Reader Raymond Gonzalez asked in a comment,
I have a question to those who advocate having a “larger meal” between the eating of the bread in memory and drinking of the cup in memory of our Lord. Are we in SIN if we just eat the bread and drink the cup in memory of Jesus WITHOUT the common meal in between? I ask this question because some are condemning churches that continue in the traditional manner.
First, a little background. I’ve often pointed out that the early church did not take the Lord’s Supper as a symbolic meal with crackers and juice. It was in fact typically taken as part of a full meal, called the “love feast” or agapē. We’ve covered this many times before.
Therefore, I happily approve those churches that attempt somehow to combine their communion service with a full meal — perhaps through small groups or perhaps by combining a covered-dish meal with communion. In Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper
I think the Lord’s Supper works best in an intimate setting, and so small groups seem the ideal solution to me, but this means the elders must deal with such questions as —
* Is it okay to take communion twice — once in “big church” and once in small groups?
* Would it be okay to omit communion in the assembly and take it only at small group? (Might depend on the impact on those who don’t participate in small groups.)
* Is it okay to take communion with less than the entire church present? (Some churches insist that communion on Sunday night, for those Providentially hindered that morning, be part of the full service, as awkward as this can be.)
* And as Raymond has asked, if we’re supposed to take communion as part of a love feast, do we sin by taking communion the traditional way? I mean, how could both practices be right? Surely, one is right and one is wrong.
Now, I’ve been privileged to take communion as part of a small group I visited in another city. They met in a home and had a common meal. When the bread course was served, the bread — unleavened — was treated as part of the Lord’s Supper. Later on, a wine course was served, and the cup was shared (yep, it was a one-cup service).
The leader of the group spoke briefly over each element to remind us of what the bread and wine symbolize and then prayed over each. The psychological effect was to sanctify the entire meal. We talked, joked, and enjoyed each other’s company. There was no staring at the floor! But the memory of Jesus and his sacrifice worked throughout the meal to draw those present closer to one another and to Jesus. It was a powerful experience.
It was a powerful experience that most Churches of Christ would find damnable. There is simply no scriptural argument against it, but there’s no room in the Church of Christ mind for alternatives. We figure out the rules and we obey the rules and God blesses us (and damns everyone else). Well, to consider an alternative means of conducting an “act of worship” destroys the entire binary thought pattern.
You see, it’s either right or it’s wrong, it’s either authorized (and implicitly commanded) or else it’s forbidden. There is no “optional.” There is no good, better, best. Well, not between the opening and closing prayers. Expedience is dangerous territory, and we’d be foolish to risk God’s wrath over the worship event when we know what’s safe. Right?
And safe is what we did last week. I’m not sure why that’s considered safe, because I don’t recall being closer to God last week than this week, but somehow it’s assumed that practices with a long tradition within the Churches of Christ are very, very safe and none others are — as though we actually know whether God had damned or saved our preachers and editors over the teachings we’ve inherited from them. I mean, what makes it safer to follow this month’s Gospel Advocate, which is very different on some points than the 1950 or 1901 Gospel Advocate? Did we really just now figure how to worship properly this month?
I actually was thinking about some of these same things before reading Raymond’s comment, but I was concerned about the question of leavened vs. unleavened bread. There are actually denominations that have split over this question, but we in the Churches of Christ have a solid, uniform tradition of unleavened bread. (The Catholics and Orthodox split over this, along with the filioque, around 1054 AD. The Orthodox insist on leavened (yeast) bread, whereas the Catholics go with unleavened bread.)
And I think we should go unleavened, myself, but here in the South, our breadmakers like yeasty bread. Sourdough bread is considered one of the highest achievements of Southern breakbaking. If we asked small groups to make their own bread (who wants matzos in the middle of a good meal?), should we insist that the groups cook unleavened bread.
Well, my mind immediately went to all the reasons why the bread just has to be unleavened. And then I realized that many of our members likely don’t know any of these reasons. Some do. Many do. But I bet there are small groups that have never had a study on the symbolism of the absence of leaven.
And then I thought: if such a group were to eat unleavened bread because the elders so decreed but did not understand the symbolism of the removal of all yeast, would this please God? Does the symbol satisfy God, even if the symbolism has been forgotten? I mean, we would have gotten the rules right.
