Acts 20:7

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Read my articles on this subject from http://www.biblestudents.co.za, Book 3, 2 - 'Troas' Par.7.2; also Book 3,2 - 'Law')
Emphasis mine in order to indicate my thesis deduced:
Calvin:
7. And in one day.Either doth he mean the first day of the week, which was next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause, because that day was more fit for all assembly, according to custom. But seeing it is no new matter for the Evangelists to put one instead of the first, according to the custom of the Hebrew tongue, (Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) it shall very well agree, that on the morrow after the Sabbath they came together. Furthermore, it were too cold to expound this of any day. For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place . . . . they had appointed a solemn day for the celebrating of the Holy Supper of the Lord among themselves, which might be commodious for them all. . . .”

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

One thing I have not underlined, is "among themselves" - that being another matter and not to be paid attention to in the first place here, kindly requested?

 

[DHK]

Gerhard,
Acts 20:7 does exist in the Bible.
It exists in the Bible for all.
Acts 20:7 is not perverted.
It is not for the perverted.
This is a horrible slam on the Word of God and the people who study the Word of God.
To state:

Acts 20:7 only exists perverted in the minds of the deceived

Is a perverted lie in and of itself, and is not necessary to post.
If you intend to post and debate please do so with some civility.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK,
Please tell me the verb of the sentence contained in Acts 20:7? It is a main verb, and the only one. Identifiy it for me, if you deem it a reasonable and not too insulting a request?

 

[DHK]

DHK,
Please tell me the verb of the sentence contained in Acts 20:7? It is a main verb, and the only one. Identifiy it for me, if you deem it a reasonable and not too insulting a request?

This is your statement:
"Acts 20:7 only exists perverted in the minds of the deceived"

This is Acts 20:7
Acts 20:7 And 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.

I don't see any relation between your statement and Acts 20:7, and thus answering your question becomes totally unnecessary. Your statement is nothing but an insult.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This is your statement:
"Acts 20:7 only exists perverted in the minds of the deceived"

This is Acts 20:7
Acts 20:7 And 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.

I don't see any relation between your statement and Acts 20:7, and thus answering your question becomes totally unnecessary. Your statement is nothing but an insult.

GE
You're clever, DHK! You neatly sidestepped my question with using a translation that correctly renders the Predicate. But not clever enough - it's an insult to my intelligence you might have thought I wouldn't notice a 'translation' of 'synehgmenohn' as were it it an Imperfect finite verb at best such a gogga could be 'rendered'!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"when the disciples came together " is a corruption of 'synehgmenohn' - until eternity must remain nothing other than a corruption!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"when came together" means the disciples came together when Paul preached - which was Saturday night. That would have required any possibility but the Perfect Participle. And the Perfect Participle in the context of Acts 20:7 means one exclusive possibile meaning: That the disciples BEFORE Saturday evening HAD HAD assembled together for Holy Communion and on Saturday evening AFTER, were PRESENT STILL together, and - and 'when' - Paul 'dealt' on certain 'matters', with them.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Why is it Christians - it seems to me - cannot be serious, or, honest, when the issue turns to Sunday-worship? They force me to reconsider the SDAs' theory about 'the mark of the beast'. Do Christians fear the beast that much we (not 'they') would not admit we (not 'they') made a mistake concerning Sunday-sacredness?

 

[Eliyahu]

Read my articles on this subject from http://www.biblestudents.co.za, Book 3, 2 - 'Troas' Par.7.2; also Book 3,2 - 'Law')
Emphasis mine in order to indicate my thesis deduced:
Calvin:
7. And in one day.Either doth he mean the first day of the week, which was next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause, because that day was more fit for all assembly, according to custom. But seeing it is no new matter for the Evangelists to put one instead of the first, according to the custom of the Hebrew tongue, (Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) it shall very well agree, that on the morrow after the Sabbath they came together. Furthermore, it were too cold to expound this of any day. For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place . . . . they had appointed a solemn day for the celebrating of the Holy Supper of the Lord among themselves, which might be commodious for them all. . . .”

Which book of Calvin's writing? Source please.

