It has been common in some circles within the English-speaking liturgical heritage to require that the minister break the loaf of bread before distributing it to the communicants, implying that there is sacramental symbolism inherent in the act of breaking, and sometimes therefore requiring the minister to break the bread:

The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup . . . (WCF 29.3, see also WLC 169)

The Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God, along with other constitutions, also followed the KJV in requiring this fraction:[1]

There the minister, who is also himself to communicate, is to break the bread, and give it to the communicants;

OPC Directory for Worship III.C.2, “The physical elements, representing the broken body and shed blood of the Savior”;

PCA BCO 58:5, “The bread and wine being thus set apart by prayer and thanksgiving, the minister is to take the bread, and break it, in the view of the people”;[2]

Book of Common Prayer, “The Celebrant breaks the consecrated Bread.”[3]

R. L. Dabney writes in Systematic Theology (801–02):

The sacramental acts, therefore, warranted by Christ are, the taking, breaking, and distributing the elements, on the administrator’s part. . . . The breaking of the bread is plainly one of the sacramental acts, and should never be done beforehand, by others, nor omitted by the minister.

Charles Hodge also expounds in Systematic Theology, iii, 619: “The bread is the symbol not merely of Christ’s body, but of his body as broken for us.”

Note especially how strong (would “prescriptive” be better?) the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith appears to be, when one elides some words: “The Lord Jesus hath . . . appointed his ministers to declare . . . to pray, and bless . . . and . . . to set them apart . . . and to take and break the bread, to take the cup . . . and . . . to give both to the communicants . . .” Westminster here says that Christ “appointed” his ministers to do seven things (one repeated, so actually six), to “declare, pray, bless, set apart, take, break, take, and give.” The Confession does not appear to permit a minister to omit any of these six/seven things, because the minister is “appointed” to do them. Note also how precisely it requires communion in both species (“to give both to the communicants”), which was one of the very significant Protestant objections to the then-Roman Catholic practice of withholding the chalice from the laity.[4] Many of us ministers in the PCA (and other NAPARC communions) violate a strict reading of our confessional standards nearly every Sunday by not breaking the bread; yet, as I will argue, our confessional standards have no biblical ground to require this of us.[5]

The purpose of this paper is to question whether this English-speaking consensus is biblically grounded.[6] The question is not whether it is lawful or permissible to break the bread, but whether it is sacramentally and symbolically necessary to do so. My opinion is that it is lawful and permissible to break the bread before distributing it, and the option, therefore, of doing so, should be retained. The only question is whether it is sacramentally and symbolically necessary to the integrity of the rite to break the bread before distributing it.[7]

The answer to the question hinges largely, but not entirely, on the resolution of the text-critical question of 1 Corinthians 11:24, because the only place where “broken for you” appears in the New Testament (hearafter NT) is there, and because the earliest Greek manuscripts do not have the participle “broken” (klōmenon, κλωμενον) even there. Two other matters are also germane, however. Is it sacramentally necessary to employ the Pauline account of the institution of the supper, with whatever practical consequences flow from it; and does the mere fact that Jesus broke the loaf warrant our doing so? I will examine these three questions in inverse order.

Three Important Questions

First Question: Is it sacramentally necessary to break the loaf, simply because Jesus did?

How do we know which of the actions in the sacraments are symbolic of some other reality (and therefore sacramentally necessary)? For instance, the Supper was instituted at the time of the Jewish Passover, in the evening in an upstairs room, and Jesus “reclined at table with the twelve” (Matt. 26:20, cf. Luke 22:14). Do these historical facts necessitate either that we observe the Supper only once annually, or only during the Jewish Passover, or on the second floor of a building, or that we all “recline”? Obviously, the churches have answered these questions universally in the negative. The church has rightly attempted to distinguish what was merely historical incident from what was sacramentally symbolic. The calendar date, or even the fact that the Supper was instituted in the evening, or on the second floor, are all historical accidents; circumstances that actually occurred when the supper was instituted, but that are not sacramentally symbolic.[8] Therefore, though the meal was actually instituted in that particular fashion, the churches have not considered it necessary to the rite to duplicate these historical incidents.

