{"id":312,"date":"2021-05-12T17:19:26","date_gmt":"2021-05-12T17:19:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/angelobiblestudy.com\/?page_id=312"},"modified":"2021-05-12T17:20:37","modified_gmt":"2021-05-12T17:20:37","slug":"sunday-and-the-lords-supper","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/angelobiblestudy.com\/?page_id=312","title":{"rendered":"Sunday and The Lord’s Supper"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Sunday and The Lord's Supper<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The idea that all people are obligated to conform their thinking and their actions to the teaching of Jesus Christ is not a popular notion these days\u2014even among Christians. Many desire to\u00a0feel<\/strong>\u00a0religiously authentic and pleasing to God, but few think that acceptance by God is predicated upon their own conformity to divine legislation. In fact, those who urge people to be conscientious about compliance with the details of God\u2019s Word are decried as \u201clegalists\u201d (see\u00a0Miller<\/a>, 2003). Of course, this antinomian spirit is in direct conflict with the thrust of the Bible from beginning to end. God always has expected people to conform themselves to His stipulations (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Obedient human response is a manifestation of one\u2019s love (John 14:15; John 15:14; 1 John 5:3).<\/p>

The New Testament conveys specific information regarding the \u201cwhat, when, how, and why\u201d of the observance the Lord\u2019s Supper. Nevertheless, most within Christendom assign no significance to frequency. To them, one may partake of the Lord\u2019s Supper once each month, quarter, or year. However, Scripture is in conflict with this thinking (Brownlow, 1945, pp. 168-175). The biblical view is that God intends for the church to observe the Lord\u2019s Supper every first day of the week, i.e., every Sunday. A more recent wrinkle of innovation is the insistence that the Lord\u2019s Supper may be observed on days of the week other than Sunday (e.g., Atchley, 1989; Hood, 1990, p. 15; Mayeux, 1989, 46:6). But what does the Bible teach?<\/p>

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS<\/h2><\/div>

Shortly before His death, Jesus observed the Old Testament feast of unleavened bread. In the process, He instituted the Lord\u2019s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20) and told His disciples that this \u201ccommunion\u201d (1 Corinthians 10:16) would be observed in the kingdom (Matthew 26:29). The bread and the fruit of the vine were to function as symbols for the body and blood of Jesus that soon would be offered on the cross as the sacrifice for the world. When is this practice of observing the Lord\u2019s Supper to be done? On\u00a0Sunday<\/strong>?\u00a0Every<\/strong>\u00a0Sunday?\u00a0Only<\/strong>\u00a0on Sunday?<\/p>

One key consideration is the early church\u2019s practice under the apostles\u2019 guidance. After all, Jesus specifically predicted that after His departure from Earth, the Holy Spirit would enable the apostles to implement the teachings of Christ in the establishment of the church and the launching of the Christian religion (John 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15). Just prior to His ascension, He commissioned the apostles to preach the Gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). Hence, the New Testament reports what early Christians and churches practiced as a direct result of the teachings of Christ as mediated through the apostles. How churches observed the Lord\u2019s Supper, beginning in the book of Acts, is unquestionably a reflection of apostolic influence and inspired precedent. As McGarvey well noted:<\/p>

It is axiomatic that the Lord, who instituted ordinances for observance in the church, knew the precise manner of their observance which would best secure the spiritual ends had in view; and consequently every loyal soul feels impelled to preserve them precisely in the manner of their first institution, when that can be ascertained…. [O]ur only safety…is to be found in copying precisely the form instituted by divine authority (1910, pp. 342-343).<\/p><\/blockquote>

A second key factor concerns the significance of Sunday. Does the New Testament assign any special meaning to Sunday? One cannot help but take note of the fact that Jesus\u2019 resurrection took place on Sunday (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). After His resurrection, Jesus met with His disciples on Sunday (John 20:19,26). Pentecost was a Jewish feast day (Leviticus 23:15ff.), and it was on this feast day, ten days after the ascension of Jesus, that the church was established\u2014on Sunday (see McGarvey, 1892, p. 19; Brewer, 1941, pp. 325-326). New Testament churches assembled on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). They observed the Lord\u2019s Supper on that day (Acts 20:7). In harmony with Revelation 1:10, early Christians began calling Sunday \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d (Swete, 1911, p. 13). How can even the casual reader miss this repetition? Without a doubt, the day Sunday is infused with considerable religious significance.<\/p>

Another implied factor is the deafening silence of the New Testament with regard to the special significance of Saturday (or any other day). Other than Sunday, Saturday is the only serious contender for a day of religious significance. However, observance of the Sabbath was unquestionably a feature of only Judaism, not Christianity\u2014though the infant church was exclusively Jewish and initially reluctant to abandon Mosaic practice (Acts 11:19; 15:1,5; 21:12). The same is true with regard to early church history. While certainly not the deciding criterion for New Testament Christians, early church history confirms that Acts 20:7 is not an incidental reference. Observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper on Sunday reflects the general practice of both the first-century churches as well as post-first-century churches. For example, the\u00a0Didache<\/em>, written shortly after the close of the first century, speaks of Christians coming together each Lord\u2019s day and breaking bread (9:1-12; 14:1). Justin Martyr wrote in his\u00a0First Apology<\/em>\u00a0(ch. 67),\u00a0circa<\/em>\u00a0A.D.\u00a0152, of Christians meeting on Sunday and partaking of the communion (ch. 67). Milligan observed: \u201cThat the primitive Christians were wont to celebrate the Lord\u2019s Supper on every first day of the week is evident…. During the first two centuries the practice of weekly communion was universal, and it was continued in the Greek church till the seventh century\u201d (1975, p. 440). Johnson summarized the post-first century data:<\/p>

[T]he early church writers from Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian, all with one consent, declare that the church observed the first day of the week. They are equally agreed that\u00a0the Lord\u2019s Supper was observed weekly, on the first day of the week<\/strong>\u00a0(1891, 1:505, emp. added).<\/p><\/blockquote>

Still another consideration is the doctrinal significance that interconnects the Lord\u2019s Supper and Sunday. Jesus\u2019\u00a0death and resurrection<\/strong>\u00a0were connected intimately to Sunday observance of the Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26). One cannot argue for a Sunday\u00a0assembly<\/strong>\u00a0without arguing for Sunday\u00a0communion<\/strong>. In Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the Sabbath commemorated the Exodus\u2014the deliverance of the Jews from Egyptian bondage. Sunday, in like manner, is the Christian\u2019s day of deliverance. The Lord\u2019s Supper is associated with this redemption and the very nature of the church. It is a corporate act and thus done by all members when the assembly comes together on Sunday. The Lord\u2019s Supper on any other day weakens its doctrinal significance (see Ferguson, 1976, pp. 59-62). As Rex Turner so eloquently affirmed:<\/p>

