Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 2 –
September/2005
How Often
Should the Lord’s Supper Be
Observed?
I Corinthians
11:26
FOR AS OFTEN AS YE EAT THIS BREAD, and
drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he
come.” It has amazed me for decades how this verse is
dismissed with a shrug, as if it has absolutely no
bearing at all on how often we should observe the Lord’s
Supper. It is argued, “The verse doesn’t say how
often, just as often.” It is,
therefore, very common in evangelical and fundamental
churches to observe it only once a month, every two
months, or even once a quarter. May we first honestly
follow the New Testament progression, and then second
prayerfully submit a
conclusion.
The New Testament
Progression
First, originally, in Acts
2 the Lord’s Supper was observed daily. This doesn’t
necessarily mean in every house gathering, rather
somewhere in the city every day. As Theologian Augustus
Strong writes, “The Lord’s Supper is to be repeated
often,”[i] and this was
certainly the case in Acts. But again,
how often should it be
observed?
Second, in Acts 20:7 we
read, “And upon the first day of the week, when the
disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached
unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued
his speech until midnight.” According to verse 6, Paul
stayed in Troas seven days. Verse 7 is then the clearest
verse about Sunday worship, and the Lord’s Supper was
observed on Sunday evening. This is shown by the fact
that Luke’s method of noting time here is not Jewish
(sundown to sundown) but is Roman (midnight to
midnight). Not only does Luke use the word “midnight” in
verse 7, but “break of day” in verse 11. He undoubtedly
did this in the spirit of when Christ instituted the
Lord’s Supper. As Matthew 26:26-30 indicates, it was in
the evening of the night of His betrayal.
So, the Lord’s
Supper was here observed on Sunday evening before the
preaching. No longer were there daily meetings, but here
is a clear reference to Sunday worship and observance of
the Lord’s Supper then. May we submit, then, what
better time could there be to remember our Lord’s ordeal
than on Sunday evening?
Acts 2:42 further
substantiates this: “And they continued stedfastly in
the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking
of bread, and in prayers.” The Greek construction shows
that “breaking of bread” and “prayers” are what actually
constitute fellowship. But the main point here is that
consistency dictates we observe all of them on
the Lord’s Day, not just two out of three. Acts 2:42,
therefore, gives the principle (or
precedent), while 20:7 gives the
practice.
Of course, it is argued that
“breaking of bread” can refer simply to eating a regular
meal, but that simply cannot be true here. As solid
commentator William MacDonald rightly observes (and
virtually every evangelical commentator
agrees):
This expression is used in the NT
to refer both to the Lord’s Supper and to eating a
common meal. The meaning in any particular case must be
determined by the sense of the passage. Here it
obviously refers to the Lord’s Supper, since it would be
quite unnecessary to say that they continued stedfastly
eating their meals. From Acts 20:7 we learn that the
practice of the early Christians was to break bread on
the first day of the week. During the early days of the
church, a love feast was held in connection with the
Lord’s Supper as an expression of the love of the saints
for one another. However, abuses crept in, and the
“agape” or love feast was
discontinued.[ii]
So we ask again, why
should we observe only two out of the three fundamental
activities of the Church on the Lord’s Day? As one
commentator insists, “There is no command anywhere in
the Bible that specifies how often the Supper should be
observed.” But may we ask, why does there need to be? Is
not a biblical precedent just as binding as a
biblical command? When there is a clear
precedent, why would we need anything else? And may I
interject, how many so-called “ministries” and “methods”
do we practice today that don’t even have a
precedent, much less a command, but we do them anyway?
What is patently ignored today concerning the doctrine
of Biblical Authority is that it includes
precedents, not just
commands.
Third, note
specifically what our text says (and the text is
always the issue): “For as often as ye eat this
bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s
death till he come (emphasis added). How often do we
meet to celebrate the Lord’s death and resurrection?
Every Lord’s Day, and the
Lord’s Supper is here included. Many take as often to be
infrequent, but the text implies the exact
opposite.
