Perhaps Acts 20:27 about the whole will of God is closest to the concept in this title. I have found a growing issue of many who have aberrant doctrines (losing one's salvation; or "modalism" but who have a correct interpretation of certain specific issues. Specifically; I have been looking at those who preach what I consider correct doctrine on the permanence of a marriage covenant while a first spouse remains alive. I have mentioned previously churches where I have fellowshipped that are either "Post or Amillenial" which I disagree with but nonetheless felt that I would regard it as a "secondary" issue after seeing the conviction of faith in general. Therefore; the first thing we have to consider is if the errant doctrine is in our own church or in someplace we are either surfing online or perhaps occasionally attending such as a Bible Study. I have been to VERY liberal groups on occasion where I have had the opportunity to challenge leadership when I had some time alone as well as try to be a witness to those needing some further insights into the Bible. Clearly even in this setting; when someone else wants to teach and says that we only need Jesus not the Bible (such as happened with a friend of mine recently) it is time to pull the Kenny Rogers and know when to walk away or run if we can't convince leadership to stop someone like this (in this case it was the guy's best friend and hopefully he heeded the warning of my friend).
A big component related to this subject goes from the extreme of "hyper grace" individuals to overly legalistic. Again; some latitude needs to be considered as to a style of worship and more importantly the REASON certain procedures are followed along with the character of those in leadershiip. It is an honor to jealously guard the honor of a congregation from wolves and to use scripture to back all things up; but we shouldn't make the way more narrow than Jesus intends.
How do you know when Paul started to preach that day? Even if it says that in other writings you can't add meaning to a scripture because someone in the first century says so. I think, Giannis, that because you have decided to believe that "breaking bread" could only be done on the first day of the week as a weekly church gathering Acts 20:7 can only be interpreted that way. If the premise I presented to you in my reply, before this one, cannot be true, tell me why without the assumption that the breaking of bread could only be done on Sunday at a regular church service. Maybe the church, in that verse, met to break bread on another day other then the Sabbath, maybe Sunday. I don't understand what you are saying about 1Cor. 11: 20-23. Paul was rebuking the church for eating their evening meal together, considering it to be the Lord's Supper, and not sharing with those who didn't have to eat. Maybe they were doing this on the Sabbath. If history tells us anything not told us in these verses we can't claim it to be a backup for the truth. History is necessary but it is still just the thoughts and words of men. When I used the quotes I did I was only telling of a man, who was quoting something from history not stating it as a biblical truth.
I apologize that I am continuing this Sabbath discussion if you'd rather go on to something else, but before we finish would you please show, with KJB scripture only, why "the breaking of bread" and the gathering of the church can only be done on Sunday or if it is done on Sunday why it can't possibly be an extra day of the week the church is getting together? Why Acts 20:7 and
1 Cor. 16:2 has to be interpreted the way you see it. God Bless :)
Hi Giannis: I'd like to discuss the Sabbath some more unless you'd rather not. Just let me know. I've done some additional research on the first century Church Fathers and I have learned more. I do agree with you that some of these authors were indeed Christians and probably did know some of the Apostles, however, what they wrote can't be presented as scripture but should only be presented as historical writings. I guess since I misunderstood that the Barnabas 15:9 was presented as a scripture, I overreacted (Who me? LOL) and let it chase me away for awhile. I apologize if I offended you or GiGi in anyway when I did that. But, while these men recorded a history of their experiences with the Early Church it can't be taken as scripturally true and can't be presented that way. The OT is our foundation and the NT builds on that foundation, to me this means that as children of God we need to accept the only true bible canonized by the Holy Spirit, as I'm sure you will agree. I know that we all love the Lord and each other and want only the truth. These discussions give us the opportunity to do that. I also apologize if my feelings toward the Catholic DOCTRINE has offended you or GiGi in any way. I was raised a Catholic and I have had a personal experience in how it destroyed a precious soul that I knew.// Why is it not possible that 1 Cor. 16:2 says they were asked to put aside a donation at the beginning of each week after the offering done on the Sabbath for something else when Paul came and he didn't want it to be done while he was there, maybe out of humility, maybe it was for him. They didn't have to gather together to do this. Also, Acts 20:7 The church met on the Sabbath for it's regular service but this time they also met on Sunday because Paul was going to be there and he would be leaving again the next day. No reason it was a weekly church service just because it says 'they broke bread together." God Bless :)
Acts 20:7 makes clear that gathering of the saints occurred on the first day of the week to bolster the collection made according to 1 Corinthians 16:2. The prescident is really from the fact that Christ fulfilled Pentacost which was the 8th day of the week (or Sunday) in the O.T. times was celebrated 50 days after the Passover.
Since we are not to have certain days to be held above others as Romans 14:5-6 indicates; we have no right to dictate either Saturday or Sunday for worship as I see it. Again; the Old Testament command was for Israel specifically as anyone in the land who disrespected the Sabbath was severely punished (see Deuteronomy 5:14). Other laws in the Old Testament such as marriage were clearly upheld even with pagan societies (as we see with the case of John the Baptist when he was imprisoned for contesting with the marriage status of a secular leader married to his brother's wife). Murder was evident with Cain well before the law came out. The fact is that Saturday worship can no longer be as it was without the sacrifices and other ordinances of the O.T. times which have been gone since the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Christ is our Passover now ( 1 Corinthians 5:7) and the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath ( Matthew 12:8).
We also need to consider what Paul stated to those who were coming from pagan societies. He said in Acts 15:29 to avoid eating blood; or strangled animals (often done in pagan rituals) as well as sexual immorality. If Saturday worship was required you would expect something would be mentioned as all other things in the Commandments which are throughout the New Testament in the Gospels and Epistles.
There are further concerns with Adventist doctrines and Ellen White which I am not going to get into detail here; but this often is an added reason for this and other issues of contention. I agree that the edict of Milan enforcing Sunday worship is wrong also.
1. Acts 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."
Isn't obvious here that the Breaking of bread was done during Sunday? Why does the text mention the breaking of bread? Answer, because at that time the breaking of bread was not done during the church service in the morning, but christians sat on tables in the evening and had it then, exactly the way Jesus did it with His disciples before He was crucified. (also see 1 Cor 11:20-32 where Paul talks about Lord's supper which was done on Lord's day/Sunday. If you look this up in history books those suppers were called "agapae" [grk for love, plural] and that habit was eventually abandoned sometime during the 2nd century) So we can understand how Paul kept teaching until midnight, otherwise one may wonder how true can be that Paul preached from morning to midnight. But from that little detail we know now that the breaking of bread was done on Sundays. We also find out that the breaking of bread was done every Sunday, not once every 2-3 months or whenever some planned it, like in some churches (If it was done once in a while the text would say "on one of the first days or a first day, in greek this is more clear than the Engl translation)
Now if Sabbath was still the main congregation day and holiday, would the christians perform the most important act of the church function on another day? I wouldn't think so.
It was the common practice of the New Testament church to gather on the first day of the week to break bread, bring together the offerings of the people, hear the preaching of the apostles, and worship with songs. ( Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:10)
Pentecost was on a the first day of the week and the disciples from then on continued to meet for worship on the first day to celebrate the day of Resurrection of Jesus. The apostles did go to the synagogues on the seventh say to preach, but this does not mean that they participated in the sacrifices, etc. of the Jewish faith on the seventh day. Historically, since Pentecost, the day of Christian communal worship has been uniformly on the first day of the week. This was not a decision nor a change of the "Catholic" church, rather, in Constantine's day, the Catholic Church, (which is what the new testament church grew into) was affirming as writ what was already standard practice in the church Jesus founded.
2nd century church leaders speak of the common custom of meeting on Sunday to worship, especially across the Gentile world.
At the council in Jerusalem, with Paul and the main apostles, John, James, and Peter, ( Acts 15) Saturday Sabbath worship was not one of the commands affirmed to be effective for Jew and Gentile alike who became believers. Ane Paul in Galatians was very adamant about not being required to keep specific festivals, holy days, or Sabbaths.
It was not an evil thing to begin worshipping on the first day of the week rather than the seventh day. It was how the Holy Spirit led the church from the beginning as it transitioned from Judaistic practices to Christian practices.
So let's begin with Jesus. Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." And the word beware means all of us should be alert, but especially shepherds, to identify not just false teaching, but false teachers, whose ways are subtle. They're clothing themselves with lamb's wool while they're wolves.
