Truth Magazine

By Wayne Greeson

In the midst of the rapid growth of the church at Jerusalem came turmoil. The church was threatened by internal strife, The strife was not doctrinal, but was born of a genuine problem, the neglect of the Hellenist widows in the daily distribution of food. This real problem stirred petty passions and politics among the Hellenist Christians and they began to murmur against the Hebrew Christians. This murmuring could have led to two warring factions within the church and split it into open division along party lines.

Into this potential breach step the apostles guided by the wisdom of God. The apostles told the church to select seven men to be appointed to take care of the daily distribution of food. The men to be chosen were not to be just brothers, they were to have a good reputation, be full of the Holy Spirit and full of wisdom (Acts 6:3). Following these guidelines, the “whole multitude” of the church chose seven men whom the apostles appointed. Leading the list of the seven men chosen by the entire Jerusalem church was Stephen. In addition to the qualities set forth by the apostles, Luke particularly notes Stephen as a “man full of faith and the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5).

The problem was resolved and “the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7).

What a great character, what respect Stephen must have had among the Christians in Jerusalem. His reputation was such that the entire church, Hebrew and Hellenist alike, placed their confidence in him. He was full of the Holy Spirit, wisdom and faith. Stephen was not a man of half measures; he fully followed after the instructions of the Holy Spirit, his wisdom was complete and his faith was mature. Stephen was a man in whom the entire church could place their confidence. They were assured Stephen would handle himself and the problem fairly and wisely to the satisfaction of all.

Stephen was such a striking, powerful and commanding figure. Considering his great reputation, wisdom and faith, why would anyone desire to stone Stephen to death?

He Went Among the People

Luke records, “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people” (Acts 6:8). One of the reasons Stephen was stoned was because he went “among the people.” With his reputation and respected wisdom, Stephen could have stayed at home and waited for the people to come to him. Why should he go and seek to teach others and stir up trouble? Stephen did not stay home and play the “sainted sage,” dispensing bits of wisdom and marching orders far from the battlefield. Stephen went “among the people” boldly speaking God’s message of a crucified Jesus Christ to a hostile Jewish audience and performing great miracles confirming his message. Stephen was stoned because he did not run and hide, he boldly stood up and spoke out.

There is no danger of being stoned by staying away from people, but then neither are their souls to teach and win for Christ. The stones and slings and arrows are painful and certainly not desirable, but they are not found in the safety of the backline foxhole, they are found where the battle for the souls of men and women is furious and pitched, “among the people.”

They Could Not Resist His Wisdom and Spirit

Stephen’s great work “among the people” surely contributed to the increase of the Word of God and the large numbers of Jews, including priests, who obeyed the faith of Jesus Christ (Acts 6:7). Stephen’s success did not go unnoticed. As more Jews heard Stephen and others proclaim the gospel and as they became disciples of Jesus Christ, some Jews were determined to stop these conversions by stopping the preacher.

The preacher the Jews chose to “go after” was Stephen. Likely they chose Stephen because of his prominence and his success in teaching the truth. These Jews began disputing with Stephen in an attempt to destroy his influence and stop his teaching. Apparently these men attempted to directly confront Stephen and refute his teaching by the Scriptures. They quickly discovered they had “bitten off more than they could chew.” Stephen was stoned because those who tried to stand against him and dispute with him “were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” (Acts 6:10).

It is interesting to note that those who tried to dispute with Stephen included Jews from Cyrenia, Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia (Acts 6:9). The Hellenist Jews may have been the greatest affected by Stephen’s preaching of the gospel. Those who rejected Stephen’s preaching were likely well trained in the Scriptures and Greek rhetoric and eager to do battle. One such young man was Saul. Saul was from Tarsus of Cilicia and trained in Jerusalem at the feet of the highly respected Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Saul could have been one of those defeated before Stephen.

