"Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us." - Paul the Apostle.

Let's begin this morning by reading 1 Corinthians 11:23-29:

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly."

Two Sundays ago we began a three-part series with the intent of studying what the Bible teaches about the Lord's Supper. In the first message we looked at the three passages in the gospels that describe its institution by Jesus. In the second we looked at the instructions Paul gave to the Corinthian church after learning that they had abused the supper. In this message, which will be the last, I'd like to consider some "Q and A" (questions and answers) about communion. This message will draw upon things we learned in the first two sermons, so if you were not present when those were delivered, I invite you to get copies of the tapes or manuscripts at the back of the building when you go out.

We won't have time to cover every question that might be asked, so I have chosen three that I believe are very important. First,

1. Who Should Partake of the Lord’s Supper?

Should children partake? Should non-Christians partake? Should only Christians partake?

The best way to approach these questions is to draw upon what we have already learned. From what we have seen so far, I think we can say with certainty that an understanding is necessary if we are to partake properly.

Jesus did say, "Do this in remembrance of Me."(1) How can a person remember Christ if he or she knows little or nothing about Him?

Paul said that those who eat and drink the Lord’s supper "proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes."(2) Does that not assume an understanding of Christ’s death and what it means?

Paul said, "Let a man examine himself and so let him eat…"(3) Doesn’t that imply a knowledge of God’s standards of right and wrong in order to make a reasonable self-examination?

Again, Paul said, "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly."(4) Surely "judging the body rightly" requires some understanding.

Realizing the need for understanding when we partake then, should a child partake? Obviously it depends upon the age of the child and the level of understanding. Surely if the child is old enough to make the decision to become a Christian and has professed belief, repented, and been baptized into Christ (all of which also take understanding) he or she is old enough be involved in communion. If the child is not old enough to understand the commitment of becoming a Christian, or has never made the commitment, surely there is no readiness to partake.

When my own children were small, they grew accustomed to our passing the communion trays across their laps as their mother and I partook. When they asked why they could not join us, we told them that someday in the future they would come to an age of understanding and make their own commitment to Christ. At that time they would be able to join us in communion. Apparently they were all right with that explanation, as one by one, they grew up and made their own commitments and joined their parents and the church in communion.

Remember, the emblems are simply that… they are emblems. There is nothing miraculous or magical in the substance of the bread or the fruit of the vine which will confer any special blessing or benefit upon the one who partakes – apart from, of course, a proper, meaningful, rational reflection and self-examination as we have seen. In fact, given Paul’s strong warning that we saw in 1 Corinthians 11, when he said, "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,"(5) I would go on to say that anyone who does not understand should not partake. Just let the emblems pass on by until you do understand. There is nothing wrong with that and much that is right with it, provided you seek to get the answers you need to fill in the blanks in your understanding.

Let me add that I understand what it is like to be confused about these things. I didn’t grow up in the church. It wasn’t that I was dumb or couldn’t understand. I had simply never been taught. So during those first few visits, when the communion trays started coming my way, I didn’t know what I should do! Should I take it? Should I pass it by? I was embarrassed by my ignorance, and a bit fearful that I was going upset someone by doing something wrong. Fortunately, somebody else understood my dilemma and told me to feel free to pass it on if I didn’t understand. That really took the pressure off! Then later, I became a Christian, learned about it, and began to partake with understanding. I’ve been doing it ever since.

There are often several types of people present in Christian assemblies on Sunday. Of course there are Christians present, that is, penitent baptized believers who have committed themselves to Christ and are living for Him. These should be taught about the Lord’s Supper as soon as possible after their conversion. They should partake with a full understanding.

Then there are people present who have not yet made any commitment to Christ. They are interested. They are learning. But they haven’t yet come to understand of what this whole thing is about. My suggestion to such persons is to let the emblems pass by until you can get your questions answered.

By the way, we have provisions for helping people understand. Unlike doctors and lawyers, our preacher and elders and some of our teachers still make house calls. Whenever there is a need for folks to ask questions or be taught, we are ready to help. I’d be honored if you chose me to come and explain Christ to you in a place where you are most comfortable.

Of course there might also be someone present who has decided not to follow Christ. To such a person as that, let me first say, I’m glad you’re here and I hope you’ll continue listening. I also hope that in time, you’ll change your mind. As far as partaking of the Lord’s Supper, such an act, as I think all of us can see fairly clearly, would be pretty meaningless.

The Lord’s Supper is for those who understand it and have become Christians.

2. Should Communion be "Open" or "Closed"?

Some churches, given the important requirements of understanding and self-examination, choose to deal with the issue by closing communion. In other words, given the possibility that someone might partake in an unworthy manner, they do the examination for you and determine who can and cannot partake. It is typically called "closed communion." In such churches you are required to go before church leaders, be questioned, and then, if you pass muster, you’re given a "ticket" or "token" which allows you to partake.

You probably know by now that our observance of the Lord’s Supper here is "open," that is, anyone may partake based upon his or her own self-examination.

