From: A Torah
Commentary on First Corinthians 13-16 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth,
Jr. © 2011
Chapter 16
We read in the first verse
that Paul had already successfully encouraged the congregations in the province
of Galatia to begin a collection for the survival needs of the Christians in
Palestine. With that accomplished, he
now wished to be assured that the Corinthians would do the same as well. It could have been to meet the needs of
famine or the escalating price of those foodstuffs that were
available—pricing it virtually beyond their ability to purchase even minimal
amounts.[1] Even regional economic problems could have
crunched the ability of many to afford their survival needs even when supplies
were theoretically available.
Whatever the cause,
the result was economic hardship above and beyond the norm. Hence the need for this special purpose
collection—temporary in time and for the benefit of those outside the local
congregation.
Having begun the chapter
with a plea for a generous contribution, Paul moves on to urge a considerate
and respectful reception for his representative, Timothy. He was a relatively young man and there was
the danger his efforts would be dismissed for that reason. Furthermore, Paul had written some strong
words to the Corinthians and there was always the danger that some would use
the opportunity to express their annoyance by giving Timothy a difficult time.
Their standard of behavior
toward Timothy, toward the contribution for the needy, and toward others in
general was to be a manifestation of love (16:14). Annoyance and embarrassment were not
justifications for mistreatment. Finally
(16:15-16), they were to follow the good example of behavior and leadership
provided by such as those of the household of Stephanas. They had available some fine role
models. They needed to learn from them
instead of following their baser instincts that had so divided the congregation
into factions.
How the Themes Are Developed
[Page 137]
The Corinthian role in the
charitable aid
being gathered
for Jerusalem (16:1-16:4)
ATP
text: “1Now concerning
the charitable donation for God’s set apart followers: As I directed the congregations of Galatia,
so you also are to do. 2On
the first day of every week, let each of you put something aside and store it
all up together--based upon how you prosper--so that contributions need not be
made when I come. 3And when I
arrive, I will send those whom you select to carry your gift to Jerusalem along
with your introductory and accrediting letters.
4If it seems appropriate that I should go also, they will
accompany me.”
Development of the
argument: The Corinthian reader of
the epistle could be near despair by the time he or she reached chapter
sixteen. So many things wrong! So many alterations in practice and attitude
are needed! Yet Paul had already taken
their problem of denying the individual resurrection (chapter 15) and ended
that discussion on a positive note (15:57-58).
He attempts to encourage that up beat frame of mind in the remainder of
the letter as well. Hence he wraps up
his epistle with three major themes-- the contribution for needy believers
(16:1-4), their preparing for his return (16:5-12), and short passing words of
admonition and praise on a variety of subjects (16:13-24).
The most immediate thing is something that transcended local factionalism since it did not involve them personally--something all could throw themselves into with full enthusiasm for it was outside the realm of their local controversies. That was the contribution for the needy Christians in Jerusalem. “Let each one of you” (16:2); the poor just as well as the rich;[2] the slaves[3] (who might have cash rarely but who were unlikely to be totally bereft of it) just as much as the freemen; the member of each and every faction; even the faction leaders in a display that factionalism could and should be set aside in service of a greater good.
What differs dramatically in the giving prescribed here--from then contemporary custom in the surrounding polytheistic, class conscious society—is Paul’s insistence upon all members contributing according to their degree of financial gain. Roman society expected the wealthy to be generous; to expect the financially marginal or poor to dip into their meager income and set aside a proportion represented a major departure from the Gentile norms of the day.[4]
Especially is this the
case when we consider that they did not personally know the individuals they
were helping nor did they have any ties of personal acquaintance or physical
kinship. Yet if they were to be regarded
as spiritual kin—which is certainly the mind-frame Paul was trying to
instill—then they owed a responsibility to them even if the “dollar” amount
they could provide was extremely limited.
This wasn’t “giving to be
giving,” this was giving for a specific and compelling [Page 138] purpose:
the temporal and physical needs of their co-believers in the time of
their distress. The locals had no
“vested interests” in the matter to hinder enthusiastic participation. Furthermore, since this collection was not
unique to Corinth, this was a reassuring note that the Corinthians were not
being singled out for some special obligation.
He
had already instructed the congregations in Galatia to take up such a
collection (16:1), but when and where we do not know.[5] There is every reason to assume that the
procedures he now lays down for the Corinthians were the same that he had
provided the Galatians since they are of such a nature that they would have
fitted any and all local conditions.
Hence the Corinthians were
to gather the funds together weekly so that the collection process would be
completed by the time of Paul’s return (16:2).
Then he would see this one time[6]
“gift to Jerusalem” put in the hands of the messengers they had selected
(16:3). Indeed, it was possible (though
not certain) that he would accompany them on their journey to Palestine (16:4).[7]
He presents these requests
as if they already knew that a collection should be taken up. The “now concerning” language in verse 1 may
well, in fact, be an indication they had raised questions on the matter because
that introductory formula is used in other places in the book with just such an
intent.[8] For unknown reasons they had failed to begin
to begin the effort—quite possibly their obsession with inner divisions had
kept their minds diverted or the questions they had were used as an excuse for
postponement. Not to mention that the
questions might well have become interwoven with their existing disagreements
on other matters, making it impossible to carry out any action with general
agreement.
Whatever the exact reason,
Paul is interested in “lighting a fire” under them and getting them
started. Even so, he clearly believes
that there is adequate time to accomplish the goal and his instructions presume
a period of at least a few months or more in which to do so.[9] Perhaps this is implied out of a concern that
they would use the “brevity” of time as an excuse to do nothing at all; the
“too late to do anything” mentality.
We certainly seem to have
a strong hint that they had delayed matters considerably before this
epistle. When writing the second letter,
he refers to the enthusiasm that they had thrown into the effort: “you began and were desiring to do a
year ago” (2 Corinthians 8:10). On the
other hand, “Achaia was ready a year ago,” which seemingly argues that
they were ready to wrap up the collection effort and send it at the very time
the Corinthians began it (2 Corinthians
9:2).
If so, things still
managed to work out well in spite of the delay:
“your zeal has stirred up the majority,” he promptly adds in the same
verse. Their enthusiasm and the extra
time they had inadvertently given to Achaia had actually worked to promote the
Achaian effort to even greater success.
In light of the inevitable subtle ethnic tension between a Palestinian church that was overwhelmingly Jewish and a church in Greece and Galatia (and other nearby areas) dominantly if not overwhelmingly Gentile, this relief effort would function as a potent indication of good will. It would be a very practical yet very real “symbol of the unity of the whole church”[10] as congregations in diverse areas contributed to the need of their co-religionists in the Judeo-Christian spiritual heartland of Palestine.
[Page 139] Furthermore (as
Galatians bears witness) there were even times and places with severe tensions
between the two groups. By generous
giving, communities like Corinth would be proving by their actions how much
they respected and desired to help those who had been first in the faith. This could go far in making “traditionalists”
less wary of the expansion into the Gentile world.[11]
Yes, there were
differences—even serious ones at times—but underneath them was a sense of jointly
participating in a common task for their shared Lord.[12] If “actions speak louder than words” even in
our age, this contribution to the economically distressed and hurting would
serve as a very tangible expression of the respect and good will of Christians
in other areas.[13]
From
Paul’s personal standpoint there may have a major personal incentive as
well. As a Jewish Christian, Paul would
have a natural concern for such individuals even above that for Christians in
general.[14] Some were passionately opposed to him because
of his openness to the Gentile “outsiders.”
Paul had described love in detail in chapter 13; in the contribution,
love would be shown in action. And it
would show that Paul held no grudge against those he had disagreed with.
The
symbolism of the gift would be a two-way street for the Jewish recipients would
be implying something as well. Indeed
“for the Jews to accept the gift would have in that culture signaled that they
were accepting the Gentiles as equal partners in the gospel.”[15] Real world essentials needed to be met and
that was the dominant reason for Paul’s intercession with the Gentiles. On the other hand, he would have been well
aware of the symbolic overtones of the contribution—from both the recipients’
and givers’ standpoints.
Paul himself would
eventually come at some point
after Pentecost (16:5-16:9)
ATP text:
“5I will visit you after
traveling through Macedonia, for I intend to pass through Macedonia, 6and
perhaps I will stay with you or even spend the winter, so that you may assist
me on my journey to wherever I go next. 7For
I do not want to see you now just briefly; I hope to remain some time with you,
if the Lord is agreeable. 8But
I will be staying here in Ephesus until Pentecost, 9for a wide door
for effective work has opened to me even though there are many adversaries.”
Development of the
argument: Now Paul shifts to his
return. Having alluded to it in
connection with the collection they were to take up (16:3-4), he indicates that
it would be after passing through Macedonia (16:5). He might stay at least the
winter with them (16:6). Presumably
because he wanted adequate time to get everything accomplished that was on his
agenda but also because this was the worse time of the year [Page 140] for travel.
One simply did not want to be traveling during those months unless they
absolutely had to.
The original Roman
calendar (dating back c. 753 B.C.) jumped from December to Martius (March) and
left 61 winter days unnamed.[16] About a half century later January (29 days,
with two additional added by Julius Caesar) and February (28 days) became the
names attached to this period.[17] Here we have in mind land based “winter” in
particular.
When
it came to sea travel, though, the concept (though not the name) took on a much
longer period of time. If land travel
was inconvenient, unusually slow, and with dangers one would little encounter
the rest of the year, sea travel was even worse. The Romans labeled it the period of the mare
clausum (“the closed Sea”), during which minimal shipping was attempted
because of the unpredictable and frequent storms.[18] This period was an elastic one and might run
as long as October to March,[19]
depending on the weather patterns in any given year.
Even when Paul
finally reached Corinth, his plans were far from concrete. Though he wanted a good lengthy stay with
them, he recognized that this was uncertain; hence his “if the Lord permits
(ATP: is agreeable)” (16:7). It is the path of wisdom to plan ahead, but
Paul recognized that all plans are tentative; unexpected events may derail
them. (Consider the advice James gave to
the merchants of his day: James
4:13-15.)
In
the short term, he would remain in Ephesus until Pentecost (16:8) because such
“a great and effective door (ATP: a wide
door for effective work)” had been opened for his message (16:9). Not to mention the existence of “many
adversaries” (16:9) who needed to be dealt with as well.
The presence of those
“many adversaries” might seem, to others, a reason to leave more quickly than
to remain, but he clearly saw nothing overwhelming or intimidating in either
their existence or their number.[20] This seems to force us to conclude that he
felt that he could more than adequately handle any problem they presented while
utilizing the positive opportunities that had been opened for the gospel’s
spread. (One might make the sermonic
point here that great opportunities often, inherently, carry with it great
potential difficulties.)
Even so, all visits
are temporary and he also clearly saw that day would come to move on and not
all that much in the future. Future
doors would doubtless open again and future adversaries have to be dealt
with. Both the work and the difficulties
came with being a faithful apostle.
The
dating of how long Paul would remain where he was—till Pentecost (16:8)—might
seem at first glance an odd way to maintain a sense of calendar time. On the other hand many Christians were from a
Jewish heritage[21] and
even those who weren’t, by contact with them, would have a rough idea of the
time of year involved. Furthermore, the
ancients weren’t as time obsessed as modern western mankind, so an
approximation of the hour of day or time of year served most people quite well
the bulk of the time. (Note Paul’s vague
reference to “winter” as well; specific enough to convey a general sense of
duration but not pinned down, as we would, to a specific calendar date.)
[Page 141]
In the meantime they were to
treat Timothy
with courtesy even though he
would not
be there with Apollos
(16:10-16:12)
ATP text: “10If Timothy comes, be sure that you give him nothing to be
worried about since he is doing the work of the Lord, just as I am. 11For one thing, let no one treat
him with contempt. When he returns, send
him on his way with good-will; for I am expecting him with the other
comrades. 12As for our
comrade Apollos, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other spiritual
comrades, but it was not at all his desire to come immediately. However, he will come when he has
opportunity.”
Development of the
argument: Paul clearly anticipated
that Timothy would be going to Corinth since much earlier in the epistle, the
apostle had mentioned actually sending him ahead (4:17). With Apollos he did not know when the journey
would begin (16:12); with both, he was far from certain when either would
actually arrive. Apollos’ problem was
that he flat did not want to go at that time; Timothy’s difficulty is not described.
Perhaps having
been dispatched, he was simply out of contact.
Hence Paul was unaware of Timothy’s latest plans while in transit and recognized
that the trip might not be completed, at least in the time frame originally
anticipated; hence the use of “if” in regard to his assistant’s plans. The “if,” though, certainly argues that something
had happened to delay him.
Health
problems? (1 Timothy 5:23 indicates he
had ongoing stomach difficulties.) Such
great success en route that it seemed more appropriate to cultivate the current
work[22]
than to rush back into what was guaranteed to be a potentially explosive
situation?
Regardless
of the reasons for the delay, when he finally arrived, they were still to
receive him courteously and with respect (“without fear” existing in Timothy’s
mind [“give him nothing to be worried about,” ATP]) (16:10). Since “he does the work of the Lord, as I
also do,” he deserved such a reception (16:10).
