Discuss Acts 20 Page 2

Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710 from Isaiah 58:13,14 says, "The sabbath is a sign between God and his professing people; his appointing it is a sign of his favour to them; and their observing it is a sign of their obedience to him."

He goes on...

"Even in Old Testament times the sabbath was called the Lord's day, and is fitly called so still; and for a further reason, it is the Lord Christ's day, #Re 1:10|. If we thus remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, we shall have the comfort and profit of it, and have reason to say, It is good to draw near to God."



The above quotes from Henry and many others from him point to the weekly sabbath as the Lord's Day. No problem, until we read this supposed Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710 from Acts 20:7-12,

"They came together on the first day of the week, the Lord's day. It is to be religiously observed by all disciples of Christ. In the breaking of the bread, not only the breaking of Christ's body for us, to be a sacrifice for our sins, is remembered, but the breaking of Christ's body to us, to be food and a feast for our souls, is signified. In the early times it was the custom to receive the Lord's supper every Lord's day, thus celebrating the memorial of Christ's death."

These two Commentary's by Matthew Henry, 1710 are in conflict with each other. Question: Did someone tamper with the later Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710? If so, what purpose? Sun-day worship? Seems like it to me.

Hi Freddie,

I'm happy to offer my opinion. We can and should worship God every day, but many churches choose Sunday as a day to worship I believe because the first century church met on the first day of the week- Sunday. Read Acts 20:7. Since that is an example we are given, surely that's a good time to meet.

For your 2nd question, can you please provide scripture with the east/west that you believe is confusing? Christmas- I don't know. I kind of doubt Dec 25 was the correct day Jesus was born. But we also don't know the exact place in Bethlehem or elevation Jesus was born. There are many variables.

What some Roman guy or Catholic said or did carries no weight or credibility. The fact is Acts 20:7 said long before them that they met on the first day of the week so its not wrong to gather that day.

As for 666, people into numerology can make any book have the same 'coincidences' through enough research, but this is merely confirmation bias. It's similar to the birthday paradox how it seems illogical and almost like a conspiracy how with so few people you have 2 or more with the same birthday. It's a cute party trick just like the 666. It's equally likely to find 555 or 444 or any other sequence if one crunches enough numbers, but it doesn't mean anything. If some day I see people funneled into taking a mark with 666 on it then I will know with certainty that is something to avoid, but someone doing a little trickery to make a coincidence seem like its not is insignificant in my opinion. God bless.

Jeanette may i give you my take on the order of Gods Business...The 2 Covenants ...1st was the Old Covenant, redemption by the blood of bullls and goats...The levitical Priest hood....But God found fault with the Levitical priesthood....Promising a New Covenant by his own blood....A 2 nd Covenant by the blood of the The lamb of God... Acts 20:28....But they had to be in order as 1 st and 2 nd...That we might see the futility of mans righteousness via the blood of bulls and goats...The Levitical Priesthood....vs the Melchizedek Priesthood....An everlasting Covenant ( Kingdom )...David comes to mind There was none righteous no not one under this levitical Priesthood...Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world...The 1st Covenant answers to the night light a lesser light...But the 2 nd Covenant is like day light a GREATER LIGHT and there will be no night there where we are going...The Kingdom...It also answers to the 2 words the written word and the living word...1 is death and 1 is life as my words are spirit and life....But the letter is the written word and no eternal life in written words...a killer... The written word is truly manna but they all died in the wilderness ...But the 2 nd Covenant is his flesh and blood the living Words and if any man eats of my flesh and blood he will neva die....But this 2 nd covenant is hid from the wise and prudent but reveled unto babes and sucklings...Until the book is opened....AND GOD POURS OUT OF HIS SPIRIT ON ALL FLESH... Joel 2 :28...I will know them ALL from the least to the greatest... Jeremiah 31:34...k lemme go.

T lewis Gbu But i disgaree completely with that post....Jesus the absolute Son of God cd not come thru any mans blood line....Simply b/c all men carried that stain and spot and curse of adam....There were none righteousness no not one...The Lamb of God cd not carry or be stained with that curse of Adam...It had to be a perfect clean lamb without any spot or stain...Thats y it had to be a virgin birth, Her Conception cd not be tainted by mans seed....It had to be an immaculate Conception..The very seed/word of God....You are made clean by the word i have spoken unto you....Mary was made clean by this conception for at least 9 mo....Maybe longer...As she told some at the wedding feast what ever he says to you do it...

