Why The Current Controversy On Acts 20:7
Upon what basis can we contend that the first day of the week is the exclusive time to eat the Lord's Supper and yet reject the "upper room" as the exclusive place to eat the Lord's Supper? This problem has had a very prominent place in the conversation and discussions of brethren lately. It will be of interest and profit to study the background of the matter, to learn why the interest in this particular question at this time. It is not my purpose to restate and review the rules by which I think this matter can be resolved. These rules were discussed in the "Special Issue" of the Gospel Guardian. The design of this article is to discuss the forces which have projected this matter to the fore and to give a more detailed discussion of the rule of uniformity or constancy as applied to the upper room.
The Background Of The Question
No one should think that outside sources have pressed the question of the exclusiveness of first day observance of the Lord's Supper upon us, for this is not the case. Acts 20:7 has been used over the years by faithful Christians as the unquestioned authority for eating the Lord's Supper upon the first day of the week. Who then is it that is casting doubt on the authority of the example of Acts 20:7? Why are they wavering and hedging on the example of Acts 20:7? Is it because that by an objective study they have learned truths of which we have not been aware in the past? Or is it because some have prepossessions which impel them to follow the course of giving up Acts 20:7 as a binding example?
The facts in the case stand clearly and firmly in support of the latter view. Had none of us been involved with "Institutionalism" and the "Sponsoring Church" ideas no question would have been raised among us regarding Acts 20:7. The reason that the teaching of example in Acts 20:7 is under fire is that consistency demands that if it be admitted as evidence, then the examples of congregational cooperation of Acts 11:27-30; Philippians 4:14-18; Romans 15:25-28 must also be admitted. To admit these examples as binding is to establish absolute certainty of the unscripturalness of such things as "institutionalism" and the "sponsoring church." Thus the conviction exists with many of us that the passages couldnot be studied objectively because of prepossessions held by some. Determination to do the will of God is indispensable to a knowledge of what is the will of God. We can know the will of God and know that it is the will of God only as we are determined to do the will of God, (John 7:17.) We should never entertain an attitude toward the Bible of making it support our ideas, plans, and etc. We should never carry our ideas to the Bible, seeking something there to justify them, but should go to the Bible for ideas in religious matters. The scriptures should be allowed to "furnish" us. They completely furnish us unto every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17.)
The refusal to admit that the examples of "cooperation" set the pattern involves the rejection of the teaching of all New Testament example. If example be rejected in this area then consistency demands that it be rejected in other areas; example must be repudiated as a way whereby the scriptures teach. Pendleton and others of his day in their efforts to justify the missionary society finally maneuvered themselves into a position where the only alternative to saying "we are wrong" was to say that "blind adhesion to models, apostolic or apostate, is mere slavish stupidity, unworthy of the Lord's freemen." The latter was the alternative elected by our brethren who went out from us in the digression of a century ago. Those of old pursued their course of apostasy and sought to justify themselves in that course by rejecting example as a way by which the scriptures teach. Which course will our brethren of today take? Pray God that they will have the courage to say "we are wrong" and to cease from a course which eventually will require rejection of the teaching of example.
"Institutionalism" and the "sponsoring church" plan for doing the work of the church are the "troublers of Israel." These are the things which are liable to cause some to lose confidence in the New Testament as the all sufficient guide in faith and practice.
The Rule Of Uniformity Or Constancy
When constancy in essential details is present then the example is exclusive. If variation is present, (i.e. if different actions are recorded with approval) then none can be regarded as binding to the exclusion of the others. I know of no one who disagrees with this.
There is no variation in the time (first day of the week) when the Lord's Supper is to be eaten. Acts 20:7 tells us that "upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread." No sound reason can be advanced for anyone confusing this with Paul's meal which is referred to in the 11th verse. It makes no difference how time is counted — if you accept the count as beginning at mid-night making the breaking of the loaf by Paul in verse 11 come Monday morning — then verse 11 is not referring to the Lord's Supper. The reason for this is that they gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread. Why should anyone think that they gathered together to break bread on the first day of the week and then waited until the second day to do it? While on this point notice the language employed. "We (plural) were gathered together to break bread." While in the 11th verse the actions of Paul (singular) are under consideration. It was "he" who broke bread and "he" who ate and "he" who talked a long while even till break of day and "he" who departed. It is no more reasonable to include the disciples in the action of verse 11 than to include them in the actions "talked" and "departed." The narrative is simple and understandable. The "disciples" or "we" gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread. This they did. Paul preached to them until midnight — the man fell out of the window — Paul restored him to life — Paul then ate food — preached until break of day and departed. There is not the slightest hint that the Lord's Supper was eaten at some time other than the first day of the week. There is no variation in the example of time when to partake of the Lord's Supper.
Here I insert a very terse and clear quotation on this point by Brother McGarvey — "in the original institution of the Lord's Supper, nothing was said as to the frequency with which it was to be observed. The Lord's words are, "This do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Cor. 11:25.) Had nothing more been said, every congregation of believers would have been left to its own judgment as to frequency of observance. But the apostles were afterward guided by the Holy Spirit in this, as in other matters left indefinite by the Lord's personal teaching, and their example is our guide. Little is said on the subject, but that little is decisive in favor of a weekly observance of the ordinance. Here it is represented as furnishing the chief purpose of the Lord's day meeting; and the same appears in the rebuke administered to the Corinthians: "When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper; for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper." (1 Cor. 11:20, 21.) 'Such being the purpose of the Lord's day meeting, as surely as the disciples met every Lord's day, they broke the loaf on that day. Slight as this evidence is, when taken in connection with the universal practice of the church in the second century, and for a long period afterward, it has proved sufficient to win universal agreement among biblical scholars, that this was the apostolic custom; and as the example of the apostles acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit shows plainly the will of the Lord, our custom should be the same, and all the excuses which we ingeniously frame for rejecting this custom are invalid." (J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts of Apostles, page 179.)