1 Corinthians 16:1-2
This verse so clearly proves weekly 1st day (Sunday) collection within the worship services, that Sabbatarians are at a loss what to do with it!

A. Sabbatarians would never get the passage wrong if it said: "Every Sabbath, let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come."

1. This proves the natural reading of the passage is the collection taken within a Christian assembly.
2. There is nothing that would PREVENT this from being the weekly church offering while assembled.
3. Tithing is actually prohibited in the New Testament by 2 Cor 9:7. (see below) Freewill offerings is the only type of giving allowed into the church treasury.

1. This is for the whole church of Corinth, as already put in place with the churches of Galatia.
2. On the first day of the week, not the Sabbath
3. EVERY week (KATA is used both here and in Acts 14:13 "elders in every church")
4. Give to the work of the church
5. Each according to their level of prosperity.
6. Into a common treasury so that no collections from individuals needs to be made.

The phrase: "that no collections be made when I come" 1 Cor 16:2

1. Foremost, the reason this passage prohibits individuals saving up themselves at home as Sabbatarians interpret, is the phrase, "that no collections be made when I come".
2. As you can see in the chart below, the Sabbatarian position requires a collection from each member when Paul arrives. The local brethren would have to get word out on foot to bring their money, or go to each member's home and collect it.
3. It would make all Christians a target for thieves if each Christian had a money bag of 10% stashed in each of their houses. Now if it took Paul several months to get there, this might amount to 50% of one weeks pay. In today's dollars, that would be about $1000 hidden in your home, that you had saved up every week for two months! Quite a temptation for thieves! But a common treasury eliminates all this! He could put the money in the bank... even in the first century! If each Christian put their money in the bank, it would only further complicate the collection process by Paul when he arrived.
4. The Sabbatarian view would allow many to be tempted to spend it themselves, thinking they could "make it up" when needed.
5. It would make it difficult to get all the money quickly if Paul arrives mid week. Imagine Paul arrives on a Tuesday. According to what 1 Cor 16:2 he could get the single money bag from the treasurer and leave the same day! But with the Sabbatarian position, Paul would have to send word out to each member at home. He might have to wait till members come to church next worship service before they learn that they must bring their money. They must go home, then come back... work that would violate the sabbath! Then more time is lost when members go home and return, perhaps days later, with the money. What about the "rich member" who has a huge donation, but is away on business for three weeks!
6. For these and many more reasons, the command of 1 Cor 16:2 is for each member to give every Sunday into the church treasury during the assembly.
7. The irrefutable conclusion is: If 1 Cor 16:2 requires each member to give into a common treasury, this must, by inference be the church treasury when they were already assembling. The text assumes that the money be given during the normal assembly time of the church.

1. We always do Bible things in Bible ways and use this verse as authority from God for taking a weekly collection.
2. Sabbatarians have no basis for taking a collection on the Sabbath, it violates the Bible pattern.

 E. The phrase: "EVERY 1st day" in 1 Cor 16:2 is in the Greek:

The Greek word "KATA" is the same in both 1 Cor 16:2 and Acts 14:23. Greek authorities agree that 1 Cor 16:2 says, "every week".

1. 1 Cor 16:2 "first day of every [KATA] week"
2. Acts 14:23 appoint elders in every [KATA] city"

Albert Knight, Elder Seventh-day Adventist church said: "According to this text, the first day of the week is the day to take care of personal financial matters. At the beginning of each week the Christian is to "lay by him in store" his contribution, systematically planning his giving and setting it aside. Figuring out one's offerings involves a calculation of earnings. If God had transferred the solemnity of the Sabbath to the first day of the week, Paul would not have recommended such activity to be done on that day."

