Significance of “breaking bread” in the NT ― a question

[BartholomewB]

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16, KJV).

“Breaking bread” is mentioned twenty-seven times in the NT, in contexts where the sacramental nature of the action is not always as explicit as it is here. However, I think we can safely say that in every case it refers, explictly or implicitly, to the sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper) and that it is never intended to mean simply eating a meal.

In the Greek text, in all twenty-seven occurrences, the “break” word is either the verb klao or one of three closely related words: the verb kataklao, which again just means “break”; and two nouns, klasma, meaning a broken piece or fragment, and klasis, the act of breaking.

In the NT, all four words are invariably applied to the breaking of bread, never of anything else. Klasma occurs nine times, all of them in the Gospel episodes of the feeding of the five thousand or of the four thousand. It is the word used for the leftovers, the broken pieces that fill twelve baskets (Mark 8:19). In fact these two episodes, the feeding of the five thousand and later the four thousand, account for over three-quarters of all the occurrences of “breaking bread” in the NT (21 out of the 27). In nine of them the person breaking the bread is Jesus: the feeding of the 5000/ 4000 (6 occ.); the Last Supper (4 occ.); the road to Emmaus (2 occ.)

The remaining six occurrences are: at Pentecost and afterward (Acts 2:42,46); Paul at Troas, the Eutychus incident (Acts 20:7,11); Paul, shipwreck (Acts 27:35); Paul, liturgy (1 Cor 10:16, quoted above).

One final remark: Luke’s description of the Eutychus incident prompts a supplementary question that goes off topic but is still worth asking in its own right. Verse 7 begins with these words (again, in the KJV): “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, ...” The question is: Why did Luke think he needed to tell his readers what day of the week it was?

 

[BartholomewB]

I missed the five-minute deadline for editing my post and now I need to correct a factual error. The two miracles of the loaves and fishes add up, in reality, to only fifteen of the twenty-seven occurrences of “breaking bread,” not to twenty-one as I mistakenly wrote. Apologies to all for miscalculating my statistics.

 

[Aaron56]

Not a eucharist... table bread - common bread that was served at every meal. Just like the table wine... common. Not made especially for the event. Baked in a common oven by common people.

 

[legion]

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16, KJV).

“Breaking bread” is mentioned twenty-seven times in the NT, in contexts where the sacramental nature of the action is not always as explicit as it is here. However, I think we can safely say that in every case it refers, explictly or implicitly, to the sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper) and that it is never intended to mean simply eating a meal.

In the Greek text, in all twenty-seven occurrences, the “break” word is either the verb klao or one of three closely related words: the verb kataklao, which again just means “break”; and two nouns, klasma, meaning a broken piece or fragment, and klasis, the act of breaking.

In the NT, all four words are invariably applied to the breaking of bread, never of anything else. Klasma occurs nine times, all of them in the Gospel episodes of the feeding of the five thousand or of the four thousand. It is the word used for the leftovers, the broken pieces that fill twelve baskets (Mark 8:19). In fact these two episodes, the feeding of the five thousand and later the four thousand, account for over three-quarters of all the occurrences of “breaking bread” in the NT (21 out of the 27). In nine of them the person breaking the bread is Jesus: the feeding of the 5000/ 4000 (6 occ.); the Last Supper (4 occ.); the road to Emmaus (2 occ.)

The remaining six occurrences are: at Pentecost and afterward (Acts 2:42,46); Paul at Troas, the Eutychus incident (Acts 20:7,11); Paul, shipwreck (Acts 27:35); Paul, liturgy (1 Cor 10:16, quoted above).

One final remark: Luke’s description of the Eutychus incident prompts a supplementary question that goes off topic but is still worth asking in its own right. Verse 7 begins with these words (again, in the KJV): “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, ...” The question is: Why did Luke think he needed to tell his readers what day of the week it was?

I would argue that this is to help establish the first day of the week as a time to come together as Christians so that it did not conflict with those who came together on Saturday, the Jews.

 

[BartholomewB]

Not a eucharist... table bread - common bread that was served at every meal. Just like the table wine... common. Not made especially for the event. Baked in a common oven by common people.

Does the term “Eucharist” necessarily imply the use of unleavened bread rather than leavened? I wouldn’t have thought so, but I don’t really know. I’ve never needed to know. Maybe you’re right.

But in any case, in first-century Judea unleavened bread was baked by common people in their common ovens. Even if was served only on certain holy days, not just as everyday food, it was still made at home by housewives. They didn’t have to go out and buy it at a special store.

