Acts 20:7: The First Day of the Week, or a Sabbath?

[TWTY-Admin]

Please discuss the latest blog post here

http://www.thewaytoyahuweh.com/new-blog ... day-or-not

[Rob]

Some argue that the pattern for Passover, UB and FF is three days in a row, each and every year - and that the day after the Sabbath is the day after the first day of UB. This removes the "issue" of the first day of First Fruits being a Sunday.

Other than the actual year Yahushua was upright on the pole, (because that year everything conjoined - Passover into Sabbath) this would mean that it would be a while before another year when it fell like that again. With that mindset the Sunday spoke about above wouldn't be the first day of FF, which is obviously against the evidence.

What other evidence is there for this not being true?

[TWTY-Admin]

Good question there Rob.

Again, we have to look at what Yahuweh says in the Torah regarding His seven feasts, although concentrating on the second, third, and fourth feasts, as the times for each of them is reliant on the other.

First is the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Lev 23:6-8: And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to Yahuweh; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a set-apart assembly; you shall not do any ordinary work. But with the adoptive mother you shall be near to Yahuweh for seven days. On the seventh day is a set-apart assembly; you shall not do any ordinary work.

So, the Festival of Unleavened Bread is to start on the fifteen day of the first month of ‘Abiyb, and to end on the twenty-first day, both these days (15th & 21st) being days where we’re not to do any work. But take note of the following: Yahuweh hasn’t call these two days/dates (15th and 21st) “Sabbaths” in this instruction. Whilst they would certainly be “sabbaths”, in that like the seventh day of the week we don’t do any work on them, Yahuweh hasn’t used the word to refer to these days of rest. This is really important when it comes to the next few verses.

Lev 23:9-11: And Yahuweh spoke to Moshe, saying, “Speak to the people of Yisra’el and say to them, ‘When you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the Firstfruits of your harvest to the priest, and he shall wave the sheaf before Yahuweh, so that you may be accepted. On the day after the Sabbath (ה שבת = ha Shabbat) the priest shall wave it.”

So here, we can see that the “sheaf of the Firstfruits” is to be waved “before Yahuweh” on the day “after the Sabbath.” Notice that Yahuweh doesn’t say “on the 16nd day of the first month”, the specific days and dates which he declared for Passover (14th day of the 1st month), and the start of the festival of unleavened bread (15th day of the 1st month). If Firstfruits always happened on the 16th day of the first month, why hasn’t Yahuweh specified it as such? He did specify the specific days for Passover and the first day of unleavened bread, yet He decides not to do so for the feast of Firstfruits? He also specifies the specific day for the feast of trumpets (1st day of the seventh month - Leviticus 23:24), the Day of Reconciliations (10th day of the seventh month - Leviticus 23:27), and for the Festival of Tabernacles (15th day of the seventh month - Leviticus 23:34), but not for Firstfruits, which, if we were to agree with popular opinion, always happened on the day after the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, the day after the festival of unleavened bread always being the 16th day of the first month.

But this is not what Yahuweh says. He specifically says the waving of the sheaf was to be done “on the day after the Sabbath”. If this was to be a reference to the 16th day of ‘Abiyb, then Yahuweh would’ve said so.

The fact of the matter is this: As the festival of Unleavened bread was always a week long, during the week there would always be a Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, which as explained to us from Exodus 20:8-11 is referred to as “the Sabbath”, or in Hebrew - ה שבת = ha Shabbat (and repeated in Leviticus 23:3). If the 14th day of the first month (Passover) was, let’s say, on a Monday, then the first day of the Festival of Unleavened bread, the 15th day of the first month, would happen on a Tuesday, and then end the following Tuesday. During this week, there would be a Saturday, which is always a day of rest/the Sabbath, and never changes. So during the festival of Unleavened Bread, as long as it didn’t fall on a Saturday, there would be three days where we weren’t to do any work - the first day of the festival, the Saturday Sabbath that fell during the week of the festival, and the final day of the festival.

But Yahuweh doesn’t refer to the first and last days of the Festival of Unleavened Bread as “the Sabbath”, so what can He be referring to when He says that the priest is to wave the sheaf “on the day after the Sabbath”, if not the day after the Sabbath - a Sunday in our reckoning. If Yahuweh had wanted the waving of the sheaf to happen on the 16th day of the month of ‘Abiyb each and every year, He most certainly would’ve said so. But as it happens, He has stated that He wants the waving of the sheaf to happen on the day after the Sabbath, which will always be a Sunday.

