THE COMMANDMENTS AND MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A SAVED CHILD OF GOD

[RedTent]

Keeping the OT law (including the 10 commandments) cannot save anyone for that law was taken out of the way by Christ on His cross, Col 2:14 making that law inactive, of no effect. We today are under Christ's NT law, 1 Cor 9:21, and keeping that law is required to be saved. In order to become saved, Christ's NT law requires one to believe, Jn 8:24; repent, Lk 13:3,5; confess, Mt 10:32,33 and submit to baptism, Mk 16:16. After becoming saved, Christ's NT law requires faithfulness, 1 Jn 1:7; Rev 2:10,26 and good works, Eph 2:10, Matt 25; 1 Jn 3:17 in order to maintain that saved position.

There are many contradicting, man made opinions as to how man is saved. Christ's NT law determines how one is saved:

In order to become saved, Christ's NT law requires one to believe, Jn 8:24; repent, Lk 13:3,5; confess, Mt 10:32,33 and submit to baptism, Mk 16:16. After becoming saved, Christ's NT law requires faithfulness, 1 Jn 1:7; Rev 2:10,26 and good works, Eph 2:10, Matt 25; 1 Jn 3:17 in order to maintain that saved position for salvation is NOT an UNCONDITIONAL promise under Christ's NT law.

There are many contradicting, erroneous man-man views about water baptism. Again, Christ's NT law determines truth about water baptism:

It saves/remits sins, a command that must be obeyed, it's how one becomes a disciple, it's acceptance of the gospel, it's how one gets into Christ, how one is buried to rise to walk in newness of life: Mk 16:16; 1 Pet 3:21, Acts 2:38, Mt 28:19,20; Acts 2:41, Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-6.


Obedient works, a faithful obedience which without makes salvation impossible.

Christ did away with the OT law Col 2:14 and replaced it with His NT law, Heb 10:9. Working to keep Christ's NT laws is imperative to being saved.

Christ's NT law requires the Christ to work in continuing to walk in the light so that Christ's blood continues to cleanse away all sin, 1 Jn 1:7.

You say the ten commandments were "taken out of the way" by Christ. Others say he cancelled it. But then you say there is law to follow it is NT law. When I checked, Christ said the OT law stayed, and He added to it. Now you say it is gone. Please explain in Christ's words that it is gone, for I would take Christ's words for it rather than your word that other scripture says Christ did differently than He said He did.

Then you talk about obedience and walking in the light. All the law is from one God expressing love and how we can incorporate that love in our lives, but you say the light of the law showing that pathway is done away with? Paul is hard to understand, even scripture tells us so, but your explanation of Paul is even harder to understand. Paul is scripture, Christ is God. How can scripture say God is wrong?

 

[prodigal]

there is one water baptism, john started it, it was a call to repentance followed by a water cleansing. i dont read anywhere people had 2 water baptisms, even john said i baptise you with water and one greater than i, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire,,,, christian mysticism, aint new,... magic water, magic words. if the way i live is within the law( only achieved by walking in the spirit) then the law is of no affect on me, But if i think i can call myself a christian .then after a night of murder or adultry or being a false witness etc etc and still call myself a christian, who am i decieving, only myself....
seems common sense aint that common after all.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Don't misunderstand my post.....no longer under the schoolmaster which points us to Christ and to Grace....point is...as a saved child of God it is still biblical for me to not kill you, cheat with your spouse, lie to you, have another god in my life etc.....

and without a doubt there are certain aspects found under the Law (system) that is no longer applicable unto us who are under the banner of Grace such as...

1. The Levitical sacrifices
2. The command to stone sinners found guilty of the laws that demanded death

etc...

I will also add that the force of the law is still in effect and over the heads of the lost as it condemns and judges a guilty verdict against all who will not be found under grace as well.

I think you misunderstood my post my friend.

Yes I still should not murder someone. But do I need the law to tell me this. or just realise the law of Love, which would never lie cheat steal or murder..

 

[john832]

Keeping the OT law (including the 10 commandments) cannot save anyone for that law was taken out of the way by Christ on His cross, Col 2:14 making that law inactive, of no effect. We today are under Christ's NT law, 1 Cor 9:21, and keeping that law is required to be saved. In order to become saved, Christ's NT law requires one to believe, Jn 8:24; repent, Lk 13:3,5; confess, Mt 10:32,33 and submit to baptism, Mk 16:16. After becoming saved, Christ's NT law requires faithfulness, 1 Jn 1:7; Rev 2:10,26 and good works, Eph 2:10, Matt 25; 1 Jn 3:17 in order to maintain that saved position.

