Tag Archives: Communion

Church Government and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Note:  Most of what follows is the entirety of an editorial I’ve written for the May/June issue of the Carolina Messenger.  It will be published in that venue in May.  I’ve also touched on this topic in another article on this blog entitled My Thoughts on Matthew 18:20.  That article should be read alongside of this one in order to fully understand my thoughts on how many churches are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.


In light of current events, it is appropriate to discuss what the Bible says about church government and its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  In recent weeks, many local congregations’ leaderships have chosen to suspend normal worship assemblies in favor of members worshiping from their homes via the Internet.  These decisions were made in the interest of slowing the spread of the virus and keeping the brethren and those in the community who are more susceptible to it from coming down with it.  Some in the brotherhood have disagreed with these decisions, calling them unscriptural and those who make them in error.

Concerning the governance of the church, Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23).  The church universally is required to submit to his teachings and commands which make up the New Testament.  Much of his will is given in generalized commands and principles, thus leaving it up to us as to how to fulfill them.  This is one reason he also designated that local congregations be overseen by biblically qualified shepherds or elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; Acts 20:17, 28-32; 1 Thess. 5:12; Heb. 13:17; cf. Phil. 1:1; Eph. 4:11).  The elders of each church have the authority to decide how to best implement commands of Jesus which lack specificity.

Concerning worship assemblies, the New Testament shows that Christians assembled to worship God every Sunday (1 Cor. 11:17-33; 14:26-40; 16:1-2; Acts 20:7).  God commanded that Christians avoid the habit of forsaking or deserting the assembling of themselves together (Heb. 10:25).  Yet there is no specific biblical instruction concerning exactly when to meet on Sundays, how often to meet on Sundays, whether to have additional assemblies for worship or Bible study on other days, and similar questions.  Thus, elderships have the authority to make those decisions.  As long as their decisions fall within the parameters of what is commanded and instructed in Scripture, the shepherds of each local congregation have authority concerning those decisions and the members of those local congregations must submit to them (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; Acts 20:17, 28).

The question before us is whether churches and elderships have gone beyond what is scripturally authorized by suspending worship services altogether while the COVID-19 pandemic is occurring, and whether the decision to worship via the Internet is scripturally allowed.  To answer the question, let’s start by examining the Hebrew writer’s exhortation, “And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (Heb. 10:24-25, NASB).

Several things are worth noticing.  For example, the term  “forsaking” (egkataleipo) literally is defined as “to abandon, desert…to desert, forsake, to leave behind…” (Thayer).  Paul used the same term to describe what Demas and everyone else had done to him in his hour of need (2 Tim. 4:10, 16).  Likewise, the term “habit” (ethos) literally refers to a “custom, manner, (something to) be wont (to do)” (Strong).  It’s used repeatedly in the New Testament to refer to something people had the tradition of doing (cf. Lk. 22:39; John 19:40; Acts 25:16).  Thus, the command in Hebrews 10:25 is against the habit or custom of abandoning and deserting the assemblies.

Are churches and elderships promoting the habit of complete abandonment and desertion of worship assemblies when they decide to temporarily suspend worship assemblies at the church building until this pandemic passes, at which time regular assembling would automatically resume?  The obvious answer is no.  Let’s consider why.

Before this pandemic, it had been generally recognized that missing worship assemblies temporarily under extenuating circumstances was permissible.  I’ve yet to see an eldership or church rebuke a member if that member was sick, their loved one was sick, their job required them to miss a couple of worship assemblies but they regularly showed for the rest of them, or if they were out of town on vacation or business but once they returned they were regularly at worship.  In the past some churches among us have called off worship services if a hurricane or large forest fire was approaching their city, or in cases of icy roads or blizzards which would make travel to the church building extremely dangerous.  Was it an absolute guarantee that one’s life would be forfeit if one came to assemble to worship during such circumstances?  No, but the risk was substantially greater.  Thus, the assemblies were temporarily suspended.  Once the danger had passed, they resumed.  No habit of abandoning the assemblies was started or sustained, and thus Hebrews 10:25 was not violated.  The same holds true for those churches and elderships who are temporarily suspending worship assemblies in the interest of public safety concerning this pandemic.

