Hebrews 4:1-11 and the New Christian Sabbath

[Dr. Walter]

1 ¶ Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 ¶ Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

The Arguments:

1. Many argue that we enter his rest and fulfill the Sabbath law when we beleive in Jesus Christ and this does away with any actual sabbath day keeping.

RESPONSE: Hebrew 4:2-3 distinctly and clearly states that the same gospel was preached unto them as well as unto us and that when you believe the gospel you do enter into his rest. Hebrews 4:2 says that those in the wilderness had this same gospel preached to them but that faith was not mixed with the gospel in their hearts and so they apostatized from what they heard (not from what they believed). However, others like Moses and Joshua did believe the gospel and did enter into SPIRITUAL REST but that did not fulfil Sabbath day observance as they observed a Sabbath day keeping. Therefore, the gospel rest is only SPIRITUAL and it does not fulfil Sabbath day observance.

Paul also argues that Joshua ("Jesus") bringing them into the promised land did not do away or fulfill sabbath day observance. Paul also argues that David when he had subdued all enemies of Israel that this did not do away with or fulfil sabbath day observance.

Paul argues there is still today sabbath day observance for God's people. The term "rest" in verse 9 represents a Greek term that is completely different than what is previously used and translated "rest" in verses 1-8. The word used in verses 1-8 for "rest" is "pauo" whereas the Greek term found in verse nine is the noun "sabbatismos" which means "sabbath day observance" and thus there remains after gospel faith, after Joshua's entrance into palestine, after David's subduing the enemies, a sabbath day observance right now for the people of God.


2. Some argue that verse 9 refers to the sign of the Old Covenant and the Jewish seventh day of the week sabbath.

ANSWER: Verse 10 compares "he" to "God" and the work completed by God with the work completed by "he" in regard with how God "ceased from his own work." God ceased by setting apart the seventh day as a day of rest (v. 4).

Although God entered that rest on the seventh day of creation, we have not yet entered that rest. The gospel does not fulfill that rest, entrance into palestine is not entering into "his rest", subduing enemies by david is entering his rest. That rest commemorated A SINLESS CREATION AND SINLESS MANKIND IN PERFECT HARMONY WITH THEIR CREATOR and no man will enter into "his rest" until they are sinless and the creation is sinless and that is yet future - v. 11

However, Christians have a BETTER sabbath day observance that looks forward to entering into "his rest" or into a sinless creation as sinless mankind in perfect harmony with God (v. 11).

This BETTER sabbath day observance is based upon a GREATER work than the work of Creation and it was the work of one man ("he") who has entered into heaven (v. 14) in our behalf as our High Preist to ensure that born again gospel beleivers are completely brought to a sinless condition in both body and soul into a new sinless creation (Rev. 21).

This man finished his GREATER work by ceasing like God did in setting apart a BETTER SABBATH that commemorates the GREATER work of the cross that will ensure entrance into a BETTER creation where all creation will be in a condition that God once more can say it is "very good" (Gen. 1:31).

This better sabbath day observance is the "Lord's" (kuriakos) day or "the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2) or the day of resurrection (Mk. 16:9).

Psalm 118:24 predicted it as well as how it would be observed "we will rejoice and be glad in IT" and Acts 4:10-11; 13:33-34 identify it as the day of his resurrection. The first Sunday of his resurrection was the "proto sabbatou" or the first sabbath in a new series - better Sabbaths based upon a greater work with a greater hope than what the Old creation offered.

The "seventh" day sabbath is the sign of the OLD covenant and it is abolished with it sign. It is the LAST day in numerical seven days whereas the Lord's Day is BETTER we give the FIRST day unto the Lord rather than the LAST!

 

[BobRyan]

1. Not ONCE in all of scripture is "week day one" ever said to be "The Lord's day".
2. Not ONCE in all of scripture are we told to "Remember" or "honor" -- "Week day one".
3. There are a small number of times in the New Testament that "Week day one" is mentioned in the text - and not ONCE do we ever find "Week day one is the new Sabbath" -- YET the Bible DOES say "The SEVENTH day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God" in the actual TEN COMMANDMENTS.

1Cor 7:19 "but what matters is keeping God's Commandments"

Having said that - I am impressed with Walter's list above - because aside from missing the points I enumerate - he has avoided some pretty shallow ditches and for that he is to be commended. His Bible position has avoided many of the common freshman mistakes.

I am truly impressed!

His acceptance of the "ONE GOSPEL" in all ages teaching in Heb 4 is again - rock solid!