The first day of the week is Christ\u2019s resurrection day. It is the greatest day in all the annals of history. What could be more appropriate, therefore, than for the disciples to assemble on Christ\u2019s resurrection day, the first day of the week, to break the bread and to drink the fruit of the vine in commemoration of Christ\u2019s death, his atoning blood, his resurrection, and his promise to come again?\u00a0He who contends that Christians may with equal propriety and authority partake of the Lord\u2019s Supper on some other day than the first day of the week has not grasped the real significance of what took place on that certain first day of the week<\/strong>, nor does he recognize how that the first day of the week is the Lord\u2019s Day (Revelation 1:10) (1972, p. 80, emp. added).<\/p><\/blockquote>

Ultimately, the issue of observance frequency hinges on the verses that address the subject specifically. [NOTE: For an excellent analytical treatment of the passages of Scripture that impinge on the question of the Lord\u2019s Supper, see Warren, 1975, pp. 148-156.]<\/p>

SPECIFIC SCRIPTURES<\/h2><\/div>

ACTS 2:42,46<\/h2><\/div>

In Acts 2:42, we encounter the expression \u201cbreaking of bread.\u201d The Greek expression \u201cto break bread\u201d (klasai<\/em>\u00a0arton<\/em>), a literal rendering of the Hebrew idiom (paras<\/em>\u00a0lechem<\/em>), was a common idiom meaning \u201cto partake of food\u201d (Bullinger, 1898, p. 839; Woods, 1976, p. 67; Harris, et al., 1980, 2:736; Gesenius, 1847, p. 690; Moule, 1961, p. 25; Behm, 1965, 3:729). The idiom developed from the fact that Hebrews baked their bread in the shape of thin round flat cakes (rather than loaves) that lent themselves more to breaking than cutting (Bullinger, p. 839; McClintock and Strong, 1867, 1:882). The idiom is clearly seen in Isaiah 58:7, Jeremiah 16:7, and Lamentations 4:4. Americans use a similar idiom when we speak of \u201cgetting a bite to eat.\u201d However, figures of speech often do \u201cdouble duty\u201d by developing additional meanings. From the idiomatic meaning of eating a meal came a more technical use of the expression in Scripture. Since the Lord took bread and, in accordance with the Jewish practice where the father of the household prepared the bread for distribution to the family (see Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 434; Rackham, 1901, p. 37; Behm, 1964, 1:477), apparently broke it into pieces (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 1:24), \u201cbreaking bread\u201d sometimes is used in Scripture to refer to the Lord\u2019s Supper (see Behm, 1965, 3:730; Klappert, 1976, 2:530; Reese, 1976, pp. 83, 734). One cannot assume that every occurrence of the idiom refers to the Lord\u2019s Supper.\u00a0Context<\/strong>\u00a0must determine whether a common meal or the Lord\u2019s Supper is intended (see chart).<\/p>
\u00a0<\/td>

Literal Breaking<\/strong><\/p><\/td>

Figurative Breaking<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>

Common Meal<\/strong><\/p><\/td>

Matt. 14:19; 15:36<\/p>

Mark 6:41; 8:6,19<\/p>

Luke 9:16; 24:30<\/p>

Acts 27:35<\/p><\/td>

Luke 24:35<\/p>

Acts 2:46<\/p><\/td><\/tr>

Lord\u2019s Supper<\/strong><\/p><\/td>

Matt. 26:26<\/p>

Mark 14:22<\/p>

Luke 22:19<\/p>

1 Cor. 11:24<\/p><\/td>

Acts 2:42<\/p>

Acts 20:7,11<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>

Contextual indicators in Acts 2:42 that point to the meaning of the Lord\u2019s Supper include the use of the article \u201cthe\u201d (in the Greek), indicating that a particular event, as opposed to a common meal, is under consideration (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16; Nicoll, n.d., 2:95). The verse could well have been translated, \u201cAnd they continued steadfastly in\u00a0the<\/strong>\u00a0apostles\u2019 doctrine and\u00a0the<\/strong>\u00a0fellowship, in\u00a0the<\/strong>\u00a0breaking of\u00a0the<\/strong>\u00a0bread, and in\u00a0the<\/strong>\u00a0prayers.\u201d Luke obviously was speaking of the formal worship activities of the Christians.<\/p>

Second, \u201cbreaking bread\u201d is listed among other unmistakably\u00a0religious<\/strong>\u00a0activities of the church: apostles\u2019 doctrine, fellowship, and prayer. Third, the phrase \u201ccontinued steadfastly\u201d (imperfect tense) indicates a customary, habitual, ongoing practice\u2014though the exact frequency is not indicated in this context. One has to go elsewhere to ascertain whether specific frequency is enjoined. Yet, from this passage one can see that the early church obviously partook more frequently than annually, since a year had not passed since the establishment of the church, and they already were worshiping \u201csteadfastly.\u201d<\/p>

\u201cBreaking bread\u201d is again mentioned four verses later. Here, too, context must provide indication as to whether Acts 2:46 refers to observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper or simply common meals. Arndt and Gingrich call attention to the use of the enclitic particle,\u00a0te<\/em>, occurring most frequently in the New Testament in the book of Acts. It appears twice in Acts 2:46 to convey the idea of \u201cnot only…but also\u201d (1957, p. 807; cf. Robertson, 1934, p. 1179\u2014\u201cBut\u00a0te<\/em>…te<\/em>\u00a0is strictly correlative\u201d). Thayer identifies the term as a copulative enclitic particle that conveys an inner connection with what precedes. Hence, double use of the term in the same sentence, as in Acts 2:46, presents parallel or coordinate ideas\u2014\u201cas…so\u201d (Thayer, 1901, pp. 616-617; Blass, et al., 1961, p. 230). Hence the use of the correlative conjunction (te<\/em>) in verse 46 functions as a break in thought\u2014a contrast\u2014to guard against the impression that the disciples stayed in the temple 24 hours a day. Luke conveyed the idea that the disciples clustered together in the temple almost constantly after the momentous events of Pentecost, no doubt unwilling to miss any of the tremendous spiritual activities associated with the establishment of the church. However, they went to their private homes in order to carry on the routine amenities associated with common meals. So Jamieson, et al.: \u201cin\u00a0private<\/em>, as contrasted with their\u00a0temple<\/em>-worship\u201d (1871, p. 176, italics in orig.).<\/p>

