This Thursday, over lunch, three brothers and I are going to discuss the Lord’s Supper and whether as a fellowship we should observe it weekly.
A. A brief word on the nature of the Lord’s Supper: Four views:
1. The Roman Catholic View: Transubstantiation. The bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.
2. The Lutheran View: Consubstantiation. The body and blood of Christ are present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.
3. The Zwinglian View: Merely Symbolic. The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ and merely the spiritual presence of Christ (though not held by all).
4. The Reformed View: Spiritual Presence of Christ. This view speaks of the signs (the bread and wine) and the thing signified (Christ and all his benefits). For example, Michael Horton, Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary, California, argues that the Holy Spirit works in such a mysterious way that believers truly receive the same body that was born of Mary and the same blood that was poured out on Calvary (A Better Way, pp. 117-18).
B. Now regarding the frequency of the Lord’s Supper, the Scripture itself is not specific. We simply read “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup” (1 Cor. 11:26, ESV). Some groups argue for a weekly observance based on Acts 20:7, but a careful reading of the text would reveal that the biblical writer was not preoccupied with the matter of frequency.
But if we view the Lord’s Supper as involving a mysterious “sacramental union” (Christ and all his benefits—participation in the benefits of his death, spiritual nourishment, unity of believers, affirmation of faith in Christ) as Michael Horton argues, then a solid case, though not binding, could be made for a weekly observance.
In other words, if we are convinced that when we observe the Lord’s Supper, we receive the blessings of Christ and all the benefits of his person and work, then why not observe it weekly?
However, it’s nature and frequency is still up to each local church.
I tend toward Luther, but probably more Reformed in my view. Luther himself made a case at one time for fewer observances, as did some Reformed churches. Their reason was so it didn’t become “ritual” without meaning.
Dan,
Yes, “ritual without meaning” is a real concern, but if a Reformed approach is held, I think this can certainly be minimized.
Enjoy your lunch.
On the nature of Holy Communion, I have long leant towards what you describe as the Reformed position. I was brought up in a Baptist Church most of whose members tended to Zwingli. My reading of Calvin’s Institutes points to your Reformed definition being his view. The Church of Emgland’s 39 Articles have a distinct and clear Reformed bias, notably in their understanding of the Sacraments. My younger brother wrote an extended essay supporting this view while training at the Spurgeon College in London.
I see frequency as a very personal thing, for us as individuals and for congregations. John Wesley, so I am told, practiced weekly receiving and encouraged his followers to do the same. Many years ago I was encouraged by my (older) Vicar who was of tranditional CoE Evangelical outlook that we should develop our own “rule of life”. He felt that meant at least monthly, but if for some it was weekly or more often, he had no problem.
And to quell any misconceptions, weekly onservance is not just a “Catholic” or other Episcopal thing. The Baptist Church where I was brought up has observed weekly, at a quieter early for some years as well a monthly at each of the 2 main services – my elderly mother still attends most weeks . My local Elim church also has an early communion Service every week (quieter by Elim standards!). I was privileged to preach at it in a pulpit exchange last year.
And these days , I usually receive twice a month. I recall feeing incomplete when some years ago, I was in an independent Fellowship which observed, initially, very spasmodically. Later it became a monthly occurence. However often our congregations observe and we receive, I am sure we should be following Paul’s guidance in 1 Cor 11 about self preparation. It is easy to make a ritual or virue over frequent or infrequent reception.
I’m definitely not the expert, but in plain reading of scripture, it reads like a memorial to me. I think it’s a stretch to read more into it.
Colin,
Thanks. I will – having Chinese.
Yes, it does come down to the local church (and denomination). But I’m getting the feeling that the Lord’s Supper is not that weighty to most. And thanks for the personal touch, esp. regarding your mother.
John,
Where does 1 Cor. 10:16 point? Merely memorial?
Acts 20:7 says “On the first day of the week, we assembled to break bread…”
When did the disciples break bread? How many weeks have a first day? Where is our authority to decide to do it once a month, once a quarter or once a year?
As far as it becoming a ritual, that is between the person and God, we are to do it whilst examining ourselves. If ritual is our reason not to do it, then why do we sing, give, study or even bother attending services? Isn’t it strange that while many don’t see authority to observe the supper on a weekly basis they are at the same time more than happy to take up a collection on a weekly basis.
