Does 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Constitute a Binding Pattern?
This is an era of turbulent change—both in society, and certainly in the church. Increasingly, points of teaching, long cherished, are coming under critical dispute. One such controversial issue appeared in a recent article titled, “The Collection for The Saints,” published on a blog called Voice. The gist of the piece, by a sincere, intelligent young brother, is this. Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 regarding the Sunday collection was unique to the first century. Supposedly “implicit” in the apostle’s admonition is the reality that: “there was no regular weekly collection before this point, only a personal spontaneous yet cheerful giving of ones own liberty” (Joyce, 2010, 1).The following comments are offered with genuine brotherly concern.
The author contends that giving on the first day of the week was “not an item of worship" in the early church assembly. He alleges the apostle merely “urged” the brethren to give. Yet, by way of contrast, today we recklessly “command” it. The gentleman contends there is nothing in the context that justifies hoarding “money for rainy days, building funds, and ministerial salaries” (2).
The brother concludes that the motive behind Paul’s admonition was to cement Jew/Gentile relations, and such has no bearing upon the modern church. Thus, “we should abandon the traditional reading of the text, which has Paul commanding and extorting 21st century saints by guilt and condemnation, to give every week, primarily to maintain the building and pay someone’s salary….” (3).
Respectfully, we must respond. While Jew/Gentile tension was a portion of that package, it does not exhaust the scope of the sacred text. The problems with the essay under review are several.
(1) It cannot be established that systematic giving in the early church began only with the Galatian/Corinthian situation. (2) The writer fails to distinguish the general authorization for raising money in the early church, from the particular use of the funds in the Galatian/Corinthian situations. (3) The article provides no serious analysis of the Corinthian text. (4) The author ignores considerable scholarship, both in and out of the New Testament church, of some of the best Bible expositors—past and present. (5) The testimony of early church history is overlooked or discounted.
Read more »
