Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

Having just come in from shoveling out my driveway for the third time in as many days so far this week, I decided to put into print several thoughts going through my mind regarding sin and snow. Now, you may be wondering what in the world these two items could possibly have in common, but I do believe we shall be able to see some interesting parallels as we study together.

Beauty Vs. Ugly

I must admit there are few scenes that are as appealing as to awaken and see a fresh coat of snow covering everything around. It is a beauty that invites camera bugs to jump out of bed and go picture snapping before breakfast. Everything looks so clean and lovely that you desire to preserve such beauty in whatever form you can. Indeed, this reminds us of the statement made in Isa. 1:18 by the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be white as snow.” David says, “Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow” (Psa. 51:7). Such beauty and freshness is what was in the mind of these writers.

But let that snow lie there for several days to collect all the pollution in the air, the slush from the dirty roads, and tracks from everyone slopping through it; and the picture changes. The beauty becomes tarnished, ugly and unappealing. There is no desire to get out and go picture taking and no “ah’s” as you look at it. Sin can do the same thing to even the purest of souls. Children are born into this world in purity and innocence-souls as clean as any can possibly be. But let that beauty become dirtied up with sin later in life, and it loses its attractiveness. It even forces God to turn away from such (Isa. 59:1-2) until we “wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16) and return them to the purity they once possessed (Matt. 18:3).

Fun Vs. Disgust

Snow, especially at the beginning of winter, is fun. My youngest son can hardly wait for a snow storm so he can play in it. It appeals to new adventures, and “like the cold of snow in the time of harvest . . . refreshes the soul . . .” (Prov. 25:13). Sin also appeals to us for new adventures and pleasures. Paul spoke of Moses refusing the “pleasures of sin” (Heb. 11:25). Especially in its early stages, sin can appeal to many. This accounts for the alluring ads and appeals of social drinking, mixed swimming, dancing, bingo, etc.

But snow in large quantities loses much of that appeal. When it blocks traffic (like the blizzard ,of ’67and today), or accounts for vast gas, work and crop shortages (as the record cold and snow of this winter have), suddenly we begin to wish for less. News of more on the way is greeted with groans. And, yes, sin in larger . quantities also loses its appeals. When drunkenness replaces social drinking, it is not nearly as appealing. When fornication, full-scale gambling, crime in the streets, drug addicts, homosexuals bragging on TV, etc. are seen in their end results, sin turns us off rapidly. We read of such conditions as Rom. 1:26-32, 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Gal. 5:19-21, and we do not find it very attractive grouped together as sin. The fun has vanished with heavy doses.

Shoveling Again, and Again

Likewise, as I look out at my drive-shoveled out completely less than 2 hours ago and already drifting back in rapidly, with radio reports of “four more inches coming,” I realize quickly there is a lot more shoveling to be done. Unfortunately, once done, the job is not finished for all time regardless of how clean I may have done it the first time. And likely, as future winter snows come, it will have to be shoveled again, and again, and again!

The same is true of sin. Although we may have rendered obedience to the gospel and freed our souls from sin (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:7), we are not going to keep sin out completely (1 John 1:8). Though we are not to allow it to reign (Rom. 6:12; 1 John 3:9) — any more than a shoveled driveway was shoveled to allow new drifts to be formed — the fact remains Satan will seek every opportunity to re-introduce sin to us again (1 Pet. 5:8). When such occurs, we must re-shovel, we must repent and seek forgiveness that we may be cleansed again (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9). If we do not seek forgiveness, but choose to ignore God’s provisions to be cleansed, the drifts will settle back in and all the efforts will be wasted as we become bogged down in it (Heb. 3:12). Thus, again and again we must appeal for the blood of Christ to cover our short comings and mistakes as we repent and press on toward His perfection. There is no such thing as a drive once shoveled always being shoveled (or, once saved, always saved) in a snowstorm of sin.

And, now if you will excuse me, I will go out and again shovel out those drifts so I can get the car out again. (Now watch this article get caught in snow weather and fail to turn up in .the magazine until midsummer scorchers of about 95 degrees! Oh well, the point is still worth noting!)

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, pp. 779-780
December 15, 1977

By Lewis Willis

An article in the Amarillo Daily News, December 16, 1976, reports an absolutely startling statistic. A psychiatrist in the Boston area has done some research into suicides among children ages 6 to 11. During the grade-school years, a time usually considered as the carefree and happy years, there is an alarming increase in suicides. In 1958, there were only three (3) suicides in this age group. In 1973, the last year that figures were available, there were 75 listed incidents of suicide among these children.