And Paul used the same Greek word for beware in Acts 20:28-29 when he said, "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. . . . I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock."
"IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE FLOCK, WE SHOULD EXPOSE FALSE TEACHERS AND MINIMIZE THE SPREAD OF THE GANGRENE."
Jesus used the same word again in Matthew 16:6, but he got more specific: "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Paul had the same kind of group in mind and the same kind of error in mind in Philippians 3:2 and 3:18: "Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh." And then verse 18:
"For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ." Then in Romans 16:17, he warned, "Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them."
"3. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, 4. Have we not power to eat and to drink? 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?. 7. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock".
Also 1 Cor 9:14, "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."
A point of attention. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles...". They were all carying their wives together with them in their ministries. They didn't just leave them alone at home with the kids.
So what do we conclude from the above, should a minister get paid for his ministery or not? The answer seems to be, Yes, they should get paid.
But lets go to Acts 20:33-35, where Paul talks to the elders of Ephessus,
"33. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. 34. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. 35. I HAVE SHEWED YOU ALL THINGS , how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."
It is obvious that Paul suggestion is that ministers should follow his example and not use that right, but work with their own hands for their own needs. If they are not able to cover their needs, then in that case only, they must accept help(not wage) from the church, like sometimes Paul himself did.
In my last post I ended with a discussion of the legalism of the Pharisees; as well as those that have what I call "sloppy Agape" or attempt to gloss over sin and use grace and forgiveness of all past; present and future sins as their excuse. In both of these cases at least for those who remain in a church fellowship we see an idolization of the Pastor most often who no doubt is contributing to one or the other error mentioned here. A true believer would move on if there is heresy coming from one of their own (see Acts 20:30). Justifying self righteousness is aided; of course when someone is financially well to do and credits the church leadership that promises "sowing a seed" will add to prosperity for all (whether or not they are giving a large sum themselves). The opposite of this are those widows and old ladies who are fleeced to their last dollar mesmerized by a Pastor who promises health and happiness with obedience and warns against not doing this despite what common sense would otherwise show.
This first paragraph assumes corrupt leadership. Another sign of our faith is respecting elders and pastors who ARE feeding the flock and tending the sheep properly. (see 1 Timothy 5:17). Disrespect of such authority often mainfests in impatience if a sermon runs 5 minutes late; frustration when genuine financial needs are brought up; lack of participation and interest in prayer and doing service projects in the church and for the comunity; etc. Beyond this; the admonitions of 1 John about loving the brethren are ignored (see 1 John 4:20). Such parishioners will sometimes leave; and we shouldn't strive to force them to stay.
There are others attempting to spread false doctrines which were of course never part of the true flock (see 1 John 2:19). They may leave but if not need to be dealt with lest they be a cancer that affects the whole flock (see warning in Galatians 5:9).
And so, Timothy was considered Jewish. And in case some of the Hebrew and Jewish people would hear that he's Jewish as he's traveling and wanted to corner him and pin him down as to whether he's been circumcised, and whether he's been through the synagogue ceremonies, Paul had him circumcised so that he would be free to preach the gospel in the synagogues.
Timothy was ordained by Paul and the Presbytery ( I Timothy 4:14; II Timothy 1:6).
He accompanies Paul on his third missionary trip ( Acts 19:22; Acts 20:4; II Corinthians 1:1, 19).
Timothy ministered in at least five churches as Paul's representative. He sent Timothy to:
1) Thessalonica ( I Thessalonians 3:2, 6).
2) Corinth ( I Corinthians 4:17; 16:10; II Corinthians 1:19).
3) Philippi ( Philippians 2:19-23).
4) Berea ( Acts 17:14).
5) Ephesus ( I Timothy 1:3).
Timothy was with Paul during Paul's first imprisonment ( Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1) and went to Philippi after Paul's release ( Philippians 2:19-23).
After Paul's release from his first imprisonment ( Acts 28:30), he revisited several cities leaving Timothy at Ephesus.
Paul went on to Macedonia from where he wrote Timothy this letter ( I Timothy 3:14-15).
Timothy was around 35-years of age when Paul wrote I Timothy.
Paul was arrested in Troas and taken to Rome and imprisoned for the second and last time.
Timothy also suffered imprisonment ( Hebrews 13:23).
Timothy was raised hearing Old Testament Scriptures ( II Timothy 3:14-15).
He joined Paul, along with Silas and Luke, during second missionary trip ( Acts 16:3).
Paul had Timothy circumcised so that he might have the freedom to preach the gospel in Jewish synagogues ( Acts 16:3; I Corinthians 9:20). He could not do that unless he was circumcised. And of course, Titus (another Gentile), he was not circumcised by Paul, and he even went to Jerusalem with Paul to attend the Jerusalem council.
And Paul refused to have him circumcised because he wasn't doing it out of the necessity of keeping the law, but as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:20, that whatever he does, he does for the purpose of reaching people for Christ.
So, when he had Timothy circumcised, it was because he knew that he would be in the Jewish synagogues and amongst the Jews, and they would not receive anything that Timothy had to say unless he was circumcised.
And by the way, a person is considered Jewish if your mother is Jewish and your father is not. You are considered Jewish as long as your mother is. If the father is Jewish, but the mother is not, you're not Jewish.
So, Timothy was accepted as a Jewish person, and he would be in the synagogues, but he was not circumcised, so Paul had him circumcised. Timothy was ordained by Paul and the Presbytery ( I Timothy 4:14; II Timothy 1:6). He accompanies Paul on his third missionary trip ( Acts 19:22; Acts 20:4; II Corinthians 1:1, 19).
The church at Philippi was founded during Paul's second missionary journey, recorded in Acts 16:8-12. Paul received a Macedonian Vision while in Troas and crossed the Aegean Sea to preach the gospel first in Philippi. That's found in Acts 16:8-10.
What happened was that on Paul's second missionary journey, he went by land and visited some of the cities that he had established during his first missionary journey. But what he wanted to do was pass those cities, and he wanted to go north and preach the gospel. But he said that Satan hindered him. That's all he said!
So, he decided that it must be a closed door, so I'll go south and preach the gospel, and he said the Holy Spirit hindered him. So, he went straight across and came all the way all the way to the coast of Troas, and he just sat there. I mean how much farther can you go? He's in Troas. He doesn't know what God wants him to do.
And so, while they were in Troas, that's when Paul received what is called the Macedonian vision. That is, a man from Macedonia appeared to him and said come over and preach the gospel to us. At which time Paul went. And as he went over, the first place where he landed, because all the vision said was come over to Macedonia, and so he landed first in Philippi and that's where he preached the gospel first.
In 57 AD, some five years after his first visit, and after his third missionary journey, Paul seems to have visited the church in Philippi twice. That is found in II Corinthians 1:16; Acts 19:21; Acts 20:1-3.
The author is Paul. His inscription is on all 13 of his letters. He always identifies himself in his letters.
II. WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN:
It was written around 56 to 57 A.D. It was written during the last three months of his third missionary journey as recorded in Acts 20:1-3. He wrote his letter from Corinth. He wrote Romans about three years before arriving there in Acts Chapter 28. So, three years prior to Paul arriving in Rome, he writes this letter to the Romans.
III. WHY IT WAS WRITTEN:
Paul had never been to Rome, and he desired to go there. We saw in Acts Chapter 19 where Paul expressed his need to see Rome. And remember, God actually told him when he was in Jerusalem that as you have given testimony for me here in Jerusalem, so you must witness for me in Rome.
Rome was the center of the Roman Empire. And so, they had already established in Ephesus and Philippi and some of the others over in Asia. They established mission points at that time. Paul wanted to come into Rome and there's a very good reason for it.
First of all, he had never been there. None of the apostles had ever been to Rome. Paul wanted to establish them in the doctrine of the Christian faith. We will notice as we begin this letter that he doesn't say "To the church in Rome." We know from Chapter 16 that there were a number of individuals. In fact, all of the names in Chapter 16 are Gentiles. They are Greek names.
The sheep you are looking for - do not hear your voice.
