Truth Magazine

By Joe Price

On November, 1987, I participated in a lectureship with brethren Robert W. LaCoste and Harry Osborne at the Sierra Vista church in Enumclaw, Washington. We were asked by that church to present a series of lessons on the second coming of Christ, because of the doctrine which was affecting brethren in that church and that region. The doctrine which was and is having a destructive effect is formally referred to as “Realized Eschatology,” or informally as the “A.D. 70” doctrine. Several brethren were confused over the Bible’s presentation of the Lord’s promised return as a result of this doctrine’s influence. Since this lectureship, I have continued to hear of the attempted spread of this doctrine. Because of the serious effect this heresy has had upon individuals and entire churches, it is necessary that it be exposed for what it is – a perversion of the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:6-9). To engage in such an endeavor is mandated in Scripture (Jude 3-4). It is always right to expose error, protect the innocent, and turn away from divisive doctrines (Rom. 16:17-18). Our motive must be love for truth and for the souls of men. Our objective must be to warn and correct, using God’s word as our standard (2 Tim. 2:24-26; 4:1-5).

During the Enumclaw lectureship mentioned above, Harry Osborne and I had an opportunity to discuss this subject with two men who defended the A.D. 70 doctrine. On that occasion, these men set forth the basic position of the doctrine, namely, that the final coming of Christ and the promised resurrection (1 Thess. 4:16; 1 Cor. 15) occurred in 70 A.D. Such a doctrine has far reaching consequences upon the faith of Christians! If it is true, then all who hope in the actual, bodily, personal return of Jesus are deceived (1 Thess. 4:16). If it is true, then we cannot expect our bodies to be raised to immorality when Jesus comes (1 Cor. 15:22-23,51-54). If this doctrine is false, then those holding it have erred, and are guilty of overthrowing the faith of others, as were Hymenaeus and Philetus, who also said “the resurrection is past already” (2 Tim. 2:16-18). There is no middle ground!

What Is Realized Eschatology?

As James Orr says, “By ‘eschatology,’ or doctrine of last things, is meant the ideas entertained at any period on the future life, the end of the world (resurrection, judgment . . . ) and the eternal destinies of mankind” (James Off , International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, p. 972). “Realized” signifies accomplishment; hence, Realized Eschatology is a doctrine of completed last things. According to its interpretation of the Bible, the end times were realized and accomplished in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact, we are told by a major proponent of this doctrine that “the fall of Judaism (and its far reaching consequences) is, therefore, a major subject of the Bible” (Max R. King, The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 239). (For an excellent review and rebuttal of this book, see “The Preterist View Heresy [I-VIII],” Bill Reeves, Truth Magazine, Vol. XVII, No. 9-16 [4 Jan.-22 Feb., 19731.) We are told that the second coming of Christ occurred at 70 A.D., at which time every spiritual blessing was perfected and made available to the world. Due to fundamental failures in sound, biblical interpretation, Christians are being taught that all prophecy of end-time events was fulfilled in 70 A.D., and to look beyond that date for the personal coming of Christ and the bodily resurrection of mankind followed by a judgment, is without biblical authority. Here is a sampling of this basic viewpoint of the doctrine from King’s The Spirit of Prophecy:

“There is no scriptural basis for extending the second coming of Christ beyond the fall of Judaism” (p. 105).

“. . . the end of the Jewish world was the second coming of Christ” (p. 81, emp. King’s).

“Prophecy found its complete fulfillment in the second coming of Christ, and now may be regarded as closed and consummated” (p. 65).

Thus, the s cond coming of Christ is made equal with the “fall of Judaism” (the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.). To King, and some misguided brethren today, we dare not look to our future in, anticipation of the coming of the Lord! All prophecies relating to it were fulfilled in 70 A.D.! Now, when it is shown that the personal, bodily return of our Lord is described in terms which cannot apply to the events of 70 A.D., the error of this doctrine will be fully exposed.

Did Jesus Come In the First Century Following His Ascension?

