9 th ANNUAL BIBLE RESEARCH CONFERENCE at the COMFORT INN of MARIETTA, OH

April 25 th & 26 th , 2014

MAIN THEME: “FAITHFULNESS”

TOPIC: “Faithfulness in the Assembly & the Lord’s Supper”

INTRODUCTION:

The overall theme for this Bible Research Conference is “Faithfulness.” The topic of faithfulness assigned to this writer was “Faithfulness in the Assembly and the Lord’s Supper.” There is a enormous amount of material that could be assembled, digested, and then presented about the theological significance found in being faithful to the assembly on the Lord’s Day and to the Lord’s Supper. Others far more qualified than what I am have written extensive works presenting and defending a multitude of views on both parts of this topic: the necessity of assembling with the saints and participating in the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s Day, or the lack of necessity for doing either or both on a weekly basis.

I have chosen to take a somewhat different approach to this topic. I have chosen to approach it from a much more practical direction. I want to deal with what Alger Fitch refers to as “What is the Why for the When?” This will not be a study which will bring forth any new revelations or deeply sought after new information. I will simply seek to explain to the significant reason for why the followers of Christ must be faithful to the assembly of the saints and the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s Day.

The Lord’s Supper has often been called “the central act of Christian worship.” As Alger Fitch says, “It has been looked upon as the hub of the wheel, the meaty kernel in the nut shell, the radiant gem in the setting of a Lord’s Day gathering of Christ’s followers.” (1)

Did you happen to catch the overall gist of what he just implied? According to Alger Fitch’s belief, Christ’s followers gather on the Lord’s Day with the central focus being upon the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Does this premise resonate with the teaching found in the Scriptures? I must say that I believe that it does. In order to show this, I want to do some background work concerning the day of worship in both the Old and New Covenant ages including some work in the area of the concept of a “covenant,” the establishment of the “Last Supper” which became the basis for our observance of the Lord’s Supper, and then I have chosen one primary text which we will closely examine—Hebrews 10:19-31—to attempt to pull things all together.

LESSON:

THE “DAY” OF WORSHIP

The Day of Worship Under the Old Covenant:

In order for us to understand “Faithfulness in the Assembly,” we must first understand just when it is that we are expected by God to assemble together in worship. It is also necessary for us to remember that God has revealed Himself and related to man through two covenant agreements: (1) the Old Covenant and (2) the New Covenant. Let’s begin this discussion by looking at a passage of Scripture found in Exodus 20:8-11:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

1

What was the punishment for breaking the commandment of God concerning the Sabbath day as given under the Law of Moses? According to Mosaic Law in Exodus 31:15, to desecrate the Sabbath (Shabbat) was a capital offense: “Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” All work was prohibited during the Sabbath (Shabbat), even minor tasks, such as "gathering wood" (cf. Numbers   15:32-36 ).

At first glance, the question “What is the Sabbath day?” and its significance seems fairly simple , but is it really? According to Exodus 20:8-11 which we just read, the Sabbath is the “seventh day” of the week, on which one is to rest, in remembrance that God created the universe in six days and then “rested” on the seventh day. However, due to the complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some so-called “Christian” groups, the meaning of the Sabbath day rest has become confused.

Some so-called “Christian” groups, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, view the Sabbath as the day of worship, the day on which Christians should assemble or attend church or go to worship services. While these groups typically also teach that no work is to be done on the Sabbath, the concept of the “day of worship” is sometimes more emphasized than the “day of rest.” The problem with this is that the Bible nowhere commands that the Sabbath be the day of worship. In Exodus 20:8-11, “keeping the Sabbath holy” is defined as not working on the Sabbath.

The online site “Got Questions” writes: “Nowhere in this passage is the Sabbath described as a day especially set aside for worship. Similarly, other Scriptures command against working on the Sabbath, but say nothing of the Sabbath being the ordained day for worship (cf. Exodus 16:23-29; 31:14-16; 35:2-3; Deuteronomy 5:12-15; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Jeremiah 17:21-27). In the Old Covenant, there was not one day set aside for worship. Sacrifices were made daily at the tabernacle / temple. The ‘worship’ was continual. The idea that the Sabbath day is the God-ordained day of corporate worship is not biblical. Now that is not to say the Sabbath was not set apart for worship. The New Testament records Jews and converts to Judaism meeting in the synagogues on the Sabbath (cf. Mark 6:2; Luke 4:31; Luke 13:10-16; Acts 13:14,27,42-44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4). Obviously, with no work being done on the Sabbath day, the Sabbath day would be the ideal day to have organized worship services. However, again, the Bible does not command that the Sabbath day be the day of worship. The Bible describes worship on the Sabbath, but does not prescribe organized corporate worship on the Sabbath.” (2)

Further, once the New Covenant was established by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Bible nowhere describes Christians setting aside the Sabbath day as the day of worship. The only Scriptures that describe Christians in any sense meeting on the Sabbath are in fact pointing to evangelistic efforts at Jewish synagogues, which met on the Sabbath day. There is no evidence in the New Testament that the Apostles or the early Christians in any sense observed the Sabbath day as the prescribed day of worship.

The Day of Worship Under the New Covenant:

Traditionally, Christians have held their primary corporate worship assemblies or services on Sundays, the first day of the week, in celebration of Christ’s resurrection, which was made known on a Sunday (cf. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). There have been numerous objections to the fact that Sunday has been established as the day of worship by Christians under the New Covenant.

In his tract The Sabbath Day and the Christian, George Faull deals with some of those objections:

FIRST OBJECTION – “The Pope of Rome changed the Sabbath to Sunday.” Yes, and I invented the wheel! No educated man would say the Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday. I know they admit it but it is a lie. There was no Pope for 575 years after the establishment of the Church. Christians were gathering on Sunday since the first Pentecost in the church era. They have done so since that time.

SECOND OBJECTION – “Constantine is the one who changed the Sabbath to Sunday.”

