Some Practical Conclusions

This is not the end of my study of this matter, but I want to draw some closure for now. Here’s where I am, based on the two months we’ve spent looking at this topic

• As we look at worship in the Old Testament, I think it is the feasts of the Mosaic Law which teach us about our assemblies. None of the other aspects of Old Testament worship seem to have much to say to us about our regular assemblies (I know, I know… some point to the sabbath, others to temple worship… I just don’t see it)


• I think the Lord’s Supper is our feast under the new covenant


• I don’t see the New Testament as offering a command as to frequency. However, I think the two passages that speak of the first day of the week are important, as is John’s reference to “the Lord’s day” in Revelation. There is no room for law on this matter, since the New Testament lays down no such law. And I can’t throw out Acts 2:46, referring to daily gatherings, quite possibly involving the Lord’s Supper. I think the early church gathered at least once a week to share the Lord’s Supper


• This series has focused on whether the weekly assembly should be the main activity in our Christianity, the center of everything, the mark by which we judge faithfulness. The answer, in my opinion is NO. Jesus didn’t die to sanctify a people for weekly assembly; He died to redeem a people eager for good works (Titus 2:14). Paul says we are “created in Christ Jesus to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10). We are to meet together to spur one another on to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24-25). I am not denying the need for worship, but assembled worship is not the main purpose of our existence as Christians. As said in the comment section of the last post, I think the measure of our faithfulness as Christians is how we live out the Christian life. That meshes well with what the prophets said time again, like these words from Micah: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8)

Like I say, that’s not “the end of the matter,” nor has all been heard. But that’s where this study has brought me.

We Gather Together

OK, here’s what I see:

1) The average congregation spends a significant part of its budget on the things necessary to “do church,” to have an assembly on Sunday morning.

2) The average congregation defines itself by what happens on Sunday morning: “We average 250 in attendance”; “We are a contemporary church”; etc.

3) Most of the arguments that rage within our brotherhood concern what goes on during the Sunday assembly.

4) The average Christian believes that there is a special time called “the assembly” within our time together. This time has special rules, which do not apply to Bible class, for example.

5) The faithfulness of the average Christian is judged by their participation in this Sunday assembly.

6) The average Christian judges his own faithfulness by the same measure.

Problem is, I don’t see these things in the New Testament. I don’t see this special time, set off by an opening song and a closing prayer (or by an opening prayer, as was once explained to me; announcements, before the prayer, were not part). I even have trouble transforming Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians 16 into a prescription for worship every Sunday/only on Sunday/only in the assembly.

From what I see in the Bible, worship in the first 39 books of the Bible did not center around one day a week. If that was changed when Jesus came, why isn’t that stated somewhere? Why is so little said about the assembly in the New Testament, especially compared with the weight given to it today.

So what do I suggest? For now… more study. Let’s discuss this a bit this week and see where we get to.

Assembly & My Druthers

All right, let me take a pause in this series to talk about “my druthers” in this matter. Just yesterday I was talking with a friend about how at times my preferences and my theology don’t line up.

I tend to be a bit introverted. Shy. There are situations that I hate, like having to make a phone call to a person I don’t know. But I am, at the same time, a bit of a showman. I grew up performing in musical groups; I love it. While I fear the phone, I love the microphone. I may have trouble meeting people at a party, but give me the chance to get up and speak to 10,000 people, and I’ll jump at it.

The showman in me loves assemblies, especially if I get a chance to be up in front. The bigger, the better.

I’m also one of those people who is cursed with an overblown view of himself. I’d rather go to church and listen to myself than to someone else. I know more than the Bible class teacher and preach better than the preacher. My song leading would wow them all, and I would have come up with more appropriate communion thoughts. One prayer was too long, the other too short. I would love the assembly to be about me.

So what are my preferences? Daily assemblies, where I get to preach every day, like I’ve heard the Puritans did. Barring that, weekly assemblies, centered around my preaching. Put the spotlight on the preacher, and let the preacher be me.

Theologically, I don’t think the sermon should be the center of the service. Not even close. There shouldn’t be a spotlight, and it certainly shouldn’t be on me. And should the assembly be the center of our Christian life? Did Jesus die on the cross so that His people would meet together once a week? I’m obviously having my doubts.

But I’ll continue with those in another post.

