Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:3).

Jesus had told His apostles, and all His disciples for all time, that “if ye love me, keep my commandments.” He continued, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them he ii is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:14, 21, 23). And, to the contrary, He said, “He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings. . .” (John 14:24).

Many years later by the Holy Spirit, John told us again that our love of God is demonstrated and proven by keeping His commandments. We are to cultivate a deep and abiding faith “which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). Paul further defines such a faith as “the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 7:19). There is no love of God, no respect for Him and His Son, if our will is not yielded to Their will. He who does not obey does not have the love of God abiding in him. Seven hundred years before Jesus came, the prophet Micah stated the basis of all acceptable obedience to Jehovah when he said, “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Mic. 6:8). Saving faith is always that faith which loves God and sincerely does His will, willingly and cheerfully. God’s commandments “are not grievous” (burdensome, heavy, hard to keep). God has not required the impossible of us. Every commandment can be kept if we want to keep them. A command is “grievous” when we don’t want to do it. Genuine love for God makes obedience enjoyable.

Two brothers, one crippled and the other healthy, became lost while walking in the woods. The cripple tired quickly and had to be carried on the shoulders of his younger and small brother. He was carried some distance. Upon finding freedom they were met by a stranger who observed the situation and said, “My, that must have been quite a burden!” “No sir,” the lad said, “He’s my brother!” God’s commands are like that. Because they are what they are, they are not burdensome. This is the love of God.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, p. 435
July 21, 1983

By Tom Roberts

Introduction:

The Bible teaches imputation. It relates directly to salvation and only non-believers in the word of God would reject what the Bible teaches on this subject. But like many other Bible subjects, error seeks to give a false definition to a Bible word, then seek to impose this new definition upon Christians in the place of the Bible usage.

Examples:

Bible word	Shift in definition and usage	Resulting in the charge
“faith”	“faith only”	“You believe in salvation by works.”
“sing”	“play”	“You don’t believe in music.”
“works”	“justified by perfect law keeping” – only used allowed	“You are a legalist” any time any kind of work is used.
“imputation”	“personal righteousness of Jesus transferred”	“You think you are saved by your righteousness”

We need to be aware of this shift in definition and insist on clear definition, knowing that truth cannot be sustained by faulty definitions.

I. Personal Statement:

A. Attitudes have consequences (cf. Attitudes and Consequences by H. Hailey).

B. I make no apologies for a strong stand against what I perceive to be error. I do not speak for anyone else than myself but I want to be clearly understood. I do not believe that our subject can be left in the same categories with the “covering” question or carnal warfare, etc., since these matters are not being pushed into congregations as matters of faith. The position I hold is being branded as “legalism” (Gal. 3:10, etc.) which is clearly condemned by Paul. If I am guilty as charged, I am lost for none can be saved under that system. I would be guilty of preaching “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9). But if I “have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16) on this subject, we are witnessing a widespread departure that needs to be opposed. One of these positions is sinful; both cannot be right.

C. Any study of imputation would be incomplete if it did not show adequately it’s ramifications in other areas of the Bible. Some of these include:

1 . The plan of salvation (faith, baptism, works, nature of man, justification, sanctification, etc.). All of these are directly affected by the meaning attached to imputation.

2. Security of the believer (does God charge sin to a Christian?).

3. Fellowship (with sectarians, with digressive brethren, indeed even in our attitude toward what may be perceived to be error).

4. Doctrine as distinct from gospel (as some confidently affirm).

5. Imputation’s own vital link with an entire theological system which stands or falls together.

D. Historically, I perceive errors on imputation to be a reversion to pre-restoration theology insofar as it affects churches of Christ. Denominations have always held these views, but not our brethren.

II. Definitions.

A. “Righteousness,” “justification.” Various translations use these words interchangeably. In the adjective, noun and verb forms, we have right, righteous, righteousness and just, justification and justify.

B. “Righteousness” “The virtue or quality or state of one who is just; (1)…in the broad sense, the state of him who is such as he ought to be, righteousness; the condition acceptable to God…” (Thayer). Its use in the Scriptures:

1. An attribute of God’s own personal character (Rom. 2:5).

2. God’s plan for making men righteous (Rom. 1:17; 3:21). In Romans 10:3, the Jews were not ignorant of God’s personal character, but of God’s plan of righteousness, the gospel.

