The Forgotten Sunday-Scripture

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There are as many pamphlets on this Scripture as the categories of their inferiority. “The weak and beggarly principles” “whereunto ye desire to turn again” and “desire to be in bondage” to, they all say, are principally manifested in and represented by keeping of the Seventh Day Sabbath. These “weak and beggarly principles”, they generally allege, show and prove a “return” to “Judaism”, “Judaism” enhancing the “weak and beggarly principles” of which Paul writes. And, mind you, these little masterpieces of draconian law agree that a keeping of the First Day as the “Lord’s Day” sorts not under such religious “bondage” as keeping of the Sabbath does.
Strikingly only controversial “expositions”, specifically aimed at attacking the Seventh Day Sabbath, pose such attitudes and arguments, while (rare) treatises of integrity and real scholarship, seldom if ever, reach any conclusions that might incriminate or just implicate the Seventh Day Sabbath in Galatians 4:10.
The Church, in any case, as that catholic Body of Christ, has never accepted or tolerated the denial of the Law’s validity – which denial is necessary to propagate such arguments against the Sabbath Day and its observance. Even in its worst mutilated version the Law is confessed as saying, “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy” (The Roman Catholic or Vulgate Fourth Commandment). The Protestant Church has always believed the Fourth Commandment unadulterated. The Church Catholic has always held that the Law’s binding claim constitutes the duty of Christian freedom and worship. The Church has always believed that the fruits of a Spirit-filled life “according to Christ” could never be in conflict with the spirit of the Law – which is God’s Law after all. Christ is more and greater than the Law and Christ’s greatness and superiority is what also elevates and magnifies the Law – which Christ thus and to this end fulfilled: “Lo I come to magnify thy Law o God!” Christ cannot be divided against himself – division is characteristic of the house of Satan.
The presupposition of all Paul’s arguments regarding the Law – the nomos, is its validity. If the Law were supposed in the Scripture under consideration, it beforehand would imply that Paul speaks not against the Sabbath. But seeing Paul in no uncertain terms speaks against whatever he speaks about here in Galatians 4:10, it cannot be the Sabbath Day. Paul’s position on the Law in a word is that the Law is “holy”, “spiritual” and “good” – Ro.7:12, 14, 16, and that it “witnesses to the righteousness of God” – which implies the Law’s immutability. But the Law is desecrated and violated “if by the works of the law justification be obtained”, or “if by the law righteousness should come”, Gl.2:16, 21 – which also implies the Law’s immutability. See “Paul and the Law”, Par. 8.3.5.
But these arguments and arguers of whom we speak say that God’s Law in so far as God’s Sabbath Day is concerned, has of Christ’s own doing (of Christ’s own “breaking”) become a “weak and beggarly principle” – which to my mind to say stops nowhere before blasphemy. (Says one of these Doctors, “Now that Christ for the believer has earned redemption it is a denial of Christ to keep the Sabbath (Seventh Day)”. The propagators actually reason that man before Christ came, obtained righteousness through the Law and by the works of the Law – as if they needed not the Saviour for the salvation of their souls – which again to my mind to reason stops nowhere before blasphemy. Moreover do they claim, “We are not under the law”, yet they keep their own “Sabbath” – Sunday!

 

[billwald]

Paul failed to understand that law keeping only generated blessings in this life and was never meant to generate righteousness that carried into the next life.

 

[bmerr]

Gerhard,

bmerr here. Let me say up front that the posts I have read by you have been well thought out, well worded, and darn near convincing. With this in mind, I confess to a bit of trepidation as I respond to your OP. Nevertheless, I submit a few points for your consideration.

First, it is known that much of the opposition Paul faced as he planted and built up the early churches came from Judaizing teachers who attempted to bring Gentiles under the Mosaic Law, and to bring former Jews back under the Law.

One of the main thrusts of this group was to have the Gentiles circumcised (ie Gal 5:1-6), and for them to keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:24).

One part of the Law given through Moses was to keep the Sabbath Day (Ex 20:8). While it is true that the seventh day was hallowed by God in the beginning (Gen 2:3), it is also true that God did not make it known to man until the Law was given from Mount Sinai (Neh 9:13-14).

This Covenant was offered by God to the nation of Israel (Ex 19:5-6), and accepted by Israel (Ex 19:7-8). Afterward, the Law was given (Ex 20:1-17). Elsewhere, these Ten Commandments are referred to as "the words of the covenant, the ten commandments" (Ex 34:28).

