First, let’s deal with the issue of what it meant to “break bread” together in the context of first-century Judaism: It literally meant simply to share a meal, to eat at the same table. So what? you ask. Well, there was a cultural issue that we are not sensitive to today which was very important to the Jews then: “Breaking bread” with someone was a sign that you had full fellowship with them, that you regarded them as one of your own. This is why Sha’ul tells us not to eat with a sinning brother (1 Co. 5:11).
As the Sadducean priesthood became progressively more corrupt, the Pharisees began distancing themselves from the Temple—not to the degree that the Essenes did, of course, but nevertheless to such a degree that when the Romans destroyed the Temple, the Pharisees were the last sect standing. (In fact, the name Pharisee, P’rush, means “separated one” in Hebrew, and many scholars believe this referred at least in part to their separation from the Temple.) Now, very few of the Jews were actually Pharisees, but they nevertheless commanded great respect for their knowledge of and strict adherence to the Torah, and their theology permeated Jewish society in numerous ways.
One of the most important teachings of the Pharisees was that as the Temple had become corrupt, the family dinner table was to be regarded as the altar of God, the food set upon it the sacrifice, and the patriarch of the family its priest. As a result, ritual purity at mealtimes became an important part of Pharisaical practice—this is why they harassed the disciples of Yeshua for not ritually washing their hands before eating (Mat. 15); this was tantamount, in their tradition, to desecrating the altar of the Temple by approaching when ritually unclean.
Of course, not everyone in the Jewish world followed the Pharisees’ complex rules of ritual purity. As a matter of fact, it was pretty rare even in Judea—the Galileans were considered real hicks and half-Gentile in their practices because they tended to completely ignore the Pharisees. (There’s an old tradition about a rabbi who was sent to Galilee. In eighteen years, he was asked only two questions about the “right” way to keep the Torah; consequently, he pronounced that wickedness would surely come from that area.) As a result, the Pharisees were very careful about who they invited over for dinner, almost always restricting themselves to their own order. In the first century world where “breaking bread” with someone implied social and spiritual union with them, this was tantamount to saying that nobody else was a true Jew.
That tells us something interesting about Yeshua, because He was invited to eat with various Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37)—at least some regarded Him as one of their own and ritually pure enough to have fellowship with, suggesting that He kept most of their traditions where they did not conflict with the Scriptures or with the granting of mercy (though in the latter passage, He intentionally surprises them by refusing to ritually wash in order to make a point).
So then, look again at Acts 2:42, and imagine those commas in slightly different places: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” What is the significance of this? Remember that there were both Pharisees (15:5) and Sadducees (6:7) among the believers, as well as Judeans, Galileans, and even Hellenized Jews—all eating together, all partaking of one table and one fellowship. Now think about what it said that they set aside all old rivalries and extra-Biblical ideas of ritual purity to do so!
Therefore, Luke is not using “breaking of bread” to refer to the modern concept of the Lord’s Supper, but to show his audience, which was cognizant of these societal realities, just how close all the believers were in the Messiah Yeshua. This is also why Sha’ul ripped Kefa (Peter) publicly when he stopped eating with the Gentiles (Gal. 1)—it was tantamount to announcing that the Gentiles weren’t really saved in the sense that the Jews were saved, and was in danger of splitting the Church right down the middle.
Okay, on to the second issue:
One would think that such included His expectation to be remembered. So why would there be proscription against breaking bread and remembering His new covenant? It would seem unlikely.
I didn’t say that there was a proscription against the practice; I said that “the entirety of the Lord's Supper was originally meant to take place within the context of the Passover Seder.” A proscription would suggest that I thought everyone needed to stop right now. Not at all. Beth HaMashiach celebrates the Lord’s Supper once a month, and I keep it with the inmates I minister to every other week.
However, we also celebrate the Passover, and we understand what is now called the Lord’s Supper within its context. In effect, each Supper is a mini-Passover, a time of remembrance in anticipation of the Feast. If one were anticipating a banquet, one might have a small snack or two earlier in the day to tide him or her over until dinner, but would we then say, “I’ve already had my meal, so I’ll skip the feast my host has prepared for me”?
I remember a church I attended for a time some years before I became Messianic. Even then I was uncomfortable with the way they did the Lord’s Supper: They served leavened bread. Even then, I knew that was tantamount to saying that the Lord had sin. Not that they intended it that way, of course, but having removed the Supper from the context of the Seder, they were ignorant of the symbolism.