.....And he predated all men when he said before Abraham was i am....Before the world was i am....He told the Jews, you are from beneath but i am from above...You are of this world but i am not of this world.. John 8:58 .

.....Many thought that Joseph was his father and said is this not the Carpenters son...Thus these 2 lineages in Mat. and luke are both not his lineage that is from heaven... John 6:38....I am that living bread from heaven etc...He cd not come thru any mans adamic nature which is in rank with satan....These 2 linages are a stinch in the nostrils of man what wd they be in the nostrils of God....For an educational teaching tool they are fine..But our lord cd not be stained by mans adamic nature...

.....And in Acts 20:28...Feed the Church of God that has purchased with his own blood....It was the blood of God Almighty Christ Jesus that purchased the Church....We are all bought with a price his blood....Gods blood

It's impossible for me to forget that I am different to Jesus , I'm guessing most people are very aware that they are not the same as Our Saviour .

Hello Blackfoot, didn't mean to sound like a dog barking at anyone. It is not wrong to point out the obvious. But sorry if it offended you. I was just making a comparison of Jesus to us. It is good to remember that there is a difference. That's all.

Hello Donna,

I think that you have been given mostly good references to commentaries. The only one I would not recommend is Bullinger, as he was am Ultra-dispensationalist. You may wish to find out more about Ultra dispensationalism before referring to Bullinger to see what e promoted.

I have not spent much time reading commentaries or online sites for most of my life. But I find them helpful when I wish to get a bit more information about certain things presented in Scripture. I often find that after I have sought understanding from the Spirit in Scriptures, and then I read a commentary or site, there is so much agreement with what I understood from Scripture and what the commentators understood. So, seeking such sources can be helpful. I would not discourage you from checking for more understanding using them. I would not read Bullinger, though.

Donna. That is Bishop K.C. Pillia not pillow.

Donna. Another source that I found very inspiring is E.W. Bullinger who

Did figured of speech in the bible among others and Bishop K.C. Pillow who

Light through an eastern window. He was raised in Hindu culture and got

Born again and wrote books on the eastern thought in scripture related to

The gospel message and meaning.

Thank you ,Chris for your reply, your encouragement & additional information. Will help me in my studies.God Bless you ! I hope you will / can continue communicating / commenting .

I don't think that you need to remind anyone on here that none of us are Jesus . We are all Christians here , not dogs barking at each other .

You are correct in what you say , the early Jews didn't have any commentaries and I wish I had a dollar for how many times I've heard people on this site say that the Holy Spirit teaches them all things . If we all have the Spirit of Christ then why do we need commentaries , how many times does it say in the New Testament , even Jesus says , that the Spirit of Truth will teach us etc ? I need to be convinced in myself , no one , no human , can convince me of anything , only God's Word is pure and true and righteous and infallible . I trust Him .

Agreed, Chris. We all need to be teachable and receptive to how God does bring His Truth to us. This is what I think is being meek. It is an attitude of being submitted to God's ways for me and a willingness to go His way.

Hello,

It looks like some are questioning whether its morally right to use a commentary. Nothing replaces reading or hearing God's word directly. Ive never met anyone who disagrees with that. But a commentary is just someones interpretation or opinion. I see this as no different than a sermon or a bible study or discussion on this site. I do not believe its wrong to seek other perspectives of Gods word. of course discernment should always be used, not accepting any opinion as truth without a proper vetting including prayer.

Thank you for sharing those extra thoughts on this subject, GiGi. What I would object to & give counsel on, is if someone uses a commentary solely to understand Scriptures, thereby forming a view/belief based on what interpretation, of the many, seems best rather than first resting on the Word, doing a scriptural search & waiting for light on that portion. I think this would be a lopsided approach to understanding the Bible & may give very limited value to the reader & a distorted Bible-reading exercise in the future.

Hello, Sparticus,

Jesus did not need to read any commentaries because He was God in the flesh and had perfect understanding of Scriptures because they are His words. You nor I are not Jesus. We did not author the Scriptures nor have perfect understanding of them on our own.

