From Sabbath to Sunday

Three New Testament Texts
and the Origin of Sunday

Three well-known New Testament passages generally are cited as evidence for Sunday observance in the apostolic time: 1Corinthians 16:1-2, Acts 20:7-11 and Revelation 1:10. (1) An analysis of these passages is therefore imperative in order to establish whether Sunday observance is presupposed, or even alluded to, in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 16:1-3

In the spring of A.D. 55 or 56, Paul recommended a unique plan to the believers of Corinth (similar to instructions he had given to the churches of Macedonia and Galatia) to ensure a substantial contribution to the general fundraising campaign on behalf of the poor of the Jerusalem church. (2) The plan is so stated: "On the first day of every week each of you is to put something aside and store it up as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come" (1Corinthians 16:2).

Various scholars see in this text a reference to or at least an implicit indication of a regular Christian Sunday gathering. A. Robertson and A. Plummer, for instance, in their comment on this verse affirm: "This is our earliest evidence respecting the early consecration of the first day of the week by the apostolic church." (3) They justify this conclusion by interrelating the laying aside of funds on the first day with Christ’s interpretation of the positive function of the Sabbath: "If it was right to do good on the Jewish Sabbath (Matthew 12:12; Mark 3:4), how much more on the Lord’s day? For it reminded them of the untold blessings which they had received." (4) This attempt to read into the private and individual Corinthian laying aside of funds on Sunday an indication of the transference of the Gospels’ Sabbath theology to Sunday, is indeed ingenious but, as we shall see, gratuitous. Pacifico Massi prefers to interpret the Corinthians’ offering simply as a weekly expression of the Easter Sunday faith:

"Sunday is the weekly Passover and the day of the assembly. Could there be a better occasion to make such an offering to the risen Christ?" (5)

Pierre Grelot associates this weekly setting aside of money at home, as recommended by Paul, with "the Jewish weekly gathering of bread for the poor at the vigil of the Sabbath." (6) In both instances, Grelot notes, it was a question of supporting the poor of the mother-church. There is however a significant difference between the two, since in Judaism, at least according to the school of Shammai, no collection was taken on the Sabbath. Contributions for the poor were forbidden since they conflicted with the future material abundance which the day symbolized. (7) Besides, in Corinth it is not a question of food but of money that is collected. These differences matter little to Grelot, since he argues that the collection for the Christians "was not only an expression of liberality (2Corinthians 8:6-7), but the service of a sacred offering (2Corinthians 9:12)," and consequently an integral part of the Sunday service. (8)

C. S. Mosna draws the same conclusion by reasoning that since Paul designates the "offering" in 2 Corinthians 9:12 as "service–leiturgia" the collection must have been linked with the Sunday worship service of the Christian assembly. Furthermore he speculates that since the designation "first day of the week" is "a Semitism, it indicates a Jewish origin, presumably from Jerusalem, of such day." (9)

In all these explanations one notices a common effort to interpret the "collection" as related to the Sunday worship service. It is felt, as Charles Hodge expresses it, that

"the only reason that can be assigned for requiring the thing to be done on the first day of the week, is that on that day the Christians were accustomed to meet, and what each had laid aside from his weekly gains could be treasured up, i.e. put into the common treasury of the church." (10)

These attempts to extrapolate from Paul’s fundraising plan a regular pattern of Sunday observance reveal inventiveness and originality, but they seem to rest more on construed arguments than on the actual information the text provides. Several facts deserve consideration. Observe first of all that there is nothing in the text that suggests public assemblies, inasmuch as the setting aside of funds was to be done "by himself–par’ heauto." This phrase implies, as stated by A. P. Stanley, "that the collection was to be made individually and in private." (11)

It is objected that the directive "by himself or at his own house" has no sense, since this would require a later collection of money and this is precisely what Paul wanted to avoid (1Corinthians 16:2). (12) The objection is, however, unfounded, since the verb that follows, namely "storing up or treasuring up–thesaurison" clearly implies that the money was to be treasured up in each individual’s house until the Apostle came for it. At that time the collection of what had been stored up could be quickly arranged. (13)

