Dear
Nick,
We
read the following at the web site
"
. . . the Karaites do not leave their houses on the Sabbath except to go to
their synagogues or attend to absolutely essential matters; nor do they carry
objects, for they do not acknowledge the concept of an eruv. Breaking
bread on the Sabbath is forbidden by them . . . (Ex. 34:21 )." [End of my
excerpt from the web site listed above]
If the Jews of the first century
generally had this practice of refraining from breaking bread on the Sabbath,
then Jewish Christians, living amidst Jewish unbelievers, may have refrained
from inviting guests to travel any appreciable distances to each others' homes
on a Sabbath day when and where they might have prepared and shared a meal on
that day of the week. In the event that they did so refrain, then this would be
out of deference to the unbelieving (non-Christian) Jews' sensibilities so as
not to stumble them needlessly. `Breaking bread' (having a meal prepared/cooked), as well as
inviting fellow Christians into their homes for that meal, could be done on
some day other than the Sabbath (e.g., on the first day after the Sabbath),
this so that unbelieving Jews might not have (yet another baseless) reason for
their being hypercritical of Jewish Christians.
Is it reading too much into the
record (that Luke gives us of Paul's movements after his Ephesian ministry) if
we think that we see strong evidence in Acts that, beginning with Jewish
Christians, a custom soon enough arose among the believers for them not to hold
any of their own meetings – that is to say, not to hold meetings peculiarly
Christian -- on a Sabbath day in a city where Jews lived, but to hold them on
some other day of the week? (I know Seventh Day Adventists would holler
"Sacrilege" at the suggestion.) The last record we have of Paul's use
of a synagogue was at Ephesus
(Acts 19:8). We have no record that Paul used a synagogue at Troas on his
return trip to Jerusalem, this despite the fact that a Sabbath had come and
gone while he was at Troas (Acts 20:7, 8), and it was not until the next day
after the Sabbath before Paul gathered with, evidently, all the
disciples to give them a discourse, and "to break bread" with them
(for an evening meal, though Paul's prolonged discourse delayed the
meal – i.e., delayed that aforementioned meal -- until after midnight; it was after midnight that Paul `broke the
[aforementioned] bread and ate food' -- Acts 20:11), and then resumed that
discourse that he had begun earlier in the evening (Acts 20:7b, 11b). Also,
later, on this return trip to Jerusalem, Paul spent another seven days with
disciples (the disciples in Tyre), during which time a Sabbath had to have occurred; however,
we do not read that Paul availed himself of a Jewish synagogue in Tyre on a
Sabbath. No, but after the seven days – though not necessarily the first day
after a Sabbath --, Paul and his traveling companions were with all
the Tyrian disciples, and "they all,
together with the women and children,
conducted [them] as far as outside the city," where, "kneeling down
on the beach [they] had prayer" before the Tyrian disciples "returned
to their homes" (Acts 21:4-6). Though we have record of a meal that Paul
evidently shared with all the disciples in Troas (where the young man
Eutychus, who had fallen asleep while seated in a window, fell from that window
three stories down to the ground to his death), yet we have no record of a meal
– no record of any breaking of bread -- that Paul shared with all the disciples
in Tyre.
_____________________________________________
Dear
Nick,
As
an addendum to my earlier post in your thread, I should like to add the
following:
It is not necessary to think the
unlikely thing that Paul and companions were in the habit of putting out to sea
on vessels (cargo boats) operated either by Jews or by Christians. They were
simply at the mercy of shipping schedules used by the pagan operators of those
vessels, and had to choose one that, on the occasion of Paul's return to
Jerusalem, would allow Paul to accomplish as much ministering to the disciples'
spiritual needs as possible in a port city, as well as for a scheduled
departure that would not unnecessarily delay them on the return voyage. (I don't
think that I am moving heaven and earth here, but I am certainly reviewing, I
think, the scenario that allowed Paul and fellow travelers themselves to be
moved, to be moved expeditiously upon the sea after Paul's ministering
to the spiritual needs of the disciples in Troas for the maximum amount of time
as might be practically afforded him, while also not offending the religious
sensibilities of Sabbath-observing Jews.)
