00B.39 Chapter 32. The Lord's Supper

32. The Lord’s Supper LET A MAN EXAMINE HIMSELF The following letter presents a question which gives us an opportunity to study a much-abused passage of Scrip­ture. The letter speaks for itself:

Dawson, Texas, December 18, 1931.—My dear Brother Brewer: I want you to know that when you say a thing, I stop and consider; and in your comment on the Lord’s Supper in this week’s Gospel Advocate, I heartily concur with what you said. But you further said, in part, in the communion we are com­manded to "refuse to eat with an ungodly person." (1 Corinthians 5:11) Now, if I eat (this eating, whatever it is) with such a one knowingly, I disobey God, and therefore sin.

Suppose a brother that is known to be ungodly partakes before the emblems are passed to me, what am I to do? If I eat, I sin; and if I eat not, I fail to commune with the body and blood of Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:16.)

If the eating in both 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 and 1 Corinthians 11:1-34 is the same (Lord’s Supper), how can I obey both? In 1 Corinthians 5:11. I am not to eat with him, and in 1 Corinthians 11:28 I am to let him examine (prove) himself, and so let him eat. Will you please help me out of this difficulty? If 1 Corinthians 5:11, refers to a common meal, as is taught in "Queries and Answers," by Lipscomb and Sewell, page 193, I can understand; but as you seem to think it refers to the Lord’s Supper, I am puzzled.

We are well and busy. We are to have a meeting here during the holidays. I fear for the work at Jonesboro; but we could not do any good just now, so we came on here. Fisher Street congregation in Jonesboro is moving onward.

Brotherly,

H. D. JEFFCOAT. In meeting this brother’s difficulty we shall give some attention to both the passages involved—1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 11:28.

1. ”No, Not to Eat." In 1 Corinthians 5:11, Paul says: "I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat." Our brother says that Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell said that this passage refers to eating a common meal with the kind of "brother" Paul describes and that I made it refer to the Lord’s Supper. I cited this passage to show that we are not to have fellowship with, or to commune with, a so-called "brother" who is guilty of the sins Paul names. At no place do we manifest our fellowship for one another more than in the Lord’s Supper, which is the com­munion or the joint participation in the Lord’s body and blood. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17.) To say that the language of this text does not include the Lord’s Supper would be to ignore the teaching of the whole chapter—the one point o f the chapter. A man at Corinth—a brother—had been guilty of fornication. The apostle in this chapter very emphatically commands the brethren to deliver this man to Satan, to "purge out the old leaven," and closes the chapter, after his vigorous statement that with such a one they should not even eat, with the charge, "Put away the wicked man from among yourselves." Can anyone suppose that after this man had been "purged out," "put away" from among dis­ciples and delivered to Satan, with such a complete and stern decision that the disciples would not even eat a common meal with him, they would still eat the Lord’s Supper with him? Would a common meal show more friendship, equal­ity, and fellowship than the Lord’s Supper? If not, then, if the passage forbids the eating of a common meal with such a person, it certainly does forbid our allowing such a one to partake of the Lord’s Supper with our sanction and fellowship. The passage does refer to a common meal, but the whole context shows that such a man is to be put out of Christian fellowship, and of course this would debar him from the Lord’s Supper. There is no conflict at all between this and the twenty-eighth verse of the eleventh chapter when that verse is properly understood. That verse now demands our attention.

2. "Let a Man Examine Himself." This passage has been greatly abused. It has often been quoted in such a way and at such a time as to make the hearers understand it to teach that the question of whether or not a man is to commune with the saints, be a joint participant with them in the worship of God and in the privileges of a child of God, is left entirely with the individual; that the saints have no right and can claim no authority to say to any man that he is not a child of God or that his life is such that he has no "part nor lot in this matter" of eating the Lord’s Supper. To make the passage mean this is to make it contradict what is taught in the fifth chapter and at all other places where discipline is commanded. It would relieve every Christian of all responsibility for his brother’s conduct and make every man’s manner of life "nobody’s business." I t is his own affair; let him examine himself, and let others keep hands off. Every passage that teaches us to "admonish the disorderly" (1 Thessalonians 5:14), to pray for those whom we "see sin" (1 John 5:15), to "restore" those who are overtaken in a trespass (Galatians 6:1), to convert a brother "from the error of his way" (James 5:20), and to watch concerning the souls (Hebrews 13:17) of our brethren, refutes this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:28. These passages certainly teach that we are to "examine" one another, and the verse we are studying must not be made to contradict them.

Again, the passage is abused when it is quoted to make those who have never obeyed the gospel think that we do not know whether or not they are Christians, and that if they consider themselves as Christians they should join with us in eating the sacred supper.