Those who opposed Stephen could not stand up before him. Stephen had the truth. But even more importantly he used the truth. But he also had more. Stephen had wisdom. He had wisdom in the truth, wisdom in teaching the truth and wisdom in using the truth. Stephen had spirit. Stephen’s preaching was not a scholarly tome delivered from an ivy tower. Stephen spoke with wisdom and spirit. He spoke the truth with power and he reached and converted people.

If indeed we have the truth, then the next question is, do we use the truth? Maybe a better question would be, if you do not use the truth, do you really have the truth? Truth is not something to be hidden away on a shelf in a back room. If one does not use the truth, he loses the truth. Paul instructed, “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

Some have great wisdom in teaching the truth. They have a great knowledge and understanding of the Word of God, yet they lack the spirit to face the false teachers and boldly defend the truth. All the scholarship in the world is useless unless it is put to use actively defending the truth. Others are spirited in teaching God’s Word, but they lack the wisdom to properly use and defend the truth. We need to manifest both wisdom and spirit in our use of God’s Word, as Stephen.

Those who oppose will not be able to stand long against the truth when delivered with wisdom and spirit. Instead of honestly and openly facing the one who proclaims the truth, they will use whatever means they can find to destroy those who vigorously and actively speak the truth with wisdom and spirit. There is a proverb, “Stones are not thrown except at the fruit-laden tree.” If no stones are being thrown your way, could the reason be there is no fruit?

They Suborned False Witnesses and False Accusations

Truth that is wisely and boldly taught cannot be met head on by false teachers. Those who opposed Stephen could not defeat him in the Scriptures in open debate. They determined to avoid open and honest discussion with Stephen and attack him with lies. So they “suborned” false witnesses and made up false accusations to destroy Stephen. The word “suborn” means to put under, to bring under control, possibly by influence and/or money. In other words, these false witnesses were “bought” liars.

How could a man with the reputation and ability of Stephen be stopped by his enemies? Only with the most malicious of lies. They falsely accused Stephen of blasphemy. Blasphemy against Moses, against God, against the temple and against the Law (Acts 6:11-14). Of course nothing could be farther from the truth, but these men were not interested in the truth. It is likely that Stephen had indeed taught that “Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place (the temple), and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us” (Acts 6:14). But this simple truth in the mouths of wicked accusers was twisted into a vicious charge of blasphemy. Those who stoned Stephen were unwilling and unable to answer the truth Stephen taught with Scripture, but they were willing to attack Stephen with lies and vicious accusations.

Those false teachers who attempt to withstand the truth have not changed. A.C. Grider observed that any false teacher who attempted to defend false doctrine against the truth of God’s Word would ultimately resort to dishonesty. Since these dishonest men cannot resist the wisdom and spirit of those who proclaim the truth, they avoid at all costs a direct open and honest confrontation on the Scriptures. Their method is ad hominem, they attack the man with false accusations, name calling and appeals to party politics and prejudices rather than answering his arguments.

Do not be caught in these carnal tactics and avoid those who use them. “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds” (2 Cor. 10:4). Our speech should not be “rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing” (I Pet. 3:9), so that “having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ” (1 Pet. 3:16). Those who opposed Stephen used as weapons lies, liars and ultimately stones to destroy Stephen. Stephen’s only weapons were the vigorous proclamation of the truth and ultimately prayer. We should use no less than these same “mighty weapons” in our warfare (Eph. 6:17-18). The lies and stones may have appeared to win the battle, but in reality they have lost the war.

They Stirred Up the People

The enemies of Stephen were not content to lie about him, they sought to spread the lie. They “stirred up the people” (Acts 6:12) likely by means of the false charges and false witnesses. The rumors against Stephen were quickly disseminated throughout Jerusalem, “Stephen is a blasphemer.” It has been said that a lie travels round the world while Truth is putting on her boots, and so the lies against Stephen raged like a fire (Jas. 3:5-18).