Matthew 10:27-30
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
Jesus didn't come thru anymans bloodline....Simply b/c All men carried the stain and the spot of adam...Jesus told the Jews you are of this world but i am not of this world...You are from beneath but i am from above....Marys blood and Jesus's blood didn't mix b/c of her placenta.... Acts 20:28...Jesus had the blood of God...feed the Church of God that has purchased with his own blood...Faith under the O.T. Yielded Isaac the Child of Promise...But faith under the N.C. Yields a heavenly Child which is the H.G. the only Child of Promise....And is the multiplication of Jesus via his seed the living word....That New COVENANT....As we have borne the image of the earthy we must also bear (new birth ) the image of the heavenly
.....They cd not have refered to the H.G. as the Promise if he were not the multiplication of Jesus who is God the son..The Abrahamic Promise was earthy but the N.C. by the blood of Jesus is a heavenly Promise...Thats y God swore by his very self when he made this Promise in Gen 22:17....Thats y Jesus was saying to whom the Word came it made them Gods...And the scripture cannot be broken....Thats y Jesus was saying that which is born of the spirit is spirit which is our new inner man the H.G...The Israel of God....That manchild that is gonna rule all nations..As Romans 9:8 is saying its only the children of Promise that are counted for the good seed which is the H.G. and when God will pour out of his spirit on all flesh its gonna result in an Israel of God...Jacob was the 3rd person and his name was changed to ISRAEL...But it was just prophetic that the H.G. the 3 rd Person wd be the Israel of God which are Spirits as God is spirit...And this Israel of God are gonna be born in us who hear his words which are Jesus seeds....God wants perfect Praise and its only the babes and suckling that praise him perfectly and they are spirits...the H.G....Our new hearts and new spirits is the Kingdom...Unless ya receive the KINGDOM AS A LIL CHILD...His babes.
It is my sense that the Church number was now completed & the Marriage Supper could take place (of course, this is not specifically mentioned). What happened at the Rapture, was an 'harpazo' (snatching away) of the dead, made alive & to be forever with the Lord; nothing akin to a resurrection where saints remain on the Earth, restored & reigning with Christ. So, the question, 'cannot the Rapture of the dead be seen as a resurrection?' In one sense yes, as it clearly is a raising from a state of death, but then we see Matthew 27:50-53; Acts 9:36-43; possibly Acts 20:7-12; (& not to mention the several other personal resurrections in the OT). I see the Rapture of the Church as a specific resurrection to remove believers from the impending Great Tribulation & not part of the General Resurrection (First Resurrection). And 'the shout & the trump'? Maybe, the call to march from Heaven & the command for the saints to rise up to the clouds; something the heavenly host hear & the personal call to those in Christ & none else can hear?
Revelation 1:7: Jesus comes to defeat the enemy armies & the world will behold this spectacular sight. I don't think one can confidently relate the clouds in this verse with the clouds in 1 Thessalonians. Maybe just cloudy days, or specially created clouds for that purpose. Who knows. As well "with clouds" & "in clouds" might be significant, but I wouldn't pursue that. I'm sorry Jimbob that you find so many holes in the "pre-trib theory".
I will admit that most things written of the future can be open to many opinions, simply because we don't get a nice laid out timeline of events. It's a matter of how we put Scriptures together. If wrong in my understanding, so be it - it's just how the Scriptures fall into place for me. Now some believe that the post-trib position involves believers who survive the tribulation & also have to face that time of God's Wrath poured out as well, which neither you nor I believe. That's a plus for us!
Hi Dana. You're referring to Hebrews 4:8: "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."
In the Greek language, 'Joshua, or Yehoshua' (from the Hebrew), is translated as 'Jesus, or Iesous'. And we find the translators making the same change in Acts 7:45. So, the KJV translators are correct in understanding this Hebrew to Greek change, though as you wrote, it can be misleading to those unfamiliar with the account or reading through those verses very quickly. We can see from Hebrews 4:8, that the writer is referring back to verse 5 ("And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest": Psalm 95:11), & even all the way back to Hebrews 4:1 when the subject of 'Rest' is brought up.
Even though most Bible translations use the word 'Joshua', they are of course translating it correctly, but not according to the original Greek, which the KJV uses, & this name translates to 'Jesus'. If Greek was spoken in the Old Testament days, by all accounts, Joshua, who took over from Moses' leadership, would have been called 'Iesous, or Jesus'.
As for the RC Church changing the Sabbath to Sunday, I can't comment, not being RC. But the Bible shows that after Jesus died & rose from the dead, the early Church worshiped together on the Lord's Day, the first day of the week ( Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 6:2): Sunday. Sunday, to the Church then & now, never became the new Sabbath Day - Saturday always has been the correct Jewish Sabbath Day.
Hello Dc730banks. All we are given in the Bible is that Jesus arose from the grave (sepulchre) on the "first day of the week", i.e. after the end of the Sabbath Day which was at sundown on the seventh day (Saturday): Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2,9.
Jesus was taken down from the Cross & laid in the sepulchre prior to the commencement of the Sabbath (i.e. before Friday sundown), was in the grave the rest of Friday night, all day Saturday, & into the early hours of Sunday (considered three days). Then it was at day-break Sunday that the two Marys went to the sepulchre & learned that Jesus had risen from the dead. And this first day of the week (Sunday), was celebrated by the apostles & early Church (as it is now) in Christian fellowship, teaching & communion ( Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).
Hi Ani. GiGi has shared accurately with you and I would like to add some more thoughts for your study & consideration.
I'm unsure where you obtained this particular Bible study book from, as it's clearly slanted towards 'keeping of the Law'. Does your Church support this teaching or are you doing this study by personal choice?
Firstly, the Jewish Sabbath has always been the Saturday (from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) & was given to Israel as part of the other commandments for them to observe ( Exodus 20:8-11). Why was this particular Command given? It was the seventh day when the LORD ceased from His Work of creating & it was for a remembrance when God brought out His people "with a mighty hand & a stretched out arm": i.e. from the perennial state of bondage & hard labor in Egypt to a time of liberty & rest. Even when Israel collected their food (Manna) while in the desert, they were not allowed to gather it on the seventh day ( Exodus 16:19-30), indicating the sanctity of the Sabbath Day.
Secondly, the Christian observance of Sunday, is not a redefining of the Jewish Sabbath - it is what is termed, the Lord's Day ( Revelation 1:10), or the First Day of the Week ( Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2) - never the Sabbath.
Thirdly, the Church is not required to observe the Jewish Sabbath as we were never in bondage in Egypt & brought into Canaan. We were however, once in bondage to sin & the flesh & now given a glorious forgiveness & release into the Lord's Rest. See Matthew 11:28-30 and Hebrews 4:1-11. Not only is the Christian given Christ's Peace in his heart, but also a resulting rest that comes only from Him. And yet, there is also a coming rest ( Hebrews 4:9), where the word here is 'sabbatismos', or Sabbath Rest: a rest in God's Presence that will be one continual Sabbath Rest, when our earthly toils & hardships are finally over.
Further insight on the intimate relationship betweeen God and His children.
In the life of Christ; we see the perfect example for our own lives; that is Christ doing nothing except the Father's will. ( John 5:19). We are likewise instructed to learn to do the "good and perfect will of God" as described at the end of Romans 12:2.
I would strongly urge everyone here to study and memorize Romans 12:1-2 as it is a "package deal" in regard to what I am saying here and of course; more importantly the will of God for our lives after we are saved and being sanctified. We are "aliens" in this world and pilgrims if we are His own ( 1 Peter 2:11-12). This requires due diligence to not only fight indwelling sin; but to realize that the whole world system and those "powers and principalities" running it ( Eph. 6:12) are enemies which we fight against as the Spirit contends against the flesh. Without understanding the source of our temptations which as belivers is Satan then we are unable to recognize things that are affecting our "vain imaginations" ( Romans 1:21) as with the rest of the unregenerate to find solace and comfort in this world and what is seen by our eyes and promoted as things that will make us content. The enemy can only affect us if we allow access through our mind and senses to give him a stronghold; so that is why we need to have an Ephesians 6 mindset. Ephesians 6:16 on the fiery darts of the enemy and our shield of armor in the spiritual realm is particularly vital.
Sadly we have the natural tendency to look on things that are pleasing to our eyes (such as attractive women) and thus we need to ask God to show us how following His good and perfect will means we are to love those we are naturally repulsed toward and to find our greatest joys in service toward His Body which He purchased with His own blood ( Acts 20:28). That verse makes it clear that it is His church rather than our own. That comes from a proper fear of the Lord and a mature walk.
My church believes in receiving literally the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Communion, too.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-33 talks about the Holly Communion. In verse 27 he says, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.". Also in verse 29, " For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." If the bread and wine were just symbols nothing would happen when one receives them when having a sin, exactly because they are symbols (you can not sin against symbols). But exactly because they are not symbols but they are literally the Body and Blood of Jesus when one receives inside them Holly things when they are unclean, then damnation awaits for them.
