Truth Magazine

From Kettle, Kentucky

Why do Christians seem to have such difficulty in communicating the “one church” concept (Eph.4:4)? There are many answers, such as pride, prejudice, and sectarianism. But is it possible that Christians themselves are to blame for any of this? Let us consider this idea more fully.

When teaching, it is imperative to clearly understand the biblical concepts involved in discussion. In other words, one cannot teach what he does not understand himself. Teachers must be “faithful men” who are “able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Furthermore, they must be effective communicators (1 Cor. 14:8-9). This is especially true when using terms with multiple meanings and/or applications. For example, if teaching about “baptism,” one must clearly define the meaning of the term (i.e. immersion, Rom. 6:4). Otherwise, the intended message is lost.

Now let us think about the word “church.” This word usually brings to mind all sorts of concepts. It may cause one to think of a building, a local congregation, or a denomination. If the teacher is unaware of this, or fails to compensate for this (by a failure to clearly define his terms), the real message is lost.

Let us bring all of this to bear upon the “one church” concept. Often it is said, “There are many churches, but only one true church.” If properly defined and communicated, this statement could convey truth. However, usually this statement conveys a false message. When such a statement is made, what most people normally hear is this: “There are many denominations, but only one true denomination. ” The statement has unintentionally expressed that the “one true church” (Eph. 4:4) is a denomination or sect. The listener is disgusted with such “narrow-mindedness, ” and the teacher is unable to figure out why he is accused of sectarianism.

Notice what has happened. Without telling anyone (and perhaps without realizing it), the teacher has “changed gears” in mid-sentence. He has said, “There are many churches (meaning: religious denominations), but only one true church” (meaning: body of saved people, Acts 2:47). The teacher has failed in two ways. First, there was a failure to discern the conceptual errors to be reckoned with. Second, there was the resultant failure to properly communicate.

But the confusion is only beginning! Now, “churches” are compared with each other. For instance, one may compare the work or organization of a particular denomination to that of the Lord’s church. But notice: the gears have been changed again! Before, “church” was spoken of in its “universal” sense (Acts 2:47); but now, it is spoken of in its “local” sense (Phil. 1:1; 4:15). These comparisons can facilitate, the exposing of error; but unless we effectively communicate, it has the appearance of “comparing denominations. ” The result of this is that often one is merely convinced to “change churches” (sects). Consequently, a misplaced loyalty develops to “The Church of Christ,” rather than to Jesus Christ (Acts 11:22-23). Furthermore, the “convert” has retained his sectarian concepts, which hinder his communication of the “one church” to others.

What can be done to alleviate this “communication gap”? First, be sure to fully understand the biblical concepts involved. Knowing the difference between “universal church,” “local church,” and “denomination” is vital to bridging the communication gap. The “universal church” is simply all of the saved, who ever and where ever they may be (Acts2:36-38,41,47). The “local church” is a group of saints who organize scripturally and function as a unit (Acts 9:26-28; Phil-1:1; 4:15). A “denomination” is a religious sect, distinguished by peculiar doctrines, which separate it from other believers, None of these terms or concepts are interchangeable! A great injustice is done when they are spoken of as if they were. Second, once the concepts are clarified in the teacher’s mind, he must effectively communicate those concepts. The understanding must precede the communication (1 Cor. 14:8-9).

May all who preach and teach seriously consider this important “communication gap,” and endeavor to bridge it. As in the days of old, it ought to be said that God’s people (I gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” of the word (Neh. 8:8).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 17, p. 531
September 5, 1991

By Dennis Abernathy

In Hebrews 10:19 we learn that through Christ’s sacrifice we may enter heaven. Verse 20 refers to this as a new and living way opened to us when Christ died. Christ is the way (Jn. 14:6). The tabernacle and its priesthood is gone, but we have Christ as our great High Priest over his house – the church (1 Tim. 3:15). Since these things just stated are undeniably true:

1. Let us draw near to God (Heb. 10:22). We do this with a sincere heart (one which manifests the proper attitude toward God), in full assurance of faith (our confidence and trust is in our High Priest). Our hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. This is accomplished by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14) when we are baptized (see Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5).

2. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope (Heb. 10:23). The hope we profess is found in Christ Jesus and we are not to swerve from it (see Eph. 2:11-22). He is saying, “you remain true to your confession, and rest assured the promises will finally be realized.” The reason the promises will be realized is because “God, who has called you into fellowship with his son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful” (1 Cor. 1:9).