It wasn’t on grounds of personal brilliance or brilliant oratory; he was
simply a hard worker in the vineyard of the Lord and deserved courtesy and even
admiration on that grounds.
Furthermore, he
was Paul’s representative and this intervention might head off unpleasantness
that might otherwise occur. Without it being
insisted upon, Timothy might, indeed, become an inadvertent target because of
his closeness to Paul or simply because he was going to say what needed to be
said whether it fitted in with their predispositions or not.
Because of that
fundamental loyalty to his gospel work, no one should “despise him (ATP: treat him with contempt)” but assist him on
his journey to link up with Paul (16:11).
“Send him on his journey in peace” (16:11) carries several
connotations. The most obvious, tying in
with what we’ve already mentioned, is “don’t make his life so miserable that he
feels like you’ve chased him out of town.”
Traveling without
a credit card or the backing of some powerful missionary society or
international humanitarian organization (none of these existed back then), he [Page
142] would have been traveling on the
proverbial “shoestring.” Any financial
or logistical assistance they could provide for him would have made his trip
immeasurably easier. And if they didn’t
provide what help they could—even if it was very modest—it would have been an
implicit slap in the face both to his work in the gospel and to his associate
Paul. You can insult a person almost as
much by inaction as by action and Paul surely wanted to protect him
against that as well.
He
then turns to Apollos, who he had been “urg[ing]” to go to the
Corinthians. He was “unwilling” to come
immediately, but Paul held up the hope that he would come “when he has a
convenient season” (16:12). The language
here is quite strong: “he was quite
unwilling to come” (NKJV); “not at all willing to come now”
(Holman); “it was not at all his
desire to come now” (NASB); “he is quite resolved not to do so at
present” (Weymouth). Such language is
matched by the text’s equal emphasis on Paul’s repeated insistence that he
should go.
We can understand
Paul’s determination to get Apollos there.
He was quite an effective Christian intellectual (Acts 18:24-28) and if
there was going to be any danger of an intellectual “head butting” contest, it
wasn’t Apollo’s head that was going to be left hurting! The passionate insistence may also suggest
that the Corinthians—or, at least, a significant number of them--very much
wanted him to come in particular.[23] Getting him there would demonstrate Paul’s
willingness to accommodate the Corinthians when he could.
One wonders what
the unspoken story is behind Apollos’ reluctance. Did he have genuine commitments he thought
more important? The “he will come when
he has a convenient time” [NKJV] and “when he has opportunity” [NASB, RSV]
certainly sounds like it was a matter of competing opportunities, with Paul
choosing one but Apollos insisting on another.
Or had the
Corinthian divisiveness so annoyed him (cf. the faction of “Apollos” supporters
in 1 Corinthians 1) that he wanted no part of them until more time had passed? It could be there were just too many “smart
people”—in their own minds—in the congregation.[24] Getting such people to act in concert rather
than follow their own separate paths can be a trial indeed. Much like what one U.S. Senate “whip” described
as his role in uniting his party in support of a legislative measure: “It’s like herding a bunch of cats.” Even genuinely smart people often have an
alarming tendency to be smart rather than act smart.
Or yet a different
approach. Just because Paul felt he
could return to Corinth and be able to handle the stress and potential conflict
accompanying it, did not necessarily imply that others such as Apollos would be
able to do the same. Every human being
is different and the pressures one person can handle without difficulty may be
devastating to someone else.
All their behavior must
manifest spiritual
steadfastness and courage
(16:13-14)
[Page
143]
ATP
text: “13Be always on the
alert, standing firm in the faith, being courageous, being strong. 14Your every action must manifest
love.”
Development of the
argument: In this section (16:13-24)
we encounter short statements of encouragement and praise on a variety of
subjects. First come five
characteristics of spiritual maturity, all expressing (in the Greek) on-going,
continuing actions.[25] The first four have military service
overtones:
(1) “Watch.”
The ATP brings out the ongoing nature of this: “Be always on the alert.” In other words, there were potential dangers
and these should not be allowed to pass by unnoticed.
They clearly had not
been characterized by this in the past. Most
dangers come from within the church and they had not been alert to them.[26] Instead, an “anything goes” atmosphere had
been tolerated and conduct quietly accepted (encouraged?) which caused them to
become engrained and accepted as “normal” behavior. In part they may have been uninformed, but
such extremes as their derogatory attitude toward the “lesser” members and the acceptance
of the man with his mother’s wife, argue they had blinded themselves to their
impropriety and been oblivious to how morally degrading such was to the
character of those directly involved.
Some surely
impacted their personal ethical judgments as well: “If they can do X, then nothing must be wrong
with Y.” Some of these misjudgments
would have been accepted by surrounding society; those like the man with his
father’s wife would have been a blot on the collective reputation of the entire
congregation, no matter how loose Corinthians standard usually were.
Paul pleads with
them to change in the future. To pay
attention. To “watch.” One does not need a churchly Gestapo; one does
need spiritual awareness as to applying Biblical principles to everyday
life.
(2) “Stand fast in the faith.” The ATP expresses it in more modern usage,
“standing firm in the faith.” An army
digs in and tries to make itself invulnerable to enemy assault. In a spiritual manner, they, too, should “dig
deep,” research the tactics of the enemy, and be ready to deal with them. A military force may have to pour in additional
resources to accomplish this; the “army of the Lord” already has the resources
through steadfastness to their commander in chief (Jesus) and to His commands
(the scriptures). (Yes, sermonic style
points—but they express well Paul’s underlying attitude, however.)
(3) “Be brave” is the same as “being courageous”
(ATP), though the latter may stress it just a tad stronger. The older “quit you like men” (KJV) or “be
men” (Young) comes from the days when men were the warriors—and, generally,
still are—and came from the moral responsibility to completely fulfill those
obligations to the best of one’s ability:
You were a man chronologically, but were you one in behavior and
reliability when the time of testing came?
Even in the
“spiritual warfare” of faith there will be occasions when bravery is
required: not every one will be
receptive; some will be outright hostile.
Ostracism may be your reward for saying anything, but that doesn’t
change where the right and the wrong is.
Sharing knowledge is our responsibility; deciding whether it is,
indeed, correct and altering one’s path is their responsibility.
[Page 144] You don’t have the option of “striking your tent” and crawling
into the woodwork. You simply do what
needs to be done—exercising your bravery--counting on the Lord for
strength. The famous World War Two
General George Patton worded the literal battlefield equivalent this way,
“Courage is fear that has said its prayers.”[27]
(4) “Be strong” is different from being “brave”
or “courageous.” This speaks to the on-going
persistence, dedication, and commitment that is needed in pursuing one’s
goals. Bravery will only occasionally be
called for; persistence will never end if we are to be truly successful. As human beings, we have good days and bad
days. We have days when we are at peace
with everyone and there are days when there are sea tumults that make one
wonder where the nearest seaport is! By
being “strong” in our commitment to the truth, we will not let either derail
us.
All of these were
to be motivated solely by love (16:14—also in a Greek form indicating it is to
be ongoing;[28] cf.
chapter 13). It was not a case of
either/or but of one plus the other.
“Orthodoxy” was fine and good but without love even adherence to the
truth was ethically empty; love was also fine and good but without doctrinal
soundness it was spiritually inadequate.
Some types of
Pharisees were infamous for their stand for “truth” on all types of obscure
matters, but passed by the opportunity to demonstrate “justice and mercy and
faith” (Matthew 23:23). In their own
little world of abstract theology they apparently functioned very well, but to
demonstrate in real world actions, what the Torah demanded in behavior (not
trivia), was something far different.
Then they had to deal with what the 19th century quaintly
called “the unwashed heathen,” which provided a convenient label but did
nothing constructive to remove their moral failures and weaknesses.
To the Pharisees, even making the attempt extremely endangered their ritual purity. It was far easier to denounce them and leave them alone, comforted by one’s own sense of moral superiority and greater knowledge.
They were to imitate the
example of the
household of Stephanas in
dedication
to helping God’s people
(16:15-16)
ATP
text: “15Now, comrades,
you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and
they have devoted themselves to serving God’s set apart people. 16I urge you to follow their
leadership example as well as that of every other fellow worker and laborer.”
Development of the argument: The “household of Stephanaus” had been the first converts of Achaia and had “devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints” (16:15). They were to respect and follow their example accordingly (16:16).
[Page 145] Hence, in the midst of the Corinthian unrest,
there was at least one local example that Paul felt confident the Corinthians
would generally accept as reflecting Christian idealism and practice. Building on this recognition, he urges them
to do exactly that but not limit themselves to that household/family, but
similarly imitate anyone else who was also doing the right thing. (An implicit blow at their factionalism that
could easily have dismissed the example of anyone not in their own clique.)
It was never “who
you are,” but “what you do” that mattered to him. What virtues that household manifested, they
and their own could as well—at least within the limits of the finances and
opportunities that came their way. God
never demands the impossible; it is the failure to do the quite possible
that lands humankind in so much trouble.
A
young Chinese scholar at Cambridge tries to convey in modern imagery and
colloquialism the kind of vital supporting role such folk as this—and his
companions Fortunatus and Achaicus who are mentioned in verse 17--play in the
life of any church,[29]
Stephanas,
Fortunatus and Achaicus are Heng Tai. They are the bros. When you need
help, they are there. When you need a lift to [church], they’ll pick you up in their
sports cars. When you are down, they come over with pizza and watch football
with you. These are the guys your count on. They are reliable, dependable and
faithful.
And
Paul says twice--in verses 16 and 18--these guys deserve respect. Such men
deserve recognition. Why? Because often we don’t respect them. Often they don’t
get recognized. They work tirelessly in the background. They keep serving
without any expectation of reward. They are the Backstreet Boys – or, as I like
to call them, the Backside Boys.
They
are taken for granted. And Paul says they deserve more than that. . . . Paul
mentions just these few; these three made a big difference in his life and
ministry. They were dependable friends. They were trustworthy friends. They
were his brothers in Christ.
Such
individuals may not even hold formal church office but they function in
behavior as de facto deacons, doing whatever needs to be done to help
individuals and the congregation. They
are often the “glue” that holds together very diverse individuals whose one
thing in common may be their faith.
Humans have a
social interaction aspect that can never be met just by the church service
alone, but is vitally supplemented as individuals act and gather together
beyond the confines of the formal worship.
They thereby become one people rather than just other names on
the church membership roll, about whom we know nothing and, sadly, in many
cases care less. Not everyone has that
temperament, but enough must have it in order to maintain the cohesion of the
group.
Aside: We have based these remarks on the assumption
that they were simply individuals who took the gospel and its implications
importantly rather than being formal church office holders. A minority of translations take the approach
we have suggested: “follow the example
of people like these” (God’s Word); “show deference to such men”
(Weymouth). We have opted in the ATP for
“leadership example,” in order to put the [Page 146] stress on the usefulness of their example
rather than the obligation to obey them because of the post they may (or may
not) hold.
Most opt for
language implying a formal leadership situation, however. For example, “submit to such” (Holman, NKJV),
“be subject to” (Darby, RSV, Young). In
opening his epistle, Paul conspicuously does not mention elders or deacons
being present (1:1-3) and one wonders--as divided as they were--whether it
would have been practical to even attempt to install such. And, if they had been appointed, surely
resignations would have followed sooner rather than later.
Hence it is quite
possible that this is a “shot across the bow:”
“When you finally get around to appointing formal leaders these are the
kind of men you should select.” Perhaps
even, “these are the individuals you should select for your first
choices.”
Paul was pleased at the
arrival of those who
came to him from Corinth
(16:17-18)
ATP text: “17I am delighted at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus
and Achaicus, because they have supplied what was lacking due to your
absence: 18For they raised my
spirit as well as yours. Give respect to
such men.”
Development of the
argument: The messengers the Corinthians had sent had
arrived (16:17) and had “refreshed my spirit (ATP: raised my spirit)” (16:18). They should respect such people for the good
work they do (16:18). As a broad
principle, few, if any, were likely to question that.
However--Since
they were presumably carrying Paul’s epistle back to Corinth, there was always
the danger that they would be blamed for the contents of the letter. Paul’s words—besides being a well deserved
compliment—remind the readers that whatever annoyance they might feel should
not be directed at them.
Note how Paul
never comes out and says it—but who can doubt that this is “freight” that the
language is intended to convey? In
writing whatever he did, Paul always intended that the reader/listener pay
attention not only to what is explicitly said, but also to whatever
“subtexts” the normal person would intend if they were writing the letter
themselves. In attempting to end the
epistle on a “high note,” explicitness was ruled out; he could only rely on
their common sense.
What
with the divisiveness in the Corinthian congregation this approach is extremely
appealing and, in my judgment, has the highest probability. Paul may also be conveying a second subtext,
however: that they are reliable sources
as to my thinking. They have been with
me. We have discussed these things. I have explained my reasoning to them. If there are things in the epistle you don’t
understand, feel free to ask them. That
way you can obtain an immediate and almost certainly reliable insight into my
intent.[30]
[Page 147]
Greetings were extended
to the Corinthians from
others
in the area besides Paul
(16:19-16:21)
ATP text: “19The congregations of the province of Asia send
greetings. Aquila and Priscilla send you
hearty greetings in the Lord—as well as the whole congregation that meets in
their residence. 20All the
comrades send greetings. Greet one
another with a pure kiss. 22This
greeting is written with my own hand—Paul.”
