The Churches of Christ have long insisted on weekly communion. This teaching traces back to a series of articles by Alexander Campbell called “The Search for the Ancient Order.”
Campbell specifically declared that his studies on how churches should organize and conduct their Sunday assemblies should not be taken as salvation or fellowship issues, but soon after his death, some Restoration Movement preachers were damning — contrary to the core principles of the Restoration — those who took communion quarterly.
Of course, the argument that was ultimately relied on for weekly communion is the Regulative Principle as applied to Acts 20:6-7 —
(Act 20:6-7 ESV) 6 but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days. 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.
The argument is that the church at Troas met for the Lord’s Supper on the first day of each week, and therefore we must do the same and may do nothing else. Many argue that it would be sin to take communion on a day other than a Sunday.
There are several problems with this logic, not the least of which is that Paul ate after midnight, and hence on a Monday!
(Act 20:11 ESV) 11 And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.
This follows verse 7, where it is said that he has preached past midnight. And it’s odd that he would break bread separate from the congregation, unless this was an ordinary meal rather than communion.[1] In that case, he may well have chosen to speak while everyone else ate, because time was so limited.
Another problem is that “break bread” is the same phrase used in —
(Act 2:46-47 ESV) 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
We generally take this passage to be speaking of a shared meal, whereas we want to treat the same phrase in Acts 20 as being about the Lord’s Supper. But it’s hard to see why Luke would use “break bread,” which is idiomatic for eating a meal, to refer to the Lord’s Supper in Acts 20 when every one of his other uses of the same phrase refers to a meal —
A Passover meal, at which the Lord’s Supper was initiated [2] —
(Luk 22:19 ESV) 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Such as the meal shared with Jesus on the road to Emmaus —
(Luk 24:30 ESV) 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them.
Paul sharing a meal on his boat shortly before it was shipwrecked —
(Act 27:35 ESV) 35 And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat.
In short, “break bread” is nowhere else used by Luke to refer to the Lord’s Supper, although it does refer to the bread element of the Lord’s Supper, taken as part of a meal. In every other case, “break bread” is simply idiomatic for eating a meal, and so there’s no way to insist that the church at Troas wasn’t gathering for a common meal rather than the Lord’s Supper. (Or it could be both.)
In fact, there is substantial evidence that the early church ate a meal, called the “love feast” or agape, together in apostolic times.
(Jud 1:12 ESV) 12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
(2Pe 2:13 ESV) 13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you.
(Gal 2:12 ESV) 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
(1Co 5:11 ESV) 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler — not even to eat with such a one.
(2Th 3:10 ESV) 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
It seems clear from these passages that eating together was a central part of the Christian life. 2 Thess 3:10 instructs the church not to let someone eat who refuses to work, and the passage assumes that the church is providing food by some means.
Just so, when a member is disfellowshipped, he is not allowed to eat with the other members, indicating that eating together was so valued that denial of these meals would motivate repentance.
(1Co 11:20-22 ESV) 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
(1Co 11:33-34 ESV) 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another– 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home — so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
The church at Corinth had combined the Lord’s Supper with the love feast, and then so abused the meal that some became drunk while others went hungry. Obviously, Paul was not speaking of a purely symbolic meal!
Jude and 2 Peter were written well after 1 Corinthians, and so we can’t take Paul’s instructions to “eat at home” as barring common meals. Evidently, because the abuses were so severe that Paul was temporarily suspending common meals until he could return and straighten out the mess. Sometimes it’s better to do nothing than to do something so badly that it does more harm than good.
Moreover, we see that Paul is willing to separate the Lord’s Supper from the love feast, but as a temporary expedient, not as a permanent command for all Christians at all times. In fact, we know from history that the early church often combined the two.
I said all that to say this: One of the truly wonderful and blessed traditions of the Churches of Christ is the covered dish meal. Where I grew up, we called these “dinner on the grounds.”
I don’t think many churches realize that the shared meals fulfill much of the purpose of the love feast, but they do. (And I don’t know why the Regulative Principle preachers don’t consider these meals mandatory. We have plenty of examples. Why aren’t they binding?)
