Acts Chapter 20 Discussion

  • Brian on Acts 20
    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.
  • Blackfoot - in Reply on Acts 20
    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 .
  • GiGi - in Reply on Acts 20
    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.
  • GiGi - in Reply on Acts 20
    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.
  • Henry - in Reply on Acts 20
    Donna. That is Bishop K.C. Pillia not pillow.
  • Henry - in Reply on Acts 20
    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.
  • Donna G. Warren - in Reply on Acts 20
    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 .
  • Blackfoot - in Reply on Acts 20
    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 .
  • Spartacus - in Reply on Acts 20
    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 .
  • GiGi again - in Reply on Acts 20
    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.
  • Adam - in Reply on Acts 20

    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.
  • Chris - in Reply on Acts 20
    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.
  • GiGi - in Reply on Acts 20
    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.
  • GiGi - in Reply on Acts 20

    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.
  • Chris - in Reply on Acts 20
    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.
  • Henry - in Reply on Acts 20
    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.
  • Believing - in Reply on Acts 20
    What commentary did Jesus read and his apostles?

    Thanks that one will do for me .

    Maybe the scriptures?
  • Chris - in Reply on Acts 20
    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.
  • Donna G.Warren on Acts 20
    I am not familiar with additional commentarys ,Pulpit ,Gill's, Ellicott . Which one or all are as reliable as Matthew Henry ?
  • Ronnette on Acts 20
    28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

    29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. 32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. 33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.

    These verses signified what happened when Apostles were killed. Any Religious sect Leaders who perverted the church will account to all their lies. From the beginning till end of the Acts of the Apostle, Luke the wrier clearly stated in transitional way who God chosen Apostle after Judas Iscariot. God is so bold that after he died he would not let any man decide the most important decision here on earth. The fallacy of any religious sect is that they could not outsmart God. We are purchased with Jesus Christ blood. Jesus knows who are those who follows men and not God. That makes the division who are the sheep and the goat. We are in perilous times and this warning has been written 2,000 years ago. There is an important reason why Paul, Jesus Christ chosen 12th Apostle, is our Apostle Today for the Jews first then to Gentiles, both Jews and Gentiles can be saved before Jesus comes, as we are warned in 2 Corinthians 6 in its entirety: Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,. Then reiterated in Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and
  • Ken Wolf - in Reply on Acts 20
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This was my belief . although I did not want to make the bible conform to my beliefs I wanted evidence that I was thinking what was written in the bible.Gods will not mine..i thank each and everyone that replied.

    May God richly bless each and everyone that did reply
  • Chris - in Reply on Acts 20
    From further probing, a dictionary defines 'more than a little/ not a little' as 'a large amount or to a large degree'. The example it gave is: "They had sincere respect for her, and not a little affection." "The team was more than a little unlucky to lose by just one point."

    In both examples, the meaning is 'much or greatly'. It's just the way our language can be sometimes used, sadly, making it a little more complex for many readers.
  • Grae - in Reply on Acts 20
    If they were NOT a LITTLE comforted perhaps that means that they WERE a LOT comforted . That's my take on it .
  • Ken Wolf - in Reply on Acts 20
    I agree but that is not the words that is in the bible it says NOT

    I'm sure they were greatly conforted bit that is not what is writen.

    Thank you for the reply
  • Chris - in Reply on Acts 20
    Hi Ken. I believe that even though it's not the usual way of expressing it, the intention of that wording is that they were 'greatly comforted' that the young man was still alive.
  • Ken Wolf on Acts 20
    Why in acts 20:12 job

    It states they were NOT a little comforted

    Other versions they were

    I am perplexed why they would not be conforted
  • Richard in Christ - in Reply on Acts 20
    Hi Rainne,

    I guess I will only give a little reply to this question from what I perceive. To begin with Lucifer it is known, I believe, that he was such a perfect angel, created by God, that he began to exult himself even to the point he wanted to be seated on God's throne. Then maybe when God put him in his place he is said to have gathered 1/3 of the angels in Heaven to follow him and make war against God. If this is correct here is a couple Scriptures of these things. Revelation 12:3-4, Revelation 12:7-9.

    There is also the account of "other angels" who were banished, from Heaven, for what they did. In the Bible this account is not very detailed of the sons of God(angels) coming down and mingling with the daughters of men and making "giants" or hybrid angel/humans. Genesis 6. This was the main reason why God flooded the world with Noah and the ark etc. In the book of Enoch this story is much more detailed about what happened.

    Verses of the "angels that sinned" 2 Peter 2:4-5, Jude 1:6. It is shown that even angels have free will.

    As there may have been more to your question I hope what I have stated may have helped somewhat for an answer.

    God Bless.
  • Rainne on Acts 20
    The Bible said if u die and go to heaven u wont go to hell anymore since u had proof that Jesus is real but why did Lucifer and other angels go to hell? i thought when u go to heaven u would understand the real world
  • Christopher on Acts 20:19
    helps me to live a life faithful to the FAITHFUL ONE.
  • Bendito Palavra - in Reply on Acts 20
    Even better, by resurrection power in the name of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, Paul restored Eutychus to life, being dead (nekros).

    The LORD granted unto the apostles signs and wonders to be done by their hands to validate their testimony of grace ( Acts 14:3; Romans 15:19).

    In a similar fashion, Peter was used of the LORD to restore Tabitha, known as Dorcas, back to life in Acts 9.

Viewing page: 1 of 3

  Next Discussion Page >

1   2   3  


Do you have a Bible comment or question?

Please Sign In or Register to post comments...