1 Corinthians 16:1-4 (On the first day of every week)

Paul has now finished the serious theological part of his epistle, and so he moves to some practical concerns.

One recurring feature of many of Paul’s letters is his collection of funds for the saints in Jerusalem. We aren’t ever told exactly why this is needed, but Paul sees this sort of inter-congregational charity as at the core of the gospel.

(1Co 16:1-4 ESV)  Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do.  2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.  3 And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem.  4 If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.

Paul is soliciting a freewill offering, not a levy like the Temple tax.

And it is in actual fact a case of the support of the (socially) poor. The whole mode of expression, especially in Rom 15:25–28, shows that it is a question of a freewill offering. Kittel rightly points out that Paul uses as synonyms of λογεία not technical fiscal terms, but devotional expressions: χάρις, “gift,” v 3; 2 Cor 8:44ff.; κοινωνία, “fellowship,” Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:4; διακονία, “ministration,” Rom 15:31; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1; εὐλογία, “blessing,” 2 Cor 9:5; cf. also [vol. 67. p. 296] the plural in v 2. This confirms the picture of Gal 2; it is a question of a voluntary agreement. Its point is to document the unity of the church.

Hermeneia — A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible.

We do not know why the Jerusalem church was so poor, evidently poorer than other churches. But Jerusalem as a whole was not rich; it was largely dependent on the generosity of Jews from outside Palestine. Christians would be excluded from such bounty; indeed, they were the objects of special hostility and persecution (1 Thess. 2:14f.), and might well be in dire straits. There were famines from time to time (e.g. Acts 11:28–30). They may well have suffered also from the after-effects of the community of goods practised in the first days (Acts 4:34f.).

Another motive for Paul would arise from the fact that, just as the Jews helped their poorer brothers, so did the Greek religious brotherhoods (the eranoi). It would never do for the Christians to lag behind the Jewish and pagan world in their care for their poorer members.

We should also remember that Paul himself and the whole Gentile mission were held in suspicion by some of the more conservative elements in the Jerusalem church. Paul doubtless felt that a generous response to the need of the poor in that church would strikingly demonstrate the solidarity of the Gentile churches with the mother church, and do much to promote unity.

In any case, the Gentile Christians owed so much to the Jews that common gratitude demanded some such response (Rom. 15:27). The collection was being made throughout the Gentile churches of Paul’s foundation, as we see from the references to the Galatian churches (and those of Macedonia, 2 Cor. 8:1ff.; 9:1ff.).

Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale NTC 7; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985), n.p.

In the Churches of Christ, focus has long been drawn to 16:2, because it’s taken as a “binding example” requiring a weekly contribution to the church’s general fund. Of course, quite plainly, Paul wasn’t collecting for the Corinthian church’s general fund but rather a special fund dedicated to Jerusalem.

Moreover, it’s hardly clear that Paul is asking for the money to be set aside as part of the weekly Sunday assembly —

The most natural meaning of should set aside is, as many commentators from Chrysostom down have maintained, that each is to keep the money in store at home. But as Paul expressly deprecates the collecting of the money when he arrived (which would be necessary if they all had it at home), it is perhaps better to think of it as stored in the church treasury. Certainly in the second century money was collected at worship on the first day of the week (Justin, Apol. I.67.6).

Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale NTC 7; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985), n.p.

So it’s a definite maybe. Or something like that. The grammar argues for laying aside at home (perhaps because workers were paid weekly?), whereas early church history — not inspired — argues for giving the money at the assembly.

While Paul’s guidance here may well be applied to other financial commitments the members of a congregation take on (including commitments to a church’s annual budget and other financial needs) it should be noted that Paul is not discussing giving towards a church’s regular budget but the preparations to be taken for one particular and special project.

Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Pillar NTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), n.p.

So here’s the bottom line. We have this exactly backwards. We do.

Paul is not even addressing the contribution toward the common costs of the congregation — bread, wine, rent, whatever. He is speaking of a gift to be accumulated to relieve the poverty of their brothers and sisters in Jerusalem. And if this is a “binding example” of anything, it’s a binding example of contributing money to care for our fellow Christians who have legitimate financial needs.

And yet we are far more likely to dig deep to build a fellowship hall or a youth minister for our own kids than to relieve the poverty of any fellow Christian. We don’t give for this need because, as Americans, we can’t imagine the need. And so we repurpose God’s words to require us to give weekly for the janitor and the mortgage and the fellowship hall.

I’m not at all against spending money to have a suitable, helpful meeting space. I’m just against pretending that this is charity in the sense of what Paul is asking for. I’ve seen too many poor people turned away by too many churches to believe it.

So, bottom line time:

* You do not have to give weekly. God will be quite pleased if you give when you receive. Most people get paid twice a month or every two weeks. That’s fine.

* You and your spouse don’t have to give separate checks so that you’ve both engaged in all Five Acts of Worship during the assembly. It’s less than certain that Paul even expected the members to give during the assembly. Grammatically, he may have meant to set the money aside at home.

* We should certainly support the costs of our local congregation. Absolutely. That comes first.

* But we should also help to relieve the suffering of our poor brothers and sisters. We should stop pretending that poverty is always the fault of the poor person. Indeed, we should work extra, if need be, to have enough to give.

(Eph 4:28 ESV)  28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.

The goal for a former thief is not to become self-supporting, but to work to be able to share with others. Surely, the same is true of the rest of us.

* The notion that giving money is one of five and only five essential “acts of worship” that must be performed on each Sunday during the assembly is just not true. Electronic giving is okay. Mailing a check in is fine. The point is that we are to give, not that we are to give during the assembly.

Indeed, in the other references to this same fund-raising effort by Paul, he makes no mention of giving during the assembly — and it’s far from certain that he says any such thing here. What he does emphasize is our obligation to give — which is far more important than the form of our giving.

(Gal 2:10 ESV)  10 Only, [James, Peter, and John] asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.