3. Let us spur one another on (Heb. 10:24). We need to be genuinely concerned about our brethren and not just our own selfish interests (Phil. 2:4). We are to “provoke,” “stimulate,” or “spur one another on.” We all need to be stirred up. At the same time, care must be exercised that we are “stirred up” to the right things. We need stimulation toward “love and good deeds.” Hence, we must be “eager to do what is good” (Tit. 2:14).

4. Let us not give up meeting together (Heb. 10:25). But rather, “let us encourage one another.” When we meet together (assemble) we draw near to God, hold unswervingly to the hope, spur one another on and encourage each other. But, when we give up meeting (forsake assembling), look what great harm we do to our brethren and to ourselves!

In view of these things, brethren, be faithful in meeting together. Don’t throw away your confidence, but rather persevere in doing God’s will. If you will, God promises you will be richly rewarded.

So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. For in just a very little while, he who is coming will come and will not delay. But my righteous one (the just) will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him. But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved (Heb. 10:35-39).

Please brethren, don’t shrink back and be destroyed, but believe, be faithful, and be saved!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, p. 547
September 19, 1991

By Bobby Witherington

Panama City, Florida 32405 n Ephesians 5:22-33 the apostle Paul likened the relationship that exists between Christ and the church to that which exists between the husband and the wife. And in this setting, in verse 31, the apostle said: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This, of course, does not mean that children should forget or neglect their parents. Other passages clearly teach that a person should always show honor and respect for his parents. However, the verse just cited does mean that when a person gets married, from that moment on, he must recognize a greater responsibility to his mate than to any other person on earth. Obviously, this includes a determined effort to make the marriage last until death. But a closely knit and firmly bonded family circle requires more than just a “come what may” determination to make it last.

On the one hand, for those not yet married, we suggest that if you are a Christian, and you marry a Christian, your chances for marital bliss and permanence are greatly enhanced. Surely a Christian needs the companionship of one who is of like precious faith. It has often been said that “families that pray together stay together.” However, a non-Christian is not on praying terms with God, and many non-Christian mates have been known to ridicule the faith of his or her companion and do all possible to destroy that person’s faith and faithfulness. Of course, if you happen to be a Christian who is married to a non-Christian, you are, according to 1 Corinthians 7:10, to abide with your mate. Through your good influence, according to 1 Peter 3:1, your mate may eventually be converted.

However, for Christians who plan to marry Christians, or for Christians who are married to Christians, we emphasize that marital success is not guaranteed. Being Christians does not automatically make you totally compatible. Each mate has to bend a little. Personal traits will have to be modified. True love must courageously and consistently battle against pride, self-will, selfishness, envy and jealousy. Of course, total Christ-likeness on the part of both mates would make for certain success, but not one of us is perfectly Christ-like! Yes, that includes you and me! This means that our mates, to put up with us, will have to learn patience and forgiveness. And it means that we, in order to make permanent and successful our marriage bond, will have to learn patience and forgiveness.

However, patience and forgiveness are easy, or difficult, depending upon whether or not each genuinely loves the other. In Colossians 3:14 love is called “the bond of perfection. ” In Ephesians 5:33 the husband is admonished to “so love his own wife as himself,” and the wife is told to “see that she respects her husband.” In Ephesians 5:25 the husband is told to love his wife “just as Christ also -loved the church and gave himself for it.” According to Titus 2:4 the aged women are to teach young women to “be sober” and “to love their husbands.” True love demands that one reciprocate every tender caress, cherish every gentle word, extend every kindness, and gently seek to cope with every weakness. By so doing marital happiness and success can be greatly enhanced, and in most cases, assured.

Obligations of Husbands

In 1 Peter 3:7 the apostle Peter wrote: “Likewise you husbands, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.”

In the six verses immediately prior to the Scripture just cited Peter set forth some obligations of the wife to the husband. In later studies we plan to enlarge upon some of the wife’s responsibilities. However, harmony and happiness between the husband and wife is a two-way street in which each has obligations. The verse just cited is just one among many which describes the husband’s duty to the wife.

In commenting upon this verse, we first observe that Peter said, “Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them.” He did not say “run off and leave them.” Actually the leaving that should take place in a marriage, according to Ephesians 5:31, is that which occurs when the parties of the marriage leave father and mother and become joined to each other.