There is ample evidence in the word of God that Jesus did indeed come in some sense (or senses) in the first century. For example, he came in his kingdom (Matt. 16:28) with power (Mk. 9:1) on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5,8; 2:1-4,33). Now, look how Jesus described the sending of the promised Comforter (the Holy Spirit) in John 14:18: “I come unto you.” Surely no one will conclude that this must mean a bodily coming of Jesus! How would he come? Not bodily, but representatively, through the Holy Spirit whom would send (Jn. 15:26). Again, in Matthew 24:29-30, Jesus taught that during that generation (24:34) “they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” The context of Matthew 24 tells us how they would see him. The context of the chapter is the destruction of Jerusalem. Unquestionably, Jesus did not appear, bodily in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem fell. Instead, Matthew 24:30 speaks of his presence in Jerusalem’s judgment. He authorized it and brought it to pass (cf. Isa. 19:1). They would see or discern his presence when this destructive judgment occurred. Yes, Jesus Christ came in judgment in 70 A.D., but it was not his bodily return! Similar language is used to describe his coming in judgment against the powers persecuting the saints in Revelation 1:7 (cf. Rev. 19:11-21). None of these “comings” of the Lord prevent a future coming of Christ in bodily form at the end of time!

The A.D. 70 doctrine would make every mention of the “coming of the Lord” or “day of the Lord” mean the same event, regardless of its usage in context. It is a fact of biblical interpretation that the same phrase can have different meanings. For example, take the expression “laid hands upon.” In Acts 4:3, it means to arrest, in Acts 13:3, it means to commend; in Luke 13:13, it means to heal, in Acts 8:17 and 19:6, it means to impart spiritual gifts. To arbitrarily assign one meaning to this phrase every time it is used would result in absurdity! Yet, this is exactly what the A.D. 70 doctrine does with “coming of the Lord” and “day of the Lord.”

The problem with limiting the coming of the Lord to 70 A.D. is demonstrated by at least three passages in the New Testament:

(1) Consider Acts 1:9-11, where angels tell the apostles that Jesus “shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven” (v. 11, ASV). In what manner did Jesus go into heaven? Jesus ascended into heaven actually and personally, in his resurrected body (Lk. 24:39). In Acts 1:9-11, five words are used which emphasize that actual sight was involved on this occasion. His apostles “were looking” as Jesus was taken up (v. 9). A cloud received Jesus “out of their sight” (v. 9). The apostles were “looking steadfastly into heaven” when two men in white appeared to them (v. 10). These messengers asked the apostles, “Why stand ye looking into heaven?” (v. 11) And finally, the apostles were assured that Jesus would return in like manner as they had “beheld him”‘ going into heaven (v. 11). The apostles actually saw Jesus’ bodily ascension. This is the manner in which he will return (1 Thess. 4:16-17). Jesus did not come in bodily form, nor was he personally seen io the events of the coming of the kingdom (Matt. 16:28; Jn. 14:18), the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (Matt. 24:30), or in the defeat of the persecuting powers of Revelation 1:7. Christ’s personal, bodily return is yet future!

(2) Next, consider 2 Peter 3:5-7, 10-11, where the A.D 70 advocate “spiritualizes” away the meaning of the word of God. By his word, God created and then destroyed the world with water. By that same word of God, the heavens and earth which now exist are stored up for fire, awaiting a day of judgment against ungodliness.

For this they wilfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction and ungodly men. . . . But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up (2 Pet. 3:5-7,11).

The A.D. 70 advocates try to make the heavens and earth (v. 7, 10), which shall meet a fiery end, the Jewish economy (as do the Jehovah’s Witnesses). But, this is to no avail. The world which was overflowed with water is now stored up for fire. This fiery judgment shall occur on “the day of the Lord” (v. 10), as his “coming” (v. 4). Was the world of Noah’s time actually flooded? Then the world which now -exists shall actually be destroyed wit h fire! If this verse had been fulfilled in 70 A.D., none of us would be here!

The abuse of this passage illustrates the error in biblical interpretation which is present in this system of error. As D.R. Dungan notes:

Many seem disposed to regard themselves as at liberty to make anything out of the Bible which their theology may demand or their whims require. And if, at any time, they find a passage that will not harmonize with that view, then the next thing is to find one or more words in the text used elsewhere in a figurative sense, and then demand that such be the Biblical dictionary on the meaning of that word, and hence that it must be the meaning in that place (Hermeneutics, p. 217).

