Sunday and the Lord's Supper by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1254

Sunday and the Lord's Supper

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The idea that all people are obligated to conform their thinking and their actions to the teaching of Jesus Christ is not a popular notion these days—even among Christians. Many desire to feelreligiously authentic and pleasing to God, but few think that acceptance by God is predicated upon their own conformity to divine legislation. In fact, those who urge people to be conscientious about compliance with the details of God’s Word are decried as “legalists” (see Miller, 2003). Of course, this antinomian spirit is in direct conflict with the thrust of the Bible from beginning to end. God always has expected people to conform themselves to His stipulations (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Obedient human response is a manifestation of one’s love (John 14:15; John 15:14; 1 John 5:3).

The New Testament conveys specific information regarding the “what, when, how, and why” of the observance the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, most within Christendom assign no significance to frequency. To them, one may partake of the Lord’s Supper once each month, quarter, or year. However, Scripture is in conflict with this thinking (Brownlow, 1945, pp. 168-175). The biblical view is that God intends for the church to observe the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week, i.e., every Sunday. A more recent wrinkle of innovation is the insistence that the Lord’s Supper may be observed on days of the week other than Sunday (e.g., Atchley, 1989; Hood, 1990, p. 15; Mayeux, 1989, 46:6). But what does the Bible teach?

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

Shortly before His death, Jesus observed the Old Testament feast of unleavened bread. In the process, He instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20) and told His disciples that this “communion” (1 Corinthians 10:16) would be observed in the kingdom (Matthew 26:29). The bread and the fruit of the vine were to function as symbols for the body and blood of Jesus that soon would be offered on the cross as the sacrifice for the world. When is this practice of observing the Lord’s Supper to be done? On Sunday? Every Sunday? Only on Sunday?

One key consideration is the early church’s practice under the apostles’ guidance. After all, Jesus specifically predicted that after His departure from Earth, the Holy Spirit would enable the apostles to implement the teachings of Christ in the establishment of the church and the launching of the Christian religion (John 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15). Just prior to His ascension, He commissioned the apostles to preach the Gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). Hence, the New Testament reports what early Christians and churches practiced as a direct result of the teachings of Christ as mediated through the apostles. How churches observed the Lord’s Supper, beginning in the book of Acts, is unquestionably a reflection of apostolic influence and inspired precedent. As McGarvey well noted:

It is axiomatic that the Lord, who instituted ordinances for observance in the church, knew the precise manner of their observance which would best secure the spiritual ends had in view; and consequently every loyal soul feels impelled to preserve them precisely in the manner of their first institution, when that can be ascertained.... [O]ur only safety...is to be found in copying precisely the form instituted by divine authority (1910, pp. 342-343).

A second key factor concerns the significance of Sunday. Does the New Testament assign any special meaning to Sunday? One cannot help but take note of the fact that Jesus’ resurrection took place on Sunday (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). After His resurrection, Jesus met with His disciples on Sunday (John 20:19,26). Pentecost was a Jewish feast day (Leviticus 23:15ff.), and it was on this feast day, ten days after the ascension of Jesus, that the church was established—on Sunday (see McGarvey, 1892, p. 19; Brewer, 1941, pp. 325-326). New Testament churches assembled on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). They observed the Lord’s Supper on that day (Acts 20:7). In harmony with Revelation 1:10, early Christians began calling Sunday “the Lord’s day” (Swete, 1911, p. 13). How can even the casual reader miss this repetition? Without a doubt, the day Sunday is infused with considerable religious significance.

Another implied factor is the deafening silence of the New Testament with regard to the special significance of Saturday (or any other day). Other than Sunday, Saturday is the only serious contender for a day of religious significance. However, observance of the Sabbath was unquestionably a feature of only Judaism, not Christianity—though the infant church was exclusively Jewish and initially reluctant to abandon Mosaic practice (Acts 11:19; 15:1,5; 21:12). The same is true with regard to early church history. While certainly not the deciding criterion for New Testament Christians, early church history confirms that Acts 20:7 is not an incidental reference. Observance of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday reflects the general practice of both the first-century churches as well as post-first-century churches. For example, the Didache, written shortly after the close of the first century, speaks of Christians coming together each Lord’s day and breaking bread (9:1-12; 14:1). Justin Martyr wrote in his First Apology (ch. 67), circa A.D. 152, of Christians meeting on Sunday and partaking of the communion (ch. 67). Milligan observed: “That the primitive Christians were wont to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on every first day of the week is evident.... During the first two centuries the practice of weekly communion was universal, and it was continued in the Greek church till the seventh century” (1975, p. 440). Johnson summarized the post-first century data:

[T]he 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 Lord’s Supper was observed weekly, on the first day of the week (1891, 1:505, emp. added).

Still another consideration is the doctrinal significance that interconnects the Lord’s Supper and Sunday. Jesus’ death and resurrection were connected intimately to Sunday observance of the Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26). One cannot argue for a Sunday assembly without arguing for Sunday communion. In Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the Sabbath commemorated the Exodus—the deliverance of the Jews from Egyptian bondage. Sunday, in like manner, is the Christian’s day of deliverance. The Lord’s Supper is associated with this redemption and the very nature of the church. It is a corporate act and thus done by all members when the assembly comes together on Sunday. The Lord’s Supper on any other day weakens its doctrinal significance (see Ferguson, 1976, pp. 59-62). As Rex Turner so eloquently affirmed:

The first day of the week is Christ’s resurrection day. It is the greatest day in all the annals of history. What could be more appropriate, therefore, than for the disciples to assemble on Christ’s resurrection day, the first day of the week, to break the bread and to drink the fruit of the vine in commemoration of Christ’s death, his atoning blood, his resurrection, and his promise to come again? He who contends that Christians may with equal propriety and authority partake of the Lord’s Supper on some other day than the first day of the week has not grasped the real significance of what took place on that certain first day of the week, nor does he recognize how that the first day of the week is the Lord’s Day (Revelation 1:10) (1972, p. 80, emp. added).

Ultimately, the issue of observance frequency hinges on the verses that address the subject specifically. [NOTE: For an excellent analytical treatment of the passages of Scripture that impinge on the question of the Lord’s Supper, see Warren, 1975, pp. 148-156.]

SPECIFIC SCRIPTURES

ACTS 2:42,46

In Acts 2:42, we encounter the expression “breaking of bread.” The Greek expression “to break bread” (klasai arton), a literal rendering of the Hebrew idiom (paras lechem), was a common idiom meaning “to partake of food” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 839; Woods, 1976, p. 67; Harris, et al., 1980, 2:736; Gesenius, 1847, p. 690; Moule, 1961, p. 25; Behm, 1965, 3:729). The idiom developed from the fact that Hebrews baked their bread in the shape of thin round flat cakes (rather than loaves) that lent themselves more to breaking than cutting (Bullinger, p. 839; McClintock and Strong, 1867, 1:882). The idiom is clearly seen in Isaiah 58:7, Jeremiah 16:7, and Lamentations 4:4. Americans use a similar idiom when we speak of “getting a bite to eat.” However, figures of speech often do “double duty” by developing additional meanings. From the idiomatic meaning of eating a meal came a more technical use of the expression in Scripture. Since the Lord took bread and, in accordance with the Jewish practice where the father of the household prepared the bread for distribution to the family (see Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 434; Rackham, 1901, p. 37; Behm, 1964, 1:477), apparently broke it into pieces (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 1:24), “breaking bread” sometimes is used in Scripture to refer to the Lord’s Supper (see Behm, 1965, 3:730; Klappert, 1976, 2:530; Reese, 1976, pp. 83, 734). One cannot assume that every occurrence of the idiom refers to the Lord’s Supper. Context must determine whether a common meal or the Lord’s Supper is intended (see chart).

