Acts 2:42 & 46 And they continued steadfastly
in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in
prayers. … And they, continuing daily
with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat
their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
So
does the Book of the Acts of the Apostles describe the daily “routine” of the
early believers soon after Pentecost and the revival that came afterward. It
had been understood that the term “breaking of bread” in the passage meant the
Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, Holy Communion. But as I noted before, many
challenge this understanding.
Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that the
disciples, Christians, came together the FIRST DAY OF EVERY WEEK TO OBSERVE THE
LORD'S SUPPER, THE LORD'S TABLE OR COMMUNION. Even the phrase "break
bread" or even "break the bread"(as in Acts 2:42 but not in Acts
20:7) may or may not refer to communion.[1]
So
says Pastor Joe Bliffen of the Fourth Avenue Christian Church, Disciples of
Christ. As I have noted in an earlier article, it is this understanding of the
term “breaking of bread” as some regular, yet specially significant meal but
not necessarily the Lord’s Supper that most seem to believe. A fellowship snack
before or after Bible study, an after worship coffee break, or even a meal at
Jollibee or MacDonald’s would as much be “breaking bread” together if all those
eating together are believers, even if no bread is involved.
Allow
me to investigate this claim.
A Christian Fellowship Meal—or Snack
… when a legalist reads Acts 20:7 he says this
verse MEANS the disciples came together "the first day of every week to
observe the Lord's Supper". Maybe it does. And maybe it doesn't. [2]
It
is claimed that the “breaking of bread” spoken of in Acts chapters two and
twenty were nothing more than regular, fellowship meals. As evidence, they
point out modern translations of both passages which translate the Greek word artoklasis into “fellowship meals”:
Acts 2:42, 46 [Good News Bible] They spent their
time in learning from the apostles, taking part in the fellowship, and sharing
in the fellowship meals and the prayers. … Day after day they met as a
group in the Temple,
and they had their meals together in their homes, eating with glad and
humble hearts, …
Acts 20:7a [GNB] On Saturday evening we gathered
together for the fellowship meal. …
Thus,
as one person once told me, even a snack taken during a Bible study qualifies
as “breaking bread” for the term artoklasis
was just an idiom (according to him) for any meal shared with fellow believers.
Another
piece of evidence that shows that the claim that the “breaking of bread” spoken
of in Acts was just another term for a regular, though special, shared meal is
the history of what is now known as the “love feast” or “agape meal”:
The Love Feast, or Agape Meal, is a Christian
fellowship meal recalling the meals Jesus shared with disciples during his
ministry and expressing the koinonia (community, sharing, fellowship) enjoyed
by the family of Christ.
Although its origins in the early church are
closely interconnected with the origins of the Lord’s Supper, the two services
became quite distinct and should not be confused with each other.[3]
From
this, it has been explained that the “breaking of bread” in the Book of Acts
were Agape Meals and not celebrations of Holy Communion. This, especially since
to celebrate the Eucharist every day is considered impossible given that there
were only at the very least eleven apostles who were “authorized” to celebrate
the Eucharist, so it would be impossible for them to celebrate Holy Communion
at every home in one day, so they say.
Thus,
so they tell me, what should be done constantly is not Holy Communion but
believers eating together after Bible study. This does not make the Agape Meal
not as special as Holy Communion, but this is more practical as a Love Feast is
not as “formal” as Holy Communion, and therefore more “meaningful” than a
ritual commemoration of Christ.
Why “Αρτοκλασις” Does Mean the Lord’s Supper
Even
though it is claimed that the “breaking of bread” spoken of in Acts chapter two
was just another term for a fellowship meal or “love feast”, all Christians
should dutifully receive Holy Communion every day like the original New
Testament Church, or at the very least every week, because St. Paul
specifically tells the believers of Corinth that the breaking of bread was the
communion of Christ's body, not just some “special” though regular meal.
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we
bless, is it not the communion/sharing/fellowship [koinonia] of the blood of
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion [koinonia] of the
body of Christ?
St. Paul specifically identified the act of breaking bread
as what we would now know as Holy Communion, i.e., the Lord’s Supper. He wrote
this as part of his appeal to the Corinthian believers to eschew idolatry, as
one “cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons” nor “be partakers
of the Lord's table, and of the table of demons.” Thus the “breaking of bread”
was not just some meal wherein believers ate with each other, but was an act of
worship—an act of communion/fellowship with Christ himself through his body and
blood.