3. The state of man who submits to God’s righteous plan (Rom. 10:4).

4. Example: I John 3:7.

5. Some seem to make more of this word than this definition by using it as “flawless perfection.” When one claims that he is righteous, he is charged with claiming perfection whereas he could be meaning “a right standing with God” based on forgiveness.

C. Justification: “The act of God’s declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to him; adjudging to be righteous . . . Rom. 4:25; 5:18” (Thayer). “A sense of acquittal . . .” (Vine).

D. Just: “Righteous, observing divine and human laws; one who is such as he ought to be. (1) In a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God” (Thayer). “In the New Testament, it denotes righteous, a state of being right, or right conduct . . .” (Vine).

1. Example: Psa. 106:30, 31 – Phinehas.

2. He was not “flawlessly perfect” but “one such as he ought to be, keeping the commands of God,” or righteous before God.

3. Nothing is stated in these definitions of righteousness being something that is transferred from one person (human or divine) to another. It all takes place in the mind of God, not something transferred like a “pound of righteousness,” “an ounce of merit.” This use seems to carry the idea of “infuse” and seems to me to be an inconsistent use by those who want to transfer the personal righteousness of Christ to the believer. (One illus. – “pump poison out/food in.”)

4. What I understand righteousness to be and how I use it:

a. Eccl. 7:29 – “God made man upright.” God made man with the virtue or state or quality of one who is just, one who is as he ought to be, the condition acceptable to God. This was true with Adam at creation and is true with us at birth. Man is not born depraved.

b. But sin destroys this condition (Isa. 59:1, 2); it separates us from God and God charges us with sin (sin is imputed) not transferred or infused from someone else (Adam? Satan? our fathers?).

c. When God forgives, he brings us back to that condition we enjoyed before sin entered our lives. The action of God bringing us back to that “right standing” is imputation. (Note: Some are arbitrary with imputation in that they want to apply it (meaning transference) to righteousness but not to sin, limiting the action to Christ’s righteousness but not to Adam’s guilt. If it demands transference with regard to righteousness it will also demand it with regard to sin. The force of this is inescapable.

E. Impute, Imputation: “To reckon, calculate, count over, hence, a. to take into account, to make account of . . . 2. to reckon inwardly, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate. 3. by reckoning up all the reasons to gather or infer” (Thayer, p. 379). “To reckon, take into account, or, metaphorically, to put down to a person’s account” (Vine). “Reckon, think, credit, (logismos) thought. (Classical) is derived from (logo, word), count, collect, reckon. Its root (log-) put together, collect, harvest, suggests a regulated perception and an acceptance of given facts (emphasis mine, tr). Hence, logizomai means: (a) reckon, credit, rank with, calculate; (b) consider, deliberate, grasp, draw a logical conclusion, decide. According, logismos means (a) counting, calculation, (b) reflection, argument, thought, plan; (3) the ability to draw a logical conclusion. The concept implies an activity of the reason which, starting with ascertainable facts, draws a conclusion, especially a mathematical one or one appertaining to business, where calculations are essential. OT. Logizomai translates chiefly (Chasav, Heb.), think, account . . . The rabbi’s thinking was purely human; for them faith was a merit . . .” (The New International Dictionary of NT Theology, by J. Eichler, p. 822-826).

“With the exception of 1 Sam. 22:15 (where the word sum, signifying the set, place or appoint, is used), the idea of imputation is always represented by chasav. This word is largely used, and in slightly different senses. Our translators have rendered it by the word `think’ thirty-seven times; `imagine’ twelve times; `devise,’ thirty times; and `purpose,’ ten times. Hence it may be gathered that it signifies a mental process whereby some course is planned or conceived. Thus, it is applied to the `cunning’ workmen who contrived the various parts of the tabernacle, and refers not so much to their skill in manipulating their materials as to their inspired genius in devising the arrangements. It is rendered `find out’ in 2 Chron. 2:14, where we read of a certain person employed on the temple who was skillful to grave any manner of graving, and to `find out’ i.e., picture up in the imagination – `every device which shall be put to him . . . .’

“It is easy to see that a word which represents this process of the thought or imagination may be applied in various senses. Thus it is rendered regard, i.e., `pay attention to,’ in Isa. 13:17, 33:8.

