- A
Strong biblical arguments have been brought forward here on
the basis of OT sacrifices and the Passover.
In Lev 10, Aaron is approved by God, even though he offers a
sin offering in an irregular fashion. As Stephen Clark has
pointed out, the law required the sin offering to be eaten, but Aaron does not
do so because he cannot eat with “rejoicing and thanksgiving” (as per Deut
26:14; Hos. 9:4) in light of the death of his two sons. For Stephen, this is
evidence that God considered the sacrifice to have been offered even though one
its essential components (the eating of the flesh) had not been observed.
Would
that legitimate the irregular observance of the Lord’s Supper without one of
its essential components (the gathering of the church). I’m not persuaded that
it does. One could turn the analogy around and argue that Aaron is basically
refusing to participate in the sacrifice in an unworthy manner, comparable to
the believer who absents themselves from the table until they have made right a
grievance. Regardless, it seems to me that the very essence of the Lord’s
Supper is that it a communal meal, and for that reason it simply cannot be
observed in any sense where the church is not gathered.
A closer analogy would seem to be the observance of the
Passover in the OT. Of course, the Lord’s Supper has a strong connection to the
Passover. Just as the nation of Israel annually commemorated its rescue with a
festive meal, so the church retells its story of redemption through sacrifice when
it meets. So it is striking that in extraordinary circumstances, irregular
observance of Passover was permitted. In Exod 12 the Passover is set on the 14th
day of the first month, and in the event of ritual uncleanness this can be postponed
for one month (Num 9:6). 2 Chronicles 30 records Hezekiah’s reforms where the
temple is in need of cleansing and where Passover has not been observed at the
proper time. Once the temple is purified he issues a decree that all Israel
should gather to the proper place for worship. Although many refuse, a large
crowd gathers in Jerusalem, shares in the work of stripping way idolatrous
altars, and celebrates the Passover. They do so in an irregular way because
many of them have not purified themselves (30:17-18), and the lambs had been
sacrificed by the Levites instead of the people themselves. Despite these irregularities, highlighted by
the text (30:18), the LORD blesses the people (30:20).
This might seem to be an argument in favour of flexibility,
and the wider trajectory might also reflect a sense in which the Passover
evolves over time from a household meal to a national and centralised festival.
And yet I don’t think there is anything here that argues clearly for
flexibility in our observance of the Lord’s Supper. Passover in 2 Chron 30
remains a centralised festival for all who faithfully gathered. The LORD’s
blessing seems to be more in response to those who are observing the festival
after a period of national apostasy and who, though ritually unclean, have
joined the effort to purify Jerusalem (30:13-14). There is no reversion back to
a household celebration of the Passover, instead 2 Chron 30 looks like a step
on the way to a climactic celebration of the Passover in 2 Chron 35 under
Josiah which is now able to be celebrated at the right time and in the right
manner.
Perhaps most significantly though, I would argue that in
these instances you have an irregular but genuine observance of Passover. That
is different to the proposal to describe a meal eaten apart from one another as
the Lord’s Supper. I do not think we can say that is in any sense a Lord’s
Supper since the church family are not meeting and nor are they sharing a meal.
That raises two questions. First, what about the possibility
of households eating the Lord’s Supper together as smaller clusters of the
church? And second, can we really say that a church which shares a Zoom call
and takes bread and wine together are not in some sense a gathered church?
So, what about the idea, suggested by Andrew
Wilson and Ian
Paul that “households” could continue to share in the Lord’s Supper?
It would depend on who makes up that “household.” In this time of lockdown it
is in most cases biologically-related families. To observe the supper in those
units could I think very seriously miss the nature of the new covenant
community as a family of faith (hey, I’m a baptist after all). This is where
the parallel with Passover is weakest. In its earliest form, the Jews
celebrated it in their households as a national rescue of Abraham’s physical
descendants. The new covenant celebrates the redemption of Abraham’s children
who share his faith, and there is a real danger of obscuring that. The breaking
of bread in homes in Acts is not I think a strong counter-argument to that,
given how little we know about the size and make up of those households, save
that they were often the locations where churches would meet.
If, on the other hand, there are half a dozen Christian
housemates living together, then could they celebrate the Supper together? I’d
also be inclined to discourage that, given that this would still be “what you
do at home” compared to “when the church gathers,” to recall the language from
1 Cor 11. It would also be to celebrate a meal that very many (all those living
alone) would be excluded from.
Finally, then, what about the suggestion that a church could
meet on Zoom, with bread and wine at hand, and share in the Lord’s Supper?