The Lord's Supper

by Tom Edwards
www.cvillechurch.com

It's really ironic: members in the church of Christ are often accused of not believing in the blood of Jesus, while those who make this accusation might observe the Lord's supper only one to four times a year.

As Christians, we realize the need to remember that precious blood by which the atonement was made. Without the Lord's life-saving sacrifice, sinful man would remain in a lost and hopeless condition, heading inevitably to an eternal separation from God Himself.

But now through Jesus Christ and by our faith and obedience, we can contact the blood of the Lord and enjoy the benefits of having our sins washed away and the beginning of a new life in the Christ. Actually, the church itself is the ``saved''; and the ``saved'' are simply those who have been ``bought by the blood'' of the Savior.

This lesson has been designed to show that the Christian should take of the Lord's supper every first day of the week in order to remember the death of Jesus and be pleasing to God. Acts 20:7 is the only passage that specifies the first day of the week as being the day in which early Christians met to partake of the communion, but this one passage is enough to suffice.
Let us again consider the comments of a few highly regarded men who represent different denominational backgrounds, as to their remarks on Acts 20:7 and the early church's weekly observance of the Lord's supper. This will clearly establish that the weekly participation in the Lord's supper is not just an ``unusual doctrine'' only accepted by those in the ``church of Christ.'' (Let us also remember, however, that the quotes of men are never to be the basis for our beliefs in religious matters; but only that which is from God Himself.)

Adam Clarke: ''...the Lord's day...in which they commemorated the resurrection of our Lord...'to break bread'...intimating, by this, that they were accustomed to receive the holy sacrament on each Lord's day...''

Albert Barnes: ```to break bread.' Evidently to celebrate the Lord's supper. It is probably that the apostles and early Christians celebrated the Lord's supper on every Lord's day.''

Pulpit Commentary: ```to break bread.' This is also an important example of weekly communion as the practice of the first Christians...it is impossible not to conclude that the breaking of bread in the celebration of the Lord's Supper is an essential part of the holy sacrament, which man may not for any specious reasons omit....''

Matthew Henry: ``They `came together to break bread,' that is, to celebrate the ordinance of the Lord's supper, that one instituted sign of breaking the bread being put for all the rest...In the primitive times it was the custom of many churches to receive the Lord's supper every Lord's day....''

What does the Bible say? In Acts 2:42, mention is made that the early Christians ``continued steadfastly'' (``were continually devoting themselves,'' NAS) in the Lord's Supper. If I told you that I continued steadfastly in doing my dishes; but, in actuality, I washed them only four times a year; you probably would not consider this being ``steadfast.''

1 Corinthians 11:20-22,33, 34 also indicates the frequent observance of the Lord's supper. It reads: ``Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you...So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment....'' The inference is that when they met it was to take of the Lord's supper, which shows it was to be observed quite often; but, unfortunately, they had profaned it by turning it into a common meal -- for this, Paul reprimands them.

In realizing the seriousness of this observance (1 Cor 11:27-30), how could one assume that God would allow His children to become lackadaisical with it? to overlook it? or simply minimize it by partaking of it so seldom?

Notice where the emphasis is placed in Acts 20:7: ``And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them....'' Commenting on this, Coffman declares: ``This emphatically states the purpose of Christian assemblies on Sundays throughout history, that purpose being for the observance of the Lord's supper...Even the address of so distinguished an apostle as Paul took second billing on that occasion, the primary purpose having been to observe the Lord's supper...The Christians, from earliest times, had the habit of meeting for the Lord's supper on `a fixed day,' and Acts 20:7 identifies that day as `the first day of the week,' Sunday.''

Sunday is a ``special'' day to the Christian. Though it is true that every day is a day in which one should serve God, Sunday has its special forms of worship. Not only the communion, but also the contribution is to be observed on this day. 1 Corinthians 16:2 reads, ``Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.'' Seldom will one hear any preacher object to the weekly offering of the saints. Actually, many denominations today practice more collections than the Bible authorizes; but without the death of Christ there could not even be any offering from the ``saints.''
The communion is a memorial of Jesus Christ; which has not only been instituted by Him, but also made possible by His very death. As the Lord was quoted concerning this supper in 1 Cor. 11:18, ''...do this in remembrance of Me.''