“It is also used to express the estimation in which one person is held by another. Thus Job says (18:3) `Wherefore are we counted as beasts and reputed as vile in thy sight?’ . . . Isa. 53:3, 4 . . : silver `was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon’ (1 Kings 10:21) . . . `The houses of the villages which have no walls shall be counted as the fields of the country,’ i.e., shall be dealt with on the same principle as the fields . . . 2 Sam. 19:19, `Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely.’ Neh. 13:3, `They were counted faithful.’ Ps. 44:22, `We are counted as sheep for the slaughter.’ Prov. 27:14, `He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, it shall be counted a curse to him.’ Ps. 106:31, Phinehas’ deed was `counted unto him for righteousness.’ Hos. 8:12, `I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.’

“In all these passages a mental process is involved whereby a certain thing or a course of action is subjected to a sort of estimation as to value or position . . . a few passages remain to be noticed, and they are important from their theological meaning: – Gen. 15:6, Abraham `believed in the Lord and he counted it to him (for) righteousness.’ God reckoned him as righteous, on the ground of his faith. Lev. 7:18, `It shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed.’ The offering shall not be reckoned as having been made. Lev. 17:4, `Blood shall be imputed to that man; he bath shed blood.’ . . . . The word chasav is generally rendered logizomai in the LXX, and the use of this word in the NT exactly accords with what we have gathered from the OT. There are several samples of the ordinary use of the word . . . .

“We see therefore that to reckon, to impute, and to account are one and the same thing, and that the word is used in Scripture to indicate what may be called a mental process whereby the love and mercy which exists in the Divine nature, and which was embodied in Christ, is brought to bear upon the case of every individual who believes in (and acts upon) the word of God . . . (Old Testament Synonyms, by Girdlestone, Associated Pub. Co., 1897).

F. Application of “imputation” to our study:

1. “Impute” never means “transfer.” If so, where is the source authority for this definition and where is the context that so demands it? If it can be proven that it means “transfer” even in a secondary sense, this would not justify making a secondary definition to be used in a primary sense. (Ex: Mk. lfi:16, “He that bath an opinion and is broken up into tiny bits and scattered shall be pickled.”?

2. If one insists on “imputing” to mean “transfer,” then it should be used uniformly with all three considerations:

a. Adam’s sin to mankind.

b. Mankind’s sins to Christ.

c. Christ’s personal righteousness to the believer.

3. “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). “And it. The word `it’ here evidently refers to the act of believing. It does not refer to the righteousness of another – of God, or of the Messiah; but the discussion is solely of the strong act of Abraham’s faith, which in some sense was counted to him for righteousness. In what sense this was, is explained directly after. All that is material to remark here is, that the act of Abraham, the strong confidence of his mind in the promises of God, his unwavering assurance that what God had promised he would perform, was reckoned for righteousness. The same thing is more fully expressed in vv. 18-22. When, therefore, it is said that the righteousness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us; when it is said that his merits are transferred and reckoned as ours; whatever may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be defended by this passage of Scripture” (Barnes Notes on Romans, p. 101, emphasis theirs, tr).

“I have examined all the passages, and as the result of my examination have come to the conclusion, that there is not one in which the word is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man that which does not strictly belong to him; or of charging on him that which ought not to be charged on him as a matter of personal right. The word is never used to denote imputing in the sense of transferring, or of charging that on one which does not properly belong to him. The same is the case in the New Testament. The word occurs about forty times . . . and in a similar signification. No doctrine of transferring, or of setting over to a man what does not properly belong to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, from this word” (Ibid., p. 102).

4. Some insist on impute being “transfer” while others agree that it means “put to one’s account” but insist nevertheless that it is the perfection of Christ that is imputed, whether “transferred” or “put down.” Both are wrong.

5. “It has been erroneously assumed and falsely argued that to impute a thing to a person is to put to his account something that he does not have, or somewhat more than he has. The Presbyterian and Baptist Confessions of Faith, and a host of theologians of both schools, teach that the righteousness of Christ is imputed, or credited, to the sinner . . . . The doctrine is wholly without scriptural support. If to impute means to consider a person somewhat more than he is, or to credit him with something which belongs to another, then to impute sin to a person would be to consider him worse than he is, or to charge to him the sins of another. Righteousness belongs to character, and it is absurd to think that personal righteousness can be transferred to another. When by the power of the gospel a man has been made clean and free from sin, God reckons righteousness to him, because he is righteous. God does not pretend that a man is righteous when he is not. The denominational doctrine of imputed righteousness reminds one of the children’s game of `play-like.’ And their doctrine discredits the gospel as God’s saving power, and belittles the merits and efficacy of the blood of Christ, for it teaches that some corruption remains in the regenerate, but he is counted righteous because he is clothed with the righteousness of Christ. That is `play-like’ theology.