2

You’re getting closer! But which is it? Some Adventist literature says the Pope did it, and other literature says Constantine did. The truth is that Constantine did sabbatize Sunday! He was the first Christian emperor. He professed to be a Christian. He wanted to please them. He even forced his army to be immersed in the rivers. He insisted that pagans and Jews stop observing the Sabbath and start observing the day that Christians met. He did not make the Christians change their day of worship. He was patronizing them. He made Sunday secular work forbidden. He made his people assemble on Sunday. His edicts did not affect the believer, but rather the non-believer. He tried to make Sunday what Saturday had been to the Jews. It was a terrible mistake, and the church has reaped evil from his action. If God wanted Sunday to be a Sabbath like the Jews had, He would have instructed them not to work; but He did not. God did not need legislation from an emperor to get people to do what He wanted them to do. Untold misery has resulted from Constantine’s attempt to legislate in the place of God. The Sabbath was abolished by God and He did not desire another Sabbath or He would have given one Himself.

THIRD OBJECTION – “But we need a Sabbath to remind men that God is Creator and Lord.”

We have a Sabbath. It is a person. “There remains” says the author of Hebrews, “the keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God”. Heb. 4:9-11. We have entered that Sabbath in Christ. We have ceased from our own works and have entered into His rest. Jesus is our Sabbath rest. This is why Paul wrote what he did to the Colossians. They were troubled by the Judaizers who said that you had to keep the law of Moses. He wrote, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat and in drink or in respect to a holy day or of the new moon or of the Sabbath (days), which are a shadow of good things to come but the body is Christ”. Col. 2:12. Notice the word days is not in the original language. The word “Sabbath” is singular. The Sabbath was a type of Christ. When a type is fulfilled it is abolished, just as the sacrifices are abolished because Jesus is our sacrifice. The Sabbath that remains is our Lord. In him we find rest unto our souls.

FOURTH OBJECTION – “Then why do you meet on Sundays?”

We meet on Sundays because we have an example for doing so. We meet on Sundays because we are exhorted not to forsake the assembly. Heb. 10:25. It is not a Sabbath. The Sabbath law was totally abolished and unmentioned in the new covenant.

FIFTH OBJECTION – But the first day of the week in Acts 20:7 means the “end of the Sabbath” in Greek.

No, it does not. It means “on the day following the Sabbath” or “on the first day of the week” as the translators have translated it in several places.

SIXTH OBJECTION – 1 Cor. 16:2 means that the disciples were to put the money aside at home, not to take it to church and put it in a treasury.

This is exactly what it does not mean. Paul’s instruction was to take it to the treasury as the Greek says, and hold it in common place so there would not be a need of gathering the money when he arrived. If it was kept in the individual’s home, it would have necessitated the gathering that he was trying to avoid. The instruction is plain: “When you go to the assembly take your love offering each Sunday and place it in a common treasury so that I will not have to gather it up when I come”.

CONCLUSION Now we are fully aware there are more objections that are advanced by these modern day judaizers who would bring us into captivity to the law. After having studied this question in depth and delivered Adventists from this error in the past, I feel these arguments are sufficient for those who seek truth. (3)

The online site “Got Questions” writes: “It is still important to understand, though, that Sunday is not the commanded day of corporate worship either. There is no explicit biblical command that either Saturday or Sunday be the day of worship. Scriptures such as Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16 give Christians freedom to observe a special day, or to observe every day as special. God’s desire is that we worship and serve Him continually, every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday. Please read our other articles on the Sabbath day and Sabbath keeping to explore this issue further.” (4)

It is my contention that the Sabbath command, which biblically speaking, is to rest on the seventh day of the week, is not binding on Christians. But why is this true? The reason is because the Old Covenant has

3

been abolished and replaced with the New Covenant. Thus, the Sabbath observance was abolished along with the Old Covenant which included the Ten Commandments (cf. Exodus 20:1-17).

How do we know this? Let’s first examine what the Apostle Paul writes in Colossians 1:15-20:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Now let’s look closely at what Paul writes in Colossians 2:8-22:

8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths , 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

In the letter to the Hebrews, the writer gives an even more detailed explanation of this cancellation or annulment of the Old Covenant and its replacement with the New Covenant. Let’s now look at Hebrews 8:1-13:

1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

4

7   For if that first   covenant   had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” {Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34}

13 In that He says, “ A new   covenant ,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now let’s consider what the writer to the Hebrews goes on to reveal in Hebrews 9:11-28:

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.  18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This   is   the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” {cf. Exodus 24:3-8} 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands,   which are   copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Clearly, the Old Covenant sealed with the blood of sacrificial animals was abolished, annulled, cancelled and replaced by the New Covenant sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ!

Since the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses including the Ten Commandments was abolished and replaced by a New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ, it only makes sense that there be a “new” day of worship in which we honor and praise God for His great love, mercy, and grace in redeeming us at such a great price!

So why do Christians under the New Covenant assemble to worship on Sunday?

5

Some things of monumental importance happened on Sunday or the Christians in the very beginning would have never set that day apart. What happened on Sunday that was so important that it was set apart as the day to gather for worship?

Jesus’ tomb was found empty on that day proving He arose from the dead (cf. Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18).

Jesus, after He arose, kept appearing to His disciples on this day (Luke 24:13-43; John 20:19-31).

The Holy Spirit came on Pentecost which was always on Sunday.

The Church was established on Pentecost which was on Sunday.

The first gospel message was proclaimed and men first became Christians on Sunday.

Finally, there can be no question that the first century church from the beginning of their existence met at the least, but always, weekly on Sunday, the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day (cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). With this thought in mind, I would like to draw your attention to a couple more passages of Scripture which shows us that Christians really need to be keenly aware of their worship each and every day, not just on a single chosen day for assembling together.

Listen carefully to what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome in Romans 12:1-2:

1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is   your reasonable service {“spiritual worship” – ESV, “spiritual service of worship” – NASB}. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Finally, listen to what the Apostle Paul writes to the Christians in Colossae in Colossians 3:15-17:

15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17 And whatever you do in word or deed,   do   all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him .

THE LORD’S DAY AND THE LORD’S SUPPER

Jesus at the Last Supper:

At this point let’s examine each of the places that Jesus is mentioned as He ate the Passover meal, the “Last Supper,” with His disciples and established the “Lord’s Supper.”