How does the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The answer is by faith, no transformation of matter takes place(i.e. like the Catholics say), they are the Blood and Body of Christ by faith.
When should the church take communion? Many take Communion every 2-3 months or once a year, etc, etc. Although in the ancient Jewish church it seems that believers were receving the Communion everyday ( Acts 2:46), (although there is a dispute whether the specific verse talks about meals or communion), Paul in Acts 20:7 says, "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." Paul uses a definite article "the", not an "a" (it is more clear in greek). In modern English it would be: on Sunday, not on a Sunday. So it is every Sunday. Every Sunday believers must take care of themselves to repent for anything they have done during the past week and ask for forgiveness and then have Holly Communion and start the new week nice and clean. GBU
Hi Mary gbu but lemme give ya my slant on water baptism...God wanted a New Covenant in the blood of Jesus...When Jesus had taken the cup he said this is the New COVENANT in my blood drink ye all of it...If water cd have atoned for the sins of the world then our lord shed his blood in vain and the Cross that New Covenant was just foolishness...Johns baptism was still under the old covenant...Jesus said the law and the Prophets were till John...Since that time the Kingdom of God is preached....But he that is least in the Kingdom is greater then John...Mary love ya but you are in essence saying the blood the Cross that new covenant on Calvary was not factual....Water Baptism will atone for our sins which is not true...
...Thats y the Lord was so upset with Peter commanding water baptism...When God Almighty had just made a new covenant in the blood of Jesus the lamb of God...3 times the Lord rebuked Peter with that sheet with all the unclean animals which is the Church that made Clean only by this new covenant in the blood of Jesus....Not by water baptism the old covenant cleasing...Its a slap in the face of God and the lamb of God when you fail to acknowledge this NEW Covenant on Calvary...We cannot mix 2 covenants...Remember this New Covenant included the very Blood of God Almighty.. Acts 20:28
Even John who gave us water baptism tells us t behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world...Thats y John told Jesus I have need to be baptised of you... Acts 10 :12...impling the blood of the lamb that New COVENANT....But after that Peter understood the vision he says then remembered I the words of our lord..John baptised you with water but I will baptise you with the H.G n fire...That New Covenant in his blood...Thats y Paul was so reluctant to water baptise he knew it wd make the Cross the blood of no effect... 1st Cor. 1:17...We cannot mix 2 Covenant...But the church was young and there was still water baptism going on...They didnt realize th Blood.Gbu
1Timothy 1:1-3, Acts 20:1-5, scriptures support Paul as the other writer
Hopefully these are helpful
The study of The Books/Chapters of Acts gives much detail of the ministry of Paul & Timothy (believing by comparison Timotheous is same person, spelling differentiation by translation)
"A part of this was surely that the blood, as symbolized in the wine (of which some drank too much, vs. 21), was disregarded and profaned.
Not only is misconduct at the Lord's Table profaning the blood of Christ, but also absence from the Lord's Table. There are many who view communion as a ritual best to be endured, and then only occasionally. The New Testament saints remembered the Lord daily ( Acts 2:42-46), and later it was weekly ( Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.11:2 cf. 16:2). Those who consistently failed to commemorate the Lord's death not only disobeyed the command of the Lord ( Lk. 22:19-20) but they profane the blood He shed by valuing it so little that they fail to commemorate His death as He has instructed us. ....
There is essentially but one way in which non-Christians profane the blood of Jesus Christ, and that is esteeming it of so little worth that they seek acceptance with God on the basis of their own works, in place of the atonement, in which Christ shed His own blood. Imagine standing before the judgment seat of God (the Great White Throne) and having God ask you but one question, the answer to which determines whether you spend eternity in heaven or in hell. The question, I assure you, will be this, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE BLOOD OF MY SON?"
God cares nothing for what you have to offer, but only what He Himself has offered you, His only begotten Son: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." ( Jn. 3:16). How dare any man think he could offer God anything for his own redemption, when God has paid the price in full at the cost of the blood of His own Son."
I just thought that this portion of this article was so well said and worth consideration.
We may be able to think of other ways we can profane the blood of Jesus.
I think of when a believer shows acceptance of non-christian by Jesus without conversion. More ideas?
Hi Timothy. Just looking at the Scriptures on Luke, I note that he was a close friend of the Apostle Paul, who referred to him as 'the beloved physician' ( Colossians 4:14). He is also spoken of as a "fellow labourer" ( Philemon 1:24).
During Paul's second missionary journey, Luke connected with Paul in Asia Minor ( Acts 16:6-11. Verse 10 particularly indicates this: "WE endeavoured to go into Macedonia"). Luke was then left in Philippi ( Acts 17:1: "THEY", Luke excluded) and then re-connected with Paul to travel with him on the third missionary journey ( Acts 20:5: "US").
Luke also accompanied Paul on his journey to Jerusalem & then to Rome and was with Paul during his imprisonment there ( 2 Timothy 4:11: which you had quoted). So, you can see that Luke, with many others (in the Church & on the 'mission field'), played a vital role in Paul's ministry & provided him with fellowship & encouragement. And of course Luke's medical knowledge, no doubt would have been useful to both Paul & maybe those in such need in their travels.
Is there any proof that you can share that would show without a doubt that these books were indeed inspired by God?
I find it interesting what Paul said in Acts 20:27, " For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God."
What a great verse!
He hasn't withheld anything from them. He wanted them to know the (whole council) of God. That's why he sat house to house and publicly, any way he could, day and night as a slave of Christ, in order that every believer that he came in contact with would have the whole council of God.
That is one of the reasons why we have these times together, to go through the whole bible, chapter by chapter to see what it says. To know the whole council of God!
Now, Paul's statement would not make much sense if he left any part of those apocryphal books out. And Paul says he gave them the entire council of God, meaning nothing left out.
However, in all of Paul's writings, he never once quoted from any of those books. None of the apostles did either.
Plus, not once did Jesus ever quote from any of those books. It would seem that if they were inspired, Paul would have taught from them.
Perhaps there might be some valuable historical information in these books, but are the truly inspired by God?
Now one may think, "if I devote myself to a mission then I don't have to work, the church should provide for me and my family". Is this right? What does the Bible says about that?
It is true that God gives to people who are missioners for Him the right not to work but live with what the church provides for them, so that they are not distracted from their mission, it is not possible to go travelling and work at the same time, it is very hard to work and supervise a church at the same time. There is hardly enough time for both. Paul deals with that extensively in 1 Corinthians 9:1-14.
But through ages a major problem has been created in Christianity. A right that was given by God to His people to help them to work for Him, has been taken advantage of by many to make it a profession and live from it. There are a lot of people who choose it as a profession. There are also many that they make millions from that. They often claim that God provides them with plenty of money for their mission to become easier. And they don't stop asking from believers persistently even by using/twisting God's Word, the tiths, which tiths are not valid now in New Testament.
The same problem seems to have occured in Paul's time. So what Paul decided to do was to deny that right and work with His own hands for him and his accompanions, 1 Cor 9:15-18. He also suggests that to the elders in Ephessus, Acts 20:32-35. But it also seems that many times he accepted help from churches, since it wasn't always easy to find a job in those places he travelled to. And many times he was left hungry and thirsty... 1 Cor 4:11-12.
I'm not sure if that's a question or a statement but if it's a question, I would say that Philippians was written by Paul mainly. But he also signs Timothy on.
He has Timothy with him. He also has Luke with him. But he says Paul and Timothy are the authors of the letter. Paul's inscription is on all thirteen of his letters.
Paul wrote to the church in Philippi. Philippi became the first European city to receive the gospel. The church at Philippi was founded during Paul's second missionary journey, recorded in Acts 16:8-12.
Epaphroditus was a messenger. He was also believed to be a pastor of the church in Philippi. Paul seems to have visited the church in Philippi twice. That is found in II Corinthians 1:16; Acts 19:21; Acts 20:1-3.
The church in Philippi sent Paul two love offerings for his missionary endeavors in Thessalonica, found in Philippians 4:15-16.
In fact, Paul said nobody else sent for support except for the Christians in Philippi, not once he said, but twice to support the missionary effort.
In 62 AD Paul finds himself as a prisoner in Rome. That is in Acts 28:30-31.
When the church heard of Paul's imprisonment in Rome, they again sent a love offering to him by way of Epaphroditus. Paul describes him as the pastor or messenger, the one that gives the messages in Philippi.