Assembly in the New Testament

Someone asked me to continue this study, not putting on the brakes when I hit the end of Malachi. I’ll do my best, as long as everyone continues to contribute. I’ll be in Cuba for a week or so, so you’ll have time to comment.

Jesus and his early followers were Jews. They attended the synagogue; they participated in daily temple activities; they participated in feasts. The early church was very Jewish. They continued following Jewish behavior for many years (Acts 21:20).

It’s amazing how little is said about the assembly in the New Testament. To be fair, some have suggested that since the letters were intended to be read to the assembled church, much of what is said can be assumed to be directed toward assembly behavior. I’m not convinced, but I’ll mention that argument out of fairness (or an attempt at the same).

1 Corinthians discusses the assembly. Hebrews 10 talks about “assembling” (sorry folks... the term “forsaking the assembly” isn’t in there). We have Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 20:7-12. And that’s about it (let’s throw in Matthew 18:17 for good measure).

Fill in the gaps for me. What am I missing?

Assembly and Synagogues

This series of posts is attempting to see what the Bible has to say about assemblies in the worship of God. That’s being done in an attempt to answer the question of whether or not God intended Christianity to be built around a series of weekly assemblies or not. I was encouraged to re-examine what the Old Testament says about assembly, which is what I’ve been trying to do. Thanks to all who’ve been helping.

This week I want to look at the synagogue system. “But that’s not Old Testament,” you wisely observe. That’s true. The synagogue system was not established in Scripture, but grew up out of necessity. When the Israelites found themselves in captivity, with their temple in ruins, they developed a series of assemblies which continue through the present time; that’s the synagogue system.

According to Jewish sources, the synagogue is primarily a place of prayer. It is also a place for the reading and exposition of Scripture. It required the presence of ten males and followed a set pattern of activities. It is built around three times of daily prayer, although special services take place on feast days and sabbaths.

Jesus attended synagogues, as did the apostles and early Christians. Does that mean that God approved of this “innovation”? Did the synagogue become the pattern for early Christian worship? Should it be a pattern for what Christians do?

Assembly and Holy Places

All right, a little cajoling and we get some serious discussion going. Let’s continue our study of assembly in the Old Testament. Please join in, especially if you spot a mistake!

I want to look at the holy places that God appointed for worship: the tabernacle and the temple. In theory, the activities were to be the same in both. The basic activities (some of this taken from this website: THE ROUTINE SERVICE OF THE TABERNACLE) were:

Daily — The high priest was to replenish the oil-lamps of the seven-branch candlestick, and offer incense before the vail, every morning and evening: and on the great altar, he was to offer a lamb in sacrifice every morning and evening.

Weekly — On the Sabbath day, the daily sacrifice was to be doubled.

Monthly — On the first day of the month there was to be a large addition to the daily sacrifice. There were to be seven lambs, two young bullocks, and one ram, besides the daily lamb of the morning and evening; and these additional burnt offerings were to be accompanied by proportional meat offerings and wine offerings in the quantities specified (Num. 28:11-14) in addition to which, there was to be an offering of one kid of the goats for a sin offering.

In addition, there were annual services related to the feasts, which we discussed in the last post. As for the average worshiper, his interaction with the tabernacle had to do with what is seen in Numbers 29: “In addition to what you vow and your freewill offerings, prepare these for the LORD at your appointed feasts: your burnt offerings, grain offerings, drink offerings and fellowship offerings.” (Numbers 29:39) We see from later use (like Solomon, Daniel, etc.) that the Israelites understood that their prayers were to be directed toward this holy place. They also began to come to the temple to pray there (Luke 18:10). At some point, the Jews developed the practice of three daily times of prayer in the temple, one of which coincided with the evening sacrifice (Acts 3:1).

The primary purpose of the “holy places” was not for assembly, although assembly did take place there. How would you relate all of this to our day? [If you want to discuss “the priesthood of all believers” in relation to this, please include Exodus 19:6 in the discussion] Do the practices and commands surrounding the tabernacle and the temple teach us anything about our worship today, especially our coming together to worship?

Assembly and Feasts

As Bob and I continue our study of what the Bible says about “assembly,” we’d like to invite some of the rest of you to join in with us. :-) Actually, I know that this is summer, and we all have unusual schedules. I’ll continue on with this study and hope that anyone that wants to comment on any part of it will feel free to chime in.