Let’s look first at Matthew 26:26-28:

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed[a] and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new [ b ]   covenant , which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Footnotes:[a] Matthew 26:26 M-Text reads gave thanks for.[b] Matthew 26:28 NU-Text omits new.

Let’s remember that the Old Covenant was established through blood as we clearly see in Exodus 24:3-8:

6

3 So Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the LORD has said we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD. 6 And Moses took half the blood and put   it   in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar . 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled   it   on the people, and said , “This is the blood of the covenant which the   LORD   has made with you according to all these words .”

Jesus now tells His disciples that the New Covenant will also be established through blood, but this time it will not be the sacrificial blood of animals, but rather, He said, “My blood of the [new] covenant.” This is very significant!

Now let’s look at Mark 14:22-25:

22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat;[a] this is My body.” 23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new [ b ]   covenant , which is shed for many. 25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Footnotes:[a] Mark 14:22 NU-Text omits eat.[b] Mark 14:24 NU-Text omits new.

Let’s now look at Luke 22:14-22:14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve[a] apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you,[b] I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup   is   the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you .21 But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

Footnotes:[a] Luke 22:14 NU-Text omits twelve.[b] Luke 22:18 NU-Text adds from now on.

It is very important to note that when all three Synoptic gospel accounts are considered that there are two very clear truths that emerge: (1) the “Lord’s Supper” would include the understanding that the “New” Covenant would be established in the blood of Jesus Christ, and (2) the “Lord’s Supper” would be expected to continue among His disciples as a means of “remembrance” of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice He made for us.

The “Lord’s Supper” and the Church Age:

Jesus’ own words were, “Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25) and “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:18). There can be no question that Jesus intended for His disciples to continue in the practice of observing the “Lord’s Supper” as a remembrance, but also with the clear understanding that Jesus’ presence would be right there with them as they broke the bread and drank from the fruit of the vine. Jesus expected His disciples to honor Him, praise Him, and thank Him for the

7

great sacrifice He made to establish a “New” Covenant between God and His people in the blood of His Son, Jesus!

How did the church respond to this in the beginning? Well, the church was born there in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:1-41) in A.D. 30. The very next verse in Acts, Acts 2:42, reads as follows: 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (ESV)42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and[a]to prayer. (NASB)

Footnotes:[a] Acts 2:42 Lit the prayers

In the original Greek language, the definite article “the” appears with the word “bread” within the phrase “the breaking of bread” and thus should read “the breaking of [the] bread,” which implies a significant meaning above and beyond the idea of a general meal. Most scholars agree that what the church “continued steadfastly”, “devoted themselves” to doing, or were “continually devoting” themselves to doing included the observance of the “Lord’s Supper.”

As we travel on through the book of Acts, some 27 years or so later we come to Acts 20: 1-7 which says:1 After the uproar had ceased, Paul called the disciples to himself, embraced them, and departed to go to Macedonia.2 Now when he had gone over that region and encouraged them with many words, he came to Greece 3 and stayed three months. And when the Jews plotted against him as he was about to sail to Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 And Sopater of Berea accompanied him to Asia—also Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. 5 These men, going ahead, waited for us at Troas.6 But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days. 7 Now on the first   day   of the week , when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

At this point we need to discuss two extremely important phrases found in verse 7: (1) “the first day of the week,” and (2) “to break bread.” From these two phrases and the fact that we are some 27 years removed from Acts 2:42 where the disciples were said to have “continued steadfastly” in “the breaking of bread” the understanding of this passage in Acts 20:7 becomes even more important as it sets a very clear precedent for what the apostles (here it was the Apostle Paul) and the disciples were continuing steadfastly to do. If we can identify these things, then we have very strong precedence for what we are to continue steadfastly or “faithfully” in practicing in the church today.

The two phrases expressed in Acts 20:7, as we will soon see, clearly indicate what we know today as the “Lord’s Day” and the “Lord’s Supper.” If we can ascertain this to be true, then we can see a very deep need to remain “faithful” in the assembly of the saints on each and every Lord’s Day and in “faithfully” observing the Lord’s Supper at each and every one of those assemblies of the saints on the Lord’s Day!

Dr. Donald A. Nash in his book, Practical Commentary on Acts, writes:

“Why did Paul tarry seven days in Troas (vs. 6) when he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (cs. 16)? So urgent was it that he did not stop to visit the important church at Ephesus where he had spent three years. It is reasonable that he did so in order to see all the Christians when they come together on the first day of the week to observe the Lord’s Supper as was the custom with the early church (1 Cor. 11:20).” (5)

Expositor’s Greek Commentary says that Acts 20:7 along 1 Corinthians 16:2 is “proof that this day (first day of the week) had been marked by the Christian Church as a special day for public worship and ‘the

8

breaking of the bread’.” (6) Albert Barnes, commenting on “first day of the week” here, wrote, “Showing that this day as then observed by Christians as holy time. It is probable that the apostles and early Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day.” (7)

Church history attests to the fact that “the first day of the week,” the Lord’s Day, Sunday was holy to the early Christians. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all days.” (8) Justin Martyr said, “Sunday is the day when we hold our common assembly because it is the first day on which ... Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.” (9)

Most denominationalists and many church of Christ/Christian church brethren take issue with the “first day of the week” interpretation I have espoused thus far. They want to take another direction which has opened the door for corporate gatherings to worship on Saturday evenings. Dr. Donald A. Nash dealt magnificently with this argument in his book, Practical Commentary on Acts. Here is what he wrote:“The NEB translates 20:7 “on Saturday evening.” This is wrong! It is not a translation but an interpretation. The Greek text is clear, “the first day of the week”; literally “on first (day) of Sabbaths (pl.)” meaning the first day between the Sabbaths. The NEB wording is based on the idea that Luke was speaking about Jewish time by which Sunday would have started at 6:00 p.m. Saturday. Why would people in the Greek city of Troas be going by Jewish time? It is claimed he used the Jewish expression of “unleavened” bread in vs. 6 and “first of Sabbaths” was the Jewish way of speaking about days of the week. In regard to this point Luke was stating why Paul stayed at Philippi. He had to use “unleavened bread” to state the fact accurately. As to the second point he used Jewish terms to tell the story so Jews would understand, but that doesn’t mean people in Troas would meet on Saturday evening. It was the “first day of the week” and should not be “Saturday evening” which might mislead some sects to claim Saturday is the proper day for corporal worship in the Christian system.

