Truth Magazine

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

By Irven Lee

The law of God relative to marriage is rather simple and easy to understand. Simplicity generally characterized our Lord as He talked. We are told in Mark 12:37 that the common people heard him gladly. They would not have heard him gladly if they could not have understood him. It is beyond our comprehension that One who was with God in the creation and who possessed knowledge as far above ours as the heavens are above the earth could come in the flesh and so speak that the common people could hear Him gladly. They were the ones that were the easiest for him to reach. He did not reach the high and mighty, and certainly he made no effort to speak only to the high and mighty. He made a special effort to speak to the poor, to those who had had less opportunity in the field of education, and to those who were little in their own sight.

John the Baptist once sent two of his disciples to our Lord to say, “Art thou he that should come or look we for another?” John was in prison through no wrong doing and was likely discouraged. Jesus asked the two disciples to return to John with this message, “The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Matt. 11:5). The poor have the gospel preached to them. The common people heard him gladly.

The law of marriage is simple and easy to understand. It would be a false effort on my part if I tried to make it seem complicated because it is not complicated. The Lord stated it so that the average man, the common people, could understand it. Back in the days when I was teaching school I had the privilege of having a sixth grade Bible class every morning for several years. I never did have anybody in one of those classes who could not understand the law of marriage as it is given in the New Testament. It is not hard to understand, but it is ignored . . . .

Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” That is not hard to read, and it is not hard to understand. There are a lot of questions that people can ask that I cannot answer. They come asking questions after they have become entangled in complicated situations that seem to me to have no solution, and I do not know what to tell them to do. I could have told them before they became enmeshed in their difficult situations what the law of God is concerning marriage. It is much simpler to talk to people who have not violated the law and who are trying to avoid the pitfalls than it is to try to untangle some of the nets that they have woven around themselves when they did not examine the law carefully before marriage.

I want to reach young people who are not yet married. I want to help them to know the law so that they can enter into their marriages with the understanding that they must live together until the death of one of the partners. The law indicates that one cannot put away his wife because she is lazy or is not physically attractive, or because she has a high temper or because she is not a good housekeeper. The only way he may do so is for the cause of fornication. It was the Lord Himself who gave the law, and he has all authority in heaven and on earth. He has bound it on earth, and neither Congress nor the State Legislature can change it. The United Nations cannot come up with some decree that could change it. Now, states may write other laws that differ from that and put them on their statute books, but God’s law would still stand. It does not matter what the law of the land may say, the law of God will still say, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” Putting away one’s wife for any other cause than that of fornication brings about a temptation that is almost certain to lead her to commit adultery. It is a normal thing for her to want a husband, so she is likely to violate God’s law.

In Matthew 19 we have a record of the Pharisees’ coming to Jesus and questioning him, hoping to trap him in his answers. They asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, have ye not read, that he that made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Is this teaching so deep and complicated that only the intellectual genius can understand it or is it simple enough that the common man may understand it? (Excerpts from Good Homes in a Wicked World, pp. 11-12,14-16.)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, pp. 545, 567-568
September 19, 1991

By Mike Willis

In recent issues, I have been studying Philippians 4 to learn principles of spiritual health which enable us to enjoy life’s best moments and to endure its adversities. We have previously emphasized that good spiritual health requires the following: (a) Rejoicing in the Lord; (b) Letting your moderation be known to all men; (c) Living with the awareness that the Lord is at hand; (d) Being anxious for nothing; (e) Thinking on things which are pure. Good spiritual health also requires that we learn to be content in whatever condition we find ourselves. Paul wrote:

Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need (Phil. 4:11-12).

There is happiness to be found in contentment. Elsewhere Paul wrote, “Godliness with contentment is great gain” (1 Tim. 6:6).

Paul’s Circumstances

When Paul penned this epistle his circumstances were such that few of us would have been content with them. He was in a Roman prison for preaching the gospel – suffering evil for having done good. Not only was that so, some of his own brethren were preaching from impure motives with the express purpose of doing him harm (Phil. 1:16). Nevertheless, Paul had learned to be content.

“I Know How to Be Abased”

Paul recognized that there were lessons which a person learns from his infirmities and afflictions. He had personally experienced such afflictions. He had been “in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings” (2 Cor. 6:5). He had been “in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:23-28).