I wasn’t sure which order to look at things in, but Bob mentioned the festivals, so that seems like a logical continuing place. You can make a strong argument that Old Testament religion was feast-driven. As Deuteronomy 16:16 says, there were three times when all men were required to assemble: “Three times a year all your men must appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles.” They had other special days, but these three days were the unifying points of their religion and their nation, the time when all able-bodied men were to gather in a designated place (first Shiloh, later Jerusalem).

There were other days that were holy days, community celebrations, that did not involved a national assembly. The Law says of these days: “These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim as times of holy convocation, for presenting to the LORD food offerings, burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each on its proper day, besides the LORD’s Sabbaths and besides your gifts and besides all your vow offerings and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD.” (Lev 23:37-38 ESV)

It seems to me, and please feel free to correct, that the Law envisioned the Israelites living in a situation where every man could come to “the appointed place” several times a year. Sacrifices and offerings had to be made and could not be made just anywhere. There were priests and Levites throughout the land, yet the tabernacle/temple was the designated place for worship.

What, if anything, does this say to us about our Christian worship?

Assembly & Sabbath

In the comments section for the last post, a wonderful suggestion was made: reexamine what the Old Testament says about assemblies, particularly weekly assemblies. As I expressed there, my special interest is not just looking at what people did in the Old Testament, but what God told them to do.

The concept of the Sabbath goes back to creation, when God rested from His work on the 7th day. Beginning in Exodus 16, He tells His people to observe the 7th day of the week as a day of rest. That’s what Sabbath was about: rest. People were to refrain from all unnecessary work and allow their servants and animals to do the same. The Israelites were to keep the Sabbath holy by refraining from work.

Leviticus 23:3 calls the Sabbath “a holy convocation.” This could mean an assembly. However, when people were reprimanded in the prophets for failing to observe the Sabbath, they were never charged with “forsaking the assembly.” They were accused of working on the Sabbath.

During the Babylonian exile, the synagogue system was developed. People began to meet there for instruction in the Scriptures. Eventually they began to come together there each Sabbath. This was not because of divine instruction, but because men chose to do it that way.

Modern Jews are encouraged to meet on the Sabbath, but the assembly is not considered to be the main point of the day of rest.

When looking for a biblical emphasis on a weekly assembly, we’ll have to look elsewhere. The Sabbath doesn’t provide justification for such an emphasis.

A Question

I hate to go for ever without posting; this is travel season, and it’s hard to find a moment to sit at the keyboard. But you didn’t really want to know that, did you?

As I try to organize some thoughts, let me get some input on something. From reading the New Testament, do you believe that Christianity was designed to be an assembly-driven religion? The old covenant wasn’t; most worship was done on an individual basis, sabbath was a family time, not a corporate time. The whole synagogue system came about much later than the time of Moses. Unity came from everyone doing the same things, not necessarily doing them together.

Modern Christianity is built around the Sunday assembly. Is that what you see in the New Testament? I’ve got some thoughts, but really want to hear yours. I’ll lower myself and beg for comments this week, even if it’s a simple yes or no. Is New Testament Christianity an assembly-driven religion?

The Promise

I’ve been around the church a long time. I’ve been a Christian for over 30 years. So it’s amazing to me how many basic things I’ve come to grasp only in recent years.

Like the promise to Abraham. I knew Abraham was important. I mean, three major religions count him as one of theirs. But I tended to lump Abraham in with Isaac, Jacob, Joseph & Co. And I certainly didn’t put him on the same plain with Moses.

What I just didn’t see was that the promises made to Abraham are the basis for just about all of the promises that follow. In fact, our salvation stems from the fact that we’ve been made spiritual heirs of Abraham. Read Romans 4. Galatians 3. For Paul, the promise to Abraham wasn’t part of the “Patriarchal Era.” It’s our promise, too. We have been made heirs of Abraham, heirs to the promise.

When Paul talks about us sharing in “the promise” (Romans 4:16; Galatians 3:29, Ephesians 3:6, etc.), he means that we now receive the benefits of the promise that God made to Abraham. God chose Abraham and his descendants to be His people. The only way we could become the people of God was to somehow share in that promise. It never went away, it was just amplified. Jesus gave us access to the promise, the promise made to Abraham.

I know, I know, you’re all saying “Duh! I’ve always known that.” It just takes longer for some of us to figure things out.

Puts singing “Father Abraham” in a whole new light.

