Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 20:11
When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
11. When he therefore was come up again ] Better ( with Rev. Ver.), “ And when he was gone up.” The Apostle’s calmness, as well as his words, was not without effect on the congregation. He returns to the upper room, and the unfinished act of worship is completed.
and had broken bread ] The best texts give “ the bread,” i.e. the bread of the Eucharistic service.
and eaten ] i.e. partaken of the more substantial meal of the “Agap,” which in the early church followed after the Communion.
and talked a long while ] The verb implies the talking of persons one with another, the talk of friendly intercourse, as distinguished from the previous discourse on more solemn subjects of the spread of Christ’s kingdom and the part each of them might take in helping it on. So the Rev. Ver. well, “ and had talked with them a long while.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Come up again – To the upper room, Act 20:8.
And had broken bread, and eaten – Had taken refreshment. As this is spoken of Paul only, it is evidently distinguished from the celebration of the Lords Supper.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 11. Had broken bread] Had taken some refreshment, in order to their journey.
And talked a long while] , Having familiarly conversed, for this is the import of the word, which is very different from the , of the seventh verse, and the , of the ninth; which imply solemn, grave discourse.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Had broken bread; either in the eucharist, as in Act 20:7, or in taking his ordinary refection and breakfast.
Talked a long while, even till break of day; this was of long continuance, and speaks the patience and zeal of Christians in those times, and will rise up in judgment against a careless and negligent generation.
He departed; going that part of his journey on foot, as the rest of his company did go by sea, as Act 20:13.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
11. broken bread and eatenwithwhat a mixture of awe and joy after such an occurrence! “Andeaten”denoting a common repast, as distinguished from thebreaking of the eucharistic bread.
and talked a long while, eventill break of dayHow lifelike this record of dear Christianfellowship, as free and gladsome as it was solemn! (See Ec9:7).
Ac20:13-38. CONTINUINGHIS ROUTETO JERUSALEM HEREACHES MILETUS,WHENCE HESENDS FOR THE ELDERSOF EPHESUSHISFAREWELL ADDRESSTO THEM.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
When he therefore was come up again,…. Into the upper room, where he was before, and where the disciples were gathered together:
and had broken bread and eaten; administered the Lord’s supper, and also eat for his bodily refreshment:
and talked a long while: about the ordinance and the doctrines of the Gospel, and spiritual experience, and such like divine things:
even till break of day; not knowing when to leave off:
so he departed; without taking any rest; though before he departed, what follows was done; it was at this time he left his cloak, books, and parchments here, 2Ti 4:13.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When he was gone up (). Second aorist active participle in sharp contrast to (went down) of verse 10.
Had broken bread ( ). Probably the Eucharist to observe which ordinance Paul had come and tarried (verse 7), though some scholars distinguish between what took place in verse 7 and verse 11, needlessly so as was stated on verse 7.
And eaten ( ). The word is used in 10:10 of eating an ordinary meal and so might apply to the , but it suits equally for the Eucharist. The accident had interrupted Paul’s sermon so that it was observed now and then Paul resumed his discourse.
And had talked with them a long while (‘ ). Luke, as we have seen, is fond of for periods of time, for a considerable space of time, “even till break of day” ( ). Old word for brightness, radiance like German Auge, English eye, only here in the N.T. Occurs in the papyri and in modern Greek for dawn. This second discourse lasted from midnight till dawn and was probably more informal (as in 10:27) and conversational (, though our word homiletics comes from ) than the discourse before midnight (, verses Acts 20:7; Acts 20:9). He had much to say before he left.
So he departed ( ). Thus Luke sums up the result. Paul left (went forth) only after all the events narrated by the numerous preceding participles had taken place. Effective aorist active indicative . H here equals , now at length (Ac 27:7) as Page shows.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Having gone up. From the court to the chamber above.
Talked [] . Rather, communed. It denotes a more familiar and confidential intercourse than discoursed, in verse 7.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “When he therefore was come up again,” (anabas de) “Then going back up,” to the upper room, near where the place (window) was from which Eutychus had fallen.
2) “And had broken bread, and eaten,” (kai kalasas ton arton kai geusamenos) “And when he had broken bread and tasting or eating,” the common meal that came to follow, not precede the Lord’s Supper, such as the Corinth church had done leading to grave wrong, 1Co 11:17-23. Fasting, not feasting, should precede the Lord’s Supper 1Co 11:23-34.
