Should Nonbelievers Participate in Communion?
Below is an explanation of the relevant Scriptures related to having an Open or Closed Table when it comes to communion. Open Table (OT) for communion permits unbelievers to participate in communion. While Guarded Table (GT) restricts participation to believers. There are several categories for consideration when it comes to the use of communion. There are institution narratives which cover when communion was instituted by Jesus. Then there are proclamation and participation narratives which add detail to who might participate. Third, there are warning texts which explain the consequences of improper communion. The fourth category is verses which govern church leadership boundaries. Finally, we will consider who Jesus chose to fellowship with.
I. Institution Narratives
When it comes to institution narratives, the two primary texts are Luke 22:19 and Matthew 26:28. Institution narratives give us good insight into what Jesus intended for communion.
In Luke we read, “And when He had taken some bread and 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 NASB). The OT argument around this text is that the phrase “do this” is a command without stated boundary markers. This means anyone may “do this.” Furthermore, the focus is remembrance, not prior qualification. Anyone regardless of belief, might “remember” Jesus. This argument may be further buffered when we realize that the disciples did not fully understand the cross yet. Along this line of thought, remembering may function evangelistically to call others to remember and then believe who Jesus is. Meanwhile the GT argument is that Jesus chose to give communion specifically to the twelve not to all people. The meal functions as a covenant between Jesus and his followers, not a covenant between Jesus and the crowds. There was a relationship between Jesus and all who had the meal. While the word “remembrance” also may assume a pre-existing relationship.
The institution is further expounded in Matthew 26:28 when Jesus said, “for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” The OT argument here would be that the covenant is initiated by Christ's grace which is towards all people, not by human merit. We do not earn the right to have communion. Furthermore, we see that the covenant is proclaimed by Christ before the disciples faith is perfected. But we also see the GT approach which recognizes that generally covenant signs belong to covenant members. Participating in a covenant that you are not a part of is meaningless. And this carries on the Old Testament precedent that we see with the Passover being restricted to the Israelites (Exodus 12:43-48). It would seem logical that the supper parallels covenant boundary markers unless explicitly stated otherwise.
When considering these two arguments and parallel about institution narratives It strikes me that there are correct elements on both sides. All who come to church are forced by their very presence to remember and learn and be reminded of who Jesus is when communion takes place not simply by eating but by hearing and seeing. It would seem to me that a clear argument could be made one way or the other if the presence of communion was either full participation or no participation for non-believers. Witnessing communion is a form of remembrance yet without the physical sign.
II. Proclamation and Participation
Our second category of consideration are proclamation and participation narratives. These narratives from Paul suggest who might participate in communion and why they ought to participate.
Looking at 1 Corinthians 11:26 we read, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” The OT emphasis here is on the supper being proclamation. Proclamation is for those who are currently unbelievers not for believers. and in this particular case participation is embodied by proclamation you proclaim by doing. While the GT emphasis is on the word “you,” which refers to the gathered church. Proclamation here can be viewed as ecclesial testimony meaning that you are testifying to one another what you have already professed. Which is embodied by the idea that it is the church proclaiming both to itself into outsiders rather than seekers experimenting.
Next we read 1 Corinthians 10:16, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break sharing in the body of Christ?” The OT approach to this verse is that participation could invite seekers into an encounter with Jesus. It may be the moment where someone who has come to believe first realizes and takes action on their belief. In this sense the meal may serve as a means of awakening faith. Meanwhile the GT argument points out that “participation” which is the Greek word koinonia implies actual union. Therefore one cannot participate in Christ without first having faith in the form of a union with Christ. The physical sign of communion must correspond to the spiritual reality.
The tension continues in the next verse from Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:17, “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” The OT argument then shows the unity of all who are gathered and invites others into that unity. It visibly enacts reconciliation with Christ. Yet the GT interpretation of this verse continues the argument that only those already part of the body should receive its sign. That giving the sign to non-members confuses the ecclesiology.
I do not find either argument here very compelling. Regardless of what you proclaim, the truth is the truth. We are all guilty unless forgiven by the grace of God.
III. Warning Texts
The third category here is warning texts. These are texts that warn against improper use of communion. The main text for this continues 1 Corinthians 11:26 which was earlier discussed as a proclamation. We will consider the next several verses as warnings.