Development
of the argument: Paul next bestows
greetings from the churches of the province of Roman Asia. Also from Aquila and Priscilla and the
congregation that met in their home (16:19).
(Some make it the entire “assembly” of their family and household,[31] i.e.,
a non-church/assembly use of the term, but this seems far less likely
than the normal “church” interpretation of the reference.) Indeed all the Christians Paul knew, sent
their greetings as well (16:20a).
Verse
19 may, however, be intended to carry the inference that there was both an
established congregation in the city as well as a temporary house church of
these outsiders. Writing from Ephesus
(16:8), they would be “a group of foreigners then resident in Ephesus” and it
would make a certain inherent sense that as temporary residents might choose to
worship together in the family’s residence since their stay would not be
indefinite.[32]
There might be language
difficulties as well. Not to mention
that the host couple wanted nothing to do with the sometimes outrageous
troubles of the established congregation.
(Aside: Priscilla is the full form of her name; the
shorter form was Prisca and the usage varies from passage to passage where she
is mentioned.)[33]
In a
gesture of good will, they were to “greet one another with a holy (ATP: pure) kiss” (16:20b). In the Jewish and Greek cultures of that age,
this was widely used to greet both friends and family members.[34] As members of the same congregation they
should count each other as both. And in
this particular congregation it was particularly important--as part of the
process of healing the breaches--that their respect for each other be clearly
manifested.
If you wish, call it
“another bit of Pauline pressure” aimed at accomplishing that.[35] Although that element is surely present, there
was most likely a very practical imperative for the plea: one of the first signs of a deeply divided
congregation is usually a cold formality in intra-church dealings and
conversation, if not outright hostility.
However much in disagreement individuals may be, an act of
friendliness is likely to carry more weight than all the “preacher rhetoric”
one may hear.
In those ancient days, a kiss of greeting could involve one on the mouth (intra-family or social equals).[36] In other cases there was a kiss on the cheek (typically a
[Page 148] greeting
of near equals)[37] or a
touching of two people’s cheeks together.[38] It conveyed the idea of friendliness and,
assuming it was done sincerely rather than merely as a matter of empty form,
such ideas as cordiality, respect, and affection were conveyed as well.[39] Indeed the description of it as a “holy
kiss” strips it of “any erotic connotation.”[40]
In
our modern society a handshake might be regarded as the cultural equivalent but
there is a “depersonalization” typical in such.
Hence a hug would be far more comparable since it conveys the ideas of
familial affection, closeness, and friendship.
Especially if it is a hug and touching of cheeks.
Paul nears the end
of his letter with a short salutation written in his own hand (16:21), not
merely to protect against forgery but to verify that the message, indeed, had his
own authority behind it. Jeffrey A. D.
Weima prefers the latter to the first reason.
In light of the manifest “tensions between Paul and the Corinthians,” he
argues that that the primary purpose of the personal signature was “to
emphasize the authority of the letter and the need for its contents to be
obeyed—as the autographs of Galatians 6:11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:17 also
function.”[41]
In other words he
wanted to eliminate even the possibility of the Corinthians arguing that they
“weren’t sure” the epistle was actually from him. He was putting his personal reputation,
prestige, and authority fully on the line by this personal implicit endorsement
of what had been written.
Finally, Paul
closes this section with a reminder that our relationship to the Lord is really
up to us: if we do not “love” Him as we should, we are worthy of being
“accursed” (16:22). Since love of Christ
is manifested by obedience to His instructions, the need to obey this epistle
is reinforced since Paul is Christ’s messenger and instruction carrier.[42]
Final admonitions to loyalty
and prayer
on their behalf (16:22-16:24)
ATP
text: “22If anyone has no
love for the Lord, let him be considered accursed. Our Lord, come! 23The Divine favor of the Lord
Jesus be with you. 24My love
be with all of you who are in Christ Jesus.
Amen.”
Development of the argument: Love is manifested in what one does and not
merely in what one claims. Paul had
labored at length on this in chapter 13.
It is hard to imagine that--regardless of the dating of the gospel of
John--that they were unaware of Jesus’ teaching on the implication of this
theme: “If you love Me, keep My command-ments”
(John 14:15).
And
the relevance as a closing remark above and beyond its demand that they set the
right priorities? Paul had reminded them
two chapters earlier, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual,
let him acknowledge that the things which I write to [Page 149] you are the commandments of the Lord”
(14:37). Suddenly the “commandment of
the Lord” is no longer some safely distant body of teaching; it is what they
themselves have been reading. A “noble
generalization” is now personally and immediately relevant.
They might miss the tie-in
on their first reading of the letter, but surely they would grasp it not longer
thereafter. In his own, quietly
understated way, his virtual closing words are an implicit reminder of the
authority lying behind them.
But
now is the time for gentle words and encouragement. And a reminder that their various troubles
had not embittered him against them. In
spite of all their faults, Paul prays that Jesus’ “grace” might be with them
(16:23).
Finally, he reassures them
that his own “love” was toward them (16:24).
He might correct them. He might
rebuke them. But it was out of “love”
rather than any other motive. In spite of
their profound spiritual warts that he wished to heal.[43] The unspoken “freight” behind these closing
words is surely: you do the same!
Invoking of Explicit Old Testament
Quotations to Justify His Teaching:
None
How Old Testament Concepts Are
Repeatedly Introduced and Woven
into the Heart of His Argument
16:1:
Charity for the needy among God’s people. In regard to the Old Testament, we normally
connect the two words “giving” and “tithe” (i.e., one-tenth of earnings). All monetary and agricultural income was to
be given to the temple on this [Page 150]
basis. To refuse to do so,
declares Malachi, was nothing short “of rob[bing] God” (3:8-10). But this tithe was for the support of the
priests and Levites who ran the religious complex (for example 2 Chronicles
31), not for general relief. That
broader social need was met by giving above and beyond the required tenth.
Most such assistance was
normally on a one-to-one basis, as needs appeared and were met. The Torah was not blind to economic and
social realities: provision for the
economically distressed would be an on-going necessity. “For the poor will never cease from the land;
therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your
brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land’ ” (Deuteronomy 15:11).
The point is not that
poverty can be overlooked or dismissed because of its perpetual
existence; rather it is presented as an ongoing reality that has to be dealt with. Which is something far different. Social schemes may ameliorate poverty, but
won’t cure it. Even when the most
vigorous efforts are made by governments to “help,” some inevitably “fall
through the cracks.” Not to mention that
because of their sometimes arbitrary and unrealistic requirements, those who
really need help may not qualify while the liars, frauds, and self-indulgent
do.
Paul recognized that one’s
resources limited what one could give, but he clearly expected that within
those boundaries, the amount was to be generous. The Proverbist clearly thought similarly, “Do
not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your
hand to do so. Do not say to your
neighbor, ‘Go, and come back, and tomorrow I will give it,’ when you have it
with you’ ” (3:27-28).
The generosity theme is also
rooted in Deuteronomy. It is described
as including whatever one might have to share from, “You shall supply him
liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your
winepress. From what the Lord has
blessed you with, you shall give to him” (Deuteronomy 15:14). A shepherd “couldn’t get off the hook” by not
being a grain grower; the grain grower could not escape responsibility by being
a cultivator of grapes. The shepherd
didn’t have grapes to give and the grain grower didn’t have meat from a
flock. But whatever they had--from
whatever they grew or sold--that was to be shared. Note the parallelism between Paul’s “as he
may prosper” and Deuteronomy’s “supply him liberally.” “Liberally,” equals, of course, “generously”
(as in God’s Word, TEV).
The Psalmist goes so far
as to argue that if one expects to be remembered by God in one’s own
time of “trouble,” then one must “consider” the needs of the “poor” (41:1). The Proverbist stresses that if one expects
one’s own blessings to continue, the best means of doing so is (paradoxically
enough) to help such people in their time of distress (28:27).
The great cynic who wrote
Ecclesiastes was well aware that life brings such cycles of success and need, “Cast
your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days. Give a serving to seven, and also to eight, for
you do not know what evil will be on the earth” (Ecclesiastes 11:1-2).
One’s
charity affects one’s moral status in God’s sight; ignoring the poor we have
personal knowledge of is one sure way of not meeting His standards. The one whose “righteousness endures forever”
is one who “has distributed freely; he has given to the poor (Psalms 112:9, RSV). Indeed “whoever has pity on the poor” is actually
one who “lends to the Lord, and He will pay back what he has given”
(Proverbs 19:17).
The attitude as well as the act should be well intended. Note the contrast in
[Page 151] Proverbs
14:21, “He who despises his neighbor sins; but he who has mercy on the
poor, happy is he.” Refusing to give
assistance shows you “despise” the individual.
And many still do, never having
been on “short rations” nor able to imagine they ever will be. “So long as you try hard, things will work
out.” And they usually do—but not
for everyone nor upon every occasion. Realism
not blind optimism is required.
Note that the assisted
person is “his neighbor.” It’s not
talking about what the government chooses to do or not do. It’s not talking about some international
charity taking up funds to help “with the horrible X [fill in the blank] that
has happened in Y [again fill in the blank].”
It’s talking about the person you come in contact with in your course of
normal life.
In
addition to helping the needy directly, there was even a provision for giving
them the opportunity to self-help themselves. They would do the work gathering the natural
resource, but you would provide unhindered access to the property and be sure
that there were leftovers for them to reap, “When you reap the harvest of your
land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather
the gleanings of your harvest. And you
shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your
vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord
your God” (Leviticus 19:9-10).
The
results might be modest—Isaiah 17 describes the coming decline of Ephraim and
makes a comparison with these “leftovers.”
Yet he notes that, even in that severe a situation, at least some
remnants would exist, “ ‘It shall be as when the harvester gathers the grain,
and reaps the heads with his arm; it shall be as he who gathers heads of grain in
the Valley of Rephaim. Yet gleaning
grapes will be left in it, like the shaking of an olive tree, two or three
olives at the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in its most fruitful
branches,’ says the Lord God of Israel” (17:5-6). It might not sound like a lot but even such
modest amounts could mean the difference between starvation and survival.
A tri-annual tithe for the poor. Although we have rightly stressed that
the tithe was for the Jewish religious establishment so it could provide for
its personnel and operating expenses, the situation was actually a bit more
complicated. Every third year
there was to be a special tithe to be shared not only with the Levites / priests
but also with the poor and needy.
According to Deuteronomy 26, they were to take the yearly tithe of firstfruits
and give it “to the one who is priest in those days” (26:2) and recite a verbal
formula reiterating how the Lord had delivered them to the land He had promised
(26:3).
“Then
the priest shall take the basket out of your hand and set it down before the
altar of the Lord your God” (26:4) and the offerer would repeat the story of
how his ancestors had been enslaved and that God had rescued them, bringing
them to a prosperous land “flowing with milk and honey” (26:5-9). Then he was to continue,
26:10 ‘And now, behold, I have brought the
firstfruits of the land which you, O Lord, have given me.' Then you shall set it before the Lord your
God, and worship before the Lord your God. 11 So you shall
rejoice in every good thing which the Lord your God has given to you and your
house, you and the Levite and the stranger who is among you.
12 "
When you have finished laying aside all the tithe of your increase in the
third year--the year of tithing--and have given it to the Levite, the
stranger, the [Page 152] fatherless,
and the widow, so that they may eat within your gates and be filled,
13 then you shall say before the Lord your God: 'I have removed the holy tithe from my house,
and also have given them to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and
the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me;
I have not transgressed Your commandments, nor have I forgotten them.
Perhaps just as
important—at least from the purpose the offering was intended for—was that he
had avoided finding an excuse to divert any of the gift from its intended
purpose back into his own resources,
14 'I
have not eaten any of it when in mourning, nor have I removed any of it
for an unclean use, nor given any of it for the dead. I have obeyed the voice of the Lord my God,
and have done according to all that You have commanded me. 15 Look
down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel and
the land which You have given us, just as You swore to our fathers, “a land
flowing with milk and honey.” ’ ”
In
short, you gave to us and we have given to others, following Your example.
At
first reading, this sounds like all individuals brought their special tithe to
the temple (or its contemporary substitute), that the Levites took a portion,
and then shared the remainder with “the stranger, the fatherless, and the
widows.” Alternatively, the text could
mean that what was taken to the Levites was what was left over from what had
been distributed already—to those very groups. In effect, the worshipper would be giving an
oath that he had done exactly that.
This makes greater practical
sense because worshippers would come from across the land; getting perishables
to Jerusalem and from Jerusalem back out to the needy seems inherently impractical. Bringing all of the charity tithe to
Jerusalem would mean was that either only the Jerusalem poor would be benefited
or there would be a massive immigration of the poor at the assigned time of
year, endangering their lives by the length of the journey in weakened
condition.
