What is the Lord's Supper, and who may take it?

Jesus gave it on the night he was betrayed

At his last Passover with his disciples, with the plot against him already under way, Jesus gave them bread and the cup. Matthew records it:

Mark records the same words, and that every one at the table drank:

Luke names who sat with him, and records the command to keep doing it:

Several things stand out in these words.

The body is Jesus' own body, about to die. Just before the meal, when a woman anointed him, he said:

The cup is about his blood, shed for many for the remission of sins, and about the new testament (the new covenant) in that blood. It is not about a drink's power to quench thirst. Yet both Matthew and Mark still call what is in the cup "fruit of the vine".

There is thanksgiving, there is the command to do it in remembrance of him, and there is a look forward: he will drink it new in his Father's kingdom.

The setting around the meal also holds the coming betrayal and Jesus' warning that the disciples would fail him and scatter. The prophecies quoted there were read in their own chapters: Zechariah 13, of the shepherd who is struck, and Isaiah 53, of the suffering servant numbered with the transgressors, which belongs to the death Luke 22 describes.

The church received the same meal

Paul tells the church at Corinth that this meal came to them from the Lord himself:

The same night, the same bread and cup, the same words about body, blood and remembrance: Paul's meal is Jesus' meal, not simply another meal with bread. In 11:26 Paul explains what the repeated act means. Each time it is eaten, it shows the Lord's death, and it goes on until he comes. That is Scripture explaining its own words.

Paul gave this to the whole church, not to the twelve apostles only. His letter is addressed this way:

He speaks to them as they gather together as a church:

And the members of that church do not all hold one office:

So the meal is not kept for apostles, or for the holders of any one office.

It is not just any meal

Breaking bread does not, on its own, make a meal the Lord's Supper. Paul draws the line himself, when he rebukes how the Corinthians were eating:

His rebuke does not abolish the meal. He goes straight on to recount how Jesus gave it, and orders how to eat it rightly. What he condemns is a private, divided meal where some go hungry, some get drunk, and the poor are shamed: a meal that contradicts what the Lord's Supper is. Hunger is to be met at home.

After his resurrection, Jesus was recognised by two disciples at a meal:

That account has no cup and no command of remembrance, so a likeness alone cannot make every shared meal this meal. What marks out the Lord's Supper is Jesus' institution and Paul's explanation of it.

The word "supper" is also used for other things. Jesus uses it for ordinary hospitality and in a parable:

Revelation uses it for a marriage blessing, and later in the same chapter for a summons to birds:

None of these can be made the church's bread and cup just because they share the word "supper". The marriage supper of Revelation 19:9 stays distinct from the repeated meal kept "till he come"; nothing beyond that shared forward hope joins them.

Ruled out: that the Lord's Supper is an ordinary private meal, or that any breaking of bread automatically is this meal. 1 Corinthians 11:20-22 separates the Lord's meal from private suppers, and 11:24-26 gives it its own remembrance and proclamation.

The new testament in his blood

"Testament" here means covenant. Jesus ties his blood to a new covenant, and other passages show what that covenant concerns. Hebrews says:

The earlier covenant at Sinai was sealed with sacrificial blood, and the people promised obedience:

And the LORD promised a new covenant, unlike that one:

Hebrews 8 and 10 quote this promise. In Jeremiah it stands among promises to restore Israel and Judah, with the law written in the heart, knowledge of the LORD, and forgiveness. So "the new testament in my blood" concerns Jesus' death, his mediation, and forgiveness. It is not a name for a collection of writings. The link these passages show is covenant and blood. It does not make every rule of the earlier meals a rule of this one.

Communion in his body and blood, and one body

Paul asks two questions that expect the answer yes, and then reasons from the one loaf to the one people:

"Communion" means sharing, fellowship. The meal is real communion in Christ's body and blood. Paul compares it with other sacred meals:

Eating of an altar's sacrifices meant sharing in that altar. Eating what was sacrificed to devils meant fellowship with devils. The comparison does not say that sacrificed food turns into an altar or a devil. So it shows real fellowship, and real accountability, through eating, without describing any change in what the food is made of.

