LORD'S SUPPER AND ITS RELATION TO Acts 20:7 (1)

David Ferguson (DF) and Ron Thomas (RT)

Due to our discussion of traditons in the church from yesterday's preachers'/elders' meeting, I thought I would share with you some thoughts on Acts 20 and the Lord's Supper I put together some time ago. I am not so much seeking to change anyone's mind about this, but rather to clarify better what I briefly stated yesterday as to why I tend to believe the Sunday only partaking of the Lord's Supper is a tradition of ours, rather than a command or even an apostolic example we must follow explicitly or sin.

I appreciate very much all of you brothers in Christ, and the ability we have to share our thoughts with one another in a brotherly fashion.

Thought on Acts 20:7-11

Prologue: I have only partaken of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week because that is what the congregations I have attended have done. I do not wish to be a disruptive man, so I do not force my beliefs on others. I present them here for consideration. But it is not my purpose to present them in a manner that causes a division, for that is worse. If I have failed in accomplishing this goal I apologize. Additionally I, for one, do not believe that we should isolate members who could not attend in the morning and have them partake of the Lord's Supper separately from other believers during the evening assembly. If one is looking for examples to follow and bind this is certainly nowhere to be found in God’s holy word. I believe we should ALL partake of the Supper together whenever it is offered.

Where is the proof from Scripture that by example and inference the disciples partook of the Lord's Supper every Sunday only, and that they did not partake of it on any other day of the week when they were assembled? By the way, I am not doubting that they partook of it every Sunday. I just have my doubts that they ever taught anyone that it was a sin to take it any other day of the week, which is what many in the church are doing right this very day. As far as I know there are only two days of examples we have, and that is when the Supper was first "instituted" by Jesus, and that was either a Wednesday or a Thursday, depending on one's views as to what day Jesus was crucified. The second time we have a day referenced is in Acts 20:7-11, and that cannot be proved undeniably to refer to the Lord's Supper on either occasion within those verses. So does it not seem a bit extreme for us to make a law that condemns others who may not agree with our interpretation of the events of these 5 verses, especially in light of the fact that we are commanded to partake of these emblems for the purpose of remembering the Lord and His death and sacrifice until He comes?

7. And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.

8. And there were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered together.

9. And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, borne down with deep sleep; and as Paul discoursed yet longer, being borne down by his sleep he fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead.

10. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, “Make no ado; for his life is in him.”

11. And when he was gone up, and had broken the bread, and eaten, and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

--Acts 20:7-11 (ASV)

Is there a command in the above 5 verses that specifies that Sunday is the ONLY day to partake of the Lord’s Supper, or is this just a historical narrative whose focus is upon the miracle that occurred when Paul raised Eutychus from the dead? I believe the focus is on the miracle. Everything else is secondary. There is no command given in these 5 verses that specifies what day of the week we are required to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

************************

In offering these thoughts, David, I do not mind that you press me, and that you press me hard. All that I would ask is that as I have been toward you in tone, you would do the same toward me. As I put forth these words to you, this is a study, discussion, and less a debate. I am interested in pursuing these points with all reasoning and critical examination. If you feel comfortable bringing in outside critical references, I encourage you to do so. With that said, here are some of my thoughts relative to what you have said.

RT In relation to what you have mentioned to this point, let me offer some thoughts. I recognize the substance of your concern about those who make a law out of something that might have surrounding it some doubt; without an expressed declaration by God, why is it that some want to make a law? Nevertheless, with a point fairly disputed, I will offer some options: 1) We can follow the example of the disciples in this activity as they did in the first century and KNOW that we are right by doing what they did. 2) We can choose to not follow that example and have no certainty concerning the propriety of the time in which we ought to do this. When option 2 is pursued, it seems to me, the best we can offer is I THINK.

Perhaps a good question to ask is, “Do we have an example of the disciples participating in the Lord's Supper on another day of the weak?” With respect to Acts 20:7, is it with “undeniable proof” that they participated in the Lord's Supper? I am not sure what criteria is demanded for the “undeniable” to be established, but here are a few ideas. Is it reasonable that the disciples came together on day seven (the first day of the week) to eat a common meal? One could interpret it that way, I suppose. If so, then we have a common meal in a religious/worship context. The following critical works suggest the Lord's Supper is in view: EGT, Rogers, Bruce, Jackson, McGarvey, Roper, Reese, A.T. Robertson, Taylor, Barnes, Gill, Bock (though he is somewhat vague), and the only negative I read is Peterson. Exegetes do not make for undeniable proof, but they do lend themselves in their critical examination to probability.

What is the primary point the paragraph? You think it is the miraculous event that occurred, but I will argue that within the context of Paul heading toward Jerusalem, the emphasis in C-20 is on the whole of his traveling from one location to another toward that destination. The particulars of the events at a given location is the Holy Spirit’s recording for our benefit without Him emphasizing one point above another, unless it is clear in the context. If it is argued that he is indeed trying to emphasize one point above another, I will put forth that the point of these six verses (20:7-12), is the gathering together of the saints in general, not verse 9 and 10. If you disagree, which I understand you to do, then I ask, why should we accept verse 7 in contrast to verses 9-10, or for that matter, why should we accept verses 9-10 in contrast to verse 7? If I were to emphasize a point in the paragraph, it would be the worship of the disciples in Troas.

Should we condemn? I have noticed the many that do that, but I do not. However, though I do not, I operate on the basis of my remarks I offered in my second paragraph. My approach is to teach the New Testament and let the Lord determine the matters where some may doubt. Does that seem wishy-washy? Perhaps, but that is my approach. However, those who presume when the Lord has not revealed, it seems to me, are on very dangerous ground.

******************

Here are the commands involving the Lord’s Supper:

“’This is My body, Which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me.’ In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’” (1 Corinthians 11:24)

“And He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave to them, saying, ‘This is My body Which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me.’ And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood, even that which is poured out for you.’” (Luke 22:19-20 [see also Matthew 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25])

The more I read this passage in Acts 20:7-11, the more amazed I become at how we as a group seem to miss the point that is being made in favor of finding a legalistic law being established. The point of these 5 verses has nothing to do with establishing a law demanding that the Lord's Supper is to be taken on Sunday, and Sunday only. To claim that is what is being taught here is just as bad as the Calvinists who insert the word only and claim that we are saved by faith only. We are never told we are saved by faith only anywhere in the New Testament, just as we are never told anywhere that we are to partake of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week only. Why, it cannot even be determined from the passage itself that the Lord's Supper was being observed at all. One has to read that into the passage to make that determination. The words for break bread in verse 7 are the same exact Greek words used in verse 11 translated above as broken bread and eaten. The translator has put his own bias into the interpretation to make it read thusly.

*****************************

RT: David, you speak authoritatively in these remarks. Is there a command in the New Testament to eat of the Lord's Supper? The fact that you have shown us the verses relative to a command, we know that there is. If there is a command, there is also a need to obey that command by the subjects of the One who gave the command. How shall that command be obeyed? We have the phrase “as oft as ye eat this…” etc, thus a frequency is set forth in these words. When did the disciples of the first century do so? We have two accounts: 1) Acts 2:42 and 2) Acts 20:7. In the Greek of Acts 2:42 it reads, “…and in the breaking of the bread…” (kai tee klasei tou artou). How would you interpret this phrase? Is this a common meal? If so, how shall we understand 2:46 where it does not read the same? In 20:7, the Greek does not have the article like it does in 2:42, but since the phrase in 20:7 can be used, admittedly, in a context of the Lord's Supper or not, do you think the context of the verse demands a common meal, or do you think it suggests the Lord's Supper? If you have the works of A.T. Robertson, you know he says the following on 20:7, “First aorist active infinitive of purpose of klao. The language naturally bears the same meaning as in Acts 2:42, the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper which usually followed the Agape” (E-Sword). Since the two accounts are set forth for us, are they good examples?

Your concern about the word “only” is appropriate (in my view), but it seems to me that one can make a case for the Lord's Supper on the first day, and only on the first day, better than one can make a case for participation in the Lord's Supper on other days of the week. This you dismiss on account of a phrase, but if the apostles understood the same phrase and acted according the phrase of Acts 2 and 20, then this is something for our consideration.

**********************

The Simple Version of the New Testament, translated by a member of the church, I believe, is even more blatant in his bias in interpreting these verses than the ESV. Here is how he translates these verses:

7. On Sunday, we all met together to eat the supper of the Lord. Paul was talking with the group. He was ready to leave the next day. Paul continued his speech until midnight.

8. There were many torches in the room where we were gathered. The room was upstairs.

9. There was a young man named Eutychus sitting in the window. As Paul talked on and on, Eutychus became sleepier and sleepier. Finally, Eutychus went to sleep and fell out of the window. He fell to the ground from the third floor. When they got to him, he was dead.

10. Paul went down to Eutychus. He kneeled down and hugged him. Paul said to the other believers, ``Don't worry. He is alive now.''

11. They brought the young man inside. He was alive, and they were very much comforted. Paul went upstairs again. After he broke off some of the bread and ate it, Paul spoke to them a long time. When he finished talking, it was early morning.

Once again, there is NOTHING in the passage itself that demands that the first breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper . . . nothing, that is, but one's own preconceived notions and traditional teaching. Why, it is even just as conceivable and just as believable and, in fact, I would daresay it is arguably MORE believable that the group had assembled in the evening for the purpose of sharing a common meal together (a “love feast”) in Paul's honor in order to see him off. (We even assume Paul was preaching here. But we do not know that for sure. He may have been, but then again, it is possible he was merely having a conversation with them. Since what he said is not recorded, then your guess is as good as mine, and the Greek word translated “talking” in verse 7 and 9 is just that: dialegomai, meaning to discuss, to dispute, to reason with, to speak, and sometimes, although not primarily, to preach. Which brings us back to the original point which is we really miss the boat on what the purpose behind these 5 verses being recorded was. And it was NOT to establish some law for partaking of the Lord's Supper on Sunday only. In verse 11 the word translated “talked” is the Greek word homileo, meaning to converse or to be in company with. It is also sometimes referred to as communing, so one can make an argument that communing would involve partaking of the Lord’s Supper.) The purpose and focus on these 5 verses is the great miracle the Apostle Paul performed by raising this young man, Eutychus, from the dead through the power of the Holy Spirit. Luke was demonstrating Paul's divine right to claim apostleship! As an eye-witness to this miracle, as well as many other events detailed by the apostle himself, Luke would have been able to give first-hand evidence to Paul’s claims that he was an apostle, a position he had to defend vehemently some 6 years earlier in chapter 11 when he composed his second (or fourth) letter to the Corinthians.

***************************

RT David, it appears to you that one can’t demand a law from the reading of the verses; very well, if that is so, then if the word “demand” is inadequate for the occasion (because some few expositors dispute it), would you suggest the word “possible” or “probable” fits better with the understanding of the verse? At the very least, I think you would allow for the word “possible”, but would you use the word “probable”? Is it truly just a matter of one’s “preconceived notions and traditional teachings” that brought them to their understanding of 20:7 being the Lord's Supper, or could it not be a respectful study of the Scripture? That sounds disrespectful to me. Since you think it is more conceivable to interpret this as a common meal, which I suggest is not reasonable, then perhaps we can pursue this further.

************************

Let us now examine Acts 2:42-47.

42. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.

43. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.

44. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45. and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need.

46. And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart,

47. praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved.

Where is the Sunday only teaching emanating from verse 42 of Acts 2, or from any verse in that chapter 2, for that matter? If anything should be "inferred" it is that the Lord's Supper was being taken daily from this verse. Day by day is specifically mentioned in both verses 46 and 47, not week by week. And we know what they did daily because the answer is given to us in verse 42 itself: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers." The "apostles' teaching" would include the Lord's Supper. So if anything is to be established here regarding the frequency of partaking of the Lord's Supper, it certainly is not Sunday only. It is in agreement (it harmonizes) with 1 Corinthians 11: "When therefore you assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper: for in your eating each one takes before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken." (1 Corinthians 11:20-21) The Scripture is silent here regarding Sunday only. It is NOT silent as to frequency, however, for Paul says, "When therefore you assemble yourselves together."

