posted
As of as you eat and drink. (Absolutely no time frame) As often as you feel the Risen and alive savior leads you to do so. After all he is alive and in communication with us. Why not ask him? I have taken it as frequently as every day, currently I take it less frequently than he would like me to. Does anyone remember his death and resurrection deep and often enough? Answer, probably more often than we are now. Your loving brother Tim.
Where in scripture do you find that the early church ate the Lord's Supper every Sunday?
Acts 2 tells us they broke bread DAILY from house to house!
Only once, when Paul and a few of his co-workers were in a strange city, Troas (where there is no evidence there had been any converts, baptisms or any local believers) and Paul was preparing to depart from them the next day...do we find that when they came together to break bread (i.e. to eat) Paul preached unto them. If you read the account carefully, you find that the discussion which Paul lead lasted until midnight and only AFTER MIDNIGHT (i.e. EARLY MONDAY MORNING) did they actually get around to eating!!! Acts 20:7-11
Also how do you know that they drank "wine"? Scripture only refers to "the cup" and to "the fruit of the vine", never to "wine" in connection with the Supper.
Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit informs us that "as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death until he come." How often do you eat bread and drink the cup? That is the scriptural frequency of this remembrance.
I enjoyed reading your response even though I may disgree with it somewhat.
As long as we are getting so specific, take a look at which day Paul actually departed. The scripture reads, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."
It was Paul's custom to preach on the Sabbath day (our Saturday). This is evident from the same book, chapter 13, verses 42-44. The significant point to notice here is that the gentiles did not come the next day (Sunday) to hear Paul preach but waited a full week until the next Sabbath.
The next point to consider is how the Jews reckoned the days--just as God did. A day began with the evening and the daylight followed. From creation week, "the evening and the morning were the first day." Thus, the first day of the week in this verse would have been what we now call Saturday night. Paul began his preaching in the evening (the first part of the first day) and continued to midnight.
From this reckoning, Paul would have departed on Sunday (day time) which would have been "the morrow," and not Monday as you concluded.
posted
Hi Jeff, Just a couple of observations relative to the passage in Acts 20:
(1)The sabbath always was and always will be the 7th day. The first day of the week is the day AFTER the sabbath. Regardless of when Paul preached the Gosple in the synagogues at other times, this text is crystal clear! Paul preached on the first day of the week, not the 7th! He was not preaching the Gospel to the unconverted, he was dialoguing with disciples (his own co-workers!) And he was not speaking in the synagogue, but rather an upper room, probably their own lodging place.
(2) If the reckoning of days was "evening and morning" as you have suggested, there would be a different word use relative to Paul's departure. The text reads: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ready to depart ON THE MORROW;"
If, as you have suggested, they met in the evening (the beginning of the day), the text would have read that Paul was ready to depart "in the morning" (i.e of the SAME DAY). But that is NOT what it says! There are two different Greek words for "morrow" and "morning"! Morning, PROIA (Strongs' #4405) is the dawn, or morning. But the word used in Acts 20:7 is Morrow EPAURION (Strongs' #1887) occurring on the succeeding day, tomorrow, the next day, or day following.
So it is evident that the reckoning of time used in Acts 20 was NOT "evening and daytime are one day" with the division between the days being roughly our 6 p.m. Rather the reckoning of time was on the basis of the day beginning and ending at midnight and the day consisting of "morning and evening". Thus the disciples met on the evening of the first day, Paul preached till midnight (the end of the first day) and then, after midnight, early on the second day they actually broke bread! They met on the first day and Paul departed on the morrow, the next day - the second day of the week.
I appreciate your careful remarks and studious comments. But, unfortunately, I still disagree with you. The dictionary says the Old English meaning of morrow means morning. The NIV refers to the morrow as being at daylight, which also implies the same--morning, or break of day. (See verse 11).
Here is the scenario as I see it: Paul preaches on the Sabbath as is his custom and because he is leaving in the morning (Sunday) he meets with the disciples to break bread that evening. It is now the first day of the week (Sunday) because evening marks the beginning of the next day. He continues talking with them until midnight because he will not see them for a very long time and they probably have a lot of questions to ask of him. A young man grows tired and falls from a window and dies. Paul revives the young man and then continues talking until daylight, then he departs. "(11) When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed."
If we still disagree then all we have proven is "Quod probat nimis, probat nihil," -- what proves too much, prove nothing. Besides not being a good verse to prove any doctrinal position, we have no doubt missed the reason it was recorded because we are focused on trying to use it to make our point and reaffirm our beliefs. Not a very good practice for us who are to be worthy students, rightly dividing the word rather than applying our private interpretations.
I mean, take a close look. We don't know if they were eating or holding communion. We are not sure it was Sabbath or Sunday. We can't even agree as to when midnight was. I cannot prove my position on this verse alone and neither can you. Yet, we put so much emphasis and importance on this one verse trying to make it say whatever we wish it to say just to justify our beliefs and we don't even care about why it was recorded. No, how closed can our ears possibly be? How blind we still are because we think we see so well.
I think it is time to pray about this before continuing, else we may find ourselves at odds with God. Of course, I yield to you to have the last word, else I am being unfair.
posted
Hi Jeff, I certainly don't want to "flog a dead horse" as the saying goes! Scripture itself will settle the matter so we need not discuss it further. So just a few questions and simple observations from the text (Acts 20:7-11)
-What day is the first of the week?
-When did the disciples come together?
-When did Paul preach to them in this particular instance? (regardless of what his "custom" may have been at other times?)
-Did Luke write this account in "Old English", in the modern English of the NIV or in the Greek language?
-If the latter, is the Greek word translated "morrow" (v.7)the same word as is translated "break of day" verse 11?
-If not, what is the difference between the two?
-If they came together on the first day of the week and Paul left on the "next day" (as even the NIV affirms), what is the next day after the first day?
I think the answers to these questions will settle the matter without any dispute. What do you think?
posted
Hi Brotheren, Just thought I'd throw a curve your way on the time to observe the Lords Supper as we call it. From the context it would appear that Jesus is refering to the bread and cup taken during the Sedar meal during passover. "This cup" takes on a particular meaning if we look at the historical context.
Welcome to the discussion! Many have suggested that breaking bread in remembrance of the Lord Jesus is simply to be an annual event at passover time and is actually the passover itself!
I do not believe that such is the case at all and I think scripture bears this out quite clearly:
(1) As to the "seder" eaten by many at passover, many parts of the seder are simply traditions of men that had nothing to do with the divinely ordained passover meal! When God prescribed the menu of the passover, He did not include any beverage or cup. Only roast lamb, unleavened bread and bitter herbs. (Ex.12:8)
(2)"Seder meals" are not passover meals at all because they do not include roast lamb, only a bone!
(3)Passover can only be observed scripturally in the land of Israel! See Numbers 9:9-11 " And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD. The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs."
(4)Passover may not be observed unless the lamb is killed in the place where the Lord has placed His name. But there is no such place today! See Deuteronomy 6: 1 Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. 2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there. 3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life. 4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning. 5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee: 6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
(5) Passover may not be eaten by any uncircumcised men! See Ex.12:48 "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof."
New covenant teaching is clear that Gentile believers do not need to be circumcised, (Acts 15) but this would not be the case if the Lord Jesus had commanded them to remember Him in eating the passover!
Email this page to someone.