We have often heard a brother come to the Lord’s table with the remarks (when any "talk" was inappropriate and his remarks especially inconsistent and detracting) that "we neither invite nor debar anybody from this table. The ques­tion of partaking of these emblems is left with the indi­vidual. The communion is so ’open’ that we exclude no one, and so ’close’ that we invite no one. Paul says, ’Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat’; and that is our doctrine. We do not presume to say who is a child of God and who is not a child of God." And so on ad nauseam. When, perhaps, just preceding this talk, the preacher had shown from the Scriptures that no one is a child of God who has not obeyed the gospel; that in obeying the gospel one must, in true faith and genuine repentance, be baptized into Christ, buried with him by baptism into death, and raised with him unto a newness of life; and had driven home the point that one who has not thus obeyed the gospel is not in Christ, is not a child of God, has no right to the privileges of God’s children and no reason to hope for salvation. Thus the preacher "presumed" to show a good many of the audience that they were not God’s children, but the brother reassured them in his "table talk." We do not hear things like this so often now, but we used to hear them often in the days when brethren did not have any better judgment or taste or respect for the Lord’s Supper than to use it to compliment some visiting brother who had a propensity to talk by asking him to "wait on the table." We used to have even in the home congregation, often, that kind of "vain talker," who would use the Lord’s table to get himself before the public and display his eloquence, his knowledge of the Scriptures, and his power in argumentation. The passage we are studying has been used by those who favor "open membership" among the "digressives." They argue that we have no right to demand baptism before we extend fellowship to any person, and gravely quote: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat." Their use of the passage is the same use that some of us have been making of it all through the years. But it is a gross per­version.

3. The Passage Examined. By putting the emphasis where it belongs in reading this verse we will see its meaning. We usually read it, "Let a man examine himself,” putting heavy emphasis upon "himself," which means that this is an individual matter and that no one has any right to think of any other than himself. But if we will read it, "Let a man examine himself," with proper emphasis upon the word "examine," we will get the correct idea. Instead of teaching that each disciple should disregard all others and think only of himself, the apostles teach the very re­verse. Some of the brethren at Corinth were disregarding, despising, and putting others to shame, and Paul condemned them for this. (Verse 22.) Certainly the apostle did not mean that the Corinthians should overlook the presence in their assembly of any heathen or person who was not in the body of Christ and either directly or indirectly tell them that it would probably be all right for them to eat the Lord’s Supper with the saints! That each one should examine himself, etc.! Everyone to whom Paul said, "Let a man examine himself," was a disciple, a member of the body of Christ, a part of the "church of God which is at Corinth." (1 Corinthians 1:2.)

Only a casual consideration of the context should enable anyone to see the meaning of our text. The people at Corinth had corrupted the Lord’s Supper. Their manner of celebrating this supper was outrageous. There were divi­sions or factions among them; hence, feelings of envy and jealousy were manifest in their worshiping assembly. They showed partiality, favoritism, and a partisan spirit. They were also guilty of gormandizing and drunkenness. The apostle condemned all this and admonished them to approach the Lord’s Supper in a grateful, reverent spirit; in a spirit of equality, humility, and brotherly love; to commune to­gether, and not to be divided into groups or factions. Each one was to examine himself to see if these feelings were in his bosom, and see that no wrong feeling or attitude pos­sessed him at that moment—not to see ifhe was a child of God or ifhe had ever obeyed the gospel. The examining had to do only with the condition of heart at the time of partaking of the emblems. It had reference only to the manner in which each disciple approached the Lord’s table. Since no one can know the condition of another person’s heart, of course this is a personal, individual matter. "Let a man examine himself." Since also it is easy for one to be deceived in one’s own motives and feelings, this examina­tion is necessary each time one comes to participate in this solemn service. The word "unworthily" in verses 27 and 29 clearly illustrates the point of the whole passage. It refers to the manner in which we eat the supper. It requires order, system, solemnity, and reverence in the manner of handling the whole service. It has long been pointed out by my brethren that "unworthily" indicates the manner of partak­ing, and yet they did not seem to realize that this is the whole point in the admonition, "Let a man examine him­self." Neither did they in many instances seem to know that in order to keep from eating "unworthily" they must have the service orderly, quiet, solemn, and that each one should enter into it with concentrated thoughts and humility of heart, remembering, thinking o f the Lord. Yet if we do not engage in this service in that frame of mind, we eat and drink damnation to our souls! How fearful! It is high time for us to quit using 1 Corinthians 11:28 as a proof text against the Baptist error of close communion and learn its teaching and apply it to ourselves. It applies against Baptists—the whole passage does—but that is not why Paul wrote it. There were no Baptists in Paul’s day. Paul wrote to in­struct and to regulate the church of God. Of course we cannot think of others and examine others while we are eating the Lord’s Supper, but that does not mean that we may not do so at any time. "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." We are to keep the church free from ungodliness as far as possible, and then there will be no unworthy person to partake with us. If such a person is present, we do no wrong in partaking of the emblems at the same time he does, unless we do so in full knowledge and acquiescence of his sin, thus fellowshiping his sin.