The "one body" is also Christ's people. Paul says so plainly:

Other letters say the same, and join that one body with care for one another, peace and thankfulness:

Ephesians 5 names its own subject: Christ and the church. It says nothing about what the bread is made of. Together these passages show that remembering Christ and caring for his people belong together. Neither can replace the other. None of them sets an age, ancestry, wealth or office requirement for the meal.

Ruled out: that the meal is only a thought about an absent event, with no communion in Christ's body and blood and no bond with fellow members. Remembrance is commanded, but denying communion would make the questions of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 false.

One offering, once for all

Hebrews says:

So the Supper is not another offering to supply what Christ's offering lacked. Paul calls the repeated eating a showing of his death (1 Corinthians 11:26), not a new sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews draws its words from Psalm 40, which was read together with Psalm 41, and Hebrews 10:8-10 gives its own explanation of them:

The word "remembrance" also appears in Hebrews, but for something quite different:

That remembrance belongs to offerings repeated because they could not finish the work. The Supper remembers Christ and shows his death. Sharing one word does not make it that kind of offering.

Peter speaks of the same body given in death:

Scripture does call some things sacrifices in a different sense:

So describing the meal as thanksgiving or praise is not refuted. Malachi foretells a pure offering among the Gentiles:

That verse does not say Christ must be offered again for sins, and Hebrews 10:10, 12, 14 and 18 still stand.

Ruled out: that repeating the meal offers another sacrifice for sin, because the first was not enough. Hebrews 10:10, 12, 14 and 18 rule it out.

What Scripture teaches about the meal

Scripture teaches this: the Lord's Supper is the meal Jesus instituted with bread and the cup, concerning his body given for his disciples and his blood of the new testament shed for the remission of sins. His people are to do it in remembrance of him, showing his death until he comes.

Scripture teaches this: the meal is communion in Christ's body and blood, and a shared act of his one body.

Scripture teaches this: Christ's one offering is sufficient, and the repeated eating proclaims it rather than adding to it.

These rest on Scripture's direct statements and commands, not merely on other readings having failed. One part of this is left open by the reading: exactly how the bread and cup are communion in Christ's body and blood. That is explained under "What this reading leaves open", further down.

Jesus' disciples, gathered as his church

The first to receive the meal were Jesus' disciples, and Paul delivered the same meal to the church (1 Corinthians 1:2; 11:23). How did people come into that fellowship? On the day of Pentecost Peter said:

Jesus himself commanded baptism as part of making disciples:

The Corinthians, to whom Paul wrote about the Supper, are described this way:

In 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 Paul confirms that there were baptisms among them, while making clear that his own task was preaching:

That does not cancel baptism. It only separates Paul's commission from the question of who did the baptizing.

Across the baptism passages that were read, baptism is tied to Jesus' name, to faith, to his death and resurrection, to new life, to the Spirit, and to belonging to his people:

In one account the Holy Spirit came before water baptism, and the water was still commanded:

So baptism is not optional. Nor can the timing of the Spirit's gift simply be equated with the water. Acts 10 is about baptism; it does not report anyone receiving the Supper in the meantime. In the same way, "baptized into one body" in 1 Corinthians 12:13 (quoted further down) says "by one Spirit", so it cannot just be assumed to mean the water rite as a separate legal gate.

When Apollos came to Achaia, the disciples there were urged to receive him:

That passage says nothing about his taking the Supper. None of these passages gives an example of an unbaptized person taking it.

Ruled out: that baptism is optional for disciples because the Supper passage only says to examine and eat. Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 10:48 rule it out. The instruction about the Supper does not repeal Jesus' other commands.

Scripture teaches this: baptism is commanded, and the ordinary order Scripture shows is people who receive the word, are baptized, and continue together in the apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers. Whether a believing disciple who is waiting to be baptized must be refused the meal in the meantime is a narrower question. This reading leaves it open, for reasons explained further down.

Examine yourself, then eat

After recounting how Jesus gave the meal, Paul warns:

The warning reaches whoever eats and drinks unworthily. It is not limited to one wealthy person in Corinth. Its setting shows at least the conduct Paul condemns: divisions, each taking a private supper ahead of others, some left hungry, some drunk, and the poor shamed (1 Corinthians 11:18 and 11:20-22). But the commands to examine and to discern cannot be shrunk down to checking how much food is eaten.