Here is a question for you, Who said this?

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

continue down through verse 17.

Who made this proclamation here? Who is the LORD (Eternal) speaking here?

Why it is none other than the Word, I AM, the One who became Jesus Christ.

The very One who said...

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Now, did He lie?

 

[dcontroversal]

I think you misunderstood my post my friend.

Yes I still should not murder someone. But do I need the law to tell me this. or just realise the law of Love, which would never lie cheat steal or murder..

Maybe I did misunderstand......Jesus and the rich young ruler should suffice as well as what Jesus said concerning the commandments.....The problem with the Jews is that they had left off the (weightier) matters of what the law points to which is love, mercy and grace.....do the one and don't leave the other undone.

I love my child unconditionally, but I still lay down ground rules and the ground rules of the past that I laid down are still applicable unto my child in the essence of a reminder if you will.....

You know I don't believe that we have to keep the law to be saved....but rather we can now keep the law because we are saved.....

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Maybe I did misunderstand......Jesus and the rich young ruler should suffice as well as what Jesus said concerning the commandments.....The problem with the Jews is that they had left off the (weightier) matters of what the law points to which is love, mercy and grace.....do the one and don't leave the other undone.

I love my child unconditionally, but I still lay down ground rules and the ground rules of the past that I laid down are still applicable unto my child in the essence of a reminder if you will.....

You know I don't believe that we have to keep the law to be saved....but rather we can now keep the law because we are saved.....

I would disagree with your last statement.

We still can not keep the law in a way God demands it.

But we can obey Gods commands. Which are found all over the word of God and in our hearts.

Yes, SOME are found in the law. But we do not obey them because they are in the law. They were put into the law ONLY to condemn us. Nor do they tell us how to obey them through the law.

 

[SeaBass]

You say the ten commandments were "taken out of the way" by Christ. Others say he cancelled it. But then you say there is law to follow it is NT law. When I checked, Christ said the OT law stayed, and He added to it. Now you say it is gone. Please explain in Christ's words that it is gone, for I would take Christ's words for it rather than your word that other scripture says Christ did differently than He said He did.

Then you talk about obedience and walking in the light. All the law is from one God expressing love and how we can incorporate that love in our lives, but you say the light of the law showing that pathway is done away with? Paul is hard to understand, even scripture tells us so, but your explanation of Paul is even harder to understand. Paul is scripture, Christ is God. How can scripture say God is wrong?

CHrist, nor Paul, did not say the OT will stay in place for Christ permanently took it out of the way, Col 2:14; Heb 10:2.

The entire Galatian epistle is about Paul condemning those Christians at Galatia for going back to the OT law thinking they could be justified by that OT law. Paul says they had fallen from grace for going back to the OT law. One point Paul made about this was "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Gal 2:21. Again, Christ died to take the OT law permanantly out of the way, so if one can still be made righteous by keeping that OT law then Christ's death was all in vain.


Another point Paul makes in Rom 7:1-6 is he makes an anology between a woman who is already has a husband but marries another man. Paul says she is an adulteress for keeping two husbands at the same time. Likewise a Christian is married to Christ and His NT gospel and a Christian who tries to keep both the law of Moses and Christ's NT law at the same time is committing a type of spiritual adultery.

But Paul goes on to say if "her husband be dead, she is free from that law" to be married to another man and therefore she is not an adulteress. Likewise Paul says "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another,". Again, Christ dying on the cross took the OT law out of the way freeing men to be married to Him so men would not be spiritual adulterers in trying to keep two laws at the same time.

Christians therefore are DEAD to that OT law.

------------------

1 Jn 1:7 talks about the Christian walking in the light. Eph 1:4; 2 Pet 3:14 says the Christian is without spot, without blame and the only way a Christian who occasionally sins from time to time can ever be without spot and blame is by continuously walkiing in the light whereby Christ's blood condtinously cleanses away all sins leaving the Christian without spot and blame. The blood of bulls and goats could not do this, so it is a good thing that Christ took that law out of the way for us and we have His blood to completely justify us.

 

[danalee]

It seems that numerous people are consistently going back and forth over the (big 10), which is backbone of the (LAW)....

The arguments are...

1. People who believe saved by grace through faith will argue that they are not under the law....
2. People who teach works for salvation say that you have to keep the law to be saved....
3. You have those who teach you are saved by grace, but then kept saved by keeping the law...

