Taking Communion Once a Year?

[carlosstjohn]

This past Easter, I visited a local reformed church to check out. There was a side note he mentioned regarding why the scriptures only mandate the communion to be taken once a year.

To summarize his argument, he essentially explained the story of the exodus and how the celebration of the Passover came into effect. He argued that the Jews had practiced Passover, as the law commanded, once a year, in the certain month of etc etc (honestly don't remember all the timing specifics, but you get the point). So when you look at the timing of the cross and when Jesus was sacrificed, it fell right in line with the Passover celebration. So Jesus, when he ate his last supper with the 12 before being arrested and executed to celebrate Passover, he changed the meaning of Passover. Or, more correctly, he revealed the true meaning of Passover. "You've celebrated this for 1000+ years and you've reflected back on how God delivered you from captivity in Egypt. Now, 'as often as you do this, do this in remembrance of me'". So Jesus made Passover about Himself now.

So the "as often as you do this", the pastor argued, meant once a year because he was telling them as often as you celebrate the Passover. Which to any Jewish person at the time, they would've known what that meant. They would've understood that as once a year. As an example, it's like saying "as often as you celebrate Easter, be sure to do x". Well any Christian would automatically understand that to be once a year.

So he concluded that many churches in America practice communion multiple times a month or once a month or whenever you chose to, but that the scriptures would mandate a different method.

Ever since I heard that message, I have not participated in communion at my church just because I have not been sure of what to do with this compelling argument. I mean he laid it out very biblically, contextually, and historically. It all checked out. And I know his other theology is correct so he's credible. So I have kept myself from participating just on the chance he could be correct, just to be pre cautionary.

What do yall think? Help me out here! Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chuckd]

That doesn't make sense. As often as you eat the Passover... We don't eat the (old) Passover anymore so we would never do it. If Jesus made Passover about Himself now, then the argument becomes circular and we can celebrate it as often as we want.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

You can respect a person who is trying to make a biblical argument, even as you recognize there may be better arguments than his. Passover was always about more than the past salvation, but also the coming Salvation. Passover is done, gone. The Lord's Supper isn't the Passover.

In 1Cor.11:25-26, first in the mouth of Jesus, then Paul's own adoption of the term, we're given the language, "as often" as you keep the Supper (not Passover). With that alone as our direction, it is possible to detect some flexibility in the ordination of when and how often to hold Communion.

The NT gives us no "church calendar," as Israel possessed. If the supper belonged once a year at most, with Passover as the pattern, would it not stand to reason that the time of year was also commanded? Shouldn't all the churches be on that "schedule" if the Old Covenant was the pattern? I don't see any evidence this was apostolic teaching.

Moreover, if we would expect Paul (and other missionaries) to institute a whole program of essential Christian worship by precept and by example, wouldn't it be needful to show each church-plant the Lord's Supper? How could one missionary do that in more than one place in a given year? We know Paul planted multiple churches in a single year. Or did the apostles follow a different rule? Did the year start in each church on their own anniversary?

The missionary, dispersed nature of the NT church's inception is an argument against a church-wide, once-a-year celebration of communion, because not only the apostles but people in general traveled about the ancient world. Travelers would have as much likelihood of celebrating the supper somewhere other than home, by attending worship in another city or church. So, the common faith would be recognized by both doctrine and practice. This would be highly significant for demonstrating church-unity (catholicity, small-C) from the outset.

I argue the NT does not ordain frequency. I should hope a faithful church would have more than sufficient reason to have the Supper at least once a year. Some will have it at other intervals, perhaps as much as weekly. There are reasons churches increase or decrease the frequency, some with good reason, others not so good. The church you've visited has their reasons for their choice. Others have as good (or better) reasons for greater frequency.

 

[TylerRay]

The argument hinges on the idea that our Lord transformed the Passover feast into the Lord's Supper. That idea is rather prevalent, but doesn't have a whole lot of biblical warrant. The Supper is not the Passover. It represents many of the same things as the Passover, but it isn't the Passover.

That line of reasoning always leads to judaizing. The pastor you mentioned judaized the Sacrament by limiting it to the day of the Jewish feast. Others judaize the Sacrament by forbidding leavened bread to be used. None of this has to do with the scriptural teaching on the Supper; it only comes from inferences from the circumstances which surrounded the institution of the Supper.

As far as the Reformed tradition goes (or at least the Presbyterian one), the Westminster Larger catechism, question 117 states, "The Lord's Supper is to be administered often;" and the Directory for Public Worship states, "The Communion, or Supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated." The historical context of these statements is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church, which at the time celebrated the Supper once a year.