Another
example that shows that St. Paul specifically
tells the believers of Corinth
that the breaking of bread was the communion of Christ's body, not just some
“special” meal is found in the next chapter, where he does specifically mention
the term “Lord’s Supper”:
1 Corinthians 11:20—22 [NASB] Therefore when you
meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one
takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat
and drink? Or do you despise the church
of God and shame those
who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will
not praise you.
Here
St. Paul
condemns those who would treat the Lord’s Supper itself as just another meal,
the elements as just normal bread and wine that happened to have been
consecrated. Yet in following verses, St.
Paul describes the Lord Jesus Christ as breaking bread
and calling it his body, that to eat that same bread in an unworthy
manner—i.e., treating the consecrated bread as just mere bread whose sole
purpose was to satisfy hunger—was to sin against the body of Christ. And it
seems that by the term “body of the Lord” what was meant was not the body of
believers as the Body of Christ (the Church) but the flesh of Christ which he
gave for the life of the world (S. John 6:51). This is because the complete
phrase talks about being “guilty against the body (i.e., the flesh) and blood
of the Lord” and how one who eats unworthily does so because one does not
“discern/distinguish” the Lord’s body—Christ’s flesh in the Sacrament—from
normal bread.
In
other words, the central ecclesial act of breaking bread was just not to
“bless” the bread for human consumption but as the mystery wherein the broken
bread becomes for the believers the body of Christ, the flesh of Jesus which he
gave for the life of the world. Thus, the “breaking of bread” was not merely a
“fellowship meal”, but the meal whereby Christ transmits his life towards
believers.
That They Might Become One
So
you can see that although it is claimed that the “breaking of bread” spoken of
in the Book of Acts was just another term for a regular, though special, shared
fellowship meal, it is apparent—Scripturally speaking—that the term “breaking
of bread” was intended to be understood as a synonym for the Lord’s Supper.
Therefore, all Christians should dutifully receive Holy Communion every day
like the original New Testament Church (Acts 2:42, 46), or at the very least
every week (Acts 20:7), i.e., every Sunday, for two main reasons. First, the
believers as early as Pentecost celebrated Holy Communion, i.e., the breaking
of bread, every day (Acts 2:42, 46). But most importantly, St.
Paul specifically tells the believers of Corinth that the breaking of bread was the
communion of Christ's body, not just some “special” fellowship meal.
But
why should the church celebrate Holy Communion as often as one can? This is
because it is through Holy Communion, along with Baptism, that makes the church
the Body of Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:17 [NASB] Since there is one
bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
1 Cor. 12:12—13 [NASB] For even as the body is one
and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are
many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized
into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all
made to drink of one Spirit.
No pastoral act is more central to the care of
souls than the Supper where the resurrected Christ himself is present at the
table. IF ALL ACTS OF PASTORAL CARE WERE STOPPED EXCEPT [THE] EUCHARIST, THE
WORK OF PASTORAL CARE WOULD REMAIN VITAL AND SIGNIFICANT.[4]
Church
unity can NEVER be attained by compromise, consensus, dialogue, inter-church
choirs, 24-hour “Praise&Worship” concerts, nor even revivals and an
“autonomous” church structure. What unites us as a Church, as the body of
Christ, is the partaking and sharing of that one bread which we break, the
broken bread of the Lord’s Supper. To attempt to achieve Church unity apart
from Holy Communion is to rely on human works rather than on the grace of God.
This is the worst form of legalism, for it attempts to replicate what only God
can do using human efforts. The Holy Spirit, guiding St. Paul, has revealed what it takes to unite
the Church, and that means of uniting the Church is through broken bread.
For the United Methodist Church in Quezon City to only celebrate Holy Communion once a month is to say that the UMC in QC is only truly, Scripturally united as a Church only once a month. No wonder then that schism sprang from Quezon City.
[1] Joe
Bliffen, “Chapter 23: Legalism,” Theology For the Pew, The Fourth Avenue
Christian Church Website, http://www.fourth-avenue.org/chapters/23
[2] Ibid.
[3]
“VII. Occasional Services: The Love Feast,” The
United Methodist Book of Worship (Nashville, Tennnessee: The Methodist
Publishing House, © 1992), p. 581.
[4] Thomas
Oden, Ministry Through Word and Sacrament (New York: Crossroad, 1989),
p. 154, emphases added.
