The Breaking Of The Bread

by J.M. Gault, Hayes | Category: Contending For The Faith | Oct 1971

No experience of the Christian in his spiritual life can have the same effect upon him as the Breaking of the Bread. It is so impressive of the sacrifice of Christ and of His love, that all selfishness, pride and bitterness of feeling must disappear. Yet it is also true to say that it has been the cause of heated controversies and devastating divisions among professing Christians. It has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, embellished with ritual and liturgy, and observed in so many different ways.

It is the centre of our collective spiritual life, and the simple words of the Lord to remember Him in this way are mandatory on all true disciples. Each one has therefore the solemn obligation to study the Scriptures to find its true meaning and the manner of its observance.

We begin this study with the Scriptures which record its institution. No event in the life of the Lord is recorded more often than the events of the night of His betrayal. There is a record in three of the Gospels (Matt. 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-23) and also in 1 Cor. 11:23-34, and while the texts vary slightly the teaching is clear and consistent. Although not present at its institution, Paul, when writing to the church at Corinth about the Breaking of the Bread clearly states his authority for doing so as a direct revelation from the risen Christ, and takes them back to that eventful night. Such authority is indisputable.

It is remarkable that there is no other direct reference in the Epistles to the Breaking of the Bread. Such silence can only indicate that there was an unquestioned agreement among the early churches of God as to the manner of its observance and its doctrinal meaning. Nothing seems more likely than that the early believers followed the example of the Lord in the upper room. The events of that night were indelibly printed on the memories of the apostles and it is an inescapable conclusion that they repeated with exactness the events of the simple institution.

The greatest error in interpretation has been the false doctrine of the incarnative meaning attributed to the bread and wine. This heresy, which Rome is guilty of perpetrating, declares that the bread becomes the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ and that the wine becomes His blood through consecration by a priest. The dreadful claim is made that they produce the actual living Christ upon the altar by transubstantiation. No one accepting the New Testament as the sole authority for Christian doctrine could possibly subscribe to such teaching since it finds no warrant in any of its statements. That the bread and wine are symbolic is clear to even the simplest reader.

In the first epistle to the Corinthians the ordinance is referred to by several names. These teach by inference and also by contrast some of the more important truths about it, and a study of them is profitable. At the outset, however, we should note that the scriptural name is The Breaking of Bread. The frequency of its mention by this name, particularly in the Acts of the Apostles, indicates that it was generally so called. The name is expressive of what takes place at each Remembrance and signifies the solemn sacrifice of Christ when He gave Himself for our salvation. It is also referred to as the Lord's supper (1 Cor. 11:20), which term Paul uses to correct an abuse by the Corinthian church. They were attaching an evening meal to the Remembrance and were guilty of excesses which precluded the proper condition of body and mind for such solemn spiritual exercises. Their own supper is contrasted with the Lord's "supper" and Paul rebukes their behaviour. To this rebuke we owe a great deal, for he uses the occasion to establish the precise manner of observance.

In the previous chapter there is a reference to the "table of the Lord" (1 Cor. 10:21). This is a term of contrast to the "table of demons" and he solemnly reminds the church that in their peculiar circumstances they were to keep themselves undefiled from the evils of demon worship. There could be no compatibility. Those who shared in heathen feasts were taking part in an evil communion with all its degrading and corrupting influences and it was plainly inconsistent to partake of both the "table of demons" and the "table of the Lord".

Again in the same chapter the word "communion" is used in association with the Remembrance (1 Cor. 10:16). This word has become synonymous with the Breaking of the Bread to many Christians but in reality expresses what is experienced by believers when they partake; they share in a common experience. Believers share many experiences; they enjoy a common salvation in Christ, they share many spiritual blessings as God's together people, they share in the blessed hope of their Lord's appearing, but nowhere is this communion more beautifully evident than in the partaking of the bread and wine.

Another term has found its way into the Christian vocabulary, that is "the feast" (1 Cor. 5:8). It is used sometimes when referring to the Breaking of the Bread, but is used erroneously. The context is one of church discipline. In Corinth they are being urged to purge themselves from defilement, and the apostle uses the analogy of Israel's passover to illustrate his meaning; He is in fact saying that as the leaven was removed from Jewish homes before the passover, and there followed afterwards the seven days of the feast of unleavened bread, so also, the people of God, having been cleansed by the precious blood of Christ our passover Lamb, should henceforth continually cleanse themselves from all defilement in their corporate life and witness. In this sense therefore the term "feast" does not refer to the Breaking of the Bread.

It seems obvious from Acts 20:7-11 that the day of keeping the Remembrance was the first day of the week, and obviously each first day of the week. They continued steadfastly ... in the Breaking of Bread (Acts 2:41,42). The question of what time on the first day of the week is not important provided that God gets His portion from His people before they engage in any service manward.

In the observance of the Breaking of the Bread we must establish and maintain its simplicity. The simple rite has been embellished with much which is not of God but the solemn word of the institution, and Paul's authoritative statement, show us the manner of its keeping.

We judge that it has its proper place at the very commencement of the worship meeting. It is the purpose for which we gather and from the Remembrance of our Lord there should arise from the hearts of all present, worship and praise to His God and Father.

There is no evidence of a priestly class in Scripture and the spiritual exercises are not limited in their practice to one or two in the church. The Remembrance of Christ is a corporate act of the church and while one may lead, all partake and share in the elements. We believe that the individual who leads the church in the act of Remembrance should go to the table, take the loaf in his hands, give thanks for it, break the loaf and pass it to those gathered for them to take and eat. When this has been done the same person should again go to the table, take the cup of wine in his hands, give thanks for it, pour it out into one or more vessels and pass to those gathered for them to drink. This is the present practice in the churches of God and is based on a close study of the relevant Scriptures. Although guidance is not given on every detail there is sufficient for brethren to come to a unity of mind regarding the Breaking of Bread, provided there is the spirit of grace and subjection the one to the other in the fear of God. "But let all things be done decently and in order" was the exhortation of the apostle (1 Cor. 14:40).

Vital though it may be for us to establish and maintain its correct observance yet we must not lose sight of the importance of the meaning of the ordinance.

In effect it means several things to us, not least of which is the fact that it is a remembrance. In obedience to His specific command, "This do for a remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19) we recall the great sacrifice and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. In such remembrance our mind can also range over the whole span of His earthly life, and the great eternal truths of His pre-existence and future glory.

It is not an occasional rite to be kept at our whim and convenience but rather it is intended to be the very centre of our collective spiritual experience. We gather on the first day of each week to remember Him and unitedly to enter into the presence of our God as a worshipping people.

It is also a proclamation of His death (1 Cor. 11:26). Men may moralize and philosophize about the Man Jesus Christ, but in the Breaking of Bread we proclaim that supreme hour on the Cross when He gave His life for our salvation. The word proclaim is "evangel", which word we usually associate with the preaching of the gospel. The Breaking of Bread is in this sense an act of declaration of the atoning death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Breaking of the Bread is a temporary ordinance. The words "till He come" (1 Cor. 11:26) limit its observance to our earthly sojourn. The desire of every believing heart should be to keep the precious Remembrance whenever possible "till He come".

J.M. Gault, Hayes | Oct 1971
Contending For The Faith