During the life of Christ, He made the statement, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt 5:17-18).

I think you would agree that Christ has fulfilled both the Law and the prophets, thus allowing the Old Testament to be done away with, and bringing in the New Testament (Heb 8:13), under which all men now live.

Even the sons of Abraham (Ishmael by the flesh and Isaac by promise) are said of Paul to be an allegory representing the two covenants, Old and New. Paul said the one covenant from mount Sinai "gendereth to bondage". This is the Old Testament which included the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath Day holy.

As we investigate the early church, we find that the day the disciples assembled for worship was the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2). Since the apostles operated under the authority of Christ, the things they taught the early disciples were by the authority of Christ.

If we are to use the NT as our authority for doctrine and practice (Col 3:17), then we must follow the example left for us in the NT.

Please receive this in the spirit in which it is offered.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[BobRyan]

We find in Acts 2 that the aposltes gathered "every day" to break bread.

We have no text in all of the NT that states "they gathered Lord's day after Lord's day to have worship" there is no such text in all of scripture.

So you are right - we should pay attention to the model given us in the NT.

In Acts 13 we have both Jews and Gentils gathering Sabbath after Sabbath for Worship and Bible study with the Christian evangelists.

Even in cases where the Jews are turning away from the Gospel the Gentiles are STILL calling for further worship and Bible study - Sabbath after Sabbath.

In Acts 18 we see again "Sabbath after Sabbath" worship and Bible study services.

But in the NT instead of "Lord's Day after Lord's Day" we have "week-day one" incidents - with nothing mentioned about "plans to have worship the next week-day-one".

This is the data we get for the "practice" of the NT saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DQuixote]

Moreover do they claim, “We are not under the law”, yet they keep their own “Sabbath” – Sunday!

He arose, He arose, HALLELUJAH! Christ arose!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Paul failed to understand that law keeping only generated blessings in this life and was never meant to generate righteousness that carried into the next life.

GE:

Paul didn't fail in any such respect.
Your observation also has no bearing on the subject or text.

 

[bmerr]

Bob,

bmerr here. In Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2, we have examples of the early church meeting on the first day of the week to break bread, and to lay by in store as they had prospered, respectively. The daily reference concerning the breaking of bread (Acts 2:46 I believe), perhaps has more reference ot the sharing of food than of observing the Lord's Supper (...and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness...)

It is reasonable to conclude that the early church worshipped daily at the start, however the only day specified for the Lord's Supper and the offering is the first day of the week.

As for the frequency of these meetings, I would suggest that they met every time the first day of the week rolled around. If your employer told you that payday was "the first day of the week", how often would you expect to be paid?

In Acts 13:14-48, Paul and company assembled in the synagogue on the sabbath day because that's when the Jews, who needed to hear the gospel, were there. It would have been ineffective to try to preach the gospel to them on Sunday, since they would have been at the house, far out of hearing range of Paul at the synagogue.

Same deal in Acts 18.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

bmerr:

"First, it is known that much of the opposition Paul faced as he planted and built up the early churches came from Judaizing teachers who attempted to bring Gentiles under the Mosaic Law, and to bring former Jews back under the Law. One of the main thrusts of this group was to have the Gentiles circumcised (ie Gal 5:1-6), and for them to keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:24)."

GE:

First, in answer: one should differentiate between Judaizing or Judaism and Old Testament Law or Dispensation. The first is from man; the last is from God. Christianity can be Judaizing; it can proclaim a righteousness of works and by works. Judaism need not be pre-Christ; it is alive and active today and always will be for as long as man thinks he can be good enough to save himself.
'Old Testament salvation' used to be by grace through faith no bit less than New Testament salvation, and its Object of faith was Jesus Christ no bit less than New Testament salvation. Or God in the meantime must have changed.

next: Although you are right "One of the main thrusts of this (Judaizing) group was to have the Gentiles circumcised" i.e. NOT the fourth chapter! Up to 4:16 Paul not at all takes cognisance of either Judaising or the issue of circumcision. On the contrary, Paul expressly identifies the malpractice as being "returned to again", therefore as having been an idolatrous remain from the Galatians' heathen past. The Galatians hadn't been Jews before, but good worshippers of the deities of the world and wisdom of their ancestors, the so-called "first elements" under which were counted the 'gods/deities' of time: "days, moons, seasons and years". These were nothing akin to the Sabbath.