Those “stirred up” likely had never heard of Stephen nor heard him speak. Given the opportunity many of these people may have carefully and thoughtfully considered the Scriptures and the truth, but this is exactly what Stephen’s enemies did not want. They sought to enflame the passions and prejudices of the people by calling Stephen a blasphemer. The people were enraged into a righteous fervor. Those who came together were likely similar to the mob that gathered in Ephesus, “the assembly was confused: and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together” (Acts 19:32). If those who gathered together knew anything, this one thing they were sure of – “Stephen was a blasphemer.”

Enemies of the truth will always appeal to the people by false accusations against those who preach the truth. Slander and rumor will agitate the crowd. Many may not have the opportunity to find out the truth and those who oppose will do all they car to keep the truth hidden. Attack the man, avoid the argument; obfuscate rather than elucidate; agitate rather than mitigate. One hundred years ago the people were stirred by the false charges that some preachers were “antimissionary” because they opposed missionary societies. Thirty years ago the people were stirred by the false charges that some were “anti-orphans” and “orphan haters.” History continues to repeat this baleful pattern even to the present. Those who are children of God will avoid this behavior and those who incite it (Prov. 16:27-28; 17:4; 6:16-19; Eph. 4:29-31; Tit. 3:2).

They Were Cut to the Heart

Stephen was seized by the stirred multitude and drug before the Sanhedrin council and charged with blasphem “Are these things so?” the high priest asked Stephen (Acts 7:1). Stephen made his defense by means of an eloquent sermon. Truly the wisdom and spirit of Stephen shone brightly as he deftly retold the highlights of the history of Israel highlighting the foreshadowing of Christ and his rejection by his own brethren.

Stephen brought his sermon to a pointed conclusion, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it” (Acts 7:51-53).

Luke records that those who heard Stephen were “cut to the heart and gnashed at him with their teeth” (Acts 7:54). Stephen’s words of truth hit hard and cut deep. How easily Stephen could have avoided “offending” his audience. Stephen could have walked away alive by compromising the truth and himself. Stephen taught the truth, the truth his audience needed most and he applied it plainly and boldly. Stephen was stoned because its message cut his audience directly to the heart.

Are we reaching our audience? Some preach the Word, but shun “to declare . . . the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Others are willing to preach and teach only what “offends” no one, steps on no one’s toes and deals with no one’s false doctrine. The result is “no one” is being “cut to the heart” from many pulpits. The sword of the Spirit is “quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). But in the hands of one who is unwilling to unsheathe the sword of the Spirit in the face of false teachers and false doctrine, few are ever “cut to the heart” (Acts 7:54) and fewer are “pricked in their hearts” (Acts 2:37). Whenever a preacher is so bold as to teach the truth and apply it to his audience as Stephen, watch out, the stones will begin to fly.

They Stopped Their Ears

It is hard to imagine those who would be so affected by the words spoken by Stephen that they would literally clap their hands over their ears (Acts 7:57). What good did this do? They had already heard and knew the truth Steptien spoke, Their actions appear to be an act of desperation. They were so blinded, so prejudiced in their hatred that they could no longer even bear to listen to Stephen. Each word he spoke was like adding another lead weight, pressing down upon their guilty consciences. Enraged they determined not only to stop their ears, but to stop Stephen’s mouth. They ran at Stephen, threw him out of the city and stoned him to death (Acts 7:57-58).

One of the saddest parts of this account is that those who stoned Stephen were his own Jewish brethren. But as Stephen had pointed out the prophets were persecuted and slain, not by the Gentiles, but by their own Jewish brethren (Acts 7:52). This tragic pattern did not begin or end with Stephen. Too often the worse trouble and persecution arises from within rather than without. Brethren this ought not to be. “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15).

Christians are to be “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (Jas. 1:19). Watch for those who are stopping their ears from hearing, swift to speak accusations and swift to wrath. When men will no longer discuss the Scriptures, they will refuse even to listen. Instead they will be too busy stopping their ears and rushing to look for stones to throw.

