Breaking Bread in Acts, II

I’ll be out of the country until next Tuesday, but I wanted to try to spur some more discussion on this. Let’s simplify it. Give me your view on the following passages:

(1) Acts 2:42   And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

(2) Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

(3) Acts 20:7   On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

(4) Acts 20:11 And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

(5) Acts 27:35 And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat.
A. Lord’s Supper B. Common Meal C. Could be either

Breaking Bread in Acts

Keep those pitchforks sharp and those torches burning… but save them for a week.

In the meantime, help me with this study. Here are the passages in Acts that refer to “breaking bread.” How do we decide which ones are the Lord’s Supper and which ones are a common meal?

Acts 2:42   And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

Acts 20:7   On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

Acts 20:11 And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.

Acts 27:35 And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat.

1 Timothy 2:8-10 (addendum)

This post merely adds to the previous one, so if you haven’t read it, please do so. In the spirit of this blog in general and the last post in particular, it’s time for me to say that I think I was wrong about something. I think that I was misreading 1 Timothy 2:9. I accused most of the Western world of misreading that verse, but now I think it was me. If you haven’t read the comments on that post, please do so, especially the ones by Bob Bliss. He and I want to study this passage further, but my initial impression is that I was wrong.

I still feel, however, that we’ve read too much into what Paul is saying. His statement that he wants men to pray does not mean that he doesn’t want women to pray. When he says that older women should teach younger women in Titus 2, that doesn’t mean men can’t teach younger women. Paul wants the men in Ephesus to get together and pray, lifting holy hands (why don’t we bind that part of the verse?), without fighting. They apparently have a problem with that, and he wants it to change.

All right, citizens… back to your lives. I just thought I shouldn’t leave these things to the comment section.

1 Timothy 2:8-10

All right, I’ve gathered my courage and am ready to delve into a couple of passages where I hold unorthodox views. If you’d rather not have any preconceived notions challenged, please don’t continue reading. These are the kind of posts that inspire the local villagers to gather around my castle with torches and pitchforks, ready to slay the monster…

Let me begin with some disclaimers:

• No, I’m not promoting anything. Too many people want to start with the conclusions and work backwards. I’m trying to deal with the text. Only when we have fully dealt with the text can we work on the application. Too many people let what they want to find dictate what their study will reveal.



• I’m presenting hypotheses. If the orthodox conclusion is correct, I will be thrilled to return to that view. Help me get back to it, if that’s what I need to do.

So, what better passage to get into trouble with than a passage about gender roles in the church? Or, should I say, a passage that we’ve made to be about gender roles in the church. Let’s look at 1 Timothy 2:8-10:

“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” (ESV)

Many people feel that Paul, in this passage is telling us who can pray in public and who can’t. My belief is that he’s talking about what and not who. Here’s why:

1. What if this passage said, “I desire that in every place men go to church instead of going to the theater on Sunday”? Would we then argue that only men can go to church? Paul is telling the men to stop quarreling and start praying. His command that men should pray doesn’t preclude women from praying as well. Look at Titus 2:2-3; we logically understand that the older women are to have the same traits as the older men. Interestingly enough, the grammatical construction between these two passages seems to be similar. The connecting word between the instructions for the two sexes, “likewise” or “in like manner,” is used both in 1 Timothy 2 and in Titus 2.



2. I think that most of our translations have allowed their views toward this passage to override their grammatical understanding. To help you see what I mean, let me quote from Young’s Literal Translation. Young seeks to reflect the grammar as closely as he can, and he translates this passage as follows: “I wish, therefore, that men pray in every place, lifting up kind hands, apart from anger and reasoning; in like manner also the women, in becoming apparel, with modesty and sobriety to adorn themselves, not in braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or garments of great price, but — which becometh women professing godly piety — through good works.” There is no verb in verse 9, only a participle. It seems that Paul is saying that the men should pray without quarreling and the women should pray in becoming apparel. A. T. Robertson admits that this is what the grammar could say, but he doesn’t think it fits with verses 11-15. I say that’s not translation, that’s interpretation. Besides, Paul talks about women praying in public in 1 Corinthians 11; why can’t he do it here as well?

I think that in 1 Timothy 2:8 Paul tells men how they should pray and in 1 Timothy 2:9 he tells women how they should pray. No, I’m not advocating women preachers, women elders, nor any outings on slippery slopes. I’m trying to figure out the meaning of this passage in 1 Timothy 2. Help me out with your comments. Save the pitchforks and torches for later.