The precise question before us, then, is whether Jesus’s breaking the bread before distributing it was sacramentally symbolic, or merely a custom common to his time and culture.[9] While the English-speaking reformed churches have frequently believed that the fraction is necessary, the question must be raised as to how this determination might be properly made. Several lines of question might lead towards an answer: Was the action sufficiently distinctive, culturally, as to suggest by its very presence a distinctive sacramental symbolism? Was there some religious background to the practice that might have inclined the original participants to have deemed the action symbolic? Do the words of institution suggest that there is some representative/symbolic reality?

The first two of these questions are somewhat related, and the answer to them is negative. Breaking bread had no established significance in Old Testament scriptures or in Jewish (or Roman) practices in the first century. In the culture of the time, breaking a loaf was simply the common way of distributing it. Cutlery was uncommon, if not unknown, and people in the first century routinely “broke” bread, without implying anything symbolic in the act itself. The expression only appears once in the Greek Old Testament, where it plainly has no religious significance at all:

“Both great and small shall die in this land. They shall not be buried, and no one shall lament for them or cut himself or make himself bald for them. No one shall break bread (LXX ou mē klasthē artos, οὐ μὴ κλασθῇ ἄρτος) for the mourner, to comfort him for the dead, nor shall anyone give him the cup of consolation to drink for his father or his mother” (Jer. 16:6–7).

A similar (not identical) expression appears in the LXX at Lam. 4:4: “The tongue of the nursing infant sticks to the roof of its mouth for thirst; the children beg for food, but no one gives to them (nēpia ētēsan arton o diaklōn ouk estin artois, νήπια ᾔτησαν ἄρτον ὁ διακλῶν οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς). Though ESV translates “gives,” the original employs the participle of διακλάω (diaklaō), an evident derivative of κλάω (klaō). Neither text suggests anything symbolic about the act. In TDNT, Johannes Behm says,

At meals, whether ordinary family meals, special meals with guests or ritual feasts, e.g., the Passover or the beginning of the Sabbath, the head of the house gives thanks, then breaks bread and hands the pieces to those who sit at table with him. The breaking of bread is simply a customary and necessary part of the preparation for eating together. It initiates the sharing of the main course in every meal. Thus Jesus faithfully follows the custom as head of the house and as host when He breaks bread for the multitude which is miraculously fed, for the disciples at the Last Supper, or for the two He joins on the way to Emmaus. Cf. also Paul in Ac. 20:11; 27:35; and cf. 1 C. 10:16. It is from this breaking of bread at the commencement of the common meal in Palestinian Judaism that the common meal of the members of the primitive community in Jerusalem receives its name, Ac. 2:42: ἠ κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου, v. 46, κλᾶν ἄρτον, also 20:7. . . . In the NT, as in contemporary Judaism, the breaking of bread at the beginning of a meal is not a cultic act, not even in connection with thanksgiving or praise . . . the breaking of bread has no particular significance as an isolated act; In these meals as in others it is simply a part of the accepted introductory process. (TDNT III, 728–29, emphases mine).

In a note, Behm adds, “The often repeated idea that the breaking of bread symbolises the slaying of the Lord’s body is a theologumenon alien to the NT which appears for the first time in the impossible addition of κλώμενον τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (klōmenon to sōma to huper humōn), 1 Cor. 11:24.”[10]

Similarly, the New Testament contains many instances of bread being broken in circumstances that are manifestly non-sacramental and non-ecclesial.

1. Matt. 14:19

Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke (klasas edōken tois mathētais tous artous, κλάσας ἔδωκεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς τοὺς ἄρτους) and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.

2. Matt. 15:36

He took the seven loaves and the fish, and having given thanks he broke them (elaben tous hepta artous kai tous ichthuas kai eucharistēsas eklasen kai edidou tois mathētais, ἔλαβεν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἄρτους καὶ τοὺς ἰχθύας καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς) and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.

