The Collection For the Saints

"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 (par heautō = at home) in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me" (1 Cor. 16:1-4).

Many times Acts 17:11 is used to show the nobility associated with searching a matter to its end. The Jews in Berea "searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." It is very easy sometimes to see error in opposing positions, but not always easy to see error with ourselves. The responsibility falls to you and me to search the meaning of the Scriptures daily to see if what we are being told (have been taught) is indeed the truth. 

This, however, is not simply looking at the verse on the page as self evident and believing the one who tells us, because he is such a great guy. The Bereans did not entrust their own salvation to a miracle-working apostle. They knew the meaning and value of the phrase "wolves come in sheep's clothing" and took appropriate and wise actions.

"Searching the Scriptures" (John 5:39) means to personally understand the truth for one's self without depending on another. Jesus, Himself, behaved this way:

"But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man" (John 2:24-25, ESV).

Simply agreeing with a recognized sound brother, or even extensively memorizing passages of Scripture, does not guarantee that one understands or teaches the Bible correctly. Only by taking personal responsibility can we avoid propagating error. In His response to the religious rulers and scribes who copied the Scriptures for a living, Jesus warns of the danger involved in finding approval from one's own peer group instead of seeking it from God only:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people...I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? (John 5:39-44).

In 2 Corinthians 10:12, Paul summarizes Jesus' point of how a cliquish mentality actually hinders one from learning more truth:

Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.

Only by adding moral courage to our faith may we continue to understand more meaning from Jesus' words, remain His disciples, grow in grace and maturity, and increase understanding and knowledge (John 8:31f; 2 Pet. 1:5f).

Paul wisely instructed Timothy to "give diligence" (study, KJV) to show himself approved, a workman of God that need not be ashamed." While I like encouragement/ agreement as much as anyone, honesty compels me to teach what may go against vested interests.

To teach what can be supported by research and facts, not what long standing tradition says, or who said it. This is no where more important than concerning the collection for the saints in 1st Corinthians 16:1-4.

The collection for the (poor Jerusalem) saints is used as justification for just about everything but helping poor people, much less only poor Christians, but this is, in fact, the only context the passage has which includes the remote context of 2nd Corinthians chapters 8 and 9.

The need for this collection is first mentioned in Acts 11:27-30; later in Romans 15:25-28 and earlier in Galatians 2:6-10. Today, we help (poor) people out of a treasury that we accumulate weekly, but, for the most part, we buy buildings, pay the preacher and the light bill, and whatever other miscellaneous items arise through the natural course of events.

I am not saying that pooling money is wrong, but we have been taught putting money into a collection plate on Sunday for others to control is an "act of worship" that all people are obligated to ritually perform on the first day of every week to be judged faithful to God.

Is 1 Cor. 16:1-4 talking about a church treasury as a mandatory act of worship? Let's give diligence, examine the passage in-depth, prove all things and cling to that which is good. Let's begin with the following paragraphs which are taken from a recent debate on this subject:

DEBATE FROM A FEW YEARS BACK

            Debater A: "The case has been set forth that this phrase (par heautō) must mean "at home". Yet I would like to point out that not one of the English translations I have ever seen has "at home" in it. One would think that if this idiomatic phrase had that much force to it, that the scholars who translated the Bibles would know that this meant "at home" and would have put that in the text. I looked at most of the English translations I have and the words "at home" are not there. It seems to me that some in this discussion claim to know more about the Greek than the scholars who rendered the various translations we have at our disposal."

            Debater B: "Do any of the English translations translate “baptidzo” as immersion?  Could their translation efforts sometimes reflect a vested interest in maintaining their denomination’s theology?  We could go into many translation problems which demonstrate how translators handle the text so as not to a cast poor light on what they are already practicing. As to the force of the idiom par heautō we might compare it to other idioms that are translated “home” in contexts where a money–mill is not at stake."

"In Luke 24:12 we find probably the most damaging information to the assertion that par heautō does not mean "at home."  We find the accusative of heautou (rather than the dative as in 1 Cor 16:2).  The prepositional phrase is pros heautōn. This is translated as “he went home”  in the ESV (apalthen pros heautōn). Apparently the scholars who translated the Bibles actually do know what this phrase means. The accusative case implies extension and with verbs of motion, like “apalthen” (he went), the phrase means ‘towards’ and completes the idiomatic sense of  "he went home."