Many would have physical
conditions making it utterly unfeasible.
Would that minority who might make it, even dare take the risk? Hence the poverty tithe would actually be
little more than a tithe for the destitute of Jerusalem and precious few beyond
there. That seems inherently improbable.
16:2: Prosperity as coming
from God. The attribution of
financial success to God derives from two facts. The first is a profound recognition that without
His assistance it will ultimately count for nothing. The second is that He provides opportunities
and ability to obtain it in the first place.
The wandering multitude
coming out of Egypt were warned (Deuteronomy 8:11-20) not to forget their
obligation to God in future years when they grew prosperous in both possessions
and monetary wealth (8:13). They would
be tempted to attribute their gain solely to their own effort (8:17). Instead, “you shall remember the Lord your
God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may
establish His covenant which [Page 153]
He swore to your fathers, as it is this day” (8:18).
The
oft used Psalms 23 actually begins with the affirmation that those who are
followers of God “shall not want” (verse 1). Everything we might “desire,” not necessarily;
everything that we might “need,” yes.
Hence, the TEV rendering, “I have everything that I need.” Note that this occurs because of the
relationship between us: He “is my
shepherd.” He will take care of His side
of the relationship, just as we must take care of our own.
Paul
urged that Christians give to their group charitable contribution “not
grudgingly or of necessity” (2 Corinthians 9:7). Implied is that it gave them pleasure or
happiness in being able to assist. God
is presented as having that very mind-frame as well, “Let the Lord be
magnified, who has pleasure in the prosperity of His servant” (Psalms
35:27).
Having an ample supply of finances often carries with it a terrible problem: such pressure and difficulty that one can’t really enjoy the emotional fruits of one’s success. Proverbs 10:22 speaks of how God has helped followers to achieve that success but without the emotional burdens that undermine its enjoyment, “The blessing of the Lord makes one rich, and He adds no sorrow with it.”
Specific examples connect Divine blessing with temporal well-being. In Genesis the abundant crop of Isaac is attributed to the fact that “the Lord blessed him” (26:12). The same is true of the abundance from the flock of Jacob’s father-in-law (Genesis 30:27-30; cf. 33:11).
In Deuteronomy 15, when the freed slave is sent on his way, he is to be provided commensurate with the blessings the owner had received from God: “You shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the Lord has blessed you, you shall give to him” (15:14). As the Contemporary English Version accurately summarizes the text, “The more the Lord has given you, the more you should give them.” This ties in neatly the two ideas of prosperity coming from God and the earlier point of giving to help the needy.[44]
16:7: The conditional nature of all human plans. Paul speaks here of his intention to “stay a while” in Corinth (“remain some time with you,” ATP), but concedes that this is subject to change. “If the Lord permits (ATP: is agreeable),” he quickly adds--indicating that he recognized that his intentions and those of God might not be moving in the same direction. And if any had to be changed, they would, of course, be his own.
This sense of the “contingency” of all endeavors was recognized in the Old Testament. Hence we read in Proverbs 19:21, “There are many plans in a man’s heart, nevertheless the Lord’s counsel--that will stand.” That is what never changes; a human will be juggling several (sometimes incompatible) plans/goals at one time or he may shift from one to another. In contrast, God has a consistent and ongoing plan and will never arbitrarily change it like we would.
As Malachi 3:6 puts it, “For I am the Lord, I do not change. . . .” Or in direct connection with the “counsel” God gives that is mentioned in the Proverbs text, there are a variety of such passages like Psalms 33:11 (“The counsel of the Lord stands forever”) and Isaiah 40:8 (“The word of our God stands forever”), to give only two.
Although writing
specifically of determining one’s moral path (Jeremiah 10:24), [Page 154] the prophet’s principle of yielding to God’s
will would have an obvious parallel to life plans in general as well, “O
Lord, I know the way of man is not in
himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (10:23). In everyday life, everything we hope to do is
subject to reversal for reasons beyond our control. However, on the moral level, it is only God
who has the “veto right” over our plans, as we discover that they are not
merely ill-advised but outright contrary to His standards.
16:8: The feast of Pentecost. Pentecost was one of the three annual feasts that all males were obligated to attend (Exodus 23:14-17). It was fifty days after Passover and certain sacrifices were required to be made (Leviticus 23:15-21). It was known, due to its timing in the agricultural year, as the “Feast of Harvest” (Exodus 23:16) and the “firstfruits” of the new grain crop were offered during it (Numbers 28:26-31).
16:13:
The admonition to personal steadfastness. Paul’s admonition to “Watch, stand fast in
the faith, be brave, be strong” (“Be always on the alert, standing firm in the
faith, being courageous, being strong,” ATP) is firmly rooted in Old Testament
admonitions for God’s people to adopt a similar mind-frame even in times of great
challenge and danger. When Joab observed
the strong Syrian battle line facing his forces, he urged his army to, “Be of
good courage, and let us be strong for our people and for the cities of our
God. And may the Lord do what is good in
His sight” (2 Samuel 10:12).
Earlier God had implored
Joshua that he not be overawed by the size of their enemies in the country they
were entering, “Be strong and of good courage, for to this people you shall
divide as an inheritance the land which I swore to their fathers to give them”
(Joshua 1:6). God adds a few verses
later, “Have I not commanded you? Be
strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord
your God is with you wherever you go” (1:9).
In
the broader context of the need for inner strength even outside a war context,
the Psalmist urged the people, “Be of good courage, and He shall strengthen
your heart, all you who hope in the Lord” (31:24). In other words, if they but tried to
be strong under the difficulties of life, then God would provide them
additional strength. Implicit seems to
be the idea that if they did nothing they could expect nothing from the
Lord either.
This
element of God reinforcing a mind frame / attitude / commitment that we already
have is also brought out in Psalms 27:14, “Wait on the Lord; be of good
courage, and He shall strengthen your heart; wait, I say, on the Lord!” “Wait” seems, to our ears, a rather odd
choice of wording and clearly is intended to convey a broader idea--almost
certainly, “Wait on the Lord to act.”
The timing is the only issue; not the certainty that He will intervene.
Isaiah also deals with the need to have steadfastness and strength. God has him relay the message that even if they don’t have them currently, they should change their attitude since they have God’s firm assurance that He will be there to help, “Strengthen the weak hands, and make firm the feeble knees. Say to those who are fearful-hearted, ‘Be strong, do not fear! Behold your God will come with vengeance, with the
[Page 155] recompense
of God; He will come and save you.’ ”
Again: have assurance; the only
question is the timing of Divine intervention.
These
attributes related to fortitude must begin within us, however much God will
strengthen them. God has Isaiah urge the
people, “Awake, awake! Put on strength”
(Isaiah 51:1). This revival of will is pictured
as a revival of personal dignity and freedom:
“Shake yourself from the dust, arise” (51:2a). You are no longer powerless; you can escape
it. But then the opposite imagery is invoked,
“Sit down, O Jerusalem! Loose yourself
from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion!” (51:2b).
Rising is the image of
shaking off the past and asserting one’s freedom. Ironically, the sitting down image is
required to make the same point: remove
the shackles of slavery on your neck by sitting down so you can do it with the least
difficulty. Freedom is not given to
them; it is something they have to have the courage to obtain—confident that if
they do their part, God will bless their cause.
16:14:
Having all behavior motivated by love. Reinforcing the well developed theme of
love from chapter 13, Paul insists that “all that you do” should be
motivated and manifested through love.
“Your every action” (Holman), “everything” (God’s Word); “everything you
do” (CEV). It wouldn’t remove all problems,
but at the very least it would minimize the danger of adding more to
their list and would be the bedrock to weaken the divisive tensions that
plagued them.
Perhaps
the most relevant Old Testament parallel is Proverbs 10:12, “Hatred stirs up
strife, but love covers all sins.” It
doesn’t deny that there is sin but it throws a blanket of “love” over it, to
“cover” it, i.e., the reactions are dictated by love rather than anger, concern
rather than rage. Doing the opposite—to
use a modern image—would be “pouring gasoline on the fire.” “Covering” it, in contrast, is an effort to
“extinguish” it.
The Proverbist also notes that love
is the behavior of a “friend” or one that counts as a “brother” so close is the
tie between you, “A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for
adversity” (Proverbs 17:17). Perhaps the
parallelism intended between “friend” and “brother” is well brought out by the
BBE rendering, “A friend is loving at all times, and becomes a brother
in times of trouble.” He is, of course,
describing a true friend; “fair weather friends” existed back them just as
today (Proverbs 19:7).
Of
course there is no guarantee that the person treated with love will respond
with love, much less courtesy or even basic respect, “For the mouth of the
wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me; they have spoken
against me with a lying tongue. They
have also surrounded me with words of hatred, and fought against me without a
cause. In return for my love they
are my accusers, but I give myself to prayer.
Thus they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love”
(Psalms 109:2-5)
[Page 156]
Historical Allusions to the Old Testament:
None
Problem Texts
16:1-2: The place of the collection: at home or in the assembly? A great deal of discussion has revolved
around the question of where they were to “lay something aside” to help
the needy foreign Christians. The
consensus seems to be that it was at home.
It is contended that this is the best reading of the underlying Greek,
since a more literal rendering comes up with the wording “place by himself . .
. treasuring.”[45] “‘Hoarding’ or ‘treasuring up,’ also implies
that the money was to remain in each individual’s house till the Apostle came
for it.”[46]
Charles
Hodge tore into this line of analysis as reading into the language a whole lot
more than it can legitimately be said to contain,[47]
“Let every
one at home place, treasuring up what he has to give.” The words do not mean to lay by at home,
but to lay by himself. The
direction is nothing more definite than, let him place by himself, i.e.,
let him take to himself what he means to give.
What he was to do with it, or where he was to deposit it, is not
expressed. The [Greek] . . . [means] hoarding
up, and is perfectly consistent with the assumption that the place of
deposit was some common treasury, and not every man’s own house.
Furthermore,
Paul could have made the point crystal clear, as a home based activity, if he
had wished to. Wayne Jackson reminds us,[48]
The
distinctive phrase “at home” is found twice elsewhere in this letter. “If any
man is hungry, let him eat at home…” (11:34). Women were not to disrupt a church service by
aggressive interruptions with questions. Instead, they were to wait and “ask
their own husbands at home…” (14:35). If the apostle had intended to
enjoin a private contribution “at home,” he certainly was capable of expressing
that matter clearly. But the expression
is conspicuously absent here.
Certainly by the time of
Chrysostom (c. 349-407 A.D.) the at home approach was a not uncommon
interpretation. Of Paul’s admonition he
argues, “He does not say ‘bring [Page 157]
it at once,’ lest the giver should be ashamed of the smallness of his
contribution; but first lay it up by thyself and when it is worthy of
collecting, then bring it.”[49] He speaks of the custom of having a small box
at bed side where, when money was available and it was dedicated to God by
prayer, it was placed aside until a more presentable amount was available.[50]
Textually, this is a
clear-cut abuse of Paul’s instructions:
Paul does not demand that one wait till one has something “worthy of
collecting,” but simply “as he may prosper”—that covers any amount. His instructions in 2 Corinthians 8:12 stress
that the amount is irrelevant, “For if there is first a willing mind, it is
accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does
not have.”
Chrysostom’s rhetoric
certainly sounds very much like un-Pauline class snobbery. It painfully reminds one of the special
privileges claimed by the “betters” in the Corinthian assembly, where others
went hungry while they feasted (1 Corinthians 11). In essence it comes down to, “You have to put
up with the presence of the poor but at least they could have the courtesy not
to insult our sensibilities with their pittance until it is at least a bit more
presentable amount.”
Jesus’ praise of the poor
widow whose literal pittance was more than the wealthy gave—because she
had so little to give in the first place—also comes to mind (Mark
12:41-44). The concept of “too little to
give” clearly did not preoccupy His mind and there is no textual evidence it
did Paul’s either.
The other approach to the
collection is to insist that the Pauline intent was for this gathering to be in
the assembly itself.[51]
The assembly scenario
makes the better sense since Paul concludes the verse with the admonition that
he desired these weekly collections so “that there be no collections when I
come.” Yet if all they did was storing
the collection in their individual homes, then they would still have
needed to put it all together in a single, combined collection when he
arrived. And Paul’s desire is to avoid
this. He wants it all done and completed
by the time of his return.[52]
Furthermore, why specify a
single specific day? If this was done in
the privacy of one’s residence, it could just as easily have been done any day
of the week that best reflected the individual’s own personal needs and
schedule.[53] Indeed, psychologically speaking, would one
not be far more inclined to set aside what is available at the end of
one week (Saturday) rather than the beginning of another (Sunday)?[54]
In
addition, Sunday was the special day of worship for early Christians as a community
(Acts 20:7); barring strong contrary evidence, the most natural connotation of
a “giving” on that day would be within the context of the church
assembly they attended.[55]
The appropriateness of the first day of the week for the contribution as a private
act, however, has been argued on the grounds that handling money was considered
“work” in Jewish tradition, and hence a violation of the Torah. Setting it aside on Sunday, however, avoided
this problem and possible offense to Jewish believers.[56] To the extent this argument has validity, it
is just as much an argument in favor of a church collection point as a private
one; at the most it only argues as to why a particular day was chosen
and not its location.