“But the gospel makes men righteous, just as a soiled garment may be made clean, as clean as if it had never been soiled, by carrying it through a process of cleansing. So the gospel takes the sin-defiled person through a process of cleansing that makes him as clean as if he had never sinned. The Lord does not `play-like’ he is righteous; he makes him righteous by the gospel (Commentary on Romans, by R.L. Whiteside, pp. 98-99).

6. “From this it is also evident that we are justified before God solely by the intercession of Christ’s righteousness. This is equivalent to saying that man is not righteous in himself but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation – something worth carefully noting . . . . For in such a way does the Lord Christ share his righteousness with us that in some wonderful manner, he pours into us enough of his power to meet the judgment of God . . . (only thing omitted is Calvin’s quotation of Rom. 5:19 as proof.) To declare that by him alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own?” (Brief History of Calvin’s Theory, 1536 (first edition) 1539 (final edition) Institutes of Christian Religion, by John Calvin, Book III, Chap. XI, Section 23).

7. Examples could be given by the score to prove that our own brethren are now using imputation in this manner. If necessary, these quotations can be produced. In keeping with the guidelines of this class, we are avoiding any use of such quotations.

8. “Consistent Calvinists believe, that if a man be elected, God absolutely imputes to him Christ’s personal righteousness, i.e. the perfect obedience unto death which Christ performed upon earth. This is reckoned to him for obedience and righteousness, even while he is actually disobedient, and before he has a grain of inherent righteousness . . . .

And therefore, under this imputation, he is perfectly righteous before God, even while he commits adultery and murder . . . in point of justification therefore, it matters not how unrighteous a believer actually is in himself: because the robe of Christ’s personal righteousness which, at his peril, he must not attempt to patch up with any personal righteousness of his own, is more than sufficient to adorn him from head to foot: and he must be sure to appear before God in no other” (Check to Antinomianism, by John Fletcher, via. Dabney-Frost Debate, p. 197).

“But . . . the personal righteousness of Christ is not so much as once mentioned in all the Bible, with the doctrine of imputation: and yet some divines can make whole congregations of men . . . believe, that the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness is a scriptural doctrine, and the very marrow of the Gospel! This garment of their own weaving they cast over adulterers and murderers, and then represent the filthy, bloody wretches as complete in Christ’s obedience, perfect in righteousness, and `undefiled’ before God”‘ (Ibid., p. 390).

9. The question before us takes on added signification when we note these concepts of imputation of the personal, righteousness of Christ being applied to matters which we all probably reject as wrong, yet imputation of this interpretation would permit. See below, material taken from Dabney-Frost Debate, p. 83, 118:

Dabney’s Third Article

Righteousness Imputed – Sin Not Imputed

“Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin” (Rom. 4:8).

“Blessing upon the man whom God imputeth righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6).

I.

1. God imputes righteousness apart from works.

2. Separating is a work, therefore,

3. God imputes righteousness apart from separating.

II.

1. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (Rom. 4:8).

2. One is made free from sin in baptism (Rom. 6:17); therefore,

3. Sin is not imputed to those baptized.

III.

1. Adultery is a sin (Matt. 19:18).

2. Sin is not imputed to the baptized: therefore,

3. Sin is not imputed to adulterers baptized.

IV.

1. “Sin is not imputed where there is no law” (Rom. 5:13).

2. Sin is not imputed to baptized adulterers; therefore,

3. Baptized adulterers are not reckoned as violaters of law . . . .

V.

