Break Bread
BREAKING BREAD
Virgil Warren, PhD
Since bread was a food staple in ancient near eastern societies, “bread” came to stand for food in general. As a result, in the Bible “eat bread” usually means to eat or to eat a meal. New Testament examples include Matthew 15:2; Mark 3:20; 7:2, 5; Luke 7:33; 14:1, 15; John 6:31; 13:18 (< Psalm 41:9); 2 Thessalonians 3:8, 12. By further extension, in 1 Corinthians 11:26, 27, 28, 29 “eat bread” appears alongside “drink the cup” in Paul’s description of observing the Lord’s Supper.
The similar expression “break bread” brings up a more complex issue for biblical interpretation. It occurs only in the New Testament and seems on a few occasions to refer to (a) eating a regular meal, but it most often applies to (b) observing the Lord’s Supper. To further complicate matters, there is a crossover in the terminology because (c) partaking of the Lord’s Supper was—at least in some places—part of a communal meal believers ate, a meal twice called “the agape feast”: 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12; cp. 1 Corinthians 11:20-22 (followed by 23-34, which describes communion).
“Break bread” apparently refers to a simple meal in Jesus’ appearance to the two in the evening on the way to a village called Emmaus (Luke 24:30, 35). The two disciples, returning from Jerusalem, unknowingly met up with Jesus on the way home. When they finally recognized him—presumably a good while later in their lighted home, they went back to the city and reported to the other disciples that they recognized him during the breaking of bread. After some inklings caused by his way of teaching them along the road (Luke 24:32), maybe his identity became clear as he held out his arms to pass the bread; the sleeves may have pulled back from the hand and wrist to expose the nail scars; or his habit of blessing the food may have been his recognized trademark. The incident occurred before the ascension and the establishment of the church as recorded in Acts 2. Presumably then the Emmaus incident took place before the disciples began observing the Supper in the kingdom Jesus inaugurated (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18).
“Break bread” clearly signifies communion in several texts. (1) Passages recording the institution of the Supper are one instance: Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19. (2) Acts 2:42 evidently refers to the Lord’s Supper because the expression appears in a list of Christian matters: “the apostles doctrine, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayers.” Likewise, (3) Acts 20:7 refers to the eucharist because the believers gathered for it on the first day of the week. Acts 20:11 probably has the same meaning—as the fulfillment of the stated purpose for gathering. It could mean breakfast if this was a private home; but that is likely here since it could evidently house a sizable assembly on the third floor, which points to a public facility. (4) 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 indicates the Supper because the context (10:14-22) contrasts it with idolatry and “communion with demons.” Fundamentally in partaking of the Lord’s Supper, the individual identifies with Christ. Paul compares communion with Israelite sacrifices, which involved “communion with the altar” of God. Since it is not possible to mix ultimate identities, Christians must choose between Christ and demons by choosing whether they will participate in his meal or in sacrifices to demons. Eating a normal meal is not a religious activity that involves religious identity.
Two other passages contain the phraseology “break bread” in a way that has occasioned some discussion. Acts 2:46 is particularly interesting because it relates to the question about the frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper. It would not be a matter of special importance whether “break bread” means communion or a regular meal in this verse were it not that Acts 2:46 is the sole text used for the idea frequently expressed that the earliest Christians observed the Lord's Supper every day: “And daily continuing-steadfastly together in the temple and breaking break at home, they were-receiving [their] food with gladness and simplicity of heart” [καθ’ ἡμέραν τε προσκαρτεροῦντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, κλῶντές τε κατ’ οἶκον ἄρτον, μετελάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ ἀφελότητι καρδίας].
It is conceivable that “break bread” refers to communion, and it is conceivable that “daily” (lit. “according-to [the] day”) applies to the second participle “breaking” as well as the first—“continuing steadfastly.” While both ideas are conceivable, neither is necessary; and we cannot build a requirement of Christian observance on a possibility. If a passage can bear more than one natural reading, it establishes neither idea. At best it confirms a conclusion reached by primary proof from elsewhere, primary proof being evidence that can be taken in only one way.
