Acts 20: 7-11

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by wopik, Feb 5, 2005.

  1. wopik

    wopik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
    It appears that Acts 20:7-11 is more of a one-of-a-kind extraordinary occasion than a habitual custom.

    This gathering seems to be brought on by the impending departure of Paul -- to bid farewell to Paul.

    No direct indications are given of any communal participation: "And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while....and so departed (v 11). The verbs are all in the singular.

    It appears that it is primarily Paul, the guest of honor, who talks, breaks bread, eats, and talks again until departure, while the believers, perhaps too many to be cared for, look on, satisfied to be nourished spiritually.

    Paul alone broke bread and ate. Undoubtedly, Paul was hungry after his prolonged speech and needed some food before he could continue his exhortation and start his journey.

    "The impending departure of the apostle, may have united the little Church in a brotherly parting-meal, on the occasion of which the apostle delivered his last address, although there was no particular celebration of a Sunday in the case."49

    Paul and his friends could not, as good Jews, start out on a journey on the Sabbath; they did so as soon after it as was possible, v.11, at dawn on the 'first day' - the Sabbath having ended at sunset.


    Luke mentions the day of the meeting, not because it was Sunday, but (1) because Paul was "ready to depart" (20:7), (2) because of the extraordinary experience and miracle of Eutychus (20:9-10), (3) because it provides an additional significant chronological reference to describe the unfolding of Paul's journey.


    49 Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church, 1831, I, p. 337.

    other Reference: Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday
     
  2. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,869
    Likes Received:
    3
    Let me first empohasise - in order to avoid irrelevant cavelling - I don't accept the usual use of this Scripture to 'prove' Sunday observance by the early Church. I believe it on the contrary indicate the early church kept the Sabbath. And that's where I must differ with you on a few nuances of meaning.

    Quote: "It appears that Acts 20:7-11 is more of a one-of-a-kind extraordinary occasion than a habitual custom."

    Yes, and, no.
    The "having-been-together-still-while-evening-of-the-First-Day"-aspect, when "Paul addressed them", in fact was "a one-of-a-kind extraordinary occasion", for all the reasons you mention.
    But the IMPLIED ACTUAL ACT 'to gather together for to observe the Lord's Supper', was more of "a habitual custom".
    Now if the disciples were STILL together while evening, they obviously HAD TO HAVE GATHERED while it was before evening, and that was on the Sabbath Day, the Day before the First Day of the week began with sunset and the thereafter dusk of evening.
    As Bob always say, obvious, clear, and so on.

    You may read many more sides of the matter from www.biblestudents.co.za.

    This gathering seems to be brought on by the impending departure of Paul -- to bid farewell to Paul.
    "
     
  3. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,869
    Likes Received:
    3
    Quoting Bacchiocchi from your post, ""The impending departure of the apostle, may have united the little Church in a brotherly parting-meal, on the occasion of which the apostle delivered his last address, although there was no particular celebration of a Sunday in the case."

    "The impending departure of the apostle, may have united the little Church ..."
    No, what united the Church - what caused it to gather together in worship - was not "the impending departure of the apostle", but "to Break Bread" - which in this instance is the Infinitive of Noun-Force signifying the Lord's Supper. Luke expressly states that the reason Paul "dealt with business with them" till midnight, was his departure the next morning.
    There is no hint at Paul preaching to anyone.
     
  4. wopik

    wopik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello, Gerhard Ebersoehn -- thanks for your comments.

    Undoubtedly, Paul was hungry after his prolonged speech and needed some food before he could continue his speaking and start his journey.

    However, if Paul partook of the Lord's Supper together with a regular meal, he would have acted contrary to his recent instruction to the Corinthians to whom he strongly recommended satisfying their hunger by eating at home before gathering to celebrate the Lord's Supper (1Cor. 11:2, 22, 34).

    The conjecture that at Troas Paul reversed the usual order (i.e. meal followed by Lord's Supper) by partaking of the Lord's supper before the fellowship meal, in order to correct the prevailing disorders (1Cor. 11:18-22), rests on a slim foundation.

    First, because the Apostle clearly admonishes to satisfy hunger at home and not during the Lord's Supper celebration (1Cor. 11:27,34).

    Secondly, because the two verbs "had broken bread and eaten" (v.11) are not necessarily describing two distinct rites, but rather the same one. Bearing in mind that there is no mention of eating before midnight, the breaking of bread appears to be the customary preparation for eating together.

    Reference: Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 109-110.
     
  5. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,869
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have absolutely no objection except to bring under your attention Paul's eating after his long discussions was something totally different from the "breaking bread" that co-incided with the disciple's implied actual gathering together "FOR TO break bread" - the Infinitive of Noun force. But there are other contextual factors involved that indicate the actual coming together was in fact for the Lord's Supper. I cannot now explain them - see http://www.biblestudents.co.za.
    My main argument though against the Sundaydarians' use of this text is the implications the Perfect Participle has. See other threads on BaptistBoard.
    Good night! (From SA 1/4 to 12)
     

Share This Page

Loading...