I believe that we are saved....

1. By grace, through faith based upon
a. The Perfect faith of Jesus Christ
b. The completed work of Jesus Christ
c. The eternal appeasement of the Heavenly Father by Jesus Christ and his sacrifice and offering for sin
d. The promises of eternal life by Jesus
e. Eternal security in Jesus Christ

I believe (water baptism) is...

1. The outward, public testimony of my inward, born again spirit of God
2. Testifies that I have died to the old man, buried with Christ and risen with Jesus
3. Is the first act of OBEDIENCE as a child of God
4. Does not add to salvation or save us, but is...
a. Identifier just as circumcision<---Abraham had faith before circumcision
b. Associates us publically with Jesus and disassociates us from the guilt of the world
c. Gives us a good conscience before God as OBEDIENT

Having said the above and concerning the start of this op.....

1. Being saved by faith through grace and mercy does not alleviate my responsibility to keep the commandments of God
2. It is still applicable not to steal, lie, commit murder or adultery etc. etc....
3. The N.T. is full of imperative commandments and points us to the O.T. continually...

The only difference is the simple fact which is...

1. When I slip up and sin I will not be found under the CONDEMNATION OF THE LAW as I am found under the blood of the SUPREME PASSOVER and HIS BLOOD...JESUS THE CHRIST! WHEN GOD SEES THE BLOOD...I WILL PASS OVER YOU!

Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't sure what people were actually saying in the first place.

 

[SeaBass]

Here is a question for you, Who said this?

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

continue down through verse 17.

Who made this proclamation here? Who is the LORD (Eternal) speaking here?

Why it is none other than the Word, I AM, the One who became Jesus Christ.

The very One who said...

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Now, did He lie?

When Christ took all the OT law out of the way He took the 10 commandments also. This is why Christians do not remember the Sabbath day but were borught to gether by God on the first day of the wekk, Acts 20:7. As far as the other 9, they are repeated in Christ's NT and idoltry is wrong for Christ' NT says it is wrong.

Col 2:14; Heb 10:9; Heb 7:12 both the OT and NT cannot coesit side by side for they are two very different laws with one basoed onthe blood of bulls and goats that cannot completely justify and the blood of Christ that does completely justify.

Mt 5:17,18 simply sys the OT law would remain UNTIL CHrist took it out of the way not by destroying it but take it out of the way by fullfilling it: (my emp)


(1) Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “destroy.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Mt. 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Cor. 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to deprive of force” or to “invalidate.”


(2) It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “destroy” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came "…not to destroy, but [alla — adversative particle] to fulfill.


The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an adversary of the law. His goal was not to frustrate its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Lk. 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience or else imposed a “curse” (see Gal. 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.


(3) If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came toaccomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal regime today.


(4) If the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as an obligatory legal system for today, then it is not a partially binding regime; rather, it is totally compelling system.


Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose.


“But,” some surmise, “does not the text affirm that the law would last until ‘heaven and earth’ pass away?” No, only that it would be “easier” for the universe to pass away than for the law of God not to fulfill its mission (cf. Lk. 16:17).


And so, if one contends, on the basis of Matthew 5:17-18, that Moses’ law is still binding as a legally required regime, he must take all of it — including its bloody sacrifices, annual treks to Jerusalem, purification rituals, etc. As Paul later will argue — if a man receives one portion of the law [as binding for justification], he is a debtor to do all of it (Gal. 5:3). This is the logical consequence of the misguided “sabbatarian” view of this important text.


(5) In addition to the points listed above, Paul clearly argues, in his letter to the Ephesians, that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” by the death of Jesus upon the cross (2:14-15). The Greek term for “abolishedhes” iskatargeo, literally suggesting the idea of reducing something to a state of inactivity.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/485-did-christ-abolish-the-law-of-moses
Wayne Jackson

 

[SeaBass]

there is one water baptism, john started it, it was a call to repentance followed by a water cleansing. i dont read anywhere people had 2 water baptisms, even john said i baptise you with water and one greater than i, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire,,,, christian mysticism, aint new,... magic water, magic words. if the way i live is within the law( only achieved by walking in the spirit) then the law is of no affect on me, But if i think i can call myself a christian .then after a night of murder or adultry or being a false witness etc etc and still call myself a christian, who am i decieving, only myself....
seems common sense aint that common after all.

