Acts 20:7 (ESV)"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight."
Seventh-day Adventists Arguments:
Objection #1.
"It is actually Saturday Evening not Sunday":
The SDA Bible Commentary clearly explains why they believe this event occurred on "Saturday evening" by using the Jewish system of time:
"Inasmuch as Jewish reckoning began the day at sunset, by that system the dark part of the first day of the week would be the night preceding Sunday, our Saturday night. Such reckoning continued for centuries among Christians, and it is reasonable to think that Luke, whether Gentile or not, may have used it in his narrative. Accordingly, Paul’s meeting at Troas would have begun after sunset on Saturday night and would have continued through that night. The next day, Sunday, he would have walked to Assos." [1]
According to the SDA Bible Commentary, it is clear that Luke used Jewish reckoning. Therefore, the "first day of the week" or Sunday in this verse refers to the night portion that comes before the daylight portion of Sunday, based on the Jewish evening-to-morning parts of the Jewish 24-hour day.
This is further emphasized in their SDA Bible, The Clear Word, in Acts 20:7:
"After sundown on Saturday night, the believers got together for a fellowship meal and to say goodbye to Paul. That evening he spoke to them until midnight, after which he hoped to get a few hours of sleep before leaving early Sunday morning." [2]
Answer:
The majority of biblical scholars believe that the passage in Acts 20 suggests the use of the Roman reckoning of time. Troas, being a Roman colony and Rome's second capital in Asia, would have had predominantly Gentile citizens who did not follow Jewish customs. Therefore, adopting a non-Roman method of measuring time would be illogical and lacks historical evidence. The translation of Acts 20:7 as "Saturday evening" or "first day of the week" can indeed be influenced by the cultural and audience context of the Book of Acts. Considering that Luke, a Gentile physician, wrote to Theophilus, likely a Gentile, it is plausible that the Gentile method of time reckoning would be used. In a Gentile context, particularly in a Gentile city, the day would typically begin at midnight, aligning with the Roman civil day, rather than at sunset as in Jewish tradition.
Therefore, translating the passage as "first day of the week" would resonate more with Gentile readers who would understand the events as occurring on Sunday, the day after the Roman Saturday. This translation would also reflect the early Christian tradition of gathering on Sunday, the day of Christ's resurrection, which became the primary day of worship for Christians, distinct from the Jewish Sabbath. The purpose of using Gentile time reckoning in the Book of Acts could be to communicate more effectively with the intended audience and to emphasize the distinct identity and practices of the early Christian community, which was increasingly Gentile in composition. It underscores the transition from Jewish customs to a new Christian identity that embraced both Jewish and Gentile believers.
If the "next day" did not begin until after sunset on Sunday evening, according to the Jewish measurement of a "day" (from sundown to sundown), Paul would have had to leave after sundown on Sunday. However, verse 11 tells us that he left at "daybreak." If this is accurate, Paul would have needed to stay with them for two whole nights before leaving on Monday at daybreak. This cannot be reconciled with the context of the passage. Acts 20:7–12 describes events that took place entirely throughout one night. For this reason, the phrase "next day" in verse 7 presents serious issues for proponents of the Jewish reckoning of time.
Objection #2.
"To begin with, there is no evidence that this gathering was a regular weekend service, as it is often assumed to have been. The context would rather suggest that this was a special farewell meeting for the apostle Paul, who was leaving the following morning. The fact that this meeting was held on “the first day of the week" does not make it evident that the Christians of Troas habitually met on that day."[3]
Answer:
Acts 20:7 does not say that their gathering was for a special farewell meeting for the apostle Paul. Instead, the reason for their gathering was to break bread:
Acts 20:7 (ESV) "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight."
The SDA book "Sabbath in Scriptures and History" also agrees that the reason for their gathering was to break bread, not for Paul's farewell meeting:
"The purpose of the night gathering, Luke declares, was “to break bread.” [4]
However, SDAs might argue that the "break bread" mentioned here refers not to the Lord's Supper or Communion, but to an ordinary fellowship meal, as suggested by their Clear Word translation.
"After sundown on Saturday night, the believers got together for a fellowship meal and to say goodbye to Paul. That evening he spoke to them until midnight, after which he hoped to get a few hours of sleep before leaving early Sunday morning." [5]
Due to the inconsistent and changing teachings of the SDA church, their official magazine for SDA pastors, The Ministry, contradicts this by stating that the "breaking bread" in Acts 20:7 is not just an ordinary meal but indeed refers to Communion or the Lord's Supper:
"In Acts 20:7-11 we have an account of a religious service, in which "Paul preached unto them"(verse 7), which indicates that this was not a gathering merely for a common meal."[6]
The "fellowship meal" interpretation according to the SDA Bible, The Clear Word, clearly contradicts their recognized messenger and prophet, Ellen G. White, who attests that the "breaking bread" in Acts 20 refers specifically to Communion or the Lord's Supper:
Sketches From the Life of Paul p. 197:
"They partook of the communion, and then Paul continued his discourse till the dawn of day."
The Acts of the Apostles p. 391:
"They partook of the communion, and then Paul 'talked for a long while, even till break of day."