The parallel thought conveyed by the double use of\u00a0te<\/em>, evident throughout the context, is the unity or togetherness that the disciples enjoyed. While they participated together in their\u00a0religious<\/strong>\u00a0activities, they also continued their togetherness in their\u00a0non<\/strong>religious acts of domestic socialization. English versions that capture the grammatical nuances of the verse include the\u00a0NIV:\u00a0\u201cEvery day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.\u201d Observe that the allusion to being together in the temple courts is terminated with a period. The next sentence conveys a separate idea pertaining to the eating of common meals in their homes. The\u00a0ASV\u00a0translates the verse: \u201cAnd day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart.\u201d The daily meeting\u00a0in the temple<\/strong>\u00a0was a separate practice from breaking bread\u00a0at home<\/strong>, where they ate their meals with gladness. Barnes observed: \u201c[T]he expression \u2018did eat their meat\u2019 seems to imply that this refers to their common meals,\u00a0and not to the Lord\u2019s supper<\/strong>\u201d (1847, p. 59, emp. added). \u201cBreaking bread\u201d (vs. 46) therefore refers, not to the Lord\u2019s Supper, but to common meals. The term \u201cfood\u201d (trophe<\/em>; cf. \u201cmeat,\u201d\u00a0KJV), never used to refer to the Lord\u2019s Supper, is explicative of the expression \u201cbreaking bread\u201d\u2014further proof that a common meal is under consideration (Jackson, 1991, p. 3).<\/p>

In order to prove that Acts 2:46 refers to daily observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper, one would have to both know and prove two unprovable points: (1) that \u201cdaily\u201d is an adverbial temporal modifier that\u00a0necessarily<\/strong>\u00a0modifies the phrase \u201cbreaking bread at home,\u201d and (2) that the phrase \u201cbreaking bread at home\u201d refers specifically and exclusively to the Lord\u2019s Supper (Warren, 1975, p. 151). One would have to\u00a0know<\/strong>\u00a0these two things before one could draw the conclusion that God sanctions partaking of the Lord\u2019s Supper on some day other than Sunday. But one\u00a0cannot<\/strong>\u00a0know or prove these two points. Indeed, the grammatical evidence militates against them. Acts 2:46 provides no authority or evidence to warrant the conclusion that the church can partake of the Lord\u2019s Supper on some day other than Sunday.<\/p>

ACTS 20:7<\/h2><\/div>

In Acts 20, considerable information regarding the early church\u2019s handling of the Lord\u2019s Supper is divulged. Nothing in this or any other context indicates that the \u201cmany lights,\u201d \u201cupper room\u201d (vs. 8), or \u201cthird story\u201d (vs. 9) have anything to do with the Lord\u2019s Supper. Thus the location and surrounding paraphernalia (e.g., number of trays\/cups) are expedients. As such, they are permanently optional (cf. Warren, 1975, p. 140). Additional contextual features help to define the parameters of the passage.<\/p>

First, the term \u201cto break bread\u201d is a first Aorist infinitive. Infinitives in Greek and English denote\u00a0purpose of action of the principal verb<\/strong>\u00a0(Summers, 1950, p. 132; Dana and Mantey, 1927, p. 214). The verb in the verse is \u201ccame together.\u201d Thus the primary purpose for the assembly was to partake of the Lord\u2019s Supper. This conclusion is also implied in Paul\u2019s rebuke of the Corinthians: \u201cTherefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord\u2019s Supper\u201d (1 Corinthians 11:20). Alexander Campbell noted that Paul\u2019s words demonstrate that partaking of the Lord\u2019s Supper was \u201cthe chief object of meeting\u201d (1972, p. 32). Observe carefully that even as the purpose for the assembly is declared forthrightly to be partaking of the Lord\u2019s Supper, so the text states explicitly that this act was done on the first day of the week. [NOTE: For a discussion of the underlying Greek that authenticates the translation \u201cfirst day of the week,\u201d see McGarvey, 1910, pp. 306-307.]<\/p>

Second, Luke used \u201cwhen\u201d as a stylistic device to denote a regular procedure that the reader should know and understand (see Dungan, 1891, 1:245-246; Gibson, 1990, pp. 4-5). The clause prefaced by the word \u201cwhen\u201d constitutes a side comment by Luke intended to flag a well-recognized, fully expected event. The significance of this feature is illustrated in the following paraphrase: \u201cNow on the first day of the week\u2014which everyone recognizes is the very day that Christians come together to observe the Lord\u2019s Supper<\/strong>\u2014Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them….\u201d A parallel to American culture may be seen in the statement: \u201cOn the fourth of July, when Americans celebrate the birth of their country, the President delivered a stirring speech to the nation\u201d (cf. Nichol and Whiteside, 1920, 1:171). The main point to which Luke was driving was the preaching of Paul that lasted until midnight. However, subordinating an additional action within a separate clause, prefaced with \u201cwhen,\u201d shows that Luke was making reference to that which was recognized as standard protocol among Christians: Sunday observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper. Indeed,<\/p>

[w]e must remember that\u00a0I Cor. had been previously written<\/strong>, and that the reference in I Cor. xvi.2 to \u201cthe first day of the week\u201d for the collection of alms naturally connects itself with the statement here in proof that\u00a0this day had been marked out by the Christian Church as a special day for public worship, and for \u201cthe breaking of the bread\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0(Nicoll, n.d., 2:424, emp. added).<\/p><\/blockquote>

Third, Paul spent an entire week in Troas\u2014even though he was on a rushed schedule, in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (20:16). One would not delay a rushed trip simply to partake of a common meal or meals\u2014which could have been eaten on any of the delayed days. It would seem he desired to meet with the entire church at the formal, weekly worship assembly\u2014a circumstance he repeated both at Tyre (Acts 21:4) and Puteoli (Acts 28:14). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown explain the timetable:<\/p>

[A]rriving on a Monday, they stayed over the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s Day following; occupying himself, doubtless, in refreshing and strengthening fellowship with the brethren during the interval…. This…plainly indicates that the Christian observance of the day afterwards distinctly called \u201cthe Lord\u2019s Day,\u201d was\u00a0already a fixed practice of the churches<\/strong>\u00a0(1871, p. 208, emp. added).<\/p><\/blockquote>