3. Mark 8:6, 19

And he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks he broke them (labōn tous hepta artous eucharistēsas eklasen kai edidou tois mathētais outou, λαβὼν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἄρτους εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ) and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd. . . . When I broke the five loaves (hote tous pente artous eklasa, ὅτε τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους ἔκλασα) for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.”

4. Luke 24:30

When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it (labōn ton arton eulogēsen kai klasas, λαβὼν τὸν ἄρτον εὐλόγησεν καὶ κλάσας) and gave it to them.[11]

5. Acts 27:33-36

As day was about to dawn, Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, “Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food. It will give you strength, for not a hair is to perish from the head of any of you.” And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat. Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves (kai labōn eucharistēsas tō theō enōpion pantōn kai klasas ērxato esthiein. Euthumoi de genomenoi panteskai autoi proselabonto trophēs, καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαρίστησεν τῷ θεῷ ἐνώπιον πάντων καὶ κλάσας ἤρξατο ἐσθίειν. εὔθυμοι δὲ γενόμενοι πάντες καὶ αὐτοὶ προσελάβοντο τροφῆς).

In each of these circumstances (and especially the circumstance in Acts, where the unbelieving Romans are transporting Paul to his trial), there is a group of Roman “soldiers” and “sailors” present that is manifestly of a religiously mixed nature. The gathering is not a gathering of a covenant assembly; it is what might have been termed in the nineteenth century “a promiscuous assembly,” constituted both of members of the covenant community and non-members thereof, who also “ate some food themselves.” Yet, each text records that the bread was “broken” before being distributed, employing the same verb that is employed in the narratives of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Breaking bread was a common, non-symbolic and non-religious custom in the first century, unless and until Jesus, by his words of institution, invested the act with symbolic significance. That is, his actions alone, without some accompanying explanation in the words of institution, are simply the common actions of both religious and irreligious people in his culture, without any inherent symbolic meaning.

Second Question: Is it necessary to employ the Pauline account of the Supper, and any practices that might flow from that account?

Even if we were to establish that the original reading of Paul’s account of the institution was “my body, broken for you,” would it therefore be sacramentally necessary, as opposed to permissible, that the Pauline account be read, and inferences from his account be followed? Neither Matthew nor Mark qualify the body at all, merely referring to it as “my” body; but Luke’s account qualifies it by saying “given (didomenon, διδόμενον) for you.” Could it not be sacramentally permissible to read Luke’s account, and emphasize that Christ was “given for” his people (as does the Lutheran liturgy)? And, if so, would it be therefore necessary to the essence of the rite to break the bread? To push this argument further, does not the requirement of breaking the bread suggest that the Matthean, Markan, and Lucan accounts of the Supper are inherently defective, by not describing the body of Christ as “broken?” We may presume that they were familiar with the event, since Matthew was present at the event and Mark would have been familiar with Peter’s account of it. Luke (Luke 1:1–3) was aware of the “narrative” of those who “were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,” and claimed that those individuals “have delivered them to us,” and claimed that he, “having followed all things closely for some time past,” wrote an “orderly account” (akribōs, ἀκριβῶς ordinarily means not merely “orderly,” but “accurately”). Surely, then, Luke had carefully consulted the apostolic eyewitnesses on this important matter, and yet he said nothing in his account of the Supper about Jesus having said that his body was “broken” for anyone. Matthew was present at the Supper; Mark and Luke had consulted with apostles who were present, and yet none of them recorded Jesus as having said anything about his body being broken for anyone. If Jesus had spoken these words, and if he had intended them to have had symbolic significance, why did his apostles not pass this information along?

Indeed, should any of the distinctive portions of the several accounts of the Supper be required in the observation of the rite? Luke, for instance, records Jesus as having said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves” (diamerisate, διαμερίσατε Luke 22:17). Taken in its natural sense, this suggests that the cup should be passed from congregant to congregant, a practice that is quite permissible, but is it necessary? And is it necessary for us to cite these particular words of Jesus when we conduct the rite? If the other three accounts make no mention of this, then it is perfectly apostolic and biblical not to require it. Similarly, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (but not Paul) state that his blood is “poured out (ekchunnomenon, ἐκχυννόμενον) for you/many.” If it is necessary to refer to the body as “broken,” on the strength of Paul’s (textually disputed) testimony alone, why is it not even more necessary to refer to the blood as “poured out” on the textually undisputed testimony of three accounts? And why is it not necessary for the minister actually to pour wine in the administration of the Supper? Why must the minister break the bread but not pour the wine, if the three Synoptic gospels record the pouring of wine but not the breaking of bread?

