Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 20
March 20, 1969
NUMBER 45, PAGE 7b-9a

The Distinction Between Church And Individual Action

(Second Installment — See Previous Issue For First Section)

R. H. Farish

The tragic case of Ananias and Sapphira illustrates private individual ownership, and the right of an individual saint to choose how much to give. "But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained did it not remain thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God" (Acts 5:1-4).

Consider the language, "Laid it at the apostles' feet." This action removed the price of the land from individual control else what is the significance of the truth expressed by Peter, "While it remained, did it not remain thine own?? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power?" Ananias had the right to retain title to his property and the right to use the price in any honorable way. His sin was lying, by either implying or stating that he was doing as Barnabas and others who brought the full price and laid it at the apostles' feet. My point is that an individual area of operation, distinct from the area of collective action is recognized here.

Consider Paul's instructions in I Tim. 5:3-8: "Honor widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow hath children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is acceptable in the sight of God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, hath her hope set on God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that giveth herself to pleasure is dead while she liveth. These things also command, that they may be without reproach. But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever."

This teaches individual responsibility and action and severely condemns the one who fails to perform his duty as an individual. The judgment of the Holy Spirit is that failure of the individual here makes him "worse than an unbeliever." Such failure constitutes a denial of the faith. We cannot conceive of an array of words that would more vividly point up the seriousness of making proper distinctions and respecting them in our activities, than these words from the inspired pen.

We can list also the individual saint's duties as husband, wife, child, parent, employer, employee, etc., in the social, economic and civic relationships in which he stands. That distinction between individual and church activity is taught in the New Testament is abundantly proven by these cases which have been introduced.

From this point we need to move on to the matter of how to establish the scriptural distinction. Here, as in so many other cases, our main reliance is the context, along with all other relevant passages.

This study would be of very little profit if controverted passages were ignored, so we will take a careful look at II Cor. 9:13; Gal. 6:10 and James I :26,27.

II Cor. 9:13 "Seeing that through the proving of you by this ministration they glorify God for the obedience of your confession unto the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all." This passage has to do with church activity. The messengers mentioned in connection with this contribution were "messengers of the churches" (II Cor. 8:23). The point to be determined is for whom was this contribution of the church at Corinth intended. Does the passage authorize the church to engage in general benevolence? Are church funds to be used to relieve the physical needs of the world?

In the King James Version of the Bible, the word "men" is supplied. The word for "men" does not appear in the original. In the American Standard Version no word is supplied; the "all" is allowed to stand alone; it is left to the student to supply the elliptical word. There are a number of instances in the New Testament like this in which the substantive is lacking. Thayer says the word "all" without a substantive shows "a certain definite totality or sum of things, the context showing what things are meant."

Let us examine a context where "all" appears without a substantive: "And they shall not teach every man his fellow citizen and every man his saying, know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them" (Heb. 8:11). Is this "all" the totality of men generally? I suppose that no one would be willing to stretch the "all" to include any but those in covenant with the Lord. They had to know the Lord to be fellow -citizens with the saints and of the household of God. Under the new covenant the totality of these in covenant with God and no others make up the "all."

Another text that should be studied is Acts 2:45: "And they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man (one- K. J.) had need." The statement is made in the preceding verse (44) that "all who believed" "had" "all things common." The explanation of believers having all things common is in the language "parted them to all." The "all" here cannot be made to include any but those who had all things common and they are described as believers.

Now back to II Cor. 9:13. In every other place where this contribution is mentioned, it is said to be for "saints." The contribution discussed in the eighth and ninth chapters of II Cor. is the collection spoken of in I Cor. 16:1,2. "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come." It is concerning the "collection for the saints" that Paul gave the same order to Corinth as he had given to the churches of Galatia. In the Roman letter, he refers to this contribution this way — "but now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. Yea, it bath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things" (Rom. 15:25-27). Paul states his purpose in going to Jerusalem. He was "ministering unto the saints" in carrying the "contribution" which was made by Macedonia and Achaia "for the poor among the saints." Paul also requested the prayers of the brethren at Rome; "That my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints" (Rom. 16:31).

The contribution is described as "fellowship in the ministering to the saints" in II Cor. 8:4, and in II Cor. 9:1 the apostle wrote, "For as touching the ministering to the saints." Then in II Cor. 9:12 he wrote, "For the ministration of this service not only filleth up the measure of the wants of the saints, but aboundeth also through many thanksgivings unto God." In all of these references the poor saints are designated as the object of this benevolence. It is unreasonable to ignore these cases in which saints are specified as the intended recipients and place a construction on the "all" of II Cor. 9:13 to be a totality of saints plus aliens. The context with related passages limits the "all" to saints. The liberality of their contribution showed that they excluded no Christian from their fellowship. It proved that the Christians were liberal to Jewish saints and potentially unto all saints whether Jew or Gentile.

Here is a quotation from McGarvey and Pendleton on this point. "Now the apostle felt confident that a liberal gift from his Gentile churches would bring about a better understanding, and would work wonderful changes in the thoughts of Jewish Christians...If the attitude of the unchristian Jewish mind toward him was still relentlessly bitter, it must be borne in mind that he took no collection for them, and that they were in no manner in his thought in this connection" (The Standard Bible Commentary Thess., Cor., Gal. and Romans).

In support of the above reasoning is the statement, "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly" (Acts 21:17). This is the description of the action of the members of the church. Now for proof of the relentlessly bitter attitude of unbelieving Jews, we go to the 27th verse, "And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him."

If the contribution was for the non-members as well as for saints at Jerusalem, the fond hopes and confident expectations of the apostle were blasted. However, this was not the case: the contribution was for the saints and the apostle's expectation of the good effect, in addition to "filling up the measure of the wants of the saints," were realized. The contribution "abounded also through many thanksgivings unto God: seeing that through the proving of you by this ministration they glorify God for the obedience of your confession unto the gospel of Christ" (II Cor. 9:12,13)

From these considerations, I am forced to conclude that the "all" is the totality of saints — all the Jewish saints at Jerusalem and elsewhere along with all Gentile saints.

(To be continued in next issue.)

— 4109 Ave. F, Austin, Texas