Signs that your congregation is part of a bigger history

You’ve probably heard it too. Some Christians claim that their congregation doesn’t have a past, that it is only connected to the church of the New Testament and not to any other. If one suggests that the church of Christ stems from the so-called “Restoration Movement,” they resist the idea violently. “Everything we do comes from the Bible and only from the Bible. We are free from human influences.” Don’t talk to them about church history, don’t talk to them about being influenced by culture, don’t suggest that they are doing anything different than what was done in the first century.

For most of us, to not say all, for most of us, it’s just not true. There are clear and obvious signs that what we do stems at least in part from what we’ve learned from others. If your congregation does any of these things, it can’t claim to be free from human influence:

• If you sing songs that are sung in other congregations, you didn’t get those from the Bible.


• In the same vein, if you have a song book, you must have gotten it from someone.


• If you have a song leader, that’s an “innovation”; the New Testament says nothing about that.


• Does your church meet in a room with seats basically facing forward, looking toward a place where “the speaker” stands?


• If you’ve got pews, well, that’s a sure sign of outside influence.


• Do you pass the Lord’s Supper around in trays?


• How about an invitation song? There’s definitely not one of those in the Bible. Nor is there a “closing prayer.”


• Dare I point out that having a bound Bible isn’t biblical? Using a Bible in book form, with chapters and verses, is a sure sign of having been influenced by people outside of the biblical writers.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. None of us is free from the past. None of us is free from the influence of our culture.

George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [Yeah, I know… that appears in lots of different forms] Until we admit that we have a past, admit that we’ve been influenced by others, we’re locked into an endless cycle of influence. After a time, we fail to recognize which influences are human and which are divine.

Let’s embrace our past, deal with it, learn from it, and use it to help us recognize what’s Bible and what’s tradition in what we do.

Sinners Anonymous

“Hello, my name is Tim. I’m a sinner.”

From what I know of the 12 step programs, I like them. Recognize your helplessness, your need for help from a higher power. Meet with others and admit your need. Share readings and advice to help overcome the problem.

I think that we need to develop a sort of Sinners Anonymous. Too many times we communicate the idea that sinners are the exception, that the “normal members” have no struggle with sins, that sin is the great unmentionable. The best we can do is go forward and admit that we’ve sinned… but be sure that you don’t slip and mention what that sin was!

I need to tell at least three people that I’m a sinner:

(1) God. I need to go to Him and tell Him that I’ve sinned. Yes, He knows it. But our relationship will never be right unless I admit the obvious to Him.

(2) You. You need to know that you aren’t alone in your struggles with sin. You need to know my struggles, so that you can hold me accountable, so that you can share suggestions of how to overcome my weaknesses, so that you can continually challenge me to do better.

(3) Me. I need to be sure that I know that only God’s grace can make me righteous. God tolerates no boasting in His presence, so I need to get rid of all pride. I can’t overcome sin on my own, and I need to admit that.

Have you noticed how many of our prayer requests at church have to do with physical health issues and so few with spiritual health issues? There is no problem as big as sin; why do we pray so often about money problems and job problems, yet ignore the “elephant in the room” that is sin? Let’s talk about sin. Talk about how to overcome it. Talk about the damage it does. Talk about our weaknesses so that our brothers can help. Let’s pray about sin. Together.

Sinners Anonymous Meets Here: Sunday, 10 a.m.

Tumblin'

I haven’t particularly used this space for personal stuff. I’ve kind of wanted to maintain a focus on discussions. But I’ve yielded to the pressure. I’ve got a new space on Tumblr.com: timarcher.tumblr.com . I’ll post things there from time to time. Be sure and check out the picture of my tree-climbing dog (both dogs in the picture escaped yesterday, but were back in the yard this morning; I almost had a sad post to offer).

One downside: Tumblr doesn’t seem to allow comments. : - (

Plagued by Plagiarism

I was really surprised. Not that somebody would take something I’d written for Heartlight.org and repost it. Not even that they would repost it without crediting the source. But to see my article posted under someone else’s name on a church website was shocking to me. (Finding it again on another site was less of a shock; guess I’d gotten used to it).

I’ve heard the stories of preachers sitting in the audience and hearing their own sermons being preached. Or the stories of preachers using others’ stories as if they had actually happened to them. I even know of one preacher who was interviewing for a job and used a sermon by someone else… and the other sermon was on tape in the church library. Oops!