There’s even further proof if we look to the timing of the Feast of Weeks as mentioned in Leviticus 23.

Lev 23:15-16: You shall count seven full weeks (Hebrew = Sabbaths) from the day after the Sabbath (ה שבת = ha Shabbat), from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering. You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath (in Hebrew literally “the Sabbath the seven” = the seventh Sabbath). Then you shall be near the renewed gift of Yahuweh.

Not only does this repeat what we found out above - that the waving of the sheaf was to happen on the day after ha Shabbat/the Sabbath - but it also tells to count “seven full weeks/Sabbaths”, the word translated as “full” being the Hebrew tamiym meaning “complete, whole, full, and entire”. So we could translate the first part of the verse as “You shall count seven complete Sabbaths”. Why is this important?

It is important because Yahuweh tells us that we are to count “fifty days”, up until the day after the “seventh Sabbath”. This therefore means that there has to be 6 more Sabbaths before the seventh Sabbath. As the Sabbath day always marked the end of a week (as you know, the Sabbath day is always on the seventh day of the week), asking them to count seven Sabbaths is an easy way of keeping time. Also, as the Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week, and we were to count seven Sabbaths in order to keep the Feast of Weeks, 7x7=49, and then the day after the seventh Sabbath (day number 49) would day number 50, the Feast of Weeks, which again would fall on the first day of the week, as it fell after the seventh Sabbath. The Feast of Firstfruits then would make the 1st of the 50 days that led up to the Feast of Weeks.

If we were to take it that the Feast of Firstfruits always happened on the day after the first day of the Festival of Unleavened bread, on the 16th day of the first month of ‘Abiyb, then we’re going to be off in our counting in about 5 of every 6 years.

Let’s take my example from above: Passover in a certain year falls on a Tuesday (Monday evening to Tuesday evening), the 14th day of the first month. The first day of the Festival of Unleavened bread would therefore fall on a Wednesday (Tuesday evening to Wednesday evening), the 15th day of the first month. The Feast of Firstfruits would therefore fall on a Thursday (Wednesday evening to Thursday evening), the 16th day of the first month. We are then to count seven full Sabbaths, starting from this day, the 16th day of the first month. We’re already on Thursday, so the first full Sabbath falls 2 days later on the Saturday (Friday evening to Saturday evening). As Yahuweh has told us in Leviticus 23:15, the first day of the 50 days that lead up to the Feast of Weeks, is also the same day that the Feast of Firstfruits takes place. So in this year that we’re looking at, Thursday is day 1, Friday is day 2, and so Saturday, the first full Sabbath, is day number 3.

Remember, we’ve got seven full/complete Sabbaths to count, so if the first full Sabbath is day number 3; the second full Sabbath would be day number 10; third would be 17; fourth would be 24; fifth would be 31; sixth would be 38; and the seventh full/complete Sabbath day would be day number 45. In this year, taking Passover, Unleavened Bread, and Firstfruits happening on the day after each other, our Feast of Weeks would be taking place 46 days from the Feast of Firstfruits - we’re off by four days!

We’d be off every single year, apart from the years that Passover ended up being on a Friday, and so Firstfruits ending up being on a Sunday. If Firstfruits fell on a Monday, we’d be out by 1 day; Tuesday by 2; Wednesday by 3; Thursday (as seen) by 4; Friday by 5; and on a Saturday by 6.

For the Feast of Weeks to fall on the day after the seventh Sabbath, then the Feast of Firstfruits has to fall on a Sunday, or, as Yahuweh tells us, “the day after the Sabbath”.

[GldChow]

Shalom, my first visit.
Great article but my Ordained Baptist Minister/Missionary (over 55 years) will assure me that my soul is at risk if I continue listing to your confused drivvle.

Got some new voices Steve and am working on a better read of Proverbs.

Got a big white thinge blowing today.

Shalom,
. . . jest me 'n Dog.

[Noel]

Hi Stephen

We liked your study on the first day of the week. Is is quite clear to me that nothing changed in those early years regarding the sabbath day, and that it was subsequently altered (constantine ?) some time later for Mithratic reasons we all know. In my cursory attempt to find out the history of exactly how we got to the KJV via all the various translations, manuscripts and individuals like Jerome (vulgate) Erasmus (T.Receptus) it appears that they have one thing in common, and that being that they were either Catholic priests or commissioned by the catholic church.

