When should we keep the Lord’s Supper?

Posted on June 2, 2007 

Filed Under The Church, Weylan Deaver

by Weylan Deaver

Recalling Jesus’ words to his disciples on the eve of betrayal, Paul wrote,

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 (1 Cor. 11:23-26, ESV).

How often is not enough? How often is too often? Does the day of observing the Lord’s Supper make any difference? Perhaps past generations in the church have taken for granted that all Christians knew the day and the frequency for taking the Supper. If so, that time has passed.

According to a December 12, 2006 article by Bobby Ross, Jr. in the Christian Chronicle, “The Richland Hills church in Texas — the largest of the nation’s 13,000 a cappella Churches of Christ — has decided to add an instrumental worship assembly with communion on Saturday nights. Jon Jones, an elder and former pulpit minister at the 6,400-member church, told the congregation Dec. 3 that Richland Hills’ elders ‘fully and completely’ endorsed the decision” (http://www.christianchronicle.org). On that congregation’s website are available a series of lessons from their minister, Rick Atchley, in which he boldly, unapologetically, argues the rightness and expediency of their adopting mechanical instruments in worship and observing the Lord’s Supper on Saturday. Much can and should be said in response, but our focus at present is briefly to nail down the biblical answer to the question, “When should we keep the Lord’s Supper?”

When Did The Lord’s Supper Begin?

Jesus’ establishing of the practice is chronicled in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22. “And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, ‘Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?’” (Mark 14:12). The feast of Unleavened Bread is synonymous with the Passover (cf. Luke 22:1), which commemorated God’s delivering Israel from Egyptian slavery and passing over (i.e. sparing) their homes when the firstborn of Egypt were miraculously killed. There is a variety of opinion relating to a precise chronology of events surrounding this particular Passover. Jesus was crucified on the morrow (the day after “the first day of Unleavened Bread”). Some conclude the day of crucifixion was Friday (making Thursday “the first day of Unleavened Bread”), whereas a strong case can be made for the crucifixion on Thursday (making Wednesday “the first day of Unleavened Bread”). It is beyond our scope to analyze the merits of either view. Suffice it say the Lord’s Supper was instituted on either Wednesday or Thursday of the crucifixion week.

In Matthew’s account, Jesus remarked to the disciples, “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29). Luke’s version has Jesus saying he would “not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16). Thus, the definite impression is given that, though he was inaugurating a practice not seen before, he would not participate again until it found fulfillment in the kingdom. Since numerous verses clearly teach that the kingdom of Christ and church of Christ are synonymous (e.g. Matt. 16:18-19; Mark 9:1; Col. 1:13; etc.), we conclude Jesus meant that the next time he was involved with this practice—i.e. the Lord’s Supper—would be after the kingdom comes. Although by that time the Lord had ascended to heaven, his disciples could reflect on a truth he had told them: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matt. 18:20). So, Jesus’ personal presence in the flesh would not be required for him to be present among his followers after the Supper was “fulfilled in the kingdom.”

Because the Lord’s Supper initially began in the middle of the week instead of Sunday, the question arises whether Sunday should be the day—or, the exclusive day—it is kept by today’s church. Several facts need remembering about the circumstances when Jesus first explained what we now call the Lord’s Supper.

First, Jesus’ resurrection did not occur in the middle of the week. Nor was the church begun on a Wednesday or Thursday. Further, neither Acts nor the Epistles places religious significance on Wednesday or Thursday. There is no hint the early church emphasized either of those days.

Second, when Jesus announced the Supper, there was no church to begin the keeping of it.

Third, as a technical matter, the Law of Moses was still in effect since it had not yet been nailed to the cross (cf. Col. 2:14).

Fourth, since the crucifixion had not happened, neither had the resurrection. Prior to Christ’s resurrection, Sunday had no significance to the disciples. That which would fill Sunday with importance for all believers was still in the future.