The mere act of breaking bread in the culture of the time was not inherently symbolic; and (therefore) the act of breaking bread is only invested with symbolic significance if the words of institution so invest it. But, if reading from one of the other biblical accounts is lawful, then the essence of the rite can be maintained without the fraction, and without any of the distinctive things recorded in only one or two of the several accounts. The other three accounts do not mention any words of Jesus that invest the broken character of the bread with any symbolic significance. The other accounts do not invest the breaking of bread with any symbolic significance. If anything, the other accounts invest “pouring” with significance, because three of them undisputably regard the words as dominical.

Third Question: Is the “broken for you” of 1 Corinthians 11:24 sufficiently adequately established to make the expression essential to the lawful administration of the Supper?

First, let us make sure we understand the importance of the question. None of the three gospel accounts of the institution of the Supper record Jesus as saying that his body was “broken.” And, if we have established that there was no known convention in the culture that would have invested the mere breaking of bread with any symbolic significance, then the breaking has no such significance unless it can be established from 1 Corinthians 11:24. Therefore, unless the reading of the Authorized Version, “broken for you,” can be established at 1 Corinthians 11:24, it cannot be established at all. We therefore turn to two considerations, in an effort to determine whether such a reading can be established there. In turn, we will consider the manuscript evidence for the Greek text, and other relevant exegetical considerations.

Alternative Versions of 1 Corinthians 11:24

First, we observe that 1 Corinthians 11:24 is obviously the most textually difficult of the various biblical accounts of the Supper. There are no significant textual variants in the other three accounts, but there are significant textual variants here, which, in my judgement, is reason enough not to frame our liturgy by its terms, however we resolve the text-critical question.

1. “Given for you”

The Vulgate, probably assimilated to the διδόμενον (didomenon) at Luke 22:19, reads “given for you” (hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur, “this is my body, which is given for you”), as do the majority of the extant Latin versions. The Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic versions also read “given,” as do the Ethiopic versions. Both Luther and Die Gute Nachricht follow this tradition. Luther has the following: “das ist mein Leib, der für euch gegeben wird” (This is my body, which is given for you), while DGN reads: “Das ist mein Leib, der für euch geopfert wird.” (This is my body, which is offered/sacrificed/given up for you). Interestingly, in both translations, a form of brachen does appear in the preceding clause regarding the bread itself, yet neither re-introduces the verb with regard to the “body/Leib.” No Greek manuscripts (of 1 Cor. 11:24) read διδόμενον (didomenon).

2. “Broken for you”

Some manuscripts (Åc C3 Db,c G K P Y, and the majority texts) of 1 Cor. 11:24 do indeed read “broken (klōmenon, κλωμενον) for you,” and there is even minimal evidence for the alternative participle θρυπτομενον (Dgr* thruptomenon). Since the AV was translated from the Erasmus (third edition) text, it understandably translated the passage this way. Similarly, since many of the Presbyterian and Reformed constitutions were written before the discovery and publication of significant uncial and papyrus manuscripts in the late nineteenth century, it is quite understandable that they demonstrate no awareness of the textual problem.

3. “For you”

Some manuscripts and versions of 1 Cor. 11:24, including our oldest Pauline manuscripts (∏46 Å* A B C* arm Origen Cyprian), simply read, “This is my body, that is for you” (to huper humōn, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν). Excepting the NKJV, the recent translations overwhelmingly favor this reading, and omit “broken” (ASV, CEB, CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NCV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, GNT, et al.). This is my preference also, because of the papyrus evidence for omission, and because of the principle that ordinarily a shorter reading is preferable to a longer reading.

