Over at Answering Catholicism, a now defunct website set up by a Oneness Pentecostal with sabbatarian leanings with the aim of arguing with me, Erol is making some interesting claims about the Catholic Church. Apart from subscribing to the long discredited Vicarius Filii Dei = papal title myth, he has a number of less unreasonable articles about Catholicism, to which he objects.
Erol’s first contact with me was in 2006, when he called me a “LIARRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Back then he wasn’t interested in discussion, just name calling.
My latest discussion with Erol was on his website, where he takes issue with what I say on my website about the passages in Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2.
I’ll go through a few points, the most important being Erol’s claim that Paul instructed the
Christians at Corinth to stay at home with their offerings, and that he planned to collect them from the individual homes when he was passing through town.
As a reminder, the two passages in question in the KJV are:
Acts 20:6-11 – 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. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
1 Cor 16:1-6 – Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon 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. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me. Now I will come unto you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I do pass through Macedonia. And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go.
Regarding Acts 20:7, Erol states that
Paul travelled on the 1st day, he therefore did not keep the 1st day holy.
Erol makes an assumption here regarding the rules by which Paul would have kept the 1st day of the week holy. He assumes that Paul would not have travelled on this day, and therefore concludes that this day was not kept holy by Paul because Paul travelled on that day. However, there is no rational basis for that assumption, either in the Bible, or in the evidence we have of how first and second century Christians kept Sunday. One could just as easily conclude that many modern Catholic bishops and priests do not observe Sunday because they travel on that day.
Erol also makes the inaccurate claim that the Catholic Church changed the sabbath to Sunday.
Firstly, the sabbath was never changed, it remains Saturday. Secondly, the Catholic Church teaches that the Apostles began the practice of Sunday observance.
Erol states:
Rome did change the Sabbath and she claims that act proudly by saying its her MARK, furthermore she claims she needs no authority for she herself assumes authority over the Bible to make up whatever bat crazy idea’s come to her mind.
He doesn’t back that up with any official Catholic statement on the matter; as I’ve mentioned before on this blog and elsewhere in this book, sabbath keepers tend to provide inaccurate quotes or quotes from unofficial sources such as newspapers.
Erol also claims that Paul instructed the Christians to keep their offering at home. This seems plausible at first glance, if one considers the words “lay by him” and “in store”. Erol seems to rely heavily on his understanding of these words. They are the best argument he has for his position.
However, based on context, I believe they do not require a home-kept offering. There are also several questions and problems that a home-kept offering would raise, and Erol doesn’t want to address these.
The first is the issue of the day on which the offering is to be set aside – the 1st day of the week.
Why the first day? Adventists and other sabbath keepers have put forward the theory that the first day of the week was the day on which people got paid, and so that would be the logical day for any offering based on their payment. Unfortunately, that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny – the world at that time didn’t subscribe to the policy envisaged by the sabbath keepers proposing it. Romans, for instance, had an 8-day business week. Corinth was in Greece, and they didn’t have a 1st-day-of-7 payment system either.
The only answer that fits the historical evidence for what went on on the 1st day of the week is the one where the Christians gathered together on that day because that was their normal custom.
Barnabas highlights this in his epistle in the first century; Ignatius, the disciple of the Apostle John, points this out in the early second century AD.
The second problem is how Paul would go about collecting the offerings. He explicitly states that he does not want collections when he comes. It seems as if he wants the collections completed by the time he gets there. In his words, as translated in the KJV: “that there be no gatherings when I come”. “Gatherings” means monetary collections in the Greek, not groups of people gathering
together.
Erol insists that Paul would collect the offerings as he passed through town, but this seems to contradict what Paul had said about there being no collections when he got there.
There seem to be two important aspects of the instruction in verse 2 that we can use to analyse the various scenarios possible:
1. That the collections be done on the 1st day of the week 2. That no offerings be collected when Paul arrives Here are a few of the scenarios that are possible:
Scenario 1:
People put aside offerings in their home … Paul collects when he passes through Corinth, visiting each household … Paul then meets with the leaders of the Christian community, and hands the offerings to someone to take to Jerusalem
Problems: the offerings can be put aside on any day of the week, making the instruction to do so on the 1st day meaningless. The scenario also results in Paul having to visit each Christian household in Corinth, and then visit the leaders of the community. This would be impractical – Paul wants things done fast when he gets there, and this would just slow things down. It would be more practical to give the offerings to the leadership prior to Paul’s arrival, so that the offerings were already ready and waiting in one place. The scenario also makes meaningless Paul’s request that the offerings not be made when he comes, but rather in advance – this scenario has Paul doing the collecting he doesn’t want to do when he gets there – “that there be no gatherings [collections]
when I come”.
Scenario 2:
People put aside offerings in their home on the first day of the week … they hand them in later to their leadership … Paul meets with the leaders when he gets there, and gives the offering to someone to take to Jerusalem.
Problems: this leaves open the question as to why it should be done on the first day of the week.
There was no financial reason to do it on that day. Was there a religious one? Sabbath keepers wouldn’t accept that answer. It remains illogical. It also contradicts Erol’s requirement that the offerings be kept at home; I don’t see that as a real problem, but it makes it unacceptable to him.
