You are watching: Can you take communion every day
Only Sunday, every Sunday?
Most in the Church the Christ insist that communion may only be taken on Sundays and must be taken every Sunday. Doing not have a straight statement or crucial inference around the day and also frequency, how have they landed on this conclusion? that is affirmed that Acts 20:7 gives the information necessary to come at this conclusion.
On the an initial day the the week, as soon as we were gathered with each other to break bread, Paul started talking come them, intending to leave the following day, and he an extensive his message until midnight.
This is the just passage in the new Testament which is said to expose which job of the week the early church it was observed the communion memorial. Therefore, by authorized example, the is concluded the Sunday (the an initial day the the week) is the work which Christians room to eat the Lord"s Supper. In addition, because the holy bible is silent around eating that on any type of other day of the week, Sunday is the just day the God has actually authorized. Furthermore, due to the fact that each week has actually a very first day then we must partake every Sunday. This is the thinking upon i beg your pardon the churches of Christ base your conclusion. Space these conclusions valid? will certainly they host up come scrutiny? Let"s analyze.
Hermeneutic is a an intricate word which describes the rule of interpreting the Scriptures. The conclusion that Christians are only authorized to partake that the Lord"s Supper ~ above Sunday and also that it should be observed every Sunday is based on two flawed methods of interpretation. The an initial is that the quiet (i.e. Wherein God has given no instruction) of the bibles is prohibitive. As such it is break up that due to the fact that Sunday is discussed in link with communion, however no other days are mentioned, all other days room unauthorized. The second flawed method of interpretation is the id that we are forced to imitate brand-new Testament instances which had actually God"s approval. In this context, that is reasoned the there was no condemnation of the action of action 20:7. Over there was likewise an apostle that was present and also engaged in this activities. Therefore, these actions were approved by God and also we have to imitate lock exactly.
There is substantial evidence the both the these approaches of holy bible interpretation room flawed. For an ext information about the quiet of the Scriptures, you re welcome refer the the post "Bible Silence: Permissive or Prohibitive?". The write-ups "Are Approved instances Binding? (Part 1)" , "Are Approved instances Binding? (Part 2)" and also "Pattern Theology" define why Biblical account of activity are no a valid technique of determining what Christians need to or should not do.
Since the methods used to arrive at this conclusions space flawed, it is highly probable that the conclusions are flawed as well. However, we should be thorough when assessing any spirituality matter. Lets dig deeper into this subject.
There is fairly a bit of information in action 20:1-16 i beg your pardon is pertinent to this subject. The classic view of this i is the it files a praise assembly the the church at Troas. A variety of assumptions room made in stimulate to arrive at this conclusion. Room they reasonable assumptions? are there other possible conclusions we can draw from the text?
Conjecture: city 7 records a conference of the church in the city that Troas.Fact: over there is naught in the i which states this to be a conference of the church in Troas. Who was present? We deserve to factually state the it to be Paul and his traveling companions who are called in verse 4; Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus, Trophimus and Luke (vs 5 & 6 states “us” and “we” for this reason we recognize that Luke, who was the writer of the book of Acts, was with Paul together well). These were all traveling top top their method to Jerusalem (vs 16) and also had come in Troas a week earlier. The only other person named is Eutychus. We know little, if anything, around him. It is absolutely reasonable to i think he was a resident of Troas. There was at the very least one various other person existing which we shall prove later. Beyond this, we can prove nothing about who else can have remained in the top room the night. If we can"t prove who was there, we can"t factually claim this to be a meeting of the church.
Conjecture: The purpose of the assembly was to eat the Lord"s Supper.Fact: over there is naught in the i which proves the function for the assembly was communion. What the text says is the "we were gathered with each other to break bread". Who is the "we" that Luke writes about? Backing up and also noting the context, the is Paul and also his eight traveling companions. There is no disputing why they had actually gathered. They were gathered together in order to rest bread. What does it typical to break bread? "Breaking bread" is a number of speech which method to eat food.