"Unworthily" describes how a person eats and drinks. It does not say that only people of personal merit may come. The order Paul gives is: examine yourself, and then eat and drink. To examine is to test, not to declare oneself faultless. So the remedy is not to stay away, but to judge oneself, turn from the wrong, honour Christ's gift, and wait for one another.

John's first letter shows what true fellowship looks like:

Paul tells the same church:

These verses are not a procedure for the Supper. They show what faithful fellowship and repentance are: confessing sin and being cleansed belong with fellowship, while holding on to darkness contradicts it. The link is fellowship with the Son and cleansing by his blood.

The judgement in the warning is real. Paul says many at Corinth were weak, sick, and had died. But Paul himself goes on to explain it: the Lord's judgement of his people is chastening, "that we should not be condemned with the world" (1 Corinthians 11:32). So it is false to treat the warning as harmless. It is equally false to read 11:29 as saying that every such eater has already been finally condemned with the world. Paul's account of Corinth does not explain any present-day person's illness.

Ruled out:

• That only people with no sin and personal merit may eat, and anyone aware of sin must stay away indefinitely. 1 John 1:7-9 and 1 Corinthians 11:28, 33 rule it out: the very people told to admit their sin, confess it, judge themselves and correct their conduct are told to eat. This gives no permission to cling to sin.
• That "damnation" in 11:29 always means final condemnation with the world, or proves a verdict on every eater's soul. 1 Corinthians 11:32 rules it out. Treating the warning as unreal is ruled out too, by 11:27 and 11:29-30.

Scripture teaches this: the person taking the Supper must examine themselves and discern the Lord's body, and then eat and drink. The invitation is neither open to anyone regardless of allegiance to Christ, nor a call to stay away until a person is perfect.

Real limits: allegiance, and the church's discipline

In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul writes to believers he calls brethren and dearly beloved. He begins with Israel in the wilderness, who shared real privileges and yet fell under judgement, as examples for his hearers:

Paul names Christ as that Rock without describing any process behind it. The quotation comes from the feast at the golden calf's altar:

Then Paul commands:

Paul still permits an ordinary meal in an unbeliever's home:

He goes on to hold back from food identified as offered to idols, for the sake of the other person's conscience. Paul's quotation comes from a psalm about the LORD's ownership and holiness:

So an ordinary meal is one thing and the Lord's table is another. What the meal is, who hosts it, and what allegiance it expresses all matter. Paul's permission for ordinary meals is not an open invitation to the Lord's table.

There is also a duty that belongs to the church as a whole, not only to each person. Paul writes about a man in the church living with his father's wife:

"No not to eat" is broad enough to include the church's gathered meal. Making an exception for the Lord's Supper has no support in the passage, and it would keep at the table the very person the passage says to remove. This discipline concerns those within the church. It does not treat every outsider as someone the church disciplines, and it does not forbid ordinary meals with unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:10-13; 10:27).

Paul also writes:

Jesus warns against treating holy things with contempt, but first tells each person to deal with their own fault:

This calls for care that holy things are not trampled. It does not label any unfamiliar person, child, or weak believer a dog or a swine, and it names no admission office and no age. Through Malachi, the LORD rebukes contempt for his table:

Ruled out:

• That every person present may take it, without faith, repentance or allegiance to Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:21, 11:28-29 and 5:11 rule it out. "Drink ye all of it" (Matthew 26:27) was said to the disciples receiving Jesus' institution, and does not undo those limits.
• That personal self-examination removes the church's duty toward a person called a brother who bears the conduct named in 1 Corinthians 5. 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 5:13 rule it out. The personal command and the church's commands reach different responsibilities, and both stand.

Scripture teaches this: there are real limits of allegiance and fellowship at the Lord's table. This general teaching gives no verdict on any absent person's actual case.

Correction and restoration both remain

Jesus gives a process for when a brother does wrong:

The final step depends on the person refusing to listen. It is not a licence to shut someone out on a private suspicion.

