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

For all of those willing and able to set me straight on all of this about breaking bread in Acts, please feel free to comment on the last few posts. I’m trying to figure out how we decide when “breaking bread” in Acts refers to the Lord’s Supper and when it refers to a common meal. In the last post, I asked for help with Acts 20:7. Lots of people believe that this is one of the most important verses in the Bible; it consistently makes its way into tract after tract, proving that the Lord’s Supper must be taken every Sunday and only on Sunday.

So what do we do with this verse? Acts 2:46. It’s threatened my Sunday-only mindset, so now is the time for people to bring me back to orthodoxy.

In Acts 2, the brand-spanking new church is meeting in the temple. They apparently aren’t holding their church assemblies in homes nor church buildings. It would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for thousands of them to take the Lord’s Supper together in the temple. They would have met together in the temple, then separated into individual homes to take the Lord’s Supper… just like this verse describes! Don’t let the fact that it was in homes get in your way.

The best evidence also indicates that the early church took the Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal (yes, I know that’s debatable; feel free to give evidence to the contrary, just don’t say “as 1 Corinthians 11 says,” unless you’ve found something new in that passage). So the “received their food” wouldn’t be out of place, either.

What makes us conclude this passage is not about the Lord’s Supper? Please don’t be shy about giving reasons. I honestly, sincerely, truly want to know. If you know someone who knows reasons why Acts 20:7 is the Lord’s Supper and Acts 2:46 isn’t, please send them here. I consider this an important point and would truly appreciate any insights toward resolving this.