One more he could have added for Heb 4 - is that the quote in vs 7 is from Ps 95. David does not say "900 years from today IF hear his voice"... (As if to refer to the cross) nor does David say in Ps 95 "TODAY if you hear his voice stopping remembering the Sabbath day and start keeping week day one". David argues that his instruction was to be followed THEN 900 years before the cross. He never argues that the Jews would need to wait or that they needed to break the 4th commandment to really and truly please God in a real Gospel sense.

Again - I am genuinely surprised to see such a rock solid presentation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

1. Not ONCE in all of scripture is "week day one" ever said to be "The Lord's day".
2. Not ONCE in all of scripture are we told to "Remember" or "honor" -- "Week day one".
3. There are a small number of times in the New Testament that "Week day one" is mentioned in the text - and not ONCE do we ever find "Week day one is the new Sabbath" -- YET the Bible DOES say "The SEVENTH day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God" in the actual TEN COMMANDMENTS.

1Cor 7:19 "but what matters is keeping God's Commandments"

Having said that - I am impressed with Walter's list above - because aside from missing the points I enumerate - he has avoided some pretty shallow ditches and for that he is to be commended. His Bible position has avoided many of the common freshman mistakes.

I am truly impressed!

in Christ,

Bob

Your 1,2,3 arguments are all about semantics - period! Sorry but I am not falling for your word plays.

The Greek term "kuriakos" is used only twice in the New Testament and it is NEVER used by New Testament writers in the expression "the day of the Lord" - NEVER! Every Roman citizen knew the term "kuriakos" was the common term used by the Emperor for his religious belongings and day of worship - SUNDAY! The first day of the week. - Common knowledge in John's day. Most likely the very reason John was exiled because he would not attribute the "kuriakos" day to Ceasar as God/man but attributed it to the worship of Jesus Christ. Same reason Paul uses in I Cor. 11:20 to attribute the religious rites that Ceasar hijacked as the god/man and attributed the term to Jesus Christ and his rites.

We are commanded to observe the first day of the week in 1 Cor. 16:2 in regard to offerings which are part and parcel of PUBLIC WORSHIP and by a verb that is used in the LXX for the House of God (Mal. 3:10) which were brought to the house of God on the day of worship as an act of worship.

I have demonstrated this and much more in other threads - read and weep!

 

[BobRyan]

Your 1,2,3 arguments are all about semantics - period! Sorry but I am not falling for your word plays.

The Greek term "kuriakos" is used only twice in the New Testament and it is NEVER used by New Testament writers in the expression "the day of the Lord" - NEVER! Every Roman citizen knew the term "kuriakos" was the common term used by the Emperor for his religious belongings and day of worship - SUNDAY!

Hmmm. I appeal to the language of the BIBLE and you dismiss it as mere semantics.

Then you appeal to the language of the pagans in the first century and you want me to "imagine" that the NT saints took the word of Pagans over the Word of God?

Not going to happen my friend.

Mark 2:27 "THe Son of man is LORD of the Sabbath" is the context for the NT use of "Lord's day".

Is 58:13 "The Sabbath..My Holy Day... THE Holy (day) of the Lord"

But No "WEEK-DAY-ONE My Holy Day"
No "Week Day one - Holy Day of the Lord"
No " The Son of Man is LORD of Week day One"

Surely the Bible student is not supposed to turn a blind eye to these "details".

Hint -- there is no "observe the first day of the week" in all of the Bible - no not even in 1Cor 16

Walter said -

We are commanded to observe the first day of the week in 1 Cor. 16:2 in regard to offerings which are part and parcel of PUBLIC WORSHIP and by a verb that is used in the LXX for the House of God (Mal. 3:10) which were brought to the house of God on the day of worship as an act of worship.

No mention at all of "public worship on week day one" in 1Cor 16.
No mention at all of "gathering together weekly on week day one" in 1Cor 16.
No mention of "week day one as something like a holy day, or sacred in any way" in 1Cor 16.
No not even ONE mention of it!!

And you have to admit that given the fact that the Apostles by all storytelling SHOULD have been trying to at least INTRODUCE "week day one" as something like a weekly day to be kept holy -... we should have expected "Week day one is the Lord's day" at the very least so that we would have ONE place in ALL of scripture to hang that hat on!


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hmmm. I appeal to the language of the BIBLE and you dismiss it as mere semantics.

Like every heretic you USE the Biblical language but you ARRANGE it according to distorted logic.

