That's true. One of the problems in interpreting the nuances of Scripture--and I say the nuances because the main points are all crystal clear--is that the Bible is a "high context" document: It assumes a common bond of language, idiom, culture, and experience between the writer and the reader, and consequently leaves a lot of things unexplained. The more we learn about the first century, the clearer many otherwise obscure passages become.
In this case, since Luke does not clarify the statement to mean anything more than what "breaking bread" would generally mean to a first-century audience, I think the wiser course is to say, "We don't know that he was referring to the Lord's Supper, so we can't build any doctrine or even theories on the assumption that he was."
The posters defend positions that ultimately rest upon assumptions arising out of belief without acknowledging those limits.
Exactly. If one assumes--rightly or wrongly--the correctness of any doctrine, it's easy enough to find passages which support that position. The real question is whether you can prove the assumption independantly from a mutually accepted source of authority. We who believe in the seventh-day Sabbath do not believe that post-Apostolic preachers (particularly those who falsely assume the names of apostles, like Barnabas) have the authority to change a day that God wrote in stone, even if they were unified in that change, which they weren't.
The same problem poses a particular challenge in properly interpreting Sha'ul's letters. In every case, with the possible (not definite) exception of Romans, Sha'ul was writing to deal with some problem in the church in question. We do not have the message sent to Sha'ul which would explain the full context of his letters. We try to figure out the context by the clues in the letters and the information we have in Acts and in some of the ECF (who don't always have the full picture themselves).
It's therefore foolish beyond belief to build doctrine primarily out of Sha'ul's letters. I'm not denying their authority--heck, I quote him all the time--nor their insight. But they were never meant to be used in place of the Tanakh; in fact, other than Romans, they were never meant to be used by those who had not received Sha'ul's verbal teaching first. It's hardly surprising that even within fifteen to twenty years after being written, they were being misinterpreted and misused: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Sha'ul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Pt. 3:15-16)
If I were to publish a translation of the Bible, I would put the Tanakh in Jewish order, and I would also reorder the NT: I'd put John before Luke in the Gospels, because John was written to suppliment Mark, and Luke and Acts are two parts of the same work. I would put Yochanan's (John's) epistles first, followed by Kefa's (Peters), then Ya'akov's (James) and Y'hudah's (Jude). Then I'd put Sha'ul's epistles, followed by Hebrews. Revelation I'd leave in the back since it is obviously meant to serve as the bookend along with Genesis.
The reason is not to slight Sha'ul, but because I've come to believe that his "hard to be understood" words should only be studied once one already has a grasp of the rest of Scripture, and because the "least of the apostles" (1 Co. 15:9) should not overshadow those who walked with the Lord Yeshua personally, nor His brothers who ran the Jerusalem Church. At least this way, people would have to pass through the other apostles on their way to misinterpret Paul.
Unfortunately, people don't want to relegate their religion to having bases in faith, even when they acknowledge such is its most essential attribute!
Sad, isn't it?
Very. Sadder are those who consider it all unknowable, and who therefore have a faith that rests on mist instead of a solid foundation of factual knowledge. We're supposed to trust God with the "unknowables," not to remain intentionally ignorant of that which He has made available to us.
For the same reason so many Jews regard accepting Y'shua as Messiah as worse than professing Atheism: a combination of historically accumulated bigotry arising out of the unwillingness to accept G-d's plan.
Yep. Both sides have been guilty of predominantly defining themselves by what the other isn't and of expelling those who have tried to bridge the gap.
Have you read Mark Nanos' book on Romans?
Not yet, but I will. Thanks for the recommendation!
This fellow does a pretty good job with it.
Thanks for the link. I'll get back to you when I've had a chance to read and think it over.
God bless.
Hence study of Hebrew, Greek, and history. Yup.
"We don't know that he was referring to the Lord's Supper, so we can't build any doctrine or even theories on the assumption that he was."
Much of what is called "doctrine" is really based on premises taken on faith. Methinks we could do with a lot less of it. In that respect, Messianism has been a very good thing for both Judiasm and main line Christianity. Lacking a body of doctrine, we reconsider everything in light of new information rather than interpreting and incorporating new information in terms of fixed constraints (the former being the bigger problem).
The real question is whether you can prove the assumption independantly from a mutually accepted source of authority.
Given the number of necessary assumptions in interpreting Biblical text, I'm not terribly sanguine about how achievable is "proof." A lot of very smart people have been working on that stuff for a very long time. See "Carnap."
We who believe in the seventh-day Sabbath do not believe that post-Apostolic preachers (particularly those who falsely assume the names of apostles, like Barnabas) have the authority to change a day that God wrote in stone, even if they were unified in that change, which they weren't.
As I suggested, given the perhaps temporal nature of "perpetual," "stone" may not be the rock we think it is. The potential for a definition in a translation to change things can be truly awesome in scope.
I prefer to say that, lacking absolutely definitive information, I have prayed about it and from what I can tell the Lord wants me to observe keep the Sabbath. I love Shabbat; it's the highlight of our week. It's been good for our family as coincidence with G-d's Laws would confirm as they were before the time of Moshe.
"which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction"
A most apt citation. It is the human condition.
If I were to publish a translation of the Bible,
Aggggghhh! Not another translation! I'm having enough trouble finding anything in Stern's. :-)
I do appreciate the rationale.
Sadder are those who consider it all unknowable, and who therefore have a faith that rests on mist instead of a solid foundation of factual knowledge. We're supposed to trust God with the "unknowables," not to remain intentionally ignorant of that which He has made available to us.
Salvation is available to the retarded, the insane, or the disabled. An idiot can be saved, if we come to the Kingdom of G-d as a little child in faith. Our study is more a matter of the talents, for we have been blessed.