posted
When we gather to celebrate the Lord's Supper and teach and encourage each other, we often have seekers (non-believers) show up to "see" what it's all about.
When these folks are present, should we still have the Lord's Supper? Should we ask the non-believer to wait in another room until we've remembered Jesus? Should we not have supper at all? Should we have separate "open" meetings for preaching/evangelizing and only have "private", believers-only, communions?
I've heard it said that Paul "broke bread" with non-believers, but was that actually a celebration of the Lord's Supper, or was it just a meal? Is the term "breaking bread" the same thing as the Lord's Supper, or can it refer to a "meal"?
Do you mind if I answer them in reverse order? Q. "Is the term "breaking bread" the same thing as the Lord's Supper, or can it refer to a "meal"? " A. Every instance of " breaking bread" in scripture is simply the dividing of food into portions to be eaten at a regular meal! There are 21 references to "breaking bread" in the Bible. I often say: "One for every meal of the week!"
Q."I've heard it said that Paul "broke bread" with non-believers, but was that actually a celebration of the Lord's Supper, or was it just a meal? " A. That event is recorded in Acts 27:33-38. It was a meal, as every remembrance of the Lord! We are to remember Him as often as we eat and drink! I Cor.11:26
Q."Should we have separate "open" meetings for preaching/evangelizing and only have "private", believers-only, communions?" A. There is not a verse of scripture, nor one instance of believers breaking bread where unbelievers were excluded!!! (Check them all out to see for yourself!) This idea has come from I Cor 11:28 and 29. But no unbeliever can eat or drink unworthily! The meal, to them, is just an ordinary meal! But to the believers, it is an ordinary meal with extraordinary significance (remebering their Lord who died for them, gave His body and shed His blood that they might be saved and live their lives as unto Him.
-The Body of Christ can not have any significance one way or the other to an unbeliever! 11:29 -The one's who were weak and sickly for not rightly discerning the Lord's Body were "among you", i.e. "the saints at Corinth". -"Many sleep" cannot refer to unbelievers as the word translated "sleep" here, as in death, is never ever used of the death of an unbeliever! Only the death of believers is referred to as sleep! 11:30 -The ones who are to judge themselves can only be believers! They are distinguished from "the world". 11:32
Q."When these folks are present, should we still have the Lord's Supper? (Absolutely!) Should we ask the non-believer to wait in another room until we've remembered Jesus? (Never! Give them the best seats in the house! See James 2:1-10 Put yourself in their shoes: If you were treated like that would you ever come back???) Should we not have supper at all? (Certainly we should!) Should we have separate "open" meetings for preaching/evangelizing and only have "private", believers-only, communions? (Never! We have no scriptural teaching, example, or principle to justify such segregation! The very purpose of the Supper is: "ye do shew the Lord's death till He come". The word translated "shew" always communicates the idea of a proclamation to people! What better gospel testimony could there be??!! What better opportunity to demonstrate to our unconverted friends, family or neighbors how Christians love one another, or to talk about what the death and resurrection and return of Christ mean to us??
I hope this helps to answer your questions, give you some food for thought and encourage you to search the scriptures daily whether these things are so! Acts 17:11
posted
Thanks, Bruce. Your insights are always sharp and revealing.
I agree with all that you said, especially the part about not excluding anyone. That would go against God's purpose entirely. I guess what concerns me is that the passing of the cup can be exclusionary in itself.
Maybe we're doing it incorrectly. At the conclusion of the meal, we ask God's blessing on the cup and speak our Lord's words when he said, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Now, just these words alone divide. The non-believer could very likely feel excluded because they don't agree to, or possibly even understand, being a part of the "new covenant". Would they not feel that by taking the cup, they ARE agreeing to something they don't yet believe in? Or by taking the cup with disbelief in their hearts, are they being dishonest to the group and to the Lord they don't yet know? Should the take the cup if they don't believe, or just pass it to the next person? Wouldn't that make them uncomfortable, even embarrassed?
Maybe when we pass the cup, we should just state that "the passing of this cup demonstrates unity between us? (leaving out the function of the cup creating unity with our Lord?) That doesn't seem like a good idea.
It has been our feeling that the Lord's Supper is the central part of our meeting and since we have (and God willing, will continue to have) non-believers among us, we want to be sure we're doing it right, and not excluding the seeker.
posted
Bruce, First of all, thank the Lord that you have unbelievers among you who are interested in what is happening! The Lord has given you a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate to them what New Covenant living is all about!!
