When Jesus instituted what we refer to as Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper, it was during the Passover meal. Many Bible scholars and church historians recognize that the early practice of the chruch was to come together and celebrate the Lord's supper as a meal. Paul make's reference to 'the table of the Lord' in I Corinthians 10.

Over time, the ritual turned into a time of having a tiny portion of bread and wine.

Scritpurally, though, we see tha the earliest believers: ...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, (Acts 2:46.)

They gathered together and ate with one another in their meetings. In Jerusalem, the meals were apparently eaten in home gatherings rather than in the larger meetings. The passage does not tell us if they celebrated communion in the larger meeting.

Many passages of scripture come to light if we realize how important it was for saints to eat this meal together. Peter was wrong for not eating with the Gentiles, and influencing others not to eat with them either.

Let us share our insights into the scriptural teaching ofthe Lord's supper. What does the Bible have to say?

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Answers

We need to be very careful here not to confuse Communion with a common meal. Isnt it great however that the Holy Spirit uses different words to describe the same function so as to bring out a specific aspect of the communion, breaking of bread,The Lords supper, etc. Just like Elders, where different words are used to describe the same function, but with different emphasis. The same with Salvation. Many different words are used to describe our common salvation, so as to cover all that is involved. We dont quite keep up with the early church in having an agapai feast all the time, but more than my stomach can handle for the most part. Yes, many times they met in peoples homes, as well as other places. Isnt it marvelous tho that in every city there was only one church which had its Elders, (Pastors,Bishops.) I wish we could go into a city and find the one LOrd's church. But we are working on it. I do get concerned tho when there is a diminishing of Communion and what the Lord intended whern he meets with us there.Perhaps that is why Paul said what he did in I Corinthians 11:17-22. They were not really conming together to eat the Lord's supper. Paul tells them in his inibiatal way that they had houses to eat in. The goes on to clarify the importance, meaning and value of the Lord's supper which is separate from a common meal. Keep studying, Bro. Jack Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

I believe the early church celebrated the Lord's Supper during a 'common meal' in the sense that it was a supper that they ate together. they shared a meal in common. I don't think that the meal was 'common' or something lowly.

Jack, What do you think the Lord's Supper looked like in the early church? Do you think they had tiny glass or plastic communion cups and tiny crackers served on chrome trays? They did, after all, call it 'the Lord's Supper' and the Greek word for supper refers to an actual meal eaten toward the end of the day. Paul mentions 'the table of the Lord' in I Corinthians 10.

Jesus often did a lot of His teaching at tables during meals. The very first Lord's Supper was served at a table. The disciples sat and ate with the Lord. There is nothing in scripture about this _supper_ really being a snack. There is nothing about tiny plastic communion cups. The early disciples did not have the experience of solemn Roman Catholic communion services to look for as a model of how to have communion. They had the story of Christ eating a meal with his disciples.

Soon after the ascension, we see that believers were 'breaking bread' from house to house. Paul met with some believers who had gathered together to _break bread._ In Corinth, we see that the Corinthians at e a meal together. Paul did not rebuke the Corinthians for eating a meal together. He rebuked them for divisions, gluttony, and not waiting to eat.

Paul, in his instructions to the Corinthians, again reminds them of that same situation of Christ eating a meal with His disciples.

I'm not saying it's a sin if our portions are small and we eat in a formal situation. But if we see in scripture that the early church met in homes, and ate a common meal together, why don't we try to 'celebrate the feast' in the same way?

Some missionries go into new areas to rpeach the gospel. Instead of starting ekklesia that meet in homes, they want to build new buildings. Instead of having communion around a table, it is celerated in an unnatural formal manner.

Link

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Linc. I am not too sure what you mean by "Common meal" This particular meal was the beginning of passover, which was a special meal, and that is important, because now comes the lamb of God which is taking away the sin of the world. The correlation here is so evident it needs no comment.(I hope) Anyway, I dont know what your questions relative to cups on chrome trays has to do with this. Today we are not celebrating the Feast of passover as the jews did. Although I know that at "Passover time" there are some religions that have communion only at that time. Meetings in peoples home are fine and often happens here in America at the present time. In fact you remind me of someone else that pushes the home church project among other things. Regardless, in some of this there is the danger of Swallowing the camel while trying to swat a fly, or something like that. By the way, we have a table which we meet around and "Do this in rememberance of him."

