by William J. Stewart
“The Church of Christ places far too much emphasis on the Lordâs Supper.â That is Meltonâs opening statement on this topic. I disagree with his statement, but I congratulate him on finding the most over-the-top quote he could to support his statement. He cites a Fred Gardner pamphlet which basically makes a linear relationship between âfidelity toâ the Lordâs Supper and a Christianâs focus on our first love and doing the first works (Revelation 2:4-5). Melton retorts, âRevelation 2:4-5 say nothingâABSOLUTELY NOTHINGâabout the Lordâs Supper.â Heâs right. But, may I also point out, Revelation 2:4-5 also say nothingâABSOLUTELY NOTHINGâabout prayer, praise, reading the Bible, kindness, compassion, etc.. Are such things also unimportant and unrelated to faithfulness as a Christian? What proves too much proves nothing at all.
Is there a connection between observing the Lordâs Supper and faithfulness to the Lord? Certainly. Is it a linear connection? No. As Melton says, â…you can observe the Lordâs Supper fifty-two weeks a year, but if you havenât been born again then your lost and going to Hell, and if your sins arenât being confessed to the Lord regularly, then you are OUT of fellowship with Him, in spite of your faithfulness to the Lordâs Supper.â Amen! But that doesnât make the Lordâs Supper unimportant. It is a memorial of the death of our Lord. By participating in it, Paul says, âyou proclaim the Lordâs death till He comesâ (1 Corinthians 11:26). Each year on November 11, there are events throughout Canada honouring the memory of the armed forces members who died in the line of duty. Why do we do this? Lest we forget. The degree of reflection one gives is far greater if the effort is made to attend a Remembrance Day ceremony over simply pausing for a minute wherever you are at 11:00 a.m.. The ceremony is designed to stress remembrance. The same is true of the Lordâs Supper. It is an occasion specifically designed to provoke contemplation and reflection. Does partaking of the Lordâs Supper guarantee salvation? Of course not. Does it help focus our minds upon the Christ and the price paid for our salvation? Absolutely.
Melton misrepresents Gardnerâs statement, inferring that the latter said we must visualize the body and blood of Christ âin order to stay in fellowship with Himâ (p. 3). The Gardner quote may exaggerate the relationship of the Lordâs Supper with faithfulness, but he certainly did not say âour fellowship with Christ is based on visualizing His body and blood.â
How often should we observe the Lordâs Supper? Melton is right, neither Matthew 26:26-28 nor 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 say how often. He states we are free to choose how often we partake of the Lordâs Supper based on Paulâs saying âas often asâ in 1 Corinthians 11:26.
A George Baily quote identifies Acts 20:7 as the basis for the weekly observance of the Lordâs Supper. Melton accuses Baily and any who agree with him of âperverting the scriptures.â He adamantly states of Acts 20:7, âHe said that they came together to BREAK BREAD, not to observe the Lordâs Supper. Mr. Baily wants you to think the two are the same, but they are NOT the same.â Breaking bread can certainly refer to a common meal (Acts 2:46; 20:11), but Paul used the same terminology in 1 Corinthians 11 to speak about Jesus instituting the Lordâs Supper. Notice, â…the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, âTake eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this is remembrance of Me.ââ Breaking bread can be a common meal, but it is not exclusively so. It is likely in Acts 20 that the Christians both partook of the Lordâs Supper (v 7) and shared a common meal (v 11). Lest it be thought that
only âChurch of Christ peopleâ think this is a reference to the Lordâs Supper, several commentators (Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, John Wesley, Matthew Henry, B.W. Johnson, A.T. Robertson, etc.) also conclude Acts 20:7 is about the Lordâs Supper. In fact, Johnson claims â…the early church writers from Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian, all with one consent, declare that the church observed the first day of the week. They are equally agreed that the Lordâs Supper was observed weekly, on the first day of the weekâ (Peopleâs New Testament Commentary).
Regarding frequency, a parallel can be made between Lukeâs statement in Acts 20:7 and the command to the Hebrews about the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8). The Law didnât say âRemember every Sabbath dayâ¦â It didnât need to. Every Sabbath is necessarily implied, for every week has a Sabbath (7th day). The Jews understood that. When Acts 20:7 speaks about the practice of breaking bread (cf. Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), it does not have to state âevery first day,â since every week has a first day. Can we not see the necessarily implication? But, whether someone is convinced that Acts 20:7 speaks of a weekly observation of the Lordâs Supper or not, on what basis would someone oppose a weekly remembrance of the Lordâs death surely keeping before our minds what the Lord has done for us cannot be characterized as bad. Does Melton contend that it is unscriptural to observe the Lordâs Supper on a weekly basis? If not, I fail to understand his hostility over the issue.