It have to be noted that some scriptures translations of plot 20:7 don"t use the word “we” however rather to speak “the disciples”. ~ consulting 20 various translations that the new Testament I found that 14 translations use “we”, 5 use “the disciples” and 1 seemed to indicate both. Either way, it doesn"t appear to readjust the conclusions.
Conjecture: "Break bread" in verse 7 describes the Lord"s Supper.Fact: breaking bread is a figure of speech which method eating a meal. Please see the post "Breaking Bread" because that a research of this idiom.
Conjecture: A worship organization of the church is taking place due to the fact that Paul to be preaching.Fact: The KJV uses the native "preach" but practically all other translations usage the native "talked", "spoke", or "discoursed". The Greek indigenous is "dialegomai" (Strong"s #1256) which way to converse, discourse v one, argue, discuss. Based on the meaning of this word, Paul wasn"t preaching come them and it wasn"t a lecture. It to be a dialog! This assumption is made because many analyze the occasions of plot 20:7 in irradiate of our contemporary practices.
Conjecture: A worship organization of the church is taking place due to the fact that they ate the Lord"s Supper.Fact: Again, one cannot prove the breaking bread refers to communion. Even if it can be proven, there would certainly still be insufficient proof to conclude the the entire church at Troas had actually assembled for worship.
Conjecture: A meeting of the church take it place due to the fact that there to be worship.Fact: This assumes the Paul was preaching and also that the Lord"s Supper took place. It likewise assumes that the church gathers for the objective of praise which the brand-new Testament nowhere teaches. This is merely the reverse of the prior two assumptions.
Conjecture: city 7 records a meeting of the church in the city that Troas since Paul waited 7 work (vs 6) because that the assembly that the saints. Regardless of the truth that Paul remained in a hurry to with Jerusalem (vs 16) he lengthy his remain to be in compliance with divinely appointed first day of the main church assembly.Fact: when this might be a reasonable assumption, over there are various other reasons why Paul can have remained in the city 7 days. It has currently been provided that Paul was on his means to Jerusalem. It should additionally be noted that his traveling companions to be leaving by ship the next day and also Paul, going by land, had arranged to later on board the ship v them at Assos (vs 11, 13-14). Expertise this, is that not feasible that the travelers come in Troas 7 days prior to their delivery to Assos was reserved to depart? Could basic scheduling of transportation be the reason they waited in Troas 7 days? Of course it could, for even today one can"t just capture a cruise any type of old time. Passenger on a delivery depart based upon a predetermined schedule.
In addition, over there is no place in the new Testament which commands a Sunday assembly! believe it or not, God has actually not specified what day nor how often Christians are claimed to assemble.
There is a good deal of one logic that takes place amongst those that advocate these points of conjecture. For example, countless say the Acts 20:7 is speaking of the Lord"s Supper because a meeting of the church is recorded. If asked how they know it was a conference of the church, the an answer is because they to be eating the Lord"s Supper. Amazing!
Having claimed all this, is it possible that it was a meeting of the church for the function of taking communion? it is possible, but based upon my objections over I carry out not think it is most likely nor execute I think this is the most reasonable explanation that the events recorded in this passage. What other feasible explanation is there? Before arguing an alternate view, let"s evaluation the facts.
Facts which aren"t in disputeThe travelers gathered on the an initial day of the weekThey came together for the function of breaking breadPaul talked to “them” (not us) which indicates others were assembled in addition to the travelers. This would be Eutychus and at least one various other person, perhaps more.The travelers to be going to leave the following day (second job of the week)Paul talked until midnight.
In vs 8 – 9 we discover they were in a third story upper room and a young male named Eutychus fell from a window because he checked out sleep. It would certainly seem the Eutychus" untimely departure from the meeting interrupted Paul"s discourse in ~ midnight. The exact time probably can"t it is in determined; but due to the fact that Paul speak to them up until this time, and then after that he ongoing talking till daybreak, the isn"t an insignificant assumption.
After Paul revitalized Eutychus and went earlier upstairs keep in mind that the was only Paul (“he” in vs 11) that broke bread and ate. As formerly noted, they continued talking until daybreak when they departed to the ship. I believe the above are the facts and also probably aren"t disputed.