Mt 28:19,20; Mk 16;15,16 Christ's baptism, which replaced John's baptism in Acts 2 when the church began, was a human administered water baptism making it the one baptism of Eph 4:5.

 

[chubbena]

I think you misunderstood my post my friend.

Yes I still should not murder someone. But do I need the law to tell me this. or just realise the law of Love, which would never lie cheat steal or murder..

So does that interpretation of yours i.e. keeping the law of love while doing away with the law written in OT keep you away from any sin?

 

[john832]

When Christ took all the OT law out of the way He took the 10 commandments also. This is why Christians do not remember the Sabbath day but were borught to gether by God on the first day of the wekk, Acts 20:7. As far as the other 9, they are repeated in Christ's NT and idoltry is wrong for Christ' NT says it is wrong.

Col 2:14; Heb 10:9; Heb 7:12 both the OT and NT cannot coesit side by side for they are two very different laws with one basoed onthe blood of bulls and goats that cannot completely justify and the blood of Christ that does completely justify.

Mt 5:17,18 simply sys the OT law would remain UNTIL CHrist took it out of the way not by destroying it but take it out of the way by fullfilling it: (my emp)


(1) Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “destroy.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Mt. 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Cor. 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to deprive of force” or to “invalidate.”


(2) It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “destroy” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came "…not to destroy, but [alla — adversative particle] to fulfill.


The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an adversary of the law. His goal was not to frustrate its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Lk. 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience or else imposed a “curse” (see Gal. 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.


(3) If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came toaccomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal regime today.


(4) If the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as an obligatory legal system for today, then it is not a partially binding regime; rather, it is totally compelling system.


Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose.


“But,” some surmise, “does not the text affirm that the law would last until ‘heaven and earth’ pass away?” No, only that it would be “easier” for the universe to pass away than for the law of God not to fulfill its mission (cf. Lk. 16:17).


And so, if one contends, on the basis of Matthew 5:17-18, that Moses’ law is still binding as a legally required regime, he must take all of it — including its bloody sacrifices, annual treks to Jerusalem, purification rituals, etc. As Paul later will argue — if a man receives one portion of the law [as binding for justification], he is a debtor to do all of it (Gal. 5:3). This is the logical consequence of the misguided “sabbatarian” view of this important text.


(5) In addition to the points listed above, Paul clearly argues, in his letter to the Ephesians, that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” by the death of Jesus upon the cross (2:14-15). The Greek term for “abolishedhes” iskatargeo, literally suggesting the idea of reducing something to a state of inactivity.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/485-did-christ-abolish-the-law-of-moses
Wayne Jackson

Glad I started saving these, C&P is easier than rewriting...

Here we go again…

Act 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.

First of all, what is ‘breaking bread’? Is this the Eucahrist? Barclay’s has this…

A YOUNG MAN FALLS ASLEEP (Ac 20:7-12)
20:7-12 On the first day of the week, when we had gathered together to break bread, Paul, who was about to leave on the next day, spoke to them, and he prolonged his talk until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were assembled. A young man called Eutychus was sitting by the window. He began to be overcome by a deep sleep. While Paul was talking he was still more overcome by sleep and he fell right down from the third floor and was taken up dead. Paul went down and threw himself on him. He put his arms round him and said, "Stop making a fuss, for his life is still in him." So he went back upstairs and broke bread and ate; and he talked with them a long time until dawn came and so he departed. And they brought in the boy alive and were greatly comforted.


This vivid story is clearly an eye-witness account; and it is one of the first accounts we have of what a Christian service was like.

It talks twice about breaking of bread. In the early Church there were two closely related things. One was what was called the Love Feast. To it all contributed and it was a real meal, often the only proper meal that poor slaves got all week. Here Christians ate in loving fellowship with each other. The other was the Lord's Supper which was observed during or immediately after the Love Feast. It may well be that we have lost something of great value in the happy togetherness of the common meal. It marked as nothing else could the family spirit of the Church.

It was a meal. We call them potlucks today.

From Bullinger’s …

break bread. See note on Act_2:42.

So, from the notes on Acts 2:42…

breaking of bread. This was the common meal.

Secondly, what day was this…

Act 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.

The word first here is…

G3391
μία
mia
mee'-ah
Irregular feminine of G1520; one or first: - a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

And it means first. Now for day, hmmm, day is in italics, that means it was not in the original but was added so there is no Greek for day. So the next words are…

‘of the’ and the translators got those from the Greek…

G3588
ὁ, ἡ, τό
ho hē to
ho, hay, to
The masculine, feminine (second) and neuter (third) forms, in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

So, ‘of the’ is the definite article. The next word is ‘week’ and it comes from…

G4521
σάββατον
sabbaton
sab'-bat-on
Of Hebrew origin [H7676]; the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: - sabbath (day), week.