Chris,

Thank you for this post. We are a community of saints and need each other. We are to teach each other, for teachers are given to the church body for that purpose. We are to preach to one another, for pastors are given to the church body for that purpose. We are to evangelize, for evangelists are given to the church body for that purpose. We are to build each other up in the most holy faith, which involves doctrinal instruction as well as Bible reading. We are to check whatever we hear or read from others against the Scripture, but this does not mean that we only read the Bible and do not listen to or read another person expounding on the Scriptures.

I realize that each believer is free to choose the approach to learning Scriptural truths that they believe is best. For me, I believe that God planned for us to be united together with Jesus in a common fellowship (body) where we worship, serve on another, and learn from each other communally rather than as individuals who wish to be "loners" and only use their own minds, reason, and understanding in learning Scriptural truths from the Bible. These do use something other than the Bible -their own minds, whether they will admit it or not. But, I do believe that the Bible does say in Proverbs 11:14 that "where there is no counsel, the people all; but in the multitude of counselor there is safety." This wisdom is from God and therefore good to follow. We need one another to help with our growth in knowledge of God, Jesus, and the Scriptures.

Hi Spartacus (& to 'Believing' as well). I do agree with what you both have written, as far as not requiring anything more than the Word of God to read & meditate on. Yet, when I see the word, 'Commentary', or even read what the writers had written, expressing their understanding of the Word, my mind goes back to the Church Fellowship setting. I ask myself, 'isn't my Elder or Pastor also giving a (his) commentary on the Bible, whether on a Lord's Day Service or in a Bible Study? The difference being, he may not go into as much depth as those other commenters, but he still presents a Scriptural analysis of a portion of Scripture - and we, listening to him, decide whether what he says aligns with the Bible & we learn from it & apply it. I suppose that it is possible, though I've never heard of it, that a pastor goes to his pulpit, gives the subject of his message, tells the congregation to note down the following ten Scriptures that pertain to his message, and then for the next thirty to forty-five minutes for them to read & meditate on them. He then sits down with them, so as not to give any comment(ary) on the Bible.

So yes, I understand the absolute worth of just reading from the Bible without resorting to any other views or Bible helps, but can't seem to place much difference between what may be written on the printed page to what is shared from the pulpit. Am I assessing this correctly or am I missing out on something? Or, even on these pages here, maybe some of should do as a couple of others do when answering a question: just give our answers only as listed Scriptures to look up & prayerfully consider so as to gain the true answer they seek.

Believing. You will see in the gospel of Luke 4:16+17 where the scrolls or

Writings were handed to Jesus and he found the place where it was written.

What makes that incredible is the original scrolls had no chapters no headings

They were just running hand continuous and He found the place where it was

Written concerning His Ministry. The scrolls in the temple and the synagogues

We're His main source also what God showed Him by the spirit.

Just like me , Jesus didn't read any commentaries . They are an invention of man not God . If you are diligent determined and persistent in your Bible reading you will enjoy the benefits of your patience as things slowly reveal themselves to you . Jesus just had the scriptures , what we call the Old Testament . Once you've read the old a few times , when you read the New , you will recognise how often Jesus refers back to them , it's a lot !

What commentary did Jesus read and his apostles?

Thanks that one will do for me .

Maybe the scriptures?

All the ones you mentioned, Donna, are good commentaries and I would add, Benson and Barnes into your list as well. But as in all commentaries, they only give a person's understanding of the Scriptures, albeit by very studied men, so as helpful as they might be, our only resort should be to the Holy Scriptures & for the Spirit's enlightening. And as an aside, I've noticed that sometimes these commentators actually copy information from each other! Having a good Lexicon (Hebrew & Greek - available online) is also very useful to better understand where our English translations are coming from.

I am not familiar with additional commentarys ,Pulpit ,Gill's, Ellicott . Which one or all are as reliable as Matthew Henry ?

Peter completes the first chapter of his second Epistle with a warning much like Paul does knowing that he is about to die. He elaborates on heresy among the brethren in chapter 2; then further apostasy in the last days in the third and final chapter. This is very clearly paralleled in the Book of Jude; giving pause to consider whether both authors communicated this theme or Jude got his ideas from Peter who perhaps had gotten it from Paul. This is all the inspired Word of God; of course. The concern for these things was clearly indicated when Paul stated that he prayed with tears "day and night for three years" concerning the state of the church. ( Acts 20:31; also see 20:37 when people wept about the prophecy of his imprisonment and likely martyrdom eventually in Jerusalem). Jude was going to discuss general doctrine; but the Lord redirected him with similar exhortations as he states in the beginning of the book.

