John Mark Hicks

Acts 27:35 is the last use of “breaking bread” in Acts.There is a broad consensus in the history of interpretation that this text cannot refer to the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper. The reasons have generally been two-fold.  (1) The meal involves the consumption of “food” (trophes) and therefore it cannot be the Lord’s Supper because the Lord’s Supper is not a meal.  (2) Paul invites unbelievers to participate in this meal and therefore it cannot be the Lord’s Supper because it is exclusively for baptized believers.

Both of those reasons are imported into the Luke-Acts narrative. They are presuppositions that limit the meaning of Luke’s text.  (1) is problematic because Luke has already used the language of eating a meal and food with prior references to “breaking bread” (cf. Acts 2:46 and 20:11). Extending the breaking bread language back into the narrative of Luke’s Gospel, it is clearly a meal every time it is used there. In fact, we might argue that the fact that Acts 27 is a meal context is not only consistent with Luke’s usage but exactly his point–it is a redemptive meal, and part of why we should identify it with Lord’s Supper in Luke-Acts.

(2) is a more substantial reason but it is still imported into the context. In fact, the first breaking of bread in Luke’s narrative (Luke 9:16) is the feeding of thousands–a number that probably included disciples, skeptics and seekers. At bottom, however, it seems to me that the text–read on Luke’s on narrative terms–should reshape that presupposition if indeed the language supports a Eucharistic reading. So, in the final analysis it is about what the text says within the context of Luke’s narrative.

Text:  Acts 27:21-26, 30-36 (ESV)

Since they had been without food for a long time, Paul stood up among them and said, “Men, you should have listened to me and not have set sail from Crete and incurred this injury and loss. Yet now I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. For this very night there stood before me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship, and he said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar. And behold, God has granted you all those who sail with you.’ So take heart, men, for I have faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told. But we must run aground on some island”….And as the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and had lowered the ship’s boat into the sea under pretense of laying out anchors from the bow, Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.” Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the ship’s boat and let it go. As day was about to dawn, Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, “Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food. For it will give you strength, for not a hair is to perish from the head of any of you.” And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat. Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves. 

This “breaking bread” story is the most difficult of Luke’s narrative for construing  as a religious or Christological meal. One cannot be absolutely certain about its meaning, but it is likely, given the language used, that the first Christian readers would have used the Lord’s Supper as a frame of reference for understanding this meal on the ship and that the narrative use of “breaking bread” has led us to this point. Paul used the meal as a means of encouragement and assurance. Eating represented hope: all would be saved, so all ate. If this is a eucharsitic breaking of bread, it teaches the church that the Supper is about hope and inclusivism, that is, that all are invited to share in the salvation of God, even pagan Roman soldiers. All are invited to the table to hear and taste the mercy of God.

That is my basic understading of the text. Below are the arguments that, to me, suggest this meaning. In Come to the Table, I did not deal with this text except through an extended footnote because I thought it would be distracting and I thought I could make my case in the book however one interpreted this text. Acts 2 and Acts 20 within their own contexts mean what they mean irrespective of how we understand Acts 27. Now, however, I offer here a fuller account of why I think this text contributes to our understanding of “breaking bread” in Luke-Acts.

Redemptive Significance of the Meal. The language surrounding the text is filled with soteriological imagery: not a soul will be lost, v.22; “do not be afraid,” v.24; God’s graciousness, v.24; faith in God, v.25; salvation, v.31; brought safely through, v.44/28:1; everyone was encouraged, v.36. Nothing is ordinary about this meal, especially in the light of Luke’s portrayal of Paul on this journey. It is a meal promising salvation; a meal of hope and encouragement. The meal is a concrete witness to the coming salvation of God. I think that sounds familiar in terms of the Lord’s Supper.

Gospel and Acts Travelogue. The parallel structures of Luke and Acts: turning the face toward a destination, trials, imprisonment, climatic events, etc. give this meal a parallel with the Last Supper in Luke 22  Luke intentionally parallels the events of Jesus’ life at the end of Luke and with the events of Paul’s life at the end of Acts (Cf. M. D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts [London: S.P.C.K., 1964] and C. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts [Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974]). Just as Jesus journeyed to Jerusalem (Luke 9-19), so Paul is travelling to Rome (Acts 19). Just as Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem (Luke 22), so was Paul (Acts 21). Just as Jesus had two trials (Luke 22-23), so did Paul (Acts 24-25). Just as Jesus ate a meal with his companions before facing the darkness of Friday (Luke 22), so Paul ate a meal with his companions before facing the darkness of the shipwreck (Acts 27).  This meal on the ship is Paul’s “Last Supper” within the narrative. Describing that meal, Luke uses what the early church recognized as a eucharistic formula. Early Christians would not have missed the association since they heard that language in their communities; it was the language of Jesus’ “Last Supper.”

Jew-Gentile Table Fellowship. The story also fits Luke’s emphasis on Jew-Gentile table fellowship as the symbol of the new Christian community (cf. Philip Francis Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], 102ff). The “table” here in Acts 27 is a continuation and, in some ways, a climatic representation of the goal of the kingdom of God to invite all to sit at the table–Jew or Gentile, slave or soldier, prisoner or free. It is a continuation of the function of the table in the ministry of Jesus.  In particular, it is the inclusion of the Gentiles at the table (reminding us of the Cornelius narratives in Acts 10-11).

Eucharistic Language. The text has the most eucharistic language in Acts; it is the text that most linguistically parallels Luke 22:19 and Luke 24:30. Only here does “give thanks,” “take” and “break bread” occur in Acts in a way that parallels Luke 22:19 and Luke 24:30. The text has three of the four features of the fourfold formula of take, break bread, give thanks and give (distribution is implied; the Western text of Acts adds “giving also to us”). Why does Luke recall this specific language from earlier in his narrative if not to connect the reader with those events? Luke uses the very language that would give Eucharistic significance to the meal.  He could have avoided that if he desired. Instead, he is quite intentional about connecting us back to his Gospel.

Summary. The narrative flow, the redemptive setting, the use of climatic themes, and the eucharistic language convince me that this is, in fact, an occasion when Paul invited unbelieving Gentiles to experience the grace of God through a meal in light of God’s redemptive act for them on the next day. It was a witness to God’s salvation–not only in the shipwreck, but in Christ. It was a promissory meal; a proleptic experience of the coming day of salvation. The meal was an invitation to trust in God’s saving work. That is, in fact, part of the dynamic and meaning of the Lord’s Supper itself.

I think C. K. Barrett nails the point quite well when we writes (“Paul Shipwrecked,” in Scripture: Meaning and Method, ed. Barry P. Thompson [North Yorkshire: Hull University Press, 1987], 60): “It seems unthinkable that Luke should have forgotten that he had written at significant points in his gospel the words that he uses here, and very improbable that the words were not used, and were not known by him to be used, by the church of which he was a member at its regular meeting for Supper.”

Perhaps, at the very least, as Bonz suggests, the language could be seen as “another example of Luke’s propensity to suggest a theme without insisting upon it” (Marianne Palmer Bonz,The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic [Fortress, 2000] 179, n.28).

Resource Note:  Others who have argued this position include Clayton Raymond Bowen, ” The Emmaus Disciples and the Purposes of Luke,” Biblical World 35 (April 1910) 234-245;  J. Dupont, “The Meal at Emmaus,” in The Eucharist in the New Testament, ed. J. Delorme, P. Benoit, and M. E. Boismard and trans. by E. M. Stewart (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1965), 105-21; Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (London: Epworth Press, 1971), 130-31; Susan Marie Praeder, “Sea Voyages in Ancient Literature and the Theology of Luke-Acts,” CBQ 46 (1984) 683-706; R. D. Richardson, “The Place of Luke in the Eucharistic Tradition,” Studia Evangelica, TU 73 (Berlin: Akadamie-Verlag, 1959), 671-72; P. H. Menoud, “Les Actes des Apôtres et l’Eucharistie,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 33 (1953), 21-36; Bo Reicke, “Die Mahlzeit mit Paulus auf den Wellen des Mittelmeers, Acta 27:33-38,” Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1948), 401-10; and P. W. Walaskay, ‘And So We Came to Rome’: The Political Perspective of St. Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). The eary third century author Tertullian apparently interpreted it in this manner when he used the Latin technical phrase eucharistiam fecit (“celebrate the eucharist”) in On Prayer, 24. One could also suggest that the Western text’s addition “giving also to us” is an interpolation intended to clarify that only Christians (“us”) ate this meal in the light of Paul’s eucharistic prayer. Thus, an early understanding of this text in the second and third centuries was Eucharistic. Other supporters include the commentaries by Barrett, Belser, Blass, Chance, Olshausen, Ehrhardt, Ewald and Schneider among others.

