1891, 32), and it would have been quite natural for the Christians thus to associate themselves together ; but a widespread religious custom is not sufficient to account for the usage, and its nomenclature among the early di.sciples. Why was it distinguished from the ' fellow.ship' {KOLvwvla) and singled out by a different terminology ? Partly because of the memory of their Lord's constant table-fellowship, to which His thanksgivings, with their intense reality, had given religious signifi- cance, but much more because of the Last Supper carrying His command. That Supper made every common meal more sacred. Enshrining the love of their Master in the symbolism of its closing scene, it gave new meaning to the communion of brethren at their common board. It became the source of a renewed joy, and the daily inspiration of a richer hope. So the term ' breaking of bread ' covers more than the observarice of the FAicharist. It designates the meals of which this ordinance formed an integral part, the action of breaking bread, which was the largest factor of their meal, being used to denote the whole feast. We may assume that the disciples followed their Lord's example, celebrating a love-feast, which would be enriched with memories of their Master and teach- ing from His nearest disciples, and closing with the more solemn thanksgiving for the broken body and the cup of blessing which Jesus had con- .secrated.
{b) The. Pmtline Churches. — There are signs in the letters of St. Paul that there was a widespread doctrine and practice to which his own churches woixld conform (Ro 61''), so that his influence over any churches but those of his foundation must not be exaggei'ated, especially in matters so vital as the sacred observances on which the personal disciples of. Jesus would be regarded as primary authorities (cf. 1 Co li'-^). Nevertheless the Church underwent a profound change when it passed from Jerusalem and the village churches of Judsea to the large cities of Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. All ranks now contributed their share to the brotherhood. Thus of necessity the disciples could no longer meet daily, and their regular gatherings were held on the first day of the week (Ac 20'', 1 Co 162, pjev 110). Probably the conduct of the service at Troas (Ac 20''-ii) was that of the average Gentile congregation, but little can be gathered from it except that there was a weekly meeting of the church on Sunday night, followed by a common meal, at which, in this case, St. Paul presided, and protracted the discourse till daybreak. The Lord's Supper may have been observed at some time during the common meal.
Thanksgiving was such an outstanding feature of the meal that already in 1 Co lOi** there is men- tion of ' the cup of blessing which we bless ' (some think it is so called in distinction from the cups at heathen banquets), and afterwards the meal is called 'the Eucharist' (Ignat. Philad. 4, Smyr. 6 ; Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 64-66, Trypho, 116, 117). This Supper, originated and presided over by the Lord (t6 KvpiaKbv delirvov), did not owe its validity to any official president or to any Apostolic blessing. It was a celebration of the brotherhood as a whole ; indeed, the sacrilege of the Corinthians consisted partly in destroying the bond of love which united into one body the brethren who ate one bread (1 Co lOifif- ll^off ). Only brethren seem to have been admitted to the Supper, though unbelievers and strangers attended other gatherings of a hortatory or didactic nature (14'-^3-)_ n ig noteworthy that the direct references to the Lord's Supper in the epistolary writings of the NT are confined to 1 Cor., so that we may possibly attach a larger import- ance to the function of the Lord's Supper in the Christian life than the Apostle Paul (see 1 Co
I
LORD'S SUPPER
LORDS SUPPER
69
1'*-'"). though he did undoubtedly regard it as a powerful means of grace CI Co 10'"').
(c) The Agape and the LfjrcTs Supjier. — WhUe the word 'Agape' occtirs only once in the XT (Jude ". for the reading of 2 P 21^ is almost cer- tainly iirdTOis), there can be no doubt that the common meals of the primit've Christians, and the table-fellowship which the Corinthians abused, answer to the later Agape. A new name was given to what was really a new thing, for there is nothing elsewhere like the spirit of love which called into existence and pervaded the common intercourse of the brotherhood. The occasion for the origin of the name may be fotmd in Jn 1:5-16, though the technical term probably did not come into use till long after the brethren had been en- joying the reality.
What did ' the Lord's Supper ' {to KvpiaKhv Setrrop, 1 Co ll^o) precisely mean? Was it the concluding part of the Agape, later called the Eucharist, or did it include both the Agape and the Eucharist ? Or was the Lord's Supper a distinct Eucharistic meal separate from the Agai>e? The decision turns partly on the interpretation of 1 Co 11**. Jiilicher is of the opinion that ' the Lord's Supper" was quite unlike all other congregational gather- ings, and holds that St. Paul found fault with the Corinthians Ijecause by their greed they turned a meal, which was meant to serve the brotherly unity of the Church, into a means of satisfying their appetites (see Stewart, Expos. July 1808, and also Drews, PRE^ v. 562 f.). But there are two decisive objections to this view, (a) The A]X)Stle says that the ordinance was instituted • after supper ■ (/i«Ta TO 5€ix»^<r£u, 11^). (y3) Bread and wine would not occasion the gluttony which he rebukes. It is much more difficult to decide between the other views. Those who hold that the Agape culminated in the Eucharist, and that the wh >le was called 'the Lord's Supper,' erplain that the selfish conduct of the Corinthian cliques rendered impossible any table-fellowship like that of the first Lord's Supper, when the feast of love culminated in the Eucharist (Keating, Agape and Eucharist, Appendix B; Robertson in Hastings" DB i. 4tK)'>). Perhaps this agrees with the term ' breaking of bread." and the practice as outlined in Acts, but the words of St. Paul seem to separate this part of the feast from the rest. It is a ' Lord's meal " becaase of the institution by the Lord which he proceeds to relate. ' It is impossible for you to eat a real Lord"s Supper when you have acted so disgracefully in the Agape.' Further, the institu- tion ' after supper,' and the subsetjuent history of the ordinance, seem to be most easily explained on this view ( Weizsacker, Ajt^jst. Aaf. En<r. Ir. vol. ii. 283 ff. : Zahn, ' Agapen," in PHE^ i. 2:56 f.). The abuses which led eventually to a separation of the Agape from the Eucharist were abundant in Cor- inth, thouah the process of dissociation proved to be slow, and varied in difiEerent localities.