1. We take note that Sabbatarians will agree this verse is connected with the "weekly Sabbath offering." They say this verse merely discusses the process of calculating how much to give, not the actual giving itself.
2. The verse does not instruct Christians to take care of "all their financial matters", but to engage in the actual act of giving every Sunday into the church treasury. In fact the text speaks about the actual process of putting money into a common treasury and says NOTHING about "sitting down and calculating how much to give".
3. But exactly what activity in this verse is PROHIBITED? Calculating 10% of your pay cheque? And just how much calculation is required when you get a pay cheque at the end of the week? A simple 2 second calculation you make in the head as you walk away from the boss after he hands you the money? People got paid at the end of the week on Friday. There is plenty of time after the work day on Friday to make any such calculation.
4. If this verse instructs Christians to calculate their Sabbath offering, the most logical time would be right after getting paid Friday afternoon at the end of the work week and the day before the "divine Sabbath service". Seems the Holy Spirit got it backwards for Sabbatarians! According to Sabbatarians, the Holy Spirit told us to make the calculation the day after it was to be given rather than the day before.
5. The Sabbatarian interpretation also means that that the Holy Spirit is asking Christians to make a calculation FOR THE CURRENT WEEK on day #1 before they have made any money!
6. And what about all those Sabbatarians who failed to make the calculation the previous Sunday, are they sinning by actually giving in the Sabbath service if they make the calculation in their head on the Sabbath?
7. It is the phrase, "that no collections be made when I come" that irrefutably proves the money was put into a common treasury and actually forbids each man saving the money up in his own home.
8. The church treasury is the only common treasury in view here.
9. But ask yourself, don't Sabbatarians make a collection every Sabbath into a common treasury EXACTLY LIKE 1 Cor 16:1-2 really says? (or at least sounds like it says) Yes!
10. Don't Sabbatarians wish to God the Holy Spirit had said, "Every Sabbath" rather than "Every 1st day" They would quote the passage in their assemblies like we do for authority and precedence for taking the church offering every week!
11. In fact a simple reading of the text of 1 Cor 16:1-2 would exactly apply to the weekly "Sabbath service offering". So how could such action be prohibited?
12. We quote in our assemblies Acts 20:7 for authority and precedence of taking communion every Sunday and 1 Cor 16:2 for taking the weekly church offering and collection.
13. So if Sabbatarians are right and the action in 1 Cor 16:2 is prohibited, then they are DOING THE PROHIBITED ACTION ON EVERY SABBATH when they give into the church treasury!

1. This has to be one of the most far fetched and unlikely arguments we have ever heard! But they make it worse by referring to Romans 15: "but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things. Therefore, when I have finished this, and have put my seal on this fruit of theirs, I will go on by way of you to Spain. " (Romans 15:25-28)
2. Well first, the canned fruit would have be deposited into a common treasury or storehouse so no collections of the bulk food be made when Paul came.
3. But as if Paul would be asking for actual food. Just how much food could Paul carry to help 5000 Christians in Jerusalem. Even 12 men could not carry much food! Did they use wagons and oxen? Would they not be easy and obvious and slow targets for robbery?
4. Notice Paul was doing the sealing, if it literal fruit! This proves the Sabbatarian argument wrong.
5. It is a metaphoric term like "we should bear fruit to God"
6. Here is a section from the The Porter-Dugger Debate, starting page 149, W. Curtis Porter is speaking to the Seventh Day Adventist who makes the argument that the collection was fruit!

