Author's Preface
1. Accepting Or Uniting
   
2. Who Is A Christian?
   
3. "Why Don't You Leave The Church of Christ?"
   
4. The Iniquity Of The Fathers
   
5. Our Judicial System
   
6. "You Are My People Now"
   
7. Serving "Otherwise Than As Prescribed"
   
8. Does Baptize Really Mean To Immerse
   
9. Our Relationship Through Baptism
   
10. Those Gospel Meetings
    
11. A Prelude To Worship
    
12. Worshipping In Spirit And Truth
    
13. The Forbidden Prayer
    
14. "I Didn't Hear Nobody Pray"
    
15. Communion Prayers
    
16. Communion With Bread, Wine, And Money
    
17. Thursday Is The Lord's Day Too!
    
18. Not Forsaking The Assembly
    
19. Acts 20:7 One More Time
    
20. Our Father Who Art Where?
    
21. Does Nature Reveal God's Love
    
22. Copyrighted: All Rights Reserved
    
23. Don't Pour Water On Them
    
24. The Remaining Restriction For Women
    
25. Some Questions About Revelation
    
26. Must One Fully Repent Before Baptism?
    
27. Nicodemus In Context
    
28. Our Respected Myths Of Religion
    
29. Hook's Points: A Potpourri
    

In my other books I have challenged some of our teachings based on interpretations of Acts 20:7. It may serve a good purpose for me to treat more fully this text which has been related to the Lord's Supper at this time.

Why would this text deserve such attention? With our people in the Church of Christ, it has served as a prooftext for several suppositions. It has been used to substantiate claims that we are commanded to partake of the Lord's Supper each and every Sunday and exclusively upon that first day of the week. This contention and practice has been one of our identifying marks. The related conviction has emboldened our people to reject and condemn those who vary from it.

As you will discern from this treatise, I am emphasizing the purpose and importance of the Communion rather than disparaging it. I want to encourage a richer meaning in participation than is felt in keeping a commanded law or ritual.

Neither Jesus nor any inspired writer prescribed the day or frequency for this memorial observance. In their effort to be correct in every ritualistic detail, sincere disciples have sought to define the required procedures with exactness through command, example, and inference. Let us reconsider the whole matter together now.

As Paul started back to Jerusalem, he determined to go through Macedonia. Seven of the brothers accompanying him went ahead and waited for him at Troas. After the days of Unleavened Bread, Paul came to Troas where he stayed for seven days, hastening to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

Now for our text: "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered. And a young man named Eutychus was sitting in the window. He sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer; and being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and embracing him said, 'Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.' And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed."

How could this passage come to have importance in relation to the Lord's Supper? Without some coaching, the casual reader would see no connection since the communion is not mentioned. But as our people turned toward legalism, they looked to Acts 2:42 as a pattern for four of our "five acts of worship" for our Sunday assemblies. In this passage it is stated that the Jerusalem disciples "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers," though neither the first day of the week nor formal assemblies are mentioned there. Our people interpreted this "breaking of bread" to be the Lord's Supper in spite of the third sentence to follow stating, "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts" (Acts 2:46).

The first breaking of bread has been interpreted as being Communion and the second as eating food. To interpret the second mention as Communion would have made the Supper proper on any day of the week. That would have destroyed the pattern for Sunday assemblies. But Acts 2:42 does not mention a time for partaking. So those who would establish a pattern grasped Acts 20:7, which connects the breaking of bread and the first day of the week, to "prove" a certain time that neither Jesus nor any inspired writer legislated.

If we were under a legal code, then we could rightly look for patterns of technical correctness. If we varied from the patterns, then restoration would be demanded. The pioneers of our movement accepted the New Covenant scriptures as our guide but not as a legal code. In time those of the StoneCampbell heritage became misdirected into being legalists, patternists, and restorationists. Such a course is divisive by nature, for people cannot agree on what the supposed law requires, when its pattern is violated, and when it is restored properly.

In Acts 20:7 we have found the only mentioned connection of the first day of the week and the breaking of bread. But does to break bread mean to participate in the Communion? There is no proof that it does. The round, flat loaf of bread of the Jews was not cut, but it was broken or torn apart. Breaking bread became an idiom or expression meaning to eat a meal or to eat food. Its use with that meaning is unquestioned (See: Matt. 14:19; 15:36; 26:26; Mark 6:41; 8:6,19; 14:22; Luke 9:16; 22:19; 24:30).

"Now as they were eating (the Passover meal: CH), Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body'" (Mt. 26:26. See similar references listed above). "The bread which we break" and "he broke it" (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24) relate to the Lord's Supper, but they are not used as idioms meaning to eat the Lord's Supper.

There is no proof that the communion is meant by to break bread in Acts 20:7. It can only be an assumption. It does seem more reasonable to assume that they would delay the Communion rather than a fellowship meal until the wee hours of the morning. Any conclusion based upon an unproven premise is invalid. God did not bind on us regulations derived from inconclusive reasoning.

Now, after belaboring that point, we will grant for argument's sake that Acts 20:7 does refer to the Lord's Supper. We will see whether it fits the pattern and proves the contentions.

The text states that the disciples met on the first day of the week at Troas to break bread. It does not indicate that they had been doing that previously or that they continued the practice afterward. If Luke had indicated that he recorded that incident as an example for us to follow, of course, we would be eager to look for what was exemplified. Luke recorded a historical account. Incidental details of it are not examples unless a command or principle is involved. For instance, the jailer's baptism is not a "binding example" of baptism. The authority for it is in Jesus' command rather than the jailer's immersion.

