The Kingdom, The Kids, & The Cowboys

AllanStanglin.com

Category: Lord’s Supper (Page 8 of 15)

Around the Table: Part 9

January 28, 2014 / / 0 Comments

“The Christian order of worship was built up from the Jewish synagogue service of Scripture teaching and prayer with the addition of the distinctively Christian rite of the Lord’s Supper. The latter, too, has antecedents in the Jewish Passover meal and table prayers. The meal became a part of the community assembly of Christians… For many of the Christians, the central point of their Christian experience was this common meal.” ~Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, 1981

Most Bible scholars and careful readers of the texts are unyielding in their convictions that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in the context of a full meal for the first 300+ years of Christianity. We’ve explored the Biblical witness at length in previous posts. But the post-biblical accounts of early Christian worship only support the earlier writings. Christian communion was established in and shaped by the experience of a common meal. In fact, as argued in this space previously, outside of a common meal the Lord’s Supper loses much of its original function as a practical sign of mutual acceptance and relationship, as a tangible practice of fellowship and unity.

In his instructions “concerning the Eucharist,” the author of Didache, written near the turn of that second century, advises: “After you are filled (or after you have had enough), give thanks in this way…” One of the prayers mentioned in this passage acknowledges God as the one who “gave food and drink to human beings for their refreshment.” Ferguson says:

“The Eucharist in the Didache (we accept this as an account of the Lord’s Supper) appears to be set in the context of a social meal. This was the usual setting in the early days of the church… The disorders at Corinth were occasioned by the circumstances of a common meal.” ~Early Christians Speak

Consider these other early post-biblical accounts of the Lord’s Meal:

“We take the sacrament of the Eucharist, which was commanded by the Lord at meal time and for all alike, in congregations before daybreak.” ~Tertullian, On the Crown (3.3) 190 AD

“…when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath… after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food — but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” ~Pliny, Letters (10.6) addressed to the Emperor Trajan, 112 AD

“Since it is a religious duty, it permits nothing vile, nothing immodest. We do not recline at the table before prayer to God is first tasted. We eat the amount that satisfies the hungry; we drink as much as is beneficial to the modest. We satisfy ourselves…” ~Justin, Apology I, 67, 151 AD

“Let each of those of you who are present take a cup and give thanks and drink, and so take your meal being purified in this way… But when you eat and drink do it in good order and not unto drunkenness, and not so that any one may mock you.” ~Hipploytus, Apostolic Tradition (25) 230 AD

In reviewing these primary source documents, two things are clear: 1) the Lord’s Supper was practiced and understood as a full meal eaten with a community of disciples, and  2) there was much more diversity than uniformity in the ways those meals were celebrated. There were no set liturgies, no standard forms. It was a meal that in structure and frequency reflected the particular place and time in which it was enjoyed. Another thing that becomes clear in writings from the fourth century and later is that, for a variety of reasons, the meal itself began to be scaled down. Also, the bread and cup rituals began to be separated from the meal into two different ceremonies. You can even find in Cyprian and Tertullian as early as the middle of the third century a Eucharist service of bread and wine on Sunday mornings and an Agape Meal, or Love Feast, with the church together on Sunday evenings.

Again, there are many reasons for this significant shift. Just as in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and Jude’s short note in the New Testament, there were abuses around the table that needed correcting during those first centuries. Counter to the New Testament’s instructions, instead of correcting the abuses, a lot of churches simply did away with the meals altogether. Periodic curfews and bans imposed by the Roman government disrupted the normal meeting routines of the Christians. Persecution halted some of the bigger social meals. A lot of the meals were stopped altogether because of the social and government pressure placed on those who attended them. Early Christians were charged with cannibalism for claiming to eat and drink “flesh and blood.” They suffered suspicion of incest because of their language (“brothers and sisters”) and their bizarre practices (“holy kiss” and “kiss of peace”). The dinners were viewed by most outsiders as an attack of the social structures of the Roman Empire. The mixing of classes and genders was a threat to the civil structures of the day and were seen as disruptive to society. It was certainly easier for the Christians to just stop eating together. So, even then, culture influenced the church in damaging ways. Full meal communion services are mentioned in Christian writings as late as the seventh century. But they inarguably fell from prominence and ceased being the norm after the 300s.