Equally unsatisfactory is the explanation that the money was laid aside privately since at that time there was no church treasury. (14) The very first institution of the apostles was the election of Hellenistic deacons to administer the continuous stream of gifts coming in and in turn passing out to the needy (Acts 6:1-6). Paul recognizes the office of the deacon and presents a list of the qualities a person aspiring to such an office should possess (1Timothy 3:8-13). (15) To the same Corinthian community he mentions "the helpers and administrators" (1Corinthians 12:28) among God’s appointed offices, thus implying the existence in the local church of persons capable of administering funds. Moreover the fact that the Apostle expects the Corinthians themselves to select and approve the persons who were to take the money to Jerusalem (1Corinthians 1614) indicates that the church was competent in financial matters.

It is also observed that the laying aside of funds was done privately since public worship places did not yet exist. (16) Such argument is however discredited by the fact that Paul expects his plan to be carried out not only privately but also on an individual basis: "each of you by himself–hekatos humon par’ heauto" (v.2). Besides, while it is true that Christians assembled in private homes, Paul does not regard such gatherings as private because of the nature of the place. In fact, in the same epistle he says repeatedly: "when you assemble as a church" (1Corinthians 11:18; cf. verses 20, 33, 34), thus clearly differentiating between a private laying aside of money at one’s home and the public gatherings which also took place in private homes.

If the Christian community was worshiping together on Sunday, it appears paradoxical that Paul should recommend laying aside at home one’s gift. Why should Christians deposit their offering at home on Sunday, if on such a day they were gathering for worship? Should not the money have been brought to the Sunday service? Chrysostom’s reason that the money was to be laid in store at home "lest one might feel ashamed of offering a small sum" is hardly justified. (17) This would imply that Christians are to avoid the embarrassment of giving little, by giving only when they can show a substantial gift. Equally deficient is James Moffat’s suggestion that "possibly Paul agreed with the school of Shammai that no alms should be handled at worship." (18) This would attribute to Paul a rabbinical narrow-mindedness which hardly befits his liberal spirit. Moreover, as pointed out by William Barclay, "Paul uses no fewer than nine different words to describe this collection." (19) Some of these, such as "fellowship" (koinonia—2Corinthians 8:4; 9:13), "service" (diakonia— 2Corinthians 8:4; 9:1, 12, 13), "ministration" (leitourgia—2Corinthians 9:12) and "offering" (prosfora—Acts 24:17) are explicitly liturgical terms associated with a religious service. Thus the Apostle could hardly view the giving or the depositing of an offering during a church service as a secular act. (20) It would appear then that Paul’s recommendation to take up a private rather than a collective congregational collection on Sunday, suggests that on such a day no regular public services were conducted.

If Paul regarded the first day of the week as the Christian day of worship, presumably he would have designated such a day as "Lord’s day— kuriake hemera" since he was familiar with and did use the adjective "Lord’s—kuriakos" in the same epistle (1Corinthians 11:20) to designate the name and the nature of the Lord’s Supper. If the Apostle had done so, then the claim that the Lord’s Supper gave both its name and its cult to the Lord’s day would appear altogether plausible. But the fact that Paul employs the adjective "Lord’s" to describe only the eucharistic supper and not Sunday suggests that the term was known and used, but was not yet applied to the first day of the week. (21)

Regarding the time of the Lord’s Supper celebration, we have already noticed that in the same epistle the Apostle repeatedly leaves the question indeterminate (1Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33, 34; cf. 14:23, 26). Presumably the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in different days and homes, according to private arrangements made every week by the community. This plan may have been encouraged by the fact that Christians’ evening assemblies were mistaken for meetings of hetaeriae. The latter were gatherings of illegal societies (clubs of friends) which were forbidden by the Roman law since they were centers of political intrigue.