Then you appeal to the language of the pagans in the first century and you want me to "imagine" that the NT saints took the word of Pagans over the Word of God?

Lexicography is a Biblical science that determines the use and meaning of words in their cultural context as well as Biblical context. Only an ignorant man makes such an ignorant objection.

Not going to happen my friend.

Mark 2:27 "THe Son of man is LORD of the Sabbath" is the context for the NT use of "Lord's day".

Is 58:13 "The Sabbath..My Holy Day... THE Holy (day) of the Lord"

No one disputes the Old Covenant Sabbath as the Lord's Day! But Revelation 1:10 whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not does not change the historical fact as to what the term "kuriakos" meant in the first century and how it is used for Christ in its only other use (2 Cor. 11:20). Sunday is "the Lord's day."

Hint -- there is no "observe the first day of the week" in all of the Bible - no not even in 1Cor 16



No mention at all of "public worship on week day one" in 1Cor 16.
No mention at all of "gathering together weekly on week day one" in 1Cor 16.
No mention of "week day one as something like a holy day, or sacred in any way" in 1Cor 16.
No not even ONE mention of it!!

The first day of the week is part of this Apostolic command.
Offerings are part of public worship at the house of God just as they were in the Old Testament.

The Greek preposition "en" in Acts 20:7 confines the acts of public worship (breaking bread, preaching) to the first day of the week. The Greek perfect tense participle as an absolute gentive defines "gathering" to this restrictive time "en" as the STANDARD COMPLETED ACTION practice from the initial organization of this congregation until the present. Read and weep!

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmm. I appeal to the language of the BIBLE and you dismiss it as mere semantics.

Then you appeal to the language of the pagans in the first century and you want me to "imagine" that the NT saints took the word of Pagans over the Word of God?

Not going to happen my friend.

Mark 2:27 "THe Son of man is LORD of the Sabbath" is the context for the NT use of "Lord's day".

Is 58:13 "The Sabbath..My Holy Day... THE Holy (day) of the Lord"

But No "WEEK-DAY-ONE My Holy Day"
No "Week Day one - Holy Day of the Lord"
No " The Son of Man is LORD of Week day One"

Surely the Bible student is not supposed to turn a blind eye to these "details".

Hint -- there is no "observe the first day of the week" in all of the Bible - no not even in 1Cor 16

Like every heretic you (obligatory nonsensical ad hominem rant deleted here)...

No one disputes the Old Covenant Sabbath as the Lord's Day!

There is only "ONE" Gospel. (So -- New Covenant of Jer 31:31 -- in OT). It was the same in the time of David as today. The saved saints in Israel (Heb 11) saved under the "ONE Gospel" in the days of David - were keeping the Sabbath "of the Lord Thy God" and it is precisly THAT Sabbath that is mentioned in Isaiah 66 as being kept EVEN in the New Eart when "From Sabbath to Sabbath...shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship".

The point remains. Your piles of ad hominem not withstanding.

But Revelation 1:10 whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not does not change the historical fact as to what the term "kuriakos" meant in the first century and how it is used for Christ in its only other use (2 Cor. 11:20). Sunday is "the Lord's day."

Hint: There is NO "Sunday is the Lord's Day" in Rev 1:10 OR in 2Cor 11:20

There is NO "week-day-one is the Lord's Day" in ALL of scripture! No not even in Rev 1:10.

And to argue that the NT saints used the PAGAN definition for a doctrine on Lord's Day and NOT the Word of Christ in Mark 2:27 or Is 58"13 is to argue in favor of Paganism - OVER sola-scriptura methods of determining Bible doctrine! An extreme to which even our Catholic friends do not go!!

Doing such a thing would mean that "proptitiation" in 1John 2:1 is the PAGAN form of "Appeasing the fickle angy diety by blood sacrifice" and NOT the Bible concept of "God so LOVED the world THAT HE gave..." (I.e. the substitutionary atonement model of Scripture).

The Greek preposition "en" in Acts 20:7 confines the acts of public worship (breaking bread, preaching) to the first day of the week.

Hint: There is NOTHING in Acts 20 indicating a regular cycle of worship of any kind.

There is NO reference at ALL in Acts 20 to the term "Lord's Day".

There is NO reference in Acts 20 to the idea that the saints were observing a weekly practice of anykind. The text explicitly says they were hearing Paul speak because at SUNRISE Paul was leaving. This means that the evening service (likely to be on week-day-one as per the text) - is followed by a "Travel day" on Sunday morning!