There clearly is no mincing of words here. Verse 20 and 21 are particularly sobering warning that it is better not to know the truth than to know it and become reprobate (i.e. harsher judgment). The only one in this generation that may have been similar that I am aware of was David Wilkerson. Aside from interpretations of certain end time verses and prophetic statements that he made; which is the subject of another post; he certainly spoke against heretical practices.

Think about it. Today we remember men who were fabulous expositors of scripture; orators or who tenaciously held to the traditions of church doctrines. All of these things of course are commendable. But would they be held in such high esteem if they warned about apostasy; in their own midst no less. Surely the pride of those who had stakes in the institution; denomination; Christian school (not to mention FAMILY MEMBERS) would be offended. To use past successes as our standard in how Christ sees a church today is unwise in light of verses such as Rev. 2:5!!!

Concluding thoughts

This reminds us of Gideon when he asked the angel whose side are you on and he said "the Lord's side." ( Joshua 5:13-15). As with anything else the attitudes of the heart are more important than a surface level of the law. Or; in order to do what was expected "obedience is better than sacrifice." ( 1 Samuel 15:22). This is why certain functions were only done by priests. Christ Himself; of course was fully God and fully man; certainly the Creator could do as He wished. Mercy and compassion were used over and over to the obstinate Pharisees who Christ would frequently bother doing miracles on the Sabbath. Luke 14:5 shows that compassion to an animal is a "work" that someone with compassion would do if an animal fell in a pit. ( Proverbs 12:10-12).

The law until the church was established was still in effect; and people were told to do what was required but not the way the Pharisees did as they were full of hypocrisy. ( Matthew 23:23). The law now was summarized by Christ by loving God with all your heart; soul; mind and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself ( Luke 10:27). We are asked now in the N.T. NOT to follow "holy days" and such ( Galatians 4:9-10). Some say there is controversy there; but it is clear that Paul did meet on the first day of the week ( Acts 20:7); and collections were to be prepared that day ( 1 Cor. 16:2). At the very least; the Son of man being lord of the Sabbath trumps any earlier Sabbath laws since we are under a New Covenant as to having to meet Saturdays.

It would appear that Sunday worship was established; although I will not argue that it is to be substituted for what was Saturday worship; or it is wrong any day to gather for corporate worship. The effect of the law certainly doesn't bring a death penalty. However; many laws that did (the clearest being murder) hasn't helped society today with it's lawlessness; clearly.

Once He comes in the Millennium; He will rule with a rod of iron and enforce law.

Luke Gbu but you are in error when you say that JESUS came thru Adams blood line...The lamb of God cd not be defiled by ANY mans bloodine....As all men carried the stain and the spot of Adam....Mary was just a vessel that God used to make the Child...As the scrip. says he was made of a woman made under the law....But Mary's placenta wd NOT allow her blood to mix with the Childs blood... Acts 20:28....Feed the Church of God that he has purchased with his OWN BLOOD... Not mans BLOOD....Even in the natural a fetus is able to make his own blood....But the Women's placenta feeds the fetus with nutrients ETC ....But her blood is neva passed to the fetus... A Womans placenda is a very complex organ....But the lamb of God cd not be defiled with mans blood....Thats y it had to be a virgin birth....Jesus told the Jews you are from beneath but i am from above...You are of this world but i am not of this world... John 8 :23 kjv....And b/f Abraham was i am....He was from everlasting to everlasting as Psalms 90 David says.

.....Jesus was the living WORD made flesh and blood....It was God that impregnated Mary with his word....Mans seed had absolutetly nothin to do with Marys conception....But Romans 1:3 concerning Jesus that was made of the seed of David according to the flesh....But that flesh was Mary...Not according to any man's seed....It was DAVID that said its the Lords doings and is precious in our eyes....It was the Lords seed not mans seed.