If this were Sunday evening, some claim the Lord’s Supper would be taken after midnight, therefore on Monday instead of Sunday, basing this on vs. 11. But the Lord’s Supper was earlier. Lenski argues well for this (Interpretation of Acts, pp. 826, 830). The purpose of coming together was to observe the Lord’s Supper at which time generally the Agape feast would be eaten. Why would they postpone this until after midnight? The laborers and slaves in the group would have worked all day, and the love feast was their evening meal and would not have been postponed. In vs. 11 it is ‘he,’ Paul alone who eats as he must depart early the next morning. The word for eating there suggests a snack not a full meal. Probably some people who had to work the next day would have left by this time. Even the word for ‘talking’ in vs. 11 meant conversation rather than the lecturing of vs. 7, showing the formal service was over at this time.” (10)

The Cambridge Greek says, “Whenever a Christian congregation was established, the first and most natural religious service was the communion of the body and blood of the Lord.” (11) W. Hershel Ford, B.A., D.D. (1910-1976), a Baptist, wrote, “Paul went to Troas. He stayed there for several days, planning to leave on Monday morning. They asked him to preach on Sunday night and to help in the observance of the Lord’s Supper.” (12) F.F. Bruce (1910-1990), a dedicated member of the Open Plymouth Brethren, wrote, “The statement that at Troas the travelers and their fellow-Christians dwelling in that port met together for the breaking of the bread “upon the first day of the week” is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for worship on that day. The breaking of the bread probably denotes a fellowship meal in the course of which the Eucharist was celebrated (cf. Ch. 2:42).” (13)

Not coincidentally, the earlier reference I made to the passage in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is of great importance here. In that verse, the Apostle Paul writes, “On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.” Albert Hughes, B.A., D.D. (1878-1954), a member of the Church of Ireland/Methodist, wrote, “Upon the first day of the week. That was the day following the Jewish Sabbath. The first day of the week is nowhere called the Sabbath in the New Testament. It is evident that by this time the first day of the week had a special significance attached to it. Later this first day came to be known as the Lord’s Day.” (14)

Here is what Donald A. Nash had to say about the designation of “the first day of the week” as the Lord’s Day, “The unique word kuriakos, ‘belonging to the Lord,’ used only in the New Testament of the ‘Lord’s’ Supper (1 Cor. 11:20) and of the ‘Lord’s’ Day (Rev. 1:10) would bind these observations together for common practices on the first day of the week. Commemorating His death without celebrating His

9

resurrection would be valueless; celebrating His resurrection without remembering His death for our salvation would be meaningless. Is faithful practice of these memorials on each first day of the week legalistic?Legalism would be observing them without faith, love, repentance, or spirituality. Keeping these ceremonies established by God faithfully each Lord’s Day would be no more legalistic than obeying his commands, ‘Thou shalt not murder,’ or ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ (Matt. 19:18).” (15)

What has been the understanding about The Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Supper among religious groups and their leaders down through the ages? It may come as a surprise to many, but a vast number of denominational as well as most all church of Christ/Christian church leaders have advocated that Christians gather on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) and that they participate in the observance of the Lord’s Supper (Communion). Here is what just a few of those leaders have said:

Justin Martyr (An important 2nd century apologist, known as “Martyr” since that is how his life ended), wrote around A.D. 155. He addressed the pagan Roman Emperor, Antoninus Pius (138-161), to explain Christian practices. In his Apology (I. 67), we listen to his testimony of the times:

And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president in a discourse admonishes and urges imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers. And, as I said before, when we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent saying the ‘Amen’. A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present it is sent by the deacons. Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in want on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds and strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need. (16)

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Lord’s Supper one each Lord’s Day (Supper) runs like an unbroken chain throughout early history. The shift in the Protestant era of church history to the less frequent observance was a reaction against the gradual Roman multiplication of several “eucharists” not only every day but many hours each say with no one present but a priest.

Traveling through the trail of history from the days of the early church through its earliest centuries the practice of the Lord’s Supper on each Lord’s Day remained constant. When we arrive at the Reformation many 16th century leaders called “the Reformers”, men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others observed that, through the previous centuries that followed the origin of the church, the church had gone astray in some doctrines and practices.

For instance, the abuses surrounding the Lord’s Supper during the Middle Ages cried out for correction. The beautiful and simple practice of participating in communion, with its profound meaning and appreciation of the covenant in the Lord Jesus’ blood in the early days had been altered by a heavy mixture of false and ludicrous teachings and practices. The simple memorial meal shared by fellow believers, as God’s family, the body of Christ, evolved into “the Sacrament” with its multiple laws and regulations that were not to be violated. The pendulum swung from honoring and remembering a God of grace to be loved to a Judge of man to be feared. The idea of the entire church family gathered for a time of remembrance of Jesus was lost in what became more mystical, magical, and mesmerizing. How could the multiplying of the days and the hours of masses lead to a very seldom participation in the worship of the believers? One might assume that, in breaking away from the Medieval corruptions, the Reformers might overreact and throw out the baby with the bathwater. It does seem understandable that in the face of such abuses the Word would completely replace the practice of the Sacrament. But, is that what really happened?

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) called for the Lord’s Supper’s observance but four times a year (Easter, Pentecost, the beginning of Autumn, and Christmas).