Relevant Exegetical Considerations

Is there any established symbolic meaning to the expression “broken,” that would make it theologically meaningful in the first century? There is no Old Testament evidence that the expression “broken” was used figuratively. Indeed, in the Septuagint, κλάω (klaō) only appears twice, once (Jer. 16:7) to refer to breaking bread, and at the apocryphal 4 Maccabees 9:14, where a young man had been put on the wheel until his bones were dislocated. It was then said that “though broken in every member (kata pan melos klōmenos, κατὰ πᾶν μέλος κλώμενος) he denounced the tyrant . . .” In neither of these cases is the verb used figuratively, but literally. There is no reason to believe, therefore, that the expression “broken for you,” if used symbolically, would even have been meaningful to a first century audience.

Equally difficult is that John’s record of the crucifixion includes the record of the Roman soldiers piercing Jesus’s side with a spear, and not breaking his legs, as they did those on either side of him, in order to fulfill the Scripture, “Not a bone of him shall be broken” (John 19:36, citing the requirement in Exodus 12:46 that the passover lamb may neither be eaten outside the house nor a bone of it be broken). Thus, insofar as there is any theological significance to the specific nature of the sacrifice of Jesus’s body, it is theologically significant that the bones were not broken. And if his bones were not broken, what on earth was?

The constitutional requirement that only one of the four biblical accounts of the institution of the Supper may be used is strange, under any circumstances. But under the present circumstance, where some constitutions require employing the one account whose text is the least well-established, the matter becomes stranger yet. It can only be accountable by recognizing the historical fact that the English-language constitutional documents that require this were written without knowledge that the text was disputed at this point.[12] In light of our greater information in text criticism, it seems responsible to make appropriate adjustments. Those adjustments are two-fold: First, ministers should not be constitutionally required (though they should be permitted, if their judgment so dictates) to employ the textually disputed “broken for you” when administering the Supper; and second, they therefore should not be required to break the bread as a sacramental symbol, since, apart from that particular reading of a disputed Greek text of 1 Corinthians 11:24, there is no reason to believe there is any symbolic significance to the act.[13] If three textually undisputed accounts mention that the blood is “poured out,” and only one textually disputed account says “broken,” why would an undisputed and repeated detail be unrequired, while an unrepeated and disputed detail be required? To my knowledge, NAPARC ministers are not required to pour the wine (though three accounts mention the pouring), yet such ministers are required to break the bread, which only appears in one account, and in disputed manuscripts of that text. Could we possibly imagine thinner ice for a requisite liturgical practice?

Is There a Responsible Alternative?

While I am ordinarily conservative, not desiring to change an ecclesiastical tradition (or its constitutional documents) lightly or easily, it appears that the status quo, of the English-language churches in this case, is more problematic than the change. The status quo requires retaining a constitutional duty that is almost certainly based on ignorance of now-well-known facts about the text-critical data. The Westminster Assembly, the authors of nineteenth-century Presbyterian books of order, and nineteenth-century theologians such as Charles Hodge and Robert Lewis Dabney simply were unaware of the Chester Beatty papyrus (though some were aware of one or the other among Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiiticus, or Codex Vaticanus); those manuscripts were unavailable to them. They were probably unaware that the participle κλωμενον (klōmenon) was disputed in the existing Greek manuscripts of 1 Corintians 11:24. Their Greek text had the participle; some of our older and more reliable Greek texts do not have the participle κλωμενον (klōmenon).

For Protestant churches, professing allegiance to Scripture and expressly affirming that synods and councils may err (WCF 31.3), an issue such as this becomes a test of our principles, not merely a test of how we understand Scripture. Will our (English-speaking, based on the Erasmus text) tradition remain authoritative in the Church, even when its biblical basis is severely undermined? If we profess that our human documents are reformable in light of new understanding or discovery, how do we address the discovery of very ancient Greek manuscripts that differ from the later manuscripts and our tradition (dependent on those later manuscripts)? It is consistent with our confessional heritage to permit individual ministers to resolve text-critical questions as their judgment dictates, and/or to select which biblical accounts of the institution of the Supper to employ when administering the sacrament, and I concur with this generosity. What appears to be inconsistent with our confessional heritage is the requirement that only one text, and a text seriously disputed in the available manuscript tradition, be employed—or that a rubric (requiring that the minister break the bread) based on a single, textually disputed account, be required (even though the pouring of the wine is textually sound in three of the four accounts, yet the minister is not required to do that). Indeed, it appears to me that if the constitution were to require a single text, it should require the text with the least-disputed manuscript evidence, which, in this case, would be any of the versions other than 1 Corinthians 11:24.