......The Lamb of GOD had to be a Perfect Lamb....Could not have any spots or stains....He cd not carry that awful stain and curse of adam thats y it had to a virgin birth....There was none righteous no not one...Thus Mary had to be impregnated by God himself....Via his seed the living word...gbu

What DWL is impling is Jesus was just a man the son of God....But not God the Son....Not an ABSOLUTE SON, Not God the son....Satan is behind his post....If Jesus were not God the Son an absolute Son...Then his Blood cd not be the Atonement for the Sins of the world....They are very clever in their doctrine....These J.W. PPL.....They always start out their conversations with we believe that Jesus is the Son of God....But they donot beleive that Jesus was God the son....Then they make all kinds of derogatory remarks about his Deity....Satan knows that if he can destroy Jesus as God the son HIS DEITY ....Then his blood was only a mans blood having no Atonement Value.... Acts 20:28 Feed the Church of God that he has purchased with his own Blood...The blood of Jesus/God... Hebrews 1:8 But unto the SON he said thy throne O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER....Don't ever think that satan is not clever....When one implies that Jesus was not an Absolute son...Not God the Son then he is impling that God neva had an ABSOLUTE SON....How sick is that....I salute Adam's post to DWL.

......Mans blood cd not atone for the sins of the world....It had to be the very blood of God ( Jesus ) Acts 20:28 ...

......Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world....John the baptist

Part 2

Ronald

d. My opinion about spirit, soul, body. The spirit is us, our personality, thoughts, emotions etc. The soul is where our spirit is placed/located. Spirit and soul are nseparable and immortal. The physical body is a vehicle that is used by our spirit/soul to live in this physical world and it is of course mortal. If soul and not spirit is us, then where is God's, angels', demons' personality/life/emotions are located since they don't have souls.

e. Now about ancient philosophy, yes there have been attemps from the very begining to compromise philosophy with christianity. But those attemps in the early times failed. Also attempts were made by the Gnostics (Eastern beliefs) to enter christianity. Gnosis in greek means Knowledge, so the gnostics were people that claimed that they had some kind of a deeper and mysterious knowledge that ordinary believers didn't have. But we know that Paul as well as the other apostles fought all these. Jesus in Revelation gives warnings to churches to avoid those. You are right about St Augustin and others in the 2nd and 3rd centuaries AD that made attempts to import philosophy into christianity but never really succeded. In contrast to those, christianity wrongly took many things from Judaism, like the priests and temples and all those things that are still present in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

f. Acts 20:7-10 is about the story of that young man who was sleeping during Paul's teaching and fell down from the first floor dead. In verse 10 says "And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him." But the greek text says "soul" not 'Life". His soul was in him. Why? Was there a case that the soul would be out of him, if soul simply dies?

Many other things can be said, but I think I may have tired you.

God Blessings

Hello Frank. Just responding to the points you raised.

a. both Water Baptism and the Lord's Supper are considered ordinances of the Church, as we see both being received & performed by the apostles & the early Church: Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16-21; 1 Corinthians 11:22-34; Romans 6:3-5; Acts 8:34-38; Acts 16:27-33; 1 Peter 3:20,21; 1 Corinthians 1:14-16. And since these 'ordinances' were never rescinded during the writing of the Scriptures, the Church has continued to observe them, albeit in different ways.

b. I agree that "being baptized into the Body of Christ is a spiritual baptism not a water baptism"; though both have different meanings. When a person is truly saved by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit resides & takes ownership of this new child of God ( Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:5). The believer enters the family of God by the indwelling Spirit: this is Baptism of the Spirit. Whereas, water baptism is simply a public declaration of one's identification with Christ, which should occur very soon after conviction of sin, repentance & faith in Jesus' Sacrifice. Yet, today this order is rarely observed (but that's another matter). Can a person be water baptized, yet not have saving faith? It can happen. Or, can one be endued with the Holy Spirit & not be baptized in water? Most certainly as salvation comes by a Work of God in the heart & not by an act of immersion in water. But water baptism ought to follow as a part of God's saving Work & due diligence from the evangelist.

c. I don't see that Paul "stopped baptizing altogether". Rather the 1st Corinthians chapter 1 reference you gave speaks about him baptizing only a few, as others seemed unworthy because of their infighting & divisions, but his mission was to preach the Gospel & not be sidetracked with water baptizing, which others could fulfil. So, we would be hard pressed to find clear Scripture that rescinded water baptism for both believing Jew & Gentile.

Hi Joy.

I concur with Richard.

And I would like to add to what he said concerning Ephesus. Paul gave them warning concerning the trouble coming after his departure in Acts 20:29-30.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

God bless.