Study of Denomintions 09/05/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week

The Lord's Supper

Part B: On the First Day of the Week

In many churches of Christ today, there is some controversy over how often the Lord's Supper ought to be observed during the first day of the week. There is agreement that it is not a question of when the Lord's Supper should be taken on Sunday; the question is over whether or not it should be offered more than once during the same day. The arguments on both sides have some merit, so let us present them:

1.Only one observance. The Christians of the New Testament gathered for the purpose of partaking of the Lord's Supper as we see in Acts 20:7 . They were to do this "together," signifying unity. If most partake in the morning and merely sit and observe in the evening, the unity is lost. Nowhere in the Scriptures is there any evidence for a "second serving".
2.Two observances. Yes, the Christians met to partake on the first day of the week; however, if one person does not partake, the unity that is sought is not existent. The Lord's Supper is manifestly an individual action done collectively, else why is there a command to "prove" oneself before partaking ( 1 Corinthians 11:27-28 )? One could, conceivably, judge oneself not worthy to partake at a given assembly. Where do we see in the New Testament any regulations concerning what percentage of members is necessary to achieve "unity?" Is there a quorum for observance in the New Testament? If the focus is on the unity, where do we see how "unified" the church must be? If all meditate on spiritual things while some partake in the morning and while some partake in the evening, the unity is still in mind, especially when it cannot be in body. This is further established in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 , where Paul speaks in the first person plural ("we") when he is in Ephesus (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:8 ) and they are in Corinth. How can they partake of the "one bread" when they are in different places unless the communion is spiritual? If one assembles with the purpose to partake of the Lord's Supper, who are we to hinder such a one ( Acts 20:7 )?

It is up to each individual Christian to weigh out the evidence on either side and to be convinced of what he ought to do ( Hebrews 11:1 , Romans 14:23 ).

The Number of Loaves and Cups
There are some groups that believe that Christians only have authority to partake of the Lord's Supper with one loaf and one cup. The Scriptures certainly allow this belief; there is no sin in partaking with only one loaf and one cup. Unfortunately, however, many of these groups wish to bind this idea, and condemn any who would partake of the Lord's Supper with more than one loaf and using multiple cups as sinning. What do the Scriptures say about this?
All of the Scriptures concerning the bread and the cup in the Lord's Supper can be viewed in a literal or a metaphorical way. As good Bible students, we realize that we should interpret literally unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. In terms of the elements of the Lord's Supper, the main reason why "the bread" and "the cup" are to be seen as accommodative or metonymical is based in the example of Acts 2:41-47 :
They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need. And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved.


This shows that the first Christians did all things together, and thus they would have partaken of the Lord's Supper together. How can one loaf and one cup be used to feed over 3,000 people?

Argument: You are making an assertion the text never makes.

Answer: This text does show that the first Christians used more than one loaf of the unleavened bread and one cup of the fruit of the vine by necessary inference on account of the fact that they devoted themselves to the "breaking of bread" ( Acts 2:42 ) used in Acts 20:7 to denote the Lord's Supper, and they did all things together ( Acts 2:44 ). Therefore, if they did all things together, then they would have all broken bread together. If they all partook of the Lord's Supper together, how would they all have partaken of one loaf and one cup? This idea remains inconsistent with the text.

Argument: The first Christians would have met in smaller groups in households on the Lord's Day.

Answer: This is an assertion not borne out by the text. In three places, once in verse 44 ("all those who had believed were together") and twice in verse 46 ("continuing with one mind in the temple...taking their meals together"), Luke demonstrates the togetherness of the first Christians. To say that the first Christians did not partake of the Lord's Supper together is to brand Luke a liar and make the Scriptures void; for if they partook in separate houses, how could Luke say that all those who believed were together?

Again, I want to reiterate that it is not wrong to partake of the Lord's Supper with one loaf and one cup, but to bind such practice when the Scriptures allow for the liberty is sin. However, those who know that we are allowed to partake with multiple cups must not offend those who do not see this liberty, and we must bend to not cause offense if the need arises ( Romans 14:13-23 ).

Argument: The Scriptures show that Jesus used one loaf and one cup. Thus, we must also.

Answer: The Scriptures shed some doubt on this idea in Luke 22:17 :

And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, He said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves."


The cup was divided before the Lord's Supper was instituted. The Gospels then show that the cup was "divided"; therefore, Christ and His disciples may have used more than one cup. Furthermore, the usage of the term "cup" is most certainly metaphorical, being metonymy, as shown below.

Argument: As seen in 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 and in other places, the "cup" is used. Where is their authority for more than one cup when the text says "cup?"

Answer: Let us consider how the cup is described in 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 :

In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying,
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.


The term "cup" cannot be used literally here because no one literally drinks a cup. One drinks the contents of the cup; the cup is used to describe its contents, a commonly used figure known as metonymy. Would any consider the new covenant in the blood of Christ to be a literal cup? If so, we ought to go and seek the Holy Grail! Most recognize, however, that the blood of Christ represents this new covenant, and thus it is the contents of the cup, not the cup itself, which signifies the new covenant. Therefore, the nature of the container is of no relevance to the Lord's Supper; only its contents matter.

Argument: 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 show the need for one loaf and one cup: unity amongst Christians.