Keeping The Feast
by Mark Dewey, who still feasts weekly with the King

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which isfor you; do this in remembrance of Me. " In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, do this, as often as you drink it in remembrance of Me. " For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes (1 Cor 11:23-26).

Our text is part of Paul's instruction to the Corinthian church concerning the proper observance of the Lord's Supper. It follows his stern rebuke of the Christians at Corinth for their abuse of the Supper (vv. 17-22). They had turned this religious feast into a sinful social banquet (one in which selfishness, gluttony and drunkenness were prevalent). In this passage the Apostle makes it clear that the Supper is the Lord's and He instituted the feast, He is the focus of the feast, and He is the honored guest at the feast. He also tells us that as often as this ordinance is observed, God's people are proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes.

What our text does not explicitly tell us is how often we should celebrate communion. For that matter, no text in Scripture gives us clear instruction as to how often we are to keep the feast. However, when we consider various passages of Scripture (such as Acts 2:42 & 20:7) and the practice of the ancient church, we can safely and reasonably conclude that communion was celebrated every Lord's Day, and likely more often than that.

Both Luther and Calvin agreed that this sacrament was to be observed perpetually (I Cor. 11:26) and frequently. Calvin suggested participation ought to be at least weekly; and Luther said if a person did not desire to partake at least quarterly, "it is to be feared that he despises the Sacrament and is not a Christian."

Given the implicit evidence of Scripture, the practice of the ancient church and the teaching of the Reformers, why is so much of the contemporary church negligent in keeping the feast of communion on a weekly basis?

One reason I have often heard is that to have the Lord's Supper every week would lead to communion becoming mundane, and people would simply "go through the motions."

While it must be granted that this could happen, one does not have to conclude that it necessarily would happen. Nor is the possibility of individuals abusing the Lord's Supper a good reason for churches tempering the celebration of it. If it were, our text and the verses that surround it would be much different. The Corinthians were guilty of extreme abuse, but Paul did not suggest that the church stop celebrating the Lord's Supper (though he did give strong warnings against individuals continuing in such abuse).

Let's also consider where such reasoning would lead. We say, "if we have communion every week, it would (or could) become mundane. Therefore, we should not have communion every week." Before we continue let's recall the clear testimony of Scripture. Following Pentecost, Christians were "continually devoting themselves to the apostles" teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer' (Acts 2:42). We see that the practice of the apostolic church included continual devotion to the apostles' teaching, prayer and the Lord's Supper. Should we then conclude that the preaching of the Scriptures and prayer should not occur weekly for fear that they would become mundane and people would simply "go through the motions?" [Don't get distracted trying to determine if this is the reason why much of contem- porary evangelicalism has ceased preaching and praying God's Word in worship].

I do not believe such reasoning is ultimately responsible for our neglect of the Lord's Supper. As a whole, we are not a people concerned that feasting, celebration, gift giving and gathering with loved ones will become mundane. The problem is that we do not see the Lord's Supper in this way. Here may be the true reason behind our neglect. We, unlike Luther and Calvin, do not believe that when the Lord's people gather together to participate in the Lord's Supper on the Lord's Day, they are partaking of a holy feast on a holy day. Though these great Reformers differed in a key area concerning the Lord's Supper, both men agreed on many points. To name just a few: 1) they both understood that the Lord's Supper was a gift from God; 2) they both believed that the gift is, Jesus Christ who is truly present; and, 3) they both acknowledged that conimunion is a commemorative celebration of Christ's atoning sacrifice.

Here we have all the makings of a holy day: feasting, celebration, gift giving, and communion with those dearest to our hearts-including the One who unites us together in a perfect bond of love. Even a dictionary definition of "holiday" sounds as if it were based on the Lord's Supper: "a day fixed by law or custom on which ordinary business is suspended in commemoration of some event or in honor of some person."

The church I was raised in would follow the Lord's Supper with the "Hymn of Praise." The Pastor would proclaim, "This is the feast of victory for our God. Alleluia." We as a congregation would respond by singing, "Worthy is Christ the Lamb who was slain, whose blood set us free to be people of God. Power and riches and wisdom and strength, and honor and blessing and glory are His. This is the feast of victory for our God. Alleluia. Sing with all the people of God and join in the hymn of all creation: Blessing and honor and glory and might be to God and the Lamb forever. Amen. This is the feast of victory for our God, for the Lamb who was slain has begun his reign. Alleluia. Alleluia.

Let us keep the feast! Alleluia!