Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

The Apostles

We have seen that the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Following this occasion, the Spirit continued with them to guide them in their teaching, revealing the truth to them and enabling them to express that truth infallibly (Eph. 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 2:10-13; 1 Tim. 4:1). This was in fulfilment of the promise which Jesus had made to them earlier (John 14:26; 16:13). Additionally, they were enabled to perform such supernatural feats as healing the sick and raising the dead (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16).

Those On Whom Apostolic Hands Were Laid

The apostles were not the only ones who were empowered with supernatural ability. Joel’s prophecy, which Peter quoted on Pentecost, promised that people of all ages, classes, and ranks would receive the Spirit (Acts 2:14-18). However, the Spirit did not automatically come to each Christian immediately after his baptism. Rather, the Spirit came to them only after the apostles had laid their hands on them.

This is clear from the case of the Samaritans, recorded in Acts 8:12-19. Through the preaching of Philip, the Samaritans believed and were baptized (v. 12). When the apostles heard about the conversion of the Samaritans, they sent Peter and John to them. It is plainly stated that when Peter and John arrived, the Samaritan Christians still had not received the Holy Spirit (v. 16). Upon their arrival, Peter and John prayed for them and laid their hands on them in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit (vv. 14-17), and “Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given” (v. 18). Evidently, apostles were the only ones with the power to lay their hands on Christians and thereby enable them to receive the Holy Spirit. If Philip had possessed that power, surely he would have laid his hands on the Samaritans and they would have received the Holy Spirit without having to wait for the apostles. Though he had miraculous powers, Philip was not an apostle, hence did not have this ability. Another instance of the Holy Spirit being given by this means is found in Acts 19:5-6. All of those who received the Spirit in this manner were not endowed with the same abilities. There were various gifts, and all did not have the same gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-11).

Sometimes it is argued that Timothy received his spiritual gift, not through the laying on of apostolic hands, but through the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (eldership). The passage which is invoked is 1 Tim. 4:14, in which Paul said that the gift was given “with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” However, there is another passage dealing with Timothy’s gift. In 2 Tim. 1:6 Paul said that it was given “by the putting on of my hands.” Note the difference in prepositions: “with” (Meta “accompanied by”) in 1 Tim. 4:14, and “by” (dia – “By means of”) in 2 Tim. 1:6. Hence, the gift was given “by means of” the laying on of Paul’s hands (2 Tim. 1:6). The laying on of the elders’ hands was not the means by which the gift was bestowed, but merely accompanied its bestowal, probably as a sign of support and endorsement.

One Exception

We have seen that in order for those other than apostles to receive the Holy Spirit, the hands of the apostles had to be laid on them. There is no record of anyone receiving the Holy Spirit other than the apostles and those on whom the apostles laid their hands – with one exception. Cornelius was not an apostle; yet, along with the other Gentiles gathered with him, he received the Holy Spirit directly from Heaven, not through the laying on of apostolic hands (Acts 10:44). Why should Cornelius be treated differently than the Samaritans (Acts 8) and the Ephesians (Acts 19)? His was a special case, and there was a special purpose to be served by his reception of the Holy Spirit when he did.

The conversion of Cornelius was highly significant in the history of Christianity, because he was the first Gentile to he converted. The Jews did not believe that the gospel was for uncircumcised Gentiles. The Jews accompanying Peter had gone to Cornelius’ house with that attitude. Due to their deep-seated prejudice about this matter, something astounding was needed to convince them that the Gentiles could enjoy the blessings of the gospel. The reception of the Holy Spirit by Cornelius and the other Gentiles with him served this purpose. It is affirmed that the Jews were astonished that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit (v. 45). After this, Peter asked, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (v. 47). The implication is that, if it had not been for their receiving the Holy Spirit, some would have forbidden that they be baptized. It was only when the Holy Spirit came upon these Gentiles that the Jews were convinced that they could be baptized. Later, when Peter was criticized by Jews in Jerusalem for going to uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3), he responded by informing them of all that had happened leading up to the conversion of Cornelius (v. 4ffj, climaxing the account by telling of the coming of the Holy Spirit upon these Gentiles (vv. 15-17). Only then were the Jews satsified. Upon hearing of the Spirit’s coming to the Gentiles, they “glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (v. 18).

