The scripture often quoted to justify a congregational treasury is 1 Corinthians 16:2, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” The text clearly identifies “laying by him in store.” The pronoun “him” does not demand congregational action/work. It’s not collected for the congregation. It’s collected for the poor saints and the source of funds to meet the need was the individual saint. The inconsistencies of application and interpretation of Scripture are laughable. For example, some preachers of churches make much ado about other passages such as the book of James 1:27 that address the individual (himself) and not the congregation, but can’t see the same application in 1 Corinthians 16:2. Of course, it’s been used for many years to justify the use of a church treasury that no one in the organizations will question.
Furthermore, the word “gatherings” plural indicates more than one gathering and not a singular one such as a congregational treasury. Evidently men, plural, had their individual gatherings of resources. These resources were, probably, not the collection of money. No amount of money would help put food on the table if there was no food to buy. The famine left the region of Judea without food. Each week, saints would hold back a portion of food. Some were sacrificing by doing without so that collection could be accomplished with greater speed. 2 Corinthians 8:2 reads, “In the midst of a very severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity.”
There are often conflicts over the use of money collected into the church treasury. Of course, it is out of the control of the membership, but that doesn’t stop the rumbling and complaints concerning any perceived misuse of funds. In other cases, deacons or preachers, etc. have been known to steal money from the collection plate or out of the bank account. Yet, there is never a conflict or debate in how money is to be used or where it should be given if we follow the New Testament pattern. The reason for this is that each time a need was met, brethren met the need by reaching into their own storehouse to share with those who were destitute. The brethren did not create another storehouse to which they feed but for which they were no longer accountable so that some work decided by the few decision-makers of the organization could be funded. Nor was there a slush fund of money collected for whatever need that may arise in the future. This tradition commonly results in large sums of money stored for some construction or repair cost of the building, another abuse from the establishment of church institutionalism.
The biblical examples are often given to justify the church treasury are the two examples of saints bringing their gift to apostles or elders as if they were church officers responsible for its use. A careful read will show that giving it to them was for the purpose of distribution, not collection. They were not depositing the gifts into a church account over which they had no control. As a matter of fact, most local churches that I have ever been acquainted with would not respect a gift that was earmarked for special use. It is understood by them that once it is given, it is out of the control of the giver, and the “church officials” have the right of decision regarding its use. That’s neither the case with Acts 4:32-36, nor Acts 11:27-30. A specific need existed, and brethren gave from their own storehouse to meet that need. The resources collected was for the purpose of meeting a specific need.
Therefore, the pattern of work was the individual work of saints. This is the picture of the “ekklesia” (the called-out) at work. There is no need for money for a congregation to spread the gospel because that is the work of the individual as demonstrated throughout the history of the early church. They distributed money one on one, NEVER from individuals to congregations or congregations to congregations. Even in the case of the needy saints in Jerusalem, whatever was contributed went from the individual via their own personal messengers to the saints in Jerusalem via the elders (individuals) in that area for distribution. There is no indication anywhere in the scripture of saints providing for the need of other saints anywhere (local or otherwise) except one on one; and definitely not any congregation contributing to another congregation. God has charged the individual saints to minister to do his will and has equipped them with the ability to do it (Eph. 4:12). The responsibility was not the responsibility of congregations. It was always the responsibility of individual saints.