Second, we observe that Peter admonished husbands to dwell with their wives “with understanding.” This includes understanding of her physical make-up. Physically she is designed to complement her husband and holds the power to require his love, which no other woman can do honorably. It includes knowledge of the fact that physically she is the “weaker vessel” and thus should not have hardships imposed on here which will break either her body or her spirit. This includes knowledge of her emotional make-up, and her nervous system which, along with her lunar biological cycle, are likely to make her nerves more delicate than his, and which is occasionally the cause of irritability. This includes the knowledge of his God-given role as “the head of the wife,” as Paul said in Ephesians 5:23, and his responsibility to provide the physical necessities of life.

Third, we observe that Peter declared that the husband should give “honor unto the wife.” The religion of Christ elevates woman to a place in society never enjoyed by heathen women, nor even the women of Israel. It lifts her to her husband’s side. She is to be honored as an equal heir with her husband of the grace of life.

And, fourth, we see why the husband must so treat his wife; it is that they might be “heirs together of the grace of life” and that their prayers may not be hindered. To be “heirs together of the grace of life,” the husband cannot leave his wife. Also inferred is that life bestows grace or favor upon husbands and wives who live together and conduct themselves as God ordained. And it also infers that husbands and wives will spend time in prayer, for how could prayers never prayed be hindered? However, how can a husband and wife pray a prayer of faith if they live in an atmosphere of doubt, contention, jealousy, harsh words, bickering, immorality, and vengeful acts?

Most husbands who complain of too little attention from their wives are guilty of not obeying these instructions given by Peter, an inspired apostle. Before we complain about our mate’s inattention and lack of appreciation we should first analyze ourselves to determine if we are falling short of our mate’s inattention and lack of appreciation we should first analyze ourselves to determine if we are falling short of our responsibilities.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, pp. 552-553
September 19, 1991

By Martin Pickup

Steve Gibson has affirmed that in Galatians 6:10 Paul is speaking about collective church action, and not about individual Christian duty when he says, “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.”(1) Brother Gibson argues that Paul is talking about the Jerusalem Collection, the contribution which Gentile churches made for the needy saints in Jerusalem. If so, Gibson says, this passage would indicate that these relief funds went not just to “the household of the faith,” but also to “all men” – i.e., to both believers and unbelievers. Therefore, church-sponsored benevolence institutions for non-Christians would be scriptural.(2)

In the previous article I discussed some of the problems involved in trying to connect the Jerusalem Collection with Galatians 6:10. Also, even if the connection were granted for the sake of argument, it is not necessary to think that Paul means the Jerusalem Collection was a way of rendering benevolence to the “all men” of this verse. Gibson fails to consider another, more reasonable interpretation: If Paul is thinking of the Collection in this passage, he is thinking of it only as one way for the Christians of Galatia to do good to “the household of the faith.” Paul would be urging the individual Christians of Galatia to render benevolence to all men, and especially to render benevolence to the household of the faith by participating in the relief effort which the Gentile churches were undertaking for the needy saints in Jerusalem. Clear New Testament passages repeatedly designate the recipients of the Jerusalem Collection as “saints”; this must govern how one interprets Galatians 6:10. It is an unwarranted assumption to say that in Galatians 6:10 Paul must be including “all men” among the recipients of the Jerusalem Collection (if he is even alluding to it at all).

The Commentators Cited

In support of this, I would refer the reader to the very commentators whom Gibson himself cites in his book. He appeals to various commentators who believe that the Jerusalem Collection is under discussion in Galatians 6:10.

But from the way Gibson cites them, a reader may easily get the impression that these men agree with his ultimate conclusion that the relief funds went to “all men.” But these scholars are not saying this at all. They are actually affirming the Jerusalem Collection-view of Galatians 6:10 which I have presented above.

Commentaries – like biblical passages – must be properly interpreted. If brother Gibson thinks these commentators are in full agreement with his position, he has misread them. Yes, they connect Galatians 6:10 with the Jerusalem Collection; but they do not assume, as Gibson does, that all of this verse must be speaking of those who would receive the Collection. They suggest only that Paul is thinking of the Collection as a special way for the Gentile brethren to do good “to the household of the faith.”

