Breaking bread

[kf4zmt]

Traditionally it is said that the term breaking bread can refer to a common meal or to the Lord's Supper depending on the context. In Acts 20:7 we use it to mean the Lord's Supper and therefore use this verse as our authority to take the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. What is it in this passage that tells us that "break bread" was referring to the Lord's Supper?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I Corinthians 11 gives some indication that the early church took the Lord's supper in the context of a communal meal. Thus, it is quite possible that they would not have drawn a distinction between the two. The result is that the Greek text does not clearly differentiate the two meanings for us so interpreters generally rely upon the apparent context to determine the meaning.

The question is whether it is wrong to have the Lord's supper as part of a fellowship meal or if it should be done as part of a Sunday morning service. Some believe that it must be done on the first day (Sunday) and in the morning. Anything else is wrong. There are others who might say it should be done in an upper room and with the washing of feet.

IMO there seems to be great latitude here in the actual timing and context so that later practices such as our own are not necessarily wrong. The primary point is to remember the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection until He comes through the breaking of bread and drinking of the cup.

 

[- DRA -]

Traditionally it is said that the term breaking bread can refer to a common meal or to the Lord's Supper depending on the context. In Acts 20:7 we use it to mean the Lord's Supper and therefore use this verse as our authority to take the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. What is it in this passage that tells us that "break bread" was referring to the Lord's Supper?

Concisely stated, the understanding is the Lord's Supper is being considered in Acts 20:7 for two reasons:
1.) The assembly is under consider -- "the disciples came together to break bread"
2.) The Lord's Supper was supposed to be eaten in the assembly of the church, and common meals were supposed to be eaten at home.
1 Cor. 11:20 says, "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper [they were supposed to be eating the Lord's Supper, but had turned it into a common meal. Therefore, they were charged with not eating the Lord's Supper]."
And, 1 Cor. 11:34 says, "But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home." This refers to a common meal.

Therefore, since the disciples were coming together to break break in Acts 20:7, and since their common meals were to be eaten at home per 1 Cor. 11:34, the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 had to (i.e., by necessary inference) be a reference to the Lord's Supper.

Hope this makes some sense to you.

 

[Mike Ward]

Concisely stated, the understanding is the Lord's Supper is being considered in Acts 20:7 for two reasons:
1.) The assembly is under consider -- "the disciples came together to break bread"

"came together" is as ambiguous as "break bread".

2.) The Lord's Supper was supposed to be eaten in the assembly of the church, and common meals were supposed to be eaten at home.
1 Cor. 11:20 says, "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper [they were supposed to be eating the Lord's Supper, but had turned it into a common meal. Therefore, they were charged with not eating the Lord's Supper]."
And, 1 Cor. 11:34 says, "But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home." This refers to a common meal.

Are you suggesting that Christians can not come together with other Christians to eat outside of their home? I serioualy doubt it. And if not what is your point?

Therefore, since the disciples were coming together to break break in Acts 20:7, and since their common meals were to be eaten at home per 1 Cor. 11:34, the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 had to (i.e., by necessary inference) be a reference to the Lord's Supper.

Hope this makes some sense to you.

There is nothing necessary about this inference.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Concisely stated, the understanding is the Lord's Supper is being considered in Acts 20:7 for two reasons:
1.) The assembly is under consider -- "the disciples came together to break bread"

"came together" is as ambiguous as "break bread".

1 Corinthians 11:18 - "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

2.) The Lord's Supper was supposed to be eaten in the assembly of the church, and common meals were supposed to be eaten at home.
1 Cor. 11:20 says, "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper [they were supposed to be eating the Lord's Supper, but had turned it into a common meal. Therefore, they were charged with not eating the Lord's Supper]."
And, 1 Cor. 11:34 says, "But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home." This refers to a common meal.

Are you suggesting that Christians can not come together with other Christians to eat outside of their home? I serioualy doubt it. And if not what is your point?

My point is nothing more or less than the point made in the passages I quoted. The Lord's Supper was to be observed when the church came together, and common meals were to be eaten at home.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Therefore, since the disciples were coming together to break break in Acts 20:7, and since their common meals were to be eaten at home per 1 Cor. 11:34, the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 had to (i.e., by necessary inference) be a reference to the Lord's Supper.

Hope this makes some sense to you.

There is nothing necessary about this inference.

First, do you accept the idea there is such a thing as a necessary inference? Specifically, do you believe Jesus' conclusion given in Matthew 22:32 is true? Note carefully the passage the Lord is drawing the conclusion from: Exodus 3:6. It doesn't say Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living. That conclusion is necessarily inferred by the use of the present tense verb in Exodus 3:6 - "I am the God of ...". Therefore, as I asked, do you accept necessary inferences?

Second, according to 1 Corinthians 11, the disciples are instructed to come together to eat the Lord's Supper, and to eat their common meals at home. Therefore, since the disciples came together in Acts 20:7 to "break bread," please explain how this could necessarily refer to anything except the Lord's Supper.

 

[Mike Ward]

1 Cor. 11:18 is not the passage being discussed. We are discussing the passage in Acts. The Purpose of coming together in 1 Cor. is clear because it is explicitely stated. It Acts 20 the purpose of coming together is to break bread. Since break bread could mean Lord's Supper or just an ordinary meal it's hard to tell which this passage is refering to.

Coming together to break bread could refer to assembling as a chruch to a partake of the Lord's Supper. And it could also refer to assembling together outside of worship to eat a common meal. Since both are valid inferences neither is "necessary".

Also, can you please answer my question: "Are you suggesting that Christians cannot come together with other Christians to eat outside of their home?"

 

[crawfish]

Also, can you please answer my question: "Are you suggesting that Christians cannot come together with other Christians to eat outside of their home?"

Can't possibly be true. It would conflict with the scripture about pot luck lunches.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

1 Cor. 11:18 is not the passage being discussed. We are discussing the passage in Acts. The Purpose of coming together in 1 Cor. is clear because it is explicitely stated. It Acts 20 the purpose of coming together is to break bread. Since break bread could mean Lord's Supper or just an ordinary meal it's hard to tell which this passage is refering to.

Coming together to break bread could refer to assembling as a chruch to a partake of the Lord's Supper. And it could also refer to assembling together outside of worship to eat a common meal. Since both are valid inferences neither is "necessary".

Also, can you please answer my question: "Are you suggesting that Christians cannot come together with other Christians to eat outside of their home?"

Acts 20 does not speak of the disciiples coming together outside of the church to have a common meal. If you read the scripture, it seems that they were in a worship setting

Acts 20:7-12

Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together. 9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, “Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him.” 11 Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed. 12 And they brought the young man in alive, and they were not a little comforted.

It seems like verse 7 was summing up what they did, and verses 8-12 explained.

And yes, Christians can come together and a non-worship setting and "break bread" look at Acts 27, that's the first one that popped into my head.