F

OR 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,”[1] 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.[2]

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 kataggellō, to announce publicly, proclaim. This word is a derivative of kerux and kerussō, 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.”[3]

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.”[4] 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.[5]

This was also the view of the famous English non-conformist preacher Thomas Goodwin (1600-80),[6] 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.[7]

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.[8]

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?[9]

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.”[10] 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.”[11]

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.”[12] 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.

Dr. J. D. Watson

Pastor-Teacher

Grace Bible Church

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 in Colorado

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).

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).]

ISSUE 2 – September/2005

How Often Should the Lord’s Supper Be Observed?

I Corinthians 11:26

F

The New Testament Progression

Conclusion

Q and A

with Pastor Watson

Scripture: The First Basis of Evangelical Faith