3) “And talked a long while,” (eph’ hikanon te homilesas) “And conversed over a considerable period of time,” no longer lecturing, but more of a general round table fellowship type of discussion. He simply seems to have eaten a light meal, or early breakfast, before leaving early the next day for Assos, Act 20:13.
4) “Even till the break of day” (achri auges) “Until light of day,” even until day light, around six o’clock in the morning, or break of day, about five o’clock a.m.
5) “So he departed.” (houtos ekselthen) “Thus he went forth,” left from Troas where he had stayed for seven days among the church brethren, Act 20:6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(11) And had broken bread, and eaten.Better, broken the bread and tasted. In the early usage of the Lords Supper the bread was not made, as in the Latin Church, in the form of circular wafers, nor cut up into small cubes, as in most Reformed Churches. The loaf, probably a long roll, was placed before the celebrant, and each piece was broken off as it was given to the communicant. Stress is laid on this practice in 1Co. 10:16, and indeed in the very term of breaking of bread as a synonym for the Lords Supper. (See Note on Act. 2:46.) Whether the next act of eating refers to the actual communion (we are obliged to use technical terms for the sake of definiteness), or to a repast, or Agap, we have no adequate data for deciding. The use of the same verb, however, in tasting of the heavenly gift, in Heb. 6:4, suggests the former, and it is probable that the portion of bread and wine thus taken, in the primitive celebration, would be enough to constitute a real refreshment, and to enable the Apostle to continue his discourse.
Even till break of day.The whole service must have lasted some seven or eight hours, sunrise at this time of the year, shortly after the Passover, being between 5 and 6 A.M. The inconvenience of such a protracted service led, as has been stated (see Note on Act. 20:7), to the transfer of the Lords Supper from the evening of Saturday to the early morning of Sunday, a position which, with some moderate variations, it has retained ever since, till the introduction in recent times of the yet more primitive practice of an evening celebration.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
11. Come up again From the ground to the third loft.
Departed Went out, that is, from the upper room of the assemblage.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when he was gone up, and had broken the bread, and eaten, and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.’
Then Paul returned quietly to the upper room where they continued their fellowship meal and he continued to talk with them until morning. The miracle had given them much to talk about and he knew that he would not see them again for a long time, if ever.
It is interesting to note that the Lord’s Supper was taken after midnight. The early church probably did not distinguish ‘days’ quite as clearly as we do. ‘The first day of the week’ was a guide not a dogma, and we do not even know whether it was reckoned here on Jewish (evening to evening) or Greek reckoning. Originally it would have begun on Jewish reckoning in accordance with the day of resurrection, so that the practise may have continued. If that is so then the whole of the meeting was on the first day of the week. But it is doubtful if the early church would have even thought about it. They would probably simply have seen the first day of the week as extending. (We can only too easily become obsessed with dates and details).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 20:11-12 . On account of the discoursings the intended partaking of the Agapae (Act 20:7 ) had not yet taken place. But by the fall of the young man these discoursings were broken off; and now, after Paul had returned to the room, he commences, as the father of a family among those assembled, the so long deferred meal he breaks the bread, and eats, and discourses at table (comp. Chrysostom) until break of day, whereupon he thus ( , after all that is mentioned in ; see Buttmann, neut. Gr . p. 262 [E. T. 306]) leaves the place of meeting. After his departure, they (“qui remanserant apud adolescentem,” Erasmus) brought the lad alive (into the room), and they (those assembled) were by this greatly ( , often so with Plutarch, also in Isocrates and others) comforted over their separation from the apostle, who had left behind such a of his miraculous power.
(see the critical remarks) stands in definite reference to ., Act 20:7 , and therefore the article is put. Piscator, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others erroneously hold that a breakfast is meant, which Paul partook of to strengthen him for his journey, and that therefore . is subjoined. But the Agape was, in fact, a real meal, and therefore . denotes nothing else than that Paul had begun to partake of it. It is only added to bring more prominently forward this partaking as having at length taken place.
, as in Luk 24:14 ; more familiar than ., Act 20:9 . Comp. Act 10:24 .
] they brought him , so that he came into the midst of them; but only now , so that thus subsequently to his revival, Act 20:10 , he must have gradually recovered, in order to be able to return into the room.
