Now while Peter doubted in
himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men
which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood
before the gate, And called, and asked whether Simon,
which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. While Peter thought on the
vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise
therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have
sent them.
Peter’s vision did not mean, we may now go eat cats, dogs and cockroaches. Peter tells us what the vision meant in verse
28.
Acts 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a
Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or
unclean.
Acts
13:13-14
Now when Paul and his company
loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga
in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned
to Jerusalem. But when they departed
from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day,
and sat down.
Another
verse showing Paul observing the Sabbath day.
Acts 13:42
And when the Jews were gone
out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be
preached to them the next sabbath.
If the Gentiles were meeting
with the disciples on Sunday, then why did the Gentiles ask the disciples to
preach the sermon on the next Sabbath?
Why didn’t the Gentiles just ask the disciples to preach this tomorrow
at church? Why wait a whole week to hear
it again?
Continuing
with verses 43-44
Now when the congregation was
broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and
Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
And the next sabbath day
came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that
they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of
the Greeks believed.
These verses are more verses
that show that the disciples and the Gentiles were meeting on the Sabbath
day.
Acts 15:1
"And certain men which
came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye
cannot be saved."
In many conversations that I
have had, the first “proof” people give, that the law was abolished was when
the disciples decided that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be
saved. A person will say, “See, we know
that circumcision is abolished and all the Gentiles have to do is “abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
blood”. If you look at the verses in
context, starting from the first verse, you should see that the whole debate
was not if the law still applies....it was do you have to be circumcised to
"be saved".
Acts 15:5
"But there rose up
certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was
needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law
of Moses."
Some will point out the above
verse and say, “see this proves that the debate was also if they Gentiles
should keep the law”. The Pharisees were
usually crafty at their words. The Pharisees obviously wanted the Gentiles to
be circumcised. So they are going to gain influence to theie side by every
little means possible. They purposely said, “and to
command them to keep the law of Moses”, because it makes a stronger point for
their case than, “Are we going to require the Gentiles to be circumcised”.
Because again¼.that was what the whole debate
was about. The debate was not,
if they should keep the law of Moses. And actually, later in this same discussion,
the disciples acknowledge the law.
Continuing
with verses 6-7
And the apostles and elders
came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much
disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how
that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth
should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Jesus walked with his disciples
for 40 days after he rose from the dead. That is at least 5
weekly Sabbaths plus one High Sabbath (the last day of unleavened bread). If
Jesus did "nail the law to the cross"...don't you think he would have
mentioned it during those 40 days. Don't you think that when his
Mom or someone was preparing unleavened bread for him on the last days of
unleavened bread, that he would have said something like, "You know....you
don't have to do this anymore....I abolished that law"... Or during one of
the Sabbath days, he would have said something to let the disciples know that
the law was abolished? I mean this would be HUGE news! How do I know Jesus
didn't mention that to his disciples? Because if he did, there would not have
been “much disputing” about should the Gentiles be circumcised. Also, the debate was not, “is circumcision
still a law”. It is still a law that we
should follow. Will breaking this law
keep you out of the Kingdom of God? No,
(Thank God for His Son!) but males who are not circumcised have about a MUCH higher
chance to get penile cancer than those who are circumcised. This is a penalty that is still in force for
breaking one of God’s laws.
Acts
15:19-21
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles
are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being
read in the synagogues every sabbath
day."
The disciples here are saying,
“Why teach them the whole law, because the law of
Moses is being read (notice present tense) in the synagogues every Sabbath
day?” The disciples just hit on the major issues for the Gentiles (abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
blood). Notice they didn’t say, “Don’t murder, don’t steal¼.why didn’t
they? Do these laws not apply to the Gentiles? They do apply; it is because
this was not a big issue that the Gentiles needed to work on.
Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the
synagogue every sabbath,
and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Again, Paul is preaching to the
Jews and the Greeks, in the synagogue on the Sabbath.
Acts
18:18-21
And Paul after this tarried
there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed
thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila;
having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he
himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. When they
desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep
this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if
God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Paul is still keeping the
feasts of God, after Christ ascended into heaven.
Acts 20:6-7
And we sailed away from
Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas
in five days; where we abode seven days.
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.
This is the
best and only evidence that people use to show that the disciples
changed the day of worship to Sunday.
These above verses are actually evidence that the disciples were keeping
the law of God.
In the KJV
(with italicized words) the word “day” appears in italics. This means that the word was not in the text
used to translate the KJV (it was an added word). So we now have, “And upon the first of the
week”. But that is not all. If you check the Strong’s concordance for the
word “week” used in this verse, you will see that the King James’ translators
actually translated “sabbaton” meaning “Sabbath” to
“week”. So it should
read, “And upon the first Sabbath”. What
does that mean? Well, if you notice from
verse 6, this time frame was right after the days of unleavened bread. Those who study and practice the Law of God, know that this is the time where one counts seven
Sabbaths to the day of Pentecost. This
day when they met was on the first Sabbath.
These verses not only show that they were keeping the Sabbaths, but also
it shows good evidence that they were keeping the feasts of God.
Acts 20:16
For Paul
had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time
in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the
day of Pentecost.
Again, Paul
hasting to keep the feast of Pentecost.
Acts 21:21-26
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the
Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not
to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore?
the multitude must needs come together: for they will
hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four
men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be
at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that
those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that
thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we
have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they
keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from
strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day
purifying himself with them entered into the temple,
to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an
offering should be offered for every one of them.
If the law
was “nailed to the cross” and Paul was actually teaching against the law of
God, don’t you think that Paul would be sending a mixed signal here? They are asking him, “prove to us you still
keep the law” and Paul says, “Okay”. If
the law was truly abolished, Paul had his chance right here to show everyone
this. He not only blew it, by keeping
quiet about it. He MAJORLY BLEW it, by
going into the temple to purify himself and others.
Paul was not required by the law to make sacrifices for people that have made vows. Paul was not doing this to
obey the law. He was doing this to show that the law was not abolished. This is the reason why James says, "As
touching the Gentiles which believe, we
have written and concluded that they observe no such thing." Just as Paul was not required by the law to make
these offerings, neither are the Gentiles (or any non Levites) required by the law to make offerings for someone
else's vows. (Numbers 6)
Acts 24:14
But this I confess unto thee,
that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing
all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
The Greek word for “believing”
is also sometimes translated as “commit unto”.
Acts 25:7-8
And when he was come, the Jews
which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous
complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither
against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at
all.
Paul was detained by
authorities. They were trying to find a
real charge so they could punish him (They didn’t care if he had lust in his
heart 3 years ago, or something to that effect). Paul then tells the accusers that neither the
Jews, nor Caesar has any right to continue to hold him in custody because, “Neither
against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against
Caesar, have I offended any thing at all”. Now, is Paul lying here? Did Paul just say, “Neither against the law
of the Jews neither against the temple¼have I offended anything
at all”? If Paul was breaking the
Sabbath, then Paul couldn’t say the above statement with out lying.
Acts
25:10-11
Then said Paul, I stand at
Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done
no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an
offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die:
Paul was very aware that
Sabbath breaking has a death penalty.
But Paul says, “For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing
worthy of death, I refuse not to die”.
Paul is either bluffing, schizophrenic, or he is still keeping the
Sabbath.
Acts
28:17-18
And it came to pass, that
after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when
they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have
committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I
delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. Who, when they had examined me, would have
let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.
Paul again tells the chief of
the Jews, “I have committed nothing against the people,
or customs of our fathers¼” Again, if Paul was not
keeping God’s laws, then Paul would be lying here.
