|
“The first mention is in the context of the new disciples after Pentecost, when 3000 were baptized, and we are told that "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (Acts 2:42 NIV). We know that "the breaking of bread" was a matter of devotion for the Christians led by the apostles, which at least suggests some level of frequency more than annually or semi-annually, but Luke mentions no time frame in the Jerusalem church context. “<\i> While this does state that they devoted themselves to the breaking of the bread, it does not state they actually did it that day. This is a problem I keep running into. I have looked over the various scripture you listed, which I have already come across in my readings, and none of it seems to definitively states they actually took communion. There is obviously a difference between committing to an act and actually doing it. Even if we suggest that is occurred on that day, I do not see how that suggests a level of frequency, weekly, monthly, or even yearly. “The next time Luke mentions the Supper in Acts is in 20:7.
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. “<\i> In this instance, we have mention of breaking of bread. It lacks the definitive article, which you had mentioned earlier in your post, and suggests a common meal. As to why he decided to stay for this church’s meeting, it could be as simple as him wanting to speak to this church and having to wait until Sunday since that is when they all met together. I do not know, but this verse does not state the Lord’s Supper took place. I agree that Paul obviously felt this church was important to speak to, but as to why, I am unsure. “When Paul discussed the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians, he emphasized several important features of its meaning in 10:14-22, and discussed the circumstances expected by the Lord in 11:17ff. Among the points Paul maked regarding the Supper in 11:17ff, is the fact that the church assembles "as a church" for the purpose of eating the commemorative meal (vv 17, 33). “<\i> It seems that the majority of the verses in 1 Corinthians talk about the mind set you have when you partake of the Lord’s Supper, not how often nor what day. It simply states that the church should assemble as a group to do it. I do not disagree that the churches in the new testament met on the first day of the week, but I am not sure of why. There is no biblical directive at about when people should meet. While 1 COR 16:1-2 does say money should be put aside on the first day of the week, that could mean one of two things. It could easily mean that since that is when the churches met already, it would be a good time to put aside money. If I was telling members of out church to bring food for a canned food drive, I would tell them to bring it on Sunday, not because it is an imperative from God, but because I know that is when we all meet anyways. Since none of the verses seem to suggest that the Lord’s Supper actually took place at these weekly meetings, is it not arbitrary of us to decide to have it once a week? And since we may hold services more than once a day, is it arbitrary to have two communions, or however many are needed to handle the need? I understand that your statement about something being so pervasive, that it need not be written about, but is it not also possible that the time is not mentioned because it is not relevant? I would think that if it was important to do on a regular basis, then that time frame would be mentioned clearly, as it was in the old testament when concerning the original Passover?
|