Naturally, there is a world of difference between fellowshipping around a full common meal at somebody’s house and hurriedly rushing through a ritualistic ceremony at a church building on the way to work. Losing the full meal context and practice of the Lord’s Supper was a damaging shift. Much of the symbolism of the table was lost. The easy and informal mood of the celebration was replaced by a more structured and formal ceremony. What else do we lose when the Lord’s Meal is a crumb and a sip instead of “eating to your fill?” How does the method of the meal become the message? By that I mean what is communicated differently? What gets left out? It’s no little thing that, for centuries now, God’s Church has opted out of the full meal in exchange for a ceremonial snack. What makes it more destructive to our Christian practice and Christian message is the mood and atmosphere of our solemn snack. I’ll explore that development in a post tomorrow.

Peace,

Allan

Around the Table: Part 8b

January 9, 2014 / / 0 Comments

“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body [of the Lord] eats and drinks judgment on himself.” ~1 Corinthians 11:27-29

I’m trying to keep these Around the Table posts from being too long. So allow me today to clean up a little bit from yesterday’s observations from Paul’s Lord’s Supper correctives in 1 Corinthians 11.

A lot of our distorted communion theology comes from the misunderstanding and misapplication of two key phrases in these three verses. These two phrases, as we’ll see more clearly in future posts, have been used and misused in all the worst ways to shift the Lord’s Supper over the centuries from the celebratory communal meal as it was originally intended to today’s solemn introspective snack.

Eating in a Worthy Manner

The word Paul uses here is not an adjective, it’s an adverb. It’s anaxios, which could be translated as “unworthily” or “unworthy manner.” The word describes the way one eats and drinks, not whether one is worthy to eat or drink in the first place. None of us is worthy to eat and drink in righteous relationship at the same table as our God. Or, put another way, all of us, by the grace of God and the blood of his Son, are worthy to share a meal at the Lord’s feast. Our worthiness to be at the table is not in question; that was settled at the cross of Christ. Praise God! What’s in question is how we eat when we’re gathered at our Lord’s Meal with other Christian brothers and sisters. According to the particular situation that Paul’s addressing there in Corinth, eating in an unworthy manner means eating in a way that only concerns yourself or your peers. It means eating in a selfish way that erects barriers between people and groups of people. It means drawing lines at the table between people of different backgrounds, different life circumstances, or different color, language, or race. Eating in a worthy manner is not about silently meditating on the cross of Jesus or reflecting on one’s own sins committed during the previous week. It’s not about quickly judging yourself and deciding you’d better not take a cracker crumb this week or, yeah, I’m good enough to participate today. It’s not private introspection; it’s public action. Worthy manner means considering the needs of others around the table more important than your own. It means sharing. It means paying attention to the people around you. Which leads us to…

Recognizing the Body:

First, it’s not “recognizing the body of the Lord.” The earliest original Greek language manuscripts do not contain “of the Lord.” Those three words were added to the text somewhere along the way, probably several centuries later, undoubtedly to help shift the mood of the Supper to one of quiet reflection. (There was a reason for that. Again, we’ll see it more clearly and explore it more thoroughly in upcoming posts.) Everyone at the table, in Paul’s words, must recognize the body while they eat and drink. Recognize the body? How can that possibly mean anything other than the Church?

Earlier, in the same conversation, Paul has used “body” to describe the church: “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:17). Later, in the same letter, he leaves no doubt as to what he means when he uses the word “body” at least 17 times in 16 verses to mean “church” (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). This is just the way Paul writes; he loves to refer to the gathered saints as “the body.”

“…for the sake of his body, which is the Church.” ~Colossians 1:24

“…to be head over everything for the Church, which is his body.” ~Ephesians 1:23

“For we are all members of one body.” ~Ephesians 4:25

“…just as Christ does the Church — for we are members of his body.” ~Ephesians 5:30

To recognize the body at the Lord’s Supper is to recognize God’s Church as a united community. This is about acknowledging the communal meaning of the Meal. The Lord’s Supper is a powerful witness to unity, it’s a strong testimony to a tangible fellowship that transcends all barriers. Especially in the context of the particular issues in Corinth, Paul’s command to recognize the body can only mean to recognize all the people around the table together. This is not about concentrating on the battered body of Jesus hanging on the cross. It’s not about tuning out distractions, not making eye contact with anybody, being super quiet, so as individuals we can focus on the death of our Lord. It’s just the opposite; it’s exactly the opposite! It’s explicitly about tuning in to everybody and everything around us, about making eye contact and physical contact with our brothers and sisters, it’s a command to talk and visit and smile and chat and welcome and serve, to focus on the resurrection community we’re blessed by God to share together.