Several reasons are given for this increase. They are “to call attention to a very desperate situation, usually to a loss of a loved one,” such as in death, separation or divorce; to “get back at someone” with whom he has had an argument; to react to emotional disorders such as alcoholism; to counter states of depression in their parents; and because of personal depression, an ailment psychiatry did not recognize in children until about 10 years ago. The profession is trying to figure out if children are predisposed to depression or if it is a behavior-trait borrowed from the conduct of their parents. While recognizing the measure of parental influence toward depression, it is not presently possible to discredit the child’s own tendency toward depression. Depression was a major factor in the suicides of 25,683 Americans in 1974. Doctors cannot simply discount depression as a cause for increasing suicides among the children of Americans.

Fundamentally, the principles of psychiatry are Bible based. The God-revealed purpose for man is sound, leading us away from such conduct as produces the tendency toward suicide, instead of leading us toward suicide. The very things that are missing from our lives that make them seem so useless and hopeless, causing men to think that suicide is the only answer, are fully supplied by God in the Divine Revelation. It might seem extremely difficult to define that for which we are searching but it is not so elusive as to defy discovery.

Who among the race is not seeking “the good life?” What other explanation can be advanced for the constant exercise of our pleasure-seeking instincts? We are looking for something that is missing in our lives. We seek peace of mind, true and lasting happiness, a better tomorrow, a comfort in trials, illness and financial reversals, and something to which we might moor ourselves against the ever-present realities of death. It would be hard to imagine the multiplied millions of dollars that are being spent to provide these things. The pseudo-security which such provides is, however, soon swept away as we are faced with other crises which necessarily will come. In alcohol, drugs, recreation, work, houses, cars, clothes and other materialistic pursuits, we search for that which will serve as an anchor for the soul against the tribulations of a turbulent life. Yet, in frustration, we discover that we have not found the answer. Some, supposing the answer cannot be found, turn to suicide. And, now we are told, so are their 6 and 7 year old children!

The peace we seek for ourselves can be realized if we are at peace with God (Rom. 5:1). True and lasting happiness can be ours if we are in Christ Jesus, producing the fruits of the Spirit (Phil. 4:4; Gal. 5:22). The comfort that is so desperately needed with which we might face the trials of life is to be found in God (2 Cor. 1:3-4; Rom. 8:28). Tomorrow has to be better if we clothe ourselves in the spiritual blessings that Heaven bestows (Eph. 1:3). And, death can be faced if we have made ready for eternity (Phil 1:21-24; 2 Tim. 4:6-8). These things will not be found in carnal attachments. They are spiritual; they satisfy the deepseated longings of the soul and they are abundantly supplied by God, and only by Him. We must learn to seek them in the proper place to avail ourselves of stabilizing perspective.

The urgency of the search is compounded when we realize that not only do we desire and have need of these avenues of contentment, but our children are recognized to need them also. And, they are looking for this security and expecting it to come from Mom and Dad. We parents had better find it and share it with our children. Moments of harried clamor had better give way to moments of prayer and meditation. Else, our children will turn to the wrong sources to satisfy the desires of their souls. They need the wisdom and direction which parents can impart to them. In fact, we parents are under Divine Orders to give this direction to our children. “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The judgment will reveal how well we have kept these orders. Or, to our dismay, we might find out while still walking this vale of tears. It does not always happen “to someone else.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, pp. 778-779
December 15, 1977