Fourth,
notice also that each time we observe the Lord’s Supper,
it shows the Lord’s death till he come. The word
shows is the Greek kataggello, to announce
publicly, proclaim. This word is a derivative of
kerux and kerusso,
which spoke of the imperial herald announcing the wishes
of the King, as when Paul told Timothy to “preach the
Word” in II Timothy 4:2. So, each time we observe the
Lord’s Supper, we are proclaiming the Gospel. Should
this not, then, be practiced each Lord’s
Day?
Harry Ironside wonderfully
illustrates this in a personal incident. A Japanese man
who was attending some of Ironside’s meetings in
Sacramento was troubled about his soul, but it seemed
impossible to bring him to Christ because of his love
for money. A year later, Ironside was again in
Sacramento for meetings and there was the man again.
Ironside asked him if he’d received Christ yet, to which
he answered no. He then asked an odd question, “Do you
have a meeting on Sunday where you eat the bread and
drink the wine showing how Jesus died?” Ironside
answered yes, to which the man replied, “I come.” At the
meeting, the man sat close to the front, and Ironside
prayed that God would speak to his heart. After the
people had partaken of the elements and the elements
were returned to the table, the man stood up and said,
“I like to pray.” Ironside winced, regretting that he
didn’t tell the man they he wouldn’t be expected to take
part in the meeting. But the man prayed like this: “Oh,
God, I all broke up. For one year I fight You. I fight
you hard. Your Spirit break me all to pieces. O God,
today I see Your people eating the bread, drinking the
wine, telling how Jesus died for sinners like me. O God,
You love me so. You give Your Son to die for me. I
cannot fight you anymore. I give up. I take Him as my
Savior.” As Ironside then writes,
It did not spoil our meeting at
all to have him take part with such a prayer. We
realized that this simple ordinance had preached to him
. . . The Lord’s Supper, if given the place our Lord
intended it to have, will constantly preach to the
world, and will say more than any words of ours can say:
“As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye
do preach the Lord’s death till he
come.”[iii]
Fifth, it’s also
noteworthy that this passage is the lengthiest
discussion of the Lord’s Supper in Scripture and was
given to a church that had perverted virtually all
church activity. It seems apparent, then, that the
Lord’s Supper, as Harry Ironside put it, “was intended
to occupy a very large place in the minds of Christians
in this dispensation.”[iv] It seems clear,
then, that something that occupies such a large place
should occur each Lord’s
Day.
Sixth, and finally, a
principle that is overlooked on this issue is that any
other frequency is totally subjective. We are left with
no absolute but allowed to decide for ourselves how
often we will remember the Lord’s death and
resurrection. Indeed, the common practice of our day on
every issue is “to make it up as we go along.”
Conclusion
I simply see no
other conclusion than the observance of the Lord’s
Supper each Lord’s Day as part of our worship and
fellowship. Others of this “old school” agree. That was,
for example, the view of Reformer John Calvin, who wrote
in his Institutes:
[The Lord’s Supper] was not
instituted to be received once a-year and that
perfunctorily (as is now commonly the custom); but that
all Christians might have it in frequent use, and
frequently call to mind the sufferings of Christ,
thereby sustaining and confirming their faith . . . That
such was the practice of the Apostolic Church, we are
informed by Luke in the Acts . . . (Acts 2:42). Thus we
ought always to provide that no meeting of the Church is
held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the
Supper, and alms.[v]
This was also the view of
the famous English non-conformist preacher Thomas
Goodwin (1600-80),[vi] as well as
theological giant Francis Turretin (1623-87), who
wrote:
Christians are said to have come
together upon the first day of the week to break bread
(Acts 20:27), i.e., to celebrate the holy supper, which
was customarily done on the Lord’s Day when they
assembled to hear preaching and to perform the other
public exercises of piety.[vii]
Likewise, this was the
view of the Puritans, such as Matthew Henry
(1662-1714):
Our bodily meals return often; we
cannot maintain life and health without this. And it is
fit that this spiritual diet should be taken often too.
The ancient churches celebrated this ordinance every
Lord’s Day, if not every day when they assembled for
worship.[viii]
It was also Charles
Spurgeon’s conviction that the Lord’s Supper was to be
observed every Lord’s Day, as brought out in the Preface
to his book, Till He Come: Communion Meditations and
Addresses. He believed strongly
that this was the “apostolic precedent; and it was his
oft-repeated testimony that the more frequently he
obeyed his Lord’s command, ‘This do in remembrance of
Me,’ the more precious did his Savior become to
him.”
