Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In a previous article pertaining to the Lord’s Supper, I wrote concerning the items to be used in the observance of the Lord’s Supper and the frequency with which it was to be observed. We are now prepared to consider the purpose for observing the Lord’s Supper and the manner in which Christians are expected to observe it. The religious world is sadly divided over the purpose for which the Lord’s Supper is to be observed. Perhaps the most blatant perversion of the purpose of the Lord’s Supper is committed by the Roman Catholics. Let us examine their concept of the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper In Roman Catholicism

The Lord’s Supper is understood to be a continuance of the sacrifice which Jesus made on Calvary. Because of the misconception, they make a number of errors pertaining to the Supper including each of the following:

1. Transubstantiation. This doctrine teaches that the bread and the fruit of the vine are changed in substance to actually become the body and the blood of Jesus Christ. Hence, Catholics believe that after the priest has said the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” that the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is necessary in order that the body of Jesus might be sacrificed anew daily. Here are Catholic statements of their belief:

12. Is there, then, after the consecration any longer bread and wine on the altar? No; there is then on the altar the true Body and the true Blood of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine (Joseph Deharbe, S.J., A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion, John Fander, trans., p. 264).

Catholics believe simply and firmly that when the priest takes bread and wine at Mass, devoutly recalls that scene of the Last Supper, speaks in the name of Christ and quietly pronounces his sacred words: `This is my body’ and `This is my blood,’ that at this very moment Jesus Christ becomes present. The bread and wine are changed into his body and blood, without any change in their appearances (Monsignor J.D. Conway, Facts of the Faith, p. 154).

The Catholics interpret literally the words of Jesus, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Ml. 26:26, 28). That these words cannot have been intended to have been understood literally is evident from a casual observance of the context. In the context, Jesus took the bread and the fruit of the vine in His hands and said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Did the disciples understand this literally? How could they? They say that His body and blood were holding the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine; the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine were separate from the corporeal body of Jesus. No one would have ever thought that they were literally the body and blood of Jesus. Rather, they were a memorial to the body and blood of Jesus (Lk. 22:19). In order for Catholics to be consistent, they should interpret Jesus’ statements, “I am the vine” (Jn. 15:1) and “I am the door” (Jn. 10:9) literally even as they do the statements in Mt. 26:26, 28.

2. The mass is regarded as a sacrifice. Related to the idea that the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine are literally the body and blood of Jesus is the idea that the body of Jesus is offered in sacrifice to God as an atonement for sins every time the mass is observed. Here are Catholic statements of their doctrine:

He came on earth to offer the sacrifice of adoration and reparation which man needed to offer to God and was unable to offer; in the Eucharist he continues that sacrifice and lets us take part in it . . . . The Mass is the Holy Eucharist as sacrifice . . . . The Mass permits us to have part in the redemptive work of Christ. We cannot make up for sins ourselves, but we can work in cooperation with him who can; and when our works are joined with his, they take on satisfactory value from the association (Conway, ibid., p. 165).

What, then, is the Mass? The Mass is the perpetual Sacrifice of the New Law, in which Christ our Lord offers Himself by the hands of the Priest, in an unbloody manner, under the appearances of bread and wine, to His Heavenly Father, as He once offered Himself on the Cross in a bloody manner (Deharbe, op. cit., p. 267.)

The Eucharist, therefore, is offered by Christ himself, and possesses the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross, of which it is representative and commemorative. As such it blots out the moral sins of those from whom it is offered, according to their moral disposition, `as if the sacrament of penance had been administered to them’ (Vasquez). There were protests against expiatory teaching from time to time during the middle age, but they made no mark. At the close of the period it was generally held that the mass was a sacrifice for actual sin, as the Cross was a sacrifice for original sin (Eucharist,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 1944 edition, Vol. VIII, p. 797).

This Catholic dogma is also in conflict with the Scriptures. First of all, there is absolutely no New Testament evidence to indicate that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus. Secondly, the Scriptures indicate that the sacrifice of Jesus was a once-for-all event. The writer of the book of Hebrews contrasted the sacrifices of the Old Testament worship system with that of the New Testament era. In doing this, he emphasized the difference in the Old Testament sacrifices which had to repeatedly be offered with the offering of Jesus’ blood which was a once-for-all-times sacrifice. He wrote:

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priests enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, not to bear sins, to those who eagerly await Him, for salvation (Heb. 9:24-28).

By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God (Heb. 10:10-12).

The priests of the Catholic Church offer a sacrifice daily, just as did the Levitical priests. Yet, the sacrifice of Jesus was a one-time sacrifice, never to be repeated. Hence, the Catholics err when they look upon the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice.

3. The mass must be presided over by an official priest. Inasmuch as the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine must be changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, an official priest must be present to administer the mass. No ordinary man can change the elements of the mass; an official priest must be present, as the following quotation demonstrates:

The church has the sacraments, instruments of sanctity, the means of bringing the grace of Christ to all men. So she needs priests to administer these sacraments, to serve as agents of the Savior … . . He exercises his new power of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Conway, op. cit., pp. 236, 239).