********************

RT The day of Pentecost was on (is) the first day of the week (Leviticus 23). Since this was the first day of the week and they continued in the apostle’s doctrine, inclusive of the Lord's Supper (as you mentioned), then here is an example that demonstrates a when. How does 2:46 apply to the first day of the week? Does it apply in a “daily” fashion? Some interpret it so. Is it possible, however, that the summarizing quality of 2:40-47 is not speaking of “first day of the week” activities, but rather of something else? If not, of what would it be speaking? I not only think it possible, but probable. The words of 2:43-45 are contained (illustrated) in chapters 3, 4, and 5. Not only that, but the way 2:46 starts, it is clearly a summary set forth. This is what we actually learn in those verses: there was a daily continued presence within the confines of the Temple, they ate from house to house, and they were praising God. Since you base your belief on what is known, this is what we know. Thus, the point cannot be made, and sustained from 2:42 (in total) that it also applies to the words of 2:46. That you would disagree with this, I am sure. Perhaps, we can pursue this also.

**********************

There is not agreement as to whether or not the breaking of bread is simply a common meal (most likely a “love feast”) or the Lord's Supper. I have my opinion, as undoubtedly others have theirs, but I will not teach that Sunday is the only day we can partake of the Lord's Supper based upon supposition, conjecture and personal opinion. The fact of the matter is we cannot say with 100% certainty that the Lord's Supper was taken in Acts 20. I believe it was, but that is only my belief. I have seen so many people throughout the years say things such as, "It would practically be impossible for this not to be the Lord's Supper," or "The odds are against it being a common meal," or "Virtually all scholars agree." Well, I for one will not demand that people follow a teaching based upon the "odds are against it" or "practically impossible" or "the scholars virtually agree" arguments, regardless of how many fancy words are used to arrive at those conclusions. I will base my teaching about the Lord's Supper upon what is known, and that is we are commanded to partake of the Lord's Supper, and as often as we do it to do so with the purpose of remembering the Lord's death and sacrifice until He comes.

I believe we have the authority to partake of the Lord’s Supper when we come together, and doing so does not go beyond what is written in the word of Yahweh. It is found in the words "' . . . as often as you drink it, do so in remembrance of Me.' For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till He come." Therefore, if a congregation chooses to partake on a Wednesday, and they are doing it for the sole purpose of remembering and proclaiming the Lord's death and sacrifice, then they are authorized to do so. To limit the partaking of the Lord's Supper to a Sunday only doctrine seems to me to be more in danger in going beyond what is written, for we are never told "Sunday only." We are told to do it, and when we do it, as often as we do it, to do so properly. I would also add that there are only three times in the New Testament and the Gospels that we are certain that the Lord’s Supper is being referenced specifically, and that is on the night it was first established by the Lord Jesus, which was on a Thursday or a Wednesday, once again depending on when one believes the Lord was crucified, in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, and in 1 Corinthians 11:20. It is important to note that on each of these occasions the cup is specifically mentioned as well, further substantiating that this is the memorial of the Lord being discussed. Every other time we think and believe the Lord’s Supper is being referenced we have the phrases break bread or breaking bread or broken the bread being used, and in each of these cases there is nothing even contextually that would limit this to being the Lord’s Supper, and not a common shared meal, or “love feast”, as it is called by Jude in Jude 12:

“These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;” (RSV)

It is only our tradition that has taught us to conclude that the Lord’s Supper is being stated in verse 7 of Acts 20, but NOT the Lord’s Supper in Acts 20:11.

**************************

RT I am not going to argue for a “Sunday only” from Acts 2 or 20, but I will have as much success at it (or more) than you will by applying the phrase, “as often as you…” to Wednesday. The disciples continued daily with one accord; does this mean they came together for the purpose of worship as a church in the same sort of way that they did in the context of Corinthians 11? Paul said that as they came together as a church for the purpose of worship, that is, taking the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:18). Those who were continuing daily in the Temple, it says nothing about them gathering together as a church in the same way Paul expressed it in Corinthians. It might very well be the case that they continued their regular presence at the hour of prayer on Temple grounds. Paul also said something about gathering on the first day in 1 Corinthians 16, on the first day of each week (literally). So, the idea that this is mere conjecture, supposition, or personal opinion is quite uncharitable.

You said, “To limit the partaking of the Lord's Supper to a Sunday only doctrine seems to me to be more in danger in going beyond what is written, for we are never told ‘Sunday only.’”

1. True or False. We have an example in the New Testament where the disciples gathered on the first day of the week to take of the Lord's Supper. 2. True of False. We have an example in the New Testament where the disciples gathered on another day of the week to take of the Lord's Supper.

***********************

"'This cup is the new covenant in My blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.' For as often as you eat this bread, and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He come." (1 Corinthians 11:25-26) Some people claim the Bible is silent on the frequency of when the Lord’s Supper was taken, so the “approved apostolic example” we MUST follow is Acts 20. (And yet the upper room example is ignored, the speaking until midnight example is ignored, the falling out of the window to die example is ignored, and the staying together all night until the next day to break bread example is ignored as well, not to mention the greeting one another with a holy kiss and washing each others’ feet commands are discarded.) However, I must disagree with the conclusion that the Bible is silent on the frequency, for I believe it is NOTsilent. Paul makes it abundantly clear that the Lord’s Supper was taken “ . . . as often as you eat the bread, and drink the cup . . . when therefore you assemble yourselves together.” This is the command to follow! So however often we choose to come together as a body of immersed believers in Christ we should do so with the purpose to “ . . . proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26 [RSV]) This also harmonizes perfectly with Acts 20:7-11. They partook of the Lord's Supper when they came together, as Paul told the Corinthians and, as Luke tells us, it was on the first day of the week in the case of Troas. Complete harmony exists, and the focus of our gathering is where it is supposed to be: on Jesus Christ and His great sacrifice. It is not focused on whether or not we are keeping some legalistic check-off list and making sure we are not violating the proper day in which to remember the Lord's death and sacrifice for fear we are going to be smitten by the Lord if it is not on the right day as we have inferred, because that is all we have from Acts 20:7-11: an inference, and not even a necessary one at that. It is truly worshipping the Lord “in spirit and truth” (John 4:23). Lastly, limiting the Lord’s Supper to Sunday only falls into the trap of believing that Sunday is a “Sabbath Day,” a day of special significance, which is carried over from Catholicism. This appears to me to be in direct contradiction to what the Apostle Paul said to the Colossians regarding the keeping of days and ordinances after the precepts of me (as well as what Jesus had additionally to say):

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's. Let no man rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels, dwelling in the things which he hath seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast the Head, from Whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and bands, increasing with the increase of God. If you died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordinances, handle not, nor taste, nor touch (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men?” (Colossians 2:16-22)

**********************

RT Relative to the propriety of participating on the first day (or not), I have addressed it already. A note, however, on your dismissal of “approved apostolic example” in relation to the passage in Acts 20 is disappointing. You said that the mention of other “examples” in Acts 20 “is ignored.” You also said that two other commands are ignored, that being the holy kiss and the washing of feet. Let me address them individually.

1. The command associated with the Lord's Supper is that which concerns itself with apostolic example, nothing else of the items you mentioned are associated with commands. There is no command to be in an upper room, or any room for that matter. There is no command to preach until midnight, or even until dawn. There is a command to preach the word in season and out of season, but nothing associated with a time element. Your remark about falling out the window as a example strikes me as sarcasm (perhaps you have something else in view that I am missing). The point of this is not to detail what I think you miss, but to highlight that the command associated with the apostolic example is not to be summarily dismissed, like I have interpreted you to do in this sermon (study).

2. The holy kiss. Is there a command to do this? Yes, this is a command, as it is in each verse, starting with verse 6 (Romans 16:6). This exhortation of the holy kiss is mentioned a number of times in the New Testament, and in each case it is a verb in the imperative mood (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; and 1 Peter 5:14). David, is the emphasis on the “kiss,” on “holy,” or on both? Paul said that the men of Ephesus are to raise “holy hands” (1 Timothy 2:8), is the emphasis on “holy,” “hands,” or on both? 3. The washing of feet. When the Lord spoke to His apostles, He said to them that His example is to be emulated (John 13:15). On this passage, there is dispute in how best to understand, and then apply. This dispute has raged over the centuries. Admitting this, I have come to understand the point of the remark by the Lord to be a matter of humble service (this, of course, does not address the further discussion as to applicability of the context). David, is my understanding wrong? David, with respect to these last two, since you say they are commands, have you been obeying them? If you (or the local church) has not, has the local church set forth the reason (reasons) for not obeying these commands? If you have not been obeying, then you are in sin (by not obeying (ignorance) or refusing (rebellion)). Let me ask, is your worship to the Lord being received by Him? Getting back to the paragraph in the main, you said that the command is for the church to partake of the Lord's Supper each time it gathers together; “This is the command to follow! So however often we choose to come together as a body of immersed believers in Christ we should do so with the purpose to ‘ . . . proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.’” According to your opinion, you have sinned each time you have gathered together and have not partaken of the Lord's Supper. Is this true? The remarks on Colossians 2:16-22 have nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, and neither is it associated with what you consider is falling into a trap “of believing that Sunday is a ‘Sabbath day,’ a day of special significance.” There is no relation.

********************

Some people say, “Have you not observed that God did not tell Israel to observe the Sabbath ONLY on Saturday? Since He did not, do you think they had the authority to observe that Holy day on any and all the other days of the week according to their own choosing?"

This is an apples to oranges argument. God specifically said to remember the Sabbath. That specifically limited it to the seventh day of the week. The command we are given is to partake of the Lord's Supper in order to remember His death until He comes. Period. There is NO day mentioned whatsoever within that command. If the Lord or the apostles had commanded us to partake of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week then it would be limited to the first day of the week. But as we have seen it is "limited" to the extent of when they came together. And they never once commanded us to partake of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. And as for examples, why, when it was "instituted" it was done on a Thursday or even a Wednesday, depending on what day of the week one believes the Lord actually was crucified.

I will concede that a case can be made that the Lord’s Supper was eaten only on the first day of the week because Paul was noted to stay on a number of occasions seven days with the disciples he met (Acts 20:6; Acts 21:4; and Acts 28:14). However, this seems to be putting the cart before the horse and using fallacious logic to reach a pre-conceived conclusion, and it goes something like this: “Paul stayed a week with the disciples. We know the disciples took the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, the reason Paul stayed for a week was in order to partake of the Lord’s Supper on the one and only authorized day, Sunday.” But the fact is that we are NOT told why Paul stayed for seven days in any of these examples. All we have is supposition and tradition.

“And we sailed away from Phillipi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days, where we tarried seven days.” (Acts 20:6)

No reason is stated as an explanation for the stay. We can only guess.

“And having found the disciples, we tarried there seven days: and these said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not set foot in Jerusalem.” (Acts 21:4)

No reason is stated as an explanation for the stay. We can only guess, and I easily could make a case that the delay was caused by Paul having to wait for a ship to arrive for its scheduled departure:

“And when it came to pass that we had accomplished the days, we departed and went on our journey; and they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way till we were out of the city: and kneeling down on the beach, we prayed, and bade each other farewell; and we went on board the ship, but they returned home again.” (Acts 21:5-6)

“ . . . where we found brethren, and were entreated to tarry with them seven days: and so we came to Rome.” (Acts 28:14)

No reason is stated as an explanation for the stay. We can only guess. For one thing, I believe most people forget that Paul was a prisoner being carried away to Rome during this last “example” we are given that “proves” Sunday is the only authorized time to partake of the Lord’s Supper. However, it was not up to him how long he could stay in one town to the next. I easily could make a case that the delay in Acts 28:14 was caused by Paul and his companions and guards having to wait for good weather!

“And after three months we set sail in a ship of Alexandria which had wintered in the island, whose sign was The Twin Brothers. And touching at Syracuse, we tarried there three days. And from thence we made a circuit, and arrived at Rhegium: and after one day a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli;” (Acts 28:11-13)

We have another example of Paul waiting seven days, and that is in Acts 21:27:

“And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him,”

The number seven, to the Jewish mind, in particular, signified completion, as can be seen by the previous verse:

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them.” (Acts 21:26) So I could just as easily take this example and “prove” that every other example of Paul staying for seven days was for purification purposes or completion, and then claim to bind that on everyone else.