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

BTW, I am speaking of the initial setting up of the The Lords supper with his disciples.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

By common meal I mean shared meal, not something lowly. I don't think I was the one to bring up the term originally.

Picture this. The early church in Acts do not have Roman Catholic liturgy or Protestant practices to fall back on. All they have is the story of what Christ and the apostles did at Passover.

So after the 3000 are saved in Acts 2, they start meeting in one another's homes, eating together, and teaching one another the apostle's teaching that htey hear in the temple. They fellowship with one another. When the bread is broken during the meal, they give thanks and remember Christ's sacrifice of his body. When the cup is passed around, they remember the blood that he shed. Doing the meal, the recall the words of Christ 'Do this in rememberance of me.'

From what I've read, scholars believe that the early saints celebrated communion during a love feast. Over time, the portions got smaller, and ended up with somber Roman Catholic meetings.

Eating dinner in someone's home is a different atmosphere than a lot of communion services. I think it is helpful to understand early church practice. For me, it clears up a lot of scripture passages. For example, why would Paul be upset about Peter not eating with the Gentiles? When we realize that they often met to remember the Lord in eating a meal together, and read what Paul had to say about division in the Lord's supper in I Corinthians 11, this passage makes a lot more sense.

I'm not saying it is a sin to eat small portions on silver trays. I do believe it is beneficial to have the Lord's Supper as the early church did, and to understand early church practices when we read the scritpures.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Link,

Part of your original posting, and one point you seemed to be trying to make, was about the importance of Christians eating together -- and eating something more substantial together than the tiny wafer and miniature cup of juice that we normally have for the Lord's Supper.

Most churches that I have had much experience with do eat together. In the U.S. most churches seem to have what they call "pot lucks". In addition, many schedule some kind of banquet, either for the whole church or for smaller groups in the church, for special events like Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Valentine's Day. Many have Fourth of July cookouts. Many adult Sunday School classes have class cookouts or "progressive dinners", or ice-cream suppers, etc. Most church youth groups have pizza parties, picnics, etc.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with combining the Lord's Supper with a larger meal. (If you will look back in the archives, you should be able to find a thread called "Peanut Butter Sandwiches", which I started, challenging someone else's statement that of course we would not have peanut butter sandwiches at the "Lord's Table.") It might be good to do something of the sort once in awhile to remind us of how the early church may have done it. But I wonder why it is necessary to make such an issue over this. Is there something inferior about the fellowship over food that we have on all these other occasions when we eat together if we don't include the Lord's Supper as a part of it? And what is there that is lacking about our Lord's Supper celebration if we don't combine it with a larger meal? -- especially when we do have the experience of eating together and having fellowship over food at other times?

Many people feel that we are able to be more focussed on the meaning of the Lord's Supper if we separate it from the other fellowship meals.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Bejamin,

Paul told the churches to hold to the traditions they had learned from him. Incidently, one of the things he rebuked them for not doing in that same chapter was having communion correctly.

Why should we think that by doing things in a newer way, it would be better than the apostles apparently taught the early church to do them.

The communion services we so often have are in a different atmosphere from the early church. Not to mention the fact that since we as people eat every day (unless fasting,) remembering Christ's sacrifice in the natural environment we eat in- around a table with other people- can serve as a reminder to us during the rest of the week.

I believe it is profitable to do things the wa they were done in scripture. Wasn't the Reformation movement originally about getting back to scripture and primitivism?

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

I posted a message in 'What are we doing in church' that deals with Holy Communion, fellowship, and body life. I think it really relates to this thread, but to save bandwidth I won't dup. it. So if anyone is interested, you can check out that thread.

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

grace and peace...the early believers would have what they called the love feast, which would be crowned with the taking of Eucharist ("Thanksgiving") after the meal. The liturgies, blessings, etc. borrowed heavily from the Jewish taraditions from which the early Church was largely made up of. Blessing of the cup:"We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the Holy vine of David, Thy servant. This vine Thou didst make known to us through Jesus, Thy chlid. Glory be to Thee into all ages!" Blessing of the Bread:"We give thanks to Thee., our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus, Thy child. Glory be to Thee into all the ages! Just as this broken bread was scattered over the hills and became one when it had been brought together, so shall Thy Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom. For to Thee belong the glory and the power through Jesuus Christ into the ages".

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2000

For those uninitiated, the preceding prayers come from the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), a document of the 2nd century.

Beth, interesting email address. Are you a Jewish believer by any chance?

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2000