The A.D. 70 doctrine attempts this with “the day of the Lord” and his “coming” in 2 Peter 3:4-11, but it finds no support here!

(3) 1 Corinthians 15 teaches a future, bodily resurrection from the dead. While the A.D. 70 doctrine says the resurrection is past already (having occurred in 70 A.D.), this passage decisively refutes that claim. To the Realized Eschatologist, the primary meaning of 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection of Christianity out of Judaism, not the resurrection of mankind at the personal return of Jesus Christ. To briefly set forth their case, hear Max King on what is resurrected in 1 Corinthians 15:

“Next (1 Cor. 15:35-44 – jp), Paul answers questions concerning how the dead are raised and with what body they come forth. The primary application (emp., jp) deals with the development and rise of the Christian system itself, with a secondary application belonging to believers and their state within the system. The natural body that was sown (verse 44) answers to the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism in which existed prophecies, types, and patterns from which came the spiritual body designed of God. . . . The natural body (emp., King’s), receiving its death blow at the cross and beginning then to wax old and decay (Heb. 8:13), became a nursery or seed-body for the germination, growth, and development of the spiritual body by means of the gospel.

“Thus, out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of Christianity (emp., jp) that became fully developed or resurrected by the end-time. Hence, this is the primary meaning of Paul’s statement (emp., jp), ‘It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body'” (The Spirit of Prophecy, pp. 199-200).

The assumed definitions and applications in that quotation alone show the subjective nature of this doctrine! The Scriptures are twisted to say what has already been decided, namely, that Christianity arose out of Judaism, an event which we are told was completed in 70 A.D.! I cannot think of a better illustration of 2 Peter 3:15-17! Can you?

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul answers the teaching by some “that there is no resurrection of the dead” (v. 12). He does this by first establishing the validity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (vv. 14 1). Then, he presents the consequences of denying the resurrection of the dead (vv. 12-34). Next, he anticipates objections of bodily resurrection (vv. 35-50). Finally, he praises the victory over death God gives us in Christ through the resurrection (vv. 51-58). The very thing defined in this chapter is denied by the A.D. 70 doctrine, namely, a future, bodily resurrection] To demonstrate this as the central theme of the chapter, consider w. 20-23. Here, the bodily resurrection of all mankind is said to be based upon the bodily resurrection of Christ! The resurrected Christ is the first fruits of the dead (vv. 20,23). The offering of first fruits under the law of Moses was the choicest and earliest ripe crop (Num. 18:12; Exod. 23:16,19), indicating that all the crop which followed belonged to God (cf. Deut. 26:2-11). Also, we should note that the crop which followed was of the same kind or type as its first fruits. In like manner, the resurrection of Christ from the dead is an assurance and guarantee that all who die shall be raised. And, we are assured that our resurrection will be the same kind as his. As surely as bodily death come to all because of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:19), bodily resurrection will come to all because of Christ’s bodily resurrection (vv. 21-22). This reveals his power and preeminence over death (cf. Jn. 5:28-29; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:18). Thus, Paul defends the doctrine of bodily resurrection from the dead upon the basis of Christ’s bodily resurrection. The later fruit (resurrection of all the dead at Christ’s coming) must be the same of fruit as the first fruits, namely, bodily resurrection! Jesus’ body was raised from the dead, and our bodies shall be raised, too. Nowhere do we discover a Judaism-Christianity contrast in 1 Corinthians 15. That can only be found in the imagination of the A.D. 70 advocates!

The attempt to assign to 70 A.D. every end-time event (including the final coming of Christ, bodily resurrection and the judgment) cannot be supported by Scripture. It is completely refuted by Acts 1:9-11, 2 Peter 3:1-11, and 1 Corinthians 15. But, why this fascination with the date of 70 A.D.? In out next article, we will see the answer to that question.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 592-594
October 5, 1989

By Andy Alexander

A recent article in the Nashville Banner (4-11-89) described the upcoming efforts of the homosexuals to try to repeal the sodomy laws of Tennessee. Sam Adams, a board member for the Southeastern Conference for Lesbians and Gay Men, states that the homosexuals are “looking for a gay Selma.” This is a reference to the fight that began over racial issues in Selma, Alabama in the sixties.

