“Contending For The Faith”Every year we have our annual Bible Lectureship here in Rocky Mount. We would like to invite you to join us on May 5th beginning at 8am for a magnificent day of studying God’s word together!
8:00 am – Breakfast (provided)
9:00 am – Sin: Define, Design, and Devastation (Mike Brandt, Newport News, VA).
10:00 am – The Limits and Bounds of Fellowship (Tim Canup, West Jefferson, NC).
11:00 am – Love Not The World (Philip Brannon, Sanford, NC).
12:00 pm – Lunch (provided)
1:00 pm – Singing
1:30 pm – The Propitiation For Our Sins (Larry Wilson, Pantego, NC).
2:30 pm – Victory That Overcomes The World (Adam Cozort, Belmont, MS).
(CC - Flickr - Doug1021)
Jesus said, “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). Two things are required of worshipers if our devotions are to be acceptable to God.
We must worship in spirit. That is, our hearts must be right. We must be right in life. We must have the correct attitude. We must be thinking of what we are doing (Isaiah 1:11-20; Proverbs 28:9; Matthew 15:8).
We must worship God in truth. To worship God in truth means that we will worship God according to the truth. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). Therefore, for our devotions to be acceptable to God, they must be offered in accordance with His Word.
The New Testament gives the acts of worship in which Christians are to engage. The acts of worship mentioned in the Old Testament such as dancing, instrumental music, animal sacrifices, special singers, and the burning of incense, were commanded only of the nation of Israel. The Old Testament as a binding law for God’s people ended at the cross (Colossians 2:13,14). Christians must learn from the New Testament, the law of Christ for all people today, how God wants to be worshiped today. The acts of worship required by God are plainly set forth in the New Testament.
The Lord’s supper or communion (1 Corinthians 10:16) consists of two things:
The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to bring to our remembrance the sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus on the cross for our sins (Matthew 26:26-29). We must be very careful when we partake of the communion that we discern the blood and body of Jesus so that we partake in a worthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:23-30). Christians are to eat the the Lord’s Supper every first day of every week (Acts 20:7).
Prayers offered to God are to be a part of our public worship as well as our private daily devotions. There are many examples and precepts concerning prayer in the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:1,2,8; Philippians 4:6, etc.). In our prayers to God we give thanks and praise His name. In our prayers we can pray for our needs and for the needs of others. Jesus gave us a “model” prayer in Matthew 6:5-15. He did not intend for us simply to repeat this prayer by rote but gave it as an example by which we could pattern our own prayers. Jesus Christ is our mediator and high priest. Therefore, our prayers must be addressed to God in the name of Jesus (John 16:23; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 4:14-16; 1 John 2:1,2).
God has commanded us to teach His Word (Matthew 28:19,20). Both saved and sinners need to be taught. Therefore, a lesson from the Bible is one of the acts of worship in which Christians are to engage (Acts 2:42). We must learn God’s Word so that we can grow stronger in Christ, teach others, and overcome false teachings (1 Peter 2:1,2; 2 Timothy 2:2; 4:1-5). This is a very important part of our worship and must never be overlooked.
Giving of our means is a part of our worship to God. This is the way Christ’s church gets the necessary funds to do its work. God has given us the perfect plan for giving (1 Corinthians 16:2). We are told who is to give, “Let every one of you.” We are told when we are to give, “Upon the first day of the week.” We are also told how much to give, “As God hath prospered us.” We show our love for God when we give cheerfully and willingly to Him (2 Corinthians 9:7).
Christians are commanded to praise God in song (Colossians 3:16). The kind of music God has commanded for His church is vocal music only, that is, singing. There is no command or example anywhere in the New Testament for the use of mechanical instrumental music in Christian worship. To add instruments of music to our singing is a sin for it is adding to what God has told us that He wants. No man has the right to do this (Revelation 22:18,19; 2 John 9-11). We are to “make melody in our hearts” (Ephesians 5:19), the instruments made by God, not instruments made by man! Neither has God commanded us to have special singers in our worship such as choirs. Every Christian must praise God in song just as every one must partake of the Lord’s Supper for himself. The purpose of our worship to God is not to entertain ourselves. Therefore, what we do in worship is not based on that which appeals to our physical senses, but must be based upon what pleases God! True Christians want to worship God. In fact, it is impossible for a true Christian not to worship God. When we understand God’s greatness, His glory, majesty, wisdom, and strength, and reflect upon His infinite mercy in giving His only begotten Son to save us from our sins, our hearts will overflow with a “sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of the lips giving thanks to his name” (Hebrews 13:15).