	Literal Breaking	Figurative Breaking
Common Meal	Matt. 14:19; 15:36 Mark 6:41; 8:6,19 Luke 9:16; 24:30 Acts 27:35	Luke 24:35 Acts 2:46
Lord’s Supper	Matt. 26:26 Mark 14:22 Luke 22:19 1 Cor. 11:24	Acts 2:42 Acts 20:7,11

Contextual indicators in Acts 2:42 that point to the meaning of the Lord’s Supper include the use of the article “the” (in the Greek), indicating that a particular event, as opposed to a common meal, is under consideration (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16; Nicoll, n.d., 2:95). The verse could well have been translated, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and the fellowship, in the breaking of thebread, and in the prayers.” Luke obviously was speaking of the formal worship activities of the Christians.

Second, “breaking bread” is listed among other unmistakably religious activities of the church: apostles’ doctrine, fellowship, and prayer. Third, the phrase “continued steadfastly” (imperfect tense) indicates a customary, habitual, ongoing practice—though the exact frequency is not indicated in this context. One has to go elsewhere to ascertain whether specific frequency is enjoined. Yet, from this passage one can see that the early church obviously partook more frequently than annually, since a year had not passed since the establishment of the church, and they already were worshiping “steadfastly.”

“Breaking bread” is again mentioned four verses later. Here, too, context must provide indication as to whether Acts 2:46 refers to observance of the Lord’s Supper or simply common meals. Arndt and Gingrich call attention to the use of the enclitic particle, te, occurring most frequently in the New Testament in the book of Acts. It appears twice in Acts 2:46 to convey the idea of “not only...but also” (1957, p. 807; cf. Robertson, 1934, p. 1179—“But te...te is strictly correlative”). Thayer identifies the term as a copulative enclitic particle that conveys an inner connection with what precedes. Hence, double use of the term in the same sentence, as in Acts 2:46, presents parallel or coordinate ideas—“as...so” (Thayer, 1901, pp. 616-617; Blass, et al., 1961, p. 230). Hence the use of the correlative conjunction (te) in verse 46 functions as a break in thought—a contrast—to guard against the impression that the disciples stayed in the temple 24 hours a day. Luke conveyed the idea that the disciples clustered together in the temple almost constantly after the momentous events of Pentecost, no doubt unwilling to miss any of the tremendous spiritual activities associated with the establishment of the church. However, they went to their private homes in order to carry on the routine amenities associated with common meals. So Jamieson, et al.: “in private, as contrasted with their temple-worship” (1871, p. 176, italics in orig.).

The parallel thought conveyed by the double use of te, evident throughout the context, is the unity or togetherness that the disciples enjoyed. While they participated together in their religious activities, they also continued their togetherness in their nonreligious acts of domestic socialization. English versions that capture the grammatical nuances of the verse include the NIV: “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.” Observe that the allusion to being together in the temple courts is terminated with a period. The next sentence conveys a separate idea pertaining to the eating of common meals in their homes. The ASV translates the verse: “And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart.” The daily meeting in the temple was a separate practice from breaking bread at home, where they ate their meals with gladness. Barnes observed: “[T]he expression ‘did eat their meat’ seems to imply that this refers to their common meals, and not to the Lord’s supper” (1847, p. 59, emp. added). “Breaking bread” (vs. 46) therefore refers, not to the Lord’s Supper, but to common meals. The term “food” (trophe; cf. “meat,” KJV), never used to refer to the Lord’s Supper, is explicative of the expression “breaking bread”—further proof that a common meal is under consideration (Jackson, 1991, p. 3).

In order to prove that Acts 2:46 refers to daily observance of the Lord’s Supper, one would have to both know and prove two unprovable points: (1) that “daily” is an adverbial temporal modifier that necessarily modifies the phrase “breaking bread at home,” and (2) that the phrase “breaking bread at home” refers specifically and exclusively to the Lord’s Supper (Warren, 1975, p. 151). One would have to know these two things before one could draw the conclusion that God sanctions partaking of the Lord’s Supper on some day other than Sunday. But one cannot know or prove these two points. Indeed, the grammatical evidence militates against them. Acts 2:46 provides no authority or evidence to warrant the conclusion that the church can partake of the Lord’s Supper on some day other than Sunday.

ACTS 20:7

In Acts 20, considerable information regarding the early church’s handling of the Lord’s Supper is divulged. Nothing in this or any other context indicates that the “many lights,” “upper room” (vs. 8), or “third story” (vs. 9) have anything to do with the Lord’s Supper. Thus the location and surrounding paraphernalia (e.g., number of trays/cups) are expedients. As such, they are permanently optional (cf. Warren, 1975, p. 140). Additional contextual features help to define the parameters of the passage.

First, the term “to break bread” is a first Aorist infinitive. Infinitives in Greek and English denote purpose of action of the principal verb (Summers, 1950, p. 132; Dana and Mantey, 1927, p. 214). The verb in the verse is “came together.” Thus the primary purpose for the assembly was to partake of the Lord’s Supper. This conclusion is also implied in Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians: “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20). Alexander Campbell noted that Paul’s words demonstrate that partaking of the Lord’s Supper was “the chief object of meeting” (1972, p. 32). Observe carefully that even as the purpose for the assembly is declared forthrightly to be partaking of the Lord’s Supper, so the text states explicitly that this act was done on the first day of the week. [NOTE: For a discussion of the underlying Greek that authenticates the translation “first day of the week,” see McGarvey, 1910, pp. 306-307.]

Second, Luke used “when” as a stylistic device to denote a regular procedure that the reader should know and understand (see Dungan, 1891, 1:245-246; Gibson, 1990, pp. 4-5). The clause prefaced by the word “when” constitutes a side comment by Luke intended to flag a well-recognized, fully expected event. The significance of this feature is illustrated in the following paraphrase: “Now on the first day of the week—which everyone recognizes is the very day that Christians come together to observe the Lord’s Supper—Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them....” A parallel to American culture may be seen in the statement: “On the fourth of July, when Americans celebrate the birth of their country, the President delivered a stirring speech to the nation” (cf. Nichol and Whiteside, 1920, 1:171). The main point to which Luke was driving was the preaching of Paul that lasted until midnight. However, subordinating an additional action within a separate clause, prefaced with “when,” shows that Luke was making reference to that which was recognized as standard protocol among Christians: Sunday observance of the Lord’s Supper. Indeed,

[w]e must remember that I Cor. had been previously written, and that the reference in I Cor. xvi.2 to “the first day of the week” for the collection of alms naturally connects itself with the statement here in proof that this day had been marked out by the Christian Church as a special day for public worship, and for “the breaking of the bread”(Nicoll, n.d., 2:424, emp. added).