You know, the communion meal is genius. It really is. God knew what he was doing when he gave us this Supper. Because you can’t do communion by yourself. You can’t do communion on TV, you can’t order it on-line, and you don’t get communion at a drive-thru. In order to do communion, you have to be within arm’s reach of other people. You must be within touching distance of other Christians. You have to share a loaf, you have to serve a cup, you have to look at each other. Doing it by yourself is not communion. Doing it by yourself even in a room full of hundreds of people is not communion. Distorting these two key phrases in 1 Corinthians 11 has profoundly damaged our Lord’s Supper. Expressing the intended communal aspects of the meal is what’s required. It’s what must be recovered.

Peace,

Allan

Around the Table: Part 8

January 8, 2014 / / 0 Comments

“When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk… When you come together to eat, wait for each other.” ~1 Corinthians 11:20-21, 33

Paul’s instructions/corrections to the Corinthians regarding the communion meal are the earliest and oldest written accounts in existence about the Lord’s Supper. What we find is not an elaborate or systematic blueprint of the church’s meal; we have a narrow and focused response to a very particular and localized problem. However, in this response in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, we find Paul’s very clear Lord’s Supper theology that informs and instructs the Lord’s Meal today: the church’s supper should be shared as a communal act that breaks down barriers between people and proclaims and promotes Christian unity. That’s what the meal is all about. But that’s not what’s happening at this church in Corinth.

The main overarching problem in Corinth is division within the church. Paul acknowledges the issue right out of the gate. He appeals to them in the name of Jesus to “agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10ff). The same exhortations appear again in chapter three where Paul points out their jealousy and arguing and pleads with them to stop. Elsewhere, it appears that these Christians were taking pride in their spiritual gifts, exalting some gifts over others, differentiating and dividing along lines of giftedness. And those decidedly anti-Christians attitudes were being expressed and manifested on the Lord’s Day at the table.

The Problem: Not Waiting for Others (11:21, 33)

Paul tells them they’re gathering for the Lord’s Supper, they’re calling it the Lord’s Supper, they’re saying all the right prayers and repeating all the right rituals, but it’s definitely not the Lord’s Supper. “You’re each eating your own supper,” he says. Why? Because you’re not sharing. You’re not waiting. You’re thinking only of yourself. You’re showing no regard for your own brothers and sisters who are going hungry while you’re stuffing your face and getting drunk. The problem is not that they were eating a full meal — the Lord’s Supper had always been a full meal (dipenon) and would be a full meal for another couple of centuries — it was that they weren’t sharing. This meal wasn’t about Christian unity, it was about taking care of one’s own needs over those of another. This, of course, is in direct violation of the way of Jesus. The rich homeowners were eating and drinking while the working class members of the church were getting nothing at all. This meal was being shaped by the culture instead of the Christ. The Gospel of Jesus is intended to break down barriers, to destroy division, and unite all people in his salvation blood. Instead, around this Corinthian table, poor people were being humiliated in the corner while rich people were gorging themselves in the main dining room. Even if they had no idea what the Lord’s Supper was about, common courtesy demands they refrain from getting fat and drunk while others are going hungry. Instead, they were making a mockery of the Gospel by their selfish behavior.

The Corrective: Pointing to Jesus (11:23-24)

Paul tells the Corinthians he cannot praise them for their awful behavior at the table. Their manners need correcting. So, he reminds them about their Lord. He reminds them that Jesus, “on the night he was betrayed,” gave up his very body and blood for the sake of others. The meal, Paul says, remembers the self-giving nature of our Savior. Our covenant with God, he recalls for these Christians, is based on sacrifice and service. It’s ratified by death. Around the table, we proclaim with one another that death and resurrection. Our actions at the table with one another must reflect and express that same sacrificial and servant-hearted nature of our Lord “until he comes.”