Written By: Rod Rutherford
Three Rules of Human Conduct
By Wayne Jackson
(CC) - theleticiabertin-flickr.com
Jesus had been teaching in Galilee, the northern region of Palestine. Great throngs followed him and doubtless he was weary. Accordingly, he took his disciples and ascended a mountain in the vicinity of Capernaum—traditionally, Kurn Hattin, rising 1,200 feet just west of the shimmering Sea of Galilee. It was on this occasion that Christ taught that cluster of exalted truths that has come to be known as “the sermon on the mount” (Matthew 5-7).
Within that presentation is this memorable declaration: “All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do you also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). This saying has been given a metallic designation; it is called the “golden rule.” And that appellation has given rise to two other philosophical canons of human conduct, known as the “silver rule” and the “iron rule.” Every rational individual, to a greater or lesser degree, will adopt one of these maxims as a guiding principle for his or her conduct. Let us reflect upon how these schools of thought relate to human activity.
The iron rule is the rule of power and force. Its motto is: “Might makes right.” One can do what he is big enough to do. The principle is alluded to in the book of Habakkuk. God had promised that he would raise up the Chaldeans (Babylonians) to punish the southern kingdom of Judah for her grievous sins. This pagan force was a suitable tool in the providential arsenal of Jehovah to accomplish this mission because its disposition was: “My god is my might” (Habakkuk 1:11). It is an egregious mistake to deify one’s physical prowess!
Advocates of the iron rule have been legion throughout history. Cain, who murdered Abel because his evil works were in stark contrast to his brother’s (1 John 3:12), and because he had the strength to do it, was the first practitioner of this nefarious rule.
Military leaders have found the iron rule quite convenient. Alexander the Great, known as the greatest military leader of all time, is a prime example. In the short span of twelve years, he conquered the antique world from Macedon to India. An example of his disposition may be seen in his capture of the city of Gaza in southwest Palestine. He took the governor, Betis, bored holes through his heels and, by chariot, dragged him around the city until he was dead (Abbott 1876, 176). The military exploits of Julius Caesar are too well known to need elaboration. His inscription, given after the defeat of Pharnaces II in Pontus, says it all: “Veni, vidi, vici”—“I came, I saw, I conquered.”
Charles Darwin gave scientific respectability to the iron rule with the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). The full title was The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Natural selection was Darwin’s tooth-and-claw law of the jungle. Species survive, thrive, and develop by destroying their weaker competitors. In a companion volume, The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin vigorously argued the point:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man (130).
Adolf Hitler, in a political way, implemented Darwin’s iron-rule policies before and during World War II. In his ambitious scheme to develop a master race, the mad Führer slaughtered millions of Jews, as well as those who were mentally and/or physically handicapped.
America adopted the iron rule as official policy in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, determined that a woman has the right to destroy her unborn child in order to facilitate her own interests. Since that time, millions of innocent, defenseless children have been systematically executed in the abortion clinics of this nation.
Each lock on every door and window throughout the world is testimony to the iron rule. The penal institutions of the various nations are monuments to the rule of force. Every corrupt political official who manipulates his power for personal advantage lives by this system. Bully husbands and fathers who abuse their families are iron-rule devotees. Even those within the church, like Diotrephes (3 John 9-10), who bludgeon others into submission, are apostles of this system of intimidation.
Few have the effrontery to openly advocate this brutish ideology; but there are legions who practice it to one degree or another.
The silver rule has sometimes been described as the golden rule in a negative form. It is the golden rule without the gold. “What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.” In this mode it has found expression in the literature of many different cultures. For example, among the Greeks, Isocrates and Epictetus taught the silver rule. The latter condemned slavery on the ground that one should not do to others what generates anger in himself. William Barclay, the famous scholar so long affiliated with the University of Glasgow, has chronicled a number of these cases in his commentary, The Gospel of Matthew (1958, 276-281).
The renowned Jewish rabbi Hillel said: “What is hateful to yourself, do to no other.” Some have described this concept as a reflection of selfish egoism that withholds injury for personal reasons (see Lenski 1961, 295). In the apocryphal book of Tobit there is a passage in which Tobias says to his son: “What you yourself hate, do to no man” (4:16). Confucius (551-479 B.C.), a Chinese philosopher, also taught the silver rule. Tuan-mu Tz’u inquired of him: “Is there one word that will keep us on the path to the end of our days?” The teacher replied: “Yes. Reciprocity! What you do not wish yourself, do not unto others” (Ware 1958, 24).