Concerning the interest of public safety, consider this also.  While other passages show that the purpose of assembling was to worship God, Hebrews 10:24-25 shows that an additional reason behind assembling was to exhort each other to be involved in love and good deeds (v. 24).  This is in keeping with other passages that call on us to do good to others and be interested in others’ well-being (cf. Gal. 6:10; Phil. 2:4; Rom. 12:10; 1 Cor. 10:24; 1 Thess. 5:14-15).  Would temporarily suspending worship services be a good deed that does good for others and is in the interest of the well-being of others if all available information from experts shows that a hurricane or forest fire is coming or the roads are very icy and driver visibility is low because of a blizzard?  Would a Christian’s decision to miss a few worship services to care for himself or his loved one if they are sick with a contagious disease and do not wish to infect anyone else be a good deed that puts others before themselves?  Of course.

In like manner, the decision to temporarily suspend worship assemblies based on information that a deadly and infectious disease could be easily and asymptomatically spread to many if those assemblies occur is also a good deed made in the interests of the well-being of others.  Thus, the leadership of these churches are completely within their scriptural rights to make such decisions and should be supported rather than criticized.

Some also criticize some elderships’ decisions to offer the members of their local congregations the opportunity to be in their homes and participate in worship services led by Christian men remotely via the Internet.  The charge is made that this violates scriptural command and precedent since it was said of the early church, “Therefore when you come together in one place…” in the context of partaking of communion (1 Cor. 11:20, NKJV).  This charge is also worthy of examination.

“One place” comes from the Greek term autos, which is a reflexive pronoun and is generally translated “himself,” “herself,” “yourselves,” and “themselves” (Strong).  The Greek term generally referring to “place” as in “location” is topos (cf. Matt. 14:35; Mk. 16:6; Lk. 4:37; etc.), and is not used in 1 Corinthians 11:20.  Thus, one could say that the better translation of 1 Corinthians 11:20 would be, “Therefore when you come together among yourselves.”  Indeed, several translations simply have it as “come together,” omitting “in one place.”  

Those who criticize online worship emphasize “in one place,” stating that God desires only that communion be observed by the whole church meeting together in one place.  When one remembers God’s command against habitual abandonment of forsaking the assembly (Heb. 10:25), it is certainly the correct conclusion that God desires the normative situation for worship to be Christians assembling together in the same place.  However, one must also remember that the actual divine command is against the habitual abandonment of the whole church assembling together.  Thus, extenuating circumstances which would cause Christians to temporarily not assemble together would be allowed.

This is especially proven true when one takes into account a closer examination of Paul’s statement about communion in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17:  “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?  Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread.”  Written in the context of exhorting the Corinthian brethren to flee from idolatry by pointing out that participation in idolatry defiles their participation in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:14-21), Paul’s inspired words are also relevant to the controversy surrounding taking communion from home via the Internet.  Most believe Paul wrote this letter to Corinth while staying in the city of Ephesus.  Thus, he obviously was not present when the Corinthians assembled on Sundays to partake of the Lord’s Supper…and yet he still wrote of “the cup of blessing which we bless” and “the bread which we break” (v. 16).  He also said that we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (v. 17).  It is clear that the “we” and “many” of whom he speaks cannot refer solely to the local congregation at Corinth, because the apostle includes himself in the “we” and he was in a completely different city when he did so.  Thus, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 is referring to how the universal church all commune together when we all, in our respective different locations, partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of each week.  Thus, brethren who are absent from the corporate assembly of their home congregation due to extenuating circumstances such as the pandemic which is upon us are still communing with their brethren, and indeed with their brethren world-wide, when they partake of the Lord’s Supper at home.

