The Italian Memorandum

“And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.  I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom”

(Matt. 26:27-29)

The early Christians met upon the first day of the week to partake of communion, as instituted by Jesus himself in Matthew 26:26-29 (see also Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17ff.).  Have you ever wondered why “the fruit of the vine” was chosen to represent the blood of Jesus?    Consider that-

1.      The Passover Feast (Ex.12:43-51; Deut. 16:1-8) centered around the blood of a lamb.  Christ is the Christian’s Passover Lamb (1  Cor. 6:11).  His blood is redemptive (Eph. 1:7).

2.      Grapes had to be pressed to make a drinkable beverage [Gr., oinos]       (fresh or fermented). Jesus could “tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God” (Rev. 19:15) because he, himself, was pressed upon the cross (2 Cor. 5:21; Isa. 53:2,4,7,10,12).

3.      Genesis 49:11 contains an unmistakable connection between blood and grapes. It is an ancient correlation with contemporary Christian relevance.

Before there were government grants to study grapes, there was a plan to grant pardon by the fruit of the vine which flows from Immanuel’s veins.

-Robert M. Housby

“What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?”

(1 Corinthians 11:22)

From time to time, the subject of eating in the church building arises. Invariably, to study 1 Corinthians is to encounter the passage. Some have read Paul, here, to mean simply that one should never eat in the church building, period and, to do so is a sin. But, is that precisely what Paul intended to convey to the churches of Christ? We think that this position is in error and has caused a definite division.

1. The so-called, “Non-Institutional” group is responsible for advocating the no-eating-in the-church-building position. Also known as, “Anti-Churches,” due to their opposition to Bible classes and congregational support of orphan homes through collective church offerings. This group also often insists upon using one cup to distribute the fruit of the vine.

2. They have forced 1 Corinthians 11:34 into a proverb type. But, it is definitely not a proverb! 11:34 is a historical narrative remark by Paul to meet a specific Corinthian problem, where the Lord’s Supper was being confused with the common meal (1 Cor. 11:20). In 11:21, he states the problem. Then, Paul asks in order to teach-“What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (11:22). Paul cannot commend this practice (11:22). He proceeds to cite how the communion was initiated and meant to be perpetuated (11:22-26). To do otherwise is to engender a profane practice (11:27-33). His solution is to avoid mixing the common meal with the Lord’s Supper.

3. Acts 20:11 should studiously be consulted in conjunction with Acts 20:7. Notice that after they had worshipped together at Troas, they shared a time of food and conversation. This Christian tradition is known as the “love feast” (see Jude 12-tais agapais).

-Robert M. Housby

Does Observance of the Lord’s Supper
Every Lord’s Day Diminish Its Design?

“Do this in remembrance of me”

(1 Corinthians 11:24)

We recently encountered a view of the Lord’s Supper which essentially tries to justify the denominational practice of observing the emblems less often than weekly. The rationale for this view goes something like this—To take the communion every week is to defeat its purpose as being a special observance.

The above view fails to appreciate the following scriptural information:

(1) The Lord, himself, designed this communion memorial and the apostles by inspiration transmitted these directives to the church (Acts 2:42). It is, therefore, not a matter open to the discretion of a board of deacons or church bishops to negate what is already in place (see 1 Cor. 11:23; 14:37; 4:17).

(2) The frequency of the Lord’s Supper must include the apostolic traditions which have been set forth in the New Testament, not traditions which were super-added hundreds of years later (see 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 4:1-2).

(3) The Lord’s Supper coincides with the Lord’s Day; that is a weekly participation (see Rev. 1:10; 1 Cor. 11:17,18,20; 16:1-2; Acts 20:7).

(4) The Acts 20:7 reference is even stronger in Greek than in English, though the English is quite adequate to convey the truth that the reason why they came together was to partake of the communion.

The idea of observing the Lord’s Supper annually; quarterly; or, bi-monthly is a departure from the New Testament. This kind of arbitrary reasoning challenges the Lord’s revelation on the subject. One might as well try to argue that praying done weekly diminishes from its being special; or that singing, scripture reading; or preaching detract from the Lord’s design. So, “pray without ceasing” and remember the Lord as often as you come together.

– Robert M. Housby