communion – La Vista Church of Christ https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms Tue, 30 Dec 2025 22:29:12 +0000 en hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/cropped-LaVistaBanner-Copy-1-32x32.png communion – La Vista Church of Christ https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms 32 32 157465916 How Often Should Christians Observe the Lord’s Supper? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/how-often-should-christians-observe-the-lords-supper/ Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:00:10 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=89452

by Mike Willis

The Lord's Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ on the night of His betrayal and was designed to bring to our remembrance His beloved sacrifice for sin. Knowing that he would soon depart this world, Jesus commanded his disciples to take unleavened bread and fruit of the vine to remind them of his death on the cross, the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins. The Scriptures read,

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. For I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matthew 26:26-29).

When men partake of the Lord's supper, they partake of a memorial feast (I Corinthians 11:24 - "This do in remembrance of me"), a communion with Christ and other disciples (I Corinthians 10:16-17). This solemn act of worship was instituted by the Lord as a part of the public worship of the church.

There are several divinely revealed memorials in the Bible, some of which ceased with the inauguration of the New Testament. The Feast of Passover reminded the Israelites of the tenth plague in Egypt, which destroyed the firstborn of every household that did not have the blood of a lamb sprinkled on its doorposts and lintels (Exodus 12). The Sabbath reminds us of God's rest after creation (Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:11). The rainbow reminds us that God will never again destroy the earth with water (Genesis 9:8-15). The Lord's supper reminds us of an event more important than creation, the flood, or the tenth plague in Egypt; it reminds us of the shedding of Jesus' blood for the sins of the world.

How often is the Lord's Supper to be observed? The practice of observing the Lord's Supper varies from church to church. Catholics celebrate Mass every day; most Protestant denominations celebrate the Lord's Supper less frequently, some observing it once a month, others once every six months, and others once a year. The prevailing attitude toward the frequency of observing the Lord's supper is this: how often one observes it is inconsequential. If that is the case, one might observe the Lord's supper only once in his life and be done with it forever. If that is not true, then the Bible must reveal a pattern for observing the Lord's Supper, and that pattern is binding on men of every age.

Jesus commanded men to observe the Lord's Supper, saying, "This do in remembrance of me" (I Corinthians 11:24). If He did not reveal to us how to observe the Lord's Supper, His instructions for obeying the command "this do" are inadequate and incomplete. Unless Jesus instructed us on how to observe the Lord's Supper, His command would be as incomplete as mine if I were to command my son to "play baseball" without telling him how.

How to Establish Bible Authority

The Bible reveals the will of God to us through express statements or commands, approved apostolic examples, and necessary inferences. The importance of following the examples of the apostles is evident in the role Jesus placed them in. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to teach the disciples "to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you" (Matthew 28:18). These men began the proclamation of the Lord's will, establishing local congregations in different cities. These men established churches that were to abide in the revealed will of Jesus. Whatever acts of religious worship the apostles taught in one congregation, they taught in all congregations (I Corinthians 4:17; 16:1-2). Consequently, they told congregations, "The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you" (Philippians 4:9). "Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me" (I Corinthians 4:16).

We learn how to observe the Lord's Supper by noting how the first-century church observed it with divine approval. What they did with God's approval is a pattern for us today, having all the binding authority as a specific precept. Let us turn to the Bible to see how the early church observed the Lord's supper in order that we may know how God wants us to observe it today.

The Lord's Day and the Lord's Supper

The New Testament evidence is clear that the early church assembled on the first day of every week for a period of congregational worship. The congregational assembly for worship is discussed in I Corinthians 12-14, with explicit instructions for that worship to be conducted decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). This period of worship was conducted on the first day of every week (I Corinthians 16:1-2; see RSV or NIV translation). The church in Troas met upon the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). This day of worship for the church became known as "the Lord's day" (Revelation 1:10). Saints were exhorted not to forsake this day of assembly (Hebrews 10:25).

These are the only verses we can find that tell us to observe the first day of the week as a day of worship. Yet, the very passages which are used to prove that the early church assembled on the first day of every week show that one of the main purposes the church had in assembling was to observe the Lord's supper (Acts 20:7; I Corinthians 11:20). If the prime object of the Lord's day meeting was to celebrate the Lord's supper, then all of the evidence we have of the custom of meeting every Lord's day is equally conclusive in reference to the weekly observance of the Lord's supper.

The Christian community is almost unanimous in acknowledging that the first day of every week is to be set aside for worshiping God. However, they are unwilling to let these same verses speak for themselves and tell us how to worship God. Why appeal to these verses to show when to worship unless we are also willing to let them speak on how to worship? Those who stand opposed to observing the Lord's supper on the first day of every week tell us that these verses are inconclusive to prove that the early church observed the Lord's supper on the first day of every week. If they are inconclusive to prove the one (observing the Lord's supper every week), they are inconclusive to prove the other (to assemble for public worship on the first day of every week). Those who practice worship on the first day of every week but do not observe the Lord's supper when they assemble should tell us what Bible verses teach them to assemble for worship every Lord's day.