 

[Gideon300]

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16, KJV).

“Breaking bread” is mentioned twenty-seven times in the NT, in contexts where the sacramental nature of the action is not always as explicit as it is here. However, I think we can safely say that in every case it refers, explictly or implicitly, to the sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper) and that it is never intended to mean simply eating a meal.

In the Greek text, in all twenty-seven occurrences, the “break” word is either the verb klao or one of three closely related words: the verb kataklao, which again just means “break”; and two nouns, klasma, meaning a broken piece or fragment, and klasis, the act of breaking.

In the NT, all four words are invariably applied to the breaking of bread, never of anything else. Klasma occurs nine times, all of them in the Gospel episodes of the feeding of the five thousand or of the four thousand. It is the word used for the leftovers, the broken pieces that fill twelve baskets (Mark 8:19). In fact these two episodes, the feeding of the five thousand and later the four thousand, account for over three-quarters of all the occurrences of “breaking bread” in the NT (21 out of the 27). In nine of them the person breaking the bread is Jesus: the feeding of the 5000/ 4000 (6 occ.); the Last Supper (4 occ.); the road to Emmaus (2 occ.)

The remaining six occurrences are: at Pentecost and afterward (Acts 2:42,46); Paul at Troas, the Eutychus incident (Acts 20:7,11); Paul, shipwreck (Acts 27:35); Paul, liturgy (1 Cor 10:16, quoted above).

One final remark: Luke’s description of the Eutychus incident prompts a supplementary question that goes off topic but is still worth asking in its own right. Verse 7 begins with these words (again, in the KJV): “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, ...” The question is: Why did Luke think he needed to tell his readers what day of the week it was?

He wanted to set the Seventh Day Adventists straight.

 

[Magenta]

The Bread of Life

 

[PaulThomson]

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16, KJV).

“Breaking bread” is mentioned twenty-seven times in the NT, in contexts where the sacramental nature of the action is not always as explicit as it is here. However, I think we can safely say that in every case it refers, explictly or implicitly, to the sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper) and that it is never intended to mean simply eating a meal.

In the Greek text, in all twenty-seven occurrences, the “break” word is either the verb klao or one of three closely related words: the verb kataklao, which again just means “break”; and two nouns, klasma, meaning a broken piece or fragment, and klasis, the act of breaking.

In the NT, all four words are invariably applied to the breaking of bread, never of anything else. Klasma occurs nine times, all of them in the Gospel episodes of the feeding of the five thousand or of the four thousand. It is the word used for the leftovers, the broken pieces that fill twelve baskets (Mark 8:19). In fact these two episodes, the feeding of the five thousand and later the four thousand, account for over three-quarters of all the occurrences of “breaking bread” in the NT (21 out of the 27). In nine of them the person breaking the bread is Jesus: the feeding of the 5000/ 4000 (6 occ.); the Last Supper (4 occ.); the road to Emmaus (2 occ.)

The remaining six occurrences are: at Pentecost and afterward (Acts 2:42,46); Paul at Troas, the Eutychus incident (Acts 20:7,11); Paul, shipwreck (Acts 27:35); Paul, liturgy (1 Cor 10:16, quoted above).

One final remark: Luke’s description of the Eutychus incident prompts a supplementary question that goes off topic but is still worth asking in its own right. Verse 7 begins with these words (again, in the KJV): “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, ...” The question is: Why did Luke think he needed to tell his readers what day of the week it was?

Eating with another the same food as one another is a statement/recognition/admission of having the same nature and status as one another. This is why Jews would not eat with Gentiles.

All who eat the same foods together in a church gathering are therefore acknowledging their common nature and status before God. Paul rebuked the hypocrisy of the rich in Corinth, who were bringing quality foods and wines that they ate and drank exclusively, not sharing it with the poor, who had come with nothing, or with the most basic of victuals.

The commonality all disciples share is that Jesus sacrificed Himself for every one of us, to gather us together to Him as His brothers and sisters, not treating us according to our station or our education or our possessions. Taking communion together is a recognition that we were all undeserving when Jesus allowed Himself to be broken for us, and when we were called, and when were received by Christ by grace. Therefore we should allow ourselves to be broken by others, and we should welcome and receive one another in the same spirit as jesus did us, without taking into account one another' status, wealth or education. Jesus was serving us and was broken for us before we apologised for our sins, and in taking the bread into our bodies we are identifying ourselves as aspiring to express as His body the same attitudes as Jesus, the Head of the body. So, taking the bread while holding some grudge or resentment against another person in the assembly, holding back our love from them until they apologise first , is an expression of hypocrisy and gracelessness which, if persisted in, may lead to sickness and potentially to death.