Again, there is no Bible evidence of a clergy-laity system and of a clergy being necessary for the offering of the “mass.” Rather, the Bible teaches that all Christians are priests (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 20:6; Isa. 61:6). The clergy-laity system is opposed to the teaching of Jesus Christ which states that we are all brethren (Mt. 23:8-10). Hence, the Catholic doctrine that a priest must officiate at the mass also incorporates this error.

4. The Lord’s Supper is conceived as a means of conveying spiritual graces. I do not mean by this that a person is benefitted spiritually as a result of observing the Lord’s Supper, something which all of us would admit, but that the Lord’s Supper is viewed as a channel through which God conveys spiritual blessings to man. Here are the Catholic statements of their position:

4. Holy Communion forgives the lesser faults of our daily lives – venial sins – just as food restores the minor ailments of our body. The Holy Eucharist is then the daily remedy for our daily weaknesses and infirmities. We might say that it forgives venial sins by burning them up in the flame of the love it kindles.

5. The Holy Eucharist gives us the grace to resist temptation, just as good food keeps the body from sickness, weakness, and early death. Temptations, if they were not resisted, would produce sickness and weakness within the soul, and if they were serious things they would bring death to the supernatural life of the soul.

6. Holy Communion takes away much of the temporal punishment that is due for past sins. It does this by increasing the virtue of charity in our souls (Conway, op. cit., p. 183).

7. What graces does Holy Communion impart to our souls? By uniting us in the most intimate manner with Jesus Christ, the Source of all Divine graces, it imparts to us innumerable graces, especially these:

1. It preserves and increases sanctifying grace;

2. It weakens our evil inclinations, and gives us a desire and strength to be virtuous;

3. It cleanses us from venial and preserves us from mortal sins; and

4. It is to us a pledge of our future resurrection and everlasting life (John vi. 55) (Deharbe, pp. 273-274).

The Holy Eucharist is not only a food, but “an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins” (Sess., xiii., cap. 2) (Bertrand L. Conway, C.S.P, The Question Box, p. 257).

Notice that, according to Catholic dogma, the Lord’s Supper forgives the venial sins, gives us grace to resist temptation, takes away the temporal punishment for past sins, and preserves us from mortal sins. Just where in the Bible could I turn to read that the Lord’s Supper is a channel through which these spiritual blessings flow? There is no Bible evidence to prove this. (Some Christians act as if the Lord’s Supper granted them forgiveness of sins. They habitually attend services to partake of the Lord’s Supper and then sometimes leave without participating in the other items of worship. They act as if the Lord’s Supper is somehow going to take care of their spiritual needs from one week to another.)

Bible Purposes of the Lord’s Supper

Having noticed the Catholic perversion of the Lord’s Supper, let us now consider the teaching of the Bible regarding the purpose of the Lord’s Supper. Here are its biblical purposes:

1. It is a memorial to Jesus’ sacrificial death. Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24, 25). Rather than the Lord’s Supper being a weekly or daily sacrifice to God, the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus. Men need a memorial to help them remember the death of Jesus. Men tend to forget even the important events in life; consequently, memorials are continually being set up to be sure that important men, events, and places are not forgotten. Just as God established the Passover feast as a memorial to the events which transpired when Israel left the land of Egypt, He also established the Lord’s Supper as a memorial to the vicarious death of Jesus Christ.

2. It is a proclamation of the Lord’s death. Paul wrote, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). Every week, the Lord’s people proclaim to the world that Jesus Christ died for our sins as they observe the Lord’s Supper.

3. It is a communion (1 Cor. 10:16-17). Again, Paul wrote, “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 being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17). Notice that the communion is two-fold: (1) It is a sharing in the body and blood of Jesus Christ; hence, we commune with Jesus. (2) It is a sharing with one another. Those of “like precious faith” are all partakers of the same spiritual blessings through Christ. Hence, we commune with Christ and with all other Christians.

4. It is an evidence of the New Covenant through the blood of Christ. When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, He said, “Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament” (Mt. 26:28). Again, Paul recorded, “This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25). The Old Testament knew absolutely nothing of a memorial called the Lord’s Supper. This new memorial is a reminder that we are also under a new covenant with God which differs radically from that of Judaism.

5. It anticipates the Lord’s return (1 Cor. 11:26). We observe the Lord’s Supper “till He comes.” Hence, the Lord’s Supper reminds us that Jesus is going to return to this world someday, not to establish His kingdom, but to present His kingdom to God (1 Cor. 15:24).

From these scriptural references, one can see that there is nothing which indicates that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ or that it is a channel for conveying special spiritual blessings. Rather, God’s purposes for the Lord’s Supper are different from those of Catholicism as seen in this material.

Manner of Partaking

The manner in which one partakes of the Lord’s Supper affects whether or not that act pleases God. In Corinth the church was observing the Lord’s Supper in such a manner that they were eating and drinking damnation (1 Cor. 11:29). What happened was that the Lord’s Supper was observed in conjunction with a common meal. The divisions mentioned in the first chapter of the book apparently caused the church to eat this common meal in small groups in which the rich were segregated from the poor. Hence, in their observance of the Lord’s Supper, they ate and drank unworthily to such an extent that God was displeased with them.

