Haying elicited from the Scriptures the truth that there should be one loaf of bread in each assembly for the communion, there remains the problem of how and by whom that loaf should be broken. Generally there are two outstanding positions taken. One of these is that the one serving at the table should break the loaf in two or more pieces and pass all of these pieces to the assembled communicants. This position makes necessary this conclusion; that the breaking of the bread in the communion is an act performed solely by the one serving at the table. The other position is that the breaking of the bread in the communion is an act performed by every communicant. In my opinion this is the real issue; Is the breaking of bread an act performed by one man only in an assembly or is the breaking of bread mentioned In the Scriptures pertaining to communion an act performed by every communicant in that assembly? Since the word "brake" (Matt 26:26) does not contain the answer to the method of breaking, there being no exclusive method of breaking inherent in the Greek word "klao," it is necessary that all of us get all the Scriptures mentioning the breaking of bread in the communion and from these Scriptures draw a conclusion. All of the truth on this question may not be contained in one verse. Remember, even if your practice is right, you may do great damage to yourself by using a foolish argument to prove it. I believe that the truth on this question is clearly contained m the Scriptures. Please study the following with an open mind.

(1) "And they (the three thousand souls in verse 41 plus the apostles) continued stedfastly … in breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42). Now I do not argue that "break" means "eat" because the two words are not synonyms. But the above verse makes clear that "they" (everyone of them) "broke bread." One may say, "Yes, but the breaking of bread implied the whole communion in this verse and means that they all communed." Fine, that is right. And the figure of speech used is a synecdoche in which "a part is put for the whole." In this instance a part of the communion, "breaking of bread," is mentioned to imply all of the communion. But the part mentioned must be true or else the whole implied is not true. Everyone of the "they" had to do the thing mentioned, "break bread," in order to do the thing mentioned, commune." No more communed than "broke bread." Why do some brethren violate the laws of language in attempted sustenance of a falacious position?

(2) "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them" (Acts 20:7). The same figure of speech is used here as in Acts 2:42. The disciples did not come together to merely break bread without partaking of the communion. The entire communion is implied in the above. Again we must remember that the "disciples" had to "break bread" (the thing mentioned) in order to commune (the thing implied). Every disciple at Troas performed the act of breaking. It is agreed that 1 Cor 11:33, "When ye come together to eat," means they all eat. Then Acts 20:7 means they all "break."

(3) "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ" (1 Cor 10:16)? Who is this "we" that "breaks?" If the Scriptures answer the question, the issue should be forever settled. Will you accept their answer? Verse 17, "For we being many are ... one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." Isn't this plain? The "we" that break are "many" (not just one in each assembly) and the "we" are the members of the "one body." So every member of the one body breaks bread. Furthermore, the same "we" who break bread are "all partakers of that one bread." The irresistable conclusion is that every one who "partakes" of the bread also "breaks the bread. If one can "break" for the rest of us then one can also "partake" for us. If not, why not? That would be going one step further than the Catholics because their priest only drinks for them.

(4) "Jesus took bread, blessed it, and brake it" (Matt 26:26). Some people read and quote this as if someone denied that Jesus "broke bread." I have never denied it and I have never heard anyone deny it. We all know Christ broke bread but some shut themselves out from receiving a comprehensive and harmonious view of the truth on this question by refusing to consider and believe the other Scriptures on bread-breaking. I believe Jesus actually broke bread. Do you believe that "We (everyone of us) break" (1 Cor 10:16) bread actually? If you don't, who denies the truth? If you do, then you are compelled to admit that the breaking is not an ULTRASPECIAL ACT performed by just one in the assembly, but that it is an act which everyone performs. Christ was an individual and he "broke bread." He set the example and the others followed. Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7 prove that the early Christians followed his example and understood that all were to break bread. Christ said, "This do in remembrance of me" (1 Cor 11:24).

By logic of induction, whereby we draw from particular cases general principles, we arrive after studying the above Scriptures at this inescapable conclusion and proposition; The breaking of bread in the communion is an act performed by every communicant. Down falls the theory that it is an act performed by one man in breaking the bread in pieces and passing them because EVERY COMMUNICANT does not do this! And since there is only one kind of breaking performed in the communion by every communicant, we draw this conclusion; The breaking of bread performed in the communion is that breaking which is essential to the eating. There is no other breaking performed by every communicant. Remove the veil from your eyes and let us unite on the truth!