Forgiveness is commanded where there is repentance, even when it is repeated:

Paul tells the Corinthians, about someone already disciplined:

That passage does not name the person, so it is not assumed here to be the man of 1 Corinthians 5. Restoring a fallen person is to be done gently, with an eye on oneself:

Ruled out: that anyone who has sinned must be shut out forever, even when they turn back. Luke 17:3-4 and 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 rule it out. Forgiveness and comfort are commands. Restoration is not permission to ignore present evil.

Mercy where an earlier holy-meal rule was not met

Some Old Testament accounts show mercy when a holy-meal rule was not kept, and they belong in this answer because they qualify any strict appeal to the earlier rules. Under King Hezekiah, many ate the Passover without the cleansing the law required:

The account calls it "otherwise than it was written" and asks for pardon. It does not call the written rule meaningless. Hezekiah's prayer is for those who prepare their hearts to seek God, and the LORD's answer is recorded. This refutes the idea that every failure at a holy meal puts mercy out of reach. It does not say that baptism or self-examination may be set aside at the Supper.

David once received holy bread when there was no ordinary bread, though the law gave it to the priests:

Jesus himself points to this, when his disciples were condemned for how they ate:

Jesus appeals to hunger, to his own authority, and to mercy. The words he quotes come from Hosea, where mercy stands right beside a condemnation of covenant unfaithfulness:

So mercy cannot be turned into indifference to evil. Jesus also explains why he ate with sinners:

Those ordinary meals aimed at repentance. They are not the institution of the Supper.

Taken together, these show that an earlier legal restriction cannot simply be carried over to the Supper without Christ's own teaching about mercy. They do not repeal the Supper's direct warning, and they do not on their own decide the narrow question about waiting for baptism.

Ruled out:

• That no failure can ever receive mercy. 2 Chronicles 30:18-20 and Jesus' explanation in Matthew 12:7 rule it out.
• That mercy allows a person to carry on in evil. Hosea 6:7, 1 John 1:6 and 1 Corinthians 5:11 rule it out.

One body, open to every kind of people

The meal belongs to the one body, and Scripture says who is in that body:

The baptism passages that were read do not make belonging a reward for wealth, office, nationality or sex. Paul's command to eat and to wait for one another is given to the whole gathered church, and he rebukes those who shame "them that have not" (1 Corinthians 11:22). People serve differently in the body, but that does not make them differently entitled to share its one bread.

Ruled out: that only the original apostles, or only men, or only the wealthy, or only one ancestry may take it. 1 Corinthians 11:22, 28 and 33, with 10:17, 12:13, 12:27-29 and Galatians 3:26-28, rule it out.

Children

Children are not to be shut out from Christ, or treated as unable to believe, simply because they are children:

Jesus welcomed children, infants included:

These scenes must be honoured as Jesus' welcome and blessing of children. What happens in them is touch, prayer and blessing. There is no bread and cup in them, so they cannot be made a command to give the Supper to infants without dealing with the commands to examine and discern (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). Those commands, in turn, give no age of admission, and do not say that only adults can examine themselves.

Paul also says something real about the children of a believer:

This must not be denied: a believer's children are not to be treated as unclean outsiders. But the verse is a reason Paul gives for staying in a marriage, and the same sentence still calls the spouse "unbelieving". It does not say to give children the bread and cup, it does not vouch for their personal faith, and it does not exempt them from the commands of chapter 11, which were written to the same church.

The word "sanctified" was checked in its other uses, and they name different things: people washed and justified, flesh purified by animal rites, disciples set apart through the truth, Jesus setting himself apart, a gift made holy by the altar, and food received with thanksgiving and prayer:

So the word alone cannot be read as a certificate that whoever it describes believes, or may take the Supper. The marriage setting decides its sense in 1 Corinthians 7:14.

Jesus once spoke of "the children's bread" when a Gentile woman asked him to free her daughter. The account ends this way:

That saying concerns her request for her daughter, not the bread and cup of the Supper. It cannot prove that Gentiles are shut out from Christ forever, or that infants should be given the Supper.

So, from what was read: a child who believes and can take part under the same commands to examine and discern is not shut out by being a child. Scripture as read here gives no numbered age. Admission on parentage alone, with no regard to the child's own faith, examination or discernment, is unsupported. Saying that age by itself exempts anyone from the commands conflicts with how generally they are given.