Now to a further study of the Corinthian contribution (1 Cor. 16:1, 2). My friends says this contribution was a collection of figs, raisins and dates. Suppose it was. They would still have to lay it by in store on the first day of the week. But how does he prove his contention? He refers to 2 Cor. 9 and Rom. 15. In Rom. 15:28 he found this statement: "When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain." The word "fruit," he thinks, indicates it was figs, raisins and dates. My! My! What an argument! I suppose, then, when he "sealed this fruit" to them, that he canned it for them when he got there. Certainly it was their "fruit" for it was the product, or effect, of their love and liberality. I wonder if Dugger never heard of such use of the word "fruit." Otherwise, when John told the Jews to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance" (Matt. 3:8), he meant for them to bring a basket of grapes. And when Paul wished to "have some fruit among" the Romans (Rom. 1:13), he wished to raise a fig tree. Or when he desired fruit to the account of the Philippian church (Phil. 4:17), he, of course, was looking for a shipment of dates. This argument of Dugger's is about as sensible as one made to me by one of his brethren once. He said that this contribution was "meat" of some kind, for in 1 Cor. 16:4 Paul said: "And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me." But others had to help him carry it, according to verse 3, and Dugger thinks that proves it was not money. Well, I wonder how many bushels of figs, raisins and dates a few brethren could carry from Corinth to Jerusalem. Could they carry enough that it would be called a liberal contribution for a whole church, or for a number of churches as in this case? (I Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 9:13; Rom. 15:26). Dugger refused to answer my question as to whether his brethren take up a collection on the first day of the week, but he asks me if we take up one for the poor saints in Jerusalem. The residence of the saints is an incidental matter. If we thus obtain funds for the saints in Tulsa, in Washington, or anywhere else, we are carrying out the principle of the commandment. Dugger, do your brethren take up a collection the first day of every week for anybody anywhere? Please give me an answer. His reference to our previous debate, in which he says I evaded his questions, will produce a laugh for those who heard that debate; and it will doubtless cause those who have read the first proposition of this one to smile. I have no reputation for evading questions; and he can rest assured that his questions will be answered, although he has definitely refused to answer mine. He tells us that this collection was a home duty. Then why did Paul say "that no collections be made when I come"? According to Dugger, collections would have to be made after Paul arrived. Furthermore, why require a home duty to be done "on the first day of the week"? Why wouldn't some other day do just as well? Why didn't Dugger answer these questions? Then the expression, "in store," is from the Greek "thesauridzon," from the verb "thesauridzo," which means, according to Liddell and Scott: "to store or treasure up, lay by." The noun form, "thesauros," is defined by the same authority: "a store or treasure house: any receptacle for values, a chest, casket." So it does refer to the treasury, not to a home duty, and a man from Missouri who has studied Greek has been shown. Let us now notice his argument about the meeting in Troas (Acts 20:7). He says this could not refer to the Lord's supper, for there is no mention of the wine. Well, he claims 1 Cor. 5:8 refers to the Lord's supper but no wine is mentioned in this verse either. To be consistent, Dugger, you will have to give up your argument on 1 Cor. 5:8. The fruit of the vine is not mentioned in Acts 2:42, but it certainly refers to the Lord's supper. Acts 2:46 does not say "the apostles met every day to break bread." This breaking of bread was "from house to house," or "at home," as the margin says. Certainly it was not the Lord's supper. I know that "breaking bread" often refers to a common meal: and I know that it also refers to the Lord's supper (l Cor. 10:16). Dugger will not deny this. So what does it mean in Acts 20:7? Dugger says they came together to eat a common meal, but Paul, writing to Christians on another occasion, said: "Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home" (1 Cor. 11:33, 34). Christians did not come together in public assembly to eat common meals. They ate such meals at home—but in Troas "the disciples came together to break bread" on the first day of the week. This breaking of bread was therefore not a common meal. The bread which Christians broke when they came together was the Lord's supper (1 Cor. 11:20). This point my friend will never be able to touch. The argument stands as an impregnable wall against all the assaults of Sabbatarians."

Some over-zealous, but under-learned Sabbath keepers, will state the actual Greek words used in Acts 20:7 & 1 Cor 16:1 actually refer to the weekly Sabbath, not the first day of the week.

1. They say "first day of the week" as all Bibles read, is a mistranslation.
2. The only ones who say this are those who have no knowledge of Greek.

1. Of course Sabbatarians do not take the text as a literal exact pattern for the Lord's supper, but are using our own logic against us, since we do! Great for trying!
2. God's word doesn't specify time of day, only "first day of week." The first day of the week has a morning, afternoon and evening, a light and dark (Gen. 1:3-5).
3. "SUPPER" (Gk. deipnon) can mean "chief meal of the day". This is exactly what we would expect. Of all the "suppers" the Christian eats that week, communion is the chief supper!
4. "Lord's Supper" synonymous with "Lord's Table" (1 Cor. 11:20; 10:21)

"Each one must give as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. " (2 Cor 9:7)

1. There are two key verses that discuss Christians giving into a common church treasury: 1 Cor 16:1-2 and 2 Cor 9:7
2. Freewill offerings is the only type of giving allowed into the church treasury.
3. The phrase "as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion" clearly prohibits forced tithing of a pre-determine amount of 10%

1. The Jewish law of Tithing is forbidden in 2 Cor 9, yet Sabbatarians practice tithing from "the ceremonial law of Moses".
2. The Jewish law against eating pork was abolished by Christ, yet Sabbatarians continue to enforce what they call, "the ceremonial law of Moses": Mk 7:18-19; 1 Tim 4:1-4; Rom 14:2; Acts 10:9-16
3. The Jewish Sabbath was abolished in Col 2:14-16, yet Sabbatarians keep the Sabbath, which itself is the only ceremonial law of the 10 commandments.

We Speak truth in LOVE
"you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth" Jn 8:40

Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA