Dear AV,
The clearest evidence of a (perhaps) weekly celebration of the Lord's SUpper is 1 Cor. 11:20. However, we're not explicitly told that this was a weekly gathering, only that when they came together they had the Lord's Supper (it's highly likely there were smaller gatherings outside this one).
But 1 Cor. 11:20 shows that the Lord's Supper was regular--none of this once, twice, or four times a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611  In Acts 2:42 the phrase "breaking of bread" clearly means the celebration of the Lord's Supper by the context. Indeed, the Syriac version renders it as "of the eucharist". |
I'm not sure that reasoning works:
[1] The Syriac (and Arabic) renderings (as you know) are not inspired Scripture, but the later translations. They aren't necessarily going to be a reliable indication of the meaning of the phrase. The meaning of the phrase is be found in its usage
at the time rather than in later translations. Later translations tell us what later people thought. It is clear from later in Acts that "breaking bread" was fundamentally a meal. So we need good evidence against this in Acts 2.
[2] Meaning lies in the direct context, and there's nothing in the direct context to suggest it was the Lord's Supper.
[3] Maybe "breaking bread" (in Acts 2) was a communal meal that
perhaps at some point included the Lord's Supper. However, there's no way we can say that for certain. We can't just appeal to 1 Cor. for this, because the Gentile mission hadn't begun yet (and we can't assume that the ritual was identical).
[4] Moreover, to make the same point again, why is Acts 2:42 a blueprint for church life? It tells us what happened, it doesn't say this is what we must do. The Christians in the early chapters of Acts still used rites from the Torah, but that doesn't mean we should do the same. Remember: descriptive is not necessarily prescriptive.
In other words the evidence is just
too slim to build an argument from Acts 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 In Acts 20:7 the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist" and the Arabic version renders it, "to distribute the body of Christ". |
And this shows how wrong the Syriac and Arabic translators were. The direct context (of Acts 20:7) is
crystal clear that it was a meal. It
may've included the Lord's Supper but there's
no way we can prove that. So we can't assume it. We need other evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 Further, the timing of this meal was not a general meal but we are told it took place "upon the first day of the week" which is when the Christians came together to worship God. |
Sorry to be a pain here, but you're again bringing assumptions to the text. We must be careful to see what it actually says:
[1] Acts 20:7 as well as the rest of the NT
nowhere says that believers gathered to "worship God". That's a phrase that gets perpetuated from generation to generation but it doesn't come from Scripture. The purpose of the NT gathering was edification (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24-25).
[2] Just because believers met (in Acts 20:7) on the "first day" of the week (and it's very likely that believers couldn't take that day off, especially the slaves, hence that's why they met at sunrise, or after work), it doesn't necessarily bind believers to do the same now. Hermeneutics is critical here.
NT narrative must be read and interpreted carefully.
God bless AV.