Some make an example of Paul's travel schedule, asserting that he arranged it to permit his meeting with the group on the first day of the week. But they do not make an example of his staying in Macedonia until after the days of Unleavened Bread or his hastening to Jerusalem for the Passover.

A historical detail may reveal an acceptable way a thing may be done but not necessarily the only way. For instance, Paul traveled by land and sea, but no one would think that his example would exclude air travel today.

If we are inclined to conjecture as to why Luke recorded the Troas incident, it is more reasonable to conclude that it was in order to tell us of Paul's greatest miracle, the restoring of life to Eutychus. But we have overlooked the more obvious purpose in our search for proof of an unwarranted contention.

Someone may be wishing to remind me that, just as "remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" included every sabbath, so the mention of the first day of the week meant every first day. I taught that also for many years, having inherited the illogical argument as the rest of us did. It is true that as each sabbath came, it would be included in the command and should be kept holy. But "on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread" indicates only one specific occasion. Suppose that I should tell you, "On the Fourth of July when the family gathered at my parents' home to have a reunion, Dad had a heart attack." Would you conclude that identical events had occurred during each previous year or that they continued each year after that? Certainly not! The account of the gathering at Troas offers no indication that they had been doing it previous to the coming of this special guest. And there is no command or inference that such meetings were to be continued weekly thereafter.

Still granting that they met to commune, they did not do it at Troas on the first day of the week! Paul continued his speech until midnight when he was interrupted by Eutychus' fall. Then in the early morning they broke bread. That puts the communion on Monday!

Contenders argue that they participated in the Lord's Supper earlier in the evening and that the breaking of bread after midnight was a fellowship meal! That is an assumption in direct contradiction of what is written. It says they met to break bread and then tells when they broke it. Why reject the plain revelation in order to uphold a presupposition?

If they observed Jewish time in Troas, since the first day would begin on Saturday evening, it would still be the first day of the week after midnight. That would sanction their intention of participation on Saturday night. Would that be acceptable?

But they were following Roman (and our) time with the day beginning and ending at midnight. How do we know that? Our text says Paul was "intending to depart on the morrow." That would be Monday. After the meal and the conversation until daybreak, Paul departed. So his departure "on the morrow" was on Monday. If the Jewish time was observed, it would still have been the first day of the week, not the morrow. So, granting that this breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper, we have approval of participation on Monday! There is no escape from that conclusion, as though we should be seeking escapes.

In searching for a specified time for participation in the Communion, I find only five possibilities in the Scriptures.

1. The first day of the week is supported by Acts 20:7, as we have just discussed.

2. Jesus gave us an approved example of midweek evening participation by his inaugurating it on a Thursday evening.

3. Jesus initiated the Supper during a Passover meal. As often as they observed the Passover, which was annually, they remembered the passing over of the Lord in sparing the firstborn and their escape from Egypt. In giving the cup, Jesus urged, "'Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:25f). How would the apostles interpret as often? Relating it to the Passover that they were observing, they would likely understand it to be annually. Is that not obvious?

4. In the first church they were breaking bread day by day in their homes along with taking of food with glad and generous hearts (Acts 2:46). The breaking of bread and partaking of food may mean the same thing, but again, they may not.

5. The time and frequency of participation in the Lord's Supper were not ordered or suggested by Jesus or inspired writers. One short sentence from one of them would have defined the matter forever. It was a matter of indifference to them. These decisions were left to the judgment of disciples in their different circumstances.

This fifth possibility is abhorrent to the legalist who feels that his right standing before God is attained by correctness of detailed procedures. But this answer is in true harmony with the aims and purposes of the Communion. The Supper is intended to keep the atonement by which we are saved ever fresh in our minds. It is a remembrance of his sacrifice and of his saving us in his one body. Those meanings are reinforced by taking tangible bread and wine representing the body and blood in a ritual ceremony with others. It is a participation, or sharing, in Christ with fellow disciples. It is a declaration that he is coming again.

What possible advantage could a certain time of day or day of the week offer in fulfilling those purposes? Disciples are free to decide whether the communion serves their purpose best weekly, daily, monthly, annually, or at chosen times on no set schedule. It is the purpose and benefit rather than a supposed law that should govern our participation.

Although our sincere people in the Church of Christ have loudly denounced others for their observance of special days, we have ignored the plain fact that we were demanding that the first day of the week be given special observance. Please read the chapter in this book titled "Thursday Is The Lord's Day Too!"

The strengthening value of meditation on the saving role of Jesus is not affected by the day of the week. The kind of container used has nothing to do with the purpose. Whether the bread is leavened or unleavened does not affect our mutual participation. Our proclamation of his return is not dependent upon the state of the grape juice, whether fresh or fermented. Whether bread or wine is taken first or both at the same time does not change the meaning of the memorial ritual. The oneness of the body is depicted whether it is served weekly or monthly. These various details are neither specified nor set forth as exclusive patterns. They are left to our judgment.

The purpose of the Communion is not to gain favor with God through correct rituals. It is not a sacrament through which God pours grace into the soul, nor does it remove sins. It is not a performance to prove to God that we are willing and able to obey commands in order "to be wellpleasing in thy sight." It does not serve as an attendance check for the Lord.

My plea is that we emphasize the meaning and purpose of the Supper instead of the technicalities of procedure. Let our participation be frequent enough to continually strengthen our faith and commitment. By it let us always be proclaiming that he is coming to receive us. May our unity with God in Christ and with all the saved in one body ever be emphasized so that we will cease rejecting other disciples. Let it ever remind us vividly of our participation in the atonement.

Let us live in appreciation of the communion, the fellowship, the sharing, the mutual participation in all the benefits of Christ.