Some Stood and Watched

Some stood and watched Stephen stoned to death. One who did so is named, a young man known as Saul (Acts 7:58). Many of those who stood by and watched may not have been involved in the false witnesses, false accusations and stirring up the people against Stephen. But those who stood and watched Stephen stoned were just as guilty as those who picked up and threw the stones.

When the truth is preached there will be those resist it and there will those who will merely sit silently on the sidelines.

When false witnesses and false accusations are raised against one who preaches the truth, there will be those who stand and watch. When the people are stirred, ears are stopped and the stones begin to fly there will be the impassive “spectators” watching safely from the distance. Jehovah condemned the Edomites for being spectators of the destruction of their brothers, “In the day that you stood on the other side – in the day that strangers carried captive his forces, when foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem – even you were as one of them ” (Obad. 1:11, NKJV).

Conclusion

Stephen was stoned because he preached the truth and stood his ground. We would do well to follow his example and take our stand regardless of the persecutions, the false accusations and stones that will come. Jesus promised, “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matt. 5:10-12).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 498-501
August 15, 1991

By Louis J. Sharp

Memory may play tricks with one, but of these memories there is no misconception. I am one of the fortunate people who has very fond memories of mother. We sympathize with those who cannot share these memories. All mothers are not godly! All have not loved and trained their children as they should. Admittedly, where mothers are concerned, I was richly blessed!

Some of my earliest recollections are of mother holding me closely as I pillowed my head on her breast. I recall her kissing a scratched hand while assuring me all was well. I remember her firm determination when a job was to be done, defiantly saying, “Can’t never did anything!” I can even now hear her calling in a clear soprano voice, “Louie boy, come home!” My mother was never idle. She worked willingly with her hands, providing for her family. She kept a clean house while running a corner grocery store at the same time.

My mother loved to sing, and sang as she worked. Singing was a part of our childhood, and for this, I am thankful. Singing costs nothing, but brings great dividends to those who embrace the art. My mother shared with those who were less fortunate. During the dark days of the great depression (though I didn’t know about it at the time), I remember a neighboring boy who was in the grocery store just before Christmas. As children are prone to do, I began questioning him about what he was going to get for Christmas. The fact was, he was not going to get anything. My mother knew this, and kindly cautioned me about “prying.” Then she put some candy and fruit in a sack for the lad “gratis.” As the saying goes, “She gave the store away!” Dad struggled ten years paying back his creditors, the Wholesalers.

My mother was a teacher. I recall brother Glenn Green, our preacher, saying concerning some person he had baptized, “Sister Sharp taught ____________ the truth.” She did talk the Bible to anyone who would listen and converted many. She used every opportunity to teach the lost.

As a boy, I learned much Bible at mother’s knee. When daddy had to take a night job to keep working, Virginia had married, Juanita was working at night, Harold was dating, and Bill not yet thought of, mamma and I were often alone at night. We had no radio, certainly no TV, so mamma invented games to play. One such game was quoting Scriptures after the manner of a spelling bee, I would quote one verse and she would quote another. I stretch not the truth in saying we would do this by the hour. Thus I learned God’s Word at her knees.

I am grateful for fond memories of a godly mother who loved her children to whom she gave her all – herself.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 488
August 15, 1991

By Donald A Ames

Recently I received a complimentary copy of J.W. Robert’s Acts of Apostles, Part 2 (part of the Living Word series published by the Sweet Pub. Co., long known for their liberal leanings). As I glanced through it, it was indeed simple and easy to read. But when he came to Acts 20, he stubbed his toe in a big way.

In an effort to justify a mistranslation by the New English Version, which translates Acts 20:7 as “on Saturday night,” he points out that this no doubt was the correct time. But the Greek here is clearly “the first day of the week” regardless! Those who would like to nullify the impact of this biblical example try to find comfort in seeking another day for the observance of the Lord’s Supper, hence doing away with the observance of it every first day of the week. Such a translation is not only misleading, but not a translation!