On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight. There were many lamps in the room upstairs where we were meeting. A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window, began to sink off into a deep sleep while Paul talked still longer. Overcome by sleep, he feel to the ground three floors below and was picked up dead. But Paul went down, and bending over him took him in his arms, and said, “Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.” Then Paul went upstairs, and after he had broken [the] bread and eaten, he continued to converse with them until dawn; then he left. Meanwhile they had taken the boy away alive and were not a little comforted.

The intentional character of “breaking bread” is obvious. The church gathered in order to break bread. This was its explicit purpose for assembling. Paul’s sermon was an addendum or special circumstance. But Luke does not tell this story simply to note another Pauline sermon or to describe a Christian assembly. Rather, Luke tells this story because it combines several elements which illuminate the connection between breaking bread, the first day of the week and resurrection. Luke tells this story because on this particular first day of the week when the disciples were gathered to break bread the church experienced firsthand a resurrection from the dead.

The combination of these factors connects this story with Luke 24 which should inform our reading of Acts 20. The parallels between Acts 20 and Luke 24 (reflected in the below chart) indicate that Luke wants us to read Acts 20 in the light of Luke 24, and consequently in the light of Luke 22–the Last Supper. Both Acts 20 and Luke 24 record the combination of three significant and complementary ideas: breaking bread, first day of the week and resurrection.

The “first day of the week” connects this text theologically with Luke 24. This is no mere temporal indicator or incidental reference. Rather, seen in the light of Luke 24, it is a theological marker. There is theological significance to the “first day of the week” as the day of resurrection and the birthday of the church (Pentecost; cf. Leviticus 23:15-21, 33-36). It is the first day of the new creation. The first day of the week is rooted in the saving act of God in the gospel. The day has redemptive-historical significance as its explicit notation in each of the Gospel stories stresses (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). Jesus as the “first fruit” (1 Corinthians 15:20-23) was raised seven weeks before Pentecost just as the first fruits of the harvest were offered to God before the rest of the harvest was gathered and celebrated at Pentecost (Lev. 23:9-14). The Spirit was poured out and the new community inaugurated on the first day of the week in celebration of the “first fruit” seven weeks prior.

On the first day of the week, Jesus first appeared to his disciples, broke bread with them and ate in their presence while showing himself to be alive (Luke 24:13,30,33,46), and one week later did the same thing (John 20:19,26). The first day of the week, then, as resurrection day and as the day that Jesus ate with his disciples became designated as the day when disciples would gather weekly to break bread together. While the Jerusalem church did this daily (at least for a while, perhaps only during the Pentecost festival), Troas appears to have embraced a weekly practice. Luke’s language reflects a common way of expressing the Sunday gathering since the language of “gathering,” “breaking bread,” and “first day of the week” are commonly linked in early literature (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:20; 16:1; Didache 14:1; Ignatius, Ephesians 20:2).

The weekly observance became standard in the late first and mid-second centuries as indicated by the Didache (14:1) and Justin Martyr (First Apology, 46-47). However, Ignatius (died ca. 115) exhorted the Ephesians to celebrate the Eucharist “more frequently” (Ephesians 13:1), which presumably means more than just Sunday. While there is no evidence of a daily Eucharist in the second century, there is evidence that it was not restricted to Sunday alone. For example, Easter was celebrated in the Asia Minor throughout the second century on Nissan 14 even if it fell on a day other than Sunday (the Quatrodeciman controversy). Towards the end of the second century it is apparent that the Eucharist was celebrated on the anniversaries of martyrs and at other times as well (Tertullian, On the Crown 3:3-4). By the third century there is a daily celebration in Carthage, North Africa (cf. Cyprian, The Lord’s Prayer 18).

The “first day of the week” in Acts 20 is no incidental reference. On the contrary, it reflects the intentional linkage of Acts 20 with Luke 24 in the light of the resurrection story that Acts 20 describes. Both Luke 24 and Acts 20 describe a situation of death which gives birth to life. Jesus emerges from the tomb “alive” and Eutyches goes home “alive,” though they were both dead. The resurrection of Eutyches is a concrete experience of victory for the church at Troas. When they gathered to break bread with the risen Eutyches, they ate with a visible example of the kind of hope they celebrated in the light of the resurrection of Jesus. That Supper was a celebration of hope and life as we imagine the Troas assembly sitting across the table from Eutyches as they broke bread together. The congregation was greatly “comforted,” which is what the contemporary church should experience as it breaks bread together in the presence of the living Christ.

Unfortunately, some read this text as if there were two different breakings of the bread. But the text does not say that they broke the bread in Acts 20:7, but only that they came together to break bread. They did not break the bread until after Paul’s homily and Eutyches’ resurrection. When they return to the third floor, then they broke bread and ate. While the text uses the singular “he broke bread and ate,” the singular is a synecdoche where a part stands for the whole. Does Luke really want us to think that Paul broke bread by himself, that he ate alone?  I think not. Rather, Paul is the focus of the text–preaching, healing, etc., and consequently he is the lead character in the breaking of bread.  But he does not break bread alone or eat alone in the midst of a meeting of the disciples, does he?

Further, Luke says Paul “broke bread and ate.” While some note that the verb geuomai (“ate”) literally means “taste” and therefore could refer to only bread and wine as in a contemporary Lord’s Supper, Luke uses the verb in the sense of “eat.” This is clear by his usage elsewhere. He only uses the verb concerning food in Luke 14:24 (eating a supper), Acts 10:11 (Peter is hungry and wants to eat), Acts 23:14 (zealots vow not to eat till they kill Paul) and here. The verb, then, is only used in Acts for meals and it has the metaphorical meaning of enjoying food. To “taste” is to experience the goodness of food and enjoy it.  Just as people “taste death” (experience death; Luke 9:27), so Paul (and by synecdoche the whole gathering) experienced–tasted–the food.

It is because of Luke’s usage of “taste” here and throughout his narrative that some want to see two different breakings of bread in this text:  20:7 is the Lord’s Supper and 20:11 is a “common meal.” This is strained and unnecessary. It is strained because it forces Luke to use the same words to describe two different things in the same paragraph without any indication in the language to highlight the difference.  It is unnecessary because it is based on a presupposition–imported into the context–that the Lord’s Supper cannot be a meal (even though it is called the Lord’s Supper).

Further, the argument that the same proponents would use to distinguish the “breaking of bread” in Acts 2 gets turned on its head here. Whereas it is the breaking of the bread in Acts 2:42 and thus the Lord’s  Supper (according to the argument), Acts 2:46 is simply the breaking of bread (without the article) and is thus a common meal.  But in Acts 20:7 Luke says they came together to break bread (without the article) but in Acts 20:11 is the breaking of the bread. Why does the bread in Acts 2:42 necessitate the Lord’s Supper in distinction from Acts 2:46 but it does not in Acts 20:11 in distinction from Acts 20:7?  Actually, it is more simple to see breaking bread as the same in all instances and this entails eating food together in a meal.

The unity of breaking bread and eating is the same as Acts 2:46, and describes the meal which characterized the Lord’s Supper. Breaking bread is a meal where the disciples eat together in the presence of the living Christ and, in this case, in the presence of the resurrected Eutyches.