Joe,
Acts 20:7 must be read as part of a historical account on Luke’s part. It is in no way didactic as you’ve made it to read.
We can get a text to yield whatever we want based on the questions we ask of that text.
If a sign said “on the first day of the week we assemble here to drive Ford Mustang convertibles…” no one would have any problem understanding it.
From Acts 20:7 we know that God approves of a weekly observance on the first day of the week.
Early historical sources give additional evidence and confirms the day and frequency.
I believe it comes down to authority. There is an apostolic pattern of worship found within the NT and we should pay attention to it.
I’m with John. My focus is on the “Do this in remembrance of me.” Just as baptism is a public statement of individual faith, communion is a corporate statement of faith, a proclamation of what we believe – an ongoing declaration of Christ’s death for our sins. To my reading, the bread and cup are symbols of Christ’s covenant, not literal flesh and blood.
I grew up having communion weekly and miss that aspect of the service – currently, we observe it once a month.
Point to note: “This is my body… This is my blood…”
The doing in remembrance was an action to repeat not a commentary of the substance of the bread and wine. That issue was finished when “This is” was uttered.
(Consubstantiation is a RC term for Lutheran belief. Inaccurate. We believe it is the body and blood but since the scriptures don’t explain how that is, we leave it as a true statement not needing to be opened for examination for the full benefit to be derived.) I am not ashamed to say “I don’t know… but He does.”
Given how much many of my own traditions have made of “do this in rememberance of me”, I have checked a few translations – NRSV, VNIV and AV. Those words appear only against Luke’s account for the bread and the 1Cor 11 against both. I will not read too much into that, though when read alongside other verses, this seems t me to point to some kind of spiritual benefit and reception. But even Calvin, like Luther, in his understanding, leaves the mechanics of that open.
Tom,
I know that Luther himself never used the term, but I think it best fits the way it really developed. Yes, we must respect some levels of mystery to the Supper.
I lean toward the reformed view, our church is a mix between reformed and Zwinglian. We observe it every week, but recognize that’s a personal conviction and each church is locally responsible to determine for themselves.
I tend to go with John and Elshaddai. My family, since we are without a church at the moment, do it once a month.
I grew up SBC and did it on the fifth Sunday events.
EE,
In the words of Jesus, yes, “Do this in remembrance of me.” But Paul comes along and fleshes thinks out some more: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16, ESV)
There seems to be a lot more going on than mere symbolism.
Bryan,
These days I’m leaning more toward the Reformed, given 1 Cor. 10:16.
Joel,
Still looking for a church?
What if a month didn’t have a fifth Sunday, as is the case with some, What happened? No Communion that month?
Still looking, sorta.
No, SBC only held communion on month’s with a Fifth Sunday.
My family and I do so monthly, regardless of the number of Sundays.
Joel,
Perhaps you need to start a Bible study and see where it leads. The Lord might be telling something.
Well, not all SBC churches, but I see what you mean.
I think we should just celebrate it as a potluck or BBQ for the whole church. How often? As often as possible the better. Forget all this wrangling over how often we should take a drink of wine/grape juice and a bite of bread/cracker and what it all means. Let’s get together, share a good meal with each other where everyone from different socio-economic backgrounds sits at the same table and eats in the name of the Lord.
Bryan L,
As a potluck? What will replace the bread and wine? Perhaps a word could be said for it being celebrated alongside a fellowship meal.
But we’ve long left that aspect behind.
Joe,
Your sign analogy is quite clear and obvious. Acts 20:7 is not framed the same way. You know that!
I see no apostolic pattern in Acts 20:7. I simply see a single Sunday observance with no reference to frequency. Let Scripture speak on the subject.
hehe, well I guess I don’t get it then. My pattern was in reference to the NT as a whole not just 1 verse. Either way, there are some very basic questions with Acts 20:7 which one would need to answer to justify doing anything else.
Let us know how your discussion goes and the conclusion of it.
Not every question is a warranted question. Some questions should never be asked of a text.
Zwinglian here and I like Bryan L’s approach! Nothing should have to replace the bread and wine, just use it at the time you do that part.