It is not my desire to prohibit ministers from breaking the loaf when adiministering the Supper, nor is it my desire to prohibit ministers from reading 1 Corinthians 11:24 from the Authorized Version, based on the Erasmus text. The resolution of text-critical questions, as well as the determination of which of the four biblical accounts of the institution of the Supper should be read, or which translation should be read, should be left to the judgment and discernment of individual ministers.[14] My desire, therefore, is not to exclude the currently-required practice from our churches; my desire is only to permit other practices, practices that enjoy equally biblical justification (or more).[15] It is indisputable that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all believed the Supper could be observed without anything being said about Jesus’s body being “broken.” Therefore, it cannot be unbiblical or un-apostolic to read any of their versions, versions that do not necessitate breaking the bread (symbolically or otherwise). Further, it is disputable that Paul’s version says “broken,” and therefore, it cannot be in the best interests of biblical churches to require the disputed text, or a practice based upon that disputed text.

Endnotes

[1] “Fraction” is the technical liturgical term for the ministerial act of breaking the bread before distributing it.

[2] The PCA took a step in the right direction in 2004, when the General Assembly adopted my overture to change 58:5 by removing the requirement of employing the KJV’s “broken for you,” and expressly saying “some other biblical account of the institution” could be used at this point. It would be a small step now to go further and remove the requirement of fraction altogether, on the same logic.

[3] The Lutheran Common Service Book differs; its rubric merely reads, “Here he shall take the Paten, with the Bread, in his hand,” and when distributing the bread, the minister says, “Take and eat, This is the Body of Christ, given for thee.” As we will see below, this is because Luther’s (and subsequent) translation of 1 Cor. 11:24 did not say “broken,” but, by attraction to Luke’s account, said “given for you” (der für euch gegeben wird).

[4] The Augsburg Confession even has a separate section (XXII) entitled “Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament.”

[5] The other major Reformed standards (Scots, Belgic, Dort, Second Helvetic, Heidelberg) do not require this language of breaking, or that the minister break the bread; the closest they come is Lord’s Day 28 in the Heidelberg Catechism, which merely cites Paul: “This promise is repeated by Paul where he says: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

[6] And it is indeed merely an English-speaking consensus. The Second Helvetic Confession and The Canons of the Synod of Dort were written in Latin, The Belgic Confession was written in French, and the Heidelberg Catechism was written in German. The Scots Confession of 1560 was written in English, but does not require fraction. The German liturgies do not require fraction because Luther’s translation of 1 Cor. 11:24 does not contain the disputed participle. Luther used Erasmus’s second edition Greek text; whereas the King James was translated from his third edition. Possibly the difference is due to this. Somewhat curiously, the Roman Catholic Mass does indeed contain a separate liturgical moment called “The Fraction” that occurs after “The Lord’s Prayer” and “The Peace,” despite the fact that the Vulgate omits the participle (κλωμενον) in question, and instead has the Lucan tradetur, “given.” As is my ordinary custom in matters theological, I prefer the Lutheran to the Roman Catholic practice, even though the Westminster Standards (probably unwittingly) require the Catholic practice here.

[7] When I say “only question,” I mean this is the only question I am addressing here. There are many other questions one could raise about the constitutional instructions. Why is it necessary (as per the PCA BCO) that the table be “decently covered”? WCF 29.7 says, “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” Why should we be constitutionally required to make the “visible elements” invisible, by covering them, whether “decently” or otherwise?

[8] The Passover meal itself is profoundly symbolic (1 Cor. 5:7), but there is no symbolism to the time in the calendar when the event was observed.

