The Forgotten Sunday-Scripture

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!

 

GE:

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

 

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!

 

GE:

Matthew 28:1 Authorised Version

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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,

 

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.

 

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.)

 

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

 

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".)