"Another significant idiom is found in the use of “idios." The use of this phrase for “one’s home” is found in the papyri and in John 16:32, 19:27, and Acts 21:6 where the plural “ta idia” is used.  Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said, “To all intents and purposes it is interchangeable in sense with heautous.” He references Moulton as showing idios as equivalent to heautou.  If the sense of “ta idia” in the three passages just mentioned is “home” and idios is the equivalent of heautou, then it is accurate  to translate par heautō as “at home” in 1 Cor. 16:2."

"In John 20:10 we find another nail in the coffin for this idea that heatou cannot possibly refer to one’s home. In this passage the accusative plural phrase “pros heautous” is found and is translated "to their own homes" in the ASV, KJV, NKJV, and ESV. Again we see that Bible translators do indeed know how these idioms are to be employed and the fact that they gave a literal translation in 1 Cor. 16:2 instead of the actual idiomatic meaning is not because they do not know, but for some other reason that does not rest on linguistics."

"This is not a matter of knowing more Greek than the translators, but having the honesty to properly and consistently translate and interpret the words.  There is no trouble translating the sense of par heautō properly everywhere else these idioms are found. Why do translators not follow suit in 1 Corinthians 16:2? Because to do so would conflict with some belief or practice which is already in place.  Such is surely the case with ‘baptidzo’, so how hard is it to see the same bias in play when it comes to 1 Cor. 16:2 and the separating of people from their money?  How else can those in control maintain control?"

            Debater A: "If Paul would have wanted them to store up this treasure at home, why didn't he just tell them to do that plainly instead of using an idiom? Paul certainly knew how to do that. Paul commanded the Corinthians who were abusing the Lord's supper to eat "at home" (1 Corinthians 11:34). He commanded the women to ask their husbands "at home" in 1 Corinthians 14:35. He commanded children and nephews of widows to show piety "at home" in 1 Timothy 5:4. He commanded the women to be chaste keepers "at home" in (Titus 2:5). If Paul had wanted these people to lay up and store their collection at home, then he certainly did not have to use an idiom to do it. Just because a phrase could be understood or used in an idiomatic fashion, it does not stand to reason that it must be understood that way."

            Debater B: "So, Paul shouldn’t have used an idiom if he wanted to express the idea of "home," and just what it used for proof?  That’s right, other idioms!  Robertson notes that “the rule in Attic literary prose is to use a preposition with the locative of place.” And that is what we see in the samples given, as well as in 1 Cor. 16:2. In 1 Cor. 11:34 and 14:35 we have the idiom “en oiko.”  Literally these translate as “in house” but the use is “at home.”  (cf. John 11:20). So, it's now permissible to use idioms in other verses one agrees with where idioms are used to mean “at home?”  This is glaringly obvious when one references Titus 2:5 which uses “oikourous,” literally meaning, “house workers”. Moulton defines it as “one who is occupied in domestic affairs.” It does not literally mean “at home,” but as you can see there's no problem using the idiom for “at home” when one agrees with it.  Why do you suppose he did not cite an instance of a non-idiomatic reference? Why is he [Debater A] allowed to use idioms, and only idioms, for the sense of “at home,” but for someone else (especially all the Greek scholars) to do the same thing in 1 Corinthians 16:2 just can’t possibly be right?" [end debate material].

OVERVIEW OF 1ST CORINTHIANS CHAPTERS 11:18—16:1-4

Tod Buttermore writes,

"In 1 Corinthians 11:18f, Paul specifically mentions “coming together” in an "assembly”. In chapter 14:19, Paul speaks of the "whole church" in one place. In chapters 11, 12 and 14 the Supper is discussed, singing is discussed, praying is discussed, and prophesying is discussed. Chapter 13 is Paul's explanation as to how the Corinthian's may correct their divisive behavior when assembling as a whole church. Everything was to be done in such a way that edification of the hearers was foremost. Other matters are touched on in passing but these are the crux of the matter."

"Paul concludes his handling of assembly matters in 14:40 with the words: “let all things be done decently and in order.” He has just covered everything that has to do with an assembly of the "whole church." Had there been more correction needed regarding assembly actions why did he not deal with it while discussing an assembly in 11:18--14:40?"

"We might also wonder why Paul is just now supposedly addressing an assembly action by telling them to do it on the first day of the week when he had previously been there for 18 months (Acts 18:11). Had he let it slide while he was there so that he needed to tell them about this "mandatory" item of worship later? And then another year on top of that  was needed for further instructions in 2 Cor. 8—9? No, there is no "mandatory assembly action" discussed in 1 Cor. 16:1-4."