 

[BartholomewB]

Eating with another the same food as one another is a statement/recognition/admission of having the same nature and status as one another. This is why Jews would not eat with Gentiles.

All who eat the same foods together in a church gathering are therefore acknowledging their common nature and status before God. Paul rebuked the hypocrisy of the rich in Corinth, who were bringing quality foods and wines that they ate and drank exclusively, not sharing it with the poor, who had come with nothing, or with the most basic of victuals.

The commonality all disciples share is that Jesus sacrificed Himself for every one of us, to gather us together to Him as His brothers and sisters, not treating us according to our station or our education or our possessions. Taking communion together is a recognition that we were all undeserving when Jesus allowed Himself to be broken for us, and when we were called, and when were received by Christ by grace. Therefore we should allow ourselves to be broken by others, and we should welcome and receive one another in the same spirit as jesus did us, without taking into account one another' status, wealth or education. Jesus was serving us and was broken for us before we apologised for our sins, and in taking the bread into our bodies we are identifying ourselves as aspiring to express as His body the same attitudes as Jesus, the Head of the body. So, taking the bread while holding some grudge or resentment against another person in the assembly, holding back our love from them until they apologise first , is an expression of hypocrisy and gracelessness which, if persisted in, may lead to sickness and potentially to death.

Thank you, @PaulThomson. You have set out your argument very elegantly and very convincingly.

Just one further question, if you don’t mind. Although you don’t say so explicitly, you give me the impression that you agree with my view that the expression “breaking bread,” whenever it occurs in the NT, is always intended to convey a connection of some kind with the Last Supper and Jesus’ command to “Do this in memory of me.” Have I understood you correctly?

 

[JohnDB]

Eating with another the same food as one another is a statement/recognition/admission of having the same nature and status as one another. This is why Jews would not eat with Gentiles.

All who eat the same foods together in a church gathering are therefore acknowledging their common nature and status before God. Paul rebuked the hypocrisy of the rich in Corinth, who were bringing quality foods and wines that they ate and drank exclusively, not sharing it with the poor, who had come with nothing, or with the most basic of victuals.

The commonality all disciples share is that Jesus sacrificed Himself for every one of us, to gather us together to Him as His brothers and sisters, not treating us according to our station or our education or our possessions. Taking communion together is a recognition that we were all undeserving when Jesus allowed Himself to be broken for us, and when we were called, and when were received by Christ by grace. Therefore we should allow ourselves to be broken by others, and we should welcome and receive one another in the same spirit as jesus did us, without taking into account one another' status, wealth or education. Jesus was serving us and was broken for us before we apologised for our sins, and in taking the bread into our bodies we are identifying ourselves as aspiring to express as His body the same attitudes as Jesus, the Head of the body. So, taking the bread while holding some grudge or resentment against another person in the assembly, holding back our love from them until they apologise first , is an expression of hypocrisy and gracelessness which, if persisted in, may lead to sickness and potentially to death.

Nice job.

 

[JohnDB]

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16, KJV).

“Breaking bread” is mentioned twenty-seven times in the NT, in contexts where the sacramental nature of the action is not always as explicit as it is here. However, I think we can safely say that in every case it refers, explictly or implicitly, to the sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper) and that it is never intended to mean simply eating a meal.

In the Greek text, in all twenty-seven occurrences, the “break” word is either the verb klao or one of three closely related words: the verb kataklao, which again just means “break”; and two nouns, klasma, meaning a broken piece or fragment, and klasis, the act of breaking.

In the NT, all four words are invariably applied to the breaking of bread, never of anything else. Klasma occurs nine times, all of them in the Gospel episodes of the feeding of the five thousand or of the four thousand. It is the word used for the leftovers, the broken pieces that fill twelve baskets (Mark 8:19). In fact these two episodes, the feeding of the five thousand and later the four thousand, account for over three-quarters of all the occurrences of “breaking bread” in the NT (21 out of the 27). In nine of them the person breaking the bread is Jesus: the feeding of the 5000/ 4000 (6 occ.); the Last Supper (4 occ.); the road to Emmaus (2 occ.)