The biblical basis for our practice is what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:28: "But let a man examine himself and so let him eat…" He didn’t say, "Let a man be examined by others." He didn’t set up a review board.

Responsibility of the outcome of communion for each person who partakes in this congregation is born by each individual. The responsibility of the teacher is to teach. It is the responsibility of the learner to make the critical decisions necessary.

3. When and How Often Should the Lord’s Supper be Eaten?

There is no recorded command in Scripture, from Christ or the Apostles, about when or how often Christians are to partake. For many, that is the end of the discussion. Their conclusion is that we are free to do whatever we want. Thus you will find just about every imaginable practice among the different denominations when it comes to the day and the frequency of partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, if there is no further guidance from Scripture, this is as it should be.

But there is more to it than that. The early church respected and honored the commands and teaching of Christ. In John 14:15, Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." But Jesus did not have time in the three years of His ministry to give the church (which was not established until after His death) everything that was needed. So he sent His Holy Spirit upon the Apostles to finish the job.

On the evening of His betrayal, in John 16:12, Jesus said to the twelve, I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." There was simply too much for these men to grasp during the brief three years of Jesus’ earthly ministry. So He made this provision, which he mentions in verse 13 of the same chapter: "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth… and will disclose to you what is to come." The Apostles would be inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand and deliver what remained to be delivered to the church – the things Jesus didn’t have time to give them during His short earthly ministry. This actually happened when the Holy Spirit came upon them in Acts 2.(6) Thus we find from the very beginning, that the early church "continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ teaching.(7) For instance, in Philippians 3:17, Paul, speaking as an Apostle of Christ, wrote, "Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us." The teaching of Paul and the other Apostles provided a pattern for the church to follow. Again, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul said, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

Long before the confusion and division we see around us today, the church was commanded to follow both the example and the traditions delivered by the Apostles. These provided a pattern for them.

So was there a pattern with regard to the Lord’s Supper? How did the early church, following the Apostles’ teaching and examples, handle the frequency of the Lord’s Supper? I have already pointed out that there is no expressed command, but we certainly find several examples of what the early church did under the direction of the Apostles.

Let’s look first at the church in Jerusalem. Luke wrote of the Jerusalem Christians in Acts 2:42, "And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." That reference to "the breaking of bread" is one of the Biblical designations for the Lord’s Supper. We learned that earlier from Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:16: "Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?"(8)

So, what do we learn about timing of the Lord’s supper from the Jerusalem church? We learn that they partook of the Lord’s Supper "continually" or as the King James version says, they "continued steadfastly" in it. While the exact timing isn’t mentioned here, we do see the element of regularity. In other words, it wasn’t a once-in-awhile or sporadic observance. And I remind you that the Jerusalem church was under the direction of the Apostles.

Let’s look next at the church at Thessalonica. While there is no mention of the Lord’s Supper in either of Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians, there is, in 1 Thessalonians 2:13-14, an interesting statement. There we read, "And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea…" The Thessalonians followed the example (became imitators) of the Christians in Jerusalem. (The Greek word for "imitators" there is mimaytays. We get our English word "mimic" from it.)

It doesn’t surprise me that the Thessalonian church was mimicking the Jerusalem church. They, like their Jerusalem brethren, were following the teaching and example of the Apostles of Christ, which was apparently consistent wherever those Apostles went. In several places in the New Testament we see reference to the Apostles’ consistent teaching in all the churches. Paul wrote in the Corinthian letter that his teaching (on marriage in this case) was consistent "in all the churches."(9) Later in the same letter he mentioned the same consistency of teaching "in all the churches of the saints"(10)with regard to spiritual gifts. These are not references to the Lord’s Supper, but they do show that there was a consistent apostolic example, a pattern, a certain tradition, taught by the Apostles in all the churches. It is hardly conceivable that the Apostles taught different things in different churches to the extent that we would end up with the confusion we have today. The confusion we see today is the result of adding the teaching of uninspired men. If we wish to see the confusion go away, we must dedicate ourselves to learning what the apostolic pattern was for the church.

Let’s look at the church in Troas.

(Read Acts 20:5-7)

Here we have the same Apostle Paul who commended the Thessalonians for mimicking the churches in Judea and told the Corinthians that he taught consistently in "in all the churches of the saints,"(11) meeting with the church in Troas. Do you suppose he taught them differently than he taught other Christians in other churches? I’ve shown you evidence to the contrary.

What day were these Christians meeting, under the direction of this Apostle of Christ? They were meeting on the first day of the week. That’s Sunday. Why were they meeting? According to verse 7, they were meeting "to break bread." They were meeting to have the Lord’s supper. If you read the context of this passage you will see that they were doing the very same thing as we read about the Jerusalem church. They were continuing in "the apostles teaching [Paul, and Apostle, preached until midnight], fellowship [verse 11 says they also ate a common meal together and talked a long time], the breaking of bread, and [presumably] prayer."