Fifth, had Jesus begun the Supper on a Sunday, the Old Testament analogy God intended to draw from it would have suffered. Specifically, Paul would later write, “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). It was no coincidence that the crucifixion was timed to the Passover. And, it was not by chance that the Supper was held immediately prior to the crucifixion. All these momentous events unfolded according to God’s “definite plan” (cf. Acts 2:23).

Sixth, after its beginning, there is no indication the Supper ever was kept again until after the church was begun in Acts 2.

What Day Did The Early Church Keep The Lord’s Supper?

It is beyond dispute the early church assembled to worship on Sunday. What made Sunday significant? Sunday was the day Christ came out of the tomb (Mark 16:9). Sunday was the day the resurrected Christ made appearances to various disciples (Luke 24:1-43; John 20:19). Sunday was the day the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles in Acts 2 (Pentecost falling at the beginning of the week). Sunday, therefore, was the day the church of Christ began on earth (Acts 2:1-47).

Little wonder that the first day of the week came to be celebrated by earliest Christians. By the end of the first century, in writing the last inspired book, John could say, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). Numerous Greek and biblical scholars take “the Lord’s day” as a clear reference to Sunday—the church’s day of worship. As W. B. West, Jr. stated, “The Lord requires the first of everything, and He requires the first day of the week in the Christian dispensation. In early Christian literature on this side of the first century, we have a number of great Christian leaders who testify that the early Christians met on the Lord’s day, the first day of the week, to worship God in spirit and in truth” (Revelation Through First Century Glasses, p. 28).

Though extra-biblical literature verifies Sunday as the day of assembly for the earliest saints, the Bible itself reveals that such was the practice at the church in Troas. “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). Two other verses from Acts 20 deserve mention in the same context. Verse six tells that Paul’s company stayed seven days at Troas. Verse sixteen notes that Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem by Pentecost (presumably, to distribute the money he had been collecting from Gentile churches for the poor saints in Jerusalem). If Paul were in such a hurry, why would he linger an entire week in Troas? Though Scripture does not state the reason, a quite possible explanation is that Paul arrived in Troas after the church’s Sunday worship and, wanting to assemble with them before leaving, was forced to wait till the next Sunday rolled around—after which he immediately left town. If so, this would only help substantiate what we already know: that Christians in Troas met on Sunday to “break bread.” To “break bread” was either a figure of speech for the Lord’s Supper, or else a figure of speech for the entire worship (which would include the Lord’s Supper). J. W. McGarvey penned that Acts 20:7 “shows that the first day of the week was the day in which the disciples broke the loaf; and also that the prime purpose of their meeting on that day was to observe this ordinance” (New Commentary on Acts of Apostles, p. 179). Whatever may be said of one part of worship’s being more important than another, there is really no doubt the church in Troas met on Sunday—at least in part—to keep the Lord’s Supper. Per F. F. Bruce, Acts 20:7 “is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for worship on that day” (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, pp. 407-8).

We know the Troas church met on Sunday to observe the Lord’s Supper. But, did they accomplish that in Acts 20? After all, Paul preached till midnight (v. 7), and it was only later still that he broke bread and ate (v. 11). Some are now saying that the bread Paul broke (in v. 11) was the Lord’s Supper and, since it happened after midnight, Paul took the Lord’s Supper on Monday morning, and, therefore, the church today is justified to take the Lord’s Supper on other days than just Sunday.

Though it sounds reasonable at first, that view does not hold up well under greater scrutiny. Without embarking on an overlong discussion, it should be noted there are a plethora of opinions about the Troas assembly and just what happened and when. Since the Jews and Romans reckoned time very differently, what clock were the saints in Troas using?

If the Troas assembly were abiding by the Jewish clock, then (1) the meeting began sometime after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, which would be Sunday morning for the Jews; (2) Paul’s midnight speech, followed by the Lord’s Supper would pose no problem, since all would have transpired on a Sunday, which would last till the following evening. Guy N. Woods has a good elaboration of the evidence in favor of this view (Questions and Answers, Open Forum, pp. 67-70).