Third, Paul spent an entire week in Troas—even though he was on a rushed schedule, in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (20:16). One would not delay a rushed trip simply to partake of a common meal or meals—which could have been eaten on any of the delayed days. It would seem he desired to meet with the entire church at the formal, weekly worship assembly—a circumstance he repeated both at Tyre (Acts 21:4) and Puteoli (Acts 28:14). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown explain the timetable:

[A]rriving on a Monday, they stayed over the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s Day following; occupying himself, doubtless, in refreshing and strengthening fellowship with the brethren during the interval.... This...plainly indicates that the Christian observance of the day afterwards distinctly called “the Lord’s Day,” was already a fixed practice of the churches(1871, p. 208, emp. added).

SATURDAY NIGHT OR SUNDAY NIGHT?

From the text it is apparent that on this occasion the disciples came together in the evening. Since we are informed that they came together “on the first day of the week,” the question remains whether the evening was our Saturday night or our Sunday night. The answer hinges on the matter of the reckoning of time in the first century, specifically, whether Luke’s narrative employs Jewish or Roman time. The following background information will resolve this question.

Days & Hours

Throughout history, cultures have differed in their counting of hours and days. The term “day” has a variety of meanings among cultures even in the Bible. The 24-hour rotation of the Earth on its axis is one meaning for the term “day,” i.e., a solar or astronomical day. But the point at which one begins to count this single revolution has differed from culture to culture. Scholars are largely agreed that the Babylonians counted their days from sunrise to sunrise, the Umbrians from noon to noon, the Athenians and Hebrews from sunset to sunset, and the Egyptians and Romans from midnight to midnight (Pliny, 1855, 2.79.77; Smith, 1868, 1:567; Hasel, 1979b, 1:878; Anthon, 1843, p. 361). Europe, America, and Western civilization have generally conformed to Roman time. Throughout the Bible, the Jews commenced their day in the evening—as stipulated by the Law of Moses in the phrase “from evening to evening” (Leviticus 23:32; cf. Exodus 12:18). Hence, for Jews the Sabbath (Saturday) began at sunset (approximately 6:00 p.m.) on what we delineate as Friday evening. Their Sabbath (Saturday) came to a close at approximately 6:00 p.m. on our Saturday evening, and their Sunday began at that time (see also Nehemiah 13:19; Psalm 55:17; cf. ereb boqer [evening-morning] in Daniel 8:14). Since the early church initially was composed entirely of Jews, and since Jews were scattered outside of Palestine throughout the Roman Empire, “the early churches...often followed the Jewish custom” (Johnson, 1891, 1:506) of reckoning time.

Another meaning for the word “day” corresponds to our word “daylight.” The phrase “night and day” (Mark 5:5) refers to the dark and light portions of a single, 24-hour day—with the word “day” referring to only half of the 24-hour day (Gibbs, 1982, 2:769; Hasel, 1979a, 1:877; Anthon, pp. 362,507). Jesus made this meaning clear when He asked, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9, emp. added). He was using the word “day” to refer to the daylight hours as distinguished from the night. Luke uses the term the same way. In Acts 16:35, he wrote: “And when it was day, the magistrates sent the officers, saying, ‘Let those men go.’” He means “when it was daylight,” since the events leading up to his statement were post-midnight occurrences (vs. 25).

The Jews of Jesus’ day divided the daylight portion of the “day” into even smaller units, i.e., four units of three hours each beginning about 6:00 a.m. (Hasel, 1979b, 1:878; Robinson, 1881, p. 338; Robertson, 1922, p. 284). This mode permeates the New Testament. The darkness that prevailed during Christ’s crucifixion “from the sixth hour until the ninth hour” (Matthew 27:45; cf. Mark 15:33) is our noon to 3:00 p.m. Though Luke probably was a non-Jew, and though the initial recipient of the book, Theophilus, very likely was also a Gentile, it nevertheless is evident that Luke used the Jewish—not Roman—method of counting time in Luke and Acts. The “sixth hour” and “ninth hour” in Luke 23:44 are noon and 3:00 p.m. respectively. The “third hour of the day” in Acts 2:15 refers to 9:00 a.m. The “sixth hour” in Acts 10:9 is 12:00 noon. The “ninth hour” in Acts 3:1 and Acts 10:3,30 is 3:00 p.m. So certain of this reckoning were the NIV translators that they converted the “ninth hour” to the modern equivalent to aid the English reader: “Cornelius answered: ‘Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon” (Acts 10:30, emp. added; cf. vs. 3). Even the Roman authority Claudius Lysias was “following the Jewish method of counting time” (Jackson, 2005, p. 298) in Acts 23:23 when he alluded to “the third hour of the night” (i.e., 9:00 p.m.). Notice that all of Luke’s allusions to days and hours in Acts assume a Jewish reckoning of time. [NOTE: Matthew and Mark also followed Jewish time, while John—who wrote near the end of the first century—seems to have followed Roman time (cf. Smith, 1869, 2:1102; Robertson, 1922, p. 285; Lockhart, 1901, p. 28; Brewer, 1941, pp. 330-331; McGarvey, 1892, 2:181-182).] The same may be said even of Luke’s references to seasons, as Reese so insightfully observes in his comments on Acts 27:9:

It should be noted that Paul is using Jewish time here (as he does in Acts 20:16; 1 Corinthians 16:8; and Acts 18:21, KJV); or shall we say that Luke is using Jewish time in his account of what Paul said? Rather than speaking of sailing being dangerous from the Ides of November to the Ides of March, Luke uses the Jewish means of reckoning. In Jewish language, the sailing season was reckoned from the feast of Passover until the feast of Tabernacles (five days after the Day of Atonement) (1976, p. 897, emp. added).

Further, one must distinguish very carefully between the meaning “24-hour period” and “daylight” in the Bible’s use of “day.” For example, Luke informs us that Herod had James executed and intended to do the same to Peter: “Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread. So when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover” (Acts 12:3-4, emp. added). Passover began on our Friday evening around 6:00 p.m. While sitting in prison during that night (vs. 6), Peter was released by an angel, so he went to the home of Mary (vs. 12) to report the incident, and then went elsewhere. Luke then states: “as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers about what had become of Peter” (vs. 18, emp. added). “Day” in verse 18 refers to daylight, i.e., morning—not another or second day.

Another example is seen in Luke’s remark about the Jewish authorities: “And they laid hands on them [the apostles—DM], and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening” (Acts 4:3, emp. added). Observe that, by “next day,” Luke did not mean to refer to a different day, as if to say that the apostles were arrested on Monday, but placed in custody until Tuesday. Rather, using Jewish time, Luke was saying that the apostles were arrested at or after 6:00 p.m. (“it was already evening”) on a particular day, and then placed in custody until the next daylight period, i.e., the next morning of the same day. To illustrate, if the apostles were arrested after 6:00 p.m. on, say, our Monday, it already was their Tuesday, and the “next day” when the Sun rose would still be Tuesday. [NOTE: For yet another example of this use of “day,” see Acts 23, where Paul delivered his defense before the Jewish Council (vss. 1-10). Luke then states: “But the following night the Lord stood by him...” (vs. 11). The “following night” does not refer to the night of the next day, but rather to the dark hours that followed sequentially after Paul’s defense during the daylight hours (as reflected in the NASBrendering: “But on the night immediately following...”). Verse 12 then states: “And when it was day...”—referring to the daylight that followed the night of verse 11. See also Acts 23:31-32; 27:27-29.]