This is very significant because in Act s20:4-7 we are told that Paul does NOT travel on the annual Sabbaths (much less the weekly Sabbath) - but the gentiles do. Paul remains in Philippi" until "AFter the Days of Unleavened bread" - but the gentiles go on ahead, because gentiles did not observe the annual feast days.

So in that direct immediate context - the fact that Paul is going to spend all day traveling starting Sunday morning is clear evidence that he was not placing any significance on "week day one" -- no not even as much as he placed on ANNUAL holy days such as the Days of Unleavened bread!

Read Walter - but don't weep, simply accept the Word of God and rejoice!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

No mention at all of "public worship on week day one" in 1Cor 16.
No mention at all of "gathering together weekly on week day one" in 1Cor 16.
No mention of "week day one as something like a holy day, or sacred in any way" in 1Cor 16.
No not even ONE mention of it!!

And you have to admit that given the fact that the Apostles by all storytelling SHOULD have been trying to at least INTRODUCE "week day one" as something like a weekly day to be kept holy -... we should have expected "Week day one is the Lord's day" at the very least so that we would have ONE place in ALL of scripture to hang that hat on!

The first day of the week is part of this Apostolic command.

Agreed. At the start of each week EACH person was to "lay in store" -- by himself. At home.

1Cor 16 NASB

2On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.
3When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem;
4and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
2 one day of the week. Each of you keep at himself [Each of you keep, or lay up, at himself], keeping that that pleaseth to him(self), that when I come, the gatherings be not made.

KJV
2Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
2 On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save to the extent that he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come.

Amplified Bible (AMP)
2On the first [day] of each week, let each one of you [personally] put aside something and save it up as he has prospered [in proportion to what he is given], so that no collections will need to be taken after I come.

Darby Translation (DARBY)
2On [the] first of [the] week let each of you put by at home, laying up [in] whatever [degree] he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come.

Here is a source DHK insisted that we read with special attention.

Albert Barnes
Let every one of you. Let the collection be universal. Let each one esteem it his duty and his privilege to give to this object. It was not to be confined to the rich on]y, but was the common duty of all. The poor, as well as the rich, were expected to contribute according to their ability.

Lay by him in store. par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn. Let him lay up at home, treasuring up as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, "by himself," means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself, when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity. Let him do it, not under the influence of pathetic appeals, or for the sake of display when he is with others; but let him do it as a matter of principle, and when he is by himself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

You miss the point! Paul is trying to avoid collecting these offerings on an INDIVIDUAL basis as that would require him to go house to house and that is exactly what he is trying to avoid here.

They are to bring to the assembly on Sunday their individual offerings they have saved up the previous six days and deposit it with the leadership so that when Paul comes he can seek out the leaders just as he did in Acts 20 with the Epheisan leadership. Tithe and offerings are part and parcel of the PUBLIC WORSHIP service and on the first day of the week in public worship they are to bring what they saved up and give it.

 

[BobRyan]

The "collection" Paul is avoiding is NOT a "collection in church". It is a house to house urging/collection individual by individual. Having all the money in church ready and waiting in the hands of each giver - was NEVER seen as a problem in all of the Bible.

Thus the Bible translators and even Albert Barnes admit to the "by home alone" form of this "setting aside" funds at the start of each week.

NO mention of "set aside during your worship service"
No mentione of "you each worship alone when you meet on week day one so set money aside alone as you are in church"
No mention of "week day one is a day for worship"
NO mention of "week day one should be called the Lord's day not just week day one"
No mention of "on week day one WHEN you are gathered for worship"

And obviously NO mention of "remember week day one to keep it holy" o
Or "week day one is the Lord's day" -- no not once in ALL of scripture.

Albert Barnes
Let every one of you. Let the collection be universal. Let each one esteem it his duty and his privilege to give to this object. It was not to be confined to the rich on]y, but was the common duty of all. The poor, as well as the rich, were expected to contribute according to their ability.

Lay by him in store. par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn. Let him lay up at home, treasuring up as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, "by himself," means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself, when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity. Let him do it, not under the influence of pathetic appeals, or for the sake of display when he is with others; but let him do it as a matter of principle, and when he is by himself.

Now HERE is a great "clue" for the unbiased objective Bible reader. HERE is what they SHOULD be asking themsleves.

"WHY in the world does the pro-week-day-one group bring up such a failed example to justify Sunday??"

Well I will tell you why - because as hollow and unsatisfying as the bend-and-wrench of this "let him lay up at home" text is for week-day-one "Gathering" -- it is the ONLY text that they have for a regular NT "week day one" apostolic command!!