Ruled out:

• That Jesus' welcome and blessing of infants is itself a command to give them this meal without examination or discernment. That step has no carrying words in Matthew 19:13-15 or Luke 18:15-17, and an exemption from the commands conflicts with 1 Corinthians 11:28-29.
• That all children must be excluded because none can believe or discern. The idea that children cannot believe is ruled out by Matthew 18:6, and 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 gives duties, not an adult age.

Whether a particular child can take part as commanded depends on circumstances that have not been shared. No judgement about any child is made here.

Earlier holy meals and holy places

The Supper was instituted at Passover, and Paul calls Christ our Passover. The Passover had a defined boundary:

It also had an express provision for those prevented from keeping it at the set time:

Paul makes the link, and then applies it himself:

These are real links, and they are the strongest support for the Supper being a covenant meal with a defined boundary rather than a meal for anyone at all. But Paul turns the leaven into malice and wickedness, and the unleavened bread into sincerity and truth. He does not carry circumcision over into a "baptism before eating" law, and he does not turn household membership into an exemption from self-examination.

The apostles refused to require Gentile believers to be circumcised and keep the law, while keeping certain limits:

The prophecy they quoted about the Gentiles was read in its own chapter, Amos 9. Putting Exodus 12's circumcision rule literally on every Supper participant would conflict with Acts 15:24 and with the Gentiles' place in the one body (1 Corinthians 12:13). Putting baptism in circumcision's place within that exact rule would need a further link that was not found. Colossians 2:11-12 joins a circumcision "made without hands" with baptism and faith, but it does not state that swap as a law for the meal.

Ezekiel gives a sanctuary boundary:

This, with Malachi 1:7, strengthens the call not to treat God's holy things with contempt. But Ezekiel's rule comes with fleshly circumcision, a particular priestly family and other temple duties. It is not an account of Jesus giving bread and cup to his gathered church, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Acts 15:24 keep it from being made one.

Hebrews speaks of an altar some have no right to eat from:

The background is the law that certain sin offerings were not to be eaten at all:

Hebrews is contrasting tabernacle service with going to Jesus outside the camp and offering praise and good works. It is not an account of the Supper's institution, and it does not divide clergy from other members at the bread and cup.

Ruled out: that the Passover circumcision law directly governs every Gentile who takes the Supper. Acts 15:24 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 rule it out. The link of Christ as Passover does not make every earlier admission law a law of the new meal.

Unsupported: that Hebrews 13:10 sets up a special class of people who alone may eat the Supper, or describes what happens to the bread and cup. Its own setting in Hebrews 13:9-16 does not say this.

How often

The examples differ. One gathering was on the first day of the week:

Another account records breaking bread daily:

And Paul says "as often as ye eat this bread" (1 Corinthians 11:26), which gives the meal's meaning and how long it continues, not a fixed interval.

Unsupported: that these accounts prove one required schedule, whether every first day, every day, or once a year. They give examples; they do not lay down a schedule.

John 6: eating his flesh and drinking his blood

John 6 contains Jesus' strongest words about eating and drinking, and they must keep their full force. He speaks the day after feeding a crowd, when people come looking for more food. He corrects what they are seeking and points them to faith:

They bring up the manna:

The passages behind that saying were read in their own chapters. They tell of God's gift in the wilderness, given to people in need, and Nehemiah 9 and Psalm 78 also tell of the unbelief and disobedience that followed:

Jesus then speaks of himself, of faith, and of his flesh:

The words he quotes come from Isaiah's promise of restoration and peace:

Jesus applies it himself: hearing and learning from the Father, and coming to him. Neither the manna passages nor Isaiah give a list of who may come to a church meal. Jesus continues:

Jesus also says elsewhere:

What this passage firmly shows:

• Faith cannot be removed from what it means to receive him.
• His flesh, given for the life of the world, cannot be called useless by taking 6:63 apart from 6:51. Verse 63 points to the life-giving Spirit and to Jesus' words; it does not cancel his gift.
• John 6 and the Supper do speak to the same subject: Jesus' flesh and blood given for others, and life through him. But John 6 does not narrate the institution or mention its cup, so it is not proof that John 6 speaks only of the later bread-and-cup meal.
• Paul warns that taking the bread and cup can bring guilt and judgement (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). So the bare physical act cannot simply be the same as the receiving in John 6:54, which has eternal life and resurrection.
• John 6:47 says the believer has everlasting life now, while 6:51 speaks of the flesh he "will give". So a rule that no believer can have life until they first receive a later physical meal does not fit Jesus' own words. That does not permit neglecting his command to remember him.