The Instructions: Wait for Each Other (11:33-34)

Paul does not discourage the eating of the meal. He does not command them to stop eating and drinking at the Lord’s Supper. Instead, he tells them how to eat and drink together around the Lord’s table. This follows his obvious pattern in correcting other abuses in the Corinthian congregation. He doesn’t tell them to stop speaking in tongues; he says, “When you speak in tongues, do it this way.” He doesn’t tell the disruptive women to stop praying; he says, “When the women pray, do it this way.” He doesn’t tell them not to eat meals at their Lord’s Day gatherings; he says, “When you come together to eat, do it this way.” Wait for each other. Eat and drink together. Share with one another. Consider the needs of others more important than your own. Now, if you’re unable to wait, if you’re incapable of restraining yourself, if you just can’t help it, go ahead and “eat at home so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment” (1 Corinthians 11:34). Don’t stop eating the Lord’s Supper. Eat it together, Paul says, in a way that honors the forever-giving nature and way of our risen and coming Lord.

Conclusions: Communal Intent of the Meal

Over the past 1,300 or so years, culture has turned the Lord’s Meal into a time of silent, individualistic piety. The Supper is restricted to the recesses of each individual’s mind and personal thoughts. In Corinth, the communion meal was restricted to class and socio-economic status. Today, it’s mainly a private affair. We have turned a celebratory meal designed by our God to proclaim and express unity and community and salvation into an individual ritually swallowing a crumb and drinking a sip while silently staring at the floor. I’m not completely certain how we recover the communal aspect of the church’s meal while worshiping in an auditorium with several hundred people, but we must try. Maybe we could use bigger portions of bread and more juice in bigger cups. Maybe we could all hold the cracker bits and tiny cups and wait for each other to eat and drink at the same time. Maybe we should enjoy a time of welcome and hospitality — a time to “shake hands and be friendly” — leading up to our time at the table. Singing together during the meal. Reading Scripture together during the meal. Instructing our churches to share with one another in the pews our favorite words of Jesus, our favorite deeds of our Lord, our favorite passage of Scripture, or our favorite song during the meal. Truthfully, there is more communion happening while passing a hot dog to a stranger at a football game than in most communion services in our churches on Sunday mornings. The form is the function; the medium is the message. It’s important that we recover the communal aspect of the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is serious. Not because it’s quiet time or meditation time or a time to solemnly reflect on Jesus’ death. It’s serious because the communion meal bears witness to the Gospel. It reflects and expresses the good news of salvation from God in the sacrificial death and powerful resurrection and eternal reign of the Christ. Judgment will come to those who deny the Gospel message and its values around the table (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). My advice would be to make sure communion is not about you. Make sure it’s about the people around you.

Peace,

Allan

Table in the Desert

January 6, 2014 / / 0 Comments

“Can God spread a table in the desert?” ~Psalm 78:19

The psalmist asks if God can really provide a feast for his people out in the middle of the remote wilderness. Is it possible? Can God provide nourishment and life where there is none?

The answer gushes powerfully from a rock. Streams flow abundantly. Water in the desert. Thirst-quenching life in the middle of certain death.

The psalmist sees the water. And he follows up with, “But can he also give us food? Can he supply meat for his people?” (Psalm 78:20)

And the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth opens up the skies to rain down manna and quail. The grain from heaven, the “bread of angels.” He “rained meat down on them.” They ate “till they had more than enough.”

“He sent them all the food they could eat.” (Psalm 78:25)

Yes, our God can spread a table in the desert. He can open up a 24-hour-all-you-can-eat smorgasbord right in the middle of your desert. Right in the middle of your driest condition. Right in the darkest part of your worst night. Down in the lonely depths of your deepest valley. He can shine bright light into your scariest situation. He can bring life from your dead-as-a-doornail, going-through-the-motions rut. Absolutely. Yes, he can.

Our God prepares a table for us in the presence of our enemies. And we eat with God in complete communion and perfect peace. Protected. Provided for. Saved.

Our God is sufficient. He is able. And he covers us with his tent and promises us we will hunger and thirst no more.