In order to properly partake of the Lord’s Supper, we must have our minds on its purpose (1 Cor. 11:20-22, 27-28). We must examine ourselves to be sure that we are discerning the Lord’s body and blood as we partake of the Supper. Many today do not properly observe the Lord’s Supper because they let their minds wander, pass notes, punch each other, talk to a friend, etc. They have not discerned the Lord’s body; they have not remembered his sacrifice for our sins. Consequently, they eat and drink damnation unto themselves.

Conclusion

Let each of us carefully examine ourselves in offering this worship to God that we do so in accordance with what He has commanded of us. Let us observe the Lord’s Supper using the items which God has authorized, honoring the frequence which He has commanded, recognizing the purposes which God had in mind when he established this memorial, and partaking in the proper manner. Let us not desecrate this Supper which God has instituted as a memorial to the vicarious death of Jesus Christ.

Questions – Lesson V

1. Tell the Items used in observing the Lord’s Supper and why each should be used.
2. Prove that the Lord’s Supper should be observed only on the first day of the week and on the first day of every week.
3. Define the Catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation”.
4. What did Jesus mean when He said, “This is my body”?
5. Contrast the Catholic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as a mass and the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus.
6. Give New Testament evidences which show that there is no clergy. laity distinction among Christians.
7. Is the Lord’s Supper the most important Item of worship?
8. Name the biblical purposes for observing the Lord’s Supper.
9. What is wrong with this statement: “I am not worthy to partake the Lord’s Supper so I do tot take it.”
10. Discuss present day abuses of the Lord’s Supper by Christians (i.e., willfully missing it altogether or waiting to take of it at night, conduct during its observance, etc.).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 43, pp. 700-702
November 1, 1979

By Mike Willis

Every religion with which I am acquainted which claims to be a Christian religion, with the exception of the Society of Friends (Quakers) and Christian Scientists, observe something which they call the Lord’s Supper. The Friends practice a religion which does away with all the externals and, therefore, they have done away with water baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The Christian Scientists prefer to commemorate the breakfast which Jesus ate with his disciples which is recorded in Jn. 21 rather than to observe the Lord’s Supper which He instituted and commanded that we observe.

However, all other religions professing to be Christian religions observe something which is known to them as the Lord’s Supper. One would think that the religious world would have this as common ground for the attainment of unity inasmuch as all of the churches practice something which they call the Lord’s Supper. Such is not the case, however. The churches differ` from each other regarding the items to be used, the frequency, and the purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper. Hence, the observance of the Lord’s Supper, rather than being common ground for all Christian religions, is another item over which Christian religion is divided. Let us study anew the biblical teachings regarding the Lord’s Supper in order that we might understand the nature of this divinely revealed memorial. (I am assuming that we understand that Bible authority can be established by command, example, and necessary inference in the course of this article.)

Institution of the Lord’s Supper

Jesus is the one who personally instituted the Lord’s Supper. The Supper was instituted on the night in which He was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23) during the meal which He ate with His disciples in observance of the Passover (Mt. 26:17). Here is Matthew’s account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper:

“And 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 He took a cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. But I say unto 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”‘ (26:26-29).

This account is also recorded in Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:17-20. Paul gave an independent account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23f. Hence, there can be no doubt that Jesus personally instituted the Lord’s Supper as a memorial to Himself.

When Jesus promised to drink of the fruit of the vine again in the kingdom of God, He revealed that this memorial supper would be a part of the kingdom of God. Indeed, Paul spoke of it as a communion (1 Cor. 10:16). It is, indeed, a communion – a communion with Christ and with all others who share in the blood of Christ. Consequently, the Lord’s Supper has meaning only to those who are in the kingdom of God. It was .never intended to be observed by those who are outside of Christ. It was instituted by Jesus with the intention that it be observed by His disciples as a memorial to Him. Non-Christians have no reason to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

Items On The Lord’s Table

Most everyone knows the items to be used on the table of the Lord and would be repulsed by any alteration of items to be used on the table. However, many know the items used on the table without knowing why those items are used. If such is the case, the items we use in the observance of the Supper are used as a matter of tradition rather than as an act of faith. It is insufficient that any of the things which we do in obedience to God should spring from tradition rather than from faith. Hence, we need to know why we use the items which we use.

1. The Fruit of the Vine. Jesus used the fruit of the vine as a memorial to His shed blood (Mt. 26:29; Mk. 14:23, 25; Lk. 22:20). In the New Testament era, the words “fruit of the vine” referred to the fruit of the grape vine. I say that because I was asked in one congregation whether the fruit of any vine would suffice for the observance of the Lord’s Supper. When the Scriptures say that Jesus took “the fruit of the vine,” we must understand that He took the fruit of the grape vine – grape juice. There is no evidence to my knowledge which would indicate that “fruit of the vine” was ever used to refer to fruit of the tomato vines, watermelon vine, berry vine, etc. If we are going to use what Jesus used in the observance of the Lord’s Supper, we must use the fruit of the grape vine.