Early Christians shared the Lord's Supper every Lord's day. May it be our desire to emulate them in that which we believe and practice. Though some things have ceased, the observance of the Lord's Supper has not; and it is to continue until Jesus Christ returns (1 Cor. 11:26).

Tune-in to Bible Talk

Every Sunday 8:30-9:00 AM

WINA 1070 AM, Charlottesville, VA

For Past Program Archives go to:

www.BibleTalkNow.com

To be a part of the Program call our Bible Talk line at:

(434) 975-7373 and leave a question or a comment.

Call Anytime!

E-Mail: larryrouse@cvillechurch.com

Doctrinal Preaching

by Frank Van Dyke
www.cvillechurch.com

The author of a recognized textbook on speech-making tenders some advice on pulpit speaking, pointing out that "purely doctrinal sermons are not much desired in this age, for most people are impatient with quibblings of creed." This advice comes with poor grace from a person whose interest in religion, I venture, is only nominal, if not nil. It is doubtful that he would know a gospel sermon if he heard one, yet he feels that his position as an authority on secular speaking qualifies him to tell preachers not only how the sermon should be delivered, but also what the content of the sermon should be. Preachers should not speak on doctrine, because people in this advanced (?) age do not desire that type of sermon, is his advice.

The eminent authority makes two blunders. First, he ventures into a field where he is not qualified, and second, he makes the mistake of telling preachers that the content of their sermons should be what the people desire instead of what the Lord commands. This is not so astonishing, coming, as it does, from a modernistic college professor who is also a denominationalist. Of course, he would hardly be expected to know—and probably would not care if he did know—that Paul said that the preacher who tried to please men (that is, preach the type of sermons which are desired in this age) could not be the servant of Christ. Perhaps, his admonition was intended primarily for denominational preachers who are in the business as men-pleasers, and think that much of the advice in the New Testament is not modernistic enough for a streamlined, twentieth century sermon. To them the doctor's advice may be a pearl of great price, but to a gospel preacher it is abominable.

It would be difficult to think of a thing any more ridiculous than the doctor's suggestion. Nothing can hardly equal his stupidity, unless it is an insurance salesman who know nothing about religious journalism, yet thinks that his financial success and prestige will qualify him to tell our religious editors how to run their papers. Even the youngest of us feel that we know a little more than the professor of speech when it comes to what a gospel sermon should contain. He can tell people how to make the halls of Congress reverberate with gems of political oratory, but we think he needs a few lessons on the fundamentals of the gospel before he starts telling us what to include and what to exclude in our sermons. In the same vein, it seems that the competent religious editor would feel that a cracker jack insurance salesman ought to take a course in the A B C's of religious journalism before he begins an effort to revolutionize our papers. People are not led to live lives of faith and obedience in the same way that they are led to invest their money in bonds and insurance policies. A man may be without an equal in telling us how to compose and deliver a political speech or a speech given purely for entertainment, and yet be a dismal failure when it comes to telling us how to preach the gospel. Even so, a man may make a million dollars selling insurance, and then make a complete failure in religious journalism. Indeed, it seems that we have living examples to prove both of these statements.

The cases of the speech instructor and the insurance salesman are parallel. Both have just about the same conception of the gospel; one says that we should preach what is desired in this age, while the other makes a brotherhood survey to determine what type of religious journalism is desired today. However, it does seem that the speech teacher has one advantage; he knew what people desired without sending out a questionnaire. If the insurance salesman had been a close observer of human nature, and could have sensed the trend of modern thought as well as the speech instructor did, he might have been spared the trouble (and shall we now say the humiliation?) of the survey.

