them to prison?; <451605>Romans 16:5 ? ?salute the church that is in their house [rather, ?in their worship room?]?; <560111>Titus 1:11 ? ?men who overthrow whole houses (rather, ?whole worship rooms?] teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre?s sake.? Per contra, however, see <461134> 1 Corinthians 11:34 ? ?let him eat at home,? where oi=kov is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also <461435>1 Corinthians 14:35 and
<442020> Acts 20:20, where oi=kov ; seems to mean a private house.
The celebration of the Lord?s Supper in each family by itself is not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, In Nineteenth Century, May 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden in the Western Church, evening communion is forbidden by the Roman Church, solitary communion is forbidden by the English Church and deathbed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G. Robinson: ?No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord?s Supper by himself.? Mrs. Browning recognized the essentially social nature of the ordinance when she said that truth was like the bread at the Sacrament ? to be passed on. In this the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.
Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord?s Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing or prayer and that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an organized, church, but only to individuals. Every meal in the home was to be a Lord?s Supper, because Christ was remembered in it. But we reply that Paul?s letter with regard to the abuses of the Lord?s Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to ?the church of God, which is at Corinth.? ( <460102>1 Corinthians 1:2). Paul reproves the Corinthians because in the Lord?s Supper each ate without thought of others: ?What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?? (11:22). Each member having appeased his hunger at home, the members of the church ?come together to eat? (11:30), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that the celebration of the Lord?s Supper was not an appendage to every ordinary meal.
In <442007>Acts 20:7 ? ?upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paid discoursed with them? ? the natural inference is that the Lord?s Supper was a sacred rite, observed apart from any ordinary meal and accompanied by religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later observances to the original command of our Lord. He would eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel. But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son and the discourses of the fourth
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?