Further, soon! Just too tired now --- must be this ailment I suffer. I feel old and finished more and more daily ... Thy will be done, o God!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

He arose, He arose, HALLELUJAH! Christ arose!

GE:

Matthew 28:1 Authorised Version

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

bmerr here. In Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2, we have examples of the early church meeting on the first day of the week to break bread, and to lay by in store as they had prospered, respectively.

I agree. 1Cor 16 show a general principle where not only one "one week-day-one" did they save up by themselves but that they were to do this EVERY week. On all week-day-ones they were to save money.

I also agree that we have one example in Acts 20:7 of a one-time meeting held on week-day one - a farewell sermon for Paul.

But you have to admit that would have been a great time to "introduce week day one as the Lord's day AND to TEACH that it was to be kept EACH Lord's day by gathering for worship".

What a great idea - to SUPPORT a mandated/commanded/authorized practice by actually stating it. You know like Exodus 20:8-11 states the Sabbath Commandment.

It is reasonable to conclude that the early church worshipped daily at the start, however the only day specified for the Lord's Supper

We see a Thursday Lord's Supper in the Gospels and we have the indication of breaking bread "every day" in Acts 2 - but where do we see "week-day-one after week-day-one" gatherings for the Lord's Supper in all of the NT?

As for the frequency of these meetings, I would suggest that they met every time the first day of the week rolled around.

That is an interesting suggestion. Where do you see it actually happening in the NT?

In Acts 13:14-48, Paul and company assembled in the synagogue on the sabbath day because that's when the Jews, who needed to hear the gospel, were there.

As it turns out - Acts 13 is where we see the Jews rejecting the Gospel and the Gentiles accepting. It is the Gentiles - not the Jews that ask to have the worship and Bible message brought to them again "next Sabbath" in Sabbath- after - Sabbath meetings for worship and the study of God's Word in Acts 13.

I think you might be able to make a case for that FIRST Sabbath - saying "Paul is not trying to Honor Christ's Sabbath Commandment - he is just going to the Synagogue on Sabbath to reach the Jews and incidentally some Gentiles". But when the Jews reject the message - Paul should say to the still-interested GENTILE part of the congregation "HEY guys we have good news. Tomorrow is not just WEEK-day-ONE it is the LORD's Day and since we are meeting tomorrow and the Jews aren't that interested anymore please join us in the worship service we are having tomorrow for it is the LORD's day - and you need not be bothered by these Jews who are here today turning away from this gospel message".

What a GREAT time to introduce them to that little fact -- that is never mentioned in all of scripture. But like the worship of Mary as "sinless mother of God" there is a "reason" this is never mentioned in the Bible though it is very popular today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bmerr:

“One part of the Law given through Moses was to keep the Sabbath Day (Ex 20:8). While it is true that the seventh day was hallowed by God in the beginning (Gen 2:3), it is also true that God did not make it known to man until the Law was given from Mount Sinai (Neh 9:13-14).”


CG:

I agree. But do you realise the significance of your own observation? Have you not noticed that God as it were preserved and reserved His revelation of His Day of Rest for the Day of His Redemption? It inevitably and without exception is the case right through the history of Salvation. Meaningless? For me the fact supplies the only basis for believing and keeping of God’s Sabbath Day.

Bmerr:

”This Covenant was offered by God to the nation of Israel (Ex 19:5-6), and accepted by Israel (Ex 19:7-8). Afterward, the Law was given (Ex 20:1-17). Elsewhere, these Ten Commandments are referred to as "the words of the covenant, the ten commandments" (Ex 34:28).”

GE:

“This Covenant was offered by God to the nation of Israel.”
Well said, “offered” – not ‘given’ as though from now on they ‘possessed’ it! No, “the Seventh Day (is) the Sabbath of the LORD your God”. Just as God’s Elect are His by His own will and never will go lost, no not one, so is God’s Sabbath Day by His own will, His, forever. God declares as much, that He is jealous of and zealous for the Day He names, “My Holy”. In all this is sheltered the unchangeableness of the Day of God’s Reviving, Pleasure and Rest ---- immer ja immer, “in the Son”, “through the Son”, in fact, in HIM, in resurrection from the dead.

