Who Should Serve the Elements of the Lord’s Supper? Who may offer and who may withhold the bread and the wine? - by O. Palmer Robertson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------------

Hot on the heals of our recent post regarding who can receive communion comes this article regarding who can administer it.

And once again we find an author who does not teach the Bible, he teaches his tradition. Worse, the author only manages to quote one verse and snippets of four others in a 2050 + word essay. Incredible. How does one explain doctrines without quoting the Bible?

We therefore must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

-------------------------------

Introduction

It’s a celebration, a festive moment in the life of the church. (Oh, really? We are almost certain that communion in the author's church is a somber, reflective ritual, and no one is festively celebrating.)

So should not everyone be able to serve the elements of the Lord’s supper? (Notice that the author wants qualifications to "serve" the elements, i.e., passing out the stale little cracker and the tiny cup of grape juice.)

Sometimes in a special celebration, everyone enjoys having young children pass out snacks and sweets as they move about among the people. So perhaps even children should be allowed to serve the bread and the wine? (The answer will be no, of course.)

But the Lord’s supper is a very special celebration. As Jesus indicated, by sharing these simple elements, you show forth the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26). (Let's quote: 

1 Cor. 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Nothing here about a Sunday morning ritual, or even a celebration. And Paul wrote "whenever," which means a regular, though unspecified occurrence, like a regular fellowship meal.

Remember, this verse appears in the context of Paul's rebuke to the Corinthian church regarding their conduct during the Lord's Supper. He scolded them: 

1 Cor. 11:21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.

The obvious question is, how does one eat and drink so much during a somber ritual with a little piece of bread and a splash of juice? The answer is, communion was never intended to be a ritual, it is the gathering of the saints to share an actual meal together.)

Remembering the death of the Lord Jesus makes this moment more sacred than any other celebration and remembrance. (A statement that contains no information.)

Because of its uniqueness, it binds all participants in the fellowship of Christ’s love. (A statement that contains no information.)q

It also provides a distinctive opportunity for encouraging the whole body of believers in their life of discipleship to Christ. (A statement that contains no information.)

So who should serve the elements of the Lord’s supper? (The author is apparently now ready to answer the question.)

The distinctive role of the sacrament (The author will uses this undefined term seven times.)

of the Lord’s supper in deepening the discipleship commitments of every member of Christ’s church deserves special notice. (A statement that contains no information.)

Three marks essential to identifying a true church of the Lord Jesus Christ have been emphasized since the time of the protestant reformation: the true preaching of the Word, the true administration of the sacraments, and the true exercise of discipline.[i]

As each prospective participant in the Lord’s supper presents himself for receiving the bread and the wine, the ongoing validity of a person’s profession is being publicly reaffirmed. While baptism serves as the one-time sacramental entry into the community of the covenant, (??? What a jumble of words!)

the Lord’s supper serves as the sacrament of ongoing continuation in the life of God’s redeemed people. (A statement that contains no information.)

Who is responsible for determining a person’s readiness to receive the Lord’s Supper?

To confirm the validity of a person’s participation in this high and holy moment, the prospective communicant is instructed specifically by Scripture to “examine himself” (1 Cor. 11:2) (The author has now answered the question.)

He must search his soul to be sure that he has no unconfessed sin for which he has not repented. Otherwise, he “drinks damnation to himself” (1 Cor. 11:29). (Let's quote these two verses: 

1Cor. 11:28-29 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

With the verses before us we see that sin is not mentioned. This moment of introspection is not part of a communion ritual, it is not about confessing personal sin, and it is not a prerequisite to determine fitness to participate in a ceremony.

The author leaves out the real reason for the introspection. Paul tells us about recognizing the body of the Lord. The Corinthian church was dishonoring the Body, their fellow believers, by letting them go hungry. 

As Paul continues his teaching we find this: 

1 Cor. 12:22-23 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor.

Do you see it, dear reader? This all is actually one contained teaching. Paul uses their community meals as a springboard to teach about how the Body works, who is treated specially, and how the Body ought to work together.

The author misses the point completely.)

But self-testing is not the only evaluation that should be made. Otherwise the society of the church would be like a civil community that had no traffic regulations. Each person would decide for himself by his own personal judgment as to whether or not he should stop his automobile before entering a busy intersection. Each person would make his own judgment as to whether he should drive at 25 or 50 miles per hour in an elementary school zone. With such a perspective in operation, clashes and crashes among citizens of the community would be inevitable. (The author dismisses the biblical criteria with a wave of the hand.)

The people responsible under God for maintaining moral purity and sound faith among the congregation have an equal responsibility for making a decision at the time of the celebration of the Lord’s supper. (Undocumented assertion.)