This leads pretty easily to the conclusion that getting the rules right for long-forgotten reasons is pretty useless. I mean, I seriously doubt that God cares at all whether I eat yeast with my bread. He wants me to learn the lesson that comes from having no yeast. And we — by and large — don’t know that lesson. But we get the “rule” right.
It’s rather like knowing how to shift the gears in your car — in a car set up on blocks that goes nowhere. I mean, it’s a nice skill to have, but it’s a skill that only has value in a moving car. And removing the leaven from the Lord’s Supper only has value if it teaches us something right and true and intended.
(Am I going to explain what that is? Well, that’s just an example and not really my point here. Just pull up “yeast” and “leaven*” and “unleaven*” in BibleGateway’s concordance in two or three different translations and explore from there. The commenter with the best explanation on either side will have his comment posted for all to view in amazement.)
I actually don’t care about the debate between “leaven” verses “unleaven.” It is irrelevant, except to reinforce, for some, that worship is about “rules”.
Worship is about the spirit of the worshipper.
If “leaven v unleaven” is meaningful to a worshipper, then they may choose to follow their heart. But they should not impose such preference as a rule for someone else (see Romans 14).
Nor, should someone such as myself, make an issue of using leavened bread. Because the choice of bread is not likely to change the spirit of the worshipper.
Given our present cultural experiences, I do believe that taking communion as part of traditional “love feast” would likely be a refreshing experience for many in the American Christian community.
People who constantly search for rules here miss the important thing. Some were sick and some had died because they didn’t focus on the Lords body, remembering him.
I’ll tag on to Royce’s comment to say that focusing on the Lord’s body was recognizing the gathered body of Christ. That’s what the Corinthians weren’t doing and what Paul was telling them they needed to do.
We obviously remember Jesus. But the focus is communion, doing it together.
Sorry for the tangent…
Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Taking the LS to old folks homes and prisons where you are allowed to visit several seperate goups during a day, we took it with each and so in one day might do it 4-5 times on a Sunday. Good thing it wasn’t alcoholic!!!
I remember the big splits and debates on having it more than once on Sunday when some wanted it on Sunday morning only and others wanted it also on Sunday night. Some required it to be in a seperate room after evening services final dismissal prayer for those that missed the morning service and many many other ways in between.
We sure can argue can’t we.
Tim,
I agree with your clarification and Royce’s general statement. That having been said, isn’t this point as debatable as any in terms of how we define “recognizing the gathered body of Christ”?
For instance …
– Does recognition demand that we account for every local member before we begin the meal in whatever form we choose?
– What do we do when a member is traveling and unable to come?
– What do we do when somebody oversleeps? When do we check to be sure? Before proceeding? or After we go ahead and share the meal amongst those present? (Paul seemed upset that in Corinth they were eating Before everyone was able to get there.)
– Which, if any, of these very particular “rules” is binding and which is/are not?
and finally
– What if another congregation in town chooses another way to observe the Lord’s Supper than we do? Shall we condemn one another in traditional (overt and not-so-overt or even passive-aggressive) ways? or in non-traditional ways (in local mass media, which has become a new innovation in some places)? AND Can we condemn another congregation’s practice without violating the “rule” that we must recognize the (local? local membership? world-wide? ???) ‘body of Christ’?
What a mess it becomes when we start approaching this as a matter of rules and regulations!!!
What if, just if – mind you, we choose to observe the LS as a congregation only at Sunday morning assemblies and as families and small groups any and every other day of the week – whenever 2 or more believers eat together?
And what if we stopped making a fellowship issue (if not a salvation issue) out of variations in things we culturally practice differently already?? Would the Lord come back quicker to set things “right”?? What if loving one another was a higher priority than getting everything “right” according to this generation’s religious leaders and powers-that-be???
What if Jesus was treated as the Lord we claim He is by all who claim to have died to self & sin with Him???!!!
What if we stopped talking about this stuff as if we are any more likely to settle it once-for-all than our forefathers (whom many consider to have been hard-hearted in these matters) were??? What if we actually practiced accepting one another as Paul taught the saints in Rome to do in his letter to them (chapters 14-15)??
****
Lord,
We asked for complete forgiveness, immediate and continuing on perpetually, but we are so un-used to forgiving one another that way …. can we just settle on, say $3 worth of right-ness?
Honestly, Lord, we are not sure we can even stand that much right-ness or even achieve such a thing!
