Other authors have addressed the question of weekly communion here at Kuyperian Commentary before, including Pastor Uri Brito earlier this year. I do not presume to improve upon their work but would like to add a few thoughts in arguing for the Church’s weekly celebration of the Eucharist.
An increasing number of Reformed churches are embracing weekly communion at the Lord’s Table. This is a good thing, in my judgment, and a more consistent expression of our Reformed heritage and the desire to be always reforming in light of Scripture. But this is very different from what many Christians are accustomed to. Many evangelical Baptist and Reformed congregations have never eaten the Supper weekly. It is only celebrated infrequently in many Presbyterian churches and not without prior warnings and extensive preparation by the members of the congregation. On what basis is the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper to be advocated?
There is no question that the early Church partook of the Supper every first day of the week. The historical evidence is beyond dispute. The Didache, written between A.D. 50-150, provides explicit evidence of the Church’s weekly communion.
But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.
–Didache XIV, ANF 7.381
Likewise Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the 2nd century, describes the weekly gathering on Sunday which always included the Eucharist.
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons…. Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
–Justin Martyr, First Apology LXVII, ANF 1.186
Similar evidence can be found in many of the Church Fathers. The Roman Church moved away from frequent communion during the medieval period and later restored it in many parishes, but the universal practice of the ancient Church, as well as the uninterrupted practice of the Eastern Church, was weekly communion in the sacrament. The Reformers supported this frequency as well—Calvin famously advocated for weekly communion in Geneva but was opposed by the city leaders. Weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper became the practice in many Protestant Churches. That changed, as did so many things in the western Church, with the rise of revivalism and the temperance movement in the 19th century. But was the decision to move away from or resist weekly communion driven by biblical principles?
Is weekly celebration of the Supper merely allowable, or ought it to be desirable and preferable? It may be granted that no passage of Scripture explicitly commands a particular frequency of observance. The Lord only says, “This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me (or as my memorial)” (1Cor. 11:25).1 Is it appropriate to argue that churches should partake of the Supper every week? Yes, it is. I will briefly outline four arguments from Scripture in favor of regular, frequent communion with the understanding that such frequency ought to be (at least) weekly unless a congregation is providentially hindered from partaking of the sacrament.
First, regular, frequent communion is necessarily implied by the NT instructions for its celebration. The most extensive discussion of the Lord’s Supper in the NT appears in First Corinthians 11:17-34 where Paul rebukes the saints for their abuse of the Eucharist. Although the interval of their celebration is not stated, the apostle’s correction best makes sense in the context of regular, frequent observance: you come together not for the better but for the worse… when you come together as a church… when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper… Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? … as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup… For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep… when you come together to eat, wait for one another. The celebration and associated errors were clearly an ongoing problem. It was not happening merely once a quarter or once a year. The implication seems clearly to be a regular and frequent issue.
The Synoptic Gospels do not specify the frequency of celebration but do refer to that day when the disciples would drink of it anew in the Father’s kingdom (Matt. 26:29). Though this could be interpreted in several ways in relation to the Regeneration and the post-resurrection work of new creation (Matt. 19:28; 2Cor. 5:17), some have taken it to refer to the Lord’s Day when the Church would gather each week and celebrate the victory of God’s Messiah.
Finally, the instructions in First Corinthians 10 necessarily imply a regular, frequent observance. The bread and cup are the communion of the body and blood of Christ (vv.16-17). Does the Church experience and affirm that fellowship infrequently or often? It is compared to Israel’s worship at the altar (v.18). The altar was not an infrequent place of blessing but a regular, daily, means of grace, the place where God met continually with his people.
Second, regular, frequent communion is necessarily implied by the NT instructions for corporate worship. Even if the NT does not identify how often the Eucharist was celebrated, it does mandate the frequency of the Church’s gatherings. On the first day of [every ἕκαστος] week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come (1Cor. 16:2). This laying aside was clearly a corporate collection since the goal was to avoid the need to collect the designated funds when Paul arrived. The offering for needy saints was to be taken during the Church’s weekly assembly. Each/every first day of the week, the saints were to gather together and set aside funds to support their bereaved brothers and sisters in Judea. To suggest that this command has no bearing on the celebration of the Supper is to affirm that the weekly offering is more important than frequent participation in the Eucharist, which is what churches may inadvertently imply when they schedule the Supper infrequently but never miss an opportunity to collect tithes and offerings.
The Book of Acts records the early Church partaking of the Supper regularly. It is implied in Acts 2:42 (and possibly v.46). More to the point, however, is the evidence in 20:7. There we find the church in Troas gathering together to break bread on the first day of the week. Paul had been in town all week (v.6), but it was on Sunday that the church met in order to break bread, i.e. partake of the Eucharist. It was Paul’s sermon that was the unusual event on that Lord’s Day, not the holy Supper. The church met to break bread. That was why they came together, and they met not on the first of the month or the first Sunday in the quarter or a particular Sunday once a year—they met ἐν τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, on the first [day] of the week.