10

The other religious leaders of the time wanted communion to be the normal Sunday practice of the church, but always with the congregation involved and the proclamation of the Word present. William Barclay is right in regard to this, “Without instruction to precede it, the Lord’s Supper degenerates into wither formalism or superstition....Where there is failures in teaching, there must also be devaluation of the Lord’s Supper.” (17)

Martin Luther (1483-1546) in Germany considered the observance of the communion “to be the proper Christian service for the Lord’s Day.” (18) The historian Philip Schaff finds that “Luther observed a weekly communion as the conclusion of the regular service on the Lord’s Day.” (19)

John Calvin (1509-1564) expressed his preference for the church in Geneva in his Institutes of the Christian Religion where he writes, “And truly this custom which enjoins communion once a year, is a most evident contrivance of the devil, by whose instrumentality soever it may have been determined.” (20) Again he says, “It ought to have been otherwise. Every week at least, the table of the Lord should have been spread for Christian assemblies, and the promises declared by which, in partaking of it, we might be spiritually fed.” (21)

John Knox (1514-1752), a Scottish clergyman and a leader of the Protestant Reformation who is considered the founder of the Presbyterian denomination in Scotland, had a preference for weekly communion, but due to a shortage of preachers gave in to once a year. Today the Scotch Presbyterians now hold to quarterly communion.

John Wesley (1703-1791), largely credited, along with his brother Charles Wesley, as founding the Methodist movement, in a letter dated 1784 to followers in America, guided his flock with the words, “I also advise the elders to administer the Supper of the Lord, on every Lord’s Day.” In his earlier “Directions Given to the Band Societies,” he had urged, “Be at church and at the Lord’s Table every week.” The modern Methodist, following a monthly or quarterly calendar for communion, needs to reread his or her chosen religious leader’s sermon on “Constant Communion.” There is a heartbeat of love in each of Wesley’s words: If therefore, we have any regard for the plain command of Christ, if any desire for the pardon of our sins, if we wish strength to believe, to love, and to obey God, then we should neglect no opportunity of receiving the Lord’s Supper. (22)

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), the famous Baptist preacher, in his London Tabernacle, set the table every week for 20 years and opined,

I never was so impressed with the solemnity and sweetness of the Master’s Supper as I am now. I feel it to be fresher every time. When it was observed once a month, I had not half the enjoyment, and I think that where friends have communion once a QUARTER or ONCE A YEAR, as in some churches, they really do not give the ordinance a fair opportunity to edify them. They do not fairly test the value of an ordinance which they so grossly neglect, it seems to me. (23)

Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), a member of the Disciples of Christ or Christian church, a leader in the Restoration Movement, is quoted as saying, “All antiquity concures in evincing that for the first centuries all the churches broke bread once a week.”

In light of what we have just heard from early church fathers, leaders of the Reformation which resulted in the Protestant denominational groups, a leader in the beginning of the Restoration Movement, and, of course Scripture itself, there was, is, and should always be a desire to gather on the first day of the week, Sunday, the Lord’s Day and an equal desire to spread the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Table during the assembly of the saints of the Lord’s Day!

I really appreciate what George Faull wrote in his tract, The Sabbath Day and the Christian, in response to this question on p. 15: “The church of the New Testament practiced a weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, however, many mainline congregations do not observe it regularly. Why?”

11

After providing a long list of “Great Leaders” of other religious groups who either did or tried to institute weekly communion in their own congregations, George wrote this:

In light of the above, it seems that perhaps the “mainline” congregations as you called them, should be observing the Feast with more frequency. Why not let the Bible determine it frequency? The LORD’S SUPPER should be weekly. It is Scriptural. It is expedient. It would be one step toward the UNITY of all who call upon His name. (24)

HONORING THE COVENANT

I would like to close this discussion of being “faithful” to the assembly on the Lord’s Day and to the observance of the Lord’s Supper with a practical look at Hebrews 10:19-31 and the significance of honoring the “new” covenant in the blood of Jesus.

Let’s now look at Hebrews 10:19-31:19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25   not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as   is   the manner of some, but exhorting   one another , and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”[a] says the Lord.[b] And again, “The LORD will judge His people.”[c] 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Footnotes:[a] Hebrews 10:30 Deuteronomy 32:35[b] Hebrews 10:30 NU-Text omits says the Lord.[c] Hebrews 10:30 Deuteronomy 32:36

The key to really understanding “faithfulness” to the assembly and the Lord’s Supper is an understanding of the concept of “covenant.” There can be NO doubt but what Jesus knew this based upon His own wording regarding the idea of remembrance involved in the institution of the Lord’s Supper at the “Last Supper” following the Passover meal. His words were, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.... This cup   is   the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you .” (Luke 22:19, 20)

These are the very same words used by the Apostle Paul when he was teaching the church in Corinth the true meaning, purpose, and practice of the Lord’s Supper. Paul wrote: 23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat;[a] this is My body which is broken[b] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink   it,   in remembrance of Me .”

Footnotes:[a] 1 Corinthians 11:24 NU-Text omits Take, eat.[b] 1 Corinthians 11:24 NU-Text omits broken.

12

Why is it then so important to have “remembrance” of the Lord’s body and blood? Why is it so significant that we remember and honor the truth that “this cup is the new covenant” in the Lord Jesus’ blood?

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, better known simply as Tertullian (160 – 225 AD) was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa. He is the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was a notable early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy. Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western theology." He is quoted as having written the following around 204 A.D.: “The Church of Christ composed of baptized believers, does meet each Lord’s Day to...partake of the Lord’s Supper.”

There are only two places where the blood of the covenant, the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for the sins of man, is contacted by faith: (1) Christian baptism, and (2) the Lord’s Supper. Clearly the New Covenant is intended by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles to be honored by those who have by faith believed the gospel message of Jesus Christ, placed their trust in Him as Lord and Savior, repented of their sins, acknowledged Him as Lord and Christ before witnesses, and been baptized in Him in order to receive the remission of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This is so very important and, this writer believes, is one of the very reasons the writer to the Hebrews wrote the passage we read above. In verses 19-22 the writer alludes to the sacrifice of Jesus on cross as His body was offered up to carry the burden of our sin (vv. 19-20) and then he reminds his readers that after they had placed their faith in Christ they were to “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Christian baptism)” (vv. 21-22). In his New Testament Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews, Gareth Reese writes:

