Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

Psalm 8 is a psalm pertaining to man and God’s regard for man. As the psalmist considers the vastness and magnificence of the universe which God created, he cannot help but be amazed that the mighty Creator has manifested an interest in feeble little human beings (vs. 3-4). He considers it a marvelous thing that God gave man an eminent position in His creation, making man a little lower than the angels, crowning him with glory and honor, and giving him dominion over all things (vs. 58). The psalmist’s statement here regarding the position which God gave man is in accordance with God’s declaration at the creation of man (Gen. 1:26-28).

The writer of Hebrews quotes the statement from Psalm 8 regarding man’s God-given glory and honor (Heb. 2:6-8). However, after quoting David’s affirmation that God gave man dominion over all things and put all things in subjection to him, the writer of Hebrews adds, “But now we see not yet all things put under him” (verse 8).

Truly, as the writer of Hebrews declares, man does not exercise complete dominion at this time. He does not now occupy the position of glory and honor that God originally gave him and intended for him at creation. We can be overcome and destroyed by many things. We are not the masters of our environment. When a little germ so tiny that we cannot even see it with the naked eye can attack and kill us, it is rather absurd to say we exercise complete dominion.

Obviously, then, man does not now enjoy the status that God intended for him at creation. Why not? If God at creation crowned man with glory and honor, granting him dominion over all things, why does riot man presently occupy such a position? The answer is simple. Man lost his glorious position because of sin. Genesis 3 clearly reveals that it is because of sin’s entrance into the world that man is subject to disease and death. Not only did the entrance of sin result in death for man, but it caused God to curse the earth, hence making man’s environment less hospitable to him. Thus, after sin entered the world, man lost his dominion to a certain extent.

But the writer of Hebrews does not end his discussion of this matter with the gloomy fact that man lost his position of glory. After asserting that we do not see man exercising complete dominion (vs. 8), he then proclaims, “But we see Jesus… crowned with glory and honor” (v. 9). Man was crowned with glory and honor, but lost that position due to sin; Jesus, however, presently enjoys the glory and honor that man lost. Verse 9 observes that Jesus, who presently enjoys glory and honor, “was made a little lower than the angels”-that is, became a man. This being true, Jesus is a representative of mankind. Hence, although men in general do not exercise dominion, there is one representative of the human race that does. In Him, God’s original intentions for man (as stated in Psalm 8) are presently fulfilled.

But that is not all! Because of the fact that Jesus presently enjoys glory and honor, we have the hope that we too can someday enjoy it, regaining what was lost through sin. After affirming that Jesus is presently crowned with glory and honor, the writer of Hebrews proceeds to speak of His “bringing many sons unto glory” as the “captain of their salvation,” Thus, not only does Jesus enjoy glory and honor, but He is the Captain Who will lead many others to share glory with Him. The writer of Hebrews makes clear that this is possible only because of Jesus’ suffering, for it is through His suffering and death that we can be forgiven of our sins; and without forgiveness, we could not receive the eternal glory.

Hebrews 2, therefore, gives us the hope of regaining through Christ the glory that was lost through sin. The eighth Psalm speaks of the position originally given to man and intended for man. Although the writer of Hebrews says that man does not now occupy that position, he gives us hope that someday we can. Even in affirming that all things are not now under man, he adds the word “yet”, thereby hinting that eventually they will be (v. 8), as all will be for our benefit and we will not be subject to the evils that plague us on this earth. Then he proceeds to show that this is possible through Christ.

If we are to enjoy glory with Christ in the end, we must follow Christ, the Captain of our salvation (Heb. 2:10), now. The road along which He leads us involves suffering and hardships, but the glory at the end of the way will far outweigh whatever difficulties were involved in reaching it (Romans 8:17-18; 2 Cor. 4:17).

Truth Magazine XXI: 46, pp. 730-731
November 24, 1977

By John McCort

The scripturality of a church treasury is very important in the discussion of Christians’ use of the treasury. If New Testament churches had no treasuries then there could be no scriptural restrictions or regulations on how the treasury could be used by congregations. If treasuries are not authorized by the Scriptures then it would be sinful to divide congregations over how the treasuries are to be used. Thus, it is essential to establish the scripturalness and necessity of a church treasury within local congregation.

