FREQUENCY OF OBSERVING THE LORD

FREQUENCY OF OBSERVING THE LORD’S SUPPER

Virgil Warren, PhD

            Since communion is primarily an interpersonal act, there is no inherent necessity in regard to frequency. Therefore, it is a matter of positive commandment or apostolic precedent rather than necessary inference.

I. Range of Practices Encountered in the modern church

            A.  Annual

            B.  Quarterly

            C.  Monthly

            D.  Weekly

            E.   Daily (at each meeting of the Christians)

            F.   Matter of opinion

II. Observations Favoring Weekly Observance

            A.  1 Corinthians 16:2 + 11:18-20: gathered weekly + when gathered, observed

                  Supper

                                          1. Note the suggestion that “lay by” means at home. But Paul says, “. . . that there be no collections when I come.”

                  2.   Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 16:1ff. were the same as he gave to other churches. Presumably then weekly gathering, hence, weekly communion, was at least as generalized as his collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

            B.  Acts 2:42 (“continued steadfastly”)

                  1.   “Continued steadfastly” describes activity during a relatively brief time

                        frame.

                  2.   “Breaking of bread” appears in a list of religious observances; hence, it does

                        not likely refer here to a common meal.

                  3.   The evidence for weekly gathering of Christians for worship is no stronger

                        than the evidence for weekly gathering to observe the Lord’s Supper.

            C.  Qualify the “the” argument: “the” + date + repetitive action may equal “every”; but while 1 Corinthians 16:2 labels a recurring event, Acts 20:7 does not (cp. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1).

            D.  Avoid the “as often as” argument: in 1 Corinthians 11:25-26, “as often as” (ὁσάκις [hosakis]) does not particularly mean “often.” It does not mean frequency, but correlative frequency (cp. Revelation 11:6).

                  We might be able to say that the disciples met distinctively not primarily, to observe the Lord’s Supper.

 III. Arguments for Annual Observance

            Annual observance depends primarily on an allegorical comparison between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover.

            A.  Items of parallel

                  1.   The Lord’s Supper was instituted at a Passover meal.

                  2.   The Passover meal was commanded to be observed “forever” (Exodus 12:14, 17, 24).

                  3.   As the basis for salvation Jesus is the functional equivalent of the Passover lamb, was sacrificed by crucifixion at Passover time, and is called “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

                  4.   The Passover meal was an annual observance (Exodus 13:5, 10) associated not only with the memorializing of the passing over of the death angel, but also with the passing over out of the land of Egyptian slavery.

            B.  Response to the argument

                  The frequency issue must be seen as related to the meaning of the rite. 

                                          1.   It is clear from New Testament witness that the Lord’s Supper was observed more often than once a year.

                  2.   The Passover meal was observed in memory of the exodus whereas the Lord’s Supper is observed in memory of the sacrificial death of Christ. Neither event in itself had anything about its nature that implied something about the frequency of observance. The exodus was memorialized by a weekly observance (the Sabbath) and an annual observance (the Passover). Both the exodus and the crucifixion were one-time occurrences. The Lord’s Supper in memory of the latter could as easily be weekly—on the analogy of Sabbath—as it could be annual—on the analogy of Passover. The decision regarding frequency does not arise then from inherent meaning but from authoritative choice—by God, by the apostles.

                  3.   As to frequency and meaning, the Lord’s Supper is no more the functional-equivalent continuation of Passover than baptism is the functional-equivalent continuation of circumcision.

                  4.   Another difference is that the Passover lamb was a basis for the forgiveness of sins and was not then the same thing as the Lord’s Supper, the memorial of the basis for forgiveness. If they are thus so different, not much can be transferred from one to the other. Therefore, they are not necessarily of the same frequency. 

IV. Daily Observance

            The argument for daily observance depends mainly on Acts 2:46: “daily . . . breaking bread at home.” “Continued steadfastly” is used both in 2:42 and 2:46 in connection with the expression “break bread.” In 2:42, however, “break bread” occurs in a list of religious activities while in 2:46 it stands alongside of “they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart.”

            We can see from 1 Corinthians 11 (and probably from Acts 20:7) that the early Christians did not observe the Lord’s Supper daily in those places. Unless we assume a lack of uniform practice, the Christians in Jerusalem were not observing communion daily; and the expression “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:46 does not refer to the ordinance.

            Even if 2:46 referred to the Lord’s Supper, we do not establish an obligation or precedent for daily communion. Precedent requires uniform practice in the apostolic age.

            “Continuing daily together in the temple” does not have to apply beyond the phrase in which it stands; that is, it does not have to apply to “breaking bread” and “receiving food” as well.

            One countering consideration is the accompanying statement “they received their nourishment with gladness.” The comment could be seen as distinguished from “breaking bread” rather than expansive of it.

 V. Sunday Observance Only?

            Although every clear case of observance occurred on the first day of the week, limiting the observance of communion to Sunday is an unnecessary inference. Even the institution of the Lord’s Supper did not take place on Sunday, but on Thursday night. We would not expect some impropriety, then, in observing this memorial act at other significant occasions besides a weekly assembly of believers. For that reason, we suspect, Christians have an inclination to include remembering the Lord in this way at Christmas Eve services or even weddings. They serve to reference significant observances of this type back into the central originating event in our faith.

VI. Observance More Than Once on Sunday

            Some congregations have both morning and evening services; others have multiple morning services. What should people do who preach twice or three times on Sunday morning? Should they partake of the supper in just one of the services or observe the meal with each group of worshipers? What about people that attend morning and evening service? Should the emblems be passed to everyone again? Should the ones absent in the morning identify themselves and have the elements given only to them while the others watch?  Should those who take the Lord’s Supper to shut-ins receive the emblems with each person, or is each person expected to take this “common meal” alone?

            None of these matters, of course, are addressed in the New Testament, so each person has to judge for himself what seems appropriate in terms of the interpersonal nature of Christianity and in terms of the practical requirements in the specific setting where he serves. There appears to be nothing in the nature of the meal or its meaning that would make multiple observance improper.