So Epaphroditus is sent 700 miles with this love offering to help Paul while he was imprisoned in Rome, and to minister to Paul there.
While in Rome, Epaphroditus became very sick and nearly died. At this time, some 10 years after his original visit to Philippi, Paul wrote the epistle of Philippians.
Paul writes to the Philippians both to thank them for their gift and also to report the good news of Epaphroditus' recovery.
Principle 3 (cont). I would say that there are verses showing validity of either argument (i.e. all believers are taken out at the Rapture) OR that some may be left behind whose garments are soiled as shown in Revelation 3:4 to be made purified. I have discussed this in more depth in my Revelation commentaries. We certainly do well to "test ourselves to see if we are in the faith" ( 2 Corinthians 13:5) in either event. Revelation 3:11 shows how we may forfeit our rewards at least; and 1 Corinthians 13:12-13 show how we may suffer loss if that happens. I would venture to say that the lack of discussion of the Bema Seat and a lackadaisical attitude in general to considering being in His Presence characterizes todays church in a large part. Naturally; with this attitude hearts become calloused ( Matthew 24:12); and we are also not urgent about fulfilling the Great Commission. The political correctness of today has infiltrated a church already defining doctrinal standards on a much broader road than the straight and narrow delineated by the scriptures. Such events were of course warned about by both Paul and Peter who agonized in prayer over what they knew would come after their demise ( Acts 20:29-31); 2 Peter 2:1).
In short; my point here is that none us should take for granted that we are saved without evidence of fruit; and none of us should rest on our laurels so to speak trusting that we will be raptured out of here. The same idea applies; we are free from our old nature but not free to imbibe once again in the world following our old sin nature. If the Kingdom of heaven isn't within our souls now it certainly won't be later. Whatever is the case with the Rapture itself there is certainly enough wisdom to go around to escape certain events beforehand that can be avoided if we are focusing on being seated in heavenly places ( Ephesians 2:6).
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.
Perhaps Acts 20:27 about the whole will of God is closest to the concept in this title. I have found a growing issue of many who have aberrant doctrines (losing one's salvation; or "modalism" but who have a correct interpretation of certain specific issues. Specifically; I have been looking at those who preach what I consider correct doctrine on the permanence of a marriage covenant while a first spouse remains alive. I have mentioned previously churches where I have fellowshipped that are either "Post or Amillenial" which I disagree with but nonetheless felt that I would regard it as a "secondary" issue after seeing the conviction of faith in general. Therefore; the first thing we have to consider is if the errant doctrine is in our own church or in someplace we are either surfing online or perhaps occasionally attending such as a Bible Study. I have been to VERY liberal groups on occasion where I have had the opportunity to challenge leadership when I had some time alone as well as try to be a witness to those needing some further insights into the Bible. Clearly even in this setting; when someone else wants to teach and says that we only need Jesus not the Bible (such as happened with a friend of mine recently) it is time to pull the Kenny Rogers and know when to walk away or run if we can't convince leadership to stop someone like this (in this case it was the guy's best friend and hopefully he heeded the warning of my friend).
A big component related to this subject goes from the extreme of "hyper grace" individuals to overly legalistic. Again; some latitude needs to be considered as to a style of worship and more importantly the REASON certain procedures are followed along with the character of those in leadershiip. It is an honor to jealously guard the honor of a congregation from wolves and to use scripture to back all things up; but we shouldn't make the way more narrow than Jesus intends.
I apologize that I am continuing this Sabbath discussion if you'd rather go on to something else, but before we finish would you please show, with KJB scripture only, why "the breaking of bread" and the gathering of the church can only be done on Sunday or if it is done on Sunday why it can't possibly be an extra day of the week the church is getting together? Why Acts 20:7 and
1 Cor. 16:2 has to be interpreted the way you see it. God Bless :)
Acts 20:7 makes clear that gathering of the saints occurred on the first day of the week to bolster the collection made according to 1 Corinthians 16:2. The prescident is really from the fact that Christ fulfilled Pentacost which was the 8th day of the week (or Sunday) in the O.T. times was celebrated 50 days after the Passover.
Since we are not to have certain days to be held above others as Romans 14:5-6 indicates; we have no right to dictate either Saturday or Sunday for worship as I see it. Again; the Old Testament command was for Israel specifically as anyone in the land who disrespected the Sabbath was severely punished (see Deuteronomy 5:14). Other laws in the Old Testament such as marriage were clearly upheld even with pagan societies (as we see with the case of John the Baptist when he was imprisoned for contesting with the marriage status of a secular leader married to his brother's wife). Murder was evident with Cain well before the law came out. The fact is that Saturday worship can no longer be as it was without the sacrifices and other ordinances of the O.T. times which have been gone since the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Christ is our Passover now ( 1 Corinthians 5:7) and the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath ( Matthew 12:8).
We also need to consider what Paul stated to those who were coming from pagan societies. He said in Acts 15:29 to avoid eating blood; or strangled animals (often done in pagan rituals) as well as sexual immorality. If Saturday worship was required you would expect something would be mentioned as all other things in the Commandments which are throughout the New Testament in the Gospels and Epistles.
There are further concerns with Adventist doctrines and Ellen White which I am not going to get into detail here; but this often is an added reason for this and other issues of contention. I agree that the edict of Milan enforcing Sunday worship is wrong also.
Lets talk from the scriptures.
1. Acts 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."
Isn't obvious here that the Breaking of bread was done during Sunday? Why does the text mention the breaking of bread? Answer, because at that time the breaking of bread was not done during the church service in the morning, but christians sat on tables in the evening and had it then, exactly the way Jesus did it with His disciples before He was crucified. (also see 1 Cor 11:20-32 where Paul talks about Lord's supper which was done on Lord's day/Sunday. If you look this up in history books those suppers were called "agapae" [grk for love, plural] and that habit was eventually abandoned sometime during the 2nd century) So we can understand how Paul kept teaching until midnight, otherwise one may wonder how true can be that Paul preached from morning to midnight. But from that little detail we know now that the breaking of bread was done on Sundays. We also find out that the breaking of bread was done every Sunday, not once every 2-3 months or whenever some planned it, like in some churches (If it was done once in a while the text would say "on one of the first days or a first day, in greek this is more clear than the Engl translation)
Now if Sabbath was still the main congregation day and holiday, would the christians perform the most important act of the church function on another day? I wouldn't think so.
It was the common practice of the New Testament church to gather on the first day of the week to break bread, bring together the offerings of the people, hear the preaching of the apostles, and worship with songs. ( Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:10)
Pentecost was on a the first day of the week and the disciples from then on continued to meet for worship on the first day to celebrate the day of Resurrection of Jesus. The apostles did go to the synagogues on the seventh say to preach, but this does not mean that they participated in the sacrifices, etc. of the Jewish faith on the seventh day. Historically, since Pentecost, the day of Christian communal worship has been uniformly on the first day of the week. This was not a decision nor a change of the "Catholic" church, rather, in Constantine's day, the Catholic Church, (which is what the new testament church grew into) was affirming as writ what was already standard practice in the church Jesus founded.
2nd century church leaders speak of the common custom of meeting on Sunday to worship, especially across the Gentile world.
At the council in Jerusalem, with Paul and the main apostles, John, James, and Peter, ( Acts 15) Saturday Sabbath worship was not one of the commands affirmed to be effective for Jew and Gentile alike who became believers. Ane Paul in Galatians was very adamant about not being required to keep specific festivals, holy days, or Sabbaths.
It was not an evil thing to begin worshipping on the first day of the week rather than the seventh day. It was how the Holy Spirit led the church from the beginning as it transitioned from Judaistic practices to Christian practices.
So let's begin with Jesus. Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." And the word beware means all of us should be alert, but especially shepherds, to identify not just false teaching, but false teachers, whose ways are subtle. They're clothing themselves with lamb's wool while they're wolves.
And Paul used the same Greek word for beware in Acts 20:28-29 when he said, "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. . . . I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock."
"IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE FLOCK, WE SHOULD EXPOSE FALSE TEACHERS AND MINIMIZE THE SPREAD OF THE GANGRENE."
Jesus used the same word again in Matthew 16:6, but he got more specific: "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Paul had the same kind of group in mind and the same kind of error in mind in Philippians 3:2 and 3:18: "Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh." And then verse 18:
"For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ." Then in Romans 16:17, he warned, "Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them."