We all recognize that some things are authorized in the Scriptures (even demanded) which are not governed by a direct command. Some things area commanded through binding apostolic examples and necessary inferences. For example, we learn on what day of the week to partake of the Lord’s Supper by an approved example in Acts 20:7. We also learn that we are to partake of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week through a necessary inference in Acts 20:7. Acts 20:7 furnishes us our only information we have regarding the day on and frequency with which the Lord’s Supper is to be observed. There are no direct commands in the New Testament which authorize a church treasury but there are an abundance of examples and inferences.

2 Cor. 11:8 states, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you.” The word wages has reference to the regular, stipulated monthly wage of a soldier (“Robertson’s Word Pictures,” Vol. 4, p. 143). How could an evangelist receive regular, consistent wages from a congregation without there being regular, reliable contributions from the members? How could a church support a man regularly without bringing the contributions together on a regular basis and forming a treasury? Acts 6:1-8 records that the Jerusalem congregation supported needy widows. Acts 2:44-46 states that members of the church sold their possessions, pooled their resources, and had all things in common. Pooling their resources would require a treasury of some sort however crude it might have been. 1 Tim. 5:19 reports that certain widows were put on the list of those who were to receive regular support from the church on a permanent basis. How could the churches regularly and permanently support needy widows and evangelists without a church treasury? It would be impossible. 1 Tim. 5:18 states that elders could be regularly supported and. employs the phrase, “the laborer is worthy of his hire.” The word for hire, again, is the word for wages (cf. 1 Cor. 9:7).

In order for a church not to have a treasury, a zero balance would have to be consistently maintained. Today that would be a practical impossibility. Most churches have a building payment, light bill, preacher’s salary, classroom materials, and cleaning supplies that must be purchased and paid for on a regular basis. In order to maintain a zero balance separate contributions would have to be taken for each need and not one thin dime could be left over after paying the bills. Otherwise we would create a treasury.

Some have the idea that we are to save up our money at home and then give as the needs arise. Even taking that viewpoint, a treasury is going to be created at some point. When the money is brought together to satisfy a particular need at least a temporary treasury has been created. Thus the issue becomes not whether a treasury is scriptural but how long can a treasury be maintained. Where are the Scriptures that deal with how long a church treasury can be maintained before it must be depleted? There are no Scriptures that govern the length of time a church treasury may be maintained and thus it is a matter of liberty rather than a matter of faith. After all of the needs are satisfied, the treasury have created a permanent treasury. Where does the Bible speak of temporary or permanent treasuries?

The church is a collectivity of Christians. When the church supports an evangelist, that constitutes joint action of individual Christians. Joint action of individual Christians in supporting an evangelist would demand a common treasury. If you have no common treasury, then the church, as such, is not supporting the evangelist but rather individual Christians would be concurrently Supporting the evangelist. For a church to support an evangelist regularly the church must maintain a treasury of some sort. Otherwise the action would not be joint but rather concurrent.

Some have taken the position that we are to give only on a need-to-need basis. Even if that position were true we have more needs today than all of the churches combined are in are in a position to satisfy. Weekly we receive pleas for assistance in supporting evangelists. Are we ever without evangelists to support and the such like? If we stop giving when we see there are not more needs to satisfy, we then stop giving as we have been prospered. We have been commanded to give as we have been prospered.

The main argument raised against church treasuries is an argument drawn from 1 Cor. 16:1-2. “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.” The argument is that the phrase, “lay by him in store,” means that Christians are to save up their money at home and are to give as the needs arise, thus eliminating the need for a permanent, common treasury. Examine 1 Cor. 16:2 phrase by phrase. On the first day of the week. In the Living Oracles translation fo the Bible, Alexander Campbell translated the phrase, “On the first day of every week . . . ” Berry’s Interlinear Greek New Testament also includes the word “every” in the literal translation of the passage. The word for “every” is derived from the Greek word kata in the passage. Discussing the word kata, Lenski said, “The first day of the week is Sunday and kata is distributive so that we may translate, `Sunday by Sunday let each of you lay by'” (Lenski, “Commentary on 1 & 2 Con,” p. 759). Vincent said, “Kata has a distributive force, every first day” (M.R. Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies, p. 807). Also Bagster’s Englishman’s Greek New Testament translates the phrase, “Every first day of the week.”