2. Unleavened Bread. We know that Jesus also used unleavened bread when He instituted the Lord’s Supper. We learn this through necessary inference in the following manner: (1) The Lord’s Supper was instituted during the Passover Feast which was also known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Mt. 26:17). (2) The Mosaical Law legislated that leavening be put out of one’s house during the seven day observance of the Feast of Passover. Here is the ordinance:

“Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel . . . . Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is an alien or a native of the land” (Ex. 12:15, 19).

(3) We also know that Jesus committed no sin (Heb. 4:15). If he had used leavened bread during that week, He would have been guilty of sin and not been qualified to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. Hence, we necessarily infer that unleavened bread was used during the institution of the Lord’s Supper. If we are going to do as Jesus did, we will use unleavened bread in observance of the Lord’s Supper.

Not all groups follow the directions of the word of God in the usage of the proper items for the Lord’s Supper. The Mormons, for example, have this verse as a part of their “inspired” revelation:

“For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory – remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins” (Doctrine and Covenants 27:2).

Consequently, the Mormons use leavened bread and water to observe the Lord’s Supper. Some of the modernist groups have also discarded the revealed pattern of items to used in the observance of the Lord’s Supper and have used hamburgers and coke in their stead.

Those who deny that Bible authority can be established by necessary inference or example are in the precarious position of using the right items of worship for traditional reasons. The only legitimate reason that such brethren can cite for using unleavened bread and fruit of the vine is “this is the way that we have always done it.” They cannot give Bible authority inasmuch as they have renounced the usage of necessary inference and examples as a means of establishing Bible authority.

Frequency of Observance

The religious world is divided as to the frequence with which the Lord’s Supper should be observed. I have visited denominations which observed the Lord’s Supper weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, and annually. Is there a pattern as to when the Lord’s Supper should be observed? Let us examine the divine record to see how the early church observed the Lord’s Supper.

1. Acts 2:42. This verse records the example of the early church in Jerusalem. It records, “And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” The statement that they were “continually devoting themselves” (“continued steadfastly” -KJV) to the breaking of bread indicates that the early church observed the Lord’s Supper frequently. The passage does not tell us how frequently; we must learn that from other passages. We do learn, however, that they did not observe the Lord’s Supper sporadically in a hit-and-miss fashion.

2. Acts 20: 7. This passage reveals to us the day on which the early church observed the Lord’s Supper. The context of the passage was this: Paul was on his third preaching journey. He had collected funds to relieve the needs of the poor among the saints in Jerusalem from Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia. With a group of brethren, he was taking these funds to Jerusalem. The text states:

“And we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days. And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intended to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight” (Acts 20:6-7).

This passage is instructive inasmuch as it shows us the day on which the Lord’s Supper was regularly observed by the early Christians. Notice that though Paul was hastening to Jerusalem, he tarried seven days at Troas in order to have the opportunity to assemble with the saints in that city. He apparently knew that it was the custom of the church in Troas to worship on the first day of the week. The construction of the sentence shows that it was their purpose to come together on the first day of the week to observe the Lord’s Supper (break bread). Hence, we have a New Testament example of the early church assembling on the first day of the week to break bread.

3. The church at Corinth. We also know that the church at Corinth assembled on the first day of every week to break bread. As Paul wrote the church in that city, he found it necessary to correct the abuses that were occurring there. Among the abuses was their perversion of the Lord’s Supper. They had changed that memorial of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ into a common meal. In addition to that, this common meal was observed with class distinctions so that the rich would not eat with the poor. In rebuking the Corinthians, Paul wrote, “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” (1 Cor. 11:20-21). In the process of rebuking the Corinthians, Paul revealed that the church at Corinth assembled to partake of the Lord’s Supper. His sentence, “Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” is comparable to that of a teacher who is rebuking a class of youngsters who are creating confusion in the classroom by saying, “Therefore when you meet together, it is not possible to learn.” This is a method of stating what one’s purpose should be for coming together. Just as these sentences indicate that the purpose for the children assembling together was to learn, Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 11:20 indicates that the purpose for which the early church assembled was to observe the Lord’s Supper. But, do we know how often they assembled together for this purpose?

Yes, we do. From the instructions given concerning the collection, we learn that it was the custom of the church all over the world to assemble on the first day of the week. Notice that Paul’s instructions do not say, “Come together in order to give” but “while you are come together, give of your means.” Here are the verses:

“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.” (1 Cor. 16:1-2).

Notice the following points from these verses:

a. The application of the principle laid down at Corinth applied with equal force to the churches of Galatia. Hence, we are dealing with a general law for all churches and not with incidental matters pertaining to a specific situation.

b. The church at Corinth assembled on the first day of the week. The collection was to be taken while they were together. The church was together on the first day of the week.

c. The church so assembled on the first day of every week. The Greek construction kata mian sabbatou uses the kata distributively. Macknight correctly observed, “And as kata polin signifies every city; and kata mina, every month; and, Acts xiv. 23, kat’ ekkiesian, in every church: So kata mian sabbaton signifies the first day of every week.” Consequently, the New American Standard Bible in its translation “on the first day of every week” is more correct than the King James Version “on the first day of the week.”

