Breaking of bread in scripture is always the dividing of food into portions in preparation for eating! It is mentioned 21 times in scripture. Is that one for every meal of the week??? I believe that it is God's desire that we remember the price the Lord Jesus paid for us EVERY TIME WE EAT A MEAL! "AS OFTEN AS YE EAT THIS BREAD ANND DRINK THIS CUP YE DO SHOW THE LORD'S DEATH UNTIL HE COME."

In our house church gatherings, we eat almost every time we come together and recall to mind the Lord Jesus as we do.

The Fallacy

(of the Communion Service)

Give us day by day our daily bread.

Intro:

Having taken part or observed Evangelical communion (Brethren/Baptist), High Church communion, Pentecostal communion, Charismatic communion, Ecumenical
communion, and New Age communion (same platitude, but without reference to Jesus) over the years, have I witnessed the same rigmarole or extremes of the cold formal approach, to the emotionally charged ecstasy of "lives touched" and "hearts melted". However, at the end of the day, neither have I ever witnessed lasting fruit or lives changed from these solemn experiences. From the aftermath of these "spiritual" highs and religious gestures, has life continued on just the same, where people may have confessed to an "attitude" to someone, or been radiant for God while on top of Mount "Fuzzy", then neatly slipped back into their carnal everyday pattern of pretence or indifference.

Why ... ?

No, am I not going to mention the Roman Catholic Church at this stage and sandblast t r a n s u b s t a n t i a t i o n (phew, easier to type than say though!), the bread and wine BEING CHANGED to God by priestly magic. But I am going to look at the Protestant version, c o n s u b s t a n t i a t i o n (take note of the first three letters ... con, cause that's what it is) the bread and wine BEING LINKED to God mystically by consecration. Two versions of the same thing. One hard-line the other moderate.

Some may think I'm being a bit too hard here, however, some time back I attended a "Bible Believing" home meeting where about 30 people from various back
grounds, both young and elderly were present. During the meeting when the subject of (traditional) "communion" came up I felt it had to be made very clear the bread and wine in scripture were symbols only! To my surprise the Head of the home openly disagreed with me and made it plain they were far more than symbols. What was just as surprising was the fact not one person present supported me or even refuted the counter claim made by our Host.

"Wow", I thought! ... "were all our past bible believing Church fathers martyred in vain? Had we forgotten the great price paid during the Inquisition?":

Inquisitor: "Is this piece of bread the body of our Lord and Saviour?"

Believer on trial: "No it is just a symbol, that's all!"

Inquisitor: "To the flames with this Heretic!!"

Read on please ...

A wee bit of history:

Did you know there is something remarkably different about the Believers when they rubbed shoulders in the book of Acts compared to what is referred today as
fellowship. It was a spontaneous, not compulsive, informal getting-it-together in peoples homes. Even breaking bread together was an ordinary thing, a meal, not an involuntary ritual as it has become today.

In fact, there are only three places in Acts where the breaking of bread together is recorded and they are all to do with snack times. Proof ... ? Then here it comes:

Acts 2:42- 47 ... and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.

Then there is Acts 20:7-11, a first day of one particular week. No, not a Sunday as previously taught. The Adventists have got this part right. It was a
Saturday evening (after 6.00 pm), the first day of the Jewish/Biblical week just hours after the sabbath had ended, and not in accordance with the present
R.C.C. calendar which was invented in the 16th century prophetically and partially fulfilling Daniel 7:25. The Believers got so caught up in what God was doing they put tea on-hold.

It wasn't till after midnight however (remember the tired young lad falling asleep at the window while Paul was delivering the word), did they finally ate. It's amazing how we have justified a ceremony we esoterically call "communion" to be strictly observed on the commencement of the Day of the Sun. Whoops! ... Sunday morning that is!

Not convinced? Well ... please read on, because there is only one last record left in Acts. Chapter 27:14- 44:

Here Paul found himself on a ship being lashed about by violent storms for a couple of weeks. He and Luke appear to be the only Believers on board as all the others come across as being superstitious, trying to appease their gods out of the anger situation by abstaining from food (I think they call it "fasting", or something!). Or perhaps they were too bloom'n worn out, or seasick, to handle anything that looked like kai.

However, Paul, in touch with his Dad, encouraged everyone on board (verse 33- 36) to cheer up and have a bite to eat, as he knew his God had everything under
control. Then he gave thanks and broke the bread with his pagan heathen friends. What!!?? Must be a translation error or something?? Relax ... this was a meal out of necessity, not religious habit, with ordinary people having a chance to see God work in this whole tricky situation.

