Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Christian  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. |
He says specifically that they were not meeting together for the Lord's supper, tells them explicitly to have their meals at home, and deliberately leaves frequency vague by his statement that "as oft" as it is celebrated the Lord's death is shown forth. Clearly there is no evidence here for weekly communion, and one must be already disposed towards it in order to read it into the text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Christian 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." |
It does not say, On that day they broke bread, but that they met together on that day to break bread. The specific purpose of this Lord's day was to celebrate the Lord's supper. So instead of a service with the supper tacked on to the end, participation in the supper was the focus of the day -- such as is done in a traditional seasonal communion. Again, one must have a precommitment to weekly communion in order to read it into the text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Christian 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. |
No one is disputing that the Lord's day is the reference; the point, however, is, that breaking of bread was prescribed to be done on this day and there is no reference to frequency. So as with the biblical passages, one must already have a precommitment to weekly communion in order to find support for it in this non-apostolic passage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Christian 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. |
It is correct that the apostle delivered what he received from the Lord, and it is significant that he lays down no instructions with respect to how often the Lord's supper is to be observed; thus making it clear that the Lord Jesus Christ, in ordaining the perpetual observance of the Supper in remembrance of Him, does not require that it be done weekly, contrary to the claims of those who advocate for weekly observance.