That my friends - is incredibly instructive as compared to "The Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God"! Ex 20:10-11

Hint: that is the way these "comparisons" always work out when you are comparing man-made tradition to the actual Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

The "collection" Paul is avoiding is NOT a "collection in church". It is a house to house urging/collection individual by individual. Having all the money in church ready and waiting in the hands of each giver - was NEVER seen as a problem in all of the Bible.

Adam Clarke comments on this text this way:

We may observe that the apostle follows here the rule of the synagogue; it was a regular custom among the Jews to make their collections for the poor on the Sabbath day, that they might not be without the necessaries of life, and might not be prevented from coming to the synagogue. 8. For the purpose of making this provision, they had a purse, which was called Arneki shel tsedakah, "The purse of the alms," or what we would term, the poor’s box. This is what the apostle seems to mean when he says, Let him lay by him in store — let him put it in the alms’ purse, or in the poor’s box.

Paul says they are to do it on the first day of the week as opposed to the Jewish practice on the seventh day of the week.

 

[BobRyan]

If they had an "alms box" at home maybe that would work

As Albert Barnes notes -

Lay by him in store. par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn. Let him lay up at home, treasuring up as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, "by himself," means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself, when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity. Let him do it, not under the influence of pathetic appeals, or for the sake of display when he is with others; but let him do it as a matter of principle, and when he is by himself.


BTW - I don't think Barnes is making this point because he does not believe in attending services on week-day-one. I think he is simply admitting to what he finds in the text itself.

And the quote from Adam Clarke above shows that it was in fact no dishonor or disgrace at all to collect an offering on the Sabbath - and Paul would have had no problem at all picking up all the money from all the weeks savings in a single Sabbath service. The thing he is trying to avoid is manual collection - person by person, home to home as though the members were unprepared to give. His point was that each person should be laying in store by themselves at home at the first of each week saving up until the time came for a gathering when Paul should arrive.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

And the quote from Adam Clarke above shows that it was in fact no dishonor or disgrace at all to collect an offering on the Sabbath - and Paul would have had no problem at all picking up all the money from all the weeks savings in a single Sabbath service. The thing he is trying to avoid is manual collection - person by person, home to home as though the members were unprepared to give. His point was that each person should be laying in store by themselves at home at the first of each week saving up until the time came for a gathering when Paul should arrive.

You miss Clarke's historical cultural point! The first day of the week replaced the Jewish seventh day of the week in regard to this offering among Christians. The individual brought his offering to the congregational service where it was deposited into the common treasury - ready for Paul to pick it up on the Lord's day - the first day of the week.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no "first day of week replaced seventh-day" language in 1Cor 16. All we have is "lay by himself in store" -- a most devastating command to be by ones self -- laying up money "in store". Here as Barnes notes - is true individual at home savings plan - at the start of each week.

But Clarke further sinks the ship for week-day-one when he perhaps unwittingly admits that simply taking up money on a Sabbath is no problem at all. The problem is not having the week-by-week savings "in store by himself" leading up to that Sabbath day of giving.

Clarke makes no case at all that weekly Sabbath giving was a form of "laying by ones self in store". There is no scripture and no historical text stating that giving in the church was called "laying by ones self in store". Clarke merely expresses the fond wish that he had such a reference and hope that possibly the phrase might be used as such. In his effort all he comes up with is "alms box" and no mention of it in 1Cor 16.

There is no historic or Bible reference for the idea that weekly Sabbath giving was termed by the Jews "laying by ones self in store" -- rather it is the endpoint - giving to the church.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

This idea of setting the first day of the week apart as the day to put a dollar in you jar buried in your back yard so that Paul had to go house to house to get the money is absurdly rediculous and impractical.

Clark gave the proper sense and the most practical sense as well as well known Jewish sense. Each individual would bring what they saved up during the week to the Sunday service and there commit it to the general fund bag. Judas kept such a bag for the first church in Jerusalem. However, instead of doing in on the Jewish sabbath they did on the Lord's Day - Sunday. This is the true sense behind this statement.

There is no "first day of week replaced seventh-day" language in 1Cor 16.

Nice try to confuse the readers by shifting the cultural back drop provided by Clarke that is BEHIND the text as though Clark demanded the text itself provided all the details. Just smoke and mirrors.

But Clarke further sinks the ship for week-day-one when he perhaps unwittingly admits that simply taking up money on a Sabbath is no problem at all. The problem is not having the week-by-week savings "in store by himself" leading up to that Sabbath day of giving.