The unifying feature of all these sayings is that they are negative in emphasis. They forbid much; they enjoin nothing. The silver rule would forbid you to steal your neighbor’s purse—because such is hateful to you. On the other hand, if one finds a purse containing $200 in the mall parking lot, the silver rule is mute. It, in effect, leaves you with the option, “finders keepers, losers weepers.”
In 1964, there was a case that shook this country at its very foundation. Catherine Genovese was returning from a night job to her apartment in the respectable Kew Gardens area of New York City. As she approached her home in the early hours of that April morning, she was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant. He stabbed her repeatedly, fleeing the bloody scene as she screamed for help, only to return—when no one responded to her cries—stabbing her again and again, until she died. Subsequent police investigation revealed that thirty-eight residents of the neighborhood admitted that they witnessed at least a part of the attack. No one went to her aid; not a soul telephoned the police—until after she was dead!
The nation was incensed. A United States senator from Georgia read the New York Times’ account of the incident into the Congressional Record. Everyone wanted to know, “How could this have happened?” The answer is not difficult to deduce. Many people live by the principle of the silver rule: “It’s not my problem”; “It’s no skin off my nose”; “Mind your own business”; and “Take care of ‘numero uno’.”
Following the Genovese tragedy, two professors from Harvard University wrote an article analyzing this episode. They alleged that their essay was not “intended to defend, certainly not to excuse” the conduct of the Kew Gardens neighbors. On the other hand, they argued: “We cannot justly condemn all the Kew Gardens residents in the light of a horrible outcome which only the most perspicacious could have foreseen” (Milgram and Hollander 1964, 602-604). With typical academic confusion, the professors reasoned:
Big cities are “organized on a different principle.” Friendships are not based upon “nearness”; those who might have helped the unfortunate woman were simply not nearby.
It must be borne in mind that these neighbors did not commit the crime; one must focus upon the murderer, not other people.
It is difficult to know what any of us would have done in a similar circumstance.
Hindsight is always better than foresight.
People hesitate to enter a violent situation alone; but organization takes time, and there wasn’t enough time that night.
No one knows “the quality” of the relationship that Miss Genovese had with the community.
A “collective paralysis” may have seized the neighbors.
People in the city are hardened to street life; the “street” is often symbolic of the vulgar.
Heroic efforts frequently backfire. A young man named Arnold Schuster, while riding the subway, recognized the notorious bank-robber, Willie Sutton. He reported this to the police, and the criminal was arrested. Before a month passed, Sutton made arrangements to have Schuster killed.
There are “practical limitations” to initiating the “Samaritan impulse,” and if one acted upon every “altruistic impulse” he could scarcely keep his own affairs in order, etc.
We have detailed the foregoing list of rationalizations because they illustrate a sterling example of silver-rule logic!
Finally, there is the golden rule—so designated in the English-speaking world since the mid-sixteenth century. Though some argue that there is little, if any, significant difference between the silver rule and the golden rule, and that the contrast has been “exaggerated” (Hendriksen 1973, 364), most scholars contend that the golden rule marks “a distinct advance upon the negative form” (Tasker 1906, 654).
D.A. Carson has noted that the positive form is
certainly more telling than its negative counterpart, for it speaks against sins of omission as well as sins of commission. The goats in [Matthew] 25:31-46 would be acquitted under the negative form of the rule, but not under the form attributed to Jesus (1984, 187).
A.B. Bruce writes: “The negative confines us to the region of justice; the positive takes us into the region of generosity or grace” (1956, 132). Let us consider several elements of this famous principle.
When all facts are considered, the golden rule represents, in a succinct and formalized fashion, a unique approach to human conduct. Jesus’ statement captured the very essence of “the law and the prophets.” While some contend that others (e.g., Confucius) came close to expressing the sentiment of the golden rule (see Legg 1958, 239), most investigators argue that Jesus was the first to state it in its purest form. Barclay asserts:
This is something which had never been said before. It is new teaching, and a new view of life and of life’s obligations. . . . there is no parallel to the positive form in which Jesus put it (1958, 277,278; emphasis in original).
The golden rule is grounded in divine revelation, and so provides valid motivation for its implementation. Jesus said: “[T]his is the law and the prophets.” His statement suggests that the golden rule is a summary of everything the Old Testament attempted to teach in terms of ethical conduct (cf. Matthew 22:36-40). Carson made this important observation:
The rule is not arbitrary, without rational support, as in radical humanism; in Jesus’ mind its rationale (“for”) lies in its connection with revealed truth recorded in “the Law and the Prophets” (1984, 188).