The coordination of the first day of the week, breaking bread and resurrection gives theological substance to the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper as a meal as it bears witness to the living presence of Christ within the community. Given that early Christians met every first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1), and that they gathered to eat the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20; Acts 20:7), there are good historical reasons for believing that Christians met every first day of the week in order to eat the Lord’s Supper. More importantly, there are good theological reasons for believing this given the intersection of the first day of the week, resurrection and breaking bread. The first day of the week is the day of remembrance, the day of our deliverance, because it is the day on which God raised Jesus from the dead and created his new community, the church. The same reason the church gathers every first day of the week is the same reason it should eat the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week. Whatever reason one might offer for not eating every Sunday, the same reason could be given for not meeting. Whatever reason one might offer for meeting every Sunday, the same reason could be given for eating. It is a day of worship and a day of celebration because of what God has done in the gospel, and the gospel is proclaimed in the Lord’s Supper. If the Lord’s Supper is a celebration of the resurrection, why omit the very ordinance God has given us to celebrate it when we gather on the first day of the week to celebrate the resurrection? If gathering every first day of the week to celebrate our redemption through the gospel is appropriate, why is not the use of God’s gift of the Lord’s Supper equally appropriate? The church as a whole should return to the early Christian practice of breaking bread every Sunday.

Acts 2:41-47 has long been a focus of discussion in the history of the church, especially in the Anabaptist as well Bristish dissenter traditions. It is particularly important among “restorationist” streams for obvious reasons.

My interest in this post is the meaning of “the breaking of the bread” in this narrative description of the early Christian community in Jerusalem. I will first offer some summary arguments for my own understanding of the text and then respond to common objections to that understanding.

Essentially, I believe that Luke has no formal or theological distinction between meal and what Paul calls the Lord’s Supper or Lord’s Table. For Luke (and Paul too, I think) the meal is the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper is the meal. “Breaking Bread” is Luke’s name for this, and this is what he assumes by the language in Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:46 which are referencing the same reality–a communal meal with the risen Christ.

Text (ASV Adjusted to Emphasize the Imperfect Tense with Italics)

“They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls. And they [were continuing] steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and the prayers. And fear [was coming] upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all that believed were together, and [were having] all things common; and they [were selling] their possessions and goods, and [were parting] them to all, according as any man [was having] need. And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they [were taking] their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord [was adding] to them day by day those that were saved.”

The Meaning of Breaking Bread in Acts 2

Argument 1: Luke says they continued in the breaking of the bread (2:42), and then he says they broke bread (2:46). The unity of the text (Acts 2:42-47) is sustained by the repeated use of the imperfect tense (10x). The disciples were constantly devoted to the acts in Acts 2:42. Verbs in the imperfect tense are then repeated throughout 2:42-47 as a way of rooting those actions in the statement of Acts 2:42. Acts 2:42 says they were devoted to “X” and Acts 2:43-47 says they did “X.”  They were devoted to breaking the bread (Acts 2:42) and they did it (Acts 2:46). The unity of the text is stressed by the use of the imperfect verbs to describe the nascent Christian community in Jerusalem.

Argument 2: The language of “breaking bread” is dependent upon the Gospel of Luke. At the very least, this language takes us back to Luke 22 and Luke 24. Readers of Acts would have recognized the intratextual and narratival meaning of “breaking bread” as eating in the presence of the living Christ who is the host. “Breaking bread” in Acts is, at least, a continuation of the post-resurrection meals with Jesus in Luke 24 and the meal promised by Jesus in Luke 22.

Argument 3: The narrative reading of Acts 2 itself counts against distinguishing them. It is rather strange to use the same words to describe two different actions within the space of five verses in a single paragraph (especially when these verses are themselves summary descriptions) when we are talking about the same people, in the same tradition (Christian), in the same city, during the same time, continuing the same actions to which the community was devoted. The prima facie meaning is the identification of the two references to breaking bread in Acts 2:42 and 2:46. There would need to be a significant and obvious distinction within the paragraph itself to overturn the compelling unity of the paragraph which identifies them.

Argument 4: The repetition of breaking bread in Acts 2:46 from Acts 2:42 parallels the repetition of all aspects of Acts 2:42 in the space of these five verses. The “fellowship” (koinonia) of Acts 2:42 is the same as holding all things in “common” (koina) in 2:44. The teaching of the apostles of Acts 2:42 is what the disciples gathered in the temple heard (cf. Acts 5:42) and their leadership is confirmed or illustrated by their miracles (Acts 2:43). Prayers, of course, were also offered in the temple (Acts 3:1ff) and probably part of “praising God” in 2:47. Breaking bread in Acts 2:46, then, is naturally connected with Acts 2:42 as are other parts of Acts 2:42 in Acts 2:43-47.

Objections to the Above

Objection One: Since breaking bread in Acts 2:46 includes the consumption of food (trophes), it most likely refers to a common meal rather than the Lord’s Supper.

This assumes that “eating food” cannot refer to the Lord’s Supper, that is, it assumes the Lord’s Supper is not a meal. I think this argument imports a presupposition rather than letting the text speak for itself. It seems to me the opposite is true, that is, the Lord’s Supper is a “supper” (a meal) and thus entails the consumption of food (trophes). The phrase “breaking bread” refers to the first act of a meal–the act that inaugurates the meal. Thus, even without the term food (trophes) “breaking bread” is the act that introduces the eating of food.

Objection 2: “Breaking bread” in Acts 2:42 uses the article with bread; it is the breaking of “the bread.” This may indicate that it is special bread or bread for a special purpose such as in the Lord’s Supper. Since the article is missing in Acts 2:46, Luke seems to introduce a distinction between the two. Without the article, “bread” refers to a common meal and not the Lord’s Supper.

Actually, this more a matter of Luke’s style and grammar than theological distinction. Acts 20:7 is breaking bread without the article, but in Acts 20:11 “breaking bread” has the article. I submit that they both refer to the same thing and not two different things. They came together to break bread and they did. Interestingly some believe that 20:11 (with the article) refers to a common meal while Acts 20:7 refers to the Lord’s Supper (without the article) while at the same time suggesting that Acts 2:46 (without the article) is a common meal while Acts 2:42 (with the article) is the Lord’s Supper. In other words, “the bread” in Acts 20 is a common meal but “the bread” in Acts 2 is the Lord’s Supper but “bread” (without the article) in Acts 2 is a common meal while “bread” (without the article) in Acts 20 is the Lord’s Supper. There is no consistent way to read whether “breaking bread” is a common meal or the Lord’s Supper based on the use of the article alone. Further, both uses of “breaking bread” in Luke 24:30, 35 refer to the breaking of “the bread.” Clearly this was not “special bread” but the beginning of a meal–but a meal with Jesus and thus “breaking bread” for Luke. The article does not make a theological or conceptual distinction but serves a grammatical or stylistic function.

Objection 3: Whereas Acts 2:42 appears to be a list of activities in a religious service or a liturgical description, Acts 2:46 describes what takes place in a home that does not appear to be liturgical in character.

Though Acts 2:42 has often be interpreted liturgically–and it may indeed be applied that way, it does not function liturgically in the context. Rather, Acts 2:42 is a summary that is fleshed out in Acts 2:43-47. For example, we learn that fellowship (koinonia) in Acts 2:42 includes shared resources as the community had everything in common (koina). Their sharing of resources was not only in a liturgy but part of their lifestyle. Further, Acts 2:46 describes a community that assembles in the temple and gathers in homes “praising God.” Home was the place of liturgical action as well as the temple for early Christians.

Objection 4:  “Daily” modifies only the temple assemblies and not the home gatherings in Acts 2:46.