This linguistic usage comes into play in Acts 20. Since Luke was using Jewish time (as he does everywhere else in Acts), then the disciples came together on the evening of our Saturday—their Sunday—with Paul “ready to depart the next day,” i.e., the next period of daylight, which would be sometime after dawn the next morning—which would still be their (and our) Sunday. Conybeare and Howson comment: “It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath. On the Sunday morning the vessel was about to sail” (1899, pp. 592-593).

Observe also that the Jewish (vs. Roman) method of reckoning time is inherent in the terminology in the above passages, in which 12 sequential hours are equated with “day,” i.e., daylight. Roy Lanier, Sr. explains:

But reckoning the day of twenty-four hours from 6 p.m. to 6 p.m. is the only way one can get twelve hours of night and twelve hours of day and get them in that order. Starting the period at midnight gives us approximately six hours of darkness, then twelve hours of light, and then another six hours of darkness, in that order. The Biblical day began with twelve hours of darkness and was followed by twelve hours of light (1984, 2:108).

ACTS 20:11

When the worship was interrupted by the fall of Eutychus from the upper window, and Paul miraculously revived him, we read in verse 11: “Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.” Commentators are divided as to the meaning of “broken bread” in this verse. Some insist that “broken bread” and “eaten” refer to a common meal (perhaps “love feast”) that the brethren shared with Paul before his departure. Others insist that “broken bread” refers to the Lord’s Supper.

One primary reason to equate “broken bread” in this verse with the eating of the Lord’s Supper is due to its connection to the same expression used previously in verse seven. The Greek places the article before “bread” in verse 11, i.e., “the bread,” as reflected in both the ASV and NASB. G.C. Brewer concluded from this grammatical feature: “In verse 7 we are told that they came together to break bread, and in verse 11 we are told that after the interruption they came to the upper chamber again and broke the bread—ton arton” (p. 331). Brewer’s point was not that the article preceding “bread” automatically proves that the Lord’s Supper is intended. Rather, his point was that

since bread was mentioned in the context (verse 7), and this, as all admit, was the Lord’s Supper, and no other bread was contemplated in the passage, then “the bread” in verse 11 would naturally refer to the bread just previously mentioned. If we allow the context to explain what bread is intended, we can have no doubt about its being the Lord’s Supper (p. 336, italics in orig., emp. added; see also Hackett, 1852, p. 283; cf. Johnson, 1891, 1:505).

In their famous Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Blass, Debrunner, and Funk lend further support to this interpretation of Acts 20:11, in their discussion of the use of the article with proper names (1961, pp. 135-136). They note that while proper names “do not as such take the article,” they may do so as the result of “anaphora” (i.e., “the use of a linguistic unit...to refer back to another unit”—American Heritage..., 2000, p. 65). In other words, if a proper name is used, arton (bread) in verse seven, and the same noun is used thereafter in the same context preceded by the article, ton arton(the bread) in verse 11, the second occurrence of the noun generally refers to the earlier occurrence. Blass, et al., give examples of two such instances—both also by Luke: (1) the use of the article with Saul (“the Saul”) in Acts 9:1 with reference to the earlier mention of him in Acts 8:3 where the article is not used, and (2) the use of the article with Damascus (“the Damascus”) in Acts 9:3 with anaphora to verse two where Damascus occurs without the article.

Using four participles and one verb in verse 11, Luke itemized five specific actions that followed the revival of Eutychus. In the ASV, those actions are: (1) gone up (i.e., returning to the third floor), (2) broken the bread, (3) eaten, (4) talked a long while, and (5) departed. Observe carefully that the term “eaten” is a separate participial action from the breaking of the bread. It would appear that “eaten” refers to a common meal that Paul ate after the Lord’s Supper was commemorated. Guy N. Woods commented: “We believe that the breaking of the bread in verse 11 refers to the Lord’s supper; and that the mention of the word eaten suggests a common meal” (Woods, 1976, p. 351, italics in orig.). Conybeare and Howson agree: “[T]hey celebrated the Eucharistic feast. The act of Holy Communion was combined, as was usual in the Apostolic age, with a common meal” (1899, p. 594). They further noted that “When he had eaten, v. 11...is distinguished in the Greek from the breaking bread” (p. 594, note 3, italics in orig.; see also Robertson, 1930, 3:342; Jamieson, et al., 1871, p. 208). The objection that the allusion to breaking bread is singular and that therefore it cannot refer to the Lord’s Supper, since Paul would not have taken the Lord’s Supper by himself, actually carries no force, since the same objection would apply to the idea that a common meal is intended. Would Paul have consumed a common meal by himself—especially since he was accompanied by several traveling companions who would have been in just as much need of sustenance before continuing the trip with Paul (cf. McGarvey, 1863, p. 249)?

In view of Luke’s use of Jewish time, it matters little whether the Lord’s Supper or a common meal is indicated. In either case, the disciples came together to partake of the Lord Supper “on the first day of the week”—not Saturday or Monday. Even those scholars who are inclined to believe that Luke used Roman time, nevertheless, speak with virtually one accord in affirming that the Lord’s Supper was observed on Sunday—not Monday. As H. Leo Boles insisted: “[I]f they ate the Lord’s Supper on Monday, they did not do what they met to do on the first day of the week” (1941, p. 319). He also explained:

Yes. The Jews and Romans had different ways of counting time. It matters not to us how they counted time. We have a time designated as the “first day of the week,” and the Lord’s people are to meet upon that day. Their time was divided into days, weeks, months, and years, as in ours. Their weeks had a first day, and our weeks have a first day. We can know the first day of our week, and can meet and worship on that day and receive the blessing of God (1985, p. 112).

Though DeWelt assumes a Jewish reckoning, he noted: “We might remark that the Lord’s Supper here called the ‘breaking of bread’ was partaken of on Sunday regardless of what time of reckoning for time is used. If you count the time from sundown to sundown (Jewish) it was on Sunday. If from midnight to midnight (Roman) it was on Sunday” (1958, p. 271, emp. added).

TWO QUIBBLES

Some argue that since the Jewish Christians could have observed the Lord’s Supper on our Saturday evening, we can, too. However, Saturday evening was not Saturday evening to a Jew—it was Sunday! The timing of our observance of the Lord’s Supper must conform to the reckoning of time indigenous to our culture. God expects Christians to observe the Supper on the first day of the week—however that day is reckoned in a given society. It will not do to say that we can partake of the Lord’s Supper on Saturday in Texas since at that moment in Australia it is already Sunday. A person living in Texas must observe the Lord’s Supper on Sunday as Sunday is reckoned in Texas. Otherwise, there would be no end to the resulting confusion, and the emphasis placed on Sunday in the New Testament would be rendered essentially meaningless. God will hold each of us accountable for observing the Supper on Sunday as that day is reckoned in our culture and geographical location.

Another quibble is the assertion that since Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on a Thursday—taking of it Himself along with His disciples—we can partake on days other than Sunday. It is true that Jesus instigated the Lord’s Supper on Thursday evening—the first day on which the Jews commenced preparations for the feast, which was the killing of the Passover lamb. But the thinking that says, “If He did it on Thursday, we can, too” fails on two counts. First, Jesus could have taught His disciples about a practice on one day, but intend for them to practice it on another, without being inconsistent. Second, the text plainly says that Jesus’ participation in this practice would take place “new...in my Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:29). In other words, He was giving them instruction on the observance of the Lord’s Supper that would be practiced in the church after its establishment. Therefore, one would have to look after Acts chapter two in order to see if Jesus intended any set frequency or particular day. We find precisely that—Sunday observance of the Lord’s Supper.