Also, he affirms, “It is inferred from Acts 20:11 that the breaking of bread occurred after the midnight accident.” This is interesting, because he also “infers” from Acts 20:11 that the church engaged in a “fellowship” meal. Now, which was it? There is nothing in the text that tells us when they partook of the Lord’s Supper! The Bible affirms that they gathered together “on the first day of the week” for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s supper. I am willing to concede the text does not tell us when, but since that is why they assembled, I believe they did what they assembled to do when they assembled to do it. Anything beyond that is pure speculation!

But he then affirms, “On the same occasion the group also took a common meal. . . It was customary of the New Testament churches to do both when they met for worship. . . . Thus the group met, Paul preached, they took the Lord’s Supper, and they had a fellowship meal. . . . The group broke bread and ate food” (p. 48). He assumes, asserts and affirms, but offers no proof. It is contrary to 1 Corinthians 11, in which the apostle Paul admonished them that they had homes to eat in, and that the worship period was not the place for eating ordinary meals. It is also contrary to plain biblical language. Note that Acts 20:11 is very plain in stating, “Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.” I wonder, did “the group” depart? It is obvious to even a fifth grader the “breaking of bread” in Acts 20:11 was engaged in by Paul alone, who had been engaged in some long speaking already. Things had been interrupted by Eutychus’s falling out of the window and being restored again to life – and so while they were settling down again, Paul refreshed himself, continued his speech until daybreak and departed. It is no where inferred that any others partook of this meal but the apostle Paul, who would not be going home but continuing on his way! But it is interesting to see how much can be assumed when one wants to justify a unscriptural position. And he is supposed to be a Bible scholar?

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 491
August 15, 1991

By Martin Pickup

During the debate over institutionalism in the 1950’s and ’60’s, a question arose concerning the proper objects of church benevolence. Was a local church to be thought of as a general benevolence society, providing church funds to anyone regardless of whether or not they were a Christian? Or was general humanitarian benevolence an individual Christian’s responsibility, with church benevolence limited to needy saints? Institutional brethren pointed to Galatians 6:10 and argued that it was speaking of church benevolence to non-Christians as well as Christians: “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.”

The problem with this, of course, was that the language throughout Galatians 6:1-10 is markedly individual. Paul is speaking about a Christian’s personal obligations. There seems to be nothing in the context to indicate that what Paul says would necessarily apply to congregational action. There is nothing to suggest that he is advocating collective church benevolence to non-Christians.

Steve Gibson is now arguing that there is something in the context to suggest that Galatians 6:10 is speaking of collective church benevolence – church benevolence, in fact, which was directed to non-Christians. In his recent book, Galatians 6:10 and the Great Collection,(1) brother Gibson affirms that the language Paul uses in Galatians 6:2-10 suggests that he is referring to the Jerusalem Collection, the relief effort which Gentile churches undertook for the needy saints in Jerusalem. Paul discusses this work of the churches in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 8-9, and Romans 15:25-28. Gibson maintains that if Galatians 6:10 is also discussing the Jerusalem Collection, then this means that unbelievers must have been among the recipients of these church funds.

The thrust of Gibson’s argumentation is that the language Paul uses in Galatians 6:7-10 is similar to the language he uses in 2 Corinthians 9:6-13 when he urges the Corinthians to participate in the Jerusalem Collection. In both places Paul uses the metaphor of “sowing” and “reaping,” speaks of doing what is “good,” and refers to “all men.” Since these expressions in 2 Corinthians are used to speak of church contributions in the Jerusalem relief effort, Gibson argues that Galatians 6 refers to the same thing. On a previous occasion Paul must have broached the subject of the Jerusalem Collection to the churches of Galatia, and now in his letter he urges them to carry through with the contribution. On the basis of this construction of the historical background, Gibson understands the entirety of Galatians 6:10 to be speaking of those who would receive the Jerusalem Collection. Paul is saying that these funds would go to “all men” and “especially to the household of faith.”