This is quite dubious grammatically. “Daily” (kath’ hermeran) stands at the head of the sentence in Acts 2:46 so that it is in the most natural place to modify both participles (“continuing in the temple” and “breaking bread”). If “daily” was understood as only modifying “continuing,” then the more natural construction would be (I will use English wording but in Greek word order): “continuing te (a particle which has a joining function) daily together in the temple, breaking te at home bread.” If “daily” referred only to the temple, it would come after the te and not at the head of the whole sentence. The NRSV makes this clear: “day by day continuing to meet in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house.”

Further, the te…te structure has the significance of “both…and.” The point is that “daily, both continuing together in the temple and breaking bread at home, they were eating food with joy and unity.”  They celebrated the new age by daily gatherings in the temple and homes.  They heard the apostles teach and prayed the prayers in the temple, but they broke bread in their homes. In this way they devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching and the fellowship, the breaking of the bread and the prayers. For early Jerusalem church pictured here this was a daily teaching (temple) and fellowship (home), and the latter included the breaking of bread as well as the prayers.

Objection 5: If Acts 2:46 refers to a daily breaking of bread and the breaking of bread is the Lord’s Supper, then this contradicts Luke’s broader context where disciples met for the purpose of breaking bread on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7. It appears that they were not breaking bread daily in Troas because Paul waited there seven days to break bread with the disciples. If another day was acceptable other than the first day of the week, then Paul could have called a special Thursday (or any other day) meeting for the purpose of breaking bread.

The assumption is that Paul stayed in Troas in order to wait to eat with the disciples. He may have stayed seven days because the boat did not leave till then. But this is speculative. I don’t have a problem with saying that the Troas disciples met only on the first day of the week to break bread, but we must recognize that the “only” is an inference and not explicitly stated in the text. Daily breaking of bread was not a requirement but one way of eating as often as one desired. Weekly breaking bread was also quite acceptable (perhaps even the normal practice across the churches) and Paul accommodated to the practice of the church at Troas. Indeed, we don’t know whether there were other meetings. Luke is concerned about this particular meeting because it includes a resurrection story. It is a concrete experience of the meaning of the supper itself–to eat with the resurrected one.

Objection 6: Acts 2:46 does not mention wine. We may presume that daily meals in Jersualem did not use wine which was only used on festive occasions due to its expense. Consequently, it is unreasonable to assume that that the daily breaking of bread in Acts 2:46 refers to the Lord’s Supper where bread and wine are both present because the expense would have been excessive.

I would suggest an alternative reading. Many of these new believers in Acts 2 were pilgrims who had come to celebrate Pentecost. This celebration included eating fellowship offerings together throughout the week which would have included wine since it was a festive gathering (Leviticus 23:15-21). The experience of “daily” meals–festive meals of thanksgiving through the breaking of bread–was part of the festive atmosphere. The pilgrims understood that Pentecost was the experience of the gracious outpouring of God’s Spirit, the renewal of Israel, and they celebrated by eating “daily” in their homes in small groups. I suggest this was not a perpetual ordinance in the Jerusalem church. Rather, it lasted perhaps as long as the Pentecost festival lasted or as long as the pilgrims were in town. Whatever the case may be, the “daily” eating together fits the festive context of Pentecost. How long it lasted is, of course, unknown, but such daily festive meals make sense in the context of Pentecost.

Objection 7: Neither Acts 2:42 or 2:46 are references to the Lord’s Supper because it only refers to the breaking of bread. There is no mention of wine which is necessary for the Lord’s Supper.

I have occasionally read this objection in scholarly literature but I always thought it was rather strange. If “breaking bread” refers to the initiating act of a meal, then it is a metaphor for the whole meal. Luke does not have to tell us everything they ate or drank in order to use this phrase for a meal. The phrase itself means “the meal.” The specific absence of wine is not significant, especially in the light of the phrase’s narrative function. A meal includes its drink whether specified or not.

Conclusion

This is a rather brief account of some specific hermeneutical and exegetical details.  But I hope it is sufficient to exegetically ground my conclusion that the breaking of bread in Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:46 is both a meal and the Lord’s Supper. The two are one in the same for Luke.  Breaking bread is a meal in honor of and eating with the risen Christ.

Given a couple of recent comments on my previous post by Terrell Lee and Johnny Melton, I have interrupted my series on “Breaking Bread” to offer the below piece. This brief–very brief–statement is something I wrote for a children’s minister who requested a theological rationale for children participating in communion. The following is not a full argument or statement of the case, but is suggestive of the themes that shape the inclusion of children at the table. In Come to the Table I suggested but did not emphasize this point. I did not want that point to distract from the main thrust of the book, that is, to revision the Lord’s Supper as table rather than altar.

I recognize that this is a controversial question and my position is a minority one in the history of Christianity except that the Orthodox Church has always included children and some Reformed streams have practiced it as well. I never make this a focus of my teaching on the Lord’s Supper and I do not push the question in any way. But, when asked, I respond with my opinion as I think appropriate.  It is not a “pressing topic” for me, but I do believe parents should not be hindered or rebuked when they invite their children to eat and drink with them at the table.

Here is the piece I have shared with children’s ministers when requested.

Children at the Table

The Lord’s Supper is a table event; a meal which the community of faith shares. The community invites all to share the meal with them as a witness to the truth and meaning of the gospel. All are invited; none but the rebellious are barred.

The Supper was originally experienced in the context of a meal—it was a Supper. Neither guests nor children would have been excluded from that meal. It was for everyone as witness to the grace of God, which is for everyone.

Children, in particular, are invited to the table because they belong to the kingdom. They are kingdom people. They are on the journey of faith, and the Supper will shape the growth and development of that faith. The Supper testifies to the faithfulness and love of God, and when children eat, they experience that faithfulness and love at the table.

The table, then, is a learning event for children. They hear the story of the gospel and participate in the elements, which bear witness to the gospel. They experience the gospel through eating and drinking. This prepares their heart for discipleship, encourages the development of their faith, and assures them of God’s love on their journey.

Baptism is where our children commit themselves to the way of the cross as disciples of Jesus. Baptism is an individual act of faith-commitment that the community witnesses and celebrates. The table is where children learn about Jesus and experience his love. The table is family time; it is a communal event. As part of the family—as persons on the journey of faith—they should sit at the table with the rest of the community.

It is generally unwise to send children to bed without their supper, and it is potentially a hindrance to their faith to exclude them from the table in the family of God.

My first post in this series summarized and lightly critiqued a piece by Justin Rogers at the FHU lectureship in 2008. Here I turn my attention to the flow of Luke’s narrative which offers us the “big picture.” With Justin I recognize some level of ambiguity, especially in terms of the specific texts themselves. However, I believe that a narrative approach illuminates Luke’s plot in a way that reduces that ambiguity. If we suspend the presuppositions that the Lord’s Supper is only bread and wine, only on Sunday and closed to everyone but believers, I think the narrative speaks with a fairly clear voice.

While each occasion of “breaking bread” must be considered in the context of its specific pericope, the larger–and perhaps more formative as it should shape how we read each speicific text–context is Luke’s whole two-volume narrative.  This is my starting point. What is the narrative context, plot and meaning of “breaking of bread” in the Luke-Acts narrative? In other words, what is the narrative’s big picture?

Of course, there is a reciprocal relationship between a specific pericope and the larger narrative. One will contextualize the other. At the same time, the narrative develops its plot and chooses its words in order to connect the whole with the part. Consequently, as we read something late in the narrative we should we aware that the author may have alerted us to its meaning and function by something earlier in the narrative.  Or, another way of putting that, the narrative plot developed in the previous narrative is a lens through which we read the remaing narrative. Or, more specifically, can it be that the Gospel of Luke is the lens through which we read the history in Acts?  I think so. 

General Observations

Breaking bread is a rather rare Hebraic expression. It is not found in ancient Greek and Latin texts and it only appears  three times (Isaiah 58:7; Jeremiah 16:7; Lamentations 4:4).  It probably derives from the first ritual act of a meal–the act of blessing or thanksgiving (analogous to “saying grace” but with some concrete act regarding the food).  Consequently, “breaking bread” is a part for the whole; it is a reference to the whole meal by noting the first act of the meal itself.