The Restoration Movement founders never taught the necessity of a love feast, but they encouraged covered-dish dinners and called them “love feasts.”
In many churches, these church-wide meals have been replaced with suppers eaten together as part of the church’s small group ministry. And my observation is that groups that eat together do much better than those that don’t. And some churches still have a similar program though “zone meetings.”
As we get busier and we cook less and eat out more, it’s becoming harder and harder to break bread as a church. I can’t begin to imagine how the Jerusalem church pulled that off daily! But we need to preserve the practice of eating together.
There’s a bond that’s formed over deviled eggs and four-layer dessert that is unlike anything else. And I see no better means of learning to love each other than to regularly eat together.
_______________________
[1] I suppose it might be argued that the church in Troas, a Grecian city, reckoned time the Jewish way rather than the Greek and Roman way, that is, from sunset to sunset. If so, then they were meeting on what we’d call Saturday night, and so Paul still ate on the first day. But this would mean that every communion taken on a Sunday night by American reckoning would really be on the second day by the Jewish reckoning, and hence sinful — if we consider only the first day by the Jewish calendar acceptable. And wouldn’t the Regulative Principle require us to follow this as a binding example?
But adopting a Jewish day in a Greek city hardly explains why Paul ate separate from everyone else.
[2] Whether the meal was a Passover meal is questioned by many. There are arguments both ways. Leon Morris has an excellent and thorough summary in the New International Commentary on John’s Gospel.
Good piece.. Not only was eating together as Jewish families important, but we see that the council at Jerusalem made some astounding decisions regarding dietary restrictions in order for Gentile and Jew to eat together. I’m convinced that “eating together” was a sign of acceptance of the other party and socially significant.. After all, it was a time before texting and facebook.
The Pot Luck Dinners would be great to have again…Many churches still do it… but, I’d really try to encourage people to set a more Christ-like example and lay off the 4 layered dessert.. God didn’t give us our bodies to harm by addiction to sugar and chemical additives. The church as a whole has done a very poor job of encouraging people to be healthy. Now at chronic levels of obesity and ill-health, rising insurance costs, lack of coverage, etc., it’s time the people of God lead the way to living like God intended and being responsible for ourselves and eating habits… Imagine if pornography made one fat…. Would we continue to make excuses for that too ? Are the Baptists healthier people ?
Campbell’s argument that “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 and “break bread” in Acts 2:46 refer to two different things has always seemed weak. Likewise in Acts 20:7 & 11.
As far as Paul’s breaking bread after midnight goes, Jay, are you aware of Barclay’s contention that the 1st century night was divided into four “watches?” The 2nd watch was called “midnight,” and lasted from our 9:00 pm to 12:00 am. If he is correct, there would have been ample time for him to have broken bread before it became Monday “cock crowing,” the 3rd watch. This would make it mute as to whether Luke used Jewish or Roman reckoning of time.
The Disciples of Christ congregation I am now a member of still practices the reading of the words of institution from Matthew 26 each week before communion and I have found it to be spiritually beneficial. I look forward each time to hearing those words of Jesus before I commune. That practice was once universal among Churches of Christ but seemed to have been left behind in the mid 20th century. It has been interesting to find that the more liberal wing of our Stone-Campbell movement is in many ways also the most traditional. At this point in my life those traditions are all the more precious to me.
Jerry wrote:
“As far as Paul’s breaking bread after midnight goes, Jay, are you aware of Barclay’s contention that the 1st century night was divided into four “watches?” The 2nd watch was called “midnight,” and lasted from our 9:00 pm to 12:00 am. If he is correct, there would have been ample time for him to have broken bread before it became Monday “cock crowing,” the 3rd watch. This would make it mute as to whether Luke used Jewish or Roman reckoning of time.”
Good stuff, Jerry
In ancient times,being fat was a sign of blessing. I understand we need to take care of our bodies. Some folks just seem to have an easier time of it due to genetics. I used to could eat like a horse and never gain a pound(more closer to being a glutton back then). Now I can seemingly look at it and gain. I surely don’t want to get into condemning lessons on being overweight. Gluttony sure, being fat, no, just too many factors that don’t go hand in hand with the amount of food one eats.
