Only because it has randomly come up three times in the past week or so, (the last time being this evening with a pastor friend of mine) do I feel like I need to say anything about this particular subject. It must be the providence of God, no? When the early church came together to partake of the Lord's Supper, on what days did this take place? I offer this: A Discussion of Acts 2:42-47
(Did the early Christians partake of the Lord’s Supper daily or only on Sunday?)
Acts 2:42 PP4
[And fellowship] The word rendered "fellowship," koinonia is often rendered "communion." It properly denotes "having things in common, or participation, society, friendship." It may apply to anything which may be possessed in common, or in which all may partake. Thus, all Christians have the same hope of heaven; the same joys; the same hatred of sin; the same enemies to contend with. Thus, they have the same subjects of conversation, of feeling, and of prayer; or they have communion in these things. And thus the early Christians had their property in common. The word here may apply to either or to all of these things to their conversation, their prayers, their dangers, or their property; and means that they were united to the apostles, and participated with them in whatever befell them. It may be added that the effect of a revival of religion is to unite Christians more and more, and to bring those who were before separated to union and love. Christians feel that they are a band of brethren, and that, however much they were separated before they became Christians, now they have great and important interests in common; they are united in feelings, in interests, in dangers, in conflicts, in opinions, and in the hopes of a blessed immortality.
[Breaking of bread] The Syriac renders this "the eucharist" or the Lord's Supper. It cannot, however, be determined whether this refers to their partaking of their ordinary food together, or to feasts of charity, or to the Lord's Supper. The bread of the Hebrews was made commonly into cakes, thin, hard, and brittle, so that it was broken instead of being cut. Hence, to denote "intimacy or friendship," the phrase "to break bread together" would be very expressive in the same way as the Greeks denoted it by drinking TOGETHER, [sumposion] (grk 4849). From the expression used in
(from Barnes' Notes)
Acts 2:42-47 PP6
3. They frequently joined in the ordinance of the Lord's supper. They continued in the breaking of bread, in celebrating that memorial of their Master's death, as those that were not ashamed to own their relation to, and their dependence upon, Christ and him crucified. They could not forget the death of Christ, yet they kept up this memorial of it, and made it their constant practice, because it was an institution of Christ, to be transmitted to the succeeding ages of the church. They broke bread from house to house;
kat' oikon-- house by house; they did not think fit to celebrate the eucharist in the temple, for that was peculiar to the Christian institutes, and therefore they administered that ordinance in private houses, choosing such houses of the converted Christians as were convenient, to which the neighbors resorted; and they went from one to another of these little synagogues or domestic chapels, houses that had churches in them, and there celebrated the eucharist with those that usually met there to worship God.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary)
From certain passages in the Word of God, we understand that the early Christians did, indeed, partake of the Lord’s Supper (as well as their agape feast; today -- it's potluck) as they would assemble together for the Lord’s Day – Sunday (See 1 Corinthians 11:23-34, Acts 20:7, for example). According to this passage (Acts 2:42-47), they were breaking bread together daily, which could mean agape feasts, or agape feasts and the Lord's Supper. (They were also praying, sharing belongings, etc.) There are varying opinions concerning the subject – as seen in the above discussion on the subject by Barnes and Henry (a couple of respected commentators), just as an example. Concerning whether Christians could or should partake of the Lord's Supper on any other day, I believe that the jury is out. Therefore, I would be very wary about being dogmatic either way concerning this subject. I think that we can back ourselves into a corner very quickly, theologically, by affirming positions too strongly where the evidence simply does not indicate that such a strong stance should be taken.
Don
4 comments:
What do you suppose it looked like when our brothers and sisters in first century Corinth met together? Rather, what might it have looked like if they were more unified? Still keeping their conventions intact?
Disciple,
At least, it certainly would have better modeled for us what these activities were truly supposed to be about in relationship to the Lord and one another. The fact that the Corinthians were such an "imperfect" church helps us to understand "this is what you are not supposed to do". Although it is much better to learn from positive motivation, at times negative events can be worked to the positive in the grand scheme of things. My question -- how would folks from our current church culture deal with some of the goings on at that time (i.e. people coming to the assemblies drunk, interrupting the assembly time or ones coming looking like prostitutes)? Food for thought.
I really appreciate your thoughts here. The Lord's Supper is close to our hearts, even to the point of identification, so when we talk about it we are speaking about emotions and nostalgia and loyalties.
What was it exactly about the Corinthian practice of the Supper that we are not to do? Once that has been whittled away, there is a lot more left to observe, especially since it looked far different from the Jerusalem practice. They had their own way of thinking that grew out of their culture, which was not sumarily dismissed by Paul in his letter.
We have also developed a way of practicing the Supper that fits our cultural identity and heritage, but it is only distantly related to the early Christians' practice. What of our practice is worthy?
Underneath this comment is the question of restoration: Which form are we restoring? Is there a New Testament pattern for the practice of the Supper, or are there several practices from which we may draw?
Just the other day I heard a man say we had restored half of the Lord's Supper by using unleavened bread, however neglecting to use wine means we depend on the grace of God to cover our imperfections. That was his take on our attempts at restoration.
And following on his example, what if someone else has restored a different half? (so to speak) Can we see the good in their practice? Can we acknowledge that we have not truly completed a restoration?
Disciple,
As I have shared with a number of people and congregations, I am not certain that we do the Lord's Supper justice in our cultural church context; it is not the fact that we partake of it weekly. What truly is the focal point of our communing together? Should it not be the Supper? And yet, it seems to receive such secondary treatment in our worship services. Spiritually, should not the preaching, praying, singing, and contributing support what it is that we are doing with the Supper? Although there is no discernable Biblical "function" for this "form", is 5-10 minutes enough "time" to really do the Supper justice? Food for thought.
Post a Comment