Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
November 17, 1960
NUMBER 28, PAGE 10-11b

Establishing The Time And Frequency Of The Lord's Supper

Weldon E. Warnock, Grove City, Ohio

We all agree that the Lord's Supper is to be observed because Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me." We also agree as to the time and frequency of the Lord's Supper. However, there is disagreement as to how to establish the time and frequency.

Brethren have preached for years that the observance is established by command, the time by example in Acts 20:7 and the frequency by necessary inference from the example in Acts 20:7. As far as I know, this has been accepted by brethren until just recently. Some are now contending that Acts 20:7 does not establish the time and frequency of the Lord's Supper because examples and necessary inferences from examples are not binding, but that they merely give us freedom to act. On this basis, brethren who advocate Sunday observance of the Lord's Supper must find a command or necessary inference from a command for the time and frequency. This they cannot do.

Recently a friend and brother publicly stated that examples are not binding and thus do not obligate us to do anything. He said that Acts 20:7 does not prove we are to observe the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week, but the passage must be put with I Cor. 11:20-30, 1 Cor. 16:2 and Heb. 10:25 to prove it.

These additional passages prove nothing as to time and frequency. The time and frequency are not mentioned in 1 Cor. 11. 1 Cor. 16:2 says nothing of the Lord's Supper. There is no necessary inference that the assembly in 1 Cor. 11 is the same as the one in 1 Cor. 16:2. There is an inference, but not a necessary one. Not one thing is said about the Lord's Supper in Heb. 10:25.

Brethren, to say that Acts 20:7 isn't binding is to leave the time and frequency of the Lord's Supper to human judgment. There is no getting around it. We could do as the sectarians and observe it on Thursday night, once a year, if we so desired.

"But history proves weekly observance," someone says. Since when did history become the standard in religion? History also proves (?) a daily observance. McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia (Vol. 5, page 574) says, "In the primitive church, Christians partook of it almost daily; and when this was made impossible by the persecutions, at least several times a week, or certainly on Sundays." Which "historical" record are we going to accept?

I maintain that Acts 20:7 establishes proof for the time and frequency of the Lord's Supper. If it doesn't, there is no divine regulation. A church would be at liberty to meet any day of the week and at any interval. The passage reads, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them...."

As we can clearly see this passage only authorizes Sunday, the first day of the week. We know Sunday to be right because the Spirit through Luke approved the church at Troas meeting on this day. We also know that meeting every Sunday is right because the Troas church did. There is no authority for a congregation to meet any other day or any less or more frequently than the Troas church did. If we are not authorized to meet at another time and any less or more frequently we are bound to comply with this passage.

In order to walk by faith, we must follow Acts 20:7 because the Bible allows us no other alternative. We can't meet to observe the Lord's Supper on Thursday or Friday by faith. Neither can we meet every three months by faith. We can, though, meet every Sunday by faith. Paul said, "For we walk by faith." (2 Cor. 5:7)

We are to follow examples. Paul wrote, "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample." (Phil. 3:17) Again he said, "Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do." (Phil. 4:9) Paul met on the first day of the week to break bread. (Acts 20:6-7) To follow his example we must too. Paul, however, doesn't mean to follow him wherein a general command would give us liberty to act otherwise. The apostle isn't obligating us to follow him in incidentals. The time of the Lord's Supper isn't an incidental as we have no freedom to act any other way.

Acts 20:7 is a specific example. By specific, I mean there is no freedom of choice as to meeting on any other day. It is specific because no command, other example, or necessary inference allows us to meet any other time. Since we have no freedom of choice, Acts 20:7 is a binding example and thereby obligatory for every Christian.

Brethren who don't believe that examples are binding try to eliminate the force of Acts 20:7 by the upper room in verse 8 of the same chapter. They contend if this example binds the time of observance of the Lord's Supper, then the upper room in like manner is binding. The fallacy in this is that the Lord loosed the "place" in John 4:21-24 when he told the woman, "....the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father." But where has the Lord left the day and interval to our discretion?

If the position that examples aren't binding is followed to its logical consequences, churches will be meeting during the week or quarterly, semi-annually, or annually, to observe the Lord's Supper. Also, it would allow every family to observe the Lord's Supper in their respective homes before they assembled in the meetinghouse for worship on Sunday morning as there is no recorded command to observe it in the assembly. Ouly examples in Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 11:20-30 establish the fact that there is to be a coming together into one place to observe the Supper. Are those advocating that examples are not binding ready to accept this consequence? They must in order to be consistent with their position.

Alexander Campbell wrote, "Is there a single institution commemorative of anything, the meaning or frequency of the observance of which is not distinctly, either by precept or example, laid down in the Holy Scriptures?

Not one of a social character, and scarcely one of an individual character. The commemoration of the Lord's death must, then, be a weekly institution — an institution in all the meetings of the disciples for Christian worship; or it must be an anomaly — a thing sui generis — an institution like no other of divine origin."