We have seen our faces in the mirror of Your word, Lord, and we are difficult to recognize … and we find we are also having difficulty recognizing Your voice because we have substituted our generational and personal voices for Yours so long we no longer know the difference. Open our blind eyes, Lord. And help us to have the heart towards others that we hope You have toward us.
With feet planted in our mouths and hearts humbled by Your love, we are begging You and trusting You for all of this which we do in Your name … amen
G
Timothy – I believe the OP’s question was about identifying what is or is not sin concerning the methodology applied during the “Lord’s Supper.” Your response is right in the Corinthian’s wheelhouse contextually. I do not interpret your addition as tangential, rather I understand what you’ve pointed out to be the central point of Paul’s rebuke.
With regard to “right and wrong” methodology in observing the Lord’s Supper I’d like to point out that Jesus took what was not commanded and employed it as a central symbol to teach the significance of His sacrifice. Have you heard the argument presented as rhetorical which asks, “Why can’t we substitute Cola for the Wine, as long as it is Cola made from a fruit of the vine?” The rhetorical answer is given something like, “because Jesus commanded wine and that excludes all else.”
Jesus was observing the passover meal which finds its Godly command in the Exodus from Egypt. The Passover has specific do’s and don’ts given by God and recorded for Israel. What I don’t see commanded is the Wine nor the “sop.” Jesus was able to drink the wine in good conscience, without a command to do so from His Father and in good conscience use that “tradition” as a symbol to ETERNALLY represent His sacrifice which had not yet been made.
The OP’s question, and the implied consequences, reveal that our current method of identifying what can and can’t be done during the Lord’s Supper would require that we rebuke the Lord Himself for his actions. How is it that we take exception to ideas which we interpret to have varied slightly, but significantly, from what Jesus commanded and yet Jesus Himself is not condemned for employing what was not commanded.
Finally, what Timothy Archer concisely pointed out as central to the Corinthian audience is far more applicable to the present state of the Lord’s Supper than can be understood by the current mindset of those who would participate in communion in the traditional Churches of Christ. I believe there is enough experience on this subject contained by those who post on this site to make this stand in good conscience, “We have long been guilty of neglecting to discern the gathered body in favor of casting a futile fog over the proceedings in search of condemnation and not communion.” We are guilty and Paul’s words on the matter thoroughly convict our loveless feasts.
Jason
PS – I apologize for the length of the post. Additionally, there is an element of hypocrisy in my approach to condemning those who would condemn. I will revisit that flaw in my understanding.
BY JOHN MARK HICKS
“A Lord’s Supper Home Meal — A Method ” ;
JAY i was hoping this would be a link to the page
On many different occasions, and some recently, I have been asked about how I conceive or conduct the Lord’s supper as a home meal. Others who are doing something similar have wanted to compare their practices with my own. I have never explicitly addressed this on my blog but now is an opportune moment.
The Lord’s supper as a meal is not a weekly event for me but it is fairly common. In my small group, several of my classes and other occasions I have led or participated in group meals as the “Lord’s supper.”
Why do this? Well, first the Lord’s supper is a supper, that is, it is an evening meal (the meaning of deipnon). Second, I think the supper was intended for smaller groups. The Jerusalem church, though 3000 strong on the day of Pentecost, met to “break bread” in their homes in small groups. Third, the supper as a group meal engenders intimacy among its participants. There we experience fellowship at the most basic level through eating together; there we show hospitality toward each other; and there we experience grace around the table….
BLESSINGS FROM RICH
this POST FROM Bobby Valentine CAN BE FOUND
HERE
STONED-CAMPBELL DISCIPLE
The Bread on the Table: An Ancient Controversy that Changed the Supper
May 12, 2011 |
…Most of us will be amazed at the charges of the Greeks. If you are like me, it never occurred to me to even question the use of unleavened bread. I have heard all of my life that, even if we somehow weasel out of the alcohol of Jesus’ wine, we must have unleavened bread!
My interest in this subject was aroused through a passing historical comment in the book, The Crux of the Matter. I was literally taken back by this statement by the authors of that book,
“[F]rom the ninth century, the common bread, leavened bread, was replaced by unleavened bread. Using regular table bread had been the practice of the churches for centuries of Christian worship from very early days. Church officials introduced unleavened bread apparently because it would be considered special, set apart, holy. (Church leaders in the East accused the Western church of introducing Jewish practices, of becoming Judaizers because of this innovation; their descendents, the Eastern Orthodox, use leavened bread to this day.).” [4]
Was this accurate? How could this be? I had never heard of it and I had a Master’s degree in Church History! Did the early church, in fact, use common ordinary bread for the Table?