"NOT FORSAKING OUR OWN ASSEMBLINGTOGETHER"

Since we have recently been considering some things connected with the Lord’s Supper and the assembling of the saints, it seems appropriate to discuss at this time another passage of Scripture which has been misunderstood and misused in many instances. This text is Hebrews 10:25. We should notice first that Hebrews 10:19-25 are all one sentence. There is not a period until we come to the close of Hebrews 10:25. The whole passage is an exhortation. Three times he says "let us" in this sentence, and each time it is something special that they were admonished to do. It reads: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a great priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water, let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for he is faithful that promised: and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh." In studying this passage let us consider:

1. The Revised Version, from which we have quoted the text, has the words "our own" before the word "assembling." This indicated that the assembling referred to belonged distinctly and peculiarly to the Christians. This is in contrast with the meetings or assemblings of the Jews, in which some of the Jewish Christians still participated. The Greek word (episunago- gee) that is here used is. Our Own Assembling found at only one other place in the New Testament. It is used in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and refers to the gathering together of the redeemed to meet the Lord, but in our text it refers to the regular established meeting of the saints for the purpose of worship and ex­hortation. This meeting the Hebrew Christians were strict­ly admonished not to neglect or forsake. This is the true import of the passage. But incidentally we learn from it that even though some of the early Christians kept the Sabbath and met with the Jews in the temple for prayer and worship, they did this as Jews and not as Christians. They could not honor the name of Christ in such worship. They had their own assembling, in which they did honor Christ and partake of the emblems that represent his body and blood.

2. The Day Approaching. It can easily be established from the New Testament record and also from church history that the apostles and all disciples in the age im­mediately following the days of the apostles met for wor­ship upon the first day of the week, which they called the "Lord’s day." But the day approaching referred to in our text is not the Lord’s day. A close study of the meaning of the text and even of the wording of the entire passage will preclude the possibility of the conclusion that the day referred to is the Lord’s day. (1) The day that was approaching gave a solemn meaning to the apos­tle’s exhortation. It is given as an incentive for their meeting for mutual exhortations. It was a time of test and suffering and of judgment that was coming upon them, and made all the more imperative their encouraging and helping each other in the Christian life. (2) The near approach of the day should cause them to be the more in­sistent and fervent in their exhortations. To say that the day means the first day of the week and that the exhortation was for attendance upon the Lord’s-day meeting would make the apostle mean that the disciples should exhort one another a little on Monday, a little more on Tuesday, and still a little more on Wednesday, and then on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday they should become desperate in ex­horting each other to come to the assembly on the first day of the week. This would seem to show conclusively that the Lord’s day is not the day here mentioned. (3) To make this refer to the Lord’s day is exactly to reverse the apostle’s meaning. It would make him call upon the disciples to exhort one another to meet on the Lord’s day, whereas he was commanding them to meet on the Lord’s day to exhort one another. The meeting was for the purpose of mutual exhortation, admonitions, and helpfulness, and they were in such need of this helpfulness that the apostle strictly admonishes them not to forsake the assembling where they would receive the needed encouragement. The whole pas­sage stresses the fact that the Christians should "consider one another," "provoke unto love and good works," ex­hort "one another," and not to forsake their assembling where they had the greatest opportunity of exhorting one an­other. Because some of us have understood the day of this passage to mean the Lord’s day, and the exhorting that we are to do to mean that we are to exhort one another to meet on the Lord’s day, we have confined our exhortation to that one point. We have stressed the importance of the Lord’s-day meeting and neglected to admonish each other to proper living during all the days of the week. Some weak souls have, as a result of this, concluded that the whole duty of a Christian is to meet on the Lord’s day. When that is over, they think they are at liberty to give the rest of the day and all the rest of the week to serving self and seeking pleasure. Even the meetings have in some instances been formal, spiritless, and insipid. It has not been an hour of devotion, of inspirational singing, and of fervent exhortation. It has failed of the very purpose for which our text says the saints should assemble. Christians today, perhaps as much as in the days of Paul, need to consider one another, to provoke one another to love and good works, to exhort one another, and they should not now forsake "our own assembling," where such exhorting should be done.

3. To What Day Did the Apostle Refer? The day ap­proaching has occasioned some difference of opinions among Bible scholars and commentators. Some scholars have thought that it refers to the final judgment day; others have concluded that it refers to the destruction of Jeru­salem and the dispersion of the Jews. No scholar has ever taken the position that the day means the Lord’s day, or the first day of the week. Doctors Clarke and Macknight understand the day to mean the day of Jerusalem’s over­throw. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell, Milligan and Mc- Garvey, agreed with this conclusion. The following quota­tion from Brother Milligan on this point will make an ap­propriate conclusion to this article: To what does our author here refer? To the day of judgment, say Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, and others; when Christ will come in person to raise the dead and reward every man according to his works. But this interpretation is manifestly erroneous. To me, at least, it seems perfectly obvious that the apostle refers here to a day which both he and his brethren were looking for as a day that was then very near at hand, a day that was about to come on that gen­eration, and try the faith of many. And hence, I am constrained to think with Macknight, Scott, Stuart, and others, that the reference is most likely to the day of Jerusalem’s overthrow. Christ had him­self foretold the near approach of that event (Matthew 24:34); he had also spoken of the signs of its coming and of the great calamities that would accompany it (Matthew 24:4-41). No doubt, therefore, the Christians in Palestine were all looking forward with much anxiety to the time when this prophecy would be fulfilled. They would naturally speak of it as "the day": the day of trial; the day when, seeing Jerusalem encompassed with armies, they would themselves have to flee to the mountains. (Luke 21:20-22.)

