Truth Magazine

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

By Becky Curtiss

(Editor’s Note: The following letter was written to sister Melodye [Deedee] Hall following the death of her husband Mike. Mike served the Danville, Indiana church as an elder for nearly two years before succumbing to leukemia. The letter was written the day after its author attended the visitation at the funeral home. The following letter is reproduced with permission of both its author and recipient.)

21 June 1991

Dear Deedee,

I woke this morning thinking of you and Mike – thinking of our conversations last night. There was so much I wanted to say, but so many were waiting to speak to you, touch you and give you comfort. And when my heart is full my eyes are too and my tongue won’t work. So here, at my desk in the quiet morning, I will share my thoughts (such as they are) with you and hope it brings some good to you.

Remember how we talked about the painting “End of the Trail” (the painting is of a lonely Indian sitting on his horse, mw). I believe the symbolism of that picture was appropriate, but the rider in the painting isn’t Mike … it’s you! You are the one who has reached the end of this trail – and now, you have a big decision to make because there are two new trails on either side of you. One is dark and lonely and suffocating. But the other is full of light and friends who love you, your family and all the good things of life. It will be hard to take the good trail, but you must and you can do it – by taking small steps. Even though you are grieving you can take a moment to dry your eyes and look up.

Begin by watching stars at night. (Did you know that falling stars are really angels blowing kisses?!)

Determine to catalog every rare and unusual sunset for posterity.

Photograph double rainbows – and rabbits in the morning dew – and barn swallows sweeping the late afternoon air after the neighbor mows his grass.

Record the utterly impossible repertoire of the mocking bird that sits on your light post every morning and take example from him – when he’s lonely he sings all night.

Sit at dusk where you can overlook a grassy meadow and count fireflies as they rise to play and help a grandchild now and then to catch a few.

Don’t just smell the roses along the way – stop to stroke the velvet petals, taste one on your tongue, hold one up to the light, and give one to a friend – better yet, to a stranger.

There are so many things for you to do, you’d better start soon.

Collect clouds of particular beauty . . . grade them for fluffiness, brilliance and form. Register thunder on the Richter scale and determine lightning amps by the goose bumps on your arms.

Observe flight patterns of monarchs and swallowtails by day and luna moths and millers by night.

Take care to note the odors of rain on a hot day – fog in the morning and sweet grass freshly mown and herbal tea (with cheddar and crackers, thank you very much).

Don’t be too embarrassed to talk to dogs, cats or horses – even the squirrels and cardinals that frequent your bird feeders. Some folks think it’s crazy to talk to critters, but these poor souls only use half their brains while the other half sits around getting moldy. If Adam could give them honor and go to all the trouble of naming every creature on the earth, surely we can take the time, once in a while, to have a little chat with one or two.

Though you haven’t asked for it, I offer this advice. Beware of ticking clocks, drawn curtains, idleness and the urge to wallow. Take all naps on open-air porches or in hammocks – a regular bed in the daytime is a deceptive snare – and avoid daytime T.V. like the plague.

Keep your mind growing . . . learn a new skill or practice an old one that’s been gathering dust on the shelf. Take a class at Indiana University, read light-hearted poetry, offer to help with Bible class materials for the nursery students (there are never enough hands to do it all).

And when the swell of sadness rises from time to time, read your favorite Bible passages and pray – and pray and pray some more. Then seek out a brother or sister who needs a little cheering or encouragement and send some comforting Scriptures in a pretty note card. Deliver a home made pie or a pot of be-ribboned marigolds. And don’t forget the hugs. Aren’t hugs wonderful?! It’s such a lovely way to pass along a little of God’s blessings – so comforting and pleasant – and one size fits all!

Don’t be shocked at yourself when your emotions run in strange channels. Of course you’ll miss Mike and ache for him terribly. But there will be days when you will be so angry with him for leaving you – days when you will hold it against him for not being here helping you cope with the trials of everyday living – running the riding mower, figuring income tax, relighting the gas water heater, changing a flat tire. All the “stupid” little things you may not be able to do, because Mike always did them, will become thorns of frustration.

Well, those angry feelings will pass eventually, but you can hurry things along with a special sort of therapy -accomplishment. Determine to learn to do the things you cannot do. Each accomplishment will salve the wound more than you might think.

You know, Deedee, God knew on that fateful day in Eden that men and women would suffer because of death and separation. But see how much he loves us!? He gives to those who go a beautiful home we can only imagine and to those who remain a world of wonder to keep us company until our time to go finally comes.

Don’t miss it Deedee. It’s the greatest show on earth.

With love, to you, my sister,

Becky Curtiss

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 490-491
August 15, 1991