Sabbaton, the Sabbath. So how are we to understand this? Let’s look at the Diaglott…

Act 20:7 In and the first of the sabbaths, having been assembled of us to break bread, the Paul discoursed to them, being about to depart on the morrow; continued and the discourse till midnight.

The first of the Sabbaths? What does that mean?

Dr. Bullinger tells us this…

Acts 20:7

first, &c. = first day of the sabbaths, i.e. the first day for reckoning the seven sabbaths to Pentecost. It depended upon the harvest (Deu_16:9), and was always from the morrow after the weekly sabbath when the wave sheaf was presented (Lev_23:15). In Joh_20:1 this was the fourth day after the Crucifixion, "the Lord's Passover. "Compare App-156. This was by Divine ordering. But in A.D. 57 it was twelve days after the week of unleavened bread, and therefore more than a fortnight later than in A.D. 29.

This was actually on the Sabbath and continued into late Saturday night. Now the interesting thing about this is that on the next day, Sunday, Paul walked 19 miles across the peninsula to Assos to meet the others…

Act 20:13 And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.
Act 20:14 And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene.

From Troas to Assos was approximately 19 miles. When I was in the Boy Scouts many years ago, we went on a few 20 mile hikes and that is a long walk in one day. It took several hours to walk 20 miles and required a great deal of effort. What a strange way to keep the “Lord’s Day”.

In reality, Paul preached to them on the Sabbath and continued on into the night. He was long winded and reminds me of Gerald Waterhouse. His typical sermon was about 3 to 4 hours.

 

[SeaBass]

Glad I started saving these, C&P is easier than rewriting...

Here we go again…

Act 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.

First of all, what is ‘breaking bread’? Is this the Eucahrist? Barclay’s has this…

A YOUNG MAN FALLS ASLEEP (Ac 20:7-12)
20:7-12 On the first day of the week, when we had gathered together to break bread, Paul, who was about to leave on the next day, spoke to them, and he prolonged his talk until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were assembled. A young man called Eutychus was sitting by the window. He began to be overcome by a deep sleep. While Paul was talking he was still more overcome by sleep and he fell right down from the third floor and was taken up dead. Paul went down and threw himself on him. He put his arms round him and said, "Stop making a fuss, for his life is still in him." So he went back upstairs and broke bread and ate; and he talked with them a long time until dawn came and so he departed. And they brought in the boy alive and were greatly comforted.


This vivid story is clearly an eye-witness account; and it is one of the first accounts we have of what a Christian service was like.

It talks twice about breaking of bread. In the early Church there were two closely related things. One was what was called the Love Feast. To it all contributed and it was a real meal, often the only proper meal that poor slaves got all week. Here Christians ate in loving fellowship with each other. The other was the Lord's Supper which was observed during or immediately after the Love Feast. It may well be that we have lost something of great value in the happy togetherness of the common meal. It marked as nothing else could the family spirit of the Church.

It was a meal. We call them potlucks today.

From Bullinger’s …

break bread. See note on Act_2:42.

So, from the notes on Acts 2:42…

breaking of bread. This was the common meal.

Secondly, what day was this…

Act 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.

The word first here is…

G3391
μία
mia
mee'-ah
Irregular feminine of G1520; one or first: - a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

And it means first. Now for day, hmmm, day is in italics, that means it was not in the original but was added so there is no Greek for day. So the next words are…

‘of the’ and the translators got those from the Greek…

G3588
ὁ, ἡ, τό
ho hē to
ho, hay, to
The masculine, feminine (second) and neuter (third) forms, in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

So, ‘of the’ is the definite article. The next word is ‘week’ and it comes from…

G4521
σάββατον
sabbaton
sab'-bat-on
Of Hebrew origin [H7676]; the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: - sabbath (day), week.

Sabbaton, the Sabbath. So how are we to understand this? Let’s look at the Diaglott…

Act 20:7 In and the first of the sabbaths, having been assembled of us to break bread, the Paul discoursed to them, being about to depart on the morrow; continued and the discourse till midnight.

The first of the Sabbaths? What does that mean?