] he must consequently have been still very young.
] Opposed to , Act 20:9 , and for the joyful confirmation of the words of the apostle, Act 20:10 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
Ver. 11. And eaten ] After the celebration of the Lord’s supper, followed the use of daily food. Animantis cuiusque vita est in fuga, saith the philosopher; so that were it not for the repair of nutrition, natural life would be soon extinguished. So would spiritual life also.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
11. ] The intended breaking of bread had been put off by the accident.
., as ch. Act 2:42 . Were it not for that usage, the article here might import, ‘the bread which it was intended to break,’ alluding to . above.
] having made a meal , see reff. The agape was a veritable meal. Not ‘ having tasted it ,’ viz. the bread which he had broken; though that is implied, usage decides for the other meaning.
] ‘ After so doing :’see reff.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 20:11 . : if we read ., see critical note, “the bread,” so R.V., i.e. , of the Eucharist; so Syriac. The words evidently refer back to Act 20:7 , see Blass, Gram. , p. 148. .: often taken to refer not to the Eucharist, but to the partaking of the Agape or common meal which followed. If so, it certainly appears as if St. Paul had soon taken steps to prevent the scandals which occurred in Corinth from the Holy Communion being celebrated during or after a common meal, 1Co 9:23 , since here the Eucharist precedes, Luckock, Footprints of the Apostles as traced by St. Luke , ii., 199. Wendt, who still identifies the breaking of the bread with the Agape (so Holtzmann, Weiss), protests against the view of Kuinoel and others that reference is here made to a breakfast which St. Paul took for his coming journey. Dean Plumptre refers to the use of in Heb 6:4 as suggesting that here too reference is made to the participation of the Eucharist; but, on the other hand, in Act 10:10 (see Blass, in loco ) the word is used of eating an ordinary meal, and Wendt refers it to the enjoyment of the Agape ( cf. also Knabenbauer, in loco ). Weiss urges that the meaning of simply “tasting” is to be adopted here, and that shows that Paul only “tasted” the meal, i.e. , the Agape , and hurried on with his interrupted discourse, whilst Lewin would take . absolutely here, and refer it to a separate ordinary meal; although he maintains that the previous formula . must refer to the Eucharist. In LXX the verb is frequent, but there is no case in which it means definitely more than to taste, although in some cases it might imply eating a meal, e.g. , Gen 25:30 ; for its former sense see, e.g. , Jon 3:7 . In modern Greek = to dine, so = dinner. .: on St. Luke’s use of with temporal significance see above on p. 215, cf. with this expression 2Ma 8:25 . .: only in Luke in N.T., cf. Luk 24:14-15 , Act 24:26 ; here, “talked with them,” R.V., as of a familiar meeting, elsewhere “communed,” R.V.; so in classical Greek, and in Josephus, and also in modern Greek (Kennedy); in LXX, Dan 1:19 : ., “the king communed with them”. In the passage before us the alternative rendering “when he had stayed in their company” is given by Grimm-Thayer, sub v. , cf. Polyaen., iv., 18, (Wetstein); only here in N.T., found in Isa 59:9 , 2Ma 12:9 , but not in same sense as here. , cf. Act 20:7 , after a participle, as often in classical Greek, Simcox, Language of the N. T. , p. 175, see also Act 27:17 , and Viteau, Le Grec du N. T. , p. 190 (1893).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
bread. The texts read “the bread”, to support the idea that it was a Eucharistic service, but see note on Act 20:7 and the references in Act 2:42.
talked. Greek. homileo. Only here, Act 24:26. Luk 24:14, Luk 24:15. Hence our word “homily”, for a solemn discourse.
a long while = for (Greek. epi. App-104.) long (time).
break of day. Greek. auge. Only here.
so. Emph. to call attention to the circumstances attending his departure.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
11.] The intended breaking of bread had been put off by the accident.
., as ch. Act 2:42. Were it not for that usage, the article here might import, the bread which it was intended to break, alluding to . above.
] having made a meal, see reff. The agape was a veritable meal. Not having tasted it, viz. the bread which he had broken;-though that is implied, usage decides for the other meaning.