The
underlying assumption doesn’t make good sense, even if it was embraced: if moving an object so one could comfortably eat
was not considered “work” and if taking the lid off a pot was not considered
“work,” one finds it hard to see how setting aside this [Page 158] money in some special place in one’s home
would validly constitute “work” either.
And if it was to be (mis)construed as “work,” then it could still
have been done any day except the Sabbath.
There would still be five additional possibilities beyond the first day
of the week to choose. Why limit options
to that sole day when it is a purely private action?
Others
argue that a home collection on that day recognizes that Sunday was
already peculiarly “holy” (= special, of unique importance) in a Christian
context.[57] Yet there seems something vary paradoxical in
recognizing that “holiness” by giving, but yet not doing the giving in the
assembly where all the people met to honor and worship on that day. Once one concedes the two phenomena that this
verse recognizes (1) that Christians met on the first day of the week and (2)
that they gave on that day, then it is perplexing to see why the first of two
“congregational” acts would be done together while the second was done apart,
separately, at home.[58]
The
only way to avoid this difficulty would seem to be to deny one of these
points. One could repudiate the first one
and argue that Christians met on the Sabbath/Saturday. Yet Acts 20:7 indicates that they had a
distinct day of worship however much those of ethnic Jewish ancestry might also
join in Sabbath worship with their ethnic kin, both out of spiritual similarity
and the desire to gain converts.
The
second would be to argue that since this was a “special” contribution--for one
purpose only, the help of the needy Christians in Jerusalem--that it was being
kept separate and apart from any other giving so that it would not be
intermingled with any ordinary contribution they took up. This would still raise the problem of the
need to take up a contribution when Paul arrived--when he clearly wanted it
done and completed by that point--and the temptation to allow the accumulated
home-kept funds to wither away due to more pressing personal financial problems.
Getting the committed funds
away from one’s personal control reflected a recognition of a basic reality of
human nature: However intense their
desire to help, if the “collection” was maintained in the individual homes some
(many?) would be tempted to reach into it for their own benefit. Not out of selfishness but because of those
crises that occur in every household over a period of time. Hence, a purely private setting apart of
resources is appealing in theory, but any one who has ever had to live on a
tight budget knows full well that so long as the resources are physically
available to one, there is a great temptation to reallocate it for the more
immediate and pressing need.
To assert that Paul
“trusts” the Corinthians to be able to hold onto their cache[59]
does not do away with the inherent impracticality of many actually doing
so. The only practical way to
assure that the collection was not depleted by Paul’s arrival was to accumulate
it into a common, group treasury where individuals would no longer have access
to it for their own use.
One
way to avoid this dilemma would be to contend that the Corinthian church
actually existed only in the form of “house churches” and that it was within
this smaller context that the contribution was taken up. Dieter Georgi seems to be moving in this
direction when he suggests that the funds were collected “in various private
gatherings every Sunday.”[60] On the other hand he undercuts that
interpretive option by noting that “nothing is said about any money being
collected during the actual church service,”[61]
leaving us with the mystery of what kind of other private gatherings
would exist which would be viewed as preferable places to gather the
funds. Whether as all Christians [Page
159] meeting together, in house
churches, or in some other type of gatherings—all these approaches require some
type of “collective” treasury of at least part of the congregation and not a
theoretical “private/individual” gathering up of funds.
Simon
J. Kistemaker believes that the funds may have been kept separate, at home,
because this was a special purpose contribution—for the needs of coreligionists
very far away. Hence it was segregated
from any contribution for local needs so that the funds would not be
commingled.[62] On the other hand, modern congregations (even
small ones) are able to budget for a number of purposes and keep them
sufficiently separate so that when a given expenditure finally has to be made,
the money is going to be there. Were the
early Christians so inefficient or incapable that they had no one who could
have done the same for them?
Stephan Joubert introduces two
arguments against the collection being in the assembly, “This was probably done
to avoid competition and envy among rich and poor believers if the collection
was taken up during their meetings, or to avoid any maladministration of a
communal fund.”[63]
The problem of dishonesty
in Corinth was a very real one (witness Paul’s rebuke of their self-serving
lawsuits!) yet if Paul expected them to be able to secure sufficiently
qualified “judges” among themselves for their internal disputes, surely he
would have said the same about their ability to select individuals to safeguard
their collection till he arrived! The
related potential difficulty about the lack of a safe place to keep the funds,[64]
is also germane, yet if individual householders were able to find such a place,
are we to believe that it was unavailable when the group (acting through one or
more of its members) sought such a safe haven?
The
matter of envy was certainly not going to be avoided by doing the setting aside
strictly at home. Would not the
obviously vast difference in funds collected be noticed when the resources were
finally collected together upon Paul’s arrival?
Indeed, would not the fact that many months contributions were
given at one time make the difference even more embarrassing than if
smaller amounts were involved weekly?
In
my judgment, we are dealing with a pervasive bias against the ability of early
Christians to organize themselves as a collectivity in a manner that any polytheistic
social organization would have taken for granted. Although Christian communities were on the
legal margins of society, so were many of these other organizations whose
“real” purposes so easily stirred the suspicions and concern of governing officials.
In shedding our modern
image of a “church” as a bureaucratic organization requiring vast resources of
time, money, and legally prescribed regulations, we should avoid going to the other
extreme of assuming an ancient church that was unable to exist in a visible
sense at all due to minimal membership or financial resources. As the Third World should have demonstrated
to western minds, a congregation can exist quite satisfactorily on very modest
resources. We suggest we should grant
the early Christians a capacity at least of that level.
16:2: The frequency of the contribution. Although
translations often use the wording “on the first day of the week,” it is
natural to interpret this just as the ancient Jews did in regard to the command
to observe the Sabbath: observe the
Sabbath equates to observe every Sabbath and give “on the first day of
the week” means to give every [Page 160] “first day of the week,” even though in
neither case is it explicitly stated.
Actually
the case is even stronger than this. The
Greek wording implies every first day of the week.[65] Hence those translations that insert the word
“every” into the text are quite justified in doing so. NASB and the RSV so render it. The TEV and GW puts it into even more contemporary
parlance by speaking of “every Sunday,” or in the CEV, “each Sunday.” Similarly, Weymouth and our ATP speak of
“every week.”
The
idea is clearly that of regular giving, whenever the funds are
available. Not a sporadic, occasional
gift—but an ongoing one, though it might well differ dramatically in amount
from week to week according to one’s available resources.
16:2: The proportion to be given in the
contribution: as one has been
“prosper[ed].” There is surely an intended ambiguity in the
standard Paul lays down: he does not
demand a flat tithe;[66] his
criteria might result in more or less. John
Wesley wisely described it as “all you can,” which sets a high goal but which
would result in widely varying proportions.[67]
In short, the individual’s
ability, not an external percentage was the standard.[68] For the poorer it permitted giving less than
a tithe; for the better off it encouraged giving more.[69] Indeed, by the standard demanded, the amount
and percentage might well vary from week to week.[70]
This variability is
clearly what Paul intended, as it was to be based upon a personal
decision of “do-ability” rather than one imposed by others or a preset
percentage, “So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not
grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.” And if it isn’t as much as others give or as much
as you yourself wish you could give?
“For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to
what one has, and not according to what he does not have” (2 Corinthians
9:12).
By
doing it this way, he establishes a guideline that would gain the maximum
toward his goal without imposing an onerous and unrealistic burden on anyone. And, simultaneously, minimize any guilt among
the givers—so long as they had tried.
Max Goins sums up the present reality and that of back then as
well: For some even 2% is a stretch in
giving. Yet “I've known people who could afford to live off of ten
percent of their income and give ninety percent away.”[71] Paul’s standard encouraged all points in the
economic spectrum to generosity.
This is in marked contrast
to the Old Testament, where the only basic community wide giving provided for
in the Torah was solely for the support of the priestly/Levite class. (However also consider, in the Old Testament
precedents section,“A tri-annual tithe
for the poor.”) One would assume
that a contribution of some sort occurred on a synagogue level (once this
institution was finally developed)--both for the support of the local
institution and for any educational/benevolent needs it saw fit to
undertake. Yet neither the synagogue nor
its support was explicitly provided for in the Torah or any provision made for
its duties and functions.
In this case, the communal
obligation is made explicit and the standard set--“as [one] may prosper”
(16:2), which may be either greater than or lesser than the formal tithe
demanded under Judaism. In some ways
this was a more demanding standard than a strict tithe since the
percentage could easily go higher.
It should
be noted that the giving was not considered a “one way street.” Just as [Page 161] the Jerusalem Christians currently had a
severe problem and needed assistance, the same could / would happen in Corinth
as well and assistance would be provided in the reverse direction. As the apostle reminded them, “For I do not
mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now
at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also
may supply your lack—that there may be equality” (2 Corinthians 8:13-14).
Verbally, it is an
unwieldy explanation though we can all understand the underlying point: at some point all must give; at some point
all will need assistance. Weymouth
renders it this way, “But that, by equalization of burdens, your superfluity
having in the present emergency supplied their deficiency, their superfluity
may in turn be a supply for your deficiency later on, so that there may be
equalization of burdens.”
16:2: The purpose of the contribution: for the benefit of needy believers; a
separate contribution for local needs?
This contribution was not for local use; it was for destitute Christians
back in Jerusalem. The closest thing in
Judaism to external support for geographic Palestine can be found in the Temple
tax. But that involved a specific
frequency (once a year), a specific age (twenty years and up), a specific
gender (male), and a specified required amount.[72] Paul’s contribution differs on all these
points, as well as being targeted strictly for the welfare/relief of the needy
rather than the maintenance of a religious institution. Hence it can hardly be regarded as a
“Christianized temple tax” although, human nature being what it is, it is far
from impossible that some Jerusalemite Christians might well have interpreted
it as such in spite of the profound differences.[73]
In a
very real sense, this was a “special needs” contribution intended to be taken
up only until Paul arrived to escort the funds to Jerusalem--or, at the
minimum, endorse their messengers, who would go on alone (16:3-4). By the very nature of the situation, it would
not be ongoing after that point.
Continuing it would be like a church continuing a building fund when the
facility is paid for. It would serve no
useful purpose.
Local member survival needs were also dealt with by congregations
from their funds. The New
Testament clearly refers to local benevolence being provided to its own needy
members as well as helping those in other places. That assistance could be abused and, if they
sometimes wanted to overlook it, Paul was quite prepared to set them
right. As he says in 2 Thessalonians 3,
10 For
even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a
disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now
those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that
they work in quietness and eat their own bread. 13 But as for you,
brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 And if anyone does
not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company
with him, that he may be ashamed.
The normal assumption
appears to be that this is congregational welfare. Whether [Page 162] it is, probably hinges upon our taking the
command in verse 6 to refer to congregational rather than individual
decisions: they are told to “withdraw
from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition
which he received from us” and Paul cites this particular problem in that
context. It certainly does “sound” like
a group making a shared decision of repudiation.
Less likely, it could be that
Paul is describing individuals “mooching” off those willing to do the work and who
felt guilty if they did not help. Either
way the same principle applied of rejection, avoidance, non-association,
non-endorsement, ostracism--for “withdraw from” surely carries all those overtones.
It doesn’t necessarily even
carry the thought of some kind of formal written condemnation; it really isn’t
something you do “to” another; it is a self-protective mechanism of
avoiding contamination by removing contact.
(Oddly, the modern church has typically transformed and reduced it into
a “motion of censure.”)
In contrast, the case of
benevolence in the first part of Acts (2:44-45; 6:1-6), is presented in unquestionably
clear cut language as a group / congregational effort. There the benevolence seems to have gone
through two stages.
The first stage was for
all their needy: “as anyone had need”
(2:45). “Three thousand souls” were
added to the church on Pentecost (2:41).
A little later we read, “many of those who heard the word believed; and
the number of the men came to be about five thousand” (4:4), pushing the total
number up much higher. Whether one takes
this as in addition to those converted in Acts 2 or as the sum total
after those in chapter 4 were added to the group, the figure is still
impressive and created pressing immediate needs.
Those converted in Acts 2
were “devout men, from every nation under heaven” (2:5). Those from faraway lands (see the list in
Acts 2:8-11) would naturally wish to learn as much as they could about Jesus
before returning home. Although some
were surely able to handle the extra expense of a prolonged stay without
difficulty, the costs of long distance travel were such that many were surely
“hurting” if they remained very long.
Hence the need to provide at least food for them while they were
grounded in the fundamentals of the new faith before encouraging them homeward
bound.
As this immediate
difficulty—and opportunity!—was past, emphasis naturally shifted to the
ongoing membership. At that stage we
find that the targeted recipients were “widows” and there was a “daily
distribution” toward their needs (6:1).
Judging from Paul’s emphasis on this group (see below) this was,
apparently, the center of attention in other congregations as well.
There was only a finite
amount of resources any congregation had available. (Unlike governments it can neither print
money nor debase the value of coinage by lowering the percentage of a valuable
[such as silver or good] that may be in it.)