The point is that once we remove our preconceived ideas and conclusions based solely upon our customs and traditions and examine what actually is written one can see that there is no firm foundation for the “Sunday only” doctrine of partaking the Lord’s Supper. The purpose of the Supper, according to the command thatshould matter most of all, is to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).

Some questions that demand answering:

If the phrases break bread or breaking bread or broken the bread mean the Lord’s Supper, why is it we have absolutely no reference to the Lord’s Supper being stated as “When the disciples were gathered together to drink the cup” or “They were gathered together drinking the cup” or “When they had drunk the cup”? Is the bread more important than the cup?

Why is it when the Lord’s Supper is identified unmistakably BOTH the bread AND the cup are mentioned, and NO first day of the week or Sunday only comments are to be found in these examples if “Sunday only” was the only authorized time God wanted us to observe the Supper, this remembrance memorial to Jesus Christ?

So are we supposed to believe that we are committing sin by remembering the Lord's death and sacrifice on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday?

*************************

RT Some questions answered.

1. I am certain you have heard of the synecdoche. A word that is put forth to represent the whole. This is all that is done. Why was it that there were not other words chosen? No answer can be given, but the word (or words) that were chose are adequate to make the point. There are plenty of examples of this in the New Testament. Example 1, Romans 10:9-10. Example 2, Acts 8:11-12.2. Can’t answer the why of this second question (paragraph) you asked, but neither can you answer why “Wednesday” was not mentioned. Does the fact that the fourth day of the week is not mentioned in the New Testament have any standing with you? 3. Is there a committing of sin? Are any of the days mentioned in the New Testament where the disciples gathered together to partake of the Lord's Supper on the days you mentioned? If there is not, then it is nothing more than presumption.

****************************

LORD'S SUPPER AND ITS RELATION TO Acts 20:7 (2)

Here is my response to brother Thomas. I am attaching a Word document as well as pasting it within this email below. For the sake of easy access my new commetns are in blue. Brother Thomas wrote, “In relation to what you have mentioned to this point, let me offer some thoughts. I recognize the substance of your concern about those who make a law out of something that might have surrounding it some doubt; without an expressed declaration by God, why is it that some want to make a law? Nevertheless, with a point fairly disputed, I will offer some options: 1) We can follow the example of the disciples in this activity as they did in the first century and KNOW that we are right by doing what they did. 2) We can choose to not follow that example and have no certainty concerning the propriety of the time in which we ought to do this. When option 2 is pursued, it seems to me, the best we can offer is I THINK.” DF In response to your 2 options, the first point is the heart of this discussion: What example is the correct interpretation? You (and others) believe the Lord’s Supper is limited to being partaken only on the first day of the week. I believe it should be taken on the first day of the week, but I also believe that remembering the Lord’s death, which is the purpose of the Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26), is something the early disciples did each time they gathered or assembled together as a body of believers. Your point number 2 is “assuming things not in evidence,” to borrow a legal term, as I do not believe you have established as a certainty that the Lord’s Supper can ONLY be taken on the first day of the week. You are also assuming in point number 2, in my humble opinion, that a person who partakes of the Lord’s Supper on a Wednesday is doing so out of rebellion (choosing “to not follow that example”). But a person in all good conscience COULD be following what they believe is the right example: remembering the Lord’s death every time the saints are assembled. I believe that BOTH your points lead to the same conclusion: they are both I THINK propositions. Remember, the reason this all came up in the first place was due to a discussion revolving around traditions, and the traditions we used as examples at the meeting involved those emanating from denominations or a few from “fringe” groups in the brotherhood, such as “one-cuppers.” It is easy to laugh (even scoff) at the outlandish traditions everybody else holds, and believe we are somehow immune to them, but I believe this is just one example of where we have let tradition become law. I know the world perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ, but it really is quite simple. Hearing, believing, confessing, repenting, being immersed and living one’s life faithfully unto death are all demonstrably shown to be integral to God’s plan for redeeming lost mankind through and in His Son. In fact, even a young child is capable of seeing and understanding this. The point is, the same cannot be said regarding the “Sunday only” doctrine regarding the Lord’s Supper. A natural reading of Scripture does not lead one to make this an undeniable conclusion. It is a conclusion reached through one’s tradition, not from a simple reading of the text. Brother Thomas wrote, “Perhaps a good question to ask is, ‘Do we have an example of the disciples participating in the Lord's Supper on another day of the weak?’” DF Brother Ron, I believe we do. But that is just my belief. I turn to Acts 20:7-11 again as my proof. 7. And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.8. And there were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered together.9. And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, borne down with deep sleep; and as Paul discoursed yet longer, being borne down by his sleep he fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead.10. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, “Make no ado; for his life is in him.”11. And when he was gone up, and had broken the bread, and eaten, and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. Verse 11 tells me the disciples, including the Apostle Paul, partook of the Lord’s Supper on 2 different days, Sunday and Monday. In verses 7 and 11 the same exact Greek words for “to break bread” and “had broken the bread” are used, klao artos. However, there is a little bit difference that takes place in verse 11. Luke also adds the words, “and eaten.” The primary particle te is actually in the original Greek, and it literally means “and” or “in addition to.” In this case, it makes all the sense in the world that Luke is telling us the disciples observed the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week when they were gathered together to break bread, and that before Paul departed on Monday they observed the Lord’s Supper AND they ate a common meal together (te geuomai.

There is absolutely nothing contextually from this passage that limits klao artos to mean the Lord’s Supper in verse 7, but not the Lord’s Supper in verse 11. The only thing that limits the meaning is our tradition, and our tradition only. And I concede that it is only my opinion of what is written that they partook of the Lord’s Supper when Luke tells us in verse 7, “the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.” You look at these 5 verses and see the most important thing being taught is the meeting of the disciples on the first day of the week to break bread. I, however, believe our focus is wrong, and that the important thing the Holy Spirit wanted for us to take away from Luke’s writing in this passage is the great miracle Paul did in raising Eutychus from the dead. That is what is most instructive to me, for the day in which Eutychus was resurrected we are also reminded again of this great miracle by what Luke recorded in verse 12: “And they brought the lad alive, and were not a little comforted.” This was stated after Paul (and Luke) had departed, which shows me that this is what the Holy Spirit and Luke wanted us to take away from this portion of his history. You see, Luke was on the journey with Paul so for Luke to have known this after they were gone would have required the Holy Spirit to impart that information to him. Thus, the focus is on the resurrection of Eutychus. What I find interesting is that in my research some have used the resurrection of Eutychus as an attempt to bolster their position that Sunday is the one and only day one can partake of the Lord’s Supper. They say that this proves Sunday only is allowed because Jesus was resurrected on Sunday. But as I have pointed out, as well as others, the overriding purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to remember the death of Jesus, and the death of Jesus occurred on a Friday, not on Sunday. We cannot even agree as to how many days are under consideration in these 5 verses. Was Luke, a Gentile, using the Jewish system of numbering days, or was he as a Roman citizen using the Roman system? Troas being a Gentile city would seem to lend credence to Luke using the Roman system of numbering days. That seems the most reasonable and logical conclusion to me, but once again, that is my opinion. Some who hold to the Sunday only teaching argue that Luke had to be using the Jewish system in order to avoid any conflict with breaking bread occurring on two separate days of the week. They may be correct, but their motive for reaching their conclusion seems a bit disingenuous to me. This again is but another reason I reject Acts 20 from teaching that Sunday is the only day the disciples partook of the Lord’s Supper. I will not build doctrine or make law based upon ambiguity. Some believe Luke is making a direct correlation in Acts 20 to the events of Luke 24. If so, they believe Jesus partook of the Lord’s Supper with the disciples in Luke 24. If He did, did He not also eat a common meal together with them as part of that Lord’s Supper (verse 30)? “And it came to pass, when He had sat down with them to meat, He took the bread and blessed; and breaking it He gave to them.” Brother Thomas wrote, “With respect to Acts 20:7, is it with “undeniable proof” that they participated in the Lord's Supper? I am not sure what criteria is demanded for the “undeniable” to be established, but here are a few ideas.” DF Undeniable proof for me would be the same as it is every other time undeniable proof is given that the Lord’s Supper was being partaken or under consideration: the cup would also be mentioned. Since it is not specifically stated here in Acts 20 then we are left to speculate that yes, indeed, it is the Lord’s Supper that is being discussed. But undeniable proof does not exist here in Acts 20:7-11 that the disciples ate of the Lord’s Supper. It is only our opinion that it was. We should be honest enough to admit this is true. We are most likely correct, but we should never make a law when the best we can do is say we are “most likely correct.” Brother Ron wrote, “Is it reasonable that the disciples came together on day seven (the first day of the week) to eat a common meal? One could interpret it that way, I suppose. If so, then we have a common meal in a religious/worship context. The following critical works suggest the Lord's Supper is in view: EGT, Rogers, Bruce, Jackson, McGarvey, Roper, Reese, A.T. Robertson, Taylor, Barnes, Gill, Bock (though he is somewhat vague), and the only negative I read is Peterson. Exegetes do not make for undeniable proof, but they do lend themselves in their critical examination to probability.” DF It seems to me you have made my point, brother Ron. What is so unreasonable to believe the disciples came together on day seven to eat a common meal? We do so ourselves on many occasions when we host a potluck on the last day for a visiting preacher who is conducting a gospel meeting. And since by your own

admission you agree this could be interpreted this way, then how can we use Acts 20:7-11 to create law that prohibits anyone from partaking of the Lord’s Supper any other day than Sunday? DF Additionally, your last sentence also proves my point. There is no undeniable proof from the passage itself that the Lord’s Supper was taken in Troas only on Sunday. There are only exegetes, meaning fallible men, coming to that conclusion. Now compare that with the undeniable proof of the Lord’s Supper being taken in the following passages: “’This is My body, Which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me.’ In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’” (1 Corinthians 11:24) “And He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave to them, saying, ‘This is My body Which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me.’ And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood, even that which is poured out for you.’” (Luke 22:19-20 [see also Matthew 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25]) Additionally, it is undeniable proof of what Paul is speaking when he writes in 1 Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?” Brother Thomas wrote, “If it is argued that he is indeed trying to emphasize one point above another, I will put forth that the point of these six verses (20:7-12), is the gathering together of the saints in general, not verse 9 and 10. If you disagree, which I understand you to do, then I ask, why should we accept verse 7 in contrast to verses 9-10, or for that matter, why should we accept verses 9-10 in contrast to verse 7? If I were to emphasize a point in the paragraph, it would be the worship of the disciples in Troas.” DF Brother Ron, see my comments above as well. I see verses 7-8 as background, setting the mood for the climactic events that were to transpire in verses 9-10. Luke is very good at using this literary device to draw and keep the attention of his readers. They came together – they broke bread – Paul spoke – he intended to depart on the next day, so he prolonged his speech with the disciples – night gathers, and so many lights are lit to drive back the shadows – Paul talks even longer, and young Eutychus succumbs to the call of sleep, and he falls to his death out of the third story window in which he sat! – Paul went down, fell upon the youth in an embrace, and Eutychus is raised from the dead! – Paul goes back to the third floor, they eat, and Paul continues speaking until daybreak before departing – the disciples found great comfort in seeing the lad alive among them. Brother Ron, this is a classic example of the crescendo of an author leading up to a great climax, followed by the anticlimax. Brother Thomas wrote, “Should we condemn? I have noticed the many that do that, but I do not. However, though I do not, I operate on the basis of my remarks I offered in my second paragraph. My approach is to teach the New Testament and let the Lord determine the matters where some may doubt. Does that seem wishy-washy? Perhaps, but that is my approach.” DF I appreciate this about you, brother Ron, which is why I enjoy our discussions. Brother Thomas wrote, “However, those who presume when the Lord has not revealed, it seems to me, are on very dangerous ground.” I agree with you when I see this happening, but I disagree that I am presuming anything about this passage more than you are. I come to my opinions about this through careful study, just as I know you do. There is nothing errant about my thinking, and I believe I stand on firm ground, just as I know you do. I am doing no more adding or taking away from Scripture than those who hold to the Sunday only teaching. In fact, I can make a case I am doing less adding to what is written because the words “Sunday only” for partaking of the Lord’s Supper are nowhere found in Scripture. Brother Thomas wrote, “David, you speak authoritatively in these remarks. Is there a command in the New