Ruled out:

• That John 6:54 promises life to everyone who physically receives the bread and cup, whatever their faith or manner. John 6:35, 47 and 64, with 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, rule it out.
• That Jesus' body-and-blood words can be set aside because 6:63 says "the flesh profiteth nothing". John 6:51 and 6:55, with Luke 22:19-20, rule it out.

How exactly John 6 relates to the later meal is part of what this reading leaves open, below.

Judas at the table

Luke places the betrayer at the table right after the bread and cup:

John records:

The words Jesus quotes come from a psalm of lament, read whole:

Being at the table did not make a heart clean. Being present is something that happened; it is not permission.

Ruled out: that Judas' place at the table permits betrayal, or permits anyone at all to receive. Luke 22:21-22, with 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, rules it out. Taking the meal does not vouch for anyone's heart, and nothing about any present person's heart is drawn from attending.

Four narrow questions remain. On each, two descriptions keep every verse that was gathered true, and none of those verses decides between them. That is not a claim that Scripture contradicts itself, and not a claim that Scripture is silent.

1. Exactly how the bread and cup are communion in Christ's body and blood

What is firm: the bread and cup truly relate to Christ's body and blood (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 10:16). The meal is remembrance and proclamation (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). Scripture still calls them bread and fruit of the vine (1 Corinthians 11:26-28; Matthew 26:29). And there is no further offering for sin (Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 10:18).

Two descriptions keep all of that true:

• The bread and cup Jesus instituted truly share in Christ through faithful remembrance.
• There is a further presence of his body and blood in receiving them, so long as that account keeps the same descriptions, the same commands and the once-for-all offering.

No verse that was read gives a material process, and none makes remembrance rule out presence. So neither a merely empty symbol nor any particular explanation of a material process is proved. This bears on the first half of your question, which is why it is said plainly here.

Two things are firm alongside this.

Ruled out: that the bread simply stops being bread in every sense, so that Scripture's later talk of "this bread" is false. 1 Corinthians 11:26-28 and the "fruit of the vine" in Matthew 26:29 rule out that exact denial. On their own, though, those verses do not refute every account that distinguishes the outward bread from a further reality, as long as that account keeps the text's true descriptions.

The prohibition on eating blood also stays in force:

The apostles kept that limit too (Acts 15:29). The cup is called fruit of the vine and declared to be related to Christ's blood. It is no general permission to consume blood as food. No explanation may erase either the blood prohibition in its setting, or Jesus' own words about his body and blood.

How John 6 relates to the meal is part of the same open question. One reading takes eating and drinking in John 6 as receiving Christ by faith, with the Supper picturing that receiving. Another includes faithful taking of the Supper as one expression of receiving him. Both keep John 6's promises and Paul's warning true. Neither allows saying that anyone who swallows the bread and cup thereby receives the promised life. What they share is life in Christ, given for others, received with faith; not life in an act apart from him.

2. Whether a believing disciple waiting to be baptized must be refused the Supper meanwhile

What is firm: baptism is commanded, and those shown continuing in the fellowship meal are baptized disciples (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:41-42; Acts 18:8).

One reading treats that commanded order, and the fact that the Corinthians were baptized, as the boundary for taking the Supper: baptism should come first. Its weakness is that the order in these accounts is not itself a sentence about every possible delay in baptism.

Another reading keeps baptism commanded and normally first, but does not turn the order in these accounts into an explicit rule refusing a believing disciple who is waiting to be baptized. It points to Paul's direct instruction to examine and eat (1 Corinthians 11:28) and to the Spirit given before water in Acts 10. Its weakness is that those passages show no unbaptized person taking the Supper, and do not cancel the established order. 1 Corinthians 11:28 was written to that baptized church, not about an unbaptized applicant.