"When done discussing whole church assemblies, Paul moves on to another topic which is in need of correction and expansion, the resurrection of the dead (chp. 15). Then Paul comes to the topic of this post (chp. 16), the collection for the poor saints in Judea. This is another independent topic noted by "Now concerning…" (peri de) as the introducing phrase (see  1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12). Paul speaks here about the voluntary collection of funds for relieving the poor saints in Judea, which 2 Corinthians 8—9 also discusses, about a year later. The words Paul uses here are personal and individual. There is no idea of collective action, collective edification, or assembly even hinted at in the text. There is no idea of worship or “offering to God” stated or implied. Each individual was to do something."

Buttermore continues:

"On the first day of the week “each of you…along side of himself…let him put up…he storing up…whatever he is prospered.” Why was this instruction given? “So that whenever I come there are no collections then.” Does Paul want collections to continue when he arrives? No. Why not? If this is a mandatory assembly action of weekly worship? The collections Paul wants made by each one before he arrives are the same ones he wants to cease after he arrives (emphasis mine, sp). These brethren had a year to amass their funds and Paul wanted to make sure they did it incrementally, week by week, so that when he arrived each one would not be under pressure to get his “purposed” gift ready (2 Cor. 9:7)."

"Paul is saying, “Don’t wait until I get there and then try to collect it all at once." As a matter of fact even those who don’t properly translate and interpret these verses (those who see a church treasury) understand it that way. McGarvey and Pendleton said: “According to Paul's method of collecting, each rendered a weekly account of his stewardship, and gave more and felt it less than if he had attempted to donate it all at one time.” Lipscomb and Shepherd said: “The collection was directed to be made weekly, because it is easier to contribute in small amounts than all at once."

Also, the argument that Paul wanted it to be in "one place" for convenience is not necessary since his desire was to "spend the winter" in Corinth and, "he hoped to spend some time with them" (1 Cor. 16:5-7). Paul's practice included teaching "house to house" (Acts 20:20), so the expediency argument that some insist is the only one Paul could have meant by saying, "that there be no gatherings when I come" is a creation of their collective minds and not from Paul.

Here are Literal Translations relative to the phrase "par heautō" = by him(self):

Berry's Interlinear—"Every first day of the week each of you by him let put up, treasuring up whatever he may be prospered in, that not when I may come then collections there should be."

Marshall's Interlinear—"Every one of a week (= on the first day of every week) each of you by himself let him put storing up whatever he is prospered, lest whenever I come then collections there are."

Young's Literal Translation—"On every first [day] of the week, let each one of you lay by him, treasuring up whatever he may have prospered, that when I come then collections may not be made."

Darby's Translation—"On [the] first of [the] week let each of you put by at home, laying up [in] whatever [degree] he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come."

Buttermore continues:

"The previous are literal word for word translations of the Greek text. You will notice that two common assumptions are absent from the text, the assembly and a church treasury. Individuals are encouraged to store up weekly an accumulation (thesauridzon) of what they might be prospered, and that it is to be done "by himself"--not obligatorily into a church treasury. This is clarified by further examination of language resources:"

Robertson's Word Pictures—"Lay by him in store . . . By himself, in his home. Treasuring it."

Vincent's Word Studies in the NT—"Put by himself treasuring. Put by at home."

W. R. Nicoll—"On every first (day) of the week let each of you by himself (= at home) lay up, making a store (of it), whatever he may be prospered in." "par heauto - thesaurizon, 'making a treasure,' describes each householder till at the end the accumulated store should be paid over."

H. K. Moulton—par heauto--"with one's self, at home, 1 Co. 16:2."

J. H. Thayer—Concerning the reflexive pronoun 'heauto:' "reflexive pronoun of the 3rd person. It is used 1. Of the 3rd pers. Sing. And plur., to denote that the agent and the person acted on are the same; ...Of the phrases into which this pronoun enters we notice the following: ...par heauto, by him i.e., at his home, 1 Cor. 16:2 (Xen. Mem. 3, 13, 3)."

"These five language experts are in agreement as to the meaning of the Greek text. They all understand that the text is instructing the Corinthian brethren to take out of what their weekly prosperity might be and create their own personal treasuries at home. None of these experts see the assembly in this verse, because it is not there. None of them see a church treasury in this verse, because it is not there."

"There is no collective fund being discussed here. The language is individual and singular in nature. 'Each of you . . . by himself . . . let him put . . . he storing . . . whatever he is prospered.' In order to provide a text for giving in the assembly into a church treasury one must read that view into this text (eisegesis) and distort what Paul means (proof text)."