1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-39

While 1 Corinthians 11:23-39 provides much detail, the main purpose of the passage pertains to the how of the Lord’s Supper, not the when. Nevertheless, frequency and consistency in partaking of the Lord’s Supper are implied in such words as “do this” (vss. 24,25), “as often as” (vss. 25,26), “until” (vs. 26), “when” (vs. 33). Repetition is inherent in the construction of such expressions, without specifying the precise pattern of frequency. Since the phrases are indefinite, one must look elsewhere to see if any specific frequency is enjoined. All one need do is read forward to chapter 16. The Corinthians knew that they were to meet every first day of the week—as is evident from the use of kata in 1 Corinthians 16:2 (“every week”—see below). When Paul wrote, “Whenever you meet, you are to do such and so,” he knew that his readers already understood the intended specificity about the day (Sunday).

1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-2

In 1 Corinthians 16:2, the term kata is distributive and means “every.” Macknight explains: “And as kata polin signifies every city; and kata mena, every month; and, Acts xiv. 23 kata ekklesian, in every church: so kata mian sabbatou signifies the first day of every week” (n.d., p. 208, italics and emp. in orig.; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 407; for a discussion of the proper translation of sabbatou, see Lyons, 2006; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 306-307). English translations that reflect this feature of the Greek include the NIV and NASB. Thus Paul unquestionably invoked weekly contributions for the churches: “on the first day of every week.” Similarly, the Jews understood that the Sabbath observance—“remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8)—applied to everySabbath. Paul stated that he gave this same command for weekly Sunday collection to the Galatian churches as well (vs. 1). Here is an inspired apostle, under the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit Whom Jesus said would come, legislating frequency for first century churches. These churches obviously came together not only to offer a financial contribution and then go home. They met to engage in all acts of worship—the Lord’s Supper being premiere among them. Recognized theologian, avowed Pentecostal minister, and Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College, Gordon Fee, agrees with this contention, when he speaks of Sunday as—

a weekly reckoning with religious significance.... This language is well remembered in the Gospel traditions in relationship to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The fixed place of this terminology in those narratives implies that it had more than simply historical interest for the early church. This is verified further by the note in Acts 20:7, which implies most strongly that Paul and the others waited in Troas until the “first day of the week” precisely because that is when the Christians gathered for the breaking of bread, that is, their meal in honor of the Lord (1987, p. 814, emp. added).

CONCLUSION

Only by gathering everything the New Testament says on a subject and logically fitting it all together can one arrive at the truth. The conclusion to be drawn from this information is definitive and unquestionable. Since Christians met every Sunday (1 Corinthians 16:2), and a central purpose for such assemblies was to observe the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7) regularly and consistently (Acts 2:42), it follows that the early church partook of the Lord’s Supper every Sunday—and partook of it only on Sunday. H. Leo Boles well concluded: “There is no scriptural example or instruction authorizing the eating of the Lord’s Supper on any day except the first day of the week” (1985, p. 37). Rex Turner offers a fitting summary: “[T]he necessary and inescapable conclusion is that disciples must meet on, and only on, the first day of the week to break bread” (1972, p. 77).

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Anthon, Charles (1843), A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (New York: American Book).

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Atchley, Rick (1989), in Monroe Hawley, “Acts As A Pattern for the Church Today (Part 3),” Audio Cassette (Searcy, AR: Harding University Lectures).

Barnes, Albert (1847), Notes on the New Testament: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005 reprint).

Behm, Johannes (1964), “artos,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Behm, Johannes (1965), “klao, klasis, klasma,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert Funk (1961), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Boles, H. Leo (1941), A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Boles, H. Leo (1985), Questions and Answers, Sermon Outlines and Bible Study Notes (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Brewer, G.C. (1941), Contending For the Faith (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Brownlow, Leroy (1945), Why I Am A Member of the Church of Christ (Fort Worth, TX: Brownlow Publishing).

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

Campbell, Alexander (1972 reprint), “Lord’s Supper A Divine Institution,” in Around the Lord’s Table, ed. John Hinds (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Conybeare, W.J. and J.S. Howson (1971 reprint), The Life and Epistles of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).

DeWelt, Don (1958), Acts Made Actual (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Didache (no date), ed. Roberts-Donaldson, [On-line], URL:http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html.

Dungan, D.R. (1891), “The Lord’s Supper,” in The Old Faith Restated, ed. J.H. Garrison (St. Louis, MO: Christian Publishing). Reprinted in John Hudson, ed., The Pioneers on Worship (Kansas City, MO: The Old Paths Book Club), pp. 93-114.

Fee, Gordon (1987), The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Ferguson, Everett (1976), “The Lord’s Supper and Biblical Hermeneutics,” Mission, September.

Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).

Gibbs, J.G. (1982), “Hour,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Gibson, Steve (1990), “Ruminations on Acts 20:7,” The Restorer, 10[1]:4-5, January.

Hackett, H.B. (1852), A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles (Boston, MA: J.P. Jewett).

Harris, R.L., G.L. Archer, Jr., and B.K. Waltke (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(Chicago, IL: Moody).

Hasel, G.F. (1979a), “Day,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Hasel, G.F. (1979b), “Day and Night,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Hood, Kregg (1990), “Establishing Biblical Authority: A Fresh Look at A Familiar Issue (Part 2),” Image6, May/June.

Jackson, Wayne (1991), “The Lord’s Supper in the Early Church,” The Edifier, 11:3, November 28.

Jackson, Wayne (2005), The Acts of the Apostles from Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier), second edition.

Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (1871), A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), [On-line], URL:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/jamieson/jfb.i.html.

Johnson, B.W. (1891), The People’s New Testament (St. Louis, MO: Christian Board of Education).

Klappert, Bertold (1976), “Lord’s Supper,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Lanier, Roy, Sr. (1984), 20 Years of the Problem Page (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications).

Lockhart, Clinton (1901), Principles of Interpretation (Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.

Lyons, Eric (2006), “The First Day of the Week,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3157.

MacKnight, James (no date), Apostolical Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Martyr, Justin (no date), First Apology, ed. Roberts-Donaldson, [On-line], URL: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html.

Mayeux, Randy (1989), “Letter to the Editor,” Christian Chronicle, 46:6, June.

McClintock, John and James Strong (1867), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

McGarvey, J.W. (1863), A Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation).

McGarvey, J.W. (1892), New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Legalism,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2265.

Milligan, Robert (1975 reprint), The Scheme of Redemption (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Moule, C.F.D. (1961), Worship in the New Testament Church (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press).

Nichol, C.R. and R.L. Whiteside (1920), Sound Doctrine (Clifton, TX: Nichol Publishing).

Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Pliny the Elder (1855 edition), The Natural History,ed. Bostick, John and H.T. Riley (London: Taylor & Francis), [On-line], URL: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999. 02.0137%3Ahead%3D%2382.

Rackham, Richard (1901), The Acts of the Apostles (London: Methuen & Co.).

