Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: July 15, 2007
“EATING IN THE CHURCH BUILDING”
A Review of a Study on Fellowship (Part 2)
Ben Justice
After the apostle Paul sailed away from Philippi, he came unto the city of Troas.
He abode in Troas for seven days (Acts 20:6). Paul’s visit to Troas is recorded in
Acts 20:7-12.
Verse 7 states, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together
to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued
his speech until midnight.” Practically all scholars believe that the phrase “break
bread” is a reference to partaking the Lord’s Supper. It bears the same language
as in Acts 2:42. What was the purpose of the disciples coming together? The
text explicitly states, “to break bread.” Jackson points out that the expression
“to break” is an infinitive of purpose (Arndt, 790) (Wayne Jackson, “The Acts of
the Apostles — From Jerusalem to Rome,” Pg. 263). In other words, this was
their purpose of coming together upon the first day of the week. Some advocate
that the Lord’s Supper may be eaten on any day. We would then ask two
questions: (1) Where is the authority? and (2) Why did Paul wait seven days to do
it?
Instead of the first day of the week (as the KJV has and the majority of
translations), the New English Bible has “on the Saturday night.” The question
is, “Did Luke use Jewish or Roman time?” The Jews counted from sunset to
sunset. The Romans, however, counted from midnight to midnight (as we do
today). Luke is not using Jewish time, but Roman time. The context makes this
clear. How could the “break of day,” when Paul departed in v. 11 be “on the
morrow” (v. 7) if Jewish time is being used?
Also, “Paul preached unto them . . . until midnight” (v. 7). Then, in v. 8-12, we
have the case of Eutychus. Verses 8-9 reveal some information about the place
they worshipped in: “And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they
were gathered together.” Thus, they engaged in their worship together in the
“upper chamber.” As v. 9 reveals, the upper room would have been the third
floor. This evidently, was their regular meeting place.
Verse 11 states, “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread,
and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” “He”
refers to Paul. Paul had “come up again,” that is, back up to the third floor.
What did Paul do? He “had broken bread, and eaten.” The question of
contention among scholars is whether or not this refers to the Lord’s Supper or a
common meal? Even though there are some scholars who believe this is still
referring to the Lord’s Supper, the weight of evidence is against this view. Note
the following arguments:
1.) The term “eaten” comes from a word meaning “tasted.” It is found 15 times
in the NT, and it is never used in connection with eating the Lord’s Supper. In I
Cor. 11:24-29, the word that is used is not the same word. It is esthio. Vine
stated,
As to whether Acts 20:11 refers to the Lord’s Supper or to an ordinary meal, the addition of the
words “and eaten” is perhaps a sufficient indication that the latter is referred to here, whereas in
v. 7, where the single phrase, “to break bread” is used, refers to the Lord’s Supper (W.E. Vine,
“Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words,” Pg. 192-193).
2.) A parallel instance is found in Acts 2:42, 46. Acts 2:42, “And they continued
steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in
prayers.” The phrase “breaking of bread” is literally in the Greek “the breaking of
the bread.” In Acts 2:46, we read, “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the
temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and
singleness of heart.” Here again, we have the same exact phrase “breaking
bread.” But, it is qualified — “from house to house, did eat their meat with
gladness and singleness of heart.” This refers to a common meal — the context
and language demands it. But yet, we see the same phraseology in Acts 20:11.
The phrase can refer either to partaking the Lord’s Supper or a common meal.
The context must always determine which one is under consideration.
3.) Note as well that Paul finished his discourse. He did this until midnight.
However, he broke bread and tasted afterwards. Therefore, if this does refer to
the Lord’s Supper, then he partook of it on Monday morning and not upon the
first day of the week as Acts 20:7 tells us. Therefore, the disciples did not do
what they assembled to do.
The word “talked” in v. 11 is not preaching, as in v. 7. The word for “talked” is
homileo. Vine says, “to be in company with, consort with.” In reference to Acts
20:11, he says “to converse with” (Ibid., Pg. 618). A.T. Robertson said “that this
was probably more informal (as in 10:27) and conversational . . . than the
discourse before midnight” (A.T. Robertson, “Word Studies in the NT — Acts,”
Pg. 343). This causal conversation is connected with their eating and indicates
that a common meal is under consideration.
Since the phrase “had broken bread, and eaten” refers to a common meal, it
therefore follows that Paul ate this common meal in the very same place he had
earlier worshipped and partaken of the Lord’s Supper. Some argue that only Paul
is said to have eaten this meal and is not justification for the entire church to
do so. Even though “he” in v. 11 refers to Paul, it doesn’t necessarily follow that
he is the only one who ate. The text makes it clear that others were present
with him. Paul “talked a long while, even till break of day.” Did Paul talk to
himself? The implication is that others were with him. Are we to believe that no
one else enjoyed this meal also? Are we to believe that it would have been
sinful for the others to take a single bite but not Paul? How could one argue
that it would have been right for Paul and not right for anyone else? If it’s right
for one, then it is right for all. The logic of some leaves a lot to be desired. Here
we have an example of where a member of the church ate in the same building
that they worshipped God in.
When Paul said in I Cor. 11:22, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? . .
.” he can’t mean that it is sinful to eat a meal in the church building. If this is
what he meant, then he contradicted his own actions in Acts 20:11. We,
therefore, have to look for another interpretation. Paul was not addressing
eating a common meal in the church building but to abusing the Lord’s Supper in
the worship assembly. Those who advocate that Paul was speaking of eating a
common meal in the church assembly are guilty of reading something into the
text that is not there. Lord willing next week, we shall exegete the context of
this verse.