It is obvious that Cornelius’ case was a special one and that his reception of the Holy Spirit was for a special purpose -namely, to convince the Jews that the Gentiles could receive the blessings of the gospel. If his reception of the Holy Spirit was not to serve this special purpose, there is no adequate explanation as to why he was treated differently than the Samaritans and Ephesians were. It is significant that in order to explain what had happened to Cornelius, Peter had to go all the way back to Pentecost when the apostles had received the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:15). What had happened to Cornelius was different from anything that had happened since Pentecost. It certainly was not something that happened to all Christians, as is evident from the case of the Samaritans.

The fact that Cornelius’ case was exceptional is obvious from the fact that he was not even saved when he received the Holy Spirit. According to Peter’s account in Acts 11, the angel told Cornelius, “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (v. 14). Peter then said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning” (v. 15). Thus, Cornelius was to be saved through Peter’s words, but Peter had not spoken those words when the Holy Spirit fell on them; he had only begun to speak the words. Therefore, Cornelius was not saved when he received the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet heard the words whereby he could be saved. Further, it was after his reception of the Holy Spirit that he was baptized in the name of the Lord (vv. 47-48); but the Bible puts salvation after baptism (Mk. 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). How, then, can anyone deny that Cornelius was an exceptional case? And how dare anyone treat an exception as though it were the rule?

Though all recognize that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, there is dispute as to whether or not he received the baptism of the Spirit. In view of the fact that Peter connected what happened to Cornelius with the baptism of the Holy Spirit which the apostles had received on Pentecost (Acts 11:16-17), 1 believe that Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, I see no point in arguing about the matter, as it really makes no difference whatever so far as I can see. The important points are: (1) Cornelius did receive the Holy Spirit directly from Heaven (whether this reception was what could be called an immersion or not), and (2) Cornelius’ case was an exceptional one, contrary to the normal occurrence, as he received the Spirit to serve a special need which existed only in his case as the first Gentile convert.

Since, with the one exceptional case of Cornelius, the only Christians to receive the miraculous spiritual endowments were the apostles and those on who the apostles laid their hands, we are led to conclude that the miraculous endowments would cease following the death of the apostles and those on whom they had laid their hands. They did cease, being no longer needed after the apostolic period. This point will be the subject of our next article.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 19, pp. 296-297
May 7, 1981

By Irvin Himmel

The Bible points out many interesting facts about love in I Cor. 13. After showing how excellent and indispensable love is, Paul personifies love by attributing to it the qualities and actions of a person.

Love has been defined as active good will toward another. The Corinthian Christians were torn with divisions, strife, envying, lawsuits, and other indications of carnality. They needed to learn the conduct that love produces, so Paul represents love as behaving in certain ways and possessing certain attributes (vs. 4-7).

Love Suffereth Long

in the exercise of His divine love toward man, the love that prompted the gift of His only begotten Son, God is longsuffering. Think of how patient He was in dealing with the rebellious Israelites in the long ago. Think of how “the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3:20). And remember, even today, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

The Christian who learns to love others as the word of God teaches will bear long rather than be impatient. Longsuffering is named in Gal. 5:22 as a part of the fruit of the Spirit. Many events and pressures in day-to-day living tend to irritate us. If we can but walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called, we shall show “longsuffering, forbearing one another in love” (Eph. 4:1, 2).

Preachers have a special need for longsuffering. Timothy was instructed to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). We can no more force an immediate change in one’s life, or a sudden change in a congregation where unfavorable conditions have developed over a period of years, than we can plant a seed in the soil on a given day and force it to produce a full-grown plant the next morning! Love does not act with destructive haste. Love suffers long.

Love Is Kind

Some people take pride in being brutally frank. It may be that their brutality is more conspicuous than their frankness. We should be able to speak in a very straightforward manner and still do it with gentleness and sympathy. Kindness is no hindrance to our speaking our convictions with boldness.

Love is not harsh. Love is not ill-natured. Love is not mean and vicious. Love is not ugly and hateful. Love is not vindictive and full of spite. It is the reverse of all that shows unkindness.

Paul wrote to the saints at Ephesus, “And be ye kind one to another, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:32). Kindness is reflected in politeness, simple courtesies, acts of goodness, expressions of warmth or tenderness, and feelings of gentleness. We are taught of God to “be pitiful, be courteous” (1 Pet. 3:8).

Love Envieth Not

The Greek word translated “envieth” in 1 Cor. 13:4 “denotes to be zealous, moved with jealousy” (Vine). Sometimes people seethe and boil inwardly because of the successes, attainments, and possessions of others. Preachers are sometimes zealous against other preachers due to their ability and success. Instead of thanking God for men who excel in the good work of preaching the gospel, they turn green with envy and attempt to discredit others who have superior ability. Some brethren act as rivals of other brethren with whom they should join hands in the great work of God’s eternal kingdom, and the contentious rivalry is nothing more than plain envy.