SATURDAY NIGHT OR SUNDAY NIGHT?<\/h2>

From the text it is apparent that on this occasion the disciples came together\u00a0in the evening<\/strong>. Since we are informed that they came together \u201con the first day of the week,\u201d the question remains whether the evening was our Saturday night or our Sunday night. The answer hinges on the matter of the reckoning of time in the first century, specifically, whether Luke\u2019s narrative employs Jewish or Roman time. The following background information will resolve this question.<\/p>

Days & Hours<\/h3>

Throughout history, cultures have differed in their counting of hours and days. The term \u201cday\u201d has a variety of meanings among cultures even in the Bible. The 24-hour rotation of the Earth on its axis is one meaning for the term \u201cday,\u201d i.e., a solar or astronomical day. But the point at which one begins to count this single revolution has differed from culture to culture. Scholars are largely agreed that the Babylonians counted their days from sunrise to sunrise, the Umbrians from noon to noon, the Athenians and Hebrews from sunset to sunset, and the Egyptians and Romans from midnight to midnight (Pliny, 1855, 2.79.77; Smith, 1868, 1:567; Hasel, 1979b, 1:878; Anthon, 1843, p. 361). Europe, America, and Western civilization have generally conformed to Roman time. Throughout the Bible, the Jews commenced their day in the evening\u2014as stipulated by the Law of Moses in the phrase \u201cfrom evening to evening\u201d (Leviticus 23:32; cf. Exodus 12:18). Hence, for Jews the Sabbath (Saturday) began at sunset (approximately 6:00 p.m.) on what we delineate as Friday evening. Their Sabbath (Saturday) came to a close at approximately 6:00 p.m. on our Saturday evening, and their Sunday began at that time (see also Nehemiah 13:19; Psalm 55:17; cf.\u00a0ereb<\/em>\u00a0boqer<\/em>\u00a0[evening-morning] in Daniel 8:14). Since the early church initially was composed entirely of Jews, and since Jews were scattered outside of Palestine throughout the Roman Empire, \u201cthe early churches…often followed the Jewish custom\u201d (Johnson, 1891, 1:506) of reckoning time.<\/p>

Another meaning for the word \u201cday\u201d corresponds to our word \u201cdaylight.\u201d The phrase \u201cnight and day\u201d (Mark 5:5) refers to the dark and light portions of a single, 24-hour day\u2014with the word \u201cday\u201d referring to only half of the 24-hour day (Gibbs, 1982, 2:769; Hasel, 1979a, 1:877; Anthon, pp. 362,507). Jesus made this meaning clear when He asked, \u201cAre there not\u00a0twelve hours<\/strong>\u00a0in the\u00a0day<\/strong>?\u201d (John 11:9, emp. added). He was using the word \u201cday\u201d to refer to the daylight hours as distinguished from the night. Luke uses the term the same way. In Acts 16:35, he wrote: \u201cAnd when it was day, the magistrates sent the officers, saying, \u2018Let those men go.\u2019\u201d He means \u201cwhen it was daylight,\u201d since the events leading up to his statement were post-midnight occurrences (vs. 25).<\/p>

The Jews of Jesus\u2019 day divided the daylight portion of the \u201cday\u201d into even smaller units, i.e., four units of three hours each beginning about 6:00 a.m. (Hasel, 1979b, 1:878; Robinson, 1881, p. 338; Robertson, 1922, p. 284). This mode permeates the New Testament. The darkness that prevailed during Christ\u2019s crucifixion \u201cfrom the sixth hour until the ninth hour\u201d (Matthew 27:45; cf. Mark 15:33) is our noon to 3:00 p.m. Though Luke probably was a non-Jew, and though the initial recipient of the book, Theophilus, very likely was also a Gentile, it nevertheless is evident that Luke used the Jewish\u2014not Roman\u2014method of counting time in Luke and Acts. The \u201csixth hour\u201d and \u201cninth hour\u201d in Luke 23:44 are noon and 3:00 p.m. respectively. The \u201cthird hour of the day\u201d in Acts 2:15 refers to 9:00 a.m. The \u201csixth hour\u201d in Acts 10:9 is 12:00 noon. The \u201cninth hour\u201d in Acts 3:1 and Acts 10:3,30 is 3:00 p.m. So certain of this reckoning were the\u00a0NIV\u00a0translators that they converted the \u201cninth hour\u201d to the modern equivalent to aid the English reader: \u201cCornelius answered: \u2018Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour,\u00a0at three in the afternoon<\/strong>\u201d (Acts 10:30, emp. added; cf. vs. 3). Even the Roman authority Claudius Lysias was \u201cfollowing the Jewish method of counting time\u201d (Jackson, 2005, p. 298) in Acts 23:23 when he alluded to \u201cthe third hour of the night\u201d (i.e., 9:00 p.m.). Notice that all of Luke\u2019s allusions to days and hours in Acts assume a\u00a0Jewish<\/strong>\u00a0reckoning of time. [NOTE: Matthew and Mark also followed Jewish time, while John\u2014who wrote near the end of the first century\u2014seems to have followed Roman time (cf. Smith, 1869, 2:1102; Robertson, 1922, p. 285; Lockhart, 1901, p. 28; Brewer, 1941, pp. 330-331; McGarvey, 1892, 2:181-182).] The same may be said even of Luke\u2019s references to\u00a0seasons<\/strong>, as Reese so insightfully observes in his comments on Acts 27:9:<\/p>

It should be noted that Paul is using Jewish time here (as he does in Acts 20:16; 1 Corinthians 16:8; and Acts 18:21,\u00a0KJV); or shall we say that\u00a0Luke is using Jewish time in his account of what Paul said<\/strong>? Rather than speaking of sailing being dangerous from the Ides of November to the Ides of March,\u00a0Luke uses the Jewish means of reckoning<\/strong>. In Jewish language, the sailing season was reckoned from the feast of Passover until the feast of Tabernacles (five days after the Day of Atonement) (1976, p. 897, emp. added).<\/p><\/blockquote>