For some unknown, psychological reason, a need was created within me to know . . . There is no doubt that the Greeks use leavened bread in communion. There is no doubt that Rome’s use of unleavened bread was the item that broke fellowship between Eastern and Western Christians in 1054. But is it true that the early church likewise used common, ordinary . . . leavened bread?
Framing the Question
In the history of this debate there have been basically three ways of going at it: 1) etymology and chronology; 2) theological symbolism especially of the Incarnation; 3) the inherited liturgical practice of the church.
A) Etymology and Chronology
The Greeks, whose native tongue is Greek, insisted (and still do) that the common word for “bread” in Bible (artos) always referred to ordinary bread. They insisted (and still do) that artos was plain bread unless it was modified by the word azuma.
Scholars, naturally, are divided on this subject. Most admit that the typical meaning of artos is plain common bread though that it can, on occasion, refer to unleavened bread. Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains states artos “is a relatively small and generally round loaf of bread . . . like a ‘rolls’ or ‘buns’).[5] The Anchor Bible Dictionary, on the other hand, states that artos can apply to unleavened bread but the only example it produces is that which is contested by the Greeks in the institution of the Supper in the Synoptic Gospels.[6]
Undisputed use of artos is Luke 14.1 where artos simply refers to “food” or to “eat” (cf. Mt. 4.4 and Mk 3.20). The use of artos in Mt 14.17, 19 the feeding of the 5000 is clearly ordinary bread. A chapter later in the feeding of the 4000 we see our term again rendered “loaves” and is ordinary food (Mt 15.36). Paul, when on a ship in a storm, took artos and blessed it . . . this is clearly ordinary bread (Acts 27.35). The Lord instructed us to pray for our daily artos (Mt. 6.11/Lk 11.11) again clearly plain bread. Examples in the LXX include Leviticus 23.17; 2 Samuel 13.8; and Ezekiel 4.12 (among many more).
In the LXX (the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) the Greek argument carries the day. artos alone is never used of unleavened bread. In the case of the Shewbread, for example, it is called artos proqesews. The Latins produced the evidence of Leviticus 7.12 as an example of artos used of “unleavened.” In this passage artous ek semidalews occurs against the Hebrew halecem mazot. (See 7.13 as well.)
This will sound familiar and will probably come up in questions later today too. The Latins appealed to the institution of the Supper itself. Since Jesus was celebrating the Passover he must have used unleavened bread . . . the writers would expect the readers to know that when they encounter the term artos. You will recall that the ABD likewise appeals to this episode . . . but this is almost like circular reasoning. The Synoptics do indeed associate the Supper with the Passover (cf. Mt. 27.62; Mk. 14.12-16 and Lk 22.7-15).
The Greeks, however, did not concede the point. On the basis of John’s Gospel (13.1, 29; 18.28; 19.31) they argue that Jesus did not observe the Jewish Passover but celebrated with his disciples the day before. Hear the words of Peter the Patriarch of Antioch (a contemporary of Cerularius) on this matter:
AND ALSO
WHEN I WAS A YOUNG MAN IN A “CONSERVATIVE CHURCH OF CHRIST”, I learned the meaning of “SOPHISTRY” pertaining to scripture….
now then Jay…
ANYONE…ANYONE…
FROM
“FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH”… 🙂
BOY OH BOY
🙂
Wasn’t artos the only Greek word for bread? Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains seems to imply otherwise.
Jason, I appreciate very much your comment. I agree that the use of the hermenutic is flawed. Our Lord used “drink” not specifically mentioned in Ex.12. That should be a lesson for our use of the tools we use to understand the Lord.
No one should understand the Greek language better than the Greeks. How many of those in the Greek nation are members of the church of Christ and do they ALL do and teach the same on everything?
Seems in the Bible they worshipped many different ways and were religiously as we say down South “they were anyones dog that would hunt with them”.. They haven’t changed much as two world wars proved. When Paul was at Athens they even had an Unknown God they worshipped.