To borrow the wording of the Amplified New Testament, “love never is envious nor boils over with jealousy.” Love delights in the welfare and happiness of others. Love rejoices with others who rejoice. Love makes us appreciate others who have risen to heights that we may never attain.

Love Vaunteth Not Itself

To “vaunt” oneself is to boast or brag. There are people who remind one of the proud peacock that struts to display itself. We admire the beauty of the peacock, but somehow we find it difficult to admire the man or woman who acts in a vainglorious manner. Even children soon get wise to a “show off.”

How utterly repulsive is the person who constantly directs attention to himself, bragging and singing as his theme song, “How Great I Art.” How disgusting is the attitude of one who sees himself as the finest person with whom God has graced the earth since Jesus came!

Remember this: love does not brag. Love possesses modesty and true humility.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 19, p. 295
May 7, 1981

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Under the caption, “May a Church Draw Interest on Its Money?” brother Daniel Holloway takes issue with my reply to this question which appeared in the January 29, 1981 issue of Guardian of Truth.

Banks are now offering their customers a rate of interest on checking accounts. Obviously, a current issue is before us and, before concluding that it is unscriptural for churches to receive interest because it is equivalent to unscriptural schemes to raise money, we need to study several aspects. As brother Holloway’s objections are examined, I appreciate this opportunity to present some considerations, in addition to those which appeared in my answer column of January 29, 1981.

We all agree that the primary and sacred purpose of the church is to preach the gospel. The world is to be evangelized now – the need is urgent, and this work can only be accomplished by each local church doing its work to its fullest capacity, utilizing its resources to its maximum. Churches are not to accumulate money except for emergencies and contingencies which prudence demands that we not ignore. Churches are not to build up nest eggs, but rather they are to use the Lord’s money to the fullest extent to do the Lord’s work. The motive of the church is not to make money on its resources (assets) but to fully expedite its sacred purpose.

Economics is relevant to a correct understanding of our question. A most important concept which is intrinsically involved in this discussion is the time value of money. To illustrate this concept, which would you prefer, a thousand dollars now, or a thousand dollars ten years from now? The answer is obvious. One thousand dollars now is more valuable because your proper use of it increases its value over the ten years. This concept (the time value of money) is the principle involved in Matt. 25:27. The parable of the talents is not a command, example of implication of anything relating to the subject except to teach this principle. The Lord recognized the time value of money. This parable teaches us to be responsible for the maximum use of our abilities. This is the very substance of stewardship. The good steward will make the best use of what is entrusted to him. This question is now in order. Can we encourage the maximum utilization of our collective abilities and, at the same time, ignore the maximum use of our collective funds which are stored up for contingencies and emergencies (1 Cor. 16:1, 2)? We all recognize the church’s sacred mission; therefore, we should do all we can to fully expedite it.

Brother Holloway fails to make a distinction between church promoted schemes to raise money (bazaars, rummage sales, or speculative investments that could lose money) and a church receiving interest on funds it already has in a checking account. There is a vast difference in these money raising schemes and a church accepting an interest rate from the bank. This is what our brother fails to see. This rate of interest is guaranteed by the very entity that prints the paper and establishes that the paper is legal tender. This eliminates speculation – it is guaranteed!

Furthermore, our brother cannot accept the idea of a church receiving interest on money it already has in the checking account, but he approves of a church selling its property (old meeting house, preacher’s house, equipment, etc.) at fair market value, realizing a substantial gain. Is this consistent?

It appears that brother Holloway has a real problem: How to fully utilize the resources of the church to fulfil its divine mission, and at the same time, ignore the time value of the money (Matt. 25:27). While all of us should be concerned about the influence anything wrong may have on a congregation, we should also be very concerned that we do not exert our influence upon a congregation to lose its money. It is not the business of elders to make money for the church but it is their responsibility to not lose money.

I appreciate the fine attitude of brother Holloway and I can somewhat sympathize with him, because at one time, I occupied the same position that he does on the question considered; but, we must not bind where God has not bound. Also we must avoid extremes, like the young preacher I was told about who objected to the church selling the preacher’s house for more than the church paid for it many years ago. Perhaps he wanted to buy it for himself!