Reese, Gareth (1976), New Testament History—Acts (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Robertson, A.T. (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper & Row).

Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research(Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).

Robinson, Edward (1881), The Comprehensive Critical and Explanatory Bible Encyclopedia (Toledo, OH: H.W. Snow).

Smith, William (1868/1869), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. H.B. Hackett (New York: Hurd & Houghton).

Summers, Ray (1950), Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Swete, Henry (1911), Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1980 reprint).

Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).

Turner, Rex (1972), Sermons and Addresses on the Fundamentals of the Faith (Montgomery, AL: Rex Turner).

Warren, Thomas B. (1975), When Is An “Example” Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Woods, Guy N. (1976), Questions and Answers (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).

In the Wake of Tragedy by Trevor Bowen

http://insearchoftruth.org/articles/tragedy.html

In the Wake of Tragedy

Sometimes you think you have it all figured out. It's not that you really believe that you have all the answers, but you think that you have good answers to all the important questions. We tend to become content and confident in our present understanding, easing the fear of our own error and continuing need to question, learn, and grow. Then something happens which takes your sturdy legs out from underneath you, but this isn't about me. It's about the tough questions, and the immediate victims who are groping for answers.

My wife's best friend was killed in a car wreck last Tuesday, which could only have been described as tragic. She was the mother of three, a five-year old boy, just about to start kindergarten; a seven-year old boy, who was just beginning to come into his own by the patience of his mother; and a ten-year old girl, who just got her ears pierced, and was beginning to play with "grown-up" make-up. Her husband leaned and depended on her in ways that are difficult to explain. She was quiet, gentle, and full of smiles and faith throughout the most difficult trials. At work, she taught the children, who are forgotten by most. At church, she meekly labored in the church classrooms. In the community, she volunteered her time and resources, humbly serving those needing true compassion. There was so much more to follow - so much potential, but it was all cut off, because of the negligence of a truck driver, who "just didn't see her".

Staggering from the loss and crushed by the perceived betrayal, her loved ones and friends turned to God and in the heaviest of sorrows, asked "Why?". Many thoughts rush through a person's mind when they hear of situations like these, but when you are husband to the best friend's wife, the need for real answers becomes not just a little more pressing. Although there are many explanations, only one source can be trusted for answers, so we turn to God to hear His answer. We desire a specific explanation of the past events from God’s own mouth; however, we have access only to God’s recorded Word for insight. At first it may seem unsatisfying, but when mixed with faith, it does bring lasting comfort.

"I Demand an Explanation!"

When the shock begins to wear off and the impact begins to sink in, the first question, which contritely escapes is "Why?". "How could God do this?" "Why did God let this happen?" As we consider the vanity of the past events, the sorrow turns toward fury, and we begin to feel that we are owed an explanation. Of course, this is not a "new thing under the sun", but it is common to all men, although some must face the question under more tragic circumstances.

The power of our emotions and the force of our injustice is most directly illustrated in the book of Job. We are all familiar with the story of the righteous man, blessed by God, who lost everything, including his health, children, and support of his wife. His "friends" accuse rather than comfort Job, believing that only the most wicked man would be punished so greatly by God. Job defends himself and demands:

"Know then that God has wronged me, And has surrounded me with His net. If I cry out concerning wrong, I am not heard. If I cry aloud, there is no justice. He has fenced up my way, so that I cannot pass; And He has set darkness in my paths. He has stripped me of my glory, And taken the crown from my head. He breaks me down on every side, And I am gone; My hope He has uprooted like a tree." Job 19:6-10

"What is man, that You should exalt him, That You should set Your heart on him, That You should visit him every morning, And test him every moment? How long? Will You not look away from me, And let me alone till I swallow my saliva? Have I sinned? What have I done to You, O watcher of men? Why have You set me as Your target, So that I am a burden to myself?" Job 7:17-20

"My soul loathes my life; I will give free course to my complaint, I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. I will say to God, 'Do not condemn me; Show me why You contend with me. Does it seem good to You that You should oppress, That You should despise the work of Your hands, And smile on the counsel of the wicked?" Job 10:1-3

Job had seemingly suffered a great breach of justice: being a righteous man, he suffered the punishment of the wicked. He thought his plight demanded both a reckoning and an explanation. Finally, after several rounds of discussion between Job and his friends, God speaks from heaven, offering this explanation:

"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. 4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? ..." Job 38:1-5

More questions followed, which Job could not even begin to answer, but in all of these questions, no explanation or justification followed - God only asked questions. Eventually, Job was given an opportunity to answer these questions, thereby displaying his right and ability to contend with God; however, Job answered as follows:

Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said:

"Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it."

Then Job answered the LORD and said:

"Behold, I am vile; What shall I answer You? I lay my hand over my mouth. Once I have spoken, but I will not answer; Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further."

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:

"Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me: Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified? Have you an arm like God? Or can you thunder with a voice like His? Then adorn yourself with majesty and splendor, and array yourself with glory and beauty." Job 40:1-10

Just as Job could not answer the first round of questions, he could neither affirm God’s questions of Job's ability and might. He was no peer to God. Job was unable to approach God on His level.

God never answered Job's questions. He never explained what we understand through inspiration. We have no record of God detailing the temptation and malice of the Devil. In fact, we understand that Job was entirely ignorant of the wicked enemy, who sought to destroy him (Job 9:24). He was unaware of any one else beside God working unseen in the affairs of man; however, two forces influence the course of men's lives. Of one of these powers, Job was ignorant and therefore did not consider him, the Devil - the enemy and accuser of both man and God.

Why did God not answer Job's questions? Did he not need answers? Did he not deserve an explanation from God, justification for all he suffered? Yet, God only reminded Job of his own humble state and God’s awesomeness. I think the lesson to be learned is that answers are not what we need, but faith. When John the Baptist was looking for a simple affirmation that Jesus was the Christ, Jesus instructed the messengers to only return record of the miracles, which Jesus then worked (Luke 7:18-30). He never answered John's question. He just strengthened his faith. In the final analysis, that is what faith really is: trust in God when He doesn't make sense to us. If it always make sense, then it's not faith. It's just confirmation of our opinions and our own understanding. We need to learn to lean on Him, not to depend on our own understanding. It's the same trust, faith, and respect that every parent seeks to instill in their children. Parents don't always have time to explain, and often children are too young to understand the reasons; consequently, unwaivering trust in their parents is essential. This is one of the lessons from Job. God gives us what we need: not answers, but a stronger faith.

"Why Has God Done This To Me?"

Almost the first thought that rushes through our mind in the wake of tragedy is, "Why has God done this to me?" "Why did God take the one I love?" "Why did God kill my closest companion?" Immediately, we often blame the one who is rules over all things. If He controls all things, then He certainly is responsible for all things, even the evil events of our life, or so it seems to us at the time. However, we often latch on to this question, ignoring the more painful truth, which hurts beyond that of the void left by a mere unsatisfactory explanation.

We must first recognize that God is not the author of sin or evil. He punishes the wicked; moreover, it is against His very character to return evil upon the heads of the innocent (James 1:13-17). God never kills the innocent, although He make take those who are killed to a place of comfort (Luke 16:19-31), or send the wicked to a place of torment.

