I thought that this topic was done. Glenn basically conceded. However, now I’ve irrefutable evidence that Glenn (our SDA pal) is willfully ignorant. His newest post doesn’t even begin to address arguments that I raised here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here. Now I know that Glenn read what I wrote. He made comments on a couple of the posts directly and on his site. So I know that he knows the arguments that I raised which he never interacted with. Glenn just keeps on promoting his view (which has been refuted) as if he’s never seen an argument against it. This is willful ignorance. He knows my arguments and instead of being a honest person just keeps on trucking. Willful ignorance people. Willful ignorance.

So, in this new post (thanks to Jeff for alerting me of it!) Glenn is again trying to make Acts 20 not be about Christian worship or Sunday, etc. The lengths this guy goes to astound me. For someone that loves to remind others of the “proper way of interpreting Scripture” this guy sure loves his hermeneutical gymnastics. I’ve got to hand it to him, though. He can make himself believe anything. Fortunately, anyone reading his posts with even an ounce of scriptural knowledge will not be convinced. Let’s begin.

Glenn makes a big deal about trying to show how “to break bread” here in Acts doesn’t mean communion. He writes:

Many Christians who hear the term “Breaking bread” automatically think communion or last supper, because it is often associated with the term. However, back in the time of the Christ, the term “break bread” was primarily understood as eating a common meal. You have to take the cultural context into consideration. They didn’t have sliced bread back then, but big whole loaves, and oftentimes, the crusts got hard. The only way to eat the bread is to break it up into smaller pieces. That’s where the term comes from.

Admittedly, to “break bread” in Bible times often referred to the eating of common meals. God once warned the prophet Jeremiah not to “break bread for the mourner” (Jeremiah 16:7, RSV). Jesus “took bread…and broke it” with the disciples to whom he appeared on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:30,35). The early Christians are said to have continued daily “breaking bread from house to house” eating “food with gladness and simplicity of heart” (Acts 2:46). Paul once “took bread and…broke it” and instructed his 275 companions on board a ship to Italy to eat it for their “preservation” (Acts 27:34-35, NASB). In ancient times, to “break bread” was a figure of speech known as synecdoche where a part (to break bread) was put for the whole (to eat a common meal, regardless of the kind of food and drink consumed).

In New Testament times, however, the phrase “to break bread” was also used to describe the partaking of the Lord’s Supper (especially in Luke’s writings). Jesus instituted this special supper while celebrating the Feast of Unleavened Bread with his disciples shortly before his death.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29, emphasis mine).

In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul addressed the subject of the Lord’s Supper with these words: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (emphasis mine). Paul later reminded the Corinthians of the night in which Jesus first instituted this memorial feast, saying, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24, emphasis mine). Because part of this memorial supper that Christians are commanded to keep involves the actual breaking of bread, the expression “to break bread” was used in reference to the Lord’s Supper in the early church.¹ Similar to how this phrase was used as a synecdoche in regard to common meals, it was also used to represent the Lord’s Supper (where consumption of both the bread and the fruit of the vine is referred to as simply “the breaking of bread”).

Because the phrase “to break bread” refers both to common meals and the Lord’s Supper, one must examine the context of passages in order to understand which one is being discussed. For example, since in Acts 2:42 “breaking bread” is listed with other religious activities carried out by the church such as teaching, praying, and fellowshipping (from the Greek koinonia, which may include several aspects of “joint participation,” including free-will offerings on the first day of the week—cf. Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2)², one may logically conclude that “the breaking of bread” is a reference to the early Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper. On a side note, the use of the definite article in this verse also leaves the impression that a particular event is under consideration, rather than a common meal where “food” (Greek trophe, a word never used of the Lord’s Supper³) is served for the purpose of gaining nourishment (e.g., Acts 2:46; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:33-34).

But what about the use of the phrase “to break bread” in Acts 20:7? What textual indicators are present that warrant the phrase in this passage to be understood as the Lord’s Supper? First, the term “to break bread” is a first aorist active infinitive. Since infinitives in Greek and English denote the objective or purpose of action for the principal verb, one can know that Paul, Luke, and the disciples at Troas “gathered together” for the primary purpose of “breaking bread.” When this information is processed in light of the fact that Paul earlier had written to the church at Corinth and implied that the purpose for them coming together was to partake of the Lord’s Supper (in an orderly manner—1 Corinthians 11:20, 33), then the passage in Acts 20 makes much better sense: “to break bread” was (or at least included) the eating of the Lord’s Supper. What’s more, Paul remained in Troas for seven days despite being in a hurry to get to Jerusalem before Pentecost (which was about 31 days, 10 stops, and 1,000 miles away—cf. Acts 20:6,13-16; 21:1, 3, 7-8, 15). Why tarry in Troas for seven days? It was not simply to eat a common meal with the saints. Rather, Paul desired to worship with the church in Troas “on the first day of the week,” which included observing “communion” with them (1 Corinthians 10:16).