How the Early Church Observed the Lord's Supper

Not only did the early church assemble for worship every Lord's Day, but they also commemorated the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord in the Lord's Supper on the first day of every week. Look at the Bible evidence supporting this conclusion.

The early church continued steadfastly in observing the Lord's Supper. Acts 2 recounts the establishment of the early church, as Peter preached the gospel on the day of Pentecost. Three thousand souls responded in obedience to Christ in baptism. These believers in Christ "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42). The words "continue steadfastly" (proskarteren) mean "to give constant attention to a thing." The phrase would have little meaning if it pointed to a memorial feast that was observed once a year or once every six months. Its meaning, in the light of the early practice of the church, points to a regular and habitual observance of the Lord's supper.

That in which the early church persevered was "the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers." The phrase "breaking of bread" may be used of a common meal (cf. Acts 2:46; 20:11), although that is not its meaning in this context. These men had been "breaking bread" in the sense of eating a common meal for years before Peter preached Christ to them. The phrase also can refer to the "breaking of bread" in the Lord's supper (cf. Matthew 26:26), a memorial feast of the death of the Christ, which had become meaningful to those who had just obeyed the gospel which Peter preached on Pentecost. This is the view adopted by Marvin Vincent (457), F.F. Bruce (79), A.C. Hervey in Pulpit Commentary (55), etc. This verse indicates that the early church continued to observe the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's supper was one of the primary reasons for the church to assemble on the first day of the week. Acts 20 records Paul's trip to Jerusalem to collect funds from Gentile brethren and use them to alleviate the suffering of the Jewish saints. On his journey to Jerusalem, he stopped to worship with the saints at Troas. He arrived late on Sunday night or early on Monday morning and tarried seven days. The Sabbath passed without the church at Troas assembling, for the church did not worship on the Sabbath day. Luke records, "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" (Acts 20:7).

We see these facts about the early church from this verse: (1) The early church met on the first day of the week, not on the Sabbath. (2) They assembled for the purpose of breaking bread, partaking of the Lord's supper. Hence, Acts 20:7 demonstrates that the church at Troas came together on the first day of the week to break bread [see Marvin Vincent [558], A.T. Robertson [3391, Alford [223], Gotthard V. Lechler in Lang's Commentary [368], A.C. Hervey in Pulpit Commentary [143], etc.].

The church at Corinth assembled on the first day of every week to break bread. I Corinthians 16:1-2 indicates that the churches at Corinth and Galatia assembled on the first day of the week. In writing regarding the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, Paul said, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come" (I Corinthians 16:1-2).

The phrase "upon the first day of the week" (kata mian sabbatou) of the KJV is translated "upon the first day of every week" in the RSV and NIV translations. (The preposition kata is distributive in meaning, justifying this translation.) From these verses, we learn (1) that the churches in Corinth and the region of Galatia assembled on the first day of every week, (2) that a collection was to be taken at this assembly.

The purpose of the assembly at Corinth is given in I Corinthians 11:20. Writing to a church that was failing to do what God commanded, Paul said, "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." They were failing to do what they were assembled to do - to eat the Lord's Supper. This verse shows the purpose for which the church should have assembled. The construction is similar to what a teacher might say to a class of misbehaving children - "When ye come together, this is not to learn." The phrase suggests that the children should have gathered to learn, but were misbehaving instead. Similarly, this passage shows that the church should have assembled to observe the Lord's supper, but was not doing what God commanded.

The Lord's supper was to be taken at the general assembly of the church (I Corinthians 11:20,33). Paul's statements indicate that this assembly was convened to observe the Lord's Supper in obedience to the Lord's instruction, as he had instituted it, as shown in I Corinthians 11:23-25. Hence, the church at Corinth assembled on the first day of every week to eat the Lord's supper in obedience to the Lord's instructions when he instituted the feast.

Where Is Bible Authority?

Having provided Bible authority for the church to assemble together on the first day of every week to break bread, I ask, where is the Bible authority for the church to assemble once a year to break bread? Where is the Bible authority for the church to assemble once a month to break bread? Where is the Bible authority for the church to assemble once every six months to break bread? Where is the Bible authority for the church to assemble on some day of the week other than the first day of the week to break bread? There is no Bible authority for any of these practices. The church, which partakes of the Lord's supper once a year, once every six months, once a month, or every day, acts without Bible authority. Their worship is of their own devising and origin and without divine approval.

Reasons Given for Not Observing the Lord's Supper Every Week

When these materials are presented, some reject them using various objections. I would like to address some of those objections and respond to them.

"It does not say every first day of the week."

This is the usual reply given when evidence from Acts 20:7 is cited. The Corinthian evidence (I Corinthians 16:1-2; 11:20) does indicate that the first day of every week is mentioned in more recent translations (NASB, NIV). It is interesting to notice the inconsistency of those who make this argument. These very same people will use the very passages which I have used to show that Christians are to worship on the first day of every week rather than on the Sabbath. These passages are thought to be conclusive in establishing that the first century church worshipped on the first day of every week, although the express purpose of those assemblies was to "break bread" (Acts 20:7; I Corinthians 11:20). If they prove that we ought to worship on the first day of every week because the early church worshipped on the first day of every week, they also prove that we ought to "break bread" on the first day of every week since they broke on the first day of every week.

