On Acts 20:7-12

Acts 20:7-12
That the stay of seven days had a special and spiritual aim appears from what follows.
“And on the first [day] of the week, when we1 were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow; and prolonged the word till midnight. And there were many lights in the upper room where we were gathered together. And a certain youth, by name Eutychus, as he was sitting2 in the window, being overpowered with deep sleep, as Paul was discoursing yet longer, fell overpowered by the sleep, and even from the third story, and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him, and clasping him round said, Be not troubled, for his life is in him. And when he went up and broke the3 bread and had eaten, and conversed with them a long while till daybreak, so be departed. And they brought the boy alive and were not a little comforted” (Acts 20:7-127And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 8And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. 9And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. 10And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. 11When 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. 12And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. (Acts 20:7‑12)).
There is no real difficulty or doubt as to the day intended. It was not the Sabbath or seventh, but the first, day of the week marked out to every Christian by the resurrection of our Lord. So we find the disciples meeting on that day, the first of the week—the very day that Jesus came and took His stand in their midst risen from the dead. So it was eight days after, when Thomas was with them and was delivered from his unbelief. It was the day of new, not old, creation, of grace and not law. There was no transfer from the seventh day to the first, nor is the first ever called Sabbath day; but as the apostles and others who had been Jews availed themselves of the Sabbath and of liberty to speak in the synagogue, so the first day was unequivocally the special and honored day of the Christian assembly. When they were all together from Pentecost and onwards in Jerusalem, we can understand their being day by day in close attendance with one consent in the temple and breaking bread at home. Here we find among the Gentiles, when time had passed over, that the first day called the Christians together as such. This is made the more marked in the passage before us because it is said that Paul discoursed “to them.” Twice over it is said that “we” gathered together. The constant duty for all the family of God as distinct from the Jews was to assemble on that day to break bread; the special object of Paul’s discourse was found in the saints who lived at Troas.
This is entirely confirmed by 1 Corinthians 16:22Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (1 Corinthians 16:2). “Every” first day of week let each of you set by himself a store according as he may thrive, that there may be no collections then when I shall come. “The first day” of the week was clearly a settled institution for the Christian body.
Not it but the Sabbath was the memorial of creation rest, which the law imposed in due time as a most holy commandment peculiarly bound up with God’s authority and honor. The resurrection of Christ has brought in a new creation, after having by Himself purged our sins on the cross. Hence it is the day of manifest and triumphant life in Christ, our life, when our hearts go forth in worship, communion and service. A bodily rest which one shared with the ox and the ass certainly does not rise up to the blessed associations of Christ risen from the dead, nor does the canon of the New Testament close without stamping this day as the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:1010I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, (Revelation 1:10)). Efforts have not been wanting on the one hand to make it a prophetic day with which it really has not one idea in common, for “the day of the Lord” will be one of ever increasing and solemn judgments from God on the earth, whereas “the Lord’s day” is one of heavenly grace, bringing us into the victory of the Lord’s resurrection already, the pledge of our own resurrection or change at His coming.
On the other hand it is to lower the character and authority of the first day of the week beyond calculation, to treat it merely as the day appointed by the church. Thus neither creation nor law nor human arrangement had to do with it. It is a day marked out by the Lord’s repeated appearing, by the inspired sanction of the Holy Spirit, and by the final sanction of it as devoted to the Lord in the one great prophetic book of the New Testament; just as the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:2020When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. (1 Corinthians 11:20)) alone shares as distinct from all other suppers the same striking and distinctive designation.
Again, some have sought to lower the breaking of bread here spoken of to the love-feast; but there is no ground whatever for such a notion. From the first, breaking bread was appropriated to the Lord’s Supper: so we see it from the beginning (Acts 2:4646And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46)). It is there clearly distinguished from partaking of food with rejoicing and singleness of heart. Earlier in the chapter, verse 42, the breaking of bread or loaf refers solely to the Lord’s Supper. This is shown by its surroundings, the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers. These constituted the united holy walk of the saints. No doubt they had the most powerful influence on their ordinary habits and necessary wants of every day; but it is plain that the verse distinctly speaks of that which was most sacred. Nor is it denied that breaking of bread might be said of an ordinary meal, when the context so demands. So we find on a most impressive occasion where the Lord Himself taking the loaf blessed it, and, having broken, gave it to His disciples (Luke 24:30-3530And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? 33And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. (Luke 24:30‑35)). It remains true however, that, where the context speaks of the communion in the breaking of bread, the Lord’s Supper alone is meant. So it is here; and in this most interesting way, the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Day were thus bound up together. It was no doubt a time when the assembly enjoyed the exercise of gifts, as here Paul discoursed to them, not “preached” as the A.V. says, which might convey the thought, of the gospel proclaimed to unconverted souls. Discourse is clearly a word of more general bearing, and quite as applicable to those within as to any without.
But the circumstances of this moment were peculiar. Paul was about to set out on the morrow, and extended his discourse till midnight. This gave occasion to the painful incident which befell Eutychus. It was not done in a corner; for “there were many lights in the upper room where we were.” The youth so named was sitting on the window seat; and being borne down with deep sleep, as Paul was discoursing at great length, he fell, overborne by the sleep, from the third story to the bottom, and was taken up dead. It must be acknowledged that the inspired physician who wrote the account was a most competent witness. It is not merely that he appeared dead, or that he was taken up for dead, as some have said. He was really dead, but Paul went down, fell upon him, as the prophets notoriously did of old, and clasping him said, “Trouble not yourselves, for His life (soul) is in him.” Assuredly the apostle in these words had no desire to make light of the power of God which had wrought in this miracle.
Some have supposed that when Paul had gone up and broken the loaf and eaten, it was the interrupted celebration of the Lord’s Sapper. This appears to me opposed to the intimations of the context. Scripture describes it, not as fellowship, but solely as the personal act of the apostle. No doubt it was “the loaf” of the Lord’s Supper; but it was that loaf now partaken of by the apostle for his own refreshment, after so long speaking and circumstances so trying, about to go forth on his journey. This seems borne out by the word, γευσάμενος, rightly translated “eaten,” or literally “tasted.” We can readily understand therefore why the Lord avoids such a word in calling on His disciples to “take, eat,” in the institution of His supper. The word φαγεῖν could be and is used in the most general way, but it is here γεύομαι. Again, the apostle’s “conversing” with them a long while, till daybreak, much better suits a meal than the assembly. So, we are told, he departed; as they brought the boy alive and were not a little comforted. The joy much exceeded the sorrow.