God claims His whole creation unto Himself through Jesus Christ. Not only matter as the building material of His creation, but life as the fruit of God’s own involvement with His creation : HENCE, God claims TIME without which the manifestation of His relationship-of-life with His creation, is IMPOSSIBLE and as impossible as without the Incarnation of the Word! Thus the importance or the meaning and essence of God’s Day of holy rest, becomes apparent and indispensable. It means God who made our time His time; who claims us for Himself claiming the Seventh Day unto Himself “a sign that I-Am, your Mighty One”.

It all says in simplest and most powerful terms: ‘This Covenant offered by God to the nation of Israel’ – “ALL Israel” inclusive of us the ‘heathen’ Christians! The Living Confirmation of it is Jesus Christ, the Word of "the words of the covenant, the ten commandments" the Word behind the Covenant, the Word that is, the Covenant, and within the Covenant, even the Covenant of Grace. God, never entered into another covenant or with another spiritual People in Covenant, ever! For it would mean He changed His Own; it would mean He changed His judgments; It would mean He changed Himself.


Bmerr:




”During the life of Christ, He made the statement, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt 5:17-18).

I think you would agree that Christ has fulfilled both the Law and the prophets, thus allowing the Old Testament to be done away with, and bringing in the New Testament (Heb 8:13), under which all men now live.”

GE:

Christ fulfilled both the Law and the prophets, thus forcing the Old Testament to make way for Himself, bringing in the New Testament (Heb 8:13), under which all saved have ever lived and ever shall live by -- God in Jesus Christ confirming His every word and tittle and yota in and of the Law, as for the first time giving validation to it, attributing worth and virtue unto it as at first having uttered it. In Paul’s words clearer than any, “the glory” – the ‘glory’, mark well, no dishonour but highly virtuous “glory” – of the Law, become like “no glory”, against “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”. In another word of Paul’s, everything – even the glory of the Law – for him has become “loss, for the gain of Christ Jesus”.

Surely, a Christian cannot confess or keep the Sabbath because of the Law, if not that Law is Christ Himself the Word of God immutable.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bmerr:

”Even the sons of Abraham (Ishmael by the flesh and Isaac by promise) are said of Paul to be an allegory representing the two covenants, Old and New. Paul said the one covenant from mount Sinai "gendereth to bondage". This is the Old Testament which included the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath Day holy.”

GE:

No objection, only agreement! The above I hope explains. We do not keep the Seventh Day Sabbath by reason of the Fourth Commandment commanding, “Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath Day” : we are not Jews, but Israel according to the Promise of God the Faithful. Nor are we legalists but freemen of Christ against the whole world free, “feasting (eating and drinking) of Sabbaths’ Feast, as Colossians 2:16-17 describes them doing – nonchalantly shrugging off the “subpoena issued against us” for our condemnation. “Because He (Christ) has triumphed in it (His resurrection from the dead) therefore, don’t you let yourselves be judged or condemned by anyone (of the world of powers and wisdom)”.

Bmerr:

As we investigate the early church, we find that the day the disciples assembled for worship was the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2).

GE:

Simply incorrect, but the echoe of poor and prejudiced ‘versions’ of these texts.
As I many times on BB have shown, these two texts actually imply the very opposite, namely, that Christians “after that they had gathered together for Holy Communion” on the Sabbath Day, the day after, “while being evening on the First Day of the week, were together still, Paul dealt on matters (of immediate concern) with them”. Note every word for guaranteed correct according to the literal Greek!

Your Corinthians text, it’s so simple, Christians did not on the day they worshipped, do monetary business, but on the first day after.

Now people like DHK objects Acts is a document of transfer, or something like that, so that in the early parts of it one still recognises Sabbath-keeping by the early Church, but in the later parts, how that the Church had begun observing Sunday instead.
Now that is as silly as it can get. First because Paul in the very closing chapters of Acts re-affirms he had never done anything against the Law nor even against Jewish tradition! Besides DHK and his mates are able to point out only the one place – 20:7 – where it is wrongly ‘translated’ that the Church actually on the First day of the week, “assembled”. So no substance for his stand can be found in Acts!

But what about the many times it is mentioned without any provisions or conditions of its supposed temporality, that the church assembled in worship and for to worship, on the Sabbath? It is simply written off --- written off by the word and cleverness of the wise of the world.