Further, one must distinguish very carefully between the meaning \u201c24-hour period\u201d and \u201cdaylight\u201d in the Bible\u2019s use of \u201cday.\u201d For example, Luke informs us that Herod had James executed and intended to do the same to Peter: \u201cNow it was\u00a0during the Days of Unleavened Bread<\/strong>. So when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people\u00a0after Passover<\/strong>\u201d (Acts 12:3-4, emp. added). Passover began on our Friday evening around 6:00 p.m. While sitting in prison during that night (vs. 6), Peter was released by an angel, so he went to the home of Mary (vs. 12) to report the incident, and then went elsewhere. Luke then states: \u201cas soon as\u00a0it was day<\/strong>, there was no small stir among the soldiers about what had become of Peter\u201d (vs. 18, emp. added). \u201cDay\u201d in verse 18 refers to daylight, i.e., morning\u2014not another or second day.<\/p>

Another example is seen in Luke\u2019s remark about the Jewish authorities: \u201cAnd they laid hands on them [the apostles\u2014DM], and put them in custody until\u00a0the next day<\/strong>, for it was already evening\u201d (Acts 4:3, emp. added). Observe that, by \u201cnext day,\u201d Luke did not mean to refer to a different day, as if to say that the apostles were arrested on Monday, but placed in custody until Tuesday. Rather, using Jewish time, Luke was saying that the apostles were arrested at or after 6:00 p.m. (\u201cit was already\u00a0evening<\/strong>\u201d) on a particular day, and then placed in custody until the next daylight period, i.e., the next morning of the\u00a0same<\/strong>\u00a0day. To illustrate, if the apostles were arrested after 6:00 p.m. on, say, our Monday, it already was their Tuesday, and the \u201cnext day\u201d when the Sun rose would still be Tuesday. [NOTE: For yet another example of this use of \u201cday,\u201d see Acts 23, where Paul delivered his defense before the Jewish Council (vss. 1-10). Luke then states: \u201cBut the following night the Lord stood by him…\u201d (vs. 11). The \u201cfollowing night\u201d does not refer to the night of the next day, but rather to the dark hours that followed sequentially after Paul\u2019s defense during the daylight hours (as reflected in the\u00a0NASB\u00a0rendering: \u201cBut on\u00a0the night immediately following<\/strong>…\u201d). Verse 12 then states: \u201cAnd when it was\u00a0day<\/strong>…\u201d\u2014referring to the daylight that followed the night of verse 11. See also Acts 23:31-32; 27:27-29.]<\/p>

This linguistic usage comes into play in Acts 20. Since Luke was using Jewish time (as he does everywhere else in Acts), then the disciples came together on the evening of our Saturday\u2014their Sunday<\/strong>\u2014with Paul \u201cready to depart\u00a0the next day<\/strong>,\u201d i.e., the next period of daylight, which would be sometime after dawn the next morning\u2014which would still be their (and our)\u00a0Sunday<\/strong>. Conybeare and Howson comment: \u201cIt was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath. On the Sunday morning the vessel was about to sail\u201d (1899, pp. 592-593).<\/p>

Observe also that the Jewish (vs. Roman) method of reckoning time is inherent in the terminology in the above passages, in which 12 sequential hours are equated with \u201cday,\u201d i.e., daylight. Roy Lanier, Sr. explains:<\/p>

But reckoning the day of twenty-four hours from 6 p.m. to 6 p.m. is the only way one can get twelve hours of night and twelve hours of day and get them in that order. Starting the period at midnight gives us approximately six hours of darkness, then twelve hours of light, and then another six hours of darkness, in that order. The Biblical day began with twelve hours of darkness and was followed by twelve hours of light (1984, 2:108).<\/p><\/blockquote>

ACTS 20:11<\/h2>

When the worship was interrupted by the fall of Eutychus from the upper window, and Paul miraculously revived him, we read in verse 11: \u201cNow when he had come up, had\u00a0broken bread<\/strong>\u00a0and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.\u201d Commentators are divided as to the meaning of \u201cbroken bread\u201d in this verse. Some insist that \u201cbroken bread\u201d and \u201ceaten\u201d refer to a common meal (perhaps \u201clove feast\u201d) that the brethren shared with Paul before his departure. Others insist that \u201cbroken bread\u201d refers to the Lord\u2019s Supper.<\/p>

One primary reason to equate \u201cbroken bread\u201d in this verse with the eating of the Lord\u2019s Supper is due to its connection to the same expression used previously in verse seven. The Greek places the article before \u201cbread\u201d in verse 11, i.e., \u201cthe<\/strong>\u00a0bread,\u201d as reflected in both the\u00a0ASV\u00a0and\u00a0NASB. G.C. Brewer concluded from this grammatical feature: \u201cIn verse 7 we are told that they came together to break bread, and in verse 11 we are told that after the interruption they came to the upper chamber again and broke\u00a0the bread<\/em>\u2014ton arton<\/em>\u201d (p. 331). Brewer\u2019s point was not that the article preceding \u201cbread\u201d automatically proves that the Lord\u2019s Supper is intended. Rather, his point was that<\/p>

since bread was mentioned in the context (verse 7), and this, as all admit, was the Lord\u2019s Supper, and no other bread was contemplated in the passage, then \u201cthe bread<\/em>\u201d in verse 11\u00a0would naturally refer<\/strong>\u00a0to the bread just previously mentioned. If we allow the context to explain what bread is intended, we can have no doubt about its being the Lord\u2019s Supper (p. 336, italics in orig., emp. added; see also Hackett, 1852, p. 283; cf. Johnson, 1891, 1:505).<\/p><\/blockquote>

In their famous\u00a0Greek Grammar of the New Testament<\/em>, Blass, Debrunner, and Funk lend further support to this interpretation of Acts 20:11, in their discussion of the use of the article with proper names (1961, pp. 135-136). They note that while proper names \u201cdo not as such take the article,\u201d they may do so as the result of \u201canaphora\u201d (i.e., \u201cthe use of a linguistic unit…to refer back to another unit\u201d\u2014American Heritage<\/em>…, 2000, p. 65). In other words, if a proper name is used,\u00a0arton<\/em>\u00a0(bread) in verse seven, and the same noun is used thereafter in the same context preceded by the article,\u00a0ton arton<\/em>\u00a0(the bread) in verse 11, the second occurrence of the noun generally refers to the earlier occurrence. Blass, et al., give examples of two such instances\u2014both also by Luke: (1) the use of the article with Saul (\u201cthe Saul\u201d) in Acts 9:1 with reference to the earlier mention of him in Acts 8:3 where the article is not used, and (2) the use of the article with Damascus (\u201cthe Damascus\u201d) in Acts 9:3 with anaphora to verse two where Damascus occurs without the article.<\/p>