1. The sin of adultery is forgiven in baptism (1 Cor. 6:9, 11).

2. God takes no account of sin, when one is baptized; therefore,

3. God takes no account of those married in adultery before baptism.

10. Bro. Frost’s reply: Denominational people use this to dismiss baptism:

1. God imputes righteousness apart from works.

2. Baptism is a work; therefore,

3. God imputes righteousness apart from baptism.

11. While we might view such arguments as the above as ludicrous, it hits closer to home when we hear argued that “Sin is not charged to those in Christ (a relationship)” or “Fellowship is in Christ and not doctrine; therefore, no doctrine should become a test of fellowship.” Brethren, don’t miss the point of all this discussion. Fellowship is the ultimate question before us. Imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ to the believer is being used to promote a wider fellowship with sectarians and this very thing is being practiced all around us. Attitudes have consequences! The formula by brother Dabney is not limited to the marriage question but is actually a panacea for all our problems. With one fell swoop; we may wrap our arms around any and all, ignoring what the Bible says about the doctrinal matters when we have “Christ’s personal righteousness” imputed to us. It is so simple, it can be reduced to “Filling in the Blanks.”

Fill In The Blank

“Sin is not imputed” (Rom. 4:8); “Lord will not impute sin” to those in Christ.

_______________ is a sin.

_______________ is not imputed.

We have seen this used on adultery. Try it with instrumental music, institutionalism, premillennialism, all shades of liberalism, taking the Lord’s supper on Wednesday night, etc. We might even try at on legalism!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 434-435, 437-439
July 21, 1983

By Lewis Willis

Well, Pat Boone used to sing about writing love letters in the sand. If one has the right to be writing love letters, I guess sand is as good a place to write them as any. Perhaps it would be better, since the evidence of those loving commitments wouldn’t be around for long, sand being what it is. However, writing letters in the sand and building houses on the sand are two entirely different propositions.

Did you see the news film shot during the floods that struck the California coast recently? It was a pitiful site to see -one can only imagine the anguish of the people immediately involved. Some homeowners had actually built their big, beautiful homes on the sandy beach of the Pacific Ocean. Films showed those large edifices literally falling in heaps when the floods and stormy winds unrelentingly beat upon them. I am reminded of the following words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: And great was the fall of it (Matt. 7:24-27; My Emp., L.W.)

I can scarcely imagine a physical circumstance that so nearly parallels something our Lord said while He was on this earth. City councils authorized the issuance of building permits to those California residents to build their houses on those sandy beaches. Of course, those city councils won’t come in and re-build those houses that were foolishly built on such a flimsy foundation. That is the homeowner’s problem.

One thinks of all of the spiritual permission that human counsels give to build spiritual houses on unstable foundations. When those houses are tested by the storms of life and the winds of judgment, they, too, shall fall in the greatest and most tragic fall of all. The authors of this human counsel will not concern themselves with, the tragedy of all of those fallen houses. They will be too busy trying to extricate themselves from the ruins of their own houses that have collapsed about them. Again, the spiritual homeowner has a problem, with no opportunity to re-build.

How good is our vision? Can’t we see the truth that Jesus spoke? A foolish man builds his house on sand. A wise man builds his house on a rock. When tested, one stands – the other collapses. We saw a demonstration of that truth when we saw those California films.

The truthfulness of our Lord’s physical example establishes the truthfulness of His spiritual point. Each of us is building his own spiritual house. These houses will be tested! If we have been wise, heeding the sayings of our Lord and doing them, our houses will stand. On the other hand, if we have been foolish, not heeding or doing our Lord’s sayings, our houses will fall. And great will be the fall of them.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, p. 433
July 21, 1983

By Aude McKee

Suppose you were asked to name three or four things that are a great deal less prevalent today than a quarter of a century ago, what would you list? I suspect that hospitality would be ~ named by most people. The oft used phrase, “What ever happened to . . . .?” could well be applied to hospitality and probably listed among the “lost arts.” When I was a boy you could hear, “Come and go home with us” all around as you left the building and people meant it.

As you think about it, the whole thing becomes sort of confusing. Why has it happened? Why are people less hospitable now? We have more in about every way to do with than people did years ago. More money, more time and labor saving devices, more foods that are prepared commercially and only need a few minutes in the microwave or need no preparation at all. But maybe this is our problem. When housewives had to have preparations made ahead of time, perhaps it was easier.

There have been other changes in society that have affected hospitality. During the depression years, people who were “down and out” knocking on your door was a common occurrence. I can’t recall my mother ever turning anyone away. And I can’t recall her ever saying, “I’ll have to call someone from your home town to determine if you are worthy.” We didn’t have the bums and frauds like we have now. Those people weren’t asking for a handout so they could drive their Hudson or Packard to the next city.