BEWARE OF THE WOLVES.
God bless.
"3. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, 4. Have we not power to eat and to drink? 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?. 7. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock".
Also 1 Cor 9:14, "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."
A point of attention. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles...". They were all carying their wives together with them in their ministries. They didn't just leave them alone at home with the kids.
So what do we conclude from the above, should a minister get paid for his ministery or not? The answer seems to be, Yes, they should get paid.
But lets go to Acts 20:33-35, where Paul talks to the elders of Ephessus,
"33. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. 34. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. 35. I HAVE SHEWED YOU ALL THINGS , how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."
It is obvious that Paul suggestion is that ministers should follow his example and not use that right, but work with their own hands for their own needs. If they are not able to cover their needs, then in that case only, they must accept help(not wage) from the church, like sometimes Paul himself did.
In my last post I ended with a discussion of the legalism of the Pharisees; as well as those that have what I call "sloppy Agape" or attempt to gloss over sin and use grace and forgiveness of all past; present and future sins as their excuse. In both of these cases at least for those who remain in a church fellowship we see an idolization of the Pastor most often who no doubt is contributing to one or the other error mentioned here. A true believer would move on if there is heresy coming from one of their own (see Acts 20:30). Justifying self righteousness is aided; of course when someone is financially well to do and credits the church leadership that promises "sowing a seed" will add to prosperity for all (whether or not they are giving a large sum themselves). The opposite of this are those widows and old ladies who are fleeced to their last dollar mesmerized by a Pastor who promises health and happiness with obedience and warns against not doing this despite what common sense would otherwise show.
This first paragraph assumes corrupt leadership. Another sign of our faith is respecting elders and pastors who ARE feeding the flock and tending the sheep properly. (see 1 Timothy 5:17). Disrespect of such authority often mainfests in impatience if a sermon runs 5 minutes late; frustration when genuine financial needs are brought up; lack of participation and interest in prayer and doing service projects in the church and for the comunity; etc. Beyond this; the admonitions of 1 John about loving the brethren are ignored (see 1 John 4:20). Such parishioners will sometimes leave; and we shouldn't strive to force them to stay.
There are others attempting to spread false doctrines which were of course never part of the true flock (see 1 John 2:19). They may leave but if not need to be dealt with lest they be a cancer that affects the whole flock (see warning in Galatians 5:9).
LET US MEDITATE ON MATTHEW 10:16!!!
And so, Timothy was considered Jewish. And in case some of the Hebrew and Jewish people would hear that he's Jewish as he's traveling and wanted to corner him and pin him down as to whether he's been circumcised, and whether he's been through the synagogue ceremonies, Paul had him circumcised so that he would be free to preach the gospel in the synagogues.
Timothy was ordained by Paul and the Presbytery ( I Timothy 4:14; II Timothy 1:6).
He accompanies Paul on his third missionary trip ( Acts 19:22; Acts 20:4; II Corinthians 1:1, 19).
Timothy ministered in at least five churches as Paul's representative. He sent Timothy to:
1) Thessalonica ( I Thessalonians 3:2, 6).
2) Corinth ( I Corinthians 4:17; 16:10; II Corinthians 1:19).
3) Philippi ( Philippians 2:19-23).
4) Berea ( Acts 17:14).
5) Ephesus ( I Timothy 1:3).
Timothy was with Paul during Paul's first imprisonment ( Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1) and went to Philippi after Paul's release ( Philippians 2:19-23).
After Paul's release from his first imprisonment ( Acts 28:30), he revisited several cities leaving Timothy at Ephesus.
Paul went on to Macedonia from where he wrote Timothy this letter ( I Timothy 3:14-15).
Timothy was around 35-years of age when Paul wrote I Timothy.
Paul was arrested in Troas and taken to Rome and imprisoned for the second and last time.
Timothy also suffered imprisonment ( Hebrews 13:23).
Timothy was raised hearing Old Testament Scriptures ( II Timothy 3:14-15).
He joined Paul, along with Silas and Luke, during second missionary trip ( Acts 16:3).
Paul had Timothy circumcised so that he might have the freedom to preach the gospel in Jewish synagogues ( Acts 16:3; I Corinthians 9:20). He could not do that unless he was circumcised. And of course, Titus (another Gentile), he was not circumcised by Paul, and he even went to Jerusalem with Paul to attend the Jerusalem council.
And Paul refused to have him circumcised because he wasn't doing it out of the necessity of keeping the law, but as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:20, that whatever he does, he does for the purpose of reaching people for Christ.
So, when he had Timothy circumcised, it was because he knew that he would be in the Jewish synagogues and amongst the Jews, and they would not receive anything that Timothy had to say unless he was circumcised.
And by the way, a person is considered Jewish if your mother is Jewish and your father is not. You are considered Jewish as long as your mother is. If the father is Jewish, but the mother is not, you're not Jewish.
So, Timothy was accepted as a Jewish person, and he would be in the synagogues, but he was not circumcised, so Paul had him circumcised. Timothy was ordained by Paul and the Presbytery ( I Timothy 4:14; II Timothy 1:6). He accompanies Paul on his third missionary trip ( Acts 19:22; Acts 20:4; II Corinthians 1:1, 19).
The church at Philippi was founded during Paul's second missionary journey, recorded in Acts 16:8-12. Paul received a Macedonian Vision while in Troas and crossed the Aegean Sea to preach the gospel first in Philippi. That's found in Acts 16:8-10.
What happened was that on Paul's second missionary journey, he went by land and visited some of the cities that he had established during his first missionary journey. But what he wanted to do was pass those cities, and he wanted to go north and preach the gospel. But he said that Satan hindered him. That's all he said!
So, he decided that it must be a closed door, so I'll go south and preach the gospel, and he said the Holy Spirit hindered him. So, he went straight across and came all the way all the way to the coast of Troas, and he just sat there. I mean how much farther can you go? He's in Troas. He doesn't know what God wants him to do.
And so, while they were in Troas, that's when Paul received what is called the Macedonian vision. That is, a man from Macedonia appeared to him and said come over and preach the gospel to us. At which time Paul went. And as he went over, the first place where he landed, because all the vision said was come over to Macedonia, and so he landed first in Philippi and that's where he preached the gospel first.
In 57 AD, some five years after his first visit, and after his third missionary journey, Paul seems to have visited the church in Philippi twice. That is found in II Corinthians 1:16; Acts 19:21; Acts 20:1-3.
NOW FOR THE BOOK OF ROMANS:
I. ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
The author is Paul. His inscription is on all 13 of his letters. He always identifies himself in his letters.
II. WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN:
It was written around 56 to 57 A.D. It was written during the last three months of his third missionary journey as recorded in Acts 20:1-3. He wrote his letter from Corinth. He wrote Romans about three years before arriving there in Acts Chapter 28. So, three years prior to Paul arriving in Rome, he writes this letter to the Romans.
III. WHY IT WAS WRITTEN:
Paul had never been to Rome, and he desired to go there. We saw in Acts Chapter 19 where Paul expressed his need to see Rome. And remember, God actually told him when he was in Jerusalem that as you have given testimony for me here in Jerusalem, so you must witness for me in Rome.
Rome was the center of the Roman Empire. And so, they had already established in Ephesus and Philippi and some of the others over in Asia. They established mission points at that time. Paul wanted to come into Rome and there's a very good reason for it.
First of all, he had never been there. None of the apostles had ever been to Rome. Paul wanted to establish them in the doctrine of the Christian faith. We will notice as we begin this letter that he doesn't say "To the church in Rome." We know from Chapter 16 that there were a number of individuals. In fact, all of the names in Chapter 16 are Gentiles. They are Greek names.
We have already been warned about you.
Acts 20:28-30
Matthew 7:15-16
The sheep you are looking for - do not hear your voice.
Matthew 10:27-30
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
.....They cd not have refered to the H.G. as the Promise if he were not the multiplication of Jesus who is God the son..The Abrahamic Promise was earthy but the N.C. by the blood of Jesus is a heavenly Promise...Thats y God swore by his very self when he made this Promise in Gen 22:17....Thats y Jesus was saying to whom the Word came it made them Gods...And the scripture cannot be broken....Thats y Jesus was saying that which is born of the spirit is spirit which is our new inner man the H.G...The Israel of God....That manchild that is gonna rule all nations..As Romans 9:8 is saying its only the children of Promise that are counted for the good seed which is the H.G. and when God will pour out of his spirit on all flesh its gonna result in an Israel of God...Jacob was the 3rd person and his name was changed to ISRAEL...But it was just prophetic that the H.G. the 3 rd Person wd be the Israel of God which are Spirits as God is spirit...And this Israel of God are gonna be born in us who hear his words which are Jesus seeds....God wants perfect Praise and its only the babes and suckling that praise him perfectly and they are spirits...the H.G....Our new hearts and new spirits is the Kingdom...Unless ya receive the KINGDOM AS A LIL CHILD...His babes.