] After so doing:see reff.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 20:11. , having broken bread) This breaking of bread was the particular act of Paul, when about to set out on his journey, and was distinct from that which had occurred the day before, Act 20:7.-, having spoken with them) in more familiar discourse, after the more solemn address, of which Act 20:9 treats.-, so) No taking of rest intervening.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
and had: Act 20:7
even: Act 20:7, Act 20:9
Reciprocal: Neh 8:3 – morning Act 2:40 – with Act 2:42 – in breaking Act 20:2 – given Act 20:31 – night 1Co 10:16 – The bread
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1
Act 20:11. Broken bread. This was not the act for which the disciples had come together, for they did not know that such a lengthy service would be had when they assembled. But having been awake most of the night, and as Paul was soon to leave on a journey, it was courteous for them to set refreshments before him for his support.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 20:11. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten. The breaking of bread, the solemn conclusion to the long service of prayer and exhortation, doubtless had been interrupted by the accident to Eutychus. The bread was, in these early communions, literally broken. The loaf, probably a long roll, was placed before the celebrant, and each piece was broken off as it was given to the communicant (Plumptre).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
11. The alarm produced by the death of Eutychus, the astonishing display of divine power in his restoration to life, and the stillness of the midnight hour in which it all transpired, could but add greatly to the solemnity which already pervaded the audience. Their feelings were too deeply wrought upon to think of sleep, and the meeting was still protracted. They returned to the upper chamber, where the lights were still burning, and the elements of the Lord’s supper remained as yet undistributed. Paul, notwithstanding the length and earnestness of his discourse, was still unexhausted. (11) “And having gone up, and broken the loaf, and eaten it, he conversed yet a long time, even till daybreak, and so he departed.” Thus the whole night was spent in religious discourse and conversation, interrupted, at midnight, by a death and a resurrection, and this followed by the celebration of the Lord’s death, which brings the hope of a better resurrection. The whole scene concluded at daybreak, in one of those touching farewells, in which the pain of parting and the hope of meeting to part no more, struggle so tearfully for the mastery of the soul. It was a night long to be remembered by those who were there, and will yet be a theme of much conversation in eternity.
It is a question of some curiosity whether it was at daybreak on Sunday morning or Monday morning, that this assembly was dismissed. They were assembled in the early part of the night, yet the time of their assembling was included in the “first day of the week.” If the brethren in Troas were accustomed to begin and close the day at midnight, according to the Greek custom, it must have been Sunday night when they met. But if they reckoned according to the Jewish method, which began and closed the day with sunset, then they must have met on what we call Saturday night; for in this case the whole of that night would belong to the first day of the week, and Sunday night to the second day. It is supposed, by many commentators, that the Greek method prevailed, and that they met Sunday night; but, with Mr. Howson, I am constrained to the other opinion; a conclusive proof of which I find in the fact, that if the meeting was on Sunday night, then the loaf was broken on Monday morning; for it was broken after midnight. There can be no doubt of this fact, unless we understand the breaking of the loaf, mentioned in the eleventh verse, as referring to a common meal. But this is inadmissible; for, having stated, (verse 7 ,) that they came together to break the loaf and now stating, for the first time, that Paul did break the loaf, we must conclude that by the same expression, Luke means the same thing. To this objection that Paul alone is said to have broken and eaten the bread, I answer, that this would be a very natural expression to indicate that Paul officiated at the table; but, on the other hand, if it is a common meal, it would be strange that he alone should eat, especially to the exclusion of his traveling companions, who were going to start as early in the morning as he did. I conclude, therefore, that the brethren met on the night after the Jewish Sabbath, which was still observed as a day of rest by all of them who were Jews or Jewish proselytes, and considering this the beginning of the first day of the week, spent it in the manner above described. On Sunday morning Paul and his companions resumed their journey, being constrained, no doubt, by the movements of the ship, which had already been in the harbor of Troas seven days. His example does not justify traveling on the Lord’s day, except under similar constraint, and upon a mission as purely religious as that which was taking him to Jerusalem.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
The Christians returned to their third-story room and resumed their meeting. The Greek phrase klasas ton arton kai geusamenos, "broken the bread and eaten," can refer to an ordinary meal rather than the Lord’s Supper. [Note: Longenecker, p. 509.] Or the Lord’s Supper may be in view here. [Note: Neil, p. 212; Kent, p. 156.] Paul then continued speaking until daybreak. He and the Troas Christians realized that this might be their final opportunity to meet together, so in spite of the unusual incident involving Eutychus they made the most of their opportunity.