"I Corinthians 11:26 says 'as often as you eat this bread,' leaving man free to choose how often to partake of the Lord's Supper."

The text reads: "After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (I Corinthians 11:25-26). The words "as often as" (hosakis) do not describe the frequency of the observance but point to the manner of the observance. The NIV translates the word "whenever" "whenever you drink it . . . For whenever you eat this." This verse does not discuss the frequency of observing the Lord's Supper; rather, it instructs men on how to observe the Supper whenever it is observed.

If the argument (man is free to choose how often to partake of the Lord's supper) that is being made is true, then one man's choice is just as good as any other man's choice. If a man chooses to partake of the Lord's supper once in his life and be done with it, that would be just as approved of God as the choice to observe it annually, semi-annually, monthly, or weekly. What about the man who chose not to observe it all? Could a man choose to observe it one time a year but not zero times a year?

"If we partake of the Lord's Supper every week, it loses its significance."

I suppose the conclusion should be that the less frequently we observe the Lord's supper, the more hallowed it will become. Therefore, let us partake of it only once in our lifetime. If this is true with the Lord's supper, would this apply to the other items of worship? If we pray every day, does prayer lose its significance? If we give every week, does giving lose its significance? If we listen to the word of God being preached every week, does the word of God lose its significance?

The absurdity of this can also be illustrated. Suppose a man said to his wife, "If I tell you I love you every day, that will lose its significance. Consequently, once a year, I will tell you that I love you." What do you think she would have to say about that?

"The New Testament is not a blueprint or pattern which should be followed today."

Those who believe that the approved apostolic examples of the early church are not binding on us today often ridicule the idea that the New Testament serves as a blueprint. If approved apostolic examples are not binding, how would we know? There is no commandment or explicit statement in Scripture that tells us they are not binding. Hence, if one is to learn that approved apostolic examples are not binding, he must learn that through approved apostolic examples or necessary inference. He must contradict his own premise to reach his conclusion; hence, the conclusion and premise are false. If he can learn through approved apostolic examples that the New Testament is not a blueprint or pattern which should be followed today, can he learn anything else in the same way?

Those Christians who contend that the New Testament is not a blueprint always contradict themselves. They can never be consistent. Is the New Testament a blueprint for telling us what we should believe about Jesus? Is the New Testament a blueprint for telling us how to be saved?

Is the New Testament a blueprint for legislating morals? Those Christians who do not believe that the New Testament is a blueprint for observing the Lord's supper always turn to that blueprint to answer these questions. Their own inconsistency proves that the New Testament is a blueprint to be followed.

Conclusion

How can I walk by faith in observing the Lord's supper? The only way in which anyone can do by faith that which is taught in the Bible is to obey a precept, follow an approved apostolic example, or act in accordance with a necessary inference. If nothing more had been said than "this do in remembrance of me," then congregations would have been at liberty to select their own time for observing the supper; but since we have an example of the practice of the early church, with apostolic approval, we know that we can do by faith that which they did. And it is equally certain that no one can celebrate the feast by faith on any other day than the first day of the week or any other frequency than weekly.

]]> 89452 The Lord’s Supper https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-lords-supper-2/ Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:49:35 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=63589
Download Audio

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Text: I Corinthians 11:17-34

 

I.         It is a covenant meal

            A.        Luke 22:19-20 - The cup is the new covenant

            B.        A covenant that is taken with us in the kingdom - Matthew 26:28-29

            C.        Covenants were often sealed with a meal shared between the two parties.

                        1.         Jacob and Laban’s covenant - Genesis 31:46,54

                        2.         The Law of Moses - Exodus 24:9-11

            D.        Each week we remind ourselves of our covenant with God and share a feast with our Lord.

            E.        This feast is sometimes called breaking bread - Acts 20:7

II.        It is a joining of believers in worship

            A.        Notice how often Paul emphasizes the coming together - I Corinthians 11:17-18, 20, 33-34

            B.        The early church continued steadfastly in this worship - Acts 2:42

            C.        Through the Lord’s Supper, we become one - I Corinthians 10:17

            D.        Because of this, Paul insisted that the Lord’s Supper be done together - I Corinthians 11:33

III.       It is a remembrance of Christ’s death - I Corinthians 11:24-25

            A.        The bread is to be broken to represent Christ’s broken body

            B.        The fruit of the vine represents his shed blood

            C.        This is what we remember - Mark 15:16-39

IV.      It is a hope for the future

            A.        Until Jesus comes again - I Corinthians 11:26

            B.        By taking we are stating our belief that Jesus will come again.

V.        The mechanics

            A.        Unleavened bread

                        1.         The Lord’s Supper was established during the Passover feast. Unleavened bread was all that was used.

                        2.         The lack of leavening represents the lack of sin in Jesus’ life - I Corinthians 5:6-8

                        3.         It is not the literal body of Christ because Christ was in the flesh when he established His meal.

            B.        Fruit of the Vine - Grape juice

                        1.         Represents the blood that seals the covenant - Hebrews 9:16-22

                        2.         Again, not the literal blood of Christ because Christ had not yet shed his blood when he established this feast.

                        3.         One container is not necessary because the cup was divided before it was drank - Luke 22:17-20

            C.        Done each Lord’s Day

                        1.         On the first day of the week - Acts 20:7

                        2.         Something the disciples did regularly - I Corinthians 16:1-2

                        3.         It was done by the entire church together - I Corinthians 11:33

                                    a.         This has led to some difficulty, because many congregations choose to meet multiple times on Sunday. Should we offer the meal at each service?

                                    b.         I Corinthians 11:20 doesn’t have an article in front of “Lord’s Supper,” but the words “Lord’s Supper” are in singular form and I incorrectly concluded that it meant one in number of partakings.

                                                (1)       It doesn’t indicate how often it is taken.

                                                (2)       It means a single type of event. There aren’t multiple things referred to as “Lord’s Suppers”

                                                (3)       For instance in I Corinthians 14:26 lists items of worship in the singular, but it doesn’t imply they were done only once on Sunday. What follows states that tongue speaking and prophecy would be limited to two or three per service.

                                    c.         I have to conclude that it is important for all present to partake together - I Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:33

                                                (1)       We sing, pray, and hear God’s word at each service, so it would not be out of place to have the Lord’s Supper at each Sunday service.

                        4.         Definitely, it cannot be offered outside of the worship assembly.

                                    a.         This would violate the need to come together - I Corinthians 11:17-18, 20, 33

            D.        Who is to partake?

                        1.         Those in the Lord’s kingdom - Matthew 26:29

            E.        How is it to be partaken?

                        1.         Examining yourself and not others - I Corinthians 11:27-30

                        2.         Discerning the body in I Corinthians 11:29 means understanding the significance of what is done.

]]> 63589 Do I need to confess my sin of lust before taking communion? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/do-i-need-to-confess-my-sin-of-lust-before-taking-communion/ Tue, 15 Sep 2020 17:01:09 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=26055

Question:

I have a question about lust and communion. Is it a sin to have touched my boyfriend’s buttocks with our clothes on? I believe it may fall into lust, and if it does then do I have to confess this before being able to take communion?

Answer:

What you are describing could fall under the category of sexual touching if you were touching your boyfriend to arouse sexual desire in you or him. "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (I Corinthians 7:1). Lust is a state of mind where you think about doing sinful things and justify it to yourself. Lust often proceeds the committing of sin (Mark 7:21-23).

When a Christian realizes he has sinned, he is required to make changes in his attitude and behavior. This is what is called repentance. "For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter" (II Corinthians 7:10-11).

God also requires that you admit your sin to Him. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).

There is no requirement that those who partake of the Lord's Supper be sinless. People often misread what Paul wrote: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" (I Corinthians 11:27). Paul said the manner in which the Lord's Supper must be done in a way that is worthy of the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf. He did not say we must be worthy because no man is worthy of the love Jesus showed for us. In other words, the Lord's Supper is to be conducted in a solemn and respectful manner as we remember Jesus' death on our behalf.

]]> 26055 Is the bread Jesus’ body or does it represent Jesus’ body? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/is-the-bread-jesus-body-or-does-it-represent-jesus-body/ Tue, 17 Dec 2019 23:48:56 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=16860

Question:

Good morning.

I have looked at your site for many years and have found the devotion and the knowledge skill set to be very helpful, in my walk of life with God. Thank you.

So often, in the Lord’s Supper, the men presiding will say, “which represents His body” and “which represents His blood” (bread and fruit of the vine). However, Jesus never said the word, “represent”, so why do so many in the church say it? Obviously, members of the church do not believe the fruit juice in the cups, to be Christ’s personal blood, and at the same time the words Christ used were, “Take this bread, my body” and “Drink this cup, my blood”.  Aren’t we doing a disservice to our Savior by “adding” to His own words, and using, “represent” instead? In my prayers, I am very careful to say something to the effect, “We now take this bread (loaf), that which Christ said, was (is) His body...”

Any insight or direction you could give or recommend would be appreciated.

Answer:

"While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.' And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.'" (Mathew 26:26-29).

"While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take it; this is My body. And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, 'This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God'" (Mark 14:22-25).

"And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood'" (Luke 22:19-20).

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 He took the cup also 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" (I Corinthians 11:23-26).

Before discussing these passages, we need a reminder about a figure of speech that is called a metaphor.

"A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn’t literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison.

