Luke gives us a general picture of how the church was in its first days. Other New Testament writings give us additional clues. Some writings from close to the time of the apostles also tell us a few things. It looks like, from the earliest days, Christians met for church in homes. When a church got too big for one home, it became two groups, meeting in two different places. There were apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers who served several of these small-group churches at the same time, and helped to lead them and keep them on track, and train them for works of ministry. Apparently, for many years, when a home-church came together, they shared a meal, and as part of that meal, they celebrated the Lord's Supper (Acts 2:46; 1 Corinthians 11:20-22). There is some evidence that they took the Passover Meal as their basic plan for what a church meeting should look like. In a few weeks, we will celebrate the Passover at New Joy Fellowship. In our celebration, we will eat together. We will also talk about the Bible and learn some things. We will pray. We will sing a few songs. We will laugh and have fun, and we will remember and celebrate what Jesus did when he died for us. This was the basic format of most church meetings, probably for the first three centuries or so after Jesus returned to heaven. Most likely, they did not follow a Passover haggadah, like we will, but their meetings usually included a meal, bible teaching and application, prayer, and worship in song. And usually, as part of their meal, probably at the end of the eating, they celebrated the Lord's Supper.
It is important to know this, because this week we are looking the third thing that those early disciples devoted themselves to: the breaking of the bread. This phrase (“the breaking of the bread”) refers to the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper in this way. Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians to describe Holy Communion, and the language parallels that of the gospels as well. It took some years before it was called anything but “the breaking of the bread.”
This understanding of the Lord's Supper helps us with a few things that might otherwise be issues. First, children were clearly a part of this meal and celebration. It was a family-oriented thing. Second, this was a meal for Christians. People who didn't trust Jesus were not wandering in off the street. Paul even writes in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 that we ought to take it seriously, and in faith. Third, it was a joyful situation that brought disciples closer to Jesus and closer to each other. “Seriously” does not have to mean somber and heavy. Fourth, it was something they did very often.
For several weeks now, I have talked about the meaning of this word “devoted.” If you missed it, just go back and read the sermon notes from last time. The breaking of the bread was something these disciples were devoted to in this way. But I wonder, what exactly does it mean to be devoted to the Lord's Supper? How does that work? What does it look like?
I believe the answer has two parts. First, I believe it meant that the message of human sin and God’s sacrifice to forgive that sin, was central to their lives. The Lord’s Supper tells the basic message of Christianity every time it is Celebrated. In fact the apostle Paul writes about it:
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Cor 11:26)
The breaking of the bread reminds us of our own sinfulness and separation from God. It also reminds us of the great sacrifice God made to forgive that sin, and reconcile us to himself. It’s all there: our situation, God’s justice (by punishing all sins through Jesus on the cross) and God’s great grace by giving us a new and eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.
The Roman Catholic church used to call the Lord’s Supper “the sacrifice of mass.” Although eventually this led to some unbiblical teaching, the point was, they understood (at first anyway) that the Lord’s Supper is all about Jesus’ death on the cross and the price he paid to forgive our sins. After all, Jesus said the bread was his body, broken for us – what does that mean but the crucifixion? In the same way, how was his blood poured out? It happened when he bore our sins for us and died, with a Roman spear in his bloody side. So the first part of devotion to the Lord’s Supper is to make Jesus’ death on the cross central to our thinking about everything in life. The significance of the Lord’s Supper colored everything those first Christians did – their thinking, their speaking, and their actions. They dwelt upon the meaning of the cross continually, and it was a constant part of their life together as Christians. They never became blasé about the great sacrifice Jesus made. In devoting themselves to the Lord’s Supper, they were continually reminded of their own need for forgiveness. And in the same way, through the bread and wine, they were given tangible evidence of the forgiveness which God had given them, again and again. In the Lord’s Supper, they told the gospel story over and over again: We have sinned and deserved death, but God has given his own Son in our place, and has reconciled us to Himself. He loves us, He forgives us.
Second, I believe their devotion to the Lord’s Supper was evidence of an ongoing hunger and thirst for more of God in their lives. The central meaning of the Lord’s Supper is the Presence of Jesus. He said “this is my body….this is my blood…” In other words, when you get the bread and wine, you get Jesus also. When these first Christians (and therefore the first Church) persisted in, and adhered to, the breaking of the bread, they were continually responding to Jesus’ standing invitation to get closer to Himself. They persisted in the Lord’s supper because in it, they found the presence of Jesus, and they simply could not get enough of that Presence.
Luke records an important incident about the breaking of the bread in his first book, (the gospel of Luke), in chapter 24. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, some of his followers were walking to the town of Emmaus. They were joined by Jesus, though they didn’t recognize him. They spent the entire day with him, and when they got to Emmaus, they invited him to supper. The moment He took the bread and broke it – they recognized that He was with them (Luke 24:30). In other words, through the breaking of the bread, Jesus revealed his presence in a special way. I believe he continues to do so, even today.
There are, of course different opinions about the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. I have been giving you mine, which is the Lutheran view, but because of our wide variety of backgrounds at New Joy Fellowship, I think I need to explain the different views more clearly. Historically, there have been three main ways that believing Christians understand the Lord’s Supper:
The Roman Catholic view is that the bread and the wine essentially turn into the physical presence of Jesus (i.e. the bread and wine turn into the body and blood). The Reformed view (most Baptists, Evangelical Free etc.) is that the bread and the wine simply remind us of the presence of Jesus. The Lutheran view (which I subscribe to) is that the bread and the wine are used as a means to bring us the presence of Jesus.
A helpful way of understanding this is to picture a radio. When you turn it on, what happens? In the Catholic view, when you turn it on, the radio becomes music. In the reformed view, when you turn it on, the radio reminds us of music. In the Lutheran view, when you turn it on, the radio becomes the vehicle which brings us music. Thus, in the Lord’s Supper, we don’t believe that the bread and the wine actually change into flesh and blood. Neither do we believe that it is only a symbol – a reminder of Jesus’ sacrifice. Instead, we believe that through eating the bread and drinking the wine in faith, Jesus comes to us. The bread and the wine are vehicles of God’s gracious presence. He uses them to come to us in a special, tangible way. We don’t pretend to know how, but he has promised his presence with the bread and the wine. All we need to do is to receive it in faith. And so, though we don’t explain it perfectly, we believe that when you get the bread and the wine, you are getting Jesus too.
If the Lord’s supper is about the presence of Jesus, it stands to reason that it is not something to take with a careless attitude. The presence of Jesus is grace and comfort to those who repent and believe, but it is condemnation for those who remain proud, and reject it (John 3:17-21). Any Christian who wants more of Jesus, who knows their need of him, ought to be able to take it gladly and willingly. But there should be no pressure to take it, just to conform. I believe children too, may receive it in faith. The Lord does not require perfect understanding – only faith and trust.
On the other hand, I personally believe, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11, that if someone takes the Lord’s Supper while deliberately, knowingly, pursuing a lifestyle that is disobedient to God, the Lord’s Supper will do them more harm than good. I don’t mean here, someone who sins occasionally – we all fail at times. Instead I am referring to someone who is pursuing a pattern of sinful behaviors, deliberately “thumbing his/her nose” at God. I think that to invite the presence of Jesus into a life that does not really want it yet, is to invite judgment.
The devotion of the early church to the Lord’s Supper has been a challenge to me. The real challenge, for me anyway, is to center my life around the message of the cross, and to nurture my hunger and thirst for Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment