# breaking bread at home



## cupotea

I'd like to be taught about this verse:


Acts 2:46 And they, 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,
KJV

My questions are:

1)Should the Lord's supper be celebrated as a church ordinance, celebrated when all church are coming together?

2) In Acts 2:46, were the people celebrating the Lord's supper? Does this text imply that they celebrate in individual's house in small groups?

Thanks for answering.


----------



## reformedminister

The early church did seem to gather daily in homes for at least prayer and fellowship. However, there was a distinctive reverence and participation in worship on the Lord's Day. It seems that the early church may have observed the Lord's Supper weekly on the Christian Sabbath (Acts 20:7). However, the particular verse that is in consideration here is most likely in reference to Christian fellowship involving a meal.


----------



## Tim

1) Yes. The Lord's supper is not a private, but a corporate act of worship.


----------



## KMK

The verse is inconclusive as to the specifics, but in general it teaches that the infant church did everything together as a tight-knit family.



> We may therefore understand the historian as saying that the infant church was constantly engaged in mutual communion, both by joint repasts and sacramental feasts and charitable distribution...But the fact is that the three senses run into each other, as the three practices were really inseparable in the primitive or infant church. Its whole organization and condition was as yet that of a family, so that all their acts performed in common took more or less of a religious character. It was at their social meals that their charities were dispensed; it was at these same meals that the eucharist was administered; so that all these elements must be combined to make up the full sense of apostolical communion (koinonia.)...In the Greek, 'communioin' is a separate and independent item in the catalogue. They continued, first, in the apostles' doctrine; then, in communion, not with them alone, but with the body of bellievers. The general idea of communion is then rendered more specific by the mention of the 'breaking of bread.' As this was the beginning, or the initiatory act, of an ancient Jewish meal, it may be put for the repast itself, or for the eucharist that followed, or for both, as being then inseparable...The whole might be summed up as consisting in apostolical teaching, mutual communion, common prayer. J. A. Alexander; Commentary on Acts



And, of course, the fact that they broke bread (whatever that means) from house to house does not mean it was capricious and arbitrary. It meant that they had no church building to meet in. It is always desirable to have the whole body present at the Lord's Supper "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."


----------



## rookie

I know at our church, we "break bread" once a month to avoid the tradition of actually worshipping the "bread". I have seen this is a couple of churches. Mostly brethren assemblies, where they break the bread every Sunday, and they refuse to leave that church, no matter how bad the doctrine and teaching, because they want to participate in the bread. 

My wife and I miss that weekly fellowship, however, I could no longer deal with the errors that were being preached. So we left, but we are in discussion more and more with another couple, that we would be meeting at their house first thing in the morning on Sundays, for fellowship, then go to church. 
Debating on whether we bring this to the elders attention or not.


----------



## Tim

rookie said:


> I know at our church, we "break bread" once a month to avoid the tradition of actually worshipping the "bread". I have seen this is a couple of churches. Mostly brethren assemblies, where they break the bread every Sunday, and they refuse to leave that church, no matter how bad the doctrine and teaching, because they want to participate in the bread.



So, decreasing the frequency of the Lord's Supper by a factor of four avoids "bread worship"? Are you sure that you are providing a proper assessment of these situations?


----------



## KMK

Let's avoid turning this into a debate about the frequency of the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is an ordinance given to the church, not the family. Therefore, it should be partaken of by the church, under the authority of the church, as an act of corporate worship. In certain situations the church must meet in private houses because of persecution or the absence of a public building, but that doesn't change the manner in which the elements are to be given or received.



> WLC Q. 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?
> 
> A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.


----------



## Tim

KMK said:


> Let's avoid turning this into a debate about the frequency of the Lord's Supper.



Sorry. That was not my intent.


----------



## jwithnell

There's an amazing blessing in being part of a congregation where you are constantly in and out of each other's homes and providing for one another as your talents and means allow. Reformed churches have always understood, however, that the Lord's table is fellowship with one another and with Jesus as he is worshiped by his church.


----------



## kvanlaan

This conversation is running a little blind if the context is not understood. When meeting in the catacombs, what did the early church do? When public gathering is not an option, what is a reasonable application of these principles? When only a small group can gather on the Lord's Day, and that may be half the congregation, what do you do? Paul didn't advocate holding a church service complete with the Lord's supper in the open on the steps of the temple of Diana, did he?

Dear brother, it is good to see you are still active. Forgive me, I do not pray for you as often as I should.


----------



## MW

duncan001 said:


> In Acts 2:46, were the people celebrating the Lord's supper?



What we do know is that the early church participated in two different things (1.) a common meal, and (2.) the sacrament of the Lord's supper. "Breaking of bread" generally refers to the common meal. When the sacrament was part of the meal the "breaking of bread" could be extended to include the sacrament. But the abuse of this connection led to problems in Corinth, and the apostle Paul required the clear separation of the two, so that the original institution, along with the sacramental elements and actions, were distinctively observed. Without a particular reference to the Lord's supper it is impossible to conclude that the reference to breaking bread in Acts 2 refers to the sacrament. It is natural to take it as referring to a meal held in common because the context includes a reference to meat, or food.


----------



## Kevin

There is disagreement as to whether the "breaking of bread" was a celebration of the Lord's Supper. I think that it probably was, but the fact remains that the church met in houses and celebrated it often.

So the fact that it was in a house does not argue for a small group celebrating the sacrament.

In our church we meet in a hockey rink and we celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly. No one should assume from these two facts that the Supper is to be celebrated wherever sports are played!


----------