God blesses you if you take Communion on Sunday, but he will damn you to hell, for wanting to take it again on Tuesday. Some great reasoning there! But I have run across it.
If the Lord’s Supper is mandatory on Sunday(in theory),then what of the sick who can’t make it? Do we have deacons who run it out to their house? No! Not generally. The leadership(church) feels that they are “providentially hindered”. Odd though, how many wouldn’t consider someone who believes on Jesus and desires baptism but are sick and eventually dying in a hospital bed as being providentially hindered.
I’m doing a class on Pepperdine about sacred meals. A major point will be the holiness of the fellowship meal (potluck, dinner on the grounds).
So stop stealing my material! 🙂
As much as I like the “dinner on the ground” more often practiced in my youth, I think the even greater blessing is in that day-to-day eating together which seems so ubiquitous in the infant church, once we get through wrangling over just how “broke” is broken bread, and how to reckon an accurate midnight in Judeo-Roman Daylight Savings Time for people who had no clocks.
I think putting our feet under one another’s dining tables is the sort of daily life-sharing which so connected the early believers, and which makes it awfully hard to split up with brothers with whom we have shared so many intimate mealtimes. I do enjoy Aunt Margaret’s award-winning banana pudding and second helpings of fatted calf, but my deeper fellowship is formed with sharing the contents of my lunchbox and my life with a brother as we are sitting on the tailgate of my truck. Sharing your sustenance with one another is even more meaningful than sharing your abundance.
Dinner: it’s what’s for church!
The disciples in Troas were gathered together in someone’s home, a place where people would normally gather with family, friends, or neighbors to share a meal in the evenings, regardless of what day of the week it was, what time of day it was, how often they actually ate something while they were there, or what kind of meal they were sharing, common or sacred.
George points out that someone in Troas had a three-story home with space enough on the 3rd floor for the group to assemble. But Luke doesn’t mention who owned the building and whether or not it was primarily a residence. He merely reports that that was where the congregation met and ate together that day. Paul wanted to speak to the congregation. They welcomed and listened and marveled at all God had been doing through Paul and his party (apparently including doctor Luke).
For us to build from this one occasion a law requiring that every congregation wherever they were must have a ritual which is obviously not a supper and call it “the Lord’s Supper” is a stretch. The folks in Troas ate a MEAL together (that’s what breaking bread implies) which, like those in Corinth, included remembering Jesus as He had requested be done with the bread reminding of His body and the wine reminding of His blood.
There’s no hint the meal consisted only of bread and wine. We need to remember and honor Jesus every day, not just on Sundays. And Christian families and their guests gathered around the family table can equally well honor Jesus with the bread and drink there served.
Monty,
I once visited a congregation of the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) that took communion every time they met — even for choir practice. This was not so much doctrinal as a desire to proclaim the death of Jesus at every single opportunity. And they felt that communion helped make their meetings more spiritual — closer to Jesus — and less secular. And I can’t think of a counter-argument.
They kept a loaf (actual loaf) and wine and cups at the front of the auditorium so that communion was always offered. Interesting approach. I’ve never advocated it but I’m not sure that it wouldn’t be worth a try.
Jerry and Hank,
I can’t find that argument in my copy of Barclay’s in his discussion of Acts 20 and Troas. Is it somewhere else?
BDAG and Thayers define the Greek word translated “midnight” as “midnight” with no reference to the Second Watch.
I think that Paul’s command to “eat at home” was simply to curb their appetites in order to squelch greed(food). Not to temporarily ban the Love Feast.
Hello, Jay. Always thought provoking. Can you inform me which periodicals those articles you mention by AC were in?
Gary,
Going from memory, it was the Christian Baptist in a series of articles that spanned years. I got the fact that Campbell said these should not be fellowship issues from an article by John Mark Hicks (quoting Bobby Valentine), which I’ve cited to here many times —
(emphasis Hicks’).
Jay,
I’m not familiar with Barclay’s work, nor had I ever heard the argument Jerry referenced.
Where’d you see that, Jerry?