Testament to eat of the Lord's Supper? The fact that you have shown us the verses relative to a command, we know that there is. If there is a command, there is also a need to obey that command by the subjects of the One who gave the command. How shall that command be obeyed? We have the phrase “as oft as ye eat this…” etc, thus a frequency is set forth in these words. When did the disciples of the first century do so? We have two accounts: 1) Acts 2:42 and 2) Acts 20:7. In the Greek of Acts 2:42 it reads, “…and in the breaking of the bread…” (kai tee klasei tou artou). How would you interpret this phrase? Is this a common meal? If so, how shall we understand 2:46 where it does not read the same? In 20:7, the Greek does not have the article like it does in 2:42, but since the phrase in 20:7 can be used, admittedly, in a context of the Lord's Supper or not, do you think the context of the verse demands a common meal, or do you think it suggests the Lord's Supper? If you have the works of A.T. Robertson, you know he says the following on 20:7, “First aorist active infinitive of purpose of klao. The language naturally bears the same meaning as in Acts 2:42, the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper which usually followed the Agape” (E-Sword). Since the two accounts are set forth for us, are they good examples?” DF I believe I have covered much of this already in my remarks above. I believe they gathered together and partook of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week, they continued all through the night, Eutychus died and was resurrected by Paul through the power of God, they shared the Lord’s Supper again on the following day and then they ate a meal together before Paul left. Brother Thomas wrote, “Your concern about the word ‘only’ is appropriate (in my view), but it seems to me that one can make a case for the Lord's Supper on the first day, and only on the first day, better than one can make a case for participation in the Lord's Supper on other days of the week.” DF I believe I made a perfectly reasonable and very good case for the disciples eating the Lord’s Supper on two separate days in Acts 20. I believe had I been the first person to reach that conclusion during the Restoration period and taught it throughout the brotherhood that you and most everyone else today would be in agreement with me, for that would be the position that was taught in the church, and we would be defending our tradition of eating the Lord’s Supper every time we gathered together. We would be scoffing at others who disagreed, and saying how ridiculous it is for others to think it would be a sin and displease God to remember the Lord’s death on Wednesday! And the bottom line is, the Sunday only teaching does just that: it makes it a sin to remember the Lord’s death on any other day than Sunday. I cannot believe that is true. I find that thought to be ridiculous, if not downright blasphemous. Brother Thomas wrote, “This you dismiss on account of a phrase, but if the apostles understood the same phrase and acted according the phrase of Acts 2 and 20, then this is something for our consideration.” DF I am not being dismissive, brother Ron. I could say the same of you and everyone else who rejects my interpretation of Acts 20:11. My hermeneutic in looking at these verses is sound, and it does not violate the spirit of the purpose of eating the Lord’s Supper, which is to remember the Lord’s death until He comes, and neither does it violate the command of Jesus, which is “this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” Both of these are followed and adhered to. What the Sunday only teaching does, in my opinion, is follow a man-made tradition that is not supported undeniably by Scripture. Brother Thomas wrote, “David, it appears to you that one can’t demand a law from the reading of the verses; very well, if that is so, then if the word ‘demand’ is inadequate for the occasion (because some few expositors dispute it), would you suggest the word ‘possible’ or ‘probable’ fits better with the understanding of the verse? At the very least, I think you would allow for the word ‘possible’, but would you use the word ‘probable’? DF Yes, I am of the opinion that the Lord’s Supper was probably taken on the first day of the week. But I am also of the opinion that it was probably taken on the following day as well. But are we allowed to make doctrine and law on probable conclusions? I say no, we have no authority to do so. I would even go so far as to say we sin when we do. Brother Thomas wrote, “Is it truly just a matter of one’s ‘preconceived notions and traditional teachings’ that brought them to their understanding of 20:7 being the Lord's Supper, or could it not be a respectful study of the Scripture? That sounds disrespectful to me.”

DF Brother Ron, I believe the first individuals who came to this conclusion did so through the respectful study of Scripture. I believe most other people, however, regurgitate information without truly studying on their own. I see this all the time on Bible study lists, as well as in local congregations, and I have witnessed it first-hand in my own life. Now turn this around and ask yourself the very same question about me. Could I not also reach my own conclusions through a respectful study of Scripture, or does respectful study limit itself only to those who reach a Sunday only conclusion? I believe I know you well enough to know your answer already. Brother Thomas wrote, “Since you think it is more conceivable to interpret this as a common meal, which I suggest is not reasonable, then perhaps we can pursue this further.” DF I believe you have misinterpreted my meaning here, but hopefully, that has since been rectified. I believe it is important to make distinctions between opinions as to what took place, and forming doctrine based upon probable conclusions. Brother Thomas wrote, “True or False. We have an example in the New Testament where the disciples gathered on the first day of the week to take of the Lord's Supper.” DF I know it sounds ambiguous, but my honest answer is I am not sure. I think there is, but since the cup is not mentioned specifically in connection with the bread then I am leery of saying definitively there is. I believe it would be rather hypocritical for me to answer this question any other way at this point. 1 Corinthians 10:16 speaks of the Lord’s Supper, but I see no specific day associated with that passage. Brother Thomas wrote, “True of False. We have an example in the New Testament where the disciples gathered on another day of the week to take of the Lord's Supper.” DF Once again, I have to answer I think there is, but I am not 100% sure. See my answers above regarding verse 11 of Acts 20. Brother Thomas wrote, “David, with respect to these last two, since you say they are commands, have you been obeying them?” DF No, I have not. Brother Thomas wrote, “If you (or the local church) has not, has the local church set forth the reason (reasons) for not obeying these commands?” DF No, they have not, and I have never asked the elders about this. I have assumed they are under the belief that it is a societal based command which is covered by our greeting and handshake and treating each other in a humble fashion. Is this a correct understanding, and does it cover the command? I am not sure. Brother Thomas wrote, “If you have not been obeying, then you are in sin (by not obeying (ignorance) or refusing (rebellion)).” DF This is true. Brother Thomas wrote, “Let me ask, is your worship to the Lord being received by Him?” DF I believe it is being received because I do not believe my acceptance to God is based upon my perfection. I believe my acceptance to God in worship is based upon Jesus Christ and His perfection. I can boldly approach the throne of grace because I am clothed in the holy garments of Jesus. ****************************

Ron Thomas’ reply to David Ferguson’s remarks (2)

It looks like we will have a dispute on the two options. I assert, and can defend, that if I (we) do what the apostles did in the first century, in relation to their worship of the Lord in the context of the Lord's Supper, then I can know that I am correct in my mannerisms (method). A person who does something other than that which they did in the first century can’t know this. The idea of following an example (or, account of action), with all else being as it should, is indisputable. You are correct that a person could in good conscience think they are doing the Lord’s will if they do something other than partake on Sunday only; in such cases, they are only able to say, “I think.”

It is true that some dispute what is best understood in Acts 20:7-11, and concerning whether it is the Lord's Supper or not. The overwhelming number of sources that I have affirm as much, though one, maybe two dispute. The mere use of the phrase, however, will not make a case in one direction or another – only the context will. The context of the pericope is a worship setting. The disciples came together to break bread. Addressing first, when did the disciples come together? They came together on the first day of the week; they came together to break bread. The use of the phrase “to break bread” can be defined best by context. The disciples came together on the first day of the week for a purpose; as you said earlier, the Lord's Supper has associated with it a purpose. Does the phrase in verse 7 demand the Lord's Supper? Not by itself, with this I concur, but the context surely lends itself in this direction. What time of the day did the disciples gather together? In what we would consider the early evening, Paul preached until midnight. Since the Holy Spirit tells us this was on the first day of the week, and it was the evening, the manner of time reckoning is (was) Jewish, not Roman. There is no presumption to be given to the way we reckon time. The presumption is according to the standard of the day in which Luke wrote. How do we ascertain this? Compare how Luke uses time references in Acts elsewhere. As he wrote in the Gospel (of Luke), he wrote in Acts. The following is a cut and paste of an article by Dave Miller of Apologetics Press. I offer it for your consideration. “The Jews of Jesus’ day divided the daylight portion of the “day” into even smaller units, i.e., four units of three hours each beginning about 6:00 a.m. (Hasel, 1979b, 1:878; Robinson, 1881, p. 338; Robertson, 1922, p. 284). This mode permeates the New Testament. The darkness that prevailed during Christ’s crucifixion “from the sixth hour until the ninth hour” (Matthew 27:45; cf. Mark 15:33) is our noon to 3:00 p.m. Though Luke probably was a non-Jew, and though the initial recipient of the book, Theophilus, very likely was also a Gentile, it nevertheless is evident that Luke used the Jewish—not Roman—method of counting time in Luke and Acts. The “sixth hour” and “ninth hour” in Luke 23:44 are noon and 3:00 p.m. respectively. The “third hour of the day” in Acts 2:15 refers to 9:00 a.m. The “sixth hour” in Acts 10:9 is 12:00 noon. The “ninth hour” in Acts 3:1 and Acts 10:3,30 is 3:00 p.m. So certain of this reckoning were the NIV translators that they converted the “ninth hour” to the modern equivalent to aid the English reader: “Cornelius answered: ‘Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon” (Acts 10:30, emp. added; cf. vs. 3). Even the Roman authority Claudius Lysias was “following the Jewish method of counting time” (Jackson, 2005, p. 298) in Acts 23:23 when he alluded to “the third hour of the night” (i.e., 9:00 p.m.). Notice that all of Luke’s allusions to days and hours in Acts assume a Jewish reckoning of time” (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2304 - “Sunday and the Lord's Supper”).

Paul preaches, Eutychus has his life restored to him, and the disciples resume their meeting till daybreak (morning) – all still on the first day of the week. If the phrase of verse 7 is to be understood as the Lord's Supper, as I think it should, then the phrase in verse 11 can be understood the same. In either case, it was on the first day of the week.

Yes, it is possible that some can interpret the phrase that way (a common meal); while it is

possible, it is not probable. You comment about being honest; I have been very much so in my understanding of the passage, and the setting forth of what is taking place. Since you set forth the criteria of what makes it undeniable, then I concede from your definition of the word, this won’t be undeniably the Lord's Supper. However, based on the context and the language used, I maintain that it is the Lord's Supper that is in view – even if the strongest word I can use is probable.

I know you believe you have made the case, and I respect your approach. However, the fact is, you have not. The disciples came to together on the first day of the week (our Saturday evening) and continued all night (Sunday morning) still on the first day of the week. Is there sin involved with eating the Lord's Supper on another day? Whether there is or not, the Lord determines. At the very least, there is presumption in the participating on another day. David, your concern about the trouble you have when the “Sunday only” teaching is affirmed as strongly as it is, is to be respected (once again, in my view). However, the preponderance of evidence is clearly on the side of those who partake only on Sunday. Since you subscribe to the probability of the Lord's Supper taken on first day in Acts 20, but think a law can’t be made based on the passage, is it possible that when the apostles did what they did, and we follow that example, we can know that we are right?

Thanks for the correction of my misunderstanding of what I thought you said.

David, your answers to my true/false statements are not troublesome to me. I can answer them much more forthrightly than yourself, but I can respect, based upon your argument thus far, your reservation. If my remarks based on the day of the week in Acts 20:7-12 are correct, and I think the day of the week being the first day is unassailable, then the way I answer the statements will stand scrutiny. I will answer statement (1) TRUE and statement (2) FALSE.

David, this is all that I have with respect to your reply to my remarks. If I have missed anything, please be sure to call it to my attention.

God bless

Ron

***************************May 5, 2010 Dear Ron, Below is my finished portion of our discussion on the Sunday only teaching of the Lord's Supper. I am also attaching it as a Word document. Please let me know you have received it. Thank you again for your brotherly, kind and gracious spirit displayed throughout the exchanges. I am honored to call you my brother in Christ. I am giving you the last word. Once you complete it please feel free to send it out to whomever you like. Cordially, David R. Ferguson

Here is my reply to your remarks from above. My comments are in blue.