By Daniel H. King

When Peter and John stood before the Sanhedrin of the Jews in Acts the fourth chapter, the question directed to them by the esteemed court of seventy-one was the following: “By what power, or what name have ye done this?” Their question referred to the incident which had taken place at the Beautiful gate of the temple only the day before. A blind man had asked alms of them as they were about to go into the sacred precincts and was healed “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” Peter and John had then taken the opportunity offered by the assembled multitude to instruct them in the gospel of Christ. The whole city must have been astir at the occurrence of so notable a miracle at so central a place. And, the significance of the occasion was such that the matter was brought before the high court of the Jewish nation to inquire as to the authority behind this thing which had aroused the masses. But you will notice from the context that the thing under question is not the miraculous healing which had been affected through them, although Peter and John wished to direct their attention to it and apparently succeeded in the effort. Verse two centers upon the real difficulty so far as the complainants are concerned: “the Sadducees came upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus, the resurrection from the dead.” One versed in the doctrine of the Sadducees knows full well why these sectaries would have been up-at-arms about such teaching being done in the temple, e.g. Solomon’s portico (3:11). They traced their authority back to and were named after Zadok the priest who had served under David and Solomon (2 Sam. 20:25; 1 Kgs. 4:4). The temple was their realm. In addition, they were convinced that the Old Testament denied a future resurrection of the body, holding that the soul perishes with the body (cf. Acts 23:8). Yet Peter and John had. invaded their realm teaching the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead — diametrically opposing one of the basic tenets of their religious party. We should not wonder that they were “sore troubled.”

However, when the case was brought before the council, the question which they put to the defendants could not have been directed at the truth or falsity of the doctrine under consideration, i.e. the resurrection of the dead. The court was evenly divided between those who held to the Pharisaic belief in it and the Sadducean denial of it. Paul later capitalized on this inherent weakness of the assembly in order to force the Pharisees to take this side in the litigation following his arrest in the same city (Acts 23:1-10). Had this been the question at issue the same thing would have resulted as did in Paul’s case. Neither could it be a question as to the genuineness or veracity of the miracle. It was too obvious to allow room for debate, as they were willing to admit in private session: “For that indeed a notable miracle hath (been wrought through them, is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it” (4:16). Instead, the issue before the court had to be one touching the authority behind their actions of the previous day. Therefore, the question was asked, “By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?”

This question seems fairly simple. And it is. But what lies immediately behind the query and was in the mind of the questioners is the common practice among the Jews of basing one’s own views and opinions, as well as one’s consequent actions, upon the authoritative statements of famous teachers or Rabbis. Men who were trained at the feet of noted biblical exegetes came to be possessed of an authority which issued from their many years of studious reflection upon and explanation of the Bible. However, it went beyond all practical and logical boundaries. For in the course of time their words had become authoritative to the point that they were viewed as a second law in addition to the written commandments. In effect there co-existed in the minds of many Jews a written law (the law given by Moses) and an oral law (the law which was passed on from generation to generation via the renowned expositors of the biblical text). In cases where questions arose as to the exact meaning of a passage, their opinions were collated and passed on. In other instances, though, the question of whither a scripture meant what it said was raised and answered in the negative by some Rabbis. Thus, their opinions were raised in many cases to a level above the law of God. Jesus therefore condemned them for “making void the word of God because of . . . tradition” (Matt. 15:6).

To illustrate their practice let me quote from one of their collections of Rabbinic sayings called Pirqe Aboth or “Sayings of the Jewish Fathers.” This is a Mishnah tractate which has been used in the synagogues at certain seasons of the year as liturgical material, making even more obvious its place beside Scripture in the hearts and minds of the people. The sayings found in the book claim to date from the fourth century B.C. to the third century A.D. and most people who are “in the know” on such things tell us that there is no reason to doubt that it is genuine. If this is so, then we have in this collection many sayings that would have been circulating and would have been held to be “authoritative” by the very men who sat in judgment upon Peter and John. With this in mind, let us notice one such statement:

“Rebhan Jochanan ben Zakai received from Hiltel and from Shammai. He used to say, ‘If you have practiced the Law much, then do not claim merit for yourself, for thereunto were you created'” (2:9).

Comparable examples could be multiplied, but our point is amply illustrated in this single reference. You will note that in the quotation there is no reference of scripture cited or quoted, although scripture is alluded to. Indeed, this was as it was intended to be. That which is contained in the short saying is supposed to stand on the authority of the one who uttered it and the fact that he had “received from Hillel and Shammai,” two men of great renown in the realm of Jewish tradition. Neither of these men was inspired, but their sayings were accorded a weightiness that should only have been affixed to Biblical sayings. Moreover, they were granted this authority by the people who, ignoring their humanness and the possibility of error on their part, raised them to a level a notch above that of the common man. This is not to say that their knowledgeability was not a cut above the ordinary, there is no doubt whatever that it was. These men could have put any of us to shame by their years of incessant and dedicated memorization of Scripture. In the case of Jochanan ben Zakai, for example, his learning is described in the Mishnah tractate Baba Bathra 134a with the following laudatory remark: “at his death splendid learning ceased.” Even granting that his knowledge was immense, still it was wrong for the people to exalt him and those like him as they did. He was merely a man among men. He deserved to be heard as long as he spoke the words of God after Him. But when he or any other man presumed to speak for God when the Almighty had not imbued him with his Spirit, then he became guilty of the “great transgression,” that of presumptuousness (Ps. 19:13).