Don’t put too much time decipering their individual word use too closely. Try to use common sense instead.
whats a little funny to me,
is that you Guys can play “bad mitten” with the meaning of baptism for weeks on end…
although when it comes to a simple issue of the “lords supper ” it seems to me every one’s rudder jambs up,
an ya all sail in circles of bad ontology…TRADITION… 🙂
just kinda funny / sad
“elevate the norm ” ,
although that might, just might,
make someone stand out like a sore thumb…
or maybe the motto should be “don’t rock the boat”
blessings
rich constant
RJ,
BDAG does not limit artos to leavened bread. Thayer’s is to the same effect. VGNT says,
Hence, it seems unlikely that it can fairly be defined as leavened bread during First Century and earlier usage. The show bread is artos (Heb 9:2). The Wikipedia notes,
Rich,
The link to Bobby’s fascinating article is http://stonedcampbelldisciple.com/2011/05/12/the-bread-on-the-table-an-ancient-controversy-that-changed-the-supper/
Whether the Lord’s Supper was instituted at a Passover meal is not determinative. The Jews were required to remove all leaven from their houses 1 week before Passover. (Ex 12:15).Therefore, any bread eaten during that week of Passover would be unleavened.
Whether God cares about leavening in the Lord’s Supper is quite another question, but I find it hard to believe that Jesus used leavened bread.
Justin,
What’s the “baby”? I don’t see anyone proposing to end the Lord’s Supper itself. The question is whether we are even doing it right and to what extent do we have freedom to modify traditional (not biblical) practices. After all, it’s certainly hard to argue with a straight face that the typical Church of Christ communion service fully honors the intent behind the institution.
It’s clear that unity of the body is one purpose of the LS, and yet we gather only to ignore each other while we partake. There is no real community formation because the ritual is entirely vertical. In fact, we often complain when someone leads a song or does a reading during the LS (on the specious theory that we must do our acts of worship one at a time).
What we do is not remotely like the meal Jesus shared with his apostles in the upper room. There’s no conversation. There’s no meal. And there’s no hospitality because we are terrified of being accused of “open communion,” meaning we say nothing to visitors about who may or may not partake. Our theology is so bathwater-thin that we don’t even know who is allowed at the table!
And we don’t even know what half the words Jesus spoke mean. I mean, when Jesus says this is a “new covenant” in his blood, what is he referring to? In most congregations, the reference to Jer 31 is entirely missed. What is the “blood of the covenant”? Again, we’ve not seriously studied the gospel passages’ OT allusions. We’re so headstrong on being “New Testament” Christians” that we make Jesus’ own words into nullities.
Does this void the institution? I rather doubt it. But it does show that we aren’t hungry to study at the feet of Jesus. We are too content to live with our comfortable traditions and do not bother to test tradition against the scriptures. It’s as though as soon as we decided the LS should be weekly, and we felt superior to those who take it quarterly, that we stopped studying because it’s really about marking ourselves as the One True Church rather than really appreciating the point of the meal. And that is truly a perversion — when we only bother to learn enough to damn our neighbors.
On the other hand, when a change is proposed, we are anxious to find scriptural reasons to reject the change. We invent doctrines from nothing (“Only one act of worship at a time!”), adding to God’s word to preserve our comfort. The attitude that we are free to impose rules not remote found in scripture is truly dangerous.
Sorry for the rant. But there’s just not enough baby in the bathwater. It’s not about throwing out the baby but looking to make sure we actually put the baby in the bath in the first place.
In short, rather than studying to damn our neighbors, we should study to be changed by the institution. There’s a lot here for those willing to be spiritually formed by this gift from God. But not if the point is to condemn transubstantiation and quarterly communion. We just have to get past this “we’re right and you’re wrong” mentality that turns lessons about how to become like Jesus into excuses for feeling superior.
Are we now assuming that the meal that Jesus (called the passover) which was prepared to eat with his disciples would not have been prepared as the instructions for the passover that the Jews were commanded to follow?
Jay,
Rant on.
That is what it takes to start the talking among us and is bring changes long overdue.
I’ll copy that post of yours and show it to our young folks asnd the denominational ones we meet with as it will encourage them.
“in remembrance of Me.” This phrase only appears in the bible 3 times (3TIMES) but when you read Paul it is one of the most , if not the most important action we can take, and we had better not get it wrong or suffer penalty of judgment.
Luk 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
1Cr 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; [fn] this is My body which is broken [fn] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
1Cr 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
1Cr 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
1Cr 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood [fn] of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner [fn] eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s [fn] body.