At Troas, Paul and his companions
were able to book passage on a cargo boat, one that happened not to be setting
sail on a Sabbath, but rather as soon as practically possible after the
Sabbath, actually, after daybreak on a Sunday morning (Acts 20:7, 11), if Luke
is using a Jewish calendar. Might Paul just as easily have scheduled a Friday
evening meal and discourse, or a Saturday meeting, and a meal to follow, during
Saturday's daylight hours? If there were no cargo boats scheduled to leave
either on a Saturday morning or on a Saturday afternoon, then physically Paul
might have done so; he might have felt inducement to so schedule a meeting, but he did not so schedule the fellowship, nor did he board a cargo vessel that might have been available during Sabbath's daylight hours -- and apparently would
not have done so even had there been available such a departure date on a Sabbath. As to scheduling a meeting on the Sabbath, he might have chosen a more relaxed schedule, one
affording spiritual fellowship, and for a meal thereafter, by scheduling the events on a Sabbath. Apparently, though, it was Paul's desire not only to board a cargo boat only after Sabbath, but also for ministering to the spiritual
needs of the disciples in Troas only after that Sabbath, too. Those strictures meant a
Sunday morning departure, at the earliest, if we are using a Jewish calendar.
But the schedule he chose certainly raises the question "Why after
Sabbath for those events? Why push so hard up against the daylight hours of the
day on which he actually did depart?" Apparently, Paul wanted the
shortest, practical interim to transpire between when he would last be with the
disciples in Troas for spiritual fellowship, and for his departure in order to
continue his journey to Jerusalem .
Part of those practical, pragmatic considerations may well have included not
only his taking into consideration a practical sailing schedule, but also into
consideration the religious sensibilities of Sabbath-observing Jews in Troas so
as not to offend them needlessly (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Even if so – as
appears reasonable to me --, still, owing to the way events actually did transpire,
it turned out that there was hardly a practical
interim that transpired from after the end of spiritual fellowship, which
fellowship did not itself begin until after Sabbath, until departure from Troas.
_________________________________________
Dear
Chuck,
I
like the way you reason on the sequence of events. So, the earliest that a time
to begin the fellowship could have occurred would have been in an hour
sufficiently after Saturday sundown, time sufficient enough for allowing
Christians in Troas to travel a distance from their homes to a fellow
Christian's home after
Sabbath, which, for some of them, may well have meant a distance that exceeded
the distance of an eruv. In
this way, they could make plans to travel to the place for this special meeting
with Paul, and, after the meeting, to partake a nourishing meal together with
Paul and his traveling companions. All that activity could take place without
the Christians needlessly offending Sabbath-observing, unbelieving Jews, who
also did not light fires for cooking meals on a Sabbath day out of their
allegiance to Mosaic Law.
Your
brother,
Al
--- In [a private, Witnesses-only forum], > chuck*****@***> wrote:
>
> Since they gathered together on the "first day of the
> week", and the new "day" started at sundown, it was
> probably around 6:00 p.m. or so, that they gathered
> together. Some translations even say that they
> gathered together on "Saturday evening". By that time
> of night, they were hungry and ready to eat. Since
> Paul kept them there until past midnight when did they
> eat, if they weren't having a meal together as the
> Scripture suggests by "breaking bread," [then they]
> would have REALLY been hungry by the close of their
> gathering had they not had a meal. It's interesting to
> me how some try to connect this meeting with a
> "weekly" (or even "daily") ceremony of "communion",
> calling it as the footnote in The Catholic Study Bible
> (NAB) "the celebration of the liturgy of the Eucharist..."
> The CEV agrees in their footnote which says: they
> "celebrated the Lord's Supper."
> . . . . It's interesting how some "Christians" grab for
> straws to keep their unscriptural practices afloat.
> (i.e. liturgy of the Eucharist).
>
> Chuck
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.