If this is not the meaning of the apostle, I would then under­stand him as referring simply to the day when Christ comes in his providence to call on each individual to give an account of his stewardship. In this general sense the passage may be regarded like the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13), as an admonition and warning to all Christians in all ages and in all nations. But to refer it exclusively to the day when Christ will come in person to judge the world is clearly inadmissible.

"SHOULD THE EMBLEMS OF THE LORD’S BODY AND BLOOD BE TAKEN OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY AND CARRIED TO THOSE WHO ARE SICK AND NOT ABLE TO ASSEMBLE WITH THE CONGREGATION?" The following article states a position that has brought about some controversy among the brethren in Arkansas and perhaps at other places. I am asked to review the article and to point out whatever fallacies I may be able to detect. I am glad to give space to the article and to offer some com­ment. Please read it carefully:

It is by mutual agreement that I answer this question according to my understanding and submit it to Brother G. C. Brewer for his review with the understanding that neither of us ask for a reply.

Since written laws and written covenants from God to man the Lord has had a day or a number of days out of every so many days on which he has called an assembly of his people. These days of assembling served a twofold purpose: first, as a memorial of some great epoch of God’s dealing with the human race; second, as a day of public worship. All public worship has been circumscribed to day and place. In the old dispensation it was a geographical place on the earth— Jerusalem. (Deuteronomy 16:16; Deuteronomy 12:5-6; Deuteronomy 12:17-18; 2 Chronicles 30:1; 2 Chronicles 30:17-19.) These Scriptures teach two facts: first, that the Passover was to be observed in Jerusalem during the assembly; second, none only those present, those who assembled, ate of the supper. The ninth chapter of Numbers teaches that if it were ceremonially or physically impos­sible for a Jew to assemble to eat the passover, he was excused until the next date—a date that the Lord set—the second month and the fourteenth day. Can you imagine a Jew taking a piece of the Passover lamb, bitter herbs, and showbread, and going outside the city to administer this supper to some person who was sick and unable to attend the Passover? I am sure that you cannot. Because the Jews regarded this supper a very sacred and solemn affair, so much so that the fragments were burned immediately after supper. (What about those who take the emblems of the Lord’s body and blood and give it out to the children after the Lord’s Supper is over?)

Now, I am sure that the Passover is a type of the Lord’s Supper as surely as the lamb was a type of Christ. (See 1 Corinthians 5:7.) If these two institutions are type and antitype, there should be some similarity between them. They are unlike as to the frequency of observance. The Passover is limited by the expressions "month" and "day of the month," while the Lord’s Supper is limited by the expressions "week" and "day of the week," making one annually and the other weekly. But as to the assembling and eating in memory of some manifestation of God’s love they are alike. The Sabbath day with its observance in some points typifies the Lord’s day, and the eating of the twelve loaves typifies the Lord’s Supper in that there is a regular assembly of the priestly tribe with the eating of the showbread in that department of the tabernacle that typified the church. These twelve loaves were rep­resentative of the twelve tribes of Israel; our one loaf represents the Lord’s body. The Jews—that is, the priests, assembled every Sabbath to eat of these loaves in the holy place. (Leviticus 24:1-9.) We assemble the first day of every week to eat of the one loaf and to drink of the one cup. Now, can one imagine a priest taking a part of these loaves and going out of the holy place to give some sick priest a part of them? No. I am sure that none of us thinks of any eating of these loaves except the priests who assembled and went into the holy place. There is no example or necessary inference where any Jew ever offered to observe these ordinances other than in the place and on the day named by the Lord. Shall we have less regard for the Lord’s ordinances than did the Jews? Is the Lord’s Supper a less sacred ordinance than the Jewish shadows? That the Lord has one day for assembling is admitted by all who believe the Scriptures, and that day is the first day of the week. The direct command to assemble is recorded in Hebrews 10:25-28. The example to assemble is recorded in Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 1 Corinthians 11:20; 1 Corinthians 11:33. Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:20; 1 Corinthians 11:33 expressly state an assembly and give the exact purpose of this assembly: "When ye come together therefore into one place." "When ye come together to eat, tarry one for another." "When the disciples came together to break bread." If this does not prove that the Lord’s Supper is to be eaten in the assembly, and that the assembly should constitute all the Christians in a given vicinity, I fail to understand these passages of Scripture.

Most brethren admit that it is not necessary to carry the emblems to the sick—that the Lord does not require it; but if some brother requests that the emblems be brought to him, they will carry them out of the Lord’s appointed place to please this brother. Now, that seems just a bit queer to me. How does it happen that this is a thing that one may or may not do and still please the Lord? There is no other act of worship or service on which we would care to take such a stand. Some people talk that way about baptism. Again I say that this does not look good for those who speak where the Bible speaks and practice nothing but that which "is written."

