A. The collection (16:1–4)
A. The collection (16:1–4)
1. Now about (peri de) is the formula that introduces topics mentioned in the letter from Corinth (see on 7:1). The collection (a word in common use, more especially for a collection for religious purposes) meant much to Paul. This is the first time he mentions it in his extant writings (but cf. Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:1ff.; 9:1ff.). Here he says it is ‘for the saints’ (NIV God’s people), but other references (e.g. v. 3) show that it was intended specifically for poor Christians in Jerusalem. Some see this as the Christian equivalent of the half shekel that male Jews throughout the world sent annually to Jerusalem for the temple. But there are significant differences. Paul’s collection was a once-for-all effort, not an annual one, and there was no obligation. Nor was it aimed at supporting a Christian equivalent of the temple; it was for the poor. Paul was very anxious for it to be a success. We do not know why the Jerusalem church was so poor, evidently poorer than other churches. But Jerusalem as a whole was not rich; it was largely dependent on the generosity of Jews from outside Palestine. Christians would be excluded from such bounty; indeed, they were the objects of special hostility and persecution (1 Thess. 2:14f.), and might well be in dire straits. There were famines from time to time (e.g. Acts 11:28–30). They may well have suffered also from the after-effects of the community of goods practised in the first days (Acts 4:34f.). Another motive for Paul would arise from the fact that, just as the Jews helped their poorer brothers, so did the Greek religious brotherhoods (the eranoi). It would never do for the Christians to lag behind the Jewish and pagan world in their care for their poorer members. We should also remember that Paul himself and the whole Gentile mission were held in suspicion by some of the more conservative elements in the Jerusalem church. Paul doubtless felt that a generous response to the need of the poor in that church would strikingly demonstrate the solidarity of the Gentile churches with the mother church, and do much to promote unity. In any case, the Gentile Christians owed so much to the Jews that common gratitude demanded some such response (Rom. 15:27). The collection was being made throughout the Gentile churches of Paul’s foundation, as we see from the references to the Galatian churches (and those of Macedonia, 2 Cor. 8:1ff.; 9:1ff.). The reference to other churches evokes from Bengel the comment, ‘There is great force in examples.’
2. The collection was to be made on the first day of every week. This is the first piece of evidence to show that Christians observed that day, though there is no reason to doubt that it was their custom from the first (cf. John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). Paul does not mention worship, but it is probably in mind. As distinct from the Jewish sabbath, the first day was a weekly commemoration of the resurrection of the Lord, which indicates the importance the Christians attached to that event. Each one of you indicates that every believer, no matter how poor, would make a contribution. The most natural meaning of should set aside is, as many commentators from Chrysostom down have maintained, that each is to keep the money in store at home. But as Paul expressly deprecates the collecting of the money when he arrived (which would be necessary if they all had it at home), it is perhaps better to think of it as stored in the church treasury. Certainly in the second century money was collected at worship on the first day of the week (Justin, Apol. I.67.6). Paul does not indicate a definite amount or definite proportion of one’s income that is to be contributed; he leaves it to the conscience of each. Each should give ‘whatever he (or it) has been prospered’. The subject of the verb is not expressed. AV supplies the word ‘God’; others ‘he’ or ‘his business’ (so NIV with in keeping with his income). W. Michaelis argues for ‘gathering “all that he can (as much as possible)” ’ (TDNT, V, p. 113). The verb may be either present or perfect; either gives a good sense, and both point to a continuing state. The meaning is then that one’s giving should be in direct proportion to the way one prospers; it should be determined as a matter of principle, not something done on impulse. Paul wants no collections when he comes; he is not looking for a last-minute effort with emotional pressure. When, incidentally, is the indefinite hotan, ‘whenever’. The time of the visit is uncertain.
3. Letters of commendation were not uncommon in the world of that time (Deissmann cites one dated 12th September, AD 50; LAE, pp. 170f.). It is not surprising that Paul should want such letters to go with the bearers of the collection. But it is not clear who would write them. NIV opts for Paul with I will give letters (so NEB and others), while RSV indicates the local church, ‘those whom you accredit by letter’ (so JB, etc.). Since Paul says ‘I will send’ the bearers, it is perhaps more likely that the former suggestion is correct. Letters is plural, pointing to a number of commendations for the individual delegates. These men are to be those approved (the word is almost a technical term for ‘passing as fit for a public office’, MM) by the Corinthians. Paul is scrupulously careful. He did not plan to touch the money at any time. The Corinthians would raise it, keep it till he came, and send it by their own approved messengers to its destination.
4. Paul’s plans were uncertain. He did not know whether he would be going to Jerusalem or not. If it was fitting (axion) he would accompany them. He may mean ‘if his schedule is suitable’ (Orr and Walther), but more probably if the collection amounted to a worthy sum (it would not be seemly for an apostle to supervise in person the delivery of a niggardly amount). Moffatt translates, ‘if the sum makes it worth my while to go too, they shall accompany me.’