Can you describe briefly what the difference is between the Old and the New Covenant, and, as the New Covenant was given to Israel, in what way is the Church included?
Hebrews 8.8-12 is helpful in showing us the contrasts between the covenant made with the progenitors of Israel and the new one of the future that the nation will enjoy. The nation of Israel will come into the superior blessings of the New Covenant. The New Covenant will be manifested in a day to come when God will take up Israel again and fulfil His promise. I believe the New Covenant was inaugurated at Calvary, but it will be consummated at a future day. No covenant could be made without blood shedding. Hence the Lord instituted the Supper to be kept throughout the Church period and spoke of the cup of the New Covenant in His blood. This being so, then of course the Church is included in the New Covenant.
In Hebrews 8.7 the writer shows that there were defects in the old one, but from Jeremiah 31, in the New Covenant made with Israel, he pinpoints three items of contrast with the old. Instead of a law written on tables of stone and deposited in the Ark, there was to be a law written on the heart. On Israel’s part there will be a new permanent spirit of devoted obedience to God (v.10). Instead of instruction in the details of the cumbrous ceremonial system by a priest, there is to be intuitive first hand knowledge of God, possessed and accessible to all (v.11). Instead of the temporary and annual forgiveness of sins, in the New Covenant there is a full, free, everlasting forgiveness, for the expiation which was made under the Old Covenant was imperfect and its most serious drawback was that it could not effectively deal with sins. These new blessings will be Israel’s possession in the millennium. Believers of the present age of grace share in this New Covenant. If we were to interpret the use of Jeremiah 31 in this passage it is plain it has to do with Israel, but by application all believers in our Lord Jesus Christ enjoy now spiritually its blessings, if not as a whole then certainly in part, as for instance v.12.
John J Stubbs
There is only one verse (Acts 20.7) which tells us that believers came together to break bread on the first day of the week. Is this sufficient to justify accepting that they did not do so on other days of the week?
The synoptic Gospels record the institution of what we know as the Lord’s supper; in the Book of the Acts we are told of the celebration of it by the early disciples, whilst in 1 Corinthians 11, the explanation of it is given by the Holy Spirit through Paul.
The question is concerned with the partaking of the Lord’s supper. It is true that, as to the early disciples, we read "they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple" (Acts 2.46) – the reference is to the temple courts or precincts. Could there be a more suitable place for testimony for the more than 3,000 believers forming the assembly in Jerusalem? The verse continues, "and breaking bread from house to house"; the words that follow, "did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart", make it clear that Luke is referring to the partaking of a meal.
Subsequent to the incident regarding the raising of Eutychus from the dead, we read concerning Paul, "when he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten … he departed" (Acts 20.11) – this again evidently refers to the partaking of food.
Let us consider the verse noted by the questioner, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread" (Acts 20.7). This was now evidently their custom. The Christians had been guided to accept the practice of remembering the Lord Jesus on the first day of the week. It was the prime object of their gathering, the centre of their worship. Other spiritual exercises might be carried out, but essentially they came together to break bread.
Paul had arrived in Troas the previous Monday (Acts 20.6) but though his journey was urgent, "he hasted…to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost" (Acts 20.16), he appears to have called no special meeting of the assembly, but tarried until the ensuing "first day of the week", after which he departed without further loss of time.
The first day of the week is spoken of as "the Lord’s day" (Rev 1.10). Thus "the Lord’s day" and "the Lord’s supper" (1 Cor 11.20) are especially linked by a word being used by the Holy Spirit to mark them off, nowhere else used in the New Testament.
David E West