Using four participles and one verb in verse 11, Luke itemized five specific actions that followed the revival of Eutychus. In the\u00a0ASV, those actions are: (1) gone up (i.e., returning to the third floor), (2) broken the bread, (3) eaten, (4) talked a long while, and (5) departed. Observe carefully that the term \u201ceaten\u201d is a separate participial action from the breaking of the bread. It would appear that \u201ceaten\u201d refers to a common meal that Paul ate\u00a0after<\/strong>\u00a0the Lord\u2019s Supper was commemorated. Guy N. Woods commented: \u201cWe believe that the breaking of the bread in verse 11 refers to the Lord\u2019s supper; and that the mention of the word\u00a0eaten<\/em>suggests a common meal\u201d (Woods, 1976, p. 351, italics in orig.). Conybeare and Howson agree: \u201c[T]hey celebrated the Eucharistic feast. The act of Holy Communion was combined, as was usual in the Apostolic age, with a common meal\u201d (1899, p. 594). They further noted that \u201cWhen he had eaten<\/em>, v. 11…is distinguished in the Greek from\u00a0the breaking bread<\/em>\u201d (p. 594, note 3, italics in orig.; see also Robertson, 1930, 3:342; Jamieson, et al., 1871, p. 208). The objection that the allusion to breaking bread is singular and that therefore it cannot refer to the Lord\u2019s Supper, since Paul would not have taken the Lord\u2019s Supper by himself, actually carries no force, since the same objection would apply to the idea that a common meal is intended. Would Paul have consumed a common meal by himself\u2014especially since he was accompanied by several traveling companions who would have been in just as much need of sustenance before continuing the trip with Paul (cf. McGarvey, 1863, p. 249)?<\/p>

In view of Luke\u2019s use of Jewish time, it matters little whether the Lord\u2019s Supper or a common meal is indicated. In either case, the disciples came together to partake of the Lord Supper \u201con the first day of the week<\/strong>\u201d\u2014not Saturday or Monday. Even those scholars who are inclined to believe that Luke used Roman time, nevertheless, speak with virtually one accord in affirming that the Lord\u2019s Supper was observed on Sunday\u2014not Monday. As H. Leo Boles insisted: \u201c[I]f they ate the Lord\u2019s Supper on Monday, they did not do what they met to do on the first day of the week\u201d (1941, p. 319). He also explained:<\/p>

Yes. The Jews and Romans had different ways of counting time. It matters not to us how they counted time. We have a time designated as the \u201cfirst day of the week,\u201d and the Lord\u2019s people are to meet upon that day. Their time was divided into days, weeks, months, and years, as in ours. Their weeks had a first day, and our weeks have a first day. We can know the first day of our week, and can meet and worship on that day and receive the blessing of God (1985, p. 112).<\/p><\/blockquote>

Though DeWelt assumes a Jewish reckoning, he noted: \u201cWe might remark that the Lord\u2019s Supper here called the \u2018breaking of bread\u2019 was partaken of on Sunday regardless of what time of reckoning for time is used. If you count the time from sundown to sundown (Jewish)\u00a0it was on Sunday<\/strong>. If from midnight to midnight (Roman)\u00a0it was on Sunday<\/strong>\u201d (1958, p. 271, emp. added).<\/p>

TWO QUIBBLES<\/h2><\/div>

Some argue that since the Jewish Christians could have observed the Lord\u2019s Supper on our Saturday evening, we can, too. However, Saturday evening was not Saturday evening to a Jew\u2014it was Sunday<\/strong>! The timing of our observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper must conform to the reckoning of time indigenous to\u00a0our<\/strong>\u00a0culture. God expects Christians to observe the Supper on\u00a0the first day of the week<\/strong>\u2014however that day is reckoned in a given society. It will not do to say that we can partake of the Lord\u2019s Supper on Saturday in Texas since at that moment in Australia it is already Sunday. A person living in Texas must observe the Lord\u2019s Supper on Sunday as Sunday is reckoned in Texas. Otherwise, there would be no end to the resulting confusion, and the emphasis placed on\u00a0Sunday<\/strong>\u00a0in the New Testament would be rendered essentially meaningless. God will hold each of us accountable for observing the Supper on Sunday as that day is reckoned in our culture and geographical location.<\/p>

Another quibble is the assertion that since Jesus instituted the Lord\u2019s Supper on a Thursday\u2014taking of it Himself along with His disciples\u2014we can partake on days other than Sunday. It is true that Jesus instigated the Lord\u2019s Supper on Thursday evening\u2014the first day on which the Jews commenced preparations for the feast, which was the killing of the Passover lamb. But the thinking that says, \u201cIf He did it on Thursday, we can, too\u201d fails on two counts. First, Jesus could have taught His disciples about a practice on one day, but intend for them to practice it on another, without being inconsistent. Second, the text plainly says that Jesus\u2019 participation in this practice would take place \u201cnew…in my Father\u2019s kingdom\u201d (Matthew 26:29). In other words, He was giving them instruction on the observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper that would be practiced\u00a0in the church after its establishment<\/strong>. Therefore, one would have to look\u00a0after<\/strong>\u00a0Acts chapter two in order to see if Jesus intended any set frequency or particular day. We find precisely that\u2014Sunday observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper.<\/p>

1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-39<\/h2><\/div>

While 1 Corinthians 11:23-39 provides much detail, the main purpose of the passage pertains to the\u00a0how<\/strong>\u00a0of the Lord\u2019s Supper, not the\u00a0when<\/strong>. Nevertheless, frequency and consistency in partaking of the Lord\u2019s Supper are implied in such words as \u201cdo this\u201d (vss. 24,25), \u201cas often as\u201d (vss. 25,26), \u201cuntil\u201d (vs. 26), \u201cwhen\u201d (vs. 33). Repetition is inherent in the construction of such expressions, without specifying the precise pattern of frequency. Since the phrases are indefinite, one must look elsewhere to see if any specific frequency is enjoined. All one need do is read forward to chapter 16. The Corinthians knew that they were to meet\u00a0every<\/strong>\u00a0first day of the week\u2014as is evident from the use of\u00a0kata<\/em>\u00a0in 1 Corinthians 16:2 (\u201cevery<\/strong>\u00a0week\u201d\u2014see below). When Paul wrote, \u201cWhenever you meet, you are to do such and so,\u201d he knew that his readers already understood the intended specificity about the day (Sunday).<\/p>

