Acts 27:35

[Augustine3]

“And when he had said these things, taking bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of them all and when he had broken it, he began to eat.” – Acts 27:35

It seems to be the same formula used throughout the Bible in articulating the celebration of the Eucharist. However I don’t know if the Eucharist was celebrated at this particular event amongst the non-Baptised.

Alternatively this verse only mentions St Paul eating the bread; the next verse tells us the men took food so perhaps it would have been other than the bread that was blessed.

Any comments?

 

[Scoobyshme]

“And when he had said these things, taking bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of them all and when he had broken it, he began to eat.” – Acts 27:35

It seems to be the same formula used throughout the Bible in articulating the celebration of the Eucharist. However I don’t know if the Eucharist was celebrated at this particular event amongst the non-Baptised.

Alternatively this verse only mentions St Paul eating the bread; the next verse tells us the men took food so perhaps it would have been other than the bread that was blessed.

Any comments?

Well, the Bible doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. It only says what it says.

Keep in mind that the Bible is not the “be all and end all” of Divine Revelation as Protestants seem to think. Jesus didn’t write a book. He established a Church, which St. Paul refers to as the “pillar and foundation of truth” in 1 Tim 3:15. Jesus taught orally, and commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach likewise. They did, teaching their successors, the bishops, who did likewise for almost 2000 years now. That oral teaching is referred to as Sacred Tradition. SOME of what was taught orally was written down. We call that the New Testament. Without the Church, though, as authentic and authoritative interpreter of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, you end up with endless errors as evidenced by the constant splintering within Protestant Christianity.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

“And when he had said these things, taking bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of them all and when he had broken it, he began to eat.” – Acts 27:35

It seems to be the same formula used throughout the Bible in articulating the celebration of the Eucharist. However I don’t know if the Eucharist was celebrated at this particular event amongst the non-Baptised.

Alternatively this verse only mentions St Paul eating the bread; the next verse tells us the men took food so perhaps it would have been other than the bread that was blessed.

Any comments?

From what I understand of the passage they had been fasting. It seems they broke fast because of health concerns. There appears to also be a celebration of the Lord’s Supper here, but the particulars are not elaborated on. From historical records we know that the Christians often times celebrated the Eucharist and baptized in full view of non-believers, so I’m not sure why you would think Paul would need to retreat in private with the other baptized believers in order to celebrate the Eucharist.

That other food being blessed was a possibility since early Christians and even Christians in this day and age say a prayer of blessing and thanks before a meal. However, Paul would not have celebrated the Eucharist in a different manor then what was given to him so the other food would not have been part of the Eucharistic celebration.

 

[Little_One0307]

Hi,

My footnotes say under this verse:

After days of rough waters and seasickness drowned the crew’s appetite. Paul encouraged them to find strength in food before their final swim to saftey. The sequence of giving thanks and breaking bread could suggest a eucharistic celebration. [Luke 24:30-35], but similiar ritual acttions were performed at normal Jewish meals. [Luke 9:16, 1 Tim 4-:4-5]. Since Luke gives no indication that the captain and crew were baptized believers, the latter case is more probable than the former.

God bless.