In other words, it is founded on belief in God, and the intrinsic worth of man which issues from that premise (cf. Genesis 9:6). Just where is the logical/moral motivation for noble human conduct apart from evidentially-supported divine revelation? It simply does not exist. We have argued this case more extensively elsewhere (Jackson n.d., 136ff.).
Additionally, some see the conjunction oun (“therefore”) as connecting the golden rule to what had just been said. In particular, “we ought to imitate the Divine goodness, mentioned in ver. 11” (Bengel 1877, 204).
The golden rule is universal, applying to every segment of life. Jesus said: “All things, therefore, whatsoever . . . ” If legislators enacted all laws premised upon the Lord’s instruction, society would be wonderfully altered. If homes operated on this principle, would there be marital infidelity, divorce, or child abuse? If our schools were allowed to teach the golden rule, with its theological base (which the modern judiciary has forbidden), would not the academic environment be remarkably enhanced?
The golden rule requires action. It does not countenance passivity, but says “do you unto them.”
The golden rule commends itself to reason. It assumes that an honest person, properly informed concerning principles of truth and fairness, would have a reasonable idea of what is right for himself. Therefore, he should render the same to others (see Clarke n.d., 96). Remember, Jesus is teaching disciples—not someone who has no sense of moral responsibility. The rule contains the presumption of some moral sensitivity.
Finally, we must not neglect to mention that the golden rule is very special in that it is consistent with the other components of Christ’s teaching as revealed in the Gospel accounts (e.g., Matthew 22:37-40). Moreover, the personal character of Jesus himself was (and remains) a living commentary on the rule in action.
Some, like Dan Barker (a former Pentecostal preacher who converted to atheism), have suggested that the golden rule should be characterized as “bronze,” since it is vastly inferior to the silver rule. Barker argued that if one were a masochist, the golden rule would justify his beating up on someone else (1992, 347-348). His argument assumes that it is rational to be a masochist!
Others, not quite so much of the fringe element, have suggested that the golden rule might at least be improved: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Such a view, however, is fatally flawed, and even someone who is as ethically confused as Joseph Fletcher (the famed situation ethicist) has acknowledged such (1962, 117). The weak may want you to supply them with drugs, or indulge them with illicit sex, etc., but such a response would not be the right thing to do. If I am thinking sensibly, I do not want others to accommodate my ignorance and weakness.
Suppose a man is apprehended in the act of robbing the local market. A citizen detains the thief and starts to telephone the police, at which point the law-breaker says: “If you were in my place, you would want me to release you. Therefore, if you believe in the golden rule, you will let me go.” Is the thief’s logic valid? It is not. For if one’s thinking is consistent with principles of truth, he would realize that the best thing for him, ultimately, would be that he not be allowed to get away with his crime, that he not be granted a license to flaunt the laws of orderly society. The rule works when properly applied by those who have some semblance of rational morality.
Even some of the enemies of Christianity have done obeisance to the value of the golden rule. John Stuart Mill wrote: “To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.” Thomas Paine declared: “The duty of man . . . is plain and simple, and consists of but two points: his duty to God, which every man must feel, and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by” (as quoted in Mead 1965, 192,193).
In his discourse on the three rules of human conduct, T.B. Larimore observed that Christ’s parable of the good Samaritan forcefully illustrates each of these philosophies of life (Luke 10:30ff).
A certain Hebrew man was travelling the twenty-mile-long road that led through a barren region of crags and ravines from Jerusalem to Jericho. As he journeyed, he fell victim to robbers who tore off his clothes, beat him, and left him half-dead by the roadside. The bandits’ reasoning was: “We are several; you are one. We are strong; you are weak. You have possessions; we want them. Case closed.” Theirs was the clenched-fist rule of iron.
As the man lay wounded, unable to help himself, presently a Jewish priest came by, and then later, a Levite (one who served the priests in temple ceremonies). Both, likely horrified by the bloody scene, crossed to the opposite side of the road, and hastened their steps. Their respective thinking doubtless was: “This tragedy was not my fault. It’s none of my affair, etc.” They did not kick the afflicted Jew; they did not rifle his pockets. They simply passed on. They were silver-rule men.
Finally, a Samaritan (normally, a dedicated enemy of the Jews—see John 4:9) came by. He saw a fellow human in need and was moved with compassion. He tended the injured man’s wounds, set him on his own donkey, and conveyed him to a nearby inn where, amazingly, he paid for more than three weeks of lodging (Jeremias 1972, 205)—and pledged even more! The Samaritan’s code of ethics was this: “But for the grace of God, I could be writhing in agony by the roadside. What would I desire on my behalf if our respective circumstances were reversed?” It did not take him long to find the answer, for his compassionate heart was bathed in the golden glow of divine love.