Likewise, in his commentary on
Acts, A. C. Gaebelein
wrote:
The Lord’s Day and the Lord’s
Supper belong together, and there can be no doubt that
the early church celebrated that feast of love each
Lord’s Day . . . Is it too much to carry out His loving
request every Lord’s Day, the day on which He left the
grave?[ix]
Theologian Louis Sperry
Chafer concurs: “As the resurrection is celebrated by
fitting observance of the Lord’s Day each week, so it
seems probable that it is well to celebrate Christ’s
death just as often.”[x] John Murray also agrees
when he writes, “The Lord’s Day is ever recurrent and
the Lord’s supper should be frequently administered. . .
. Acts 2:42 implies that the supper was an integral part
of the worship of the early church.”[xi]
May we also add, the fact
is, as theologian Wayne Grudem rightly points out, “It
has been the practice of most of the Church throughout
its history to celebrate the Lord’s Supper every week
when believers gather.”[xii] The change, for
some odd reason, seems to have occurred after the
Reformation, although as we mentioned a moment ago, some
retained it.
One more
important question arises—Is there a danger of this
becoming ritual and mindless activity? Certainly,
but that would be our fault and to our shame.
This is an act of worship and remembrance that is
observed by God’s unified people. A wonderful aid that I
have found to contribute to the worship atmosphere is to
read an entry from the book, The Valley of Vision: A
Collection of Puritan Prayers & Devotions
(Banner of Truth Trust). One can find other good
resources, of course. I’ve used, for example, the “Table
Addresses” of John Murray in Volume 3 of The
Collected Writings of John Murray (Banner of Truth
Trust). We have posted these on our website at the
following link: www.TheScriptureAlone.com/murray_ls.htm.
Finally, the Lord’s
Supper is more than a remembrance for our own
sakes; it is also a proclamation for the
world’s sake. It is a
testimony to the world that we are not ashamed of our
Lord or of His blood, that we belong to Him and are
obedient to Him.
*
*
*
Q
and A
Q: I have a friend who I have been talking to about
God, and one of the questions asked was how did people
live in some cases to be 900 years old?” KW
A: Thanks for the question. The key to this is that
it was before the Flood. I will defer to creationist
Henry Morris, who answers this better than I could in a
note on Genesis 1:6 in his Defender’s Study
Bible.
The “firmament” is not a great
vaulted dome in the sky but is simply the atmospheric
expanse established between the waters above and below.
The Hebrew word, raqiya, means
“expanse” or perhaps better, “stretched-out thinness.”
Since God specifically identified it with “Heaven,” it
also can be understood simply as “space.” Thus, on the
second day, God separated the primeval deep into two
deeps, with a great space between. The waters below the
space retained the elemental earth materials which would
be utilized on the following day to form the land and
its plant cover. The waters above the firmament had
apparently been transformed into the vapor state in
order to be separated from the heavier materials and
elevated above the atmosphere, where it could serve as a
thermal blanket for the earth's future inhabitants. Such
a vapor canopy would undoubtedly have provided a highly
efficient “greenhouse effect,” assuring a perennial
spring-like climate for the entire earth. Water vapor
both shields the earth against harmful radiations from
space and also retains and spreads incoming solar heat.
A vapor canopy would thus provide an ideal environment
for abundant animal and plant life and for longevity and
comfort in human life. Water vapor is invisible, and
thus would be translucent, allowing the stars to be seen
through it. This would not be the case with a liquid
water or ice
canopy.
Compare that with Morris’
note on 11:13 and you’ll see that after the flood,
longevity began to decline:
It
is obvious, by comparison of the genealogies and
chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11, that the longevity of
mankind began a steady decline after the Flood.
Undoubtedly the vast climatological and physiographical
changes caused by the Flood were the main natural causes
of this. The protective vapor canopy was gone (see notes
on Genesis 1:6; 7:4), the rich soils were gone,
mutations were increasing in the inbreeding populations,
and the general environment was much more rigorous. No
doubt it was also providentially ordered that, in the
post-Flood world, life-spans should settle at around
seventy years of age (Psalm 90:10).