Either you can't read to well or you are intentionally trying to confuse the facts hoping to steer the reader from what Clarke actually said. Clarke simply said that the Jews would bring what they saved in the previous week and commit it to the common treasury bag. If the church did this week by week then it would be all in the bag and ready when Paul came.

There is no historic or Bible reference for the idea that weekly Sabbath giving was termed by the Jews "laying by ones self in store" -- rather it is the endpoint - giving to the church.

There is a historic and Biblical basis behind what Clarke says. Judas held the community bag that contained the money that other individuals saved and brought and pooled together

The collection was to be made every Lord’s day; every one was to contribute; and the contributions were to be in proportion to the means of the giver. These are the three principles which the apostle had established among the churches of Galatia, and which he urged the Corinthians to adopt......The words do not mean to lay by at home, but to lay by himself. The direction is nothing more definite than, let him place by himself, i. e. let him take to himself what he means to give. What he was to do with it, or where he was to deposit it, is not expressed. The word θησαυριζων means putting into the treasury, or hoarding up, and is perfectly consistent with the assumption that the place of deposit was some common treasury, and not every man’s own house. 2. If Paul directed this money to be laid up at home, why was the first day of the week selected? It is evident that the first day must have offered some special facility for doing what is here enjoined. The only reason that can be assigned for requiring the thing to be done on the first day of the week, is, that on that day the Christians were accustomed to meet, and what each one had laid aside from his weekly gains could be treasured up, i. e. put into the common treasury of the church. 3. The end which the apostle desired to accomplish could not otherwise have been effected. He wished that there might be no collections when he came. But if every man had his money laid by at home, the collection would be still to be made. The probability is, therefore, Paul intended to direct the Corinthians to make a collection every Lord’s day for the poor, when they met for worship. - Charles Hodge Commentary.

"On the first day of the week, let each one of you lay somewhat by itself, putting it into the treasury." I believe Macknight is right; for (1) there were to be no collections when Paul came. That implies that the money was to be placed in the treasury. Otherwise, it would have to be collected. (2) Thesaurizoon, rendered in the Common Version "in store," is a present participle, meaning literally, "putting into the thesaurus," or "treasury." (3) All church history testifies that the early church took up weekly collections on the first day of the week. See Pliny’s Letter to the Emperor Trajan. (4) We know, from #Ac 21:7, and from all early church history, that the church met on the first day of the week. It only remains to add that "par heauto," rendered by the translators "by him," is rendered with equal correctness, "by itself." Its form is that of the neuter reflexive pronoun. - PNT commentary

 

[BobRyan]

Just one more note before I respond to the post above - (sorry to bring this one "all the way home" so quickly as it leaves you with no room, but I was just working through the details so inconvenient to the week-day-one ideas.).

Albert Barnes

Let every one of you. Let the collection be universal. Let each one esteem it his duty and his privilege to give to this object. It was not to be confined to the rich on]y, but was the common duty of all. The poor, as well as the rich, were expected to contribute according to their ability.

Lay by him in store. par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn. Let him lay up at home, treasuring up as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, "by himself," means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself, when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity. Let him do it, not under the influence of pathetic appeals, or for the sake of display when he is with others; but let him do it as a matter of principle, and when he is by himself.
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=016

Next we have someone who does not want this to be “at home alone”. But it further sinks the “week-day-one” case because it shows why it is that Paul would have NO problem at all with each member having saved up by himself alone, at home all the weeks PRIOR to Paul’s visit – only to have a church gathering where the money is given to Paul – by each member assembled. The problem Paul is trying to avoid is NOT the imaginary dreaded problem of money being given in church – it is the problem of members being unprepared lacking the discipline of weekly savings – when Paul arrives. It is a home-to-home collection of moneys from unprepared possibly embarrassed church members.

Adam Clarke

We may observe that the apostle follows here the rule of the synagogue; it was a regular custom among the Jews to make their collections for the poor on the Sabbath day, that they might not be without the necessaries of life, and might not be prevented from coming to the synagogue. 8. For the purpose of making this provision, they had a purse, which was called Arneki shel tsedakah, "The purse of the alms," or what we would term, the poor’s box. This is what the apostle seems to mean when he says, Let him lay by him in store — let him put it in the alms’ purse, or in the poor’s box.