It should also be pointed out that the same phraseology of 1 Corinthians 11:20 — “if the whole church comes together in one place” — is also used in 1 Corinthians 14:23 in the context of discussing the acts of worship which are singing, praying, and the preaching of God’s Word (cf. 1 Cor. 14:15, 26ff).  If “in one place” inherently requires that communion only be observed when the whole church is assembled together, then it also inherently requires that singing, praying, and preaching be done only when the whole church is assembled together.  However, the rest of the New Testament shows that Christians prayed, sang praises, and preached or listened to preaching outside of the corporate worship assembly (cf. Acts 16:25; 1 Thess. 5:17; Acts 17:22ff; et al).  As it is, “in one place” (autos) is better translated “among yourselves.”  Thus, partaking of communion by Christians among themselves could also take place outside of the corporate worship assembly.  Again, the command of Hebrews 10:25 condemning the habitual abandonment of the whole church assembling together would require that this be the exception rather than the norm.  (See my article, “My Thoughts on Matthew 18:20,” for more thoughts on this.)  Nonetheless, it would be allowed if unusual circumstances required it.

This also was better understood before the pandemic.  I have known of members of local churches who have vacationed together on cruise ships.  When Sunday came, they were away from the rest of their home congregation. Yet they still gathered together in one of their cabins and worshiped together, which included partaking of communion together.  By how autos is generally used in the New Testament, they had “come together amongst themselves” (1 Cor. 11:20).  Should they not have partaken of communion or worshiped at all that day due to not being with their home church?

Consider shut-ins who are either permanently or temporarily  unable to assemble with the rest of their home congregation.  Should the brethren who have visited them on Sunday afternoons and worshiped with them in their homes, bringing them communion in the process, not have done so because they weren’t among the whole worship assembly earlier that day?  Was it not still the case that they had “come together amongst themselves” in that Christian shut-in’s home?

Consider Paul, who for two years was under house arrest in Rome and for several years had been in prison before that (Acts 21-28).  Brethren had visited him in prison and while he was under house arrest.  Were they not allowed to worship with him and partake communion with him because he and they were not part of the whole worship assembly in that locale?  Did Paul not partake of communion for literally years because of this?  Consider those who were “scattered abroad” from Jerusalem (Acts 8:1ff).  It must have taken them weeks or even months to find a new place to live and a new congregation with which to worship  while being fugitives from the Jews.  Did they not worship together and partake of communion at all during that time?  Or, among however many brethren they were, did they “come together amongst themselves” until they found a new church home?  It is clear which scenario is more reasonable and likely.  Extenuating circumstances allow for worshiping together outside of the normal assemblies.  Thus, extenuating circumstances allow the use of technology to expedite worshiping together outside of the normal assemblies.

I’ve even seen it said that worshiping online is not actual worship.  Yet I’ve observed my children watch a video which taught them about the Bible.  Were they not actually taught simply because it was a video?  I’ve worshiped in song while singing along to a recording of Christians singing praises.  Was I not actually worshiping simply because I used an MP3 recording?  To ask is to answer.

The newness or atypicality of something does not inherently make it sinful, nor is it required to permanently take the place of the norm once things return to normal.  Our God is wiser than us.  His wisdom is seen in wording the scriptures we’ve studied here in such a way to  allow us to adapt to the unusual circumstances of life.  Elders are called to lead in making those adaptations.

These days, many elders are making hard decisions.  The benefit of the doubt must be given that they have studied the Scriptures and are doing their best, both during and after this pandemic, to abide within divine parameters concerning both the assembly and the care of others.  They need our support, encouragement, prayers, and gratitude.  Church autonomy should be respected.  Righteous judgment must be given to all (John 7:24).

— Jon

Questions: Does “Breaking Bread” Refer Solely To Communion? Does “For As Often As You Eat This Bread And Drink This Cup” Allow Personal Judgment As To The Frequency Of Observing Communion?

Since I started this blog a few weeks ago, I’ve had some really good questions pop up in the comments to my various articles and in private e-mails to me.  These questions are legitimate and deserve a biblical, logical answer (1 Pet. 3:15).  That’s why I started a “Questions” category in my blog a few days ago.  From time to time I’ll be posting articles which answer the questions people bring to my attention.