So, the Acts have it ... an informal, not surprisingly meaningful get-together, with some tucker thrown in.

Beyond the show (biz) bread:

How can folk taste something that's not tangible, or material? That's why religion is in great need, along with all its trappings and adornments; to make something, and to turn something abstract (the way they view "God") into something we can feel, taste, touch and smell. Whether it be the eucharist, music, incense burning, or the laying on off hands by the clergy (a nice "spiritual" massage); folk need something palpable. And decorative. Even crosses and doves, and silver chalices! Quite at home in evangelical circles!

Or is there another way? A better way!?

David took the show bread. No, he wasn't trying to be "spiritual". He was just plain bloom'n hungry. In other words ... desperate for some grub. And
because of his plight, he wasn't worrying about any order of ceremony. Just think about it? If David had been out to impress or religiously comply, it may have cost him his life. Which was far more important than things like tradition, ritual, and piety. It was time to give the touch not/taste not syndrome the boot. If it was either the 'doctrine of food' or divine provision; and David choose the latter. He was now looking beyond the exhibit bread.

Meals and hospitality:

Let's look at this: Many folk around the Mediterranean still use a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine as a basis for their staple diet, and usually are family orientated people who enjoy entertaining their guests and making them feel at home. Here in New Zealand we have seen a few documentaries over the last few years of ex-Kiwi servicemen who have gone back to places like Greece or Italy for WW2 reunions with families they befriended during the war. I can recall scenes of breaking bread together, toasting wine, embracing each other in song, and generally making merry around the table, in remembrance, of a special time gone by.

Is the penny beginning to drop??

A meal - but more than a meal:

To the Jewish folk the Passover still has both a significance and symbolic meaning (unfortunately they can't see past the ordinance). Their very existence and survival as a people has depended upon their sharing together. A meal typifying a common bond. With a hope their Messiah will walk in on their banquet as an unannounced guest, at any given time, fuels this incentive to meet and be together.

However, two thousand years ago Jesus did arrive as Messiah into their midst, and as a lamb, unrecognized, as the fulfilment of their passover meal, before this ordinance was nailed to the cross. Here, Jesus was replacing the Old System with something far better, as He certainly was not replacing one form of Judaism with another. He was actually making a remarkable statement that could even be experienced if adhered to. He made a declaration about the bread at their passover meal being a representation of His flesh. Not literally. And the grape juice being a representative of His blood in the same way. He also said to His disciples, as often as you do this (having meals - the breaking of bread - fellowship) do this in remembrance of Me.

Sounds almost too simple eh! Like taking the Holy Bible for what it says. But never so easy. The cross was never supposed to be. That's why Jesus wanted to
get through to His disciples:

"Are you able to partake and drink of what I'm about to taste?" "Are you willing to be baptized with My death?"

And when He said, do this in remembrance of Me, did He mean to duplicate a certain setting and format as a new form of ritual over and over again, each time His followers met together, until He came back? Or did He mean to know Him in our eating, working, hospitality and sharing? In real life settings? Doing all for the glory of God! Only knowing and acknowledging ... in him we live, and move, and have our being! Without me ye can do nothing!

There's nothing abstract or mystical about this. It's just a natural process of dying to self (laying your life down for the Lord and others) and living daily
(acknowledging Him in all your ways) for Him. This way He gets total credit for everything, and our attitude is kept humble as we shy away from religious
paraphernalia, or being a "spiritual" exhibitionist. Making us grateful He has chosen the base things.

Instituting a substitute:

However, today there is one big problem if you can be categorized a W.A.S.P. (Western/White Anglo-Saxon Protestant ) converted to a gospel which was to the
Jew first ... and that is eating mashed spud is more of a staple diet now just as breaking bread together was in the days of old. When a loaf of bread was the centrality of the meal. Bread is now usually a snack or a top-up, and since the advent of the sandwich late nineteenth century, it is nowadays pre-sliced and packaged for individual consumption and is not as 'family friendly' as yesteryear.

Also, a meal in bygone days generally took a lot more preparation than today, so there would have been a lot more appreciation and less taken for granted. The
main meal (supper in biblical times) was the advent of the day. Not being a couch potato in front of the electronic altar ... the TV. When guests came the mealtable was central, not the Tube. People generally stayed there for the duration of the stay. Relaxed. No urgency to gulp down the grub. No hi-tech distractions. Taking your time as their was plenty to talk about.