Luke distinguishes between “eat bread” (Luke 7:33; 14:1, 15) and “break bread.”  Why does Luke use this different language? It may be stylistic, but it may also reflect some theological intentionality. That is, Luke intends to convey something with “breaking bread” that is more Christological, more Messianic. This is apparent, it seems to me, when “breaking bread” is only used in redemptive contexts–they are meals pregnant with soteriological meaning.

Luke uses “bread” as a metaphor for “food” (cf. Luke 4:3; 9:3; 11:3, 11; 15:17). To “break bread,” then, for Luke is to eat a meal. The only time Luke uses “bread” in Acts is in the phrase “breaking bread.” In Acts he focuses on this meal that the new community of disciples ate together which, in the narrative plot of Luke-Acts, is rooted in the Messianic table of Jesus.

The Breaking Bread Texts

The fourfold formula occurs in three of the six pericopes in Luke’s narrative–all of them in his Gospel:  (1) he took or taking (a from of lambano), (2)  he blessed (eulogeo) or gave thanks (eucharisteo), (3) he broke (katakleo, klao, klasis), and (4) gave (didomi). The fourfold expression is repeated in liturgical literature in the second and third centuries as part of the words of institution and liturgically re-enacted.

Below are the “breaking bread” texts in the literal translation of the 1901 ASV:

• Luke 9:16 – “And he took (labon) the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed (eulogesen) them, and brake (kateklasen); and gave (edidou) to the disciples to set before the multitude.”
• Luke 22:19 – “And he took (labon) bread, and when he had given thanks (eucharistesas), he brake (eklasen) it, and gave (edoken) to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.”
• Luke 24:30 –  “And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took (labon) the bread and blessed (eulogesen); and breaking (klasas) it he gave (epedidou) to them.”
• Luke 24:35 – “And they rehearsed the things that happened in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking (klasei) of the bread.”
• Acts 2:42 – “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking (klasei) of [the] bread and the prayers.”
• Acts 2:46 – ” And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking (klontes) bread at home, they took (metelambanon) their food (trophes) with gladness and singleness of heart,”
• Acts 20:7 – “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break (klasai)  [the] bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.”
• Acts 20:11 – “And when he was gone up, and had broken (klasas) the bread, and eaten (geusamenos), and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.”
• Acts 27:35-38 – “And when he had said this, and had taken (labon) bread, he gave thanks (eucharistesen) to God in the presence of all; and he brake (klasas) it, and began to eat (esthiein). Then were they all of good cheer, and themselves also took (proseabonto) food (trophes). And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls. And when they had eaten enough (trophes), they lightened the ship, throwing out the wheat into the sea.”

I think it is significant that the fourfold formula appears in the Gospel but does not appear in Acts. I suggest that the Acts usage of “breaking bread” depends on the Gospel. Since Luke has already narrated the theological meaning of “breaking bread” through the feeding in the wilderness, the Passover meal and the post-resurrection meals, there is no need to repeat that in Acts.  It is assumed.

When we encounter “breaking bread” in Acts 2:42 and throughout the Acts narrative, Luke intends us to use theological lens he gave us in his Gospel for understanding what that is.  It does not appear in Acts ex nihilo; rather, it appears out of the matrix of what Luke did with that language in the significant Messianic contexts of Luke 9, 22, and 24.

It is analogous to reading the triology Lord of the Rings.  While the first volume The Fellowship of the Ring gives lots of attention to the Hobbits’ Shire, the second volume–Two Towers–does not.  Why? It is assumed that the reader of the second volume already understands the significance of the Shire from the first volume. Consequently, Tolkien can use “Shire” in the second volume without explanation.

I think this is what Luke does.  He narrates the theological significance of “breaking bread” in his Gospel, but only uses shorthand in Acts. He simply refers to the “breaking of bread” with the confidence that the reader should understand its meaning from his Gospel.

The Plot Line

So, what is the narrative plot line regarding “breaking bread”? The below chart pictures the flow itself as the Gospel and Acts are hinged by the significant theological statement that Jesus is revealed in the Breaking of the Bread (Luke 24:35). This is the theological meaning of breaking bread. In this meal the risen Christ is recognized, revealed, made known, seen or experienced.

• Luke 9:  A Messianic Event–Feeding Israel in the Wilderness
  • Luke 22: A Messianic Event–The Passover Fulfilled
    • Luke 24: A Messianic Event–A Resurrection Meal

Luke 24:35–Hinge Text: Jesus is Revealed in the Breaking of the Bread

• Acts 2: Messianic Community Devoted to the Breaking of Bread
  • Acts 20: Messianic Community Gathered to Break Bread
    • Acts 27: Messianic Community Breaks Bread with Others for Hope

The Gospel narrates the meaning in terms of Jesus’ Messianic function in Luke 9. He is the Christ; he feeds his people manna in the wilderness. He serves his people and redeems their hunger, which is symbolic of much more than mere physical hunger. The Gospel narrates the Passover meal in which Jesus announces the coming kingdom–the next time he eats and drinks with them at Passover it will be in the kingdom of God. The “breaking of bread” is the experience of Passover in the kingdom of God.  The Gospel narrates the post-resurrection meals with the disciples. They eat and drink with the risen Christ.  Significantly, Jesus is the host of each of these meals; he breaks the bread and gives thanks. These are the only times he actually hosts in the Gospel.

Acts continues the story but with abbreviated language.  The new Messianic community devotes itself to breaking bread, that is, eating with the risen Christ in community. Acts 2 pictures a community daily gathering to break bread. Acts 20 is the experience of the risen Christ through the rising of Eutyches. When the disciples came together to break bread on the first day of the week, they experienced resurrection.  Acts 27 is a parable or symbolic of the mission of Christ to include the Gentiles as the sailors and soldiers are invited to share in the breaking of bread as an assurance of their salvation from death in the coming shipwreck.

 The hinge between the Gospel and Acts is Luke 24:35.  It announces what “breaking bread” does–it reveals the living Christ; it is an experience of the living Christ. In each of the pericopes–Luke 9, 22, 24; Acts 2, 20, 27–God gives life both in the present and with hope for the future.

Reflections

First, every occasion for “breaking bread” was hopeful and redemptive; God was present in a redemptive way.

• Luke 9: the Messiah feeds his hungry people in the wilderness.
• Luke 22: the Messiah  announces the coming of the kingdom with eating and drinking at the Passover, anticipating eating and drinking with them in the future kindom.
• Luke 24: the resurrected Messiah breaks bread and eats with his disciples as he commissions them to take up his mission.
• Acts 2: the newly baptized community is devoted to the breaking of bread as they eat together every day with joy and praise
• Acts 20: the community gathered to break bread and celebrated the resurrection of Jesus in the presence of the resurrected Eutyches.
• Acts 27: sailors, soldiers and prisoners break bread in the hope of salvation from death in the coming shipwreck.

Second, every occasion involves food or a meal.

• Luke 9: after the breaking of bread, it is a meal of bread and fish.
• Luke 22: after the breaking of bread, it is a Passover meal.
• Luke 24: they sat down to eat a meal which began with the breaking of bread
• Act 2: breaking bread involved eating food (trophes).
• Acts 20: breaking bread involved eating (literally, tasting) food.
• Acts 27: breaking bread involved eathing foor (trophes).

It seems to me, at least, that we should presume that Luke uses his language consistently, that is, with the same meaning, unless he gives us some clear reason to think otherwise. Having set up the meaning of “breaking bread” in his Gospel, he assumes it in the Acts of the Apostles.  The presumption is that he uses the language with the same meaning throughout.  Only the specific and narrow context of the Acts passages could contravene the narrative’s presumption.  Consequently, we must look closely at each text in coming posts. In future posts I will take up the specific texts and their contexts.  More to come….