One reader gave me a great comment in response to my article about whether Christians should take communion every Sunday that deserves a biblical answer.  I’ve cited the comment below, along with my responses to each of the points raised within it:

If you do not mind a bit of positive critique, I find it an eisegetical stretch to claim that the 3,000 new Christians observed communion on the Day of Pentecost, in Acts 2. They may have, but the text does not record it. Verses 42-47 appear to provide a general description of the ongoing, daily activity of the early Jerusalem church. They met together, at temple daily and in homes, enjoying meals together. Breaking bread — in this context, as verse 46 indicates clearly, and in general usage in that day, and today — does not refer solely and exclusively to communion. Your article does not allow this obvious point.

I understand the reasoning behind this point of view.   Acts 2:42 mentions “the breaking of bread,” while Acts 2:46 uses the phrase “breaking bread.”  Since the latter verse also says that the early disciples were “breaking bread in their homes” and then mentions receiving “their food,” it is clear that the term “breaking bread” as used in Acts 2:46 is referring to the first Christians eating a common meal in their homes.  This conclusion is further strengthened when we see that the Greek word translated “food” (trophe) in Acts 2:46 is never used in the New Testament in any passages which talk about the Lord’s Supper.

However, it needs to be pointed out that just as we examined what the rest of Acts 2:46 brought out in order to arrive to the correct conclusion that “breaking bread” in that verse referred to an ordinary meal, we likewise need to examine what the rest of Acts 2:42 mentions in order to determine the proper usage of “breaking bread” in that verse.  In this case, the phrase “breaking bread” is surrounded by descriptions of acts of worship.  The verse records how the first disciples “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching,” a reference to the preaching of God’s Word (Acts 6:2).  In addition, they also “devoted themselves” to “prayer,” another act of worship done during their assemblies.

Interestingly, notice also that they “devoted themselves” to “fellowship.”  This word comes from the Greek word koinōnia, and is defined as “fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse.”  Paul was inspired to use this same word in correlation with the notion of “breaking bread” in 1 Cor. 10:16 when he wrote, “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?”  Notice that he is making an obvious reference to the Lord’s Supper in this passage (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-25), and in doing so he uses the term “communion” (koinōnia, “fellowship” in Acts 2:42) and the idea of “breaking bread” interchangeably.  In like manner, Luke in Acts 2:42 mentions both terms – “fellowship” (koinōnia, “communion” in 1 Cor. 10:16) and “the breaking of bread” – in the context of listing  acts of worship.  Thus, it is not an eisegetical error to conclude that he, like Paul, is using the terms interchangeably to refer to the Lord’s Supper.

Therefore, we see a distinct difference between Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:46 in how the two passages use the term “breaking bread.” The former uses it in the context of listing acts of worship, and uses it alongside a term which, when Paul used the same terms interchangeably, referred to the Lord’s Supper.  The latter uses it in the context of the early Christians eating food in their homes.  Therefore, the former refers to the Lord’s Supper, while the latter refers to a common meal.  Some translators imply that they recognize this distinction by their adding the article “the” in Acts 2:42’s “breaking of bread,” thus making the verse say “the breaking of THE bread,” while failing to do the same in Acts 2:46.  (Examples of this include Young’s Literal Translation and the Weymouth New Testament.)

Concerning why in my article I alluded to Acts 2:42 being evidence that the first Christians partook of the Lord’s Supper on the day of Pentecost, a Sunday, I came to that conclusion not because the text of Acts 2 specifically says so.  The commenter is correct to say that it does not specifically say so, although it is definitely implied considering that the day of Pentecost is what is referred to the immediate preceding context (Acts 2:1-42).  The main reason I stated that conclusion is given in the article, namely that Jesus had specifically mentioned partaking of the Lord’s Supper with his disciples in the kingdom on “that day” (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25) when “the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:18).  The kingdom of God is the church of Christ (Col. 1:13), and the church came on the day of Pentecost, a Sunday (Acts 2:1-41).  Thus, Jesus’ prophecy of partaking it with his disciples (in spirit – Matt. 18:20; Heb. 2:11-12) on “that day” when “the kingdom of God comes” would have to have been fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when the church began, which was the first day of the week.  In order for it to have been fulfilled, those newly baptized Christians would have had to have observed communion on that very same day.  The fact that Luke mentions these first disciples worshiping together (Acts 2:42) immediately after recording their conversion and the subsequent beginning of the church on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-41) lends credence to this view.