Brother Thomas wrote, “It looks like we will have a dispute on the two options. I assert, and can defend, that if I (we) do what the apostles did in the first century, in relation to their worship of the Lord in the context of the Lord's Supper, then I can know that I am correct in my mannerisms (method).”

DF Brother Ron, no one is disputing the truth that if we do what the apostles did in the first century we will be correct. You statement above assumes that you are, indeed, absolutely correct that the apostles ONLY partook of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. That simply cannot be proven undeniably by what has been recorded in God’s word. Until it has been proven undeniably that the ONLY day of the week the apostles partook of the Lord’s Supper was on Sunday, then you cannot know that you are doing what the apostles did in the first century. If they partook of it on any other day of the week, and you do not, then you are NOT doing what the apostles did in the first century. You only THINK you are doing exactly as they did.

Brother Thomas wrote, “A person who does something other than that which they did in the first century can’t know this.”

DF I refer you again to my comments above. It has not been proven undeniably that someone who partakes of the Lord’s Supper on Wednesday is doing “something other than that which they did in the first century.” You are assuming you are exactly correct in your understanding of when the apostles partook of the Lord’s Supper. You may be right that the only day of the week was Sunday, but you may be wrong. I may be right that the apostles partook of it every time they gathered together as the Lord’s body of believers, but I also may be wrong. With these facts before us, then, do we have the authority to make law that states that one cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper on any other day of the week than Sunday? Is it even wise to do so?

Brother Thomas wrote, “The idea of following an example (or, account of action), with all else being as it should, is indisputable.”

DF Brother Ron, I agree, except in this case it is disputable as to whether or not our Sunday only partaking of the Lord’s Supper is a teaching of God, or is it a doctrine of men from our own tradition.

Brother Thomas wrote, “You are correct that a person could in good conscience think they are doing the Lord’s will if they do something other than partake on Sunday only; in such cases, they are only able to say, ‘I think.’”

DF You, too, brother, are in that same boat, but you are just using a different oar. All you have proven so far is “I think, therefore I am right.” But the truth is none of us can be sure, we can only believe we are right. For proof of what I am saying I direct your attention to the following:

Brother Thomas wrote, “I know you believe you have made the case, and I respect your approach. However, the fact is, you have not. The disciples came to together on the first day of the week (our Saturday evening) and continued all night (Sunday morning) still on the first day of the week.”

DF I respect your approach, too, brother Thomas, but I believe you have not proven your case to be undeniably correct. Throughout your statements you have used phrases such as “preponderance” and “probable,” etc., all of which point to your honesty, but they also go to prove my point: we have no authority to make law based upon anything short of “thus saith the Lord.” “Preponderance,” “probable” and “exegetes” are not the equivalent of this is what God has said so let’s just do it. I can look at the events of Acts 20 and see two days whereby the Lord’s Supper was taken. You look at those same events of Acts 20 and see the Lord’s Supper being taken twice which, according to our good brother Johnny Polk, a Sunday only believer, too, says can never happen and one still be right with God. I now present yet another man who is a Sunday only proponent, and this is what he has to say about the events of Acts 20:http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/breaking-bread-in-luke-acts-iv-acts-207-12/

DF From the above link John Mark Hicks writes,

The intentional character of “breaking bread” is obvious. The church gathered in order to break bread. This was its explicit purpose for assembling.

DF From this it would seem brother Hicks would be a proponent of partaking of the Lord’s Supper whenever the saints assembled. However, that would be a wrong conclusion, for he also states, 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. DF So it is obvious that brother Hicks believes the Sunday only doctrine as to when the Lord’s Supper is to be taken. But now read this from the above link:

It is uncertain whether this assumes a Jewish reckoning of time (sunset to sunset, so that Acts 20 = Saturday evening) or a Roman reckoning (sunrise to sunrise, so that Acts 20 = Sunday evening). Given the Gentile character of Troas, it was probably a Sunday evening. Either way, they met on the first day of the week rather than on the sabbath and this is in stark contrast with synagogue meetings in Acts.

DF Brother Ron, I believe my point has been made. Two proponents of Sunday only partaking of the Lord’s Supper, you and brother Hicks, cannot agree on how many different days are mentioned in these five verses. You believe and are convinced in your mind that Luke was using a Jewish system for numbering of days. You concede the Lord’s Supper is mentioned twice, first of all in verse 7, and then later in verse 11, placing you at odds with yet another Sunday only proponent, brother Johnny Polk. Brother Hicks states emphatically that they met on the first day of the week to partake of the emblems and connects it with the resurrection of Jesus, even though it was not His resurrection we are told to remember when we eat the bread and drink the cup, but His death. Brother Hicks then addresses the two seeming partakings of the Lord’s Supper by stating,

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.

DF So there you have it. Three different understandings reached regarding the events of Acts 20:7-11, but all coming to the same conclusion: Sunday is the only day we can partake of the Lord’s Supper. I submit it is our tradition that has influenced our conclusions here. Why am I or anyone else obliged to believe that any of these three conclusions are correct and the undeniable first century apostolic example to follow when we cannot even agree on how many days took place?

What makes my view the “wrong” view when you cannot even reach consensus with your fellow Sunday only proponents? What makes my view the “wrong” view when I agree the Lord’s Supper was taken on Sunday, as all of you do? Why is my view the “wrong” view when you and I agree there were two partakings? Why is my view the “wrong” view when I agree with brother Hicks that there are two days mentioned, although he believes they are Saturday and Sunday, and I believe they are Sunday and Monday? With so much disagreement as to what exactly was taking place in Acts 20, is it really wise and prudent for us to make law that insists we are “right” in our Sunday only understanding as to when we are only allowed to partake of the bread and the cup of blessing?

Brother Thomas wrote, “It is true that some dispute what is best understood in Acts 20:7-11, and concerning whether it is the Lord's Supper or not. The overwhelming number of sources that I have affirm as much, though one, maybe two dispute.”

DF My point has been made again, brother Thomas. We cannot agree about whether or not the Lord’s Supper is being taken here or not, and yet we bind law based upon the events of Acts 20:7-12. Is this a wise and prudent course of action to take, or would it be better to leave it up to the individual congregations to decide without fear of being ostracized and “marked” as heretics for having a different understanding?

Brother Thomas wrote, “The mere use of the phrase, however, will not make a case in one direction or another – only the context will. The context of the pericope is a worship setting. The disciples came together to break bread. Addressing first, when did the disciples come together? They came together on the first day of the week; they came together to break bread.”

DF They met on the first day if the week to break bread (are we positive this means the Lord’s Supper, though? I believe it is, but I cannot tell someone else who disagrees with me that they are absolutely wrong since the cup is not mentioned here). But how often did they come together in Acts 2:42-47? I see they were together day by day. So why are we not following this example? Why does the example of Acts 20 trump that of Acts 2?

42. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

43. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.

44. And all who believed were together and had all things in common;

45. and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.

46. And day by day, attending the Temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,

47. praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Brother Thomas wrote, “The use of the phrase ‘to break bread’ can be defined best by context.”

DF Yes, it can be defined best by context, but does that mean your definition is exactly right? You have already conceded that this could be a common meal. I agree it could be a common meal. I believe it is the Lord’s Supper as you do, but what gives our opinion on the matter God’s stamp of approval? We again are making law based upon what we think is “defined best,” instead of being able to say in 100% confidence, “Thus saith the Lord.” Brother Ron, are you prepared to go down this road, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9)?

As much as I disdain the term for it seems to me to smack of a lack of understanding God’s grace, but is it not “safer” to just teach what we know for sure, and leave it at that, and that is how often we partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26), that we do so in a worthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27), remembering His death until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26)? These are the commands we have in relation to the Lord’s Supper. Nothing about a specific, limited day is mentioned, as was the case throughout the Law of Moses when it came to times of feasts and celebrations. What part of doing this on a Wednesday evening cannot be fulfilled by remembering His death with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in communion with the Lord?

Where is our approved apostolic example and authority to meet on Wednesday for a “worship service” (another term we use that is nowhere found in the Bible, by the way) to sing, study God’s word, pray, and have a devotional, but not to partake of the Lord’s Supper? Are we not just as guilty as violating approved apostolic authority in meeting on any other day of the week and doing what we are doing as those who meet and do what we do and they partake of the Lord’s Supper on a Wednesday or a Thursday evening? You see, lacking apostolic examples and authority works both ways. At least with my opinion as to what is taking place I am being consistent. I do see the approved apostolic examples of meeting on more than one day a week (Acts 2 and Acts 20), and I also see the disciples partaking of the emblems on days other than just Sunday, as I have pointed out.

Brother Thomas wrote, “The disciples came together on the first day of the week for a purpose; as you said earlier, the Lord's Supper has associated with it a purpose. Does the phrase in verse 7 demand the Lord's Supper? Not by itself, with this I concur, but the context surely lends itself in this direction.”

DF Do we have the authority, brother Ron, to make law when the best we can do is “the context surely lends itself in this direction”? I say, “Absolutely not!”

Brother Thomas wrote, “What time of the day did the disciples gather together? In what we would consider the early evening, Paul preached until midnight. Since the Holy Spirit tells us this was on the first day of the week, and it was the evening, the manner of time reckoning is (was) Jewish, not Roman. There is no presumption to be given to the way we reckon time. The presumption is according to the standard of the day in which Luke wrote. How do we ascertain this? Compare how Luke uses time references in Acts elsewhere. As he wrote in the Gospel (of Luke), he wrote in Acts. The following is a cut and paste of an article by Dave Miller of Apologetics Press. I offer it for your consideration. “The Jews of Jesus’ day divided the daylight portion of the “day” into even smaller units, i.e., four units of three hours each beginning about 6:00 a.m. (Hasel, 1979b, 1:878; Robinson, 1881, p. 338; Robertson, 1922, p. 284). This mode permeates the New Testament. The darkness that prevailed during Christ’s crucifixion “from the sixth hour until the ninth hour” (Matthew 27:45; cf. Mark 15:33) is our noon to 3:00 p.m. Though Luke probably was a non-Jew, and though the initial recipient of the book, Theophilus, very likely was also a Gentile, it nevertheless is evident that Luke used the Jewish—not Roman—method of counting time in Luke and Acts. The “sixth hour” and “ninth hour” in Luke 23:44 are noon and 3:00 p.m. respectively. The “third hour of the day” in Acts 2:15 refers to 9:00 a.m. The “sixth hour” in Acts 10:9 is 12:00 noon. The “ninth hour” in Acts 3:1 and Acts 10:3,30 is 3:00 p.m. So certain of this reckoning were the NIV translators that they converted the “ninth hour” to the modern equivalent to aid the English reader: “Cornelius answered: ‘Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon” (Acts 10:30, emp. added; cf. vs. 3). Even the Roman authority Claudius Lysias was “following the Jewish method of counting time” (Jackson, 2005, p. 298) in Acts 23:23 when he alluded to “the third hour of the night” (i.e., 9:00 p.m.). Notice that all of Luke’s allusions to days and hours in Acts assume a Jewish reckoning of time” (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2304 - “Sunday and the Lord's Supper”).”

DF Brother Ron, I supplied a link from another brother in Christ who is a Sunday only believer who disputes your claim that Luke was using the Jewish reckoning for the day of the week. So who gets to decide who is correct? Does Dave Miller get to trump John Mark Hicks? Is the Apologetics Press our equivalent to the Vatican in Rome, or is it the Gospel Advocate? (I hope you realize I am being facetious here to prove a point.) You and brother Miller may very well be right. But then again, so may brother Hicks. So who gets to decide who is right, and what our official stance on this will be, or suffer the consequences of being “marked” as a “false teacher” for going outside the approved lines of thought? (I am not referring to you or anyone else who has engaged in this current, ongoing discussion, but I believe you would agree there are those who would do exactly as I have suggested.)

The fact is, we cannot know with 100% certainty how many days took place in Acts 20:7-11. We obviously cannot even agree on that. But what we can agree upon and what we do know with 100% certainty was that at some point the disciples were gathered on the first day of the week to break bread in Troas.

Brother Thomas wrote, “Yes, it is possible that some can interpret the phrase that way (a common meal); while it is possible, it is not probable.”

