In the thread on "Authority, Authorisation, Commands, and Permission", Nelta Brock said the following:

"1 Cor. 16:1-2 says nothing about an Assembly where people come together and put their money in a common treasury. Each was to keep the money with HIMSELF .... at their homes so that when Paul came he would not have to wait until they got their private treasury together."

(Nelta, I hope that is an accurate statement of your position -- I had to splice together pieces from two of your postings since the first "got away from you", as you said, while it was still incomplete.)

In I Cor. 16:1, 2, Paul says (NIV), "Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set asid a sum of mooney in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made."

Nelta, I don't think there is enough information given here for us to be overly dogmatic on either side -- either for the traditional interpretation of these verses or for your re-interpretation. But I think there are good reasons for thinking that the traditional interpretation is more likely.

Your interpretation would work very well -- probably even better than the traditional view -- if Paul had just said something like, "Once a week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income for the Lord's work." But he didn't. He was more specific than this, both about the specific day for doing it, and about the reason for doing it, which was NOT merely so that the money would be available.

Why Sunday? Personally, I can only think of three possible reasons, though perhaps someone else may come up with others.

1) He was just being arbitrary, and any other day would work as well. But in that case, why be so specific? Why not just say once a week? Or why not leave out any specification of time and just stick with "as God hath prospered him" (KJV -- NIV has "in keeping with his income"), which would fit the O.T. idea of "first fruits" -- WHENEVER you receive, set aside some for the Lord.

2) Sunday was payday. Link Hudson says that he saw an Adventist (presumably the Seventh Day variety) use this argument. But where is the evidence that there was a uniform "pay day" in the first century? Or that that day was Sunday? It really seems unlikely, unless all the disciples in the church in Corinth had the same occupation. Today some people get paid every week, some get paid once a fortnight (my daughter is paid this way at Harding U.), many are paid once a month (most in the church I serve are in this category), the income of farmers is seasonal, while trades-people receive their income with the transactions that generate the profits. I imagine the situation wasn't too much different at that time. So why assume that everyone in a whole congregation (several congregations, if he gave the identical instructions to the churches in the whole of Galatia) received their income on a single payday, i.e. Sunday.

3) Sunday was the normal day for Christians to meet together, and therefore it was a convenient time for them to "pool" the money they were each giving. There is not a huge amount of evidence in the N.T. itself to "prove" that Sunday was the day that Christians held their meetings. (This passage is one of the few passages there are.) But there is enough to be suggestive, and there is a large amount of very early extra-Biblical evidence to show that this was the habit of Christians in the late first century, early 2nd century, and onward.

Paul also gives the reason for telling them to do it this way -- "so that when I come, no collections will have to be made." If the money is simply held at home by each family and each individual, then they would still need to "collect" it together in a central place for the ones who are coming to carry the offering to take away with them. If that was how it was done, what difference would it make to Paul whether each family had a separate "piggy bank" (or "fish bank" like some group -- was it IDES? -- used awhile back), or simply, at that time, took a portion out of their family savings. There might not be as much that way, but that would be a different reason for these instructions than "so that ... no collections will have to be made." The only way this part really makes sense is if there was some central treasury, or at least treasurer, to keep the money so that when Paul came it was already assembled together in one place.

Now, on the other side (playing "devil's advocate" again?), this was a special offering for a special need -- the relief of the famine-stricken disciples in Judea. How much of a precedent this sets for regular offerings for general local needs is an open question. I might agree with you if you wanted to argue that because of this fact, we should not take this as a precedent for the kind of offerings we take today, which usually go mainly to local needs (and mainly to the comfort of the local congregation, rather than to either outreach or relief of the poor). But to argue that it sets no precedent for today's regular offerings because it was not an offering, but merely Christians setting aside money in their own homes, I think you are on VERY flimsy ground.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000

Answers

Benjamin,

We do have an idea of when payday was in the first century. It was everyday, paid out at the end of a day's work.

It is even commanded in the law, applicable at least to all lower paying jobs: Deuteronomy 24:15 "Pay him [the poor and needy worker (v14)] his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. Otherwise he may cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin." So, many in the first century, at least in Jewish influenced cultures, had daily pay days.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

Mark,

A daily "payday" for most occupations is certainly what I would have assumed at a time period that lacked our modern banking arrangements. However, I didn't know of any evidence to show that this actually was the case. I'm not sure that the passage you cite really "proves" it either, since (a) Corinth was primarily a Greek community rather than a Jewish one, (b) even the Jews did not always keep all their own laws, and further (c) the fact that something like this was included as a law may suggest that it was there to combat a tendency NOT to pay out every day.

In any case, whether there was a variety of different "paydays" as today, or a daily "payday" as the Jewish law required, my original question remains, "why Sunday?" The answer may have been two-fold. The first day of the week, as the day when Christ rose, had special significance to Christians, and, since it was also their normal day for meeting together, it was the day when any collections that were made, whether for regular needs or special needs like this, would have been gathered together.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

From above:

The only way this part really makes sense is if there was some central treasury, or at least treasurer, to keep the money so that when Paul came it was already assembled together in one place.

Benjamin,

In every small town in Greece, there is a building called a 'Treasury', which looks like a small bank. I saw one at Delphi and at Olympia, I think it was. Of course, the big cities have many of them. There is one ancient 'Treasury' right in downtown Athens, surrounded by modern buildings.

In ancient times, when people traveled, as they did to Olympia periodically for the contests, one of the first things they did was to take their valuables and coins to the 'Treasury'.

The one at Delphi is probably about 20' square, but looks like larger, very formal banks in Europe and America, made out of marble, with ornate decorations.

Is the word 'Treasury' actually used in this passage?

My son loves to talk about buildings, but is very busy right now.

I know this isn't a particularly helpful observation, but most churches will take offerings any day of the week, won't they? ;-)

And wasn't this perhaps because it was because Paul wasn't there, but wanted them to plan ahead so that it would be ready when he got there, since he was then going to take or send it to Jerusalem? Corinth, and Acrocorinth are very small (the old portions).

Just wondering.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Connie,

I meant the word "treasury" in an informal sense, not a formal one, and certainly don't think the Christian offerings were held in such a fancy place as those. Your question does raise an interesting thought, though.

I wonder what Greek word for "Treasury" was used for the buildings you describe. You wouldn't happen to know or be able to find out, would you?

The noun, "treasury" is NOT used in this passage, but the verb THESAURIZO (meaning to "store up, gather, save") is closely related to the noun THESAUROS. (BTW, our English word "treasure", "treasury", etc. are ultimately derived from these words.) THESAUROS meant "the place where something is kept", "a treasure box or chest", "a storehouse", "a storeroom", etc., or also "that which is stored up", "treasure", etc.

I wonder if the use of this verb implied anything about putting it into a "treasury". Probably not, since even the noun could also mean something small, i.e. a "treasure box." But it's a thought.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Benjamin,

I'll try to find out.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000