Likewise, with the Troas church setting, in Acts 20, lends itself to three views on the breaking of bread. First, the reference could be to communion, as verse 7 seems to indicate. Breaking bread, however, could refer to a common meal, as verse 11 seems to indicate. A third option is that two bread breakings took place, the first being communion and the latter a common meal. The wording of the text itself allows these possibilities; however, I tend to accept the third option, so we seem to agree fairly well here.  Of course, the inspired Luke is not writing liturgical instruction in the text. His focus is on Paul’s preaching and the miracle performed, as he references the church’s practice of meeting on the first day of the week, or Sunday, with an emphasis on communion. Luke does not intend in this text, however, to imply that communion or a worship gathering is restricted to the first day of the week only. If so, then worship and communion are both restricted to Sunday only.

Prov. 30:5 says that every word of God is “tested.”  In other words, the inspired writers had a reason for every word that they wrote.  Therefore, we should not be so quick to imply that Luke’s intention was to focus solely on the miracle and the discourse.

With this in mind, a careful reading of Acts 20:7 and Acts 20:11 brings out several notable points, some of which are similar to the distinction between Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:46.  For one, examine the phrase “we were gathered together” in Acts 20:7.  The personal pronoun “we” shows that Luke was present on this occasion.  However, what is even more interesting is the expression “were gathered together.”  It comes from the Greek verb synagō, and Luke used this verb in a passive voice form.  Grammatically, this means that Luke was stating that he and his fellow disciples did not gather or assemble themselves together on the first day of the week not by their own authority, idea, or suggestion; rather, they “were gathered together” by an extraneous or external directive.  From what source did this extraneous directive come?  The only other specific scriptural evidence we have comes from 1 Cor. 16:1-2, which has Paul – under inspiration (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Eph. 3:3-5) – directing the Corinthian and Galatian churches (and implicitly, all other churches – 1 Cor. 4:17) to take up a collection for needy saints “on the first day of every week.”  Therefore, God was the source of the extraneous directive which gathered together Luke and his fellow disciples on the first day of the week, and Paul’s inspired usage of the Greek term kata in 1 Cor. 16:2 combined with what we read in Acts 20:7 shows that God directed the early Christians to assemble together “on the first day of every week.”

Keeping this in our thoughts, let’s examine the phrase “to break” in Acts 20:7It comes from the Greek verb klaō, and Luke used this verb in an infinitive tense.  Grammatically, this means Luke was stating that the purpose for the disciples being called together on the first day of the week was “to break bread.”  Was the specific purpose they assembled together on the first day of the week to eat a common meal together…or was the specific purpose to partake of communion?  The scriptural evidence shown in the preceding paragraph and compiled in my article suggests the latter.  Would God have called them together on the first day of every week simply to eat a meal together?  Or would he have called them together to memorialize his Son’s death through observance of communion, and to do so on the day his Son had referred to while instituting the Supper?

Now, look at Acts 20:11.  A careful reading of the verse shows that the only one who had “broken bread”at this point was Paul, rather than the entire group.  Furthermore, the word “eaten”comes from the Greek word geuomai and has among its definitions, “to taste” and “to take nourishment.”  Geuomai is never used in any passages which mention the Lord’s Supper, thus giving support to the conclusion that Acts 20:11 is referring to Paul eating an ordinary meal after the entire assembly of disciples had earlier observed the Lord’s Supper in Acts 20:7.

Concerning the commentor’s inference from my article that communion and worship could only be done on Sunday, he is partly right.  Of the five acts of worship described in the New Testament (singing, hearing a message from God’s Word, prayer, communion, and giving of our means), only communion and the giving of our means have any sort of specific day assigned to them (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).  On the contrary, Christians are told to sing praises whenever they are cheerful (James 5:13), which would take place not only in the assembly (Heb. 2:12) but also throughout the week (Phil. 4:4).  Likewise, Christians are told to continually devote themselves to prayer (Col. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:17-18) and to the Word (1 Pet. 2:2; 1 Tim. 4:13, 15-16).  Thus, we are to worship God through receiving instruction from his Word, prayer, and song throughout the week, either publicly or privately…but the observance of the Lord’s Supper and the giving of our means are limited to only Sundays.