A further examination of the Rabbinic sources shows that students of the most able Jewish teachers later came to speak “in the name” of their masters. An instance appears in “The Sayings of the Fathers”:

“Rabbi Dosithaf, son of Rabbi Jannai, said in the name Rabbi Meir, ‘When a scholar of the wise sits and studies, and has forgotten a word of his Mishnah (oral tradition, they account it unto him as if he were guilty of death, for it is said, Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the words which thine eyes have seen’ (Deut. 4:9)” (3:12).

The meaning of this is explained later in the same book when Meir points out:

“The Law is acquired by forty-eight things . . . by Scripture, by Mishnah (oral tradition) . . . (he that) settles his heart to his study; asks and answers, hears and adds thereto; he that learns in order to teach, and that learns in order to practice; that makes his master wiser, and that considers what he has heard, and that tells a thing in the name of him that said it. Yes, you have learned that whoever tells a thing in the name of him that said it, brings redemption to the world, for it is said, ‘And Esther told it to the king in the name of Mordecai’ (Esther 2:22)” (6:6).

In the opinion of this esteemed Jewish teacher the Bible is only one thing in a list of forty-eight which will gain one an understanding in God’s will and satisfy his demands for obedience. To him the Rabbinic decisions and sayings rest on a par with Scripture. Further, repetition of the sayings of a Rabbi “in the name of him that said it, brings redemption into the world.” Can you imagine a system which could become so introverted as to express the idea of redemption in those terms? Probably you can, because the Roman Catholic church, with its “canon law” and “ex cathedra” decrees, has produced the same results. Likewise the other human ‘denominations with all of their humanly devised systems and humanly contrived creeds belong in the same category. And their attempts at scriptural undergirding for their doctrines and practices are no more worthy of comment than the citation of Esther 2:2 above, an obvious case of “eisegesis” or “reading into” the Bible. As in the ancient Jewish community, they have the Bible in their hands and in their heads-but not in their hearts.

But now, back to Acts four (I have not forgotten after all). When Peter and John were asked the question, “By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?”, all of the above freight was loaded into the question. The Jewish leaders who were interrogating them had been steeped in this kind of thinking since their youth. In whose name had they taught this doctrine in the temple? Who was their teacher and what gave him the right to be their teacher? Did he possess the right credentials? Was he a man grounded in the oral as well as the written tradition of the Jews? If so, then what was his name? Surely they had heard it often before? Yes, they had heard it before, but hoped not to hear it again; they had put him to death to silence his caustic condemnations of their hypocrisy and presumption. Unabashedly the Holy Spirit answered the inquiry through Peter: “Ye rulers of the people, and elders, if we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means (or “in whom”) this man is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ (Messiah) of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole. He is the stone which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner. And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved” (vss. 8-12).

The Holy Spirit made it clear that their system left no room for their Messiah and his teachings, and contrariwise, the Messiah and his teachings left no room for their system. Fancy that! All of their endless hours of contemplation and memorization of Rabbinic maxims and adages had been wasted. Perfect comprehension and even perfect retention of their masters’ words would not save them. The Messiah’s name was the only name that counted. Redemption was not to be found “in the name” of any or all of their Rabbis. It was only to be had in him and in his name.

These two were accounted “ignorant and unlearned” by the educated sophisticates who judged them, but they could not deny the influence of the Master Teacher, for “they had been with Jesus.” The very idea that the Messiah had walked among them and they had not recognized him and bestowed upon him the honor that was his due! Such babbling was obviously the product of small and untrained minds! The thing to do was to threaten them “that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.” This they did but to no avail. In chapter five they were faced with the same problem. Having brought the apostles before the council a second time, they stated flatly: “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name: and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching” (vs. 28). And, after this second hearing they beat them and again “charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus” and let them go (vs. 40). It was “for the Name” that the apostles had suffered this dishonor (vs. 41); Luke is plain in bringing out this important point. The Jewish leaders would not recognize the name of Jesus or any authority that the apostles might claim for it.

