[blue-duncan]

Communion or the “breaking of bread” was an ancient rite that expressed the attachment and fellowship of a special group, usually around a special person, a rabbi. Here at the Last Supper, the group were the disciples attached to Jesus and the bread that was consecrated by the cup of blessing (1 Cor. 10:16) acted as an effective representation of the broken body of Christ that signified that by His death (broken body) He was entering into His inheritance (His Kingdom). It also signified the unity of the group around the rabbi (1 Cor. 10:17). When the disciples on the Road to Emmaus knew Jesus in the “breaking of bread” it was because they had already participated before in that familiar symbolic rite; they were not present at the Last Supper. By the breaking of bread and eating the representation of the broken body of Christ the disciples were anticipating the sharing in His inheritance (I will not drink or eat with you again until in the kingdom). It was an eschatological rite for His family that signified they had been transformed from the mundane into their inheritance in the Kingdom.

It was not called a sacrament or an ordinance nor were the disciples commanded to routinely celebrate the rite. Paul says it is optional with his “as oft as you eat this bread and drink this cup...”. . Look at the discussion that took place at the Last Supper after the “breaking of bread”. They were laying around drinking and eating and debating what their places of authority were going to be in the promised kingdom. It was an argument over who was going to be sitting next to Jesus in the seats of power in the kingdom that was to come; rank ambition. Jesus does not criticize them but points out they will eat and drink with Him in the Kingdom and be rulers over kingdoms appointed to them. He exposed a traitor who had participated in the brotherhood meal, and He deflated the braggadocio of Peter; all of these things after the “breaking of bread”. There was nothing sacred about the “breaking of bread” and definitely, no grace was bestowed at that time.

Look at how the Corinthian church was celebrating it. It followed the meal like the Last Supper did. It was a part of the fellowship that identified them as a unity in Christ and inheritors of the kingdom that was to come.

Berkhof defines sacrament as “a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, in which by sensible signs the grace of God in Christ, and the benefits of the covenant of grace are represented, sealed, and applied to believers, and these, in turn, give expression to their faith and allegiance to God.” Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that in either baptism or communion the “benefits of the covenant of grace are ........, sealed, and applied to believers”. Represented, yes, but not the sealed and applied. Communion was just a variation of a common brotherhood rite with an eschatological component.

[topcat54]

I’m not sure about your history lesson, but the “Last Supper” and subsequent Lord’s Supper was the new covenant feast meal to replace the old covenant passover.

The imagery of Christ’s body and blood shed clearly are the antitype to the passover lamb. Christ is the true Lamb of God.

We eat and drink Christ spiritually when we partake of the elements. It is a sacrament of fellowship between Christ and His people (1 Cor. 10:16,17). It is what sets us apart really, spiritually from the world (1 Cor. 10:21).

The early disciples did routinely celebrate the sacrament. It seems a common occurrence with the gathering of believers in the book of Acts. The fellowships mention the “breaking of bread” (communion).