Scenario 3:
People put aside offerings and hand them to the leaders when Paul specified – the 1st day of the week … Paul meets with the leaders when he gets there, and gives the offering to someone to take to Jerusalem.
Problems: This meets the criteria a) of the collection being on the first day of the week without the
timing being illogical, and b) of collections not being held when Paul comes. It does, however, leave a problem for those who want to have “lay by him in store” mean that the donation would be kept at home.
Is that a problem? Yes, a real one. Many commentators take that view, even great Catholic scholars such as St John Chrysostom.
How to resolve the problem: the three aspects of the instruction must make sense together. Sunday,
“lay by him in store”, and no collections when Paul gets there.
That this be done on Sunday is clear, and there must be a reason for this being part of the
instruction. I’ve found no alternative explanation apart from the claim that this had to do with when people got paid; that claim doesn’t appear to hold any water, as secular society back then didn’t run its finances by the Christian or Jewish calendar. The only logical reasons for a specific timing by the Christian calendar would be for it to coincide with a Christian meeting, or with financial
practicalities. For the latter, I find no evidence.
That there be no collections held when Paul gets there is hard to get around, though several have tried. I’ve found those that suggest Paul would hold his own collection passing each home, but that defeats the purpose of his instruction. There are some that say that putting something aside at home each week would allow for a weekly commitment – i.e. planning – instead of a single collection at the end when Paul comes, followed by gathering it together when he gets there (either by Paul collecting it himself, or by calling the people to bring it to where Paul is.) That would allow for
“that there be no gatherings when I come” to apply only to individual contributions, but not to the final collection of what has already been designated as a donation. I don’t think there is enough in the text to consider that to be a safe interpretation – that the instruction was meant to have such an exception. And in no way does it solve the problem of why the individuals should do this on the first day of the week.
So, can “lay by him in store” be reasonably interpreted to allow for a weekly collection of the donations into one place to be kept safe by the Christian leaders? And if such an interpretation is reasonable, it is at least equal to Erol’s interpretation, because he is not the one true interpreter of the Bible, and he doesn’t have the authority to say that his interpretations are not mere
interpretations, but what the Bible actually says. He’d either have to prove that, or show why my interpretation is not possible, or not reasonable, if he hopes to win any argument.
I believe there is a reasonable interpretation that allows such a scenario. I believe there is a way to read those words that allows harmony between the two apparently contradicting statements – “lay by him in store” and “no gatherings when I come”.
The People’s New Testament commentary has the following to say:
The usual view is that every one was directed to set aside something on the Lord’s day and keep it until Paul came. This view is sanctioned by the translations and most of the commentators. Macknight renders: “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 Acts 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.
I find no source for the Macknight reference, but the argument holds.
Point 4 in the commentary above – Acts 21:7 should be Acts 20:7, and I agree with those who say that this is not an absolute proof that meetings on the first day were regular ones. It does, however, add to the body of evidence that it was the norm.
Point 3 in the commentary above – Pliny’s letter, as far as I can find, doesn’t deal with collections of money. An additional reference to Justin Martyr, 150 AD:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president …
– First Apology 68, Weekly worship of the Christians
The word “in store” can mean a central treasury in the Bible. In the Greek Old Testament (the one quoted from by the Apostles), the same word is used in the following passages, where it indicates a central treasury:
Joshua 6:19 – But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.
1 Kings 7:51 – So was ended all the work that king Solomon made for the house of the LORD. And Solomon brought in the things which David his father had dedicated; even the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, did he put among the treasures of the house of the LORD.
Nehemiah 7:70-1 – And some of the chief of the fathers gave unto the work. The Tirshatha gave to the treasure a thousand drams of gold, fifty basons, five hundred and thirty priests’
garments. And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of the work twenty thousand drams of gold, and two thousand and two hundred pound of silver.
Malachi 3:10 – Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
The words “lay by him”, as we have seen above, can be translated “lay by itself”. That is then completely compatible with placing the donation in a central treasury. However, it remains a bit odd that the offering would be placed “by itself” – I’ll leave that one open for thought, as it isn’t really necessary. The “by him” can be interpreted to mean, not merely the location, but the disposition of the person. Thus the “by him” and the “in store” need not be the same place. “By him” may refer to the way it is done (whether at home or anywhere else), while the “in store” may refer to the central location from which Paul would send it to Jerusalem.
Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible clarifies this:
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. The phrase in Greek, “treasuring up”, may mean that each one was to put the part which he had designated into the common treasury. This interpretation seems to be demanded by the latter part of the verse. They were to lay it by, and to put it into the common treasury, that there might be no trouble of collecting when he should come. Or it may, perhaps, mean that they were
individually to treasure it up, having designated in their own mind the sum which they could give, and have it in readiness when he should come.
The first part of his explanation makes the most sense. The last sentence, giving another
interpretation, has the same problems as previously discussed in this post – the question as to why it had to be Sunday, and the problem with a collection of all the donations being required when Paul arrived, contrary to his instructions, and impractical if there was a functioning leadership in Corinth.
Here are a few of the more interesting quotes from Erol:
I wrote:
Sabbatarians often claim that the money was to be collected at home on a weekly basis.
Erol replied:
We do not claim, scripture does! Like I showed in the post, the Greek shows the true
We do not claim, scripture does! Like I showed in the post, the Greek shows the true