But did Paul and the church at Troas really observe the Lord’s Supper on Sunday? First, it is possible that the bread Paul broke after spending all night preaching and talking was part of a common meal that he would have gladly received before beginning his extended journey to Jerusalem. Nevertheless, when Luke’s terminology in Acts 20:11 is carefully examined, it appears that Paul ate two separate meals with the disciples: the Lord’s Supper first (“had broken bread”), followed by a common meal (“and eaten”). This latter expression (“and eaten,” Greek geusamenos) is nowhere used of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, whereas in Acts 10:10 it is applied to taking a common meal⁴). The former expression (“had broken bread”) has the Greek definite article before “bread” (lit., “had broken the bread,” ASV, emphasis mine) and seems plainly to denote the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; their intention to do so being expressed in Acts 20:7, but their actually doing it nowhere if not here.

If Paul, then, waited to “break bread” until after midnight (20:7, 11), would this not have been a Monday-morning observance of the Lord’s Supper? Regardless of whether the memorial feast was observed before or after midnight, one can be assured that it took place on Sunday, because it was “on the first day of the week” that the disciples met “to break bread.” The reason that eating the Lord’s Supper after midnight would have been acceptable conduct for many Christians is because the Jewish method of counting time was still widely acknowledged. The Jews and the Romans used different standards for calculating the hours of the day, and although both systems split the day into two periods of twelve hours, a new day for the Romans began at midnight (cf. Pliny, n.d., 2:79), whereas a new day for the Jews began in the evening at sundown and lasted until sundown the following day. Luke, like Matthew and Mark, used the Jewish method of reckoning time in both his gospel account and in the book of Acts (cf. Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; 23:23; cf. also John 19:14; 20:1, 19). Thus, Paul’s pre-midnight preaching corresponded to our Saturday evening, but was the beginning of their “first day.” Regardless of whether they observed the Lord’s Supper on the evening of the first day or the morning of the first day, it was observed on the proper day, the day on which Jesus rose from the grave (Luke 24:1)—the first day of the week.

Glenn now really starts distancing himself from reality when he writes:

Many small groups at my local church meet during the evenings to fellowship and study the Word of God together. Typically, there are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night meetings. Usually before or after the study, they have a meal, as most meetings are around supper time. The setting in Acts 20:7 sounds like the exact same scenario.

Here we have Glenn applying practices that his “church” does today 2,000 years after the events in Acts. This is just sloppy and speaks for itself.

He gives a list of reasons for this starting with:

It’s obvious it was a evening/nighttime gathering. When Christians use this verse to prove Sunday observance, they should be consistent and hold services at night.

This is another in a long line of Glenn’s non sequitors and straw man arguments. Nowhere is it prescribed what time to gather but only that Christians should gather and the early church did so – on Sunday. Glenn conveniently adopts an overly-literal hermeneutic here.

His second reason is written:

The author of Acts, who many believe the same writer of Luke’s gospel, used the Jewish method of keeping time, in which days started at sundown. Hence the Sabbath is always Friday at sundown to Saturday sundown. The first day of the week thus is Saturday night (sundown)

I addressed this above. Glenn really tries to latch on to this being at night, as if that makes any difference whatsoever. It doesn’t. Again, Glenn is grasping.

Glenn’s third reason:

It was at someone’s residence, as the upper level/upstairs room indicates. As seen numerous times throughout the NT, Jesus and Paul worshiped on the Sabbath at typical places of worship, synagogues.

Glenn forgets that Jesus and Paul were both Jews. He also assumes that early Christians met in “typical places of worship” which reveals his ignorance again of church history.

Glenn’s fourth reason is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but his fifth states:

Lastly, the [sic] ate and talked until daybreak (v. 11) Then Paul departed. Paul, wouldn’t break the Sabbath by beginning a journey on it, that’s why he chose to do it on a Sunday.

Paul actually departed on Monday (even a cursory glance would reveal that).

So again and again I’ve shown that Glenn is ill-equipped to be teaching anything. He sloppily handles Scripture and he blatantly ignores arguments against his position. His eisegesis of Acts 20:1-13 is just one in a long list of grave misinterpretations.

1. Behm, Johannes (1965), “klao, klasis, klasma,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans) 3:730 [↩]
2. Jackson, Wayne (2005), The Acts of the Apostles: From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications) p. 31 [↩]
3. Barnes, Albert (1956), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker) p. 59 [↩]
4. Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Logos [↩]