Peace,

Allan

Around the Table: Part 7b

December 12, 2013 / / 2 Comments

We’ve established that the term “breaking bread” (“klasas artos” or “arton klao“) was never used in the Greek language before the writings of the New Testament and that it always and only refers to Christ eating and drinking at the table with his disciples. The phrase was never used to describe an ordinary meal. It is a strictly Christian term used exclusively in a Lord’s Supper or communion context. Every time. At the very least, “breaking bread” echoes earlier meals with Jesus and / or reminds the Church of what’s happening on Sundays at the Lord’s Meal. But the context is always a joyful community meal shared in the presence of Jesus. Therefore, we are compelled, I believe, to read familiar portions of the New Testament a bit differently. I’d like to examine three of those passages from Acts in this space today.

Acts 2:42-47 – We in the Churches of Christ have all but memorized these verses. We proudly point to this passage as the origin of God’s Church, the first days of Christ’s global community of faith. “This is how the Church started,” we say. “This is the pattern, this is how we should act today.” And I agree. Along with Ephesians 4, this is where I begin talking about the Church in our orientation classes with visitors and new Christians here at Central. Luke ties “breaking bread” here to the fellowship of the Church. This passages is about community. Communion. Koinonia. Christianity is a shared experience, lived in community with other disciples where men and women share their meals and their possessions. Church is expressed here in concrete and visible terms, not just spiritual or mental or invisible. These new Christians are sharing their lives with one another. But are the two uses of “breaking bread” in verses 42 and 46 about the Lord’s Dinner?

Typically, we pronounce the use of the phrase in verse 42 to be about the Lord’s Supper (“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer”) and the same wording in verse 46 (“They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts”) to be about common ordinary meals. The logic generally used in this analysis is that verse 42 is about teaching and prayer, therefore, it’s in a worship context, so it must be the Lord’s Supper. Verse 46, however, describes an every day action taking place in homes, so it must be a common meal. We ignore the line about praising God in that same context.

I would say the burden of proof is on those who claim verse 46 is not the Lord’s Supper.

The easiest criticism of our traditional view is to ask whether Luke really would use the same words to describe two completely different activities in a span of five verses. Most certainly not! But, I think that misses the point. In the first place, to even ask if one is the Lord’s Supper and one is a common meal is to assume that it’s not both. And we know it is! In the New Testament and for the first 200+ years of Christianity, the Lord’s Supper IS a common meal. In Scripture, you can have a meal without the Lord’s Supper, but you cannot have the Lord’s Supper without a meal.

But verse 46 says “every day.” It can’t be the Lord’s Supper because we only do that on Sundays.

Let’s not read our traditions and our practices today back into the Holy Scriptures. Remember that during New Testament times all Christian worship assemblies were held in homes. Remember that the Lord’s Supper was a full meal, never just bread and wine. Remember that these full fellowship meals were celebrated joyfully in the name of Jesus, with thanksgiving to God, as an expression of their blessings and unity in Christ. I would argue that for these early Christians, there were no common meals. Every meal they ate together is the Lord’s Supper. Remember, too, that sharing their food with the needy is an important part of the communion or Lord’s Supper instructions we find in late 1st century and early 2nd century writings in the Didache and by Justin Martyr. If part of the Lord’s Supper is about feeding the poor, you would have to do that more than once a week, right? Also, remember that the day of the week and the time of day for Christian worship assemblies is not uniform in the early Church until the late 2nd or early 3rd centuries. There are plenty of writings, Ignatius’ letters among them, that call for more frequent celebrations of the Eucharist. A Sunday-only Lord’s Supper and Sunday-only worship assemblies is only established later, generally linked to the separation of the Lord’s Supper from the common meal during the 4th century.

Acts 20:7-12 – This passage is about resurrection. The Church has gathered around the table to celebrate the resurrection, they are anticipating a resurrection, and then they actually experience a resurrection. As in the Gospels, this passage presents the communion dinner in a resurrection/life context, not a crucifixion/death context. However, like the previously discussed verses in Acts 2, we have traditionally interpreted the same phrase used in the same setting, separated by only four verses in this passage, as two different activities. We’ve said verse 7 is the Lord’s Supper (“On the first day of the week we came together to break bread”) because it’s Sunday and it’s the primary reason the Church gathers. But we claim verse 11 to be merely a common meal or even a snack (“Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate”) because it’s after midnight — Monday! — and there don’t seem to be any formalities mentioned.

Again, for many of the same reasons outlined above, the burden of proof is on the one claiming that verse 11 is not the Lord’s Supper.