1. Clarke admits freely that taking up offerings during worship service is not a “thing to be avoided” rather it is every day customary. Thus Paul seeks to avoid a home-to-home collection of church members unprepared to give an offering larger than one week’s offering. Unprepared due to lack of week-after-week setting aside funds by themselves at home.
2. Clarke also indicates the context and comparison between the regular Sabbath giving of tithe and offerings and the subsequent laying aside by one’s self at home practice of this special gift given AFTER you have already given to the local church on Sabbath – tithes and offerings. Thus Paul is looking for an “additional offering” he is not looking to substitute or divert funds away from the normal Sabbath tithes and offerings. Hint - week-day-one comes AFTER the Sabbath worship services.
3. Clarke clues us in as to the missing text so necessary to the week-day-one promoters. Which is the missing text of Arneki Shel tsedakah! One can almost hear a lament from Clarke that these words are not found in the actual text – but must be “imagined”.

So while the reader can easily see that Clarke is trying to come up with something – to salvage something of the text in favor of “week-day-one” he ends up with nothing but lament and the hopeful expression that perhaps we can imagine that “. par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn” had been instead ” Arneki Shel tsedakah”

Between Albert Barnes and Adam Clarke -- You could not ask for a more devastating point against "a command to GATHER on week-day-one and place into the Alms box on week-day-one which we now are calling the new Lord’s day in honor of our Lord’s resurrection" style promotion. The entire focus is on the SINGULAR - and even "private" act - at HOME rather than "IN COMMUNITY" – done the day AFTER the normal tithes and alms giving would have been given in church – thus showing this to be an “additional offering” and not a substitute for normal tithes and offerings in church!.

BTW since your most recent post above gives no Biblical nor even historical support for the idea that "par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn" which is "actually in the text" really is another way to say the much needed "Arneki Shel tsedakah" - I see nothing but more hopeful/wishful storytelling about what would have been nice to find in 1Cor 16 instead of what is actually written there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I stated that the weekly setting aside of savings to be brought to a church gathering when Paul arrives - such that a multi-week gift would be ready -- instead of having to go home to home and find unprepared church members, is innexplicably twisted into --

This idea of setting the first day of the week apart as the day to put a dollar in you jar buried in your back yard so that Paul had to go house to house to get the money...

So while one "Might" expect that Walter would wrench-and-bend my positive assertion above about having the already saved offering ready to give in Church when Paul arrived - (since Walter is so willing to wrench-and-bend the Bible itself on this topic... hmm so no big surprise there I guess), I still find that reponse more than a little bit of a nonsequitter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Nice try to confuse the readers by shifting the cultural back drop provided by Clarke that is BEHIND the text as though Clark demanded the text itself provided all the details.

Far from it - I never claim that "wishful thinking" ever "finds all the details in the text itself". My point was that Clarke ALSO does not show any other Bible or historic reference for a good way to "slip in to the text" the alms box language. no Biblical nor even historical support for the idea that "par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn" which is "actually in the text" really is another way to say the much needed "Arneki Shel tsedakah".

Clarke simply shows you what you "needed" to have found there instead of what you "did" find there. And failing to find it in 1Cor 16 - perhaps would have found such a comparison some other place in the Bible - which he also does not find.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Far from it - I never claim that "wishful thinking" ever "finds all the details in the text itself". My point was that Clarke ALSO does not show any other Bible or historic reference for a good way to "slip in to the text" the alms box language. no Biblical nor even historical support for the idea that "par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn" which is "actually in the text" really is another way to say the much needed "Arneki Shel tsedakah".

Clarke simply shows you what you "needed" to have found there instead of what you "did" find there. And failing to find it in 1Cor 16 - perhaps would have found such a comparison some other place in the Bible - which he also does not find.

in Christ,

Bob

The collection was to be made every Lord’s day; every one was to contribute; and the contributions were to be in proportion to the means of the giver. These are the three principles which the apostle had established among the churches of Galatia, and which he urged the Corinthians to adopt......The words do not mean to lay by at home, but to lay by himself. The direction is nothing more definite than, let him place by himself, i. e. let him take to himself what he means to give. What he was to do with it, or where he was to deposit it, is not expressed. The word θησαυριζων means putting into the treasury, or hoarding up, and is perfectly consistent with the assumption that the place of deposit was some common treasury, and not every man’s own house. 2. If Paul directed this money to be laid up at home, why was the first day of the week selected? It is evident that the first day must have offered some special facility for doing what is here enjoined. The only reason that can be assigned for requiring the thing to be done on the first day of the week, is, that on that day the Christians were accustomed to meet, and what each one had laid aside from his weekly gains could be treasured up, i. e. put into the common treasury of the church. 3. The end which the apostle desired to accomplish could not otherwise have been effected. He wished that there might be no collections when he came. But if every man had his money laid by at home, the collection would be still to be made. The probability is, therefore, Paul intended to direct the Corinthians to make a collection every Lord’s day for the poor, when they met for worship.- Charles Hodge Commentary.