You must note that Calvin was many times foolish to misinterpret the Bible.
For example, he claimed Infant Baptism, and to support this he mentioned that Noah's childre were baptized during the Flood. The Flood relates to the Baptism, which I agree. However, the Sons of Noah were already 100 years, 98 years of age, etc. and they were already married. They were not Infants !
He claimed that there is No Salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church, claimed that the Baptism can be done by sprinkling ( should be left free), Also, he claimed the Baptismal Regeneration, which you objected to strongly ! He claimed one can be born again by the Baptism without faith !
Then the faith can be formed afterwards.
Calvin claimed all the sacraments should be done only by the clergy ( ministers or any ordained people).

All that I mentioned here are stated in his book " Institutes of Christian Religion "

 

[Eliyahu]

Acts 20:7

7 And 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.



Is it too difficult to understand this verse?

It is very simple to understand that the Early Church celebrated the Lord Supper on Sunday, on the first day of the week.


Messianic Jews interpret this as Hapdallah instead of Lord Supper.

Hapdallah means some kind of fellowship dinner ( Love feasts - Jude 12).

However, Acts 20:7 is klasai arton and Jude 12 is agapais, which are totally different each other. klasai arton is typical expression for the taking bread of Lord Supper.
Therefore we can be sure that they celebrated Lord Supper on Sunday.

Many people try to distort the Bible when they find their theology contradict the Bible.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Which book of Calvin's writing? Source please.

You must note that Calvin was many times foolish to misinterpret the Bible.
For example, he claimed Infant Baptism, and to support this he mentioned that Noah's childre were baptized during the Flood. The Flood relates to the Baptism, which I agree. However, the Sons of Noah were already 100 years, 98 years of age, etc. and they were already married. They were not Infants !
He claimed that there is No Salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church, claimed that the Baptism can be done by sprinkling ( should be left free), Also, he claimed the Baptismal Regeneration, which you objected to strongly ! He claimed one can be born again by the Baptism without faith !
Then the faith can be formed afterwards.
Calvin claimed all the sacraments should be done only by the clergy ( ministers or any ordained people).

All that I mentioned here are stated in his book " Institutes of Christian Religion "

GE

Dear Eliyahu, You have gone to the trouble of visiting my website and opening my books. I have made very proper reference to my sources en situ. Kindly look them up there.
But I may tell you his Institutes and Harmonies of the Gospels are the main sources - actually the only, except for his Deuteronomy Sermons where Calvin makes the strangest hare-jumps in an attempt to say something in favour of Sunday observance. Not even here, of Sunday-sacredness! Nevertheless, don't try to divert the discussion on a baptism-route, please. I in any case do not take everything Calvin says for sweet cake (as we say in Afrikaans). His observation though that the resurrection occurred on a Sabbath is incontrovertable; his deductions from the fact is (in my optinion) lamentable. But for Sunday-protagonists his deduction is disastrous! Because where they think of Jesus' death as the cause of the abolishment of the Sabbath and of Jesus' resurrection as the basis for the observance of Sunday, Calvin thought of His RESURRECTION as the cause of the Sabbath's abolishment; and of NOTHING whatsoever of Jesus', as the basis for the observance of Sunday.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 20
7 On the [b]first day of the week[/b], when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day[/b], and he prolonged his message until midnight.
8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.
9 And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead.
10 But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, "" Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.''
11 When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left.

There are only two choices.

• This is a week-day one service starting after sunset – on week-day one. In which case the major portion of “week day one” was planned not as a 4th commandment day of “rest” but as a “day of travel and commerce”. - A planned voyage” not a church service. But in the speaking Paul happens to conduct an all-night Bible teaching.
• This is a week-day one service starting before sunset – and the majority of the service is held on week-day two – Monday (weedday-two). In which case drawing from “this incident” to get a new 4th- commandment - it would appear that Monday is “the primary day of worship”.

Regardless of the choice – this one thing is abundantly clear

• In either case IF the purpose was to declare “The LORD’s day” as “Week day one” and “The Lord’s day” as the day for “communion service” – then what a great place to introduce the term “The LORD’s day” along with “week-day one” so that for the FIRST and ONLY time in ALL of scripture we would have actual Bible authority for saying “The Lord’s Day is Week day one”. The silence here on that point is deafening!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Acts 20:7

7 And 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.



Is it too difficult to understand this verse?

It is very simple to understand that the Early Church celebrated the Lord Supper on Sunday, on the first day of the week.

GE
What is very simple about it? It is very simple they did NOT - and that, from Acts20:7!