Grab as many bible dictionaries, commentaries, history books and encyclopaedias (as well as the word of God) you can get your hands on, put some hours in, and
do some checking yourself, as the truth will still filter through. You will discover in biblical times when a guest arrived at someone's home he would be welcomed at the door by the head of the home with the greeting of a kiss. Next he would be shown in, then seated, and the servant of the home would attend to him by washing his feet (bearing in mind the footwear and dusty streets of that era) and anointing his hair and beard with oil. Then finally he would be shown to the table where he would be joined by other guests and family members. Everyone would wait for the head of the home who would come and offer thanks to God. He would then take the loaf and break it and share it out to the others gathered, symbolizing the oneness of friends and family under the Headship of God.

Now metaphorically apply the above paragraph to the spiritual and you will see Jesus is now our all in all. He is the one we kiss (Ps. 2:12). He is the door, the door keeper, the servant, the House, the Head, the one who leads, the table for gathering, the anointer, the bread, the new wine, as well as the one who points us to God. We are His guests, His friends, His family, His gathering, His household.

There's much in the New Testament about believers banquets, also known as love feasts. No doubt with plenty of bread and grape beverage, along with other
goodies. And as we have lost some qualities in living (after all, we are the "instant" age) since "the good ole days" because of changes in life style and culture (with the notion of staying "religious", or "biblical") we have packaged our meetings together into our own convenient liturgies to suit our own format, our own mid to upper class materialistic culture. F' instance ...

Stand/pray ... sit/listen ... stand/sing ... sit/read ... stand/collection ... sit/"communion" ... stand/sing ... sit/item (song, dance or drama) ... stand/benediction. With 'happy clappy' times thrown in (so we can show off how free we are by breaking out off structure); etc. etc.:

" Oh, we are so diverse!! So sensitive!! So expressive!! So multicultural!! We do everything in our church!! We must look beautiful before God!!"

You see we compartmentalize parts of scripture and throw in a bit of Old Testament with the New (this way it looks "biblical"!), along with new ideas, to spice up our gatherings and call it "having church". And since we have left 'breaking bread' as a meal, yet are aware of its contents in the New Testament, we, in our human discretion, have replaced it with an invented, representation ritual, we call the "Lords supper" or "communion". This consists of a "holy hush" ceremony, by hand to hand passing of crumbs and lolly water (sometimes booze) around, under certain emotional criteria ... tears, confessions, solemn posture, predictable prayers etc. Unscriptually with our eyes closed. Confusing reverence with austerity, holiness with sanctimony, and the presence of God with emotionalism. And turning inward to passivity we turn off true fellowship one to another.

However, if we are going to be strict about ceremony here, then we need to do it properly. Like the book of Galatians f 'instance; saying if we go back under one part of the Old then we are obligated to go back under every regulation belonging to that system. As James 2:10 puts it:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Which means (if we are going to look "scriptural" and "correct") are we constrained to literally and regularly attend the feasts and observe the days. Making sure the bread is unleavened as one loaf (uncut) from the twelve! Making sure there is one cup (not heaps of minis) with the fruit of the vine, grape as its content (not black current or raspberry ... this will make it loose its valued symbolic meaning). Eat paschal lamb, bitter herbs with sauce, each dipped in the one bowl. All in the correct order of procedure.

Then there is the question of washing one anothers feet ... literally and regularly!!??

Forget it! As mentioned there is a more simple way. Let us repeat in reverse the only three witnesses (breaking of bread) recorded in Acts again:

Fact 1. Paul broke bread with non-christians. I'll repeat that ... with non-christians!!

Fact 2. Sunday's breakfast was Saturday's supper postponed because of Paul's extra long message.

Fact 3. And breaking bread was eating meat with gladness of heart (not glumness of art).

With no mention whatsoever of the Communion Service in the book of the Acts of the apostles and churches.

"What about water baptism (immersion)?" some would say. "Is this not a similar New Testament ordinance?"

The practice of believers baptism in water is repeatedly mentioned in the book of Acts. End of story!

There is a passion in believers, and genuine may I say, to get back to the true "roots"/"culture" of the New Testament Church. Quite frankly this is impossible (and a so-called loop-hole for many movements to exploit with their own monopolized version) as we live in a totally different era, with a different culture along with modern technology. We must remember the early Church did not have the complete bible. Just portions or copies of the apostles letters, along with books of the Old Testament. However, what we do have today is the spiritual bare essentials: God's complete package ... the same Holy Ghost and the same inspired scriptures in a complete book, pointing us to the same historical complete work on the cross. Complete is the word! What more do we need?