Both readings keep the verses true, provided neither makes baptism optional and neither claims an explicit exception. Neither "baptism is optional" nor "there is a stated right to bypass baptism" was found. A practical answer for someone actually waiting for baptism would differ under the two readings, so this is stated openly rather than hidden under a general invitation.

3. How wide "the Lord's body" reaches in 1 Corinthians 11:29

The verses right around it point to Jesus' body given in death (1 Corinthians 11:24, 27). Paul also teaches plainly that the church is one body (1 Corinthians 10:17; 1 Corinthians 12:27), and the wrongs he rebukes were against fellow members (1 Corinthians 11:21-22; 1 Corinthians 11:33).

One reading takes 11:29 mainly of Christ's given body, with mistreatment of members as conduct that dishonours him. Another takes it to include recognising his gathered body as well, without erasing the reference to his death.

The answer does not turn on this. Under either reading, the person taking the Supper must honour Christ's gift and care for the gathered members, because both duties are stated separately. Nor can "discerning" be made to mean any material-process theory that the text does not state.

4. Exactly when Judas left

Luke places the betrayer's hand at the table right after the bread and cup. John dates his leaving after the sop, but does not narrate the bread and cup. These accounts do not supply every link needed to set the cup and the sop in order.

The answer does not turn on this either. If Judas received the cup, receiving it did not permit his betrayal or vouch for him (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). If he left first, the same warnings still condemn betrayal and unworthy eating.

Where a word mattered, its sense was taken from how Scripture itself uses it, across its uses, read in each setting. That two places share an original word only shows where to look; it never defines the word.

Supper. The same original word is translated "supper" and "feasts". Luke 14 uses it for ordinary hospitality and a parable. What marks out this meal in 1 Corinthians 11 is the contrast between "the Lord's supper" and each person's "own supper", and Jesus' institution, not the noun itself.

Communion. The same word is translated communion, fellowship, contribution, distribution, communication and communicate:

It also appears in Acts 2:42, 1 Corinthians 1:9, Hebrews 13:16 and 1 John 1:3-7, all quoted above. The word is not, by itself, a statement about what anything is made of. 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 gives it its object here: sharing in Christ's body and blood, set against rival fellowship. The word furnishes neither an empty memorial nor a material process.

Partakers. The same word is used for sharing a right, using milk, and belonging to a tribe, and for sharing flesh and blood:

The setting, not a fixed physical mechanism, decides what is shared. In 1 Corinthians 10:17 and 10:21 it is the one bread and the Lord's table, with the allegiance that goes with it.

Unworthily. This word occurs only in 1 Corinthians 11:27 and 11:29, so there is no other use to borrow a meaning from. The English word "unworthy" appears elsewhere, with different objects:

Neither defines who may come to this meal. In 1 Corinthians 11 the word describes how the eating and drinking are done, and the correction deals with conduct, discernment and self-judgement. Turning it into "only people of personal merit may eat" changes the sentence.

Examine. The same word is translated "prove" and "discern" elsewhere:

To examine is to test, not to declare oneself faultless. What is tested, and why, comes from 1 Corinthians 11 itself. A psalm found by the English word shows a prayer to be tested standing with trust and a plea for mercy:

It is not a procedure for the Supper.

Discerning. The same word appears as "discern", "judge" and "doubteth":

It also appears as "judge" in 1 Corinthians 11:31. It cannot be given one English sense everywhere. In 11:29 its object is the Lord's body, and the setting is judgement and corrected eating. It is not shown to require a vision, or a full explanation of a material process.

Body. The same word is used for Jesus' body facing burial (Matthew 26:12; Mark 14:8), his body given (Luke 22:19), the church as his body (1 Corinthians 12:27), his body offered (Hebrews 10:10) and his body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). Sharing a word does not merge the church into his sacrificed body, nor cut it off from him. The verses around each use decide how they relate, as explained above. Many other uses of this word were not read, and nothing is drawn from them.

Damnation. The word in 1 Corinthians 11:29 is also in 11:34 ("condemnation"), and in the words of a man crucified beside Jesus:

So the English word "damnation" in 11:29 cannot by itself settle how final the judgement is. Paul's own explanation in 11:30-32 decides it.