Homosexuals claim these laws should be repealed because the alternate lifestyle they are living is not hurting anyone else and their “sexual orientation is a given birth attribute.” Mr. Adams also states that the homosexual’s “biggest enemy” is the “traditional, ignorant, fundamentalist Christian.” While we are going to the expense of changing the laws, why not apply this same reasoning to other offenses and see if other laws should be changed along with the sodomy laws and save the tax-payer the expense of rewriting future laws?

Should the laws against the pedophile be changed? A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children. This is an alternate lifestyle and the pedophiles can make the same claims that their sexual orientation is a given birth attribute and they are not hurting anyone else. If both the child and the adult consent to this arrangement, then who is getting hurt? And, before you claim the child should not be allowed to make this choice, check your position on the right of a child to choose an abortion without her parent’s consent.

We must agree with Mr. Adams who says education is important to changing these laws. We will have to educate the traditional, ignorant, fundamentalist Christian who will stand opposed to this law change as well. And should Mr. Adams oppose this: would he then be considered a traditional, ignorant, fundamentalist anti-pedophile?

What about the laws against the Peeping-Tom? The Peeping-Tom probably just has a disease he inherited at birth and no one should stop him from fulfilling his “natural” desire to peep in windows. Or, would Mr. Adams be a traditional, ignorant, fundamentalist anti-Peeping Tom when it corries to changing these laws?

This may appear funny to some, but those who have chosen this sinful way of life are in danger of the Judgment. The biggest friend the homosexual has is God in heaven who loved him so much that he gave his Son to die on the cross so that his sin-stained soul may be washed clean (Matt. 26:28). The Christian who is bold enough and loves him enough to try to correct him from his inevitable doom is truly his best friend on earth.

More Questions for the Sodomite

Is it certain that when two consenting adults choose to commit homosexuality they are not hurting anyone else? What if one has AIDS and is unaware of that fact or doesn’t care if he infects others? What about the parents who brought them into this world by heterosexual means? We are shown some parents on television who accept this in their children, but this is the exception rather than the rule. It is painful and shameful to their parents in most cases. What about those who choose this lifestyle after they have been married and they leave their mate for someone of the same sex? No one gets hurt? What if children are involved? Will the scorn and ridicule that the child is unfairly subjected to not hurt? Granted, the child doesn’t deserve such ridicule, but whose fault is it that he has to undergo it?

Heterosexuals who uphold the Law of God and oppose changing the sodomy laws have been labeled by a new term “homophobic.”” A homophobic is “a person who fears, dislikes, or hates homosexuals” (World Book Dictionary, 1989, p. 1014). Homosexuals are claiming that heterosexuals are the ones with the problem and that they should change their attitude toward homosexuality.

The sin of homosexuality affects others and it most definitely affects the homosexual. It separates him from his Maker and if he remains in this sinful state, it will cause his eternal damnation (Isa. 59:1-2; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Our society is becoming more corrupt day by day and things which at one time were hideous and shameful are now displayed on public television as fashionable and the “in-thing” to do. The prophet Jeremiah lived in a time like this and he warned the people against living in such a depraved way.

Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the Lord (Jer. 6:15).

Jeremiah gave the solution to their problem in the next verse when they exhorted the people,

Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls (Jer. 6:16).

The people of Israel chose to continue in their sinful way of living and God fulfilled his promise to them by allowing Babylon to cast them down.

God has given us the standard of righteousness and changing the laws of man will not change the law of God (Rom. 1:16-17; Gal. 1:6-10). It is our duty as creatures to seek God who created us and glorify him as God and we can only do this by changing our stubborn will and humbly submitting to his will (Acts 17:27; Rom. 1:21; Heb. 5:9). God made us and he deserves our thankfulness, our praise, and our obedience.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 591, 594
October 5, 1989

By Vestal Chaffin

The apostles had been cast into prison by the high priest and Sadducees, because they preached Jesus and the resurrection from the dead. The Lord sent his angel and delivered the apostles from the common prison, and gave unto them one of the most sacred and solemn charges that was ever given to man. He told them to, “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life” (Acts 5:20). They were to teach all that the Lord had revealed to them. They were not to try to speak in such a way as not to offend the people, or to gain favor with the rulers, by good words and fair speeches; but they were boldly to proclaim the gospel.