 With these below and my previous posts (1970s articles and Contending for the Faith articles), I collected my twelve articles that were published from 1977-1979 when I was 20-22 years old.   In a future post I will reflect on my theological journey through those years (maybe 🙂 ).

“Holy Spirit Baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13?” Gospel Advocate 119 (October 27, 1977) 679-80.

 I set up a false dilemma in this article: either believe the Pentecotal version of Holy Spirit Baptism (a post-conversion experience including speaking in tongues) or accept that 1 Corinthians 12:13 is submission to water baptism as taught by the Holy Spirit without any direct connection to the Spirit. This article clearly indicates that I stilled lived in the world of “word only” and had a fundamental adversion to any direct work of the Spirit. I failed to see that the water and Spirit could both be elements in one baptism and that the experience of the Spirit is not merely cognitive (“through the word”).

“Equal, But Subordinate,” Gospel Advocate 120 (June 29, 1978) 405, 410.

This is a polemical piece directed against a statement made by Norman Parks who stated subordination entailed inferiority.  In response I parallel the relationship between the Father and the Son to the relationship of male and female based on 1 Corinthians 11:3. While the Father and Son are equal in essence (both divinitas), the Son is “subordinate” to the Father in terms of subsistence (filiation; he is a Son) and operation (submits to the Father’s direction in redemptive history). Likewise, so I argue, while male and female are equal in essence (both humanitas), women are “subordinate” to men in their function and role in the family and church (but not world?, I would ask now).  The parallel is too simplistically drawn and does not take account of incarnational Christology.

“Did He Understand?” Gospel Advocate 120 (November 16, 1978) 727.

This article is the same as the one published in the World Evangelist 7.6 (1 January 1979) 17.  The link takes you to the World Evangelist printing.  I argue–in good debating style–that the tongue speakers in Corinth understood their own speech. It was not “unknown” to them; they understood what they were praying and were edified by it.  Consequently, when contemporary tongue speakers claim they can neither understand nor control what they are saying, they betray the reality that they do not themselves have the same gift that the Corinthians had. Whether the argument remains effective, I will leave for you to decide.  On another day I will comment on my own development on this point which is not necessarily a denial of the claim that I am making in the article itself.  However, my insensitivity to those who experience tongue-speaking as edifying in their own lives is all too evident in the article.

“Good, Better, Best,” Gospel Advocate 121 (March 29, 1979) 196.

This is the article that I like the best of all that I wrote in the 1970s though it still has its flaws. It reflects that I was already thinking eschatologically though it did not necessarily affect the structure of my theology as yet.  While life here is abundant in Christ (“good”), to die is gain because to be with Christ is “better” than the present. Yet, the “best” life is the resurrected life. The article is a theology of “body” (soma)–present physical body, the disembodied intermediate state, and the furture resurrection body.  As I read it today, I fear that I underplay present life where God locates us and values us, and I fear that the article may depend too much on “living in the future” rather than being the body of Christ in the present.

“We Do Not Well!” Gospel Advocate 121 (October 18, 1979) 644, 648.

This article arose from one of my homilies. It is probably a good example of how I preached in the late 1970s (but hopefully too typical 🙂 ). I took a text, and then used the text to scold the congregation about a point that is not really the point of the text. The use of the second greatest commandment is interesting though forced, but the tone and “superior” attitude I see in myself is distasteful and disturbing. The topic is evangelism based on 2 Kings 7:9.

My interest has recently been rekindled in thinking about “breaking bread” in several ways.  Recently, I have received several emails asking questions, seeking more information and wanting deeper reflection on the exegetical as well as theological dimensions of what Luke describes as “breaking bread.” 

More specifically, in recent months I have read Justin Rogers’ piece in the 2008 Freed-Hardeman Lectureship book (pp. 418-426; get a pdf file of all the published lectureships from 1953-2009 here for $25).  Justin is currently a Ph.D. student at Hebrew Union College and serves the “Church of Christ that meets at Loveland Heights, Ohio” as Youth Minister. I do not know Justin but would enjoy getting to know him. His work is a substantial piece; it is a credible piece and deserves attention.  I shall give it some.  🙂

What intrigued–and, to be honest, perlexed–me is a statement that “Hicks assumes that the breaking of bread is the Lord’s Supper without laboring to prove his case. Throughout the work, he seems to be more interested in a theological rather than a textual point of view” (p. 421).   While I do not recognize myself in that statement since I want to think theologically on the basis of exegesis and not without it, I will not quibble here about it other than to leave it to readers of my Come to the Table to assess whether Justin is correct or not. To the extent that he is (which I honestly don’t think is very much 🙂 ), I will remedy this in a few posts in this series.

In this initial post I will summarize his argument and conclusions as fairly as I am able.

He correctly notes that describing a meal by “breaking bread” is rather novel in the first century as it only occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 58:7; Jeremiah 16:7; Lamentations 4:4). It is a Hebraic expression as evidenced by its absence in Greek and Latin texts. Yet, as Rogers notes, Luke and other NT authors (Matthew, Mark, and Paul) used this peculiar phrase rather than the more normal “eat.” Indeed, I might add, Luke uses “eat bread” on several occasions (e.g., Luke 14:1). So it raises the interesting question of why Luke (in particular) uses “break” at times and “eat” at other times. Does he have something special or unique in mind when he uses “break bread”? I think so…but I digress.

Justin outlines three positions (p. 419): (1) Breaking bread is always a common meal; (2) Breaking bread is always the Lord’s Supper; and (3) Breaking bread may mean a common meal at times and the Lord’s Supper at other times. I would add a fourth possibility (4) Breaking bread is the Lord’s meal (it is both food–a meal–and embodies the special meaning of proclaiming the gospel; it is the Lord’s Supper as a meal with festive food). Justin recognizes this as a position at the bottom of page 420.

Concerning common meal (1), Justin notes that many read Acts 2:46 and the feedings in the Gospel (Matthew 14:19; 15:36; Mark 6:41; 8:6, 19; Luke 9:16) this way as well as the post-resurrection meal in Luke 24:35. But he responds that the “breaking bread” is certainly sometimes something more or different than a mere common meal as 1 Corinthians 10:16 evidences (there it is the bread by which we commune with the body of Christ). He does not think the evidence of the feedings is germane to the Lord’s Supper because “they occur before the crucifixion, and thus prior to the institution of the Lord’s Supper” (p. 420). [That is a piece of dispensational hermeneutics which I think is flawed.]

Concerning the identification (2), Justin does not think we can say “breaking bread” is always the Lord’s Supper, that is, the Supper as bread and wine, not as a meal. One of the primary reasons, it seems, is that 1 Corinthians 11 is “serious and somber” in mood while Acts 2:46 is “rather joyous and jubilant” (p. 421). This reflects, as Justin notes, the distinction Lietzmann made between the “Jerusalem” type of supper and the “Pauline” type of supper. [Oscar Cullmann, I believe, effectively countered this absolute distinction in his Essays on the Lord’s Supper, but that is for another time.]

But Justin’s denial of “always” for (2)  is rooted in further details. First, the absence of wine in the phrase “breaking bread” indicates that it was not probably part of the practice of these meals due to its expense [but it was part of the Passover where Jesus broke bread]. Thus, the daily breaking of bread is probably not the Lord’s Supper which needs wine. Second, if “breaking bread” was the technical term for the Lord’s Supper, “why did thanksgiving (eucharistia) become the primary technical term for the Supper in the early second century?” (p. 422). [Primary, yes, but certainly not the only technical phrase used to describe it and “breaking bread” was one that was used.] Third, why would starving sailors “celebrate the Lord’s Supper” when they had not eaten for fourteen days in Acts 27:33-38? [Perhaps because it was a meal.]

