Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Christian Thoughts? | Yes. In 1 Cor. 11, the apostle states that they were not coming together to partake of the Lord's supper. Hence however often they did it -- it might have been daily -- their practice gives no indication of frequency of communion. I'm inclined to think that the apostle was describing the agape feast, and his instructions require them to have this at home. In Acts 20:7 there is a clear example of seasonal communion around the time of unleavened bread. It is a one off occasion and the text specifically states that they met for the purpose of breaking bread. Concerning the assumption that the Christians would have observed the Supper when they came together, that is the point to be proved. As baptism was not an essential element, 1 Cor. 1:17, there is no reason to believe that the Lord's supper would have been considered such. As for the Didache, it is not apostolic; but if it were, it still doesn't require weekly communion, but the breaking of bread on a specific day of the week, called the Lord's own day. |
The apostle was describing the agape feast that was celebrated along with the Supper - and which was the point of controversy because they came without regard to their brethren - in drunkenness, etc. And in so doing were profaning the Supper which was celebrated when they met together as "the church." Paul's instruction was to "eat at home" - to forsake the agape feast if it caused such problems - that they might rightly observe the supper.
Certainly "the church" could well have met more than weekly - and no doubt did as believers met in homes. But that Acts 20 is a "clear example of a seasonal communion" is a stretch - to say the least. It was "after" the days of Unleavened Bread. They traveled for 5 days. They stayed for 7 days. And at some point in those 7 days the Lord's Day rolled around - and on that day it says they "broke bread."
I believe we see in the use of this language in Acts a "transition" where a common phrase for a meal begins to take on a more "spiritual significance." So that whether the "breaking of bread" included the agape feast along with the Supper or speaks directly of the Lord's Supper, I personally see more than a "fellowship meal" that has nothing to do with the Supper.
As for the Didache - what can I say. It does not "require" but does demonstrate what the church did. And to say that "the Lord's own day" is anything other than the Lord's Day, the first day of the week, is almost ridiculous to me. It would be difficult to even engage that kind of sophistry.
As an aside, another interesting point, when thinking of Paul's instruction in 1 Cor. 11, is the fact that he "delivered to them
what he received from the Lord," and not what he heard second-hand from the other apostles. It was the Lord Jesus himself who taught Paul about the "last supper" - apparently recounting to him the very words of institution and the circumstances surrounding the meal that Paul in turn relates to the Corinthians. Although not directly related to the issue of "frequency" - it is interesting that the Lord Jesus thought it significant enough that he related the events and very words of institution for Paul - even though they would have been readily learned from the other apostles.