Here are the basics:

  • A metaphor states that one thing is another thing
  • It equates those two things not because they actually are the same, but for the sake of comparison or symbolism
  • If you take a metaphor literally, it will probably sound very strange (are there actually any sheep, black or otherwise, in your family?)
  • Metaphors are used in poetry, literature, and anytime someone wants to add some color to their language"

[Alice E. M. Underwood, "What Is a Metaphor?", Grammarly.com]

Thus, when we say X is Y, we need to consider whether that statement is literal or a metaphor. The key distinction is that if it is literally true, a metaphor would not make sense. For example, "Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children" (Galatians 4:25). Hagar was a woman and not a mountain, so we know Paul is stating a metaphor.

When Jesus said, "This is my body," he was standing in front of the disciples whole and healthy. Thus, we know that Jesus was speaking in terms of a metaphor. It is even clearer when speaking of the fruit of the vine, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." When Jesus stated this, he had not yet shed his blood to establish the New Covenant. He is again speaking a metaphor.

Not everyone catches metaphors, so I'm not surprised that some chose to make it clearer by saying that the bread represents Christ's body and the fruit of the vine represents his shed blood. This is not adding to the Scriptures. It is restating what the Scriptures say in different words. Nor is there a command requiring a specific rote set of statements that must be said during the partaking of the Lord's Supper. To require such would be adding a command that God did not give us.

]]> 16860 Notes on Communion, The Lord’s Supper https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/notes-on-communion-the-lords-supper/ Sat, 17 Aug 2019 20:47:19 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=7585

Prophecies Concerning His Death

  1. Rejected by men, but not God - Psalms 22
  2. Hated and a reproach - Psalm 69:4, 7-9, 19-21
  3. The Suffering Servant - Isaiah 53
    • His humiliation - Isaiah 53:3-9
    • His accomplishment - Isaiah 53:10-12

Accounts of His Suffering, Death, and Resurrection

  1. In the Garden - Matthew 26:26-29
  2. Betrayal, Arrest, Denial, Trials, and Suffering - Luke 22:47-23:25
  3. His Crucifixion - Luke 23:36-46
  4. His Resurrection - Mark 16:1-8
  5. The reality of what was done - Acts 2:22-24

Institution of the Lord's Memorial Supper

  1. Matthew 26:26-29
  2. Mark 14:22-26
  3. Luke 22:17-20
  4. I Corinthians 11:23-28

Purpose and Method of Partaking of the Lord's Supper

  1. On the first day of the week - Acts 20:7
  2. A sharing with the Lord and our brethren - I Corinthians 10:16-17
  3. Not a common meal - I Corinthians 11:20-22
  4. As a remembrance - I Corinthians 11:23-24
  5. As a proclamation - I Corinthians 11:25
  6. To be done in a worthy manner - I Corinthians 11:27-32

Reasons for Christ's Death

  1. An example of suffering - I Peter 2:19-23
  2. To heal us - I Peter 2:24-25
  3. Demonstrating the strength of God's love to overcome man's weakness - Romans 5:6-11
  4. Freely given sacrifice - John 10:14-18
  5. In obedience - Hebrews 5:5-9
  6. To obtain redemption - Hebrews 9:11-15, 22
  7. To bring in a new covenant - Hebrews 9:13-22
  8. Reconciliation to God - II Corinthians 5:17-21
  9. To destroy the power of death - Hebrews 2:9-17
  10. To draw the world to Christ - John 12:27-33
  11. An example of humility and obedience - Philippians 2:3-11

Our Reaction to Christ's Death

  1. Confidence in God's love toward us - Romans 8:31-39
  2. Endurance to hold on to the end - Hebrews 4:11-16
  3. Endurance to overcome - Hebrews 12:1-3
]]> 7585 The original Lord’s Supper was observed at night and it wasn’t on Sunday https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-original-lords-supper-was-observed-at-night-and-it-wasnt-on-sunday/ Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:58:03 +0000 http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=2331

Question:

The original Lord's Supper was observed at nighttime (Matthew 26:31), and it was not observed on the first day of the week (Sunday), The practice of breaking bread was done on a daily basis from house to house, not on a weekly basis as in the churches of Christ. You find this information in Acts 2:46. And you'll also find that meat was involved, not just bread and wine. Why? Because it wasn't the Lord's Supper. What is your explanation on this matter? I need clarification.

Thank you, brother!

Answer:

A distinction must be made between things that are mere incidentals to an event and those essential to the keeping of a command of God.

  • Incidentals change from event to event. Essentials remain the same every time a command is kept.
  • Incidentals are not necessary to keep a command. Essentials involve the things used to keep a command.
  • When a command has symbolic meaning, an incidental does not contribute to the symbolism, but essentials are a part of the symbolism.

The fact that the Lord established the Lord's Supper at night does not indicate that it was an essential part of keeping the command. None of the Gospel accounts indicate how frequently or how often the Lord's Supper was to be kept. But Paul supplies an additional detail: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 He took the cup also 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" (I Corinthians 11:23-26). This indicates that when Jesus established the practice that he expected it to done differently in regards to time than what he illustrated.