There are two significant lessons that I think we would do well to glean from the preceeding observations. First, if we are going to please God today, then we will have to be content to do as Peter and John and the rest of the apostles did when they stood before the highest court in their land. We must speak “in the name” of the Master Teacher. Only His name will bring salvation. Moreover, His name carries with it all of the authority that we need in religion. As Paul later put it: “Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). But, to do all in His name we must abide in what he said, personally and through his apostles and prophets and their writings (Jn. 14:26; 16:13; 1 Tim. 6:3). That is, we cannot go beyond the Scriptures (1 Cor. 4:6 ASV). To add to or diminish from his “doctrine” or “teaching” would be tantamount to what the Rabbis did (2 Jn. 9).

A second comment derives directly from the foregoing: We should learn from the Jews the dangers inherent in tradition. Of course, tradition in itself is neither inherently good or bad. Yet a thing that is traditionally said or done can potentially be bad. In fact, it can become very bad if it is only said or done because of tradition that is begun by man and sustained by manmade law. This is consistently condemned in the Bible (Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:8; Titus 1:14). Additionally, herein lies a persistent problem about which we must be constantly warned. Often we are heard quoting some well-known and highly respected brother on a particular question as though the very fact that he said a thing gave it weight and authority. Let us be aware that if we do this we have effectually said it in His name. And when we have done so we are no less guilty than the Rabbis were. If a thing is worth the saying because it is true, then say it without prefacing, prefixing or footnoting it! (This context along with my own practice should make it obvious that I am not advocating plagiarism.) At the same time however, we should not forget that if what we do and say is after apostolic tradition and Scripture can be produced to sustain it, then we have not the right to budge a single millimeter from that traditional but God-honouring path. The Master Teacher through his apostles let it be known that such tradition is inherently good and will still be good if a thousand generations observe it and a thousand men repeat it (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6, 7: 1 Cor. 11:2). The name and hence, the authority of Christ is at the heart of that tradition. Therein lies the difference. But what a difference!

Truth Magazine XXI :49, pp. 775-778
December 15, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

The Church And The Individual

In my previous article under the above heading, it was pointed out that the practice of church support of colleges and benevolent institutions operated by brethren has been based on the assumption that what the individual is obligated to do in the way of good works, the church is also obligated to do. In this article I want to give special attention to a statement made by a strong proponent of the above theory and practice. In a tract entitled, Questions And Issues Of The Day In The Light Of The Scriptures, Brother Batsell Barnet Baxter of David Lipscomb College said regarding any distinction between church action and individual action:

“No such distinction is taught in the scriptures. If it is a good work which the Lord wants done, the responsibility falls equally upon individuals and upon the church, for individuals are the church.”

Since Brother Baxter claims scriptural support for what he teaches and practices regarding the church and the individual we therefore raise the question, “What do the scriptures teach with regard to the church and the individual?” The attention of the reader is directed to the following facts with their supporting scriptures:

Distinction As To Identity

While it is true that the church is composed of individual Christians, it is also apparent that the scriptures recognize a distinction as to the identity of each. This is obvious from the following scriptures.

1. In Romans 12:4,5 Paul likened the church unto our physical body. “For even as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another.” The import of Paul’s language is that though all the members (individual Christians) combined form the one body in Christ, yet these members are distinct from one another in that all have not the same office.

2. That Paul recognized a distinction between one member (the individual) and the body of Christ (the church) is obvious from 1 Cor. 12:14. “For the body is not one member, but many.” To say, therefore, that what the individual can do, the church can do, or that when the individual acts it is the church acting is tantamount to saying that the church is one member and one member is the church, which Paul declared is not so.

3. A distinction between the identity of the church and the individual is also apparent from the language of Jesus in Rev. 2:13. Addressing the church at Pergamum he paid a tribute to “Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you where Satan dwelleth.” Obviously Antipas (an individual) had died for the faith. But who would said that the church had died?

Distinction Between Church Action And Individual Action

Because the scriptures recognize a distinction between the identity of the church and of the individual, they also recognize a distinction between what constitutes church action and that which is individual action. Consider the following examples.

1. The reader is requested to turn to and read carefully Matt. 18:15-17. There Jesus was giving the formula or solution for the settlement of differences between brethren. In this scripture Jesus prescribed three steps to be taken.

(a) The wronged brother is to go to the brother is error and tell him his fault (individual action).

(b) If that fails, take two or three brethren and go to him again (group action).