Let us put our evidences together from the church at Corinth. (1) The church at Corinth assembled for the purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper (11:20). (2) They assembled on the first day of the week (16:1-2). (3) They assembled on the first day of every week (16:2). Hence, we have another example of a New Testament church assembling on the first day of every week to observe the Lord’s Supper.

It is interesting to note that the historical evidences from the first century corroborate the conclusions which I have drawn from the text. Though it must be recognized that historical evidence does not authorize anything as having divine authority, it confirms the conviction of our duty of things divinely established. “According to the Didache (14:1) Christians are to meet ‘on the Lord’s day of the Lord’ (kata kyriaken de kyriou) in order to break bread and offer thanksgiving” (Robert M. Grant, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 174). Other evidences from the “apostolic Fathers” could be offered which are equally confirming as this one from the Didache.

Answering Objections

1. “It does not say every first day of the week. ” This is the usual reply given when the evidence of Acts 10:7 is cited. I think that this is one reason that the Corinthian evidence is so valuable; it shows that the early church did assemble on the first day of every week to break bread. It is also interesting to notice the inconsistency of those who make this argument. These very same people will use the same 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 somehow conclusive in establishing that the first century church worshiped on the first day of every week but are not conclusive to prove that they partook of the Lord’s Supper on that day, although these passages show that to be one of the primary purposes for such an assembly. Do these passages prove the first day of the week worship assembly or not? If not, we have no authority for the observance of the first day of

the week; if they do, we have authority for the observance of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week.

2. “1 Cor. 11:26 says ‘as often as you eat this bread . . .’ leaving man free to partake of the Lord’s Supper as often as he chooses. “The context of this passage shows that this is not so. Verse 26 was speaking concerning the purpose for which the Lord’s Supper was being observed in Corinth. Paul was not discussing the frequency of the observance in v. 26; he was discussing the purpose for which the Corinthians were observing the Lord’s Supper. His point was that every time the Corinthians partook of the Lord’s Supper they proclaimed the Lord’s death until He returns. This verse has nothing to do with the frequency with which the Supper was to be served.

3. “If we partake of the Lord’s Supper every week, it loses its significance. ” I suppose, therefore, that the conclusion should be that the less frequently we observe it, the more hallowed it will become. Therefore, let us partake of it only once in our lifetime. Then, too, it seems strange to me that the Lord’s Supper is the only item of worship which loses significance the more frequently it is observed. Does giving lose its significance when done frequently? Does prayer lose its significance when practiced daily? My friends, this is an argument based on man’s testimony rather than on God’s word!

Conclusion

Let it be remembered that there is not one particle of evidence which implies that any New Testament church ever observed the Lord’s Supper monthly, quarterly, semiannually or annually. The evidence of the Scriptures is that the New Testament church observed the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week. Those who seek to worship God according to the divine pattern which he has revealed to us will worship with a group which observes the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week.

Questions – Lesson IV

1. Do all “Christian” religions observe the Lord’s Supper?
2. What are some differences in the manner in which the Lord’s Supper is observed among these groups?
3. Why do Christians observe the Lord’s Supper?
4. Why Is the Lord’s Supper called a “communion”?
5. Prove that the items to be used on the Lord’s table are unleavened bread and fruit of the vine.
6. How often did the early church observe the Lord’s Supper? Prove your answer.
7. Answer these objections to observing the Lord’s Sup per on the first day of every week: a. “It will get old observing it that frequently.” b. “It does not say ‘every’ first day of the week.”
8. Is there any difference In using several cups to pass out the fruit of the vine and several plates to pass out the bread?
9. Why would it be wrong to observe the Lord’s Supper on Thursday?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 43, pp. 697-699
November 1, 1979

By Mike Willis

In Rev. 1:10 John wrote, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day . . . .” By the time the book of Revelation was written, one day had already come to be designated as the “Lord’s Day.” Which day was it? Sabbatarians tell us that the Lord’s day is the seventh day of the week and teach that the early church worshiped on the Sabbath day. They further charge that either the pope or Constantine changed the day of worship of the New Testament church and that those of us who worship on the first day of the week have departed from New Testament Christianity. Let us find out just what John meant when he spoke of the “Lord’s day” to see if the first or the seventh day of the week is the Lord’s day.

Sabbath Observance Was Abolished

The observance of the Sabbath day was instituted shortly after God led Israel out of Egyptian bondage. The commandment to “remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy” was given to the nation Israel in conjunction with the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20; Deut. 5). God specifically stipulated how the Sabbath was to be observed. Here are some of the ordinances required for proper observance of the Sabbath day, according to the Mosaical law: (a) do no work (Ex. 31:15); (b) kindle no fire (Ex. 35:3); (c) gather no sticks (Num. 15:32); (d) offer burnt offerings (Num. 29:9-10); (e) buy no goods (Neh. 10:31; 28:9-10); (f) bear no burden (Jer. 17:21); (g) prepare shewbread (1 Chron. 9:32); (h) stay in one’s place (Ex. 16:29; Acts 1:12). Anyone who disobeyed these commandments was to be punished by being put to death (Ex. 31:14; Num. 15:32-36).