Pingback: Is the Lord’s Supper for Laymen a special communion with God? « Castle of Nutshells
I think Acts 2 is also a celeberation of the Lord’s table. I would also argue that 1 Corinthians 11 sounds more like a full fellowship meal that was shared amongst the people of God. People were eating and getting drunk, that doesn’t sound like the solemn event that transpires once a week or once a month, I would also add if the passover has anything to do with it that it was sure a fellowship meal “eat the whole lamb and burn the rest”. It also seemed like a full meal when Jesus and the disciples ate it. I do believe that the bread and cup are important but I think the entire fellowship is also important. It seems like we taken the “elements” and has disregarded what I think it points to which is the marriage supper of the lamb. My thoughs brother.
Lionel,
Regarding Acts 2, I see both a fellowship meal and the Lord’s Table going on. The same should have been happening in 1 Corinthians 11, but Paul had to rebuke them for their abuse at the fellowship meal which affected their observance of the Lord’s Supper.
It is true the Lord’s Supper points to the eschatological meal, but it also points backward to Calvary, and not only that, but our mystical union with Christ and each other (1 Cor. 10:14-17).
Actually, I think that lutherans would be more comfortable with the term “sacramental union”.
Having been in many free churches with a Zwinglian perpsective on Communion, I’d make the following observations:
- In practice when the view is ever explained it ends up being expressed in almost completely negative terms – it ends up sounding as if Christ is everywhere except whenever we take communion.
- The physical aspect of it sits very uneasily alongside the purely mental approach to it – I suspect a lot of people would be happier just thinking about taking communion than actually taking communion.
For a better explanation of the lutheran view, take a look at:
http://www.oldsolar.com/article.php?&fname=Articles/doctrine/6wittenberg.txt
Chris E,
Thanks for that “Sacramental Union” take from a Lutheran perspective. Yes, I could see the potential for slighting when the Zwinglian view is adopted. Thanks for the link.
A question about “A.” – would someone enlighten me on the difference between no.1 and no.4. Sounds like just slightly different wording of the same thing for me. (?)
E.K.,
In the first view (#1), the bread and wine actually become the very body and blood of Christ. Such is not the case in the fourth (#4) view – that their is a presence of Christ is granted from the language of the “sacramental union” that is mediated by the Holy Spirit. The bread and wine do not become the actual body and blood of Jesus. That’s the difference.
T.C,
I agree brother; however, it seems to be at least at weekly meal that took place and I don’t beleive the two were mutually exclusive. To raise one above the other seems to redefine it’s purpose. I think one aspect that is huge is that isn’t just our union with Christ that is in view. It is also our union with one another that is in view by our union in Christ and that is what seems to be what failed in Corinth (maybe the have’s were elevating themselves above the have nots). In most of the examples above, neither of them seemed to address the other half of the purpose of “communion” which is our “communion” with one another. If we don’t have communion with one another we don’t have communion with Christ correct? So it seems it should be whenever we gather and can happen in the context of a “church service” or when a few believers get together to exhort one another.
Lionel,
Yes, our our practice, if you will, we have raised one above the other, and thereby have downplayed the “communion” with one another. We need to restore that “communion” with one another.
Pingback: NEW LEAVEN
Pingback: Faith Beyond Thought – Hebrews 11 and the Christian Life | The Church of Jesus Christ
An interesting discussion.
My view: Acts 20:7 says “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread”. American Standard Version.
There are two things we can know from this verse. (1) They were gathered together on the first day of the week, (2) The purpose of their gathering was to break bread.
It seems to me that the verse in its simplicity implies that the primary purpose for the weekly meeting (church service) is to observe the Lord’s Supper. This does not minimize the other acts of worship we are engaged in (Singing, prayer, teaching), but it does define the reason we are to meet (to observe the supper) and the frequency (on the first day of the week).
I don’t understand how we would read any other purpose or time into this verse that was is simply and perfectly stated in the scripture. It would seem to me that we have less authority (or perhaps no authority) to observe this once per month, once per year, every fifth Sunday, or any other time other than once per week on Sunday.
I don’t understand why we would make an issue out of once per week on Sunday or why we would wish to apply mans reasoning to interpreting this scripture to mean anything other than what it simply says.
Thank you.