A letter from Pliny, governor of Bithynia, (dated A.D. 112) to the Emperor Trajan, sheds light on this question. (22) There the governor, who asks the Emperor to instruct him on the procedure to follow in processing the Christians, reports what he had found out about the Christians’ "guilt" through long interrogations united with torture. He states that Christians on "an appointed day (stato die) had been accustomed to meet before daybreak" for a religious service. Later on the same day (apparently in the evening) they met again to partake of "ordinary and harmless food." He then adds, "from all these things they desisted after my edict which, in accordance with your orders, prohibited the associations (he taeriae)." (23) It is clear that Christian gatherings came under the suspicion of the hetaeriae because they shared an obvious resemblance, namely, both assembled for their communal meals in the evening of appointed days.

We are not informed to what extent the prohibition of the hetaeriae was applied in the whole empire. (24) It would appear however that any kind of fraternity was viewed with suspicion. Trajan (A.D. 117-138), for instance, turned down Pliny’s request for permission to constitute a firemen guild that would not exceed one hundred and fifty members, in order to protect the city of Nicomedia from future fires. The Emperor’s rationale is that "whatever title we give them, and whatever our object in giving it, men who are banded together for a common end will all the same become a political association before long." That Christians came under this kind of suspicion is indicated by the protest of Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-225) against the insinuation that the Christian agape meal was a "factio" (a meeting of the hetaeria’s kind). After describing the nature of the agape feasts, the North African Bishop writes:

"Give the congregation of the Christians its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is like assemblies of the illicit sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any complaint can be validly laid against it, such as lies against secret factions. But who has ever suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congregations just what we are when separated from each other; ... when the pious, when the pure assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction but a curia—i.e., the court of God. (25)

This prevailing suspicion that the Christians’ religious meals were a kind of illegal assemblies, coupled with the accusation that these were Thyestean banquets, (26) could explain the reason for Paul’s indefinite references to the time of the gatherings. To avoid giving rise to such suspicions, the Christians in Corinth may well have changed from week to week both the day and the place of their evening Lord’s Supper meals.

Almost all authors maintain that the "appointed day—stato die" on which according to Pliny Christians gathered, is Sunday. (27) W. Rordorf, for instance, holds that "Stato die cannot easily be satisfactorily understood except as a reference to Sunday." (28) If this prevailing interpretation is correct, then Rordorf’s conclusion that "Paul ordered the setting aside of money to take place on Sunday . . . because the Christians had already begun to fix their calendar by reference to the weekly Sunday," (29) would deserve consideration. (Note however that about fifty years separate the two documents and during that period of time, as we shall notice, changes could readily have occurred). But, does "stato die" necessarily refer to a regularly recurring Sunday meeting? The term "status" (a participle of sisto) which means "appointed, established, fixed, determined, regular" does not exclusively imply a fixed recurring day, when used in reference to time, but also one which is appointed or established. The gathering then could recur periodically but not necessarily on the self-same day.

The context suggests also several reasons why "stato die" could possibly be a day fixed from week to week. Christians were denounced, processed and condemned in the province. This is indicated by the fact that Pliny upon his arrival found the problem already existing. To avoid giving cause of suspicion it is possible that Christians every week changed the day and place of their gathering. Moreover, the governor by means of interrogation and torture had obtained detailed information regarding the time of the day and the manner in which the Christian assembly was conducted. But in regard to the actual day he found out only that they gathered on a "stated day." If Christians in Bithynia were already gathering regularly on Sunday, they would have confessed this as they disclosed the rest of their worship activities. We shall notice that a few decades later (ca. A.D. 150) Justin Martyr explicitly and emphatically informs the Emperor that Christians gathered on "the day of the Sun," (30) apparently as a means of creating a favorable impression. Let us note also that Pliny was cautiously appealing to the Emperor for a more humane application of the anti-Christian law which by condemning Christians indiscriminately was causing their killing without regard to their age, sex or attitude. (31) If Pliny had found that they gathered on the day of the Sun, would he not presumably have mentioned this fact in order to present the Christian worship in a more favorable light? We shall later show that the day of the Sun enjoyed in the Roman world a certain prestige and veneration.