On the contrary, if the Troas assembly were abiding by the Roman clock, then (1) they were meeting on Sunday night of a day that began the previous midnight; (2) Paul’s midnight sermon would have taken the brethren into the early hours of Monday morning; (3) the breaking of bread that followed Paul’s sermon would have happened Monday morning. Wayne Jackson makes a good case for this meeting beginning on Sunday—not Saturday—night (The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 250-3). If it is right to calculate the meeting via Roman time, the problem becomes: How do you explain their taking the Lord’s Supper on Monday morning? In answer to that, Jackson argues several points persuasively (p. 253), including the following four:

First, only Paul is said to have “broken bread and eaten” (v. 11), whereas, if it were the Lord’s Supper, we would expect a different description indicating the whole assembly participated. If Paul alone partook, then the bread Paul ate was simply a common meal.

Second, the Greek verb (in v. 11) for “eaten” means “to taste.” In The Pulpit Commentary, A. C. Hervey took the position this verb “is never used of the sacramental eating of bread” (vol. xviii, p. 144). Likewise, W. E. Vine held that this verb’s definition was reason enough to conclude that Acts 20:11 describes a common meal, and not the Lord’s Supper. Vine states, “As to whether Acts 20:11 refers to the Lord’s Supper or to an ordinary meal, the addition of the words ‘and eaten’ is perhaps a sufficient indication that the latter is referred to here, whereas v. 7, where the single phrase ‘to break bread’ is used, refers to the Lord’s Supper” (Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 193).

Third, if, in fact, the church in Troas did not get around to taking the Lord’s Supper till early Monday morning, then they failed to do what they assembled to do! Is it reasonable to conclude they assembled on Sunday to take the Lord’s Supper, but then failed to do so? In view of the previous two points, it is a very reasonable possibility that the church kept the Lord’s Supper before Paul ever got up to speak, in which case it would have been observed on Sunday—no matter whether Jewish or Roman time was being used.

Fourth, what about the fact that some Greek manuscripts have a definite article before “bread” in Acts 20:11? Many might think the definite article (i.e. “the” bread) points out a special kind of bread and proves the meal Paul took is, indeed, the Lord’s Supper. However, Jackson reminds us that the Greek scholar, Thomas F. Middleton, published a book in 1841 on The Doctrine of the Greek Article, in which he stated that the Greek article in Acts 20:11 is not conclusive, and that the meal described is “ordinary refreshment” instead of the Lord’s Supper (p. 288).

Now, what can be gleaned from this? First, we may never know whether Jewish or Roman time was being used in the Troas assembly. Second, a genuine Sunday observance of the Lord’s Supper can be maintained, either way. Third, to adopt the view that Paul took the Lord’s Supper on Monday morning is to disregard significant evidence which could easily explain the passages without resorting to a Monday observance. Fourth, in light of the fact that the Troas church assembled on Sunday for the purpose of keeping the Lord’s Supper, we should give them the benefit of any doubt that they did do what they assembled to do. Fifth, if the church at Troas did what they assembled to do, then they did, indeed, take the Lord’s Supper on Sunday. Sixth, to insist that Acts 20:11 is an example of the Lord’s Supper taken on a Monday is to do a disservice to the facts in an effort to push a hermeneutically unfair conclusion (and, dare we say, an unbiblical agenda). Seventh, for all that can be said regarding chronologies and methods of counting time, we know this for sure: The first century church met on Sunday to take the Lord’s Supper!

Then again, Acts 20 is not the only passage bearing on the subject. Remember Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians? “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part….When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat” (1 Cor. 11:18, 20). Thus, in Corinth, they would “come together as a church,” and their purpose should have been to eat the Lord’s Supper (though, in their case, they were abusing it to the point it could not be called the Lord’s Supper).