Both practically and spiritually speaking, 'breaking bread' in our fellowshiping is now sharing a portion of scripture from the scriptures (the Bread of Life) with others gathered, with the purpose of building them up. Thanks to the Reformation (or me thinks the other way around) we now have a complete, full, open, public Bible. The Lord's table is where we fellowship from in spirit and in truth (remember the table of devils is metaphorical also). Communion is our deep intimacy with the Lord as we walk with Him, sharing in His suffering as well as in His resurrection life.

"But the scriptures can't be broken!" some will protest.

The true meaning is ... they can't be taken out of context; added to or subtracted from. But vital for collective individual contribution and consumption:

When you come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.

All various aspects in bringing the word to each other; for edifying each other as individuals and the Body in general.

"How can you say the bread, wine and table are not literal?" some may question.

Cause in the same context the scripture says also He was the rent veil (the way to the presence of God). Jesus also said He was the vine (where the juice
came from), as He was the door (where we pass through to sup). Are these literal or symbolic? The literal was the material copy under the Old Covenant as a type or copy of the spiritual in the New Testament! Who gave us the authority to compartmentalize or materialize? When the scripture say taste and see that the LORD is good, how should we respond?

He has made a promise ... if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.

Do you mind if I suggest a different view on a couple of minor points!
The thought that the Lord's Supper now replaces Israel's passover is a common one, but one which I have great difficulty with from a scriptural point of view. When God institutes something "forever" does He ever replace such a practice in mid stream with a new one?

The physical nation of Israel was given 3 distinguishing practices which all were to be observed forever!
-Circumcision is forever. (Gen.17:7-19) Every covenant that God has made with men (there are at least 9 of them in scripture) has a physical and visible token associated with it and the token always lasts as long as the covenant it signifies.
-The passover is forever. (Ex.12:14)
-The 7th day sabbath is forever. (Ex.31:13,16,17) All of these have to do with physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac and have nothing to do with Gentiles.

Baptism of N.T. believers, the Lord's Supper and the demonstration of Headship by what we are instructed to do with our heads and our hair are not replacements for Israel's distinctive marks, but are brand new distinctives for all New Covenant believers (both Jews and Gentiles who are made one in
Christ.)

You suggest regarding "the first day of the week" that it actually began at sundown on Saturday. Are you sure that this sort of time reckoning was used in New testament times? The texts which cause me to question this are Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; and Luke 23:44. All three, referring to the crucifixion of
Christ speak of there being darkness from "the sixth hour unto the ninth hour". If the days began at sundown (roughly our 6p.m.) the 6th to the 9th hour of the day would have been normal hours of darkness! (our midnight to 3 a.m.)! In Paul's two accounts of his "Damascus road experience" (Acts
22:6 and Acts 26:13) "noon" is equated with "mid-day". Thus, it seems that the day time started at sun-up (our 6 a.m.) so the 6th hour to the 9th hour would be noon to 3 p.m. If this was the case, the disciples who came together to break bread on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) came together on
Sunday, but because of Paul's long dialogue/discussion (not monologue sermon as many have supposed!) they did not actually break bread till after midnight, or early Monday morning!!!

Just wondering what you think of this perspective!

Regarding evening to evening time, why did God repeat himself six times in Gen. 1, always putting evening first when explaining the days? Gen.1:5,8,13,19,23 & 31 The Sabbath and other festivals were always observed from evening also.

Check out "The New Unger's Bible Dictionary" under "Passover" & "time,divisions".

"The New Strong's Concordance" has a chart of the 8 parts of the Jewish day listed in the "Supplements" section at the back. The day is divided into night and day, each having 4 watches. Whereas our day is from 12-12, the biblical day is from 6-6. The first hour being our 6am at dawn. Thus the crucifiction was during daylight hours & the darknes was a special event, a sign from God, just as the torn veil was.

Another fact, Jesus was taken off the cross & buried before sunset as required in Deut. 21:23.

I hope these will help you in understanding the time element in the crucifiction. I am sure you can find more background for the Jewish time in many other study helps.

In his service,

I was seeking to respond to Tom's comments re. the sabbath/Saturday etc. "Then there is Acts 20:7-11, a first day of one particular week. No, not a Sunday as previously taught. The Adventists have got this part right. It was a
Saturday evening (after 6.00 pm), the first day of the Jewish/Biblical week just hours after the sabbath had ended, and not in accordance with the present."

It seems to me that Tom is missing the point that the sabbath ended at 6p.m. and the first day of the week began at the same moment! Seventh Day Adventists do not meet Saturday evening!!! They meet Saturday morning!!!