The Old Testament ceremony had the priest washing at the laver before entering the Holy of Holies. Just like the Levitical priest had to wash before drawing near to God, most commentators refer to the truth that baptism (immersion in water) is here identified as a second condition that must be met before men have free access to God’s presence. Notice that salvation here has two parts – God’s part (sprinkling the heart) and man’s part (bodies washed). The two perfect participles (“sprinkled” and “washed”) might suggest that the two acts take place at the same time. It is when a penitent believer is immersed that his heart is “sprinkled,” that is, at immersion the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice are applied to his personal sin problem. This would be in harmony with what the New Testament elsewhere presents, that baptism is the beginning of the Christian life, the point at which men’s sins are forgiven in the mind of God. (25)

The writer to the Hebrews continues on with an exhortation which is very familiar to those of us in the Restoration Movement, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as   is   the manner of some , but exhorting   one another , and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” (vv. 23-25)

What does the writer mean when he encourages his readers to “hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised in faithful”? Surely, the words “without wavering” imply “faithfulness”! Notice that the reader’s faithfulness and assurance is set in contrast to that of God who is said to be “faithful”! And to what are the writer’s readers to be “faithful”? They are instructed to be faithful in considering one another “in order to stir up love and good works”, to “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as   is   the manner of some ”, and to “exhorting   [encouraging] one another , and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.”

But why this importance placed upon the “assembling of ourselves together” and “so much more as you see the Day approaching”? The answer seems to be found in what is meant by “the Day”. What “Day” does the writer mean in this passage?

13

In Calvin’s Commentaries Volume XXII: Hebrews, I Peter, I John, James, II Peter, Jude, John Calvin wrote in regard to this particular verse in Hebrews and the meaning of “the day (Day)”. Here is what Calvin wrote:

Some think this passage to be of the same import with that of Paul, “It is time to awake out of sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” (Rom. xiii. 11.) But I rather think the reference is here made to the last coming of Christ, the expectation of which ought especially to rouse us to the practice of a holy life as well as to careful and diligent efforts in the work of gathering together the Church. For to what end did Christ come except to collect us all into one body from that dispersion in which we are now wandering? Therefore, the nearer his coming is, the more we ought to labour that the scattered may be assembled and united together, that there may be one fold and one shepherd. (John x. 16.)

In his book Hebrews, Geoffrey B. Wilson wrote the following pertaining to Hebrews 10:25:

It is because the New Testament knows nothing of a solitary Christianity that the author presses upon his readers the duty of assembling together for worship, instruction, and mutual encouragement. Even if it is not welcome, this warning is nevertheless necessary for the spiritual welfare, as the partial neglect of the means of grace is the first step towards a total decline from grace. Indeed the sluggishness of some should rather serve to quicken them to greater diligence in the encouragement of one another, and all the more so as they see “the day approaching.” The Early Church did not consider the second advent of Christ to be an interesting topic for cold chronological calculation for it lived in the earnest expectation of the imminence of this great event. [Rev. 22:20] “The Church being in all ages uncertain how soon Christ is coming, the day is, in each age, practically always near; whence believers are called on to be always watching for it as nigh at hand. The Hebrews were now living close upon one great type and foretaste of it – the destruction of Jerusalem [Matt. 24].” (A.R. Fausset) (26)

In his book The Epistle to the Hebrews, Charles F. Pfeiffer wrote:

Consistency in fellowship and exhortation is encouraged “so much the more as ye see the day approaching” (10:25). The readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews were living in the tragic days just before the destruction of Jerusalem. Important changes were in store both for them and for unbelieving Jews. In such times it was both wise and proper for Christians to remain together, exercising a united testimony to the Gospel. Our own generation also has seen momentous events. Although we do not know the day or the hour when the Saviour shall return, history appears to be reaching a climax. When the twentieth century arrived, many thought that we were about to embark on a golden age – a man-made millennium. The passing of the years has not only dulled that hope but put it into reverse. Man Now fears annihilation. The exhortation to Christian steadfastness was never more needed than at the present hour. Believers may not always agree on certain details of their faith, but as believers they must be ready to make common cause against the enemy of their souls. We may not know what the immediate future will hold, but we know that one day the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ. Here is the basis for steadfast hope in a generation which knows the meaning of fear. (27)

Writing concerning Hebrews 10:25 in his New Testament Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews, Gareth Reese writes:

Not forsaking our own assembling together – Apparently, some of the wavering believers had begin absenting themselves from the regular weekly assembly. A continual forsaking is the thing prohibited; the Greek prohibits the continuance of an act already going on, “Stop forsaking the assembling...” It is interesting to note that the emphasis here is not on what a believer gets from the assembly, but rather on what he can contribute to the assembly (as he considers the others, in order to

14

stimulate them to love and good works). A man who attends the public worship only for what he can get, and whose attendance becomes more and more sporadic because he thinks he is getting nothing from attending, has not yet grasped the significance of this oft-memorized passage from Hebrews! Indeed, he may need encouragement (we all do!); but he also needs to be an encourager, and that encouragement is best given when the believers are all assembled. (28)

Clearly the habit of many today is the same as the habit of some in the day of the writer to the Hebrews. They give multiple “reasons” for missing the assembling of the saints on the Lord’s Day, but really they are little more than “excuses for the most part. As Gareth Reese says, “Behind these ‘reasons’ certainly was a forgetfulness of who Jesus is, and of the Lord’s expectation that His followers confess Him consistently and continually.” (29) What better reason to encourage one another to faithfully meet together each and every Lord’s Day? Again, Gareth Reese says, “Opportunities for such edification, such encouragement, such stimulation, are missed when the potential encourager misses the public worship.” (29)

Now listen as Gareth Reese explains what is meant in Hebrews 10:25, “...and so much the more as you see the Day approaching”:

The encouragement was to more spirited, more intense (“all the more”) as the “day” drew nearer. But what day is it, whose approach can be seen? (1) Some say the day of the destruction of Jerusalem had been given by Jesus (Matthew 24:3-28), and people could see these coming to pass. How disappointing and spiritually devastating it would be to go back to the Jewish religion, only to have the temple and the sacrifices abruptly ended, and that within about seven years after Hebrews was written! (2) Some say the day of the Second Coming of Christ. When that “Day” does dawn, there is a judgment to be faced, and who would want to try to explain to Jesus, then, why they quit church? The “Day” would be drawing near in the sense that Paul speaks of it in Romans 13:12, “The night is far gone, the day is at hand.” If it be asked how they could “see” the day of the Second Coming, the answer is that “see” is used in a similar way as it was used in Hebrews 2:9. If they could “see” Jesus crowned with glory and honor, it would be no problem to “see” that the Day of the Lord was also getting nearer and nearer. (3) Still others say that the Lord’s Day (Sunday, the “first day of the week,” the regular day when the Christians assembled for worship) is the “day” that was approaching. Each week, as the day of worship comes nearer, Christians were to encourage one another to be present at the assembly. (30)