This charge carries with it one of the most weighty responsibilities ever given to a human being. This, in substance, is the same charge given by Christ when he gave them the great commission to, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19); or “Preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15). They had been doing a very fine job carrying out their first charge, because, “Believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women” (Acts 5:14). But there was a need for renewing this solemn charge, and impressing upon the apostles their responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God.

The apostles had been arrested once before, and had been threatened and, “Commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:17-18). There was the danger of the apostles becoming discouraged, and disheartened with this often repeated opposition. Then too, the apostles’ working of miracles had grown very popular with the multitude, and there was especially the danger it seems, of the apostles being carried away with this popularity, and to omit that part of the gospel that was causing the opposition, namely, the resurrected Christ.

The sect of the Sadducees were leaders in the opposition to the apostles, “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angels, nor spirit” (Acts 23:8). The resurrection of Jesus was the very heart and core of the message of the apostles (Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30). It was in the name of the resurrected Christ, or by his authority, that they were doing their preaching and they healed the “lame man” (Acts 3: 1-11; 4:9, 10). It was by the name, or authority of the resurrected Christ that “many signs and wonders” were wrought “in Solomon’s porch” (Acts 5:12), and the “sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits” were healed (Acts 5:16). But since there is so much opposition to this name, and the resurrection connected with it, why not just omit that part of the message? The answer is simple. They could not “speak . . . to the people all the words of this life,” and leave off the resurrection.

Notice carefully that the charge is to, “Speak . . all the words of this life.” No, not just a part of the “words of this life,” but all! Not just those things the people like to hear, but “Speak as the oracles of God,” and all that God said upon any and every subject “that pertains to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). The life referred to here is not our civil rights, or the social life in this world, but it is eternal life. That is the reason why the charge is so weighty, because it pertains to things eternal. This in essence is the same charge the apostle Paul gave to Timothy when he said, “I charge thee therefore before God, and Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:1-2).

God recognized that not all the people would accept, or even wanted to hear the apostles preach Jesus and the resurrection, yet he told them to “Speak . . . all the words of this life.” Even so, it is today. We have the same charge to “be instant in season, out of season.” We have the same responsibility today, to “Speak . . . all the words of this life,” whether the people want to hear it or not!

There are those today, both in the church and out of the church, who do not want a preacher to tell them “all the words of this life.” For example: There are those who do not want to hear “all the words of this life,” regarding modest dress (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Many people today do not want to hear “all the words of this life” concerning marriage and divorce and remarriage (Matt. 5:32; 19:6-9). But we must preach it whether they like or not.

Many in the church today do not want to hear “all the words of this life,” about worldliness, and ungodly living, dancing, gambling, petting, mixed bathing, and many other things of a worldly nature. But we must preach what God has said about these things, whether they like it or not (see 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Tit. 2:11-12). Many who profess to be members of the church today, do not want to hear “all the words of this life” about the work of the church- preaching the gospel (1 Thess. 1:6-8; 1 Tim. 3:15); edifying itself (Eph. 4:12,16); helping the needy saints (Acts 4:34-35; 2 Cor. 8,9). Many do not want to abide in this teaching.

Shall we not preach all that God has said about these things because many do not want to hear? God forbid! You may not be a popular preacher if you “speak . . . all the words of this life,” but you cannot be faithful to God’s sacred and solemn charge if you refuse to do so. No man can be a faithful gospel preacher and “pure from the blood of all men” and fail to “declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26-27). “Herald and preach the Word! Keep your sense of urgency. Stand by, be at hand and ready, whether the opportunity seems to be favorable or unfavorable, whether it is convenient or inconvenient, whether it be welcome, or unwelcome, you as a preacher of the Word are to show people in what way their lives are wrong and convince them, rebuking and correcting, warning and urging and encouraging them, being unflagging and inexhaustible in patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2, The Amplified Bible).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 584-585
October 5, 1989

By Rodney Pitts

After seeing the title of this article, many might be compelled to ask why I would write a lengthy article concerning this verse, especially considering how much has been written previously to this point. I will be the first to admit that this article will not be a “revelation” to most people, but it is my hope that the approach and information contained here might help dissolve some of the controversy and confusion that constantly surround this verse and divide brethren.