"On the first day of the week, let each one of you lay somewhat by itself, putting it into the treasury." I believe Macknight is right; for (1) there were to be no collections when Paul came. That implies that the money was to be placed in the treasury. Otherwise, it would have to be collected. (2) Thesaurizoon, rendered in the Common Version "in store," is a present participle, meaning literally, "putting into the thesaurus," or "treasury." (3) All church history testifies that the early church took up weekly collections on the first day of the week. See Pliny’s Letter to the Emperor Trajan. (4) We know, from #Ac 21:7, and from all early church history, that the church met on the first day of the week. It only remains to add that "par heauto," rendered by the translators "by him," is rendered with equal correctness, "by itself." Its form is that of the neuter reflexive pronoun. - PNT commentary

Judas carried such a bag and the individuals did not save at home their offerings but gave it to Judas to store in a common treasurery. Here is a Biblical example in the first congregation at Jerusalem of exactly what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor. 16:1-2 and the term "thesaurus" allows for this interpretation. This would avoid the house to house journey by Paul to collect the offering as it would be with one person (treasurer) in one bag with the full amount that had been given every Lord's day.

 

[BobRyan]

The "only collection" that was to be made ever "week-day-one" was the one that was "by one's self alone at home".

By contrast Walter freely admits what he "needs" to have found in the text of scripture--- Walter said "The collection was to be made every Lord’s day; every one was to contribute;"

I think we all agree that the language you choose above would have been the only way to make your case in the text of 1Cor 16 -- sadly for your view - we do not find those words there.

"Well then" asks the objective unbiased Bible student "What words DO we find in the actual text of scripture in 1Cor 16?" --

And of course the answer already given here was -



Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
2 one day of the week. Each of you keep at himself [Each of you keep, or lay up, at himself], keeping that that pleaseth to him(self), that when I come, the gatherings be not made.

KJV
2Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
2 On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save to the extent that he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come.

Amplified Bible (AMP)
2On the first [day] of each week, let each one of you [personally] put aside something and save it up as he has prospered [in proportion to what he is given], so that no collections will need to be taken after I come.

Darby Translation (DARBY)
2On [the] first of [the] week let each of you put by at home, laying up [in] whatever [degree] he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come.

Here is a source DHK insisted that we read with special attention.


Quote:

Albert Barnes
Let every one of you. Let the collection be universal. Let each one esteem it his duty and his privilege to give to this object. It was not to be confined to the rich on]y, but was the common duty of all. The poor, as well as the rich, were expected to contribute according to their ability.

Lay by him in store. par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn. Let him lay up at home, treasuring up as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, "by himself," means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself, when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity. Let him do it, not under the influence of pathetic appeals, or for the sake of display when he is with others; but let him do it as a matter of principle, and when he is by himself.


Thus this "hording up" of savings "at home" by himself - is pretty devasting to the group that "needed" the text to say "on each week-day-one which we will now call the new Lord's day - let all gather to gether and in assemby give in the alms box a gift for the help of the saints in Jerusalem".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Judas carried such a bag and the individuals did not save at home their offerings but gave it to Judas to store in a common treasurery. Here is a Biblical example in the first congregation at Jerusalem of exactly what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor. 16:1-2 .

While in one respect - Judas may be the best way to illustrate your point - I would argue for the "inconvenient details".

As Christ and the disciples pre-cross would represent the church to the pre-cross saints - operating as did the post-Cross church itself. Then just so those who gave to "the church" were first saving at home (so as to HAVE something to give) and then when Christ just so happened to come to their village or town - giving to Judas who then (as did Paul) gave to the poor those moneys collected from others giving to Judas.

Both Judas and Paul took the moneys collected and gave them to the Poor.

Thus in that analogy Judas is serving in the role of the Church itself - just as Paul was. It is Judas and Paul that are giving the money thus contributed to the poor.

But savings did not "magically appear" in a person's hand just because Judas or Paul "showed up". Rather each person obviously had to separate out the finds for giving - alone at home, by himself first so as to have something TO give.

Hence the "actual language" of 1Cor 16.

in Christ,

Bob