In the light of this excursus we conclude that the "appointed day" of Pliny is not necessarily the selfsame day of the week, unless it was the Sabbath, which possibly Pliny prefers not to mention to avoid placing Christians in a worse light by associating them with the Jews. The latter revolted during Trajan’s time in Libya, Cyrene, Egypt, Cyprus and Mesopotania. Extensive massacres took place before these revolts were crushed. (32) To report to Trajan that the Christians gathered weekly on the day of Saturn like the Jews would have encouraged the Emperor to take harsher measures, the very thing Pliny’s letter wished to discourage. Any attempt therefore to draw support for Paul’s first-day collection plan from Pliny’s testimony appears unwarranted.

Returning now to our passage, the question still to be considered is, why did Paul propose a first-day deposit plan? The Apostle clearly states the purpose of his advice, "so that contributions need not be made when I come" (1Corinthians 16:2). The plan then is proposed not to enhance Sunday worship by the offering of gifts but to ensure a substantial and efficient collection upon his arrival. Four characteristics can be identified in the plan. The offering was to be laid aside periodically ("on the first day of every week"—verse 2), personally ("each of you"—verse 2), privately ("by himself in store"—verse 2) and proportionately ("as he may prosper"—verse 2). To the same community on another occasion Paul thought it necessary to send brethren to "arrange in advance for the gift . . . promised, so that it may be ready not as an exaction but as a willing gift" (2Corinthians 9:5). The Apostle was desirous to avoid embarrassment both to the givers and to the collectors when finding that they "were not ready" (2Corinthians 9:4) for the offering. To avoid such problems in this instance he recommends both a time— the first day of the week—and a place—one’s home. (33)

Paul’s mention of the first day could be motivated more by practical than theological reasons. To wait until the end of the week or of the month to set aside one’s contributions or savings is contrary to sound budgetary practices, since by then one finds himself to be with empty pockets and empty hands. On the other hand, if on the first day of the week, before planning any expenditures, one sets aside what he plans to give, the remaining funds will be so distributed as to meet all the basic necessities. While it is difficult at present to determine what economic significance, if any, was attached to Sunday in the pagan world, it is a known fact that no financial computations or transactions were done by the Jews on the Sabbath. (34) Since the Jewish custom of Sabbath keeping influenced even many Greeks and Romans, to some extent (35) and since the Sabbath was indeed the last day of the week (as indicated by the fact that Sunday was then known as "the first day of the Sabbath [i.e. week—mia ton sabbaton]", it appears reasonable that Paul should recommend the Christians to plan on the very first day of the week— that is, right after the Sabbath—for the special fundraising contribution, before other priorities might diminish their resources. The text therefore proposes a valuable weekly plan to ensure a substantial and orderly contribution on behalf of the poor brethren of Jerusalem, but to extract more meaning from the text would distort it.

Acts 20:7-12

The second scripture crucial for our investigation is a firsthand report by Luke ("we-passage"—Acts 20:4-15) of a gathering at Troas which occurred on the first day of the week. The writer, who rejoined Paul’s traveling party at Philippi (Acts 20:6), reports now in the first person plural and with considerable detail the meeting which occurred at Troas on the eve of Paul’s departure. He writes:

7.On the first day of the week (mia ton sabbaton) when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow (te epaurion); and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

8. There were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered.

9. And a young man named Eutychus was sitting in the window. He sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer; and being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead.

10. But Paul went down and bent over him, and embracing him said, "Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him."