Why would you take the emblems out of the assembly? Does the Lord require it? No. Is there an example or necessary infer­ence in all the Bible where such was done? No. Well, then, why do it? Just because some brother wants it done. Brethren, I say the highest authority any man has for such practice is a man’s request. Now, our progressive brethren have the same kind of authority for instrumental music that you have for taking the emblems out of the assembly and going promiscuously over town delivering them to the sick. I believe that I had rather use the in­strument without authority than to desecrate these emblems that have been sanctified by prayer and thanksgiving as well as by the Lord’s appointment. Matthew 18:20 will not justify the act, as Christ has given no such authority. The "in my name" will not let us use it for proof. Romans 16:4-5 was the appointed place of worship. It would be begging the question and without example for the whole congregation to change the regular place of worship and go to the home of some sick brother in order to let him partake of the emblems. If it is not a sin to practice such a custom, it can be no more than a joke, so far as the worship is concerned; for God de­mands that all worship him in his own appointed way. When it is impossible to do the thing that the Lord commands, then he excuses us. It is only mockery to try to do the things that the Lord has commanded in a different way from the way he commanded it to be done.

Submitted in love of the truth and all the brethren.

A. H. LANNOM.

COMMENTS

• In reasoning on the types and antitypes our brother fails to make a proper distinction. The worship in the type was to be offered at a stated place at all times. This was a specially sanctified place where the Lord’s name was re­corded and where he promised to meet his people. But under the new covenant there is no special spot that is set apart as a place for worship. The worship is not limited as to location or circumscribed by geographical boundaries. At any place where saints are gathered together in the name of Christ on the Lord’s day any act of worship that is author­ized of the Lord may be performed. The fact that there is a place agreed upon and appointed by the saints of a town, city, or community where they regularly assemble for wor­ship does not make it impossible for them to worship at any other place in the town, city, or community. The place was not prescribed or appointed by the Lord; it was arranged by the saints themselves as a matter of convenience. Then when convenience requires that they or any number of them meet somewhere else, they may do so scripturally.

• It is true that the disciples should come together "into one place," or that they should assemble for worship, and one item of this worship is the Lord’s Supper. But our brother says this assembly should include all the Christians in a given community. There is an element of truth in that reasoning, and yet there seems to be a fallacy here. If all the Christians of a "given community" must be gathered into one group before they can worship, then we cannot have more than one congregation in any town or city. Two or more groups worshiping at different places in the city would be unscriptural, according to that argument. And what would be the limits of a "given community"? Would city limits or county lines mark the boundaries? Perhaps we could not have more than one congregation in a county. This should enable us all to see the error in that claim.

• But our brother may claim that we can have any number of congregations in a "given community," but that each church should consist of a known number of members, and that the "assembly" at each place would consist of all the "known numbers," or of all the members who are on the roster or roll at each place. Again, there is an element of truth in this claim. That would be the complete or ideal or perfect assembly at each place. But shall we wait until we have a one-hundred-per-cent attendance of the members before we can worship? I am sure our brother would give a negative answer to that question. Then how many of them would have to be together in order to worship? Suppose two or three have come together, could they eat the Lord’s Supper, provided they are in the regular place of worship? Then why could not two or three meet at some other place— in a sickroom, for instance—and worship scripturally?

• Our brother speaks of carrying the emblems "out of the Lord’s appointed" place to please a brother. But here is the whole trouble: The Lord has n o appointed place, as shown above. The saints appointed the place themselves. But our brother says the "assembly" is the appointed place. True, but we have seen that the assembly may consist of only two or three members of a given congregation. And if they agree to meet in a sickroom, that makes that an appointed place. If they had not appointed it, they would not have known to go there, hence to meet or assemble there.

• Our brother contends that if we make our worship with a sick member depend upon the member’s request, we are saying that it is an act of worship that we may do or not do at will. But the point is this: No act of worship that is authorized of the Lord may be changed by us or accepted or rejected by us at our pleasure, if we wish to please Jehovah. We must accept all when possible. But when it is impossible for us to do the thing that is commanded we are not responsible and are not condemned for failing to do that which we could not do. When a member is confined to his home or to a hospital because of illness, he cannot go to the place of assembly for worship. Then he is not expected to go to that place. But while it is impossible for him to go to the regular place of worship, it may not be impossible for him to worship acceptably where he is, if some other brethren will come and worship and commune with him. Since his physical and mental condition must determine whether this worshipshould be held with him or not, we should wait for his request, and we should also consult his physician. Often it would not be prudent to conduct a service in the sickroom.

This is the reason the matter is made to depend upon a man’s request, and it certainly does not lay down a premise upon which a man may request some unauthorized act of worship. The thing done in this case is the thing com­manded.