Is this person approaching the table of the Lord a repentant sinner whose lifestyle continues to reaffirm his profession that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior from sin? Does he display by word and deed his ongoing faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for sinners as the only way of salvation? (Where in the Bible do we find this information?)

But who is to make this evaluation? It is unthinkable that each and every member of a congregation would have the right and the boldness to deny to any other member of the congregation access to the Lord’s table. (It is unthinkable that a church sitting down for a potluck would exclude anyone. That's the closest analog for communion we have, a potluck.)

This kind of evaluation can be performed only by the elders of the church as they meet in a body to consider these type issues. (Where in the Bible do we find this information?)

The “ruling elders” have been recognized by the congregation as manifesting the gifts of the Spirit necessary for governing the church. (Where in the Bible do we find this information? In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that discusses congregational recognition regarding elders.)

The “teaching elder,” the pastor, (The teaching elder is not the pastor.)

has been formally called by the congregation. (i.e., the paid staffer, the expert, the top of the pyramid.

The author arbitrarily inserts this tidbit about the pastor. However, the pastor as a paid staffer/teacher is completely irrelevant to communion.)

These elders are the ones responsible for “shepherding the flock of God” (1 Pet. 5:2). In some cases only the elders of the church would know that a particular person was under their discipline. (So this is about what the elders happen to know about a congregant? They have information to stop this person at the door and tell him he may not partake? Because they know this person is unrepentant? 

But isn't the ritual itself intended to give opportunity for repentance? How would the elders know that the person isn't going to repent?

What a muddled mess.)

Only they would be aware of the fact that a certain person should be denied access to the Lord’s table until he or she has clearly repented of their erroneous ways or beliefs. (If confronted before the communion ritual, this person would remain in his seat and not receive the elements. This seems like a pretty clear tell he is unrepentant.)

In addition, it would take some strength – strength provided by virtue of the authority of the office of elder – for a person distributing the elements to actually deny a particular individual access to the Lord’s table. (Yeah, so instead the unrepentant person actually rises to receive the elements. And because it's somehow the church's business who partakes, now the situation escalates to a public exposé. Which of course will contribute to the somber, respectful atmosphere. Right?

We wonder what would happen if the person wrested the elements from the elder's hand. Would the person be bodily tossed out?

The potential pitfalls of prequalifying every person seems pretty hardnosed, especially since none of this is found in the Bible.)

But if any and all members of the congregation are allowed to serve the elements of the Lord’s supper, then the “discipling” essential for the well-being of the church has been seriously weakened. (In what way is the well-being of the church weakened?)

It must be admitted that rare are the instances in which a church member is actually denied access to the Lord’s table in the practice of today’s protestant churches. Yet it does happen on occasion. Yet whenever the elders serve the Lord’s supper, they are concretely exercising their oversight of the congregation. Still further, each time members of the congregation are welcomed to the celebration at the Lord’s table by the recognized leaders of the church, they are receiving significant spiritual encouragement. These godly leaders are confirming their people’s ongoing faith-profession. The congregation also experiences the blessing of becoming more intimately acquainted with their elders by the public presence at each celebration of the Lord’s supper. (Perhaps our wayward congregant could benefit by this encouragement?)

But sometimes an adequate number of elders may not be available for the distribution of the elements. What then should a church do?

At this point it may be remembered that in at least one ecclesiastical community, no group of believers can be established as a church without at least one ruling and one teaching elder, or two ruling elders.[ii] (A reference to a denominational document, not the Bible.)

The foundation for this principle finds its root in the practice of the Apostle Paul, who “established elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). (Not pastors?)

In every city, town or village where the Lord establishes a church, he raises up an eldership to lead those believers—and God through the gifting of the Holy Spirit has been doing that very thing for the past 2000 years. If a local congregation at some point in their existence lacks adequate eldership, let them pray with expectation that God will provide. Let the pastor or session set up a nominating, training and election procedure. (The pastor has this authority? Where do we find this in the Bible?)

Let the congregation nominate and elect qualified men (Where do we find this process in the Bible?)

—always trusting that the Lord will provide the church’s need for elders gifted by the Holy Spirit to lead. But where elders are still lacking, it can be an enriching experience for “borrowed” elders from other congregations to join in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. (The edifice gets even more elaborate. Once again we ask, where do we find this in the Bible?)

In these circumstances, the sacrament may not occur as frequently as people might like. But the Apostle Paul notes that the Lord used the phrase “as often as” in describing the frequency of the celebration of the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:25), implying that it need not occur on a rigid schedule. (Actually, there is no need to infer any implication. The meaning is clear. Whenever the church gathers together for a meal, that's how often it is communion.)

For some churches, a weekly celebration can greatly bless the congregation, though such regularity can quickly degenerate into a rushed routine. For other churches, a monthly or quarterly celebration of the Lord’s supper allows for an appropriate recognition of its specialness. So “borrowed” elders need not be a phenomenon requiring special arrangements for every Sunday’s worship service.