1 CORINTHIANS 16:1-2<\/h2><\/div>

In 1 Corinthians 16:2, the term\u00a0kata<\/em>\u00a0is distributive and means \u201cevery.\u201d Macknight explains: \u201cAnd as\u00a0kata<\/em>\u00a0polin<\/em>\u00a0signifies\u00a0every city<\/strong>; and\u00a0kata<\/em>\u00a0mena<\/em>,\u00a0every month<\/strong>; and, Acts xiv. 23\u00a0kata<\/em>ekklesian<\/em>,\u00a0in every church<\/strong>: so\u00a0kata<\/em>\u00a0mian sabbatou<\/em>\u00a0signifies\u00a0the first day of every week<\/strong>\u201d (n.d., p. 208, italics and emp. in orig.; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 407; for a discussion of the proper translation of\u00a0sabbatou<\/em>, see\u00a0Lyons<\/a>, 2006; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 306-307). English translations that reflect this feature of the Greek include the\u00a0NIV\u00a0and\u00a0NASB. Thus Paul unquestionably invoked weekly contributions for the churches: \u201con the first day of\u00a0every<\/strong>\u00a0week.\u201d Similarly, the Jews understood that the Sabbath observance\u2014\u201cremember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy\u201d (Exodus 20:8)\u2014applied to\u00a0every<\/strong>\u00a0Sabbath. Paul stated that he gave this same command for weekly Sunday collection to the Galatian churches as well (vs. 1). Here is an inspired apostle, under the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit Whom Jesus said would come, legislating frequency for first century churches. These churches obviously came together not only to offer a financial contribution and then go home. They met to engage in all acts of worship\u2014the Lord\u2019s Supper being premiere among them. Recognized theologian, avowed Pentecostal minister, and Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College, Gordon Fee, agrees with this contention, when he speaks of Sunday as\u2014<\/p>

a weekly reckoning with religious significance…. This language is well remembered in the Gospel traditions in relationship to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The fixed place of this terminology in those narratives implies that\u00a0it had more than simply historical interest for the early church<\/strong>. This is verified further by the note in Acts 20:7, which implies most strongly that Paul and the others waited in Troas until the \u201cfirst day of the week\u201d precisely because\u00a0that is when the Christians gathered for the breaking of bread<\/strong>, that is, their meal in honor of the Lord (1987, p. 814, emp. added).<\/p><\/blockquote>

CONCLUSION<\/h2><\/div>

Only by gathering everything the New Testament says on a subject and logically fitting it all together can one arrive at the truth. The conclusion to be drawn from this information is definitive and unquestionable. Since Christians met every Sunday (1 Corinthians 16:2), and a central purpose for such assemblies was to observe the Lord\u2019s Supper (Acts 20:7) regularly and consistently (Acts 2:42), it follows that the early church partook of the Lord\u2019s Supper\u00a0every<\/strong>\u00a0Sunday<\/strong>\u2014and partook of it\u00a0only<\/strong>\u00a0on Sunday. H. Leo Boles well concluded: \u201cThere is no scriptural example or instruction authorizing the eating of the Lord\u2019s Supper on any day except the first day of the week\u201d (1985, p. 37). Rex Turner offers a fitting summary: \u201c[T]he necessary and inescapable conclusion is that disciples must meet on, and only on, the first day of the week to break bread\u201d (1972, p. 77).<\/p>

REFERENCES<\/h2><\/div>

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language<\/em>\u00a0(2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.<\/p>

Anthon, Charles (1843),\u00a0A<\/em>\u00a0Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities<\/em>\u00a0(New York: American Book).<\/p>

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957),\u00a0A<\/em>\u00a0Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature<\/em>\u00a0(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).<\/p>

Atchley, Rick (1989), in Monroe Hawley, \u201cActs As A Pattern for the Church Today (Part 3),\u201d Audio Cassette (Searcy, AR: Harding University Lectures).<\/p>

Barnes, Albert (1847),\u00a0Notes on the New Testament: Acts<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005 reprint).<\/p>

Behm, Johannes (1964), \u201cartos<\/em>,\u201d\u00a0Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/em>, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).<\/p>

Behm, Johannes (1965), \u201cklao<\/em>,\u00a0klasis<\/em>,\u00a0klasma<\/em>,\u201d\u00a0Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/em>, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).<\/p>

Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert Funk (1961),\u00a0A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature<\/em>\u00a0(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).<\/p>

Boles, H. Leo (1941),\u00a0A<\/em>\u00a0Commentary on Acts of the Apostles<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).<\/p>

Boles, H. Leo (1985),\u00a0Questions and Answers, Sermon Outlines and Bible Study Notes<\/em>(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).<\/p>

Brewer, G.C. (1941),\u00a0Contending For the Faith<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).<\/p>

Brownlow, Leroy (1945),\u00a0Why I Am A Member of the Church of Christ<\/em>\u00a0(Fort Worth, TX: Brownlow Publishing).<\/p>

Bullinger, E.W. (1898),\u00a0Figures of Speech Used in the Bible<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).<\/p>

Campbell, Alexander (1972 reprint), \u201cLord\u2019s Supper A Divine Institution,\u201d in\u00a0Around the Lord\u2019s Table<\/em>, ed. John Hinds (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).<\/p>

Conybeare, W.J. and J.S. Howson (1971 reprint),\u00a0The Life and Epistles of Paul<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).<\/p>

Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927),\u00a0A<\/em>\u00a0Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament<\/em>(Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).<\/p>

DeWelt, Don (1958),\u00a0Acts Made Actual<\/em>\u00a0(Joplin, MO: College Press).<\/p>

Didache<\/em>\u00a0(no date), ed. Roberts-Donaldson, [On-line],\u00a0URL:http:\/\/www.earlychristianwritings.com\/text\/didache-roberts.html.<\/p>

Dungan, D.R. (1891), \u201cThe Lord\u2019s Supper,\u201d in\u00a0The Old Faith Restated<\/em>, ed. J.H. Garrison (St. Louis, MO: Christian Publishing). Reprinted in John Hudson, ed.,\u00a0The Pioneers on Worship<\/em>(Kansas City, MO: The Old Paths Book Club), pp. 93-114.<\/p>

Fee, Gordon (1987),\u00a0The First Epistle to the Corinthians<\/em>, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).<\/p>

Ferguson, Everett (1976), \u201cThe Lord\u2019s Supper and Biblical Hermeneutics,\u201d\u00a0Mission<\/em>, September.<\/p>