Another result of removing the Supper from the context of the Seder has been to create a new mysticism in place of pure Christianity. Since the supposed proof-text for no longer keeping the Passover was Col. 2:16-17, and yet Yeshua had commanded that the Supper be kept, the Church developed a doctrine of “sacraments” which were supposedly better than the ceremonies of the Torah: Otherwise, they’d have to admit that they were simply trading one set of shadows for another, and would have no reason not to keep the former in obedience to the command of God—which would result in their being persecuted for being Jews. Of course, that required coming up with a way to justify these sacraments as being ontologically greater. In the end, a bunch of mystical baloney was piled on top, like Transubstantiation, as the “proof.” Had the Church kept the Seder in the Supper, recognizing that both it and the other ceremonial commandments were physical ways of reflecting the spiritual reality, I don’t think that mysticism would have ever entered into the equation.
So by all means, keep celebrating the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him throughout the year—but don’t neglect the Passover, of which the bread and cup are but two small threads of a much richer tapestry of symbolism pointing directly to our Lord Yeshua and His work on the Cross. My own practice, which is obviously not binding on anyone here, is to slip in a little tidbit about the rest of the Passover amongst the liturgy of the Supper, such as explaining why Yeshua did not drink the third cup of the meal, the Cup of Redemption, or how the matzah (unleavened bread) is pierced, striped, and bruised just as our Lamb was.
In the end, there is nothing wrong with a little extra tradition—in fact, it’s inevitable. No one would argue that a church’s annual pot-luck dinner to celebrate its founding was legalism or forbidden because it “isn’t specifically authorized by the New Tesament,” so long as said church wasn’t trying to impose that dinner as a universal standard or that it didn’t violate Scripture in some other way (no annual orgies allowed). By the same token, there is nothing wrong with these additional “mini-Passover Suppers,” provided that they don’t become a matter of salvation or judgment, and are observed and understood within the context of the real Passover.
With regard to breaking bread, I was well aware of the social significance of such at the time, but your elaboration on the topic with its numerous tie-ins taught me quite a bit more, so thank you.
This is why Sha’ul tells us not to eat with a sinning brother (1 Co. 5:11).
Y'shua ate with sinners, as long as they were repentant. As you know, He regarded the penitent sinner as greater in heaven than the legalistically righteous. So perhaps that would be better worded as, 'Sha’ul tells us not to eat with an unrepentant brother'? Food for thought. :-)
Interesting your bit of history on the Pharisee/Saducee split and how that led to a more dispersed form of worship. It clearly reinforced the modern synagogue, without which the loss of the Temple might more likely have been far more destructive to Judaic worship.
That tells us something interesting about Yeshua, because He was invited to eat with various Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37)— at least some regarded Him as one of their own and ritually pure enough to have fellowship with, suggesting that He kept most of their traditions where they did not conflict with the Scriptures or with the granting of mercy (though in the latter passage, He intentionally surprises them by refusing to ritually wash in order to make a point).
I doubt that was uniformly true. Certainly in the case of Nicodemus it was, but in others, it seems as likely that it was for the purpose of scrutiny.
Now think about what it said that they set aside all old rivalries and extra-Biblical ideas of ritual purity to do so!
This was a really insightful point, thank you, demonstrating how destabilizing Christianity had to be in a world of rigid class distinction.
Therefore, Luke is not using “breaking of bread” to refer to the modern concept of the Lord’s Supper, but to show his audience, which was cognizant of these societal realities, just how close all the believers were in the Messiah Yeshua.
Clearly this is your conclusion and it is very well supported, but I don't think the case quite as definitive as your choice of words suggests. It surely includes all the factors you mention, but does not exclude the possibility that it included communion as we know it. I do appreciate the thought that went into it.
I had obviously misunderstood your earlier post, thinking that it implied exclusivity to celebrating the new covenant only at Pesach, which, as you have said, is not what you do. It is, what our congregation UMJC does, so please forgive my remission in assuming your practice was similar. We entirely concur about the role the Lord's Supper should play in our assemblies with other believers and I especially applaud your prison ministry.
On a side note, what did you think of my point about the Shema and the New Covenant? I haven't heard it articulated before, but it struck my heart like a bolt.
I have more to ask at a later time, particularly as regards correct interpretation of "perpetual" or "forever" as regards old covenant feasts in terms of Hebrew versus Greek and the impact that distinction has upon the general discussion we see on this thread and others about the Law.
Later!