Let each one of you lay by him in store. David Lipscomb has some very pertinent remarks on the subject. “On the first day of the week, each should separate or lay by itself something, casting it into the treasury. Some contend that the storing was to be at home, but that would be incompatible with the idea that no collections be made when I come, for if stored at home, it would have to be gathered when he came. It was to be separated at home from the amount not given, then cast into the treasury” (Lipscomb, Commentary- on First Corinthians, p. 249). Albert Barnes stated, “The Greek phrase `by himself’ means probably the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; Let him do this by himself when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity. Let him do it, not under the influence of pathetic appeals, or for the sake of display when he is with others; but let him do it as a matter of principle, and when he is by himself. The Greek phrase `treasuring up’ may mean that each one was to put the part which he had designated into the common treasury. The interpretation seems to be demanded by the latter part of the verst. They were to lay by, and to put it into the common treasury, that there might be no trouble of collecting when he should come” (Albert Barnes, Barnes Notes On The New Testament, p. 803). Alexander Campbell rendered the PHRASE, “let every one of you lay somewhat by itself, according as he may have prospered, putting it into the treasury . . .”

The Greek word for “treasuring up” (lay by in store) is thasaurizon. The word is the verb form of the Greek word thasaursus which is the Greek word for treasury. Both come from the same basic root form. Thasaurzon is the act of treasuring up while thasaursus is the place where the treasure is put. My question is, how could you treasure it up without a treasury to put it in?

There is historical evidence that the New Testament churches took up a collection every first day of the week. “Justin Martyr is of special interest as he gives us our earliest description of a church service. He says the people gather on a Sunday, the Prophets and the memoirs of the apostles are read, the president explains them and exhorts; this is followed by the taking of bread and wine, and finally a collection” (R. Laird Harris, Can I Trust The Bible, p. 80).

The evidence that the New Testament church had treasuries is insurmountable both from a Scriptural and historical standpoint. Since the scripturalness has been established, than there can be restrictions and regulations that govern the usage of a treasury.

Truth Magazine XXI: 46, pp. 729-730
November 24, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in a previous article that the concept of universal church action was, in a great degree, responsible for the introduction of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849, with Alexander Campbell as its first president, we now turn our attention to

Modern Cooperative Movements

Some one has said that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Whether it is through ignorance of history, or ignorance of the Bible, or both, the fact is that history is being repeated today in modern cooperative movements, since they are, for the most part, based on the same concept of universal church action as brought the missionary society into existence. Paradoxical as it appears, brethren rejecting the missionary society itself have adopted the premise on which it was founded.

Campbell, as pointed out in the previous article, conceived of the kingdom (church universal) as being composed of all local congregations in the aggregate. Many brethren today, with some variation of terms used, have adopted basically the same argument, Using Paul’s reference to the church as the body of Christ with many members (Rom. 12:4, 5. 1 Cor. 12:12), the argument has been made that the body of Christ which is the church universal is made up of all the local congregations.

Over the years brethren have met and answered the old sectarian argument based on the vine and the branches (John 15:5). The argument made by sectarians is that the vine is the church universal (they call it the invisible church), and the branches are the various denominations. Now we have brethren making basically the same argument in that they tell us that the members of the body are local congregations. So the only difference is that sectarians make denominations the members of the universal church, and brethren make local congregations the members. But neither are right, for the members of the body of Christ (church universal) are neither denominations, nor local congregations, but individual disciples.

Consider these facts. Before Pentecost 33 A. D. the kingdom, or church, was preached as at hand (Matt. 3:1,2. Luke 10:9). But following the first gospel sermon preached on Pentecost we find the church in existence, with people being added to it (Acts 2:47). But on that day, and for some time afterward, there was but one local congregation in existence-the church at Jerusalem. Was the body of Christ (church universal) in existence? Was Christ head over all things to the body (Eph. 1:22,23)? Or was it just a member of the body that was set up that day? Was the body of Christ formed, just one member (local congregation) at a time? And when Paul said to the Corinthians, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and several members thereof” (1 Cor. 12:27), did he mean that they were members of the church universal, or just members of one member of the universal church?

