THE PROPER TIME FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCES.
By W. H. Littlejohn
Having considered in a previous article “The Order to be Pursued in the Administration of the Ordinances,” I propose in the present paper to discuss the question of the proper time for their celebration. The difficulties that attend the discussion of this branch of the subject are neither so great nor so numerous as were those with which we were confronted in the consideration of the points presented in the former article. Probably there are fifty who have been troubled as to which should take the precedence in administration, the washing of feet or the breaking of bread, where there has been one who has harbored any trouble concerning the precise time when the ordinances should be administered. Should there be but one, however, it would be our duty—provided he were sincere in his questioning—to assist him in the solution of what might, to his mind, appear to be a difficult problem. So far as we are aware, those who hold to a specific time for the “breaking of bread” and the “washing of feet” are of the opinion that it is indispensable that they should be attended to in the evening. It is difficult to say whence they get this opinion, unless it be either from the fact that Christ broke the bread and washed the feet of the disciples in the evening when he instituted the ordinances, or because it is supposed by these individuals that the ordinances take the place fully of the Passover, and are to perpetuate it under a different set of types, but subject to the same limitations and regulations. So far as the first position is concerned, it may be properly remarked that more importance is attached to the fact that the “Lord’s supper” and the “washing of feet” were attended to in the evening than the circumstance itself will warrant. The element of time is never to be regarded as essential unless it is made so by the very nature of the duty prescribed, or by explicit declarations found in the command imposing the same. To illustrate: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” is an injunction which has imposed an obligation on every minister since the days of Christ. The exact moment, however, at which the preaching and the baptizing shall be performed is not thought to be a matter worthy of discussion, since there is no limitation as to the time when these things should be done, found in the original command. This being true, the preacher has felt free to present his message whenever and wherever he could get the ears of the people, and to baptize either by night or day, in the morning, or at noon, or in the twilight, all candidates who have met the implied requisition by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, in the sixth chapter of Matthew and the ninth verse, the Lord’s prayer is introduced by the words, “After this manner therefore pray ye;” but who does not understand that the individual is left free to select the time and place for the repetition of that prayer in accordance with the opportunities or necessities which may surround him? The reason why he uses this liberty is apparent. It is because the precept was given without specification as to time and place, and he naturally and correctly concludes that he is left to select these for himself. But without multiplying illustrations further for the purpose of proving a general principle of interpretation which is too obvious to demand further exemplification, we turn to apply it to the question before us. Did the Lord, in the memorable evening of the institution of his supper, enjoin upon his disciples that they should commemorate the same thereafter in the evening, and in the evening only? In order to discuss the question intelligently, we have transcribed all the passages which bear directly upon the subject. They are as follows:— “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt. 26:29. “And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them; and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Mark 14:22–25. “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” Luke 22:19–21. “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” 1 Cor. 11:22–29. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” 1 Cor. 10:16. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Acts 2:42–47. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” “And when he was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” Acts 20:7, 11. In explaining the foregoing scriptures, the reader has discovered that in all which Christ said there is not one declaration from which it may reasonably be inferred that he designed to convey the impression that the evening furnished the only period of time in which the breaking of bread was to be attended to thereafter. The scope of this injunction comprehends three things: First, it is fairly deducible from his remarks that they were expected to imitate his example; second, that when they did so, it was to be done in remembrance of him; third, that they should continue to commemorate his death in that way until he should come again. The expression “as oft as ye do it” is general in its character, and, in the absence of any qualifying clauses, cannot be claimed to place any restriction whatever upon the free choice of the individual as to the time and the place when and where he shall commemorate the humility and death of his Lord. Turning to Luke 11:2 we read, “When ye pray, say, Our Father,” etc. In this language we have a case nearly parallel to the one before us; for the expression “when ye pray” is nearly tantamount to the words “as oft” as ye pray. But will any one insist that the former expression furnishes any limitation as to the time when we may offer the Lord’s prayer? But the case is a parallel one; for our Lord himself had just been praying at the time he used the expression, “When ye pray, say, Our Father,” etc. Therefore, as this was doubtless done in the daytime, it would, according to the view which we are opposing, be equivalent to a restriction upon the disciples to pray only in the daytime. Such a restriction, however, is not acknowledged by those with whom we differ upon the subject before us, and we cannot therefore see how they can fail to comprehend that in this, as in many other cases, they have acknowledged a law of interpretation which, when properly applied, will remove all their objections to the administration of the ordinances in the daytime, which are simply based on the fact that Christ attended to them in the evening. Thus much for the example of Christ. The next point to be considered relates to the proposition that the Passover was always partaken of in the evening, and therefore that the ordinances should be