Having shown that Brother Lannom is in error in saying that it is never right to take the emblems to the sick, I wish now to commend much that he says, and especially the protest that he makes against prostituting the Lord’s Supper to our own convenience. An earnest and thoughtful study of all that he says will do good. There can be no doubt that we have in some instances made a wrong use of the Lord’s Supper. We have put an overemphasis or a wrong emphasis upon this sacred supper. It sounds para­doxical to say that we have made the supper too sacred, too important—that we have made it a fetish—and at the same time to say that we have secularized the supper, we have adapted it to our own convenience and carried it about with us as a heathen carries the image of an idol; but in some cases I fear we have done this very thing. How else would you describe the attitude of the man toward this in­stitution who will disregard practically all else that the Lord teaches, and feels that he is in full fellowship with Christ if only h e partakes o f the emblems? He disregards the singing and doesn’t even come to the worship until the singing is over; but if he gets there for the supper, he feels perfectly all right. He never obeys God in the matter of giving (he puts something on the plate, of course) and has no qualm of conscience on that point, but he would not dare miss the Lord’s Supper! He disregards the Lord’s day and will play golf, go to a baseball game, or go fishing, but he manages or contrives some plan by which he may partake of the emblems sometime during the day! H e could not afford to miss that! He will perhaps insist that the brethren hold over the scraps of the supper and let him partake at night! And the brethren will actually do this for him! Yet—and yet, mark it—if some brother in "waiting on the table" at the morning service should break the loaf before he gives thanks, there would be a protest from many brethren. But these same brethren think it perfectly scriptural to give thanks for the fragments at night!

I can speak for myself only. I do not desire to force anyone to conform to my idea about this Sunday-night communion, but neither do I want brethren to force me to do that which is abhorrent to my soul. I will not participate in any such a secondhand, leftover, side-line, makeshift service. If I cannot be present at the regular, appointed hour and join the saints in remembering my Lord, then my failure to be there is no sin. I am excused. If I could be there, but stay away for my own benefit, convenience, or pleasure, then I have made the Lord second choice and his service subordinate to my business or pleasure, and there­fore any pretense at obedience would be hypocritical mock­ery. Please excuse me. As to taking the emblems out. This has been overdone. We have taken the emblems and given them to a brother as a priest gives "mass" or "extreme unction" to a sick per­son. We should not give the emblems to a person, but we should partake o f them with a brother. They even make a "pocket" communion set called a "ministerium," which the priest or "ordained minister" may use in taking "holy com­munion" or "mass" to the sick. I have known of some of my brethren’s using that little pocket set. Why not? If we are going to take the emblems to a number of persons, of course we should prepare for it. The Lord’s Supper is a communion . One person cannot commune. It takes two or more to commune. Someone may say that we commune with Christ. Very true, but we also commune with each other. If not, why should we be commanded to refuse to eat with an ungodly person? (1 Corinthians 5:11.) Again, Paul says: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:16-17.) We all partake, we jointly participate in an act, which, therefore, is a communion and proves us to be one body.

If we have the Lord’s Supper with the sick, two or three or more should partake with the brother and not let the preacher, like a priest, give to him the supper. "Think on these things." The Lord’s Day The expression, "the Lord’s day," occurs only one time in the Bible. (Revelation 1:10.) There has been some controversy as to what day is here meant. We understand it to refer to the first day of the week, but the Sabbatarians insist that it refers to the Sabbath—the seventh day of the week, or Saturday. But the Sabbath had been known for more than fifteen hundred years, and it is mentioned more than sixty times in the New Testament, and many more times in the Old Testament, and yet it is never referred to as the Lord’s day. Is it not strange that the inspired writers could talk so much about the Sabbath and never designate it as the Lord’s day until we come to the last book in the Bible and the end of revelation? The seventh day of the week had a name—Sabbath. This name was always used by Bible writers after the days of Moses to designate the seventh day. They spoke of the other days by numerical designa­tions (they had no names), as, the first day, the second day, and so on, but they always spoke of the seventh day as the Sabbath. Then why did John depart from this universal custom and invent a new name for the Sabbath at so late a date? Is it not evident that the term "Lord’s day" was new in John’s day and that it designated a day that his readers would well understand? But the Sabbatarians tell us that the seventh day is spoken of as "the sabbath of the Lord [unto Jehovah, R. V.] thy God," therefore the Lord’s day; and also called "my holy day." (Isaiah 58:13-14.) If it is the Lord’s holy day, of course it is the Lord’s day, we are told naively. They further re­mind us that Christ said: "The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mark 2:28.) If he is Lord of that day, it is his day, therefore the Lord’s day. To these people these passages afford conclusive proof that "Lord’s day" means the Sabbath day.