The remaining six occurrences are: at Pentecost and afterward (Acts 2:42,46); Paul at Troas, the Eutychus incident (Acts 20:7,11); Paul, shipwreck (Acts 27:35); Paul, liturgy (1 Cor 10:16, quoted above).

One final remark: Luke’s description of the Eutychus incident prompts a supplementary question that goes off topic but is still worth asking in its own right. Verse 7 begins with these words (again, in the KJV): “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, ...” The question is: Why did Luke think he needed to tell his readers what day of the week it was?

Breaking bread is something not exactly correct. We think of those football shaped loaves that are flat on the bottom and think about them breaking up these crusty, yeast risen loaves and sharing a chunk between themselves.....
NOPE!

They were eating Matzah....fresh matzah to be even more specific. Something akin more to a tortilla than what we think of.
And where fresh matzah is good (better than the crackers sold in the store) Today it's mostly a means for conveying butter and jam to your mouth. Or something else with flavor. The dried crackers in the store are good for adding to soup for croutons or using in place of soda crackers for tuna fish.

"Bread" in Hebrew terms did not solely mean matzah or other breads. It meant basic, generic food....nothing special. Boring food in all truth.
In contrast you can have party food to include tender young meat or baklava with spices, nuts, and honey....

A "Beth" is a home.
Lehem is the Hebrew for "bread" or basic food.

Bethlehem is the word used for the most boring city in the world. Nothing special about this city whatsoever....no parties, no celebrations, no outstanding features. AKA "Smalltown, USA"

 

[BartholomewB]

Breaking bread is something not exactly correct. We think of those football shaped loaves that are flat on the bottom and think about them breaking up these crusty, yeast risen loaves and sharing a chunk between themselves.....
NOPE!

They were eating Matzah....fresh matzah to be even more specific. Something akin more to a tortilla than what we think of.
And where fresh matzah is good (better than the crackers sold in the store) Today it's mostly a means for conveying butter and jam to your mouth. Or something else with flavor. The dried crackers in the store are good for adding to soup for croutons or using in place of soda crackers for tuna fish.

"Bread" in Hebrew terms did not solely mean matzah or other breads. It meant basic, generic food....nothing special. Boring food in all truth.
In contrast you can have party food to include tender young meat or baklava with spices, nuts, and honey....

A "Beth" is a home.
Lehem is the Hebrew for "bread" or basic food.

Bethlehem is the word used for the most boring city in the world. Nothing special about this city whatsoever....no parties, no celebrations, no outstanding features. AKA "Smalltown, USA"

Thank you, @JohnB. You sound very sure that the “bread” mentioned in this context can only be unleavened matzah, whereas an earlier poster on this thread, @Aaron56, sounds very sure that it is the opposite. In either case, that is not really the question I am asking here. My concern is not so much with recipes as with the words we read in the Bible.

In four places in the NT we read that, at the Last Supper, Jesus “broke the bread.” In all four cases the wording is the same in both the original Greek and in Jerome’s Latin, respectively ἄρτον ἔκλασεν (arton eklasen) and panem fregit. When the same wording is found (in whatever language) in other contexts in the NT, such as the miracles of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes in all four Gospels, the Emmaus incident in Luke, or the apostles’ activities at Pentecost and afterward in Acts, would you agree that the author’s intention in each case is to convey a connection of some kind with the Last Supper and Jesus’ command to “Do this in memory of me”? Or are there places in which it might simply mean eating a meal?

 

[JohnDB]

Thank you, @JohnB. You sound very sure that the “bread” mentioned in this context can only be unleavened matzah, whereas an earlier poster on this thread, @Aaron56, sounds very sure that it is the opposite. In either case, that is not really the question I am asking here. My concern is not so much with recipes as with the words we read in the Bible.

In four places in the NT we read that, at the Last Supper, Jesus “broke the bread.” In all four cases the wording is the same in both the original Greek and in Jerome’s Latin, respectively ἄρτον ἔκλασεν (arton eklasen) and panem fregit. When the same wording is found (in whatever language) in other contexts in the NT, such as the miracles of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes in all four Gospels, the Emmaus incident in Luke, or the apostles’ activities at Pentecost and afterward in Acts, would you agree that the author’s intention in each case is to convey a connection of some kind with the Last Supper and Jesus’ command to “Do this in memory of me”? Or are there places in which it might simply mean eating a meal?

The part I'm directly addressing is the "broke" as if the bread was rigid enough to break to begin with....
It was not. Usually was not. (Unless it was stale)
Even the bread cooking over the coals in John (after Jesus's resurrection) is still done today. We know precisely what that looks like.
(The whole world has not modernized into wonder bread sandwiches)

It might have some leavening in it....but it's not required.