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

12. And they took the lad away alive, and were not a little comforted." (Acts 20:7-12)

Fundamental importance is attributed to this passage inasmuch as it contains the only explicit New Testament reference to a Christian gathering conducted "on the first day of the week ... to break bread" (Acts 20:7). F. F. Bruce, for instance, affirms that this statement "is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for worship on that day." (36) P. K. Jewett similarly declares that "here is the earliest clear witness to Christian assembly for purposes of worship on the first day of the week." (37) Statements like these which view Acts 20:7 as the first "unmistakable evidence of the observance of Sunday" could be multiplied. (38)

These categorical conclusions rest mostly on the assumption that verse 7a represents "a fixed formula" which describes the habitual time ("On the first day of the week") and the nature ("to break bread") of the primitive Christian worship. (39) Since, however, the meeting occurred in the evening and "the breaking of the bread" took place after midnight (verses 7, 11) and Paul left the believers at dawn, several questions need to be considered before making any conclusive statement. Was the time and nature of the Troas gathering ordinary or extraordinary, occasioned perhaps by the departure of the Apostle? Since it was an evening meeting, does the expression "first day of the week—mia ton sabbaton" indicate Saturday night or Sunday night? In other words, does Luke reckon his days evening to evening according to Jewish usage, or midnight to midnight by Roman custom? (According to the former, the evening before Sunday was considered as the evening of the first day, and according to the latter the evening following Sunday was the evening of the first day.) Was the phrase "to break bread" already used as a fixed formula to designate exclusively the eucharistic celebration? Did "the breaking of bread" occur only on the first day of the week? In the light of the context, was the "breaking of bread" performed by Paul at Troas part of the habitual Sunday celebration of the Lord’s Supper? Or was it perhaps a fellowship supper (agape) organized to bid farewell to Paul? Or was it a combination of both? In an attempt to answer these fundamental questions several considerations deserve attention.

A good number of scholars hold that the meeting occurred on Sunday night because Luke, who had mingled with the Gentiles and was writing for them, used the Roman computation which reckoned the day from midnight to midnight. (40) On such reckoning, as we noted above, an evening meeting on the first day of the week could only be on Sunday night. The passages which supposedly support the Roman system are found in Acts 4:3; 20:7; 23:31-32. In each instance the term "morrow—te epaurion or te aurion" is mentioned in the context of an evening occurrence. The reasoning is that since Luke speaks of the morrow as being a new day in the evening, when according to Jewish reckoning the new day had already begun, this means that he uses not the Jewish but the Roman time reckoning. (According to the latter the new day starts after midnight.) The weakness of the argument lies in the fact that the expression "te epaurion or te aurion" does not exclusively mean "on the following day" but can be equally translated "on the next morning." Both alternatives are legitimate translations of the Greek. In fact the word "aurion" is derived from "eos" which means "dawn." Therefore, the word per se, as pointed out by Pirot-Clamer, "designates the following morning without prejudging whether or not this morning belongs to a new day." (41) In fact the word "day— hemera" must be either added to or implied in "morrow—te epaurion," to translate it "on the following day." All of this goes to show that the evidences for a Roman time reckoning are weak indeed.

However, even granting that Luke employed the Roman computation, this would mean that the believers came together on Sunday evening and consequently the "breaking of bread" (allegedly the essential part of the Sunday worship) which took place after midnight, would have occurred during Monday’s time limit. In such a case the time of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper would provide no direct support for Sunday keeping. R. C. H. Lenski acknowledges this dilemma when he says,

"It is true that this is the first Christian service held on a Sunday, that is recorded in Acts; yet little can be proven from it since it was a special service in every way; and Paul and his company left early Monday morning.... If this had been a Sunday morning service, it would be of more help to us in establishing Sunday as the regular day of worship in the apostolic congregation." (42)

This author endeavors to solve the problem by claiming gratuitously that "indeed a morning service was held at Troas on this Sunday although no mention of it is made by Luke. We also think that Paul purposely started his journey on Monday. (43) " This effort to accommodate the story in order to build a case for Sunday worship is ingenious indeed, but unfortunately it is based on what the passage does not say. Why should Luke have neglected to mention the earlier morning meeting, when he as an eyewitness provides so many details of the event? Why should the "breaking of the bread" have been postponed until after midnight if the believers had met earlier in the morning for their Sunday worship? Moreover, it is hard to believe that Paul out of respect for Sunday postponed his departure until Monday morning, when at Philippi he "sailed after the days of Unleavened Bread" (Acts 20:6) and arrived in Troas presumably on Sunday since he stayed there "for seven days" (Acts 20:6) prior to his departure on the following first day. (44)

