To find it as positively one direction or the other is subjectively influenced outside of scripture, and that is important to bring to light to any learner in a pursuit to be an effective teacher.

Blessings,
Chris

I don’t know that “a clear focus on Christ” is possible if and only if one is observing the Lord’s Supper. The early church saw the “agape feast” as yet another gathering with the focus on Christ. Gathering to share table fellowship after Paul’s exhortation would not be beneath Paul and would not be something beneath his aspirations.

We must resist the temptation to see the Lord’s Supper lying behind every mention of food and drink in the New Testament.

I’m thankful that we both agree that the passage does not conclusively indicate the Lord’s Supper. I should hope that we could both agree that even any powerful probability one way or the other comes from the reader and not from the text itself.

As I agreed with you earlier, there is a rare possibility that the men were simply there to eat something. Yet there is better evidence, at least in my mind and seen throughout the NT, of a greater aspiration of these men to go beyond the mere eating of a meal together with the gathered church,..surely they remembered the provider and peacemaker. Their main objective was to worship and remember their Lord. Surely it is clear today, that we don’t keep those things (eating of a meal and remember the Lord) as close together as in the early churches. We don’t understand that very well.

Corinth is a better example of what we do today. Since the Lord’s table is becoming more and more rare, and is treated in many congregations as something of an event to “produce”, rather than a meal where near the end the Lord instructs His disciples (Mark 14:22…). After all, those in Corinth were told to eat at home since they were eating up all the meal and not waiting on the rest of the church who were left with nothing..Cor.11:33(it wasn’t that they were told not to eat a meal with the Saints when they were gathered), so in other words, he was telling the Corinthian gluttons to eat at home….and then to boot…. because of their gluttony and drunkeness, they were not remembering the Lord. They left Him completely out of their lives at the time. Is it any wonder that the Apostle had to remind them of why they come together to share in all things and remember the Lord.

Pliny probably did write correctly about what he saw (I am not challenging that)… but he certainly does not supply context nor help us understand in any meaningful way what the early churches were doing in and around their meals as Luke has given and as Paul has shown in his correction to those in Corinth.

Again, there certainly is a possibility that it is all about the food. But, I don’t see that as the main theme of why these Christians were gathering in 2:42, or why leaders were gathered with the church on the first day of the week (Acts 20)without a clear focus on Christ…since it is obvious that Christ gave the command to His disciples in the midst of a meal (Mark). (Just to be clear as well…I am not pushing for eating meal everytime the Lord’s table is offered.)

Blessings,
Chris

I would not take Pliny as an authority on the Christian doctrine of the atonement or the historicity of the resurrection. However, I no of know reason to doubt his testimony that the early Christians typically met twice on the Lord’s Day: Once to worship and a second time to share a family meal…the agape feast. Since Paul’s event at Troas took place at the end of the day, I think Pliny’s observation is highly relevant, even without Pliny knowing beans about the theology of the Lord’s Supper.

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts a bit more for me and supplying Pliny’s historical perspective….and as you have said, and I agree in part as well…. there is room to allow for other possibilities. After all, we were not there with them and can only beg for understanding from the information we have today to try and understand how these guys were interacting. Additionally, I certainly expect the Texans (John) to hang together on this one as well :) You rascals you….

To add a bit more context and structure to the scripture in question though, I do find it comforting that Luke (not Pliny) would point to the first day of the week. I certainly don’t expect Pliny the younger, also pagan, to understand the significance of Luke’s writings and his evangelical contexts. So for the time being I will have to side with Luke to pursue the intent of the scriptural writers to lead us toward the context, so that when these men came together with the congregation to break bread, Luke’s depiction of “when” this was occurring in the Acts 20 account is important,… since it is already known that during the early church it was common to experience feasts and the remembrance of our Lord together (Acts 2:42). The eating of meals and the Lord’s Supper were commonly experienced together allowing Paul to explain the difference between gathering to remember Christ and discouraging the wealthier/selfishly motivated folks from eating the best food and not waiting on the “blue collar” workers of the day to gather as well, such as in the case where Paul was rebuking the Corinthians. In the Acts account…Luke’s mention of the first day of the week is a good indication of proper context for the gathered church. I would be more inclined to express the 2:42 passage as one of common feasts, while in the same matter, at various times remembering the Lord with bread and the fruit of the vine while meeting daily and remembering their Savior.

When you read Pliny’s translated letters to his peers and leaders… the quantitative mentioning of the Christ followers is to the tune of a needle in a haystack and without any real context for explanation….only his pagan view of some folks paying homage to a God.

It is interesting though to read what was going through the guys mind throughout the letters.

John,…for what it’s worth,…I still like the point you make in the post though….

Blessings,
Chris

Chris,
I must say that Bart’s arguments prove to be very persuading to me.

Ben,
Great words. Thanks for interacting.

Gunny,
“It’s not the location per se, but there’s a vast difference between a church that meets in a home and a home acting as a church.” Precisely.

I don’t know that context settles this one. Unless one stakes out the Campbellite position that New Testament churches never shared meals with one another, the context has to allow for the possibility that this congregation was enjoying a “love feast” rather than the Lord’s Supper. We know that even as early as the Jerusalem church our spiritual forefathers were providing entire meals to widows.

Given the sequence of events for the evening—It appears in Acts 20:11 that the meal came after the worship service, and not during it—I think one can make a strong case that this particular “breaking of bread” refers simply to a fellowship meal among the church family.

However, I want to clarify what I am not arguing. I am not saying that Acts 20 could not possibly be referring to a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I am merely saying that the matter is not clear at all in this passage, at least not to me. The verb employed and the sequence of the narrative cause me to wonder whether this passage is referring to the Lord’s Supper at all.

Good to see you out and about. Come on back anytime!

Don’t let the wild geese light on your roof tonight.

SG!

You are wise beyond your years.

No matter what happens, I am going to be paying for it, as will you.

Therefore, I am going to lock down on Psalms 46, seek to fulfill the mandate of the Great Commission, and seek to finish well for Jesus.

(In the meantime, I am going to write three more papers and take a test.)

Good night Scott. I enjoyed the little break by reading this post and the comment thread.