Admissions Of Universal Church Action

That the current cooperative movements, with benevolent institutions operated by boards of directors, through which many churches do their benevolent work, function on the concept of universal church action, has been admitted even by some who are deeply involved in the defense of some of the modern orphan homes. As an example, one writer, who claimed to occupy a middle-of-the-road position on current issues, opposed the building and church support of orphan homes separate and apart from the church, and operated by a board of directors from various parts of the country. His position was, that such homes, to be scriptural, must be under the elders of the church.

That this brother believed that such homes under a board were universal church action is seem in a statement taken from an article in the Firm Foundation of March, 1957.

“But if some say that these homes are avenues through which the universal church takes care of the needy, I ask for the authority to activate the universal church. If it was sinful for the brethren of a century ago to activate the universal church in forming the missionary society, why is it now right to activate the universal church in forming a benevolent society?”

It is thus obvious from the foregoing quotation that this brother paralleled the benevolent societies of today with the missionary society of a hundred years ago in that they were both a means of activating the universal church, In this he was correct. Both are human institutions, devised by the wisdom of man. , Both are chartered organizations. Both serve as a means for an unlimited number of churches to function through them in doing work assigned to the church.

The argument of this brother, however, loses much of its force since the homes that he defends also have their boards. The only difference then between the homes he defends and the homes he opposes is that the homes that he defends are under the elders of the church. They are, however, also under a board as is evident from their charters. So if the homes under a board that he opposes constitute universal church action, so do the homes that he defends.

The Sponsoring Church – Universal Church Action

The same principle of universal church action has been followed, though not openly admitted, in the sponsoring church concept of evangelism. Of this, the Herald of Truth is a prime example. Sponsored by the Highland church at Abilene, Texas it has become the central agency through which some two or three thousand congregations function in the field of evangelism by means of radio and television. Highland church claims to have complete control over the program. In a brochure published by Highland church early in the history of the program, they said, “The Herald of Truth program is the work of Fifth and Highland church . . . the elders of this congregation direct and oversee every phase of this work from the preparation of these sermons to mailing copies of these sermons.” In another statement of policy in the same brochure they said, “Questions and criticisms are welcomed, but since this is. a work of Highland congregation, to maintain its autonomy or independence the elders must make the decisions.”

From the foregoing quotations it is plainly obvious that Highland church considers the Herald of Truth to be exclusively her own work. In the Tant-Harper debate E.R. Harper said that if you can figure out who is paying for the program you will know whose program it is. The inference was that Highland was paying for the program. But the fact is that Highland was not then and is not now paying for the program. It takes the contributions of those thousands of other congregations, and without which the program could not continue. Does not that make it the work of the supporting congregations as well as Highland’s?

That was the position of Guy N. Woods in the Cogdill Woods Debate. Twice-on pages 194 & 237-he said that the program was the work of all the contributing churches with Highland church having the oversight. This does not help the case one bit, and in fact serves to pin-point the fact that insofar as the Herald of Truth is concerned, Highland elders are functioning as brotherhood elders, and to that degree universal elders. They may deny it, but their denial reminds me of the story of the man who came home one night much the worse for alcohol. When his wife chided him for being drunk, he replied, “I may be a bit under the alfluence of alcohol, but I’m not as think as you drunk I am.” His denial of being drunk was contradicted by his actions. And when elders begin overseeing a brotherhood work they become brotherhood elders in spite of any denials.

Some of the defenders of the Herald of Truth have been able to see the inherent danger in one church or group of elders, becoming the medium for a brotherhood work. Some three or four years ago when the program had fallen on evil days with the control of the program passing into the hands of a committee, one of its former defenders said, “Do you recall just a few years ago, when some of us used to ponder whatever would happen to the churches of Christ if the forces of error should ever get hold of the Herald of Truth? I can just hear the anti-cooperationists rising up as one man to chide ‘I told you so’. However, brethren, it no longer is unthinkable. The unthinkable has happened.”

Congregational Action – The New Testament Pattern

In contrast to the colossal, and sometimes complicated, programs that men have set in motion today, the work that God has assigned to the church was done in New Testament times by local congregations, each under the oversight of its elders. That they cooperated in programs that exceeded the ability of any one congregation is not denied. But it was a cooperation that recognized and honored the independence of each congregation. Two examples will suffice.

1. Churches of Macedonia and Achaia and Galatia cooperated in sending relief to famine-stricken saints at Jerusalem (Romans 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1). No benevolent society was formed through which those congregations functioned. Each church raised its own contribution, and chose its own messengers to carry the relief to its destination (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:23).