To argue for Luke’s use of the Roman day-reckoning and thus place the Troas meeting on a Sunday night, undermines the very efforts aimed at gaining support from the passage for a regular Sunday observance. C. S. Mosna states well this reason when he asserts:

"Either one holds that the Eucharist was celebrated within the limits of Sunday’s time, and therefore in the night between Saturday and Sunday, or the specification of the day by Luke has no value and the text has nothing to say as far as Sunday worship is concerned." (45)

We have reasons to believe that Luke uses consistently in his narrative the Jewish time reckoning. According to such a system, as we mentioned earlier, the first day began on Saturday evening at sunset, the night part of Sunday preceding the day part. The evening of the first day on which the meeting occurred would then correspond to our Saturday night. (46) This view is supported by the fact that Luke, though a Gentile, uses the Jewish system in his Gospel when reporting the burial of Christ: "It was the day of preparation [i.e. Friday], and the sabbath was beginning" (Luke 23:54). In Acts also he repeatedly shows his respect for the Jewish calendar and religious customs. He mentions for instance that Herod arrested Peter "during he days of Unleavened Bread" and that he intended "after the Passover to bring him out to the people" (12:3, 4). He reports that he himself left Philippi with Paul on the morrow of the complete rest which marked the last day of the Unleavened Bread (20:6; cf. Luke 22:1, 7). He does not hesitate on repeated occasions to show how Paul respected Jewish customs (Acts 16:1-3; 18:18; 20:16; 21:24). He says, for instance, that Paul "was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost" (20:16). Later he reports how in the city, the Apostle under pressure purified himself, and "went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled" (21:26). To these could be added Luke’s frequent references to the Sabbath meetings which Paul attended with both "Jews and Greeks" (Acts 18:4; cf. 17:2, 16: 13; 15:21; 13:14, 42, 44). In the light of these indications it would appear that Luke respected the Jewish liturgical calendar and used it quite consistently when reckoning time.

According to such a system, as we noted earlier, the first-day meeting at Troas occurred on Saturday night. It is suggested by some that this was a convenient time for a Christian gathering after the close of the Sabbath. (47) The restraints of the Sabbath did no longer apply and both Jewish (as Paul and Timothy) and Gentile Christians could freely engage in social and spiritual activities. The weakness of this observation is that it implies that Christians observed the Sabbath according to restrictive rabbinical conceptions. Such a view hardly harmonizes with the positive and spiritual understanding of the Sabbath we find in the Gospels.

If the gathering at Troas occurred during the night of Saturday-Sunday it is hardly likely that it was a formal and regular Sunday service. Paul would have observed with the believers only the night of Sunday and traveled during the day time. This, as we know, was not allowed on the Sabbath and would not have set the best example of Sunday keeping either. The passage seems to suggest, as noted by F. J. Foakes-Jackson, that "Paul and his friends could not as good Jews, start on a journey on a Sabbath; they did so as soon after it as was possible, verse 12. at dawn on the ‘first day’—the Sabbath having ended at sunset." (48) Bearing in mind also that Paul "as was his custom" for three weeks at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2-3), for eighteen months at Corinth (Acts 18:4, 11), and for shorter periods in other places, expounded the Scriptures on the Sabbath to Jews and to Greeks, both in the synagogue and in the open air (Acts 16:13; 13:44, 42, 14), it would seem reasonable to suppose that at Troas also he met on the Sabbath with the believers. It is hard to believe that Paul spent seven days at Troas without meeting with the believers until the eve of his departure. The first-day evening meeting must then be regarded as the final farewell gathering organized "to break bread" with Paul.