Was this meeting of the church in Troas on Sunday to break bread just a happenstance, hurriedly-put-together meeting due to Paul’s visit to their city or was this their regular meeting and communion time? The text indicates that it was their regular meeting time. From verse 5 we see that Paul’s companions arrived in Troas before He did, so the church knew ahead of time that he was coming. According to verse 6, Paul arrived in Troas seven days earlier than the day of the meeting Luke describes. Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem – so much so that he left the next morning after staying up all night. According to verse 13-14, he even missed the boat that was supposed to take him to his next stop, and he had to travel over land to catch up with it. If the church could have properly met for the Lord’s supper on just any day or time, why wait a full week until the last day of Paul’s stay to have the meeting? It looks to me like the day mattered. Presumably, Paul arrived too late to join them on the Sunday before, so he waited until the church customarily met the following Sunday to break bread. Apparently the day mattered.

Was this day they met to partake of the Lord’s supper a special day like the first Sunday of the month or the first Sunday of the quarter? Was it "Resurrection Sunday" or "Pentecost Sunday" or "Easter Sunday" or "Passover Sunday" or Christmas or some other special day? If so, there is not a hint of it in the text. It was simply the first day of the week.

Let’s look finally at the church in Corinth. We have already considered their perversion of the Lord’s Supper. Back in 1 Corinthians 11:20, we read Paul’s words, "Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper..."I pointed out to you last time that when they met together, it should have been to eat the Lord’s supper. It was supposed to be - but it was not because they had perverted it. They had reduced what should have been a solemn memorial of Christ to a drunken feast. Yet it is evident that they were supposed to be meeting together to have the Lord’s supper in their assemblies. What is not evident in 1 Corinthians 11 is when they met together. What was their customary meeting day? If this could be known, we could establish their frequency of their partaking. (By the way, Paul, though he criticized other things with regard to their observance of the Lord’s Supper, he did not criticize or correct their frequency of partaking. Apparently they were doing nothing wrong in that department.)

So do we know when the Corinthians met? The answer is seen later in the 1 Corinthian letter. Paul was taking up a special offering from the churches he visited on his missionary journey to send for relief to the needy saints at Jerusalem. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 we read the instruction he gave them…

(Read 1 Corinthians 16:1-2)

Why the first day of every week? That is when they met. We also learn from this that the churches of Galatia also met on the first day of the week because Paul gave them the same instruction, which is another point for the consistency of the Apostles’ teaching.

What do we learn then, about the day and timing of communion under the direction of the Apostles? The Jerusalem church partook of it regularly, though the day or the frequency isn’t mentioned. There was a consistency in the teaching of the Apostles in all the churches. In fact, Paul spoke of the teaching of the Apostles as an example and a pattern. The Thessalonians mimicked the Christians of Judea and were praised for the same by an Apostle. Troas met on the first day of the week to partake and it seems this was their regular practice rather than just a one-time observance on a special day. Corinth also met on the first day of the week for the Lord’s Supper. These churches had the benefit of visits from a living, breathing Apostle who, though he did not shrink from correcting them when they needed it in other things, did not correct them regarding the day or their frequency of partaking, presumably because their practice was acceptable.

When and how often then should we partake. If we look no further than the commands, we’ll do it whenever it pleases us. Of course, this position is bolstered only by the absence of a command. Nothing more can be advanced in support of it from Scripture. If we consider the apostolic pattern, and desire to "mimic" the early church under the direction of the Apostles, it surely seems to me that regular, weekly communion is the best way.

Conclusion

I will close this series with a quote from Paul the Apostle in Ephesians 2:19-20 to the church. I believe it verifies the things I have told you about the important role of the pattern the Apostles left for us. Paul wrote:

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone…."

When you get the cornerstone and foundation right, the rest of the building goes up straight – the way it is suppose to.

Footnotes: Please use your "back" button to return to your place

1. Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24,25
2. 1 Corinthians 11:26
3. 1 Corinthians 11:28
4. 1 Corinthians 11:29
5. 1 Corinthians 11:27
6. A careful examination of the first four chapter of Acts will reveal that the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles on Pentecost and not upon all the Christians in general or even upon the 120. See Acts 1:2; 1:26; 2:37; 2:43; 4:33.
7. Acts 2:42
8. Note that this mention of "breaking of bread" seems to be set apart from their practice of eating common meals together daily. See Acts 2:46.
9. 1 Corinthians 7:17
10. 1 Corinthians 14:33
11. Ibid.

Dave Redick is Minister of the Hwy 20 Church of Christ in Sweet Home, Oregon and Editor of The Preacher's Study. He may be reached at pstudysupport@comcast.net.

Copyright © 1996-2008 by The Preacher's Study. Permission is granted to subscribers to use this document in total or in sermon preparation in the context of the local congregation only. Publishing it in a book, on the Internet, or anyplace beyond the local congregation is prohibited.

All Scripture quotations and references are from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise stated.

[Archive]    [Home]   [Comments]   [Search]