The Upper Room Example versus the First Day of the Week Example
I would like to respond to the above linked article. I am concerned for our brother and the direction of his thinking as well as the influence such thinking has on others. It concerns the matter of how to establish biblical authority and whether you can and should consider examples of what others did with God’s approval in consideration of your own practice. I believe that commands, statements, and exampless SHOULD be part of our search for authority, and that some examples help us prove what is acceptable to the Lord. If the total evidence is consistent with the example, then the example may help us “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”(Eph.5:10; 1 Thess.5:21; Rom.12:2).
Joel ends his article by asserting: “But unless we are prepared to bind the practice of eating the Lord’s Supper in an upper room, we need to be careful of judging those who choose to eat it (the Lords’ Supper –twb) on a day other than Sunday. –JME”
TB: Now, I deny that eating the Lord’s Supper in an upper room is equal to the example of eating the supper on the first day of the week. There is a command to eat the supper in “one place”.(1 Cor.11:20). That is the only command about where to eat the supper.
Joel responded to this part by saying: 1) 1st Corinthians 11:20 is not a command to eat the Lord’s Supper, either together or not.
TB: Excuse me. It is an approved, Spirit-guided statement that carries the force of telling the will of God about their gathering to eat the Lord’s Supper. “When you come together in one place”. If God Had wanted them to make sure the Supper was taken only in upper rooms, then He would have said “when you come together in an upper room”. He didn’t. He left the only requirement regarding the Supper is that it be held in “one place” wherever you can arrange to meet. Therefore, the two examples of taking the Supper in an upper room was circumstantial and incidental, not a uniform practice at all.
JE: 2) There is no example in the NT of anyone eating the Lord’s Supper anywhere other than an upper room.
TB: Joel is trying to make a point about examples, but his point fell apart because the total evidence is that brethren did not meet always in upper rooms to take the supper. 1 Cor.11 shows that the only requirement was to find a place where the church could come together in one place. That common architecture of that time made many houses with a large upper room a good candidate for a place to come together in one place, does not limit “come together in one place” to always being in an upper room even in places where that was not a good candidate for a place to come together in one place. Joel did not want to lose his argument so he pretended that 1 Cor.11:20 is not a command. It may not be in the form of a command, but it is a statement that shows that God wanted them to come together in one place and eat the Lord’s Supper.
Secondly, Acts 2:42 shows that they met at the temple for a time as the “one place” they could share the Supper. It specifically says they were together, continuing daily with one accord in the temple. The Supper was one of the things they did together in the temple. It is fallacious to argue that two examples of eating in an upper room dismisses all other evidence. We do not dismiss all other evidence that brethren took the Supper on other days besides the first day of the week. We copy the early practice because that is ALL the evidence of when to take the Supper. Joel, wanting to dismiss all examples as authoritative, thought that he would show how inconsistent it is to follow the example of Acts 20:7 while not following the example of the upper room. We don’t follow THAT example of meeting in an upper room simply because it was incidental (the one place they found to meet in one place) and not a purposeful pattern that characterized all meeting places. But we see that they purposely waited for the first day of the week to come around because that was when the disciples purposefully came together to break bread.
Two examples show that a common place where a number could meet together was in an upper room. Other examples show that they also found meeting by a river or in a school and for a while at the temple was a good place to come together in one place. Therefore, the commands and examples show us that it is wide open as long as you can find “one place” to accommodate coming together in one place. The forced conclusion from all evidence is that it is wherever the church can come together in one place.
On the topic of when to come together in one place to take the supper, all the information points to the first day of the week ( Acts 2:42 was on the first day of the week, and Acts 20:7 makes the observation while Paul waited that it was on the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread). The forced conclusion of all evidence was that the disciples commonly met on the first day of the week for the purpose of breaking bread, and this was the approved time to do so. It is therefore the approved time for us to do so. Since we are under obligation to “prove what IS acceptable to the Lord”, we can use this example to prove it is acceptable to the Lord to take the Supper on the first day of the week AND we can’t prove that I is acceptable to take the Supper on any other day of the week. We can prove it is acceptable to meet in one place, not just upper rooms, anywhere we can find an adequate place. So, the issues are not equal as our brother would like us to think.
As for judging others, we do that by merely telling the truth and I intend to keep on doing that. If they judge that they need not follow the divine pattern, I judge that I can have no fellowship with them in what they do. My practice is not questionable. I can prove my practice is acceptable to the Lord. If they choose to “eat it on a day other than Sunday” then let them “prove it is acceptable to the Lord”. If they don’t or can’t, then I judge that I cannot have fellowship with them (Eph.5:8-11). Neither should others.
Joel further said: “Acts 2:42 does not mention the first day of the week. You are only assuming it must have been because of your conclusions from Acts 20:7.”
TB: No, Pentecost fell on the first day of the week, and that is when they were there after their baptism “continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers”. We have no reason to assume a break in time has occurred. So, here is an example of taking the Supper on the first day of the week in the temple area, not in an upper room.
JE: No one is denying the Lord approves of believers meeting to eat the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week.
TB: That is correct because that practice can be proven to be correct. Since everyone is obligated to prove their own practice is correct, then we have to ask those who take the Supper on some other day to prove that it is acceptable to the Lord (Eph.5:10; 1 Thess.5:21; Rom.12:2). The upper room argument Joel made is simply bad exegesis and reasoning. Now, the examples of upper room meetings just proves that if an upper room is a good place to “come together in one place” then use it. If there are other places to come together in one place, then use them. Examples are not binding just because they are examples, but they may show an approved pattern where the total information on that topic shows a pattern of action that we know is right and cannot be wrong as we strive to “prove all things” that we do are in harmony with the will of God. If you throw out examples from consideration, you would throw out statements as well, and that would leave you with deciding which commands written to someone else applies to you. That approach is very lacking and foolish. We speak the truth in love, and hope that at least others will see the difference between the examples that are incidental and those that show purpose and give us a pattern that we know is acceptable to the Lord. And, we wish only good things for our brother consistent with the will of God.
Terry W. Benton
