Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 22
August 27, 1970
NUMBER 16, PAGE 6-7

"As We Have Opportunity"-A Review

[No. 4]

Hoyt H. Houchen

In this, the last installment of our review of a treatise entitled "As We Have Opportunity," we shall give consideration to a few more of the author's statements.

He writes, "Now for more about this theory that money changes character when put into the church treasury." This is a false charge as we do not know of anyone who contends that money changes its character when it is put into the church treasury. There is a different use that is to be made of such money and if he cannot make any distinction between what the individual member may do with his money and what the church may do with the money that is placed in the treasury, then he is woefully lacking in information upon this point. If he cannot see the difference between how he may spend his money and how the church may spend its money, we need not probe any further as to why he fails to see the difference between the work of the individual and the work of the church. It is no wonder! However, he himself makes some sort of difference between his money and that of the church because he has already informed us that when he helps an individual out of his own pocket, he then bills the church later and he is reimbursed. He must be able to see some difference between his personal funds and those of the church.

When we speak of the work of the church, we are referring to what the church is authorized by the scriptures to do, for what may it spend the money that is contributed to its treasury. We thought that everyone knew that a Christian may possess funds which are his and are in no way those of the church. If this is not true, then this makes the church a communistic community, a mutual treasury in which all share and share alike, and then to turn it around, the church may exercise the privilege of delving into our personal bank accounts. We had thought that all could see the distinction between personal funds and those of the church. Peter asked Ananias concerning the land that he had sold, "while it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?" (Acts 5:4). Money received from the sale of the land belonged to Ananias before he laid it at the apostles' feet. Money that is earned by an individual Christian is his in his power to use, until he contributes it to the church. That money then is a part of those funds which make up the treasury of the local church and may be used only to do the work that God has authorized the church to do.

Christians may spend their money in several different ways. A man who is a Christian must provide for his family, one who is a Christian may establish a business, he is to educate his children, provide for them wholesome recreation, and he may contribute his money to worthy community projects. Money that is contributed to the church is limited. It does not change character — it is limited, the same money, but not to be used for everything for which an individual may use it. The church is to spend its money, that which is donated to its treasury to preach the gospel, care for the needy for whom it is responsible, and edify the saints. We call it to the attention of our brethren who contend for church recreational activities in the name of fellowship, church youth camps, and everything else which is not the work of the church that if they cannot differentiate between the work of the individual and the church, it is not at all surprising that they cannot make a distinction between the use of the money that belongs to an individual and that which belongs to the church.

Another blunder is seen in our brother's application of the good Samaritan story in Lk. 10:30-36. Believe it or not, he applies the priest and the Levite to the church. Can you imagine it? How far will brethren go to justify a contention for which they have no scriptural authority? According to him, the church, like the priest and Levite who passed by on the other side and did not give aid to the man beaten and robbed, will be condemned if it does not render aid to all in need. To compare the priest and Levite to the church is nothing short of absurdity. The lesson involved is one of individual responsibility and it teaches us who is our neighbor. The lawyer asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" and Jesus answered his inquiry in the account that followed.

In their efforts to prove general benevolence upon the part of the church, brethren usually refer to 2 Cor. 9: 12, 13 so we are not amazed that the writer of the booklet should do so. To the Corinthians Paul expressed his gratitude for their liberal contribution to the poor saints, "for the liberality of your contribution to them and unto all." Our Arizona brother gives us his meaning of the word "all" in the passage: "All men — those not included with the saints." Where did he learn "those not included with the saints?" He did not obtain this information from the Lord. The Lord tells us who are under consideration in verse 1: "For as touching the ministering to the saints. . ." Who is under consideration in the passage? The saints. The word "all" therefore, must be interpreted in light of who is being discussed in the passage, so it must be the saints. (See also Rom. 15:26; I Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:4).

Bible students soon learn that the word "all" has some limitations, and such limitations must be considered in view of the context. This application of the word "all" is recognized in other passages of the New Testament. For example, "I can do all things in him that strengtheneth me" (Phil. 4:13). It is understood that "all" is limited to what is under consideration, those things that God would have Paul to accomplish, and by God's help he would be able to do them. As it is obvious that such words as "all" have their restrictive use in other passages, there should be no difficulty in accepting its limited use in 2 Cor. 9:13. We observe that if the word "all" has no limitation, then it was an enormous contribution that was made by the Corinthians. It was a whopper!

The word "all" is an adjective and must be connected with some noun or pronoun. Thayer points out that it derives its character from its antecedent noun, "with the plural, all or any that are of the class indicated by the noun" (Jospeh Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 491).

In addition to benefitting the poor saints in Jerusalem, a benefit went to other Jewish saints in creating good will and thanksgiving on their part for the Gentiles. Lenski, commenting upon verse 13 states: "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... 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" (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, pgs. 1185-86). We believe that this expresses the true meaning of the passage. The contribution went to the poor among the saints in Jerusalem and it had effect upon all Jewish saints. If the word "all" is unmodified, then the collection was too large. If it is modified, as certainly it must be, the "all" is like kind with them. To positively declare that the word "all" means "all men," those not included with the saints, is an assertion; it has no Bible proof, it ignores any limited use of the word, and is therefore only a meager effort to prove a contention.

Finally, the Arizona brother refers to how many countries in which churches have been established, the number of colleges operated by the brethren and a huge gathering at a Pepperdine College lectureship. This is ballyhoo and it does not prove anything by the scriptures. We cannot forget that J. B. Briney appealed to the sentiment in his defense of the Missionary Society by orating about the number of preachers in the field as a result of the Society and how much good it had accomplished. This proves nothing from the Bible.

If there is no difference between the work of the individual and the work of the church, which has been the heart and core of the pamphlet and this review, then the church can build swimming pools, support colleges, support the P.T.A., the Red Cross, benevolent societies, hospitals, and you name it. It has been our desire to review the foregoing material before now, but we do not believe that it is out of order to do so now because the same nonsense is being contended for today that was defended when the booklet was written. If we cannot see the difference between the work of the church and that of the individual, then may the Lord help us. May we all strive for the truth.

— 12528 E. Alaska Place, Aurora, Colorado 80010