Hence it had both a moral and practical obligation to administer its
funds to the greatest effect. The
practical result was putting restrictions on who would receive church
support. As Paul spells it out,
3 Honor
widows who are really widows. 4 But if any widow has children or
grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their
parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. 5 Now she
who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in
supplications and prayers [Page 163] night
and day. 6 But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives.
7 And these things command, that they may be blameless. 8
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his
household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
9 Do
not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless
she has been the wife of one man, 10 well reported for good
works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has
washed the saints' feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has
diligently followed every good work. (1 Timothy 5)
This also definitely
refers to congregational action for Paul writes a little later in the same
chapter, “If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and
do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are
really widows.”
Special assistance was sent to preachers
in other places from a local congregation’s resources. One could argue that this was exclusively
done just by individuals pooling their resources rather than through or from a
congregational treasury. On the other
hand, even if we were lacking other evidence, the probability is strongly for
the latter. (1) The precedent of group collections for a
special purpose is explicitly known to exist for foreign humanitarian
assistance. (2) It was a means for poorer individuals to give
“anonymously” as part of the group where the smallness of their
individual gifts would not stand out and embarrass them because it was “blended
in” with a wider based collection.
Furthermore
it was regarded as an action of the collectivity rather than the
individual. As Paul wrote Philippi, “Now
you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed
from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving
but you only” (Philippians 4:15).
Or
as he told the Corinthians on the matter of receiving such support, “I robbed other
churches, taking wages from them to minister to you. And when I was present with you, and in need,
I was a burden to no one, for what I lacked the brethren who came from
Macedonia supplied. And in everything I
kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself” (2
Corinthians 11:8-9).
In
light of such clear cut references to a “church” and “other churches” supplying
Paul assistance--as if it were the entity itself and not just selected
members from that group--we have to conclude that it was regarded as a
congregational action and a congregational (rather than individual) pooling of
resources.
Did congregations take up a regular
contribution for their own internal needs?
Although there is no such direct command or example that, in our
judgment, clearly “jumps out” and says “here is where they were instructed to
do so,” there are a variety of evidences that have either quietly or
emphatically been suggested as providing convincing evidence. We will begin with the one that is most
telling in my personal judgment:
(1) Congregations
often/normally had their own financial needs—both of local benevolence
(see above) and those involving other expenses.
It is possible—in at [Page 164] least
some places and for varying amounts of time--that all this was done on a
free-will basis, at no expense to the local congregation. Apparently assuming that this was the
“universal” practice of the time, some contend that Paul had to lay down the
specific guidelines found in chapter 16 because there was “a lack of
organization in the community, no system of finance and no collection at the
worship service.”[74]
In
other words they had no precedent to go by.
However, even if they were taking up a contribution, there still would
be the need for instruction on how much they should give when it involved
helping others in other places. It is,
after all, an unparalleled situation for them.
So this provides no evidence that they (or other places) were not taking
up a contribution for any local needs.
Yes,
the (sometimes/temporary) lack of a local contribution seems a perfectly
reasonable assumption, but it says more about a perceived local lack of needing
a contribution than it does about any ignorance on the subject or unwillingness
to do so: after all, why take one up if
all the financial needs of the group are being met by some individual family
providing the two essentials—a meeting place and the materials for the
Communion? Indeed, permanently unused
money could easily tempt some unscrupulous members to abuse it for personal use
(consider 5:7’s implication of financial dishonesty).
On the other hand, are we
to believe that they never had anyone who followed Peter’s pattern and received
financial support when preaching (9:5-6)?
It was their right to receive such, “Even so the Lord has
commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1
Corinthians 9:14). In regard to teaching
elders (for lack of a better expression), the apostle wrote, “Let the elders
who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor
in the word and doctrine. For the
Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,’
and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’ ” (1 Timothy 5:17-18).
Of course, there were
other believers who had the right to expect help as well. Are we to believe they never had a problem
with members desperately needing financial assistance? Or the advanced elderly? It is hard to see how any congregation could
long endure without facing one or more of these situations, which would have called
for an on-going contribution for one or multiple purposes.
Paul had clearly insisted upon the right of a
preacher to receive financial support from where he labored, though he himself
did not exercise that right (9:14-15).
Although this could, at least partly, be met by individuals providing a
roof over his head, and food to eat (on a rotating basis?), it is hard to avoid
the conclusion that there had to be a significant number of cases where this
could most practically be met by a contribution for one or more of these items
and any other congregational needs. This
may explain why Paul does not feel the need to defend the idea of a
contribution at all: that would
not have been an innovation; only the specific purpose would be.
They probably had prior
knowledge of the custom from their own past practice in such situations—or
current practice!--or from that of other congregations. After all, their congregation might
not yet have faced a particular need, but surely they would have known of one
that had and how they had responded!
Other suggested evidences
of a regular, non-benevolent contribution include these:
[Page 165] (2) There is just as much evidence that
Christians only began to meet on
Sundays due to 1 Corinthians 16 as there is to believe that this was the the first time they ever took up a contribution
on that day. (With this is
joined the matter of date, noting that the Sunday meeting referred to in Acts
20:7 actually occurred after First Corinthians was composed, meaning
that this is the earliest extant record of a Sunday service.) In short, if the day of the meeting is
evidence of an ongoing, already existing custom, then so is the idea of a
contribution.[75] Admittedly not for the same specific purpose,
but a contribution for church maintenance is, nonetheless, a church
contribution.
(I would approach it
slightly differently: There is no hint
that the idea of a group contribution is either new or challenged. The conclusion of the argument is the same in
either approach.)
In one way this sounds like a self-serving
argument, to “prove” what one does not have concrete “hard” evidence for. Which is quite common in non-Biblical
historical analysis, I might add. When
you lack data you reason from the “known” that is available to the “unknown” where
you lack documentation. Nothing is being
done here that would not be done in these other contexts.
So let us return to an
earlier point: Was there any real
inherent reason for a congregation to have a regular contribution just to
say they were having one? If needs
were being met by some reasonably well to do sponsor who provided meeting space
and the few essentials required, would they decide to have a contribution at
all? Or would they wait until a
particular problem was encountered?
Although the latter makes sense, all congregations ultimately
have just such situations arise, so it seems unimaginable that most first
century congregations weren’t taking up contributions—at least for so long as
their particular need(s) lasted.
Then we must factor in yet
another reality: growth guaranteed
such to eventually exist on a regular and continuing basis. It was only a matter of when and not
whether. And, oddly enough, the first
congregation--in Jerusalem--clearly had a treasury and some means for
people to gather funds together for their local problems. If not by—at least in part—a contribution,
what then?
And the way Acts is
written, this was either from “day one” of the church or extraordinarily close
to it. As the Jesus movement spread from
place to place would not the memory—even the first hand knowledge—of how the
first congregation handled such matters go with them?
(3) If one pictures the
church as a spiritual family or household then one would anticipate the
obligation of contributing to its collective needs and responsibilities.[76] And, of course, the church is described in
exactly those terms: “the household of
faith” (Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19, though the first is clearly referring
to individual rather than church acts being carried out on behalf of
members of that “household” rather than “by” it).
(4) The meaning of fellowship. Wayne Jackson notes that, “Fellowship” (koinonia) is a comprehensive term that most surely can embrace the idea of ‘contribution’ (cf. Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:13; Hebrews 13:16). . . . Koinoneo is used specifically of providing support for gospel preachers in Paul’s Galatian letter (6:6).”[77] Romans 15:26 is not about contributing to your congregation but of
[Page 166] congregations
sending their funds elsewhere. In 2
Corinthians 8:4 it has the emphasis upon helping those who receive the
funds and 9:[12]-13 upon the consequences of them being helped. None have any direct reference to the giving
of the funds into a locally shared pool of resources.
Hebrews 13:16 refers to the
need to “do good and to share,” which sounds like helping the specific
individuals you, personally, encounter who need such assistance. In other words, none of these reasonably
imply the act of giving into a shared treasury and that being used to
help others.
Even so, except for
Hebrews 13, it is hard to see how any of the other texts could be carried out without
a joint treasury and contribution to it.
In other words, they assume either the existence of such or of special
collections, but none of them directly discuss its existence.
(5) Acts 2:42 as proof. Jackson argues that this passage
“provides strong circumstantial evidence that regular giving, as an act of worship
(along with teaching, the Lord’s supper, and prayer), predated the Corinthian
letter perhaps by a quarter of a century.”[78] The text reads, “And they continued
steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread,
and in prayers.” In short, they remained
a united group.
This does not necessarily
tell us anything about their congregational worship, however. Remaining “in the apostles’ doctrine”
obviously need have nothing to do with the worship; it describes fidelity to
their teaching. Continuing in
“fellowship” indicates the lack of schism, something that can happen between
individuals/groups, either in or outside the service.
“Breaking of bread” can
simply mean sharing meals together as they would with their “natural”
families. “Prayers,” beyond referring to
sharing with God one’s hopes and fears, simply indicates that their concerns for
each other did not stop them from cultivating private devotion to God as well. Possibly, joining together in joint
prayer as the familial “breaking of bread” with guests does in regard to
hospitality.
Assume that the
assembly is under discussion, then “the apostles’ doctrine” would mean
listening to them as teachers, having fellowship would refer to maintaining the
unity of the group, breaking of bread participating of the communion, and
prayer to prayers in that meeting. A not
unnatural working out of the text but seemingly lacking any particularly strong
evidence that the assembly is under discussion in the first place.
Did local congregations maintain a “treasury” for their joint funds
until they were used? With the
precedent of a weekly contribution, one would anticipate the creation of an
on-going treasury in which to accumulate what had been given. After all, they had to have somewhere
to put the gifts, monetary or in goods, and in order to carry out affairs on an
orderly basis. Especially when the
number involved became quite large. Indeed,
the number who needed help in the Jerusalem church was so substantial that it
ultimately required the appointment of six men to oversee “the daily
distribution” (6:1); for them to adequately help others a means had to be
provided to give them the resources they needed.
A regular contribution
certainly did not rule out bringing to the church leaders, on a different day,
a special amount when it became available.
Ananias and Sapphira sold a [Page 167]
piece of property whose proceeds they could do with as they wished
(“While it remained, was it not your own?
And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Acts 5:4). They had no obligation to give all of it to
the congregation, but seeking the honor and prestige of having done so, they
gave only part while pretending it was the entire sum and this caused
their death.
Such money was “laid at
the apostles’ feet” (4:37), i.e., given into their charge and authority. From that point on, this represented a de
facto treasury though we are given no details as to who oversaw it. This also meant someone functioned as
treasurer.
Assuming that the
resources to be gathered in 1 Corinthians were joined together in the church
assembly, then that pooling also constituted a de facto treasury. The word doesn’t have to be used for the
concept to be conveyed. “It is foolish
to say that you cannot call it what it is.”[79]
Having a treasury—a
portable one, in this case--had been the situation during the personal ministry
of Jesus as well and Judas had served in the role of its overseer. “For some thought, because Judas had the
money box, that Jesus had said to him, ‘Buy those things we need for the
feast,’ or that he should give something to the poor.” He was, unfortunately a dishonest one: he “had the money box; and he used to take
what was put in it” (John 12:6).
So we see that the
concepts of having a local church treasury and treasurer are well grounded in
the scriptures though we usually just take them for granted.
Would the percentage / amount expected to be given always be the
same in both the “benevolent” contribution and one for the “operational needs”
of the congregation? Although it
is easy to reason that congregations (with rare exceptions) all had regular
Sunday contributions, it is significantly harder to come to the conclusion that
the amount one was expected to give would be the same in all cases.
Would one be expect
to “go the extra mile” to help the desperate in another congregation? Yes, it would make sense. Would one be expected to go so far to support
a preacher? Having been one, I still
must confess that the “need” is surely far greater in the former than in the
latter case.
Decent amount, reasonable
amount, even—these are one thing; “as prospered” seemingly moves the “goal
post” significantly further. And however
useful preachers are, are they really in that same moral and practical category
as those scrounging for daily livelihood?
On the other hand, if one
truly values the service being provided, the necessity is still there to
finance it. To skimp on such matters may
be one’s “right,” but it undercuts the ability to have it at all. Perhaps the unstated scriptural assumption is
that everyone must give—within their means of course—for any function of the
church, but that they should only be called upon to give the maximum
(“as he may prosper”), when the need is the greatest, for human survival?
Perhaps the strongest
argument in behalf of an “equality” of giving obligation in both benevolence
and such cases is that no other standard than “as prospered” is ever spelled
out. Some will regard this as
definitive in favor of the concept; others that when “apples” and “oranges” are
being compared--i.e., benevolent versus non-benevolent needs--that they are so
dramatically different that there is no inherent reason to anticipate or
require a “carry over” from one type of offering to another.
[Page 168] Be that as it may, there are always non-monetary
things that a person can contribute even if one’s finances are limited. Cleaning up the building. Internal routine maintenance. Maintaining the outside of the worship
facility: cutting the grass, etc. All are things that the cash poor can contribute—saving
the congregation money (by not paying others to do it) and which take not a
dime out of the individual’s pocket.
