Extracts from My Scrap-Book by Dudley Marvin Canright

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Mar 16, 1876

Extracts from My Scrap-Book.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS, LUKE 16.

In claiming that this is simply a parable, we are in harmony with the great body of biblical expositors, as listen to the following:—

Lightfoot says: “And that it was a parable, not only the consent of all expositors may assure us, but the thing itself teaches it.” On Luke 16: 19.

Whitby says, “That this is only a parable, and not a real history of what was actually done, is evident.” Luke 16.

Theophylact says, “But this parable can also be explained in the way of allegory.” Luke 16.

Dr. A. Clarke says, “Let it be remembered, that by the general consent of all, except the basely interested, no metaphor is ever to be used in proof of a doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls.” On Matt. 5: 26.

1 COR. 16: 2.

First-day keepers always appeal to this text in proof of the sacredness of Sunday-keeping. They say that it shows that the apostles were accustomed to hold meetings every Sunday, because this passage directs them to take up a public collection every first day of the week. We say there is no such meaning in the passage. It simply means just what it says, “that every man should lay by him in store,” that is, by himself at home. That this is the true meaning of the passage can be shown by a host of authorities and translations, as witness the following:—

“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.”—Barnes.

“Some are of the opinion that the sums thus set apart were brought to the treasury of the church at the time; but the words do not seem to admit of that interpretation; and if each separately laid by the sum which he proposed to give, the whole would be brought together at once when necessary, without any trouble in soliciting contributions.”—Comp. Com.

“Every one was to lay by in store, have a treasury or fund with himself for this purpose.

“Some of the Greek fathers rightly observe here that this advice was given for the sake of the poorer among them. They were to lay by, from week to week, and not bring into the common treasury, that by this means their contributions might be easy to themselves, and yet grow into a fund for the relief of their brethren.”—Matthew Henry, Com.

“The apostle only meant that there should be no private and petty gatherings, then first to be made, when he came, but only one suneis-phora [joint contribution] formed, containing all the sums which had been gradually laid up in private.”—Bloomfield. Notes on Greek Text. And of the “gatherings,” he says: “The word logia is nowhere else found in the scriptural, and very rarely in the classical, writers; and seems to have been confined to the language of common life. It properly signifies a gleaning, and then, as here, a slight gathering.”

“Certainly it may not be inferred from this passage that collections took place among the congregations on the Sabbath, for it was Paul’s intention that each should make a suitable contribution at home.”—Olshausen, Com.

“Lay by him in store; at home.”—Justin Edwards’ Notes.

“‘Par’ heauto, by or with oneself; in one’s house at home, Fr. chez soi. 1 Cor. 16: 2. So Xen. Mem. 1.13.3.”—Robinson’s Lexicon.

“‘Par’ heauto, at one’s home or house. Lat. apud se, Hdt. 1.105, cf. 1.86.”—Liddell & Scott’s Lexicon.

These were Sunday men; some of them of the most rabid kind. What but the most evident facts could lead them thus to remove the foundation for a popular Sunday inference? I copy also a few translations:—

“Let every one of you put aside at home, and lay vppe whatever he thinketh mete.”—Tyndale.

“Let each one of you lay by himself in store.”—Sawyer’s.

“Let each of you lay by him and treasure up.”—Anderson (Disciple).

“Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.”—Syriac.

To the above I add a summary given by J. W. Morton, in his address to the Synod of the Ref. Pres. church:—

“I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means in the collection box of the congregation! Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, par heauto, ‘by one’s self, i. e., at home.’ Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it ‘apud se,’ with one’s self at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and DeSaçy, ‘chez soi,’ at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, ‘bei sich selbst,’ by himself, at home. The Dutch, ‘by hem selven,’ same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘appresso di se,’ in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘en su casa,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, ‘para isso,’ with himself. The Swedish ‘naer sig sjelf,’ near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above. Now if your premise is false, your inference is not only unnecessary, but wholly inadmissible.”

COL. 2: 16.

We claim that this has no reference to the weekly Sabbath. The ablest first-day commentators admit the same thing as may be seen by what follows:—

“It is not clear that the apostle refers at all to the Sabbath in this place [Col. 2:16], whether Jewish or Christian; his sabbaths, or weeks, most probably refer to their feasts of weeks”—A. Clarke, in loco.

“The days here referred to are doubtless the days of the Jewish festivals. It is not a fair interpretation of this to suppose that the apostle refers to the Sabbath properly so called, for this was a part of the decalogue, and was observed by the Saviour himself, and by the apostles also. It is a fair interpretation to apply it to all those days which are not commanded to be kept holy in the Scriptures.”—A. Barnes, in loco.

THE SABBATH IN PALESTINE.

The following statements relative to the names of the days of the week as they are now commonly named in Palestine, is from a late missionary from that country:—

“Not any of the nations, whether Jew or Arab, name the days of the week, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, &c.; nor do they call the first day of the week Lord’s day, nor do they ever give to the seventh day the name Saturday.”

“Never do they count the day from midnight to midnight, but always from sundown to sundown. The seventh day is known throughout Arabdom by yom es-sabb—or day of the Sabbath. Neither the word seven nor any other name is given by the Arabs to the Sabbath day. It is always the Sabbath; and the reason for it, they say, is, that this has been its name from the beginning.”

D. M. Canright.