Can I suggest another perspective that might give you some liberty as you break bread?
The only time that the N.T. records eating BEFORE breaking bread is at what is commonly called "The Last Supper". Scripture never uses such an expression! The passover was the memorial meal which is to be observed forever by Israelites. (Ex.12:14) It was AFTER the Lord Jesus had eaten the Passover with His disciples that He introduced the memorial meal of the New Covenant. (The cup is actually the token or visible sign of the New Covenant.)
The major distinction between the Old Covenant and the New is that while the Old made clear distinctions between -holy days and common days, -a holy priesthood and common people, -clean animals and unclean, -holy garments and common garments, -a holy temple and common buildings, -holy food and common food -holy rituals and common daily routines etc etc, THE NEW MAKES THE COMMON HOLY! -common people are made holy in Christ, -common people in Christ are all holy priests, -since we are called to lives of holiness - every day is holy, -common food is made holy and thus we thank God for our food(never heard of in the O.T!) -there are no rituals connected with the New Covenant because all of life is to be lived as unto Him who died for us and rose again! (II Cor.5:14,15)
It is for such reasons that I do not believe that "the Lord's Supper" should be any different from any other meal! In fact, I believe that every time we eat and drink we are to remember the Lord as we do so! Remember that, for the believer, the New Covenant makes holy ALL that is common !
So it is for these reasons that I do not believe we should divorce "the Lord's Supper" from our ordinary meals. I do not believe we should "observe the Lord's Supper" any more than we "observe" breakfast, lunch or supper! I do not believe we should "have the Lord's Supper" BEFORE our meal, nor do I believe we should have it AFTER our meal! The Lord's Supper IS THE MEAL!!!
If we do not have ritual words that we repeat or read at our "ordinary" meals, why would we think that such must be a part of "the Lord's Supper"???
How then should we "bless", or "give thanks" for the Lord's Supper as we eat our "ordinary" meals?
Since I have appreciated this tremendously significant truth regarding the New Covenant, I seek to pray and express thoughts along the line of the following at each meal:
"Our heavenly Father, we just want to thank you for your abundant provision for all of our needs and especially for giving your own Son, the Lord Jesus. Thank you for this food and drink that constantly reminds us of His body which was given and His blood which was shed that we might be brought back into right relationship with you. We pray that as it nourishes our bodies we may live our lives as unto the One who died for us and rose again. We thank you for it in the worthy name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen"
Such thanksgiving communicates to any unbeliever who is with us the significance that we attach (rather what Christ, Himself, attached) to our eating and drinking. Nothing in such a prayer excludes the unbeliever, because the work of Christ was accomplished for them as well! They have just not yet come into the enjoyment of it by faith in Christ. As they eat and drink with us, they are eating an ordinary meal, as they would in their own home. For them, it has no significance other than the satisfaction of hunger pangs! But once they come to Christ, hopefully, our example will help them to see what an extraordinary significance EVERY ASPECT OF THE BELIEVER'S LIFE HAS! Our LIVES are to be lived, NOT TO OURSELVES, BUT TO HIM WHO DIED FOR US AND ROSE AGAIN! (II Cor.5:14,15)
But if, since my last meal, I have sinned against you, offended you or wronged you in any way and have not made it right... I should make it right BEFORE I sit down to eat another meal! How can I sit down to eat a meal which I acknowledge is a reminder of the price that was paid to redeem me and continue KNOWINGLY in offence against another member of Christ's Body??? To me, that is what is involved in "not discerning the Lord's Body"!
If I allow sin to go unjudged continually while I eat and drink and thank God for His Son, what a hypocrite I am! "For this cause, many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep (have been removed in death by the judging hand of God because they would not judge themselves).
Trust your consideration of these things (New Covenant thinking) will give you a whole new perspective, not just on the Lord's Supper, but on living the life of Christ (Gal.2:20) 24 hours a day, seven days a week!
That's one reason why N.T. Christians need no "church sanctuary"! We ARE the sanctuary and our ordinary homes become the center of our relationships with others and the natural place to gather to worship the Lord and minister to each other according to gifts the Lord has given us!
posted
Art, Good to hear from you! Would you care to express a few thoughts as to what you have appreciated of these same sort of truths from scripture and how you seek to express/apply them in your own life and fellowship with other believers?
Hello dear brothers and sisters! I love you all so much!