On the scriptural assumption that a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit, one has to question the doctrinal position of the whole of reformed christianity, in that it is only a branch of the original tree, Catholicism.

Purely from that rather simplistic standpoint, there can be not sensible justification not to question the whole ball of wax.

Noel

[TWTY-Admin]

That is a very, very good point Noel.

Several of the reformers wanted to fully break off from the Roman Catholic Church, starting a new tree. The Anabaptists were one such group, but they were severely persecuted by not only the Roman Catholic Church, but by Lutherans and other such "Protestant" Christians.

However, most of the "Protestant" reformers were pretty much watered-down RC Priests, holding on to many of the same beliefs, but just replaced the pope with a Pastor instead.

Roman Catholics at the time of the reformation were very quick, and very right, to point out that if any "protestant" had a Sabbath day on a Sunday, he was following church tradition and nothing outlined in Scripture.

So whilst it is most certainly wrong to change the Sabbath day to a Sunday, gathering together on a Sunday to do things isn't forbidden in Scripture.

If only people had eyes that could see, and ears that could hear

[Rob]

it's probably better to meet on another day than the Sabbath anyway as it can become a little too much. Sabbath is more designed to be a quiet day for you to reflect, not deal with the many issues that happen when you put a group of people together

[Noel]

And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me [him] up, whom I shall name unto thee


As to 'types' in scripture, king Saul is nominally the nearest to Saul of Tarsus.

I came across the above verse from 1.Sam 28 .28 and it occurred to me that for those of you/us? who are making their mind up about Paul, this may have a sort of prophetic prediction about it. Not trying to push anyone in any particular direction, and maybe I'm being a bit too imaginative.

Any ideas anyone?

Noel

[Rob]

I think you are being too imaginative lol

[TWTY-Admin]

If we were to think that everyone named in Scripture was an adumbration of all those with the same name, we'd have to pretty much say that everyone named Judah/Judas were all traitors and betrayers. As they weren't, I would go with the 'imaginative' bit

Coincidences do happen, so the fact that Paul had the same name as King Saul (who for a while was Yahuweh's "anointed one", if people recall) who eventually turned his back on Yahuweh, doesn't necessarily mean that everyone with the same name is of the same vein

[Noel]

Yes. I think you are right on this.

n

[Noel]

So if Paul is the basis of Christianity (which he is) and Christianity is basically a false religion (as per CW etc, ) who were the Revelation letters to the 7 churches written to and by whom? Were they written to 7 false religious systems and if so why are some of them commended?

N

[TWTY-Admin]

Well I would rather say that Galatians, not Paul, is the basis of Christianity. As for "to whom" were the 7 letters in Revelation written to, then I guess that whilst Christianity as a whole is a false religion, there are some people encased within it whom understand a heck of a lot, and try to change the status quo. John Wycliffe, a Christian from Yorkshire, was one such person. He went up against the Roman Catholic church full throttle, and got the Lollards to produce an English translation of Scripture for the masses. Granted they used the Latin Vulgate as the foundation of the translation, but they didn't really have access to Greek manuscripts.

That changed when William Tyndale came along. Oddly enough, thanks to Erasmus and his production of the Greek NT (which eventually came to be known as the "Received Text" or "Textus Receptus", although this title was only applied to it about 200 years after Erasmus' death, and after it had gone through a further 6 revision since then too), we finally had a Greek basis that people could work from. Tyndale took this chance by the horns, and went and did something no one before him had ever attempted to do: translate the Greek NT into English. (Contra CW, William Tyndale did not "revise" Wycliffe's translation of the Latin - he did a brand new translation from scratch.)

Not an easy task, especially as English had yet to have any sort of formalised rules or structure. It was basically Tyndale who decided on most of our grammar rules, and how to structure an English sentence (Subject - verb - object/Main thing in question - what this thing is doing - what this thing is affecting). And thanks to the printing press, his translation of the Greek NT flooded England, and was the major driving force in the English reformation. It also basically gave us the English language as we know it too. Go Tyndale!

John and William would probably be to whom the "letter to the Philadelphians" was written to - despite the fact that they professed to be "Christians", they appear to have understood enough to be very highly recommended.

[Rob]

who were the Revelation letters to the 7 churches written to and by whom?

It was John who wrote Revelation - and the letters were dictated to him by Yahushua. So it was Yahushua speaking to the Called Out assemblies via John.