DF Brother Ron, if something that goes outside what we have traditionally been taught may be possible, as you have conceded, do we have the authority to condemn and make law that says others are wrong for believing and practicing what they believe is possible?

Brother Thomas wrote, “Your comment about being honest; I have been very much so in my understanding of the passage, and the setting forth of what is taking place. Since you set forth the criteria of what makes it undeniable, then I concede from your definition of the word, this won’t be undeniably the Lord's Supper. However, based on the context and the language used, I maintain that it is the Lord's Supper that is in view – even if the strongest word I can use is probable.”

DF Brother Ron, this is why I enjoy our discussions. You are honest in how you deal with topics, and I admire and respect you greatly for what I only see as a wonderful Christian virtue. But where we part ways is that I am unwilling, in fact, I believe I would commit sin, to teach as doctrine what I believe is only at best probable. I admit I am flabbergasted that more people do not see the danger in teaching as doctrine what cannot be proven undeniably from God’s word.

Brother Thomas wrote, “Is there sin involved with eating the Lord's Supper on another day? Whether there is or not, the Lord determines. At the very least, there is presumption in the participating on another day.”

DF But once again, brother Ron, it has not been determined that I have presumed anything. I believe I am correct in my interpretation. Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion. You and I agree that in Acts 20 the Lord’s Supper was observed twice. We part ways, however, on how many days were in play. I agree with many members of the Lord’s body who believe the events of Acts 20:7-11 encompass two different days, a Sunday and a Monday. So who gets to decide who is right? And I still believe that my approach is the most consistent with not only the events of Acts 20, but also those of Acts 2.

Brother Thomas wrote, “David, your concern about the trouble you have when the ‘Sunday only’ teaching is affirmed as strongly as it is, is to be respected (once again, in my view). However, the preponderance of evidence is clearly on the side of those who partake only on Sunday. Since you subscribe to the probability of the Lord's Supper taken on first day in Acts 20, but think a law can’t be made based on the passage, is it possible that when the apostles did what they did, and we follow that example, we can know that we are right?”

DF I believe wholeheartedly that when we follow the example of the apostles we are right. That has never been in question. What has been in question is whether or not the example from God’s word is Sunday only. I do not believe it is, and as I have said previously, my approach is not fallacious, and my hermeneutic is not inherently flawed. I know you do not believe the apostles partook of the Lord’s Supper every time they gathered together as a body of believers, but I believe they did and I believe I have demonstrated they have. I believe you have also indicated that at the very least I have shown the possibility exists. (I apologize if I have erred and you have not stated this.)

Once again, brother, I have to ask, do we have the authority “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” and making law about items that you have consistently referred to using terms such as “the preponderance of evidence”? Is this really the standard we should be following? I say with a resounding, “No, it is not! We do not have that authority, only God does!”

Brother Thomas wrote, “Thanks for the correction of my misunderstanding of what I thought you said.”

DF You are welcome.

Concluding thoughts on our discussion:

DF First of all, I wish to thank brother Ron for his brotherly spirit he exhibited throughout this and other discussions in which we have been engaged. I admire and respect him greatly, and I am honored to know him as a friend and brother in Christ. I also wish to commend brother Ron for his extensive Biblical knowledge. He is a worthy debater who stays on task and never resorts to ad hominem or personal attacks.

I submit, although I do not care for the term, that my approach is the “safest” approach to take for the following reasons:Ø When the Lord established His memorial, He said the following:

24. "This is My body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me. 25. This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." (1 Corinthians 11:24-25)

No specific day is given limiting when the Supper could be observed. The command is to remember Him as often as we eat the bread and drink the cup. Doing this on Wednesday evening in no way violates this command. Ø Additionally, the Apostle Paul, writing through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explains exactly what it is the Lord wished for us to remember about the Lord and why we partake of this memorial in the first place: it is to remember His death (1 Corinthians 11:26) and to remember His death in a worthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27). 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Again, if one partakes of the Lord’s Supper on Wednesday evening in order to remember the Lord’s death until He comes, and does so in a worthy manner, one has fulfilled the commands of 1 Corinthians 11:26-27, not broken it. Ø I believe the focus on the events in Acts 20:7-12 is on the miracle of Paul resurrecting Eutychus from the dead, not on the day of the week, especially when we cannot even agree on what day of the week the resurrection of Eutychus took place. Everything else is secondary. There is no command given in these six verses that specifies what day of the week we are required to partake of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, we cannot even determine conclusively how many days are in play in Acts 20:7-11, how many times the Supper was observed, or on what day or days the Supper was taken. There is nothing “unscriptural” about my belief that the focus is on the miracle of the resurrection of Eutychus, and neither is my hermeneutic fallacious, errant or misplaced for believing the focus belongs on the miracle. How many Sunday only proponents who believe the focus in Acts 20:7-12 is the gathering on the first day of the week would say the same thing about the events of John 20 when it starts the same way as Acts 20:7 by stating, “Now on the first day of the week…”? What is the focus of that chapter, the first day of the week, or the miraculous resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ through the power of God? I say it is the resurrection of Jesus. I am being consistent. In order for the Sunday only belief that focuses on the day rather than on the events of Acts 20:7-12 to be consistent would be for them to view the focus of John 20 being the day of the week, rather than the miraculous resurrection of Jesus. I doubt many would be willing to do this, demonstrating my hermeneutic is the more consistent interpretation of Scripture.Ø I believe we err in making law regarding what day we may only partake of the Lord’s Supper. We have neither any day specific command to follow, and neither do we have any undeniable example that limits the Lord’s Supper to Sunday only. We have only our tradition based upon “the preponderance of evidence, “exegetes,” or “reasonable conclusions,” etc., etc., that has determined Sunday is the only day we may partake of this memorial to the Lord. I believe I have made the case that does show the apostles partook of the Lord’s Supper on other days than Sunday. Ø We assume the phrases “breaking of bread” or “break bread” mean the Lord’s Supper, when in fact it is not clear this is true. It can and may mean eating a common meal together. Therefore, we should limit our law making to those times we know undeniably and certainly that the Lord’s Supper is being mentioned, and we can know when this occurs whenever we see BOTH elements of the Supper mentioned: the bread and the cup. Ø I do not believe our God is a “gotcha!” God, and the Sunday only teaching makes Him out to be a “gotcha!” God. The things He wishes for us to do are clearly stated, as in the gospel plan of salvation and the command for us to teach others and make more disciples. A reasonable person can read these passages in which we have formed law and come to an entirely different conclusion, and even within our own brotherhood this has been undeniably demonstrated. I am firmly convinced the Sunday only teaching is a tradition of ours, and not a command of God. If it was truly a command we are to follow, then we would be able to see it clearly, as is the

case with the gospel plan of salvation. Ø It is also undeniable that the Sunday only teaching taken to its logical conclusion makes it a sin to remember the Lord’s death on any other day than Sunday. To me, this is a preposterous position to take and one that is not supported by Scripture to teach that it is a sin to remember the Lord’s death on Wednesday evening. In fact, I believe it is not only preposterous it is presumptuous, if not downright blasphemous. I know brother Thomas is unprepared or unwilling to take that stance, but in my humble opinion, if he is unwilling to take this stance, then I believe he must concede that the Sunday only teaching is a tradition of men, and not a “Thus saith the Lord.” I believe he also must be willing to admit that we have no authority or right to criticize or condemn others who believe the Supper was and can be taken on other days than Sunday.

******************** Ron Thomas’ reply to David Ferguson’s Remarks (3) David, the statement I made about doing what the apostles did, and us doing the same, assumes absolutely nothing in relation to the word only that you use. It merely says that that if we do what they did, then that which we do we know can be (and is) correct. There is no assumption in this. You are incorrect concerning what I can know about what the apostles did in the first century. Illustration: if David coaches a baseball team on Monday, and I do the same (emulating his actions), then I can know what I have done, and that I followed the pattern set forth by David. What David did (does) on the other days is not addressed, and in that respect I can know nothing. However, on that which he did that I can read about or observe, I can know. Yes, David, I am claiming that I am exactly correct on that which I have said. I know, David, based on the written record, that which the apostles did, if I do the same, I can know I am correct. When John wrote what he did in 1 John 5:13, relative to the Son of God, it also applies to the teachings and actions of the apostles. I am not sure why you conclude the essence of my approach as “I think, therefore I am right.” I have been arguing that with respect to example we have in the Scripture, in that Record, we have the action (actions) of the apostles in the first century. There is no “I think” to that, it is an “I know.” That which we can be sure of is that of which we read. David, I am not arguing “Sunday only,” as you think I am. I am arguing that with regard to the Scripture, we have examples (or accounts of action), and this stands for something that cannot be lightly (or even reverently) dismissed. In other words, to say more than what Scripture affirms is presumptuous; one presumes the Scripture will allow something not expressly stated or implied. Brother Hicks has some doubt about the time reckoning of Luke, but that does not lessen the impact of an example one reads in Scripture. David, I can concede that the Lord's Supper might be mentioned twice in the paragraph, but that only means it was mentioned twice, not taken on two different occasions. They came together to break bread, but they actually broke bread later on. It is my opinion, and I admit that it is opinion, that the disciples came together for the singular purpose of worship, and then later on they ate together in fellowship (similar to our “potluck”). But whether or not my opinion is correct on the second use of the phrase means nothing against the actions of the apostle and disciples having come together on the first day for a purpose. You claim that I admit the following, “Why is my view the “wrong” view when you and I agree there were two partakings?” David, I might be mistaken, but I do not recall saying there was a participation in the Lord's Supper twice; I looked at my first and second submissions to you and did not notice me saying anything like that. David, you have a lack of certainty in this area, very well. Since you and I both know the language of Scripture and the propriety of context (remote and immediate), even in the case of Acts 20, I can say with a high degree of probability the context is a worship setting and they came together to enjoy communion with the Lord in the Lord's Supper. This notion of probability is disconcerting to you, but not to me. What I conceded relative to a “common meal” is that it is possible that some understand it that way, not that I did (though I gave my view above). You assert that I might be teaching as doctrine the commandments of men –

something I reject out of hand, especially when the Lord said something about the Lord's Supper, and the apostle did as well. They came together to commune with the Lord on the first day of the week. In truth, I might say the same toward you when you are open to the idea of another day of the week – this is strictly a tradition of man. You ask concerning whether it is not safer to teach what we know for sure? With this, I agree. Time and again, Paul said we are to follow his example; he also said that he will teach nothing and do nothing that has not the authority of the Lord behind it. If we follow the example of Paul (and the apostles), and go not beyond that, we are on safe ground. Those who do go beyond revelation are not on safe ground – at least as far as they know. David, once again, you say a law is made by “we.” I have not argued this, and this you know. Would you make a “law” that it is ok to partake of the Lord's Supper on another day? The phrase can imply (“…as often as ye do this…”) another day, as far as you are concerned. It can imply seven days, four days, or even twenty-four times a day. There is no doubt that you believe your interpretation is correct, but your sincerity in interpretation does not mean, to any less degree, that one has to presume what the Lord did not even address. Concluding thoughts on our discussion: Following the example (no pun) of David, I will do the same with respect to summary thoughts. David argued that communion with the Lord in the Lord's Supper is not a “Sunday only” engagement, but that it can be done when the disciples gather on other days. This is based on two points: 1) the phrase “…as oft as you take this…” and, 2) his understanding of two days in Acts 20. I have argued that this suggestion presumes what the Lord does not address, and that the days of Acts 20:7-12 is actually only one day – the first day of the week. This example (account of action) of Acts 20:7, qualifies the “as oft as ye do this…” David’s view that we can’t know, undeniably, that the Lord's Supper is in view is Acts 20 will not stand the test. The fact that some dispute it does not mean that one can’t properly interpret it as an example of the apostles and disciples in the first century. Moreover, those who desire active participation on another day, have no evidence from Scripture, thus they go beyond. Those of us who desire to stay with the scriptural account are actually in the “safer” position than those who do not. David notes that I am unprepared or unwilling to take a stand on saying it is a sin to take the Lord's Supper on another day of the week; in this, he is correct. However, while I may be unprepared to say as much because I believe the Lord will determine that. When it comes to what the Scriptures teach expressly, I have much more confidence. While I am unprepared to say it is sinful, I am very prepared to say it is presumptuous to partake of the Lord's Supper on a day other than the first day of the week. My discussion with David has been pleasant in all respects, and to David, I express my grateful appreciation. As is always the case in discussions like these, the last submission of an opponent, one feels a demand needs to be made. David and I agreed, however, that we would limit it to these three submissions. We submit this discussion for the brethren; please use it how you think is best; all that we ask is that each one be fairly treated. God bless. Ron Thomas ************************ On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM, David Ferguson <davidferguson61@yahoo.com> wrote: Ron, You wrote, "All that I would ask is that as I have been toward you in tone, you would do the same toward me." I thought we had always been this way with each other. Am I missing something? Did I say or do something to offend you? If I did, I certainly wish to apologize! By the way, what I sent to you and the other men who attended the Effingham meeting was old material I had put

