Grace, Giving, and Responsibility; 1 Cor. 16:1-4

The first four verses of chapter 16 focuses on the topic of giving, and then from verse 5 on we have simply closing notations related to various issues, personal plans on the part of the apostle Paul, and a few closing challenges.

1 Corinthians 16:1 ^NASB “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.” We have a change in topic. “Now concerning” is peri de [peri de] in the Greek. The de is the conjunction “and,” or sometimes it is simply translated the transitional word “now,” and sometimes it has the idea of “but.” Then the preposition peri means concerning or with reference to. The Corinthians Christians had apparently sent some questions by way of some messengers to the apostle Paul. When Paul wrote this he was teaching in Ephesus at the end of his second missionary journey. He is preparing them, as with other congregations, to take up a collection in relationship to a problem that existed down in Jerusalem. He is changing topics here because apparently they had some questions about how they should do this, procedural questions. In these four verses we get insight into the biblical doctrines of the believer’s responsibilities in giving financially to the local church. And we can expand this through a look at the subsequent instruction and comments that Paul makes in 2 Corinthians chapters 8 & 9 where he deals in more details with the doctrine of giving.

When Paul mentions this collection for the saints he doesn’t really tell us what this involves, but when we look at some other passages of Scripture we realize that this was a collection to take back to Jerusalem because the Jerusalem church had gone through a history of problems. When we look at such passages as Romans 15:6 and 2 Corinthians chapter eight we realize that what Paul was doing was taking up a financial collection. When he would arrive at one of these churches he had established he had established a procedure where they would on a regular basis, individually, privately, based on their own circumstances set aside a certain amount of money. Then Paul would give that money to a delegation of people to take back to Jerusalem. Paul doesn’t go into detail here and this leads us to assume that the Corinthians were well aware of who this collection was for and why it was necessary.

“…as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.” Here we have the verb diatasso [diatassw] which has to do with giving a mandate. He would go along and tell these believers that part of their responsibility was to take care of these other believers in Jerusalem. This really isn’t an option, it is a part of family responsibility; it is just part of what goes along with being members of the royal family of God and part of the behaviour standards that God has established for believers. “… so do you also” is an aorist active imperative, second person plural. The aorist active imperative emphasizes the priority of the action. Whenever there is an aorist imperative it indicates priority; when there is a present imperative it indicates standard operating procedure. In this situation it was to be moved up to priority scale.

In verse 2 he begins to give us some basic principles for giving. 1 Corinthians 16:2 ^NASB “On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.” It is very important to recognize that Paul doesn’t dictate an amount or a percentage. The first phrase, “on the first day of the week,” indicates the fact that this should be something that is regular. Really this portion of the verse, “as he may proper,” should be translated “as God has prospered you.” This is the present passive subjunctive of the Greek verb euodoo [e)uodow] and it means to have a path that goes well. It has the root meaning of having a good or successful road or path in life. It is a passive voice verb which indicates that God is the one who is performing the action, the believer is receiving the action of prosperity. You do not cause your prosperity, it is the result of how God has prospered you. The principle here is not tithing, it is grace giving.

The principle of tithing goes back to the Old Testament. The first mention of tithing is in Genesis 14:18-20. ^NASB “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand; He gave him a tenth of all.” Melchizedek means righteous king, and he is the king of Salem which later became known as Jerusalem. Melchizedek is a Gentile prist-king, and when Abraham returns from his victory he goes to Melchizedek who brings out bread and wine. Where do we see bread and wine in the Scriptures? We see it in the Passover meal and we see it in the Lord’s table. So would it be right to say there is a connection here? No. There may be certain similarities but that doesn’t mean there is a straight line connection between these two. This is simply a principle of fellowship, sitting down and eating a meal. So there is a very broad principle that is applied but it is not a direct mandate that you should always have bread and wine. In the time of Abraham and Melchizedek this was a custom. Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of all that he had gathered from the invading armies. Did Melchizedek ask for ten per cent? No. Did God tell anywhere prior to this in the Old Testament that they should give ten per cent of what they had? It is not there. This is the first use of the word tithe. Apparently this was a standard custom in the ancient world.

This instance is mentioned in Hebrews chapter seven. Hebrews 7:1 ^NASB “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, [2] to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all {the spoils,} was first of all, by the translation {of his name,} king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. What is the point of all this? He is talking about Melchizedek, who he was and his role, and he simply rehearses who Melchizedek was, an individual to whom Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils. [4] “Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.” There is no mandate there. This man must have been seen as superior to Abraham. Here Abraham is our progenitor but Melchizedek must have been even greater because Abraham gave him ten per cent of the spoils. [5] “And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest’s office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. [6] But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.” The point here is not on the tithing. He is not saying, Look, Abraham tithed; that is something you should do. He is saying that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, so Melchizedek’s priesthood is superior to the priesthood of Israel. The fact that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek is not the issue. So we don’t have a single passage in the New Testament that utilizes tithing as a basis for giving.

There are other examples of tithing in the Old Testament. In the Mosaic law the tithe is prescribed for mandatory giving. In fact, there are several tithes that are emphasized in the Mosaic law. In Leviticus 27:30 ^NASB “Thus all the tithe of the land, of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’S; it is holy to the LORD.” Israel’s government was a theocracy, but there had to be an administration of that government, and that human administration involved two groups of people: priests who took care of the whole sacrificial system and taught the Word, and God’s communication to prophets. But it is through the priests and the Levites that the kingdom was administered. Under the Mosaic law there was a tithe, and its function was to support the Levites. That is not analogous to the church supporting a pastor, it is analogous to citizens supporting the government through mandatory taxes. When they did not bring in their tithes in Malachi that was a reference to the treasury. In the ancient world the banking system was in the temples to the various gods because that was where there was the greatest security. When God condemned the Jews for not bringing the tithes into the storehouse you can’t apply that to the church, unless you are into covenant theology. It has to do with an income tax.

There was another ten per cent tax as well, and that had to do with a national feast and holiday. And then every third year another ten per cent was given to support the Levites, the alien, the orphan and the widow. That was mandatory giving. But the Mosaic law had another form of giving called free will giving, and this is what is analogous to the church. Then mandatory giving was to support the state; the free will giving was a grace oriented response to God, your gracious attitude of gratitude for all that God gave you. When we come into the New Testament the first category is wiped out because we don’t have a state support to support; we are not a theocracy. What we do have is a government that is supported through our income tax. The second category is free will giving which is the basis for the giving in the church age. There is not a mandatory amount, it is up to the individual and is determined by their gracious response to God and what God has provided for them.

What Paul is saying here is not the principle that there shouldn’t be a collection when he comes but he is saying not to wait until he gets there before they take up a collection. The point is not that there shouldn’t be a collection taken up for a special situation but that there should be planning ahead and regular giving.

1 Corinthians 16:3 ^NASB “When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem.” In other words, Paul is laying down a very important principle here, and that is that the pastor shouldn’t handle the money. [4] “and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me.” So he may travel with them but he is not going to be involved with them.