1. The Giving of Our Means: Is it really “commanded”? For years, before the collection is taken, we’ve said words to this effect, “Separate and apart from the Lord’s Supper, we have another command to lay by in store (or, ‘to give back a portion to God’).” Do we really have a “command” to give on the first day of the week?

2. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 1.Our giving can be compared to, but not bound by, the tithe of the Old Testament. O.T. law helps us to understand N.T. principles and laws, but cannot be substituted for them, Rom.15:4; 1Cor.10:6,11; Col.2:14. We understand this with David’s use of instrumental music- that such does not authorize it as N.T. worship, but somehow fail to do so when it comes to giving. Some seem to want to reason thusly, “Under the Old Covenant Law of Moses, God’s people were required to give a tenth of all they possessed. Since the New Covenant Law of Christ is superior in every respect (cf. Heb.7-10 superior priesthood; sacrifices; and blessings), then surely the requirements of our giving should likewise be superior.”

3. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 1.Our giving can be compared to, but not bound by, the tithe of the Old Testament. (continued) But think about the logic and reasoning of the statement. Wouldn’t it also require that we perform more works of righteousness such as feast days, sacrifices, worship, etc., rather than less? The only way the Law of Moses could save was through perfect law-keeping, Rom.2:25ff; 3:20; Gal.5:4. But we are not under such a law now, Rom.3:27; 9:30-32. Remember, the Law of Moses was Israel’s moral, religious, and civic law. Thus, (Easton's Bible Dict.) “Every Jew was required by the Levitical law to pay three tithes of his property (1) one tithe for the Levites; (2) one for the use of the temple and the great feasts; and (3) one for the poor of the land.” The O.T. “tithe,” as such, is nowhere conjoined to N.T. Christians. If some think it is, just provide the passage.

4. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 2.Our giving is authorized by example, not by command. The directions (Grk. diatasso: dia {through} + tasso {arrange} = to arrange or prescribe) Paul gave to the churches of Galatia and Corinth were to collect funds for the benevolent needs of brethren in Judea, 1Cor.16:1-2. Compare this language to that of 2Cor.8:8 where he is likewise speaking of instructions for this same collecting, and collection, “I am not speaking this as a command, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity of your love also.” The word for command here is Grk. word epitage: an injunction, mandate, command. Question: If these instructions/directions (1Cor.16:1-2) were not “commands” for those to whom they were originally given, how can they be “commanded” for us today?

5. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 2.Our giving is authorized by example, not by command. Now, we need also to understand that the collection of 1Cor.16:1ff (et al) was for a scripturally authorized expenditure/need- i.e., “the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” Rom.15:25-26. Such is thus the scripturally authorized way for a church to meet scripturally authorized expenditures. Also realize, that outside of Acts 2:45 and 4:32-35, the passage in 1Cor.16:1-2 is the only one which gives us indication of exactly how scriptural expenditures were met by the church. It then follows that if the church now has scriptural expenditures (by command, example, or necessary inference), then the first day collection of 1Cor.16:1-2 is the approved method to meet those needs (rather than by bake sales, spaghetti suppers, pancake breakfasts, raffles, car washes, investments or business ventures). However, some important questions & answer must be considered:

6. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 2.Our giving is authorized by example, not by command. When did Paul give these directions (of 1Cor.16:1-2) to “the churches of Galatia” and the Corinthians?  Paul’s missionary journeys to the Galatian region (and thus presumably his commands given to them regarding the collection) essentially took place between 45 and 58 A.D. 1Corinthians probably was written in 57 A.D. And when did the church begin?  The church (as least as spoken of here) began in 33 A.D., Acts 1-2.

7. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 2.Our giving is authorized by example, not by command. So, when did the church begin taking a weekly collection???  If the instructions (certainly given through inspiration of the Spirit) did not come from Paul until at least 45 A.D., which is about the earliest date Paul had contact with “the churches of Galatia”, and he did not write the instructions to the Corinthians regarding “the collection” until 57 A.D., then the church apparently did not have, nor was it commanded to have, a weekly collection for the first 12-24 years of its existence!  And only began one then by instruction to meet a scriptural expenditure.  So, the collection is tied to scriptural need by example, rather than by command regardless of need.

8. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 2.Our giving is authorized by example, not by command. Please do not misunderstand, if and when the church has scripturally authorized expenditures/needs (benevolence- Rom.15:25-26; evangelism- Phil.4:11-15-18; and edification- 1Cor.9:3-14), then, by example, the first day of the week collection is the authorized means of meeting those needs. But, what if we didn’t have any scripturally authorized expenditures to meet? Would we still be obligated to take a weekly collection?  “No,” is my answer based on the previous considerations and scriptures! The collection stemmed from the need. Thus, if there is no need, there need be no collection.

9. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 2.Our giving is authorized by example, not by command. “So we’re not ‘commanded’ to give on the first day of the week?”  Only in the sense that it is the authorized way to meet scriptural expenditures of the church, 2Cor.8:8.  Please consider 2Cor.9:7. It says that their giving was “not… under compulsion…” How can this be if it was/is a universal command to the church at all times?  A “command” to give would make it compulsory (or required), would it not?  So, if their giving was not compulsory (or required), it follows that there could not have been a command.

10. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 3.Passages sometimes used regarding “giving” must be kept in context to prevent improper interpretations and applications. Matt.6:2-4; While “the giving of our means” (or any other act of worship or duty) should never be done to glorify ourselves, cf. v.1, this passage is not addressing the manner of the collection for the church.  If it was, then the same principles would have to be applied to vv.5-6, which would then abolish the “public” prayers of our worship services! (See also vv.16-18 of the same context.)

11. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 3.Passages sometimes used regarding “giving” must be kept in context to prevent improper interpretations and applications. (continued) Matt.5:20; Some have utilized, “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” as a proof text to show that our giving must exceed the tithe of the O.T.  Context is the key to proper understanding, and therefore to application, of any passage.  The admonition of this verse is to exceed the righteousness of the “scribes and Pharisees”- not the faithful Jew living under the Law!  Note that the scribes and Pharisees were condemned for their hypocrisy and self-glorification, cf. Matt.23:3ff. Surely we can see that this was the intention of Jesus’ teaching in Matt.5:20, rather than to establish a new percentage of income that Christians should give!

12. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 3.Passages sometimes used regarding “giving” must be kept in context to prevent improper interpretations and applications. (continued) Matt.5:20; Some have utilized, “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” as a proof text to show that our giving must exceed the tithe of the O.T.  In 1Cor.16:1-2 and 2Cor.8-9, it would have been very easy to establish a new “approved percentage” of giving if that was God’s desire and intention. But what words are utilized instead? Our giving is to be motivated and governed by principles such as “as prospered... liberality… according to ability… sincerity… love… desire… according to what a man has… not for your your affliction… at this present time your abundance… bountifully… as he has purposed… not grudgingly or under compulsion… cheerful” instead of specified (commanded) percentages!

13. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 3.Passages sometimes used regarding “giving” must be kept in context to prevent improper interpretations and applications. (continued) Luke 21:1-4; The widow gave “all that she had to live on.”  While Jesus certainly admired and acknowledged her gift, did He enjoin it as requirement on His disciples? We might be tempted to use Luke 18:22 to say “yes,” but care should again be taken.  Jesus understood the heart of this man, and knew what would be required for him to be wholly committed to God. But again, did Jesus make this same requirement of all of His disciples?  Passages like these, and Luke 14:33 et al, must be kept in context. If being a Christian means one must give up all his possessions in a literal and absolute sense, would it not also mean that he must give up his family and physical life in a literal and absolute sense, cf. Luke 14:26?  What these verses actually teach is that one should be willing to forfeit all of those things, if faithfulness to God to required it- that none of those things can be held in higher regard than our love and obedience to Christ.

14. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: 3.Passages sometimes used regarding “giving” must be kept in context to prevent improper interpretations and applications. (continued) So, these passages must be first understood in their proper context. Secondly, they must not be given an interpretation or application that contradicts other clear teaching.  On this last point, see Acts 5:4 where Peter made it very clear that the property of Ananias “while it remained unsold, was your (his) own? And after it was sold, was it not under your (his) own control?”  Evidently, Ananias and Sapphira were not required to sell their property and give the money to the poor, despite the fact that others had been doing so, cf. Acts 4:32-37.

15. “The Giving of Our Means” Points We Need to Consider: Conclusions: Our giving/collecting needs to be motivated and determined by N.T. principles, not O.T. percentages, 2Cor.8-9. Our giving/collecting needs to originate from the purpose of the heart, not the compulsion of a command, 2Cor.9:7. Our giving/collecting on the first day of the week is done by the authority of an example of how the church meets scripturally authorized expenditures/needs, not by a command to give to and maintain a treasury, 1Cor.16:1-2 > 2Cor.8:8. As a church with scriptural expenditures, each member should be pleased to contribute something to those needs, 2Cor.8:4; but should not feel obligated to do so except by his being part of the whole (local body/church), 2Cor.8:8; Rom.12:4-8.