together about two or three years ago, so nothing in it was directed towards you or anyone else who was at that meeting. Brotherly, David*********************David, No you have not offended me in any sort of way, and yes, we have been this way in previous discussions. I said it for the benefit of two points: 1) to remind you and I of it, 2) others that read it might benefit from the tone of our discussion. This could lend itself to others doing the same when they engage in discussions. It seems to me, David, that all too often some discussions degenerate into something unpleasant. I am sorry if I miscommunicated with my remark. Be well, brother. Ron ********************4.29.10 David, I am in the process of offering a reply [second reply], but it is taking me longer than I want. What I will have to do, instead of wading through all the material, is cut and paste into a new document. That way, it will be more manageable. Also, I recommend that after I give you my reply, we limit it to only one more each. After that, we post our discussion on our respective web pages. Any thoughts on this. Ron**********Sounds fine to me. In some ways I wish we would have done our discussion first before sending it out to anyone else. Cordially, David R. Ferguson***********David, Here are my remarks. This reply and the next we can keep to ourselves, and then post it to the web with a link to all my be interested in reading the discussion. What do you think? –Ron *********************************************************************************Hello brothers. Admittedly, I've only scanned David's original email and Ron's response, but I wanted to weigh in briefly on hermeneutics more than anything. Col. 3:17 teaches that we must have authority for all that we say & do. I believe we have authority for partaking of the Lord's Supper on Sunday because it seems this is what the early church did under guidance of the apostles (who were being led into all the truth by the Holy Spirit). I Cor 4:6 warns us against thinking beyond that which is written (NKJV). I think it is wise to apply this principle in both directions. In other words, (1) do not argue that the Lord's Supper should be taken at any day or any time since there is no evidence the early church did this or Bible authority for such AND (2) do not argue that those who do partake beyond Sunday are automatically destined for destruction. I emphasize (1) above because I know that partaking on Sunday is SAFE for one trying to humbly please the Lord in all things and not self (Col. 1:10). I emphasize (2) above because some are far too quick (in my estimation) to write off for all eternity anyone else who may be sincere in an opposing view like this (be very careful here brethren; James 2:13). Personally, I would discourage one from partaking on other days besides Sunday, but if they have their mind made up am I going to preach that they are damned? No. Although I may have some concern for them, I know the Lord is the judge. The instrumental music issue parallels this in some aspects. Nowhere does it say: "Do NOT play a mechanical instrument." I know singing is right and pleasing to the Lord, so I'll stick with what I know is SAFE. I discourage

people from using the instrument because there is no authority for it and it is divisive (and from the advocate's view, they're fighting over a matter of opinion!). However, I will not do (because of I Cor. 4:6, etc.) what many preachers have done in the past and still do--i.e., condemn a soul to eternal destruction who uses the instrument. Don't misunderstand--I fear for the souls of those who use the instrument and plead with them to give it up, but God is the judge. There is much more that could be said, but I must be going. I hope I've communicated my thoughts adequately above. In closing, God is the Master; we're the servants. Let's just teach and practice what we know can't be wrong--and encourage others to do likewise. May God bless us all as we strive to do His will and serve Him faithfully! Have a good day brothers,-SRB******************* Hello all,I agree with Brad that careful thinking must be a part of any discussion we have about the Bible. But I think we have more than simply a safe course for matters like the Lord’s Supper. The evidence for our common position though cannot rest solely on Acts 20:7, which by itself only presents an account of action that has no binding force. The verse does take on that weight when we see it in the larger context of the New Testament’s teachings. The following points I think must be explored in sequence to establish why we should take the Lord’s Supper every Sunday and Sunday only:1 - Jesus commanded his followers to observe the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 11:23-26; Matthew 28:20).2 - Christians meet together every first day of the week (I Corinthians 16:1-2; 11:17-18, 20, 33; Hebrews 10:25). 3 - The first day of the week was known as the “Lord’s Day”, the day Jesus was resurrected (Revelation 1:10; Matthew 28:1-6). 4 - It was on the first day of the week that the church meet to observe the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 11:17-34; Acts 20:7).5 - The importance of the Lord’s Supper, or communion, on this day can be seen by Paul’s seven-day delay in Troas (Acts 20:6) so he could observe the communion with them (Acts 20:7, 11) even though he was in a hurry to go to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16). 6 - Very appropriately, Christians meet on the day of Jesus’ resurrection to remember his death, which is why until recent times Christians did not associate the communion with any other day of the week.I think this more involved approach to demonstrating our common claim about the Lord’s Supper raises an interesting issue; if the Lord’s Supper holds such a significant place (cf. I Corinthians 11:23-26; Matthew 28:20), then why does God use such a complicated and round-about way of providing evidence to support that importance? This issue addresses the nature of Bible and the changes to God’s expectations for people in the transition between the Old and New Testaments. We must not forget that God has written us a book that requires our study (II Timothy 2:15; cf. II Peter 3:14-16) and our maturity (Galatians 3:23-4:7; Ephesians 4:11-15). But I have noticed over the years that we, as a brotherhood, have relied on shortcuts in defending our common beliefs like using Acts 20:7 by itself to prove the practice of observing the Lord’s Supper every Sunday. While the conclusion may be correct, the reasons and processes for arriving at that conclusion seem to me to look more like Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees for elevating their traditions over God’s commands in Matthew 15. We must not forget that the right conclusion never justifies inappropriate means of arriving at that thought. The issue with Acts 20:7 I think therefore is greater than what is safe. I think the issue lies with our willingness to engage the Bible in the way that God intended us to interact with it. I want to add one more thought...I have been places where the kind of discussion that we are having would result in all kinds of hostilities and labelings. I really do appreciate the level of trust and love that you all have for one another that allows you to calmly and openly discuss these kinds of difficult questions. I pray that God will bless us all with open hearts and minds so that we can more completely grasp His will for our lives. I also thank Him that I can be in the midst of brothers like you all.

In Him, -Joshua********************Brethren : At the risk of being branded a heretic, let me both agree and disagree with our esteemed Bro. Stephen, beloved patriarch of the growing Bradd tribe. With regards to hermeneutics, may I refer you to an excellent, though very dry, book by Bro. J.D. Thomas entitled "We Be Brethren." In it he makes a very good case which changed my view of the hermeneutic of binding examples with the weight of commands. I no longer believe examples can be bound. The old standard (underlying command plus approved apostolic example) is what I once believed it was. All commands are binding, but I do not believe examples to be binding. The topic of the Lord's Super illustrates the folly of binding examples as I did for so many years. The Lord's Super is commanded as a memorial. Every example of it being observed in the New Testament presents it as being observed in an "upper room." Therefore, if we are to apply our time-honored formula for binding examples, the Lord's Super could only be observed in an upper room. Most of us view that as absurd ( though I did observe some brethren in Arkansas binding this ) but in doing so we demonstrate the inconsistency of our hermeneutic. We find ourselves refusing to bind some "approved apostolic examples" while binding others. If the formula works for one example, it must work for all, not just to examples we arbitrarily select. Why did Jesus institute that which we call "The Lord's Supper?" What did He want to accomplish by doing so. We can disagree about many detail ( that's what liberty is ), but we all agree that Jesus wanted for us to remember Him and what HE did for us on the cross. The issue in Corinthians was that the brethren were not observing it in memory of Jesus. We can all agree that the Apostle instructed the Corinthian church to keep its assembly centered around said observance and the edifying of each of its members. No doctrine can be established from the silence of scriptures. Therefore, I do not see a parallel between the arguments set forth regarding the Lord's Supper and the use of instrumental music. We have a direct command with regards to the use of a mechanical instrument of music. "Sing and make melody in your heart." "Teach and admonish one another in song, hymns and spiritual songs." A direct specific command eliminates all else so an argument that an instrument can be used because it is not specifically forbidden is not logical. However, the command "As often as ..." is not specific to a day. I believe that the Lord's Super is to be taken at least once every Sunday, but I do not find grounds to condemn anyone who would also partake of it at additional times when brethren are assembled. To condemn such would put one in opposition to remembering the Lord's death, burial and resurrection on any day other than Sunday. I'm not prepared to do that without a command to do so. The fact is that we all are studying and growing at different rates so our understanding of scriptures will always vary. The scriptures instruct us that we are to be patient and tolerant of each other as we all strive to help each other grow into the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. Remember Rom. 14 and the whole books of Corinthians ... if brethren who had such widely varying views were told to suck it up, submit to each other and just get along, surely we can do likewise. ( It is interesting to note that the most restrictive of the views expressed in Rm. 14 & I Co 8 were identified as the weaker brethren. ) No Christian will ever be accidentally lost. We are commanded to be faithful, not to be perfect in understanding. We are commanded "ABOVE ALL be fervent in your love one for another." Discussion between those who love each other is good, healthy and promotes growth. As long as our discussions meet that criteria, have at it, but leave the stones on the ground. Grandpa (Wayne Polk)

**************************Steven :

Deliberately violating a command is rebellion and as such is unquestionably sin. But living in fear of a mistake, feeling compelled to take the safest course for fear of condemnation is not Christian liberty. "Perfect love casts out fear." I know that you do not have that same attitude toward your earthly father. We do our best to please and to obey, but our heavenly Father is not looking for a reason to condemn. He wants love and devotion as well as obedience. Forgive me if I am misreading what you are advocating, but I grew up in a Christian community that was so afraid of making a mistake that there was no joy in their relationship with God. If everyone one in the brotherhood had not been doing it for a hundred years, it was wrong. If there was the slightest question, it was wrong. Sometimes I got the impression we felt if it was enjoyable it was wrong. I guess what I'm saying is that our relationship with the Father should be based upon love, not fear. He loved us enough to die for us so I'm sure He's not going to condemn us for allowing our zeal to cause us to worship Him too much. A man loves his wife and would never deliberately do anything to displease her, but that does not cause him to live always be concerned that he might do something to cause her to stop loving him. I'm not advocating a flippant relationship with God, but I fear we sometimes get so uptight we forfeit the joy He want us to enjoy. Old Uzzah (Wayne Polk)

*********************Wayne, 1) To only do what we are commanded makes us "unprofitable servants" (Luke 17:10). Thus, Christians/Preachers who are driven only by the word "command" have yet to appreciate their need to serve God. No one can find the direct "command" to "assemble," and yet the word "church" denotes the nature of assembling, and many passages demonstrate both the need and value of such gatherings. Under Moses, God had many "holy convocations," surely we would expect assembling to be second-nature (Hebrews 10:24-26). And, since the church is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18, 24; 1 Corinthians 12:27), and, since Jesus Christ left us an example that we should follow His steps (1 Peter 2:21), what "steps" of Jesus can the churches of Christ "follow"? AND are these "commands" or "following" His example? Jesus' example the very day He was raised from the dead was to present His sacrificed body to the disciples who were assembled on that day (John 20:19-20, 24-29). When the church began on Pentecost (a first day of the week), His body is represented by His Supper as being in the assembly of the disciples (Acts 2:42; 20:7). Is His example of presenting His body in the assembly of the disciples on the first day of the week of no influence to those who should be following His steps? 2) The Greek in Acts 2:42 and 20:7 is "breaking the bread," whereas the Greek in Acts 2:48 and 20:11 leaves the article "the" out to reference a common meal, "breaking bread." 3) Since the stated purpose of the Lord's Supper is to "remember His death till He comes," once His body has been presented by representation with the elements He endorsed, what would the value be to repeat the practice more than once each Lord's Day? Jesus condemned "vain repetitions" (Matthew 6:7) which depicts people who "stammer" or repeat words and phrases with no added meaning. Jesus repeated a prayer with the same words (Matthew 26:44), but each prayer had the original meaning, but to repeat the Lord's Supper on the same day could not have the original meaning each time. If a Christian has proper reason (not excuse!) for not participating in the Lord's Supper when it is offered for "the whole church," the individual must decide whether or not participating in a "communion" with a few is the same as with "the whole church" (1 Corinthians 11:17-18, 20). Request: If you chose topics to be discussed as not arriving at a Scriptural conclusion which should be satisfactory to all (cf Acts 15:13-31), but simply of "tiring" those discussing it, what makes you think your question about "eating in the building" would be answered? AND what makes your interest in Scripture any different than the Athenians' practice of spending "their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing" (Acts 17:21)? If we are simply searching for new topics but not old answers from the Bible, why bother? Just a thought. Johnny Polk