Brother Gibson feels that if his interpretation of Galatians 6:10 is accepted then this would solve the division that has occurred over church-sponsored orphanages and institutions for the elderly.(2) This overlooks, of course, the fact that 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. Nevertheless, he has addressed one important aspect of the issue, and a response is warranted.

Linguistic Parallels

I think brother Gibson does a good job in pointing out the linguistic parallels between Galatians 6:7-10 and 2 Corinthians 9:6-13. One can make a case that Paul is speaking of benevolence in Galatians 6 when he talks about “sowing” and “reaping.” Still, this does not have to be so. Paul uses the same language when he speaks about his preaching relationship with the Corinthians: “If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you?” (1 Cor. 9:11) Paul may have commonly used such imagery when talking about any kind of giving.(3) But even if we assume that Galatians 6:7-10 is speaking of benevolence, this still does not mean Paul’s individual language must be applicable to church activity. Nor does it demand that the Jerusalem Collection in particular is under discussion. As we shall see, there are good reasons for denying that this is so.

The Date of Galatians

For the book of Galatians to refer to the Jersualem Collection it must have been written about the time of Paul’s third missionary journey, the time when these relief funds were collected. This requires a late date for Galatians. Gibson affirms a late date as well as the northern audience view (i.e., that the epistle was written to churches in the Territory of Galatia). But there are problems with the Late Date/ Northern View which Gibson does not address. For example, it is not certain that Paul ever evangelized in the Territory of Galatia. Acts 16:6 and 18:23 are the only passages which might suggest that he did, yet it seems more likely that in these passages the Greek phrase Galatiken choran (“Galatian region”) is referring to the area in the southern portion of the Province of Galatia (the location of the churches of lconium and Antioch-Pisidia). Even if Acts is referring to the Territory of Galatia to the north, the text does not say that Paul established any churches there; it only says that he passed through that region.

One could avoid this difficulty by adopting the Southern Audience View (i.e., written to churches in the southern portion of the Province of Galatia), but there are still problems with a Late Date. For example, it seems strange that Paul would make no mention in Galatians of the decrees of the Jerusalem Conference which by that time he had already delivered to these churches (Acts 15:22-29; 16:4). These decrees had addressed the Judaizing heresy, the very issue which Paul is discussing in Galatians. The Southern View makes more sense with an Early Date (i.e., written at least before Paul’s second missionary journey).

Whichever view of destination one adopts, there are difficulties involved in identifying Paul’s Jerusalem visit of Galatians 2 with his visit recorded in Acts 15. For example, this would mean that in the survey Paul gives of his visits to Jerusalem (Galatians 1-2) he omits any reference to the visit of Acts 12:25 – a surprising omission since Paul’s Judaizing opponents might claim he was not being forthright about his Jerusalem contacts. This may pose a problem for any date which places Galatians after Acts 15.(4)

The date of Galatians is one of the most uncertain matters in the field of New Testament literary criticism. We just can’t be sure when it was written. Scholars are quite divided over the issue.(5) Yet Gibson’s view that the Jerusalem Collection is under discussion in Galatians 6: 10 demands a Late Date. If an Early Date is correct, then Gibson’s position on the verse crumbles.(6)

The Fundamental Flaw

For the sake of argument, however, I could grant Gibson’s contentions concerning all of the above matters. I could grant that a Late Date is correct and Galatians was written while Paul was on his third journey. I could grant that the Jerusalem Collection underlies Paul’s comments in Galatians 6 and that Paul is employing individual language to speak distributively of collective church action. I could even grant that Paul has the Jerusalem Collection in mind in v. 10 when he urges the Galatians to do good “to the household of the faith.” For the sake of argument, I could grant all of this.