What about doctrinal preaching? Every gospel preacher must choose between what is desired in this age and the kind of preaching that the Bible says for us to do. The early Christians continued in the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42). It is obvious that the apostles must have preached doctrine. People obey a form of doctrine in becoming children of righteousness (Rom. 6:17). How can preaching save people, unless it presents the doctrine, and shows people how to obey "that form of doctrine?" Paul warned against preaching any other doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3). This implies that there is a doctrine to be preached. Timothy was told to give attendance to doctrine (1 Tim. 4:13,16). Maybe, Paul and others knew that in this age people would not desire doctrine, and hence gospel preachers would have to give it a little emphasis. Paul must have had something like that in mind when he told Timothy to preach with doctrine, for the time would come when people would not endure-would not desire-sound doctrine. (2 Tim. 4:2,3) Those who have so much free information on how to preach ought to get together with Paul, or show us that Paul was wrong. Paul said for us to preach doctrine, because people would not desire it; man tells us to omit doctrine when it is not desired. One of the two has given the wrong advice, and personally I think that Paul is not the one.

What about doctrinal preaching? The afore mentioned speech teacher makes a distinction between a doctrinal sermon and a gospel sermon. After discrediting doctrinal sermons, he speaks with approval of "the gospel sermon or sermons intended to draw inspiration and encouragement from the great religious truths of the gospel, and through this inspiration to lead audiences to apply these truths to their own lives." How ridiculous is such a distinction! Doctrine is nothing but "the great religious truths of the gospel." Imagine a man drawing inspiration from "great religious truths" without preaching those truths. How can a preacher lead people "to apply these truths to their own lives" without preaching the truths—the doctrine—so people can know what the truths are?

What about doctrinal preaching? It is a common thing to hear someone say, "We ought not to preach doctrine so much; we should exhort people more." Not so long ago a denominational preacher visited one of our services, and at the close he favored us with this comment: "That is just the trouble; we have too much doctrinal preaching and not enough convincing preaching." This reminds one of the little boy who went out to shoot the birds, but didn't take his shooter along. Nobody denies that we should exhort and convince people. Too many preachers, however, go out to exhort without the exhorter. They go out to convince without the convincer. Paul said that elders should exhort and convince the gainsayers, but that they should be able to do it with sound doctrine (Titus 1:9). It takes doctrine to exhort and convince people in the right way. ——— Bible Banner – May 1941

Tune-in to Bible Talk
Every Sunday 8:30-9:00 AM
WINA 1070 AM, Charlottesville, VA
For Past Program Archives go to:
www.BibleTalkNow.com
To be a part of the Program call our Bible Talk line at:
(434) 975-7373 and leave a question or a comment.
Call Anytime!
E-Mail: larryrouse@cvillechurch.com

Make All Things According to the Pattern

By Warren E. Berkley
www.cvillechurch.com

Many features of the Old Testament system (law of Moses) were put in place by God, to picture what would eventually become reality through the work of Jesus Christ, our great High Priest. For instance, various details in the Jewish tabernacle served to foreshadow the good things God would eventually confer upon believers. The good things to come were pictured by various elements of the Mosaic system. The law, therefore was a shadow of the good things to come, (see Heb. 9:11 & 10:1).

This is one reason why, when Moses supervised the building of that tabernacle, it was crucial for him to make all things according to the pattern which came from the perfect mind of God. Even the detailed furnishings had to be made exactly like the pattern the Lord had shown Moses, (Num. 8:4). Various features of the old Jewish system were designed by God to foreshadow gospel blessings; these institutions served as the copies or shadows of the heavenly things, so Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. God said to him: see that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain. (Heb. 8:5; Acts 7:44; Ex. 25:9, 40; 26:30; Num. 8:4.)

We have not been instructed to build, or rebuild that Mosaic tabernacle, but when we study these things we must carefully explore for any underlying principles that pertain to us. Just as God expressed His mind to Moses and gave instructions to Him, He has expressed His mind to us, and given us instructions to follow (Heb. 1:1, 2). We're to "hold fast to the pattern of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:13).