*******************************

Hello all, I want to add a few points to consider in our discussion about examples. First, it is obvious that not every account of action in the Bible carries binding significance. For example, no one argues from Acts 20:7 that the Lord’s Supper can only be taken in Troas. For an account of action to take on the weight of an example, it must be supported by a larger theology of principles and teachings in the rest of the Bible (for an example of this larger context for the Lord’s Supper, see the email I sent yesterday). The connections between larger contexts and accounts of actions allows us to passages like the account of the Ethiopian eunuch's conversion (Acts 8) or Saul’s conversion (Acts 9) to demonstrate the necessity of baptism. One reason I believe the mention of “examples” can be troubling lies in our unfortunate misuse of examples by not supplying them with the appropriate context that demonstrates the reason why that example carries any force beyond simply an account of action. Second, the Bible includes some obvious parallels to the memorial of the Lord’s Supper like the Sabbath and the Passover. Both events had dates and practices set by God that He expected the Jews faithfully observe (Exodus 12:1-27; 20:8-11) that set a context for understanding date-restricted memorials like the Lord Supper (note that the Bible does record a few exceptions like II Chronicles 30:13-20, but they are picture as deviations and not precedents). Third, we should not disregard the close connections between the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper and the day of its observance. Fourth, if the date of observing the Lord’s Supper cannot be restricted to Sunday, then how might we explain the consistent placement of its practice on Sunday alone both in the Bible and in the early church.Fifth, we do need to be careful not to assume that the observance of the Lord’s Supper has some intrinsic moral value; it does not. We noted above that God approved of an irregular observance of the Passover in II Chronicles 30. Additionally, Paul’s comments about the Lord’ Supper in I Corinthians 11 point to the heart as the condemning/approving aspect to the observance of the meal. We must also include in heart discussions the obedience that Jesus tied to our love for him (John 14:15; I John 5:3). The New Testament does however closely tie the meal to a specific date that emphasizes the symbolism of the event and increases in memorializing impact. I believe that we need to stress the connection between the date and the practice while making sure that we keep our focus on our hearts. Just some thoughts that came to mind as I was reading everyone’s comments. I hope these thoughts spur more conversation. -joshua

*********************Hello Joshua, et al. Since you have invited more discussion, I will comment on your point #3. Joshua wrote: "Third, we should not disregard the close connections between the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper and the day of its observance." Stephen here: My friend, I concur with the vast majority of everything you have articulated. However, this point is not a strong one for your argumentation. In fact, it seems to me that it weakens your argument. I understand the connection that can be made between partaking on Sunday and the significant historical event that happened the same day (i.e., His resurrection). And yes, there is a strong link between the communion and the resurrection. Nevertheless, the Lord's Supper is a memorial to His death fundamentally, as is seen in the symbols themselves (body & blood), and He died on a Friday (as I understand). Others may advocate Thursday, but rest assured, He did not die on a Sunday. All that being said, your point #3 opens the door to partaking on Friday if we really care about "close connections between the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper and the day of its observance" (as you have suggested). I recommend you rethink this aspect, dear brother. I stand by my initial recommendation: Let us simply do what we know cannot be wrong (Sunday observance) and do not seek to think beyond what is written.

Be well,-SRB

************************Amen Josh !! You ought to be a preacher !! ( Oh, your are ?! Great !! ) In God's wisdom, He penned a book for all ages and all cultures. From many readings of the text, I cannot imagine that the Apostles ever dreamed their writings would still be being studied 2000 years after they were penned ( They seemed to expect the second coming sooner. ) or that they would be read in cultures around the world that vary from near stone-age to high-tech. Personally, before the moss began to grow on the north side of my brain, I found my studies of the ancient cultures to be more profitable to my understanding of the sacred text than even my years of study in the Greek. ( now long forgotten, mostly ) We can get the same message from the scriptures that the people in the first century got, but it is MUCH easier to do so if we understand the culture of the original recipients. Even today people in radically different cultures who believe the gospel as we do practice it in widely different ways, but we realize that our assemblies would be completely strange to those who penned the text that we use to determine how we conduct our assemblies. I to appreciate the love between brethren at our meeting. This discussion has opened some old wounds for me. I remember when I was first challenged to seriously study this issue. It was to resolve a problem in the area. A good and honest brother had violated the established tradition and everyone else in the area wanted to disfellowship him. They came to me to validate their claim so I spent weeks reading everything I could and meditating on the text. It took so long because the conclusion to which I came mercilessly slaughtered one of my sacred cows, but that cow did not die quietly. When I asked others to study it with me, I was almost the one disfellowshipped for even considering anything other than our traditional practice. It quickly became abundantly clear that everyone in the area was expected to memorize and to parrot the interpretations of previous teachers in the Church of Christ and that anyone who challenged them to think would be quickly ostracized and labeled as a liberal or an anti depending on which way the labeler leaned. TRUTH IS TRUTH. Challenges only reinforce it. If it will not withstand a challenge, it is not truth. Ron and Dave both study so it is good for them to challenge each other. Knowing them both, I doubt that either will be swayed by force of the arguments of the other, but I have full confidence that they will each love the other when it is all over. That endears them both to me, even if they are both not completely correct. P.S. We must take it easy on Bro. Bradd. With a new baby ( Josiah ) in the house, he probably hasn't been getting much sleep lately so he needs safety. We know he has thought in the past so we will restrain from judging his motives for seeking safety.

******************** Dear brother Johnny Polk, You wrote, "2) The Greek in Acts 2:42 and 20:7 is 'breaking the bread,' whereas the Greek in Acts 2:48 and 20:11 leaves the article "the" out to reference a common meal, 'breaking bread.'" I am not sure what source you are using, but what you have stated is not supported by Strong's. Strong's has verses Acts 20:7 and Acts 20:11 using the same exact Greek words in conjunction, klao artos. Strong's Ref. # 2806Romanized klaoPronounced klah'-oa primary verb; to break (specially, of bread):KJV--break.

Strong's Ref. # 740Romanized artosPronounced ar'-tosfrom GSN0142; bread (as raised) or a loaf:KJV--(shew-)bread, loaf. These appear in the exact same order in both of these verses. After Luke says they broke bread at the beginning of verse 11, Luke then adds kai geuomai. Here is how the ASV translates this verse, and I am of the opinion they are correct. And when he was gone up, and had broken the bread, and eaten, and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. I believe Luke was telling us the disciples observed the Lord's Supper again and then they shared a common meal together. That is my opinion of the events in this verse based upon what is writtten, and nothing I said is wrong by itself. I may be wrong, but I also may be right. And since we are left with two reasonable possible scenarios, neither of which violates the command to remember the Lord's death until He comes, as oft as we eat that bread and drink that cup, then I believe we have no authority to bind law about something that may be right. You wrote, "3) Since the stated purpose of the Lord's Supper is to 'remember His death till He comes,' once His body has been presented by representation with the elements He endorsed, what would the value be to repeat the practice more than once each Lord's Day?" The same can be said of anything we do on Sunday morning, brother Johnny. Why should we preach again? Where's the value? Why should we pray? Why edify each other? Why should we sing? Why even meet again at all? We did it all in the morning. This is the very same argument many in denominations use who only observe the Lord's Supper twice or four times a year. They believe to do so more often takes away the specialness of it. Is it not still the first day of the week? Where is the approved apostolic example of isolating members from the rest of the body to partake of the Lord's Supper apart from the body of believers? The only example we have is the disciples partaking of it together. You wrote, "but to repeat the Lord's Supper on the same day could not have the original meaning each time." Who says so? Was it Paul? Peter? Was it James, the Lord's brother? Can you please provide a chapter and verse? Using this logic I must conclude that singing must also lose its meaning with each successive song. The opening prayer has more meaning and significance than any prayer which follows. Once again, this is the same argument used by denominations who partake of the Lord's Supper twice or four times a year. I don't get it. The logic here is that the more we remember the Lord's death until He comes again, the less important it becomes. Am I missing something? Can someone help me in my understanding? Brotherly, David R. Ferguson

*********************David, Thank you for your interest and reply. Maybe the following will be of use:Acts 2:42 has: kai tn klasei tou artou (and the breaking the bread)Acts 2:46 has: klontes te kat oikon arton (the breaking in every house bread)Acts 20:7 has: tou klasai arton o (the breaking the bread)Acts 20:11 has: kai klasas arton (and breaking bread) These are from the Textus Receptus. The Strong's reference you gave is only of the words "breaking" and "bread" without consideration of the "the's" which complete the grammatical structure. Nouns and verbs are not all that are important to a sentence. That meals are in 2:46 and 20:11 may be clearer in context, and that they

are distinguished from a special breaking of bread in 2:42 and 20:7 may, indeed, be subtle. The disciples fellowshipped with a “common meal” when they assembled to remember the Lord's death by the Lord's Supper, and commentators seem to have some difficulty showing a difference between the two “meals.” In 1 Corinthians 10:15-17, "the cup of blessing" and "the bread which we break" surely helps us to see that in Paul's eyes (and Christians, generally) of all the "cups" and "breads" shared among Christians, there was one of each in a category to itself used only as the Lord intended it to be remembered. On Acts 2:46, J. W. McGarvey wrote: "The 'breaking bread,' klontes arton, mentioned in this sentence, is not the 'breaking of the loaf,' e klasis tou artou of Acts 2:42; but refers to common meals of which they partook 'from house to house.' This is evident from the connection: 'breaking bread from house to house, they received their food with gladness and singleness of heart.' It was that breaking of bread in which they 'received their food,' which was not done in partaking of the emblematic loaf. There is no evidence that the emblematic loaf was ever broken in mere social gatherings. It belongs exclusively to the Lord's day.” On the repetition point, from our morning to the evening worship, the songs, sermons, prayers, and edification are different with each effort. Thus they are not being offered as "repetition" of the first one offered, but each is its own individual sacrifice before God. There are some things that are not repeated: giving, for instance. Once given cheerfully on the first day of the week, we have offered our monetary gift to God, and do not repeat it again on that same first day of the week. Communion, likewise, once partaken of in the whole church (1 Corinthians 11:17-18, 20) in order to remember the Lord's Death (and sacrifice), has served its intended purpose for that week. The Lord's Supper is the only act of worship designed completely for self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:28), all other worship actions contain concern for "one another." This is not the same as denominations arguing that the Lord's Supper loses meaning with weekly observance, for they are removing the Holy Spirit's association of the Communion with each first day of the week. Rather, this is recognizing the stated purpose of the Lord’s Supper, and accepting it as effective when rightly done. There is no account in Scripture of the Apostles, or the church, partaking of the Lord's Supper more or less than upon the first day of the week, or of multiple times on the first day of the week, is there? We only find the Apostles including it in the first day of the week worship. Did Jesus and the apostles "retake" the Lord's Supper after Judas left their assembly early (Luke 22:19-21)? Does the "whole church" need to "retake" the Lord's Supper again with those who show up later than the time of Communion? Jesus’ term "vain repetitions" applies to prayers whose words repeat without the same meaning or sincerity (Matthew 6:7). Just as it is not the "many words" that make prayers acceptable to God, neither would we remember the Lord's death more if we repeated the action on the first day of the week.I hope this is beneficial, but if not, please inquire again. Johnny Polk