'Congregations' at the Public Building? Or Families Around The Supper Table?

Jeff Reed writes,

“…The West must rediscover its roots and get back to the way of Christ and His Apostles. Yet it is hard to see our way back. It is hard to see through our traditions and institutionalization to see clearly what is actually there in Acts, the Epistles, and the early church…”

“…It is very important for us to look closely and carefully at this early church to discover its success. We must understand why these churches were so strong and the secret of why they so successfully multiplied across the Roman Empire until they turned the entire world of that day upside down.”

“The simplicity of the churches and the complexity of their movement are hard to see today, because we are blinded by the clutter of our ways: our institutions, our traditions, and even our expectations of what it means to go to church... Let‘s turn our attention to these small groups that gathered together weekly called churches.”

“By small, simple gatherings, I mean small simple meetings of new believers that were called churches: simple, met in homes, on the first day of every week, around an evening meal, celebrating their new life, inviting friends, coworkers, relatives, etc. They all looked like this. And they multiplied around the world…”

“The church began meeting in Acts 2 where we see the church meeting together around four key elements: the Apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer (cf. v. 42). Once the church was scattered and churches began multiplying around the Empire, that practice shifted to breaking bread on the first day of the week in small communities called churches (Acts 20:7-11).”

“They were devoted to the Apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer (4 elements). The Lord added to their numbers. For the next 300 years these small church communities, meeting in homes, multiplied around the world.”

“The gathering of Christian believers in private homes (or homes renovated for the purpose of Christian gatherings) continued to be the norm until the early decades of the fourth century when under the tutelage of Constantine, the Christians began erecting the first basilicas. For almost 300 years the believers met in homes ....”

BREAKING BREAD

"The word group is used in the NT of the breaking of bread or bread thus broken in pieces. There was an ancient custom in Palestine (Jer. 16:7; Lam. 4:4) of breaking bread with the hands rather than cutting it with a knife. At meals, whether ordinary family meals, special meals with guests or ritual feasts, e.g., the Passover or the beginning of the Sabbath, the head of the house gives thanks, then breaks bread and hands the pieces to those who sit at table with him (→ I, 477)."

"The breaking of bread is simply a customary and necessary part of the preparation for eating together. It initiates the sharing of the main course in every meal."—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

 Blue, Dunn, and Allen write,

"The rapid and wide expansion of the Church in the early centuries was due in the first place mainly to the spontaneous activity of individuals... The Church expanded simply by organizing these little groups as they were converted, handing on to them the organization which she had received from her first founders."

Reed continues,

"The meal was at the heart of these small, simple meetings that fed the spontaneous expansion of the Early Church a concept that began in Acts 2:42 with fellowship and breaking bread from house to house. The concept of the meal was fully developed in Paul‘s instruction about the ―Lord‘s Supper to all the churches--an ingenious branding of churches worldwide. This is a very important piece of the branding of these churches and stood at the core of their very identity all across the Empire for 300 years."

"It appears that gathering together on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7) was the practice of all the churches for the first 300 years. Let‘s begin by looking at the role of the meal at these meetings."

THE CHRISTIAN EVENING MEAL or LORD'S SUPPER

"We must first establish the centrality of the meal to the heart of these meetings and to the identity of these churches. There is a high probability that, besides all of them meeting in homes across the first 300 years, they all had a meal at every Sunday evening gathering."

"They broke bread at the beginning, formally beginning the meal (the term often used to speak of the whole gathering) and passed the cup at the end."

"Listen to Eberhard and Dunn as they address this reality:"

"The celebration of the Lord‘s Supper, which in the early times took place everyday, is now repeated every Sunday."

"And no doubt the small house churches grew by inviting friends, visiting kinsfolk, fellow synagogue attenders, neighbors and colleagues to come to one of their regular meetings or shared meals."

Also,

"In From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, Peter Lampe identifies a practice of the early churches by mid 2nd century called ―sending the Eucharist."

"The idea is 3 fold:

1. Sent to other house churches in the city.

2. Sent to the poor in the city.

3. Sent to other house church networks, such as Ephesus."

“It was common with churches all through the Roman Empire to collect extra each week and send home with the poor in the churches or to the poor in the city. Again, this shows the centrality of the meal to all gatherings of these small churches throughout the first 300 years.”

"What did these meetings look like? Here we get an excellent picture from 1 Corinthians 11—14. It is quite possible to recreate the meeting:

"[T]he Lord‘s Supper as a meal at the beginning of the meeting, followed by more formal elements such as dialogue around the Word together, with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs interspersed, and robust participation by members assembled. Here is a summary of the main ideas of 1 Corinthians 11–14:"

1. They gathered together for the purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper, the term being used to symbolize the whole meeting.

2. Before the meal they broke the bread as a symbol of Christ‘s body that was broken and the New Covenant, which now was operational with Christ‘s churches.

3. The meal, though in essence a benefactor meal for the poor, was not the main point but was central to the fellowship and family (household) atmosphere of the meeting.

4. The meal also served to build one mindedness in the group, experientially fostering relational harmony, thus making their hearts right toward each other and before God as they participated in dialogue around the prophetic Word.

5. Each person was to consider bringing a contribution to the meeting: teaching or exhortation from the Word, song, hymn, spiritual song, etc.