The Lord's supper was something taken as a church. We find this in the negative as Paul scolded the Corinthians for abusing the Lord's Supper: "But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk" (I Corinthians 11:17-21). We are also told that taking it together as a church has symbolism: "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

We know the church gathered on the first day of the week (I Corinthians 16:1-2) and in one example, we know that the first day of the week gather was for the purpose of partaking of the Lord's Supper. "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight" (Acts 20:7). Since the time period mentioned was "the first day of the week," we now know that they did this every week. If they had done it once a year, it would have said something like, "On the day of Pentecost, when we were gathered together to break bread." If was daily, it would have said something like, "On the following day, when were gathered together to break bread."

Nowhere do we find an indication that the time of day was critical to the command. Thus, to conclude that the Lord's Supper can only be taken at night is false. Jesus happened to establish the command at night. The church in Troas met and stayed until past midnight in Acts 20:7, but it doesn't mention when on the first day of the week they started their meeting or when they partook of the Lord's Supper on that day.

The phrase "break bread" was a Greek idiom meaning to have a meal. It is by context that we distinguish whether we are discussing an ordinary supper or the Lord's Supper. In Acts 2:42 we read, "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Since "breaking of bread" occurs in the middle of other acts of worship as a church, we conclude that this is a reference to the Lord's Supper. In Acts 2:46 we read, "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart." The "breaking bread" here refers to common meals because it was done from house to house and not as an assembly of the church.

The English language, like any other language shifts over time. In 1611, when the King James Version was done, "meat" was the term for "food," whether there was animal flesh served or not. In modern translations you will see "meals" or "food" used instead because "meat" now has a narrower meaning in modern English. Making conclusions based solely from a 400-year-old translation is a mistake. Besides, as pointed out, the "breaking of bread" in Acts 2:46 refers to common meals anyway.

]]> 2331 Should it be called communion or Lord’s Supper? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/should-it-be-called-communion-or-lords-supper/ Sat, 23 Mar 2013 02:20:00 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=37946

Question:

Good day brother Jeffrey,

I'm here to seek your advice or comments and suggestions regarding the phrase "Lord's Supper." My question is: Can we still use the phrase "Lord's Supper" as part of the worship? Which phrase is appropriate to use: communion or Lord's Supper? I ask because the preacher said that we can no longer use Lord's Supper because it is not the Lord who leads the Lord's Supper anymore. I hope you can give me a supporting verse regarding my questions.

Take care and God bless.

Answer:

In English "Lord's Supper" means the meal belonging to the Lord. It means it is a special meal not to be confused with an ordinary supper you eat each day.

Paul referred to the memorial meal that Christ established as a "communion" in I Corinthians 10:16-17. "Communion" means something that is shared. The meal is shared by all believers to remember that the Lord died on our behalf. Later he called the same memorial meal "the Lord's Supper" when he said, "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you" (I Corinthians 11:20-22). The Corinthian's actions had turned the memorial meal that belongs to the Lord into something that wasn't anything more than a common everyday meal.

Therefore, both "communion" and "Lord's Supper" are appropriate phrases to describe the memorial meal that we partake of in worship. Your preacher's statement is contrary to the teachings of God.

Response:

Hi! Brother Jeffrey,

I shared what you wrote with the preacher. He is willing to correct himself and he is thankful. I told him sometimes you cannot rely on your own opinion regarding the Scripture.

I am very thankful that I found your site where I can ask for help. I found your explanation clear and understandable because there are supporting verses.

]]> 37946 Should leavened or unleavened bread be used in the Lord’s Supper? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/should-leavened-or-unleavened-bread-be-used-in-the-lords-supper/ Wed, 20 Mar 2013 02:01:00 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=37901

Question:

Our congregation uses ordinary bread (very likely leavened) for Lord's Supper. The minister, after admitting that unleavened bread was used during the Passover meal when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, tried to justify the use of ordinary bread this way:

1. The elements of the Lord’s Supper are the bread and fruit of the vine (Matthew 26:26-29). The Bible abounds with teachings on the significance of these two objects but makes no specification to the kind of bread (leaven or unleavened) nor to the container (one cup or many).

2. In facts, reading from the context, we are convinced that the early Christians used the ordinary bread rather than the unleavened bread when partaking the Lord’s Supper. For example in I Corinthians 11:20-22, Paul makes reference to the abuse of the Lord’s Supper carried to the point of indulgence. This seems to suggest ordinary bread (as those used in their ‘agape feasts’,) rather than unleavened bread.

3. Church history records that ordinary bread was used by the early church for the first 800 years. The Roman Catholic church then introduced unleaven bread for the Lord’s Supper to enforced their doctrine of "transubstan- tiation". Thus, they changed the Lord’s Supper into a mystic ritual, teaching that the bread and wine are trans- formed into the actual body and blood of Christ.

Answer:

Paul drew a parallel between the spread of sin and the partaking of the Lord's Supper. "Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (I Corinthians 5:7-8).

The Corinthians refused to reject a brother in their midst who was committing fornication. Their arrogance prevented them from realizing that sin doesn’t go away on its own. It spreads secretly and rapidly, like yeast in a lump of dough (Galatians 5:9; I Corinthians 15:33; II Timothy 2:17). The only solution is to remove the cause of leavening – the one who is sinning, along with the sins they were committing – so that what remains will be without sin. Christians are to stay away from sin (Romans 6:1-2) as followers of Jesus.

Jesus sacrificed himself to save lives (John 1:29), just as the Passover lamb was killed to save the firstborn from God’s wrath. The Passover celebration occurred during a week-long feast when no food was cooked with leavening (Exodus 12:15; Deuteronomy 16:3-4). It was done to remember that the Israelites left Egypt in a rush and did not have time to let their bread rise. But Paul uses it to draw a greater analogy: The one without sin died to save us from sin.

Because of this symbolism, the bread in the Lord’s Supper is made without leavening. Leavening represented sin. The bread in the Lord's Supper represents the body of Christ, who was without sin. By keeping ourselves pure from sin, we can keep the Lord’s Supper with an attitude of sincerity and truth. This is in contrast to when false teachers are in a congregation’s midst, as stated in II Peter 2:13-14 and Jude 12.

Therefore, your preacher ignored the fact that the type of bread was mentioned. He is also wrong in that the number of cups was not mentioned. Luke 22:17 states that there are many containers because the cup was divided among the disciples before it was drunk.

This man also claims that the "love feasts," a phrase that only appears in Jude 12, refers to common meals. Yet this claim is made without scriptural evidence. See "What is a "love feast?" for details.

The second argument is that the abuse of the Lord's Supper mentioned in I Corinthians 11 was turning it into a common meal, and common meals have leavened bread. This is a simple falsehood. The common meals served during the week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread used unleavened bread. Therefore, common meals can feature unleavened bread on the menu.

He missed Paul's point in I Corinthians 11:20-22. Paul previously touched on the point that a core element of the Lord’s Supper was sharing Christ's body and blood (I Corinthians 10:16-17). The Corinthians were not waiting for each other when partaking. Thus, when they assemble, one partakes before the others arrive. Some have not partaken (are hungry), while others have partaken (are drunk or satisfied).

Note that the word “drunk” does not imply that Christians were getting drunk during the worship. Such would be a sin in itself (I Corinthians 6:9-10) that the Corinthians knew was wrong (I Corinthians 6:11). The word methuo means “filled to the full.” When used concerning alcoholic beverages, it does imply drunkenness, as it does in English. But regarding other things, it means filled to the point of satisfaction. Since it is being used in contrast to hunger, it is being used concerning satisfaction in this verse. As Johnson notes in People’s New Testament Commentary, “This last clause means that he had eaten and was satisfied.” To claim it was partaking to excess is to add more than what was stated in the passage.

Paul’s point is that unity is not being demonstrated in sharing a meal with the Lord; instead, their disharmonious partaking demonstrates division. If they were hungry, they should have eaten at home. The gathering of the church is not to provide meals; that is the function of the home. Their action shows disdain for the church and for their brethren left with nothing of which to partake. If they expected praise from Paul in this matter, they had the wrong idea.

The last claim is that leavened bread was used for the first 800 years of church history. I get suspicious when a claim like this is made without historical reference. The problem is that the Greek word for bread does not indicate the type of bread. It can be used for both leavened and unleavened bread. A search of ancient Christian writings found these quotes:

"Yesterday the Lamb was slain and the door-posts were anointed, and Egypt bewailed her Firstborn, and the Destroyer passed us over, and the Seal was dreadful and reverend, and we were walled in with the Precious Blood. Today we have clean escaped from Egypt and from Pharaoh; and there is none to hinder us from keeping a Feast to the Lord our God--the Feast of our Departure; or from celebrating that Feast, not in the old leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, carrying with us nothing of ungodly and Egyptian leaven" [Gregory the Theologian (AD 329-389), Oration 1:3].

"This it is that rescues from the power of darkness and transfers us into the Kingdom of the Son of God. This it is that by newness of life exalts the desires of the mind and quenches the lusts of the flesh. This it is whereby the Lord's Passover is duly kept "with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" by the casting away of the old leaven of wickedness [1 Corinthians 5:8] and the inebriating and feeding of the new creature with the very Lord. For naught else is brought about by the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ than that we pass into that which we then take , and both in spirit and in body carry everywhere Him, in and with Whom we were dead, buried, and rose again, as the Apostle says, For you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. For when Christ, your life, shall appear, then shall you also appear with Him in glory [Colossians 3:3-4]" [Leo I of Rome (AD 400-461), Sermon 63:7].

These are not proof that unleavened bread must be used, but they prove that the preacher's statement that unleavened bread was introduced in AD 800 is false. The truth is that a debate arose around AD 800 between the church's Orthodox and Roman branches on whether leavened bread should be used or not. The Orthodox argument, which requires leavened bread, is weak because it claims that all use of bread that is not qualified as "unleavened" must refer to leavened bread. It is a claim that cannot be proven or supported.