Though many religious people say that they observe the Sabbath day, I have never yet met anyone who observed it according to the Scriptures. Though they might do no work and buy no goods, I know of no Sabbatarian who prepares shewbread and offers burnt offerings on the Sabbath day as the Mosaical law requires. Neither have I ever met the man who believes that all those who do not observe the Sabbath day should be put to death. Even those who believe in worshiping on the Sabbath day do not believe in observing it as the Bible dictates.

However, when the law of Christ was given, the Mosaical law was abolished or abrogated (Heb. 8:13; 7:12; Eph. 2:14-16; etc.). Consequently, Paul could write, “And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to ,food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day – things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:13-17). Hence, Sabbath observance was abolished when the rest of the ordinances of the Mosaical law were abolished. Men do not observe the Sabbath, not because the pope or Constantine said not to observe it, but because of a divine decree which set aside the Sabbath day.

Scriptural Evidence For The First Day of the Week

The first day of the week is the Lord’s day. It is the only day in the week which can properly be called the “Lord’s day.” When one remembers some of the important things which transpired on that day, he can see why the day came to be called the “Lord’s day.” On the first day of the week, Jesus arose from the dead (Mk. 16:1-9). On that day, he appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mk. 16:9); to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13-35); to the apostles with Thomas absent (Jn. 20:19-25); to the apostles with Thomas present (Jn. 20:26-29); etc. Inasmuch as Pentecost always fell on the first day of the week (Lev. 23:15), these important events with reference to the early church occurred on the first day of the week: the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), the first gospel sermon and the obedience of three thousand whom the Lord added to the church. Hence, the first day of the week was an important day for the early church.

The early church met habitually on the first day of the week to worship the Lord. Let me give scriptural evidence that this is so. There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the early church assembled regularly. Paul wrote, “But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse . . . . Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:17, 20). Notice that these passages show that the church customarily assembled. The instructions in 1 Cor. 14 presuppose an assembly of the church. Then, too, Heb. 10:25 (“not forsaking our own assembling together”) shows that the early church customarily assembled together for worship.

That this assembly occurred on the first day of the week is evident from the Scriptures as well. In 1 Cor. 16:1-2, Paul wrote, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.” Notice several things from this verse. The instructions were given to a number of churches; these were not limited to Corinth. The instructions enjoined were to be observed on the first day of every week. Too, the instructions are not “come together to give” but “give while you are come together.” Hence, this passage is conclusive evidence that the early church worshiped on Sunday, the first day of the week, which day came to be known as the Lord’s day.

Furthermore, Acts 20:7 shows that the early church worshiped regularly on the first day of the week. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem on an urgent trip to take funds gathered for benevolent purposes for the saints in Jerusalem. However, he wanted to worship with the saints at Troas. Apparently, he arrived on Monday for he tarried seven days (Acts 20:6) to await the assembling of the saints. The Scriptures say, “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.” Notice, that Paul expected the church to assemble on the first day of the week and, for that reason, waited seven days to meet with them. Too, the early church usually met on that day to “break bread,” to observe the Lord’s supper. Hence, this passage further confirms what I have said, namely, that the early church regularly worshiped on the first day of the week.

Therefore, when we read that John was in the Spirit on the “Lord’s day,” we should properly understand that this was the first day of the week, the day set aside to worship and adore God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. The Scriptural evidence is quite clear that the early church worshiped on the first day of the week. The change in the days of worship from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week occurred by divine decree.

Extra-Biblical Evidences

Lest someone still is unconvinced that the early church worshiped on the first day of the week, I would like to cite the extra-biblical evidences which confirm what I have already proven from the Scriptures. McClintock and Strong cited a number of post-biblical evidences that the early church worshiped on the first day of the week; here are part of them:

“The epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, which, though certainly not written by that apostle, was in existence in the earlier part of the 2nd century, has (c. 15) the following words: `We celebrate the eighth day with joy, on which, too, Jesus rose from the dead.’

“A pagan document now comes into view. It is the well-known letter of Pliny to Trajan written (about A.D. 100) while he presided ova Pontus and Bithynia. `The Christians (says he) affirm the whole of their guilt or error to be that they were accustomed to meet together on a stated day (stato die), before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as a god, and to bind themselves by a sacramentum, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery; never to break their word, or to refuse, when called upon, to deliver up any trust; after which it was their custom to separate, and to assemble again to take a meal, but a general one, and without guilty purpose’ (Epist. x, 97).”

“A thoroughly Christian authority, Justin Martyr, who flourished A.D. 140, stands next on the list. He writes thus: `On the day called Sunday (te ton heliou legomene hemers) is an assembly of all who live either in the cities or in the rural districts, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read . . . . He afterwards assigns the reasons which Christians had for meeting on Sunday. There are, `because it is the First Day, on which God dispelled the darkness (to skotos) and the original state of things (ten hulen), and formed the world, and because Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead upon it’ (Apol. i, 67)” (“The Lord’s Day,” Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. V, p. 507).