Third, regular, frequent communion is implied by the OT background and typology of the Sabbath. The OT religious calendar was full of feasts and holy days. The Lord’s Day, in general, and the Lord’s Supper, in particular, is the New Covenant fulfillment, in one way or another, of them all. The ceremonial law was nailed to the cross with Christ, was laid dead in the tomb, and came forth with the risen Lord having been transformed and glorified.2 Now believers experience in Christ the expiation of sins and heavenly access that was prefigured by OT types and shadows. The manner in which the Lord’s Day and Lord’s Table fulfill and glorify the Mosaic calendar is an extensive study on its own, but let it suffice here to note that, notwithstanding the obvious connection between the Lord’s Supper and Passover, the instruction in the NT places the Supper’s observance in a context much more similar to the weekly Sabbath than to the yearly Passover. The simplicity of the ritual, as contrasted with the extensive preparations that accompanied Passover, and the many indications of its frequent observance fit the pattern of Israel’s weekly day of rest and rejoicing. The Pentateuch is full of regulation and instructions for the various feasts of the OT, but the entire collection of passages in the NT governing the holy Supper amount to just a few paragraphs. When the Lord commanded Israel: Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy, the people did not ask “which Sabbath?” because every week had a seventh day. Likewise, when Christ commands his disciples: do this… take, eat… drink from it, all of you… as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, it is hard to imagine this was not something God’s people were to regularly and frequently do.
Fourth, regular, frequent communion is enjoined by an understanding of what the Eucharist is as part of covenant renewal with God. There is a danger in weekly communion, as Jim Jordan has warned us.3 That danger lies in simply going through the motions of the rite without connecting it to the larger context of covenant renewal in which the Eucharist is to be celebrated. The Lord’s Supper is the consummation of all the OT feasts which preceded it. It is a sign (to the Father) of the sacrifice of the Son, a celebration of grace, and a thank offering presented by the Church in her corporate worship. But perhaps most clearly and directly, the holy Supper is the New Covenant fulfillment of the Mosaic tribute (Lev. 2) and peace (Lev. 3) offerings. There was a sequence to the sacrifices in the Israelite administration of the Covenant of Grace, a gospel logic to the order in which offerings were prepared and presented to God (cf. Lev. 9:15-21; Ex. 24:1-11; 1Chr. 29:21-35). First an offering for sin would be made, signifying atonement and cleansing. Second an offering of consecration, a “burnt” or “ascension” offering signifying that the worshiper now belonged to God and was being made holy by and for him. Third a peace offering would be made, a sacrifice in which the majority of the animal was consumed by the worshiper and his family in the presence of God signifying reconciliation and communion.
Once we recognize this general pattern of cleansing, consecration, and communion, we will find it in many parts of the Bible. It is a liturgical pattern, not only for OT Israel but for the people of God in every age. It is the general pattern which should be followed in every congregation’s order of worship. First, the church confesses her sins, hears the gospel, and is assured of God’s mercy and pardon. Second, the church is reminded that she is a holy people and instructed in the way of righteousness to which she has been set apart by God. Third, the church is invited to the Table to sacramentally express and experience communion with the Lord. We do not eat with our enemies. We are summoned to the Table as friends, as God’s own children. His grace enables us to feast in the midst of our foes (Psa. 23:5)
Worship is not merely religious activity or a recurring obligation; it is covenant renewal. It is our corporate experience of cleansing, consecration, and communion with God. Covenant renewal without the Lord’s Supper is like repentance and forgiveness without reconciliation. It is like a wedding without a honeymoon or making up after an argument with your wife but still having to sleep on the couch. The holy Supper is a tangible, tasteable experience of the peace we have with God. It communicates to us the joy of our salvation, and it nourishes our faith and souls for the warfare and work the Lord of the covenant calls us to in this world. The Church needs that every Lord’s Day.
None of the above argumentation is meant to condemn churches that do not celebrate communion every Lord’s Day. There may be any number of reasons why a congregation might be providentially hindered in doing so. But these arguments are intended to demonstrate the biblical basis for the Church’s regular, frequent observance of the holy Supper on the first day of every week. The arguments against receiving the Eucharist every week are inadequate, unbiblical, and, sometimes, surprisingly worldly in their rationale. If we are to pursue biblical reformation, let us return to the ancient, catholic, and scriptural practice of weekly communion. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes (1Cor. 11:26).
1 An argument can (and should) be made in favor of translating the last clause: as my memorial, but that argument is beyond the scope of this article. Cf. Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1966), 237-255; James B. Jordan, From Bread to Wine: Creation, Worship, and Christian Maturity (West Monroe, LA: Theopolis Books, 2019), 5-6. Adriel Sanchez, “How We’ve Misunderstood ‘Do This In Remembrance of Me,” https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/how-weve-misunderstood-do-this-in-remembrance-of-me/ (accessed July 17, 2023).
2 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion II.vii.16-17
3 James B. Jordan, “The Peril of Weekly Communion,” Theopolis Institute (December 5, 1993) https://theopolisinstitute.com/the-peril-of-weekly-communion/ (accessed July 26, 2023).