And what about the historical fact of the growth and increase of the early Christian Church recognisable in the documents of their Canon, wherein the last and most ‘theological’ ‘books’ are found to be the four Gospels? The Gospels take the Sabbath for granted, absolutely, as being and for being the bequeathment of Jesus Himself to his very own People of Believers in Him – during the last parts of the first century AD. Why not in them is no word about the future day of worship, Sunday, to be seen or imagined? Because Sunday is not based on Christ, but on antichrist --- as can be deduced unmistakably right here in Galatians 4:10.

Bmerr:

Since the apostles operated under the authority of Christ, the things they taught the early disciples were by the authority of Christ.
If we are to use the NT as our authority for doctrine and practice (Col 3:17), then we must follow the example left for us in the NT.

GE:

Then we should follow Jesus and the Apostles in a belief of and in “a keeping of the Sabbath for the People of God” which certainly is no other than “the seventh Day God thus concerning did speak”.

I revel in being a Sabbath-delighter, and not a Sabbath-hater, at the same time confessing and deploring and regretting my constant transgression of and failure in, keeping the Sabbath acceptable unto God in Christ.

Please receive this reply in the spirit in which it is offered.

In Christ,
GE

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"We find in Acts 2 that the aposltes gathered "every day" to break bread."

GE:

I agree with your intention, but not with the actual correctness of your statement. See http://www.biblestudents.co.za, book, 'Pentecost', the first pages.

The meaning here is rather - by implication of course - 'every day of worship'! It does not mean every day uninterruptedly. Just the context makes it clear, e.g., whence the double mention in a matter of a few verses? Many interesting and important things must be kept in mind. Read the page referred to.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

7.1.1.​

“Every Day”​

The earliest Christian believers, according to their history in the Acts of the Apostles, assembled “every day” for worship. Luke’s “Acts” does not only mention the fact that the Apostolic Congregation worshiped “every day”. It further stipulates that the Church observed Passover. That implies that Christian worship “every day”, is meant generally. In Acts 2:46, the phrase stipulating the believers’ “continuing daily”with one accord in the temple, is placed as a parenthesis within the very history of their worship on the Day of Pentecost. The expression “continuing daily” is clearly used not in the sense of special, congregational and liturgical worship “continuing daily”, but refers to the believers’ “waiting” in Jerusalem as Christ had commanded them for the promise of power to be fulfilled.
The fact that 2:1 states that the believers assembled “in one place” implies that they were not always assembled in one place, and if not always in one place, then not always on every day.
In Acts 5:42 it is said that the apostles ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ daily in the temple and in “every house”. The meaning is clear that the apostles taught each day, but not each day in congregation in the temple neither each day in congregation in the believers’ homes. Had congregational teaching and preaching every day been meant, the apostles would have taught and preached in “houses” and not in “every house”. By mentioning “temple” as well as “every house” two distinct ways of preaching and teaching are implied. When they worshipped in the temple the people came to the apostles in the temple to be taught and to hear their public proclamation. When in the houses, the apostles went to the people to teach and proclaim the Gospel privately.
“The apostles in those days had to leave the Word of God and serve tables”. 6:2 Seven deacons were appointed to see after charity in order to allow the apostles to engage full time in proclaiming the Gospel. That implies that the multitude of disciples 6:1 did not worship full time, every day.
“Continuing daily” does not mean that the Church had no special day of worship. In addition to the special observance the earliest Christians bestowed on the celebration of Passover,

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bmerr:

"bmerr here. ... The daily reference concerning the breaking of bread (Acts 2:46 I believe), perhaps has more reference ot the sharing of food than of observing the Lord's Supper (...and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness...)"

GE:

Bmerr, you are dead right!

7.2.1.2.​

“To Break Bread”​

Only if Holy Communion had been celebrated can any meaning it might have had for the day on which it was celebrated be inferred. The first question is, Was the Holy Communion celebrated or observed on the occasion and day implicated in Acts 20:7? Although affirmative the answer is not so obvious and easy as it is usually assumed to be.
The phrase, “to break bread” – klahsai arton, has two meanings in the New Testament. In every instance of occurrence of the phrase the context must indicate whether an ordinary meal or the Celebration of the Holy Communion is meant because in any case the words are almost identical. Where in the Gospels the expression “to break bread” indicates the Holy Communion, it is easily recognisable, being its institution, Mt.26:26, Mk.14:22, Lk.24:30, (Jn.13:1f). Also where Paul infers the institution of the Holy Communion and gives certain rules of conduct concerning it, it is immediately identifiable, 1Cor.10:16 and 11:24. But eight times in the New Testament the expression “to break bread” simply means “to eat” without religious meaning.