In this story, the breaking of bread seems intentional. This is the explicitly stated reason for this Christian gathering. Paul’s sermon seems to be an add-on or a special circumstance. There is, of course, theological significance to “first day of the week.” That’s the day of Resurrection and the birthday of the Church. The Eutychus episode serves as the table talk. It’s the sermon illustration. Jesus and Eutychus were dead, now they are alive. Christ eats with us at the table, just like Eutychus is doing right now. This community of faith ate their meal with this visible example of their hope in the resurrection. I wonder what the mood was like at that Lord’s Supper? What a powerful reminder that it’s around our Lord’s table where his followers celebrate new life, where we rejoice in our liberation, where we experience his perfect peace.

Acts 27:33-36 – This one’s a little tricky. Most scholars are divided here on whether Paul breaking bread during the storm at sea is the Lord’s Supper. I believe it is. But only because my definition of Lord’s Supper is communing with God and one another while sharing a salvation meal in the presence of Christ. Luke uses the same words for breaking (klao) and bread (artos) in verse 35. And, remarkably, he uses the same liturgical formula employed by Jesus in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, the post-resurrection meals, and the feeding of the multitudes: “He took some bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all. Then he broke it and began to eat.”

But these aren’t Christians; they are pagan sailors. This isn’t a worship service. They’re in a boat. It might not be a Sunday. These are not church people. How can it be the Lord’s Supper?

Again, the burden of proof is on those who deny this as a Lord’s Supper account. Let’s not read our current practices back in to Scripture. Notice the salvation context of the story and the meal. Notice how this story acts as a rehearsal of the Gospel:

v.22 – “not one of you will be lost”
v.23 – God’s angel promises salvation
v.24 – salvation is a gracious gift from God
v.25 – “I have faith in God that it will happen just as he told me”
v.30 – sailors attempt to save themselves
v.31 – “unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved”
v.34 – salvation is tied to the meal
v.35 – breaking bread with thanksgiving to God

At the very least, allow me to assert that this meal at sea points to the Lord’s Supper as a reminder that the presence of the risen and reigning Christ can be experienced everywhere, anywhere. And that any meal eaten with thanksgiving to God and in recognition of our salvation through Christ is, in a broad sense, a Lord’s Meal.

While reflecting on the Acts 2 passage, you might consider how the community/communion aspect of the Lord’s Supper function in our understanding and practices of the sacred meal. Are those meanings properly emphasized in the Sunday morning practices at your church? What about the resurrection aspect of the meal emphasized in Acts 20? Is this facet of the Lord’s Supper properly expressed in your Sunday morning assemblies?

Peace,

Allan

Around the Table: Part 7

December 11, 2013 / / 0 Comments

Sports Illustrated’s Andy Staples has written an excellent article on Baylor football coach Art Briles that centers on Briles’ time as a high school football coach in west Texas and in the Texas panhandle. Briles developed his spread offense in response to a quarter-finals playoff loss to Panhandle’s Panthers back in 1984. Staples’ account of that game includes a vivid description of what high school football was like before the days of overtime. Back when tie games were decided by penetrations and first downs, it wasn’t uncommon for teams to play for the penetration instead of the touchdown. It’s a very entertaining read that references lots of our regional towns and teams, including Canadian’s outstanding coach who was a star running back for Panhandle in that 1984 win. You can get to the article by clicking here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In addition, David Moore has written a nice column in the Dallas Morning News regarding the Cowboys’ chances at a playoff spot. You figure the Cowboys have to win three in a row to make the postseason. And this team hasn’t had a three game winning streak since 2010. I don’t know how the worst defense in the NFL and the statistically worst defense in franchise history is going to stop the Packers this week, regardless of whether Aaron Rodgers suits up for Green Bay. Josh McCown, Chicago’s back-up QB, looked like Jim McMahon Monday night. David’s article is here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to make the case in this space today that every single time the term “break bread” is used in the New Testament Scriptures, it’s referring to what we call today the Lord’s Supper. The phrase is never used to describe a common meal; it always represents or points to the Lord’s Meal. To illustrate this, we have to use a little Greek. Not a lot; just a little.

