quote:....But if you check out all the places in the NT where the expression "first day of the week" is found, "one sabbath" would not fit into any of the contexts in which the expression is found.
Here they are: Mt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. Mr 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. Mr 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. Lu 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. Joh 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. Ac 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. 1Co 16:2 Upon 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.
I understand, and probably you too, that Jesus rose before dawn after sabbath, thus I have no doubt on how it's translated in the Gospels except John 20:19 when it's not about when Jesus rose but it's another issue. Without prejudice, can Acts 20:7 be translated as follows? "On one sabbath, we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight."
If the idea of the verse was that the disciples came together "on the sabbath" to break bread, there would not be any point in the use of the word "one/first" would there?
In all the other places in scripture where the expression is used it is clearly NOT the sabbath day that is referred to but rather the first day of the sabbath or seven day cycle which concludes with the sabbath.
Is there any reason to understand the expression in Acts 20 any differently than how it is used elsewhere?
posted
Bruce, I checked with someone who knows Greek and you are right that it has to be translated as first of the week. However, that "first of the week" might be reckoned as our Saturday night.
I've always understood this passage to refer saturday night. Notice he was speaking until midnight since he was leaving the next morning. He could not have left on Saturday, the sabbath; but would first thing on the morning of the first day of the week. Saturday night was the beginning of the first day of week according to Jewish days from eve to eve.
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
If, your assumption is true (that the time reckoning here is a Jewish day or evening to evening, our 6 p.m to 6 p.m.), the next morning (after break of day) would have been the same day that they came together.
However, the word "morrow" that is used in Acts 20:7 disproves this theory!
The word "morrow" here is NOT THE WORD "MORNING"! It is always translated as "next day", the day following" etc and is never translated "morning"!
Thus the day they came together to break bread was the day before (a different day) than the day that Paul actually departed!
Thus we must conclude from the text that it is not the Jewish (evening to evening) time reckoning that is being used. Rather they came together one day (the first day of the week) with the declared purpose of breaking bread. However, they did not get around to actually doing so until the following day after midnight and before break of day or sunrise.
There really is but one reason to argue about which day is involved in Acts 20:7. That single reason is that many denominations use this verse to justify meeting on Sunday to worship rather than on Saturday, the 7th day.
Because there is no scriptural change of the Sabbath to Sunday they grasp at straws. And especially embarrasing to them is the accusation from Rome that while they protest against the church and cry "Sola Scriptura" they have adopted the Sunday sabbath directly from the womb of the Catholic church contrary to scripture and in opposition to the law of God which clearly states that the 7th day was sanctified as the Sabbath of the Lord.
It is the claim of the Catholic church that She transferred the solemnity of the 7th day Sabbath to the 1st day Sunday. And the Protestants have adopted Her day as their own, even claiming that God made the transfer--unwittingly acknowledging the right of the church to do so and the Pope as their lord and master. Even today we have bluelaws on the books forbidding certain things on the Sunday--proof that Sunday provokes bondage and not rest as is the purpose of the Sabbath day.
As to whether the day is Saturday or Sunday we do have many clues. In the creation week the day was reckoned as an "evening and a morning." God created the sun, moon, and stars of the heaven "to divide the day from the night" and to be for "signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."
We know that the first day of the week is Sunday. We know Paul would not travel on the Sabbath. We know he probably would travel during the day-light hours rather than at night. We know that day is light and night is dark. We know that the Jews reckoned days from evening to evening. (Which is sundown to sundown rather than 6pm to 6pm--using the going down of the sun to establish the start of new day.)
So, armed with this knowledge we can make a pretty good assessment of the situation. And, remember, we have nothing to gain from it but those who hold this proves the change of Sabbath to Sunday have everything at stake. We can show from scripture that the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord. What cannot be demonstrated from scripture is that Sunday is the Sabbath of the New Testament church. And, Acts 20:7 is a weak substitute for a direct commandment.
But then, what is to be gained even if we discover without uncertainty which day Paul departed? We don't need this scripture to prove the 7th day is the Sabbath. And, it doesn't prove Sunday is the Sabbath either. So what is the point?