7.2.1.2.1.1.​

Acts 2:42

In Acts one should read carefully. Twice in each case of Acts 2 and Acts 20 the phrase “to break bread” appears. In 2:42 it can be deduced that Holy Communion is celebrated because the phrase “with the breaking of bread” – tehi klasei tou artou, is used in the context of Congregational and liturgical practices. The context treats on “teaching” – didacheh, “prayers” – proseuchai, “communion” – koinohnia. It is “usage” – proskarterountes, and “apostolic” – tohn apostolohn. Also baptism is treated on in the relevant context, verse 41, and faith, verse 44. The “breaking of bread”, therefore, could not be normal appeasing of hunger.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

7.2.1.2.1.2.​

Acts 2:46

In Acts 2:46 “the breaking of bread” – klohntes arton, is no duplication of what has just been said in verse 42. That would have been unnecessary repetition. Where the first instance (2:42) helps describe the liturgical pattern of Christian worship, the second, verses 44 to 47, supplies a look into the social and organisational relations within the Christian community. Property was utilised and food distributed “communally” – “to them all” – auta pahsin, “according to each one’s needs” – kathoti an chreian eichen, “from house to house”, or, “to each home’s nature” – kat’ oikon. The Greek literally says that the believers “shared their food” – metelambanon trophehs. The “bread” was “food”. Believers shared their food “with gladness”, “thanked God” for it and for the “favour they enjoyed with the people”, verse 47. That is how they lived “daily” while “persevering single mindedly in the teaching”. Two aspects of their lives are pictured, the religious and the social.

7.2.1.2.2.1.​

Acts 20:11

Twice in Acts 20 is it said that “bread was broken”, in verse eleven and in verse seven. In what sense would bread have been used in these two instances? In verse 11 Paul – only a human – would naturally have been hungry after a whole night’s discussion, and would have needed nourishment for his planned walk the next day – now breaking – from Troas to the port at Assos. The words, “breaking bread” – klasas ton arton, could be expected to mean “to still one’s hunger”. Which indeed the text confirms in as many words, Paul “having eaten was nourished” – klasas ton arton kai geusamenos. “Thus he went forth” – houtohs exehlthen, “nourished” and, “having kept company” – homilehsas. “Nourished” is intended physically, not spiritually. If the Holy Communion had been implied in Paul’s action of eating or “breaking bread”, it would not have been in the singular – only Paul eating. And Paul would not eat of the Lord’s Supper to still his hunger. Nobody else participated in the meal or any other aspect of the Holy Communion. Nothing is said of the other elements of the Lord’s Supper. No prayer, no table, no cup, no formulary. It is not called by its proper appellation of “Lord’s Supper” – kuriakon deipnon – the name Paul originated for the Holy Communion. (When at Troas, Paul had stood in the ministry for three years already, 20:31.) The time of night was early morning – not the time of “evening” – “Supper” time, implied in the word deipnon. Nothing is mentioned of song or exposition of meaning as in every other instance of reference to the Holy Communion in Paul and the Gospels. No liturgical circumstance of worship exists in the context of Acts 20:11. Paul, “leaving”, still “grouped”. He still “ate” while he left, “breaking bread as he went”. The circumstance was not that of the Lord’s Supper. One person slept in the window-space. Others busied themselves downstairs. Luke (as translated) tells how Paul “for considerable time went on discussing”. He discusses nothing of the Lord’s Supper or of its significance for the Faith. “Breaking of bread”, in the Lord’s Supper, is read from Scripture. It was not read from Scripture in this case. It may definitely be concluded that in Acts 20:11 the Holy Communion is not mentioned, or is in any way implied. (Not even in the article of the Infinitive, klahsas ton arton as suggested by Bruce. See Par. 7.2.1.2.2.2.3.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Nevertheless, could we please return to a discussion of Gl4:10?

 

[DeafPosttrib]

I would like to discuss on Sunday and sabbath.