A more likely scenario
The traveling companions assembled come eat a enjoy the meal (break bread in vs 7) top top the evening prior to their departure. Some of the locals (presumably various other Christians) gathered v them. Why is Paul the just one discussed as actually eating (vs 11)? the is feasible that together Paul was speaking throughout the time leading as much as Eutychus" fall, the others were both eating and also participating in Paul"s discourse. Due to the fact that Paul to be the one doing many of the talking, that wasn"t taking the moment to eat. In ~ midnight Eutychus" fall disrupts the discussion while castle rush under to check on him. They all come ago upstairs whereby Paul finally takes the time to eat and they proceed talking with one an additional until it was time come depart because that the ship. No one else eats since they had currently eaten previously. In ~ daybreak the group breaks up and also the travelers proceed their trip leaving top top the second day that the week follow to their plans.
Some have actually objected saying the if Paul knew they to be going to be waiting in Troas for 7 days for the watercraft to depart, why go they wait until the last day the the pilgrimage to gather together and also do all that is recorded in action 20:7-16? Paul had an entire week come discuss, talk and preach with the brethren in Troas, so why go they wait until late Sunday evening to perform these things?
This objection assumes the they were no meeting with each other all mainly long. The tasks of the other 6 job aren"t videotaped so every we can do is guess. Maybe they to be keeping agency with the christians in Troas every week. We merely don"t know. Is the so much fetched to think that they would spend their last hrs together before departing? Don"t we execute the very same today as soon as a love one or girlfriend is about to leave on a long trip? this day we might contact it a "going far party". We want to spend as much time as possible with them prior to their departure and enjoy their company and great them well. That is certainly possible that this is what was taking place in plot 20.
I think the scenario described over is a plausible translate of the passage. The classic interpretation may additionally be taken into consideration plausible. However, here is a an essential point - If mine non-traditional interpretation is plausible, then us are compelled to conclude the there isn"t simply one “right” method to analyze the passage. If there is an ext than one possible explanation the the passage, we can"t tie the classic "only Sunday, every Sunday" doctrine! Is there anything wrong v taking communion every Sunday or only on Sunday? No, yet it is wrong to accuse others of sinning if castle don"t keep the very same day and also frequency that you do.
Why perform I think this is a much more reasonable explanation than the classic interpretation? since the traditional method is a more facility interpretation the creates some difficulties. The easiest explanation is most frequently the right one
Problems v the timeless interpretation
One dilemma is that the classic explanation forces the unnatural conclusion that “breaking bread” in verses 7 and also 11 way two different things in the very same context.
The text says that lock gathered on the very first day that the week because that the function of breaking bread. Walk they in reality break bread ~ above the an initial day? we don"t know because the passage doesn"t document what time they broke bread. The only thing the text positively claims they go on the very first day to be (1) conference together and (2) Paul began talking to them. Lock gathered top top Sunday but does this have to infer the they ate ~ above Sunday? No, the inference is not necessary. Could they not have actually gathered ~ above Sunday however not eat till after midnight? that is certainly possible! The text does no actually document that they damaged bread at all (except because that Paul in vs. 11) therefore no one deserve to prove they damaged bread ~ above the an initial day. Due to the fact that the time that day when they actually damaged bread isn"t mentioned, the most we deserve to prove is that they gathered top top the an initial day. Those who insist that the Lord"s Supper was taking place have piled assumption on height of assumption. It merely can"t it is in proven.
Others say the Paul is the just one recorded as eat the Lord"s Supper in vs 11 but that this doesn"t to exclude, the opportunity that the others observed it v him. So which is it, Sunday or Monday? If Paul to be observing the Lord"s Supper in vs 11, then he did therefore on Monday morning due to the fact that he ate the after midnight. Some shot to get approximately this by saying the they were making use of Jewish time (day = sunset come sunset) rather of roman time (day = midnight come midnight) however this doesn"t organize up to scrutiny. Allows walk with both scenarios using the diagram listed below to assist visualize the moment frames.