*
*
*
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain
reason—I do not accept the authority
of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each
other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I
cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against
conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand; I
cannot do otherwise. God help me.
Amen.
Martin Luther before the Diet of Worms, April 18,
1521
(as report by Roland Bainton in Here I Stand, p.
144).
*
*
*
Scripture:
The First Basis of Evangelical
Faith
By
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
he basis of faith
says: “We believe in the divine inspiration and entire
trustworthiness of holy Scripture as originally given,
and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and
conduct.” I contend that it is not enough just to say
that; we have got to go further. There are people who
claim to subscribe to that doctrine, who, I would
suggest, in some of their statements raise very serious
doubts as to whether they really do accept
it.
So we have to say
some specific things such as that the Scripture is our
sole
authority, not only the
“supreme” authority, but our sole authority, our only
authority. I say this to emphasize that we do not accept
tradition as an authority in any sense of that term. We
reject the Roman Catholic teaching with regard to
tradition, which is, as you know, that tradition is
equal in authority with the Scriptures. Roman Catholics
do not deny the authority of the Scriptures, but they
give to tradition, the tradition elaborated in and by
the church, an equal authority with the Scriptures. And
in that tradition they would claim to have received
revelation subsequent to the end of the New Testament
canon.
We reject that, but
we also reject another view of tradition which is much
more subtle and much more dangerous, and which, one
observes with great regret, has been creeping into the
minds of some evangelical people in these last few
years. What is this other idea of tradition? Well, it
was a point of view first elaborated by John Henry
Newman in the last century. Newman wrote a book dealing
with the development of doctrine in the church. And he
put it like this, that we must not say that the church
has received new revelation, rather that the church
through her experience and understanding, as the
centuries passed, has been able to discover what was
before only implicit in the Scriptures, and has been
able to draw it out. This is the new and more subtle
form in which the idea of tradition is being
reintroduced and given great
prominence.
This is the way in
which men can justify certain practices such as
episcopacy and so on, and still claim to be guided by
the Scripture. They say it is right and true to say that
episcopacy is not actually taught as such in the
Scripture, but it is there “implicitly,” and the mind
and the experience of the church has been led by the
Holy Spirit to draw it out, to discover it, and to spell
out its meaning. In this way you have tradition coming
in, not perhaps as an equal authority, but as a very
important one, and one which justifies certain other
beliefs and practices. I suggest that we must emphasize
that the Scripture is our sole
authority, and that with respect
to authority we cannot give any place to tradition in
any shape or form.
In the same way we
have got to assert today that we believe that Scripture
contains propositional truth. This has often been the
dividing line between evangelicals and
pseudo-evangelicals. I have noticed over the years that
it is one of the first points that indicates a departure
from an evangelical position when men begin to object
to, and to reject, propositional truth, as Karl Barth
did and as most of his followers still do. But we claim
that in the Bible there are propositions, truths stated
in propositional form, with regard to God and His being
and His character, and many other matters. We have got
to assert this element of propositional
truth.
[Excerpted
from the chapter “What Is an Evangelical?”
in
Knowing the
Times
(Carlisle, PA:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1989), pp. 340-342 (emphasis in
the original).]
NOTES
[i]
Augustus
Strong, Systematic
Theology (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907), p.
964.
[ii] William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), p.
1588.
[iii] H. A. Ironside, I Corinthians (New York: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1938), pp. 350-3 (emphasis in the
original).
[v] Institutes,
Book IV, Ch. 14, Section 44 (Beveridge translation).
[vi] Thomas Goodwin, Government of Churches, b. 7, ch. 5, p.
328. Cited in John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and
Practical Divinity (Paris Arkansas: The Baptist
Standard Bearer, 1995 Reprint of the 1839 Edition), p.
923.
[vii] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Three
Volumes. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1997), Vol. 3, p.
445..
[viii] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole
Bible.
[ix] A. C. Gaebelein, Acts (New York: Loizeaux Brothers), pp.
344,
67.
[x] Louis Sperry Chafer, Systematic
Theology, (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press,
1947-1948), Vol. VII, p.
229.
[xi] Collected
Writings of John Murray (Carlisle: Banner of Truth
Trust, 1977), Vol. 2, pp. 376,
380.
[xii] Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p
999.