Klasas is the Greek word for “break” we find in our New Testaments. It’s the common word for “break.” There isn’t another word for it. It means “to break” like you would break your leg, break a toy, or break your mom’s favorite picture frame. Artos is the Greek word for “bread.” In both the common language and in our New Testaments, this word can have two meanings. The main meaning is simply a piece of common bread or a loaf of common bread. The secondary meaning is “food” or “a meal.” To “eat bread” in many places in Scripture is to eat food generally. The prodigal son in Luke 15:17 says his father’s hired men have “food” (artos) to spare. Jesus’ disciples are criticized in Matthew 15:2 for not washing their hands before they eat. Period. The NIV leaves out “bread” (artos). The Greek text says “…before they eat bread.” The same thing happens in Mark 3:20 when the disciples are so crowded in the house they are “not even able to eat.” Most English translations leave it at that: “eat.” The Greek says “…not even able to eat bread.” But the scholars understand that a full meal is meant by the context. There are a few other places in the New Testament in which “bread” means a meal. The last one I’ll mention is in 1 Thessalonians 3:8 where Paul claims not to have eaten “anyone’s food without paying for it.” The word translated “food” is artos. Bread.

You might think that the term “breaking bread” would be a fairly common term in ancient times, that it would refer, as it does in today’s English, to eating a common meal. When I say we’re going to the Bentleys’ house to break bread, you and I both know we’re having some kind of barbecue and fresh vegetables, peach tea, and a fancy dessert. Hasn’t it always been that way?

No.

According to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) database, a record of every single written word in the Greek language from the very earliest writings dating to about 1400 BC through the year 1453 AD, no one in history ever used the term “breaking bread” before the New Testament. For fourteen centuries — every novel, every song, every poem, every play, every government document, every worship order, every instruction manual, every word of every thing ever penned in that language — nobody ever combined “klasas artos” or “arton klao” (breaking bread) until Paul and the apostles. They were the very, very first. After the New Testament time, the phrase is only found in the writings of the early church fathers, always in reference to the Lord’s Supper.

“Breaking bread” is not a common Greek phrase. It’s not an every day term. It doesn’t mean “have a meal.” It means “share a meal with Jesus.”

The term is used for the first time ever in the Greek language in the New Testament. We find it there eighteen times:

At the feeding of the 5,000 in Matthew 14:19, Mark 6:41, and Luke 9:16
At the feeding of the 4,000 in Matthew 15:36, Mark 8:6, and Mark 8:19
At the last supper in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19
At the Emmaus Supper in Luke 24: 30 and 24:35
In Luke’s account of the first days of the Church in Acts 2:42 and 2:46
In Troas on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7 and 20:11
On a ship at sea in the middle of a storm in Acts 27:35
In Paul’s Lord’s Supper discussions in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:24

In every case, this is Jesus eating and drinking at table with his disciples. The term is always used to describe the Messiah sharing a meal with his followers. This is the worship language of the early Church. Just like “born of water and the spirit” means “baptism” and just like “separate and apart” means it’s time to pass the collection trays, “breaking bread” means “Lord’s Meal.” It didn’t need any further explanation. Just like the sports page today doesn’t take the time or the space to explain what “touchdown” means in a story about the football game, the writers of the New Testament used “breaking bread” and all the hearers and readers knew what was meant.

Luke makes it easy to follow the thread:

When he feeds the multitudes, Jesus takes bread, blesses it, breaks the bread, and then gives it to his disciples (Luke 9:16).
At the Passover meal on that last night, Jesus takes bread, gives thanks, breaks the bread, and then gives it to his followers (Luke 22:19)
At the resurrection dinner in Emmaus, Jesus takes bread, blesses it, breaks the bread, and then gives it to the disciples (Luke 24:30)

“Jesus was made known to them,” Luke writes, “in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35)

We shouldn’t be surprised to find the first church continuing the faithful practice of their Lord:

The disciples continued in the breaking of the bread (Acts 2:42)
The disciples broke bread daily in their homes (Acts 2:46)
The disciples gathered to break bread (Acts 20:7)

Knowing that the term “breaking bread” is an exclusively Christian term and refers only and always to Christ’s presence at the table where he eats and drinks with his disciples has some interesting ramifications. But I’m out of time and space today. Let’s continue the discussion tomorrow.

Peace,

Allan

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 The Kingdom, The Kids, & The Cowboys

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