1 Corinthians 11:27 reads, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” The OT argument would point out that this concerns the manner of communion not the status of taking communion. Again, considering the context of Corinthians, Paul is writing against the division and selfishness which was taking place there. Meaning this text concerns the manner of communion more so than the who. This places the responsibility on the individual regarding participation in the communion. On the other hand the GT argument is that As the text says eating unworthily brings guilt concerning Christ's body. Therefore allowing unbelievers may expose them to judgment. This further indicates that pastoral protection requires guarding the table against unbelievers.
In the next verse 1 Corinthians 11:28 we read, “But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” This again, buffers the OT argument which places self-examination as a personal issue not institutional policy. Paul does not explicitly command the elders to restrict access. This is balanced by the GT argument that examination presumes faith and spiritual discernment. Unbelievers cannot rightly examine themselves in Christ without first becoming Christians.
1 Corinthians 11:29 “For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.” The key issue in this verse is what it means by “Discerning the body” which the OT suggests may mean recognizing church unity. Which again, harkens back to the original situation the Corinthians found themselves in which was relational sin not unbelief. GT argument would point to the idea that failure to discern implies a spiritual blindness. That unbelievers by definition do not discern Christ spiritually.
The key issue that either of these arguments may miss out on is that Communion in the early church looked far different than today. The issue in Corinth was that everyone brought their own food, some brought feasts while others starved. Those who brought lots of food and not to share ate the meal in an unworthy manner and brought judgment on themselves within their community. Yet even if judgment is brought upon nonbelievers from God by eating communion unworthily they are already under God’s judgement. The question is: should we protect each other from further sin? Which is true that we ought to protect one another.
IV. Church Boundaries
This next category is church boundaries. These scriptures focus on the question of who is inside the church versus outside.
A key text for this is 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” The OT argument points to the idea that the emphasis is not on belief but rather outsiders. Unbelievers may be part of the church community. Whereas this text is focused on outsiders those who are specifically not aligned with the community. Furthermore, the judgment language here refers to discipline of professing believers not of limiting unbelievers. Yet the GT argument points to the judgment language here referring to discipline of professing believers. Meaning that it may be assumed everyone having communion are in the category of professing believers. The final consideration from this text is the distinction between inside and outside. The church is not simply a building but a community and being inside the community as a Christian member of the church is symbolized by communion while being outside is to not be a part of that community.
Acts 2:41-42 provides more nuance, “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” OT Points out that this is simply descriptive not prescriptive of what the community ought to do. It does not explicitly forbid seekers from participation in communion. Yet regardless of if Acts is prescriptive or descriptive there is a clear sequence of events. Faith, then baptism, then breaking of bread. Proponents of the GT approach point to there being no example of unbelievers participating in communion.
The early church looked far different than the church today especially in Acts. It was not a community building where everyone gathered together and anyone could come in. The church was often limited to only the believers. The church was not the place where you go and find out about Jesus church was the place where Christians gather to fellowship with one another. This sort of issue throws a lot of speculation into how communion ought to take place when the purpose of the church gathering is so drastically different than the early church.
V. Table Fellowship of Jesus
The final category of consideration is the table fellowship of Jesus. Who Jesus chose to eat with.
In Luke 5:29-32 we read, “And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”” It is clear that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. Proponents of the OT argument suggest that Jesus’ table was radically inclusive. That fellowship preceded transformation. They suggest that texts like this one act as precursors to communion. Yet the GT argument focuses on the idea that communion is not simply an ordinary meal, that it is a covenant sacrament. That the Lord’s Supper is a distinct ordinance.
The final consideration here about who Jesus chose to fellowship with we must remember who was at the last supper at the institution of communion. There were disciples who had yet to witness the death and resurrection of Jesus. There were disciples who would later deny Jesus. Even Judas, who betrayed Jesus whom I would not account among Christians was at communion and received communion from Jesus. This fact alone I believe carries more weight than most of the discussion up to this point that if Jesus chose to give communion to Judas why would we deny anyone communion?
Conclusion
As we draw all these ideas to a conclusion, what is the takeaway for the church today? I would argue that the takeaway is that the church should not deny communion to any individual yet there is space to caution and teach what communion is to those in the church. It seems clear from scripture that believers after baptism may receive communion, it seems reasonable that believers before baptism would receive communion. As for unbelievers, caution is advisable, yet we should not physically deny or encourage communion.