[9] Analogous to “reclining” at table, Matt. 26:20, but also at Matt. 9:10, 26:7, Mark 2:15, 14:2, 16:14, Luke 5:29, 7:36-39, 11:37, 14:15. Why is breaking bread sacramentally necessary, but reclining at table not necessary?

[10] TDNT III, 729, n. 14, emphasis mine. Though I agree with Behm (see below) that the κλώμενον (klōmenon) of 1 Cor. 11:24 is spurious, I would not call it “impossible,” but “highly improbable.”

[11] Some might think that this could have been the sacramental meal, but the evidence suggests otherwise. First, in the Matthean account of the institution of the Supper, Jesus expressly said that he would not partake of this fruit of the vine with his disciples again “until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29). Second, contextually, this was neither an ecclesiastical meeting nor a meeting with Christ’s disciples. Verse 13 merely says “two of them” (to whom Jesus had spoken on the way to Emmaeus) spoke to Jesus, verse 18 says that one was named “Cleopas,” and verse 21 says that they “had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.” So when evening was coming on and they invited him to stay with them (verse 29), it appears that they were just gracious hosts, and that the meal was an ordinary meal.

[12] Though I am probably too generous here, because even if the text were undisputed, why would a sacramental practice be grounded on a participle (klōmenon, κλωμενον) that appears only in one of the four biblical accounts, when another participle (exchunnomenon, ἐκχυννόμενον, “poured out”) appears undisputably in three of them, yet no practice is based on this participle? To require a sacramental act that is grounded only in one of the four biblical accounts would still be improper. Proper liturgy at this point would only do and require what is common to all four of the biblical accounts of the institution of the Supper; it would not require what is found only in one account, in which the Greek text is disputed.

[13] I speak as a Protestant here. I assume for Roman Catholicism, fraction is indeed necessary, as a separate rubric as the Mass designates it, because of the understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice, and the Roman Catholic respect for Tradition as being equally authoritative as Scripture. But the various Protestant communions self-consciously reject this understanding, and understand the rite to be a meal, not a sacrifice. So there is nothing in Protestant theology that would require this fraction, and perhaps a good deal to require the contrary.

[14] By analogy, different ministers have different convictions about the authenticity of the “woman caught in adultery” in John 8. When I preached through the Fourth Gospel many years ago, I omitted this passage from my sermon series; others have included it in their series. Our constitutions require no resolution of the matter, and ministers are left to their own judgment on the matter. I merely suggest that the constitutions extend the same liberty when conducting the Supper. In a lifetime of ministry, a pastor might preach on John 8 once or twice; some ministers may even adminster the Supper weekly. If we give him a break once or twice in his entire ministry, why not give him a break more frequently?

[15] Note the liberty permitted in the OPC BCO: “The minister shall read the words of the institution and instruction of the Lord’s Supper as found in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 or one of the Gospel accounts (Matthew 26:26–29, Mark 14:22–25, or Luke 22:14–20). In addition, he may read words of instruction from passages such as John 6 and 1 Corinthians 10.” DPW Chapter III.C.1. Similarly, the ARP Directory of Worship says, “The words of institution are to be read and the service shall follow the New Testament pattern,” and the footnote at that point reads: “Matt. 26:20–30, Mark 14:17–26, Luke 22:14–20, 1 Cor. 11:23–32,” expressly permitting the reading of any of the four biblical accounts (V.B.8.c.(6)). In Form 1 of the Lord’s Supper from the URCNA, the liturgy reads: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Note that, while the text is taken from 1 Corinthians, the translation employed does not contain the participial clause, “broken for you.” Form 2, Short Form 1, and Short Form 2 all cite the same passage the same way, omitting “broken.” To my knowledge, the only NAPARC church whose BCO requires the minister to use the 1 Corinthian text with the disputed “broken” is the PCA. If for no other reason than ecclesiastical relations, the PCA should consider altering our BCO on this point, still permitting the use of the present version that includes “broken,” but also permitting the use of other versions of the Supper that exclude the disputed “broken.”

T. David Gordon is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is a retired professor of religion and Greek at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania. Ordained Servant Online, November–December, 2026