As for the discussion on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7, I have no agenda to prove that any other day but the 7th day was the sabbath! The sabbath from it's first mention in Exodus 16 onward has always been the 7th day of the week! The first never has and never will be the sabbath!
My whole point in demonstrating that the disciples at Troas (Paul and his co-workers) in Acts 20 did not actually break bread at all on the first day of the week, but rather on the morrow, the next day AFTER the first day!
The language that Luke uses in his account, speaking of the morrow (next day) after the day they came together proves that they were NOT using Jewish time reckoning of sundown to sundown. If they had, then the evening and the morning would have been the same day rather than the morning being the next day after the evening!
quote:But then, what is to be gained even if we discover without uncertainty which day Paul departed? We don't need this scripture to prove the 7th day is the Sabbath. And, it doesn't prove Sunday is the Sabbath either. So what is the point?
Sorry, it was me who brought this up. I’m not asking for certainty here but rather the opposite - while Bruce is certain that it was Sunday night I think it can be either and lean more on Saturday night.
I really appreciate your frankness and honesty. It's a good quality that Christians should possess. And being a good quality it must be one of the gifts that comes down from the Father of Lights.
I lean toward your interpretation that it was Saturday night. Bruce disagrees. I wonder what was the main point of recording this incident. Since it doesn't prove what men have been trying to make it prove, for nearly 300 years, that cannot be the lesson for us to take away.
The breaking of bread in this story doesn't convince me that this was a communion service either. I think they simply came together to eat a meal. Surely, they gave thanks for the meal and the thanks was that Jesus died that they might live. But I don't believe this was the solemn and glorious ceremonial rememberance of which Jesus gave us an example that we should follow.
Whenever we eat or whatever we do we should be thankful that Jesus gave his life in our stead. If not for Jesus' death God could not justly bestow any of his good gifts to us. Every drop of rain, every morsel of bread, every breath of air, every good gift and precious promise is owing to the sacrifice of Jesus. Nothing we can do will ever merit one bit of favor with God. Everything that was our duty to do we have neglected to do or have been unable to fulfil.
But God has in his great mercy ordained that men shall receive rewards for doing good just as surely as those who do evil will receive their reward. Just because we receive a reward does not mean we are deserving of that reward. No, it is simply God's mercy at work. But the rewards we receive for doing well are in addition to the free gift of salvation extended to us who believe in Jesus as our only means of salvation. These rewards are not payment for what we deserve but rather merciful recognition of doing a job to the best of our weakened abilities. It's amazing that we should be rewarded when it is impossible for us to do anything right without the strength of the Spirit of God.
I just don't think we can say with any certainty that they were having communion as opposed to simply enjoying a meal together.
Perhaps I am too conservative. But I take offense when we carelessly lump the common with the Holy. They are to be separate. It's human nature that attempts to make the Holy common and the common Holy. We are happy to lazily draw the lines of demarcation. Our sinful natures like to blur things to keep our consciences at bay. We are pleased to feel saved while the truth of the matter may escape us and our true condition remains unknown to us. We feel we are "in need of nothing."
Whenever we come together for the express purpose of remembering the crucifixion of Jesus it must be given the reverence due. Nothing must be out of place or taken lightly. The instruments and the elements must be handled with care because they represent symbolically the body and blood of Christ.
If you are uncertain how to act during the ceremony just consider how you would feel if that meal represented the body and blood of a deceased child. I would be outraged to see people toss it about carelessly or allow portions to fall from their mouths and onto the floor without any regard for it. I would run them out of my house. And I think you would too. Why then do we make the rememberance of Jesus' death a trivial matter in example to our children and others. As the Apostle writes, "Don't you have houses to eat in?" The implication is why do you come together for the Lord's supper and treat it as a common meal, as if there is not an equal portion for all.
Well, I'm moving into another area of discussion so I better end.
posted
Jeff, Communion, worship on the first of the week, priests, pastors, IC - just to name a few - they are all behind me now. It was a long and lonely journey and still long way from home. No, don't say you are conservative. The reformers were far from conservative or we are still in the dark under the great whore.
Email this page to someone.