The golden rule is a thrilling challenge to contemplate. None of us observes it perfectly, but let us never criticize it. Rather, let us applaud it, and strive for its lofty heights.
Sources/Footnotes
Wayne Jackson has written for and edited the Christian Courier since its inception in 1965. He has also written several books on a variety of biblical topics including The Bible and Science, Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth, The Bible on Trial, and a number of commentaries. He lives in Stockton, California with his dear wife and life-long partner, Betty.
Article description: Serious Bible students recognize that Christians are required to support the work of Jesus Christ with their monetary means. Yet far too many seem to feel there are no structured requirements. A careful study of this issue is most important.
It is a strange phenomenon in today’s church. It is recognized widely that there are rules regulating worship. This is acknowledged in virtually every area of church activity—except in one’s “giving.” Many know how the music portion of the worship is to be conducted (with a cappella singing). Not a few understand the proper communion elements (bread and fruit of the vine), along with the day and frequency for the observance of the supper (each Sunday). They would vigorously, and correctly, protest any presumptuous alteration of these ordinances.
But some appear to think there are no regulations for giving. With many, there is almost a “design-your-own-system” procedure, along with a flippant “it’s-nobody’s-business-what-I-do” disposition. If the Lord has prescribed a pattern for what we do in other acts of worship, is it reasonable to presume that he left the matter of “giving” as an entirely optional feature—or at best very ambiguous?
Paul discussed several requirements for Christian giving in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.
Now concerning the collection for the saints, do the same thing that I commanded the Galatian churches; every Sunday, let each one of you lay aside by himself, if he earns anything, and put it in the treasury; so that there will be no collections when I come (McCord’s Translation).
The Background
When Paul, in the company of Barnabas and Titus, went to Jerusalem to assure the church of the validity of his apostleship, and the genuineness of the gospel he preached (Galatians 2:1), he was readily endorsed. James, the half brother of the Lord, along with Peter and John, extended to the apostle the “right hand of fellowship” in the noble work in which they all were involved. They did encourage Paul, however, to “remember the poor,” which he was most zealous to do (2:10).
For the past half-dozen years, prior to the composition of 1 Corinthians, the great preacher had demonstrated his concern for the needy, and even now he was busily involved in a campaign to assist the poor among the saints at Jerusalem (cf. Romans 15:24-25; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Acts 24:17). In the apostle’s mind, there was no segregation of benevolence from evangelism; benevolence is evangelism (Matthew 5:16; Galatians 6:10)! These circumstances are the background of 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.
Command
Note that the instruction conveyed in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is in the form of a “command” (“order,” ASV ; diatasso —16times in the New Testament). Other texts that employ the word demonstrate the imperative nature of the language. When Jesus finished “commanding” his disciples, he departed to preach in their cities (Matthew 11:1). Aquila and Priscilla left Rome because Claudius Caesar had “commanded” all Jews to depart from Rome (Acts 18:2). The instructions that follow in this Corinthian correspondence are not optional suggestions. They constitute a pattern for the implementation of sacred duties.
As a result of something Paul later wrote to this church, some have surmised that this text is not to be viewed as a binding pattern. Regarding the same collection, the apostle would write: “I speak not by way of commandment, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity also of your love” (2 Corinthians 8:8).
Regarding this seeming discrepancy one may observe:
The matter of supporting the cause of God in its various needs is unquestionably a sacred obligation.
The specific objects of reception, involved in rendering that responsibility, are a matter of judgment.
The general procedure for carrying out financial obligations is prescribed.
It is better to motivate by love than by coercion, when at all possible.
Professor Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary once observed:
This [“order”] is the language of authority. For although these contributions were voluntary, and were required to be made cheerfully, 2 Corinthians 9:7, yet they were a duty, and therefore both the collection itself, and the mode in which it should be accomplished, were proper subjects for apostolic direction (362).
Frequency
The frequency of contributing is “every Sunday”; the Greek literally says: “the first day of every week” (cf. Matthew 27:15; Luke 2:41). It is a mystery as to why the force of the distributive preposition, kata (every), was not made evident in the KJV /ASV translations (see Danker, et al., 512).
One should budget his finances, therefore, so as to be able to give each Lord’s day. If one is ill, or away, thus unable to contribute at his local congregation, he should make provisions to leave his contribution behind, or else make it up when he returns. One is obligated to contribute as consistently as he has income. It is not right for a few to bear virtually the full expenses of a local work, while others “ride free.”