It could be argued that whether Luke used Jewish or Roman time reckoning is of relatively little importance to the question of Sunday observance, since he clearly says that the meeting took place on "the first day of the week... to break bread." Whether it was the evening before Sunday (Jewish method) or the evening following Sunday (Roman method), it was still the first day on which the meeting occurred. This fact is undisputable. However, it is to be observed that the "breaking of bread" took place after midnight (Acts 20:7, 11). Such an unusual time would suggest more an extraordinary occasion than a habitual custom. If the purpose of the gathering was to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, as various scholars hold, why then did Paul postpone the rite until after midnight when many, like Eutychus, were dozing, and then resume talking until dawn? We would think that its logical time, if indeed that was the purpose for the meeting, would have been either during the opening session or just prior to Paul’s departure, as a farewell expression of unity in Christ. The fact that the "breaking of bread" occurred, on the contrary, within a prolonged discourse of several hours, when the believers were hardly awake, strongly suggests that its function was more social than cultic. In fact, extremely few words are employed to describe what allegedly was to have been the core of the meeting. Moreover no direct indications are given of any communal participation: "And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while.., and so departed" (verse 11). The verbs used are all in the singular. It appears that it is primarily Paul, the guest of honor, who talks, breaks bread, eats, and talks again until departure, while the believers, perhaps too many to be cared for, look on, satisfied to be nourished spiritually. It is hard to escape the conclusion, as expressed by the historian Augustus Neander, that

"the impending departure of the apostle, may have united the little Church in a brotherly parting meal, on the occasion of which the apostle delivered his last address, although there was no particular celebration of a Sunday in the case." (49)

The technical expression "to break bread—klasai arton" deserves closer attention. What does it actually mean in the context of the passage? As Henry J. Cadbury and Kirsopp Lake ask, "with the meaning of ‘having supper’ or of celebrating the Eucharist?" (50) They hold that "the former seems more probable." J. Behm in his specialized article explains that

"the breaking of bread is simply a customary and necessary part of the preparation for eating together. It initiates the sharing of the main course in every meal.... It is the description of a common meal in terms of the opening action, the breaking of bread. Hence the phrase is used for the ordinary table fellowship of members of the first community each day in their homes (Acts 2:42, 46) and also for the common meals of the Gentile Christian communities (Acts 20:7, cf. 1Corinthians 10:16)." (51)

The author notes however that later the expression "breaking of bread" became the technical designation for the Lord’s Supper. (52) While it must be admitted that such a usage occurs in the post-apostolic literature, this hardly seems to be its exclusive meaning or usage in the New Testament. In fact the verb "to break—klao" followed by the noun "bread—artos" occurs fifteen times in the New Testament. (53) Nine times it refers to Christ’s act of breaking bread when feeding the multitude, when partaking of the Last Supper and when eating with His disciples after His resurrection; (54) twice it describes Paul’s commencing and partaking of a meal; (55) twice it describes the actual breaking of the bread of the Lord’s Supper (56) and twice it is used as a general reference to the disciples’ or believers’ "breaking bread" together. (57) It should be noticed that in none of these instances is the Lord’s Supper explicitly or technically designated as "the breaking of bread." An attempt could be made to see a reference to the Lord’s Supper in the two general references of Acts 2:46 and 20:7. However, as far as Acts 2:46 is concerned, the phrase "breaking bread in their homes" obviously refers to the daily table fellowship of the earliest Christians, when, as the text says, "day by day.., they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favour with all the people (verses 46-47.) (58) Such daily table fellowship, though it may have included the celebrations of the Lord’s Supper, can hardly be regarded as exclusive liturgical celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. The equivalent statement found in Acts 20:7, "we were gathered together to break bread," similarly need mean no more than "we were gathered to eat together." In fact, as C. W. Dugmore acutely observes, "there is no mention of a cup, nor even of any prayers or chants: Paul’s discourse does not follow the reading of Scripture lection." (59) We may add also, as noted above, that Paul alone broke bread and ate. No indication is given that he ever blessed the bread or the wine or that he distributed it to the believers.