The verse under consideration, 2 Corinthians 9:13, reads as follows: “While, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men” (NKJV). The question involved in the text is whether the sharing with “all” mentioned at the last of this verse gives authority for the church to be involved in general benevolence, or benevolence designed to give relief to everyone, saint and sinner alike. One might be quick to point out that the text says that they gave to “all men,” but it must be remembered that the word “men” is italicized to show that it is not in the original text, and has been added by the translators. Thus, the answer to the problem lies not in the addition of the word “men,” but in the correct understanding of to whom the “all” refers.

In order to have a correct understanding of the word “all” in this verse, we need to first define it. All, or pantas in the Greek, is defined in two ways: (1) without the article it is “every, every kind or variety or whatever is mentioned or under consideration “, (2) with the article it is “the whole of the one thing referred to, one object, with the noun it means ‘all.’ In the plural it signifies the totality of the things referred to” (all emphasis mine, rbp) (Vine’s Expository Dictionary). Thus, the word does not mean “all men” or “all saints” or even “all sinners” for that matter; it is simply a word that means “all” of whatever is referred to in the context. This point is clearly seen in various verses. In Galatians 2:14 Paul was said to have rebuked Peter before “‘all.” Are we to believe that Paul took Peter and rebuked him in front of sinners in the world, or just in front of “all” the saints present? This same idea is seen in Paul’s admonition to rebuke those that sin before “all” (1 Tim. 5:20). Does the context allow us to believe that Paul was telling Timothy to rebuke erring Christians before saint and sinner alike? Surely from these verses we can see that the word all is limited by the context in which it is found. And, as we shall soon see, the “all” of 2 Corinthians 9:13 is limited by its context as well.

The second point that needs to be considered is the purpose of Paul’s writing of 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. A close look at these two chapters will reveal that Paul was writing this to encourage the Corinthians to be ready with their gift when he arrived. Paul had sent some brethren to help them get this gift together (8:6,16-18). And now in this letter he was also encouraging them to finish their work (8:8-11; 9:1-5). Paul explains to them how their gift would supply the needs of the saints and cause God to be praised (9:12). Paul then seeks to motivate them by stating that the “proof of this ministry” (i.e., their actual gift) would cause the saints to glorify God for the Corinthians’ obedience to their confession to the gospel of Christ and for their “liberal sharing with them and with all” (9:13).

Since it was the “administration of this service” and the “proof of this ministry” that would produce the thanksgiving among the saints at Jerusalem (2 Cor. 9:12-13), it is necessary to know what this “service” or “ministry” was. First of all, it is important here to note that “this ministry” was said to be a fellowship in 2 Corinthians 8:4. Thus, this work was a matter of joint participation between all involved. Secondly, the only other Bible knowledge concerning this work is that it was a collection for the needy saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25,26,27,31). Paul told these same Corinthians in his first letter to get their collection ready for the saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1-3). Even within the context of 2 Corinthians 8 land 9 Paul identifies that “this ministry” was for the relieving of the needy saints (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1,12). Thus, if we are going to remain within the teaching and authority of the word of God, we must accept that “this ministry only dealt with the relieving of the needy saints.

With all this in mind, let us now see if we can determine who the “all” refers to in 2 Corinthians 9:13. Does the “all” refer to “all men” as some have suggested? If it does, then the word must be taken out of its context to get this meaning. Does it not seem strange that the saints in Jerusalem would praise God because the Corinthians were giving money to “all men” when “this ministry” that produced the praise was only said to be for the needy saints? Does it not also seem strange that the Jerusalem saints would praise God for the Corinthians’ liberal giving to “all men” when Paul is having to send this letter and these brethren just to get the Corinthians to fulfill their promise to help these needy saints? If Paul had to go to this much trouble to get these brethren to finish their work of helping their own brethren, why would we be inclined to say that they were helping “all men”? The fact of the matter is that nothing within the context even hints that the Corinthians were giving money to non-Christians.