Galatians is really the problem with Christianity, but the bigger problem is that it is also it's foundation. If you view the rest of the NT writings without looking through Galatians (and correctly translate as much as you can from the oldest manuscripts) you will find other than Paul being a bloke who had a lot of idea's, he was actually very pro-Torah. It is only Christianity and Christian translators who twist Paul to say it dosen't matter anymore - hence why no scholar will stand up and say "Galatians was not written by Paul" Coz it's like a Muslim saying Allah dosen't exist. Ok maybe they won't get murdered but they would really rock the boat, and nothing would change because - and I quote "This is the way we have always done it".

And yes - Christianity is a false religion, but I know if I had not once been a Christian I would not have made it to where I am now. Life is a serious of steps, sometimes the steps we take lead us into the wrong area - but as long as we keep walking we will always come out the other side. The problem with Christianity is that there is a great comfy chair and cup of tea right in the middle of it

[Noel]

Rob. This is a wonderful description of christianity.(comfy chair)

Me also. Would not be where I am if it were not for christianity.

Stephen.............Erasmus was a R.C. priest and (we think) possibly a bit perverted according to some. He was also a humanist and defended the doctrine of transsubstantiation. So the Textus Receptus is not a good base, is it ? having passed through his pen.

N

[TWTY-Admin]

All Erasmus actually did was compile some 12 Century Greek manuscripts into a book that could be printed and distributed. The printing press was also the brain child of a RC member and was originally used to print indulgence slips.

Is the TR a perfect base? No, far from it. But it's still at least 70% correct, which was better than the Latin Vulgate.

To be frank, wet paint is a better basis than the LV

No matter what sort of evil person Erasmus was, he actually didn't do all that much editing when it came to the TR - he just put it together based on Greek manuscripts that he went around to try and find and collect.

And if it wasn't for the printing of the Greek NT by Erasmus, then Roman Catholic rule would've last a heck of a lot longer than it did. The Greek NT printed thanks to Erasmus was a significant driving force in removing the RC rule, as people saw how bad the Vulgate actually was, and it meant men like William Tyndale could produce something much, much more worthwhile

[danshelper]

This is probably a completely different topic, but is the term “week” in Acts 20:7 the same 7-day cycle as we understand, or did the term refer to the 8-day market cycle of the former Roman Republican Calendar? The following quotes are from a yahoo document, Enoch and the Full New Moon Calendar (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RepairThe ... message/16)

“ … the Romans had no 7-day week in the time of Messiah Yahwah and His apostles. Any reference to a “week” in the New Testament IS NOT a reference to the same cycle known today as a week. The 7-day cycle known today as a week was completely unknown to the Romans of the New Testament times, having not been invented by them yet! …

The earliest evidence of the beginning of the development of the planetary week was found at Pompeii, the amazing Roman city destroyed by a volcanic eruption during the final quarter of the first century ….

We should stress again that this innovation of a 7-day planetary week did not arise in the Roman Empire till after the writing of most if not all of the New Testament books: “Since the earliest evidence for the existence of the planetary week is to be dated toward the end of the first century A.D.” – W. Rodorf ….

It would take over a century more for the ceremonial planetary week to evolve into the institution of a continuous 7-day week cycle used in dates. The earliest known instance of this is from 205 AD, in an inscription from Karlsburg, Transylvania while the earliest case from the eastern empire is a school lesson from Egypt, dated 294 C.E.”

Thanks for your input.

[Rob]

We know Israel was keeping a 7 day week - so whether or not the Romans had an 8 day week or not, it dosen't really matter. Plus the planetary week is not what Israel followed anyway.

The people living in Israel at the time would have used both, if one was based on Roman trade/markety style that was 8 day, and the constant always used 6 + 1. The reason they would have done this is because of Sabbath and the reason they would have kept it is because they are sticklers for tradition

Some little bits I just found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cale ... inal_cycle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TWTY-Admin]

It should also be pointed out that the Greek word for "week" - εβδομάδα/ebdomada - isn't used in Acts 20:7, nor actually anywhere in the RC writings.

Probably due to the confusion that took place with εβδομάδα/ebdomada and the Roman's 8-day market week.

However, I had completely forgotten that the Roman's used a weird week schedule - thanks for reminding me DH!

[danshelper]

due to the confusion

To be a Greek speaking Hebrew living under Roman civil and Jewish religious law ... just thinking about it makes my head spin!