After citing these evidences and several more McClintock and Strong gave their summation of the evidence:

“The results of our examination of the principal writers of the two centuries after the death of St. John may be thus summed up. The Lord’s day (a name which has now come out more prominently, and is connected more explicitly with our Lord’s resurrection than before) existed during these two centuries as a part and parcel of apostolical, and so of scriptural Christianity. It was never defended, for it was never impugned, or, at least, only impugned as other things received from the apostles were. It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it . . . .” (Ibid., p. 508).

Hence, both biblical and extra-biblical evidences confirm that the early church worshiped on the first day of the week, a day which they called the Lord’s day.

Conclusion

Why, then, does the Lord’s church worship on the first day of the week? The answer is simple: because the Scriptures authorize it. The first day of the week, therefore, is the day of worship of the New Testament church. On that day, worship according to the divine pattern must be offered. Do you observe the Lord’s day?

Questions – Lesson III

1. What day of the week is the Sabbath day?
2. Is Sunday the “Christian Sabbath”?
3. How was the Sabbath day observed in Israel? What was the punishment for failing to observe the Sabbath?
4. Do churches which worship on Saturday observe the Sabbath, according to the law of Moses?
5. Why was Sunday called “the Lord’s Day”?
6. What biblical evidences show that the early church worshiped on the first day of the week?
7. Check other secular historians (such as your encyclopedia) to see what they say about the day of worship for the church.
8. How would you answer the charge that the Catholics changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 43, pp. 695-696
November 1, 1979

By Mike Willis

On several occasions, I have visited the worship services of various denominations. At the Roman Catholic Church, I tried to follow the lesson from the book which I picked up in the pew. Although I tried to follow the lesson from the book, I hardly knew when to rise and when to sit. At these services, I heard responsive readings and the priest read his lesson from some kind of book. I did not hear any congregational singing. When the time came for the observance of the Lord’s Supper, the participants went forward to the front of the building and knelt down in a row. The priest .placed a wafer of unleavened bread on the tongue of the participants and took one himself. Afterward, he alone drank of the fruit of the vine. I witnessed the members, as they entered and departed from the building, bow before the cross and make the sign of the cross on their body.

On another occasion, I attended a Primitive Baptist Church in Eastern Kentucky where my wife’s grandfather attends and sometimes preaches. The services were altogether different. The songs were sung spontaneously without musical accompaniment: Sometimes a “caller” (you might have to ask an older person what a “caller” is) was used in conjunction with the songs which were sung. The song books had no notes and all sounded very much alike to me. Three different preachers spoke “under the influence of the Spirit.” When the invitation was offered, a rather large gentleman came forward to “pray through.” The remainder of the time was spent in prayer as this gentleman begged God to forgive him, using great tears and loud groans.

If I attended several other religious groups, I would have observed different methods of worship. These suffice to raise the question, “Why do differences appear in worship?” Has God allowed this much freedom in worship that services so different from each other could both be acceptable to Him? Do we have the liberty to change the worship to make it fit ourselves? Let us try to answer some of these questions in this article.

God Prescribed The Kind Of Worship Which Pleases Him

As God, Jehovah has the right to prescribe the kind of worship which He will accept. He created us and can, therefore, make whatever demands of us He chooses with reference to the type of worship which He will accept. He is One with the authority to legislate the type of worship which He expects from man. Man has no authority to dictate to God the kind of worship which God must accept. Rather, God dictates to man the kind of worship which He is pleased to accept.

In every age, God has commanded of man the kind of worship which He expects from Him. Abel’s worship pleased God and Cain’s did not; the difference was that Abel acted out of faith and Cain did not (Heb. 11:4). Faith is man’s response to God’s revelation; hence, Abel offered the kind of worship which God commanded and Cain did not. God, therefore, must have revealed the pattern of worship which He would accept. Abel followed God’s instructions and Cain did not.

The events which transpired at Mt. Sinai largely concerned themselves with the type of worship which God revealed would please Him. The most minute detail regarding the worship was legislated. God revealed His choice for the priesthood (the Levites) and even legislated the garments which they should wear when offering worship to Him. He revealed the place of worship (the tabernacle) and gave the dimensions and materials for constructing the place of worship. He legislated the feast days which were to be observed in Israel. The types of sacrifices which He would accept and how they were to be offered were also legislated.

Several events which transpired in the later history of Israel reveal that God would not accept any changes in the pattern for worship which He revealed to man. Nadab and Abihu were stricken dead on the spot for offering to God “strange fire, which He had not commanded” (Lev. 10:1-2). Their sin was a violation of the pattern of worship revealed by God. Later, Saul was found to be displeasing to God for violating God’s pattern for worship when he personally offered worship to God instead of waiting for Samuel, the priest of God, to offer that worship (1 Sam. 13:8-14). When the division between Israel and Judah occurred, Jeroboam sinned against God by rejecting the pattern for worship which God had instituted and building idols and temples for worship in Dan and Bethel. In addition to this, Jeroboam allowed priests to be chosen from every Israelite tribe and made feasts days other than the ones which God legislated. (1 Kgs. 12:25 -13:10). God condemned each of these persons because he did not respect the authority of God which was manifest in the commandments He had given pertaining to the worship which He would accept.

