With the recent fiasco concerning Joe Biden’s denial of the Eucharist, many have been asking how one can partake worthily at the Lord’s table. I recently wrote on the nature and function of the Eucharist, yet left out an important and contentious issue surrounding the state of the person who partakes. Yet again, I find the most reliable means of finding out how one should engage in regulative Christian practice is to return to the traditions. This particular issue is actually specified in a first century Christian treatise called the Didache.



On the nature of those who participate in the sacrament, the Didache has the following instructions: On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure; But let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord, “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,” saith the Lord, “and my name is wonderful among the heathen.“



And further,



“But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord’s Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.””



Therefore the earliest Christians had two primary concerns for anyone who was to partake in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, 1) they be properly baptized and 2) they confess their transgressions to their neighbor. Obviously this will appear as an early expression of what most Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans currently do. However, there are certain differences as well.



It is rather uncontentious that one must be properly baptised in the biblical formulic of “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” as prescribed in Matthew 28:19. Baptism was the means of grace whereby one experienced the new birth, sometimes called regeneration (John 3). One would enter the waters of baptism and, by faith, have their sins washed away (1 Peter 3:21) and be grafted into the body of Christ (Romans 6). Yet, something less emphasized is the state one is in when partaking of the Eucharist.



Typically in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Traditions there has been a standard of “closed communion” wherein only those who have been initiated into that particular persuasion of Christianity (typically by a form of confirmation) may partake. (There are some exceptions of course) Whereas in Anglican and Episcopal traditions there is an emphasis on open communion allowing all to participate regardless of denominational affiliation. This in many ways reflects how many churches try to facilitate who partakes of the Eucharist in a worthy manner or, more directly, while in a “state of grace.”



As the Didache states, “But let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled.” Now I used common vernacular like “being in a state of grace” for a reason. Traditionally, whether one holds to an open or closed communion, it is generally accepted that there exists a proper way to partake…hence why so many stipulations have slowly formed around who can partake. I’m not arguing whether I am for or against open communion here…or for that matter whether I hold confession to be sacramental, but I draw a connection here because it would appear the earliest Christians found it appropriate only to partake of the sacrifice if and only if one were in harmony with their neighbors. I think too often we get in skirmishes over the language of venial and mortal sins (which I totally affirm doctrinally), yet miss one of the strongest and simplest attestations of a life lived in a state of grace, loving thy neighbor.



It would appear much of this belief espoused in the Didache more than likely has its origins in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:23-26) wherein Jesus states,



“So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.”



I do enjoy these connections that can be so easily made between scripture and the early church’s confessions, creeds, and treatises. Moreover, there is something to be emphasized here that I feel Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptist, and the like can all take away from namely, sins that would, and should, bar one from Communion.



I think too often that which is constituted as mortal sin ( a sin leading to death) gets overly analytical, as is the case of most Roman Catholic churches, or, as is the case with the baptist (and other low church protestants), completely eliminated leaving such sins as rape and cheating on your homework on equal grounds. But what I find interesting is that the Didache is quite blunt about the sins that should keep one from attending the Lord’s supper and, by consequence, would omit one from the Kingdom of heaven if left unresolved. These would be sins against your neighbor which the 10 Commandments were so explicit in detailing. I’m not implying that everything Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount constitutes mortal sin, quite the opposite actually, but I am saying that Jesus in Matthew 5:23-26 is emphasizing that sins against neighbor seems to be the most severe. I would imagine Jesus, being the pious Jew that he was, imagined loving your neighbor was when you didn’t murder him or sleep with his wife or steal his belongings. Therefore it would appear that a sin leading to death would be one wherein there has been a major offense made against one’s neighbor. Enough of an offense that if left unacknowledged, one would be refused the sacrament of salvation.



These are just my thoughts, but it would seem that simply keeping the 10 commandments was not as crazy a feat that some protestants want to make it out to be and, by consequence, receiving communion would not have been as difficult as I think most Roman Catholics make it out to be. This may collapse into a larger conversation of what is and is not a mortal sin and whether Roman Catholics offer a sufficient categorical definition and if some protestants, by rejecting such a category, are in error.



But it would appear for simplicity’s sake, if one is guilty of sin against neighbor and has not received forgiveness from the offended party, whether through lack of effort on the guilty party or forgiveness from the offended, then they were not allowed to partake of the Eucharist. If one continued in this state they were eventually excommunicated.



As Matthew 18 explains, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”



I think this is an interesting take on an early depiction of how the Church dealt with sin, salvation, and the Lord’s Table. I also can’t help but wonder at how much more efficient the church would be at dispensing justice to the victims of crimes if they were to bar the Lord’s table from those who have offended their neighbor as opposed to those who disagree with them doctrinally. I also think this would force us to reevaluate how we view the relationship between God’s justice and mercy when the fate (and hope of salvation) of the guilty party is in the hands of the victim.



Recall for a moment those horrific case of sexual abuse within the church…both Roman Catholic and protestant. Could you imagine what it would look like to place the power back in the hands of the oppressed as they exercised the right to loose or bind one’s sins as Jesus commanded?



Something to think about…



“He who spares the wicked, injures the good”