It might be said that the next clause speaks of normal eating, so this phrase is talking about something else—communion. Again, that is a conceivable reading, but it is not a necessary one. “They received their food with gladness” could simply expand on “breaking bread at home” rather than contrast with it. The main clause could in fact be taken as a clarifying comment on the ambiguous term that precedes it. The believers were in the temple every day teaching and preaching, but they went home to eat; and there was a new quality infused into the common experiences of life as a result of their renewed confidence that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
A person might ask why the author would bother to indicate something about the Christians’ everyday eating habits in a religious account. Whatever the reason, we know for sure that he does do that very thing—in the next part of this verse. More than that, a reader might wonder how they managed everyday affairs like eating if they spent so much time in the temple precincts. It might suggest a situation akin to the ones that occasioned the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand during Jesus’ ministry. A human-interest comment would clear up the matter.
Finally, it might also be said that “break bread” would most likely carry the same meaning in 2:46 as it carries in the near context of 2:42. In many cases, context can carry decisive weight—as it would in reading Acts 20:11 as communion in light of 20:7. If Acts 2:42 and 46 were part of the same doctrinal issue or recorded the same historical event, a term like “break bread” would normally have the same significance. In this case, however, 2:42 and 46 are related but separate summary statements about life among early Jerusalem Christians rather than part of the same episode as Acts 20:7 and 11 are. Even if 2:43-47 was not viewed as a separate paragraph from 2:37-42, one could as easily argue that the two occurrences of the phrase in point meant different things because their distinctive practice of observing the Lord’s Supper has already been mentioned. The writer is not making entries about other patterns among the saints: the apostles were doing miracles (v. 43), many of them at least participated in a communistic attitude toward possessions (vv. 44-45, they spent time daily in the temple (v. 46a), ate their food with a new sense of gladness (v. 46b), and maintained a favorable relationship with the general populace so as to increase the number of disciples (v. 47). Observing communion regularly has already been indicated. At any rate, the context issue does not raise more than a possibility here, which means again that it does not establish the claimed conclusion.
Previous comments address arguments drawn from Acts 2:46 for daily communion, showing those claims inconclusive. A couple arguments against that interpretation exist as well. First, (a) in Acts 2:42 “break bread” appears in a list of obviously religious activities while in 2:46 the list is admittedly mixed between non-religious and distinctively religious ones.
Second, (b) the opposite pattern for communion exists in clear cases. They came together to break bread, not went home to do it as this reference indicates (see issue #2 below). Before we made this point in connection with a lesser claim—that there was other pattern followed elsewhere. Here we claim further that such an observation not only makes Acts 2:46 inconclusive; it makes it unlikely. That pattern occurs in Troas (Acts 20:7) and Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:2 + 11:20-34) and by implication the churches in Galatia as well (1 Corinthians 16:1). This fact leads to a further consideration about inferences for present practice.
Even if Christians in Jerusalem did observe communion every day, that would not set a precedent because the practice would not have been uniform in that case among the early Christians. Establishing a precedent requires a uniformity in New Testament practice. It is fairly clear that Christians elsewhere did not follow such a pattern. In Troas Acts notes that once when Paul and Luke came through town, he stayed seven days till the believers came together to break bread on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Apparently no stated assemblies of the body occurred in the meantime. The Corinthians and Galatians met on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). Although in that text Paul is talking about laying up an offering for the poor saints in Jerusalem, from 1 Corinthians 11:20 we learn that they observed the Lord’s Supper in those assemblies. Since the time frame is much longer than a specific week, coming together on the first day of the week must mean a recurring assembly on that day—a day when they took communion together and were encouraged to collect an offering for the poor.
In conclusion, daily communion cannot be established from Acts 2:46 as a practice of the Jerusalem church, much less the whole of Christendom in the first century. (1) “Break bread” can mean a normal meal as well as the Lord’s Supper. (2) “Daily” does not have to apply to more than the phrase in which it stands. (3) “Eat bread with gladness” can be expansive rather than distinguished from the preceding phrase. (4) Other churches followed a different pattern in that they “broke bread” in church rather than at home. (5) “Break bread” in 2:46 is located in a mixed list of religious and non-religious activities. Being itself an ambiguous phrase, the mixed nature of the immediate list makes the issue a moot point. Evidently “break bread” refers to the Lord’s supper in all but three cases: Luke 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46; and John 13:18.