Individually
For each family income there must be a gift. If the husband/father is the sole wage earner, he obviously will be the only source for a gift. If the mother/wife has a separate income, she must contribute from that as well. When Christian teens have a job, they must give from their income. If they receive an allowance, a portion of that belongs to the Lord. If older folks are on social security, they are not exempt from this act of worship. “Each one” means “every one” who has income—rich or poor, young or old, male or female.
Treasury
The next portion of the passage is the most controversial. Is the Christian obligated to contribute into the “treasury” of the local church? What does the phrase “lay by him in store” mean?
The expression “by him” ( par heatou ) is commonly assumed to suggest, “save up at home.” The Seventh-day Adventists have long contended for this view in an effort to negate the first-century evidence for Sunday worship (Canright, 207-08). But the evidence does not support that view. The phrase “by him” most likely means, “let him take to himself what he means to give” (Hodge, 365). Or the words may be considered as a neuter form, “by itself” (McGarvey, 161), or “to put something aside” (Danker, 268). James MacKnight rendered the full phrase: “lay by itself putting it into the appointed treasury” (208).
The phrase “in store” derives from thesaurizon —an imperative mood (a command), present tense (repetitious action), participle. The verbal action depicts consistently depositing something in a “treasury” ( thesaurus ). Each Christian has an obligation to help sustain the local church treasury, regardless of the extra missionary and/or benevolent work to which he may contribute otherwise as an individual.
Some, in an attempt to negate church responsibility, dispute that the early church had “treasuries” at this point in time. “It is improbable that at that time there was any Church treasury, and not until much later was money collected during public worship” (Robertson / Plummer 384). And so, as noted above, a common allegation is that the “storing up” was what the individual did at his home. This is pure speculation and quite contrary to the explicit testimony of the passage, namely that these Christians (and others, e.g., those in Galatia) were to give “every first day of the week.” Moreover, common sense dictates that the monies collected had to be deposited somewhere.
Leon Morris noted that since “Paul expressly deprecates the collecting of the money when he arrives (which would be necessary if they all had it laid by at home) it is perhaps better to think of it as being stored in the church treasury” (238). See a similar discussion in: Shore, VII .353.
The modern translations (e.g., Wuest), and commentary assertions (e.g., Fee, 813), that the phrase signifies, “put aside at home,” are entirely unwarranted. There is no “at home” in the text—either stated or implied (contra Thayer, 168). Appeals to texts in classical literature are irrelevant to this context. This “at home” business is the very circumstance Paul was endeavoring to prevent—”that no collections be made when I come.” Another scholar responds:
Some have interpreted the words par heauto (literally ‘by himself’) to mean ‘at home.’ But then why mention doing it on Sunday, when they could just as well do it regularly at home at other times? The meaning must rather be that the Christians were to bring their offerings to church on Sunday, since that was the day they assembled for worship (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). It is significant that the early church father, Justin Martyr (second century A.D.) testified that contributions to the church were received on that day (Apology I, 67.6) (Mare, 293).
Another writer also has observed that since the “laying by” was to “be done on the day of their religious assembly, and so that there should be no trouble or time lost in collecting it when he [Paul] came, it is rather to be inferred that on each Sunday it was to be deposited in the treasury of the church” (Sadler, 299).
The celebrated historian, Mosheim, in describing the Lord’s day worship of the first-century church, stated that: “Every Christian, who was in an opulent condition, and indeed every one, according to their circumstances, brought with them their gifts, and offered them, as it were, unto the Lord” (I.35-36).
Under the Old Testament regime the Hebrews were not allowed to be “free-lancers” with their “tithes.” Rather, the Lord charged: “Bring the whole tithe into the store-house [ ‘osar – “treasury” cf. Job 38:22], so that there may be food in my house” (Mal. 3:10). Similarly, Christians have a primary duty to the local church; they may not act as independent agents in their giving to the Lord.
The assertion of some commentators, that this injunction is not a pattern and holds no authority for today, is a reckless statement of no basis. It wholly ignores the command motif at the commencement of the passage, as well as the application of the instruction beyond Corinth (1:2; 16:1).
Proportionally
The expression, “as he may prosper” is one word in Greek ( euodotai )—a subjunctive mood (most likely), present tense, passive voice verb. The subjunctive is the mood of possibility, the present tense reflects an action in progress, and the passive voice indicates that the subject is the recipient of action—in this case, prosperity from God. The term itself basically means “prosperous journey,” and thus suggests this idea: to whatever degree he “is prospered” by God, week-by-week, he must contribute a portion to the Lord’s work “according to his ability” (Acts 11:29; cf. the exceptional “beyond their power” – 2 Corinthians 8:3).