We know the varieties of wheat...we know the breads. The small "loaves" of barley bread....know those too. (More akin to rolled up tortillas)

The bread was torn....not so much broken as ripped.

That's all I'm pointing at.

 

[JohnDB]

Aaron is correct....but while what he is saying is correct, it is not what you are picturing in your mind.

Think of the middle eastern guy leaning over a hole in the ground or "counter" to stick bread dough on the inside roof of a oven....or taking a hook to bring it out after its baked. Wood fuel is a LOT of work. Especially in this arid location. No forests like in Europe or USA. Twigs and branches that are easily broken are the fuel. Meaning the bread needs to cook quickly....by being flat. Even in an oven designed to hold in the heat. (Iron tools were VERY expensive)

The smoking fire pot in Genesis used to describe God walking through the animals blood path with Abraham and God making a contract....that's a bread oven.


last job I had was the head Baker of a coffeehouse bakery....I think a LOT about bread.

 

[BartholomewB]

last job I had was the head Baker of a coffeehouse bakery....I think a LOT about bread.

That explains everything! Thank you.

I understand perfectly your objection to the use of the verb "break" in this context. On the other hand, in fairness to Bible translators from Jerome onward, it needs to be pointed out that they are not the ones to blame. The five original authors -- all four evangelists plus Paul -- are using the verb κλάω (klao), whose primary meaning, according to Liddell & Scott, is “To break, break off or in pieces ... esp. to break off the luxuriant shoots of the vine” (link below).

Full disclosure: I want to make it clear that I have no knowledge at all of any Biblical language ― no Greek, no Hebrew ― beyond just enough familiarity with the letters of the alphabet to be able to look words up in a dictionary or a concordance.

https://archive.org/details/greekenglishlex00lidduoft/page/810/mode/2up

 

[JohnDB]

That explains everything! Thank you.

I understand perfectly your objection to the use of the verb "break" in this context. On the other hand, in fairness to Bible translators from Jerome onward, it needs to be pointed out that they are not the ones to blame. The five original authors -- all four evangelists plus Paul -- are using the verb κλάω (klao), whose primary meaning, according to Liddell & Scott, is “To break, break off or in pieces ... esp. to break off the luxuriant shoots of the vine” (link below).

Full disclosure: I want to make it clear that I have no knowledge at all of any Biblical language ― no Greek, no Hebrew ― beyond just enough familiarity with the letters of the alphabet to be able to look words up in a dictionary or a concordance.

https://archive.org/details/greekenglishlex00lidduoft/page/810/mode/2up

Yes of course....
The "bread" or body that was broken that we must consume/internalize and make a part of ourselves....

I think that is the reference...

Also that whole disciple/Rabbi relationship. Copying the Rabbi precisely is the job of every disciple. If he prays then breaks the bread vx breaks the bread (passing out the pieces in any instance) and then prays is highly important to EVERY disciple.

 

[PaulThomson]

Thank you, @PaulThomson. You have set out your argument very elegantly and very convincingly.

Just one further question, if you don’t mind. Although you don’t say so explicitly, you give me the impression that you agree with my view that the expression “breaking bread,” whenever it occurs in the NT, is always intended to convey a connection of some kind with the Last Supper and Jesus’ command to “Do this in memory of me.” Have I understood you correctly?

We read in Acts 2 -
Act 2:46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[fn] daily those who were being saved.

And Jesus said -
Mat 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

And -
Luk 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

1Co 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
1Co 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

So, personally, I believe Jesus intended that every time Christians eat with others all the Christians present should remind themselves that all those around the table, no exceptions, were persons for whom Jesus died, and that we should treat everyone present as precious to Him, no exceptions. I don’t think this was only to be done on Sundays or in large assemblies, but was to be an everyday sacrament, whenever we eat with others.

 

[BartholomewB]

We read in Acts 2 -
Act 2:46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[fn] daily those who were being saved.

And Jesus said -
Mat 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

And -
Luk 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
1Co 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
1Co 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

So, personally, I believe Jesus intended that every time Christians eat with others all the Christians present should remind themselves that all those around the table, no exceptions, were persons for whom Jesus died, and that we should treat everyone present as precious to Him, no exceptions. I don’t think this was only to be done on Sundays or in large assemblies, but was to be an everyday sacrament, whenever we eat with others.

