Articles
The Breaking of Bread in Acts 2
In our recent Acts 2 class, we discussed the meaning of the “breaking of bread” in verses 42 and 46. Being aware of some lin-gering confusion among our members, some of whom are newer, I offer the fol-lowing comments in hopes they help.
It was soundly observed in class that verse 42 should seem very familiar to Chris-tians, because this describes what we’ve been doing all our Christian lives every first day of the week. Is this not how you would describe our own typical Sunday? Continuing in the apostles doctrine would include preaching the word, teaching the word (both in classes and in song—Col. 3:16). Public prayer is offered by various men as per 1 Timothy 2:8. Fellowship, which simply means: joint-participation, sharing, partnership is experienced among all who worship together. Context is al-ways required to show the activity in which people are “working together.” Two people teaching the gospel to a sinner are in fellowship. Members cleaning the church building together are having fel-lowship. Sending money to an evangelist is fellowship (Phil. 1:5). James and John even had “koinonos” (fellowship) in a fish-ing business venture (Luke 5:10). Does this mean the church may get into the business of chartering fishing expeditions for prospective members since fishing can be called fellowship, and Acts 2:42 says they continued in fellowship? Of course not! The immediate context would suggest that their “sharing” involved sharing their possessions with needy (v. 45, see also 2 Cor. 8:4). Of course, it would also include joint-participation in continuing in doctrine, prayer and breaking bread.
That leaves the question about the breaking of bread—was it just a common meal? Was it the Lord’s Supper? Or both—Lord’s Supper in 2:42 and common meal in 2:46? It is this latter view to which I hold.
The first issue is, why does it matter? If verse 42 does indeed describe the activities of the Lord’s Day assembly, then a “common meal” in-terpretation in v. 42 opens the door for us to enjoy common meals in conjunction with worship, if that’s what first century Christians did. However, Paul taught in 1 Cor. 14:22 that the assembly of saints for worship on the Lord’s Day is no place for “eating and drinking” as one would do at his house. It is a holy assembly to the Lord with spiritual sacrifices being offered to Him (Heb. 13:15-16).
But, we do not interpret v. 42 as the Lord’s Supper simply because we don’t like the logical consequences of the other option, but because:
1) The list of things in which Christians continued are all spiritual activities which edify the soul. The Word of God edifies (Acts 20:32). Prayer and singing edifies (1 Cor. 14:12-17). Even contri-butions for needy saints edify (2 Cor. 9:11-14). The Lord’s Supper fits right in, also edifying (1 Cor. 11:23-25).
2) It was also pointed out that the literal Greek is: “the breaking of the bread.” A remark was made that their Bible does not read that way. It is admittedly not a very common translation. Alt-hough, it isn’t unheard of. Weymouth’s translation, Wuest’s trans-lation, and Young’s Literal translation all have: “the breaking of the [emphasis mine] bread.” Although I do not know enough about Greek to deride translators for the omission, I will say that the one’s who did include it have not done so baselessly. You can see for yourself (below) — “Tou” is clearly seen as an article before bread (artou). Gareth Reese, in his Acts commentary at 2:42 wrote: “It would be difficult to interpret this of an ordinary meal, for the Greek reads, “The breaking of The bread (there is an article in both places in the original).”
3) In contrast to the spiritual grouping of words in v. 42, is a re-counting of some secular activities such as “breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness...” Common meals may give us joy (v. 46), but it is joy that comes through feed-ing the flesh. That is not to diminish the importance of secular community with believers, but when it comes to the assembly, “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home (1 Cor. 11:34).”
Also important is how it is that we ended up having confusion at the conclusion of our class. One thing which often contributes to this is the usage of modern or contemporary translations which often take liberality with the text. One such example of this is the Amplified Bi-ble. Before we look at what they did with Acts 2, consider its preface:
The Amplified Bible has a... basic verse [which] is the literal equiva-lent translation of the [original languages]. The basic verse is then amplified in a way that permits the reader to have a greater under-standing of the relationship between the crispness of contemporary English and the depth of meaning in the biblical languages. (blb.c0m)
The “basic verse” as they describe is what we would describe as a con-servative translation of the Bible. But, the ‘amplification’ of the “basic verse” is what we would refer to as a “commentary.” When we add to God’s word to help with understanding, we are interpreting, not trans-lating. There is nothing wrong with that; it is an important part of study (Neh. 8:8). But, it is not authoritative as is the true text.
For example, consider how the AMP version weighs in on “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 and 46— 42 “And they steadfastly persevered, devoting themselves constantly to the instruction and fellowship of the apostles, to the breaking of bread [including the Lord's Supper] and prayers….46 And day after day they regularly assembled in the temple with united purpose, and in their homes they broke bread [including the Lord's Supper]. They partook of their food with glad-ness and simplicity and generous heart,” (AMP)
Their addition in verse 42 (including the Lord’s Supper) all but solidi-fies banqueting as a part of the church’s work, and the same phrase added to verse 46 essentially authorizes a daily observance of the Lord’s Supper. But, v. 46 doesn’t refer to the Lord’s Supper. “Breaking bread” is a figure for eating together, and what was eaten was their “meat / their food / their meals” (Greek word Trophe, never used of the unleavened bread.)
These resources can be helpful, but they should be used with great care, and shared publicly with even greater care, being fully aware es-pecially of the ramifications on those who are new to the faith.