The more one is prospered, the more he should give; the less he prospers, less is required. As Christ once expressed the principle: “to whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required” (Luke 12:48b).
Still, the amount expected seems vague. Is there more precision that might be anticipated, beyond the general principle—”to the degree one is blessed”?
While we do not live under the Old Testament economy, there are many incidental truths one can learn from those documents that assist us in arriving at various elements of truth. For example, Paul appealed to the law of Moses to establish the principle that one who exerts considerable labor in a cause, is worthy of sustenance for his effort (1 Timothy 5:17; cf. Deuteronomy 23:4).
The Old Testament “Tithe”
In the earliest age of Old Testament history, the patriarchal period, there are two examples of great servants of the Lord offering gifts to the Creator from their prosperity. Abraham gave to Melchizedek, a priest of God, ten percent of the “chief spoils” he recently had taken from some pagan kings (Genesis 14:20; Hebrews 7:4). Later Jacob, after his dream of the ladder that reached from earth to heaven, with its ascending and descending angels, set up a pillar to memorialize the occasion. He pledged to give a tenth of his resources to Jehovah (Genesis 28:22).
Later the Mosaic law formalized the “tithe” (a tenth) as the required giving of Israel (Leviticus 27:30-32). In addition they offered various sacrifices, and gave “free-will” offerings. So actually, they gave much more than the tithe (a portion being considered taxation), but ten percent appears to have been the very minimum (cf. Malachi 3:10).
Gospel ministers have not rendered a balanced service by merely stating: “We do not live under the law of Moses; therefore we are not required to tithe,” as if that somehow leaves us with no direction at all—and we are free to give as far below that level as we are disposed to do! Of course many are happy to accommodate themselves to a significantly smaller amount.
The Higher Ideal
One of the major designs of the book of Hebrews is to show the superiority of the new covenant of Jesus Christ, over the former covenant given through Moses. Again and again, the sacred writer uses the comparative term “better” to mark the qualitative distinction of the latter over the former.
Christ, as giver of the new covenant, is “better” than the angels, through whom the old regime came (1:4). We have a “better hope,” i.e., as priests ourselves (1 Peter 2:5, 9), a more direct access to God (7:21). The new covenant is a “better covenant” because of the unchangeable priesthood of our Savior (7:22). The ministry of Christ is a “more excellent” one; indeed it is a “better covenant” enacted upon “better promises” (8:6). The new covenant is one with “better sacrifices” (9:23)—a reference to the sacrifice of our Lord. [Note: The plural form is designed to correspond with the “sacrifices” of the Levitical system, but with a symbolic emphasis—suggesting the excellence of Christ’s offering, “perfect in all its parts” (Bengal, IV.426).]
In view of all this, how could a conscientious Bible student ever come to the conclusion that we may sacrifice less than the ancient patriarchs, or the nation of Israel—when we have far more revelation, and tremendously greater blessings, than they enjoyed?
We must give consistently, generously, and joyfully (2 Corinthians 9:7).
How could any informed Christian possibly contend that he, as a beneficiary of the new covenant, and as a part of the body of Jesus Christ, could love less, thus give less, than the Jew who professes to honor God, but knows not our Savior?
There is little doubt that if all Christians gave as much as 10% of their incomes, our contributions would soar far above what they now are!
Here is a mathematical challenge to your faith. Multiply your present contribution by ten, and ask God to bless you with an income in that amount. And perhaps hope he doesn’t!
Sources/Footnotes
Bengal, J.A. (1877), Gnomon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).
Canright, D.N. (1889), Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.).
Danker, F.W., et al. (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago).
Fee, Gordon (1987), The First Epistle to the Corinthians – The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Hodge, Charles (1857), An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Hodder & Stoughton).
MacKnight, James (1954), Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate).
Mare, W. Harold (1976) 1 Corinthians – The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
McCord, Hugo (1988), McCord’s New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).
McGarvey, J.W. and Pendleton, Philip (n.d.), Commentary on Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians & Romans (Cincinnati: Standard).
Morris, Leon (1958), The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians – Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Mosheim, John Lawrence (1959), Ecclesiastical History (Rosemead, CA: Old Paths).
Robertson, Archibald and Plummer, Alfred (1914), First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians – The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).
Sadler, M.F. (1906), The First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (London: George Bell & Sons).
Shore, T. Teighmouth (1959), The First Epistle to the Corinthians – Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, C.J. Ellicott, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Thayer, J.H. (1958), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).
Wuest, Kenneth (1961), The New Testament – An Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Author: WAYNE JACKSON
© 2007 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved.