It seems to this writer that the writer to the Hebrews could have had any one, any combination, or all of these thoughts in mind as to “the day (or Day)” to which he alluded. This seems to be one of those words with a multi-layered idea. Certainly, if a Christian in the time when this was written was serious about his faith, he was unwilling to yield to the temptation to return to the Jewish faith and he certainly would have been aware of Jesus’ warning about the destruction of Jerusalem. At the same time, believers then and now must be in a constant state of readiness for the Second Coming of Jesus and the best way to do so is to be faithful to the weekly assembly of the saints to remember the Lord and His great sacrifice on the cross at Calvary which is spread as the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Table!

What happens if a believer decides that being faithful to the assembly is not really all that important and indeed is a matter of choice rendering it as optional? Well, the Hebrews writer says, “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.” (vv. 26-27) The writer is saying that to absent oneself deliberately from the assembly as some of his readers already were doing is “sin”! To this point, Gareth Reese writes:

The “sin” is found in the reason for the absence, namely a deliberate choice to cease from confessing Christ, a deliberate rejection of the Gospel truth once it had been received. The present tense participle “sinning” indicates not so much a single act of sin, but a repeated or continuing action. If they continue in this sin of rejecting Jesus, if they deliberately persist in this sin, then the consequences are grave! (31)

15

To drive home the point that there are grave consequences to be suffered by the believer who sins in willful and deliberate absenting of himself from the assembling of the saints, the Hebrews writer uses the analogy of the one who broke the old covenant enforced by the Law of Moses and the one who breaks the new covenant enforced by the blood of Christ. This is what the writer writes:28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The L ORD   will judge His people .” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Why such terrifying words attached to missing the assembly of the saints? The primary reason is because the believer isn’t just missing a “church service” he is also purposely absenting himself from the Lord’s Table and thus the command to remember His Lord’s death by participating in the Lord’s Supper. The significance of this willful, sinful act is driven home in threefold reason given by the writer for a deserved punishment worse than dying without mercy under the Law of Moses: (1) “trampled the Son of God underfoot,” (2) “counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common (profane, vain, ordinary, or meaningless) thing,” and (3) “insulted the spirit of grace.”

These three violations committed by the apostate believer who has willfully done so will be given one more severe and frightening warning, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” To fall into someone’s hands is to come under that person’s authority and to be made incapable of any further means of resistance. And when that person is the “living God,” that is a fear and dread which is unparalleled by any other ever to be known by man! No wonder commentators call this summary sentence “One of the most powerful words in Scripture”!

CONCLUSION

Such a grave warning as that which is given by the Hebrews writer warrants our sincere attention. I believe that this same mindset was shared by the Apostle Paul as he wrote to the church in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11:17-33 to correct their abuse of the Lord’s Supper.

In verses 17-22, Paul explained the ways the Corinthian Christians were abusing the Lord’s Supper as they were gathering for the “Love Feast” and the “Lord’s Supper” in conjunction with it. Then, in verses 23-25, Paul explained the true and right meaning of the Lord’s Supper and how to properly participate in observing it:

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the  same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying,“ This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink   it , in remembrance of Me.”

Immediately following this Paul explains in verses 26-33 the incredible importance of following this God ordained meal called the Lord’s Supper.

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.

With those words inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul sets forth exactly what the Lord’s Supper is all about. He also informs us of what is supposed to be accomplished for the one who participates in the Lord’s

16

Supper and I believe that when that is fully understood and appreciated one will NEVER intentionally choose to absent himself from the Lord’s Table on the Lord’s Day ever again!

So what does take place at the Lord’s Table on the Lord’s Day when the Lord’s Supper is shared by the believers that have assembled for worship? There are three very important things that occur:

(1) A Commemoration or Memorial.

Jesus had said it first at the Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19) With those words which are repeated by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, a key meaning of the Lord’s Supper is revealed. It is set forth as a commemoration of the Lord Jesus’ sacrificial death at Calvary for our sins. It is a memorial of remembrance for the believer.

What does “remembrance” mean? The basic meaning of remembrance is “the act of remembering a person, thing, or event; something that is done or made to honor the memory of a person, thing, or event; a memory of a person, thing, or event.” Many see it as nothing more than “remembering” but I believe it is deeper than that. I see the idea of remembrance as something which is used to bring back a memory to which one is actually connected. We all have a drawer somewhere in our house, or a box in the closet, basement, or garage, or a shelf somewhere that holds items which mean absolutely nothing to other people but are priceless to you. It might be a dried, pressed flower, a rock, an old watch, a worn out pocket knife, a tattered handkerchief, but whatever it is it connects you by way of remembering a specific person, place, or event of great importance to you! Isn’t that what the communion wafer and the cup filled with the fruit of the vine do for the true believer in Christ who has been washed, cleansed, and sanctified, by the sacrificial offering of Christ’s body which hung on the cross and the blood which He freely shed to purchase our pardon from our sins? Don’t they connect you very closely to the One, the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for you? Don’t they create fond memories which make you swell up with the emotions of gratitude, thanks, love, and devotion? Well, they should!

(2) A Proclamation.