I am convinced there is such a principle, and I can best express it this way: God's purpose is carried out when His pattern is followed! The tabernacle is an excellent example. In having the Jews build that tabernacle, we know that God had a purpose in mind. He didn't do this accidentally, nor was this an exercise to keep the Jewish laborers and artisans busy. God had a purpose in mind, when He had the people build the tabernacle; an immediate purpose [Jewish worship], and an ultimate purpose [symbolic of the New Covenant blessings, see Heb. 9:9.] The pattern, or blueprint God gave to Moses was designed to implement God's purposes, both immediate and ultimate.

The principle is: God, in His perfect mind, forms a purpose; then He reveals His pattern, with admonitions to follow His instructions. Only when men follow God's pattern, is God's purpose carried out. Stated negatively, if I don't follow God's pattern, I fail to carry out His purpose!
In the case of the tabernacle, if Moses had ignored God's pattern and followed a human plan -- the tabernacle would not have fulfilled God's purpose; it would not have effectively functioned in foreshadowing the new covenant and the high-priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary (of which the earthly was only a replica)! Only as we follow God's pattern, can it be said that we have performed His purpose. We need to acknowledge how purpose and pattern go together. Behind every pattern revealed by God, there are divine purposes, which are fulfilled when we follow His pattern.

Applications Follow: MARRIAGE. God had certain purposes in mind by instituting the marriage relationship: (a) companionship, (b) reproduction, (c) the nurturing of children, and (d) the foundation of the social order. God had these good purposes in mind. To accomplish these purposes, God revealed a pattern (instructions, law). If we ignore God's pattern for husband and wife, God's purposes are not carried out.

THE LORD'S SUPPER. All anyone knows about the Lord's Supper is from the Bible. What about the elements we use ... the significance we attach to this feast ... the regularity with which we partake ... Where did we come up with all this?

The Bible. When I take everything the New Testament says about the Lord's Supper, and use that as my pattern, is there anything wrong with that? Does that make me a radical, a Pharisee, or a conservative or anti? I think it makes me a Christian. This is what being a Christian is all about: letting Christ be the head of the church, and following the instructions given by Christ through His apostles ... making all things according to the pattern, in order for the purposes of God to be fulfilled.

THE LOCAL CHURCH. God, in His wisdom, set up the local church. That's why, when you read the New Testament, you read about local churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, etc.). Christians got together. They formed themselves into local groups, to worship together, to edify one another, and to join together for the preaching of the gospel.

Now, when God set up the local church, through the preaching of the apostles, let there be no doubt, God had certain purposes in mind! I submit, if we want a local church to fulfill the purposes intended by God, we need to follow the pattern given by God. Is that difficult or complicated? Is that an expression of human tradition? NO, it is entirely reasonable, and in keeping with everything the Scriptures teach.

So, when it comes to things like elders and deacons; the preaching and teaching we do; the way we use our resources; the worship we provide for; the support of gospel preachers; the assistance given to needy saints, and all other matters that have to do with the local church, we should follow the pattern given by God!

This is not a matter of being conservative, it is a matter of being right. This isn't just about continuing to do what those men believed in, who started a local church in a community, it is about continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42). When we follow God's pattern, because we love God, want to honor Christ and carry out divine purposes -- this is not the mentality of a Pharisee, this is the mentality of a servant who wants to obey the Lord.
Hebrews 8:5 may not call upon us to build a tabernacle, yet the underlying principle is trans-dispensational. It has always been necessary to follow any pattern given by God. This is the only way we can carry out His purposes.

Tune-in to Bible Talk

Every Sunday 8:30-9:00 AM

WINA 1070 AM, Charlottesville, VA

For Past Program Archives go to:

www.BibleTalkNow.com

To be a part of the Program call our Bible Talk line at:

(434) 975-7373 and leave a question or a comment.

Call Anytime!

E-Mail: larryrouse@cvillechurch.com