Why Consider Celebrating the Lord's Supper only Once a Year?

2) The LOGICAL Argument

Now let's move out of the realm of logic and into the realm of history.  Remember there are two New Testament ordinances that we have been given as the Church.  1) Baptism--which took the place of Old Testament circumcision.  How often did Jewish people need to be circumcised in the Old Testament?  Once in their lifetime (thank God)!  How often do we need to be baptized according to the New Testament?  Once in our lifetime!  2) Communion--which took the place of the Old Testament Passover celebration.  How often did Jewish people memorialize Passover in the Old Testament?  Once a year!  So how often should we have the "memorial service" of Communion?  Once a year!  

Let me share with you a few quotes to illustrate the connection with Passover and Communion! Dr. John O. Gooch (Ph.D in Historical Theology) wrote: “In the first century, the Lord’s Supper included not only the bread and the cup but an entire meal. As part of the meal, neighbors who had quarreled made peace again. Early Christians continued to observe the Jewish Passover. But they did not celebrate the Passover in memory of deliverance from Egypt. Instead, they fasted to commemorate the sufferings of Jesus, the true Passover Lamb” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1993/issue37/3702.html).  Dr. Albert Henry Newman (Ph.D in Old & New Testament and the founder of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) wrote: “The departure of the church of the second and third centuries from the apostolic standard was by no means confined to the matter of baptism. The same influences soon caused the Lord's Supper to be looked upon no longer as a memorial feast in which believers partook in a purely symbolical way of the broken body and the poured-out blood of their crucified, risen, and glorified Lord, but rather as a mystic ceremony to be celebrated with elaborate ritual. This change was likewise due to pagan influences brought to bear chiefly through the Gnostic sects” (A History of Anti-Pedobaptism, Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1897, pg. 10).

I believe that the Lord's Supper, like many points of doctrine found in the New Testament, has fallen into the hands of Church tradition that has been passed down from one generation to the next without ever being considered or questioned.  Jude (the half brother of Jesus) says: "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3 NKJV).  The big question then is “What is the Lord’s Supper?” Today different church denominations take this sacred ordinance in different ways.  The Catholic Church claims that the bread and wine literally is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation).  Martin Luther believed that although the bread and wine didn't literally turn into the body and blood of Christ, that somehow mystically He was actually literally physically present among them (consubstantiation).

Living at the same time as Luther was another pastor/theologian by the name of Ulrich Zwingli. He and Luther agreed about many doctrines but never could agree on Christ's presence in the Eucharist. As a side note, the word Eucharist comes from the Greek EUCHARISTOS, which is usually rendered as “thanksgiving” in our English translations. And how often do we celebrate a “thanksgiving” in America? Once a year! Are we called to be thankful every day? YES! But we have a special celebration only once a year! Anyway, what Zwingli believed about Communion is what I believe is the biblical teaching—that the Lord’s Supper is to be a “memorial.” That we should take our cue from Scripture and not tradition! He believed that there is no special conveyance of grace or Christ’s literal or mystical presence is intended by the New Testament authors or even Jesus Himself. That being the case Zwingli believed that Communion should only be celebrated once a year.

A few years later pastor/theologian, John Calvin came along.  He studied the teachings of both of these men and he decided to take a middle of the road approach which most reformed churches have followed ever since. Calvin said that the Lord’s Supper is much more than just a “memorial.” He believed it to be a time in which we are spiritually fed and nourished and when we meet the risen Christ. Therefore, it should be frequent. To be honest, I’m not totally sure what exactly he meant by that but he obviously believed it to be mystical in some way. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion he said twice, "The Lord’s Supper should be administered at least once a week." Incidently, many churches today (like the one I grew up in) only take Communion four times a year—this tradition is nothing new.  It started when the city council in Geneva, Switzerland refused to let John Calvin administer Communion once a week and would only let him offer it four times a year, because they had been heavily influenced previously by Ulrich Zwingli! In my next post, I would like to switch gears one more time and get to the most important topic, which is what the Scripture has to say for itself on this subject. This always trumps logic and history.