Let’s look at hospitality from the Bible viewpoint. The word is from a Greek word that means “love of strangers.” Elders, if qualified, are “given to hospitality” (1 Tim. 3:2), but it is also a responsibility of all Christians. In Romans 12, we learn ‘that a part of presenting our bodies a living sacrifice and being transformed by the renewing of our minds, is “distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality” (v. 13). To the Hebrew brethren, the writer said, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares” (13:2), and Peter pointed out that we should “use hospitality one to another without grudging” (I Pet. 4:9). From these passages we learn some vital truths.. Hospitality must be vital to the ongoing of the local church – men are not qualified to be elders unless they are hospitable, being hospitable is a part of being a faithful Christian. Great opportunities and blessings are missed when we fail to practice hospitality, and hospitality must be extended with the same attitude of heart that motivates us to lay by in store on the 1st day of the week (2 Cor. 9:7).

There are abundant examples of hospitality to help us understand what sort of activity is involved. Abraham entertained angels unaware of who they were in Genesis 18:1-8. In 1 Kings 17, a widow and her son took Elijah into their home and shared the little they had with him in his need. Elisha was the recipient of the hospitality of a Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4:8-11. She and her husband prepared a place in their house with a stool, a table, a candlestick and a bed so he could stop and refresh himself. In Acts 2:44-45 and 4:34-35, the Judean Christians shared what they had with their brethren. Lydia, immediately after her conversion, “constrained” four gospel preachers to live in her house (Acts 16:14-15) – she literally begged them to make her house their headquarters. Onesiphorus had a “grip” on true hospitality. He helped Paul often, he was not ashamed of him even though he was a prisoner, and Paul didn’t have to look for Onesiphorus – he looked for Paul so he might minister to his needs (2 Tim. 1:16-18).

Hospitality is something extended when it is needed. Every example given suggests this fact. It is also seen in the qualifications given for a widow to be enrolled in 1 Timothy 5:10. She (according to this word used but once in the New Testament) had to be a person who “lodged .strangers” (KJV) or “showed hospitality to strangers” (NASV). We are not suggesting that Christians are to be together and enjoy each other’s company (as well as food), only when a need exists. The “breaking bread from house to house” (Acts 2:46) probably relates to the sort of thing we enjoy so much, but we doubt this really pinpoints the real meaning of hospitality. Let me give some examples without calling names. A family in the Northeast lived close to the building. Several other families had to drive many miles for the Lord’s Day assembly. The family near the building opened up their home so the other families would not have to make two long drives or else miss the evening worship. That is hospitality. During a meeting in another “mission area,” a day service was planned. Usually at such gatherings, everyone in attendance would go to a restaurant at noon, but the preacher and his wife knew that one family attending would lack the financial resources to “eat out” and so they fed the entire group to keep from embarrassing the one family. That is hospitality. In a congregation in Florida, the meal list was posted for the visiting preacher. A widow and her grandson, who had both just recently obeyed the gospel, were among the first to put their names on the list. Then they began to face up to their problems. They only had two chairs and two plates, etc. So they had to go to a second-hand store and buy the things they needed to feed the preacher. That’s hospitality – not because the preacher needed that particular meal, but they needed to do their part! True hospitality grows out of love and concern. In another meeting, many years ago before the barrier between the races were broken down, an old black sister – the only one among the whites, as I recall – took the preacher aside and asked him if he would mind eating in her home. That is hospitality.

We usually don’t need encouragement to visit with and eat with those who are near and dear, but what about those in the local congregation who are usually overlooked? Jesus taught along this line in Luke 14:12-14. We need to extend our hospitality to those in need. Occasionally there will be someone in physical need, but more often, in our experience, it is someone who is in need of spiritual assistance. There is hardly a congregation in the land but what has some neglected people in it. Stop and think of the ones in your local congregation who would benefit from your hospitality. Be sure they are included in the near future.

However, the hospitality Christians extent is not limited to those who are members of the body of Christ. “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men. . .” is the command of Galatians 6:10. The injunction of Hebrews 13:2, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers. . .” would certainly cause those not Christians to be the recipients of our hospitality, like a number of other responsibilities, is limited. First, we could not extend hospitality to false teachers. 2 John 9-11 makes it clear that to do so would make us a “partaker of his evil deeds.” Also, we could not extend hospitality to a person too lazy to work. This prohibition is also a command in 2 Thessalonaians 3:10.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 432-433
July 21, 1983