When we give endorsement to error or to those who teach and uphold error, we are just as guilty in the sight of God as are those who are doing the teaching. This is made clear by the following passage of scripture: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11). Language could not be more plain. Paul wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). Again he wrote, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Our Lord warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). In view of this last passage, what would you think of shepherds who invite wolves to come in among their flock to feed the sheep? The job of the shepherd is to protect the flock from all dangers, especially from wolves who would destroy them. Surely no shepherd would be so naive as to invite wolves in, but to the contrary, he will do all within his power to protect his sheep from the wolves. Rest assured that wolves are destructive to the health and welfare of sheep.
With the above thoughts in mind, what about shepherds of the flock of our Lord, elders if you please, who invite false teachers (wolves in sheep’s clothing) to come in among their flock to feed them? Such is happening all over America, and such has happened in Murray, Kentucky. A couple of years ago the University congregation in Murray invited Randy Harris in to preach for them, and the Glendale Road congregatoin where John Dale preaches turned out their services on Sunday night to go and have fellowship with them in this endeavor. If this is not bidding them God’s speed, what would it take?
Randy Harris is known to be a false teacher. He and Rubel Shelly wrote a book, The Second Incarnation, which is filled with error from the first to the last. I spoke out against this event when it occurred in Murray. Far too often, warnings fall on deaf ears — but we must continue to warn none-the-less. We must continue to “mark those” who teach false doctrine, and we must mark those who encourage these false teachers in their endeavors. It gives me no joy to inform the brethren at Green Plain (where I preach) of such things, or those who read these words in Seek The Old Paths, but I feel an obligation to do so. Paul did not shun “…to declare…all the counsel of God” and he warned, “for I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:27, 29). Earlier Paul stated, “And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you…” (v.20). I am convinced that Paul said what was needed when it was needed, and so must we.
Most of you who read these lines know of the effect that the Nashville Jubilee has had on the body of Christ in the past ten years. It was started for the purpose of either destroying the church of our Lord or else making it what some of the “Change Agents” want it to be. One of the promoters of Jubilee has been the Antioch congregation (in Nashville) where Walt Leaver was the preacher until he moved to another congregation in the Nashville area. Walt was not only a promoter of Jubilee, but one of its speakers. In recent months, Walt Leaver was with the Glendale Road congregation for a meeting. It is not as though the brethren there did not know who he was, because they had the information concerning him ahead of time.
In 1990, Walt Leaver spoke one night in a revival at the Donelson Presbyterian Church. Rest assured that he was not there to teach them the truth. He preached on the crucifixion of Christ and described it in minute detail — never one time telling them what one must do to be saved. I have talked with some who were present and they said that some women elders were present in the pulpit with him and when the instrument started playing and the people started singing, Walt sung right along with them. I am convinced that Glendale Road had him because of who he is and what he stands for.
Just to give you an indication of where Walt Leaver stands, let me give you the following information. In an interview in 1994 with Tyler Young, he stated he was not clear enough on what the Bible teaches to say that one who taught that women could preach in the public assembly with men present would be a false teacher; that one who divorced for some reason other than fornication and remarried would not have to get out of that marriage to become a Christian; that he could not say that people in denominationalism are lost; that he could not back up with scripture to say that it would be a sin for someone to worship with instrumental music, and could not say that they would be lost for doing so; and when asked if someone had been sprinkled rather than being immersed for baptism, would they be lost, he said, “I’m not going to say I know he would be lost.” This is just a sampling of what he believes. Yet, knowing these things, the Glendale Road eldership had him come and preach in a meeting for them.
Also, a few months back, the University congregation in Murray had Joe Beam scheduled for a meeting with them. As far as I am concerned, there is not a more confirmed false teacher alive today than Joe Beam – especially among those who claim to be members of the Lord’s church. Joe would fit in with any denomination in the world, and especially among those who believe in the miraculous. I have three tapes of lessons he preached on the Holy Spirit at Jubilee 1996. I have never heard more error than he presented at that time. Not only did he speak of miracles that others had experienced, but he talked about the fact that he was given the ability to know when a person was lying when he was in a counseling session with a husband and wife. He definitely believes the Holy Spirit leads separate and apart from the word of God.
These are some samplings of the kind of men that the aforementioned congregations are having in for their meetings. If this is not an endorsement of error, what would it take? Elders are going to have to answer one day for such actions, and so will members who back them in such endeavors.
Brethren, it is time we wake up and speak out against such. We will be guilty if we don’t. Let us pray that our wayward brethren will return to the truth before it is too late.