2. Churches cooperated in evangelism. A number of churches sent wages to Paul while he labored at Corinth (2 Cor. 10:8). No missionary society was formed, nor did any church act as a “sponsoring church.” Each church sent its contribution by its own messenger (2 Cor. 10:9; Phil. 2:25).

We close this article with a quotation with which we heartily concur. In the Gospel Advocate Annual Lesson Commentary, page 341, Guy N. Woods, in commenting on the Philippian church’s contribution to Paul (Phil. 4:15,16), said,

“Hear too, we see the simple manner in which the church at Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no ‘missionary society’ in evidence, and none was needed. The brethren simply raised the money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way that it should be done today. No organization was needed to accomplish the work the Lord has authorized his church to do. When men become dissatisfied with God’s arrangement and set up one of their own, they have already crossed the threshold of apostasy. Let us be satisfied with the Lord’s manner of doing things.”

To which we say a hearty, Amen.

Truth Magazine XXI: 46, pp. 727-728
November 24, 1977

By Keith Sharp

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

“All a man really has to do to be saved is keep the Ten Commandments.” This was the reply a man once made when I inquired, “Do you know what to do to be saved?” His attitude is common. He, as others, makes a distinction between “ceremonial” law of the Old Testament and “moral” law. He contends that the ceremonial portion of the Old Covenant was removed as law, but the moral part, meaning the Ten Commandments, was retained.,In proof of this contention, people cite Matthew 5:18:

Does this verse teach that the Ten Commandments are still our law?

According to the Lord in Matthew 5:18, “one jot or one tittle” would not pass from the law until the designated time. The “jot” was the Hebrew letter “yodh,” comparable to the Greek “iota.” Made like an apostrophe, it was the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. A “tittle” was the tiny mark on some Hebrew letters which distinguished them from others. It was similar to the dot of an “i” or cross of a “t.” Jesus was not merely speaking of the Ten Commandments. He was speaking of all the law of Moses, down to the smallest letter and tiniest mark. If this means the law is still in effect, we are duty bound to keep all the law, including the smallest details of animal sacrifice, burning of incense, priestly garments, etc. One cannot simply choose the part of the law he wishes to keep and let the other go. If you keep any of the law of Moses, you are obligated to keep it all (Gal. 5:3). If you violate any part of the law, moral or ceremonial, you have violated the entire law (Jas. 2:10). Thus, since the verse proves too much for those who advocate keeping the Ten Commandments as law, it proves nothing for their position.

In reality, the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments, has been abolished as a law. In Rom. 7:1-7 Paul declares Christians “are become dead” to “the law” which demanded, “Thou shaft not covet.” But this was one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:17). Thus, the Ten Commandments are a part of the law to which we are dead.

Does this mean we are free to covet? No, for Christ said, “beware of covetousness” (Lk. 12:15). How can this be? The laws of Mexico forbid murder. But I am not under the laws of Mexico. Am I therefore free to murder? No, for the law of the State of Texas, under which I am judged, also forbids murder. The law of Moses forbids covetousness. I am not under the law, but I am not free to covet, for the law of Christ, by which I shall be judged (Jn. 12:48), also forbids covetousness. And so it is for all the ten commandments save the Sabbath law.

But, did Christ not say the law was to continue “Till heaven and earth pass away”? No, he added another stipulation. He also said, “till all be fulfilled.” Suppose a worker on strike were to threaten, “Till heaven and earth pass away, I will not go back to work, till I receive a pay raise.” Would you think the man was vowing never to return to work? No, he simply would be declaring he would never return to the job until a condition was met-a pay raise. Even so, Christ revealed that the law would never pass away until a condition was met-“till all be fulfilled.” If the employee received his wage increase, he would return to work. That is the necessary implication of his statement. If all were fulfilled, the law would pass away. This is the necessary implication of the Master’s statement.

Has all been fulfilled? Yes, this was Jesus’ express purpose toward the law (Matt. 5:17). The law, including the Ten Commandments, having fulfilled its purpose by bringing us to Christ, has been abrogated as a law by His death on the Cross (Gal. 3:19-25; Col. 2:14-17). Do not sacrifice your freedom in Christ by returning to the bondage of the law.

Truth Magazine XXI: 46, pp. 726-727
November 24, 1977