Dr. Bullinger tells us this…

Acts 20:7

first, &c. = first day of the sabbaths, i.e. the first day for reckoning the seven sabbaths to Pentecost. It depended upon the harvest (Deu_16:9), and was always from the morrow after the weekly sabbath when the wave sheaf was presented (Lev_23:15). In Joh_20:1 this was the fourth day after the Crucifixion, "the Lord's Passover. "Compare App-156. This was by Divine ordering. But in A.D. 57 it was twelve days after the week of unleavened bread, and therefore more than a fortnight later than in A.D. 29.

This was actually on the Sabbath and continued into late Saturday night. Now the interesting thing about this is that on the next day, Sunday, Paul walked 19 miles across the peninsula to Assos to meet the others…

Act 20:13 And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.
Act 20:14 And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene.

From Troas to Assos was approximately 19 miles. When I was in the Boy Scouts many years ago, we went on a few 20 mile hikes and that is a long walk in one day. It took several hours to walk 20 miles and required a great deal of effort. What a strange way to keep the “Lord’s Day”.

In reality, Paul preached to them on the Sabbath and continued on into the night. He was long winded and reminds me of Gerald Waterhouse. His typical sermon was about 3 to 4 hours.

The point of Acts 20:7 is that Christian meet on the first day of the week, not on the Sabbath for remembering the Sabbath day for Christ took all the OT law out of the way. Acts 20:7".....when the disciples came together..." The+ verb came together is passive voice not active. The passive shows someone (God) external to the disciples brought them together on the first day of the week, it was not the disciples own idea.

In Deut 5, the OT law, beginning with the 10 commandments, was only given to the Jews to keep and no one else:

[SUP]2 [/SUP]The Lord our God made a covenant with us (Israel) in Horeb.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Nowhere was this OT covenant ever made with Gentiles or Christians.


A purpose for coming together on the first day of the week was to "break bread" ie take the Lord's Supper (and to give, 1 Cor 16:2). They could eat a common meal at anytime but this meal had a special purpose, o worship by taking the Lord's Supper and give.




Christians assemble to worship God on Sunday. Upon looking at the Greek text, however, some have questioned the integrity of the translation “the first day of the week,” wondering if a better wording would be “the Sabbath day.”

Admittedly, a form of the Greek word for sabbath (sabbaton or sabbatou) does appear in each of the eight passages translated “first day of the week.” For example, in Acts 20:7 this phrase is translated from the Greek mia ton sabbaton.

However, sabbaton (or sabbatou) is never translated as “the Sabbath day” in these passages. Why? Because the word is used in these contexts (as Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree) to denote a “week” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 364), “a period of seven days” (Danker, et al., 2000, p. 910; cf. Thayer, 1962, p. 566). Jesus once used the term “Sabbath” in this sense while teaching about the sinfulness of self-righteousness (Luke 18:9). He told a parable of the sanctimonious Pharisee who prayed: “God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess” (18:11-12, emp. added). The phrase “twice a week” comes from the Greek dis tou sabbatou. Obviously Jesus was not saying that the Pharisee boasted of fasting twice on the Sabbath day, but twice (dis) a week (tou sabbatou).

According to R.C.H. Lenski, since “[t]he Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (1943, p. 1148). Thus, mia ton sabbatonmeans “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., the first (day) following the Sabbath (Lenski, p. 1148), or, as we would say in 21st century English, “the first day of the week.”

After spending years examining Jewish writings in the Babylonian Talmud, Hebraist John Lightfoot wrote A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, in which he expounded upon the Hebrew method of counting the days of the week. He noted: “The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first day) of the sabbath: two (or the second day) of the sabbath;” etc. (1859, 2:375, emp. in orig.). Lightfoot then quoted from two different Talmud tractates. Maccoth alludes to those who testify on “the first of the sabbath” about an individual who stole an ox. Judgment was then passed the following day—“on the second day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375, emp. in orig.; Maccoth, Chapter 1). Bava Kamadescribes ten enactments ordained by a man named Ezra, including the public reading of the law “on the second and fifth days of the sabbath,” and the washing of clothes “on the fifth day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375; Bava Kama, Chapter 7). In Michael Rodkinson’s 1918 translation of Maccoth and Bava Kama, he accurately translated “the second day of the sabbath” as Monday, “the fifth day of the sabbath” as Thursday, and “the first of the sabbath” as Sunday.

If the word sabbaton in passages such as Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, and Acts 20:7 actually denoted “the Sabbath day,” rather than “a period of seven days,” one would expect some of the foremost Bible translations to translate it thusly. Every major English translation of the Bible, however, translates mia ton sabbaton as “the first day of the week.” Why? Because scholars are aware of the Jewish method of counting the days of the week by using the Sabbath as a reference point.