A second issue associated with “break bread” is the intended place for observing the Lord’s Supper—whether communion was to be observed in the full gathered community or in homes. The text again is Acts 2:46, and the particular phrase is “at home” (κατ’ οἶκον), which could be translated “from house to house” both here and in 5:42: “And every day in the temple and at-home/from-house-to-house they did not stop teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.” In Acts 5:42 the alternate translation is plausible because it is combined with their witnessing, a clearly everyday kind of activity. “At home” can be the translation for more than one phrase. In Matthew 8:6 a centurion in Capernaum tells Jesus that his servant/son lies at home sick (ἐν τῇ οικίᾷ). Paul asks the Corinthians, “If anyone is hungry let him eat ‘at home’” (ἐν οἴκῳ; 1 Corinthians 11:34). 1 Timothy 5:4 is probably to be rendered “their own family” (lit. “their own house/household”) instead of “at home” (KJV; τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον).
The idea that the Supper should be observed at home could not be maintained, however, from the Acts 2:46 text. We already noted that the people of Troas assembled to break bread. The Corinthians had the Lord’s Supper as part of the agape feast in their regular gatherings. Paul did not object to their observing communion together; he objected to turning the agape feast into a gluttonous affair and embarrassing people that do not have enough to eat. Even then his objection was not to eating together, but to excesses in the Corinthian practice. Besides these matters, we note again that break bread probably does not even refer to the Lord’s Supper in Acts 2:46; hence, directives about doing it at home are doubly unnecessary.
In even greater extreme, it might be claimed that Jesus did not establish a memorial meal as a general church function. He meant simply that from then on, when disciples sat down to eat their meals, the bread and fruit of the vine they would normally eat and drink should remind them of him. Two normal elements of a Mediterranean meal would be infused with a new meaning. Bread and fruit of the vine would occasion a kind of family devotion at every meal, because the participants were deliberately to eat and drink the two foods with an intended meaning.
While the idea in itself is interesting, it does not account for the relevant New Testament facts. Even on a naturalistic view of New Testament accuracy, a person would think that Jesus’ own disciples who were present in the upper room understood his intentions on the elements better than one of us reading his words 2,000 years in another language. There is no particular reason to doubt that what the apostles did and established for others to do misrepresents Christ’s meaning. They established a recurring public practice in their stated gatherings. Besides, a religion that intended to be transcultural would not likely establish a practice foreign to people beyond the Mediterranean world where bread and fruit of the vine would not be regular foods.
One final note on this simplified, or more primitive, interpretation of Jesus’ intentions comes from Paul’s contrast between eating the one loaf in communion and drinking the cup of demons (1 Corinthians 10:14-22). The alternative to eating the bread is not a non-religious significance, but another religious meaning.
A third issue associated with “break bread” has to do with the day for observing the Lord’s Supper—whether it should be on the first day of the week only or whether observing it is acceptable on any day. There is no express command on the point; so Christians have relied on apostolic precedent to decide the question. Obviously, breaking the bread could be meaningfully done at another time besides Sunday since its very institution occurred at another time (Thursday evening). Whether it was intended to be observed regularly whenever a group decided to do it, however, seems unlikely since the only time we ever see it actually done in the New Testament was on Sunday. That uniformity occurs in New Testament records about believers in Troas, Galatia, and Corinth; so it was obviously quite widespread if not clearly universal.
Acts 20:7 + 11 becomes the crucial text for observance on another day. After the Christians from Troas got together “on the first day of the week,” Paul talked to them past midnight; went down and resurrected Eutychus, who had fallen from a third-flour window; and then came back upstairs to break bread with them. Assuming, of course, that “break bread” means the Lord’s Supper rather than a communal breakfast, and assuming that Luke and the characters in this episode were following Roman time, the actual observance would have happened in the wee hours of Monday morning. Romans counted days from midnight to midnight as most modern societies do; Jews counted days from sunset to sunset.
If the Supper in Troas should be understood in terms of Jewish reckoning, after midnight would still be on the first day of the week. Their gathering would have taken place on what we would call Saturday evening. Earlier in Acts we do find Jewish notations of time, in keeping with the Jewish setting of the events (Acts 3:1; 10:30). In the Gentile territories the writer may shift to Roman custom. At any rate, 20:7 shows that the people themselves conceived of what they were going to do as something happening on the first day of the week. Paul’s long sermon pushed the time past midnight technically, but they could still have thought of what they were doing as part of the evening before rather than the morning after. We do the same thing when an activity starts in the evening and last till 2 a.m. Furthermore, what happened here was exceptional rather than intentional or usual; so it fails to establish apostolic precedent for another custom.
(See also separate documents “Worship on Sunday” as well as “The Sabbath, the Lord’s Day, and the Christian”; and “Added Notations on Sabbath Observance.”)
christir.org