Do SDAs even realize how confusing their teachings can be? Ironically, their claim of Ellen G. White being a supposed prophet of God is contradicted by their own statements. It's quite confusing, isn't it? It's also a significant mistake for SDAs to claim that the Sunday worship described in Acts 20:7 "does not make it evident that the Christians of Troas habitually met on that day" for the following reasons:
a.) Since we've established that even SDAs cannot deny that the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 refers to anything other than the Last Supper or Communion, Christians have been commemorating this as a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice on the cross since the time of the apostles. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Sunday service at the church in Troas was a regular weekly Sunday service.
b.) Christians have been regularly worshiping on Sundays even before the apostle Paul went to Troas, as stated in 1 Corinthians 16:2:
1 Corinthians 16:2 (MSG) "Every Sunday each of you make an offering and put it in safekeeping. Be as generous as you can. When I get there you’ll have it ready, and I won’t have to make a special appeal."
Since offering is part of the regular Sunday service, just like Communion, as seen in Sunday churches worldwide, this proves that Acts 20:7 is evidence that Christians in Troas habitually met every Sunday, not only when the apostle Paul was present, but even after he had left Troas!
Objection#3
"If, however, the meeting was on Sunday night, the breaking of bread, which took place after midnight, must have been on Monday morning. Hence, though it could have been the Eucharist, it would afford little evidence for Sundaykeeping. . . Furthermore, verse 11 speaks only of Paul as eating bread, not the entire congregation. Also, there is no mention of a cup nor of any prayers."[7]
Answer:
Is the argument of the SDAs correct that if Luke used Roman reckoning in Acts 20:7, the breaking of bread or Communion would fall on Monday?
Let's read verse 11:
Acts 20:11 (ESV) "And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed."
Unfortunately, the SDAs misunderstand verse 11. They claim that only Paul ate the bread alone and not with the entire congregation, and since this happened around midnight, it would make it Monday if it were truly Communion.
Is that really the case? No, it's not. The author of "Sabbath in Scripture and History" simply misunderstood verse 11. The correct interpretation of verse 11 mentions two distinct events: the breaking of bread, which refers to Communion, and the love feast or fellowship meal of the early Christians.
SDAs can more easily understand my point if they refer to their own Bible translation, The Clear Word, which supports my argument:
Acts. 20.11 "When the young man got up, the believers rejoiced, and everyone went back upstairs to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and have their fellowship meal. Paul spoke to them until early morning. As the day began to dawn, he said goodbye and we were on our way." [The Clear Word]
Even the SDA Bible Commentary on Acts 20:11 testifies that the breaking of bread in this verse refers to Communion, and they derived this view from Ellen G. White's book, The Acts of the Apostles, page 391. If the SDAs' argument were correct, it would imply that their Lord's Supper should be on Monday, not Saturday!
"Had broken bread. “They partook of the communion” (AA 391). See Matt. 26:26–30; Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 11:23–30; see on Acts 2:42. This was a planned feature of what apparently otherwise was an informal gathering (see on v. 7)." [8]
It is also clear from the SDAs' own translation, The Clear Word, that it wasn't the celebration of the Lord's Supper that extended until dawn or the next day i.e. Monday, but rather the fellowship meal or the regular meal of the entire congregation in Troas. This highlights yet another contradiction among SDA theologians. Hopefully, SDA members will notice this inconsistency and realize the uncertainty in the teachings of the SDA church, and more importantly, the lack of assurance regarding their salvation. As the saying goes, "Stupidity is knowing the truth, seeing the truth, but still believing the lies!"
I am not saying that SDAs are stupid. What I mean is that any SDA who notices the numerous errors in SDA teachings, as exposed by the Former Adventist Philippines ministry, yet still believes that the SDA church is the true church and that Ellen G. White is a true prophet, despite the undeniable mistakes, is exhibiting what can be called "stupidity."
Conclusion:
We have learned how to refute and expose the incorrect interpretation of Acts 20:7 by the SDAs. Drawing from the authorized publications of the SDA church, we examined their various objections to the idea that Acts 20:7 refers to a weekly and regular Sunday worship with Communion, rather than an ordinary gathering of believers due to Paul's departure from Troas.
First, we presented evidence that Luke used Roman reckoning in Acts 20:7. Considering that Luke, a Gentile physician, wrote to Theophilus, likely a Gentile, it is plausible that the Gentile method of time reckoning would be used. In a Gentile context, particularly in a Gentile city, the day would typically begin at midnight, aligning with the Roman civil day, rather than at sunset as in Jewish tradition.
Hence, based on the Roman reckoning, where the day changes from midnight to midnight with the morning preceding the evening, the disciples, along with Paul in Troas, planned and intended to gather for worship and Communion at sundown on Sunday. This gathering began with a conversational dialogue among the believers in Troas.
However, an unexpected accident occurred when a young man named Eutychus fell from a window. By God's grace, his life was restored through the prayer of the apostle Paul. After this, according to verse 11, the disciples went back upstairs and, continuing their worship, celebrated Communion or the Lord's Supper. Following this, they had dinner through a love feast or fellowship meal while Paul continued his discourse until dawn (Monday). When the sun rose, Paul departed from Troas.
This historical account is recorded in the New Testament and cannot be changed. It is sad to see that the SDAs are still trying to reinterpret history to avoid acknowledging that the Bible mentions Christians worshiping on Sunday, their day of gathering as a church where they could celebrate Communion—something they could never do in Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath. This highlights that for early Christians, the significance of Christ's death was more important than strictly adhering to Sabbath worship. This is in stark contrast to the SDAs, who prioritize worshiping on the exact day of the Jewish Sabbath over giving more significant attention to the gospel of salvation that Christ completed on the cross.
Footnote:
[1] Francis D. Nichol, Ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980), 6:387.
[1] Francis D. Nichol, Ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980), 6:387.
[2] The Clear Word Acts 20:7
[4] ibid. p. 123
[5] The Clear Word Acts 20:7
[7] Sabbath in Scripture and History p. 123
No comments:
Post a Comment