Gibson appeals to J.B. Lightfoot, one of the first to suggest that the Jerusalem Collection underlies Galatians 6. But Lightfoot never suggests that the recipients of this benevolence included non-Christians. He speaks only of Paul having solicited “alms for the suffering brethren of Judea.”(3)

Gibson quotes the following comment by C.K. Barrett to try to give support to his position:

Paul was at work in Galatia on his collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Perhaps the Galatians had not been as generous as he thought they ought to have been. It is verse 10, with its reference to members of the household of faith, that suggests this possibility.(4)

Notice that Barrett says it is Paul’s comment about “the household of faith” which suggests a reference to the Jerusalem Collection. He does not connect the phrase “to all men” with the Collection. Barrett identifies the recipients of the Collection only as “saints.” If Gibson had read Barrett’s commentary on 2 Corinthians it would have become even more evident whom Barrett thinks received the Collection. Commenting on the final phrase in 2 Corinthians 9:13 (“and with all”), Barrett writes, “that is, with all Christians; Paul is not here thinking of charity beyond the bounds of the Christian society, within which there is a special mutuality of love; cf. Gal vi. 10.”(5)

Gibson asserts that Larry Hurtado’s “landmark article . . . argues the very thesis set forth in this book.”(6) Gibson is reading something into Hurtado’s words. Though Hurtado thinks the Jerusalem Collection is under discussion in Galatians 6:10, a careful reading of his article will show that he is not saying recipients of the Collection included unbelievers. Hurtado merely suggests that since the Collection provided tangible proof of massive Gentile conversions, Paul hoped this fact could aid in persuading more Jews to accept the truth of Christianity.(7)Where does Hurtado say that the funds of the Jerusalem Collection were for both believing and unbelieving Jews?

I could make the same point regarding the other scholars whom Gibson cites to bolster his position. They connect the Jerusalem Collection with Galatians 6:10, but they do not say that its recipients included non-Christians. Lloyd Gaston says only that the Collection was “for the Jerusalem Church.”(8) Samuel Mikolaski describes this relief effort as “the collection for the afflicted Christians at Jerusalem.”(9) John Strelan only connects the words “especially for members of the household of faith” with the Jerusalem Collection.(10) In a very extensive discussion, Philip Hughes always speaks of the Collection being given to saints.(11) Frank Gaebelein, in a section of his work entitled “The Recipients” of the Jerusalem Collection, says, “The offering was destined for the Hebrew Christians at Jerusalem, who may have referred to themselves as ‘the poor.'”(12) He never mentions non-Christians as possible recipients of this relief fund.

It should be evident from the above discussion that just because a scholar suggests that the Jerusalem Collection is in view in Galatians 6:10 does not mean that he thinks these funds went beyond “the household of the faith.” It bothers me greatly that in his writings on this subject brother Gibson leaves the impression that scholars fully agree with him, when in reality they do not. It is fine to cite scholars who say that Galatians 6 is discussing the Jerusalem Collection, but I wish Gibson would make it clear to his readers that these men do not agree that these funds went to unbelievers.(13)

Now why is it that these scholars do not believe the Jerusalem Collection went to unbelievers? Surely the reason why is because of the many explicit passages in the New Testament which speak only of the Jerusalem Collection going to saints. Neither the evidence nor the scholars ‘support Gibson’s position.

The “Opportunity” in Galatians 6:10

Perhaps why Gibson thinks that all of Galatians 6:10 must be talking about those who would receive the Jerusalem Collection is because of how he has interpreted the clause “as we have opportunity” at the beginning of the verse. Gibson makes much of the fact that the text says “opportunity” (singular), and not “opportunities.” He concludes that it must be referring to the opportunity of contributing to the Jerusalem Collection. He suggests this interpretive paraphrase: “Since we have an opportunity, right now at this present time, to supply the want of those in Jerusalem, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”(14) But is this what Paul means by the word “opportunity”?

Gibson quotes Hans Betz to help support his interpretation of “opportunity” and, once again, the casual reader will probably get the impression that Betz agrees with Gibson.(15) Betz does believe that the Jerusalem Collection is underway as Paul writes Galatians, but he does not believe that the clause “as we have opportunity” means the opportunity of the Jerusalem Collection. Betz specifically says, “The clause means that the Christian’s ethical responsibility is limited to the time in which he lives en sarki” (“in the flesh”).(16) Betz understands the “opportunity” under discussion to be a Christian’s earthly life.