6. There was to be order to the time, and it was to be under the control of designated leaders.

7. The leaders used the time for communication of concerns to the church and to the network of churches or for communication from ministers of the gospel laboring for the progress of the gospel (Acts 20:1-7).

8. The meeting was open to others beyond the local church. We also know from early church literature that the picture in (1 Corinthians 11–14) became the common practice of the churches throughout the Empire.

Elements of the meetings:

In a family/household environment

Fellowship of a meal

Celebrative

Authentic, personal, relational

Interactive

Some structure/formality (breaking of bread, hosting)."

Reed concludes,

"…Robert Banks gives a beautiful and quite accurate picture of what these meetings were like in Going to Church in the First Century. We also get a very thorough picture from ―The Didache, an Early Church document that gives an extensive picture of this meeting that was intended to be catechetical for the early churches…"

 

"The early churches gathered together on the evening of the first day of every week for a few hours around what was called the Lord‘s Supper. It appears this practice carried on into the first three centuries of the Early Church."

"The elements are as follows:

4 Hour Meeting/Meal

Catechetical beginning

songs, prayers

Breaking of bread

Meal begins

Informal elements

Formal elements

Passing of cup

Catechetical ending

song, prayers"

THE SIZE OF THE ASSEMBLIES

“What was the size of these meetings? The largest regular meetings (in the first 300 years of the Early Church) were probably 50–70. Wealthy benefactors with the capability of several hundred meeting in the dining halls or gardens of their wealthy homes were probably saved for occasional love feasts, but you cannot rule out larger, regular meetings in homes renovated for regular use.”

“Research helps inform our understanding, as seen in Murphy-O‘Connor and Osick and Balch. A typical house: maximum number was 50, or more probably 30–40. This was an upper middle class home. Wealthy homeowners had dining halls with attached gardens that are known to have patron meals that could serve large groups. Three examples given are for groups of 330, 360, and 1,135. We don‘t know how large the homes of people like Cornelius, Simon, Gaius, Crispus or Stephanus, Pricilla and Aquila, Philemon, Apphia and Archippus might have been.”

“Why was the meal so important? It built the core identity of these meetings, a ritual imbedded in the gathering every time they met. In addition, it created an atmosphere that was a reminder to everyone that the essence of their social structure was a household, and it made for a natural ordering of the churches around that social structure [family, sp]."

"That would become immediately apparent to a visitor as well, with the welcoming and natural home environment of the household and the meal."

"At least six reasons can be identified for the genius of placing the meal in a home as a key, core element to these simple meetings of the churches:

1. The meal visualized the church as the family of God (household social structure).

2. It brought a natural fellowship element into the shape of the meeting.

3. It put the Kerygma at the heart of the meeting (the good news of Jesus Christ).

4. It immediately formed the new community into a benefactor community—attractive good works.

5. It was simple and universal.

6. It promoted ingenious networking."

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LORD'S SUPPER?

"Why did it all change? Why was the full meal replaced with a ceremony including only the bread and the cup?"

"First of all, we know that it all did change."

"The change primarily began around the removal of the meal from the gathering of believers. The tension to remove the meal began as early as the second century, but was finally banned in the churches by the end of the 4th century. Why? Because of an increasing tension."

"Barna and Viola paint the picture well as you can see from this extended quote:"

“In the first and early second centuries, the early Christians called the Lord‘s Supper the love feast.‖ At that time they took the bread and cup in the context of a festive meal. But around the time of Tertullian the bread and the cup began to be separated from the meal. By the late second century, this separation was complete... By the fourth century, the love feast was prohibited among Christians!”

“With the abandonment of the meal, the terms breaking of bread and Lord’s Supper disappeared. The common term for the now truncated ritual (just the bread and the cup) was the Eucharist... The Supper was no longer a community event. It was rather a priestly ritual that was to be watched at a distance. Throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, there was an increasing sense of awe and dread associated with the table where the sacred Eucharist was celebrated.”

“...Around the tenth century, the meaning of the word body, changed in Christian literature... Consequently, the Lord‘s Supper became far removed from the idea of the church coming together to celebrate the breaking of bread... All of these factors gave rise to the doctrine of transubstantiation... (This doctrine was worked out from the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries).”

“While contemporary Protestant Christians have discarded the Catholic notion that the Lord‘s Supper is a sacrifice, they have continued to embrace the practice of the Supper. Observe a Lord‘s Supper service (often called ―Holy Communion) in most Protestant churches and you will observe the following:”

1. The Lord‘s Supper is a bite-size cracker (or small piece of bread) and a shot glass of grape juice (or wine). As in the Catholic church, it is removed from the meal.

2. The mood is somber and glum, just as it is in the Catholic church.

3. Congregants are told by the pastor [brother leading the table in churches of Christ, sp] that they must examine themselves with regard to sin before they partake of the elements, a practice that came from John Calvin.

4. Like the Catholic priest, many pastors will sport clerical robes for the occasion [churches of Christ have generally expected ‘your best’ which is commonly expected to be a suit with no other distinguishing attire, sp].

“With only a few minor tweaks, all of this is medieval Catholicism through and through.”

PART TWO 

___________________________________