“Non-cash contributions to the church,” if you will.
Perhaps part of our
problem is that we fall into the trap of defining our “contribution” exclusively
in monetary terms. “Contributions” of
time and labor can count as much to a congregation’s success as money in the
“contribution basket.”
Regardless of how one
answers the question we have been discussing, one matter is surely beyond
dispute: Paul would not have encouraged
“guilt tripping” those less well off in the things of this world. A significant number are cash compromised due
to the very subject the contribution in 1 Corinthians 16 was for—the well-being
of fellow believers, but in their case those of their own household.
Speaking of the latter
(whether believers or not), Paul wrote, “But if anyone does not provide for his
own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is
worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8).
Elderly parents or struggling siblings may take resources that could
otherwise be given, but these obligations are put as primary by the
apostle. Only when these
obligations were met, did one determine what “giving as prospered” meant on an
individual basis.
16:10-11: Why might the Corinthians “despise”
Timothy (ATP: “treat him with contempt”)? In a different epistle, Paul refers to how
some might look down upon Timothy because of his youth (1 Timothy 4:12).[80] If this mentality existed in one place it is
virtually sure to have existed in others as well and represented a potential
problem for him among the Corinthians.[81]
There are no “hard”
statistics for life expectancy in the Roman Empire, but the available estimates
generally speak in terms of under fifty if one survived birth and the
dangerous first five years. Add those
early death figures in and you reduce the average lifespan to perhaps 25.[82] (Even for the United States in 1850, you were
looking at 38.3 years when figured from birth and 58.0 if you reached age ten.[83])
Hence, even if one adopts
the view that Timothy was “scarcely more than twenty-five” years of age,[84]
that is “youth” by our standards, but is at least ready to break out of
the upper edge of the category by first century statistical ones. Statistics do not equate with perception,
however. If a culture considers you
“young”—and Timothy’s clearly did—then you are “young” whether the numbers say
you are or not.
We
might well add that there is also the matter of age in relationship to
responsibility. Paul was giving
Timothy a major task and the younger a person is in proportion to such
an obligation, the greater the danger of a “credibility” problem. No matter how much one may concede,
intellectually, that a twenty-five year can run—to use a modern day parallel—a
$100 million company, there is still something inside those who are
significantly older that cries out, “something is wrong with this
picture.” Hence it would have been very
easy for Corinthians to wonder whether this youthful person was “really up to
the responsibility.” Undermining his
efforts without necessarily even intending to do so.
[Page 169] This
edges us into how factors may come into play beyond Timothy’s own age,
the comparative age of others. For
example, in Paul’s epistle to Timothy, the reference to “your youth” may actually
tells us more about how much older Paul was (or at least felt!) than
about Timothy’s actual chronological age.
There
is also the possibility that the clique leaders in Corinth were significantly
older that Timothy. The cultural
expectation that one treat one’s elders “with respect” could easily be bent
into a battering ram to assault his quite legitimate expectations that they
carry out Paul’s instructions. Hence the
warning to maintain the right attitude toward his delegate, Timothy.
However other issues above
and beyond age—either that of Timothy or the Corinthians--could also have been
present and led to Paul’s caution. Some
have suggested that Timothy had a restrained rather than outgoing, forceful,
enthusiastic approach to life and others.[85] Others suspect he may have manifested a “lack
of confidence” in his dealings with others.[86] In either case, he may have been deeply
knowledgeable, but in teaching and handling relations with others, such is a
recipe for personal frustration and railroading.
Dealing with a
congregation like Corinth--which clearly suffered from more than its share of
local domineering personalities who had splintered the church into factions--he
could have easily been dismissed as a ministerial lightweight. Well meaning, of course, but one who could be
safely dismissed.
If he had either of these
disabilities—unusual restraint or lacking personal confidence—the temptation would
be magnified to use him as a lightning rod for their own frustrations with
Paul. (And the age factor could serve as
“icing on the cake;” when one is engaged in the disreputable art of character
assassination, the guiding principle is using anything that will work.) Due to his close relationship with the
apostle, if he got to Corinth first, the Corinthians might take out on him any
frustrations they had about the content of Paul’s letter. Paul would certainly want none of that to
happen; he was quite capable of taking all the blame on his own shoulders that
people wanted to heap out.
Allowing them to heap the
censure on someone else, however, was a different matter entirely. By intervening in this manner, Paul hoped to
keep it from developing into a problem for his young assistant and friend.[87]
Whatever
the exact motive that could lead them to snub Timothy, Paul stresses that he deserves
first class treatment: “for he does the
work of the Lord, as I also do” (16:11).
He does the work, so he deserves the respect.
16:12: Why was Apollos unwilling to follow Paul’s
advice and travel to Corinth? At
the very beginning of the epistle, Paul refers to those invoking Apollos name
in defense of their factionalism. Annoyance
at his name being twisted into a justification for division could easily make
him want to be somewhere else[88]—virtually
anywhere else. Especially being
there alone and without Paul so the two could take a united front against the
local folly.[89] Perhaps he even viewed his presence as
inevitably inflaming the local situation no matter what he said or did.[90]
There
is the strong likelihood, as we saw earlier, that Paul substitutes Apollos’
name for local sectarians who thought themselves intellectual/orator types themselves--or
simply preferred intellectual/orator types like Apollos. Even in that case, Apollos might [Page
170] well have misgivings about walking
into a situation without Paul being present as well. Otherwise efforts might be made to play off the
one present against the one who was absent.
It
has been noted, however, that the identity of the “he” who was “unwilling” is
not actually in the Greek. It has to be
supplied by the translator to make the text provide a coherent meaning. Hence, the verse has been read by some to
indicate that it was God who was unwilling for Apollos to make the trip
at that time.[91]
The
NRSV suggests this as a footnote alternative.
Young’s Literal puts “his” as an interpretive addition, leaving the text
unclear as to the identity. Rotherham
provides ambiguity by a rather (intentionally?) clumsy wording, “there was, by
no means, any will, that he should come”—a rendering that leaves whose
will unstated.
Inserting God into the
main text produces this translation, “Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly
urged him to visit you with the other brothers, but it was not at all God’s
will for him to come now. He will
come when he has the opportunity.” There
is a fundamental problem with this, however:
It seems incongruous to find Paul urging Apollos to do something that
turns out to be contrary to God’s will.
It seems far sounder to simply say that Apollos, for quite
understandable reasons, did not want to return at that time, especially not
without Paul.
Yet
it should not be overlooked how much trust Paul manifested by his desire for
Apollos to go to Corinth at all: he had
no doubt as to his co-worker’s reliability, loyalty to himself, and personal
rejection of the divisiveness going on in the seaport.[92] In essence, he was telling the Corinthians that
if they thought they were going to receive any encouragement in their
factionalism from this loyal compatriot, they were completely mistaken.
16:15: What is the “ministry to the saints” (“serving
God’s set apart people,” ATP) that the “household of Stephanas” had dedicated
itself to? What form this “ministry” took we do not
know. Reasonable conjecture permits us
to suggest possible forms, yet without us being certain which particular one(s)
Paul specifically has in mind. For
example, it “might include looking after the poor, hospitality to visitors
(Romans 16:1), lending their house for meetings, etc.”[93] This would carry the implication that
Stephanus was a man of superior economic resources to many city people, but not
necessarily considered either rich or socially important in the town.[94]
Paul’s
words of praise for the household have been read as an indication that he was
concerned whether the Corinthians would manifest proper respect for their hard
labor and dedication.[95] In other words, there was the fear that a
praiseworthy extended family would be overlooked in its invaluable
contributions to the congregation’s welfare.
The apostle gives no
indication that Stephanus held any kind of official “position.” The impression is that he was one of those
people who saw a need of some type and immediately thought, “What can I do to
solve it or ameliorate it?”[96] In the divisive atmosphere of Corinth there
would be a real danger that such efforts would be overlooked. The entire atmosphere breathed self-advancement
and group interest; those like Stephanas—who simply sought the good of the
entire group--simply did not fit in well.
They might be “tolerated,” but not encouraged for they diverted
attention from the far more “important” matter of winning supremacy for one’s
own clique.
[Page 171] In spite of such powerful “head winds” against
them, the tone of Paul’s remarks seems to imply that at the moment they had
gained respect in spite of all the obstacles. But, even so, factional self-centeredness
might cause their invaluable contributions to be overlooked or scorned in the
future. Paul wishes to remove that
possibility by putting their contributions front and center.
Their attitude to such people should
be markedly “uncorinthian,” at least uncorinthian if we define such by their
recent collective past: “that you also submit
to such and to everyone who works and labors with us” (16:16). They weren’t to “submit” because of a title
but because of the “works and labors” they were engaged in. Instead of an angry dispute over who was to
be “leader,” they were to throw themselves behind those who had already demonstrated
the ability to get the job done effectively and well. These individuals had proved by their actions
that their advice and suggestions could be counted on and that they had
trustworthy instincts and skill in such areas.[97]
Some have suggested that Paul is
discretely requesting that Stephanus’ household play the pivotal role in
assuring that the contribution for the needy Palestinian Christians be carried
out.[98] With the emphasis upon their role in
benefiting the needs of the Corinthians, this would certainly represent a
logical extension of their past humanitarian actions and concerns.
On the other hand, if the contribution was carried out strictly by
individuals laying aside their money at home, there would seem to be no
useful manner for Stephanus and his people to carry out this function. If, however, it was collected at the assembly
one could easily imagine them assuring that the resources were carefully
preserved for Paul’s arrival.
16:17-18: What was it that Stephanas, Fortunatus,
and Achaicus did for Paul? Verse 17 speaks in terms of “what was lacking on your part they
supplied (ATP: they have supplied
what was lacking due to your absence).” The
Corinthians were not present to help the apostle. Hence their personal assistance and
encouragement--in any shape or form--was a physical impossibility. On the other hand, these individuals were
present and they were quite adequate to be of encouragement to the apostle.[99] The idea of “suppl[ying]” (unlike the vaguer
“refreshed”, mentioned in the following verse) would most naturally suggest
something tangible. Providing financial
support or supplies of some type comes immediately to mind.[100]
Verse
18 elaborates upon this by saying “they refreshed (ATP: raised) my spirit and yours.” Some
have interpreted this as, in part, referring to their bringing him the epistle
mentioned in 7:1.[101] On the other hand, one would think that
epistle (and, even more so, their accompanying verbal conversations as to the
Corinthian situation) would have been depressing to the apostle rather
than “refresh[ing].”
Some
deal with this difficulty by stressing that the very fact that the Corinthians sent
their questions to him implied at least some degree of recognition of his
apostolic authority.[102] Furthermore, the individuals may have
provided additional information that made Paul believe there was a good change
that the mistakes could be rectified without destroying the congregation.[103] Hence their words ultimately “refreshed” him
and aroused him from any
discouragement.
Even
so, it seems better to seek a different context to explain his remark. Perhaps [Page 172] it is that their personalities were so
upbeat, positive, and life-affirming that they were the kind of people that it
seems impossible to be around and remain sad and downcast. With Paul’s often difficult circumstances,
such individuals would have been worth far more to him than direct temporal
assistance for his needs.
Since
they are described as refreshing both the “spirit” of Paul and that
of the Corinthians, this would suggest they were continuing in Ephesus with the
type of behavior they had manifested at home in Corinth. It has been reasonably proposed that, since
they are praised for what they had done for the apostle and were, apparently,
well respected in Corinth, for these reasons they were selected by Paul to
carry 1 Corinthians back to the church.[104]
As mentioned above, it has also been suggested (and this fits in well with their
conjectured respected position at Corinth) that they had carried the
Corinthians’ written enquires to Paul, which he begins to answer in chapter
seven.[105]
Some have speculated that Stephanus was even “the head of the delegation” of letter bearers traveling to the apostle[106] and, if so, one would assume he played the same role in the return journey as well. Although his being mentioned first may provide support for this thesis, Paul’s words of praise are aimed at all three men rather that only Stephanus.
We could speculate that
the other two were his servants or slaves (which would fit in well with the
scenario that he was among the wealthier Corinthian Christians);[107]
we could reasonably speculate that they were freemen and equally respected
members of the congregation, however. Some
have suspected that these are the names of those of Chloe’s household who had
provided Paul information on the divisions in their congregation.[108] Whatever they were, Paul considered them as
amply fulfilling their goals in coming to him.
16:22: The use of “Maranatha” in the closing
words of the epistle. Some
translations retain the use of the Aramaic word Maranatha, either
because the expression was regarded as so significant that even Greek speakers did
so or because it can be rendered two different ways. This is because the word itself can be
divided at two points: Marana tha,
leading to “O Lord, come!” This is the
understanding given it by most commentators[109]
(and reflected in the ATP as, “Our Lord, come!)
Alternatively
the word can be broken into Maran atha, which would be rendered “Our
Lord has come.”[110] The first expresses hope for the future; the
second rejoicing over His having come in the past. The latter reading was embraced as long ago
as Chrysostom as the preferred one.[111]
“O
Lord, come!” makes it, in effect, a prayer.