Don’t plagiarize. It’s as simple as that. Go overboard in quoting your sources. Nobody will think the less of you. Preachers, if you say, “I got a lot of these ideas from a sermon I heard,” no one will be upset (though you might not want to do it every week). If the story happened to somebody else, it still has power. Don’t lie. It didn’t happen to you. It happened to them. If you want to put somebody else’s article in your bulletin, go ahead. But credit the source. People will appreciate your bringing that information to their attention. Bloggers, people will value what you have to say even more when you point out where it came from. Teachers, writers, speakers, everyone! Don’t plagiarize.

Now somebody help me down from this soapbox.

A Simple Definition of Good and Bad

I doubt this is original, but I can’t tell you where it came from if it’s not. I came up with it without hearing it from someone else, but like the saying goes: “The ancients stole all my best thoughts.” Somebody probably said it first. It’s a simple definition of what is good and what is bad. Here goes:

Good things move us closer to God, closer to heaven.
Bad things move us away from God, move us away from heaven.

That’s how a promotion at work can be bad, while a terminal illness can be good. Success can be bad, failure can be good. I guess the rub of it comes in the fact that we have to look a little harder at things to tell the difference. And sometimes we can’t really know; that’s when we have to trust that God is always working for good.

Basketball & Bible

It’s that time of the year. There’s only one team in the league with two players from Argentina, so all I can say is “Go, Spurs, go!”

During the NBA playoffs in 2006, my family and I moved from the heart of Spurs country (Stockdale) to a city in enemy territory (Abilene). Suddenly I was surrounded by Mavericks fans. Right in the middle of the Dallas - San Antonio series.

It wasn’t just a change in geography; it was a change in perspective. Listening to San Antonio sports announcers, I was fully informed of the league-wide conspiracy against the Spurs. I knew all the things that the officials were doing to insure that the Mavs came out on top. I knew that the Spurs were the better team, and the victories that had been won by the Mavericks were totally undeserved. Besides the Mavericks’ owner was loud and profane, having cursed at a Spurs player following a game because the player had played well, having led his fans to boo an ex-Mav star who had joined the Spurs when the owner refused to pay to keep him in Dallas. It was obvious that no true Christian could consider backing the Mavericks.

Funny thing was, people in Abilene didn’t see it that way. They talked about a league conspiracy against the Mavs. They thought all the calls were going against the Mavs and that the only reason the Spurs were still in the series was because of luck. And the Christians thought the Mavs owner “colorful.”

It’s amazing what different perspectives can do. Just wondering… do you think anything like this ever happens when we talk about Christianity?

The Lion, the Lamb, and the Throne Room

It’s definitely one of my favorite passages in the Bible. Revelation 5. The great throne room scene. The apostle John is seeing a vision of the very presence of God. “Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.” (Rev 5:1-4) Why does John get so upset? Because the scroll represents God’s plan, and that plan will not come about unless someone opens the scroll.

Then he gets the wonderful news: the Lion of Judah can open the scroll. He is worthy. Why? Because He has conquered. John turns to see the conquering, triumphant lion… and finds a lamb. Whereas lions are an image of strength, lambs are just the opposite. How many schools use “the Fighting Lambs” as their mascot? And not only is this a lamb, but a lamb with its throat slit. It’s a slaughtered lamb.

This verse is key to understanding the whole book of Revelation, dare I say, the whole of Christianity. Christ has redefined victory. You win by losing. You live by dying. The Lamb isn’t worthy in spite of having been slain. He is worthy because He was slain. Suddenly all the Old Testament prophecies take on a new light. All of our images about who the Messiah is are now defined in terms of the cross. There is victory in dying! There is triumph in suffering. The Lion is a Lamb. Death is a victory. Christians overcome by being faithful when persecuted, following the example of the Faithful Witness who triumphed through martyrdom.

What a message for a church that was about to be persecuted. “Faithful unto death” doesn’t mean a lifetime of faithful service; it means being faithful even as the blade severs our head from our body, even as the wild animals rip our lives from our bodies. It means faithful to the point of death… and beyond. We share in the Lamb’s triumph when we renounce our lives to share in His death. We don’t become powerful lions, we become lambs to the slaughter. By doing so we become worthy, just as the Lamb is worthy. Not because of our sacrifice, but because of His.

“And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Rev 5:9-10)

Powerful image. Powerful passage. Powerful message.