Finally, consider the difficulty that would arise with Jesus’ resurrection story if sabbaton was translated Sabbath. “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first Sabbath (sabbaton), they came to the tomb when the sun had risen” (emp. added). Such a rending of sabbaton in Mark 16:2 would be nonsensical. The Sabbath was over, and the mia ton sabbaton (“first day of the week”) had begun. The passage is understood properly only when one recognizes the Jewish method of reckoning weekdays.
Just as second century apologists Justin Martyr (ca. [SIZE=-1]A.D.[/SIZE] 150) spoke of Jesus as rising from the dead “on the first day after the Sabbath” (Dialogue..., 41), and equated this day with “Sunday” (“First Apology,” 67), so should 21st century Christians. That Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week” (Mark 16:9), and that Christians gathered to worship on this day (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; cf. Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” 67), is an established fact. Sunday is the first day after the Jewish Sabbath—the “first day of the week.”

REFERENCES

​

Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Justin Martyr, (1973 reprint), Dialogue with Trypho, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Justin Martyr (1973 reprint), First Apology, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lightfoot, John (1979 reprint), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Perschbacher, Wesley J., ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Rodkinson, Michael, trans. (1918), The Babylonian Talmud, [On-line], [SIZE=-1]URL:[/SIZE] The Talmud.
Thayer, Joseph (1962 reprint), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Apologetics Press - “The First Day of the Week”
Eric Lyons



------


In New Testament times, however, the phrase “to break bread” was also used to describe the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus instituted this special supper while celebrating the Feast of Unleavened Bread with His disciples shortly before His death.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:26-29, emp. added).


​

In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul addressed the subject of the Lord’s Supper with these words: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (emp. added). Paul later reminded the Corinthians of the night in which Jesus first instituted this memorial feast, saying, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, Hebroke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me’” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24, emp. added). Because part of this memorial supper that Christians are commanded to keep involves the actual breaking of bread, the expression “to break bread” was used in reference to the Lord’s Supper in the early church (cf. Behm, 1965, 3:730).


Similar to how this phrase was used as a synecdoche in regard to common meals, it was also used to represent the Lord’s Supper (where consumption of both the bread and the fruit of the vine is referred to as simply “the breaking of bread”).

Because the phrase “to break bread” refers both to common meals and the Lord’s Supper, one must examine the context of passages in order to understand which one is being discussed. For example, since in Acts 2:42 “breaking bread” is listed with other religious activities carried out by the church such as teaching, praying, and fellowshipping (from the Greek koinonia, which may include several aspects of “joint participation,” including free-will offerings on the first day of the week—cf. Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; see Jackson, 2005, p. 31), one may logically conclude that “the breaking of bread” is a reference to the early Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper. [The use of the article in this verse also leaves the impression that a particular event is under consideration, rather than a common meal where “food” (Greek trophe, a word never used of the Lord’s Supper—Barnes, 1956, p. 59) is served for the purpose of gaining nourishment (e.g., Acts 2:46; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:33-34).]
Apologetics Press - “Breaking Bread” on the “First Day” of the Week
Eric Lyons

 

[SeaBass]

Acts 20:7

first, &c. = first day of the sabbaths, i.e. the first day for reckoning the seven sabbaths to Pentecost. It depended upon the harvest (Deu_16:9), and was always from the morrow after the weekly sabbath when the wave sheaf was presented (Lev_23:15). In Joh_20:1 this was the fourth day after the Crucifixion, "the Lord's Passover. "Compare App-156. This was by Divine ordering. But in A.D. 57 it was twelve days after the week of unleavened bread, and therefore more than a fortnight later than in A.D. 29.

This was actually on the Sabbath and continued into late Saturday night. Now the interesting thing about this is that on the next day, Sunday, Paul walked 19 miles across the peninsula to Assos to meet the others…

Act 20:13 And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.
Act 20:14 And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene.

From Troas to Assos was approximately 19 miles. When I was in the Boy Scouts many years ago, we went on a few 20 mile hikes and that is a long walk in one day. It took several hours to walk 20 miles and required a great deal of effort. What a strange way to keep the “Lord’s Day”.

In reality, Paul preached to them on the Sabbath and continued on into the night. He was long winded and reminds me of Gerald Waterhouse. His typical sermon was about 3 to 4 hours.