It is my sense that the Church number was now completed & the Marriage Supper could take place (of course, this is not specifically mentioned). What happened at the Rapture, was an 'harpazo' (snatching away) of the dead, made alive & to be forever with the Lord; nothing akin to a resurrection where saints remain on the Earth, restored & reigning with Christ. So, the question, 'cannot the Rapture of the dead be seen as a resurrection?' In one sense yes, as it clearly is a raising from a state of death, but then we see Matthew 27:50-53; Acts 9:36-43; possibly Acts 20:7-12; (& not to mention the several other personal resurrections in the OT). I see the Rapture of the Church as a specific resurrection to remove believers from the impending Great Tribulation & not part of the General Resurrection (First Resurrection). And 'the shout & the trump'? Maybe, the call to march from Heaven & the command for the saints to rise up to the clouds; something the heavenly host hear & the personal call to those in Christ & none else can hear?
Revelation 1:7: Jesus comes to defeat the enemy armies & the world will behold this spectacular sight. I don't think one can confidently relate the clouds in this verse with the clouds in 1 Thessalonians. Maybe just cloudy days, or specially created clouds for that purpose. Who knows. As well "with clouds" & "in clouds" might be significant, but I wouldn't pursue that. I'm sorry Jimbob that you find so many holes in the "pre-trib theory".
I will admit that most things written of the future can be open to many opinions, simply because we don't get a nice laid out timeline of events. It's a matter of how we put Scriptures together. If wrong in my understanding, so be it - it's just how the Scriptures fall into place for me. Now some believe that the post-trib position involves believers who survive the tribulation & also have to face that time of God's Wrath poured out as well, which neither you nor I believe. That's a plus for us!
In the Greek language, 'Joshua, or Yehoshua' (from the Hebrew), is translated as 'Jesus, or Iesous'. And we find the translators making the same change in Acts 7:45. So, the KJV translators are correct in understanding this Hebrew to Greek change, though as you wrote, it can be misleading to those unfamiliar with the account or reading through those verses very quickly. We can see from Hebrews 4:8, that the writer is referring back to verse 5 ("And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest": Psalm 95:11), & even all the way back to Hebrews 4:1 when the subject of 'Rest' is brought up.
Even though most Bible translations use the word 'Joshua', they are of course translating it correctly, but not according to the original Greek, which the KJV uses, & this name translates to 'Jesus'. If Greek was spoken in the Old Testament days, by all accounts, Joshua, who took over from Moses' leadership, would have been called 'Iesous, or Jesus'.
As for the RC Church changing the Sabbath to Sunday, I can't comment, not being RC. But the Bible shows that after Jesus died & rose from the dead, the early Church worshiped together on the Lord's Day, the first day of the week ( Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 6:2): Sunday. Sunday, to the Church then & now, never became the new Sabbath Day - Saturday always has been the correct Jewish Sabbath Day.
Jesus was taken down from the Cross & laid in the sepulchre prior to the commencement of the Sabbath (i.e. before Friday sundown), was in the grave the rest of Friday night, all day Saturday, & into the early hours of Sunday (considered three days). Then it was at day-break Sunday that the two Marys went to the sepulchre & learned that Jesus had risen from the dead. And this first day of the week (Sunday), was celebrated by the apostles & early Church (as it is now) in Christian fellowship, teaching & communion ( Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).
Hi Ani. GiGi has shared accurately with you and I would like to add some more thoughts for your study & consideration.
I'm unsure where you obtained this particular Bible study book from, as it's clearly slanted towards 'keeping of the Law'. Does your Church support this teaching or are you doing this study by personal choice?
Firstly, the Jewish Sabbath has always been the Saturday (from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) & was given to Israel as part of the other commandments for them to observe ( Exodus 20:8-11). Why was this particular Command given? It was the seventh day when the LORD ceased from His Work of creating & it was for a remembrance when God brought out His people "with a mighty hand & a stretched out arm": i.e. from the perennial state of bondage & hard labor in Egypt to a time of liberty & rest. Even when Israel collected their food (Manna) while in the desert, they were not allowed to gather it on the seventh day ( Exodus 16:19-30), indicating the sanctity of the Sabbath Day.
Secondly, the Christian observance of Sunday, is not a redefining of the Jewish Sabbath - it is what is termed, the Lord's Day ( Revelation 1:10), or the First Day of the Week ( Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2) - never the Sabbath.
Thirdly, the Church is not required to observe the Jewish Sabbath as we were never in bondage in Egypt & brought into Canaan. We were however, once in bondage to sin & the flesh & now given a glorious forgiveness & release into the Lord's Rest. See Matthew 11:28-30 and Hebrews 4:1-11. Not only is the Christian given Christ's Peace in his heart, but also a resulting rest that comes only from Him. And yet, there is also a coming rest ( Hebrews 4:9), where the word here is 'sabbatismos', or Sabbath Rest: a rest in God's Presence that will be one continual Sabbath Rest, when our earthly toils & hardships are finally over.
In the life of Christ; we see the perfect example for our own lives; that is Christ doing nothing except the Father's will. ( John 5:19). We are likewise instructed to learn to do the "good and perfect will of God" as described at the end of Romans 12:2.
I would strongly urge everyone here to study and memorize Romans 12:1-2 as it is a "package deal" in regard to what I am saying here and of course; more importantly the will of God for our lives after we are saved and being sanctified. We are "aliens" in this world and pilgrims if we are His own ( 1 Peter 2:11-12). This requires due diligence to not only fight indwelling sin; but to realize that the whole world system and those "powers and principalities" running it ( Eph. 6:12) are enemies which we fight against as the Spirit contends against the flesh. Without understanding the source of our temptations which as belivers is Satan then we are unable to recognize things that are affecting our "vain imaginations" ( Romans 1:21) as with the rest of the unregenerate to find solace and comfort in this world and what is seen by our eyes and promoted as things that will make us content. The enemy can only affect us if we allow access through our mind and senses to give him a stronghold; so that is why we need to have an Ephesians 6 mindset. Ephesians 6:16 on the fiery darts of the enemy and our shield of armor in the spiritual realm is particularly vital.
Sadly we have the natural tendency to look on things that are pleasing to our eyes (such as attractive women) and thus we need to ask God to show us how following His good and perfect will means we are to love those we are naturally repulsed toward and to find our greatest joys in service toward His Body which He purchased with His own blood ( Acts 20:28). That verse makes it clear that it is His church rather than our own. That comes from a proper fear of the Lord and a mature walk.
My church believes in receiving literally the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Communion, too.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-33 talks about the Holly Communion. In verse 27 he says, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.". Also in verse 29, " For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." If the bread and wine were just symbols nothing would happen when one receives them when having a sin, exactly because they are symbols (you can not sin against symbols). But exactly because they are not symbols but they are literally the Body and Blood of Jesus when one receives inside them Holly things when they are unclean, then damnation awaits for them.
How does the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The answer is by faith, no transformation of matter takes place(i.e. like the Catholics say), they are the Blood and Body of Christ by faith.