1Cr 11:30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
1Cr 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.
We might get by not knowing how to do baptism, but TLS had better be right without any doubts. I just seems to me that something that important to one’s salvation would have been mentioned in each and every book of the gospels, maybe even once in every chapter in every book.
Jay –
Thanks for your thoughts. I think it’s great that you’re exploring the Lord’s supper in this way.
My comment about baby and bathwater:
It was a bad analogy. I just typed what I thought and did not explain. Here’s what I meant.
It was basically my quick thought about your comments on unleavened bread, but it has larger ramifications.
Your words:
And I think we should go unleavened, myself, but here in the South, our breadmakers like yeasty bread. Sourdough bread is considered one of the highest achievements of Southern breakbaking. If we asked small groups to make their own bread (who wants matzos in the middle of a good meal?), should we insist that the groups cook unleavened bread.
Well, my mind immediately went to all the reasons why the bread just has to be unleavened. And then I realized that many of our members likely don’t know any of these reasons. Some do. Many do. But I bet there are small groups that have never had a study on the symbolism of the absence of leaven.
My comments:
If the “rule” is that we use unleavened bread, but we don’t get the underlying meaning of it, then we should go for meaning and depth and “spirit of the Law.” But, that doesn’t mean that it’s ok to throw out the “letter of the law”/rule.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their letter over/without spirit type application of the law…but he didn’t mean they shouldn’t follow the Law to the letter…just that that should be framed in the right motives that doesn’t overlook the “weightier matters.”
Anyhow – the larger point i was making was that I think we should do exactly what your’e talking about which is to get into the “why” type questions and really think about and relate to God in all that we do – not just go through a set of rules we follow because of tradition or legalism…but as we’re doing that – let’s remember that a love for God makes us want to get as close to what he wants as possible…so let’s not through out the “rules” because of “relationship.”
So a better analogy might be let’s not forget about the trees for seeing the forest.
oh and i realized that I was probably more responding to David Himes’ comment that the actual article.
and Jay – having read all of your comment – I completely agree. Again – bad analogy/communication on my part.
Sorry for the rant. But there’s just not enough baby in the bathwater. It’s not about throwing out the baby but looking to make sure we actually put the baby in the bath in the first place.
In short, rather than studying to damn our neighbors, we should study to be changed by the institution. There’s a lot here for those willing to be spiritually formed by this gift from God. But not if the point is to condemn transubstantiation and quarterly communion. We just have to get past this “we’re right and you’re wrong” mentality that turns lessons about how to become like Jesus into excuses for feeling superior.
Are we to believe that in Acts 2:42-47 that the bread they broke daily was unleavened? I don’t think so. Did they remember Jesus’ death and his resurrection when they ate it? Surely! It was a celebratory time, maybe like never before, and not since. Maybe we need to discern if the LS is celebratory or a ritual to be done in silence(as in moment of silence )for someone who has died? More Eastern or Western? The Eastern Orthodox call the unleavened bread the “bread of death” or something close, a term of derision. They call their leavened bread, the “bread of rising” or bread of resurrection.
Monty asked,
The references in Luke-Acts to breaking bread are almost never a reference to the Lord’s Supper and yet they all imply a certain sanctity to the breaking of bread. From Jesus feeding the 5,000 to Paul feeding the survivors of a shipwreck, breaking bread together was about the movement of the hand of God among the people.
It’s not that the meal was a magic ceremony compelling God to do anything. And there are no evident rules. Just something about breaking bread in the realization that God is present and in control.
We err, I think, when we seek to impose our Five Acts on the text. The disciples broke bread from house to house. Was it the communion, the Love Feast, a common meal, or some combination? I don’t know, but the meals were taken in fulfillment of prophecy, in celebration of the Kingdom having begun to come, and revealed the godliness that comes with hospitality and generosity.
Just so, the meal taken at Troas in Acts 20 seems to be a Love Feast. Acts 20:11 refers to Paul eating separate from the rest — as though the rest had eaten while he spoke —
(Act 20:11 ESV) 11 And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.
— but the real lesson is how very little trouble Luke goes to to answer questions that seem central to us. He just doesn’t say. I guess Luke had no agenda to teach us about communion and the love feast. He was far more focused on the work of the Spirit and the evangelists and the spread of the gospel. There’s lots of teaching about Jesus and virtually none about ritual.