If Jewish time to be used, then the very first day that the week began on Saturday at sunset and also ended Sunday in ~ sunset. If castle met in ~ sunset top top Saturday (#1 top top the chart below) and Paul taught till midnight and also then they every partook that communion ~ midnight (#2 on the diagram) the Supper to be still on the very first day of the week. At very first glance this would certainly be a great explanation, however, there is a problem.
Carefully note that the scriptures says castle met top top the an initial day the the week and also that Paul was leaving the following day. The following day would be the second day of the week which is Monday. After ~ eating, Paul talked v them it rotates day break (#3 on the diagram) and then they all left to capture their ship. Do you watch the trouble here? If castle met Saturday night (#1), had communion (#2), and also then left in ~ daybreak (#3), it is still the very first day that the week and the text says they to be leaving ~ above the 2nd day, Monday (#4 ~ above the diagram)! This is a huge contradiction due to the fact that it was not yet the 2nd day! The text claims they left in ~ day break and went come the ship. This script would have Paul waiting an additional 24 hours! This simply doesn"t gel through the account in Acts.
Some might object and also say the “the next day” intended the next daylight portion of a day. I don"t agree through such reasoning due to the fact that verse 7 calls the end a specific day of the week the they met, it to be the first day. To remain consistent and in context, “the next day” (vs 7) had actually to it is in the second day the the week. Had the text claimed they met in the evening and Paul was leaving the next day, then I might go together with the notion that the context to be night/day. But the text is specific in that it isn"t talking about the day and also night section of a day, however rather is speaking about the work of the week.
If roman inn time to be used, climate the very first day that the week began at midnight Saturday and ended at midnight Sunday. If lock met at some time on Sunday, allows assume in ~ letter "A" ~ above the diagram because lamps to be required during their meeting (vs 8). Paul taught till midnight, and also then the left in ~ daybreak (letter "C" on the diagram), he is currently leaving on the second day the the week choose the text says so no problem so far. But, we traditionally teach that communion deserve to only be it was observed on the first day the the week. If Paul taught until midnight and then they took communion, they took it in the beforehand hours that Monday morning (letter "B"). There is no method to have actually communion following on Sunday and Paul"s exit on Monday in this i if vs 11 is speaking of communion. If "breaking bread" in city 11 is the communion, go Paul not take into consideration it wrong to take it communion top top a Monday?
As a side note, i think this is solid evidence that Luke was using Roman time in his narrative because this is the only way to save from forcing a contradiction in the message in regards come the work of their gathering and the job of your departure. In addition, Troas to be a Roman nest so it makes sense that roman time would certainly be it was observed there.
See more: Stress Can Stress Make Your Hair White : Harvard Study Points To 'Fight
Not following the pattern
For those who firmly insist on strictly complying with the new Testament examples, the is worth noting the our methods today aren"t regular with the account set forth in the passage. If “breaking bread” means “The Lord"s Supper” and also these disciples were assembling together for worship think about that,we don"t meet in an top room choose they didwe don"t take part after dark favor they didwe don"t interact in a discourse (dialegomai, Strong"s #1256) like they did however instead listen to a class (sermon)our meetings don"t organize until the wee morning hrs like your did
God is much more than qualified of express Himself. We check out in the Old testament that His instructions for worship, holy place construction, every day life, etc. Are written in painstaking detail. The Israelites had actually no doubt about what God wanted. God is certainly qualified of making himself understood! I uncover it to mark then the we location so much importance top top this passage and also bind things upon ourselves and also others that God has actually obviously left vague! certain if God meant to express to united state His expectations around the day and also frequency the the Lord"s Supper, He would have spoken with at least as lot clarity together He go in handing under His instructions come the Israelites. Is it really so much fetched to think that God has actually left the day and frequency the the memorial up to us?
If “breaking bread” method a enjoy the meal in both instances in this context and also they weren"t assembling for worship, we don"t have crises of the sorts provided above. I expect you need to ask you yourself which approach is the more reasonable. Together I declared earlier, the much easier explanations often tend to it is in the appropriate ones.