When should the church take communion? Many take Communion every 2-3 months or once a year, etc, etc. Although in the ancient Jewish church it seems that believers were receving the Communion everyday ( Acts 2:46), (although there is a dispute whether the specific verse talks about meals or communion), Paul in Acts 20:7 says, "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." Paul uses a definite article "the", not an "a" (it is more clear in greek). In modern English it would be: on Sunday, not on a Sunday. So it is every Sunday. Every Sunday believers must take care of themselves to repent for anything they have done during the past week and ask for forgiveness and then have Holly Communion and start the new week nice and clean. GBU
...Thats y the Lord was so upset with Peter commanding water baptism...When God Almighty had just made a new covenant in the blood of Jesus the lamb of God...3 times the Lord rebuked Peter with that sheet with all the unclean animals which is the Church that made Clean only by this new covenant in the blood of Jesus....Not by water baptism the old covenant cleasing...Its a slap in the face of God and the lamb of God when you fail to acknowledge this NEW Covenant on Calvary...We cannot mix 2 covenants...Remember this New Covenant included the very Blood of God Almighty.. Acts 20:28
Even John who gave us water baptism tells us t behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world...Thats y John told Jesus I have need to be baptised of you... Acts 10 :12...impling the blood of the lamb that New COVENANT....But after that Peter understood the vision he says then remembered I the words of our lord..John baptised you with water but I will baptise you with the H.G n fire...That New Covenant in his blood...Thats y Paul was so reluctant to water baptise he knew it wd make the Cross the blood of no effect... 1st Cor. 1:17...We cannot mix 2 Covenant...But the church was young and there was still water baptism going on...They didnt realize th Blood.Gbu
1Timothy 1:1-3, Acts 20:1-5, scriptures support Paul as the other writer
Hopefully these are helpful
The study of The Books/Chapters of Acts gives much detail of the ministry of Paul & Timothy (believing by comparison Timotheous is same person, spelling differentiation by translation)
Hopefully helpful in your study
Part 3
"A part of this was surely that the blood, as symbolized in the wine (of which some drank too much, vs. 21), was disregarded and profaned.
Not only is misconduct at the Lord's Table profaning the blood of Christ, but also absence from the Lord's Table. There are many who view communion as a ritual best to be endured, and then only occasionally. The New Testament saints remembered the Lord daily ( Acts 2:42-46), and later it was weekly ( Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.11:2 cf. 16:2). Those who consistently failed to commemorate the Lord's death not only disobeyed the command of the Lord ( Lk. 22:19-20) but they profane the blood He shed by valuing it so little that they fail to commemorate His death as He has instructed us. ....
There is essentially but one way in which non-Christians profane the blood of Jesus Christ, and that is esteeming it of so little worth that they seek acceptance with God on the basis of their own works, in place of the atonement, in which Christ shed His own blood. Imagine standing before the judgment seat of God (the Great White Throne) and having God ask you but one question, the answer to which determines whether you spend eternity in heaven or in hell. The question, I assure you, will be this, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE BLOOD OF MY SON?"
God cares nothing for what you have to offer, but only what He Himself has offered you, His only begotten Son: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." ( Jn. 3:16). How dare any man think he could offer God anything for his own redemption, when God has paid the price in full at the cost of the blood of His own Son."
I just thought that this portion of this article was so well said and worth consideration.
We may be able to think of other ways we can profane the blood of Jesus.
I think of when a believer shows acceptance of non-christian by Jesus without conversion. More ideas?
During Paul's second missionary journey, Luke connected with Paul in Asia Minor ( Acts 16:6-11. Verse 10 particularly indicates this: "WE endeavoured to go into Macedonia"). Luke was then left in Philippi ( Acts 17:1: "THEY", Luke excluded) and then re-connected with Paul to travel with him on the third missionary journey ( Acts 20:5: "US").
Luke also accompanied Paul on his journey to Jerusalem & then to Rome and was with Paul during his imprisonment there ( 2 Timothy 4:11: which you had quoted). So, you can see that Luke, with many others (in the Church & on the 'mission field'), played a vital role in Paul's ministry & provided him with fellowship & encouragement. And of course Luke's medical knowledge, no doubt would have been useful to both Paul & maybe those in such need in their travels.
Is there any proof that you can share that would show without a doubt that these books were indeed inspired by God?
I find it interesting what Paul said in Acts 20:27, " For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God."
What a great verse!
He hasn't withheld anything from them. He wanted them to know the (whole council) of God. That's why he sat house to house and publicly, any way he could, day and night as a slave of Christ, in order that every believer that he came in contact with would have the whole council of God.
That is one of the reasons why we have these times together, to go through the whole bible, chapter by chapter to see what it says. To know the whole council of God!
Now, Paul's statement would not make much sense if he left any part of those apocryphal books out. And Paul says he gave them the entire council of God, meaning nothing left out.
However, in all of Paul's writings, he never once quoted from any of those books. None of the apostles did either.
Plus, not once did Jesus ever quote from any of those books. It would seem that if they were inspired, Paul would have taught from them.
Perhaps there might be some valuable historical information in these books, but are the truly inspired by God?
Now one may think, "if I devote myself to a mission then I don't have to work, the church should provide for me and my family". Is this right? What does the Bible says about that?
It is true that God gives to people who are missioners for Him the right not to work but live with what the church provides for them, so that they are not distracted from their mission, it is not possible to go travelling and work at the same time, it is very hard to work and supervise a church at the same time. There is hardly enough time for both. Paul deals with that extensively in 1 Corinthians 9:1-14.
But through ages a major problem has been created in Christianity. A right that was given by God to His people to help them to work for Him, has been taken advantage of by many to make it a profession and live from it. There are a lot of people who choose it as a profession. There are also many that they make millions from that. They often claim that God provides them with plenty of money for their mission to become easier. And they don't stop asking from believers persistently even by using/twisting God's Word, the tiths, which tiths are not valid now in New Testament.
The same problem seems to have occured in Paul's time. So what Paul decided to do was to deny that right and work with His own hands for him and his accompanions, 1 Cor 9:15-18. He also suggests that to the elders in Ephessus, Acts 20:32-35. But it also seems that many times he accepted help from churches, since it wasn't always easy to find a job in those places he travelled to. And many times he was left hungry and thirsty... 1 Cor 4:11-12.
GBU
I'm not sure if that's a question or a statement but if it's a question, I would say that Philippians was written by Paul mainly. But he also signs Timothy on.
He has Timothy with him. He also has Luke with him. But he says Paul and Timothy are the authors of the letter. Paul's inscription is on all thirteen of his letters.
Paul wrote to the church in Philippi. Philippi became the first European city to receive the gospel. The church at Philippi was founded during Paul's second missionary journey, recorded in Acts 16:8-12.
Epaphroditus was a messenger. He was also believed to be a pastor of the church in Philippi. Paul seems to have visited the church in Philippi twice. That is found in II Corinthians 1:16; Acts 19:21; Acts 20:1-3.
The church in Philippi sent Paul two love offerings for his missionary endeavors in Thessalonica, found in Philippians 4:15-16.
In fact, Paul said nobody else sent for support except for the Christians in Philippi, not once he said, but twice to support the missionary effort.
In 62 AD Paul finds himself as a prisoner in Rome. That is in Acts 28:30-31.
When the church heard of Paul's imprisonment in Rome, they again sent a love offering to him by way of Epaphroditus. Paul describes him as the pastor or messenger, the one that gives the messages in Philippi.
So Epaphroditus is sent 700 miles with this love offering to help Paul while he was imprisoned in Rome, and to minister to Paul there.
While in Rome, Epaphroditus became very sick and nearly died. At this time, some 10 years after his original visit to Philippi, Paul wrote the epistle of Philippians.
Paul writes to the Philippians both to thank them for their gift and also to report the good news of Epaphroditus' recovery.
Principle 3 (cont). I would say that there are verses showing validity of either argument (i.e. all believers are taken out at the Rapture) OR that some may be left behind whose garments are soiled as shown in Revelation 3:4 to be made purified. I have discussed this in more depth in my Revelation commentaries. We certainly do well to "test ourselves to see if we are in the faith" ( 2 Corinthians 13:5) in either event. Revelation 3:11 shows how we may forfeit our rewards at least; and 1 Corinthians 13:12-13 show how we may suffer loss if that happens. I would venture to say that the lack of discussion of the Bema Seat and a lackadaisical attitude in general to considering being in His Presence characterizes todays church in a large part. Naturally; with this attitude hearts become calloused ( Matthew 24:12); and we are also not urgent about fulfilling the Great Commission. The political correctness of today has infiltrated a church already defining doctrinal standards on a much broader road than the straight and narrow delineated by the scriptures. Such events were of course warned about by both Paul and Peter who agonized in prayer over what they knew would come after their demise ( Acts 20:29-31); 2 Peter 2:1).
In short; my point here is that none us should take for granted that we are saved without evidence of fruit; and none of us should rest on our laurels so to speak trusting that we will be raptured out of here. The same idea applies; we are free from our old nature but not free to imbibe once again in the world following our old sin nature. If the Kingdom of heaven isn't within our souls now it certainly won't be later. Whatever is the case with the Rapture itself there is certainly enough wisdom to go around to escape certain events beforehand that can be avoided if we are focusing on being seated in heavenly places ( Ephesians 2:6).
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.