Gesenius, William (1847),\u00a0Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon<\/em>\u00a0to the Old Testament<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).<\/p>

Gibbs, J.G. (1982), \u201cHour,\u201d\u00a0The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>, ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).<\/p>

Gibson, Steve (1990), \u201cRuminations on Acts 20:7,\u201d\u00a0The Restorer<\/em>, 10[1]:4-5, January.<\/p>

Hackett, H.B. (1852),\u00a0A<\/em>\u00a0Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles<\/em>\u00a0(Boston, MA: J.P. Jewett).<\/p>

Harris, R.L., G.L. Archer, Jr., and B.K. Waltke (1980),\u00a0Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament<\/em>\u00a0(Chicago, IL: Moody).<\/p>

Hasel, G.F. (1979a), \u201cDay,\u201d\u00a0The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>, ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).<\/p>

Hasel, G.F. (1979b), \u201cDay and Night,\u201d\u00a0The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>, ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).<\/p>

Hood, Kregg (1990), \u201cEstablishing Biblical Authority: A Fresh Look at A Familiar Issue (Part 2),\u201d\u00a0Image<\/em>\u00a06, May\/June.<\/p>

Jackson, Wayne (1991), \u201cThe Lord\u2019s Supper in the Early Church,\u201d\u00a0The Edifier<\/em>, 11:3, November 28.<\/p>

Jackson, Wayne (2005),\u00a0The Acts of the Apostles from Jerusalem to Rome<\/em>\u00a0(Stockton, CA: Christian Courier), second edition.<\/p>

Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (1871),\u00a0A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), [On-line],\u00a0URL:http:\/\/www.ccel.org\/ccel\/jamieson\/jfb.i.html.<\/p>

Johnson, B.W. (1891),\u00a0The People\u2019s New Testament<\/em>\u00a0(St. Louis, MO: Christian Board of Education).<\/p>

Klappert, Bertold (1976), \u201cLord\u2019s Supper,\u201d\u00a0The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology<\/em>, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).<\/p>

Lanier, Roy, Sr. (1984),\u00a020 Years of the Problem Page<\/em>\u00a0(Abilene, TX: Quality Publications).<\/p>

Lockhart, Clinton (1901),\u00a0Principles of Interpretation<\/em>\u00a0(Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.<\/p>

Lyons, Eric (2006), \u201cThe First Day of the Week,\u201d Apologetics Press, [On-line],\u00a0URL:\u00a0http:\/\/www.apologeticspress.org\/articles\/3157<\/a>.<\/p>

MacKnight, James (no date),\u00a0Apostolical Epistles<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).<\/p>

Martyr, Justin (no date),\u00a0First Apology<\/em>, ed. Roberts-Donaldson, [On-line],\u00a0URL: http:\/\/www.earlychristianwritings.com\/justin.html.<\/p>

Mayeux, Randy (1989), \u201cLetter to the Editor,\u201d\u00a0Christian Chronicle<\/em>, 46:6, June.<\/p>

McClintock, John and James Strong (1867),\u00a0Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).<\/p>

McGarvey, J.W. (1863),\u00a0A Commentary on Acts of Apostles<\/em>\u00a0(Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation).<\/p>

McGarvey, J.W. (1892),\u00a0New Commentary on Acts of Apostles<\/em>\u00a0(Cincinnati, OH: Standard).<\/p>

McGarvey, J.W. (1910),\u00a0Biblical Criticism<\/em>\u00a0(Cincinnati, OH: Standard).<\/p>

Miller, Dave (2003), \u201cLegalism,\u201d Apologetics Press, [On-line],\u00a0URL:\u00a0http:\/\/www.apologeticspress.org\/articles\/2265<\/a>.<\/p>

Milligan, Robert (1975 reprint),\u00a0The Scheme of Redemption<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN:\u00a0Gospel Advocate<\/em>).<\/p>

Moule, C.F.D. (1961),\u00a0Worship in the New Testament Church<\/em>\u00a0(Richmond, VA: John Knox Press).<\/p>

Nichol, C.R. and R.L. Whiteside (1920),\u00a0Sound Doctrine<\/em>\u00a0(Clifton, TX: Nichol Publishing).<\/p>

Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date),\u00a0The Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).<\/p>

Pliny the Elder (1855 edition),\u00a0The Natural History<\/em>,ed. Bostick, John and H.T. Riley (London: Taylor & Francis), [On-line],\u00a0URL: http:\/\/www.perseus.tufts.edu\/cgi-bin\/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999. 02.0137%3Ahead%3D%2382.<\/p>

Rackham, Richard (1901),\u00a0The Acts of the Apostles<\/em>\u00a0(London: Methuen & Co.).<\/p>

Reese, Gareth (1976),\u00a0New Testament History\u2014Acts<\/em>\u00a0(Joplin, MO: College Press).<\/p>

Robertson, A.T. (1922),\u00a0A Harmony of the Gospels<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Harper & Row).<\/p>

Robertson, A.T. (1930),\u00a0Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: Broadman).<\/p>

Robertson, A.T. (1934),\u00a0A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).<\/p>

Robinson, Edward (1881),\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Comprehensive Critical and Explanatory Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>(Toledo, OH: H.W. Snow).<\/p>

Smith, William (1868\/1869),\u00a0Dictionary of the Bible<\/em>, ed. H.B. Hackett (New York: Hurd & Houghton).<\/p>

Summers, Ray (1950),\u00a0Essentials of New Testament Greek<\/em>\u00a0(Nashville, TN: Broadman).<\/p>

Swete, Henry (1911),\u00a0Commentary on Revelation<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1980 reprint).<\/p>

Thayer, Joseph H. (1901),\u00a0A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).<\/p>

Turner, Rex (1972),\u00a0Sermons and Addresses on the Fundamentals of the Faith<\/em>\u00a0(Montgomery, AL: Rex Turner).<\/p>

Warren, Thomas B. (1975),\u00a0When Is An \u201cExample\u201d Binding?<\/em>\u00a0(Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).<\/p>

Woods, Guy N. (1976),\u00a0Questions and Answers<\/em>\u00a0(Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sunday and The Lord’s Supper by Dave Miller, Ph.D. The idea that all people are obligated to conform their thinking and their actions to the teaching of Jesus Christ is not a popular notion these days\u2014even among Christians. Many desire to\u00a0feel\u00a0religiously authentic and pleasing to God, but few think that acceptance by God is predicated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-312","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","wpbf-post"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t