In Acts 20:7, when the disciples came together on the first of the week, Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow.

The word "morrow" is often translated "next day". Now how we understand this in this particular context, I'm not absolutely sure. If we understand that the 24 hour day (the first of the week) started at 6 p.m. and that "the morrow" was the next 12 hour period of daylight, then the evening and "the morrow" would both be part of the same 24 hour day. If this is the case Paul and the disciples came together on the first of the week (our Saturday evening) but did not actually break bread until after midnight and then Paul departed on his journey after sunrise, Sunday morning,.

But if we understand that "the morrow" or "next day" refers to the next 24 hour day, then we must conclude that the days were divided at midnight. Thus Paul and the disciples of Acts 20:7 came together in the final hours of the first day of the week (our Sunday evening), Paul dialogued/discussed with them for a long while so that they did not actually break bread until after midnight which would then be our Monday morning (the next day) and after sunrise of Monday morning Paul departed.

If I understand you correctly, Faith, I think you would take the former position. I can't say I could disagree with you. But I suppose it depends on how the word "morrow" was understood. (The next period of daylight, or the next period of 24 hours.)

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce Woodford

"Wow", I thought! ... "were all our past bible believing Church fathers martyred in vain? Had we forgotten the great price paid during the Inquisition?":

Inquisitor: "Is this piece of bread the body of our Lord and Saviour?"

Believer on trial: "No it is just a symbol, that's all!"

Inquisitor: "To the flames with this Heretic!!""

Tom thanks for the thoughts. My mind is far from made up on all this, though I am going to disagree with you here Maybe I still lean more towards what is called 'The Real Presence', ie the view that the Lord is mystically or spiritually present, that we partake of him spiritually at the Lords Supper. Now this is actually the view of most Protestants, NOT consubstantiation which is only held by the Lutherans, and which is more aking to the Roman view. The view of the real presence was in fact held by virtually all of those people condemned and burnt at the stake. Your little dialogue, permit me to say it, reminds me more of a Jack Chick caroon version than something out of Foxe's Martryology.

Now I agree that communion was informal, at least compared to what we have today. But when they partook by faith they partook of the body and blood of Christ. This seems the clear teaching of Paul. 1 Corinthians 10:16 says "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?" The word communion means to partake in something, to share in something. so Cummunion is a partaking of the body and blood of Christ. It continues "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all
partakers of that one bread." Notice that we all partake of 'that one bread' which is Christ. Now the next verse says "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices
partakers of the altar?". This is being used with an obvious allusion to both Communion and eating meats sacrificed to idols. If this were not true it is highly unlikely that the early church could ever have erred into transubstantiation.

Dean

To my understanding, Paul is specifically warning against the partaking of the Lord's supper under the throws of earthly necessity or desire, be it physical or social, because it is not everyday bread-breaking. Perhaps there should be no occasion in which a person of a carnal mind should be faced with partaking in a Lord's supper that has the appearances of a meal; it seems rather an unkind deed to be done to him.

I may even suggest that the Lord's supper only be had in an intimate setting, between persons who are by all accounts in fellowship with Christ. If one knows himself to be infiltrating/insincere, as did Judas, his resultant condition is on own head.

In saying this, I reckon I am saying that partaking is more of an intimate proclamation than a public one. One, from this vantage, may do good to reckon a difference between church and fellowship, in the former unbelievers are expected and welcome, in the latter they are unexpected and undesired. And as to company/companionship, the level of necessary discernment is even higher.

As with any covenantal memorial, no special powers are bestowed, it is not that kind of thing; it is an intimate thing. But taking that thing in an unworthy manner does indeed seem to have special consequences, which might just evince to the person suffering those consequences that the Lord takes fellowship-in-fact (the kind had among believers and their Lord under the governance of the Father of them all) with even greater seriousness when the matter is put on the table.

That particular supper had actual life and death ramifications on that day in Jerusalem, it was a matter of trust—"real guts ball," my dad might say. Those partaking, by partaking, were entrusting their physical and social lives, one to another, on the basis of what the Lord was about to suffer. One who did it unworthily/furtively posed a real earthly danger to them all, not to mention an even geater spiritual danger to himself. Such a one might potentially befoul relationships between weaker bretheren (and weak they were). A "mole," in a way. [It is quite possible, from a reading of the gospels, that Jesus did not formalize the covenant in the presence of Judas but after he departed.]

That the bread and the cup are actually symbolic (i.e., communicative, so not only my business as mere meals are) are all the more reason to seriously examine the manners of the presentment and of the partaking of the Lord's supper.