings, but to hold them together in one embodied practice. A faithful celebration of the Supper, therefore, must be shaped by the full range of what God intends it to communicate and accomplish among his people.

7. The Lord’s Supper calls us to look in multiple directions as we remember Jesus’s death.

Because the Lord’s Supper is multifaceted, faithful participation requires a deliberately multi-directional focus. Drawing from Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 10–11, the Supper calls believers to examine themselves, remember Christ’s work, commune with Christ, discern the body, proclaim the gospel, and anticipate Christ’s return. These “directions” help ensure that the church practices the Supper in a way that reflects its full theological weight.

First, we look within—examining ourselves so we do not eat and drink in an unworthy manner. Paul commands self-examination because the Supper involves real participation that can be received faithfully or profaned (1 Cor. 11:27–28). To eat and drink “unworthily” is to fail to discern what the Supper represents and demands, especially when sin fractures relationships within the body (1 Cor. 11:29). This inward look aims at repentance and restoration, not exclusion, so that the church may share the table without incurring discipline (1 Cor. 11:31–32).

Second, we look back—remembering Christ’s death as the foundation of our forgiveness and unity. Paul anchors the Supper in the historical reality of Jesus’s betrayal and self-giving death, ensuring that the church’s memory remains fixed on the cross (1 Cor. 11:23–25). This backward look re-centers the gathered church on the decisive act by which God reconciled sinners to himself and to one another (Rom. 5:8–10). The Supper thus repeatedly draws the church back to the event that defines its existence.

Third, we look up—celebrating our union with Christ and our participation in him. Through the bread and cup, believers participate in Christ and reaffirm their exclusive allegiance to him (1 Cor. 10:16–21). This upward focus reminds the church that the Supper is not merely horizontal fellowship but communion with the risen Lord who hosts the table. By looking up, the church acknowledges that its life and identity flow from ongoing dependence on Christ.

Fourth, we look around—discerning the body and practicing fellowship that honors the unity of the church. Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians shows that the Supper demands attention to how believers treat one another at the table (1 Cor. 11:21–22). To “discern the body” includes recognizing fellow believers as members of the same body and refusing practices that shame or divide (1 Cor. 11:29, 33). The Supper therefore calls the church to embody the unity it proclaims.

Fifth, we look outward—recognizing that the Supper proclaims the gospel to all who witness it. Paul teaches that the Supper proclaims the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26), giving it an inherently public and evangelistic dimension. While participation is reserved for believers, the act itself communicates the core of the gospel: Christ died for sinners and is coming again. The church’s faithful practice of the Supper thus bears witness to the truth it believes.

Finally, we look forward—anticipating Christ’s return and the completion of his saving work. Each celebration of the Supper points beyond itself to the future return of Christ and the final fulfillment of God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 11:26). Jesus’s own words about the coming kingdom frame the Supper as a foretaste of what is yet to come (Luke 22:16–18). This forward look sustains the church in hope and perseverance as it awaits the Lord (Naselli, “1 Corinthians,” in The ESV Bible Expository Commentary, Volume 10: Romans–Galatians, 326–328).

These six directions show that the Lord’s Supper is not a moment of narrow introspection or isolated devotion, but a comprehensive act shaping the church’s faith, relationships, witness, and hope. By looking within, back, up, around, outward, and forward, the church practices the Supper in a way that aligns with Paul’s teaching and honors Christ’s intention. The Supper thus forms believers to live faithfully between the cross and the coming kingdom.

8. The Lord’s Supper’s is reserved for believers.

With all of the previous points in mind, it is clear that the Lord’s Supper must be reserved for those who are Christians. When we take part in this ordinance, we remember not only that Jesus died, but that he died for us. Embedded within the Lord’s Supper is a call to genuinely reflect on our lives before God and (where necessary) to repent, to celebrate what Jesus did for us at the cross, and to celebrate that we are one body with fellow believers. Non-Christians cannot or will not do those things.

And yet we must always remember that the Lord’s Supper includes the proclamation of the gospel, for both Christians and non-Christians to hear:

[Jesus said] “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Co. 11:26)

A simple statement like this clarifies for Christians and non-Christians the significance of the Lord’s Supper:

“We are at this table to remember and to proclaim that Jesus died for us. His death and resurrection created the only way to know God personally; that is the gospel. If you have turned away from your sins and trusted in Jesus, then please take the bread and the cup to remember what Jesus accomplished for you. If you have not done those things, then do not partake, but please reflect on the significance of what this Christian ritual represents and how you want to respond to it.”

A statement like that encourages everyone to consider the significance of the moment and to determine if they should participate.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. Jesus’s Institution of the Supper: If Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper “as they were eating” and took the cup “after supper,” what theological meaning is carried by the meal context itself, and what is lost when the bread and cup are consistently detached from shared table fellowship? (Mark 14:22; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25)

2. The Pattern of the Early Church: In Acts 2:42–46, why does Luke distinguish between “the breaking of bread” and “they ate their food,” and what does that distinction suggest about what early Christians regularly did together in homes?

3. Participation and Church Unity: Paul links “participation” in Christ with “one bread” and “one body.” How does a shared table function as enacted unity, and how should this shape the way a church practices the Lord’s Supper across social, economic, or relational divisions? (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:33–34)

4. Allegiance at the Table: What does Paul’s contrast between “the table of the Lord” and “the table of demons” reveal about eating as a form of covenant allegiance, and how should this affect the seriousness with which the church approaches the Supper? (1 Cor. 10:18–21)

5. Reforming the Supper, Not Replacing It: Why does Paul correct abuses of the Supper without abolishing the meal itself, and what does his command to “wait for one another” require in concrete terms in your church’s context? (1 Cor. 11:20–22, 33–34)

6. Table Fellowship and the Truth of the Gospel: Why does Paul describe Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship as “not in step with the truth of the gospel,” and what does this teach us about how Supper practices can either display or distort gospel unity? (Gal. 2:11–14)

7. Proclaiming the Lord’s Death Until He Comes: Considering the Supper’s five meanings—remembrance, participation, proclamation, anticipation, and thanksgiving—which of these is most underrepresented in your church’s practice, and what would need to change for the Supper to more fully proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes? (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:24–26; Luke 22:16–20)