celebrated in the evening also. A serious objection to this line of argument lies in the fact that it would prove altogether too much. If it is valid in one point, it is valid in all; i. e., if the Lord’s supper takes the place of the Passover, and must consequently be attended to in the evening because the Passover was attended to at that time, then, by parity of reasoning, it must, like the Passover, also be partaken of on the evening of the 15th day of Abib. This being true, then it is necessarily an institution which can be attended to only once in a year, instead of once a week, as is the practice of some, or once in a month, as is the custom of others, or once in three months, as is the habit of others still. But if this be so, it would be necessary that we should give far more attention to the Jewish calendar as formerly made up than we have hitherto been in the habit of doing, and we fear that it might puzzle some of us exceedingly to determine just when the 15th day of Abib will be reached. Not only so, but it is also apparent that if the Passover is the Lord’s supper, both are subject to the same laws as it regards the time at which they were to be administered, and it follows that the regulations which govern in the case of the former will apply equally to the latter, unless specifically repeated. As a consequence, all the specifications relating to posture, clothing, place, etc., which applied to the Passover, should be observed by us in partaking of the eucharist. As we receive it, it should be with our loins girded, our shoes on our feet, and our staves in our hands; and it should be eaten in haste. (Ex. 12:11.) Since the Passover was connected also with the feast of unleavened bread, who will say that all the regulations concerning this feast, all that was said concerning the cleansing of the house from leaven, and the abstinence from the use of leavened bread for one week, etc., is not still obligatory upon Christians for seven days in each year at the return of their annual passover ceremonies? Certain it is that it would be just as reasonable to suppose that these other ceremonial provisions which related to the old institution are grafted upon the new one, as it is to conclude that the peculiarity of the former as to the fact that it was necessarily attended to in the night, should still apply to the latter. Nay, more; it is to us more probable that our supper should resemble that of the Passover in the particular that it should be celebrated once a year, than that it should be limited, like the latter, to the evening. This is so, first, because Christ was crucified in the daytime; secondly, because he was crucified but once, and will not be again, and, consequently, since a full year was formerly taken in the tabernacle service to represent the whole work of Christ from his crucifixion to his second coming, it would appear to be not altogether improbable—judging from the standpoint of the types—that the breaking of bread might be properly participated in but once a year, as were the passover solemnities formerly. But this would be simply an induction of the human reason drawn from the probabilities of the case. Such induction, however, is not always safe. God’s plans are higher than our plans. His methods vary from our methods. That which appears to us to be highly proper might seem to him to be highly improper. The best thing we can do, therefore, is to leave speculation out of the question, and confine ourselves to the record. In that record we learn that Christ is our Passover. We also learn that the symbols to be employed by us in the celebration of our Passover are entirely different from those which the Jews employed. They slew, roasted, and ate the lamb; we break and eat the bread, and drink the wine. They partook of the Passover but once a year; we partake of it as often as circumstances render it desirable. Our justification for this deviation is made out in three ways. First, we understand that the original Passover was the creature of the Mosaic law, and that, consequently, when that law with all its types and ceremonies passed away, the whole Jewish Passover system was abrogated with it; and therefore we have nothing to do with its times and ceremonies. Secondly, the law of our eucharist was given by Christ himself, and in it there is not only no restriction as it regards the precise period when it is to be administered, but, also, that the language employed by the Saviour is of such a nature that it leaves us the prerogative of a free choice in that particular. Thirdly, the examples which are left us prove most conclusively that, so far as the element of specific time is concerned, it is not perpetuated in our institution. In Acts 2:42–47 we read that the disciples continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. In regard to the signification of this passage learned writers have differed widely. Some have supposed that it related simply to a common meal, while others have thought that the allusion was to the “breaking of bread” in the “Lord’s supper,” which they claim at that time took place in connection with such meals. We confess frankly that it is not clear to our own mind where the exact truth lies in this controversy. We feel assured, however, that the reference in verse 42 is to the sacrament, as any other view of the matter would affect the dignity of the record by making Luke appear to confound the sacred with the profane by uniting in the same sentence the mention of such Christian duties as fellowship, doctrine, and prayers with the eating of an ordinary repast. This would seem highly improper, both from the standpoint of its connection, and the application of the word “steadfastly” to the partaking of food in the ordinary way. But if the “breaking of bread” mentioned in verse 42 means the eucharist, then in order to avoid the conclusion that it means the same in verses 46 and 47, we must decide that there is an abrupt deviation within this brief space in the use of the term “breaking of bread,” by which it is made in the first place to point to the sacrament, and in the second place to something wholly secular in its nature. Such a version, to say the least, appears to be strained. But if it be not correct, if the same word in both instances is to be understood as representing the same idea, then we have the disciples “breaking bread” and eating meat daily, either in their own houses, or in those of one another. This being true, however, then—as the “eating of meat” is admitted by all to signify ordinary meals—it is undeniable that they were in the habit of partaking of the eucharist in the daytime, unless resort be had to the violent presumption that they never ate meat except in the night season.