Who is qualified to administer church discipline?

But the loss of a cardinal aspect of the church’s discipling process through a failure to properly administer the Lord’s supper can eventually lead to a failure to deal with serious problems in doctrines and morals among God’s people. Elders have been established by God to exercise authority over the church for its well-being. This authority is regularly and publicly exercised when the elders offer to a person, or withhold from a person, the bread and the wine of the Lord’s supper. Because of the authority exercised by the offering or withholding the elements, no one other than elders should distribute the bread and the wine as a very concrete way of exercising authority over church members. (The author keeps adding more complexity. Because this ritual requires policing, the elders must do it. Otherwise the church will fall apart, apparently. But none of this is in the Bible!)

Because Scripture says, “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12), women more specifically should not exercise authority over a man in church by either withholding from a man or offering to a man the elements of the Lord’s supper. (Whoa. Now the passing out of bread and crackers is a matter of authority. Incredible.)

Paul grounds his reasons for a woman’s not being allowed to exercise authority over a man on the three most critical moments in the history of humanity: at creation, fall and redemption. At creation, the man received priority from God by being created first; in the fall, the woman was first tempted and took the forbidden fruit, rather than the man; and in redemption, the woman’s participation was through bringing forth the saving seed and continuing in faith, love and holiness with self-control, but not by exercising authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12-15).[iii] No stronger reasons could be proposed for explaining why women must not exercise authority over men in the church. (The author holds to the traditional meaning of this verse, that it's referring to church activities and the leadership of women in the church.

However, there is no indication from the text that this describing church operation or authority. Rather, it seems much more likely that Paul was writing about the marriage relationship. We discuss this in detail here.)

Yet because contemporary culture denies all three of these critical moments in human history, it has no problem asserting that women may exercise authority over men in the church.

It was my personal experience to live through the transition in the original Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS, the “Southern” Presbyterian Church). I vividly remember the first time an ordained woman ruling elder appeared at a Presbytery meeting. Though a young minister freshly ordained, I ventured to register my protest before the body at her presence as a member of Presbytery. Interestingly, at the lunch break, this woman came to me and said, “I agree with you! I don’t know what I’m doing here.” But it was not long afterwards that women were also ordained as teaching elders, as ministers of the Word as well as ruling elders. (It's not about ordination or ministers of the word, it's about the biblical requirement that elders be men. Women cannot be elders because women are not men.)

Conclusion

In the famous “Journey to Canossa” of January 1077, Henry IV, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, knelt barefoot in the snow with only a hairy shirt for three days before Pope Gregory VII. Only then would the pope allow him the privilege of taking communion. The political circumstances surrounding this incident on the part of the emperor and the pope do not provide a model to be followed by the church today. But many a corrupt politician might be brought to his knees if the elders of his church denied him access to the Lord’s table until a public sin had been properly dealt with by public repentance.

In more recent history, a sitting president of the United States was denied communion by a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church because of the president’s views on abortion (cf. the CNN report of 10/29/19). The president subsequently made a trip to the Vatican and came out all smiles. The pope indicated that he had “never refused the eucharist to anyone” (The Hill, 10/29/21).

In still more recent history, a governor of a particular state was apparently a member of a presbyterian church. While in office, this governor vetoed a bill passed by the state legislature that limited abortions. His veto was overturned by the state legislature. But what if that overturned veto had been reinforced by the session of that presbyterian church by denying the governor access to the Lord’s table because of his views regarding abortion?

If only ministers and elders of evangelical protestant denominations would display equal courage of their convictions as that bishop of the Roman Catholic church! A biblical order of the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper would provide a meaningful framework for the exercise of proper shepherding of the flock at the high and holy moment of the distribution of the elements of the Lord’s supper.

The celebration of the Lord’s supper is not a congregational party. It involves a holy remembrance of our Lord’s sufferings and death, the sacrifice of his body, the outpouring of his lifeblood shed for our sins. In this sacred service, Christ calls every confessing member of his church to heart-felt repentance and renewed faith.

The vital marks of a healthy church of Christ include the true preaching of the Word, the true administration of the sacraments, and the true exercise of discipline. May the Lord of his church provide all the grace necessary for his church to serve as the light of the world in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.

O. Palmer Robertson


[i] Some reformed theologians have regarded the exercise of discipline as a function rather than a mark of the church. But from either perspective, the vital significance of church discipline remains essential to the life and well-being of God’s people.

[ii] The Book of Church Order, The Presbyterian Church in America, 5-9 (a), 12-1.

[iii] For a fuller treatment of this passage, see O. Palmer Robertson, A New Testament Biblical Theology. The Christ of the Consummation. Volume 2: The Testimony of Acts and Paul (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2025), 456-461