Is there any contextual evidence when the Corinthian assemblies occurred? In point of fact, yes. “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). That verse does not mention the Lord’s Supper, but we can put the pieces together. Paul said the instructions he gave Corinth were given to other churches (1 Cor. 16:1; cf. 7:17; 14:33), which means that assembling “on the first day of every week” was not an anomaly limited to Corinth. Also, an assembly seems implied in order for them to comply with the demand Paul gave. If each Corinthian family had set money aside on Sunday (say, in an empty coffee can on their kitchen counter), then that would have defeated the purpose of the verse, since there would have to be a “collecting” after Paul came. In order to avoid such a collection after Paul’s arrival, they must have been assembling on a weekly basis, during which they pooled their contributions in a common place. Moreover, if they were meeting on Sunday to do that, it would be most unreasonable to assume they were not also singing, praying, teaching, and taking the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians were already doing those things in worship on Sunday, and Paul simply gave them an additional requirement—the weekly offering of money—to add to the Sunday assembly’s purpose.

Did The Early Church Keep The Lord’s Supper Every Sunday?

What did he mean when, in the Ten Commandments, God said, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8)? Remember the Sabbath monthly? Quarterly? Annually? Once a decade? Without a limiting passage indicating otherwise, Israel would be forced to conclude they were meant to observe every Sabbath. Israel would have sinned had they decided to observe the Sabbath monthly. Likewise, Israel would have sinned had they decided to remember Friday instead of the Sabbath.

 

The New Testament reveals a different day—Sunday—as a special time of remembrance, during which the Lord’s Supper is taken as a feast in commemoration of Jesus’ death. Acts 20:7 pinpoints the day on which Christians gathered to “break bread.” And, 1 Corinthians 16:2 pinpoints the frequency of the Sunday worship assembly (“on the first day of the week” is, in Greek, Κατα μίαν σαββάτων, which literally means “on every first day of the week” [see Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 446]).

In conclusion, it should be well noted that, in the Bible, preaching can be found on days other than Sunday (e.g. Acts 13:14ff.). Praying and singing are authorized without being specifically tied to Sunday (Jas. 5:13). However, since the church came into being, the Lord’s Supper is invariably connected to—Sunday! Today certain brethren are teaching it is fine to take the Lord’s Supper on Saturday (or any other day). Is that novel doctrine from heaven or from men (cf. Mark 11:30)? If from heaven, then we should expect to find it plainly authorized on the pages of inspiration (Rom. 10:17; cf. 14:23; Heb. 11:6). If from men, then we should adamantly reject it as spiritual poison which makes worship vain (Matt. 15:9).

Though he was neither inspired nor perfect, J. W. McGarvey understood more Bible than a boatload of modern preachers bent on changing the New Testament pattern of worship, and we concur with these sentiments he published in his 1892 New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (p. 179):

“Such being the purpose of the Lord’s day meeting, as surely as the disciples met every Lord’s day, they broke the loaf on that day. Slight as this evidence is, when taken in connection with the universal practice of the church in the second century, and for a long period afterward, it has proved sufficient to win universal agreement among biblical scholars, that this was the apostolic custom; and as the example of the apostles acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit shows plainly the will of the Lord, our custom should be the same, and all the excuses which we ingeniously frame for rejecting this custom are invalid.”

Share This

Print This Post Print This Post

RELATED POSTS:
Who’s on trial: Mary Winkler, or the church of Christ?
Who leads congregations of the Lord’s church?
Gadgets and Gimmicks
Quail Springs hits the slippery slope of instrumentalism, 300 walk out
‘Am I a member of the true church of Christ?’

Comments

3 Responses to “When should we keep the Lord’s Supper?”

  1. Brian Osburn on May 18th, 2007 9:13 pm

    Since the Lord used one cup, where do we find authority to use multiple cups?

  2. Weylan Deaver on June 12th, 2007 10:31 am

    Brian, I would refer you to an excellent article by Wayne Jackson on the very question you ask at:

    http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/do_the_scriptures_authorize_multiple_cups

  3. Doug Schofield on June 20th, 2007 5:22 am

    Brother Jackson’s article is very good and succinct. One might say that a man ‘used the knife to cut his steak’. Such a statement would not at all preclude the fact that others at the table each had a knife of their own; nor does the language in the text in question rule out the possiblity that each one at the table had his own cup.

Leave a Reply




Close
E-mail It