The Sabbath-School by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Dec 13, 1883

The Sabbath-School.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Lesson for Pacific Coast.—December 22.

1 COR. 16; 2 COR. 1-4.

NOTES ON THE LESSON.

"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." 1 Cor. 16: 1, 2. Paul does not here command the church at Corinth to make a collection, but simply gives them directions as to the manner of making it; the text shows that they had previously understood the necessity for such a collection. When Paul was at the council at Jerusalem, and received "the right hand of fellowship" from the apostles and elders there, that he should go unto the heathen, it was desired of him that he should remember the poor (Gal. 2: 9, 10); it was in accordance with this wish that he had previously asked the Corinthian brethren to give of their means.

THIS text is considered by first-day writers as the end of controversy on the Sunday question. Dr. Barnes remarks: "There is here clear proof that the first day of the week was observed by the church at Corinth as holy time." It is not claimed by him or any one else, so far as we know, that there is here anything like a commandment for Sunday observance, but simply that Paul recognizes the observance of Sunday as something already established. Now we wish to call attention to two things: 1. If the Sunday-Sabbath was then a fixed institution in the church, there must have been a time when it originated,—a time when the commandment was given. This cannot be denied, for it is well known, and admitted by all men of judgment and candor among first-day people themselves, that there was a long period when the first day of the week was considered only a working day, and the seventh was the only recognized day of rest. See Ex. 20: 8-11, and others. We repeat, then, that if this order of things were changed, a commandment to that effect must have been given. But since no one can find such a commandment, or any hint of such a thing, we deny that any such change was made. 2. From Dr. Barnes himself we will show that his "clear proof" that Sunday was observed by the Corinthians as a day of rest is an assumption unwarranted by the facts in the case. After quoting the Greek of the phrase, "lay by him in store," he says: "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.'" [All the best authorities agree on this; they make no question but that the apostle's words literally mean that the offerings should be laid by and treasured up 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." Now the moment it is admitted (and it cannot be denied) that the laying by was a personal affair with each individual at home, and not at church, then all that is assumed for first-day observance vanishes into nothingness. Moreover, to "calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity" is not generally considered to be the proper manner in which to keep the Sabbath. The Bible teaches a different way. See Isa. 58: 13. The passage under consideration is the last place in the Bible where the first day is mentioned; there are seven other places where it is found, and all of them give just as much support to the Sunday cause as this one does, and no more.

"I BESEECH you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboreth." 1 Cor. 16: 15, 16. Paul here shows that those who are addicted to the ministry of the saints are worthy of the highest regard; others are to submit themselves to such. There is consistency in this, for Paul says that those who sow bountifully shall reap also bountifully; not simply in temporal things, but in spiritual. The amount given does not matter; that will depend on circumstances; but those who devote themselves to the services of the Lord, by caring for his saints, are by him especially honored even here.

THE reader must not fail to compare the two verses just quoted, with the 16th verse of the 1st chapter. Paul says there that he baptized the household of Stephanas, and our Pedobaptist friends find in that statement proof that Paul baptized infants; "for it is not probable," say they, "that there were no children in the family; and if there were, then of course they must have been baptized, since they formed a part of the household." This is to many sufficient evidence in favor of so-called infant baptism. But let us apply the same reasoning in 1 Cor. 16: 15, 16. Here the word "house" is used instead of "household," but no one will dispute that in both instances family is meant. Paul says in this place that the house of Stephanas "have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Consistency requires that those who find infant baptism in 1 Cor. 1: 16 should on this text reason thus: "Of course there were infants in this family, and consequently we have here undoubted proof that in the early church children were so precocious that from their earliest infancy they worked diligently for the support of the saints." Remember that Paul is speaking of the same family in both instances. But concerning the latter text Pedobaptists would say, with all reason, that if those of the family who had come to years of discretion were given to hospitality, and to the service of the church, it is all that is required by the text; and thus they demolish their previous argument for infant baptism; for in order to reap any benefit from the statement that a household was baptized, they must prove that in every instance where something is predicated of a household, the same action is predicated of all the infants of that household, should there be any. This they would not attempt to do. When we remember that the strongest proof for infant baptism is found in the baptism of the households of Lydia and the jailer, we see that nearly the whole theory is evaporated by the consideration of this one text.

"FOR as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ." 2 Cor. 1: 5. There is in this verse a wonderful amount of comfort to the Christian, if it only be appreciated. It is simply a fulfillment of the promise, "As thy day, so shall thy strength be." Dr. Clarke well says that from this "we learn that he who is upheld in a slight trial, need not fear a great one; for if he be faithful, his consolation shall abound as his sufferings abound. Is it not as easy for a man to lift one hundred pounds weight as it is for an infant to lift a few ounces? The proportion of strength destroys the comparative difficulty." The angel said to Daniel, "The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits." Dan. 11: 32. The Lord himself said to the Jews that if they would obey him, five of them should chase an hundred, and an hundred of them should put ten thousand to flight. Lev. 26: 8. Would there be anything that the people of God could not do or endure, if they only had faith in God? With each new trial, fresh consolation would come, and each new duty entered upon would bring strength for its own accomplishment. What reason is there, then, in discouragement? Suppose the way is rough; "as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ." If a man be in Christ, he can do all things. Phil. 4: 13. Christ himself said, "In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." John 16: 33. Why should the fact that Christ has overcome the world, impart courage to us? Because it is an assurance that we can do the same, for all his strength is freely given to us, if we will but accept it. "This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." 1 John 5: 4. Is it, then, proper to say of any one man that he is a "weak Christian"? To be a Christian is to be in Christ, and those that are in this condition are partakers of his power, which is infinite. Just to the extent then that a man is weak in the Christian life, is he out of Christ, and, consequently not a Christian. This does not mean, however, that a man must be strong in himself; "our sufficiency is of God."

"BUT we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." 2 Cor. 4: 7. This shows that there is a purpose in our being weak. We are compared to frail earthen vessels, that might be easily broken. If such vessels were subjected to rough usage, and were still preserved intact, it would indicate that some special care had been exercised, for the destruction of the vessels would be the natural result. So if we are preserved from the snares of the enemy, it will indicate that some power far superior to ourselves is entitled to the credit. But Christ cannot work in us, if we feel so strong as to make the attempt to do the work ourselves. And since, having no strength, we often act as though we had it, it is certain that if we had any strength of our own, we would not give the Lord a chance to work at all, and we would be lost. We therefore repeat that it is a wise providence that has made us as weak as we are, in order that the power of Christ may rest upon us. Instead of becoming discouraged over our natural weakness, we ought rather, with Paul, to take pleasure in the fact, and "glory in infirmities; for when I am weak, then am I strong."