The answer to these questions involve three parts. First, good people suffer in part because there are no good people. Each of us have sinned (Romans 3:23); consequently, we are all deserving of both the suffering and death that we endure in this life (Romans 6:23). Sin produces many consequences: the hardening of our conscience, the darkening of our mind, damage to our bodies, and emotional turmoil. The way of the sinner is hard (Proverbs 13:15; Ecclesiastes 10:8-10); fraught with headaches and the repercussions of his foolishness. When we blame the reward of our thoughtlessness on the One who made us, we are like the one who stubs his toe and kicks back with his other foot. It is not the fault of the unseen furniture, but rather it is the fault of the one who did not bother to look. Therefore, we often suffer because it is a consequence of our bad choices; however, this does not cover all the cases. ...

More to come...

Author: Trevor Bowen

You Are What You Eat by Ben Fronczek

http://granvillenychurchofchrist.org/?p=1151

You Are What You Eat

You Are What You Eat

OBJECT Lesson:  Take a bunch of different kinds of junk food out of a bag and show to the congregation.  Ask:   “Does this stuff taste good?”

–       “What do we call this kind of food?”  (Health Food? No Junk Food!)

–       “And what is Junk Food?” (Food that has no nutritional value, it usually taste good but is full of fat, salt or sugar, and it is not very healthy to eat)

If Junk food was the only kind of food you ate, how do you think that it would affect you?   There is actually a movie out called,  Super-Size Me.  It’s about a perfectly healthy guy who decides to eat only McDonalds’s food for a whole month, to see if was a really that bad of a diet or not. Well after eating that diet for a month not only affected him physically but also mentally as well.

Even though junk food may taste real good, it’s some of the worst stuff we can possibly eat.  A lot of it is almost addictive in nature (eg. sugar and caffeine.) Eat or drink too much of it and you’ll get stomach aches, head aches, you’ll feel fatigued, you can develop skin problems, and even worst yet, digestive disorders, weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, immune system problems, even cancer.

If that’s all you eat your body may experience nutritional malnutrition. Did you know that your body needs to consume at least 90 essential nutrients to maintain a healthy and strong physical body? That diet consists of 60 minerals, 16 vitamins, 12 essential amino acids, and 3 essential fatty acids, every day.  When we deny our body any of these nutrients, the body becomes weaker and even begins to break down and develop problems.

– Scientist known since the 50’s that Chromium and Vanadium deficiencies cause adult-onset diabetes (which makes up 85% of the diabetic population).

– Selenium reduces the risk of cancer from 50 to 80%, depending on the type of cancer

– Copper deficiencies can lead aneurysms, Your arteries’ elastic fibers need copper for tensile strength.

– If you are not getting enough calcium it can cause back pain, bone spurs, cramps and twitches, Degenerative Arthritis, Headaches, High/Low Blood Pressure, Hypertension, Insomnia, Joint Pain, Kidney Stones, Osteoporosis, Panic Attacks, PMS.                    This is the effects that can occur by depriving yourself of just a few minerals.

 That which is true of the physical body is also true of the spiritual body.

We are not just flesh and blood, we have a spiritual part that needs to be fed a healthy diet as well.

Just like particular symptoms of malnutrition appear in the physical body when we deprive it, symptoms of spiritual malnutrition will appear if you stave it or feed only on spiritual junk food.  And just like in the physical body, when negative symptoms appear, we need to do something about it right away before we really get sick.

How may of you feel like you are weak or maybe even dying spiritually?

Maybe, religion and Church isn’t as interesting anymore. You are going through the motions of going to church every Sunday, but even then your mind is somewhere else; you just aren’t into it anymore.  You find you are saying things that you know aren’t right for a Christian to be saying, or doing things that aren’t right for a Christian to be doing… and you don’t know why.

These just may be symptoms of spiritual malnutrition.

After Peter reminds these early Christian who they really are and how much they have been blessed in 1 peter chapter 1, In I Peter 2:1,  he admonishes his readers to get rid of certain negative traits. I like the way the Amplified Bible translates these verses, it says, “So be done with every trace of wickedness (depravity, malignity) and all deceit and insincerity (pretense, hypocrisy) and grudges (envy, jealousy) and slander and evil speaking of every kind.”

Peter lists some things that show us that those early Christian needed a healthier spiritual diet.. . He told them to

1st Get rid of Malice, ill will, or the desire to inflict pain on others.

2nd Get rid of  “Deceit”, lying or being crafty in a negative way.

3rd Get rid of Hypocrisy that’s pretending to be what one is not.

4th Get rid of Envy or that strong desire to have or possess what belongs to others; always feeling like you are not getting what other have.

5th Get rid of Slander which is using the tongue to gossip, deceive, or destroy the reputation of someone else.

As I see it when we start feeling down, negative, and acting without Christian love towards others, in one way or another this may be a symptom that our spiritual being  is getting weak or sick.

Peter told them they needed to get rid of those things!

Feeding on spiritual junk food will do this to us. What is spiritual junk food?  Like physical junk food, it’s those things that we ingest that have no nutritional value. Those things may be as pleasing as Ice cream, or fudge, but in all reality spiritual junk food are things with no spiritual value and lead to/ or cause symptoms of spiritual malnutrition.

Did you know that you can consume all the vitamin and minerals you need each day but if you eat too much refined sugar your body will not reap the benefit of those minerals.  Spiritual junk food can have the same effect. You may read your Bible and pray every morning after you get up, even listen to a good sermon on the radio, but  if you feast on negative gossip or course joking when you get to work it’s like feasting on sugar after eating organic produce and meat.

Want some examples of some other spiritual junk food you need to avoid:

–          Some of the things we watch on TV or in movies (I believe those thing we have watched on TV or in movies have desensitized us to too many things that were thought to be unacceptable, crude, inappropriate if not vulgar a generation ago… the blood, the gore, improper sex scenes, or improper relationship which are seen even by our children have become to common place.) TV, and movies have the potential of being very good and educational, if not edifying if we become more selective. We have to be careful of those shows that can poison our mind and spirit.

–          Also we have to be careful of things that we read. Some books and magazines can be as bad for our mind and spirit as some TV shows.

–          Some of the music or talk shows we listen to are horrible.

–          Even some people we hang around with and interact with can harm our spiritual condition; especially when they start complaining, or slandering another, or just talk negative. It discourage us. It like junk food for our Christian mind.

–          Some stuff on the Internet is dangerous as well.

There are more things than I can mention today that can hurt or even starve our spirit. If what we are exposed to is not building up our spirit then they are probably hurting it. And if that is happening, before you know it you will start to develop some symptoms of an unhealthy spirit like those early Christians which Peter wrote to.

The good news is that Peter provides a healthy solution. He goes on to encourage his readers to crave God’s Word just as a baby craves milk.      2” Like newborn babies you should crave (thirst for, earnestly desire) the pure (unadulterated) spiritual milk, that by it you may be nurtured and grow unto [completed] salvation.”

Here he is encouraging us, even emphasizing the energy we should exert to get good spiritual food. Babies demand milk as if their very life depended on each feeding. They even cry and scream out for it when they are denied it too long. We need good nutritious food to live a healthy physical life. We also need to hunger and crave that which will feed our spirit and make it strong.

Peter calls God’s Word pure, meaning uncontaminated, unpolluted by fraud or deceit. Jesus said God’s Word is truth John 17:17. David says that God’s Word is flawless, like silver refined in a furnace seven times (Psalm 12:6);                In Psalm 1 David also said that God’s Word is something that we should meditate on day and night if we want to be blessed.

I believe, Peter is teaching us that reading and studying God’s Word promotes spiritual growth and good health just like good food can help us physically. But unfortunately like junk food we don’t reach for that first.

Jesus said, we do not live by bread alone, but by the Word of God – Mt 4:4

He also said, ”The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.”– Jn 6:63 & 68

If you stop feeding on God’s Word, which is full of life and spiritual vitamins and minerals for our soul, we grow weak and become malnourished.

I can’t help but believe that Satan wants to see us weak and spiritually starved. He probably helps keep us that way by introducing us all kinds of tempting spiritual junk food.. new movies, new tv shows, new gossip and more.

Earlier in this letter, Peter challenged those early Christians by telling them that they needed to refocus their minds. Read what it says in 1:13-17 ” Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. 14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15 But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16 for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

17 Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.

   -They needed to really prepare their minds for action

   -They need to get under control or be self controlled

   – And re-focus on the hope we have as Christians

And what is the best way to do that, to prepare our mind so that we can have more self control and live as a people full of hope? It starts here in the mind, and so we need to feed our mind and spirit the right diet.

You’ve all heard the saying, ‘You are what you eat!’  Or how about this one, ‘Garbage in garbage out!’ Decide in your mind today that you are not going to let Satan or anybody else rob you of the Christian joy that you should have or your spiritual health. Decide not deprive or starve your spirit.  Just like when you are on a diet, set limits on what you are going to feed your mind and spirit.

Prepare your mind for action. Do what you need to do to feed you spirit on good things.

– Start feeding on God’s Word daily! Read it and study it in such a way expecting to find spiritual nuggets to feast on. And when you find them, underline them, jot them down, maybe even put them up on your refrigerator so you can feed on them over and over.

– Listen to good music that lifts your spirit!

– Read things that will stimulate and encourage your inner spirit to praise God.

– Listed to spiritually edifying sermons and lesson on the radio or computer.

– Find and hang around individuals that are full of the Spirit, those that will build you up and edify you, maybe even challenge you to grow as a Christian.

– If you watch TV or go on the computer, watch things that educate or stimulate you and your spirit.

These are choices you have to make for yourself, just like you decide what to put into your mouth. Change is sometimes hard. At first it may be difficult to give up some old habit and begin new one’s, but in the end if you do the right things you will feel better.

Many times when people go on a healthy diet they go through their house and get rid of all the junk food so they will not be as tempted to indulge in things that are unhealthy for them.

Instead of junk food they fill their pantry with healthy alternatives.  Maybe you need to do the same thing to improve your spiritual health. Maybe you need to take action and get rid of some things that you come in contact with that tempts you spiritually. Maybe you have HBO and Cinemax or other channels on your TV that you may need to do away with or block, and then watch healthy alternatives like, the National Geographic channel, the Family channel, or something else less provocative.  Maybe you need to get rid of your TV all together.

Or maybe you need to throw away certain books and magazines and buy some more Bibles and good spiritual books and leave them all around your house if you like to read.

Or maybe for you it’s what you listen to on the radio, or sites you go to on the internet. Choose a healthy alternative and you will be happier.

Or maybe you need to give up spending time with certain people. You know, those who are foul, negative, complainers, those who make fun of or put down others, and then find new friends to hang out with who will stimulate you in a positive way.

Just like with your body some changes in your diet are hard to make.

But remember, you can do all things (especially those thing which are good for you) thru Christ who will give you strength.

We are capable of so much thru Christ.

Close by reading Psalm 1

“Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, but whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night.

That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—whatever they do prospers.

Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away.
Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.”

THE RIGHT CHURCH by Alfred Shannon Jr.

https://biblicalproof.wordpress.com/2011/06/

THE RIGHT CHURCH

Jesus built only one church, although mankind has many versions of it. They all claim that they are correct, but the everlasting question is: which version is right with God? When you can find the church that Christ built, the apostles established, and the early day Christians attended, you will be in the right place. That church will carry Christ’s name, Christ’s doctrine, and will abide by God’s Word. The bottom line is: don’t believe anything that God hasn’t put His signature on. The right church, is right with God’s Word.

Rom 16:16; Mt 16:18; 1 Cor 15:1-4; Rom 10:17; Rom 10:10; Acts 2:38; Rev 2:10;
2 Jn 9; 2 Tim 3:16

Handling Our Anger by Richard Mansel

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/anger.html

Handling Our Anger

Imagine that you have spent all day cleaning your house for an important dinner party and you have everything spotless just minutes before your guests are to arrive. Then you hear in the kitchen the sound of tiny feet and see that your three-year-old has tracked mud all over the kitchen tile. You explode. What happens next is anger. It can become, as someone has written, a wild dog that can be tamed for a while but then we can unleash it and no one is immune to its fury.
Few things can tear apart the fabric of a family like anger. It has led many to divorce court, permanent alienation and even incarceration. How many relatives have not spoken to one another for years because of anger? The pain is pervasive throughout our society. We must deal with anger or its ravages will consume us.
There are four ways that we can deal with anger.
First, we can repress it. Denial, however, is a dangerous practice because we do not always know when the kettle will blow. A basketball held under water will suddenly pop to the surface and splash water on everyone around. Repressed anger can have similar results.
Second, we can ignore our anger and pretend it does not exist. Unresolved anger, however, just sits in our hearts and eats away at us and often gives us a cruel, bitter nature.
Third, we can unleash it on whoever happens to be there at the time. Graveyards are filled with the victims of this approach.
Finally, we can learn the message of Scripture on how to resolve anger. "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards" (Proverbs 29:11). "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath ... Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:26,31,32).
This is the way to deal with anger. Is not life too short to lose a loved one because of anger? We must control anger or it will control us.
Richard Mansel


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Worthy by Gary Rose

What a beautiful creature! This picture exudes majesty and a kingly presence that almost takes your breath away. It is no wonder that the lion is called “King of the jungle”!!!

In Scripture, Jesus is referred to as “The lion of the tribe of Judah” and is worthy of that title as well as the other 99 found in the Bible.

Why? Read on…

Revelation 5 ( World English Bible )

  ¹ I saw, in the right hand of him who sat on the throne, a book written inside and outside, sealed shut with seven seals.  ² I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the book, and to break its seals?”  ³ No one in heaven above, or on the earth, or under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look in it.  ⁴ And I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open the book, or to look in it.  ⁵ One of the elders said to me, “Don’t weep. Behold, the Lion who is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome; he who opens the book and its seven seals.” (emphasis added) ⁶ I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth.  ⁷ Then he came, and he took it out of the right hand of him who sat on the throne.  ⁸ Now when he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.  

⁹ They sang a new song, saying, 
“You are worthy to take the book,
and to open its seals:
for you were killed,
and bought us for God with your blood,
out of every tribe, language, people, and nation,
  ¹⁰ and made us kings and priests to our God,
and we will reign on earth.” (emphasis added)

Mankind may reject Jesus, but that does not change who he is and what he has done for those who believe and obey him. Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, period. Accept that and obey his gospel and LIVE!!!

What Jesus has done is worthy of our thanks, our praise and the dedication of our lives; share HIS GOSPEL with others- today!!!