Have you not read what I have said about the proper rendering of 'synehgmenohn'? How would you interpret it in Luke 24? I tell you now, as I have told DHK before, "when the disciples came together ..." is a corruption - a conscious, unscrupulous vandalisation of it! It is not since yesterday I have challenged scholarship on this point. If you want to make a fool of yourself, go on with insisting on this rendering.

 

[Eliyahu]

Acts 20:7

7 And 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.



Is it too difficult to understand this verse?

It is very simple to understand that the Early Church celebrated the Lord Supper on Sunday, on the first day of the week.

GE
What is very simple about it? It is very simple they did NOT - and that, from Acts20:7!

Have you not read what I have said about the proper rendering of 'synehgmenohn'? How would you interpret it in Luke 24? I tell you now, as I have told DHK before, "when the disciples came together ..." is a corruption - a conscious, unscrupulous vandalisation of it! It is not since yesterday I have challenged scholarship on this point. If you want to make a fool of yourself, go on with insisting on this rendering.

GE, it is not too difficult to find the First Day of the Week in ac 20:7. It is your deception which may make a fool of yourself. There is No way to make ac 20:7 to Sabbath, unless you are Sabbath obssessed.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE, it is not too difficult to find the First Day of the Week in ac 20:7. It is your deception which may make a fool of yourself. There is No way to make ac 20:7 to Sabbath, unless you are Sabbath obssessed.

GE

Have I denied "the First Day of the Week in Acts 20:7", Eliyahu, have I? So, finding the First Day in Acts 20:7 is my "deception" which makes a fool of me? Now it is you, who says to find the First Day in Acts 20:7 is a foolish deception! How foolish can you be, Eliyahu! But it can only be a Sunday-obsessed who must be capable by hook or by crook of finding Holy Communion on the First Day of the week in Acts 20:7.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Said BobRyan, and this is for you, Eliyahu, edited a bit by me, GE,

• .... drawing from “this incident” to get a new 4th- commandment - it would appear that Monday is “the primary day of worship”.

Regardless of the choice – this one thing is abundantly clear

• In either case IF the purpose was to declare “The LORD’s day” as “Week day one” and “The Lord’s day” as the day for “communion service” – then what a great place to introduce the term “The LORD’s day” along with “week-day one” so that for the FIRST and ONLY time in ALL of scripture we would have actual Bible authority for saying “The Lord’s Day is Week day one”. The silence here on that point is deafening!"

GE
But there is no silence here. EVERYTHING Luke desired to make PLAIN, he did make plain. And that was, that the disciples "AFTER THAT THEY FOR HOLY COMMUNION HAD GATHERED TOGETHER and on the evening of the First Day of the week were gathered together STILL, Paul discussed matters with them. "

 

[TCGreek]

"when came together" means the disciples came together when Paul preached - which was Saturday night. That would have required any possibility but the Perfect Participle. And the Perfect Participle in the context of Acts 20:7 means one exclusive possibile meaning: That the disciples BEFORE Saturday evening HAD HAD assembled together for Holy Communion and on Saturday evening AFTER, were PRESENT STILL together, and - and 'when' - Paul 'dealt' on certain 'matters', with them.

1. Unless we understand ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων as Saturday or the Seventh day, then your argument is pointless.

2. Is the prepositional phrase ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων referring to the Sunday or Saturday?

 

[BobRyan]

AT "best" you have a Saturday EVENING service that would correspond to the evening of "Week-day-one". That would mean that instead of a Roman system-SUNDAY service what you really have is a Roman-system SATURDAY service! And in that case we have "planned travel" for "week-day-one" rather than "planned rest and a reserved holy day of worship".

I can hardly wait to see the entire Christian church switch to Saturday evening using Acts 20:7 a it's argument!.

However what we do NOT see in Acts 20 is any reference at all to "week-day-one" being called "The Lord's Day" or a holy day of any kind.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

1. Unless we understand ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων as Saturday or the Seventh day, then your argument is pointless.

2. Is the prepositional phrase ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων referring to the Sunday or Saturday?

GE

No, the pivottal phrase is the Participle - not the time-indicating phrase. The time-phrase gives the time the verb, 'Paul dealt with the disciples ...' actualised, which was on Saturday evening - the beginning-phase of the First Day (Bible-count of days).