I was surprised not to find a reference to 1 Cor. 11:23-26 in your article. There, Paul states:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

“Do this . . . .” “. . . whenever you drink it . . . .” “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup . . . .” Paul, here, gives inspired leeway as to when the Lord’s Supper is observed. It is “whenever.” The immediate context is “when you come together as a church” (vs. 18, 33), which appears to be at least on the first day of the week, or Sunday (1 Cor. 16:2). The Jerusalem church, however, came together daily (Acts 2:46). (Could the Corinthian church have gathered daily as well?) From this, shall we not conclude that a “whenever” observance of the Lord’s Supper could be daily, on Sundays, or at any time?

This is an understandable conclusion to come to after a casual reading of the passages under consideration; yet, in light of what is shown above and in the article under discussion, it is found to be erroneous.  The “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:46 is shown conclusively to refer to an ordinary meal eaten in one’s home, and is the only usage of the term in correlation with the record of the first disciples meeting daily in the temple.  The “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 is used in correlation with acts of worship done immediately upon coming of the kingdom on the first day of the week which was Pentecost (Acts 2:1-41), thus showing that it’s a reference to communion and making it fall under the significance of the singular “day” mentioned by Christ when he instituted the Supper (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18; cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2), that day being the first day of the week.  Therefore, we can conclude that the first disciples worshiped in the temple through instruction of God’s Word, prayer, and song and ate together on a daily basis, but the only time they observed communion and gave of their means would be on the first day of every week.  The fact that church history shows that the early Christians did this, as cited in the commentor’s point below as well as in my article, gives more credence to this conclusion.

You do well in citing the so-called Church Fathers to buttress your view on weekly communion. I prefer weekly observance as well, based on the Troas text in Acts and early church history. I will not, however, condemn other believers on the basis of their Lord’s Supper observance frequency, whether it is daily, on Sunday, once a quarter, on Passover, on Christmas Eve, etc. – since Paul’s inspired citation of Jesus indicates that we may observe communion “whenever,” of course with the proper spiritual mindset. To do otherwise, is to speak where scripture has not spoken and to go beyond what is written, or intended, in scripture.

Ps. 119:160 brings out how “the sum”or “entirety”of God’s Word is truth, meaning that we have to take all of what Scripture says about a certain matter into account in order to know the whole truth about that subject.  For example, many say that all one has to do in order to be saved is to believe in Jesus and cite John 3:16…all while ignoring other passages which stress the necessity of confession of that faith in Jesus (Rom. 10:9-10), repentance of sins (2 Cor. 7:9-10), baptism (1 Pet. 3:21; Mark 16:16), and obedience (Heb. 5:9; Matt. 7:21-23).  In like manner, Paul did use the seemingly general term “as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup” in 1 Cor. 11:26, but that is not the only thing Scripture has to say about when and how often to observe communion.  Paul was among those who “were gathered together” by the extraneous divine directive on the first day of the week to observe communion (Acts 20:7).  He himself was inspired to single out the first day of every week in his command for Christians to give of their means (1 Cor. 16:2).  His Lord and Master mentioned a singular “day” in which he would spiritually observe communion with his disciples, that day being when the kingdom came (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:15; Luke 22:18; cf. Matt. 18:20; Heb. 2:11-12).  The kingdom – the church – came on the day of Pentecost, the first day of the week (Acts 2:1-42; cf. Lev. 23:15-16).  Taking all of that scriptural data into account alongside of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 11:26 shows that Paul only had in mind Sundays when he wrote, “For as often as you…”  

Paul and other inspired writers also wrote the very thing the commenter alluded to above: how imperative it is to not go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Cor. 4:6; Rev. 22:18-19; Gal. 1:6-9; Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6).  Those who decide to partake of communion on days other than Sunday are doing exactly that, regardless of their sincerity (Matt. 7:21-23).  In doing so, their worship is based on the traditions of men rather than on the commandments of God, and is thus vain (Matt. 15:7-9).  It is my prayer and hope that what is shown here helps all who read it to know and obey the truth about these matters.