Let's start with Acts 20:7. Many Christians saying this verse is the evidence of early church do observe on Sunday service for Lord's supper - 'on the first day of the week.'

Lets' see if they are right.

It tells us, Paul continued preaching till midnight.

We know there are different times - Roman time, and Jewish time.

Book of Acts was written by Luke. Himself, was a Gentile. He collected informations of church history from Christians, what happened. Also, he was with Paul too.

According to Jewish time, the new day begins at the sunset at 6 pm. Romans time, the new day begins at midnight.

I believe the gathering for Lord's supper during night, because Paul was continued preach till midnight.

If suppose we use Jewish time, it begins at 6 pm, that event would have taken place during Saturday night(Romans time), because the new day begins at sunset as the new day started on Sunday - 'first day of the week'. This event must have occured during night, not morning or during daytime. Most churches don't do very late Sunday night service till 12 midnight - today.

I agree with BobRyan, he called this, "Paul's farwell sermon'. Because that was his last time staying in that place before he depart to other place. Probably, that why, they were gathering together to listen his last preaching before he departed.

Also, Acts 20:7-12 telling us the most important event during that night. Something that, Luke must have written it as what, Paul told him - vs. 13-14. During sermon, a young man was about to fell asleep while listening Paul's sermon. He fell down from the three story(floors) on the ground, and was dead. Paul saw him fell, immediately he ran down and to healed him to alive again and to nursing him all night till daybreak.

Proving Acts 20:7 as the evidence of early church do observe Sunday service is not well enough. Because, Acts 2:46 telling us, they broke bread daily, they could had gathered and break bread everyday, not just only on Sunday. Also, Acts 20:7 mnetioned of gathered on first day of the week for break bread - find only ONCE[/B[ in the book of Acts, but also, throughout in the New Testament. This passage seem not suggest us, that the early church do observe on Sunday switched from sabbath.

Also, in 1 Cor. 16:1-2, they saying this passage is other evidence of early church do tithe on Sunday. But, the context of 1 Cor. 16:1-3 saying nothing of two things - 'tithe', and 'service'. The context of 1 Cor. 16:1-3 talking about, Paul ordered them to bring their collection on the first day of the week, so, he will gathering them, and to bring them to Jerusalem, what poor saints need. He say nothing on 'tithes', he asked for gifts, like, food, money, clothings, etc.

Also, I BELIEVE Paul was rested on sabbath, the day before he returned back to work the next day - 1 Cor. 16:1-3, to gathering collections. Because I am no doubt that, Paul obeyed the fourth commandment, that he must rested on the seventh day.

So, 1 Cor. 16:1-3 is not apply to us today. This was only onced event. But, this is the example that, we should giving with our heart and cheerful, not complaint. Show of our love and care one each other.

Conclusion: Acts 2:7 and 1 Cor. 16:1-3 both have do nothing with the suggest that the early church did observe Sunday service. Both were events with important occured that, Luke want to write down and tleling us what happened.

Nowhere throughout in the New Testament telling us that the early church changed from sabbath to Sunday. I believe we are supposed to obey the fourth commandment, because, all of the Ten Commandments are still apply to us today.

Christ tells us, if we love him, KEEP his commandments - John 14:15.

Rev. 22:14 tells us, thoese who KEEP the commandments, shall enter rinto the gate of eternal life. Or, if they refuse or not keep the commandments, cannot enter the gate of eternal life, go to everlasting fire.

Obivously, throughout in the Bible teaching of conditional salvation, no way that we can afford to ignore them. We better listen and obey them.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

bmerr here. In Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2, we have examples of the early church meeting on the first day of the week to break bread, and to lay by in store as they had prospered, respectively. The daily reference concerning the breaking of bread (Acts 2:46 I believe), perhaps has more reference ot the sharing of food than of observing the Lord's Supper (...and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness...)

r

Are you willing to make that same guess each time you find Christians in the NT meeting to "break bread"??

Are you arguing that the fact that Christians ate - or ate in small groups was a "news worthy" fact in the NT?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I would like to discuss on Sunday and sabbath.

Let's start with Acts 20:7. Many Christians saying this verse is the evidence of early church do observe on Sunday service for Lord's supper - 'on the first day of the week.'

Lets' see if they are right.

It tells us, Paul continued preaching till midnight.

We know there are different times - Roman time, and Jewish time.