The same principles which are manifested in these Old Testament examples are still applicable today. God has revealed to man the kind of worship which pleases Him and still expects men to worship in that fashion. Actually, the only way that man can know that His worship pleases God is for God to reveal to man what He wants. We cannot know God’s will except as it is revealed to us; however, through revelation, we can have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). Apart from God revealing to man the kind of worship which He will accept, man could never know what pleases God. We would be in the same predicament as is the husband who tries to buy a gift for his wife which will please her when he does not know what she wants. However, since God has revealed to man the kind of worship which pleases Him, we can know assuredly what worship God will accept.

When man is left to worship according to his own desires, the worship which he generally offers is remarkabley similar to the things which please man. For example, the pagans in Corinth during the New Testament era offered worship to God at their sacred temple by putting one thousand sacred prostitutes in their temple in order that fornication could be committed there. Though the morality of the worship is superior, much of the worship which is offered today is similarly geared to that which pleases man instead of that which pleases God. Watch the papers and look at what is being done in the name of religion. Singing groups with their guitars, cymbals, drums, piano and organ are being used in worship; the audience to which they play is generally entertained by music which appeals to the easy listening or country western style of secular music. Consequently, the music which is presented in these programs has this kind of flavor as well. Or, consider the buildings of many Catholic churches. They display ornate buildings; some churches even have very valuable jewels embedded on the crosses in the buildings. Such things appeal to man’s desire for show. When man is left to worship according to his own desires, he offers as worship to God what pleases the man. For this reason, God found it absolutely necessary to reveal to man the kind of worship which pleases Him.

Unauthorized Items of Worship Displease God

Not only must we realize that God has prescribed the type of worship which He wants, we must also realize that God has revealed that unauthorized items of worship are displeasing to Him. Some act as if we cannot know whether such things as counting beads in prayer, burning candles, and instrumental music in worship please or displease God. My friends, God has not left us in doubt as to His attitude toward such changes in divine worship.

He has revealed that any human additions to divine worship displease Him. Jesus said, “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as their doctrine the precepts of men” (Mt. 15:9). Anything done or practiced in worship which is authorized by man instead of by God displeases Him. Prohibitions imposed by men instead of by God are described as “self-made religion” (Col. 2:21-23). Paul commanded that the church is not to recognize the man who does not recognize the Lord’s commandments pertaining to worship (1 Cor. 14:37-38). Furthermore, God has commanded that whatever we do in word or in deed must be done in the name (by the authority) of the Lord (Col. 3:17). Any deviations from divinely revealed worship are altogether displeasing to the Lord God. A part of divine revelation is that God will not accept those things which are offered in worship to Him which are not authorized by Him.

But, a man comes along and says that he cannot be sure whether or not instrumental music in worship pleases or displeases God. He will frequently even admit that there is no New Testament authority for using instrumental music in worship. Yet, he will state that he does not know whether God approves or disapproves of the worship which uses them. This is a precise example of infidelity: the man simply does not believe what God has revealed about adding to God’s divinely revealed worship. He may say that he believes God’s word; however, if he believed God’s word he would believe what God said about those who pervert the divinely revealed pattern of worship.

Items of Divinely Revealed Worship

The items of divinely revealed worship are not difficult to find. We only need to look at the items of worship which the early church used and do the same in order to know what kind of worship God will accept. The apostles were commissioned to teach the early church all things that God had commanded them (Mt. 28:18-20); hence, when we read of the worship of the early church under the authority of the apostles, we can know what kind of worship pleases God.

The early church assembled upon the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) to partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34). During this same period of worship, gospel preaching occurred (Acts 20:7), prayer was offered (1 Cor. 14:15) and congregational singing was engaged in (1 Cor. 14:15). At this gathering, a collection was taken (1 Cor. 16:1-2) which was used for such things as benevolence (1 Cor. 16:1-2) and supporting preachers (2 Cor. 11:8). If there were other approved items of worship, I am not aware of them. Those who are seeking to walk in the ways of the Lord will seek to offer the kind of worship which pleases God. They will confine themselves to the boundaries imposed by God’s word. They will imitate the example of the early church which was “continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).

Questions – Lesson II

1. Has God allowed man to decide how he will worship God?
2. Can man know what kind of worship pleases God?
3. How can man know what kind of worship pleases God?
4. Name several examples of worship which demonstrate that humanly devised systems of worship are displeasing to God.
5. From a study of 1 Kings 12:25-13:10, answer the following questions: What departures did Jeroboam make in worship? b. What did God think about them? c. Was there a divinely revealed pattern for worship in the Old Testament?

1. Cite examples of “will-worship” (Col. 2:21-23) today.
2. Name the items of divinely revealed worship for the New Testament church.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 43, pp. 693-694
November 1, 1979