A Common Meal
or
The Lord's SupperBy Pastor G. Reckart
Copyright All Rights Reserved
There has been a lot of arguing since about the third century over what "breaking of bread" means in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles. For the most part, the pre-Nicene Catholic fathers believed breaking of bread was celebrating the Lord's Supper. Many other writers and believers, notably the Quartodeciman Johanne followers of Asia held the breaking of bread was reference only to a common meal. The Catholic church in its efforts to prove the Lord's Supper can be observed daily, weekly, monthly and annually; have interpreted the text of breaking of bread as observing the Lord's Supper. Is this true?
No, it is not true.
The phrase "breaking of bread" is a Jewish statement that was used throughout Israel before the time of Jesus. The breaking of bread is mentioned for instance in the records we have of the Essenes. These zealots held community meals where bread was prayed over by a spiritual leader. Afterward he would break it and each person would receive their share. This spiritual meal may or may not include drinking wine, but understanding here that drinking wine with meals was a common practice not that it added anything spiritual to the event. Breaking of bread was nothing more then eating a meal together.
The first time the mention of 'breaking of bread" is found in the New Testament is in Luke 24:35. In this text Jesus is about to eat an evening meal with two disciples after his resurrection. The text says this:
"And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of bread."
It is absolutely foolish to say the breaking of bread here was celebrating the Lord's Supper. There is no mention of wine nor of foot washing. The text is clear, this was to be an evening meal of breaking of bread. Jesus was following the Jewish custom of praying a blessing followed with breaking of the bread to distribute to those who would eat. In this case there were three of them. But as he broke the bread, they realized it was Jesus and he disappeared out of their sight. This breaking of bread follows also exactly the practice among the Essenes. Why? Because it was a simple Jewish practice long before there was a Last Supper.
We can now turn our attention to other New Testament text where bread is broken and it does not refer to the Lord's Supper.
Jesus prayed for daily bread in Luke 11:3 and we understand by this daily bread that it was baked with leaven and would afterward be broken into pieces after the Jewish custom and distributed to those who would eat the community meal. How about the text in Mark 8 where Jesus reminds his followers that he broke five loaves of bread and fed five thousand. Or when he reminded them that he broke seven loaves and fed four thousand. The breaking of bread was a way of distributing to those who would be fed.
We can see by the text that breaking of bread was a practice that had nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. In fact, although Jesus broke the unleavened bread on Passover and did divide it among the Apostles, they ate it first as part of the regular Passover meal. Then after the Passover meal was ended he broke bread again and this is the bread of the Lord's Supper.
It is this bread, this unleavened Passover bread, that became the emblem of the flesh and body of the Lord. The bread eaten at community meals was not unleavened bread. There is no mention that the breaking of the bread with the distribution of the fish was unleavened bread. There is no mention that the bread Jesus broke before the eyes of two disciples after his resurrection was unleavened bread. And there is no mention that the bread broken in Acts 2:42, 46, was unleavened bread. It is conjecture at best and Catholic doctrine at worst.
What about Acts 20:7 where on the first day of the week the church gathered and they broke bread? Isn't this the Lord's supper held each Sunday? No, this is another attempt to make the bread unleavened bread, when in fact there is no requirement for unleavened bread except at the Passover time. Any doctrine that tries to establish taking the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week from this text is false.
In Acts 20:7,11 where Paul breaks bread on the first day of the week is not the Lord's Supper? Notice in verse 7 it appears there was a community meal with the bread and no mention it was unleavened bread. Then after midnight which is the setting of verse 11, Paul breaks the bread again. Did he observe the Lord's Supper twice in the same night? What of his second meal of bread after midnight which according to Roman time would have been on the second day of the week. How many hold the Lord's supper after midnight Sunday? How many hold it on Sunday evenings which this text would force if followed? No, they want to hold it on Sunday mornings and there is no text at all any where in the Scriptures for a Sunday morning Communion service.
Lastly, in Acts 27:35 Paul took bread and broke it and did eat. Was this the Lord's Supper? Some claim it was. But what day of the week was it he then took the Lord's Supper? How can it be proven there was unleavened bread available and this is what Paul broke and ate? Did Paul eat the Lord's Supper by himself? Why did he refer to this bread as "meat" or food, ....nourishment in verse 34? Any rational mind can see this is not a celebration of the Lord's Supper.
There are two places where the Lord's Supper is mention in the New Testament associated with a Church and congregation. This is found in 1 Cor. 10:16, 21; and 1 Cor. 11:20-29. Other then the history of the Johanne Asiatics who observed the Lord's Supper on the Jewish Passover, there is no real record of how the early Church observed Communion. We know of a certainty that these Asiatics followed the ancient custom of the New Testament Church. And they held an annual observance not a daily, weekly, monthly, or whim event.
The term "breaking of bread" is never used in the Scriptures in association with the Lord's Supper.
Many, in an attempt to have Communion any time they want will say that "breaking of bread" is an idiom that means the Lord's Supper. I have shown and Jewish history will support that "breaking of bread" was already an idiom that means "food, or a bread meal." If wine is not mentioned with the breaking of bread it cannot be the Lord's Supper. If the breaking of bread is not breaking of unleavened bread, it cannot be the Lord's Supper. The term "Lord's Supper" must always include unleavened bread and wine.
The Lord's Supper is to be observed as he observed it and on the Jewish Passover. In referring to the Jewish Passover unleavened bread and wine: he said THIS DO! There can be no mistake that THIS refers to the annual observance of the Passover but now with a new revelation that Jesus is the Lamb slain for the new Passover of the New Testament. It should also be remembered that in this great revelation we have the understanding that "AS OFT OR OFTEN" that we eat this bread and drink from this Cup on an annual basis, we will show the Lord's death until he comes (1Cor. 11:26). Why should we observe the Lord's death on any day but the day he died? Why observe it on days he did not die? He did not die on the first day of the week. He did not die on the first sunday of the month. He did not die on New Year's eve (black-eye pea night).
I humbly beseech all who read this to consider what an insult it is to the Lord Jesus to observe his death on every day but the RIGHT NIGHT!
Apostolic people, Ministers, return to the faith of our Fathers. I am trying to turn turn your heart back to the Apostolic traditions of our fathers.
If you stood in the Council of Nicaea and heard the debating between the Catholics against the Quartodecimans whose side would you take? The Catholics wanted to alter the observance of celebrating the Lord's death on the Jewish passover and change the focus to his resurrection on Easter. Would you stand for this switch and vote with the Catholics? They wanted to outlaw the annual observance of the Lord's Supper by the Quartodecimans on the Jewish Passover. Would you vote to outlaw the Quartodecimans also? Just where would you stand in the Council of Nicaea? When you decide this, you will know where you should stand today.
I am a confessed Quartodeciman and I hold the annual observance of the Lord's Passover on the very evening of the Jew's Passover just like Jesus instituted it.
Come everyone and join us next year at Passover time for this great annual Feast of the Lord's Passover. Depart from the false days men have created with their perversion of the scriptures.
For additional study click here: CHRIST OUR PASSOVER IS CRUCIFIED FOR US