]]> 37901 Can the Lord’s Supper be taken to a shut-in? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/can-the-lords-supper-be-taken-to-a-shut-in/ Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:27:00 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=16551

Question:

In our home Bible class last evening, one in the class asked if it is wrong to take the Lord's Supper to a member of the church who is a shut-in if the one, who is a shut-in, requests it.

Answer:

I have difficulty with this because Paul stated, "Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another" (I Corinthians 11:33). The Lord's Supper is intended to be taken by the entire congregation together to show their unity (I Corinthians 10:16-17). If a person has a reason for not being with the saints, such as because of illness, then they also have a reason for not partaking of the Lord's Supper.

]]> 16551 What do you think about partaking of the Lord’s Supper after dinner? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/what-do-you-think-about-partaking-of-the-lords-supper-after-dinner/ Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:27:00 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=19866

Question:

At our congregation, we take communion on the first day of each week. Our preacher has decided to have small groups meet in homes and have a potluck dinner and again partake of the Lord's Supper, calling it an agape feast. This is causing a division in the church. He is using a lot of Scripture to support this. What is your view on this?

Answer:

First, a small point. A preacher's job is to teach the Gospel and to make sure truth is taught. He has no authority to decide how a congregation should operate. He can suggest ideas, just as any member can, for consideration. He is to take a stand opposing false ideas when they are being advocated. But the operation of a church is by its members and its eldership. In a sense, this is a critical source of your division. You have a preacher running the congregation and some members don't like the direction in which he is running.

In this particular case, they are right and the preacher is in the wrong. My guess is that he has been influenced by F. Lagard Smith's writings, such as Radical Restoration. There are others promoting this same doctrine, but Smith is probably the more noted writer. This false doctrine has been making inroads in a number of congregations. It sounds appealing on the surface because it advocates a more laid back approach to Christianity, but it violates many teachings in the New Testament.

You didn't state how your preacher is justifying this practice. Having "a lot of Scripture" isn't proof if those Scriptures are being used incorrectly.

Let's start with the "love feast." The phrase only appears once in the New Testament: "These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots" (Jude 12). By itself, there is no clue here as to what a love feast is. Thus you find false teachers flocking to such passages with all sorts of claims. But what you need to realize that the fact that there was something called a "love feast" it doesn't mean that Jude was speaking of a common meal.

The word translated as "love feasts" actually doesn't have the word "feasts" at all in the text. It is supplied by the translators. The word is agapais which is the word for "love" (agape) in the dative, plural feminine form. I could not find a reason why this particular form of "love" is thought to deal with food. It does have the Greek article for "the" in front of it which indicates it is the name of something (i.e. "the love").

The only other place the particular Greek word for "feast with you" appears is "and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you" (II Peter 2:13). We have false teachers feasting with Christians and thus deceiving the righteous. The word for "feast with you" is a compound word suneuocheomoi. The word sun means "with" and eucheo means to feast sumptuously or to entertain. In neither Jude 12 or II Peter 2:13 is there a contextual assumption that the Lord's Supper is meant.

In the writings of early Christians, I did find that they did consider agapais a reference to the Lord's Supper. "Yet you make a great ado only about the modest supper room of the Christians. Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agape, i.e. love. [Tertullian, (c. A.D. 197), 3.47].

Let's assume for the moment that "the love" in Jude is a reference to the Lord's Supper. Does this mean it was a part of a larger meal? Advocates of combining a common meal with the Lord's Supper do so by citing that Jesus instigated his commemorative meal after the Passover feast. Since this is an example, we must then ask, are the meal and the Lord's Supper intentionally joined (that is, an example we must follow) or incidentally joined (that is, it did happen originally, but it wasn't meant to be an example to follow).

Paul's writings make it clear that it was an incidental and not one we were expected to follow. "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you" (I Corinthians 11:20-22). Paul scolds the Corinthians for treating the Lord's Supper as a common meal. Common meals are for the home. The Lord's Supper is set apart for a holy purpose and so is treated differently.

Again, early Christians understood this. "The apostle, restraining those who transgress in their conduct at entertainments, says 'For everyone takes beforehand in eating his own supper. And one is hungry and another drunk.'" [Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 195), 2.240). Sadly, the advocates of these combined meals are ignoring Paul. They are turning the Lord's Supper into a time of entertainment.

Notice as well, that the Lord's Supper was something unique to the gathering of Christians and that gathering was separate from the home, though we know that some early congregations met in homes. What the small group advocates are doing is trying to put the Lord's Supper into a home environment when Paul argued it was something the church did in its gathering together (its worship service).

In addition, the breaking into small groups destroys one important symbol of the Lord's Supper -- the unity of the brethren. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread" (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

Finally, another assumption that is being made in your particular congregation is that God requires the Lord's Supper to be taken twice on the first day of the week. Upon what passage is such a conclusion drawn? I know of none.

What you have is a person taking numerous bits and pieces and a whole lot of assumptions to arrive at something that isn't taught in the New Testament. In fact, I can find that it contradicts the teachings in the New Testament. Therefore, it is a false doctrine.

Additional Resources:

]]> 19866