Labels, labels, labels

"I never call Christians or others 'anti's,' 'digressives, ' mossbacks,' 'tackies,' or 'trash.' I concede to all, and accord to all, the same sincerity and courtesy I claim for myself, as the Golden Rule demands…" T.B. Larimore

As I’ve taken another look at Restoration History the last few years, I’ve become a fan of T. B Larimore. I’d love to be known as a man who refuses to take sides and who refuses to label others. It wasn’t until recently that I realized that the church where I grew up in San Angelo, Texas, was basically started through a one-month gospel meeting by T. B. Larimore. I guess some of his views were imparted to me from very young. One of those views is a deep-set distrust of labels.

Conservative. Liberal. Change agent. Anti. Progressive. Digressive… who wears what label depends on who is speaking. It’s rare that someone applies a label to himself. I’ve been called sectarian. I’ve been called liberal. I’ve been called a legalist. I’ve even been called evil (I’m sure that e-mail was sent in Christian love!). And all for expressing basically the same ideas. It just depends on where the other person is standing. In the big scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter what others say:“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.” (1 Cor 4:3-4) Still, I hate to see people resort to labels. There are several reasons why:

1. When we resort to labels, we’ve stopped viewing the other person as an individual. We judge them in terms of other people, not according to what they actually think and believe.



2. When we resort to labels, we stop listening. “Everything you’ve got to say, I’ve heard before from others just like you.”



3. When we resort to labels, we tend to fall back on preset ways of reacting. “Post-modernists think this way, and here’s what I always say to them.” If I were to accept anything that a “post-modernist” says, I’d be accepting everyone else to whom I’ve given that label.

So here’s one suggestion for preserving the integrity of our Lord’s church: stop the labeling!

If you want to heal wounds in the Lord’s Church today,
Gather all of your labels and put them away.
If you have to use labels, I suggest these and few others:
Christians, fellow saints, disciples and brothers.

I Pledge Allegiance

Take a look at this, taken from an article on Pew Research entitled “42% - Christians First, Americans Second”



Some people will look at this and worry about the Muslims being too fanatical. I look and worry that the citizens of the Kingdom of God don't seem to know where their citizenship lies! Only the Nigerians seem to have a clue about this; is it any wonder that churches are multiplying in Africa while they stagnate and die here in the States?

I am a Christian. A citizen of heaven, a subject in the Kingdom of God. I was born in this country and admittedly love it, yet would be willing to see her pass away for the good of the Kingdom. The United States of America is not God's chosen nation. My passport says that I am a citizen of this country, but it doesn't tell the whole truth. I am an alien, living out my life away from my homeland. "This world is not my home, I'm just a passing through…"

Paul says that we are fellow-citizens with God's people (Ephesians 2:19). He says that we are citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20, written to the Philippians who would have been proud of the Roman citizenship that was theirs by birth). Peter wrote that we should live our lives as "aliens and strangers" (1 Peter 2:11). In fact, it's always been that way for God's people. Even when they were living in the Promised Land, they weren't at home. God told them: "The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.” (Leviticus 25:23) If the people who lived in the land that God had provided for them were supposed to view themselves as aliens in that land, how much moreso should we.

Yet we forget that and get far too comfortable in the land we live in. I lived 15 years in Argentina and came to be very at home there. Yet I was never truly Argentine. (And my accent always gave me away!) What a blessing that was for me, to live those years as an alien. It helps me remember that, even now that I'm back in Texas, I'm still an alien.

There's an important passage in Hebrews 11. While discussing the men of faith from olden times, the writer says: “These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:13-16) They recognized that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. And because they didn't seek an earthly homeland God is not ashamed to be called their God! Does our speech make it clear that we are seeking a celestial homeland? Can everyone tell that we aren’t thinking of a land here on earth? Do we readily acknowledge that we are strangers and exiles? Or are we too busy being proud to be Americans?

The apostle Paul, in Philippians 3, writes about his heritage and his past, his identity as a Jew, a Benjaminite and a Pharisee. He then writes: “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” (Philippians 3:7-11) Does this sound like a man who would walk up and down the street waving a flag? He considered everything else as manure compared to his status in Christ. I hope one day to learn to do the same.

I am a Christian. First and foremost. Above all else. I have a national identity document from Argentina that identifies me as a resident alien. I should have one from the United States saying the same thing. My citizenship is in heaven.

I pledge allegiance to my God,
All else falls far behind.
No land, no piece of earthly sod,
Can my obedience bind.
May my love for this world and the kingdoms thereof,
Not make me forget what I read in the Word.
My citizenship lies not here but above.
My true loyalty belongs to my Lord.