Remembrance. The word in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 is also in Hebrews 10:3, for the yearly remembrance of sins in offerings that could not finish the work. The Supper remembers Christ and shows his death; one shared word does not make it that offering.

Testament. Its uses as "covenant" were compared with Hebrews 8-10 and Jeremiah 31. The new testament in his blood concerns the death, mediation and forgiveness those passages describe.

Eat (John 6:54). The same word is used for ordinary eating, and for the betrayer eating bread:

It also appears in John 13:18, quoted above. The word itself cannot settle whether John 6 means taking the Supper or receiving Christ by faith. John 6's own statements about life, faith, indwelling and resurrection must decide.

Baptism. The word family is not tied to one rite by the word alone. Jesus speaks of a baptism still ahead of him, and Mark uses a related word for washing before eating:

For who may take the Supper, what counts is the explicit commands and accounts of disciples baptized in Jesus' name, quoted above.

These were read in their settings to check for anything that might qualify the answer. None was set aside for being difficult. Each speaks to its own subject:

• Romans 14 is about food, days, conscience and receiving the weak. It does not override the Lord's-table limit in 1 Corinthians 10.
• Romans 8:1-17 gives life in Christ and the Spirit, with its own stated conditions. It does not cancel the discipline in Corinth.
• Ephesians 2 and 4 describe the one people and how they are to live. Colossians 2 joins faith, baptism and union with Christ, and warns against rules imposed by people. None gives an age or membership certificate for the Supper.
• 1 Peter 2-3 is about Christ's suffering and righteous living, including baptism's link to the resurrection. It is not a second account of the institution.
• Hebrews 2, 5-7 and 12 speak of sharing, priesthood, endurance and covenant. Hebrews 6's "tasted" gift does not name bread and cup, and is not turned into a promise attached to physically receiving them.
• Galatians 2 is about recognised fellowship, and the wrong of withdrawing from Gentile believers. It does not narrate the Supper.
• 1 Corinthians 6 is about disputes between brethren and conduct in the body. 1 Corinthians 9 is about support for ministers and Paul's own conduct; its altar comparison is not an account of the institution.
• Matthew 16 explains "leaven" as teaching on that occasion, so not every use of bread or leaven is the same picture.
• 2 Corinthians 6:14 compares things that cannot go together; it does not explain how the bread relates to Christ's body.
• Psalm 50 rebukes covenant words joined to evil, and says God needs no animal food. It does not define Jesus' words about his blood.
• Isaiah 22:12-14 condemns feasting when mourning was called for. Ezekiel 39:17-20 and Revelation 19:17-21 call birds and beasts to a feast of judgement. Shared words about eating and blood do not make these the disciples' bread and cup.
• Exodus 25, Deuteronomy 32 and Habakkuk 2 were read to check passages Hebrews quotes. Deuteronomy 32's judgement and mercy fit the warning Hebrews quotes, and Habakkuk 2's waiting and faith fit its call to endure. They add no admission rule.
• Acts 13:38-52 was read for "unworthy", in a setting of preaching rejected. It is not a command about the Supper.
• The wider baptism passages, Acts 8; 9:1-31; 16; 19; 22:1-21; Mark 16; 1 Peter 3, were read with those quoted above. They tie baptism to Jesus' name, faith, his death and resurrection, new life, the Spirit and belonging to his people, and do not make it a reward for wealth, office, nationality or sex.
• 2 Corinthians 3 speaks of the new testament ministered by the life-giving Spirit:

It gives no account of what the bread and cup are made of.

The whole Bible was not opened. The searches by word and by subject returned many verses that were not read; the full record lists every one of them. Nothing was drawn from them, for or against. So nothing here claims that Scripture is silent on any point. Two searches found no verse containing both words searched ("supper" with "baptism", and "communion" with "children"); that was not treated as proof of anything, and the passages on baptism and on children were gathered and weighed instead.

Every verse quoted in the record was checked a second time against the Scripture text, and every one matched exactly.

No personal circumstances were shared, and none are needed to answer the general question. Applying this to one person, such as a particular child, someone waiting for baptism, or someone wondering about their own conduct, would depend on their actual circumstances. The full record of this reading shows every verse, every search, and every step, so each point here can be checked against Scripture itself.