The Apostle Paul said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26) In the book The Lord’s Supper: Historical Writings on Its Meaning to the Body of Christ, Charles R. Gresham and Tom Lawson quote from the writing of J. B. Rotherham:

For this thought we are indebted to the Apostle Paul; who, after quoting his Lord’s own words, “This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me,” goes on to make an authoritative addition to Christ’s actual words of institution. “For,” says he, “as often as you eat this bread, and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” “Proclaim” is not too strong a word (for kantangello), but “declare” is a shade more exact, and with it we are content. The original term is literally, “to announce,” “make known,” or “declare,” and may (as in Acts 17:23) be used of a forgotten truth (as in Acts 13:38); of a matured divine provision; or (as in this place, 1 Cor. 11:26) of an undeniable matter of fact of public importance. As a notorious fact of unspeakable interest and importance, “the death of the Lord” Jesus was worthy of being kept in remembrance by a solemn religious ceremonial. The closing phrase, “Till He comes,” at once lifts this Pauline addition into the light of a worldwide and age-long exposition of the Lord’s death. Henceforth this institution must be regarded as much more than a private memorial. To it the attention of the world is challenged. On the great fact which is announced the salvation of the world is staked: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” Jesus is still somewhere for He is coming again. He has ascended to the skies, but He is still to return. (32)

(3) A Self-Examination.

The Apostle Paul exhorts us that in light of the importance and the gravity of just what the believer is participating in when he partakes of the Lord’ Supper, the participant in the Lord’s Supper ought to

17

follow these instructions: “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” (1 Corinthians 11:28)

With these words the Apostle Paul reminds us the severity of casually eating of the Lord’s Cupper without carefully considering its true meaning. It is a frightening thing to treat the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ with contempt and cavalierly in a vain and meaningless way (cf. Hebrews 10:28-31). The idea here employed by Paul is not that anyone is ever worthy of what the Lord Jesus did for him, but that when one eats of the Lord’s Supper in true genuine remembrance of the Lord’s sacrificial death, when he recognizes that he is proclaiming the Lord’s death for all to see, and when he examines his life to see if he is walking in a worthy fashion before the Lord each day, then he is able to participate in the Lord’s Supper, in the eating of the body and drinking of the cup in a “worthy” fashion because he is honoring the covenant by which he was saved!

For this reason, Paul explains why “self-examination” is so important: 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

In light of what the Lord’s Supper truly means to the informed believer in Christ, how can that believer ever be satisfied by intentionally absenting himself from the assembly of his fellow saints on each and every Sunday (the first day of the week or the Lord’s Day) and how can he ever feel alright about intentionally ignoring the Lord’s Table and the participating in the Lord’s Supper with his fellow saints each and every Sunday as well?

I contend that the honest, sincere, genuine believer will never intentionally miss the Sunday assembly nor will he ever purposely forsake the Lord’s Supper on Sunday!

I would like to close with something that my good friend David Underwood recently wrote on his Facebook page status:

Psalms 55:14 KJV - We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company. How can we have sweet counsel together when we aren’t faithful enough to be at church? Isn’t God supposed to be first and foremost as “Christians”? Not school, work, or other excuses as that of child-like behavior.

Matthew 6:33 KJV - But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Proverbs 16:3 KJV - Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established.

It is the opinion of this writer that after examining the teachings of the early church, the early church fathers in the post-apostolic age, the church leaders down through the ages whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, Reformation, or Restoration Movement, and any sincere Bible believer and follower of Christ today that the Lord Jesus Christ expects that His true followers will be faithful to the assembly of the saints and the observing of the Lord’s Supper each and every Sunday, first day of the week, or Lord’s Day!

18

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

(1) A Case for the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day: What in the Why for the When?; Alger Fitch, College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri, 1998, p. 7

(2) http://www.gotquestions.org/Printer/Sabbath-day-rest-PF.html#ixzz2vlSxqNFk (3) The Sabbath Day and the Christian, George Faull, Summit Theological Seminary, Peru Indiana, Date

Unknown, pp. 12-13(4) http://www.gotquestions.org/Printer/Sabbath-day-rest-PF.html#ixzz2vlSxqNFk (5) Practical Commentary on Acts, Donald A. Nash, The Christian Restoration Association, Cincinnati, OH,

2006, p. 145(6) Expositor’s Greek Commentary, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 424(7) Commentary on Acts, Albert Barnes, Publishing Information Unknown, p. 288(8) Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius of Antioch, p. 147(9) First Apology of Justin, Justin Martyr, p. 186(10) Ibid., Donald A. Nash, pp. 146-147(11) Cambridge Greek, p. 354(12) Simple Sermons from the Book of Acts: Volume Two, W. Hershel Ford, B.A., D.D., Zondervan

Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1950, p. 75(13) The Book of the Acts, F.F. Bruce, M.A., Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1956, pp.

407-408(14) Studies in First Corinthians, Albert Hughes, B.A., D.D., The Crusader Press, Toronto, Canada, Date

Unknown, p. 306(15) Ibid., Donald A. Nash, p. 147(16) Ibid., Alger Fitch, pp. 32-33(17) The Lord’s Supper, William Barclay, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1980, p. 11(18) The Meaning of Ritual, Leonel L. Mitchell, Paulist Press, New York, NY, 1977, p. 109(19) History of the Christian Church, Vol. 7: Modern Christianity: The German Reformation, p. 492(20) Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, (Book 4, Chapter 17, Section 46)(21) Ibid., John Calvin, (Book 6, Chapter 18, Section 46)(22) Ibid., Alger Fitch, pp. 42(23) Ibid., Alger Fitch, pp. 43(24) Ibid., George Faull, p. 16(25) New Testament Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews,

Gareth Reese, Scripture Exposition Books, Moberly, MO, 1992, 2nd Printing 2002, p. 178(26) Hebrews, Geoffrey B. Wilson, The Banner of Truth Trust, London WIM IPS, 1970, p. 128(27) The Epistle to the Hebrews, Charles F. Pfeiffer, Moody Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1962, p. 86(28) Ibid., Gareth Reese, p. 180(29) Ibid., Gareth Reese, p. 180(30) Ibid., Gareth Reese, p. 181(31) Ibid., Gareth Reese, p. 181-182(32) The Lord’s Supper: Historical Writings on Its Meaning to the Body of Christ, Charles R. Gresham and

Tom Lawson, College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, MO, 1993, pp. 19-20

Note: All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version unless otherwise noted.

Vernon Eldridge, Jr. Evangelist

Main Street Church of ChristMcConnelsville, OH

19