So far, so good. On those points we seem to be pretty muxh in agreement. However, the question I’m asking on this thread is not primarily about Jesus’ own meaning. It’s more about the four evangelists and their choice of words. I’d like to ask you this: In six books ― the four gospels plus Acts and 1 Corinthians ― there are fourteen passages in which the authors refer to “breaking bread”:

Last Supper:
Matt 26:26
Mark 14:22
Luke 22:19
1 Cor 11:24

Multiplication of the loaves and fishes:
Matt 14:19-20
Mark 6:41-43
Mark 8:6-20
Luke 9:16-17
John 6:12-13

The other five are:
Luke 24:30-35 (Emmaus)
Acts 2:42-46 (Pentecost & afterward)
Acts 20:7-11 (Paul, Eutychus incident)
Acts 27:35 (Paul, shipwreck)
1 Cor 10:16 (Paul, liturgy)

The breaking of bread is of course one of the central elements in the four Last Supper passages and in Paul’s comments on the liturgy. But what about the other nine passages? Do you see it as the author’s intention, in every case, to convey a connection of some kind with Jesus’ command to “Do this in memory of me?” Or in some cases might that be just a coincidence?

 

[PaulThomson]

So far, so good. On those points we seem to be pretty muxh in agreement. However, the question I’m asking on this thread is not primarily about Jesus’ own meaning. It’s more about the four evangelists and their choice of words. I’d like to ask you this: In six books ― the four gospels plus Acts and 1 Corinthians ― there are fourteen passages in which the authors refer to “breaking bread”:

Last Supper:
Matt 26:26
Mark 14:22
Luke 22:19
1 Cor 11:24

Multiplication of the loaves and fishes:
Matt 14:19-20
Mark 6:41-43
Mark 8:6-20
Luke 9:16-17
John 6:12-13

The other five are:
Luke 24:30-35 (Emmaus)
Acts 2:42-46 (Pentecost & afterward)
Acts 20:7-11 (Paul, Eutychus incident)
Acts 27:35 (Paul, shipwreck)
1 Cor 10:16 (Paul, liturgy)

The breaking of bread is of course one of the central elements in the four Last Supper passages and in Paul’s comments on the liturgy. But what about the other nine passages? Do you see it as the author’s intention, in every case, to convey a connection of some kind with Jesus’ command to “Do this in memory of me?” Or in some cases might that be just a coincidence?

Acts 27:35 seems to me to be merely eating together because they had been fasting for two weeks. It does not seem to be a Christian assembly. Likewise the loaves and fishes seems to be merely feeding hungry people. One could draw out parables from these three incidents of apostles sharing out physical bread to physically hungry men, as mirroring saints sharing God’s inexhaustible word to spiritually hungry men.

I don’t think the disciples feeding the 5000 and 4000 were consciously perceiving the crowds and themselves as people for whom Christ was going to die. I think Paul was probably seeing the ships passengers and crew that way though.

 

[legion]

So far, so good. On those points we seem to be pretty muxh in agreement. However, the question I’m asking on this thread is not primarily about Jesus’ own meaning. It’s more about the four evangelists and their choice of words. I’d like to ask you this: In six books ― the four gospels plus Acts and 1 Corinthians ― there are fourteen passages in which the authors refer to “breaking bread”:

Last Supper:
Matt 26:26
Mark 14:22
Luke 22:19
1 Cor 11:24

Multiplication of the loaves and fishes:
Matt 14:19-20
Mark 6:41-43
Mark 8:6-20
Luke 9:16-17
John 6:12-13

The other five are:
Luke 24:30-35 (Emmaus)
Acts 2:42-46 (Pentecost & afterward)
Acts 20:7-11 (Paul, Eutychus incident)
Acts 27:35 (Paul, shipwreck)
1 Cor 10:16 (Paul, liturgy)

The breaking of bread is of course one of the central elements in the four Last Supper passages and in Paul’s comments on the liturgy. But what about the other nine passages? Do you see it as the author’s intention, in every case, to convey a connection of some kind with Jesus’ command to “Do this in memory of me?” Or in some cases might that be just a coincidence?

While there can clearly be deep meaning behind scripture, and in many cases, especially Paul's, words and word ordering seem to be important. But i think the concept of breaking of break in memory of "who and what" Jesus is is just that; something done in memory and reflection upon Jesus and his works. I don't even think that bread is important beyond the symbolism. Jesus is saying "do not forget me" after what have done. "When you meet do this in memory of me":