Furthermore, the breaking of bread was followed by a meal "having eaten—geusamenos" (verse 11). The same verb is used by Luke in three other instances with the explicit meaning of satisfying hunger (Acts 10:10; 23:14, Luke 14:24). Undoubtedly Paul was hungry after his prolonged speech and needed some food before he could continue his exhortation and start his journey. However, if Paul partook of the Lord’s Supper together with a regular meal, he would have acted contrary to his recent instruction to the Corinthians to whom he strongly recommended satisfying their hunger by eating at home before gathering to celebrate the Lord’s Supper (1Corinthians 11:2, 22, 34). The conjecture that at Troas Paul reversed the usual order (i.e. meal followed by Lord’s Supper) by partaking of the Lord’s supper before the fellowship meal, in order to correct the prevailing disorders (1Corinthians 11:18 22), rests on a slim foundation. (60) First, because the Apostle clearly admonishes to satisfy hunger at home and not during the Lord’s Supper celebration (1Corinthians 11:27, 34). Postponing the meal until immediately after the rite could hardly have cured the abuses and enhanced the celebration. Secondly, because the two verbs "had broken bread and eaten" (verse 11) are not necessarily describing two distinct rites, but rather the same one. Bearing in mind that there is no mention of eating before midnight, the breaking of bread appears to be the customary preparation for eating together. This suggests then that Paul participated in a farewell fellowship supper (rich indeed with religious overtones) but not strictly in what he himself designates as "Lord’s Supper" (1Corinthians 11:20).

The New Testament does not offer any indications regarding a fixed day for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Acts 2:42-46, for instance, describes the table fellowship gatherings of the Jerusalem’s believers, in which the "breaking of bread" took place "daily—kath’hemera." (61) Similarly we noticed that Paul, while he recommends to the Corinthian believers a specific day on which to privately set aside their offerings, concerning the celebration of the Lord’s Supper he repeatedly says in the same epistle and to the same people, "when you come together" (1Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33, 34), implying indeterminate time and days. The actual mention of the "first day of the week" could well have been motivated, not by the custom of gathering on such a day but, as A. Wiokenhauser observes, "by the accident which happened on that occasion. (62) It should be noted that the Eutychus’ incident is the main episode recorded of Paul’s seven-day stay at Troas and occupies by far the greater part of the narrative (verses 9, 10, 12). By comparison the description of the "breaking of bread" is very brief, limited exclusively to one verb, "had broken bread" (verse 11). It is possible therefore that the resurrection of Eutychus occurring the very day the community had gathered for a parting meal in honor of Paul, motivated Luke to specify the very day on which the whole thing happened. Such an unusual occurrence undoubtedly left a lasting impression on the believers.

Another reason for Luke’s reporting that the breaking of bread occurred on the first day of the week could possibly be his desire to provide the reader with sufficient chronological references, for following more readily the itinerary of Paul’s trip. In chapters 20 and 21 Luke writes as an eyewitness in the first person plural ("we-section"—20:4-15; 21: 1-18) and gives no less than thirteen time references to report the various stages of Paul’s journey. (63) It is probable therefore that the mention of the gathering on the first day of the week, rather than being a notice of habitual Sunday keeping, is one of a whole series of chronological notes with which Luke fills the narrative of this voyage.

In the light of these considerations the probative value of Acts 20:712 for regular Sunday keeping seems rather insignificant. The occasion, the time and manner in which the meeting was conducted are all indicative of a special gathering and not of a regular Sunday worship custom. The simplest way to explain the passage is that Luke mentions the day of the meeting not because it was Sunday, but (1) because Paul was "ready to depart" (20:7), (2) because of the extraordinary experience and miracle of Eutychus, and (3) because it provides an additional significant chronological reference to describe the unfolding of Paul’s journey.