It should also be pointed out that to make the “all” here in this passage refer to “all men” violates the grammatical rules of that adjective. Remember that the word was defined as “every, every kind or variety of whatever is mentioned or under consideration ” (emp. mine, rbp) (Vine’s). Since giving money to “all men,” or alien sinners, is not mentioned or under consideration here in this context, how can we rightfully say that the “all” here makes reference to sinners? Yet, it is sometimes argued that since the “them” within the passage must refer to saints, the “all” must refer to nonsaints. Yet, this misses the actual meaning of the word “them” and applies it farther than the context allows. It should actually be understood as “with them (saints in Jerusalem) and all (saints everywhere else).” This interpretation must be true since the “all” can only refer to something that is under consideration within the context, which is saints.

But, just as the context does not allow the “all” to refer to non-Christians, it would also be misusing this passage to make it say that the Corinthians gave money to all saints everywhere, because the whole work was only for the “saints in Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:25,26, et. al.). So, again we must seek to translate and understand the words of the passage within their context. If we translate the words haploted koinonia (translated as “liberal distribution” KJV), “liberal sharing” (NKJV) as “sincere, or single minded fellowship,” we have disposed of the problem. It should here be noted that this is a very legitimate translation and is held to be correct in Vine’s Expository Dictionary, Greek-English Dictionary of the N. T., by B.M. Newman; Arndt- Gingrich: A Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T.; and basically every commentary I have ever read. Thayer in his lexicon even emphasized the fact that the word koinonia refers to a spiritual fellowship, not just a distribution of goods, by stating that the word’s use here actually referred to a “proof positive of their (the Corinthian’s, rbp) fellowship” with the Jewish brethren. The reason that this translation eliminates the problem is that the whole project, or ministry, was called a fellowship (2 Cor. 8:4), and the Corinthian church could show their sincerity of fellowship to the whole brotherhood through their gift to their Jewish brethren in Jerusalem (i.e., if these Gentiles were willing to help their Jewish brethren, then the whole brotherhood would then know of and experience their fellowship). I believe Lenski made this point quite well when he stated:

Secondly, the saints are seen as glorifying God “also for the single-mindedness of (your) fellowship with them and with all,” i.e., all other saints. The word haplotes is used in the same sense as before (8:2; 9:11); it does not mean “liberality” or “liberal” (our versions) but, as already explained, “single-mindedness.” And koinonia means “fellowship” or “communion” as it did in 8:4 and not “contribution”: (R.V.) or “distribution” (AN.). Every thought of “contribution” is excluded by the phrases “with them and with all.” When we translate “liberality of the contribution for them (the saints) and for all,” the meaning is misleading, for the collection was taken up only for the saints in Jerusalem and not for all saints everywhere. Yet this idea is defended, it is said that this contribution to the saints at Jerusalem is as good as a contribution to all saints everywhere; by helping some really all are helped.

Paul is speaking about something that is far higher than “the liberality of the contribution.” The saints at Jerusalem are pictured as glorifying God “for the singlemindedness of (your) fellowship with them and with all,” i.e., for your spiritual fellowship and communion. It is this fellowship of the Corinthians which extends not only to those saints who are being helped at present but to all God’s saints, whether they are helped or not (Lenski, Interpretation of Second Corinthians, pp. 1185-1186).

It is interesting to note that Lenski never even men~ tions the idea that the “all” could refer to “all men,” or sinners. The context simply will not allow it. No other commentary that I have read gives this “all men” idea as an alternative interpretation. It just does not fit the context in which it is found.

Conclusion

From this material, I believe it can be seen that to understand the “all” of 2 Corinthians 9:13 to refer to “all men,” or sinners, is to wrest it from its context and to do violence to the grammatical rules that govern the usage of the word. It is my hope that this material has been accepted and considered within the light in which was written. May we all continue to study God’s word and seek to preach and practice only what is authorized therein.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 586-587
October 5, 1989