On top of this he was given a “messenger of Satan,” a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7). Three times he asked the Lord to remove it. Finally, the Lord replied, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9).

Paul accepted the Lord’s “no.” He learned how, not only to be content, but to benefit from the Lord’s decision. Therefore, he said, “Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:9-10).

The wise man taught us to give thought to afflictions. “In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him” (Eccl. 7:14). The same God who allows good times also allows evil times to come. Like Paul, we need to learn how to be contented in evil days.

The psalmist saw that God’s afflictions drove him back to God. Consequently, he wrote,

Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word (Psa. 119:67).

It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes (Psa. 119:71).

I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me (Psa. 119:75).

Have we learned to be content in these kinds of circumtances? One of the lessons which we must learn in order o have good spiritual health is to be content in the midst f adverse circumstances. Where this does not happen, men lecome bitter, sour, and resentful in their dispositions oward God. Paul could say, “I have learned how to be tbased.” Most of us who have been raised during the pros)erity which has been in America during my lifetime have aperienced very little abasement to learn the spiritual lessons vhich accompany it.

“I Know How to Abound”

Paul also stated that men had to learn how to abound. He was not teaching “seven laws of prosperity” or “how o become rich” when he emphasized man’s need to learn “how to abound.” There are certain temptations which come with wealth which must be overcome. A Christian must learn the stewardship of his prosperity and overcome the temptations associated with wealth. Unfortunately, these lessons have not been learned by most Americans who have abounded.

Here are some sins which accompany wealth: (a) Atributing one’s prosperity to his own abilities (cf. Lk. 2:15-21); (b) Laying up treasure on earth (Matt. 6:19-21); (c) Using one’s wealth to satisfy his own lusts without regard to the claims which the poor and needy have on him (Lk. 6:1-31); (d) Becoming arrogant (1 Tim. 6:17); (e) Trusting in riches (1 Tim. 6:17); (f) Thinking oneself to be self-sufficient (Rev. 3:17); (g) Allowing the cares of this world to choke out the gospel (Lk. 8:14). The list could be extended.

I have witnessed prosperity destroy the souls of men. The love of money has caused some Christians to take jobs which revent their worshiping with the saints. Abundance has enabled other Christians to become so involved in recreational activities (bowling leagues, softball leagues, etc.) and with entertainment facilities (a boat on the lake) that God is virtually eliminated from their lives. Such people may be abounding, but they have not learned to abound in the sense that Paul did.

Paul learned that one’s prosperity should be used to the glory and service of God. He had seen the good which men like Barnabas were able to do with their wealth (Acts 4:36,37) and, therefore, he willingly used his wealth to further the Lord’s kingdom. He labored to provide not only for his own needs, but also for the needs of others (Acts 20:34). He did not allow his prosperity to distract him from is service to God, as Demas did (2 Tim. 4:10).

Contentment

Paul wrote, “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” (4:11). The word “contentment” (from autarkeia) means “a mind contented with its lot.” Contentment is learned behavior. Writing in the Pulpit Commentary, R.M. Edgar said, “We cannot acquire it at a bound. We must serve our apprenticeship to it as to any other art. It is not a science to be theoretically mastered, but an art to be practically obtained. We must go to the ‘school of art,’ we must set ourselves earnestly as scholars to learn the lesson, and we must ‘keep our hands in’ by constant practice” (173).

Contentment accepts one’s state in life as the allotment of the providence of God. To learn to accept the allotments of the providence of God is a lesson which we slowly learn. Some pass through life never content with their circumstances in life; their discontentment leads them into sin.

There are sins associated with discontentment, such as murmuring, complaining, bitterness, envy, jealousy, etc. (see concordance for illustrations). He who has not learned to be content with his circumstances in life has not reached spiritual maturity. (This should not be understood to mean that one should cease trying to improve himself or cease trying to do more in the Lord’s work.)

Conclusion

Good spiritual health requires that one learn to accept those things which he cannot change with contentment. This contentment is not related to outward circumstance (whether one is abased or abounds). This contentment is grounded in God.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, pp. 546, 566-567
September 19, 1991