Book of Acts was written by Luke. Himself, was a Gentile. He collected informations of church history from Christians, what happened. Also, he was with Paul too.

According to Jewish time, the new day begins at the sunset at 6 pm. Romans time, the new day begins at midnight.

I believe the gathering for Lord's supper during night, because Paul was continued preach till midnight.

If suppose we use Jewish time, it begins at 6 pm, that event would have taken place during Saturday night(Romans time), because the new day begins at sunset as the new day started on Sunday - 'first day of the week'. This event must have occured during night, not morning or during daytime. Most churches don't do very late Sunday night service till 12 midnight - today.

I agree with BobRyan, he called this, "Paul's farwell sermon'. Because that was his last time staying in that place before he depart to other place. Probably, that why, they were gathering together to listen his last preaching before he departed.

Also, Acts 20:7-12 telling us the most important event during that night. Something that, Luke must have written it as what, Paul told him - vs. 13-14. During sermon, a young man was about to fell asleep while listening Paul's sermon. He fell down from the three story(floors) on the ground, and was dead. Paul saw him fell, immediately he ran down and to healed him to alive again and to nursing him all night till daybreak.

Proving Acts 20:7 as the evidence of early church do observe Sunday service is not well enough. Because, Acts 2:46 telling us, they broke bread daily, they could had gathered and break bread everyday, not just only on Sunday. Also, Acts 20:7 mnetioned of gathered on first day of the week for break bread - find only ONCE[/B[ in the book of Acts, but also, throughout in the New Testament. This passage seem not suggest us, that the early church do observe on Sunday switched from sabbath.

Also, in 1 Cor. 16:1-2, they saying this passage is other evidence of early church do tithe on Sunday. But, the context of 1 Cor. 16:1-3 saying nothing of two things - 'tithe', and 'service'. The context of 1 Cor. 16:1-3 talking about, Paul ordered them to bring their collection on the first day of the week, so, he will gathering them, and to bring them to Jerusalem, what poor saints need. He say nothing on 'tithes', he asked for gifts, like, food, money, clothings, etc.

Also, I BELIEVE Paul was rested on sabbath, the day before he returned back to work the next day - 1 Cor. 16:1-3, to gathering collections. Because I am no doubt that, Paul obeyed the fourth commandment, that he must rested on the seventh day.

So, 1 Cor. 16:1-3 is not apply to us today. This was only onced event. But, this is the example that, we should giving with our heart and cheerful, not complaint. Show of our love and care one each other.

Conclusion: Acts 2:7 and 1 Cor. 16:1-3 both have do nothing with the suggest that the early church did observe Sunday service. Both were events with important occured that, Luke want to write down and tleling us what happened.

Nowhere throughout in the New Testament telling us that the early church changed from sabbath to Sunday. I believe we are supposed to obey the fourth commandment, because, all of the Ten Commandments are still apply to us today.

Christ tells us, if we love him, KEEP his commandments - John 14:15.

Rev. 22:14 tells us, thoese who KEEP the commandments, shall enter rinto the gate of eternal life. Or, if they refuse or not keep the commandments, cannot enter the gate of eternal life, go to everlasting fire.

Obivously, throughout in the Bible teaching of conditional salvation, no way that we can afford to ignore them. We better listen and obey them.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

GE:

How right you are, but also how wrong you are. If one preaches the Law, one cannot but teach the Seventh Day Sabbath -- it's only consistent (like God is consistent).

But such preaching lacks Christ, simply. You can today hear these very Laws taught in any Jewish Synagogue every Sabbath --- like without a doubt it used to be preached in Jesus' own day --- profitless and useless. In fact, much in the spirit of anti-Christ. It was with the Sabbath the Jews hoped to condemn Jesus.

You say,

"I believe the gathering for Lord's supper during night, because Paul was continued preach till midnight."

GE: Just go a few pages back on this thread, and read the explanation of the assumption that Paul 'preached'. I know you will find this word in most 'translations'. But it means nothing, because they are all wrong. Paul did not 'preach' before, or, after, midnight. He before midnight, "dealt on matters" (dialegto) of immediate concern --- the disciples all were on mission! After midnight, Paul 'lingered' with the disciples, or, 'socialised' with them, until early morning. (English to my knowledge does not have such a good word for 'homilehsas' as Dutch and Afrikaans have, "kuier", or "gesels".)