I wanted to let you know that our gatherings for the Lord's Supper are going very well. We've been seeing 10 to 15 in attendance, and have (obviously) had to move our eating time into the living room. It has worked very well, except we've learned that it's better to lean toward food that can be eaten with the fingers. Sloppy, messy foods lend themselves to accidents (spills). But anyway, we have moved away from the ritual of "breaking the bread" to considering the entire meal as the "bread" and spending some time before the meal, asking God's blessing, and discussing the significance of what we're preparing to do. After the meal, we pass the cup (usually juice) to complete the supper. Everyone shares of the one cup, and understands the importance of the demonstration of unity.
Afterwards, we enter into a time of prayer and praise, which leads into a time a sharing, ministering, and teaching. I am constantly amazed at the movement of God through our group. Lives are being changed, the discouraged are finding hope, the lost are being saved! Praise our Father in Heaven! His goodness is without bounds!
posted
Bruce, I'm so encouraged to hear how you are continuing to learn, asking the Lord for His directions and simply "doing whatsoever he says to you" John 2:5. Such is always the pathway to blessing! Never allow yourselves to be deflected or distracted from "looking to the hand of your master" for direction and for provision of whatever is necessary to do what He has asked you to do! See Psalm 123:2 "Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the LORD our God, until that he have mercy upon us."
posted
in our home church i explain what the Lord's supper is and that it is only for baptised believers. i have not had anyone who does not believe partake in the ceremony. i withold sacrament from nonbelievers.
posted
John Wesley spoke of prevenient grace, i.e., God's grace being at work before we come to Him, so that we might be drawn to Christ, and Wesley believed that such grace could be at work in the heart of someone who is not yet a Christian but who receives communion. For this reason he didn't exclude anyone, and his brother Charles wrote these song lyrics: "Come sinners to the gospel feast, Let every soul be Jesus' guest, Ye need not one be left behind For God hath bidden all mankind."
It's the Lord's Supper, not my own, and so I think the decision as to partake is between the recipient and the Lord, though I might encourage people to partake if they're seeking the grace of God in Christ, as a means of encouraging people to search their hearts as they make their own decisions.
When Paul cautions about people eating unworthily, I understand him to be referring to some apparently hungry people's abuse of the Love Feast by eating lots of food without leaving enough for others. This is a separate question than the one about who may receive communion.
Having said that, I recall meeting some years ago a woman who received communion at a Catholic event, and who later told me that she was not a Christian and worked at an abortuary, holding the hands of women while they underwent the deadly "procedure." I think some kind of pastoral word is in order should someone engaged in habitual wickedness seeks to partake, but I'd never wish to limit the power of God's grace, which might well touch someone's heart through His body and blood made tangible in bread and wine.
quote:It's the Lord's Supper, not my own, and so I think the decision as to partake is between the recipient and the Lord, though I might encourage people to partake if they're seeking the grace of God in Christ, as a means of encouraging people to search their hearts as they make their own decisions.
Better get the consensus of Vatican first.
quote:When Paul cautions about people eating unworthily, I understand him to be referring to some apparently hungry people's abuse of the Love Feast by eating lots of food without leaving enough for others. This is a separate question than the one about who may receive communion.
Just wondering why many pastors like to use verses out of that chapter prior to communion.
quote:I'd never wish to limit the power of God's grace, which might well touch someone's heart through His body and blood made tangible in bread and wine.
I never get to taste that wine as the priest always keeps all for himself. Why?
posted
If Catholic priests consume communion first, this is presumably because they want to make sure to include themselves in this act of thanksgiving. And when they consume any leftover elements that cannot be preserved, such as wine (usually leftover hosts can be used later), this is surely out of respect for its inherent sanctity, since the alternative would be to pour what Catholics believe has become the blood of Christ down the drain.