First day of Sabbaths would be first day of week or our Sunday
Second day of Sabbaths would be second day of week or our Monday
Third day of Sabbaths would be third day of week or our Tuesday
and so forth.

 

[john832]

The point of Acts 20:7 is that Christian meet on the first day of the week, not on the Sabbath for remembering the Sabbath day for Christ took all the OT law out of the way.

Even though the word is Sabbath. Just not what you want it to say, ist it?

 

[john832]

First day of Sabbaths would be first day of week or our Sunday
Second day of Sabbaths would be second day of week or our Monday
Third day of Sabbaths would be third day of week or our Tuesday
and so forth.

No, the first of the Sabbath is the first Sabbath after the Wave Sheaf...

Lev 23:15 'And you shall count for yourselves from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering: seven Sabbaths shall be completed.
Lev 23:16 Count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath; then you shall offer a new grain offering to the LORD.
Lev 23:17 You shall bring from your dwellings two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven. They are the firstfruits to the LORD.

The first of the Sabbaths is the first Sabbath after the Wave Sheaf, the second is the second Sabbath after the Wave Sheaf and etc. until you count seven Sabbaths and the next day is Pentecost.

 

[SeaBass]

No, the first of the Sabbath is the first Sabbath after the Wave Sheaf...

Lev 23:15 'And you shall count for yourselves from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering: seven Sabbaths shall be completed.
Lev 23:16 Count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath; then you shall offer a new grain offering to the LORD.
Lev 23:17 You shall bring from your dwellings two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven. They are the firstfruits to the LORD.

The first of the Sabbaths is the first Sabbath after the Wave Sheaf, the second is the second Sabbath after the Wave Sheaf and etc. until you count seven Sabbaths and the next day is Pentecost.

I know I copied and pasted a lot and many will not take the time to read it all, but here is a short excert on how the Jews kept track of days:


However, sabbaton (or sabbatou) is never translated as “the Sabbath day” in these passages. Why? Because the word is used in these contexts (as Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree) to denote a “week” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 364), “a period of seven days” (Danker, et al., 2000, p. 910; cf. Thayer, 1962, p. 566). Jesus once used the term “Sabbath” in this sense while teaching about the sinfulness of self-righteousness (Luke 18:9). He told a parable of the sanctimonious Pharisee who prayed: “God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess” (18:11-12, emp. added). The phrase “twice a week” comes from the Greek dis tou sabbatou. Obviously Jesus was not saying that the Pharisee boasted of fasting twice on the Sabbath day, but twice (dis) a week (tou sabbatou).


According to R.C.H. Lenski, since “[t]he Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (1943, p. 1148). Thus, mia ton sabbatonmeans “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., the first (day) following the Sabbath (Lenski, p. 1148), or, as we would say in 21st century English, “the first day of the week.”


Then there was a problem with first of Sabbaths with the resurrection:

Finally, consider the difficulty that would arise with Jesus’ resurrection story if sabbaton was translated Sabbath. “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first Sabbath (sabbaton), they came to the tomb when the sun had risen” (emp. added). Such a rending of sabbaton in Mark 16:2 would be nonsensical. The Sabbath was over, and the mia ton sabbaton (“first day of the week”) had begun. The passage is understood properly only when one recognizes the Jewish method of reckoning weekdays.

1) And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. [SUP]2) [/SUP]And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

 

[dcontroversal]

I would disagree with your last statement.

We still can not keep the law in a way God demands it.

But we can obey Gods commands. Which are found all over the word of God and in our hearts.

Yes, SOME are found in the law. But we do not obey them because they are in the law. They were put into the law ONLY to condemn us. Nor do they tell us how to obey them through the law.

I see your point and agree that we cannot fully live up to the expectations of the entire law as God would have us do, but is not obeying the commandments of God keeping the law?

Do not the commandments, statutes and ordinances represent the law? and if so....

Would God call for his people to keep that which they cannot keep?<---understanding the guilt and proof of a fallen nature in our abilities as a lost man to keep the commandments, statutes and ordinances<--the Law

Just questions as I see where you are coming from in your statement.

 

[dcontroversal]

Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't sure what people were actually saying in the first place.

No problem mi amiga!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So does that interpretation of yours i.e. keeping the law of love while doing away with the law written in OT keep you away from any sin?

When I am seeking the things of the spirit. Yes. Why would it not? How can one sin when they are seeking to do the work of God (law of love)

When I sin, I am thinking of self.