Buttermore's diligence continues:

Greek Lexicons concerning the preposition "para" (par'):

Bauer, Ardnt, Gingrich and Danker (BAGD, BDAG)—Concerning the preposition 'para:' "2. [with the dative it means] at or by the side of, beside, near, with, ...1 Cor. 16:2."

Strong's Concordance—Concerning 'para' with the dative, "at (or in) the vicinity of".

"For clarification's sake, the preposition "para" (by) can be used with three cases, the genitive, which indicates motion away from the side of a subject. The accusative case when there is motion toward the side of a subject. And the dative case, as found in 1 Cor. 16:2, is used when there is a resting beside the subject. This is the dative of location. We might further note that this preposition is linked to "heauto" (himself), which is a reflexive pronoun in the dative case. It is masculine in gender, agreeing with the gender of its substantive ekastos' (each), which is a nominative, singular, masculine pronominal adjective used as the subject of this verse. A pronoun always refers back to its substantive (in this case the subject of the sentence), the pronoun and the substantive being the same thing (as in Thayer above)."

"The function of a pronoun is either anaphoric or deictic. Anaphoric usage occurs when a grammatical substitute is used to refer to a preceding word (e.g., relative pronoun). Deictic usage occurs when a pronoun directly points out the subject in order to distinguish it (e.g., demonstrative pronoun). In either case the pronoun is referring back to the original subject of the sentence. "The reason for the use of pronouns" says Robertson, "was to avoid the repetition of the substantive." In our case, the reflexive pronoun in the prepositional phrase 'par heauto' is a relative pronoun, used instead of the subject 'ekastos."

This means that it cannot be interpreted "by itself" (neuter) as per B. W. Johnson and MacKnight, et al., in support of binding a church treasury.

Liddell and Scott—Concerning para and heautou it says, "reflexive pronoun of the 3rd pers., ...of himself, herself, itself, ...'par heauto, at one's home."

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT)—In his article on ‘para’ with the dative of location Riesenfeld says “cf. 1 C.16:2: par heauto, 'at home.'"

Buttermore concludes:

"The following summarizes the context of 1^st Corinthians 16:1-4:

 (1) What?--“The collection for the saints"

 (2) When?--"Upon the first day of the week”

 (3) Who?--“Each one of you.”

 (4) Do What?--"Lay something aside"
 (5) How much?--“As he may prosper”
 (6) Why?--“That there be no collections when I come.”

 (7) Where?--" ____    __________ ."

REFERENCES

 

http://forum.preachersfiles.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2297

"The Collection For the Saints? or, The Collection From the Saints," by Tod Buttermore. I can send you a complimentary copy of this eBook on request.

Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker Berry (Grand Rapids: Baker Books) 1981.

Interlinear Greek-English New Testament:  The Nestle Greek Text with A Literal English Translation by Alfred Marshall (Grand Rapids: Zondervan) 1975.

Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (YLT) by Robert Young; originally published in 1862. http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/1_Corinthians/16.html

The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby; originally published in 1867.

A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research by A. T. Robertson, (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914)

http://www.archive.org/stream/grammarofgreekne00robeuoft#page/676/mode/2up

Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume 4: The Epistles of Paul by A. T. Robertson (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931) p. 200.

Word Studies in the New Testament: Volume 3: Romans—Philemon by Marvin R. Vincent, reprint, n.d. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson) p. 288.

The Expositor's Greek Testament edited by W. R. Nicoll, reprint, 1990 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) p. 945.

The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised:  1978 Edition by Harold K. Moulton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan) p. 110.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph H. Thayer, orig. published 1896 by T & T Clark, reprint 1999 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson) p. 163.

A Greek –English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker (Chicago; University of Chicago, 1979) p. 610.

The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible by James Strong (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, reprint 1995) p. 66 of the Greek Dictionary of the New Testament.

The Standard Bible Commentary: Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans by J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Co., 1916) pp. 160-166.

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/mcgarvey/tcgr/TCGR333.HTM

New Testament Commentaries Based on the American Standard Version: 1 Corinthians by David Lipscomb and J. W. Shepherd (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1943).

A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (London: Clarendon Press, 1871) pp. 188, 519.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fvUYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=liddell+and+scott&source=bl&ots=IC4OdIUAYg&sig=T38m2zPVoLa6Tsw_hts2Ey8NqK4&hl=en&ei=HXOITcbFJdG2tgf0wP3zDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q&f=false

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume 5 edited by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich and Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) p. 731.