But even if all of this were so, this still does not warrant our assuming that all of v. 10 must be speaking of the recipients of the Jerusalem Collection. In other words, there is no reason to think that Paul means that the Jerusalem Collection would provide funds to “all men” as well as to “the household of faith.” Brother Gibson does not seem to have considered another possibility: the Jerusalem Collection could simply be what Paul has in mind as the special means of doing good to the household of faith. Paul could be urging the individual Christians in Galatia to be sure to engage in general benevolence to all men, and especially to engage in benevolence to fellow Christians by having a part in the Jerusalem Collection which the Gentile churches were sending to needy Jerusalem saints. This is all that any parallel between 2 Corinthians 9 and Galatians 6 need call for. Gibson has assumed that all of v. 10 must be indicating the recipients of the Jerusalem collection funds, and has ignored another possible interpretation.(7) This is what I see as the fundamental flaw in Gibson’s argumentation.

I believe that other New Testament statements about the Jerusalem collection would compel the interpretation I am suggesting (that is, if it is so that the collection does underlie Galatians 6). We need to allow clear passages to help us understand any passage that is not so clear; it should not be the other way around. 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans speak expressly about the Jerusalem Collection. We need to let Corinthians and Romans clarify what Paul could be meaning in Galatians 6:10 as to who might receive the funds of the Jerusalem Collection. The following explicit passages from Corinthians and Romans identify the recipients of the Collection only as saints:

1 Cor. 16:1 – “the collection for the saints.”

2 Cor. 18:4 – “the support of the saints.”

2 Cor. 9:1 – “this ministry to the saints.”

2 Cor. 9:12 -“supplying the needs of the saints.”

Rom. 15:25 – “serving the saints.”

Rom. 15:26 – “poor among the saints in Jerusalem.”

Rom. 15:31 – “to the saints.”

In addition, the other statements Paul makes about the nature and purpose of the collection do not reasonably fit a group of recipients which included non-Christian Jews: (1) Romans 15:27 – Paul says that Gentile Christians ought to participate in the Jerusalem Collection because they were obligated to minister in material things to those who had given them their spiritual things. It was the Jewish church, not unbelieving Jews, who had ministered spiritual things to the Gentile Christians. (2) 2 Corinthians 9:12-14; 8:14 — Paul says that those who received the funds would glorify God for the Gentiles’ obedience to the gospel and the liberality of their contribution, would pray and yearn for them, and would reciprocate the act of charity should the Gentile Christians ever become needy. Only Jews who were Christians would do such things.(8)

The abundance of this evidence cannot be ignored. Over and over again the Jerusalem collection is expressly designated for indigent saints. In light of this, it is absolutely unreasonable to choose to interpret Galatians 6:10 as saying that the collection went to “all men” when the verse need only be saying that these funds went to “the household of the faith.” The latter interpretation is the is the one which fits precisely with what the rest of the New Testament clearly states about the Collection.

I have tried to point out in this article some of the problems involved in trying to connect the Jerusalem Collection with Galatians 6: 10. Beyond this, I have tried to show that even if one were to grant the connection, this passage should still not be interpreted as indicating that New Testament churches were using their funds to render benevolence to non-Christians. In fact, the very scholars whom brother Gibson cites in his book do not understand Galatians 6:10 to be indicating this. A full discussion of this matter is forthcoming in the next article.

Endnotes

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

2. Ibid., p. 96.

3. See F.F. Bruce, Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 266.

4. A fuller discussion of these and other problems involved in the dating of Galatians can be found in any good critical introduction.

5. Gibson’s assertion (Ibid., pp. 14-15) that the arguments against the Late Date are really just the result of liberal criticism is incorrect. One will find liberal and conservative scholars on both sides of the question.

6. If a Late Date is not correct, Gibson suggests that an earlier relief effort involving the Galatian churches may be in view in 6:10. This suggestion will be discussed in the second article of this series.

7. The reason why Gibson assumes that the entirety of the verse must be speaking of the recipients of the Collection is apparently because he takes the word “opportunity” to refer specifically to the Collection. This will be discussed in the next article.

8. Gibson’s re-examination of 2 Corinthians 9:12-14, in which he tries to get around the force of this argument, is based upon the assumption that his position on Galatians 6:10 is true – thus begging the question (Ibid., pp. 76-81).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 496-498
August 15, 1991