(c) If that fails, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to hear the church, let him be disfellowshipped (church action).

Is it not a good work to restore an erring brother? But if it is true, as affirmed by some brethren, that what the individual does the church does, then in that case the church was acting from the very beginning when the individual first went to his erring brother. Therefore, the church knew about it all the time. Thus the words of Jesus, “tell it to the church,” would be pointless.

2. In the fifth chapter of First Corinthians, Paul gave instructions to the church at Corinth as to the action to be taken regarding a member who was guilty of fornication. Paul said: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The expression, “deliver such a one unto Satan,” obviously meant withdrawal of fellowship. Thus Paul commanded church action to be taken against the man guilty of fornication (individual action).

Distinction As To Financial Resources

The scriptures also make a distinction between the financial resources of the church and those of the individual, both as to how they are acquired and as to how they are used. The individual can acquire his resources in the form of wages paid to him for work (Eph. 4:13). Or, he may operate a business for profit (James 4:13). The church, however, is limited to but one way in which to acquire its resources, and that is through the contributions of its members on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2).

There has been some confusion in the minds of some brethren regarding the status of an individual Christian’s own funds and those that have been contributed on the first day of the week and which constitute what is commonly called “the church treasury.” This confusion is evident from a question that has been asked. “Do dollars become tainted with some kind of taboo as soon as they fall into the church treasury?”

That the scriptures recognize a difference between the resources of the individual and those that have been contributed into the church treasury is obvious from the words of Peter in the fifth chapter of Acts. Ananias and his wife Sapphira, following the example of others, had sold some land. But they had conspired to make it appear that they were giving the entire selling price of the land, while keeping back a part of it. In exposing their hypocrisy Peter asked, “While it remained, did it not remain thine own. And after it was sold, was it not in thy power?” The point is obviously this: they owned the land. They were not obligated to sell it. Having sold the land, the money realized from the sale was theirs to give or not to give. They were not required to give all of it, nor any of it, for that matter. Their sin was in the conspiracy to make it appear that they were giving the entire selling price of the land when they were, in fact, giving only a part of it.

So Peter’s words teach very forcefully and conclusively that there is a difference between the individual’s own resources and the money that has been dropped into the collection basket. The individual is at liberty to spend his or her money for, or contribute to, anything that is morally right. But once money has been dropped into the collection basket on the first day of the week, it becomes the Lord’s money and can be used only for what is scripturally authorized.

It may be objected at this point that all money is the Lord’s money, whether in the church treasury or in the individual’s bank account. In a sense, yes. But is not the money in the church treasury the Lord’s money in a sense different from that of the money of the individual? Consider the following parallel: Through the prophet Ezekiel, God said, “All souls are mine” (Ezekiel 18:4). But while all people belong to God, there is a special sense in which Christians belong to God which is not true of people of the world. Christians are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). In the same way, there is a sense in which all money, whether it be that of saint or sinner, is the Lord’s money, for “The earth is Jehovah’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1). But when the Christian’s money is dropped into the collection basket, he relinquishes control over it, and it becomes the Lord’s money in a special sense, to be spent only as the Lord has authorized.

Distinction As To Individual And Church Obligation

Here, the reader’s attention is directed to the fifth chapter of First Timothy. Paul was giving instruction regarding the care of widows. Let us notice the following points: (1) In verse three Paul said, “Honor widows that are widows indeed.” (2) In verse five, however, Paul said, “But if any widow hath children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is acceptable in the sight of God.” Thus Paul taught that it is the individual that has the responsibility of caring for a widowed mother or grandmother. In further elaboration of that point Paul said, “But if any provideth not for his own, and especially his own household, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

(3) This brings us to verse sixteen, where Paul said, “If any woman that believeth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” In the light of this passage, who can deny that the scriptures make a distinction between the responsibility of the individual and that of the church? Did not Paul specifically charge the individual with a responsibility with which the church was not to be burdened? But if it is true, as we have been told, that what the individual does the church does, then the church was being burdened all along in the action of the individual in caring for a widowed mother, and thus Paul’s words, “Let not the church be burdened” are meaningless.

So to handle aright the word of truth, we must recognize the distinction that the scriptures make between the church and the individual, in identity, in financial resources, in action and in obligation. To burden the church with that which is the responsibility of the individual is a corruption of its mission.

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, pp. 774-775
December 15, 1977