The Lord's Supper, the breaking of bread

Jesus and his disciples are gathered in an upper room, where Peter and John have prepared the Passover meal (Luke 22:7-13). During this meal, Jesus makes two gestures:

“And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’” (Luke 22:19)

He does the same with the cup: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20).

Several names for one meal

In French-speaking Churches, people often speak of the sainte cène (the holy supper). English speakers readily say Communion. The early Church used several expressions: the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42), the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20) or communion (1 Corinthians 10:16).

The expression “breaking of bread” has Jewish roots. Jeremiah 16:7 already mentions breaking bread and taking the cup at a time of mourning. According to Alfred Kuen, who draws on Xavier Léon-Dufour, in rabbinic literature the expression refers to a simple rite. The head of the family pronounces the blessing, breaks the bread with his hands, then distributes it to those at table.

This practice raises many questions today. Should we take the Lord’s Supper at every meeting? During a meal? Can only Christians take it? Is wine needed? Does the bread really become the body of Christ?

Why take the Lord’s Supper?

1. In remembrance of Jesus. This is the reason given by Jesus himself: “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25).

2. To proclaim his death. Paul writes: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). David Petts stresses that the Greek verb kataggellō also means to announce or to teach. It belongs to the same family as the word for the messenger or the preacher. The Lord’s Supper proclaims the death of Jesus, for ourselves and for those around us.

3. To mark our unity. As Petts notes, the breaking of bread symbolises the unity of Christians: “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body” (1 Corinthians 10:17). Taking the bread and the cup together reminds us that Christ lives in each one. The Church is not an association of unconnected people. It is a family. The Lord’s Supper marks the renouncing of “me” for “us”.

4. To share. Among the first Christians, the breaking of bread most often, perhaps always, took place during a real meal.

When and how?

According to Kuen and Petts, Acts 2:46 shows that the first believers broke bread every day in their homes. It was not just an ordinary meal: it had a particular significance. Later, Acts 20:7 suggests that a weekly celebration, on the first day of the week, became customary.

The New Testament in fact gives no command about frequency. It asks only that, each time we take it, we do so in remembrance of the Lord.

The Lord’s Supper of the earliest times was rather different from ours. In 1 Corinthians 11:20-22, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for the way they do it: each one eats his own meal, one goes hungry while another gets drunk. The Lord’s Supper could therefore consist of a good piece of bread and a well-filled cup, or even a whole meal. What Paul denounces, according to the author, is the lack of sharing at a moment that was meant precisely to be a sharing between brothers and sisters.

Who may take part?

Petts relies on Acts 2:41-42 to reserve the Lord’s Supper for those who have received the word and been baptised. The author of this course finds the argument weak, because the passage says that the baptised took part in the breaking of bread, not that they were the only ones allowed to do so. He nevertheless comes to the same conclusion, for another reason.

If we take the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Jesus, to proclaim his death and to mark fellowship, then someone who has not chosen to follow Jesus cannot really take part in it. One cannot celebrate the communion of a family one does not yet belong to.

According to this course, a person who says they are a Christian but is not baptised may take the Lord’s Supper. They can, however, be invited to ask themselves why they are delaying obedience to the command of baptism given by Jesus himself.

What the Lord’s Supper is, and what it is not

The Lord’s Supper is first of all a symbolic act that takes up the codes of the Passover meal. During that meal, the father of the family would say: “This is the bread of affliction that our fathers ate when they came out of Egypt.” As Kuen points out, it was not the same bread, but it allowed them to relive the experience of their ancestors. Jesus takes up these codes and applies them to the new covenant.

In the evangelical position defended here, the Lord’s Supper confers neither special blessing nor eternal life. The Catholic Church teaches transubstantiation, meaning that the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ. This course understands the words “this is my body” differently: Jesus is speaking figuratively. One argument often put forward is that the Law forbade Jews to consume blood (Leviticus 17:10-12). If Jesus had spoken literally, we would expect a reaction from the disciples.

Finally, many evangelical Churches use grape juice, and that is the choice defended here. The accounts do not speak of “wine”, but of the cup and of the “fruit of the vine” (Luke 22:18). The author adds a pastoral reason: not to put someone who is struggling or has struggled with alcohol dependence in a difficult position during the service.