Concerning the “breaking of bread as Both Common Meal and the Lord’s Supper” (3), sometimes breaking bread is the Lord’s Supper and sometimes it is a common meal; only context can determine. Here Justin describes his own perspective by looking at each text in Acts. Acts 2:42 is “ambiguous, and any reference to the Lord’s Supper must be imposed on it” (p. 422) since the definitive description “the bread” is not determinative as illustrated by the article in Luke 24:35 also. [This is an important point often overlooked by those who wish to make the article in 2:42 the critical point, and many of those advocates would ignore the article in Acts 20:11 as well and think it a common meal rather than the Lord’s Supper.]  Acts 2:46 is “also ambiguous” since “food” does not necessarily entail a meal (e.g., Justin Martyr refers to the Eucharistic bread as “food”). So, both Acts 2 texts are ambiguous and do “not leave us with enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion” (p. 423). [I find this a courageous conclusion in a FHU lectureship book, and I admire Justin’s willingess to go where the evidence leads him.]

Acts 20:7, however, is often regarded as the Lord’s Supper “because the text specifically mentions the ‘first day of the week'” but we also know early Christians ate the Agape meal on Sundays too (p. 423). Even the custom of gathering on the first day of the week to eat a meal was an established custom for a common meal, according to Justin, as seen in Luke 24:41-43; John 20:19, 26. So, perhaps the church at Troas come together to simply “eat a common meal with their beloved Paul” (p. 424). Justin, however, does think Acts 20:7 is the Lord’s Supper eaten on Sunday but a “firm conclusion is questionable” (p. 425). [Again, an amazingly courageous and honest statement.]

So, his conclusion is that breaking bread is not always the Lord’s Supper and was not a “technical term for the Supper” (contra my book). The prhase sometimes describes the Lord’s Supper and sometimes a meal, but never both at the same time. “Ultimately,” he writes, “to achieve clarity, we must sumon the voices of the early second century fathers, who observed the Lord’s Supper on Sunday, and referrred to the meal as the Eucharist” (p. 425).

Consequently, it is most likely that Acts 20:7, 11 refer to the Lord’s Supper but “to prove from the Bible alone that this is the case is difficult. Any Eucharsitic reading of the phrase ‘breaking bread’ must be considered theoretical” (p. 425, emphases mine). History must decide. “The uniform practice of celebrating the Supper on Sunday alone was likely a tradition with the direct stamp of apostolic approval. It is thus entirely consistent with our evidence to conclude that at least Acts 20:7, 11 is an example of the Lord’s Supper being described as ‘the breaking of bread'” (p. 426).

In appreciation, I do honor Justin’s attention to the sources–both historical and biblical. It is evident that he has read significantly in the literature. His open investigation is welcome and he is not boxed in by traditional interpretation (as his reading of Acts 2:42 and 2:46 illustrate). So, I truly appreciate the article.

However, I do think it flawed. I will offer details in coming posts (I don’t know how many at this time). But permit me to introduce some broad perspectives at this point.

1. At one level, I do not think he sufficiently accounts for the narratival context of Luke’s language. Reading Luke as a narrative whole with a plot thread about “breaking bread” is more holistic and contextual than the atmoistic dissection of specific texts. (I will say more about this in my next post).
2. At another level, his reliance on the second century (with an astounding statement–though it may be true–that the “Bible alone” is not sufficient to establish with certainty a Sunday only practice of the Lord’s Supper) is flawed, that is, the second century was not “Sunday alone” and the early second century was meal-based. (But more on that later).
3. At another level, his basic assumption seems to be–ruled out presuppositionally it appears to me, but I may be wrong–that “breaking of bread” could never refer to the Lord’s Supper as a meal with bread, wine and food because the Lord’s Supper is only bread and wine. This presupposition seems to lurk underneath his argument about the meaning of specific texts (e.g., the comment about Acts 27 assumes that breaking bread could not be the Lord’s Supper because they were hungry and needed a meal).

Nevertheless, I welcome the dialogue and I appreciate his work. It is thorough in many ways–as much as space would permit in a crowded lectureship book–and it surveys some of the ground quite nicely. It deserves engagement which I am happy to do in a few posts to come.

Thanks for your work, brother Rogers. It is a welcome addition to the discussion.

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship,

to the breaking of bread and to prayer (Acts 2:42, NASV)

Borrowing from Brother Lawrence, I have been using the language of “practicing the kingdom of God” in recent years. I don’t mean that as an alternative to or a substitute for Brother Lawrence’s “practicing the presence of God,” but as a specific way of talking about a communal discipleship which is a mode of living in the world for the sake of the world. I might even think of it as a subcategory of practicing the presence of God or as an expansion of the idea itself. I am open to thinking about it either way or both, or perhaps another relation. Whatever….

Acts 2:42, I believe, is one way of describing what it means to practice the kingdom of God as a community. Indeed, the story of the church in Acts describes how the disciples, at least in part, practiced the kingdom of God. Acts 2:42 is a summary which contains elements which are a consistent part of the story throughout Luke’s narrative. The disciples were constantly devoted to their practice–communal habits which embodied the kingdom of God in the world.

Kingdom language is present throughout Acts–from beginning (Acts 1:3) to end (Acts 28:31). Philip preached the good news of the kingdom (Acts 8:12) and Paul continually proclaimed the kingdom of God (Acts 20:25) in his ministry. Just as Jesus in Luke (4:41-43), so the church in Acts, they proclaimed the good news of the kingdom in word (teaching, prayer, praise, etc.) and deed(table, ministry, miracle, etc.).

Actually, each element in Acts 2:42 reaches back into the Gospel of Luke and projects foward into the rest of Acts.  Acts 2:42 becomes a practical “hinge” between Luke’s two narratives. Just as the church continued to teach and do what Jesus did concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:1), each of the particulars in Acts 2:42 were part of his ministry–teaching, community (fellowship), breaking bread and prayer. The church continues what Jesus began.

Luke’s summary assumes that readers have a way of identifying the meaning of the particulars–they are known not only by the rest of Acts, but also through the previous narrative in Luke as well as the present experience of the community to which he is writing.  What the apostles taught is found both in the teaching of Jesus himself and in the preaching of the apostles in Acts. The nature of the “fellowship”  in this context is shared resources (property, money and food), and this continues throughout the rest of the narrative as well as in the minstry of Jesus.  “Breaking bread” occurs three other times in Acts (2:46; 20:7,11; and 27:35) and always involves a meal (“food”)–indeed, every occurence of “breaking bread” in Luke also involved a meal (9:13; 22:19; 24:30). Breaking bread is a meal (perhaps more on that in another post or two). The prayers were a common feature of Jesus’ ministry as well as the Lukan church in Acts.

Theologically, James A. Harding called these practices  “means of grace.” I think there is merit in that description which reminds us that to practice the kingdom of God is to open our lives to the inbreaking of God’s kingdom as he acts through appointed means. God comes through the teaching of his church; he comes through the fellowship of his people; he comes through the breaking of bread; and he comes through the prayers.  Consequently, these are not merely obedient acts on the part of God’s people as it they are simple prescriptions (laws) in the kingdom of God, but they are modes of divine action. They are the means through which God comes to his people in order to transform and by which his kingdom breaks into the world.

Exegetically, I would suggest that (1) teaching and (2) fellowship are broad categories.  Fellowship, then, is illustrated or partly itemized by (a) breaking bread and (b) prayer. Technically, note that there is no “and” (kai) between “fellowship” and “breaking bread” in the text. The absence of the conjunction probably indicates that breaking bread and prayer are subcategories of “fellowship.” Otherwise we would have a successive “(1) and (2) and (3) and (4)” rather than the “(1) and (2), (a) and (b).” 

If this is the case, then fellowship–as a broad idea–includes not only eating together at meals and prayers, but also sharing material resources with each other.  Fellowship broadly conceived–meals, prayers, sharing resources–is teased out in 2:43-47.  There are both lexical and thematic connections between Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:43-47. Their koinonia (fellowship) is experienced through having everything in koina (common), by breaking bread in their homes, and by praising God at both temple and home.

Luke’s description in Acts 2:42 is not primarily about assembly (though it applies to it), but about a discipled lifestyle. It is a communal way of living in the world by which God himself is present and dynamically transforming his people into the fullness of his kingdom. The people of God learn of him and live in community with each other which includes sharing their resources with the poor, sharing their food together and praying together.

Understood in this way, Acts 2:42 is a summary of communal spiritual formation, a mode of communal sanctification. These are the communal habits by which the people of God are formed and shaped into the image of Jesus–to be like the Jesus who ministered in the Gospel of Luke, that is, to be the body of Christ in the world. Through these communal habits they embody the life, ministry and mission of Jesus as Luke pictured him in his Gospel.

Enlisting Other Apprentices

After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth. And he said to him, “Follow me.” And leaving everything, he rose and followed him. Luke 5:27-28

And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” Luke 9:23

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple…So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:25-27, 33

And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” Mark 1:17

He also told them this parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.” Luke 6:40

Jesus, God’s apprentice in human life, apprenticed others. He mentored Peter, James, John and other disciples. As he followed God by imitating and imaging God in a truly human life, so Jesus called others to follow him.

“Follow me,” Jesus says. To follow him is to deny ourselves. To deny ourselves is to take up our cross and die to ourselves. To die to ourselves is to open ourselves to becoming like Jesus who is our life, our mentor for a new life. To become like Jesus is to give ourselves to others through mentoring others in this new life.

Our life in Jesus means imitating Jesus by entering into his life. We follow Jesus into the water and are baptized. We follow Jesus into the wilderness and seek solitude with God. We follow Jesus into intimacy with others and seek out friends with whom we can reveal our true selves. We follow Jesus by taking up his mission in the world. We follow Jesus by apprenticing others just as he apprenticed his own disciples.

The mission of Jesus depends on apprenticing others, mentoring others in the faith. We do not become disciples of Jesus in solitude or alone. We become disciples through community and apprenticeship. Others took us under their wing. They taught us, modeled life for us, invited us to walk with them and mentored us. The faith is embraced by others through disciples become like Jesus and apprenticing others in the Way.

“Fully trained” means fully equipped or qualified. When disciples complete their training, they are models of their teacher. When one completes an apprenticeship, they pursue their assigned tasks fully equipped to become like their teacher. They are equipped to be mentors as well. They tutor others whom they apprentice in the life of faith.

The call to discipleship—the invitation to participate in the life of God through Jesus—involves discipling others. Following Jesus entails inviting others to follow him as well.

Apprentices become practitioners, and practitioners become mentors.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Who has mentored you in the faith? Who was your first mentor? What qualities did they have? Who is your mentor now?
2. What does it mean to be “fully trained” in order to be like Jesus as a mentor?’
3. Whom do you mentor now? Do you feel qualified to mentor? Why or why not? If not, what do you lack to be a mentor?
4. How can the church encourage mentorship? How can it equip others for mentoring and encourage apprentices?

Yes, it is true. I wrote articles for Contending for the Faith, edited by Ira Y. Rice, Jr., in the late 1970s.

Ira Y. Rice, Jr. was a good friend of my father Mark N. Hicks.

Ira would stay in our home, it seemed, at least once a year. He would either hold a meeting or at least speak on a Sunday evening or Wednesday evening when he visited. Sometimes he was raising money for Far East missions as he encouraged missions and evangelism, and at other times he was warning the church about the inroads of liberalism within the brotherhood. I rememberd him fondly because he would always leave a dollar in my shoes when he visited.

Ira published my first book A Teenager Speaks on Spiritual Gifts (1977). That is a story I will tell on another occasion perhaps but here I will only say that on one of his visits my father showed him the manuscript. I had written it for my Bible study group at the High School when I was 14-15. Ira asked if he could publish it–and what was a sixteen year old to say? Well, yes, of course!  🙂

My relationship continued with Ira in the late 1970s. I invited him to hold a meeting with the NE Philadelphia Church of Christ (Philadelphia, PA) in Fall of 1978 (I think that was the date). We spent quite a bit of time together those few days, and I remember he warned me about attending Westminster Theological Seminary. I attended Westminster from 1977-1979 when I was 20-21 years old.

As I think back my camaraderie with Rice was a mixture of naivete, influence-seeking, and shared convictions at many levels. I was naive about the politics of the church. I sought a measure of influence and power within the “brotherhood”–and Rice was a clear power broker as well as a family friend. And I did share some basic theological viewpoints with him. The two articles below certainly make that clear.

Ultimately as my perspectives changed–though they changed rather slowly–we parted ways. When I began teaching at Harding University Graduate School of Religion in 1991, our fellowship was fully broken as he regarded the Graduate School as a troubler in Israel. One would only need to scan issues of Contending for the Faith to see his animosity toward the institution because he believed it was a threat to the church as he understood it.

Ira was passionate. He promoted missions in many local churches across the country. He advocated the desegregation of our educational institutions when it was anathema to many, rebuked Foy E. Wallace, Jr.’s racism (Rice was the young preacher who slept in the same bed with R. N. Hogan), and he wanted concrete congregational unity between white and black churches. In terms of racial progress, he was one of the few on the progressive edge. This is one of the dimensions that he admired about where my father preached for years in Alexandria, Virginia–it was a congregation of Koreans, African-Americans, Hispanics and Anglo-Saxons.

Ira certainly had his faults and sins as we all do. I cannot nor will I judge the man but neither will I sanction all that he did or said.  I may disagree with him theologically and with some of his strategies, but I can still appreciate the righteousness of some of his causes.

The two articles below indicate that at one time, however, I shared some of his most cherished convictions:  (1) the authority of elders and (2) the sanctification of the believer by the Spirit through the word alone.

“The Lordship of Elders,” Contending for the Faith 10.3 (March 1979) 9-10.

I originally submitted this piece to the Firm Foundation as a response to an editorial by Reuel Lemmons but he declined to publish it because there had been too many articles on the subject at the time. So, Ira published it. The article is negative in tone and intends to demonstrate that 1 Peter 5:1-3 does not undermine the idea that elders have “positional” (official) authority, that is, they have ultimate authority to make decisions about expedients for a congregation. The stress on “positional authority” is an idea that lingers from my book on women’s role in 1978 where it is argued that men have “positional authority” over women (I’m inwardly cringing as I type). Nevertheless, there are still some good exegetical points in the piece–“lording it over” is a form of tyranny.  Unfortunately, I did not have the wisdom or experience to see that tyranny is often expressed under the guise of “positional authority” over expedients.

“The Doctrine of Sanctification,” Contending for the Faith 9.11 (November 1978) 1, 3-6.

This is an unusally lengthy piece for Contending for the Faith. It was partly the result of a research paper at Westminster Theological Seminary but I turned it toward specific issues among Churches of Christ. After surveying Calvinists, Wesleyan and Pentecostal versions of sanctification, I offer my own “biblical” version. My understanding of sanctification, however, only involves the mediate work of the Holy Spirit through the word.  I deny the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, deny the “enabling” work of the Spirit in the life of the believer, and deny any direct work of the Spirit on the heart of the believer. Rather, since sanctification is through the word, the indwelling of the Spirit is also through the word.

As I read it again, I was struck with how much my “logic” jumps from one thought to another, from one text to another.  I draw conclusions from and string texts together in ways that are quite troubling to me now.  My hermeneutical models and practices were still quite emeshed in traditional proof-texting.

Also, I now recognize that my analysis of Wesleyanism in particular was quite superficial and at times just plain wrong (e.g., indwelling Spirit only comes through second work of grace in perfectionism….NOT!).  What I did have right, I think, is how the Pentecostal Holiness movement substituted the experience of Holy Spirit Baptism for Wesley’s Holy Spirit experience that enabled his version of Christian perfection.  While some of the historical details are correct, the conclusions I draw and the projections I place upon Calvinists, Wesleyans and Pentecostals are prejudiced by my objective in the piece.

There is more to come from the 1970s. I just have to find the time to digitize them.  And I know all my friends are waiting impatiently for them.  🙂