Let us look at these Scriptures. The first declares that the seventh was a Sabbath unto Jehovah. The King James translation says "of the Lord," but the word for "Lord" there is not the same word that is used in Revelation 1:10. In this New Testament passage we have the word Kuriake— Lord. This word occurs in only one other place—viz., 1 Corinthians 11:20. There it refers to the "Lord’s supper," and we know the word "Lord" there means Christ. Kuriakos —the nomi­native form of the word—therefore designates the Lord Jesus Christ. Kuriakon deipnon means "the Lord’s supper," and Kuriake hemera means the "Lord’s day." Of course, since the word "Lord" here means Christ, this refers to some day connected with Christ. What day of our Lord’s life would we select as worthy of being set apart by a special designation as the Lord’s day? Would not the day of his resurrection, the day of his triumph, suggest itself at once as the one day that would thus be signalized? We shall see later that it was thus honored, but at this point we want the reader to think for himself just what day he would suppose worthy of this honor. The second passage cited by the Sabbatarians (Isaiah 58:13-14) also refers to Jehovah—to the Father and not to the Son. And it was addressed to the Jews, to whom only the seventh-day Sabbath was given. Jehovah said: "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleas­ure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, ... I will . . . feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father." This definitely fixes the ones addressed as the sons of Jacob. The fact that the Sabbath was Jehovah’s holy day under the Mosaic dispensation does not prove anything for the Sabbath now. All the Jewish feasts were holy. They had holy convocations often. Mount Sinai is called the "holy mount" and the temple at Jerusalem was God’s holy house. In fact, everything that was set apart for God’s service was holy. When the seventh-day men refer to Mark 2:28, they always misquote it. They leave out one little word and thereby change the meaning. The word is "also." "The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." By leaving out that word "also," it makes it look as if Christ is Lord only of the Sabbath—the Lord of that one day. But when we read it with the word "also" or "even" in its place, we see that Christ is Lord of all days, the Sabbath included. The Sabbath also. This, therefore, proves nothing for the Sab­bath under Christ. It proves that Christ, being Lord of the Sabbath, had the right to use it as he pleased and to abolish it when he pleased. This he did by his death on the cross. (Colossians 2:14-16.) But in their desperate effort to show that the term "Lord’s day" does not refer to the first day of the week, the Sabbatarians say that if the expression means that, John would have said "first day of the week" just as he does in the Gospel. They do not seem to see that we can turn this right back upon them. If John meant to designate the Sabbath day, why did he not say "sabbath" just as he does in his Gospel? He uses the name "sabbath" many times in his Gospel. He never spoke of it as the Lord’s day. Nor did any other inspired man. At the time John wrote his Gospel it is probable that the first day of the week was not then being called "the Lord’s day." It would not be at all inconsistent with the general introduction of the new order to say that this name was not given till some years after the disciples were wor­shiping on that day. It was more than ten years after Pentecost before the disciples were first called "Christians." But to further try to carry their point, the Sabbatarians say that the Gospel by John was not written till after the Revelation was written, and if the term "Lord’s day" was then in common use for the firs t day of the week, John would certainly have used it in his Gospel. We first reply, ad hominem, that if John invented a new name for the Sabbath at the time of the Revelation, he would certainly have made use of it in his later work.

It is by no means certain that the Gospel was written after Revelation. The date of neither is definitely known, but the consensus of opinion seems to favor A.D. 96 as the date of Revelation. We can hardly suppose that the apostle John lived and wrote very long after this. Some modern scholars say that the Gospel was written at a later date, but that is not alarming. The modernists reject the Gospel of John altogether. If John did write his Gospel after the name "Lord’s day" had come into use, he was telling of things that had transpired long years ago, and it would be only natural for him to use the terms that were in use at the time of the events that he was narrating instead of at the time he was writing. If we were now writing of some­thing that took place on the Fourth of July in some year prior to 1776, we would not speak of this as happening upon Independence Day. That the Lord’s day of Revelation 1:10 means the first day of the week, the day Christ arose from the dead, there is almost universal agreement among scholars. The lexicons and encyclopedias and Bible dictionaries and church histories all in one voice say that the early Christians—those of the second century even—used the term "Lord’s day" when referring to the first day of the week, and that John so used it in Revelation. The writers who lived in the first part of the second century were contemporary with the apostle John, and some of them were his pupils. They spoke of their day of worship as the "Lord’s day"—the day of our Lord’s resurrection.

There can hardly be a doubt in the mind of an unbiased investigator that the Lord’s day is the first day of the week, or our Sunday. This being true, is not the fact that God saw proper thus to honor and signalize that day sufficient reason for us to give the day special recognition and honor? If it is in no way different from other days, why this special designation? Is it not the Lord’s day in some sense that other days are not the Lord’s days? Should we claim it for our day and use it in our own interest or our own pleasure? If we do this, will we not thus rob the Lord of that which belongs to him in a special way? The Lord’s day should be given to the Lord, surely. THE LORD’S DAY

We have seen that the first day of the week is the Lord’s day in a sense that no other day is the Lord’s day. It is peculiarly honored. It is distinguished from other days by a name that was never given to any other day. It is hal­lowed by memories that reach the depth of human souls and climb to the most consummate heights of human hopes. It is not a holy day by divine statute or legal enactment. We are not to keep it by compulsion of law or suffer death, as the Jews had to keep the Sabbath or be stoned to death. (Exodus 31:15.) It is not a day that is exalted above other days by law as a day holy and sacred by legal rigors, to be ob­served by slavish fear and the slaughter of lambs, as was the Sabbath. (Numbers 28:9.) If it were that sort of day, it would be out of harmony with all things else in the new institution. We are sons and not slaves. The "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" of the old covenant has given way to the strong inducements of love in the new covenant. In the old order the people were under the strict law of the tithe, while in the new we give voluntarily as we are pros­pered, as we purpose in our hearts, and not as stipulated by law or by governing officials. And all Christian service is to be done freely, cheerfully, and gratefully. Therefore, the first day of the week, the Lord’s day, is a day of joy and rejoicing, of worship and praise, and this worship and praise arises voluntarily from the redeemed souls of God’s free children and is not a service enforced on penalty of death. It is not so much the day that is reverenced as it is the Lord that is remembered. And yet the day deserves to be honored and is honored by a special name. If our birthdays and our wedding days deserve to be remembered and celebrated be­cause events important to our lives took place upon those days, what shall be our attitude toward the Lord’s day? If the day of our nation’s independence deserves to be cher­ished and commemorated, what shall we say of the day on which God "hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead"? (Mark 16:9; 1 Peter 1:3.) And what shall we say of the professed Christian who has no special respect or reverence for the day? "This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalms 118:24.)