Many Protestants, and not Catholics or Orthodox alone, believe that when we receive the consecrated bread and wine, we truly receive by God's Spirit the body and blood of Christ. And so respect for these elements (regardless of exactly how God works through them) is not unique to Rome.
posted
Q."I've heard it said that Paul "broke bread" with non-believers, but was that actually a celebration of the Lord's Supper, or was it just a meal? " A. That event is recorded in Acts 27:33-38. It was a meal, as every remembrance of the Lord! We are to remember Him as often as we eat and drink! I Cor.11:26
****
I'd respond to the above question differently than in the above answer. In I Corinthians 11, Paul refers to a meal, sometimes called "the love feast," which he believed was being celebrated in a manner inconsistent with what he called "the Lord's Supper." That a meal was shared by the early Christians is suggested by 11:21-22, where Paul complains that some ate and drank too much, showing lack of consideration for others, and so he advises, "wait for one another" (11:33). But during this meal the Lord's giving of Himself for us on the cross was remembered through bread and wine, by which recipients shared "communion" with the body and blood of Christ (10:16, 17). Paul did not say only "as often as we eat and drink," but spoke more specifically: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" (11:26). He did not refer to food generally, but to "this bread" and "this cup" specifically.
Ancient Christian tradition always, everywhere, at all times and in all places recognized the bread and wine as a means of grace. During the Reformation, Luther and Calvin believed this as well, as did Wesley later. I am sure that none of the denominations belonging to the National Association of Evangelicals make no distinction between the Lord's Supper and other meals, although Quakers and the Salvation Army have historically not practiced this celebration, holding that other aspects of the Christian life are more important.
Acts 27:33-38 says that Paul took bread, gave thanks to God, and broke it before those who had been shipwrecked ate. The context does not refer specifically to the Lord's Supper.
Where have we gotten the idea that the Lord's Supper (literally "feast") is to be "celebrated" rather than simply eaten??
Where has the idea come from that we eat a little bite or morsel and drink a tiny sip??
In scripture do we have any distinctions between "ordinary meals" and the Lord's Supper? If so, how do we distinguish between incidents of "breaking bread" as ordinary meals and "breaking bread" in remembrance of the Lord?
Take Acts 20 for example: In verse 7 we read that On the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow.
Was their purpose to eat a meal or was their purpose to remember the Lord?
They came together with that purpose on the first day of the week but according to the record did not get around to doing so till after midnight, early Monday morning!
Also, is there any scripture that forbids unbelievers to partake of a meal by which the saints are remembering their Lord? I Cor.11 is NOT addressed to unbelievers but to saints!!! We remember the Lord at every meal and to us it has extraordinary significance, but to unsaved relatives or friends it is just another meal. Are we violating any scriptural instruction by doing so?
quote:They came together with that purpose on the first day of the week but according to the record did not get around to doing so till after midnight, early Monday morning!
If, when you and some friends came together to break bread on the first day of the week (Sunday) someone "preached" (literally dialogued) till midnight and then AFTER MIDNIGHT you got around to actually breaking bread and eating your meal, would your breaking of bread not be on Monday morning?
posted
Bruce, Sorry, I should have put "Or Sunday morning?" as a question. I don't know Greek but when I search "the first of the week" in Greek on the web, it looks as if it can be translated to "one sabbath". I could be wrong. Let's see if the Greek experts here can help.
I'm no Greek scholar myself, but the word "week" in Acts 20:7 is the same word as is often translated "sabbath" (sabbaton). As the sabbath (our Saturday) was the conclusion of the seven day cycle (the first to the seventh days), it seems that the 7 day cycle also became known as a "sabbaton" (sabbath).
Also, you are right that the word "first" in Acts 20:7 is the same Greek word translated "one". But if you check out all the places in the NT where the expression "first day of the week" is found, "one sabbath" would not fit into any of the contexts in which the expression is found.
Here they are: Mt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. Mr 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. Mr 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. Lu 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. Joh 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. Ac 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 1Co 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
posted
Bruce, I have just found this site and have really enjoyed the posting on on the Lord's Feast. I just make this comment about that meeting of Paul's finishing on Monday morning.
My understanding is that Jewish days started at sundown. And so Sunday, the 'first day of the week', actually kicked off on our Saturday evening which is when the early church would have met. It was the evening of their 'day off' - the Sabbath. Sunday was actually a working day since the 'weekend' had not yet been invented - we had to wait until the 1930s for that. The idea of Christians gathering together to meet on a Sunday morning would have been like us gathering on a Monday morning. Not too many employers would have appreciated that. The early church met on Saturday evening, which makes sense of Paul preaching til midnight.
I had to go through all this when, in our journey into home church, I moved our Sunday Celebration to Saturday night and our cell groups (at the time) onto Sunday morning. The cry from some was that we were no longer having 'church' on the Lord's day, the first day of the week. In actual fact were were - but it's hard work arguing with legalists.
Bless you. Love your understanding of the Lord's Feast. We're getting there.
Email this page to someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