Collecting money in 1 Corinthians 16

“Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.”

Having beaten the topic of breaking bread into the ground, I want to look at a text that is somehow strangely related. In countless tracts, we find 1 Corinthians 16:2 paired with Acts 20:7 to prove unequivocally that Christians met for a worship assembly on Sunday and only on Sunday. And that one of the authorized acts of worship is giving. (For those who may be unfamiliar, the teaching goes that the authorized acts are not only allowed, but must be present in the main assembly each week)

Interesting passage this one. If I were to read all of 1 Corinthians, I would have to conclude that Paul is instructing the Corinthians about something new. Note that he doesn’t say “as I instructed you before.” No, this is something that he has shared with the Galatians. He doesn’t say “here’s what I want you to do with the collection that you take each week.” No, he tells them when to take a collection. It’s a new instruction, not something that had been taught to them as a normal requirement.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that this passage is legislative, that Paul is laying down rules for all places and all times. Using the laws of approved example and silence, let’s make a brief list of what those rules would be:

1. This collection was "for the saints." Any use for non-saints is prohibited by silence.


2. We also see that this collection was for the saints in Jerusalem. Any use for non-Jerusalem saints is prohibited.


3. This collection was for saints in another geographical area (as are all collections mentioned in the New Testament). Collecting money to be used locally is prohibited.


4. These collections were to end before Paul went to Corinth. Any continuation of collections by Christians are thereby prohibited.


5. Monies collected are to be held until Paul's arrival. Any prior disbursement is unauthorized and thereby prohibited.

It’s interesting to me that we can take a brief mention of a short-term, special collection and somehow extract “laws” for the modern church. It’s a wonderful example of Christian generosity, of how the church should come together to meet a specific need such as the famine in Judea. The procedure used is no more normative than the practice seen several times in Acts of selling goods to raise funds for the local church. One could easily argue that a garage sale is as scriptural as the Sunday collection and even moreso when applied to funds destined to be used locally.

But that wouldn’t suit our purposes, so it’s much easier to mold 1 Corinthians 16 into something that it never was.

Breaking Bread—Acts 2:46

“And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,” (Acts 2:46)

For all of those willing and able to set me straight on all of this about breaking bread in Acts, please feel free to comment on the last few posts. I’m trying to figure out how we decide when “breaking bread” in Acts refers to the Lord’s Supper and when it refers to a common meal. In the last post, I asked for help with Acts 20:7. Lots of people believe that this is one of the most important verses in the Bible; it consistently makes its way into tract after tract, proving that the Lord’s Supper must be taken every Sunday and only on Sunday.

So what do we do with this verse? Acts 2:46. It’s threatened my Sunday-only mindset, so now is the time for people to bring me back to orthodoxy.

In Acts 2, the brand-spanking new church is meeting in the temple. They apparently aren’t holding their church assemblies in homes nor church buildings. It would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for thousands of them to take the Lord’s Supper together in the temple. They would have met together in the temple, then separated into individual homes to take the Lord’s Supper… just like this verse describes! Don’t let the fact that it was in homes get in your way.

The best evidence also indicates that the early church took the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal (yes, I know that’s debatable; feel free to give evidence to the contrary, just don’t say “as 1 Corinthians 11 says,” unless you’ve found something new in that passage). So the “received their food” wouldn’t be out of place, either.

What makes us conclude this passage is not about the Lord’s Supper? Please don’t be shy about giving reasons. I honestly, sincerely, truly want to know. If you know someone who knows reasons why Acts 20:7 is the Lord’s Supper and Acts 2:46 isn’t, please send them here. I consider this an important point and would truly appreciate any insights toward resolving this.

Breaking Bread in Acts 20

Acts 20:7   On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

How many doctrines hang on this verse? I can think of several (okay, maybe not on this verse alone, but much literature cites this verse when speaking of these doctrines):

(1) Sunday as the day of meeting.

(2) Lord’s Supper every Sunday.

(3) Lord’s Supper only on Sunday.

I’ll continue asking the question I’ve asked in the last two posts: how do we know this is the Lord’s Supper, over against, for example, Acts 2:46? That seems like a pretty important thing to me, especially considering the weight we’ve hung on this one verse. There’s got to be some people that read this blog that believe this verse refers to the Lord’s Supper and teaches the things I list above. Will no one step forward?