Since this day is not made sacred by statutory law, but rose into sacredness by the innate power and peculiar grandeur of the facts it celebrates, it behooves us to know all these facts and their scriptural significance. Let us, therefore, consider the day in Types, Fact, History.

The Jewish feasts of Passover and Pentecost had a pe­culiar arrangement of days, which it is worth while to consider in the light of New Testament allusions.

There are frequent allusions to the above:

With these allusions in view, we feel that there is a striking coincidental—not to say antitypical—significance in the following:

• Christ, our paschal lamb, was slain.

• The succeeding Sabbath—the last of the Jewish Sabbaths—he kept in the grave.

• On "the morrow after the sabbath"—the first day of the week—he came forth from the dead, "the firstfruits o f them that slept." the earnest of a bountiful harvest that is to be gathered into the heavenly garners.

• Fifty days afterwards, which brings us to another first day of the week, "when the day of Pentecost was fully come," the "firstfruits of the Spirit" were realized, and the first fruits from the white fields of humanity were waved before the Lord in the offering of about three thousand con­verted sinners to God. The new law went forth from Mount Zion; the newly exalted King was on his throne—the throne of his father David—and his chosen ambassadors began that day to act under his reign and authority. The first church of Christ was planted, and all the members brought a freewill offering and laid it down at the feet of the apostles. As we now have a new Lawgiver. a new law, a new institution (the church), new terms of admission into the new covenant, and a new worship, so we also have a new day —a day cor­responding to the most significant day of the Passover Feast, "the morrow after the Sabbath," and to the day on which the feast of the harvest was celebrated and the giving of the law commemorated.

The keystone of redemption’s arch is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." It consummated the work of redemption. He was "declared to be the Son of God with power, ... by the resurrection from the dead." (Romans 1:4.) It is the eternal triumph over the grave. It is the rising of the sun of immortality to them that sat in the valley and shadow of death. It is the denouement of the divine scheme which began to operate for man’s salvation when the dark shadow of sin first fell upon the earth. It is the rolling back of the stone from the door of humanity’s tomb and the victorious upspringing of the captive human race into endless life; the chains broken, the prison doors opened, he who had the power of death is hurled from his throne with scepter broken, and captivity led captive at the chariot wheels of the risen and ascending Conqueror. Death is abolished. Life reigns. Broken and bleeding hearts are bound up. The mourners in Zion receive beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, and the garments of praise for the spirit of heaviness. "The power of an endless life" thrills the despairing heart with rapturous joy, and divine strength uplifts the dejected soul and exalts it to the sublimest heights of a glorious hope.

Jesus is risen—man is immortal! Shall this not be commemorated? Shall the tragedy of the cross and the triumph of the resurrection remain un­celebrated? Shall we sing of earthly heroes, and keep feast days in honor of earthly deliverances, and shall there be no victory song for our risen Savior? Shall we not celebrate with gladsome songs and eternal gratitude the Miracle of Love that led the sinless Sufferer to the cruel cross, and the Miracle of Power that brought again our Lord Jesus from the dead? Through all the endless years of eternity, this day must be distinguished as the Lord’s day, the "day the Lord hath made," and in which death-doomed mortals will have reason to "rejoice and be glad." It needs no law like that of Sinai to cause redeemed spirits to rejoice and to give this day to the Lord, who made it glorious and gave it the holy name of "Lord’s day."

From the first the disciples assembled upon the first day of the week and assigned to it the significance to which it was entitled. (John 20:19-27; Acts 2:1-4; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.) Before the apostolic age had closed and inspiration had ceased to write for our learning and guidance the day was given its appropriate and sacred name. On into the second century we follow it, and find it universally honored and revered by the Christians. At its dawn they slipped away from their work, the slaves from their masters, and all from their enemies, to their dens and caves, to worship their risen Lord and partake of the feast that commemorated his death and suffering. On through the third century we follow the day until we find the emperor espousing the new religion, and therefore making this day a legal holiday so that Christians could have convenience and protection in keeping the day in honor of their Lord. And so on over the centuries the day comes in its march of victory until in all Christian lands it is now a legal holiday, and by all professed followers of the risen Christ, with the exception of a few who worship the Sabbath instead of the Christ, it is recog­nized and honored as the Lord’s day. It is a double monu­ment to our Lord. It does not merely give recognition and honor to the teaching of a modernist’s Jesus; it is not merely a traditional religious custom that is based on the supposed ideas of a mythical character. It celebrates the miracle of his resurrection which forever lifts him out of the class of mere human beings and proclaims him the Son of the Living God and both Lord and Christ. "O, come, let us adore him!"