(Editor’s Note: I appreciate the fine attitude manifested by these two brethren in this discussion. I would like to add one thought for consideration to this discussion. We recognize that when a man makes an interest free loan to the church that he has made a donation to that church. We also recognize that the money which we deposit in a bank is used by that bank to make loans. When a church deposits several thousand dollars into an account (as is done, for example, when a church is saving to purchase a property), the bank uses that money to make loans. The church is making an interest free loan to that bank if it does not receive interest on that money. Brother Holloway states that he is opposed to a church making money in some way other than the first day of the week contribution and is, therefore, opposed to churches which draw interest on their accounts. I want to know if he is opposed to a church making a donation to a bank, a secular business institution. That is exactly what has occurred when a church has $20,000 – 30,000 on deposit in a non-interest bearing account. It seems to me that brother Holloway’s position would force him to take the position that a church could deposit its money only in a safety deposit box and draw money from that box each time it needed some of the money.)

Guardian of Truth XXV: 18, p. 282
April 30, 1981

By Daniel L. Holloway

In the January 29, 1981 issue of Guardian of Truth, brother Hoyt Houchen dealt with the following question: “Is it right for a church to loan a bank money and draw interest on it?” Generally, I consider his answers to be quite sound from a scriptural standpoint. Also, I have been impressed with the clarity and wisdom with which he writes. However, I do not believe that he answered correctly when he said that “it is right to receive a small payment of interest.” I am writing in response to his answer inasmuch as I am concerned about the influence it may have on congregations. While I am limited in understanding matters of economics and banking, I do trust that my reasoning will be sound and in accord with God’s word. Should anyone show me wherein I have misinterpreted the scriptures on this matter, I will be glad to endorse brother Houchen’s answer.

In his first paragraph, brother Houchen says that the church is not to “seek out business enterprises for the purpose of investing and realizing a financial profit.” He continues, “On the other hand, a church may sell its own property and receive a price that is commensurate with the market price of that property . . . .” He concludes, “There is a difference in such transactions and the church planning and devising schemes whereby it can make money.” With this, I am in complete agreement. However, he then says that interest does not seem to be in the latter category. The only difference which I can see is one of extent or rate of return – normally, a business enterprise would mean more money than would interest. After all, what is the reason for loaning money to a bank if not to make money?

The first argument which brother Houchen sets forth to support his conclusion is that interest rates do not begin to equal the rate of inflation and that, as faithful stewards, we cannot sit by and allow the Lord’s money to lose in value. This implies only that churches may draw interest to maintain the value of the Lord’s money. It appears to me that economic conditions have nothing to do actually with whether or not a church may draw interest on its money. Let us keep in mind that the Lord’s American money continues to be worth just as much as anyone else’s American money. And what if the economy was to deflate? Then the Lord’s money would be worth more. Surely, no one believes that we should dispose of some of it to keep its value from changing. We have already noted that it is permissible to sell church property at market price and receive a profit. Are we to say that it is all right for the value of the Lord’s money to increase but wrong for it to decrease?

Brother Houchen refers to the slothful servant in Matthew 25 who was told by his lord that he could have put his money to the bankers that it might have drawn interest. Several points can be made here. First, the text does not say that the lord’s money had decreased in value due to inflation. As far as we can tell, its value had remained the same. Actually, the lord was concerned with making money. Furthermore, if the parable authorizes churches receiving interest on their money, it also authorizes their involvement in business enterprises. Notice, the lord was pleased with the two who doubled his money by investing it in trade (Matt. 25:16-23). The lesson of the parable is that we should faithfully serve God according to our ability. Certainly, this includes using the Lord’s money wisely in His work, but it says nothing about the way in which the Lord’s money is to be accumulated. Again I say, economic conditions have nothing to do with whether or not a church may draw interest on its money.

Brother Houchen then reminds us that banks make use of money deposited in them by loaning it out. Thus, interest amounts to a “small payment” for the use of one’s money. His conclusion is that if churches may deposit money in a bank, they are likewise authorized to receive interest. As we consider this, let us look to the scriptures to see what they do authorize. We recognize that God has given us a means for acquiring money for carrying out the Lords’ work. That means is the free-will offering of the saints (1 Cor. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 9:7; Acts 4:34-37). Inasmuch as the collection is authorized, it necessarily follows that there is authority for keeping it somewhere. When a church deposits money in a bank merely to have it in a safe place, its actions are authorized. So long as the bank is conducting legitimate business, it seems that the use which they make of the church’s money is of no consequence to the church. However, if a church loans its money so as to receive interest, it is doing more than putting its money in a safe place. Though operating on a smaller scale, it is seeking to make money as are churches which invest in business enterprises.

I ask of brethren that they carefully consider this question in light of God’s word that they might follow the right course.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 18, p. 281
April 30, 1981