Controversy over the Lord's Supper

Several months ago I wrote an article entitled, "Can the Lord's Supper Be Taken on Days other than Sunday?" Since then, I have been corresponding with a reader who has taken issue with my conclusions. My position is that the New Testament instructs believers to observe the Lord's Supper on the first day of every week. The reader I mentioned feels this is being "dogmatic" and calls me, among other things, a "legalistic patternist." If you would like to read his comments, they are included along with the article I mentioned above. But let me warn you: they are long. The last one I received was 14 pages, single-spaced.

Because I want this anonymous reader to see the error of his ways, I am posting this final reply on the front page of my blog. I will not respond to him again. In my view, none of his comments has done anything to negate what I originally wrote. By now he has had the opportunity to refute my errors. To continue reading his responses would be a waste of time. I don't have much time, so this will be it. I'm saying this for his benefit. He should not spend any more time trying to persuade me to follow his positions.

I made three major points in my original article that I will briefly relate a second time, so those who are reading can understand the disagreement. First, Acts 20:7 clearly indicates that Paul and his companions waited in the city of Troas until "the first day of the week" for the expressed purpose of "breaking bread" on that day. Secondly, a study of 1 Corinthians 11:20 and 16:2 demonstrates that Paul expected the church at Corinth to eat the Lord's Supper on "the first day of every week." Finally, there is a rich tradition extending from the first to the second centuries that, at the dawn of Christianity when apostolic instruction was fresh, the early Christians observed the Lord's Supper on Sunday. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. After performing the laborious chore of reading thirty pages or more of my objector's complaints, I see nothing that repudiates these three basic points.

He says much regarding the "uncertainties" involved in Acts 20:7-11. The phrase "break bread" is evaluated. Then the meaning of "first day of the week" is debated. In the end, it seems that what we learned in Kindergarten was right: "breaking bread" refers to a meal and the "first day of the week" is Sunday.

There is nothing uncertain about the purpose for which Paul and the others came together on the first day of the week in Troas. They did so "to break bread." My anonymous friend is fond of verse 11, which says that after midnight that day, Paul "had broken bread and eaten." This, he alleges, allows us to partake of the Lord's Supper without any concern for what day it is, since technically it was Monday morning. I have two things to say about that.

First of all, if Paul and the other Christians in Troas came together for the expressed purpose of "breaking bread" (i.e., eating the Lord's Supper), how likely is it that they would have waited several hours before doing this? When I make a special trip to do something, I don't sit around cooling my heels when I arrive at my destination point. I do what I came to do! It is highly unlikely that the Christians in this example waited until after Paul's lengthy discourse to eat the Lord's Supper. Therefore, they probably ate it on Sunday night. The phrase "had broken bread" in verse 11 is probably a reference to Paul's breakfast.

But what if they didn't? What if they ate the Lord's Supper at 2:00 Monday morning, or even 4:00? Does this mean the Lord does not want us to observe His memorial feast on the first day of the week? Of course not! Let's suppose the phrase "had broken bread" in verse 11 does refer to the Lord's Supper. This means the church at Troas came together Sunday night for the purpose of eating the Lord's Supper. They chose to wait until after Paul's sermon to do this. Paul "prolonged his speech until midnight" (v. 7). During this lengthy sermon, the services were interrupted when a young man named Eutychus "sank into a deep sleep" and fell out of a third-story window. Paul went down, resurrected the poor lad, and then they all went back upstairs to observe the Lord's Supper. All of this would have occurred before "daybreak" (v. 11). If this is the way the events played out, that doesn't negate our need to celebrate the Lord's Supper in the Sunday worship services. Any one of us, had we been present on that occasion, would have looked back and said we still took the Lord's Supper on Sunday. Technically it was Monday, but they were not watching the clock. They had come together to eat the Lord's Supper on Sunday, and that is what we should be doing today.

My challenger quotes several commentaries, none of which support a casual observance of the Lord's Supper, to bolster his position. I was dismayed to see that he had taken their words out of context and played with them to make it appear that he had scholarship on his side. One example is F.F. Bruce's commentary on Acts, which he quotes concerning Acts 20:11, "It was probably past midnight (and therefore properly Monday morning) when they 'broke the bread' and took their fellowship meal" (p. 409). But when the Bible student looks at Bruce's whole treatment of the subject, he finds the following words, which comprise his comments on verse 7:

The reference to the meeting for the breaking of the bread on 'the first day of the week' is the earliest text we have from which it may be inferred with reasonable certainty that Christians regularly came together for worship on that day. The breaking of bread was probably a fellowship meal in the course of which the Eucharist was celebrated (cf. 2:42). It is plain from the narrative that members of the church at Troas ('they') were present as well as the travelers of Paul's company ('we'); the occasion was probably the church's weekly meeting for worship (revised edition, p. 384).

It is also interesting to note that Bruce, who is a highly respected New Testament commentator, published a revised edition of his work on Acts and in it made a slight change to the wording of his comments on Acts 20:11, which were cited from the earlier edition above. In the new edition he changes the word "properly" to "strictly," so that it reads, "It was probably past midnight (and therefore strictly Monday morning) when at last Paul "broke the bread" and shared their fellowship meal" (revised edition, p. 385). Why did he go to the trouble of changing this one word? "Properly" carries the connotation of authority. Bruce's earlier work may have given the reader the misconception that he meant the disciples in Troas were supposed to wait until the wee hours of Monday morning to partake of the Supper. "Strictly" means the timing was a technicality. This is all that Bruce meant, and his comments on verse 7 make it clear that he, along with the majority of biblical scholarship, believes the Lord's Supper was taken in the apostolic age only on Sunday.

My objector never has refuted my arguments based on 1 Corinthians 11:20 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul chastises the church at Corinth because "when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper" (v. 20, NKJV). The implication is that Paul commands the Corinthians to eat the Lord's Supper when they come together for worship. When was that? According to 1 Corinthians 16:2, it was on "the first day of every week."

The historical evidence has not been addressed, either. John Chrysostom was cited, but he lived much later than the men I referenced in my original article (347-407). The esteemed church historian Everett Ferguson writes, "The Lord's supper was a constant feature of the Sunday service. There is no second-century evidence for the celebration of a daily eucharist" (Early Christians Speak, p. 96).

There are a number of faux pas in debate. One is using ad hominem arguements that appeal to prejudice and emotion rather than to reason. It is easier sometimes to attack the man than to respond to his arguments. Whenever my challenger calls me a "dogmatist" or a "legalistic patternist," he is resorting to a practice that betrays his inability to deal with the truth. Another common debate flaw is building "straw men." This is when a person sets up a weak argument that is easily torn down and ascribes it to his opponent. When I am charged with forgetting the meaning behind the Lord's Supper, this is what is being done. These practices are transparent and have no effect on the minds of logical, critical thinkers.

My anonymous friend likes to call himself a "bible scholar" and gives us his opinions. In reality he is a plagiarist who has developed an unhealthy devotion to men with agendas of changing the New Testament church. I went through his comments looking for unusual statements and then performed a search on Google, which yielded the results I expected. Many of the statements made by this objector--and even personal experiences--have been borrowed. This is why he doesn't see that he is using sources like F.F. Bruce dishonestly. He is simply cutting and pasting them from Al Maxey's web site, or someone else's.

It is my prayer that this individual, and everyone else for that matter, will open the Bible and read it with an open mind. There is nothing wrong with respected certain preachers and writers, but they should take a back seat to the word of God. Remember the words of our Lord: "And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" (Jn. 8:32).