“Our Lord has come” turns it into an affirmation of faith--from the
Christian standpoint, a statement of the most pivotal historical fact in all of
history.
Its use among the earliest
Judean and Galilean area Christians, can be imagined in either sense. On the one hand, the phrase was surely an
affirmation of what made them different from other Jews--explicitly repudiating
the traditionalist Jewish stance that the Messiah was yet still future. On the other hand, as they increasingly
represented a distinct movement, a “futuristic” use would be logical for its
fulfillment would be the obvious, visible and tangible proof that their claims
about Him were correct. The ultimate
vindication.
[Page 173] Perhaps the fact that “Maranatha” was,
inherently, a two edged theological sword made it even more popular among these
pioneer believers because of its double significance. It was not a matter of one approach being
right and the other wrong; it was a matter that both were right.
It
may seem odd that “Maranatha” can be divided two different ways and yet “Lord”
remains in the translation in both cases.
However in the Aramaic both “maran” and “marana” are words
meaning the same, i.e., “Lord.”[112]
Gordon
D. Fee rightly points out that the presence of “Maranatha” constitutes powerful
evidence for how the church in its earliest pre-expansionist phase—before
embracing Gentile converts--could influence not only the concepts and doctrines
accepted by the broadening church, but even create an unexpected impact on the
very vocabulary utilized to express its faith,[113]
The
significance of this cry for our purposes is twofold. First is the fact that an untranslated
Aramaic phrase, written in Greek for a Greek-speaking Christian community, is
still in use some twenty-three or more years after Christ’s death and
resurrection. Why should this be so?
Almost
certainly because they learned it from Paul or his companions as a phrase that
had meaning to him/them in its original tongue.
This further means that the cry must go back before Paul himself became
a believer, since by his own testimony (Galatians 1:15-24) he had very little
contact with the Aramaic-speaking church for most of the years following his
conversion.
Thus he
would have learned it either from his earliest association with
Aramaic-speaking followers of Jesus in Damascus or from his time in Antioch—but
in this case from Greek-speaking Christians who themselves had already kept the
“sacred language.” In any event, this
prayer (or affirmation) goes back to the very earliest time in the church,
meaning that prayer to Christ as “Lord” is something Paul inherited, not
created.
The second
(very significant) point is that this cry serves as evidence that almost from
the very beginning the early church, because of Christ’s resurrection and
exaltation, had come to think of him in terms of Psalms 110:1. He is now the Lord, seated at the
right hand of the Father, to whom they pray.
It is not surprising, therefore, that even the Greek-speaking church had
an attachment to this “foreign” phrase that signaled so much—about both Christ
Himself and their longing for His return.
Notes
[1] A. E.
Harvey, A Companion to the New Testament, Second Edition
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004), 560.
[Page 174] [2] John
A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, Volume 2 (Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1864), 270.
[3] William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible
Commentary: New Testament
(Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1990), 628.
[4] Wayne A.
Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality:
The First Two Centuries (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1993), 107.
Joubert, 159, argues that only the head of the household was given the
responsibility to give and that person did so “on behalf of all members in
their household.” This approach only
makes sense if the householder was the only source of income in the
extended family (households could consist of mother, father, offspring, and
certain relatives, and servants or slaves).
In light of the Torah tradition upon all people giving their
appropriate amount (in regard to tithing, in particular), it seems hardly
likely that the Jewish Paul would have meant his words in any less a
“universal” application: if you have,
give.
[5]
McFadyen, 228.
[6] Dieter
Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The
History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992), 53.
[7] On this
and perhaps additional implications of the verse, see Chow, n. 4, 186.
[8]
Constable, 185, citing 7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:12 as examples. Also see Gerd Ludemann, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles—Studies in
Chronology, translated from the German by F. Stanley Jones
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984),
81.
[9] Georgi,
56.
[10] Getty,
1132. In a similar vein, Bruce, Corinthians,
158; Doohan, Leadership, 97-98; Helen Doohan, Paul’s Vision of Church
(Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier,
1989), 87; and Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological
Reflection in Paul’s Collection (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 159.
[11] Max
Goins, “Financial Planning and Time Management:
1 Corinthians 16:1-12,” page 2.
At:
http://www.pbc.org/files/messages/6487/4540.pdf (1999). [November 2010.]
[12] Craig
C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews:
Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 178. In light of the potential areas for conflict
he suggests that, “As with Samuel Johnson’s dancing dog, the wonder is not that
Paul had a difficult relationship with Jerusalem but that he had a relationship
at all” (174). The same could be said of
some of the Gentile dominated churches.
[Page 175] [13]
Watson, 175, views this as more a strategy of calculated concern rather than
humanitarian passion, “Paul was seeking to preserve his congregations in their
separation from the synagogue in two different ways: by warnings to his congregations [against
Judaizing, rw], and by trying by means of the collection to secure Jerusalem’s
recognition of their legitimacy.” (For
the argument in detail, see 175-176.)
This line of reasoning assumes that Jerusalem was in the pocket of the
extreme Judaizers in regard to the status and behavior demanded of Gentiles, an
extremely challengeable premise. More
likely there was a wide variety of feelings ranging from encouragement to
ambivalence to hostility, with the apostles attempting to keep things on an
even keel.
[14] Goins, “Financial Planning,” 1.
[15] Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians, in the IVP
New Testament Commentary series (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 312.
[16]
[Anonymous], “The Roman Calendar.” Part
of the timeanddate.com website. At:
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/roman-calendar.html. [August 2011.]
[17] Ibid.
[18] Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 618.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Leslie
M. Grant, Comments on First Corinthians.
At: http://www.biblecentre.
org/commentaries/lmg_50_1_corinthians.htm.
[November 2010.]
[21] Matthew
Poole, Annotations on the Holy Bible, Volume 3 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, MDCCCLVI), 599.
[22] Charles J. Callan, “Father
Callan’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 16:10-18.” Posted May 31, 2011. Part of the Divine Lamp website. At:
http://thedivinelamp. wordpress.com/2011/05/31/father-callans-commentary-on-1-corinthians-1610-18/. [August 2011.]
[23] Calvin Cheah, “Do Everything in Love (1 Corinthians
16:12-24).” July 13, 2011. Part of A
Chinese Christian at Cambridge website.
At: http://calvincheah.
blogspot.com/2011/07/do-everything-in-love-1-corinthians.html. [August 2011.]
[24] Cf. Ibid.
[25] Keith Krell, “Love Is the Last Word (1 Corinthians
16:13-24).” Part of the bible.org
website. At: http://bible.org/seriespage/love-last-word-1-corinthians-1613-24. [August 2011.]
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30]
Ibid.
[31] J J. Lias, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,
in the Cambridge Bible for the Schools and Colleges series
(Cambridge: At the University Press,
1891) 168.
[32] T. Teignmouth Shore, “The First Epistle to the
Corinthians,” in A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by
Charles J. Ellicott (New York: E. P.
Dutton & Company, [n.d.]), 355, suggests the rationale of their being
outsiders but does not develop the idea this fully.
[33] See the discussion in regard to the current passage
in particular in Comfort, 527.
[34] Moltmann, 265.
[35] J. Paul Sampley, “The First Letter to the
Corinthians,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, volume 10, edited by
Leander E. Keck et al. (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1996), 1001.
[36] Alan F. Johnson, 320.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Cf. the possibilities discussed in Trail, Exegetical
10-16, 399.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 629.
[41] Jeffrey
A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The
Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1994), 207.
[42] Ibid.,
drives home this point but in different language.
[43] Edware H. Donze, “1 Corinthians,” in A Commentary
on the New Testament, prepared by the Catholic Biblical Association
([N.p.]: Catholic Biblical Association,
1942), 481.
[Page 177] [44] Cf.
Brian S. Rosner, “Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthians,” in Deuteronomy in the
New Testament, edited by Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise, Volume 358
of the Library of New Testament Studies (New York: T. & T. Clark, [n.d.]), 132-133.
[45]
Blomberg, 324. Others who take this
at-home approach (in addition to those cited in the following arguments)
include Bruce, Corinthians, 158; Conzelmann, 296; Ellingworth and
Hatton, 371; Ruef, 181; and Vine, Corinthians, 229. Witherington, Conflict, 315, believes
it was done at home (note 5, page 315).
Yet he uses the odd description that it was “set aside . . . and then
collected at each home” (315), as if the church sent someone from house to
house each Sunday.
[46] Arthur P. Stanley, 330.
[47] Charles Hodge,
An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1878),
364. He also develops, at length,
problems with the “at home” scenario:
the oddity of specifying a specific day for the contribution and the
fact that a contribution would still need to be taken up when Paul arrived, a
situation the apostle desired to avoid.
[48] Wayne Jackson, “Does 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Constitute
a Binding Pattern?” Part of the
Christian Courier website. At: http://www.christiancourier.com
/articles/1536-does-1-corinthians-16-1-2-constitute-a-binding-pattern. [August 2011.]
[49] As quoted by Lias, 164.
[50] Ibid.
[51]
Gromacki, Called, 200; Howard, 136; Lipscomb and Shepherd, 249; McGarvey
and Pendleton, 161.
[52]
MacEvilly, 270; McGarvey and Pendleton, 161; Zerr, 43; and Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle
to the Corinthians (New York: Robert
Carter & Brothers, 1878), 364.
[53] Mare,
293.
[54] Cf.
McGarvey and Pendleton, 161.
[55] Hodge,
364, and Zerr, 42.
[56] Orr and
Walther, 356.
[57] Parry,
190.
[58] Yet it
is not common to detect the oddity.
David Ewert, 199, for example, explicitly asserts both points and gives
no indication of tension between them.
[Page 178]
[59]
Grosheide, 398.
[60] Georgi,
53.
[61] Ibid.,
54.
[62]
Kistemaker, Exposition, 595.
[63]
Joubert, 161.
[64] Cf.
Ibid., n. 15, p. 16.
[65]
Grosheide, 398, and Arthur P. Stanley, 330.
[66]
Joubert, 161.
[67] John Wesley, Wesley’s Notes on the Bible,
abridgment of 1765-1766 edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Francis Asbury Press, 1987), 522.
[68] Vine, Corinthians,
229.
[69] Cf.
Hargreaves, 220.
[70] Lenski,
760.
[71] Goins, 3.
[72]
MacGorman, 149. Cf. Raymond Bryan Brown,
394, and Conzelmann, 295.
[73] Cf.
Bruce, Corinthians, 158.
[74] Doohan,
Leadership, 98.
[75] Jackson, “1 Corinthians 16:1-2.”
[76] Ibid.
[77] Ibid.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Terry W. Benton, “The Church Treasury.” At:
http://lavistachurchofchrist. org/LVarticles/ChurchTreasury.html. [August 2011.]
[Page 179] [80] Even
if one rejects the Pauline authorship of this epistle, it certainly indicates
the perceived age of Timothy during the time of Paul’s ministry.
[81]
MacEvilly, 272; and Weiss, Commentary, 273.
[82]
[Anonymous], “Estimated Life Expectancy in the Ancient World.” 1992; at:
http://www.richardcarrier.info/lifetbl.html. [December 2010.]
[83]
[Anonymous], “Life Expectancy by Age, 1850-2004.” At:
http://www. infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html. [December 2010.]
[84] Source misplaced.
[85] Cf.
Bruce, Corinthians, 160, and Grosheide, 400.
[86] David Guzik, 1 Corinthians 16: A Collection and a Conclusion. 2001.
At: http://
www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4616.htm.
[August 2011.]
[87]Allen, 194.
[88] Donze, 480.
[89] Cf.
Parry, 193.
[90] Quast,
102.
[91] Bruce, Corinthians,
160.
[92] Quast,
102.
[93] Parry,
193-194. Cf. Russell D. Snyder,
485.
[94] Chow,
88-89. Cf. Branick, House Church,
63.
[95] Mare,
295.
[96] Allen, 195.
[97] Weiss, Commentary,
274-275.
[98] Ruef,
186.
[99] Cf.
Russell D. Snyder, 485.
[100] Metz,
482.
[102]
Grosheide, 403.
[103] Cf.
Lipscomb and Shepherd, 258.
[104] Mare,
180.
[105]
Bratcher, Guide, 163; Bruce, Corinthians, 160; Dahl, 50; Mare,
215 (which also presents difficulties with the theory that Timothy had carried
the epistle); and Parry, 194.
[106] Dahl,
51.
[107]
Polhill, 251, and Chester, 242-243.
[108]
Wilfred L. Knox, n. 26, p. 324.
[109] For
example, Philip E. Hughes, 278. and Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody,
Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers,
2007), 121.
[110] For
argumentation that it must refer to Jesus’ past coming to earth, but that it
implies “and is here” as well, see Conzelmann, 300-301.
[111]
Raymond Bryan Brown, 397, and Mare, 297.
Although these are the two primary translations into English, some
suggest alternatives to both. “Our Lord
is a sign” is one and “Thou art Lord” is another, but neither has gained as
much attention or embracial as the other two.
See Mare, 297.
[112] Bruce,
Answers, 100.
[113] Fee, 121-122.