Of all the commentators Gibson cites who believe that the Jerusalem Collection underlies Galatians 6:10, I have not seen any of them take the word “opportunity” to mean the Jerusalem Collection. Paul is saying that our earthly life is our opportunity to render service to others. There is no warrant, therefore, for Gibson to conclude that the entirety of Galatians 6:10 must be indicating those who would receive the Jerusalem Collection.

Some Other Collection for Jerusalem?

Throughout his ministry Paul seems to have encouraged Gentile churches to relieve the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.(17) If Paul is not alluding to the Jerusalem Collection of his 3rd Journey in Galatians 6:10, one might ask if he could be alluding to some earlier relief effort carried out by the churches of Galatia? Gibson suggests this possibility if a Late Date for Galatians is not adopted.(18)

If this theory is true, there is still no reason to think that non-Christians would have been among the recipients of this earlier relief effort. The recipients of other contributions from Gentile churches did not include non-Christians. The Jerusalem Collection is said only to have been sent to “saints”; and the contribution from the church at Antioch, spoken of in Acts 11:29-30, is said to have been for “the brethren living in Judea.” There is no reason to think that benevolence from the churches of Galatia sent to Jerusalem on another occasion would have involved other (i.e., nonChristian) recipients. There is certainly no warrant for taking Galatians 6:10 to indicate that it did, anymore than if the Jerusalem Collection of the 3rd Journey were being referred to.

Alan Cole is a commentator who believes that a relief effort earlier than Paul’s 3rd Journey is under discussion in Galatians 6. Gibson cites Cole as one of those scholars who supports his view. But again, this is only partially true. Gibson’s readers need to understand that Cole doesn’t take Galatians 6:10 to be indicating that unbelievers were among the recipients of these funds. Cole only employs terms like “fellow-Christians,” “the brothers,” and “poor saints” to designate the ones who received the contribution.(19)

The main purpose of this second article has been to point out that even the scholars whom brother Gibson uses to lend support to his position do not agree that Galatians 6:10 is speaking of non-Christians receiving benevolence from the Galatian churches. Gibson’s conclusion that this is what the passage teaches is totally unfounded and, as far as I can see, completely unsupported by any of the scholars whom he tries to “place in his corner.” The final article of this series will examine Gibson’s assertions regarding 2 Corinthians 9:13 and the phrase “to all men.”

Endnotes

1. Steve Gibson, Galatians 6:10 and the Great Collection (Taylor, TX: published by the author, 1990); “The Meaning of Galatians 6:10, ” The Restorer (August, 1990), pp. 11-13.

2. The issue of church-sponsored benevolence institutions involves more than the question of whether churches may relieve non-Christians. It also involves whether churches may create and support organizations to do work which God assigned to each local church. Gibson never addresses the latter question.

3. J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London: MacMillan, 1866), p. 55; see also pp. 25,110,216.

4. C.K. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), p. 82.

5. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 241.

6. Gibson, Galatians 6:10. . ., p. 18.

7. Larry Hurtado, “The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians,” Journal for the Study of the NT 5 (Oct., ’79), pp. 46-62.

8. Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), pp. 109, 223.

9. Donald Guthrie and J.A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary (Carmel, NY: Guideposts, 1970), p. 1104.

10. John Strelan, “Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ: A Reexamination of Galatians 6:2,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975), pp. 266-276.

11. Philip Hughes, New International Commentary on 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 283-342.

12. Frank Gaebelein, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 503,311.

13. Gibson says in his introduction, “While the ‘saints only’ view was hammered out as a refuge amid heated controversy and bitter division, the present proposal has actually had the widespread support of detached scholars for generations.” He then gives a list of the major scholars who alledgedly support his proposal (Galatians 6.-10. . ., p. vii). I refer to each of these scholars in this series of articles – and show what they really say – with the exception of John Gligh and Stephen Neill, whose works I have not yet had access to. I suspect, however, that they are not fully agreeing with Gibson any more than the others are.

14. Ibid., pp. 67-69.

15. Ibid., p. 68.

16. Hans Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 310.

17. See Gal. 2:9-10; Acts 11:30; 12:25.

18. Ibid., p. 15.

19. Alan Cole, Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 179.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 17, pp. 528-530
September 5, 1991